Side-by-Side Comparison of Leading Elementary and Secondary Education

Document Sample
Side-by-Side Comparison of Leading Elementary and Secondary Education Powered By Docstoc
					   Side-by-Side Comparison of Leading Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Reauthorization Proposals

• President George W. Bush, Representative                • Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) and the House               • Representative George Miller (D-CA) and
John Boehner (R-OH) and other House                       and Senate New Democrats- “The Public                      other progressive House Democrats-
Republicans- “No Child Left Behind” (H.R.1)               Education Reinvestment, Reinvention and                    “Excellence and Accountability in Education
                                                          Responsibility Act” (The Three R’s: S.303 and              Act” (H.R.340)
                                                          H.R.345)


*** Note: Senators Jim Jeffords (R-VT) and Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) along with other members of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and
Pensions, passed a bill without addressing any of the controversial ESEA issues and sent it to the Senate floor for debate (S.1); this legislation it is not discussed
here.
Federal Funding
THE BUSH PLAN: Provides $4.5 billion increase                THE LIEBERMAN PLAN: $35 billion                      THE MILLER PLAN: $110 billion increase for
in funding for fiscal year 2002, with almost half            increase for ESEA programs over 5 years.             ESEA programs over 5 years.
going to higher education. No announcement of
                                                             http://www.ndol.org/documents/bushsideb              http://edworkforce.house.gov/democrats/eaeatable.
total ESEA program funding over 5 years.
                                                             yside.pdf                                            html
Campaigned on a $25 billion increase over 5 years
for all education spending (including tax credits
and spending for elementary, secondary and higher
education programs).
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/Budget02/Summar
y/chapt1.html#sub1
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/articles/A34286-2001Apr18.html
Program Consolidation
THE BUSH PLAN: 8 titles are consolidated                  THE LIEBERMAN PLAN: 8 titles are                           THE MILLER PLAN: 10 titles are
from the existing 14 titles. Current categorical          consolidated from the existing 14 titles. Of the 8         consolidated from the existing 14 titles.
grants programs are consolidated into a grant             titles, 5 titles consolidate current programs into
                                                                                                                     http://edworkforce.house.gov/democrats/eaeatab
program sending funds to states and local school          performance-based grants where funds are
                                                                                                                     le.html
districts.                                                distributed on a targeted formula to the district
                                                          level and are tied to performance.
http://edworkforce.house.gov/issues/107th/educa
tion/nclb/hr1text/title0_.pdf                             http://www.ndol.org/documents/bushsidebyside.
                                                          pdf
Title I
THE BUSH PLAN: Provides $9 billion in                  THE LIEBERMAN PLAN: Increases funding                 THE MILLER PLAN: Doubles funding to
funding for fiscal year 2002 and “such sums as         by 50% to $13 billion annually. Improves              $17.2 billion by 2006. Increases targeting of
may be necessary for each of the 4 succeeding          targeting of funds to disadvantaged areas.            resources to disadvantaged areas. Provides
fiscal years.” No changes in targeting of funds to     Reauthorizes the changes made to the Title I          assistance to districts to help low-achieving
disadvantaged areas. Schools that have made the        formulas in 1994 and calls for all new federal        students achieve high standards.
greatest progress in improving the achievement         dollars to be distributed through the more
                                                                                                             http://edworkforce.house.gov/democrats/eaeasu
of disadvantaged students are rewarded bonuses.        concentrated targeted formula. Requires states to
                                                                                                             mmary.html
More schools are able to operate Title I school-       set aside 2.5% of Title I funds to assist low-
wide programs and combine federal funds to             performing schools that must develop an
improve the quality of the entire school.              improvement plan and take measures to improve
Establishes an Educational Opportunity Fund to         performance.
demonstrate and research the effectiveness of
                                                       http://www.ndol.org/documents/bushsidebyside.
school choice programs in improving the
                                                       pdf
academic performance of disadvantaged
students.                                              http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?cp=1&kaid=1
                                                       03&subid=242&contentid=2916
http://www.ed.gov/inits/nclb/index.html
http://edworkforce.house.gov/issues/107th/educa
tion/nclb/hr1sum.htm
Accountability/Standards
THE BUSH PLAN: States and local districts              THE LIEBERMAN PLAN: Holds states and
must show adequate yearly progress towards state       locals accountable for improving overall
set performance standards. Links federal funds to      performance and closing the achievement gap
specific performance goals to ensure results for all   between high- and low- performing groups,
students. Rewards states, districts and schools that   helping language minority students achieve
improve achievement. Each state is rewarded a          proficiency in English and improving the supply of
one-time bonus if it meets accountability              fully qualified teachers. Calls on each state to
requirements, including establishing annual            develop and implement plans to raise the
assessments in grades 3-8, within two years of         performance level of all students to ensure all
enactment. Requires states to set standards in         children reach proficiency in math and reading
history and science and to disaggregate data on        within 10 years. Provides bonus funding to reward
student performance. K-12 math and science             states for exceeding their goals for performance;
education will be strengthened through                 states are required to pass that bonus on to local
partnerships for states to work with institutions of   districts exceeding their goals. Provides technical
higher education to improve instruction and            support to help low-performing schools.
curriculum.
                                                       http://www.ndol.org/documents/bushsidebyside.pd
http://www.ed.gov/inits/nclb/index.html                f
                                                       http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=2916
                                                       &kaid=103&subid=242
                                                                                                                                                             2
THE MILLER PLAN: Supports states in                   are held accountable for boosting the performance      performing schools get technical assistance and
developing challenging content, performance           of all students; also for closing the achievement      financial resources.
standards and aligned assessments. Adds               gap between minorities and non-minorities as well
                                                                                                             http://edworkforce.house.gov/democrats/eaeasummar
requirements for annual performance reporting,        as between economically disadvantaged students
                                                                                                             y.html
and ensures that all children reach a proficient      and their peers. Provides funds to states to upgrade
level of performance in ten years. Title I schools    and refine existing accountability systems. Low-


