The Advocate: ESSA: That’s a Wrap, and We’re Five for Five
AASA Executive Director Dan Domenech pens a monthly article for the Executive Directors of our state affiliates. We periodically share them on the AASA blog, especially when they have a strong advocacy bend. The December 2015 edition details AASA's advocacy successes in the Every Student Succeeds Act.
You
have no doubt heard that Congress passed—and the President signed into law—the
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). It is the first iteration of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), currently known as No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) to reach the President’s desk since December 2001.
ESSA
represents a significant improvement over current law. The legislation takes
the pendulum of federal overreach and control, and returns it back to state and
local education agencies.
ESSA
reauthorization was no small feat. The effort started (August 2007) shortly
before I did at AASA (July 2008). It plodded along, like the Little Engine That Could, moving forward
ever so slowly through Congress, and picked up with a particular vigor early
this year. While the politics and momentum seemed against us, the effort
persevered. And it is with a happy smile that I can write this post, and detail
our advocacy efforts and victories.
As
a small sampling of our advocacy effort, I want to highlight what we featured
in the
letter we sent to the conference committee as they worked to reconcile the
differences between the House and Senate bills, and what the final ESSA
included. You can read our priority position in the letter. I use the remainder
of this article to detail the final verdict.
- Accountability: Despite repeated efforts to create AYP 2.0,
the final version of ESSA does NOT include 100 percent proficiency, adequate
yearly progress or annual measurable objectives. We had compromised and
accepted the mandatory identification of and intervention in low performing
schools, but drew a line at mandatory intervention based on sub-group
performance targets. Unlike NCLB where subgroup accountability triggered labels
of ‘failing’ and triggered intervention, ESSA requires states to establish and
report on—but not structure as a trigger—subgroup targets.
- Portability: There are neither vouchers nor portability in
ESSA. As we like to say at AASA, “Public dollars. Public schools. Hard stop.”
And, “When the question is vouchers, the answer is no.”
- Expanded Data Collection: The final Title I reporting includes a
reasonable compromise between the House and Senate versions. We were able to push back on the expanded Title IX
collection to the extent that NONE of it made it into the final ESSA.
- Title I Formula: While the formula change we pushed through did
not make it in the bill, we did get legislative language requiring Congress to
evaluate the existing four Title I formulas, the role of number and percentage
weighting, how those weights impact small/large/urban/rural schools, and how
the current formulas address/exacerbate the inequitable allocation of dollars
in a way that allows larger, less poor districts to receive more Title I money,
per pupil, than smaller, poorer schools.
- Alternate Assessment: ESSA includes a state-level participation cap
(1 percent) with language to explicitly forbid the secretary or state to
translate the state level cap into a local cap. IEP teams are free to determine
alternate assessment as driven by IDEA, without fear of repercussion. Should a
state breach its 1 percent cap, it can pursue a waiver.
As
you can see, our advocacy efforts proved fruitful but our work, is far from
over. We are now moving full steam ahead with efforts to support ESSA implementation.
With expanded authority and flexibility comes increased responsibility. We look
forward to supporting our state affiliates and members, and position them as
the go-to leader.