Our Advocacy Agenda

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version

SAVE PELL INFORMATIONAL RESOURCES

Backgrounders:

Legislative Analysis:

Letters to Lawmakers:


Our primary focus in the federal policy arena is on reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Read our comments to the Senate HELP committee on ESEA reauthorization, and click the links below to learn more about our work in each area. 

To stay up to date on our advocacy work, check this space frequently, go to our Formal Testimony and Comments page, and download our Data Points and Facts Sheets.

RESOURCES ON THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT (ESEA)

 ESEA FAQs 

Issues Overview Frequently Asked Questions
Accountability for Educational Results Accountability for Educational Results Overview Accountability for Educational Results
School Turnaround School Turnaround Overview School Turnaround
Teacher Equity and Quality Teacher Equity Overview Teacher Equity and Quality

 

GOAL SETTING UNDER ESEA (1994-2007): HOW THE STATES RESPONDED

Find out how various states met or failed to meet the challenges of targets set under the last two versions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Read our eye-opening summary of state responses.

 

HERE'S WHAT WE'RE WORKING ON RIGHT NOW 
(Check back regularly)

  • Fifty organizations, including The Education Trust, cosigned a letter to Members of Congress urging them to oppose the Fiscal Year 2013 budget proposal offered by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.). Its draconian cuts to education and other programs would adversely affect the most vulnerable Americans, and could jeopardize the country's economic recovery.
  • The Education Trust, along with a broad coalition of groups representing students, consumers, higher education institutions, and civil rights organizations, cosigned a letter supporting the Fairness for Struggling Students Act (S. 1102). This letter was entered into the hearing record during the Senate hearing on “The Looming Student Debt Crisis: Providing Fairness for Struggling Students.”
  • Ed Trust joined a letter signed by 902 national, state and local groups to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees urging them to provide the largest possible FY 2013 302(b) allocation to the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee. The letter asks members to protect health, education, job training, and social services programs from further cuts and to work with their colleagues to prevent the harmful cuts that will occur to these programs under sequestration.
  • The Education Trust has written a letter to Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.), Chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, advocating for the inclusion of accountability standards to ensure that states and districts provide quality education to all their children.
  • The Education Trust, along with more than 35 other civil rights, disability, business, and education organizations, has cosigned a letter to Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.), Chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, opposing the draft of the Student Success Act to amend and reauthorize Title I and other aspects of ESEA. The broad-based coalition opposes the draft bill's lack of accountability standards for achievement and learning gains by subgroups of disadvantaged students.
  • A growing coalition of civil rights groups, business groups, state education officials, and education advocates adds its voice to those who have already expressed disapproval of the ESEA reauthorization bill in its current form. In a joint statement, they connect the withholding of their support to the need to tie federal funding to stronger accountability standards.
  • A coalition of civil rights organizations, business associations, education officials and advocates has written a letter expressing its disapproval of the ESEA reauthorization bill proposed by Sens. Tom Harkin and Michael Enzi due to the lack of adequate accountability standards.
  • The Ed Trust and five other civil rights organizations have expressed to Sens. Tom Harkin and Michael Enzi our deep disappointment in the accountability provisions of their ESEA reauthorization proposal.
  • The Ed Trust is one of more than 50 education and social justice organizations cosigning a letter urging U.S. Sen. Patty Murray and the super committee to preserve funding for college access.
  • Ed Trust President Kati Haycock has written to U.S. Senator Patty Murray and her colleagues on the  deficit reduction super committee asking them to protect federal investments in education.
  • The Ed Trust and 531 other organizations are urging members of the U.S. Senate and House appropriations committees to consider the vital role education and other domestic programs play in restoring the country’s financial health and stability.
  • The Ed Trust is part of a national coalition of organizations urging President Obama to keep his promise to protect and preserve the Pell Grants program. (July 15, 2011)
  • We're urging U.S. senators to oppose the DeMint amendment to the 2011 Economic Development Revitalization Act (SA 400 to S782) or any other legislation designed to nullify the new gainful employment rule.
  • The Ed Trust, in coalition with several other organizations, is urging members of Congress to preserve funding for the Pell Grants Program, which enables more than 9 million low-income students to pursue college. (April 22, 2011)
  • The Ed Trust is one of several signators on three letters supporting the  Fiscal Fairness Act, introduced by Sens. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Thad Cochran (R- Miss.) in the Senate, and by Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-Pa.) in the House. The Act would fix the comparability loophole in Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). (April 16, 2011)
  • As Congress looks to reauthorize ESEA, Ed Trust joined a coalition of organizations to acknowledge the Senate's Moderate Democrats’ Working Group in their call for a "strong, bipartisan bill" with an accent on equity.
  • In response to proposed federal budget cuts that would derail efforts to regulate for-profit college companies, Ed Trust sent a letter urging Congress to protect students and taxpayers. (February 15)
  • Ed Trust joined a coalition of partners to ask both the House and Senate to support higher education access by preventing cuts to the Pell Grant program and extending the American Opportunity Tax Credit. (December 8, 2010)
  • Read the Ed Trust’s letter opposing the Education for All Act, which would prevent the Department of Education from protecting students from aggressive and misleading recruitment practices. (September 30, 2010)
  • Ed Trust joined a coalition to support the INSPIRES Act, which would modernize teacher and principal evaluation systems. (September 29, 2010)
  • Read the letter from Ed Trust and the American Federation of Teachers urging the Senate to vote for cloture on an amendment to add the DREAM Act to the Department of Defense authorization bill. (September 21, 2010)
  • We've analyzed the student demographics in all states that won Race to the Top grants. (August 26, 2010)
  • Read about our efforts to close the Title I comparability loophole and the letter from dozens of organizations that support HR 5071, a bill introduced by Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-Pa.) that would ensure fair funding for the kids that need it most. (July 29, 2010)
  • Read our guide to newly approved state graduation rate accountability plans. (May 25, 2010)

