A Welcome Flexibility

Congress, always eager to give the voters what the polls say they want, has jumped on the school reform bandwagon. A bipartisan bill zooming through Congress would give states greater freedom in how federal education funds are spent, but without the strict accountability needed to guarantee academic results, ensure that poor children are not cheated, or or prevent rampant waste.

The Senate approved the Education Flexibility Partnership Act, originally introduced by Sens. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), by 98-1 on Thursday, a few hours after the House passed similar legislation. It would give governors the authority to grant waivers that would exempt a school district from certain federal spending regulations.

Flexibility is welcomed, especially in the right hands. But flexibility without strict accountability is a route to failure. When the bill is heard in conference committee, before final passage, additional safeguards should be negotiated to prevent a wholesale raid on funds Washington intended to educate poor children and head off unchecked spending on efforts that do not improve student performance.

An amendment rejected on a partisan vote by the House should be reconsidered in conference. Offered by Democrats George Miller of Martinez and Dale E. Kildee of Michigan, it would require states to adopt rigorous assessment of overall student achievement, set educational goals and close the gap between rich and poor students.

Washington finances a mere 7% of public education costs, and most of that money is targeted for poor children. Title I, the federal government’s largest grant program, spends $7.4 billion each year on efforts to narrow the achievement gap between rich students and poor children. Because school districts have never been under pressure to show results, some have squandered millions on school aides, teacher assistants and ineffective remedial efforts that produced marginal improvements at best in reading and math scores.

Under Ed-Flex, as the new bill is called, Title I dollars would no longer be restricted to schools with huge low-income enrollments. Those dollars could be spent on schools with no poor children. Funds also could be diverted from federal education efforts aimed at technology, teacher training, anti-drug programs, immigrant aid and vocational assistance.

Republicans and Democrats who favor giving states greater flexibility cite rising reading and math test scores across the board in Texas, which was one of 12 states in a pilot program that eased some controls on federal education funds. Texas got those enviable results with flexibility and a strong accountability system that requires rigorous statewide assessment of students, teachers, principals, schools and school districts, with real consequences for failure. States that seek the flexibility that Texas allows should be required to asses students regularly and demonstrate they are getting similar results--an overall rise in student achievement that does not exclude poor, limited-English or minority students.

Maryland, another participant in the pilot program, also tallied statewide gains in student achievement, but results were mixed in the other 10 states. The potential for failure should inform the negotiations in conference committee.

Washington should not abandon poor children in the name of school reform, but nor should the federal government hold back states and school districts that are willing to make the tough decisions, do the hard work and require more from every student.