Photo credit: www.educationnext.org

Proposed Changes to the U.S. Department of Education and its Implications

President Donald Trump has taken significant steps toward restructuring education governance in the United States. Recently, he issued an executive order aimed at dismantling the U.S. Department of Education (ED) and shifting educational authority to state and local entities. This move was furthered by Secretary of Education Linda McMahon’s recent decision to reduce the department’s workforce by 50%.

Achieving a complete dissolution of the department necessitates Congressional action. In the interim, the Trump administration is exploring alternative approaches to reduce ED’s influence, such as waiving key provisions related to assessments and accountability stipulated in the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). While this strategy might carry substantial risks, particularly concerning student assessments, it also presents opportunities worth considering regarding accountability measures.

A notable majority of policy experts, advocates, and parents support maintaining federal standards for student assessments. These standards mandate annual testing in mathematics and English Language Arts (ELA) for students in grades 3–8, as well as once in high school, alongside science assessments at various educational stages. This system aids in assessing student performance, facilitates communication of results to parents, and helps identify and address gaps in achievement and opportunities for historically disadvantaged groups.

While it remains uncertain how many states would opt for flexibility under an assessment waiver program, many advocates express concern that the current assessment framework may weaken without federal support, leading to detrimental policy consequences.

For instance, removing the testing requirement for grades 3–8 would compromise the ability to track annual student progress effectively. Transitioning from universal testing to a sampling model would deprive many parents of critical insights into their children’s academic achievement, disrupting evaluations based solely on grades and localized feedback. Additionally, this could result in insufficient data for the meaningful reporting of results across demographic subgroups.

Conversely, there is a consensus that ESSA’s accountability measures are not fostering significant improvements in school performance. This ineffectiveness has roots in the law’s implementation challenges.

A recent GAO report from January 2024 indicated shortcomings at multiple levels of government. At the federal level, the ED’s efforts in monitoring and oversight have been inadequate. It found that many states were not complying with essential law mandates, including the need for school improvement plans that stem from needs assessments, identify inequities, and incorporate evidence-based interventions. Alarmingly, only 42 percent of these plans satisfied all three of the law’s requisite elements, with few indications of successful implementation.

Many school leaders expressed difficulties in aligning their policies and practices with proven strategies for success. The GAO report highlighted:

“All seven of the school officials we spoke with were unaware of [ED’s] [What Works] Clearinghouse. . . . [M]any school officials need help understanding why a new approach is needed as their default is to continue with the status quo. . . . [T]wo district officials and one school official stated that they turned to educational product vendors or paid consultants for assistance in selecting interventions.”

There is a clear necessity for a more robust federal role in monitoring and enforcing educational laws, particularly in making evidence-based decisions and allocating resources. Given the alarming reduction in ED’s capacity, including significant cuts affecting the National Center for Education Statistics, the vision for enhancing federal oversight appears increasingly elusive.

Even if the accountability framework were functioning effectively, it would still fall short as a transformative model for advancing student achievement. Current legislative mandates stipulate the most intensive interventions only for schools identified as needing Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI), which includes the bottom 5 percent of schools based on varying criteria such as test scores and graduation rates.

Unfortunately, the CSI classification leaves out numerous schools that struggle with low achievement. Data from a recent study by the Institute of Education Sciences revealed that “less than half of the lowest achieving 5 percent of schools in each state are identified as CSI.” The law requires states to address a broad spectrum of indicators, not solely ELA and mathematics proficiency, which means schools demonstrating low performance may escape intervention if they do not meet additional negative criteria.

Moreover, schools categorized under CSI can exit this status and other similar classifications without demonstrating clear progress, which undermines the intended accountability structure. A recent Education Trust report highlighted that “no state has set exit criteria for identified schools that ensure that schools are effectively making meaningful and sustainable progress toward improved student outcomes.” Most states establish minimal performance benchmarks for exiting identification statuses, failing to prioritize the improvement of the lowest-performing students.

What the current federal accountability framework appears to enable is a cycle in which struggling schools oscillate in and out of CSI status without achieving meaningful improvements, while other low-achieving institutions remain undetected for necessary intervention. In essence, the system may showcase movement but lacks substantial advancements or systemic reform.

This situation presents an inefficient strategy for fostering better student outcomes across schools, districts, and states. The need to identify and support underperforming schools remains critical. Although the Education Trust proposes insightful strategies to enhance the ESSA accountability system, even if the system were effectively implemented, it would likely still fall short of generating the necessary transformational changes at the state and district levels. While essential, current efforts alone are insufficient to drive sustainable educational improvement.

Source
www.educationnext.org