States and districts sought flexibility in using federal dollars and in meeting federal education mandates well before No Child Left Behind (NCLB) ushered in a new era of federal control over education, but this call for flexibility has become more urgent during the past several months as almost every state works to implement the new common core state standards and as NCLB's 2013–14 deadline, by which all students must reach reading and math proficiency, inches closer.
Two recent efforts by federal policymakers to respond to this call for flexibility couldn't be more different, but unfortunately, both are marked by serious flaws.
The first attempt to provide states and districts with more flexibility comes from House Education Chairman John Kline (R-MN) and his Republican colleagues, who strongly believe in the need to reduce the federal footprint on education and restore local control. They've passed a bill that would provide unprecedented flexibility in the use of federal education dollars. States and districts would be able to shift money into and out of a wide range of federal programs—including Title I, Improving Teacher Quality State Grants, and English Language Acquisition State Grants.
But permitting funds to be siphoned from programs that serve high-need students jeopardizes the federal government's historic role to ensure education equity for each student. The legislation also fails to provide the kind of flexibility requested by educators, such as autonomy in determining how to identify low-performing schools. What's more, allowing states and districts to use federal education funds for a multitude of purposes makes it difficult for educators to defend spending levels or make the case for necessary increases—an important consideration in this new, contentious fiscal environment.
Flexibility with Strings Attached
U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan is also sympathetic to states' calls for flexibility, and he intends to provide them with relief from meeting key NCLB provisions, including the much-maligned 2013–2014 deadline. However, his plan comes with a big catch: to qualify for the NCLB waivers, states must commit to key reforms aligned with the Obama administration's priorities.
The U.S. Department of Education understandably wants to target its finite resources and balance flexibility against the possibility of watering down accountability; however, offering waivers from one administration's priorities in exchange for another administration's priorities isn't flexibility. It's simply replacing old mandates with new ones.
Putting Students First
Ultimately, educators need flexibility that is built into federal legislation from the outset rather than added later through incredibly broad allowances or through a patchwork system of waivers. During the legislative process, lawmakers must consider educator input regarding the most effective uses of federal funds and the most appropriate ways to support them in identifying and meeting their students' needs.
Based on educator feedback to date, it's clear, for example, that the accountability mandate needs to be transformed from one that is punitive, federally prescriptive, and overly bureaucratic, to a model that rewards growth, is state-driven, and provides research-based supports matched to each district's achievement challenges.