Resources

This week, Conservative Leaders for Education (CL4E) released a new policy document using our coalition’s four foundational principles, with real ideas that our members can use when tackling education policy discussions back in their states.

Click here to view the full document.

By Karen Nussle, Executive Director, CL4E

As a conservative that works in the education policy arena, I am hopeful that President-elect Trump is true to his “outsider” brand when picking a cabinet secretary for the Department of Education.  Trump voters could not have been clearer in communicating their expectations:  give us something new and different. Not the same old tired political class that has dominated Washington and our government for decades.  Shake it up. Do the unexpected.  Give some new, smart people a chance to direct the affairs of the country.  So I’m hoping in this cabinet pick, we see some new, exciting local stars and not tired, Washington based think tankers or politicians.

To break the recent trend, the Trump transition needs to look first to state leaders who are on the front lines of actually doing the hard work of transforming education – not just talking or writing about it.  New, in some instances young, leaders who have a track record of showing how to advance conservative education policy.

Who would I recommend?  Here are some candidates that I think make the grade.

Lisa Graham Keegan – former Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction, Keegan is a true conservative — she was vice-Chair of the Republican platform committee in 2008 and has served numerous prominent republican leaders from Governor Jan Brewer to former Speaker Newt Gingrich.  But most recently Keegan has been a tireless advocate for the expansion of charter schools in Arizona (now one of the top 10 states in the nation for charters), and as current Executive Director of “A for Arizona” she is breaking ground in showing that low income public schools can be high achievers.  She is on the front lines of some of the most exciting progress happing in K-12 education and she has the skills to help other states model these reforms while getting the federal government out of the way. Plus anyone who has raised 5 children can certainly handle Congress.

Dr. Carlos Campo – prominent Hispanic evangelical leader and current President of Ashland University, Campo would be an excellent choice to head DoE.  The education focus in the near future will be on the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, so someone with experience in higher education, rather than K-12, would be a smart choice.  Campo would have instant credibility with conservatives (he served as President of Regent University) and is a passionate advocate for Hispanic children, who will soon become a majority in America’s public school population. He has an impressive track record as an actual classroom educator and would be a refreshing outsider to occupy America’s top education job.

Secretary Hanna Skandera – as current Secretary of Education in New Mexico, Skandera has made a name for herself as a bold leader who is not afraid to take on the education establishment.  Skandera led the state’s transition from the one-size-fits-all approach of No Child Left Behind to a New Mexico-based framework for supporting students and schools.  She has expanded choices for parents and students by expanding access to charter schools, and most importantly, she slashed the Public Education Department’s budget by 30% while directing more dollars to students and teachers in the classroom.  Skandera’s local education experience spans 4 states (NM, TX, CA and FL, where she was deputy commissioner) and in all of those places she served Republican chief executives. She is a state leader that knows how to enact conservative education policy and can help other states do the same while keeping the federal Education Department’s footprint to a minimum.

State Legislative Leaders – we have several shinning stars among our members in Conservative Leaders for Education.  All of them would make excellent choices as they all have considerable experience in education policy and several are actual educators (check them out here).  For example, Senator Owen Hill.  Senator Hill is Chairman of the Colorado Senate Education Committee, is an Air Force veteran and homeschooling father of four young children. What a refreshing choice he would make!  Hill is known as a limited government conservative who is working to expand parental choices in education.  In his own words, “The current system of concentrated power at the federal government needs to be transformed into a model where local government in conjunction with personal liberty is the priority. This will help us create thousands of local community laboratories experimenting with the best mix of limited government, personal responsibility, and neighborly generosity that help us live flourishing lives in the modern world. This is what our Founders meant when they wrote of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”  His number one priority has been to expand the number of Colorado kids that get to choose their school, and he has been quite successful at that, as currently one in seven Colorado school children has chosen the school they attend.

