State Legislatures weigh in on the fed

The National Conference of State Legislatures (did you know there was such a thing?) has just released its policies for 2099-2010 on education. It makes for very interesting reading, especially in light of the Race to the Top and related education funding. A few telling excerpts:

on younger children and poverty:
NCSL further recognizes that we cannot continue to treat family conditions as a matter separate from education and that such a focus is particularly important for younger children. Programs to support parents and family members as the first teachers of their children should be promoted and strengthened in both public and private sectors.
...

on charter schools (and Race to the Top funds):
Numerous states have included charters as one element in their overall mix of school reform and restructuring plans while other highly regarded state reform efforts have not included charters. The lesson learned by state policymakers is that charters can have some positive benefits beyond closing the achievement gap but are neither inherent nor essential to implementing successful state-wide reforms.

Despite the mixed results indicated by the body of research, the U.S. Department of Education is considering a plan to evaluate state charter school laws, rewarding states that meet whatever quota of charters is determined in Washington, DC and punishing states that fail to meet the quota. And while some will defend this position by emphasizing the 'voluntary ' nature of using federal funds to reward 'good' behavior, the withholding of any federal stimulus funds (in this case the "Race to the Top" funds) is a stick, not a carrot. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 established four clear goals for states to focus their education reform efforts. However, ARRA does not dictate the processes for achieving these goals. The Department of Education's emphasis on charter schools as a means to improve struggling schools is a regulatory step that goes beyond the legislative intent of Congress. This action could have the effect of usurping state chartering authority and preempting state constitutions. It is also beyond the limits of the language creating the Department, but for what end? If a medicine were discovered that helps 17% of people, doesn't do anything for 46% and hurts 37%, would the Food and Drug Administration approve and encourage that medicine for all?

...

on NCLB and national standards

Recent discussions and proposals to create a system of national educational standards are generally based on two assumptions: the first that NCLB is generating test results with no comparability of academic scores from one state to another. The second is that states are lowering standards (or re-defining ‘proficiency’) to avoid the negative consequences of federal adequate yearly progress (AYP) calculations.

Supporters of national standards point to the incomparability of state AYP results as a rationalization for their cause. However, comparability of state results is not critical to the potential success of NCLB nor is it a goal of the law. NCLB is supposed to be about improving individual student performance—a rising educational tide that raises the performance of all while closing the achievement gap.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures Task Force on No Child Left Behind, the primary problem with NCLB is that AYP falsely and arbitrarily over-identifies failure and prescribes punishments—driving states to broaden the definition of proficiency and/or relax standards. In this situation, states are reacting rationally to an irrational metric and the obvious action is to fix the metric...Federal funding increases in NCLB are exhausted by the compliance costs of NCLB, leaving states with little or no funding to raise the proficiency scores of struggling students through remediation known to have an impact on performance. The current federal role then, is strong on monitoring procedural and administrative compliance and weak on successful interventions and rewards encouraging enhanced student performance.

Federal statutory construction in the legislation creating the U.S. Department of Education prohibits federal involvement in a national test. Similar language in NCLB prohibits federal involvement in standards, assessments and curricula. These protections against federal involvement in state and local issues should be adhered to and continued. It is the position of the National Conference of State Legislatures that there is no legitimate or constructive role for federal involvement in national academic standards or a unified national test, especially while the structural flaws of NCLB remain unaddressed.

...

on federal funding of education

Despite the enactment of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in 2002, K-12 education remains a state and local financial responsibility. The federal government provides about $40 billion of the $550 billion currently expended on K-12 education, making up 8% or less of the nationwide K-12 budget. Every additional $1 billion in federal appropriations increases aggregate K-12 expenditure by two-tenths of a percent.
...
on overhauling NCLB:

• Incorporate the recommendations of the NCSL Task Force on No Child Left Behind, which range from the need for a revitalized state-federal partnership to specific recommendations for overhauling Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), to amending the state plan approval process to make it more transparent, less arbitrary and less subject to the whims of political influence, to changing the sequence of consequences for under-performing schools.
• Follow the concept of incentive-based programs as opposed to the coercive, punitive system at the heart of NCLB.
• Acknowledge state constitutions and state elected officials as well as basic principles of federalism.
• Avoid any reduction in federal K-12 funding for any state that can show continuous improvement in student achievement, and/or a closing of the achievement gap in that state, using any legitimate metric that is incorporated into state policy.