  

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND WAIVERS

The Obama administration’s ESEA Flexibility plan lets states lead the way on putting in place policies designed to raise achievement and close gaps. In return, states have to focus on three main areas — college readiness standards and assessments, differentiated statewide accountability systems, and meaningful educator evaluations — outlined in the ESEA Flexibility Plan Questions.

The Education Trust continues to push Congress hard to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. NCLB has been a critical tool in the effort to raise achievement and close gaps, but it was never perfect and parts of the law have become outdated and unworkable.

Since a near-term, bi-partisan agreement on a new and improved law seemed unlikely, we supported the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) waiver plan, viewing it as an important next phase in the relationship between the states and the federal government. We believed waivers could spark new momentum and enable states to craft more powerful policy built on the lessons of the last decade.

Early on, however, we also recognized the potential risks waivers posed to some of the nation’s most vulnerable students. That’s why we eagerly and actively engaged at every stage of the waiver development and approval process to ensure that the opportunities for progress were maximized and the risks minimized.

The next phase of work — implementation — is no different: It holds both promise and peril for students. In an effort to facilitate the informed public engagement that will be critical to maximizing positive impact, we’ve created brief, independent summaries of each state’s approved waiver plan. The states’ official plans are scores of pages long and employ wildly different formats. In contrast, we’ve produced short summaries, arranged in a common format that should enable interested readers to get a basic understanding of how different states approached each part of the task.

The Education Trust waiver summaries cover three primary areas: Accountability Systems; Educator Evaluations, and Implementation of College and Career Ready Standards.

Accountability is a necessary component of any improvement strategy because it sets expectations for schools and districts, provides information, and provokes action. Necessary, but — to be crystal clear — it’s also insufficient. Strong accountability must be coupled with equally strong action to enhance classroom instruction and improve underperforming schools, especially for struggling students. And state plans reflect these realities. We will release our summaries of the educator evaluation and standards implementation components of each state plan in the coming days.

It’s our hope that these summaries will help the public gain a clearer understanding of what the waiver states pledge to do in their proposals, as well as a lucid perspective on the promise and potential pitfalls of this new federal-state partnership.

