| |
ALERT: Every Child Achieves Act
|
|
| |
 You can let Sen. Alexander know that you OPPOSE HIS legislation here:
Sen Lamar Alexander - 202-224-4944
Sen. Alexander email HERE
On Tuesday, July 7th, the Senate is expected to take up S. 1177, the Every Child Achieves Act. Written by Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Patty Murray (D-WA), S. 1177 is intended to replace the failed education policies of No Child Left Behind.
Unfortunately, the bill maintains a large role for the federal government in decisions about education. S. 1177 still requires the states to seek approval for their accountability plans by the Secretary of Education. It also leaves in place the federal testing mandate for grades 3-8 and once in high school. Through a new competitive grant program, states are encouraged to expand enrollment in pre-K. Federal involvement has done little for the K-12 population; why should we expect it to boost outcomes for younger children?
No Child Left Behind showed that federal interference in education increases burdens on students and teachers but not achievement. S. 1177 is a missed opportunity to restore control of education to the states and people. |
|
|
Top
|
| |
The Every Child Achieves Act - A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing
|
|
| |
No Child Left Behind Rewrite Will Drive a National Education Agenda
The following is a nonexhaustive list of fatal problems with the bill.
1.The Every Child Achieves Act (ECAA) is 792 pages, 122 pages (20%) longer than No Child Left Behind (NCLB) -- hardly a move in the right direction.
2. Proponents cite the inclusion of new language restricting the U.S.
Department of Education (USED) from, for example, coercing states into adopting the Common Core national standards. However:
a. That language largely replicates existing protections (see Robert Eitel & Kent Talbert, The Road to a National Curriculum, PIONEER INSTITUTE no.81 (2012));
b. As with existing protections, the proposed provisions fail to provide an enforcement mechanism for the states and thus depend on the goodwill of USED or congressional act ion (which was non-existent when USED foisted Common Core on the states);
c. ECAA negates the protections anyway: A stated purpose is for state
alignment to the same "college-and-career-ready" standards -- language that is code for Common Core. Sec. 1001. See further discussion below.
3. ECAA continues the USED-state master-servant relationship, requiring states to submit education plans and giving USED enormous authority to approve them. Sec. 1111(a)(4).
4. ECAA retains federal testing mandates that children be tested for math and English in each grade 3-8 and for science once in each of the following grade spans: 3-5, 6-9, and 10-12. It also requires that these test scores be used as a "substantial" portion of a school's grade to determine which schools will be identified for interventions, thus continuing the "teach-to-the-test" environment of NCLB. Sec. 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I)(aa)-(bb) and Sec.
1111(b)(3)(B)(iii)(II).
5. ECAA adds to the list of federal programs a state must consult in developing its plan and requires standards to be aligned with federally approved workforce and early-childhood standards. Sec. 1111(a)(1) & Sec.1111(b)(1)(D).
6. If a state plan fails to meet the requirements of a listed program, USED has the authority to disqualify the state plan unless the state agrees to make the mandated changes. Any prohibitions on USED's interfering with state standards, assessments, and accountability don't apply to the " requirements" of the Act. Sec. 1111(a)(4),(5)
7. ECAA requires statewide curriculum standards, assessments, and accountability systems to prepare students "for postsecondary education or the workforce," i.e., "college- and career-ready." The preparation for postsecondary education must (theoretically) enable the student to succeed "with out remediation." All this is code language for Common Core-aligned standards. Sec. 1111(b)(1)(D), (b)(3)(B). It thus puts downward pressure on states to keep Common Core standards, or similar standards, in place.
8. ECAA contains a requirement for states to "demonstrate" that the state standards are "aligned" to the same criteria used to establish Common Core: "entrance requirements, without the need for academic remediation, for the system of public higher education." Any prohibition included to stop USED from coercing states to use Common Core or other specific standards is meaningless. USED won't have to force anything, because alignment to the same criteria as "college-and-career-ready" is a requirement of the bill. Sec. 1111(b)(1)(D)(i)-(ii). PLEASE SEE MORE HERE. |
|
|
Top
|
| NOTE: If someone forwarded this email to you and you would like to receive more like this, click HERE to Register. For more information about Tennessee Eagle Forum, go HERE. |
|
Forward this email to a friend
| |
|
|
Alexander, Murray Bill Tightens the Screws of Mandated Assessments
Jane Robbins | Jun 30, 2015
Editor's Note: This column was co-authored by Heidi Huber, founder of Operation Opt Out Ohio.
Parents across the nation are in open revolt against the testing mania that has seized public schools under No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and the Common Core national standards. In some states, thousands of students - 200,000 in New York alone - are refusing the "mandatory" assessments. One would think the Washington politicos who are writing the NCLB reauthorization bill would take note of this widespread rebellion and would ease - or better still, eliminate - the federal testing requirements. But unlike the repentant thief who returns the loot, the federal government never willingly relinquishes power it has stolen from the states.
Senators Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Patty Murray (D-WA) are collaborating on an NCLB rewrite dubbed the "Every Child Achieves Act" (ECAA). This bill maintains NCLB's requirement of administering annual assessments in English and math in grades 3 through 8 and once in high school. But ECAA doesn't ignore the "opt out" movement - in fact, it adds language that effectively encourages the states to lower the boom on noncompliant students and parents.
Under ECAA (as under NCLB), state assessments must "[m]easure the annual progress of not less than 95% of all students . . . ." But while NCLB applies this requirement only to the subset of low-income schools that receive federal Title I funding, ECAA extends the requirement to all schools by making it part of the mandatory state accountability system. If ECAA passes, expect USED to ramp up its threats against states that have too many opt-outs and thus fail in their commitment to ensure 95% participation.
During recent debate on ECAA, an amendment was added that nominally protects the right to opt out of assessments: "Nothing in this part shall be construed as preempting a State or local law regarding the decision of a parent or guardian to not have the parent or guardian's child participate" in the federally mandated assessments. But this language wouldn't apply unless a state or locality has a law affirmatively protecting the right to opt out, which few do. And while this language could prohibit USED from punishing parents or students who choose to opt out, it would not appear to affect measures taken against states, districts, or schools. If the bill intends to protect the states against retaliatory measures from USED, it should say so. It doesn't.
|
|
|
