Giving NCLB an A-PLUS boost: the Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success Act would promote greater local control in education while maintaining accountability through state-level testing and information reporting to parents to ensure transparency

USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education), Jan, 2008 by Dan Lips

Within one year, a participating state must disseminate widely--to parents and the general public--a report describing student performance, including disaggregated data (as required under current law) and a description of how the state used the funds to improve academic achievement, address the achievement gap, and improve educational opportunities for disadvantaged students. The legislation also requires the state to maintain funding levels of at least 90% of the previous year's funding, to limit the amount of funds spent on administration, and to ensure the equitable participation of private schools.

While there are differences between the Senate and House versions of the A-PLUS Act, they share common benefits. Both versions would:

Return control of education policymaking authority to the state and local levels and allow states to take responsibility for education policymaking. Governors, state legislators, and state secretaries of education would make policy decisions about local schools, moving the decisionmaking process closer to school leaders, teachers, parents, and taxpayers. This would give states and local communities the opportunity to take full responsibility for improving educational opportunities in local schools. Citizens no longer would have to look to the Federal government for solutions to improve schools.

Free state and local governments from the administrative and compliance burden of Federal education programs. Because participating states could opt out of many Federal program requirements, the A-PLUS Act significantly would reduce the Federal administrative and compliance burden on states and local education agencies. Under the current system, scarce resources are expended just to complete the paperwork for Federal programs. Under A-PLUS, this compliance burden would be lifted, freeing state leaders to redirect funds toward programs that more directly improve student learning.

Allow states to consolidate programs under the "performance agreement" or "declaration of intent." This would enable state leaders to identify and eliminate ineffective programs. Policymakers already have identified a number of ineffective or unnecessary programs in the Department of Education. A-PLUS would give states the opportunity to end these programs and redirect resources toward others that show greater promise.

Protect transparency and accountability for results. As noted, the current No Child Left Behind testing requirements have created a troublesome incentive for states to lower standards to avoid Federal sanctions. The A-PLUS Act would allow states to maintain testing and information reporting to parents and the public. It also would ensure that states maintain transparency for results, while allowing for greater flexibility to design a testing system that serves local needs. States would have the freedom to implement new testing models without strict oversight from the Federal government.

Restore federalism. Giving states greater freedom to control funding and establish education policies would foster an education reform environment that is conducive to innovation, experimentation, and improvement. Many of the most promising education reforms have been implemented at the state level and have spread across the country with innovative states leading the way. The proliferation of charter schools, vouchers, and education tax credits is one example of the innovative education reform ideas that have spread through federalism. The development and proliferation of state standards and testing policies in the 1990s is another. Allowing states to exercise greater control over education funds and to establish policies could well facilitate new improvements and innovations throughout the country.