Feb 12, 2015 - (Ranking Member Robert (Bobby) Scott (D-VA) hosted a forum on ESEA on .... Representative Carlos Curbelo
COMMITTEE MARKUP BRIEF
ESEA REAUTHORIZATION HOUSE EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE COMMITTEE MARK UP OF HR 5, THE STUDENT SUCCESS ACT Prepared by: Laura Kaloi (
[email protected]) Joshua Westfall (
[email protected]) Della Cronin (
[email protected]) February 12, 2015 On Wednesday, February 11, the House Education and the Workforce Committee hosted a very well-attended, ten-hour markup to debate and amend legislation to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The bill was last reauthorized in 2002, and Congress has been trying to reauthorize current statute since 2007. The debated bill is a revised version of the Student Success Act (HR 5), which was passed by the House in June 2013. Committee Chairman John Kline (R-MN) reintroduced an updated version of the bill on February 4. The chairman decided to bring HR 5 directly to markup, bypassing conducting hearings in the 114th Congress. (Ranking Member Robert (Bobby) Scott (D-VA) hosted a forum on ESEA on February 5 to give Committee Democrats a chance to hear from expert panelists and discuss key aspects of ESEA.) The lack of hearings and a deliberate process for consideration of the bill was the basis for much of the partisan dialogue at the mark-up. After the consideration of 26 amendments, 7 of which passed and 19 of which failed, mostly along party lines, the Committee passed the bill by a vote of 21-16. Chairman Kline plans to move the bill the floor the last week of February. THE STUDENT SUCCESS ACT Bill Summary: HR 5 is very similar to the bill passed by the House in 2013. It continues to require states to set standards, conduct annual, statewide assessments per No Child Left Behind (NCLB), disaggregate data and report it by subgroup and test 95 percent of all students. The bill eliminates most of the accountability requirements attached to these assessments, including requirements found in the ESEA waivers, such as a requirement to set performance targets and graduation goals and relieves districts and states of the requirement to provide interventions to groups of students not making gains. The bill also makes Title I dollars portable within the public school system, allows flexibility in the use of funds in Titles I and II and block grants the professional development programs to the states. In a surprise to many, the version of the bill presented for markup also includes a change to the Title I funding formula that was not in the bill introduced last week. The change increases the weight given to the percentage of low-income students in a school district, which is part of how Title I aid is distributed. Chairman Kline says of the bill, HR 5 “returns the responsibility for student achievement to states, school districts, and parents, while maintaining high expectations.”
OPENING STATEMENTS & DISCUSSION Chairman Kline opened the hearing by giving an overview of his reauthorization proposal, noting, “The nation’s ESEA is fundamentally broken and every child deserves an excellent education and it is time to pursue a different course.” He further stated that HR 5 is “a common sense approach to making ESEA more efficient and effective, it provides a local ‘academic flexible grant’ to help achieve local priorities.” He touted the bill’s emphasis on local control and state flexibility. In explaining how the bill would address effective teaching, Chairman Kline said, it would “prevent the Secretary from ‘coercing’ states into standards and assessments and that it spreads the promise of school choice” He concluded by saying, “It has been 13 years since [NCLB] was signed into law and seven years since that law expired. Our process is open, transparent and fair.” In his opening remarks, Ranking Member Scott spoke of the “historic importance of ESEA’s 50 year history” and of the federal government filling the gap that exists for certain communities and populations across the country. He challenged the block granting of Title I funds and said that “many underserved populations need these funds and programs to support their educational opportunity.” He further stated that “we need a law that is reflective of the need and that Democratic amendments will ‘reinforce the bedrock equity protections’ that ESEA intended to offer.” Mr. Scott spoke to the tremendous opportunity to bring our educational system into the 21 st century and reinforced that Republicans have “dismissed every plea we’ve made to work on a joint bill,” adding, “Instead of building on what we’ve learned, today’s markup is being held approximately two legislative days after introduction.” He asked colleagues to reject the bill. AMENDMENTS Manager’s Amendment Chairman Kline waived the right to read the bill and Ranking Member Scott asked if members on the Republican side could speak to whether they had actually read the bill. Chairman Kline responded that Mr. Scott could ask a question, but no answer would be required from members. To start the amendment process, Chairman Kline offered a substitute amendment to the original proposal. Representative Todd Rokita (R-IN), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education, then gave a high-level overview of the measure. He stated that the substitute amendment to HR 5 is “not a new product” and was passed out of the House in 2013. He added that HR 5 is