Public Comment on the Secretary of Education's Proposed Supplemental Priorities and Definitions on Evidence-Based Literacy, Education Choice, and Returning Education to the States

Zachary Rogers
U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 7W213
Washington, DC 20202-6450

RE: Proposed Priorities and Definitions—Secretary’s Supplemental Priorities and Definitions on Evidence-Based Literacy, Education Choice, and Returning Education to the States

New America is an independent, nonprofit policy and research organization, and the B-12 team, as a part of the Education Policy Program, focuses on strengthening and improving education to better ensure all students, from birth to the workforce, have equitable access to high quality learning opportunities.

We would like to thank the Department for the opportunity to offer the following comments on its proposed priorities and definitions.

We agree with the need to focus on evidence-based literacy instruction and urge the department to focus on the comprehensiveness of the definition provided in this proposal, namely that “evidence-based literacy instruction means literacy instruction that relates to explicit, systematic and intentional instruction in phonological awareness, phonic decoding, vocabulary, language structure, reading fluency, and reading comprehension; promotes knowledge-rich materials; and is backed by one or more of the following, as supported by an evidence framework.“ The many components of literacy instruction named in this proposed priority are indeed supported by what is often referred to as the Science of Reading (SoR), an interdisciplinary body of work informed by scientifically-based research on issues related to reading and writing.

Since 2013, 37 states plus the District of Columbia have enacted new reading laws and policies built on SoR, thus investing time and money into improving literacy for all students. Unfortunately, however, when applied in the classroom and in educator preparation programs, the science is too often reduced to simply teaching phonics and phonemic awareness (i.e., how to “decode” words), neglecting evidence on the many components of instruction and quality learning environments that are needed to be integrated to support literacy. The Department of Education’s programs, guidance, and incentives for states and districts will need to be explicit in calling for and prioritizing the comprehensive set of literacy skills referenced in the proposed definition to dispel misconceptions that the teaching of phonics is all that is required to help students achieve literacy.

In addition, it should be noted that policies adopted in the name of SoR have rarely, if at all, adequately integrated the unique literacy of the 5.3 million students identified as English learners (ELs). ED can ensure the evidence-based literacy efforts it funds are inclusive of EL needs by paying attention to the following.

First, as noted above, policies and practices enacted in the name of SoR must include much more than just phonics. According to Susan B. Neuman, professor of childhood and literacy education at New York University, students must receive explicit and direct instruction on: phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension, oral language development and background knowledge. These last two pillars of oral language development and background knowledge are critically important for EL-identified students. According to the SoR literature, these skills cannot be taught in isolation and must be taught in culturally responsive and personalized ways so that literacy lessons are meaningful to students.

Secondly, English learners’ oral language abilities in their home language and English should be the starting point for literacy instruction. Teachers must build cross-linguistic connections (i.e. applying what is learned in one language to situations presented in another language) between ELs’ home language and English to encourage skill transfer and development of meta-linguistic awareness (i.e. understanding of how language works and how it changes and adapts).

And lastly, literacy is not the same as learning English as an additional language. English language arts (ELA) and the language support services ELs are legally entitled to are not interchangeable. Title I and III of the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 and the “Dear Colleague” letter from the department in 2015 clearly stipulate schools’ responsibilities in ensuring they are meeting ELs academic and linguistic needs. Failure to adequately address the pillars that are critically important to ELs will only perpetuate the cycle of underperformance that led to the push for SoR in the first place.

The US public education system is vast and covers many different types of learners as well as schools. Research also shows that diverse schools support learning for all students. Since choice options have been instrumental in increasing classroom diversity, we recommend that the Department maintain and strengthen education choice programming that supports increasing both socioeconomic and racial diversity.

There are a number of school choice models that can be used to promote racial and socioeconomic diversity, which the Department should consider. Controlled choice allows parents and families to prioritize which schools they want and promotes excellence across all schools within a state or district. Interdistrict transfer allows districts to enter into agreements so that families can choose from a greater number of schools and increase enrollment. Charter schools that offer two way or dual language immersion programs promote language acquisition by bringing together English speaking students and students that speak a partner language for instruction in the same classroom.

Magnet schools are a well known school choice option that typically has bipartisan support. However, programs like the Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP), which is the only federal grant program specifically designed to address school segregation, would disappear if the administration’s budget priorities are enacted, impacting millions of students and their school communities. The Department’s proposed priorities include a desire for increased autonomy to students and families around choosing a school type that best meets a learners needs.

Socioeconomic and racial diversity in schools is associated with higher academic achievement in math, reading, science and language, higher rates of graduation and college attendance, and provides a real opportunity to improve the student outcomes and close the achievement gap. New America’s research shows that in 2021, the percentage of school-aged children in poverty was 15.8 percent on average, but in the most disadvantaged districts, the percentage of children in poverty is closer to 40 percent. Similarly, on the issue of race, students of color represent 53 percent of those enrolled in public schools. However, 46 percent of students of color are enrolled in 1 percent of all school districts, while 26 percent of public school systems serve populations that are 90 percent white. Historic disinvestment in marginalized and minoritized communities and in education has resulted in a public education system where concentrated poverty and racial segregation has become commonplace, and is even expected. To this end, we urge the Department to increase investment in choice options and programming that support increasing diversity.

