Will Decentralization Affect Educational Inequity? The Every Student Succeeds Act

Abstract

In December 2015, President Obama signed the Every Student Succeeds Act, which was a long overdue reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. What is remarkable about this new federal legislation is that it explicitly reverses the decades-long federal effort to more tightly couple the U.S. educational system. While not removing testing requirements, the legislation dramatically reduces the federal role in shaping education policy, returning significant power to the states to design educational systems as they best see fit. The law places sharp limits on the use of federal executive power over education and has the potential to remove the federal government from oversight and accountability over schools, raising questions about the equity implications of this policy change. Research Method: Utilizing public documents, including legislation, speeches by federal officials, analyses by policy organizations, and news accounts, the authors trace the evolution of federal efforts from a more tightly coupled educational system to one with greater state and local flexibility in order to estimate the equity impact of efforts to decentralize governance. Findings: While certain provisions of the Every Student Succeeds Act may reduce inequity and improve educational outcomes for all

What are they talking about when they talk about equity? A content analysis of equity principles and provisions in state Every Student Succeeds Act plans

“…This body of literature also shows that while an understanding of equity centered on equal access and opportunity remains prevalent (Bulkley, 2013;Verstegen, 2015), outcome equity has been given more attention in recent education policy in the era of standards-based, consequential accountability (Bulkley, 2013;Cochran-Smith et al, 2018;Thomas & Brady, 2005). From a policy history perspective, ESSA maintains NCLB's equity commitment by improving the educational experiences and results of historically disadvantaged student populations yet shifts the policy making power back to the state education agencies to develop policies and accountability measures in enhancing equity in their schools (Cook-Harvey et al, 2016;Egalite et al, 2017;Knight, 2019). Therefore, it is important to establish a clearer view of state education policy makers' understandings of equity and provisions in support of such equity visions in their ESSA plans.…”

“…All 52 state plans incorporated information about these mandatory student groups, yet the majority of them focused only on low-income students and minority students and used verbatim words from the U.S. DoE template with few or no substantial, state-specific modification for the other groups. This practice suggested that, instead of maximizing the policy flexibility afforded by ESSA (Egalite et al, 2017), SEAs still chose to follow the federal prescription and did not go beyond what was minimally required.…”

“…Such policy initiatives are built on the widely embraced yet unchecked belief that public education in the United States largely "fails" to adequately educate its students and insufficiently prepares them to compete in a global knowledge economy (Cochran-Smith et al, 2016;Zeichner & Conklin, 2017). Unlike NCLB, however, ESSA shifts much of the policy-making power from the federal government back to the state level and grants more autonomy and flexibility to state educational agencies (SEAs) in developing individual state ESSA plans and accountability systems (Egalite, Fusarelli, & Fusarelli, 2017;U.S. DoE, 2016).…”

Characteristics of the opt-out movement: Early evidence for Colorado

“…Schools and districts from every state were now accountable to federal student performance mandates that aligned assessments to state content standards. Annual assessments in ELA were required for all students in grades 3-8 and once during high school (Egalite, Fusarelli, & Fusarelli, 2017;McGuinn, 2016). In an attempt to guarantee educational equity, states were required to report the level of student proficiency as measured by adequate yearly progress (AYP) for all relevant student subgroups, including gender, race/ethnicity, poverty, disability, and English language status (Haertel & Herman, 2005).…”

“…The reauthorization also maintained a focus on the idea of educational equity through assessment, requiring the reporting of student subgroup performance on two new student subgroups: gender and migrant status (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2015). While there were some noticeable differences between ESSA and NCLB, using assessments to attempt to improve student achievement in underperforming schools remained a fundamental focus of federal education policy (Egalite et al, 2017;McGuinn, 2016).…”