necessary because “the Secretary has coerced states to adopt the Common Core and this act prohibits such.” The substitute also includes additional provisions to require State education leaders to consult with Indian tribes and with the elimination of the definition of “core academic subjects”, clarifies that federal funds can support all academic subjects. He concluded that the bill will also help ensure that more schools and students benefit from a wide dissemination of relevant education research. Following the proposal of the Republican substitute, a number of Committee members made statements offering support or opposition and citing their particular concerns. Ranking Member Bobby Scott (D-VA): opposed the substitute and said that the bill represents a “disinvestment in our children’s education”; Scott cited the Title I portability provision as an example. He said that “HR 5 takes money away from poor schools and districts and turns ESEA into a ‘glorified’ slush fund.” Representative Joe Wilson (R-SC): supported the manager’s amendment because it includes provisions “preventing the federal government from inserting itself into state standards and assessments.” He added, “South Carolina adopted the Common Core under pressure and has taken steps to move away from it to develop a new set of standards.” Representative Reuben Hinojosa (D-TX): opposed the substitute due to its lack of acknowledgement of students with limited English proficiency as well as economically challenged students and their families, saying, “It does not truly support college and career ready standards for all students especially because it repeals Title III.” 2/8
Representative G.T. Thompson (R-PA): supported the substitute because of a particular concern with the current funding formula of Title I and the steps HR 5 takes to address these issues. Representative Susan Davis (D-CA): opposed the package because it is basically the same bill that failed to secure one Democratic vote [in 2013]. Davis stated, “ESEA is one of the most important pieces of legislation ever passed by Congress and we’re pushing it through without holding a single hearing.” She called this a “missed opportunity” and shared her experience on the Armed Services Committee where Generals “speak frequently to the need to have a better educated generation to provide the protection the U.S. needs.” Representative Lou Barletta (R-PA): first shared a concern with HR 5 due its proposal to fold the 21st Century Community Learning Centers into the bill’s flexible grant. He shared that it is the “only afterschool program that supports student achievement by student engagement” and spoke of his experience as a former mayor who saw such programs reduce gang activity. He ended by saying that he supports HR5, but “hopes the committee will consider after school programs as necessary to ESEA.” Representative Raul Grijalva (D-AZ): opposed HR 5 because of the important civil rights that ESEA protects. He said, “The current bill does not support children living in poverty, children of color, children with disabilities and non-Native speakers and that Title I and Title III are essential in helping integrate our country and give our children what they need to be successful.” Representative Carlos Curbelo (R-FL): supports HR 5 and said, “It makes sense for students, teachers and education leaders across our country and that the ESEA waivers are not solutions because they have allowed the Administration to expand and weigh in where they shouldn’t.” He noted his own experience as a school board member in Miami-Dade and stated his support for school choice. Representative Alma Adams (D-NC) opposes the bill because HR 5 “turns a blind eye to equitable spending and it will set us back decades.” Further, he said that competitiveness on an international scale is not supported by this bill and that because of the contents of the bill and its hearing-free “unorthodox process,” the Republicans missed an important opportunity. She said the bill deserves an “F”. Representative Steve Russell (R-OK): supports HR 5 because “We live in a ‘constitutional republic’ where states are able to govern, innovate and educate and federal aid and assistance are not an open door policy to take over education.” Representative Joe Courtney (D-CT): opposed HR 5 because “the process has been ‘truncated’ and no local school board would move a process like this. The country deserves better.” He went on to say that the growth expected in public education “is not reflected in this bill nor is the funding reflective of the growth we’re going to see in the U.S. in public education.” Representative Marcia Fudge (D-OH): opposed HR 5 and cited the historical and important premise of the law. She said that HR 5 “undermines this fundamental intent and ignores the needs of our most vulnerable students. She went on to say, “I resent the fact (as a person of color) that the bill does not support the children in which it is intended to support. The block granting of funds will not ensure that all children have the support they need.” Representative Bradley Byrne (R-AL): supported HR 5 because “ESEA has failed the children of Alabama.” He shared data reflecting that the 10% of public education funds provided by the federal government accounts for over 40% of the paperwork required. He said, “School leaders in Alabama – both Republicans and Democrats – have come to me and asked me support HR 5.”
