Forget about all those stories you read that said the U.S. Department of Education had/has nothing to do with promoting the Common Core standards. Forget that it is a “state-led” initiative, that the standards were “written by the governors,” and that this just bubbled up from below while ED watched from the sidelines. Months ago, Chicago Superintendent Barbara Byrd-Bennett said that the district was not ready, the students were not ready, the teachers were not ready. She said she would give the tests to 10% of the students, no more. But then the hammer fell, and the hammer is in Washington, D.C. The orders from ED (the Education Department): give the tests or Illinois will lose $1.4 billion in federal money.
Is this legal? Three different federal laws prohibit any agent of the federal government from attempting to influence or control instruction or curriculum. It is a well-known fact that tests drive instruction and curriculum. Will anyone sue to stop this apparent, alleged, probable violation of the law?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Maybe someone can find a four word phrase in RttT legislation and take it to SCOTUS. The justices seem to have nothing better to do like adjudicating rather than governing.
LikeLike
I say, “SUE, the FEDs.” What’s going on in the name of educating our young is reprehensible both theoretically and pedagogically.
LikeLike
I agree this is going to be necessary to get this issue into the public eye; right now too many people are still unaware of what is going on in the name of common core and testing.
LikeLike
The weirdest part of the federal role in Common Core is how they have to pretend they have nothing to do with it and indeed are unaware of it.
They’re conducting this giant testing CC scheme on tens of millions of public school children RIGHT NOW and you won’t find a word about it on the fed site.
That’s just bizarre. They have to be so careful to keep the various political factions of The Movement on board they can’t even participate in this publicly.
LikeLike
One of the problems is that so many Americans are not paying any attention to public education issues; they have a mindset that the Federal Government must have good intentions in mind for students.
The average citizens do not look at the details and are out of touch with the form of blackmail involved in order to receive education federal funds; comply or else seems to be the mantra.
It might be that lawsuits must decide the legality of the Federal government and the attempt to control public education at the local level. Big brother does not always know best, but this is how the Federal government is behaving. The Department of Education has become too powerful and treat citizens as if we are docile, uninformed children that must be forced into compliance.
The other technique being used is to demean those groups who are against the Federal Education plans by categorizing opponents as radicals, misinformed, or reactionaries. The media is out of touch with the real issues that are involved here and the media does not emphasize that this is a bipartisan issue.
LikeLike
It may not be wise, but it is legal. Each year, when a public school district submits their ESEA grant application the district submits the grant plan, proof of private school consultation, a signed assurances statement, and a signed debarment statement. At least in my state (and I’d expect nationally since it is a federal program) the assurances statement is signed by both the district administrator and an officer of the school board.
The assurances contain many requirements, some of which pertain to student assessment. To receive ESEA funding, states are required to adopt standards and administer a uniform assessment aligned with those standards in reading and math in grades 3-8 and once in high school, and also in science once each in the 3-5, 6-8, and 9-12 grade bands. This is not a new requirement in federal law. States are not required to adopt the Common Core. Some are using other standards. Common Core states are not required to administer the PARCC. Some are using other assessments. However, states (and districts) are obligated to administer whatever assessment they adopted. There is much disagreement about whether this is a productive way to approach education policy, but the requirement is legal. ESEA allows, but does not require, funds to be withheld or recovered in cases of non-compliance. What this instance shows again is the excessive priority the current administration places on assessment as the driver of federal school policy.
From the Title I, Part A section of the assurances: Section 1112 2 (c) In General—Each LEA plan shall provide assurances that the LEA will—
(M) use the results of the student academic assessments required under section 1111(b)(3), and other measures or indicators available to the agency, to review annually the progress of each school served by the agency and receiving funds under this part to determine whether all of the schools are making the progress necessary to ensure that all students will meet the state’s proficient level of achievement on the state academic assessments described in section 1111(b)(3);
(N) ensure that the results from the academic assessments required under section 1111(b)(3) will be provided to parents and teachers as soon as is practicably possible after the test is taken, in an understandable format and, to the extent practicable, provided in a language that the parents can understand; and
(O) assist each school served by the agency and assisted under this part in developing or identifying examples of high-quality, effective curricula consistent with section 1111(b)(8)(D).
(P) participate, if selected, in the state National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) tests.
LikeLike
I can’t figure out where the dollar amonts are coming from with this threat. Your comments refer only to ESEA, but Illinois and Chicago are also receiving funds under Race to the Top, and likely from more than one RttT program. Perhaps USDE is lumping together all of its funding that ends up in Chicago. It is really not clear how this number was concocted and why it changed, apparently in not much time at all. Someone who has the time interest should see if there is a match-up with the budgets of the Chicago Public Schools. Something about that figure is fishy.