Meeting College- and Career-Ready Standards Depends on Sound Implementation

The Education Trust has eagerly and actively engaged with stakeholders at every stage of the No Child Left Behind waiver development and approval process. All along, our goal has been to ensure that the opportunities for progress in closing gaps and raising student achievement are maximized, and the risks minimized. Now that the first 11 waiver requests have been approved, we’ve created brief, independent summaries of each plan with a focus on three critical areas: accountability systems; educator evaluations; and implementation of college- and career-ready standards.

Today, we release the final set of our waiver summaries. These analyses focus on state plans for the implementation of college- and career-ready standards. Among the 11 states that received waivers, 10 have adopted the Common Core State Standards (CCSS); the 11th, Minnesota, has adopted the CCSS for reading and language arts, and has already implemented separate college- and career-ready standards for mathematics. For most states, the new standards will raise the expec¬tations for students and for educators. However, the difference these more rigorous standards will make for student achievement depends on how well they are implemented.

Therefore, we reviewed state waiver plans with a close eye on  several key standards-implementation questions. How will teachers be trained and supported to teach to the new standards? How will the public be prepared for the new level of rigor that the new standards demand? How will teacher-preparation entities prepare their teacher candidates to effectively teach to these new standards?

In many states, the standards-implementation plan outlined in the waiver request does not necessarily reflect all the work currently underway in a state. However, the waiver plans do provide a useful window into how states are approaching this complicated and critical work. In reviewing each plan, we saw examples of promising practices that could offer guidance to other states that are still finalizing their approach to implementation. For example:

  • In Georgia, all educators in the state will attend professional learning sessions on the new standards, specific to subject and grade. These sessions, conducted by trained curriculum specialists, will ensure that educators across the state are exposed to the standards and are provided information on how to teach them in a consistent and coherent way.
  • Educators in Kentucky, Georgia, and New Jersey will be able to access substantial statewide resources for lesson planning and classroom instruction. Recognizing districts’ limited capacity to build robust systems of instructional supports, these three states are taking steps to provide educators with high-quality materials that are aligned with the new standards and easily implementable. New Jersey plans to develop a model curriculum that organizes learning objectives into units of study, complete with end-of-unit assessments. And Kentucky and Georgia are both building databases that will house a rich array of sequenced, coherent materials and supports.
  • Florida and Indiana are revising their teacher-certification exams and state teacher- preparation program approval standards to align with the new standards. To maintain state approval and make sure that the teachers they are preparing can pass new certification exams, teacher-preparation programs in these states are expected to update their curricula to reflect the new standards. Tennessee is also focused on ensuring that new teachers are prepared to teach to the new standards, and outlines plans to develop a statewide, pre-service training curriculum aligned with CCSS; and will require teacher candidates to demonstrate mastery of CCSS content before entering the classroom.

Our summaries also identify issues that will be critical for states to consider as they continue to develop, refine, and implement their plans. In particular, many of the waiver plans are vague about how states will ensure alignment between the content of teacher-preparation programs and the new standards. Also, some states plan to place the development of teacher instructional supports on the shoulders of individual districts, even though most districts do not have the capacity to do this work well.

It is our hope that these summaries will help the public gain a clearer understanding of what the waiver states pledge to do in their proposals, as well as offer a lucid perspective on the promise and potential pitfalls of this important undertaking by the states.

Click on a state's name to see its standards waiver summary: Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Tennessee.

A Deeper Look at Accountability

There is a wide range of thoughtfulness and boldness in the waiver plans that were approved in this first round.  All have promising aspects, and each has areas for concern. The promising aspects offer powerful precedent for future policy, while the areas of concern could result in missed opportunities or, worse, the loss of hard-won progress for students.

To highlight both areas of promise and areas of concern, we’ve reviewed each plan with an eye toward four key questions:

Equity:  Is boosting the performance of low-income students, students of color, English-language learners, and students with disabilities a core element of the plan?

The extent to which individual group performance “counts” in the accountability system varies dramatically from state to state. Some states have prioritized improvements for underperforming groups, and their accountability systems seem likely to act as “powerful gap closers.” In other states, group performance matters less.

