The Evolving Role of the Federal Government

in Public Schools
Sana Waqar
Drexel University

The extensive Federal involvement mandated by NCLB, created more problems and
controversies than anticipated. ESSA is another effort by the US government to resolve some of
those issues especially those arising from the increased involvement of the federal government
under NCLB. This paper emphasizes the new monitoring role of the Federal government under
ESSA and the positive impacts that the federal scale down and increase in the State and district
autonomy will have on the schools, the educators and education K-12. First the paper will build
up knowledge base related to the important clauses of the ESSA, then shift focus to how ESSA
differs from NCLB and eventually what challenges the government may face with ESSA
implementation.
Key Components of ESSA

This law requires that students should be prepared for college excellence. The students
should not only be proficient in expressing themselves and reading text to learn, but also

should be able to draw evidence from the text efficiently.

The ESSA requires States to add nonacademic factors into accountability measures to
promote a broader image of school success that extends beyond traditional measures,

such as standardized-test scores.

The local government is obligated to improve the performance of the low performing
schools, but this law gives them the flexibility to choose their own interventions,
interventions that have proven to close the graduation and achievement gaps. The state is
required to focus the resources on the lowest-performing 5 percent of schools, high
schools with high dropout rates, and schools where subgroups of students are struggling.
The Federal role will be minimized to the extent of ensuring that the plans developed are
realistic and implemented effectively.

This law focuses on elimination of redundant testing so that teachers can focus on their
lesson plan and students can focus on learning. Based on this law, the students will
undergo State testing in math and English annually from grade 3-8 and once in high
school, although districts may opt out of state testing and chose nationally recognized

tests like SAT or ACT at the high school level.

The law establishes that learning begins at birth. More resources and support systems will
be made available under this law to ensure that every child gets equal opportunity to start
learning at an early stage and build a strong foundation. The Preschool Development
Grant program is a joint collaboration between the U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services and the Education Department to establish early learning.

The ESSA includes resources for helping train teachers on literacy and STEM. More

resources will be allocated for wrap around services for the disadvantaged communities.
The ESSA proposes improvements to Charter Schools Program and reserves funds for

expansion of charter schools.

Teachers will not be evaluated based on their students test scores alone. This law

overrides NCLB teacher evaluation based only on the scores of the students.
Under this law, the States may adopt challenging standards and cannot be influenced or
forced by the federal government to implement any set of standards. Under ESSA the
federal government wont have the power to reward any state for adopting the required

set of standards.
For the first time, the public will have access to the amount of federal, state and local
funding available for the district. This bill has provisions to encourage equitable funding
to the disadvantaged communities. It includes a pilot program, according to which the
districts, based on per student costs, must establish an equitable distribution of state and
local dollars to their most poverty stricken areas.

The difference between ESSA and NCLB

The ESSA ensures that schools are following college and career ready standards so that
the high school graduates are ready for college and not overwhelmed by the college

studies vigor unlike the NCLB.

The NCLB gave the Federal Government the power to assess the progress of students
based on redundant and unnecessary testing whereas the ESSA has reduced the
unnecessary standardized testing. Although the ESSA reduces the requirement of
mandatory testing, but like NCLB, ESSA requires students to be assessed in Math and

English readiness once every year from grades 3-8 and once in high school.
Unlike NCLB, school ratings according to ESSA is based on a number of factors and not
only on the test scores that the schools are reporting. The student performance and rating
criterion is state driven according to the ESSA rather than dictated by the federal
government as stated in NCLB. Furthermore, ESSA incorporates another factor in
accountability: at least one non-academic factor to measure the success of any school

therefore encouraging well-rounded educational opportunities for the students.

The ESSA empowers the State and districts to identify and improve the lowest
performing schools. The interventions established by the State are developed following
certain standards and the federal role is only to ensure that these interventions are
effective unlike the NCLB policy that schools had to follow federal intervention if they
were not performing up to par. The ESSA mandates the States to develop strategies that

are specific to the needs of the community unlike the NCLB one model fits all.
The ESSA recognizes the importance of early learning so that every child has a good
foundation through high quality early learning. ESSA increases resources to develop and

make available early learning to the disadvantaged communities.

ESSA identifies the importance of high quality charter schools and has provisions for
expansion of charter schools unlike the NCLB.

NCLB did not have wrap around services for the disadvantaged communities. The ESSA
recognizes the need to develop an extensive wrap around program to enhance provisions

for the disadvantaged communities, ensuring their success at school.

