������Ƶ

Last week was a big week for American education policy watchers—we received not one, not two, but three new ESEA reauthorization bills. ��Sen. Tom Harkin’s (D-IA) Strengthening America’s Schools Act (SASA), so it’s time to take a look at the��, proposed by Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN).* Like last time, we’ll be focusing on how the bill would affect English language learners (ELLs). (For a comprehensive view of the differences between the bills, check out .)

To begin with, Alexander’s bill makes fewer adjustments to NCLB’s ELL provisions than Harkin’s. The most consequential change has to do with money. Alexander’s bill takes NCLB’s Title III appropriations language:

$750,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the succeeding fiscal years

…and replaces it with

$693,848,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018

In other words, Alexander’s bill would apparently cut nearly $60 million from Title III funding. It’s worth noting that the cut would actually be a bit smaller than that. , respectively, Congress appropriated $734 million and $732 million for Title III. This shouldn’t be misconstrued, though: a $40 million cut is still significant—especially for a program that is already such a small part of the total Department of Education budget. Of course, I haven’t adjusted these numbers for inflation. In 2013 dollars, the original $750 million appropriation would approach $1 billion annually. This means that the Title III budget has already been shrinking in the context of inflation.

Alexander’s bill fixes spending at that lower level, whereas NCLB left future appropriations to be determined annually by Congress. By capping spending through 2018, Alexander effectively slates Title III for cuts (by means of inflation) each year—on top of the raw deduction in funding. Put simply, $694 million will be worth less in 2018 than it is now.

Alexander’s bill appears to make no other changes to Title III, though it adjusts Title I in ways that are relevant to ELLs. Most of these changes consist of replacing NCLB mandates with more flexible language. For instance, Alexander’s bill asks states for “assurances” that their plans are appropriate for ELLs. States assure the Department of Education that they will assess the English proficiency of ELLs annually, except for those students who school districts exempt on the grounds that they are already sufficiently proficient. Other sections ask states “to make every effort” to provide assessments in ELLs’ primary languages “to the extent practicable.”

Contrast this with the language in ��(SASA). For instance, while states are free to set their own English proficiency standards, it would require them to align them with content standards and measure at least four levels of proficiency. Consider another example: under Harkin’s bill, states applying for Title III funds “shall” explain how they will provide at least five years of English language support services to ELLs (along with a number of other requirements). Alexander’s bill is comparatively vague.

Finally, Alexander’s bill does require states to file an annual report with the U.S. Department of Education. These reports would include updates on ELLs’ English acquisition, though it offers no guidelines for how state or federal authorities would reliably compile data gathered under the auspices of differing state assurances, assessment exemptions and unpredictable availability of assessments in ELLs’ primary languages. The bill would also require that state educational agencies make these reports “widely available” throughout their state.

If you’ve been following ��(���Ի� ’s) of today’s ESEA markup session, you already know that the Every Child Ready for College or Career Act was offered as an amendment to Sen. Harkin’s ESEA reauthorization bill. It failed on a 12-10 party-line vote. Nonetheless, there may yet be room to combine smaller elements of the bill with Harkin’s. At the beginning of the hearing, ��to moving ESEA debates out of committee—and any successful ESEA reauthorization bill will need bipartisan support.��

��

* The third ESEA reauthorization bill is Rep. John Kline’s (R-MN) .��