Wednesday, August 7, 2013
ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 113th Congress: Comparison of Major Features
Rebecca R. Skinner
Specialist in Education Policy
Jeffrey J. Kuenzi
Specialist in Education Policy
Cassandria Dortch
Analyst in Education Policy
Gail McCallion
Specialist in Social Policy
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was last amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB; P.L. 107-110). During the 113th Congress, both the House and Senate have considered legislation to reauthorize the ESEA. On June 12, 2013, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee considered and ordered reported the Strengthening America’s Schools Act (S. 1094) by a strictly partisan vote of 12-10. The House Education and Workforce Committee also considered and ordered reported a bill that would reauthorize the ESEA. On June 19, 2013, on a strictly partisan vote of 23-16, the Success for All Students Act (H.R. 5) was ordered reported. It is unclear whether S. 1094 or H.R. 5 will be considered on the Senate or House floors, respectively.
S. 1094 and H.R. 5 would take different approaches to reauthorizing the ESEA, most notably in three key areas:
1. Accountability for student achievement: Both S. 1094 and H.R. 5 would modify current accountability requirements related to student achievement, including eliminating the requirement to determine adequate yearly progress (AYP) and the requirement to apply a specified set of outcome accountability provisions to all schools, regardless of the extent to which they failed to make AYP. Both bills would continue to require that states have standards and assessments for reading, mathematics, and science, and would require that assessments measure student proficiency and growth. Both bills would require that reading and mathematics be included in each state’s accountability system, and would permit states to include science or other subjects in their accountability systems. S. 1094, but not H.R. 5, would require states to establish “ambitious and achievable” annual performance targets for the state, local educational agencies (LEAs), and public schools for each subject area and grade level that is assessed for accountability purposes. Performance targets would have to be established for student proficiency and student growth, as well as for English language proficiency for English learners and high school graduation rates. The Secretary would have to approve all performance targets. S. 1094 would require various interventions to be implemented in certain low-achieving schools, while H.R. 5 would not require that specific actions be taken to address issues in low-performing schools.
2. Teacher quality versus teacher effectiveness: Both S. 1094 and H.R. 5 scale back (or, in the case of H.R. 5, eliminate) existing teacher quality requirements, and each bill introduces requirements pertaining to how teachers’ performance is evaluated. H.R. 5 would eliminate current requirements related to “teacher quality,” which focus largely on ensuring the equitable distribution of qualified teachers and that teachers possess a baccalaureate degree and full state teaching certification, as well as demonstrated subject-matter knowledge in the areas in which the teacher teaches. S. 1094 would retain these requirements for new teachers and for all teachers until approved teacher evaluation systems are in place. S. 1094 would require all LEAs that receive Title II-A funds to develop and implement teacher and principal evaluation systems, known as professional growth and improvement systems. H.R. 5 would also require LEAs that receive Title II-A funds to develop and implement a teacher evaluation system but would not include school leaders in required evaluation systems. Under both bills, staff
being evaluated would have to be evaluated based, in part, on student achievement.
3. Targeted support for elementary and secondary education versus the use of a block grant: Each bill would consolidate some existing competitive grant programs, but H.R. 5 would consolidate a greater number of programs than S. 1094. At the same time, S. 1094 would create several new targeted grant programs, while H.R. 5 would greatly expand the use of block grant funding.
Date of Report: July 12, 2013
Number of Pages: 71
Order Number: R43146
Price: $29.95
To Order:
R43146.pdf to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART
e-mail congress@pennyhill.com
Phone 301-253-0881
For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.