Education Policy- No Child Left Behind and the Every Student Succeeds Act

Education Policy: No Child Left Behind and the Every Student Succeeds Act
Liam Gallagher
Prof. John Lawrence
March 1, 2016

2

There has long been a conflict in American government and society between state and
federal control over education. Conservatives have often resisted extensive federal power over
education, believing it violates the constitution and constitutes an abuse of power by the federal
government and secretary of education. In recent years, teachers and teachers unions have also
criticized federal power over education, particularly in regards to requirements that they claim
make teaching more difficult. On the other hand, civil rights activists have often advocated for
greater federal supervision in order to protect poor and minority students. Considering how
important education is for people to succeed in society, and for the United States to compete on
the world stage, it becomes apparent that education policy is a high-stakes issue.
This paper focuses on two bills: the 2002 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and the
2015 Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). The paper will begin with a brief overview of the
history of the federal role in education, touching particularly on the landmark 1965 Elementary
and Secondary Education Act signed by President Johnson. A discussion of the motivation
behind NCLB and ESSA will be given in order to understand why Congress felt that these bills
were necessary. Going further in depth on ESSA, I will discuss the roles of the main legislators
behind the bill, as well as how it was constructed in Congress. I will also analyze the main goals
and provisions of ESSA, and how they differ from those of NCLB. This analysis will also
include how each bill was praised and criticized. Lastly, I will offer some recommendations of
where ESSA could have done better and what future education bills should include to improve
the American education system in terms of quality and fairness and help students to be
successful in their studies.
Historically, there has been a distinction between federal policies that have been deemed
“acceptable” and “unacceptable” by the public. “Acceptable” federal education policies include

3

subsidies for higher education and vocational training, as well as policies intended to advance
national interests such as “manifest destiny.” Unacceptable policies include promoting a
nationalized school system and federal control of local schools.1
Anderson has identified two
essential traits that are necessary for a successful federal education policy. The first is the
backing of a powerful lobby, and the second is using international economic competitiveness as
a justification for federal involvement in education. Anderson mentions these two traits within
the context of the 1917 Smith-Hughes Act, which provided financial support for public school
vocational programs.2
The federal government has never provided more than eight to ten percent of total school
revenue in the United States.3
However, that eight to ten percent affords the federal government
a great deal of influence over the states. A state that accepts federal money must also abide by
federal policy regarding education.4
In this manner, the federal government has been able to use
the relatively small amount of funding it supplies to have a large influence on state level
education.
The 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) involved a large increase in
Federal monetary contributions to elementary and secondary education.5
Of the several
programs contained within ESEA, the most important was Title I: “Financial Assistance to Local
Educational Agencies for the Education of Children from Low Income Families.” This program
provided supplementary funds at the state and local levels towards schools serving poor

1
Lee W. Anderson, Congress and the Classroom: From the Cold War to “No Child Left Behind” (University Park:
The Pennsylvania State University Press), 30.
2
Anderson, 34.
3
Sandra Vergari, “Safeguarding Federalism in Education Policy in Canada and the United States,” Canadian and
US Federalism 40, No. 3 (2010): 538.
4
Ibid., 536.
5
Anderson, 59.

4

students.6
No Child Left Behind was born out of an increasing concern about the lagging
achievement of poor and minority students caused by substandard schools.7
In order to combat
this concerning achievement gap, NCLB began requiring increased testing. It was required that
underperforming schools be fixed by their respective states. Schools that consistently
underperformed were required to undergo serious overhauls, including staff layoffs, lengthening
the school day, or closing the school completely.
According to Black, NCLB was planned to be a system of “cooperative federalism.”
States would be free to develop their own curriculum standards and testing, set pass-fail score
cutoffs, and determine the definition of a “highly qualified” teacher. The federal government
would hold the states accountable to these goals.8
Some early roots of NCLB could be found in the 1989 summit on education in
Charlottesville, Virginia between President George H.W. Bush and the vast majority of state
governors.9
Several goals came out of the summit to be achieved by the year 2000. Three of
these are highly relevant to NCLB and the future of education policy. The first two regard global
competitiveness: U.S. students being first in the world in science and mathematics, and ensuring
that every adult possesses the skill needed to compete in the global economy. According to
Anderson, global economic competitiveness has been a historically accepted reason for federal
involvement in education.10
The third regards testing: “Every student would leave grades 4, 8,
and 12 having demonstrated competency in English, mathematics, science, history, and

6
Ibid., 63.
7
Gregory Korte, “The Every Student Succeeds Act vs. No Child Left Behind: What’s Changed?,” USA Today,
December 11, 2015.
8
Derek W. Black, “Federalizing Education by Waiver?,” Vanderbilt Law Review 68 No. 3. (2015): 672
9
Alyson Klein, “1989 Education Summit Casts Long Shadow,” Education Week 34, No. 5, September 24, 2014.
10
Anderson, 30.