LikeLike
Laura,
That’s a good question. My understanding is that not complying with the assessment requirement can lead to non-compliance with other programs beyond Title I, part A. These can include Title I migrant student programs, Title II, Title III, and IDEA part B, That could account for the larger dollar amounts.
I think it would be more useful for the conversation to shift from whether withholding the funding is legal, because it is an option under federal law, to whether this is the right choice. Withholding funds is permitted, but not required, by law.
As the federal department has noted in their letters to states, the specific enforcement action depends on the severity of the non-compliance. The assurances contain commitments to non-discrimination and properly accounting for and auditing the funds. I can see where withholding or reclaiming funds would be justified if those lines were crossed. But for not giving PARCC? There are a range of lower impact enforcement actions available such as sending a letter requesting the state or district come into compliance, increasing monitoring, or placing the state’s ESEA status on high risk. The federal department could, and should, act with greater discretion.
LikeLike
You say “it may not be wise, but it is legal”. To the contrary, many lawyers and judges would find the legal arguments set forth in the recent Vanderbilt Law Review article to be quite persuasive (if only some state would take up the challenge). Bottom line: Fed Ed’s entire waiver program is (at least arguably) completely illegal, period.
It is, to my legal trained mind, no different than a law-enforcement officer (that’s Duncan in this case) saying “you were speeding (the states that haven’t brought 100% of kids to ‘proficiency’ [sic] levels in math and reading), HOWEVER, if you give me a (insert favor here — thinking “bj” but trying not to be too terribly graphic out of an enormous level of respect for Diane)….
That’s it — Duncan is the real criminal here….[meaning “criminal” in the technical, legal sense of “acting outside the bounds of the law”].
LikeLike
Forgot to add the law review online link: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2485407
LikeLike
The question of whether districts are required to administer the state mandated assessment doesn’t hinge on the waiver. The requirement for annual state testing in grades 3-8 plus once in high school is in the NCLB 2001 ESEA reauthorization. The requirement that states adopt standards and administer aligned assessments to receive federal funding dates back to the IASA 1994 ESEA reauthorization.
To borrow your law enforcement metaphor, let’s say driver does not initially stop for police. Does the law enforcement officer charge the driver with a felony evading police, a misdemeanor evading police, or a traffic citation of failing to heed an officer’s signal? The federal department has a range of options and seems to have implied the most severe one in dealing with Chicago.
Thanks for the article link. I think the argument that the scope of the waivers exceeds the scope intended in ESEA is one that might find a favorable hearing in some courts.
LikeLike
Even if it is illegal and unconstitutional, who has the money to take Obama’s DOE to court?
By now, it’s obvious that the Obama Administration and the Justice Department the White House controls doesn’t care.
LikeLike
Bobby Jindal is already doing it. He won a motion to dismiss sometime the last few weeks.
LikeLike
But doesn’t Jindal still support vouchers—a movement driven by the Walton family for more than thirty years at about $160 million a year?
LikeLike
I assume he does.
LikeLike
So rule by Executive Action is defacto law & we the sheepul can’t afford to stand up and fight/resist.
By now, it’s obvious that the Obama Administration and the Justice Department the White House controls doesn’t care.
LikeLike
Welcome to the administrative state.
LikeLike
Parents and students remember you can REFUSE!
LikeLike
US DOE is turning into American version of Japan’s MEXT in the 60s and current. So terrifying to see Duncan behaving like PM Shinzo Abe.
LikeLike
Parents can end the whole miserable mess. Opt your kids out. Not only does that eliminate the testing but it takes care of test prep as well. There is no reason to spend class time test prepping if no one is taking the tests. Perhaps the money freed up by ending this test will allow initiatives like smaller classes or the reinstatement of the classes and services that were eliminated.
LikeLike
I’m confused. Here in MA, districts could choose to give PARCC or keep our “old, last generation” state MCAS tests. Is Chicago begin threatened just for Bennett’s reservations that they can adequately roll out the PARCC tests?
LikeLike
No, Christine, EVERY district in ILL-Annoy is being threatened by the ILL-Annoy State Board of Ed. (ISBE) most likely BECAUSE Arne Duncan was the CEO of CPS, from ILL-Annoy, & now is the basketball playing Sec’y. of Ed. who is calling all the shots &, so, this would be very embarrassing for him (&, of course, POTUS from Chicago/Ill-Annoy, as well) if Ill-Annoy opted out of PARCC (as most of the other states did). Also, ISBE has a track record of dragging its feet, as well–a number of years ago, the feds told the states that if there were to be separate tests appropriate to ESL students (aside from the ISATs), the tests had to be chosen/made up, etc. before a certain time. This was not, of course, done, & the schools/ESL teachers were told–ONE month before the ISATs–that all of them had to take the ISATs, as there was no alternative test.
As you can imagine, the ESL subgroups in many schools (in not all) failed the ISATs. This was a disaster for students, teachers & schools that did not have to happen.
LikeLike