The Obama administration鈥檚 proposal to make federal funding for disadvantaged students contingent on states鈥� adoption of reading and math standards intended to prepare students for college or a career has drawn sharp criticism from groups representing grassroots educators and state lawmakers, even as some governors and members of Congress appear open to the idea.
The proposal, which would be rolled into the administration鈥檚 still-emerging plan for reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, would link the law鈥檚 flagship Title I program to a push for higher academic standards that has gained new national momentum.
It would require states either to join with their counterparts in developing rigorous, college- and career-ready standards, or work with institutions of higher education to set standards that would ensure high school graduates are ready to enter postsecondary study or the workforce.
Some advocates for local educators were quick to express their concerns about linking Title I aid for disadvantaged students to the adoption of college- and career-ready standards.
The National School Boards Association released last week saying that, although the Alexandria, Va.-based organization supports voluntary, state-led efforts to craft more-uniform, rigorous standards, the administration鈥檚 proposal 鈥渁mounts to an unnecessary overreach by the federal government to coerce states to adopt a particular approach or be shut out of future funding for key programs.鈥�
The plan was also blasted as federal overreaching by David Shreve, the senior education committee director for the National Conference of State Legislatures, based in Denver, who said there is no evidence that college- and career-readiness standards will lead to better student outcomes.
And the National Association of Secondary School Principals warned that the proposal could result in a loss of federal funding for students in poverty if states opt not to revamp their standards.
Governors and members of Congress, meanwhile, are taking more of a wait-and-see approach.
Rep. John Kline of Minnesota, the top Republican on the House Education and Labor Committee, said he鈥檇 like to see more details. Rep. George Miller, the California Democrat who is the panel鈥檚 chairman, expressed support for the general concept, although he did not comment specifically on the proposal.
Both lawmakers recently announced a bipartisan process to reauthorize the ESEA, whose current version is the 8-year-old No Child Left Behind Act. (鈥淐ommittee Sets Sights on ESEA,鈥� Feb. 24, 2010.)
鈥淚f we鈥檙e serious about education reforms that will fix our schools and prepare our kids to compete in a global economy, then we have to demand strong, rigorous academic standards for all students,鈥� Rep. Miller said in a statement.
Rep. Kline, who has been cautious about federal intrusion into K-12 education policy in the past, said he supports efforts among states to voluntarily revamp their standards.
As for the administration鈥檚 proposal, 鈥渨e鈥檒l see what that means鈥� once more details are worked out, Rep. Kline said in an interview. 鈥淚n all of these cases, where we often get into a rub, is [who is setting the standards]. If the United States Department of Education is the one setting those standards, ... then, clearly, we have some concerns.鈥�
Safety Valve
If adopted, the proposal would undoubtedly bolster momentum behind the , currently the highest-profile national effort to establish higher, more uniform academic standards in English/language-arts and mathematics.
So far, 48 states鈥攁ll but Alaska and Texas鈥攈ave signed on to the common-core project, which is being spearheaded by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers. It is unclear how many states will remain on board once the voluntary standards are final, likely later this year.
Under the Obama administration鈥檚 proposal, states would not be compelled to join the NGA-CCSSO initiative to get their Title I aid. States would be allowed to work with the colleges and universities within their states to craft their own higher standards. That could prove a significant political safety valve at a time when some state legislators
have voiced concern about federal encroachment on states鈥� education policy authority鈥攁nd when 37 governorships will be on the ballots in the fall elections.
But the NSBA, which represents local school boards, also has concerns about what sort of standards might arise if states work with postsecondary education systems.
鈥淗igher education is not monolithic in any state,鈥� Anne L. Bryant, the executive director of the group, said in an interview. She explained that most such systems include a mix of research universities, community colleges, technical schools, and other types of institutions.