3/8
Representative Jared Polis (D-CO): opposed the proposal because it “sweeps children under the rug” [such as Andrew, a child with Down Syndrome]. He mentioned the need for a cap on the use of the alternate assessment on alternate standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities and said that a reauthorized ESEA should have three things: 1) improving accountability and transparency, 2) expanding access/scaling what works; and, 3) changing what isn’t working. He said HR 5 isn’t reflective of these priorities and is a “step back for our nation.” Representative Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan (D-MP): opposed HR 5 because the formulas in the bill shortchange the students in the Northern Marianas and other islands and territories. Representative Rick Allen (R-GA): supported the substitute and “doesn’t believe the federal government has helped our educational system.” Representative Frederica Wilson (D-FL): opposed HR 5 and spoke as a former teacher, principal and school board member with firsthand experience with ESEA. She acknowledged that it needs improvement, but said, “Without hearings, this bill is a slap in the face.” She argued that the funding provisions alone put students “at risk” and the bill abandons school districts most in need. She also said educators should “move away” from standardized assessment. Representative Dave Brat (R-VA): supported HR 5 and would like even a smaller investment and role to be played by the federal government, saying, “Socrates taught Aristotle on a rock and huge federal investments are not needed to educate students.” Representative Susan Bonamici (D-WA): opposed HR 5 saying, “Today is not a very good ‘civics lesson’ and [conducting] hearings would have given us the opportunity to create a bipartisan solution.” Within ESEA, she wants to change the “high stakes punishments” but maintain certain safeguards of the [federal] investment. Representative Mark Pocan (D-WI): opposed HR 5 and argued that there has been “no deliberation and no serious review.” He calculated that 37% of the committee hasn’t had any experience with HR 5 and specifically mentioned the bill’s “dismantling of the funding streams and the making Title I portable.” Other issues he noted: no focus on teacher preparation, elimination of maintenance of effort and no consequences when locals reduce their own investments. Representative Glenn Grothman (R-WI): supported HR 5 and said he’s been in Congress just one month and employers are coming to him and saying that current graduates “aren’t ready to work and sadly, to fix that, it is out of the purview of this committee because the problems kids have in school are largely related to broken homes.” He shared that they “get rid of bad teachers in Wisconsin and have stood up to the unions.” He concluded by said, “Ted Kennedy and George W. Bush approach of more paperwork is not the solution.” Representative Mark Takano (D-CA): opposed HR 5 and with regret said, “I would have liked to have worked on accountability and assessments because I have concerns that the other party could have benefited from hearing.” He further stated that he wants to “get the right accountability system, not ‘no’ accountability system.” Representative Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY): opposed HR 5 and pointed out that “not one single question has been asked or answered in the committee process.” He argued that as a new member of the committee, he was denied the opportunity and said HR 5 fails to adequately provide for teacher excellence in the classroom and fails to adequately support at-risk students. He concluded by saying, “Instead of racing to the top, we have raced to markup.” Representative Katherine Clark (D-MA): opposed HR 5 and said, “All children deserve a fair shot regardless of their zip code or their parent’s bank account,” and that the ESEA is supposed to embody that promise. She said the Committee is supposed to be the guardians of that promise, “not the architects of its demise.” 4/8
