Warren finds herself in the middle of the education testing debate — and thus at the center of the debate over the role of the federal government in demanding certain achievement results from states. Although the momentum is swinging away from federal policy that turns on a philosophy of “leave no child untested,” Warren is making a stand for accountability. She has made it clear that the federal government should still have a role in policing underperformers in public education. She should be commended for providing a strong measure of common sense regarding an increasingly fractious issue.
The debate is reaching center stage as Congress looks to update the country’s federal education law, currently known as the No Child Left Behind act, which was in turn a reauthorization of the landmark Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Passed in the 1960s, ESEA had a strong foundation in the civil rights movement: Indeed, it was all about equality in education. It introduced Title I, the primary program through which the federal government aids disadvantaged students — poor and minority kids.
No Child Left Behind remains one of Senator Edward Kennedy’s major legislative victories, and it is at severe risk of being watered down. Warren voted against the bill the Senate came up with, while Senator Edward Markey voted in favor of it. A Republican-backed version of the bill cleared the House without a single Democrat vote earlier last month. The bills sit in a conference committee waiting to be reconciled.
No Child Left Behind, which was intended to close the achievement gap between disadvantaged students and their more privileged peers, has critics from both the left and the right, who see an overbearing amount of testing that warps educational priorities, and too much federal interference. No Child Left Behind held schools accountable for the educational outcome of all students, especially those belonging to such subgroups as English-language learners and special education students.
As they stand right now, both versions of the bill still mandate some testing, with the possibility for some parents to opt out and for some states to try new forms of assessment. Both also ban the federal government from telling states how to fix low-performing schools, among other provisions.
Warren said of the Senate rewrite of No Child Left Behind: “In many ways, this bill represents a significant improvement in federal education policy, moving away from rigid standardized tests.” But both Warren and the Obama administration have argued that the proposals don’t include enough safeguards for the most disadvantaged students.
That’s why some sensible compromises are in order.
It’s only appropriate that the federal government maintain its role in monitoring standards. Relegating the job to the states and local school districts alone could prove unfair to students in marginal school districts. Moreover, states should be accountable for the billions of dollars that they receive annually from the federal government.
Yes, overzealous testing is an issue, but Congress shouldn’t go too far in the other direction. It must not reverse the assessment and accountability measures that help protect the educational future of the nation’s disadvantaged students. A final bill must be stronger on protections for poor and minority students, not only by identifying which schools are doing a good job at educating them and which ones are not, but also by requiring some form of intervention when their scores remain low. This is the time not to ignore the powerful 50-year legacy of ESEA, but to make sure it continues. Warren, occupying the so-called Kennedy seat, is fighting the good fight in trying to keep the original focus on educational equity intact.
Related:
• Editorial: For accountability in public schools, keep testing
• Michael M. Crow and William B. Dabars: Public universities must operate at a higher level
• Paul Reville: The next steps in education reform
• Richard M. Freeland: Quality of education is as important as affordability