ALERT: Federal Education Bill, HR1

The US Congress is in the process of reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). There are major and urgent problems in this massive 800 page bill.

The last time the ESEA was reauthorized was in 1994, the same year that Goals 2000 and the School-to-Work laws were enacted (HR6). At that time, the Goals 2000/STW restructuring was tied to the ESEA federal Title I money that most school districts receive.

Last year, there was an attempt to reauthorize the ESEA (HR2), but it became bogged down in controversy and never passed. MREdCoPAC sent out information at that time explaining how all of the mandates of the 1994 education laws were being expanded under the HR2 and its Senate companion, S2.

Today we face these same urgent problems again, this time with the new reauthorization plan, HR1. It is not too strong to say to you that If we succeed in repealing Minnesota's Profile of Learning and stopping School-to-Work in St. Paul, then under the bill presently being considered in Washington, DC, all of our tremendous efforts will be rendered useless -- unless you read this alert and act now!!!

HR1 goes farther toward a massive federal takeover of education than HR6 did in 1994 or that the attempted passage of HR2 was last year. (For more detailed information on the problems with last year's HR2, please see our file #1 and file #2, and Eagle Forum's file.

President Bush himself said that he is massively increasing education spending while decreasing federal control. The President may genuinely intend that to be so. Sadly, it is not. Increasing federal education spending and decreasing federal control are mutually exclusive. The centralized control of education that was so objectionable in 1994 and in 2000 is orders-of-magnitude worse in HR1, and billions more of our taxpayer dollars will be used to put it in place.

There are many problems with HR1. Here is a partial list:

The biggest problem is the requirement that states have a single statewide assessment that is aligned with their content standards in grades 3 through 8. Why is that a problem?

All states have taken Goals 2000 and School-to-Work money. In exchange for that money, their content and performance standards have been or are being developed under the Goals 2000 mandate. Mandating one single statewide assessment that must be aligned with the state content standards is mandating that educational performance in every state be measured, not by academic achievement, but by how well Goals 2000 is being implemented in that state. Federal Title I money mandates compliance with the Goals 2000 standards, as we have experienced so painfully in Minnesota. (See our file.)

Direct references to Goals 2000 have been removed, but the language is essentially the same as it was last year (HR2) and in 1994 (HR6) under the Clinton administration, when the Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate in Congress.

In Minnesota, aligning a single statewide assessment with our state content standards means the Profile of Learning (with its direct link to School to Work) and the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments (MCAs). The MCA's are the single statewide test, but the mandate will be expand to every year from 3 to 8. In other words, this ESEA cements the Profile of Learning into place in Minnesota by federal mandate!

Remember that the MCAs measure only minimum academic competencies. Their primary purpose is to measure how well the schools are incorporating the psychosocial standards of the Profile/Goals 2000 into the curriculum. When a family is told that their student has passed or even excelled on these assessments, little do they know that there is very little academic content in them.

Training and requiring teachers to teach to the Goals 2000 standards and School to Work job skills;

Alignment of certain parts of the education requirements with the Workforce Investment Act, a federal mandate which merges government, business and education into one centrally planned system;

Federally funded school based mental health services similar to what we have been battling in the Minnesota legislature this session;

Required alignment with and expansion of the early childhood (Baby Ed) programs that we have been fighting here in Minnesota.

We have already seen the federal government and Minnesota's Department of Children, Families and Learning use the threat of the loss of Title I funding to districts that used the tiny bit of flexibility and autonomy that the Legislature allowed in last year's so-called Profile fix-it bill. (See our file)