Trouble May Lurk in Details of Education Bill

The back-patting is over. Now the details await.

The Senate’s overwhelming passage this week of a landmark education bill raised nearly as many questions as it answered.

The legislation designed to close the achievement gap between haves and have-nots in the nation’s public schools came with a gap of its own: money. At an estimated annual cost of more than $33 billion, the programs authorized by Thursday’s 91-8 vote tally far more than the $19.1 billion requested by President Bush.

Then there is the $24-billion version that passed the Republican-controlled House last month.

With the differences to be worked out in a joint conference that may last well into late summer, top educators said they are hopeful the effort will mark a positive change in school performance. They caution, however, that it may be too soon to say exactly what the effect will be.

“At this point, I don’t know a lot of detail,” said Los Angeles Unified School District Supt. Roy Romer. “A substantial increase in funding Title I [the federal program for low-income students] could help us a great deal.”

Increased money for low-income students is promised in all versions of the bill, but with that funding comes strict standards and repercussions for failure. And the Senate and House bills agree on many general initiatives, if not the precise implementation, including:

* Requiring annual reading and math tests in grades 3 through 8.

* Granting schools judged to need improvement a one-year grace period and additional funds to produce results.

* Giving parents of students enrolled at schools that fall below state standards two years in a row the option of transferring their child to another public school.

* Making a child’s Title I money available to parents if a school fails for a third year. The money could be used for private tutoring or school transportation costs.

* Ordering schools that continued to fail to start over--with the staff replaced and the state intervening.

* And increasing flexibility--in some form--for the spending of federal funds is expected to be included.

The education bill would mark the most significant change in 35 years to the role federal government plays in public education if, as expected, it is signed into law by Bush sometime later this year. And the effort has been widely touted as both a triumph for the White House and a model for bipartisan agreement.

But it is not without critics--some of whom caution that its potential effects are being oversold.

Amy Wilkins of the centrist education reform group Education Trust said the proposed deadline for turning schools around is “not sane.”

“They have a carrot and they have a stick,” she said. “But what they don’t have is a bridge to help schools get better. . . . The point should be how many schools you turned around, not how many you shut down.”

Those working in school districts with high numbers of low-income students wonder how exactly the yearly test requirements will translate into helping them solve long-standing problems.

“I can get on the scale and it’ll tell me how much I weigh, that part’s easy,” said Dennis K. Chaconas, superintendent of schools in Oakland, where more than 80% of students are eligible for the federal free lunch program. “But if I don’t get on the scale and analyze how I got to that weight, I don’t think it helps me to change my behavior.”

Romer, the former governor of Colorado who until recently headed the Democratic National Committee, said he would welcome greater leeway in spending federal funds, but with a caveat.

“I want to make sure that money is targeted to the students who need it most,” he said, adding that it was too soon to say if he would be interested in applying for a program the Senate approved that would largely free 25 school districts in seven states to spend federal funds as they wish in exchange for promising to meet higher standards.

Romer said he remained unconvinced that paying for private tutors with federal funds would do much to fix educational gaps. He cautioned that in a crowded school system like Los Angeles, switching schools creates its own set of problems.