The Network for Public Education urges you to write your Congressman or Congresswoman now.
The Network For Public Education | We are many. There is power in our numbers. Together, we will save our schools.
Tell Congress: Vote NO on H.R. 5 – The Student Success Act
It has been reported that the US House of Representatives will vote on H.R. 5, the “Student Success Act,” on Friday, February 27th. The bill, which is the House’s version of the long overdue reauthorization of No Child Left Behind, was rushed through the House Education and the Workforce Committee with no public hearings. The bill is deeply flawed, and raises many concerns for public education allies.
There are four crucial issues:
Requires that states test all children in grades 3-8 and once in high school, even though no high performing nation tests all children every year
Makes Title I funds portable, which will decrease funding to the schools in greatest need, and opens the door for vouchers
Limits Title II funding to 10% for class size reduction
Increases funding for charter schools and encourages the growth and expansion of Charter Management Organizations (CMOs), which will advance the privatization movement
The time is now to send a clear message that we demand better for our children and our schools. Please join NPE and write your Representative today to let him/her know you oppose the passage of this bill.
Sponsored by
Network for Public Education
Tucson, AZ
Alas, my congressperson (Patty Murray) feels that annual testing is A-OK. No amount of research will sway her from her ideological stance. After all, accountability is way more important than research and effective practices.
No. H.R. 5 is an improvement over the current system. We can’t afford this bill to be derailed by partisanship. It is not ideal (especially portability), but that can’t be a stumbling block. This is probably the best we’re going to get from a GOP controlled congress for now. It can always be adjusted later on. Wait for the President to veto it and than move. That will put pro-ed backers to be in the best position to get a better bill.
‘Wait for the president to veto it and then move’?
Do you know something I don’t know? What leads you to believe that the president will veto a bill designed to further weaken public education?
It removes accountability mandates (thus the high-stakes part of high stakes testing) from what I have heard about it, along with it removing the power of NCLB waivers. Teacher evaluations, Common Core, all the President’s pet anti-education projects are at risk and he has already positioned himself against H.R.5
To see new how the President is positioning himself against H.R.5 and for “accountability” lookup “WHITE HOUSE REPORT: Investing in our Future: Helping Teachers and Schools Prepare Our Children for College and Careers” press release and “Weekly Address: Giving Every Child, Everywhere, a Fair Shot ” on Youtube.
It interferes with parental rights and gives control of education in private, parochial public schools to the federal government…educate yourself and then call your congressman…
Evidently, no one has read this bill. Why isn’t anyone talking about states’ rights
sovereignty being removed once a state agrees to take the ESEA funds. Please read our Press Release against HR 5. It will enlighten everyone to the real issues, not just the few pages on testing. This is the federal takeover of education, private and religious schools, as well as, the destruction of public schools.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Hoge/anita113.htm
First all, the rhetoric in that newswithviews rant doesn’t really match the facts listed. It is also odd because many of the complaints are of issues that already exist within NCLB. I don’t understand the logic behind the fact the thought this is not a perfect bill, so we must kill it, even if it is better. If the “Student Success Act” is generally better than what currently exist, it should be advanced. ESEA reauthorization has stalled long enough in Congress.
Jorge,
Why do you say “ESEA reauthorization has stalled long enough in Congress”?
Rhetoric? Rant? We must STOP HR 5! I quoted page numbers. Are we willing to give up our states’ rights when we accept Title I? Are you afraid to read the sections that say that? I guess you haven’t read the bill either. You are speaking nonsense without the documentation. Too bad. There is more in that piece of legislation that will nationalize education. The parents in Pennsylvania know exactly what is in this bill. Hopefully others will read it, and contact their state representatives. I’m sure they would like to know.
In the text you point to Indiana. Indiana surrendered sovereignty due to the current NCLB waivers that exist under current law. In fact, the current bill actually improves state’s rights over NCLB if anything, as before the USDOE could enter into agreements into SEA without any consent from the legislature, so I don’t really see how your argument holds water.
Do your realize what you just said? That entire passage in HR 5 REMOVES STATE’s RIGHT’S BY ACCEPTING THIS FEDERAL MONEY. I’m not sure the state legislatures across this land are willing to give their sovereignty and authority up to this federal encroachment. Do you remember in history they taught you about the separation of powers? You know state’s rights? Maybe you missed school that week. State’s rights, state’s rights, state’s rights.
