David P. Cleary, chief of staff to Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, has prepared a series of answers to questions I posed about the new “Every Student Succeeds Act.” I am very grateful to have my questions answered by the staff of the Senator who led the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind. Instead of speculating about what the law says or means, we can get answers directly from those who drafted the law.
Readers, your comments are welcome, as always, but I ask you to be polite and civil. You may not like the law, but it is a darned sight better than NCLB, the Death Star of American education. It is now up to us as citizens to interact with our elected local and state officials to make the new law work to improve education.
David P. Cleary writes, to begin the discussion:
Diane:
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to engage with you and your readers about the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). As with any new law, there are lots of questions that will take time to play out as the law is implemented both at the federal level and the state and local level.
Chairman Alexander plans vigorous oversight of the implementation of the law with hearings and regular meetings with the administration to ensure that the law is faithfully implemented. It is helpful to know what questions people have so we can work through hearings and oversight to ensure that the law is implemented as written.
One of the driving principles behind Chairman Alexander’s efforts to fix No Child Left Behind was to restore to states, school districts, classroom teachers and parents the responsibility for deciding what to do about improving student achievement. This will enable governors, chief state school officers, superintendents, principals, teachers, parents, students, advocates, and the public could grapple with these difficult issues and reach conclusions that work for their state and community.
Most importantly, the new law ends No Child Left Behind’s accountability system and also allows states to move in a different direction, if they choose, from many of the policies of No Child Left Behind and the waivers of the past several years.
In many ways, ESSA is just the beginning of the story because states will now need to figure out what to do with all of this new flexibility and responsibility.
Thanks again for this opportunity.
David
David P. Cleary
Chief of Staff/HELP Committee Staff Director
I will post my question and the response of Senator Alexander’s staff every day for the next nine days.
The response:
1. How will ESSA affect testing? Most educators and parents believe that there is too much testing and they want less of it. What does ESSA do to reduce testing and the high stakes attached to it?
Short answer:
ESSA should significantly affect testing. Through testimony we learned that although the federally required math and reading tests provide valuable information on student learning to teachers, parents, states, and the public, many states and school districts administer many more tests than necessary, largely in part to prepare for the one-time high-stakes tests required under No Child Left Behind. State and school district leaders agree that shorter and fewer tests are needed. For example, we learned that a Fort Myers, Fla., school district gave its students more than 160 tests in preparation for the federal test[s] required under NCLB.
ESSA creates an opportunity for states to reevaluate the amount of tests their students take and how the results of those tests are used. While we kept the federal requirement that students take a total of 17 tests over a their 10 years of schooling from grades three through 12, we eliminated the federal requirement that determined whether a school is succeeding or failing based only, in effect, on federally-required tests. We also ended the waiver requirement for teacher evaluation linked to testing.
Moving forward, it will be up to states—as well as and governors, legislators, teachers, parents, and advocates–to decide whether to have more than the 17 federally required tests and how important those tests should be in determining whether schools are succeeding or failing. Additionally, the bill increases state flexibility around testing by allowing states to develop innovative assessment systems, such as competency based systems, in lieu of the existing state tests. ESSA also allows school districts to select a nationally recognized assessment, such as the SAT or ACT, that high schools can administer in lieu of the state math and reading test.
Long Answer:
The first issue Chairman Alexander tackled in 2015 was the question of overtesting due to No Child Left Behind. Our first hearing on January 21, 2015 looked at this issue and it feels like every conversation was dominated by the view that No Child Left Behind and the teacher evaluation mandate in the waivers created a massive proliferation of testing.
The requirement under NCLB was that states had to conduct annual tests in reading and math in grades three through eight and once in high school, and a science test in each of the grade spans three through five, six through eight, and nine through 12. That resulted in a federal requirement of 17 tests over a student’s 10 years spent in school from grades three through 12.
But the accountability system of NCLB was linked almost solely to the testing requirement. If student test scores didn’t meet federal requirements, federal sanctions were applied to the school in a one-size-fits all approach.
