After an extensive effort by Congress that lasted almost three years and gained broad bipartisan support, President Bush was expected to sign the revised Elementary and Secondary Education Act into law this week.
The legislation establishes requirements that will impact almost every public school in the country. It mandates statewide reading and mathematics tests each year for grades 3-8, the presence of a "highly qualified" teacher in every classroom, and measurable progress by states and districts towards academic proficiency for all students within 12 years. It also applies new pressure to improve low-performing schools, with a series of consequences for those that consistently fail to make progress.
Known as the "No Child Left Behind" Act of 2001, this major measure is accompanied by the largest increase in federal education funding ever. The Department of Education’s budget will rise by $6.7 billion in fiscal year 2002, totaling nearly $49 billion. Congress approved the education appropriation for the current budget year shortly after passing the final version of the ESEA. This legislation and the accompanying budget aim to better allocate resources to high-poverty school districts. The ESEA now also provides greater flexibility, especially for districts, in terms of how they utilize their federal funding.
The final package represents a political compromise involving various interests, but it incorporates many of the president’s original proposals introduced just days after Mr. Bush assumed office a year ago this month. The bill garnered nearly 90 percent support in Congress, with significant majorities from both parties. The ESEA, last reauthorized during President Clinton’s term in 1994, is the primary federal law governing precollegiate education. It was initially enacted in 1965 under President Lyndon B. Johnson and includes the flagship federal K-12 program, Title I.
Representative George Miller of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Education and the Workforce Committee, described the "No Child Left Behind" measure as bipartisan legislation in the truest sense of the word. The bill passed the House with a 281-41 vote on December 13. Less than a week later, it received approval from the Senate with a vote of 87-10. Secretary of Education Rod Paige applauded the "educational consensus between President Bush and congressional leaders in both parties." He argued that the legislation would transform the federal role in education from merely providing funding to investing. "When federal spending becomes an investment, it enables the federal government to demand results," the Secretary stated. "And demanding results is exactly what the Department of Education will do."
However, while most politicians in Washington have praised their work, education leaders across the country have had a more mixed response to the plan. "I share the same concerns that you will likely hear from many educators: the excessive focus on testing," said Lewis W. Finch, the superintendent of the Cedar Rapids school district in Iowa, which has 18,000 students. "They are relying on such a narrow set of information to make critical judgments." Mr. Finch also voiced concerns about the new requirements potentially outweighing the level of federal aid provided. "If it’s only about 7 percent," he remarked regarding the estimated federal share of district expenditures nationwide, "don’t you think they’re going a little too far?"
Key Concessions
Although the final legislation reflects many of President Bush’s priorities, it also includes some significant changes from the 28-page blueprint he revealed a year ago. For instance, his proposal to provide private school vouchers to students in persistently failing public schools was removed early on due to firm opposition from Democrats. Democrats also effectively stopped his plan to allow some states to convert most ESEA funding into a block grant in exchange for negotiating a performance agreement with the Education Department. Additionally, both Republicans and Democrats together rejected Mr. Bush’s proposed system of financial rewards and penalties for states based on their progress in improving student achievement.
Meanwhile, the overall spending for the Department of Education increased to $48.9 billion, which is $4.4 billion higher than Mr. Bush’s original request. While Democrats had been pushing for an even greater increase in total funding, they had to make concessions as well. The final bill includes a level of program consolidation and flexibility for districts to spend federal aid that some Democrats found unfavorable. They also lost funding for a highly valued program for school repairs, amounting to about $1 billion. However, Democrats reluctantly agreed to another of the president’s ideas for increasing families’ educational options: allowing parents to allocate a portion of a failing school’s Title I aid for private tutoring.
Many members of both parties had to accept the new testing and accountability provisions imposed by the federal government. Currently, few states seem to meet the law’s testing requirements. Representative John A. Boehner, the chairman of the House education committee, had to work hard to persuade his conservative colleagues to support the bill, despite their past calls for eliminating the federal Education Department. In the end, only 33 House Republicans voted against the bill.
However, Mr. Boehner cautioned that congressional action on the bill is just the beginning. Implementing the reforms in each state will be a challenging task. Many states have yet to fully comply with core requirements from the 1994 version of the ESEA, especially those related to standards and testing. The new ESEA builds upon the changes set in place by that previous reauthorization.
The road to this reauthorization did not start last January with President Bush’s arrival in town. In the spring of 1999, President Clinton presented his own plan to overhaul the ESEA. Lawmakers spent a significant amount of time from 1999 to 2000 working on the legislation, but with substantial differences remaining between President Clinton and the GOP-controlled House and Senate as the 2000 election campaign intensified, the effort was eventually abandoned.