Annual School Report Cards
THE BUSH PLAN: Yes.                                   THE LIEBERMAN PLAN: Yes.                               THE MILLER PLAN: Yes.
http://www.ed.gov/inits/nclb/index.html               http://www.ndol.org/documents/bushsidebyside.          http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-
                                                      pdf                                                    bin/bdquery/z?d107:HR00340:@@@L&summ2
                                                                                                             =m&
Requires States to Disaggregate Data on Student Performance
THE BUSH PLAN: Yes.                                   THE LIEBERMAN PLAN: Yes.                               THE MILLER PLAN: Yes.
http://www.ed.gov/inits/nclb/index.html               http://www.ndol.org/documents/bushsidebyside.          http://edworkforce.house.gov/democrats/eaeatab
                                                      pdf                                                    le.html
Sanctions for Failing Schools
THE BUSH PLAN: States must develop a                  THE LIEBERMAN PLAN: Provides $150                      THE MILLER PLAN: Schools that continue to
system of sanctions and rewards to hold districts     million to help states and districts turn around       fail after 3 years are subject to “strong corrective
and schools accountable for improving academic        failing schools. Require states to impose              action.” Targets immediate resources to reform
achievement. Schools that fail to make adequate       sanctions on local school districts that fail to       and improve failing schools.
yearly progress with disadvantaged students           meet their annual performance targets. Schools
                                                                                                             http://edworkforce.house.gov/democrats/eaeasu
receive assistance, and then come under               that continue to fail to meet goals that they set
                                                                                                             mmary.html
corrective action if still failing. Provides          after 3 years lose up to 50% of administrative
emergency assistance to Title I schools               funding. Additionally, schools that fail after 3
identified by states as failing after one year.       years are forced to implement a new curriculum,
After 2 years, a failing school goes under            undergo reconstitution or be closed down and
corrective action, and students are able to           reopened as a charter school. After the 4th year
exercise public school choice. After 3 years, if      of failure, schools can lose up to 30% of their
no adequate yearly progress is achieved               Title VI funds.
disadvantaged students may use Title I funds to
                                                      http://www.ndol.org/documents/bushsidebyside.
transfer to a higher-performing public or private
                                                      pdf
school, or to receive supplemental education
services from a provider of choice. The
Secretary of Education can reduce federal
administrative funds if a state fails to meet their
performance objectives.
http://www.ed.gov/inits/nclb/index.html

