Revised Education Bill Is Unveiled

For weeks, lawmakers have wrestled with one of the toughest questions in their effort to produce an education reform bill: how to define a failing school.

On Thursday, Senate negotiators from both major parties announced their answer as they unveiled a new version of the education bill and began a long-awaited floor debate on one of President Bush’s priorities.

Failure, they said, would mean the lack of academic progress by any bloc of disadvantaged students in a school receiving federal education funds meant to close chronic achievement gaps.

As a result, a school could not be given a passing grade if most of its students are showing progress in proficiency tests, according to state-approved standards, but a specific minority group of students or students with limited English skills is not.

This key decision, endorsed by senators as liberal as Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and conservative as Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) underscores the complexity of a bill to reauthorize federal elementary and secondary programs.

It also demonstrates the bipartisan will in Washington this year to shake up a system that by virtually every account allows too many students to fall short in the basic skills of reading and mathematics.

“Every day, thousands of schoolchildren are forced to attend schools that set the academic bar low, expecting too little of them,” said Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), who helped draft the definition of a failing school. “The federal government invests billions of dollars annually in these schools, and it’s time we hold them more accountable.”

School funding drew renewed attention Thursday as the Senate approved, on a voice vote, a measure by Sens. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) to increase funding for students with disabilities by nearly $2.5 billion annually over the next six years. Currently, about $6.3 billion a year is allotted to the states for such programs. Advocates hailed the vote as a major advance for disabled students and underfunded school districts.

The Senate also voted, 79-21, for a Democratic amendment to authorize more than $100 billion in additional spending over the next decade through the program for disadvantaged students called Title I.

But while funding remains a critical issue in a debate expected to last two weeks, lawmakers also are scrutinizing the policy details in a new blueprint for reform. And everywhere they turn in the debate, lawmakers confront tricky questions.

For instance, most agree with Bush’s plan to require reading and math tests in grades three through eight. States could choose their own assessments as long as they measure student achievement against state curriculum standards.

But Bush also asked for a second annual test of a sample of students to cross-check state results. Senate negotiators agree it should be a test called the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Some conservative House lawmakers, however, are wary of anything resembling a national testing system. They want states to have flexibility in their choice of a second test.

On the issue of sanctions for failing schools, the new Senate bill laid out a detailed timetable and remedies. After one year of failure, a school would be given extra help to fix its problems. After three years, school districts would be required to pay transportation costs to enable parents to move their children to better public schools, if the families wish. Other students would be offered after-school tutoring at federal expense.

After five consecutive years of failure, schools would be forced into a major restructuring, such as a state takeover, conversion to a charter school or a replacement of most staff.

Another difficult issue is how much flexibility to give states to spend federal money. What strikes one lawmaker as needless red tape is often another’s important priority.

The Senate bill would allow a limited number of states and individual school districts around the country to submit plans to the Department of Education for accelerated academic achievement. If approved, these plans would grant unprecedented freedom in the spending of millions of federal dollars each year.

Here, the House differs slightly; its plan would allow certain school districts flexibility with up to half of their federal dollars--with certain restrictions to ensure that low-income students don’t get shortchanged.

The gathering of senators Thursday who gave their blessing to the revised legislation was notable. Those seated around a conference table in a committee room included not only ideological opposites Kennedy and Gregg but also conservative Sen. Tim Hutchinson (R-Ark.) and centrist Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), James M. Jeffords (R-Vt.), Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) and Evan Bayh (D-Ind.).

Behind them sat White House education strategist Sandy Kress. At the news conference, Kress stood up and said Bush was “deeply grateful” for the progress toward compromise--even though some of the president’s proposals, such as private school vouchers, have been abandoned.

“In a 50-50 Senate, the president got at least 80% of what he wanted in this bill,” Gregg said.