Dr. Tony Zeiss – Zeiss is the outgoing president of Central Piedmont Community College, one of the largest community colleges in North Carolina, serving approximately 70,000 students per year.  During his tenure, the college grew from one campus to six and has become recognized as a national leader in Workforce Development.  A leader from the higher education community would be timely, given Congress’ interest in reauthorizing the Higher Education Act, and someone familiar with the Community College system would be a bonus. Zeiss clearly has experience with big systems and could bring some much needed conservative leadership to the Department.

Betsy DeVos – hailing from Michigan, a state that helped give Trump the Presidency, DeVos is a known conservative leader and a ferocious education reformer.  She has served as Chairwoman of the Michigan Republican Party and as the Republican National Committee woman for the state.  Through her family foundation she has significantly helped to advance efforts around school choice and charter schools in many states around the country.  DeVos is Chair of the American Federation for Children (AFC), which describes itself as “a leading national advocacy organization promoting school choice, with a specific focus on advocating for school vouchers and scholarship tax credit programs.” She has said her overall goal is that “all parents, regardless of their zip code, have had the opportunity to choose the best educational setting for their children. And that all students have had the opportunity to fulfill their God-given potential.”

Secretary Bill Bennett – I would be remiss if I did not include Conservative Leaders for Education’s own chairman, former Secretary Bill Bennett.  The case for Bennett is strong. As Ronald Reagan’s Education Secretary, Bennett is the only person on the planet who can claim to have actually reduced the size of the Federal Department of Education.  He is a conservative’s conservative, award winning academic, a two-time former cabinet secretary, best-selling author and one of the best darn communicators in the Republican party (he should have run for President).  He would bring the ultimate in conservative thinking to significantly reducing the size and scope of the Department of Education while leading the way for parent choice and quality content in schools  – he’s done it before.

This week, several members of the Conservative Leaders for Education coalition officially submitted comments on the proposed “supplement not supplant” rules proposed by the U.S. Department of Education under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). In the letter the coalition of state lawmakers and education education officials called for the Department to rewrite their proposed language noting that the rules are “overly prescriptive and will end up complicating and inhibiting the efforts of educators and policymakers on the ground to meet the real challenges of students and teachers.”

Click here for the full letter or see below.

 

November 7, 2016

James Butler
U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3W246, Washington, DC 20202.

Docket ID:  ED-2016-OESE-0056

 

Dear Mr. Butler,

Conservative Leaders for Education (CL4E) is a new initiative chaired by former Education Secretary William Bennett and comprised of state policy-makers and legislators with an acute interest in and purview over state education policy.  Specifically, we have articulated four fundamental principles that we believe should underpin education policy:  Local Control, Choice, Accountability, and Quality Content.  To learn more about these principles and our efforts visit our website at www.ConservativeLeaders4Ed.org

We write today to provide a state policy perspective on the U.S. Department of Education’s (DoE) proposed rules for implementation of the “supplement, not supplant” requirement in the expenditure of title I, part A federal funds.

We want to first emphasize that as a group of state policy-makers we do not take a position on how any given state or LEA should expend, and account for the expenditure of these funds, in their overall compliance with the long-standing supplement, not supplant requirement.  The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) specifically, and wisely, left those specific policy and budgeting decisions at the state and local levels.

We do write in support of maintaining state and local decision-making in how best to both comply with the federal supplement, not supplant requirement AND most effectively innovate to help the schools and students these federal funds are directed to.

In reviewing this NPRM we were first struck — and frankly somewhat shocked — by the following sentence in DoE’s own summary of the NPRM (at Page 61153, emphasis added): “The proposed regulation would require that an LEA distribute almost all state and local funds they receive through one of the three methodologies.”[1]

It is hard to overstate the sweeping nature of not only this statement, but the very concept that the distribution of “almost all state and local funds” by every school district across this huge and diverse nation is best accomplished by 1 of 3 systems designed or driven by Washington, D.C.  As state policy-makers we recognize the incredible diversity of circumstances and challenges LEA’s face just within our own state’s borders.  Even at the state level we are very cautious to presume that an approach that might work for some LEAs is also the correct approach for all of them in the state.