In the background provided for this priority, the Department states that “education decisions should be made at the State level, where local needs, priorities, and circumstances can be fully understood and addressed.” This statement is a grave overgeneralization. Many decisions about education should in fact be made at the school and district level, rather than at the state level (e.g., decisions about school staffing), where local needs, priorities, and circumstances can best be understood and addressed. However, other decisions that affect our national interest in education can only be made at the federal level via the U.S. Department of Education.

State-level entities are already typically included as a participant in federal discretionary grant funding proposals and projects. For example, state education agencies are the only entities able to propose projects for the Competitive State Assessment Grants. But, when considering supplemental priorities for discretionary grant programs, the Department should ensure that all key stakeholders for a given project or proposal are included, not just high-level state and tribal entities. The Department’s current proposed priority 3 fails to acknowledge the importance of the stakeholders who are typically implementing these federally-funded projects and policies, including local education agencies and their partners, such as community-based organizations and educator preparation programs. Hence it is critical that all relevant stakeholders, not just state-level entities, be included in the process of applying for and executing projects with federal discretionary grant funds in order to be effective in meeting the federal program’s goals. In fact, this is how the eligibility criteria for most federal competitive grants has historically been designed—as a partnership of key stakeholder entities working together to ensure that the project put forth is able to best meet student needs. One example of a grant program that uses this model is Teacher Quality Partnership grants, which require eligible applicants to be a partnership of entities, whether those are local school educational agencies or alternative teacher preparation programs and everything in between. Looking specifically at the federal role in education, the Department’s website indicates that the federal role in education was developed “as a means of filling gaps in state and local support for education when critical national needs arise.”

There are two reasons that gaps currently exist in state and local education entities’ support of students, and they will not be addressed by “returning education to the states.”

The first is that state and local capacity is limited. State and local leaders often don’t have the right staff or enough money to conduct high-quality research in their own state, or to review the research on education efforts happening across the nation to learn from and understand what evidence-based practices they should consider adopting. Even if they did have the staff and funding to do so, it would be extremely inefficient for each state to individually perform the same type of research to determine best practices for its education system. So state and local education leaders rely on the federal government, via expert staff at the Department, to provide research to guide decision-making—including examples of best practices from states and school districts around the nation—to help education leaders make the most efficient and effective choices about where to invest their time, money, and other resources in order to promote student learning.

The second, less common, reason that gaps can exist is that leaders have actively chosen not to comply with federal law. A key federal role in education is to provide state and local oversight to ensure compliance with federal laws that exist to protect students and ensure they receive the education they are entitled to. A prime example of how the Department helps serve students that states have neglected is via its Office of Civil Rights (OCR). OCR works on behalf of students who were discriminated against on the basis of their race, color, national origin, sex, disability, or age and found no recourse when asking their individual schools, districts, or states to address the issue.

Furthermore, claiming that the federal government plays a large role in state and local decision making is false. As the U.S. Department of Education’s own website notes, most key decisions about public elementary and secondary education are already being made by state executive branches, state legislatures, state and local school boards, and state and local education agencies—not the federal government.

The notice also claims that “The growth of federal education bureaucracy has created massive costs, but few educational benefits.” This is also untrue. On the cost side, the Department’s website notes that only 8 percent of public elementary and secondary school funding comes from federal sources, including the Department (ED) and other agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services (for Head Start preschool program) and the Department of Agriculture (for Free and Reduced Meals program). On the benefits side, the Department has helped countless students receive more equal access to public schools and public education services. And without the Department providing information and support to education leaders to make the most efficient and effective choices about where to invest their time, money, and other resources in order to promote student learning, students’ ability to fulfill their potential and contribute to society will plummet.

To conclude, prior to recent attempts to cut staffing and funding, the U.S. Department of Education was helping state and local education leaders better leverage the limited capacity that they do have as they develop and implement their own policies, and ensure adherence to federal law. Funding spent on children is not a cost, it is an investment. We have a moral and ethical responsibility to give every child the opportunity to succeed in school and be productive, responsible citizens when they enter the workforce. While recommending that states must be involved in any proposal for federal discretionary funds, the administration is proposing providing less funding to states for education, while also removing the implementation support they receive from the Department of Education.

This will not improve education in the United States, but will cripple our students’ ability to meet their goals and achieve the American dream. In order to do that, we recommend that the Department recognizes the different types of value that each level of our federalized education system provides—local, state, and federal—and ensures that any proposal for discretionary federal funding includes participation from all relevant stakeholders, particularly those involved in implementing the policy or practice.