Under ESSA, unlike NCLB, teachers will not be evaluated on the basis of the
performance of their students on tests alone. This NCLB provision did more harm than
good to the teaching profession since this provision was ineffective in developing good

teaching strategies.
Under NCLB the federal government had the authority to penalize low performing
schools/districts. The NCLB authorized the Federal government to impose sanctions on
districts, even threaten low performing schools with charter school conversion. ESSA
stripped the Federal government of this role and the ownership of the schools now falls
on the States.

Strengths of ESSA

ESSA focuses on the importance of instilling early learning in children from

disadvantaged communities. Since 2011, the Federal Government has invested $270
million to build a pipeline from early learning to high school and beyond through a
program Creating Promise Neighborhoods. 1,000 national, state, and community

organizations have signed-on to support and partner with Promise Neighborhoods.

Federal Government Role
The role of the Department of Education has been reduced significantly. The Federal role
has been scaled down to monitoring and ensuring that the ESSA laws are implemented.
o Less Intervention
ESSA broadened the authority and autonomy of the states. States and districts are
responsible for the school performance as well as devising ways to overcome the
challenges that underperforming schools in their areas are facing. The
responsibility of turning around the low performing schools falls on the states and

the districts. Under ESSA, the Federal government cannot tell states how to
improve the lowest-performing schools, but due to the federal funds in
longitudinal data systems, the federal government has information that can be
used to advice states to implement practices that are effective.
o Reduction in unnecessary testing
The high stakes testing, mandated in NCLB resulted in direct control of the
federal government over student learning and had consequences for real estate
and teachers. The test scores were contributing to greater inequality in the school
districts with parents interested in buying homes in the districts based on the
reported scores. Spring stated that a 20 percent increase in the districts pass rate
on the states tests translated to a 7 percent increase in the home prices in the
district (as cited in education week article, 2006).
Furthermore, the pressure associated with high stakes testing does not benefit
students in any way (Nichols, Glass & Berliners, 2005).
Therefore, by reducing the high stakes tests, ESSA enabled the teachers to focus
on teaching students the subject matter and balanced the disproportionate
demarcation in the district arising from real estate market.
o Comprehensive Teacher Evaluation System
Under ESSA States have the autonomy to evaluate the teachers. They may still
choose to evaluate the teachers on the basis of the student performance under
NCLB but the state is the deciding power. Under NCLB, the federal government
had strict accountability laws and evaluated teachers on the basis of their students
standardized test scores. These tests scores were very important since they formed
the basis of all the decision making. Since the students were being prepared for
tests that tested their ability to perform according to the state specified standards,

therefore the states controlled the content of instruction. ESSA, by decreasing the
redundant testing, gave teachers and districts the control of the lesson plan.
Furthermore, compensations and pay-scales for teachers were decided on the
teachers performance. The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) rejected the
idea that teachers performance is based on student test score alone. The National
Education Association in 2008 demanded a change in the federal law NCLB with
regards to high stakes testing. NEA in agreement with AFT demanded that a
comprehensive compensation pay system be developed by the local unions and
districts, with limited federal involvement. ESSA grants the states the ability to
decide what to base compensation systems on, therefore limiting the Federal role.

Weaknesses in ESSA

The ESSA has provisions to identify the lowest performing schools through state based
testing, nonetheless no set of standards are available to improve these schools. There are
not many incentives for schools to improve either. Unfortunately, the law does not

specify school improvement strategies.

The common core standards are the challenging standards that states were required to
adopt under NCLB. The ESSA provides the freedom to the states to adopt these standards
or opt out. This may have a devastating effect on students in states like Nebraska where
90% of the schools did not have any set of standards. Basically ESSA would give these
underscoring schools in small communities the liberty to follow a curriculum that will not
be preparing the students for college success.

References
Spring, J. (2014). American Education. Queens City, NY: David Patterson.
Nichols, L. S. Glass, G. & Berliner, C. D., (2005) High-Stakes Testing and Student
Achievement: Problems for the No Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved from
http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/EPSL-0509-105-EPRU.pdf
Blad, E. (2016, January). ESSA Law Broadens Definition of School Success. Retrieved
from

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2016/01/06/essa-law-broadens-definition-of-

school-success.html
Executive Office of the President (2015, December) Every Student Succeeds Act: A
Progress Report on Elementary and Secondary Education. Retrieved from
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/documents/ESSA_Progress_Repo
rt.pdf