                                                                                                                                                                    3
Parental Choice
THE BUSH PLAN: Students in persistently              THE LIEBERMAN PLAN: Places heavy                      THE MILLER PLAN: No new parental choice
low-performing schools are given public school       emphasis on parental choice within public             provisions discussed in the Committee on
choice options after 2 years. After 3 years, if no   schools. Strengthens the federal commitment to        Education and the Workforce, Democratic
adequate yearly progress is achieved                 expanding the range of educational opportunities      Views summaries.
disadvantaged students may use Title I funds to      and options available to all students within the
transfer to a higher-performing public or private    public school framework. Gives parents of
school, or to receive supplemental education         students in low-performing schools the option to
services from a provider of choice. The              transfer to a higher performing public, charter or
Secretary of Education awards grants for             magnet school. Calls on states to provide parents
innovative efforts to expand parental choice and     with information about school districts and
conduct research on school choice.                   individual schools in the areas of student
                                                     achievement and teacher qualifications
http://www.ed.gov/inits/nclb/index.html
                                                     http://www.ndol.org/documents/bushsidebyside.
                                                     pdf
                                                     http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=291
                                                     6&kaid=103&subid=242
Private School Vouchers
THE BUSH PLAN: Yes.                                  THE LIEBERMAN PLAN: No.                               THE MILLER PLAN: No.
http://www.ed.gov/inits/nclb/index.html              http://www.ndol.org/documents/bushsidebyside.         http://edworkforce.house.gov/democrats/eaeatab
                                                     pdf                                                   le.html
Charters/Magnets
THE BUSH PLAN: Provides $200 million in              THE LIEBERMAN PLAN: Provides $200                     THE MILLER PLAN: Authorizes annual
funding to assist charter schools with start-up      million in funding for charter schools and $130       appropriations ($250 million in fiscal year 2002)
costs, facilities and other needs for fiscal year    million for magnet schools. Provides an               for charter schools. Also authorizes annual
2002 and “such sums as may be necessary for          additional $200 million for the creation of           appropriations ($150 million in fiscal year 2002)
each of the 4 succeeding fiscal years.” Provides     innovative public school choice programs.             for magnet schools, with priority given to those
$110 million in funding for magnet schools           Require states to hold any charter or non-            magnet schools with a desegregation plan that
during fiscal year 2002 and “such sums as may        traditional school receiving funds under this title   are designed to bring students from different
be necessary for each of the 4 succeeding fiscal     accountable to the same content and student           social, economic, ethnic and racial backgrounds
years.”                                              performance standards as any other public             together.
                                                     school.
http://www.ed.gov/inits/nclb/index.html                                                                    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-
                                                     http://www.ndol.org/documents/bushsidebyside.         bin/bdquery/z?d107:HR00340:@@@L&summ2
                                                     pdf                                                   =m&
                                                     http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?cp=1&kaid=1
                                                     03&subid=242&contentid=2916
                                                                                                                                                          4
Teacher Quality
THE BUSH PLAN: Provides $2.6 billion in                THE LIEBERMAN PLAN: Provides $3.6                    THE MILLER PLAN: Provides $12 billion to
funding for fiscal year 2002 and “such sums as         billion annually for a performance-based grant       ensure all teachers are fully qualified and $6.4
may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2003         focused on raising teacher and principal quality,    billion for financial incentives (in the form of
through 2006.” Funds are targeted to enhance           professional development and teacher                 student loan forgiveness and pay bonuses) to
teacher quality. States are expected to ensure         recruitment. Distributes funding to states           teachers in high-poverty urban and rural schools.
that all students are taught by effective teachers.    through a formula based 50 percent on poverty        Allows federal funds to be used to hire only
States and local districts are given the flexibility   and 50 percent on student population and             qualified teachers. Gives priority to professional
to use federal funds to focus more on improving        requires states to distribute 60 percent of the      development in math and science and fully
teacher quality and setting high standards for         funding to the local school districts based on the   qualified teachers. Provides additional assistance
professional development.                              number of children in poverty and 40 percent of      for teacher training in use of technology.
                                                       the funding based on the number of school-aged
http://www.ed.gov/inits/nclb/index.html                                                                     http://edworkforce.house.gov/democrats/eaeasu
                                                       children. Holds states and local districts
                                                                                                            mmary.html
                                                       accountable for improving teacher quality, with
                                                       fully-qualified defined as being state certified,
                                                       having a bachelor's degree in the area they teach,
                                                       and passing rigorous, state-developed content
                                                       tests. Encourages innovative training and
                                                       mentoring partnerships.
                                                       http://www.ndol.org/documents/bushsidebyside.
                                                       pdf
                                                       http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?cp=1&kaid=1
                                                       03&subid=242&contentid=2916
Bilingual Education
THE BUSH PLAN: Provides $460 million in                THE LIEBERMAN PLAN: Triples funding to               http://www.ndol.org/documents/bushsidebyside.
funding for fiscal year 2002 and “such sums as         $1 billion annually. Create a new funding            pdf
may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2003         formula to target aid to the states with the
through 2006.” Streamlines current bilingual           highest concentrations of students with limited
education programs. States that fail to make           English proficiency. Streamlines current
adequate yearly progress for limited English           programs into one performance based grant
proficient students will lose some administrative      focusing on learning English and achieving a
funding. Focuses on English acquisition by             high level of competency in core subjects. Holds
requiring states to set performance objectives for     states and locals accountable for improving
limited English proficient students to achieve         English proficiency annually.
English fluency and to meet standards in core
                                                       http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?cp=1&kaid=1
areas in 3 years.
                                                       03&subid=242&contentid=2916
http://www.ed.gov/inits/nclb/index.html