You better read the bill again. The page numbers are 552-555. Here’s the link. Maybe you’ll wake up.
http://edworkforce.house.gov/uploadedfiles/student_success_act_-_introduction.pdf
See my response to freelancer which points to specific examples in the bill
And the NYT weighs in wit this editorial:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/opinion/sunday/dont-give-up-the-gains-in-education.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region®ion=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0
I find the language of the proposed bill horrendously difficult to wade through, even just the few pages referenced above in the conversation between Ms Hoge and Mr Fernandez. I do not see anything clearly eliminating high-stakes measures, nor anything removing parental rights over their children’s education. What I do find is multiple contradictions, double & triple negatives as to what can or can’t be waived except in this or that situation. It would not surprise me if this bill could be used to underpin anything at all desired by the Secy of Ed. 600pp of a soft-shoe routine such as this will end up being amended back & forth on a partisan basis and nothing good will come out of it.
However, the portability of Title I funds seems clear, as does preservation of annual testing in primary/middle school. I suggest we run with Dr Ravitch’s position, she is the educational researcher of note in this conversation.
To support such a mess of a bill and bank on a presidential veto, as Mr Fernandez recommends, seems foolhardy in the extreme. We have seen Obama waffle countless times, and he always lands on the pro-corporate-ed side.
I have nothing but respect for Diane Ravitch and her expertise. I just think we’re letting perfect be the enemy of good here, so it is a difference as to political strategy versus goals. The whole point of the stick being removed is that you’re not going to see it in the bill. It is like proving a negative, you have to make sure it is not there. Thankfully with the power of the digital age it makes it easier to find comparable sections. There is one mention of “adequate yearly progress” on pg. 39 of the bill. This was the linch pin from which all of the sticks of NCLB were implemented.
“(7) Existing state law.–Nothing in this section shall be
construed to alter any State law or regulation granting parents
authority over schools that repeatedly failed to make adequate
yearly progress under this section, as in effect on the day
before the date of the enactment of the Student Success Act.”
That is just a deference to the states on accountability. Here is the full content of that section which I have scanned through, and seen it as very lenient towards a decreased federal role relative to the current system (only thing is more transparency requirements, the dashboard the NEA advocated for seems to be in mind):
Just a couple of tidbits indicating more freedom:
“(III) the inclusion of English
learners, who shall be assessed in a
valid and reliable manner and provided
reasonable accommodations, including,
to the extent practicable, assessments
in the language and form most likely to
yield accurate and reliable information
on what such students know and can do
in academic content areas, until such
students have achieved English language
proficiency, as assessed by the State
under subparagraph (D);”
““(7) Existing state law.–Nothing in this section shall be
construed to alter any State law or regulation granting parents
authority over schools that repeatedly failed to make adequate
yearly progress under this section, as in effect on the day
before the date of the enactment of the Student Success Act.”
““(c) Other Provisions To Support Teaching and Learning.–Each
State plan shall contain assurances that–
…
“(4) the State educational agency will provide the least
restrictive and burdensome regulations for local educational
agencies and individual schools participating in a program
assisted under this subpart;
“(6) the State educational agency will modify or eliminate
State fiscal and accounting barriers so that schools can easily
consolidate funds from other Federal, State, and local sources
for schoolwide programs under section 1114; and
”
And here is the state accountability system requirements (gives way more freedom than NCLB as far as punishment see B(iIi):
” “(3) State accountability systems.–
“(A) In general.–Each State plan shall
demonstrate that the State has developed and is
implementing a single, statewide accountability system
to ensure that all public school students graduate from
high school prepared for postsecondary education or the
workforce without the need for remediation.
“(B) Elements.–Each State accountability system
described in subparagraph (A) shall at a minimum–
“(i) annually measure the academic
achievement of all public school students in
the State against the State’s mathematics and
reading or language arts academic standards
adopted under paragraph (1), which may include
measures of student growth toward such
standards, using the mathematics and reading or
language arts assessments described in
paragraph (2)(B) and other valid and reliable
academic indicators related to student
achievement as identified by the State;
“(ii) annually evaluate and identify the
academic performance of each public school in
the State based on–
“(I) student academic achievement
as measured in accordance with clause
(i);
“(II) the overall performance, and
achievement gaps as compared to all
students in the school, for
economically disadvantaged students,
students from major racial and ethnic
groups, students with disabilities, and
English learners, except that
disaggregation of data under this
subclause shall not be required in a
case in which the number of students in
a category is insufficient to yield
statistically reliable information or
the results would reveal personally
identifiable information about an
individual student; and
“(III) other measures of school
success; and
“(iii) include a system for school
improvement for low-performing public schools
receiving funds under this subpart that–
“(I) implements interventions in
such schools that are designed to
address such schools’ weaknesses; and
“(II) is implemented by local
educational agencies serving such
schools.