5

geography”.11
One major gulf between the Charlottesville conference and the future NCLB was the first
President Bush’s intention that solutions come from the states, not the federal government. That
he held the summit outside of the White House was meant to be symbolic of his hands-off
approach. However, the federal government ultimately did decide to step in due to a lack of
progress towards the desired results. One of the main problems was that the Charlottesville
summit was that it left out any clear measures with which to assess progress.12
In the future,
these assessment measures would take the form of student testing.
NCLB aimed to succeed where ESEA had failed. The main goal was to implement high-
quality teaching and a closure of achievement gaps through state and local accountability to the
federal government. Overall, NCLB authorized 45 different programs, the most significant of
which focused on testing, accountability, and teacher qualification.13
There are five main policies specified under NCLB. Firstly, states must develop content
and achievement standards for the core areas of reading, math, and science. In relation to these
standards, states must create tests that follow the standards set for the core areas, and administer
them on a regular basis. Thirdly, both schools and individual school districts must make yearly
progress towards one-hundred percent efficiency in all of the main student demographics by
2014. States must hold schools and districts who fail to achieve this progress accountable and
implement both sanctions and methods of improvement. Lastly, all teachers in core subjects
must achieve the status of “highly qualified,” meaning they have been proven fully competent
based on a their course of study in college or by passing a state exam.14

11
Klein, “Federalizing Education by Waiver?”
12
Ibid.
13
Melissa Tooley, “No Child Left Behind is Gone, but Will it be Back?,” The Atlantic, December 24, 2015.

14
Black, 671.

6

Regarding the specifics of NCLB testing, the law required tests in math and English
every year in grades 3-8 and once again in high school. A science test was required in
elementary, middle, and high school.15
The states were required to use the results of these tests
to assess schools’ progress towards student proficiency goals.16
There were some who took issue with the role of testing in NCLB. Many felt that testing
took on too great of a role in schools, and required the compromising of arts electives in order to
make more time to focus on math and English.17
Within Congress, several legislators took issue
with testing. Representative Ted Strickland (D-OH) argued that the purpose of testing should be
to determine the learning difficulties of individual students and figure out how to help them. He
believed that testing should not be used for school accountability or to determine sanctions. The
reason for this, he argued, was that test scores do not reflect solely the quality of education a
student receives from their school and teacher. Students’ scores can also reflect other factors
affecting students, such as socioeconomic status, and parental involvement.18
Well known Texas
Republican Congressman and former presidential candidate Ron Paul expressed concern that
NCLB testing requirements would lead to a national testing system and ultimately a national
curriculum.19
Outside of the ongoing debate about NCLB on Capitol Hill, there were many critiques of
the law from academics and teachers’ unions. The requirement that all demographic groups
within a particular school meet Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) goals put some schools at a
disadvantage. Larger and more diverse schools had more subgroups to worry about, and
therefore have more difficult AYP standards. Cases occurred in which schools were declared to

15
Korte.
16
Tooley.

17
Ibid.

18
Anderson,
169.

19
Anderson, 170.

7

be “failing” due to a single demographic falling short.20
Some academics also felt that the testing and AYP policies of NCLB were not helping
students in a significant way. Testing requirements shifted the focus of education away from
student needs and onto student performance.21
Legislators who supported the testing measures
falsely assumed that test scores also measured actual academic success. Congressional concerns
about the “achievement gap” were not addressing gaps in actual learning.22
Focusing solely on
the achievement gap issue detracts from other factors affecting a student’s learning: poverty,
racial bias, lack of investment in public education, overworked teachers, and the pressures of a
high-stakes accountability system.23
Gutierrez argues that tying teacher evaluations and salaries
to student test scores has led to teachers helping their students cheat.24
It is also important to touch on the social and racial aspects influencing the achievement
gap. Gutierrez brings up the fact that the “achievement-gap perspective” falsely assume that
variations in scores between groups, such as between Whites and African Americans, are greater
than variations within groups. It is also important to note that the individual performances of
members of different demographics overlap, so that some members of different racial categories
perform at the same level.25
Teachers’ unions also took issue with aspects of the law. One of the main organizations
leading the pushback against NCLB was the National Education Association (NEA). While the
NEA accepted the premise of federal involvement in education to ensure equal educational

20
Jill P. Koyama, “Making Failure Matter: Enacting No Child Left Behind’s Standards, Accountabilities, and
Classifications,” Educational Policy 26 No.6 (2012): 873.
21
Ibid.
22
Rochelle Gutierrez, “Improving Education and the Mistaken Focus on ‘Raising Test Scores and ‘Closing the
Achievement Gap,’” The Big Lies of School Reform, ed. Paul C. Gorski and Kristien Zenkov (New York: Routledge,
2014), 18.
23
Ibid., 21.
24
Ibid., 22.
25
Ibid., 19.