While some may respond that there does exist the fourth “special rule” that an LEA might consider developing on its own, compliance with that “special rule” process is extremely cumbersome, and further still requires an LEA to complete its budget calculations in a manner that simply disregards unique circumstances at individual schools within an LEA, such as differences in staff experience levels.

This kind of federal micro-management is exactly what the ESSA intended to shift away from.

As state education policy-makers, we have no higher priority than attempting to raise the academic performance of challenged students and struggling schools.  Title I funds can be an important part of developing a comprehensive strategy in each state and LEA towards that crucial goal.  There is simply no reason to hamstring that state and local policy development and innovation by forcing it to fit within one of a handful of federally approved approaches.  The longstanding supplement, not supplant requirement can be met without putting these kind of new federal barriers in place.

As is too often the case, what may be well-meaning but overly prescriptive federal regulations can actually end up complicating and inhibiting the efforts of those at the ground level in their efforts to meet the very real challenges these students and schools face on a daily basis.

We note that the Council of Chief State School Officers submitted draft regulations demonstrating that compliance with the supplement, not supplant requirement does not require the kind of federal micro-management represented by the current NPRM.

We encourage DoE to return to the drawing board and start this process anew with a focus not on creating a couple of approved federal forms and formulas for thousands of LEAs and all the states to then figure out how to conform to, but instead a focus on how the federal program rules can actually help and encourage states and LEAs to innovate in finding better ways to serve these students and schools with the federal funds that have been specifically allocated for that purpose.

 

Sincerely,

Representative Paul Boyer (AZ)

Chair, House Education Committee

Senator Owen Hill (CO)
Chair, Senate Education Committee

Mary Scott Hunter (AL)
Representative, Alabama Board of Education

Senator Peggy Lehner (OH)
Chair, Senate Education Committee

Senator Luther Olsen (WI)
Chair, Senate Education Committee

Representative Amanda Price (MI)
Chair, House Education Committee

Senator Howard A. Stephenson (UT)
Chair, Senate Education Committee

Senator Mike Wilson (KY)
Chair, Senate Education Committee

(All signatories are founding members of Conservative Leaders for Education)

[1] The three methodologies DoE is referring to are:  1. A per-pupil weighted formula; 2. A resource allocation formula, (as many LEAs and the CCSSO have detailed in submitted comments, neither of these first two methodologies comport with actual budget practices or solid educational decision-making in most LEAs) or; 3. A new state developed funds-based formula, but the proposed requirements for development of such a new statewide budgeting formula are exceeding complex and cumbersome.

 

This week, several members of the Conservative Leaders for Education coalition officially submitted comments on the proposed accountability rules laid out by the U.S. Department of Education under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). The draft rules were formally released and opened up for public comment in May, and that comment period closed Aug. 1.

See a copy of the members comments here or below.

 

August 1, 2016

Meredith Miller
U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Room 3C106
Washington, DC 20202-2800

Docket ID:  ED-2016-OESE-0032

Dear Ms. Miller,

Conservative Leaders for Education (CL4E) is a new initiative chaired by former Education Secretary William Bennett and comprised of state policy makers and legislators with an acute interest in and purview over education policy. Specifically, we have articulated four fundamental principles that we believe should underpin all education policy. Those principles are: Local Control, Choice, Accountability and Quality Content.  To learn more about these principles, and our effort, visit our website at www.ConservativeLeaders4Ed.org.

We write today to provide our comments on the U.S. Department of Education’s (DoE) proposed accountability and state plan regulations for the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), as published in the May 26 Federal Register.