President Bush made education a top priority during his campaign and pursued an active federal role in schools. It was an unusual stance for a Republican presidential candidate since the 1996 party platform advocated for the abolishment of the Department of Education. President Bush unveiled his education package just two days after taking office, receiving applause from Representative Boehner who commended him for taking education and the party in a new direction.
Former Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley, who led the Education Department during the Clinton administration, expressed satisfaction with the final result of the bill. Although he had some reservations about President Bush’s original plan, he believed that the final plan aligned closely with what President Clinton wanted. Mr. Riley stated that if he were still secretary, he would recommend that the measure be signed into law.
Overall, the reauthorization of the ESEA is seen as a boost for urban schools and a significant step forward in addressing educational challenges across the nation.
The final agreement on the education legislation excluded a significant measure that would have allocated more money to school districts nationwide. This measure involved shifting the spending for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) from the "discretionary" to the "mandatory" side of the federal budget. By making this change, the annual appropriations process in Congress would have been bypassed, and special education spending would have been guaranteed to increase for several years. Although this measure was included in the Senate version of the legislation, it was ultimately removed due to strong opposition from Republicans in the House of Representatives.
This decision led Senator James M. Jeffords of Vermont, who was the Senate’s only Independent, to vote against the final legislation. He emphasized that without proper funding, the changes made would be counterproductive and discouraging. Senator Jeffords’ decision to leave the Republican Party and become an Independent, as well as support the Democrats in Senate governance votes, shifted the balance of power in the Senate to the Democrats. However, other members who supported the special education provision believed that, despite not meeting their desired funding levels, the overall bill was still worth supporting.
Senator Kennedy highlighted various provisions in the bill that aimed to improve education, including expanding opportunities for professional development among educators, providing funding to reduce class sizes, and strengthening after-school programs. He also mentioned that the bill would allocate resources and support to underperforming schools. While he regretted that not all children who could benefit from these programs would be reached, he stressed that there would still be a significant increase in resources. Senator Kennedy vowed that Democrats would continue to advocate for more funding, acknowledging that this battle would persist in the coming years.
Although funding for special education will remain discretionary for now, the budget for state grants under the IDEA saw an increase of approximately $1.2 billion, bringing it to a total of $7.53 billion for fiscal year 2002. The funding for ESEA programs, particularly Title I, also experienced substantial growth with an additional $1.6 billion allocated, bringing the total to $10.35 billion.
On the Republican side, there is satisfaction with certain provisions in the ESEA overhaul that grant parents new options when a poorly performing school fails to show sufficient progress over time. If a school fails to make adequate progress for two consecutive years, it must offer public school choice. After three years, parents have the option to direct a portion of the school’s Title I aid towards private tutoring. Republicans highlighted that this tutoring opportunity would be available to at least 3,000 schools already identified as failing, starting from the next academic year. They believe that this provision provides a significant incentive for parents to seek additional support for their children and for school systems to improve their performance.
When asked about the tutoring provision, some state and district leaders expressed concerns about the potential complications associated with implementing it.
Certain prominent members of the Republican party have emphasized that the final version of the legislation has reduced the total number of individual programs under the ESEA (Elementary and Secondary Education Act) from 55 to 45. However, upon closer examination of the final appropriations bill, it becomes evident that some of the programs that were supposedly consolidated within the ESEA legislation have resurfaced as separate items in the budget. These include provisions such as $50 million allocated for physical education programs, $25 million for grants targeting alcohol abuse prevention among young people, $32.5 million for elementary school counseling, and $142 million to encourage the establishment of smaller schools.
It is understandable that members of Congress and officials within the Bush administration have been highlighting the significance of finally passing this education bill, considering the lengthy process it has undergone. Furthermore, it serves as one of the few domestic-policy achievements that both Republicans and Democrats can proudly point to this year in Washington.
Leaders from both parties, as well as various commentators, have described this bill as the most comprehensive reform of federal education policy since the initial implementation of the K-12 education law 36 years ago. However, some experienced political figures urge caution when it comes to getting carried away by such rhetoric. Former Secretary Riley recalls that in 1994, when Congress passed both the Goals 2000 legislation and the previous reauthorization of the ESEA, it was seen as a momentous change.
"The changes we made were described as sweeping," remarks Mr. Riley. "Whoever passes the next reauthorization will undoubtedly describe it in the same way."
