ESEA Reform Video

President Barack Obama: If we want innovation to produce jobs in America and not overseas, then we also have to win the race to educate our kids.

Text: Reforming the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

Cindy Brown, Vice President for Education Policy: The Elementary and Secondary Education Act was first passed by Congress in 1965 as a part of President Johnson’s war on poverty. The current name of it is the No Child Left Behind Act, and it is again up for reauthorization.

Text: What steps must Congress Pass in order to improve struggling or low-performing schools?

Jeremy Ayers, Senior Education Analyst: The Center for American Progress believes it’s very important that schools not only be held accountable, but have the resources and direction to improve once they are identified that they are low performing.

We think that some flexibility should be enacted in federal law so that local schools and districts can pick the right intervention for them, but based on really good data-driven needs assessments along with some strings attached to that. So, they should definitely address the quality of their teachers and their principals, they should extend the leaning time in their day, they should implement strategies and school improvement programs that are proven to work, and in exchange for that they should also be held accountable.

We have also been very concerned about-low income students, particularly in rural areas, who come to school not ready to learn because they have some health problems, or social and emotional problems; perhaps their parents themselves are not educated or have problems with English. So we have been supportive of using wraparound services to help improve those students’ performance.

Text: What must Congress pay attention to in terms of funding?

Raegen Miller, Associate Director for Education Research: In terms of funding Congress should really pay attention to two things. The first is the formulas that drive nearly $15 billion in Title I money to school districts, and the second is the fiscal requirements of districts that receive these funds.

The Title I formula has a number of problems. First, it’s not really one formula. There are four formulas, and this puts totally unnecessary strain on state educational agencies that have to administer the grants to school districts.

The second big problem is that is uses state average per-pupil expenditures as a measure of the cost of providing education. That measure is a better measure of wealth than it is the cost of providing education.

Text: What steps must be taken to improve the quality of teachers and principals?

Cindy Brown: Strengthening our teacher and principal leadership workforce is one of our highest priorities. First of all we have to provide good supports for teachers. That begins with their preparation, but it continues into helping them strengthen their practice. What that means, though, is that teachers have to have an idea of how well they’re doing. To do that we need to evaluate them on a regular basis, and that is something that has not traditionally happened.

Another problem with our teacher workforce is that we pay teachers all the same based on their years of service and their graduate school credentials, whether they were successful or not in the classroom.

What the Teacher Incentive Fund does is allow schools try out new ways of compensating teachers that reward teachers for their successes in the classroom. It also is an opportunity to pay teachers for taking on additional responsibilities like being a master or mentor teacher, or providing bonuses for effective teachers to go to more challenging schools.