8

opportunities for students, they argued that NCLB is, in fact, perpetuating inequality between
students.26
Part of the issue they had with the law was its use of unfunded mandates. While
NCLB categorized schools in which students failed the tests as “needing improvement,” it did
not provide funding for remedial struggling or private tutoring for students struggling with the
tests.27
Schools were subjected to sanctions after two consecutive years of failing to meet AYP
requirements.28
These sanctions grew increasingly harsh after successive years of failure. After
five years, consistently failing schools faced some tough choices, including firing the principle
and staff, conversion to a charter school, or even closing down the school.29
The NCLB
program that authorized such drastic reforms was called the School Improvement Grant (SIG).
Under SIG, many schools were closed, while others were converted to charter schools. Some
have accused SIG of punishing struggling schools instead of supporting them.30
Over the years, many came to resent NCLB and call for its reform. This resentment was
found in different facets of American society, from teachers who were opposed to its strict
testing and accountability requirements and unions that opposed SIG to conservatives who felt
that NCLB was a gross overreach of the federal government. The reform of NCLB was
ultimately to come from the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015.
President Obama signed ESSA, the most recent reauthorization of the 1965 Elementary
and Secondary Education Act, into law on December 10, 2015.31
This bill is both bipartisan and
bicameral, and is a result of a compromise between the House’s Student Success Act and the

26
“Our Positions and Actions, ESEA Reauthorization Goals: More Opportunity and Learning for students,” National Education
Association, accessed February 21, 2016.
27
“Teachers’ Union Threatens Lawsuit Over the No Child Left Behind Act,” National Institute for Early Education Research,
accessed February 21, 2016.
28
Koyama, 873.
29
Korte.
30
Alliance to Reclaim Our Schools, “AROS Policy Brief on the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), Chicago Teachers Union,
December 29, 2015.

31
“Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA),” US Department of Education, accessed February 21, 2016.

9

Senate’s Every Child Achieves Act.32
Senate Sponsorship for ESSA came from Lamar
Alexander (R-Tennessee) and Patty Murray (D-Washington), chairman and ranking member
respectively of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP). John Kline
(R-Minnesota), and Bobby Scott (D-Virginia) sponsored the bill in the House. Both the House
and Senate voted overwhelmingly in favor of the bill (359-64 and 85-12, respectively).33
Lamar Alexander acted as the main sponsor of the bill. Senator Alexander’s experience
in the education field is extensive. Apart from being Chairman of the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions, he is also chair of the Senate education committee, and a former
Secretary of Education. Outside of the federal government, he was Governor of Tennessee and a
former president of the University of Tennessee. When elected Chairman of the Health,
Education, Labor and Pensions committee in January 2015, Senator Alexander stated that
reforming NCLB was one of his top priorities, along with deregulating the Higher Education
Act.34
Senator Alexander described ESSA as the beginning of a time of experimentation in the
education system as power is devolved back to states and communities. He also said the bill is
intended to encourage innovation at the local and state level rather than at the federal level.35
Patty Murray has been a ranking member of the HELP Committee since the 105th
Congress. She is also a member of Senate Democratic leadership and former Chair of the Senate
Veterans’ Affairs Committee and the Senate Budget Committee. Her areas of focus include
education, healthcare, and women’s health and economic security. Education Week has

32
“President Signs Bill to Reform K-12 Education,” The U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions, December 10, 2015.
33
Korte
34
“About the Chairman,” US Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, accessed February 22, 2016.
35
Emmarie Huetteman and Motoko Rich, “House Restores Local Education Control in Revising No Child Left
Behind,” The New York Times, accessed February 24, 2016.

