Elementary and Secondary Education: Accountability and Flexibility in Federal Aid Proposals

Publication Date: September 2001

Publisher: Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Author(s):

Research Area: Education

Type:

Abstract:

The 107th Congress is considering proposals to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Much of the debate over these proposals has been focused on issues related to state and local accountability for, and flexibility in the use of, federal aid funds. Current federal elementary and secondary education assistance programs have a broad range of accountability requirements, including: targeting of resources on specific "high need" pupil groups, localities, or schools; limitations on the authorized uses of funds; fiscal accountability requirements, such as maintenance of effort; procedural requirements, such as parental participation or equitable treatment of pupils attending non-public schools; staff qualifications; reporting; outcome; and evaluation requirements.

Beginning in 1994, several authorities have been adopted that provide expanded flexibility in the use of federal aid. The 106th Congress adopted legislation that modified and expanded eligibility for the Ed-Flex program, in which authority to grant waivers is provided to state educational agencies, and provided a new authority for small, rural local educational agencies (LEAs) to transfer funds among selected ESEA programs. During the 107th Congress, the House and Senate have passed different versions of H.R. 1, legislation to amend and extend the ESEA, with new forms of both outcome accountability and flexibility authority. Both bills would expand requirements for pupil assessment, and for standards for adequate yearly progress plus performance-based awards and sanctions for schools, LEAs, and states. The House version of H.R. 1 would also authorize all states and LEAs to transfer funds among selected programs, and authorize a broader program consolidation authority for up to 100 LEAs; while the Senate version would authorize up to seven states and 25 LEAs to eliminate a wide range of program requirements in return for increased accountability in terms of pupil outcomes.

Debate over the optional performance agreement/grant consolidation proposals in particular has sometimes been contentious, mainly because they would replace the current relatively wide range of types of accountability provisions with a strategy of accountability established almost totally on the basis of pupil achievement outcomes. These proposals implicitly place substantial emphasis on adoption and implementation by the states of challenging standards and assessments in order to establish a basis for meaningful outcome accountability.

Supporters of proposals to increase state and LEA flexibility in the use of federal aid argue that the current accountability requirements are unnecessarily burdensome and rigid, and detract attention from the goal of increasing academic achievement. In response, opponents of these proposals argue that aspects of accountability, in addition to those related to outcomes, are important federal priorities, that many of the non-outcome related accountability requirements may already be waived if deemed burdensome, and that there is little assurance that state-determined performance goals will be challenging.