Seeing this issue, Sen. Alexander came to the conclusion that the federal requirement for testing wasn’t necessarily the problem, it was the accountability system that was attached to it.
With that in mind, we decided to focus on reducing the federally determined high stakes attached to the tests—creating an environment where states could reduce the extra tests they were administering and, most importantly, develop their own accountability system to judge whether schools and teachers were succeeding in educating students.
Through testimony we learned that states and school districts were creating and administering dozens or even hundreds of extra tests to ensure that they were on track for all students to perform well on the annual test required by the law and the teacher evaluation mandate in the waivers. This outcome is almost expected because the annual test became almost a death penalty moment for schools—if you didn’t perform according to the plan, you faced severe federal sanctions. NCLB became a “punish your way to success” accountability system.
In ESSA, states have much more freedom to determine whether a school is succeeding or failing. Tests do not have to be the only measure of performance.
A state has to include test results, graduation rates, English proficiency, and another measure of school quality or student success in its accountability system. If a state chooses, it could also include non-academic measures having nothing to do with tests.
But how much each of these indicators count in the accountability systems is up to the states, and the Secretary is prohibited from regulating precise numbers or even ranges of weights in section 1111(e)(1)(B)(iii)(IV) of the new law.
So now states have the flexibility and responsibility to determine how to establish an accountability system. What matters to Tennessee may differ from what matters to Minnesota. Some states may indeed keep all of their tests and the high stakes associated with them, while others will reduce testing and reduce the amount that tests count in accountability systems—but they key with ESSA is that it is entirely up to the states to decide what to do.
Great piece
Sent from my iPhone
>
What happens with the Opt Outs? The Arts?
Reblogged this on Teachers in Distress and commented:
For those interested in how ESSA differs from NCLB.
Diane – You are a public servant of the very best kind. Thanks for this.
“Flexibility” is a wonderful buzz word sort of like “choice.” It is a double edged sword. It may mean that people apply divergent thinking to innovate in order to address issues and programs. More likely, it will produce more non-evidence based schemes from corporations designed to sell more products. The worst is probably some type of CAI that will supplant human interaction with students. Proposed programs should have to be supported by research.
Lamar Alexander is a strong proponent of charter schools replacing public schools. http://goo.gl/jaqEZN
Diane
You stated “Readers, your comments are welcome, as always, but I ask you to be polite and civil.”
Thank you very much. I hope every one understands your request. Let us discuss the merits and problems with this legislation and learn from each other.
Raj, I suspect many will find this comment insulting
Raj,
Contrary to your semi-sincere comment above, the vast majority of commenters are teachers who truly understand the objectives of blog, and they are way ahead of YOU in terms of politeness and civility–which your latest snarky comments on Flint crisis last week put you in a very awkward and precarious position.
Translation: The USDOE will now allow states to choose exactly how they want to waste time and money on a regurgitated version of an already FAILED TESTING policy.
So, instead of one national battleground, we now have fifty.
One change is how the autocratic billionaire oligarchs, who are funding the corporate public school demolition derby, will spend their money to support the agenda to destroy the community based, democratic, transparent, non-profit, public schools. The focus will shift away from Washington DC to state capitals and state elections.
Didn’t Bill Gates already buy most of the states?
Yes, the lobbyists will descend on the state capitals, but the people tend to have more access to their state.representatives, so it might level the playing field a bit.
Unless your legislature is corrupted by money and power in a one-party state, like mine is. Then, you’re just hosed.
There have been reports from Indiana in particular about how state hearings have been rigged to allow those in support of reform legislation to speak while opposition voice is limited. I seem to remember some of the same sort of shenanigans in LA(?), and it has been a problem in Illinois as well. Anyone else feel free to chime in. I’m sure there was some criticism of who was allowed to speak at committee hearings for ESSA, too. We are going to have to be especially diligent to report what is happening in different states, so it just doesn’t become a divide and conquer nightmare. I cringe every time I hear how everyone is finding these tests so valuable. For what? They are certainly not diagnostic instruments and have little use for making instructional decisions. How anyone think a statewide test will be any more valuable to inform classroom instruction, I don’t know. I hope the opt out movement continues to grow.