10

described her as a “workhorse and ace negotiator”.36
In the HELP Committee’s press release
regarding the signing of ESSA, Senator Murray took a different approach from Senator
Alexander, emphasizing the measures intended to ensure quality education for American
students, stating that “The Every Student Succeeds Act includes strong federal guardrails to
ensure all students have access to a quality education, reduces reliance on high-stakes testing,
makes strong investments to improve and expand access to preschool for our youngest learners,
and so much more.”37
The most high-profile vote against ESSA in the Senate came from Kentucky Republican
and former presidential candidate Rand Paul. Senator Paul is a staunch advocate of devolving
educational power to the states and local districts, believing that they know how to solve schools’
problems better than the federal government. While some $100 billion is spent on the
Department of Education annually, Paul believes that the funds are not making enough of a
difference. He has even gone so far as to suggest scrapping the Department of Education. One
of the main points emphasized by Paul is allowing “innovation” to occur at the local level, which
includes allowing school charters, school choice, and school vouchers. Paul believes that these
forms of competition would give parents the ability to choose the best schools for their
children.38
Senator Paul’s beliefs regarding education basically oppose Anderson’s previously
discussed “unacceptable” federal role in education. Paul’s position could be compared to the
historical constructionist view that views all federal involvement in education as
unconstitutional. The reasoning for this view is that the Constitution does not specifically

36
“About the Ranking Member,” US Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, accessed February 22,
2016.
37
“President Signs Bill to Reform K-12 Education.”
38
Maureen Sullivan, “Rand Paul on Education: 5 Things the Presidential Candidate Wants You to Know,” Forbes,
April 17, 2015.

11

reference “education” or “schooling,” and therefore according to the tenth amendment, education
is the exclusive domain of the states.39
Indeed, the Heritage Action for America, a subgroup of
the conservative Heritage Foundation, advocated for members of Congress to vote against ESSA,
arguing that it still maintains too much federal control over local schools, and in fact expands
federal control with a new preschool initiative.40
It should be noted that Senator Paul receives a
score of 90% from Heritage Action for America, indicating that he is closely aligned with their
values.41
Both the House’s Student Success Act (SSA) and the Senate’s Every Child Achieves Act
(ECAA) had much in common with the final, bipartisan ESSA in that it emphasizes return of
control to the state and local level. The two chambers seemed to agree on the removal of the
federal test-based accountability system so as to allow states to develop their own modes of
accountability, as well as overhauling the teacher qualification system. They both also
emphasize continued support and resources for at-risk populations, including Native Americans,
English learners, and homeless students.
The House and Senate bills both signify their support for charter schools, as well.
Charter schools are defined as public schools that are independently run and granted greater
flexibility and freedom from certain regulations imposed by school districts in return for being
held accountable for higher performance. Parents choose to apply to have their children
enrolled, and students are selected through random lotteries.42
The SSA promised to reauthorize
the Charter School Program, which supports the expansion of quality charter schools, and also
incorporated some parts of H.R. 10, the Success and Opportunity Through Quality Charter

39
Anderson, 30.
40
Lyndsey Layton, “With Vote Planned on No Child Left Behind Replacement Bill, Revolt Brewing on Right and
Left,” The Washington Post, December 1, 2015.
41
“Scorecard: Sen. Rand Paul,” Heritage Action for America, accessed February 29, 2016.
42
“Frequently Asked Questions About Public, Charter Schools,” Uncommon Schools, accessed February 29, 2016.

12

Schools Act, which would expand the types of charter school related state entities eligible for
funding to allow for growth of new and existing charter schools and set aside federal funding to
support charter school management organizations in opening and expanding more schools.43
The Senate bill promised to do both of these things under H.R. 10, as well as supplying grants to
public and private nonprofits to demonstrate methods of supplying credit to finance the
construction of charter school facilities.44
According to the report of the ESEA Conference that
negotiated the Every Student Succeeds Act, the improvements to the Charter School Program are
ultimately intended to give parents more choice on where to send their child.45
Two aspects of the Student Success Act that were either tossed out or drastically altered
were the funding portability provision and the plan to eliminate certain federal education
programs to promote fiscal discipline. Originally, SSA planned to eliminate 65 programs for
elementary and secondary education that had been deemed ineffective or had never actually been
funded. The idea behind this was to create “a more focused, streamlined, transparent, and
appropriate” federal role in education. The portability clause would have allowed ESEA Title I
money to follow low-income children to the public or charter school that their parents choose for
them, altering previous legislation that allowed districts to choose which schools received Title I
funding.46
As will be explained later in a more in-depth discussion of ESSA’s provisions, a
portability clause such as this would be harmful to struggling schools.
President Obama has said that NCLB’s goals of ensuring that every child has an excellent
teacher and a good education were the right ones, but that schools and teachers were denied the

43
“Summary of H.R. 5 as Reported by the Committee,” House Education and the Workforce Committee, accessed
February 25, 2016.
44
“The Every Child Achieves Act of 2015,” Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
45
“ESEA Conference Report Summary,” House Education and the Workforce Committee, accessed February 25,
2016.
46
“Summary of H.R. 5 as Reported by the Committee.”