Representative Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA): opposes HR 5 due to its “complete lack of support for the children in which ESEA is intended to support”; he went on to say that he is ‘saddened’ by the partisanship of the committee. Additional Amendments After this first round of statements on the HR 5/substitute amendment, Chairman Kline said that roll call votes on this and all amendments would be postponed until the end of the proceedings. (Ultimately, the substitute amendment was approved after the consideration of other proposals.) Representative Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX) offered an amendment to reinstate Title III with increased authorization levels. Data was provided on the status of English language learners (ELLs) nationwide and in his state/district in Texas. The partisan discussion focused on the whether HR 5 appropriately supports ELLs. The amendment failed by a party line vote of 16 to 21. Representative Steve Russell (R-OK) offered an amendment—that no Democrats had seen prior to the markup—to protect student data privacy. Most Democrats opposed the amendment because they had not seen it before the markup; they further discussed concerns regarding policy interactions with the established protections of FERPA (the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act). The amendment was passed by a voice vote. Representative Susan Davis (D-CA) offered an amendment related to Title II to support teacher evaluation systems, implement teacher assessments as well as teacher preparation programs. Representatives Bradley Byrne (R-AL) and Luke Messer (R-IN) strongly opposed the amendment on the basis of federal overreach; Democrats supported the need for quality teachers as a means to improving educational outcomes. The amendment failed by a party line vote of 16 to 21. Representative Joe Heck (R-NV) offered an amendment to require state and local education agencies to report achievement data for military dependent students as part of the disaggregated data collected in Title I. The amendment passed with bipartisan support. Representative Joe Courtney (D-CT) offered an amendment to fund Pre K–12 STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) initiatives. He mentioned that competitive grants for STEM could be used for professional development, afterschool programs, developing assessments and other allowable uses as a way to increase underrepresented populations in STEM fields. Chairman Kline opposed the amendment, saying over 200 STEM education programs are already funded by the federal government, and asserting that HR 5 allows states to use funding for STEM programs. The amendment failed by a party line vote of 16 to 21. Representative Luke Messer (R-IN) offered an amendment to make Title I funds portable to private schools (the underlying bill supports portability in the public school system). The amendment provoked a heated discussion between Democrats and Republicans. Democratic opponents detest private school portability [vouchers] as an unproven experiment that negatively affects low-income students and students with disabilities, increasing the education equality gap. Republicans defended vouchers as a mechanism that supports a competitive marketplace and argued that private school portability is “real” education reform. Representative Messer withdrew his amendment. Representative Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) offered an amendment to increase the amount of qualified teachers and improve their working conditions along with requiring state and local education agencies to equitably distribute qualified teachers across school districts. The debate was similar to the debate during Representative Davis’ amendment with the same outcome, a failed amendment by a party line vote of 16 to 21.