“(C) Prohibition.–Nothing in this section shall
be construed to permit the Secretary to establish any
criteria that specifies, defines, or prescribes any
aspect of a State’s accountability system developed and
implemented in accordance with this paragraph.
“(D) Accountability for charter schools.–The
accountability provisions under this Act shall be
overseen for charter schools in accordance with State
charter school law.”
One thing that is really bad is the failure to move away from NCLB for special education (so I definitely can understand the reasoning that as long as there is a testing mandate that this bill should be killed):
““(C) Alternate assessments.–A State may provide
for alternate assessments aligned with the alternate
academic standards adopted in accordance with paragraph
(1)(D), for students with the most significant
cognitive disabilities, if the State–“
One mistake I made. The ELL part is the same in NCLB, I just didn’t realize it because of such flexibility with math does not get mentioned often (only difference is it uses limited English proficient in NCLB and English learners in new law.
The language is not easy. There is no freedom in this bill except what the Feds want. First it says states have all rights, then in the next sentence, the federal government waives all state’s rights by putting ESEA into state statute And into the budget. That is very clear. It says state sovereignty and parental rights as the title. This is federal encroachment in a huge way. Stop HR 5 and notify your state representative about this federal encroachment. The Title I portability is a super “voucher” that will control every private and religious school in the country, too. The voucher is called “direct student services” which mandates the SERVICES to the child using Title I. Plus that voucher bypasses state government when it “follows the child.” That spells control. Stop HR 5.
The entire bill smacks of federal control. Top down. If your school and your teachers are not doing Common Core and the interventions response to interventions and positive behavioral interventions and support, or specialized student supports in the classroom, which includes all of the behavioral, social, and emotional assessments, you, as a teacher will be targeted as well as your school. This identifies every child as at risk under Title I. Every child becomes Title I. Every child is disabled. Title I is the blanket. IDEA is the remediation. When giving this Title I voucher to every child, that mandates “direct student services”…. Every school that accepts a voucher child, will be mandated to do the services. Equitable services is throughout the bill. That’s the remediation to Common Core. Top down federal control. Stop HR 5.
Jorge,
In understanding the perspective of an expert, it’s helpful to know into which general category he/she fits. Do you work for a politician? Are you in education administration,
at the state or federal level? Are you employed by a “philanthropy”?
I would not have anticipated the (IMO) giveaway of public education to Gates and hedge funds, when I cast my ballot for Pres. Obama. Making a decision relative to signing the Network for Public Education’s letter based on what anyone thinks the President will do seems a fool’s errand. I would not have expected median Black and Hispanic family income to drop 46%, under his watch, either.
Thanks
I wouldn’t describe myself as an expert, just a concerned citizen trying to avoid oversimplification in getting a bill passed. It is easy to be an idealist and practicality over idealism has seemed to led us to the compromises in the system we currently have, but to be a complete idealist rather than simply reaching is bad in this case. You can save the battle on mandating tests while winning the battle on accountability systems and win the war for education eventually; I don’t know if it is realistic to totally gut NCLB this go around; fear of jumping completely into the unknown exists on Capitol Hill among some of the public as well. What if this is just what both parties want. A repeat of 2007 where NCLB reauthorization went no where and Obama was able to step in and issue waivers . Maybe amendments on the house floor are a better way to fix this bills. Obama vetoing is would just be something that would allow a restructure of the bill if the amendment process doesn’t work.
Jorge went to a Christian school that use Abeka and Bob Jones Curriculum. He didn’t get a true history lesson.
It’s sad that this has devolved into Ad Hominem arguments. First, I would like your source as whatever you are basing the description of a curriculum is likely outdated. Second, I have written enough on my Twitter feed and blog that there does not have to be guessing as to where I stand in many cases but my views would probably be described as nonconformist. Third, you might be surprised where I work, but that would just distract conversation away from the substance of the conversation.
On occasion, a predator does not hunt down and kill prey. But, it’s dangerous to think that they are driven, by anything else.
Minimax economic theory, describes a situation in which all options are bad. The one to be chosen is the one that results in the least amount of loss.
Combining the two preceding points, I go with the recommendation of the Network for Public Education.