First, we commend Congress and the President for finally replacing No Child Left Behind (NCLB). States’ reliance on waivers put far too much power in the hands of the DoE, and NCLB’s discontinuation was an overdue and welcomed accomplishment. Education is key to not only the well-being of millions of children, but to the future prosperity of our nation. The ESSA decidedly returns the principal authority of education policymaking to its rightful place: states and localities.

Second, we are grateful for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed regulations, specifically on the development of state accountability systems. We believe it is our responsibility to advise the DoE on regulatory provisions that threaten to violate the spirit of the law and specifically where we think the language will encroach on the control allocated to states and localities under the law. The DoE writes that “we are proposing these regulations to provide clarity and support to SEAs, LEAs, and schools as they implement” the ESSA. However, the current regulations by the DoE walk a fine line of potentially undermining the rights of each state and the intended goal of providing clarification and guidance on ESSA implementation. States have the tools, local knowledge and expertise to make sure systems are transparent and hold schools accountable for the success of their students. The regulations must afford them every opportunity to get education back on track in a way that meets the needs of their states.

We provide the following specific comments pursuant to the implementation of ESSA and the regulations proposed by the DoE.

1. Accountability Indicators: Under the law, each State must establish “systems of annual meaningful differentiation” for public schools, based on 5 indicators: academic achievement, graduation rates, a measure of student growth if determined appropriate by the state, progress in achieving English language proficiency, as well as at least one other “indicator of school quality or student success.”  Under the law, the indicator of school quality or student success must receive less weight than the combination of the other indicators.We strongly believe that academic achievement must be the central measure of an accountability system. Some – not all, but some – administrators, boards, and educators may try to hide behind other nonacademic measures. However, if students are not learning the basics then they will struggle to find a decent job or to be successful in college. Others are requesting that proposed language around school quality and student success should not be as stringent, we disagree. Non-academic skills and school culture can be informative, but proper measures should be put in place to ensure that those factors do not overshadow the extent to which a school is serving the academic needs of students. State education systems must measure students’ academic skills and knowledge, period. We urge the department to resist the calls of others to loosen the law’s intent on non-academic indicators.

2. Transparency: ESSA maintains that previously required information provided by states to parents and the public continue and be augmented by additional important information such as per-pupil expenditures by school.Fundamental to a quality education system is the ability for parents and community leaders to be informed consumers, as taxpayers and key stakeholders in the system. For far too long, information related to school, district, and state accountability has either not been completely honest or has been buried on government websites under mounds of indecipherable data.  We have a moral obligation to prioritize the data that matters most to parents and ensure that they receive it in a clear and concise manner.  We support the regulations reflection of this expanded transparency and urge you to maintain requirements that the information be more timely and meaningful for parents.  We particularly applaud the attention given to the “Parent Report Cards” in the law and the subsequent requirement to obtain parent feedback in the development of the new report prior to its submission to the DoE.  We highly recommend that in addition to the content, there be an emphasis on a robust distribution plan.  Parents will do what is best for their children and often serve as a catalyst for innovation when equipped with actionable information.

 

3. Stakeholder Engagement: We value the flexibility that has been given to the states to create their own accountability systems designed to meet the unique needs of the states.  It is an opportunity to bring in a diverse and fully invested group of stakeholders across all parts of the community to create a shared vision of success for students.The proposed rule currently includes language clarifications by the DoE to address early stakeholder engagement in the development of various components of state plans.  We strongly recommend that you not prescribe or direct those stakeholder engagement activities, respect state autonomy and allow state leaders to lead the way in executing effective stakeholder engagement plans that actively involve all key stakeholders. In particular, we will be encouraging states to ensure that employers and higher education leaders, are invited to provide their unique perspective on the individualized needs of the state economies as a part of the goal setting process.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these proposed rules. Please contact us if we can help represent the point-of-view of conservative state lawmakers. To learn more about our organization, visit www.ConservativeLeaders4Ed.org.