“Moving forward, it will be up to states—as well as and [sic] governors, legislators, teachers, parents, and advocates–to decide whether to have more than the 17 federally required tests and how important those tests should be in determining whether schools are succeeding or failing. Additionally, the bill increases state flexibility around testing by allowing states to develop innovative assessment systems, such as competency based systems, in lieu of the existing state tests. ESSA also allows school districts to select a nationally recognized assessment, such as the SAT or ACT, that high schools can administer in lieu of the state math and reading test.” From what I’ve been reading, “innovative assessment systems, such as competency based systems, in lieu of the existing state tests” is code for putting hand held digital devices in the hands of every child and continuously monitoring/assessing/data mining their every keystroke. Mastery will be determined by computer algorithm, based on the same fatally flawed Common Core Standards that are stultifying teaching and learning across the country. Whether states will allow parents to Refuse the Big Test for their children without negative repercussions or not, parents will not be able to Refuse the continuous misguided monitoring without taking their children out of public school altogether. “Innovation” is not necessarily a positive thing, especially when applied to the psycho/social wellbeing of a generation of children.
Diane, thank you for asking and soliciting a response to the questions and thanks to USDE staff for responding. I look forward to answers to other questions.
Here is the problem with ESSA and testing: a myopic focus on outcomes only, and questionable outcomes, especially test scores.
“A state has to include test results, graduation rates, English proficiency, and another measure of school quality or student success in its accountability system. If a state chooses, it could also include non-academic measures having nothing to do with tests.
But how much each of these indicators count in the accountability systems is up to the states, and the Secretary is prohibited from regulating precise numbers or even ranges of weights in section 1111(e)(1)(B)(iii)(IV) of the new law. ”
The law perpetuates that myth that students’ performances on academic tests are so valid, reliable, and free of error that they should be treated as “measures of school quality or student success.”
Tests for students are not designed to evaluate the quality of schools. Freedom to present other measures “school quality and student success” are here presented as if anything other than a test score is inherently “non-academic.”
It is sad that the shapers of this law were trapped in such muddled thinking about school quality, student success, with not much thinking at all about the meanings and measures of learning, whether dubbed academic or not.
I hope that the inevitable “guidance letters” for ESSA will be carefully framed to prevent the interpretation of student test scores as measures of school quality since it is widely known that test scores are first and foremost a reflection of SES advantage, including resources available in schools. Moreover, the lion’s share of school financing is provided by state and local government, not the federal government.
This blog and others have documented the budget shortfalls in many states, recently Illinois and Michigan that are raising havoc with the ability of schools to provide basic and comprehensive education to all children. It does not help that charter schools produce a net loss in revenue for public schools in many communities and that these schools are heavily subsidized in ESSA.
The continued insistence of tests scores as the non-negotiable accountability measure in ESSA is not just a great disappointment: It is unjust.
Consider the influence on the residents of Flint Michigan and all students and educators dealing with the unconscionable state-imposed lead poisoning of children. What is the likelihood that test scores from schools in that community will be fair in portraying school quality and student success?
For another example of school quality, considered as “opportunity to learn in physically cared for schools,” look at the images at https://deutsch29.wordpress.com
or find them at the Detroitteach Twitter page.
There were hearings in LA today about the actual “implementation” or writing of this act which is evidently a mere theory yet.
Two DOE officials heard many exalted, titled political Educators and Researchers and Politicians state that the feds should distribute T1 money via more local, less federally-controlled channels.
There was a lot of platitudinous talk that I had difficulty following, but it is all available on the DOE website somewhere. Open comments may be written and submitted by Jan 21.
