Why the "Student Success Act" Puts Schools and Their Students on the Wrong Course

When the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was signed into law by Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965, its goal was to enhance educational opportunities for disadvantaged children. As Senator Tom Harkin, Chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee, asserted in an Education Week blog last month, ESEA was meant to help lift children out of poverty by making high-quality education accessible to all.

That is still the goal today. And while the 2001 reauthorization of the law, also known as No Child Left Behind, was well intentioned and helped expose the stark disparities in our education system, leaders from both parties acknowledge that the law needs improvement. Republicans and Democrats in the both the House and the Senate have come up with their own revised versions of ESEA this summer (New America’s blog put out a helpful side by side comparison here [PFD]).

Today, the House will begin debate on the so-called “Student Success Act” (SSA), the version of ESEA reauthorization proposed by John Kline, chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee. Despite the clever title, the bill is a giant step in the wrong direction for students.

Proponents of the SSA argue that it reduces the “federal footprint” in public education, which traditionally has been the province of local school districts and communities. But there are reasons the federal government has been involved in education since 1965 – most notably because access to equal educational opportunities is a federal civil right and states historically have ignored the needs of low-income and minority students. And there is a big difference between “reducing the federal footprint” and completely abandoning any parameters of accountability as the bill would. In the name of “local control,” the SSA turns a blind eye to the huge gaps in achievement and graduation rates that exist for children of color, low-income students, students with disabilities and English language learners, and would allow states to go back to ignoring the inequities that lead to such gaps.

Here are a few examples of what's wrong with the bill:

1. The "Student Success Act" completely removes the federal focus on the achievement of underprivileged students, and eliminates goals for student growth and improvement.
2. It does not require that federal funds be fairly distributed, and allows federal funds targeted for vulnerable students to be reallocated for other purposes.
3. It fails to ensure that schools provide an environment conducive to learning, where all students feel safe from bullying, harassment, and excessive disciplinary practices that push kids out of school.

Although the rhetoric of small government and local control may sound alluring to some, fifty-six years after Brown v. Board of Education, far too many students still lack equal educational opportunities. The reauthorization of ESEA is an opportunity to get it right, to ensure that all students – including the low-income and minority students who need the most – have a fair chance to finish school ready for college and careers, so they can achieve economic security.

Unfortunately, the "Student Success Act" puts schools — and their students — on the wrong course.