A noteworthy feature emerging in many of the state waiver plans is the establishment of “super groups.” This term applies to groups formed by combining some or all of the “traditional” NCLB groups, or it can define entirely new groups based not on demographics, but on performance (“bottom quartile,” for example).

One compelling reason to use super groups is to drive accountability for underperforming students into more schools. Under NCLB, schools were only accountable for the groups that had enough students to reach the state-set “n-size,” which could be 50 students or more. The problem with this approach was that many schools with heterogeneous enrollments were not held accountable for groups outside the mainstream because those subgroups were too small. The ability to form super groups is one solution to this problem.

However, the super group solution could re-introduce a problem that student disaggregation was meant to address in the first place: averages that hide more than they reveal. For example, a school in a state using super groups could make required progress by improving only the highest performing students in that group, while leaving the lowest performing students unattended; or by advancing the English-language learners, but not the students with disabilities. Wherever there are super groups, concerned citizens will want to make sure there is a strong backstop that assures action when schools are not meeting targets for any group of students for more than a year.

Coherence: Does the plan ensure that policymakers, educators, and students will all pull in the same, clearly defined direction?

States started at a handicap here. The U.S. Department of Education’s guidelines required the states to set ambitious goals for raising achievement and closing gaps, but allowed — and some might say encouraged — a system of school categorization that was not driven by performance against these goals.

Some states negotiated this disconnect successfully, while others stumbled. The latter may have specific goals for improving overall and group performance, for example, but school ratings may be determined on very different criteria.  Similarly, the criteria for getting into a school-ratings category may be inconsistent with the criteria to get out of it.  By contrast, coherent systems provide consistent signaling throughout.

Ambition: Will meeting the performance expectations communicated in the plan result in significant improvements for all students and, perhaps more important, will it generate accelerated gains for those farthest behind?

In their waiver plans, states were invited to adopt one of two federal goals frameworks, or a “similarly ambitious” alternative of their own choosing. The first framework fixed the goal at getting all students college and career ready by 2020, requiring larger year-on-year improvements for the groups starting farther behind. The second framework — one suggested by our analysts based on deep analysis of school-level improvement rates in multiple states — aimed at halving the gaps between the current performance of individual student groups and 100 percent within six years. Again, this approach requires improvements for all students, but bigger improvements for groups starting behind.

The core idea behind this approach was to encourage states to set stretch goals that would narrow or eliminate longstanding gaps between groups. The 100 percent proficiency goal set by NCLB was often viewed as unrealistic or unattainable. Waiver states were invited to set stretch goals that their own data suggested were achievable with concerted effort.

Action: Does the plan clearly prompt specific, appropriate and effective interventions, not just for the lowest performing schools, but also for schools serving groups of students who are struggling despite the success of other students in the school?

Under current law, the federal government prescribed a specific set of consequences for schools that did not meet their achievement targets, beginning with school choice and supplemental tutorial services, and moving through various levels of “school improvement.”  The required consequences were the same, regardless of whether a school missed one target for one group or fell horribly short for all its students.

Because many state and local leaders railed at this one-size-fits-all approach and questioned whether the federal government knew more than they did about how to improve their local schools, the waiver process invited states to replace the federally mandated consequences with a system of rewards, supports, and interventions that they believed would be more effective.

The granting of the NCLB waivers described in the summaries that follow marks a new phase in our nation’s journey toward providing a quality education for all students. Certainly, the development of these plans involved a lot of thought and a lot of work, especially by state education leaders, but the really hard work lies ahead, as state and local education leaders put into action what for most is still merely a paper plan.

As the states step up to this work, parents, journalists, advocacy organizations, and, more generally, the public need a clear sense of the new goals the states have pledged to pursue. The public also needs a firm grasp on the key strategies (along with their attendant strengths and potential pitfalls) the states have chosen to employ, especially for the students who often get ignored in school improvement efforts.  We hope these summaries are helpful, because the success of these new initiatives is terribly important to our country’s future.

Click on a state's name to see its accountability waiver summary: Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Tennessee.