 

Sincerely,

Representative Paul Boyer (AZ)
Chair, House Education Committee

Senator Owen Hill (CO)
Chair, Senate Education Committee

Mary Scott Hunter (AL)
Representative, Alabama Board of Education

Senator Peggy Lehner (OH)

Senator Luther Olsen (WI)
Chair, Senate Committee on Education

Representative Amanda Price (MI)
Chair, House Education Committee

Senator Howard A. Stephenson (UT)
Chair, Senate Education Committee

Senator Mike Wilson (KY)
Chair, Senate Education Committee

(All signatories are founding members of Conservative Leaders for Education)

 

 

GOP Leaders With Bold Vision for Shaping Education Policy In Their State Will Do So Through Local Implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act

Washington – William J. Bennett, former Education Secretary under President Ronald Reagan, noted author, and award-winning professor in academia will chair a new organization called Conservative Leaders for Education. Comprised of leading Republican state lawmakers and education policy makers, the initiative’s focus will be to ensure that conservative principles and reforms gain traction in state policy decisions and ESSA implementation. The impetus for the formation of the group was last year’s enactment of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which replaces No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and returns much of the control and decision making in education policy back to the states. ESSA requires states to develop state-specific implementation plans covering things like teacher evaluations, assessments, and plans on how they will intervene in the states’ lowest performing schools.

“For years, conservatives have pushed for more local control of education, and now they have it thanks to ESSA. But it’s critically important that Republicans now take an active role in shaping the implementation of this new law in their states so that all students benefit from the best education possible,” said Secretary Bennett. “Republicans currently control more state legislatures than at any time in modern history. ESSA presents us with a unique window in time to shape education policies in a way that leaves a lasting and meaningful imprint.”

The initial group of coalition members consists of state education chairs across eight different states- AL, AZ, CO, KY, MI, OH, UT and WI- with the plan to continue to add additional members who are interested in shaping their local education policy.

“The Left is already mobilizing around the ESSA implementation process and rallying support for what they believe is important. There needs to be balance in the system and a platform for conservatives to voice their views, exchange ideas, and provide information to others looking for help,” said Kentucky Senator, Mike Wilson.

“The Conservative Leaders for Education coalition provides legislators like myself who have not been entrenched in education policy for the past decade a unique opportunity to come together and collaborate on how to best move forward under ESSA,” said Representative Amanda Price, chair of the Michigan House Education Committee. “I am hopeful that the new state flexibility under ESSA will enable us to create more ambitious, state- specific goals and aspirations for our education system, but that will only be possible if we design our state accountability systems based upon principles that support the rights of parents, encourage transparency, and engender accountability.”

Conservative Leaders for Education was founded on a set of four conservative core principles that will help drive these key decision makers in their states as the new law is implemented. Those principles include:

1. Local Control: Reaffirm that educating students is predominately the responsibility of states and localities, especially in the areas of funding, personnel, reviving poorly performing schools, and academic standards and aligned tests.
2. Parent Choice: Advance educational choices and innovation for parents and students by trusting that parents will do what is best for their children, while not absolving lawmakers from providing oversight.
3. Accountability: Demand that states, local districts, and individual schools be transparent through the provision of information to parents that is accessible, timely, comparable, and easy-to-understand. Superintendents, principals, teachers, and others need to be held accountable fairly for student learning or the lack of it.
4. Quality Content: Assert that high academic standards and aligned tests – both chosen by the state – are crucial because they evaluate what a student is learning.

 

 

You may have read over and over that the Every Student Succeeds Act shifts more power over education policy to states. But what you may be less familiar with is the overall political landscape in the states. It sounds like a simple issue, but it could have a profound effect on how states decide to approach the new federal education law. So let’s ask the question of states: Who’s in charge here?

Relying partially on information from the National Conference of State Legislatures as of April 20, we’ve put together a map that shows not just the partisan control of state legislatures and governorships, but also, where applicable, the party of state schools chiefs and how that compares to the partisan control of state government. (There are nine states in which superintendents are elected as members of a political party… [more]