There was some disagreement about how low down on the stateLEA continuum the money should be allowed to be distributed.
IMO some local superintendents (and a community college leader) had some excellent things to say about the essence of school systems as community and the validity, prerogative and vitality of teachers for judging the Educational milieu accurately. The lower down the Educational totem pole you got and the closer to actual students, the more clairvoyant it all became, with much much conversation about “multiple measures” and dissing of single, federally-dictated high stakes metrics. However the act does, I believe, give authority to “The States” for its “CC State Standards”, so …. not sure how any of this actually resolves itself.
Several researchers pointed out the folly of leaving unaddressed and unfunded the needs of states to conduct actual research and act on evidence, without the resources to do these things. And they made the points that the human condition dictates a necessity for checks and balances to be integral to legislation, a reality that the politicians swiftly back-pedalled on (amazeballs).
Personally, I felt existentially alienated as it was apparent that hours and hours of testimony were to be dictated with nary a prescription from anyone who might actually benefit from T1 funds directly: no students, parents, teachers. That’s not strictly true, the CA teachers’ assoc. rep spoke (wonderfully) and a immediate-past student (somewhat incoherently IMO) about the experience of being a T1 recipient, a NFP operating in the schools … but by and large this was a conversation directed way, way above this mortal’s head, regarding disbursement of funds that are the prerogative of my kids’ classmates and their schools, but will instead clearly be eviscerated as a force for their education by the time so many middlemen all exact their cut.
I have been watching Lamar Alexander for many years. I was a kid working in the sewer in Jackson, Tn the day his speaking engagement there was canceled so he could be sworn in early as the governor due to improprieties regarding his predecessor.
Ever since that day, Tennessee governors have sought to reform education in some way. With the exception of Ned McWorter, all have tried to balance reform with the public mandate to keep taxes low. You get what you pay for. Districts full of young parents who support the education of their own students have done so well that universities have made special efforts to recruit these students. Districts with more lukewarm support of education have done less well, but struggling teachers have helped specific children from parents who support education. Places where people live hand to mouth have not fared well.
Alexander would do well to see that the success of the high rent suburbs is directly correlated to the low numbers of students in these districts who have poverty-related problems. He has always supported private intrusions into the public schools. ESSA will not cure this problem. The only cure is for parents who have little to get support for their kids to grow up with an education rich in learning that turns them into good citizens. To do this is messy at best, and requires statesmen who will vote the needed resources to the problems. For too long we have allowed parents to sequester themselves away from problems in the larger community by living where there are fewer problems. Leaders like Alexander have an obligation to tell their voting public the truth, that all students deserve the programs that make certain enclaves successful on the education front.
While I am glad that Sen. Alexander’s staff is willing to engage in dialogue about ESSA, I am disappointed that the conversation begins with a false premise: “Through testimony we learned that although the federally required math and reading tests provide valuable information on student learning to teachers, parents, states, and the public.”
I am a former reporter, a teacher in my 7th year, and a parent of two high school children. I know of no teachers, parents, or citizens who glean valuable information from these one-day-only federally mandated snapshots of student performance.
On the other hand, I know of many school districts, teachers, and students who are penalized by them.
To this day, I have received no information about my students’ performance beyond a numerical score, a combination of digits.I don’t get to see the questions, the answers, or how my students performed. None of this helps me teach, and all of it helps the state punish.
Unfortunately, ESAA or no, I cannot see this changing in the state of Ohio, or in any other state that is driven by pro-reform, pro-charter governors.
I must say without Lamar Alexander this would have never happened. He actually might have be okay without the standardized testing every year. The Dems and civil rights groups keep calling it a civil right. The world has turned upside down. Whatever else maybe said about Alexander he did a great service getting rid of NCLB.
Lamar Alexander offered the option of grade span testing–once in elementary, one in middle, once in high school–but that idea was shot down by civil rights groups who said that testing annually was a civil right