5/8
Representative Dave Brat (R-VA) offered an amendment that would require the Institute of Education Sciences to contract with an economist and submit a report on the reduced role of the federal government and the accumulated savings from the passage of HR 5. The amendment was passed by a party line vote of 21 to 16. Representative Marcia Fudge (D-OH) offered an amendment on the fiscal provisions of Title I—to increase funding levels, eliminate portability of Title I funds to public schools, and include the maintenance of effort for states to receive federal funding. The ensuing debate centered on public school portability of Title I funds; Republicans supported portability as a way of giving every student the chance to receive a good education. Conversely, Democrats supported Fudge’s amendment to eliminate portability due to the loss of Title I funding for schools with larger concentrations of poverty and due to the increase in funding that average schools would receive that only have a few students under the poverty level, which also leads to inconsistencies in school budgets. The amendment failed by a party line vote of 16 to 21. Representative Carlos Curbelo (R-FL) offered an amendment to increase the number of years that schools could exempt ELLs from proficiency calculations to two years for mathematics and three years for reading or language arts. The amendment passed by a vote of 22 to 15. Representative Jared Polis (D-CO): Offered an amendment to ensure that states set college and career ready standards, to require growth to track longitudinal progress of students and to assure greater accountability for student growth and outcomes and assuring that schools can better ascertain what’s working and what’s not for student learning. The goal of the amendment is to improve accountability, “not gut it,” he said. Chairman Kline spoke to HR 5’s requirements to disaggregate data to see how schools are doing. The amendment was rejected on a voice vote. Representative Tim Walberg (R-WA): offered and withdrew an amendment focused on reducing federal regulations and obstacles for state approved occupational licenses to help increase employment prospects for 1824 year olds. Representative Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan (D-MP): offered an amendment focused on codifying i3 innovation grant funds as part of ESEA. Inserting a letter into the record, he showed that 117 organizations support its permanency. The amendment also makes clear that the Northern Marianas Islands/territories can compete for the grants. Chairman Kline weighed in and said that innovation is encouraged, but telling locals how to innovate with federal dollars isn’t. The amendment was rejected by a voice vote. Representative Glenn Grotham (R-WI): offered and withdrew an amendment to give fully flexible grants to states so they may combine ESEA programs and allow school districts to have access to such funds with no strings or evaluation by the federal government of the use of such funds. Representative Frederica Wilson (D-FL): offered an amendment to include a dropout prevention program to Title I. She spoke as a founder of a mentor program in Florida and the success of programs that intervene in and help students make better choices and achieve their potential. The amendment would provide technical assistance to help LEAs carry out drop-out prevention and reentry programs. Ranking Member Scott strongly supported the proposal and its goals. Chairman Kline stated that HR 5 purposefully streamlines these programs and provides a flexible grant so schools can put the resources where they need them. The amendment failed by a vote of 15 to 22. Representative Susan Bonamici (D-WA): proposed and ultimately withdrew an amendment to include the Support for Aligned Assessments and Reduction (SMART) Act in Title I to address overuse and abuse of tests. The goal of the program is to help locals design their own plan to use assessments and audit that use. Chairman Kline said it was a good idea, but couldn’t support a new costly program.
6/8
Representative Mark Pocan (D-WA): offered an amendment focused on providing funds to states so that the reading and writing needs of children can be addressed with investments in high-quality literacy programs with a goal of enhancing the state’s role in improving instruction while targeting students most in need of good reading and writing programs. He called out Reach Out and Read as an example of a program reaching over 4 million children. Ranking Member Scott agreed that reading by third grade is crucial to the success of any student. Chairman Kline stated that under HR 5 states could choose to invest in such ways. The amendment was rejected on a voice vote. Representative Mark Takano (D-CA): offered an amendment to further strengthen charter authorizing standards in Title I based on his experiences with charter schools in California school districts. Representative Polis boldly stated that any further controls on charters should also be placed on public schools. Ranking Member Scott also weighed in and said he didn’t care for charter schools and wanted support for public education. When a voice vote was taken, Mr. Polis voted with the Republicans. The amendment failed by a 16-21 partisan vote. Representative Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY): offered an amendment to support college and career-ready standards for all students and include requirements for universal design for learning and full accessibility for students with disabilities, including a cap on the use of alternate standards and alternate assessments for students with disabilities. The amendment would replace the standards and assessment sections in HR 5 with a focus on using standards to prevent the need for remediation of students when they enter college. There was discussion that veterans leaving the military are often not qualified to access their GI benefits due