Would Principals Be Better Off Under the Current Law?

NAESP is currently analyzing the Senate proposal to determine if, in fact, students (and principals) would be better off than under the current law. We are now drafting comments to provide official positions on several provisions contained in the ESEA reauthorization proposal. The proposed discussion draft would make several important changes such as removing the arbitrary 100% proficiency requirements,  eliminating the controversial “School Improvement Grant” program and “turnaround/transformation models” that require firing principals and teachers,  removing the one-size-fits all punitive accountability system  and giving states exponentially more authority in making decisions about education systems within the state and local districts.

While there is a lot that is good, here are a few of big concerns – not to mention the “fix” for federal assessment and accountability.

NAESP, together with AFSA and NASSP, issued the following statement.

Concerns:

• New allowable uses added to Title II for LEAs: such as school libraries, extended learning time, dual enrollment, early college/HS and AP and IB, and liability insurance for teachers
• Definition of school leaders
  • Our organizations believe the definition of school leaders should only be those educators who are in the school building (see NAESP/NASSP definition)
• Not appropriate to always combine “principals and school leaders”
  • I.e. evaluation systems, certification and licensure, preparation programs
• Did not include principal residency in Title II
• Our organizations believe that a principal MUST have teaching experience before becoming a principal
  • Do not support recruitment of out of field principal candidates as an allowable use under state and LEA activities in Title II
  • We support recruitment of out of field candidates as perspective teachers, but not principals
• Inclusion of public school portability in Title I
• No federal minimum ceiling parameters on accountability and support for schools
• Assessment systems must (not an “option”) be based on multiple measures and developed in coordination with locals (including with input by schools – teachers and principals) to address quality and necessity
• Elimination of maintenance of effort
• Authorized funding is essentially frozen at FY 2015 levels
• Consolidation of programs (i.e. school counseling, afterschool, etc.) under Title IV (Healthy & Safe Students)
• No coordination with early ed system or programs, i.e. Head Start, Early Head Start, early childhood (in general)
• Elimination of school leadership program
• No comprehensive literacy program
• Elimination of Title II, Part D (EETT) – Education technology
• No additional support for middle or high schools (early warning systems, dropout prevention programs)