13

adequate resources to provide for students. According to the White House’s ESSA Progress
Report, there are several main goals for ESSA. The bill is intended to implement standards for
college and career preparedness, so that American students will be able to compete in the global
economy. The bill also aims to expand access to quality preschool programs so that children can
be more successful in kindergarten. In terms of funding, the goal of ESSA is to ensure resources
and attention are targeted where they are needed, so that there is an equitable distribution of state
and local funds to struggling schools. 47
ESSA is largely an effort to move away from NCLB’s uniform accountability system.48
Under ESSA, most of the control over school and teacher accountability is returned to the
states.49
Individual states and school districts are allowed to decide how their schools will be
rated and what will be done about schools that do not perform to standards.50
The purpose of
this devolution of powers is to make schools answer to their respective state governments as
opposed to taking their directives from Washington, D.C. 51
Regarding this aspect of the bill,
Senator Alexander has stated that accountability is better done “classroom by classroom,
community by community, and state by state-and not through Washington, D.C.”52
While states have much more leeway in terms of accountability, the Department of
Education will still have some role in oversight, and some broad guidelines about what
accountability goals must include will still remain. States must also submit their accountability
performing schools, schools where subgroups fall behind, and schools with high dropout rates.

47
“Every Student Succeeds Act: A Progress Report on Elementary and Secondary Education,” The White House,
48
“Fact Sheet: Congress Acts to Fix No Child Left Behind,” Whitehouse.gov, accessed February 25, 2016.
49
Korte
50
Hutteman and Rich.
51
Ibid.
52
“President Signs Bill to Reform K-12 Education.”

14

plans to the Department of Education.53
In particular, states must continue to address low
States and school districts must also focus on closing achievement and graduation rate gaps
among student subgroups.54
The new bill has a much greater emphasis on college and career readiness. To ensure
that students are ready for the next step post-high school, they will be held to much more
challenging standards than before. This will help to encourage a more globally competitive
workforce.55
With ESSA, testing at the same grade levels as under NCLB is still required. However,
states are allowed more flexibility as to how the testing is done.56
Standardized testing is also no
longer the sole method of determining the quality of schools. Instead, multiple measures of
student progress will be used to assess a school’s standing. The amount of required test
preparation time is also reduced so as to reduce the burden on both students and teachers, and
allow adequate time for regular teaching and learning.57
To do this, ESSA includes support for
schools to audit their current assessment programs and implement more innovative testing
strategies.58
ESSA takes the view that remedies to correct issues must be tailored to the needs of
individual schools. While allowing states and local districts to develop their own systems for
school improvement (as opposed to NCLB’s uniform federal solutions), the bill also emphasizes
the need for reforms to be evidence-based, so as to understand what will work for a particular
school. Specifically, these evidence-based models must be used to support schools that fall

53
Korte
54
“Fact Sheet: Congress Acts to Fix No Child Left Behind.”
55
“Every Student Succeeds Act: A Progress Report on Elementary and Secondary Education.”
56
Korte.
57
58

15

below certain thresholds: the lowest performing five percent of schools and high schools where
one-third or more of students do not graduate on time.59
In this manner, ESSA is much more
specific in terms of which schools require intervention, but leave what those interventions will be
up to the states.60
For remedies to take place, ESSA also ensures that adequate resources will be available
to aid struggling schools. Support will continue to be provided to subgroups deemed particularly
vulnerable, such as disabled students, English learners and Native American students. The bill
also excludes the previously mentioned “portability provisions” in the house SSA bill, which
would have directed funds away from struggling schools and students.61
In terms of financial
support, ESSA authorized the spending of $24.9 billion in 2016, which is expected to grow to
$25.8 billion in 2020. While NCLB authorized a great deal more than that in terms of 2002
dollars ($32 billion), it never actually came close to appropriating that amount, with only $23
billion spent in 2015.62
The impetus for ESSA and its decentralizing effects did not just form overnight. The
need by many in Congress to reform NCLB had been felt for several years. Many took issue
with its overemphasis on testing, heavy-handed intervention strategies, and ineffective teacher
qualification systems that still designated inexperienced teachers as “highly qualified”. NCLB
was reauthorized in 2007, but failed to gain reauthorization in 2012. The main reason behind
this was its mandate that 100% of students achieved proficiency in English and math, which was
deemed to be completely unrealistic.63
The Obama administration has been pushing for Congress to reform NCLB as early as

59
60
Korte.
61
62
Korte.
63
Tooley.

