������Ƶ

“If Congress doesn’t act, we will.”

These were the of U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan last week on his “Plan B,” which would alter regulations that affect states and schools if Congress does not soon reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act known as No Child Left Behind. Duncan wants the law reauthorized before the school year begins in August.

What would relief mean for the early education community – programs and schools serving children birth through age 8? Under the law, the Secretary has the authority to grant waivers except in the areas of funding and civil rights. The Department also could relax some of the regulations that revolve around whether schools are making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and the accompanying sanctions for schools that aren’t, such as the requirement to set aside a certain amount of Title I funds for tutoring services.

Duncan says that relief from NCLB regulations could give states and districts the flexibility they need to do things like implement higher standards, strengthen the quality of teachers and leaders, improve assessments of student learning and adopt fairer accountability systems.

But the Department of Education’s ideas for relief are not sans strings. In an , Duncan wrote that the “administration will develop a plan that trades regulatory flexibility for reform.”  What does that mean? On a call last week with reporters (), Duncan provided little clarity to answer that question. He explained that the Department would develop a package of reforms that states would be required to agree to in return for relief from NCLB regulations. But he did not specify what the “package of reforms” would include. 

We, here at Early Ed Watch, would not be surprised if the “package of reforms” mirrors the education priorities stressed by the Obama Administration among them: effective teachers, use of data, charter schools… and early learning.

Is there a possibility that requiring states to commit to increasing access to high-quality early learning programs for families in their state could be included as part of the “package?”

As we await an answer on that question, members of Congress and policy wonks are voicing concerns about the idea that the Department of Education might take action on its own. Rep. George Miller (D-CA), at an at the Center for American Progress, said he is concerned that people may see waivers as an “escape route.” According to a , Chairman of the House education committee, Rep. John Kline (R-MN) is concerned about efforts that might allow the Secretary to pick “winners and losers.” And Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), chairman of the Senate committee that handles education, said Duncan’s comments were premature. Rick Hess, resident scholar and director of Education Policy Studies at AEI, said on his , “The law gives Duncan the authority to grant waivers, but not to use that authority to compel states to adopt other measures as a quid pro quo.”

But the law doesn’t actually say that Duncan cannot require states to meet certain conditions in order to be eligible for flexibility. Nor would states be compelled to participate.

If Congress could actually find a way to quickly reauthorize ESEA instead, that could bring some of the flexibility that the Obama Administration has called for. But Washington insiders are ; hence the Administration’s move to circumvent Congress to grant relief and push reforms.

In the meantime, states and local school districts continue to apply for waivers – as they have done for several years now – from some of the mandates included in the law. In 2009, the Department granted , which was the largest number of waivers granted for parts of NCLB yet. Some of the waivers allowed approved states to, for example, institute growth models (allowing states to use indicators of the progress of individual students over time to determine whether schools are making adequate yearly progress) or establish (allowing states to choose the type of interventions – as well as the intensity of those interventions — they use to improve their lowest performing schools).

But some officials want more than case-by-case waivers. School board members and school administrators have begun to seek broader regulatory relief. In a in late May, the American Association of School Administrators and the National School Board Association declared their desire for more flexibility:

We request that this relief be straight regulatory relief, not  waivers. Schools deserve straight regulatory relief, and not the additional requirements or conditions that often come with waivers. We specifically support suspension of additional sanctions under current AYP requirements, effective for the 2011‐12 school year. (Schools currently facing sanctions would remain frozen; no new schools would be labeled as ‘In Need of Improvement’ or subject to new or additional sanctions.)

Is Duncan’s plan, which is expected before the next school year starts, the kind of relief that those two organizations had in mind? How will states react to the Department’s proposed trade-off? What reform commitments will the Department require? And – for those who are watching early ed — will this plan help, hurt or have no effect on pre-kindergarten, kindergarten and the early grades? Could it have an impact on the speed with which Congress eventually takes up reauthorization of ESEA?

For more reading on this topic go , , and .

Be sure to check out our ongoing coverage of .

UPDATED (6/28 11:15 am): Reps. John Kline (R-MN) and Duncan Hunter (R-CA) sent a (Thanks to for posting.) to Secretary of Education Arne Duncan asking him to provide, by July 1st, an explaination of the Department’s authority to grant states regulatory relief in exchange for certain reforms and a detailed description of his plans to grant such relief.