States and school districts already have considerable flexibility. The 1994 reauthorization granted unprecedented flexibility, including options to waive provisions of the law considered unworkable or obstacles to reform. The Commission is aware of no credible evidence suggesting that federal requirements are unduly burdensome or unreasonable, especially when balanced with their purpose of safeguarding important rights and interests.
Existing flexibility requirements have left some children behind. While the jury is still out on the efficacy of the Ed Flex program, a recent review by the Citizens’ Commission raises serious concerns, including the following:
o
Texas, an early Ed Flex state, provides a blanket
waiver, allowing any Title I school to operate a schoolwide program. Current law allows only those schools whose
enrollment is more than 50 percent poor to do so. Others are required to submit waiver requests to the Department,
which are evaluated on a case-by-case basis to ensure there is no dilution of
services to the students at greatest academic risk. While the Citizens’ Commission favors schoolwide approaches
because strengthening the school generally means greater opportunity for
students, allowing low-poverty Title I schools to use funds on a schoolwide
basis can deny services to poor children.
[11]
o
Delaware was recently granted Ed Flex approval
despite weak or vague plans for adequate yearly progress, corrective action and
inclusion of LEP students.
o
Pennsylvania was also approved despite a
poor track record on inclusion of LEP students and a finding by the Department
of only “minimal” provisions for technical assistance and corrective action to
help low-performing schools.
o Finally, the Department approved Kansas for Ed Flex despite a number of troubling defects in the state’s plan including: failure to ensure the quality and rigor of locally-adopted assessments, insufficient evidence of full inclusion or LEP and disabled students, and a definition of AYP that codifies low expectations and fails to assure that all students meet proficiency standards.
Block grant proposals could permit states to override requirements to serve particular populations of students in need, such as poor and migrant students, immigrants, homeless children, and neglected and delinquent youth. Such students targeted by particular ESEA programs, are often among the most vulnerable in our communities, and their parents have the least clout in local or state decision-making about education dollars. The protection of federal law is needed to ensure they are included in school improvement programs and that they receive the assistance they need to be successful in school.
Previous block grant proposals, such as “Straight A’s” in the last Congress, would have allowed states to disregard requirements to target resources to high-poverty areas or to students with the greatest needs. Instead, states could have allocated federal funds in any manner permitted by state law.
The document does not indicate whether and to what extent states and districts will be permitted to disregard important civil rights, fiscal requirements (including maintenance of effort and “supplement not supplant”) and other safeguards. These requirements and safeguards have long been important to ensuring that the neediest children benefit from the aid. In contrast, under both the current federal waiver authority and the Ed Flex program, recipients may not waive these bottom-line requirements.
Finally, block grants tend to undermine
accountability goals. Last year’s “Straight A’s” proposal would
have allowed states to defer accountability for five years. Since accountability measures are just now
taking effect after a six-year process, it would be a denial of opportunity to
children to postpone them further.
[11] See Title
I in Midstream, Chapter VII.