16

2010, when Secretary of Education Arne Duncan presented a blueprint for reforming the bill. In
2011, Obama announced the waiver plan that would be distributed by secretary Duncan. In
2012, Obama gathered with the governors of ten states to announce the first series of these
waivers.64
The White House’s ESSA Progress Report has portrayed the Obama administration as
one that has consistently improved educational outcomes. According to the report, the high
school graduation rate is at its highest ever at 81%. The number of students who don not
complete high school on time has dropped by 25%. Amongst students of color, the high school
dropout rate has drastically decreased, and college enrollment has gone up by one million
students since 2008.65
In terms of partisanship, the time was becoming ripe for a bill that cut back on federal
power over education. Many conservatives were angered over waivers distributed by Secretary
of Education Arne Duncan that exempted states from the math and English proficiency
requirements in return for implementation of more stringent college readiness standards, teacher
evaluation programs, and school accountability programs. These waivers greatly angered many
conservatives, who felt that Duncan had greatly overstepped his bounds. Further contributing to
the drive to devolve power over education to the states was the fact that two key members of the
House and Senate Education Committees who supported a strong role in education chose to
retire, and Republican Speaker John Boehner, who played a leading role in NCLB, was
pressured to step down by Tea Party conservatives for being too open to compromise.66
Teachers’ unions have largely been supportive of ESSA. While normally leaning
towards liberal and Democratic policy, in regards to the question of NCLB, teachers’ unions

64
65
Ibid.
66
Tooley.

17

opted for the more conservative route of supporting state control so as to relieve the pressures of
Federal testing mandates. 67
Limited classroom instruction, an narrower curriculum, and
allegedly unfair teacher evaluations were some of the reasons why teachers, students, and parents
come to advocate for a reform of NCLB.68
American Federation of Teachers (AFT) president Randi Weingarten has praised ESSA
and its elimination of “test-and-punish” tactics. On behalf of AFT, she argues in favor of
preventing the secretary of education from controlling teacher evaluation systems or dictating
how much weight each indicator of school quality carries. Weingarten also supports the bill’s
maintenance of federal funding and expansion of early childhood education.69
In a policy brief on the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) website, CTU affiliated Alliance
to Reclaim Our Schools (AROS) has some praise for the bill similar to that of Weingarten and
AFT. The organization supports the removal of NCLB’s previously mentioned School
Improvement Grant, which mandated states to intervene in low-performing schools in ways that
they argued were counterproductive (closing the school, firing the staff, conversion to a charter
school, or firing the principle combined with other interventions). They support the fact that
ESSA replaces this with provisions that allow states greater flexibility in how they approach
school improvement. AROS also supports the bill requiring the use of an alternative indicator of
school performance to go alongside test scores and graduation rates, such as student engagement,
access to advanced coursework, and school climate and safety.70
AROS further approves of the bill’s support of Promise Neighborhoods and community
schools. Promise Neighborhoods are low-income communities whose schools have received

67
Ibid.
68
Randi Weingarten, “Why We Support the Every Student Succeeds Act,” Medium.com, November 30, 2015

69
Ibid.
70
“AROS Policy Brief on the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).”

18

federal investment from the Obama administration ($270 million since 2010) in order to combat
poverty.71
Community schools partner with resources from their local communities to offer
more personalized curriculum and more rounded education, and are more open to the community
at large.72
According to AROS, the bill offers about $160 million in funding for the 2017-18
school year, when ESSA will have been fully implemented.73
However, the policy brief has criticism for ESSA as well. In particular, AROS takes
issue with the bill’s support of charter schools. They oppose the giving of grants to private
charter school support organizations and state charter boards, which they feel is a misuse of
public money, particularly in regards to the private charter organizations. In fact, AROS
recommended a moratorium on federal funding for charter schools.74
The Chicago Teachers
Union itself opposes the public funding of charter schools, which they argue takes funding away
from regular public schools. The Union also takes issue with the fact that charter schools are
privately operated, have fewer accountability mechanisms, and expel students at much higher
rates than do public schools.75
The AROS brief also argues that ESSA does not do enough to help students of color and
students living in poverty. ESSA did not meet the AROS’ recommendation to take $500 million
to help schools implement restorative justice related programs to combat the “school-to-prison
pipeline.” The final bill also did not meet the recommendation that it set a goal to reach the full
funding originally intended by the ESEA for students living in poverty, an extra 40% of each
state’s average per pupil spending for every impoverished child, which over a course of ten

71
72
“What is a Community School?,” Coalition for Community Schools, accessed February 29, 2016.
73
“AROS Policy Brief on Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).”
74
Ibid.
75
“Stop Charter School Expansion,” Chicago Teachers Union, September 18, 2015.