                                                                                                                                                            5
THE MILLER PLAN: Provides $576 million                 Provides for instructional programs for limited        http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-
for fiscal year 2002 and “such sums as may be          English proficient children and for the                bin/bdquery/z?d107:HR00340:@@@L&summ2
necessary for the 4 succeeding fiscal years.”          emergency immigrant education program.                 =m&
Flexibility
THE BUSH PLAN: Provides states and                     THE LIEBERMAN PLAN: Gives states                       THE MILLER PLAN: No new flexibility
districts with additional flexibility and increases    flexibility to develop the programs and                provisions discussed in the Committee on
flexible funding at the local level. Creates           initiatives that best meet their individual needs      Education and the Workforce, Democratic
charter option for states and districts (similar to    while focusing on specified priorities. Title VI       Views summaries.
the Straight A’s proposal) to be freed from            of the proposal is an initiative of $3.5 billion for
categorical program requirements in return for         an innovative performance based grant to
submitting a five-year performance agreement to        districts focused on the following priorities:
the Secretary and for being subject to rigorous        after-school (25%); education technology
standards of accountability.                           (30%); safe learning environments (15%); and
                                                       academic innovation (30%).
http://www.ed.gov/inits/nclb/index.html
                                                       http://www.ndol.org/documents/bushsidebyside.
                                                       pdf
Reading Programs
THE BUSH PLAN: Provides $900 million in                THE LIEBERMAN PLAN: No specific funds                  THE MILLER PLAN: Authorizes annual
fiscal year 2002 for reading programs. States          provided; however, states and local districts can      appropriations ($350 million for fiscal year
that establish a comprehensive reading program         use Title I, II and VI funding to focus on reading     2002) for the Reading Excellence Act that
anchored in scientific research from grades K-2        and early literacy needs. Highlights First Grade       provides competitive grants to fund high-quality
will be eligible for grants under a new “Reading       Literacy Assessments. States must describe what        family literacy programs and programs that help
First” initiative. Participating states will then be   steps they are taking to assist schools in             schools teach reading readiness skills to
able to receive additional funds from a new            measuring the literacy skills of 1st graders.          children.
“Early Reading First” program to implement
                                                       http://www.ndol.org/documents/bushsidebyside.          http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-
pre-reading methods in pre-school programs,
                                                       pdf                                                    bin/bdquery/z?d107:HR00340:@@@L&summ2
including Head Start centers.
                                                                                                              =m&
http://www.ed.gov/inits/nclb/index.html
Education Technology
THE BUSH PLAN: Provides $817 million in                http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=3            THE LIEBERMAN PLAN: Requires districts
funding for fiscal year 2002 (a 6.3% decrease          1budgetbox2.h20                                        to use 30% of funds granted under Title VI on
from fiscal year 2001). Consolidates technology                                                               education technology. Provides $3.5 billion for
programs and e-rate funds into a block grant that                                                             Title VI.
distributes money through states and districts to
                                                                                                              http://www.ndol.org/documents/bushsidebyside.
schools based on need.
                                                                                                              pdf
http://www.ed.gov/inits/nclb/index.html

