Skip to content

My Chief Concerns about ESSA

March 7, 2016

I have been asked recently if I would compose a list of concerns related to the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), the latest revision of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). ESSA replaces the last revision, the infamous No Child Left Behind (NCLB).

I had planned to write a series of posts based on reading the entire ESSA document. However, after writing four posts, I became sidetracked from such a monumental task. (Plus, it is a dry task, and one that is likely to appeal to very few readers.) Perhaps I will take it up again this summer.

For now, let me offer in this post my chief concerns with ESSA.

I have three.

Concern One: Opt-out “Catch 22”

First of all, ESSA plays a game with states via its Title I 95 percent annual testing requirement for grades 3 through 8 and once in high school in English language arts (ELA) and math. On page 36, ESSA traps states into including 95 percent of all enrolled students in grades 3 through 8 and once in high school as the denominator in determining annual measures of achievement on the mandated (yet state-selected) standardized tests. At the same time, ESSA tries to exonerate itself from driving state and local opt out policies by offering a “rule of construction” regarding the right of parents to opt their children out of testing (see page 32).

ESSA requires the 95 percent of testing for the states even as it says, “Don’t pin your state opt-out policies on us for our federal policy.”

ESSA also requires that states include that 95 percent testing in state accountability systems (page 36).  States, districts and schools are able to apply for “waivers of statutory and regulatory requirements” (page 302), but this only puts states, districts, or schools at the mercy of the US secretary of education.

Concern Two: Data Security

My second concern involves data collection and especially security. Pages 79 and 80 state that no data is to be collected except that which is “explicitly authorized under this Act.” However, as the February 02, 2016, Congressional Oversight Committee Hearing of US Department of Education (USDOE) Chief Information Officer (CIO) Danny Harris demonstrated, not only was the federal government able to hack into the USDOE data system; acting US secretary John King bent over backwards in defending Harris’ questionable conflicts of interest and shoddy upkeep over the course of years with securing said data. Despite Harris’ failure to secure student data, USDOE awarded him bonuses. (For details on Harris’ hearing, see this oversight committee summary and these partial transcriptions: here and here.)

Harris retired at the end of February 2016; however, the security issues remain, not the least of which is King’s apparent concern for Harris over data security.

Thus, I have no confidence in ESSA language that it will only collect “authorized” data. USDOE has failed for years to secure the data it has, which includes to date 139 million unique social security numbers.

Concern Three: Charter Promotion and Expansion

 As was true for NCLB, ESSA is very friendly to charters. In Title IV, ESSA seeks to open and expand “high-quality” charter schools (page 194). The problem is the USDOE’s history of failing to properly account for its own spending on charter schools. Indeed, in November 2015, USDOE awarded a recommended $71 million to Ohio for its charter schools despite the fact that Ohio admitted to tampering with the numbers on the USDOE application.

In an amazing response, USDOE excused itself from failing to recognize it just sent multiple millions to an openly-acknowledged charter fraud situation by stating that it only gave the applications an “expedited” reading. And it was up to Ohio officials to point out to USDOE that USDOE was about to immediately release $32.6 million out of that proposed $71 million to a state riddled with charter scandal.

USDOE’s own Office of Inspector General (OIG) has raised concerns about USDOE’s sloppiness in running its own charter program, including inadequate oversight and record keeping. (Read about that here.)


So, there you have it, in brief: My three chief concerns with ESSA.

Through trying to force states into that 95 percent of students testing in order to qualify for Title I funds, ESSA only puts states in a precarious position to try to pressure an American public that is growing tired of test-score-driven reforms into a position of increasing rebellion against such testing– and placing states at the mercy of the US secretary of education.

Furthermore, the Harris affair has only fed the public’s distrust of USDOE’s data collection and handling. Nothing in ESSA provides the public any assurance to the contrary.

Finally, USDOE has demonstrated without doubt that it has no handle on its charter school spending, but it has shown that it plans to speed recklessly ahead with doling out hundreds of millions more on a charter school program that it has yet to ever properly oversee.

I would like ESSA a whole lot better if USDOE would flip the intensity of its 95-percent testing grip in Title I with its nonchalance both about charter spending related to Title IV and keeping the likes of incompetent CIO Danny Harris in annual bonuses.



Schneider is a southern Louisiana native, career teacher, trained researcher, and author of the ed reform whistle blower, A Chronicle of Echoes: Who’s Who In the Implosion of American Public Education.

She also has a second book, Common Core Dilemma: Who Owns Our Schools?.

both books

Don’t care to buy from Amazon? Purchase my books from Powell’s City of Books instead.

  1. Good ones, Mercedes. With FairTest’s focus on testing, the opt out ‘Catch-22’ is a serious problem, esp. as states quite viciously step up attacks against parents and children. Other serious concerns include the rather subterranean pernicious effects of the requirement to sort and rank every school in the state using primarily state tests of various sorts (vs, say, implementing a variety of indicators to identify schools in trouble, flag the cause – which could well be lack of resources- as basis for assistance. The requirement to test in grades 3-8 inclusive will continue to undermine educational quality and inhibit needed positive changes. And while we at FairTest think on balance the ‘innovative assessment’ program is positive, it contains very serious danger that ‘innovation’ will mean in some states incessant ‘curriculum embedded’ testing via computer-based curriculum and instruction that will even more thoroughly reduce learning to what can be measured with multiple-choice and short-answer questions. Monty Neill

  2. permalink

    Excellent piece! Thank you


Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Mercedes Schneider: My Three Big Concerns about ESSA | Diane Ravitch's blog
  2. ESSA Is Designed to Quell Opting Out. It Won’t Work. | deutsch29
  3. Just a Smidge on the June 29th ESSA Hearing | deutsch29
  4. New York State Opt-out and the ESSA Title I Showdown | deutsch29
  5. The ESSA and opting out of the SBAC | Seattle Education
  6. The Cure for Accountabaloney: Vote the Sausage Makers OUT | accountabaloney
  7. It’s time to restructure the US Department of Education | Seattle Education
  8. Testing Opt Out: Parent Wants Conference; School Calls Police *Just in Case* | deutsch29
  9. Testing Opt Out: Parent Wants Conference; School Calls Police *Just in Case* - News Project
  10. Testing Opt Out: Parent Wants Conference; School Calls Police *Just in Case* - Oroola
  11. Utah Asked USDOE for ESSA Testing Waiver to Honor Parents’ Rights; USDOE Said (Wait for It…) No. | deutsch29

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s