19

years would reach about $38 billion per year.76
Civil rights groups have also taken issue with the bill. Overall, their concern is that the
reduction in federal oversight could leave Black and Latino students in conservative states to fall
further behind. Furthermore, the bill does not address school discipline procedures that
disproportionately affect young men of color.77
Civil rights advocates believe that a strong
federal role in education is essential to protecting marginalized students. With ESSA, states are
essentially left to police themselves, and are not forced to act upon achievement gaps and
inequalities revealed by data. Therefore, states may fail to truly hold schools accountable, and
the most underprivileged students will be the ones to suffer the consequences.78
In terms of what ESSA could have done differently, I argue alongside Gutierrez and civil
rights activists for policy that is more aware of social and racial inequalities. As Gutierrez has
stated, social factors such as poverty and racial bias can affect student outcomes. Therefore, gaps
in achievement are not always “technical,” but are often of a societal and systemic nature that
must be addressed at a much deeper level.79
A lack of federal oversight can perpetuate these forms of inequality. ESSA leaves states
and districts with fewer incentives to help vulnerable subgroups. For example, if consistent
achievement gaps exist between subgroups exist in a particular school, the district is required to
step in, but if the majority group is doing well and the community is overall content with the
school’s performance, there may be little motivation for the district to make any real, significant
changes, and even less motivation for the state to step in.80
I am in agreement with the civil rights
activists who feel that states being left to hold themselves accountable puts marginalized and

76
77
Alan Singer, “Will Every Student Succeed? Not With This New Law,” Huffington Post, December 6, 2015.
78
Rachel M. Cohen, “New Education Law Sparks Civil Rights Concerns,” The American Prospect, January 8, 2016.
79
Gutierrez, 20.
80
Tooley.

20

disadvantaged students in a vulnerable position. It is particularly concerning how little power
the federal government has to force states to act to fix inequalities between student subgroups.
The federal government must not only continue to provide support to vulnerable subgroups, but
hold states and school districts accountable when subgroups fall behind.
ESSA should also have done more to address disciplinary issues and disproportionate
school disciplinary action against minority groups. Issues such as suspension or expulsion from
school can greatly affect a student’s education and future prospects, and are one of the main
contributors to the school-to-prison pipeline and mass incarceration amongst communities of
color.81
The fact that certain groups are subject to disciplinary procedures more than others is
cause for concern.
Funding for alternatives to expulsion or restorative justice programs in schools as
recommended by AROS would also be a desirable policy to receive federal support. This
funding should be used to foster training, staffing, and support to restorative justice programs in
schools that have high rates of suspension and expulsion.82
Apart from preventing suspensions
and expulsions and working to stop the unjust criminalization of low income communities and
communities of color, restorative justice programs can contribute to the overall climate and make
struggling schools a better place to learn.
ESSA should also have deemphasized charter schools instead of providing them with
further support. Fewer accountability standards and public funding to privately run institutions
make a bad deal for students both inside charter schools, who are left with fewer protections
regarding how they are taught, and outside of charter schools, who receive less funding from tax
money. Charter schools must be adequately monitored so as to ensure students are being treated

81
82
Ibid.

21

fairly both in the classroom and in disciplinary procedures.83
Overall, a future ESEA reauthorization should focus much more on ensuring equal
opportunities for and assistance to students of color, students living in poverty, and other
vulnerable groups. Federal oversight over the achievement and overall well-being of
marginalized students must be improved. Rather than focusing on test scores, which Gutierrez
argues gives a very narrow view of student achievement, federal oversight should focus on gaps
between subgroups in grades, graduation rates, student satisfaction, and rates of suspension and
expulsion.84
While the federal government can still allow flexibility in how states and school
districts address achievement gaps, the federal government must keep tabs on state and local
actions to ensure that they are in fact effective. If the local and state levels ultimately fail to
address inequalities, I would argue that it would be appropriate for the federal government to
step in and implement its own remedies. However, these remedies cannot be as harsh as those in
No Child Left Behind, and must not come at the expense of students and local communities.
Converting public schools into privately run charter schools or opening new charter schools is
not an advisable option as they take tax money that could be used towards improving public
schools and have to deal with fewer accountability standards in terms of how students are taught
and disciplined.85
Solutions to problems with public schools must ultimately contribute to, not
take away from, the schools, their staff, and their students.
Ultimately, the Every Student Succeeds act is a significant shift in education policy
towards a system that is more in line with the historical conservative position on education than
was No Child Left Behind. ESSA is not an ideal bill and does not satisfy everyone, but it is
largely an improvement over NCLB. In a way, the cooperative manner in which ESSA was

83
Ibid.
84
Gutierrez, 18.
85
“Stop Charter School Expansions.”

22

created is encouraging, as it shows a bipartisanship that is not too often found in Congress.
ESSA helps to pave the way for future improvements to the education system and bring attention
to what can be done to make it more just and equitable for all students.