to lack of preparation to enter college. The amendment was rejected on a voice vote. Representative Katherine Clark (D-MA): offered an amendment to include funds and access to Pre-K programming as a new Title in ESEA. The title would expand access to high quality pre-k programming to invest early in the learning of young children. The Chairman stated that it created another new program and that HR 5 allows states to use their funds in these ways if desired. The amendment failed by a partisan vote of 16 to 21. Representative Alma Adams (D-NC): offered an amendment to ensure access to a well-rounded education, citing criticism of NCLB’s emphasis on teaching to the test. The amendment would create a grant program for states to offer programs and curricula that keep students engaged and develop well-rounded, critical thinkers. The amendment was rejected by a voice vote. Representative Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA): offered an amendment to create wraparound services for students. The proposal focused on providing mental health supports and services for students with severe emotional disabilities and other students at-risk for disciplinary actions in schools. Ranking Member Scott added that the amendment supports the use of schools as community learning centers so that students have a safe place to do homework, participate in activities and seek services to get and keep them “on the right track.” Chairman Kline said the plan was another example of putting Washington in charge. The amendment failed by a party line vote of 16 to 21. Representative Jared Polis (D-CO): offered an amendment that provided some of the day’s highest controversy. The amendment offered intends to protect students that are lesbian, gay, bi-sexual or transgender from harassment and bullying. Representative Foxx (R-NC) made a parliamentary point (that was sustained) about the proposal’s germaneness. Representative Polis appealed the finding and said that the bill on which the amendment is based was only referred to the jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and the Workforce and shared procedural findings and House rules supporting his claim. The Chair found the amendment out of order and Representative Polis called for a recorded vote on his appeal. The vote on the motion to table the appeal: Yeas: 21, Nays: 15
7/8
Representative Marcia Fudge (D-OH): offered an amendment providing mandatory funding for Title I, IDEA and preschool. Chairman Kline agreed that the federal government has not stepped up to fulfill the IDEA funding obligations, but challenged the creation of a new entitlement. The amendment failed by a 16-21 partisan vote. Ranking Member Scott (D-VA): offered a substitute amendment to HR 5 to fix the “fundamental flaws” of the Republican bill. The package would have completely rewritten the bill and was largely based on the package Representative George Miller proposed in the 113th Congress. With passion, Mr. Scott spoke to the distinct differences between the Republican and Democratic bills, saying that the Democratic substitute expects and requires performance targets, graduation goals, evidence-based intervention designed by states and uses equity indicators to ensure and create more equitable access to a quality education for all children. It provides teachers with more resources and restores funding for ELLs and places a cap on the use of alternate assessments for students with the most cognitive disabilities. It recognizes the federal role in providing crucial supports such as afterschool, STEM education supports and safe and healthy schools. It focuses on improved outcomes for all students and ensures all funding is targeted to the students in schools that most need it. The discussion and statements in support of the bill all came from the Democratic side. The amendment was rejected by a party line vote of 16 to 21. After a long day of amendments and votes, the Democratic substitute amendment failed by a party line vote of 16 to 21. Chairman Kline’s manager’s amendment, as further amended through the proceedings, was passed by a vote of 21 to 16. The bill will be reported out favorably to the House by the Committee. ADJOURNMENT After the consideration of 26 amendments, 7 of which passed and 19 of which failed, mostly along party lines, the Committee passed the bill by a vote of 21-16. In a press release, Chairman Kline said, "The Student Success Act helps provide American families the education system they deserve, not the one Washington wants. I want to thank all my colleagues for engaging in a robust debate and offering their ideas to improve education. We have a lot of work ahead, and we will continue to move forward in a manner that is open, transparent, and fair. America’s parents, teachers, and students have waited long enough for a new law that helps every child in every school receive an excellent education. This important bill will move us closer toward that goal, and I look forward to continuing the debate in the weeks ahead.” Ranking Member Scott said in his press release, “The Republican bill does a disservice to the fifty-year history of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and, more importantly, a disservice to our country’s students. Instead of proceeding in a deliberative manner to fix No Child Left Behind, this bill shortchanges our schools and students. Unfortunately, our Republican colleagues have dismissed every plea for bipartisan cooperation, and passed a bill that would take American public education back decades.” Chairman Kline and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) plan to move the bill to the floor the last week of February. For information on the markup, including the legislative language of the bill and the proposed amendments, opening statements and an archived webcast of the proceedings, visit http://edworkforce.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=398329.
8/8
