On Friday, the Chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee John Kline (R-MN) released his final two ESEA bills on accountability and teacher quality. As you recall, the House  committee has already approved three ESEA bills this session: to eliminate nearly half of all federal education programs (HR 1891); to allow states and districts to transfer funds between various titles of ESEA (HR 2445); and to create new charter schools and expand high-quality ones. The bill on charter schools is the only bill with bipartisan support in the committee and the only one to gain passage by the full House. What follows is NASSP’s summary and initial analysis of these remaining two ESEA bills released as they impact school leaders. Be sure to check NASSP’s February edition of NewsLeader for a more thorough summary and analysis of the bills.

The Student Success Act

This bill addresses the accountability components of Chairman Kline’s piecemeal approach to ESEA reauthorization. This bill eliminates Adequate Yearly Progress and instead requires states to develop a system that measures the academic achievement of all students against the state’s academic standards, including growth toward the standards and other measures of academic achievement as identified by the state. State as well as district plans must be developed with the input of education stakeholders including school leaders (the bill uses the term “school leaders” instead of “principals” assumedly to capture all relevant staff in school leadership positions).

States must annually evaluate the performance of their public schools based on student academic achievement, overall performance of each category of students, and achievement gaps between categories of students. One “win” for NASSP is that the current School Improvement Grant models (including those requiring the replacement of the principal) are repealed and states instead can develop their own school improvement plans. States must establish reading, math, and English language proficiency standards with the option to develop standards in other subjects, and must develop corresponding achievement standards for evaluating students and school performance. The bill maintains annual testing for reading and math (with science and other subjects optional) in grades 3-8 and once in grades 9-12, and requires reporting of results by the same student subgroups listed in No Child Left Behind.

What sours this bill significantly is the inclusion of language from a bill that NASSP strongly opposes (HR 2445) that gives states and districts 100% flexibility to use federal education dollars at their discretion instead of directing money toward specific purposes and student populations, including low-income students.

The Encouraging Innovation and Effective Teachers Act

This bill addresses the teacher effectiveness provisions of Chairman Kline’s approach to ESEA reauthorization and provides funding for Title II programs. (The bill leaves noticeably absent any reference to principal/school leader evaluations). The bill makes optional a statewide teacher evaluation system but requires a district-level evaluation system. Districts must develop teacher-evaluation systems that:

• use student achievement data as a “significant factor” (i.e. presumably over 50%) accompanied by other multiple measures in determining a teacher’s evaluation;
• have more than two categories for rating teacher performance;
• be used to make personnel decisions;
• and are based on input from parents, school leaders, teachers, and other school staff.

State funds authorized in this bill offer opportunities for school leaders through:

• training in using the developed teacher evaluation system;
• sharing of evidence-based effective practices related to teacher and school leader effectiveness and professional development; and
• providing professional development for teachers and school leaders.

The bill consolidates funding for formula grants directed toward teacher quality programs in order for states to implement one or more of many programs, including

• reforming teacher and school leader certification, recertification, licensing, and tenure systems;
• carrying out programs that establish, expand, or improve alternative routes for state certification or licensure of teachers and school leaders;
• developing, or assisting eligible entities in developing-performance-based pay systems for teachers and school leaders; developing, or assisting eligible entities in developing, new teacher and school leader induction and mentoring programs;
• providing PD for teachers and school leaders that is focused on improving teaching and student learning and achievement in the core subjects;
• and other activities identified states that meet the purposes of this grant.

The bill also establishes a local three-to-five-year competitive grant program to develop, implement, and evaluate programs or activities including initiatives to assist in recruiting, hiring, and retaining highly effective teachers and school leaders; and new teacher and school leader induction, mentoring, and residency programs, among others.

Folded into the language of this bill, unfortunately, is another previously-approved committee bill that NASSP strongly opposes: HR 1891 . Known as the “Kill Bill,” this bill approved by the committee eliminates about half of all programs in the Department of Education, stripping away those programs such as mental health and counseling services that ensure a well-rounded education.

NASSP Analysis

Though both bills call for some provisions in alignment with NASSP advocacy agenda including the elimination of the school turnaround models; comprehensive residency, induction, mentoring, and professional development programs for school leaders; and the consideration of student growth and multiple measures in teacher evaluations; we have numerous initial concerns about many other provisions. Also seemingly absent from the bills are any specific mention of middle and high schools or of a federal literacy program such as the Striving Readers Comprehensive Literacy program that NASSP feels is invaluable in preparing students for college- and career-readiness.

Further, the inclusion in these bills of two bills we continue to oppose (HR 2445 and HR 1891) makes it difficult for us to conceptualize a means to support these bills unless language from these prior bills is removed.

NASSP will keep you updated on the status of these and other ESEA bills in the House and Senate as negotiations continue.