23

Bibliography
“About the Chairman.” US Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Accessed
February 22, 2016.
“About the Ranking Member.” US Committee on Health, Education. Accessed February 22,
2016.
Anderson, Lee W. Congress and the Classroom: From the Cold War to “No Child Left
Behind.” (University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press).
“AROS Policy Brief on Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).” Chicago Teachers Union.
December 29, 2015.
Black, Derek W. “Federalizing Education by Waiver?” Vanderbilt Law Review 68, No. 3
(2015): 607-680.
Cohen, Rachel M. “New Education Law Sparks Civil Rights Concerns.” The American
Prospect. January 8, 2016.
“The Every Child Achieves Act of 2015.” Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions. Accessed February 25, 2016.
“ESSA Conference Report Summary.” House Education and the Workforce Committee.
Accessed February 25, 2016.
“Every Student Suceeds Act: A Progress Report on Elementary and Secondary Education.” The
White House. Accessed February 26, 2016.
“Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).” US Department of Education. Accessed February 21,
2016.
“Fact Sheet: Congress Acts to Fix No Child Left Behind.” Whitehouse.gov. Accessed February
25, 2016.

24

“Frequently Asked Questions About Public, Charter Schools.” Uncommon Schools. Accessed
February 29, 2016.
Gutierrez, Rochelle. “Improving Education and Mistaken Focus on ‘Raising Test Scores’ and
‘Closing the Achievement Gap.’” The Big Lies of School Reform. Ed. Paul C. Gorski
and Kristen Zenkov (New York: Routledge 2014): 17-25.
Huttman, Emmarie and Motoko Rich. “House Restores Local Education Control in Revising No
Child Left Behind.” The New York Times. December 2, 2015.
Klein, Alyson. “1989 Summit Casts Long Shadow.” Education Weekly 34, No. 5. September
24, 2014.
Korte, Gregory. “The Every Student Succeeds Act Vs. No Child Left Behind: What’s
Changed?” USA Today, December 11, 2015.
Koyama, Jill. “Making Failure Matter: Enacting No Child Left Behind Standards,
Accountabilities, and Classifications.” Educational Policy 26, No. 6 (2012): 870-891.
Layton, Lyndsey. “With Vote Planned on No Child Left Behind Replacement Bill, Revolt
Brewing on Right and Left.” The Washington Post. December 1, 2015.
“Our Policy and Actions, ESEA Reauthorization Goals: More Opportunity and Learning for
Students.” National Education Association. Accessed February 21, 2016.
“President Obama Signs Bill to Reform K-12 Education.” US Senate Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions. December 10, 2015.
“Scorecard: Senator Rand Paul.” Heritage Action for America. Accessed February 29, 2016.
Singer, Alan. “Will Every Student Succeed? Not With This New Law.” Huffington Post.
December 6, 2015.
“Stop Charter School Expansion.” Chicago Teachers Union. September 18, 2015.

25

Sullivan, Maureen. “Rand Paul on Education: 5 Things the Presidential Candidate Wants You to
Know.” Forbes. April 7, 2015.
“Summary of HR 5 as Reported by the Committee.” House Education and the Workforce
Committee. Accessed February 25, 2016.
“Teachers Union Threatens Lawsuit Over No Child Left Behind Act.” National Institute for
Early Education Research. Accessed February 21, 2016.
Tooley, Melissa. “No Child Left Behind is Gone, but Will it be Back?” The Atlantic. December
24, 2015.
Vergari, Sandra. “Safeguarding Federalism in Education Policy in Canada and the United
States.” Canadian and US Federalism 40, No. 3 (2010): 534-557.
Weingarten, Randi. “Why We Support ESSA.” Medium. November 30, 2015.
“What is a Community School?” Coalition for Community Schools. Accessed February 29,
2016.

Education Policy- No Child Left Behind and the Every Student Succeeds Act

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Ähnlich wie Education Policy- No Child Left Behind and the Every Student Succeeds Act

Ähnlich wie Education Policy- No Child Left Behind and the Every Student Succeeds Act (20)

Education Policy- No Child Left Behind and the Every Student Succeeds Act