States surprised to face stickler on school law
Department’s review of states’ goals seemingly in contrast with DeVos’ rhetoric
Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, who made a career of promoting local control of education, has signaled a surprisingly hard-line approach to carrying out an expansive new federal education law, issuing critical feedback that has rattled state school chiefs and conservative education experts alike.
President Barack Obama signed the Every Student Succeeds Act in 2015 as the less intrusive successor to the No Child Left Behind law, which was maligned by many in both political parties as punitive and prescriptive. But in the Education Department’s feedback to states about their plans to put the new law into effect, it applied strict interpretations of statutes, required extensive detail and even deemed some state education goals lackluster.
In one case, the acting assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education, Jason Botel, wrote to the state of Delaware that its long-term goals for student success were not “ambitious.”
“It is mind-boggling that the department could decide that it’s going to challenge them on what’s ambitious,” said Michael J. Petrilli, president of the conservative-leaning Thomas B. Fordham Institute, who worked in the Education Department under President George W. Bush. He called the letter “directly in opposition to the rhetoric and the promises of DeVos.”
After more than a decade of strict federal education standards and standardized testing regimes, the Every Student Succeeds Act was to return latitude to the states to come up with plans to improve student achievement and hold schools accountable for student performance.
It sought to relieve states from the federal pressures of its predecessor, which required that 100 percent of the students of every school reach proficiency on state tests or the school would face harsh penalties and aggressive interventions. The law does require that states set such benchmarks on their own.
Proponents, especially congressional Republicans and conservative education advocates, believed that a new era of local control would flourish under DeVos, who pointed to the new law as illustrative of the state-level empowerment she champions.
But her department’s feedback reflects a tension between ideology and legal responsibility: While she has said she would like to see her office’s role in running the nation’s public schools diminished, she has also said she will uphold the law.
Christopher Ruszkowski, acting secretary for the New Mexico Public Education Department, said the idea that the new law would yield total state control was merely “rhetoric from the Beltway.”
“I think a lot of the euphoria over return to local control was an overpromise,” he said. “What this signals is that USDE will continue to play the role they’ve always played in the years ahead.”
In feedback for five more states, the Education Department avoided criticizing the ambitions of the state plans. But it did maintain its scrutiny.
For example, the department noted that Tennessee neglected to identify, as the law requires, languages other than English spoken among its student population because it considers itself “an English-only state.” According to the state’s population profile, nearly 50,000 students speak English as a second language.
I think a lot of the euphoria over return to local control was an overpromise. What this signals is that [U.S. Department of Education] will continue to play the role they’ve always played in the years ahead.” Christopher Ruszkowski acting secretary for the N.M. Public Education Department