鈥淚f you leave [standards] up to a nebulous higher education authority, you don鈥檛 know what you鈥檇 get,鈥� she said. 鈥淚t鈥檚 not a sure bet.鈥�
Officials of the Obama administration took issue with the NSBA鈥檚 contention that the proposal amounts to federal coercion.
States would still be 鈥渋n the driver鈥檚 seat,鈥� said Justin Hamilton, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Education. 鈥淯nder our proposal, states can achieve that goal on their own, or join with the consortium of 48 states to adopt common-core standards.鈥�
Still, the administration has made it clear that states that work with others to develop college- and career-readiness standards would be given priority for competitive federal aid, including $4 billion in Race to the Top Fund grants, which will reward states for adopting certain education redesign priorities.
It is unclear from the proposal just who would judge whether a state鈥檚 standards met the benchmark of 鈥渃ollege- and career-ready.鈥�
Secretary of Education Arne Duncan told reporters after a meeting at the White House last week that college readiness could mean that students would not need to take remedial courses when they enroll in postsecondary education. He said that there is a set of 鈥渂asic skills鈥� that indicates students are ready for a range of careers, but that the administration would work with states and other stakeholders to better define them. He gave no examples.
The proposal was unveiled by President Barack Obama at that meeting with members of the National Governors Association. During the session, governors voiced 鈥渮ero鈥� concerns about federal intrusion into state business when it came to the Title I proposal, Secretary Duncan told reporters.
鈥淭his is being led by the governors,鈥� he said of the push for college-readiness standards.
But Mr. Shreve, of the NCSL, called it 鈥渁 mistake for the federal government to get involved in picking favorite strategies that have no credible basis in research.鈥� He added that it appears likely from the proposal that officials at the federal level would be determining whether the standards were adequate. That hasn鈥檛 worked well in the past, he said.
Federal law bars the government from involvement in curriculum.
Mr. Shreve also sees the proposal as an example of federal overreach. 鈥淵ou鈥檇 think they鈥檇 have learned their lesson with NCLB,鈥� he said.
Others worry about the impact such a change could have on funding for underprivileged students.
Gerald N. Tirozzi, the executive director of the secondary school principals鈥� group, said that he shares the administration鈥檚 view that states should prepare students for college or a career. But he鈥檚 not sure that Title I grants to districts are the right vehicle.
鈥淚f you look at the history of Title I, it鈥檚 always been intended for the poorest kids and the kids with the greatest need,鈥� he said.
Signaled in Budget
The administration hinted at the proposal in its fiscal 2011 budget request for Title I grants for districts.The Title I program would be rebranded 鈥淐ollege and Career Ready Students鈥� and financed at $14.5 billion in fiscal 2011, not including money provided under the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
The Title I program is the main vehicle for implementing the NCLB law. Under that legislation, which President George W. Bush signed into law in 2002, states must agree to establish accountability systems in order to tap Title I funding. They must test students in reading and math annually in grades 3-8 and at least once in high school.
President Obama proposed level funding for Title I in fiscal 2011.
Some governors said after the White House meeting that they were still studying the proposal to make Title I money contingent on adopting college- and career-ready standards.
鈥淪ome of the people who spoke most glowingly about the president鈥檚 leadership on education were Republican governors,鈥� including Gov. Sonny Purdue of Georgia, said Gov. Martin O鈥橫alley of Maryland, a Democrat. 鈥淭here鈥檚 was a pretty broad consensus [on education].鈥�
Mr. O鈥橫alley said most governors are aware that their students need to be prepared for the global economy.
But Gov. Jim Douglas of Vermont, a Republican and the chairman of the governors鈥� association, said that while he understood that the nation needs to be more globally competitive, he was still studying the administration鈥檚 Title I proposal.
He stopped short of saying his state would definitely adopt the common-core standards being drafted by the NGA and the CCSSO.
In response to questions, Gov. Douglas said that federalism will always be a concern when dealing with any state-federal issue.
鈥淥ur pitch ... on anything is flexibility,鈥� he said.