                                                                                                                                                             6
THE MILLER PLAN: Doubles investment to                ready for the 21st century in math, science,        http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-
$1.7 billion. Provides for a national long-range      technology, and engineering. Provides additional    bin/bdquery/z?d107:HR00340:@@@L&summ2
technology plan as well as state and local district   assistance for teacher training in use of           =m&
technology innovation and learning. Also              technology.
provides for programs to get female students
Safe and Drug Free Schools
THE BUSH PLAN: Turns the Safe and Drug-               THE LIEBERMAN PLAN: Requires districts              THE MILLER PLAN: Provides $14 billion to
Free Schools and Communities program and the          to use 15% of funds granted under Title VI on       hire 100,000 school counselors. Maintains
21st Century Community Learning Centers               establishing safe learning environments.            separate school safety funding and drug
program into one state formula grant and              Provides $3.5 billion for Title VI.                 prevention programs. Provides for alternative
increases funds for before- and after-school                                                              education programs for students who are
                                                      http://www.ndol.org/documents/bushsidebyside.
learning opportunities as well as violence and                                                            expelled or suspended.
                                                      pdf
drug-prevention activities. Teachers are allowed
                                                                                                          http://edworkforce.house.gov/democrats/eaeasu
to remove violent or persistently disruptive
                                                                                                          mmary.html
students from the classroom. Victims of school-
based crimes or students in persistently
dangerous schools are provided with a safe
alternative. States must report to parents and the
public whether a school is safe.
http://www.ed.gov/inits/nclb/index.html
Class Size Reduction
THE BUSH PLAN: Consolidates current                   THE LIEBERMAN PLAN: Provides separate               THE MILLER PLAN: Provides $14 billion in
program with other programs, giving states            funding stream of $1.6 billion for fiscal year      funding to finish hiring 100,000 new teachers.
flexibility to use money as they see fit in           2002 and “such sums as may be necessary for
                                                                                                          http://edworkforce.house.gov/democrats/eaeabri
exchange for increased accountability for             each of the 4 succeeding fiscal years.” Maintains
                                                                                                          efsummary.html
results.                                              commitment to the program.
http://www.ed.gov/inits/nclb/index.html               http://www.ndol.org/documents/bushsidebyside.
                                                      pdf
After-School Programs
THE BUSH PLAN: Turns the 21st Century                 organizations when awarding grants for after-       THE LIEBERMAN PLAN: Requires districts
Community Learning Centers program and the            school programs.                                    to use 25% of funds granted under Title VI on
Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities                                                                before, after or summer school activities.
                                                      http://www.ed.gov/inits/nclb/index.html
program into one state formula grant for before-                                                          Provides $3.5 billion for Title VI.
and after-school learning opportunities and
                                                                                                          http://www.ndol.org/documents/bushsidebyside.
violence and drug-prevention activities. States
                                                                                                          pdf
can give consideration to religious organizations
on the same basis as other non-governmental

                                                                                                                                                       7
THE MILLER PLAN: Maintains separate            http://edworkforce.house.gov/democrats/eaeatab
source of funding for after-school programs.   le.html




                                                                                                8
School Construction
THE BUSH PLAN: No funding for school                  THE LIEBERMAN PLAN: No provisions for                  THE MILLER PLAN: Provides $23 billion in
construction and renovation; current budget is        school construction and renovation are discussed       resources for school construction and
zeroed out.                                           in New Democrat summaries.                             renovation. Continues existing assistance and
                                                                                                             supports new construction.
http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=3           http://www.ndol.org/documents/bushsidebyside.
1budgetbox2.h20                                       pdf                                                    http://edworkforce.house.gov/democrats/eaeasu
                                                                                                             mmary.html
                                                      http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=291
                                                      6&kaid=103&subid=242




Sources
    •   “No Child Left Behind” by President George W. Bush: http://www.ed.gov/inits/nclb/index.html
    •   “Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Summary and Background Information” by the U.S. Department of Education:
        http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/Budget02/Summary/
    •   “Summary of H.R. 1: No Child Left Behind” by the House Committee on Education and the Workforce:
        http://edworkforce.house.gov/issues/107th/education/nclb/hr1sum.htm
    •   “Text of H.R.1” by the House Committee on Education and the Workforce: http://edworkforce.house.gov/issues/107th/education/nclb/hr1text/title0_.pdf
    •   “Inside Bush’s Education Agenda” by Education Week (4/18/01): http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=31budgetbox2.h20
    •   “Bush Says Democrats Agree on ‘Core’ of Education Reform” by Mike Allen and Amy Goldstein of the Washington Post (4/19/01):
        http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34286-2001Apr18.html
    •   “A Comparison of Three R’s with the Bush Education Agenda” by the New Democrat Coalition: http://www.ndol.org/documents/bushsidebyside.pdf
    •   “The Public Education Reinvestment, Reinvention and Responsibility Act” by the New Democrat Coalition:
        http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=2916&kaid=103&subid=242
    •   Library of Congress Summary of H.R. 340 and Text of the Bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HR00340:@@@L&summ2=m&
    •   “Summary of the Miller/Kildee Excellence and Accountability in Education Act” by the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, Democratic
        Views: http://edworkforce.house.gov/democrats/eaeasummary.html
    •   “The Excellence and Accountability in Education Act: Investing in America’s Public Schools” by the House Committee on Education and the Workforce,
        Democratic Views: http://edworkforce.house.gov/democrats/eaeabriefsummary.html
    •   “Comparison Chart of Proposals by President Bush, Lieberman/Roemer/Dooley, and Miller/Kildee” by the House Committee on Education and the
        Workforce, Democratic Views: http://edworkforce.house.gov/democrats/eaeatable.html


                                                                                                                                                              9