The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA): More Observations
On Monday, November 30, 2015, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) document was made public. It is 1,061 pages long and is being rushed to the full House for a vote on December 02, 2015, with one hour of debate (limited to one-minute speeches) scheduled for 12 noon EST.
Only two days later.
The best explanation for the rush is that those sponsoring the bill, Senators Lamar Alexander and Parry Murray and Representative John Kline, believe that ESSA passage has already been arranged.
A delayed vote might mean that some of those sure Congressional votes become less sure. Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between the so-called democratic process and the pressure sale.
On November 30, 2015, I wrote a post based upon my quick, 4 1/2-hour perusal of the ESSA document. In this post, I expand upon previous observations and add a few new ones.
ESSA is undeniably test-centric, and even as it includes language about state and local rights to set opt out policy, it includes language to lock in testing for “95 percent of all students” grades 3 thru 8 and at least one grade in high school in each state seeking Title I funding.
The attempted lock-in comes in the way that ESSA mandates that at least “95 percent of all students” be tested. Here is the exact language (page 88):
(E) ANNUAL MEASUREMENT OF ACHIEVEMENT.—(i) Annually measure the achievement of not less than 95 percent of all students, and 95 percent of all students in each subgroup of students, who are enrolled in public schools on the assessments described under subsection (b)(2)(v)(I).(ii) For the purpose of measuring, calculating, and reporting on the indicator described in subparagraph (B)(i), include in the denominator the greater of—(I) 95 percent of all such students, or 95 percent of all such students in the subgroup, as the case may be; or
(II) the number of students participating in the assessments.(iii) Provide a clear and understandable explanation of how the State will factor the requirement of clause (i) of this subparagraph into the statewide accountability system.
In ESSA, states are called upon to use test scores for school “accountability.” Earlier in the document, ESSA calls for test that are “used for purposes for which such assessments are valid and reliable” (page 53). However, no testing company is foolish enough to advertise its student achievement tests as “valid and reliable” for grading schools.
I am waiting for a state official with chutzpah to challenge the federal government in court over this nonsense.
I mentioned in my first post on ESSA that the federal government’s efforts to pressure states into forcing students to test will likely lead to lawsuits. All it would take is for a single state to challenge the federal government on this mandated 95-percent-testing rule to put the supposedly state-control-advancing USDOE on the hot seat. My guess is that in the current climate of displeasure with federal overreach into state education policy, the federal government would back down lest it further fuel the grass roots opt-out movement.
But the goal of the writers of ESSA is to put in language that will get the votes, not language that works in lives lived outside of Washington, DC.
Moving on.
One issue of concern in the Student Success Act (SSA), the House precursor of ESSA, involved portability of Title I funding– the money following the student– which I immediately viewed as an accounting and budgeting nightmare. In SSA, portability of funding was the rule. In contrast, ESSA does not require states to treat Title I funding as portable, but it does allow local education agencies to follow such a course by The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA): More Observations | deutsch29:
