Factcheck: 8 Myths About the ESSA
Senate’s Major Education Overhaul Returns Power to the States
The Senate is voting this week on the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), an education overhaul that lawmakers argue will correct the shortcomings of No Child Left Behind and will empower states to choose their own standards, assessments, and accountability systems. Member and former chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Senator Hatch, R-Utah, played a leading role in crafting and finalizing the bill because, he says, it meets Utah’s demands for a return to state decision-making.
The measure passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in the House of Representatives and is expected to pass in the Senate. Here are some facts Utahns need to know to counter some popular myths about the bill.
1. Myth: "This bill is not an improvement over No Child Left Behind"
Fact: Education reform leaders both nationally and in Utah have hailed this bill as a major improvement to No Child Left Behind.
A vote against reauthorization is a vote to leave the current system in place. Without reauthorization, No Child Left Behind will remain the law of the land, and states will still be subject to the Secretary of Education’s waivers and their unauthorized requirements. The Every Student Succeeds Act finally moves us beyond the outdated NCLB and puts us on a path towards strengthening our Utah's schools.
Evidence for how ESSA overcomes No Child Left Behind and the Department’s waivers:
o It ends the Common Core mandate.
o It ends Adequate Yearly Progress.
o It ends the failed federal goal of 100% proficiency by 2014, which had unfairly resulted in a failing grade for every school in America.
o It ends the requirement that all schools that don’t meet goals for any subgroup of students are automatically identified as failing.
o It ends the federal school improvement strategies.
o It ends the highly qualified teacher requirement.
o It end the teacher evaluation mandate.
o It ends the trend towards a National School Board.
o It ends federal test-based accountability.
o It ends waivers as of August 1, 2016.
o It restores responsibility and flexibility to states and local school districts.
2. Myth: "ESSA is about more Federal Intrusion into state authority."
Fact: Decision-making is restored to the local level where it belongs.
Since 2010, the federal government, through a “National School Board,” has prescribed policies to states and local districts. This bill significantly reduces the Secretary of Education’s authority in state decision-making and effectively returns control over educational decision making from the federal government and places that responsibility where it belongs: at the local level.
What the bill says:
Title VIII, Sec. 8527: Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize an officer or employee of the Federal Government, including through a grant, contract, or cooperative agreement, to mandate, direct, or control a State, local educational agency, or school’s curriculum, program of instruction, or allocation of State or local resources, or mandate a State or any subdivision thereof to spend any funds or incur any costs not paid for under this Act.
The Secretary is not authorized or permitted to:
· Issue non-regulatory guidance that provides a strictly limited or exhaustive list for how to improve accountability systems or purports to be legally binding
· Require the collection of data beyond existing federal, state, or local reporting requirements
· Define any term that is inconsistent with or outside the scope of Title I, Part A, which encompasses standards, assessments, and accountability.
· Issue any rules or regulations that add new requirements or new criteria related to statewide accountability systems that are inconsistent with or outside the scope of Title I, Part A
· Issue any rules or regulations that are in excess of authority granted to the Secretary under the new law.
3. Myth: ESSA paves the way for more Common Core.
Fact: Any type of federal mandate or incentive around Common Core is effectively removed, placing that decision squarely on the shoulders of state officials.
This bill ensures that any decision around the standards a state wishes to use – Common Core or otherwise – is made solely at the state level.
What the bill says:
Title I, Sec. 1111: A State shall not be required to submit any standards developed under this subsection to the Secretary for review or approval. The Secretary shall not have the authority to mandate, direct, control, coerce, or exercise any direction or supervision over any of the challenging State academic standards adopted or implemented by a State.
Title VIII, Sec. 8526A: No officer or employee of the Federal Government shall, through grants, contracts, or other cooperative agreements, mandate, direct, or control State, local educational agency, or school’s specific instructional content, academic standards and assessments, curricula, or program of instruction developed and implemented to meet the requirements of this Act (including any requirement, direction, or mandate to adopt the Common Core State Standards developed under the Common Core State Standards Initiative, any other academic standards common to a significant number of States, or any assessment, instructional content, or curriculum aligned to such standards), nor shall anything in this Act be construed to authorize such officer or employee to do so.
Title VIII, Sec. 8526A: No officer or employee of the Federal Government shall condition or incentivize the receipt of any grant, contract, or cooperative agreement, the receipt of any priority or preference under such grant, contract, or cooperative agreement, or the receipt of a waiver under section 8401 upon a State, local educational agency, or school’s adoption or implementation of specific instructional content, academic standards and assessments, curricula, or program of instruction developed and implemented to meet the requirements of this Act (including any condition, priority, or preference to adopt the Common Core State Standards developed under the Common Core State Standards Initiative, any other academic standards common to a significant number of States, or any assessment, instructional content, or curriculum aligned to such standards).’’
4. Myth: "ESSA does little to protect student or teacher data privacy, and even authorizes the sale of student data."
Fact: This bill helps protects the information of Utah’s teacher and students and effectively maintains the scope of FERPA.
What the bill says:
Title I, Sec. 1112: The State educational agency will provide the information described in clauses (ii), (iii), and (vii) of subsection (h)(1)(C) to the public in an easily accessible and user-friendly manner that can be cross-tabulated by, at a minimum, each major racial and ethnic group, gender, English proficiency status, and children with or without disabilities, which— (III) is consistent with the requirements of section 444 of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g, commonly known as the ‘Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974’).
Title I - Information collected or disseminated under this section (including any information collected for or included in the reports described in subsection (h)) shall be collected and disseminated in a manner that protects the privacy of individuals consistent with section 444 of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g, commonly known as the ‘Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974’) and this Act.
Title II, Sec. 2101 - [Programs may include] providing high-quality, personalized professional development that is evidence-based, to the extent the State (in consultation with local educational agencies in the State) deter- mines that such evidence is reasonably avail- able, for teachers, instructional leadership teams, principals, or other school leaders, that is focused on improving teaching and student learning and achievement, including supporting efforts to train teachers, principals, or other school leaders to— (ii) use data to improve student achievement and understand how to ensure individual student privacy is protected, as required under section 444 of the General Education Provisions Act (commonly known as the ‘Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974’) (20 U.S.C. 1232g) and State and local policies and laws in the use of such data.
Representative Messer's amendment to Title II, which Senator Hatch voted in favor of: Supporting and developing efforts to train teachers on the appropriate use of student data to ensure that individual student privacy is protected as required by section 444 of the General Education Provisions Act (commonly known as the ‘Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974’) (20 U.S.C. 1232g) and in accordance with State student privacy laws and local educational agency student privacy and technology use policies. … And understanding how to protect individual student privacy in accordance with section 444 of the General Education Provisions Act (commonly known as the "Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974") (20 U.S.C. 123) and State and local policies and laws in the use of such data.
5. Myth: "ESSA would codify the new $250 million federal pre-school program, creating mission creep in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act."
Fact: This grant program is not a federal mandate for preschool. States would choose to apply for this funding only if they want it. This program would be led by the Department of Health and Human Services, and does not expand authority for the Department of Education.
The Preschool Development Grants included in the bill aims to assist states in developing, updating, and implementing a strategic plan that encourages collaboration and coordination among existing programs of early childhood care and education, which would increase the effectiveness of money spent on these programs.
What the bill says:
Title IX, Sec. 9212: The purposes of this section are— to assist States to develop, update, or implement a strategic plan that facilitates collaboration and coordination among existing programs of early childhood care and education in a mixed delivery system across the State designed to prepare low-in- come and disadvantaged children to enter kindergarten and to improve transitions from such system into the local educational agency or elementary school that enrolls such children; Head Start providers, State and local governments, Indian tribes and tribal organizations, private entities (including faith- and community-based entities), and local educational agencies, to improve coordination, program quality, and delivery of services; and to maximize parental choice among a mixed delivery system of early childhood education program providers.
Enzi Amendment: The Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the heads of all Federal agencies that administer Federal early childhood education programs, shall conduct an interdepartmental review of all early childhood education programs for children less than 6 years of age in order to – develop a plan for the elimination of overlapping programs, as identified by the Government Accountability Office’s 2012 annual report; determine if the activities conducted by States using grant funds from preschool development grants under section 9207 have led to better utilization of resources; and make recommendations to Congress for streamlining all such programs.
6. Myth: "ESSA erodes parental rights to opt out of high-pressure state tests by mandating that State accountability systems penalize schools that don’t enforce the requirement that 95% take the tests."
Fact: Because this bill devolves the responsibility of education from the federal government to states and local districts, ESSA allows states to have opt-out laws, but must still test 95% of students. However, if a state misses the 95% threshold, states – not the federal government – determine any and all consequences.
What the bill says:
Title VIII, Sec. 8025L OPT-OUT PROCESS.—A parent of a secondary school student may submit a written request, to the local educational agency, that the student’s name, address, and telephone list- ing not be released for purposes of paragraph (1) without prior written consent of the parent. Upon receiving such request, the local educational agency may not release the student’s name, address, and telephone listing for such purposes without the prior written consent of the parent; NOTIFICATION OF OPT-OUT PROCESS.—Each local educational agency shall notify the parents of the students served by the agency of the option to make a request described in subparagraph (A).
Title 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).
7. Myth: "ESSA allows the success of big money, data mining, federal control, flawed and experimental standards, developmentally and age inappropriate education, with an unknown price tag, loss of parental control, and incessant testing." / Myth: "ESEA still requires toxic testing and common standards."
Fact: A “YES" vote on the bill is a “YES" vote for states to write their own standards, without ANY input from the Secretary of Education.
For years, Utahns have been asking for the freedom to choose their own standards, their own assessments, and their own accountability systems. This bill allows states to establish systems that work best for school districts, parents, and, most importantly, students.
With its firm balance of flexibility and transparency, this bill maintains rigorous and important measurements of student academic progress, but allows states and localities to determine how best to measure and evaluate this progress.
What the bill says:
Title I - ‘‘(1) CHALLENGING STATE ACADEMIC STANDARDS.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Each State, in the plan it files under subsection (a), shall provide an assurance that the State has adopted challenging academic content standards and aligned academic achievement standards (referred to in this Act as ‘challenging State academic standards’), which achievement standards shall include not less than 3 levels of achievement, that will be used by the State, its local educational agencies, and its schools to carry out this part. A State shall not be required to submit such challenging State academic standards to the Secretary.
‘‘(2) ACADEMIC ASSESSMENTS.—‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Each State plan shall demonstrate that the State educational agency, in consultation with local educational agencies, has implemented a set of high-quality student academic assessments in mathematics, reading or language arts, and science. The State retains the right to implement such assessments in any other subject chosen by the State.
[Assessments should] be aligned with the challenging State academic standards, and provide coherent and timely information about student attainment of such standards and whether the student is performing at the student’s grade level; be used for purposes for which such assessments are valid and reliable, consistent with relevant, nationally recognized professional and technical testing standards, objectively measure academic achievement, knowledge, and skills, and be tests that do not evaluate or assess personal or family beliefs and attitudes, or publicly disclose personally identifiable in- formation;
‘‘(E) STATE AUTHORITY.—If a State educational agency provides evidence, which is satisfactory to the Secretary, that neither the State educational agency nor any other State government official, agency, or entity has sufficient authority, under State law, to adopt challenging State academic standards, and academic assessments aligned with such standards, which will be applicable to all students enrolled in the State’s public elementary schools and secondary schools, then the State educational agency may meet the requirements of this sub- section by—
‘‘(i) adopting academic standards and academic assessments that meet the re- quirements of this subsection, on a state- wide basis, and limiting their applicability to students served under this part; or
‘‘(ii) adopting and implementing poli- cies that ensure that each local educational agency in the State that receives grants under this part will adopt academic con- tent and student academic achievement standards, and academic assessments aligned with such standards, which—
‘‘(I) meet all of the criteria in this subsection and any regulations regarding such standards and assessments that the Secretary may publish; and
‘‘(II) are applicable to all stu- dents served by each such local edu- cational agency.
8. Myth: "This bill is being rushed through Congress only giving members 24 hours to review it before passage."
Fact: This bill has gone through a lengthy and deliberative process, including extensive debate and amendments.
Evidence from the Senate Process:
· Bill introduced to HELP (January/February 2015)
· HELP Committee Mark Up (April 13-16, 2015) = 22-0
o 58 amendments considered
o 29 amendments agreed to
· Bill introduced to full Senate (April 30, 2015)
· Senate Floor passage = 81 – 17 (July 16, 2015)
o 78 amendments considered
o 65 amendments agreed to
· Conference Report passage = 38 – 1 (November 19, 2015)
o 9 amendments considered
o 7 amendments agreed to
· Conference Report filed (November 30, 2015)
· Conference Report passes the House = 359 – 64 Senate vote on December 8, 2015
· House process:
o Bill introduced (February 3, 2015)
o Ed and Workforce Markup (February 11, 2015)
o House floor passage = 218 – 213 (July 8, 2015)
o Conference Report passage = 38 – 1 (November 19, 2015)
§ 9 amendments considered
§ 7 amendments agreed to
o Conference Report filed (November 30, 2015)
o Conference Report passes the House = 359 – 64
###
