Education History 101: Flexibility Means Bending Backwards To Avoid Educating Those Most in Need

Today the Senate HELP Committee held a “roundtable” on the proposed Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) that was voted out of committee two weeks ago. The roundtable came about as a result of some procedural wrangling by Sen. Rand Paul, who continues to call for greater “flexibility” for states. Today’s ESEA takeaway came from Wade Henderson, CEO of the Leadership Conference, who once and for all addressed the argument that states should be the absolute arbiters of education reform. Henderson explained that the Supreme Court studied this “states’ rights” approach to public education and “found it deeply wanting and, in fact, offensive to the Constitution.” In short – for years “flexibility” meant that states bent backwards to avoid educating the kids who need it most – including children of color, poor kids, and students with disabilities.

That’s why we have an ESEA – because the state’s rights approach to education didn’t serve all kids equally. The original ESEA, and later No Child Left Behind, created a financial incentive for states to improve the quality of public education available to all students. When Sen. Paul asserted that the debate is a philosophical one about how much the federal government should be involved in day-to-day education decisions, Henderson replied that the real debate was about whether or not we wanted to used federal dollars to help ensure that students who are not being adequately served by state law have access to a quality public education.

Katherine Ben Neas, from Easter Seals, says that was what was so great about No Child. Ben Neas testified that, because of NCLB, for the first time kids with disabilities were allowed to try. She emphasized that having high federal standards meant that for the first time ever that all kids had access to a general education curriculum. Without accountability a provision, what guarantee is there that states will set any measurable goals? As Terry Grier, superintendent of the Houston Independent School District, pointed out – you can grant states “flexibility” but it doesn’t mean anything if the states lack the political will to put money where it is most needed.

NWLC and a growing number of groups (including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Students First, and Chiefs for Change) have made clear that they cannot support the proposed bill in its current form because it represents a de facto end to a national accountability system. Federal funding has got to be attached to ambitious and unequivocal demands for higher achievement, higher graduation rates, and closing achievement gaps. Given the long history of bias and discrimination perpetrated under the state system, the ESEA should reinforce accountability, not eliminate it.