NCLB waiver plan prompts questions
Published: October 1, 2011
California and the rest of the nation’s state education leaders were given just two weeks to decide whether they will take up the Obama administration’s invitation to seek waivers from major requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act, the controversial federal education law that is now four years overdue for reauthorization in Congress.
Ending weeks of suspense, President Obama himself unveiled the waiver plan on Sept. 23 that U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan had been discussing in broad terms since late last spring. Three main areas are covered, according to an administration fact sheet:
-
The 2013–2014 deadline for achieving 100 percent proficiency in English-language arts and math: “Instead, a State will have flexibility to establish ambitious but achievable goals in reading/language arts and mathematics to support improvement efforts for all schools and all students.”
-
District and school accountability: “States will have the flexibility to design a system that targets efforts to the schools and districts that are the lowest-performing and to schools that have the largest achievement gaps, tailoring interventions to the unique needs of those schools and districts and their students.”
-
The use of federal education funds: “States, districts, and schools will gain increased flexibility to use several funding streams in ways they determine best meets their needs, and rural districts will have additional flexibility in using their funds. Funds to meet the needs of particular populations of disadvantaged students will be protected.”
To qualify for the waivers, though, “a State must develop a rigorous and comprehensive plan addressing the three critical areas that are designed to improve educational outcomes for all students, close achievement gaps and increase equity, and improve the quality of instruction,” the fact sheet continues. That entails:
-
College- and career-ready standards and assessments: “A State must have already adopted college- and career-ready standards in reading/language arts and mathematics designed to raise the achievement of all students, including English Learners and students with disabilities.”
-
Accountability: “A State will establish a differentiated recognition, accountability, and support system that gives credit for progress towards college- and career-readiness.” State plans must address not just the 5 percent of a state’s schools that are considered lowest-performing—“Priority Schools,” in administration parlance, some of whom are already receiving assistance through federal School Improvement Grants—but also the next-lowest 10 percent of “Focus Schools, identified due to low graduation rates, large achievement gaps, or low student subgroup performance, [where] the district will target strategies designed to focus on students with the greatest needs.”
-
Teacher and principal effectiveness: “Each State that receives the … flexibility will set basic guidelines for teacher and principal evaluation and support systems. The State and its districts … will assess their performance based on multiple valid measures, including student progress over time.”
States had just two weeks before the Oct. 12 deadline to submit letters of intent to pursue a waiver. After that, formal requests for the first round of waivers are due Nov. 14. A second-round deadline will be announced in mid-February, with a third round to follow the end of the 2011-12 school year.
California plans unclear
CSBA Principal Legislative Advocate Erika Hoffman was cautious in her initial assessment of the waiver plan the day it came out.
“It’s hard to say if California will request a waiver, as there are a number of potential obstacles that would need to be addressed,” Hoffman said. In addition to the short deadline for expressing intent to apply, they include:
-
Legislation: “What legislative actions will be needed to address the requirements of the waiver proposal? Would California’s Legislature be able to move that quickly on issues of teacher/principal evaluations?”
-
Capacity: “Does the state have the capacity to establish a differentiated support system for schools/districts?”
-
Intervention requirements: “What funding and support will be needed by school districts with schools in the lowest 15 percent to implement new intervention requirements?”
“I understand at some level why the president is proposing this. The issue is, will it work for California?” Hoffman said. Today’s high school seniors were freshman when NCLB —formally known as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act—was due for reauthorization, but widespread concerns about the law—and, increasingly, partisan gridlock in the nation’s capital—have blocked progress.
Additionally, resistance to the law has grown at the state and even the local levels. The White House press release announcing the waiver plan cites “a ‘quiet revolution’ to move beyond NCLB’s vision” with states’ own reforms, and several states recently have threatened to simply ignore the law.
Torlakson focuses on funding, ESEA reauthorization
California Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson called the announcement “an acknowledgement by the Administration that the one-size-fits-all policies of No Child Left Behind are unworkable.”
“We are carefully examining the proposal, which would appear to cost billions of dollars to fully implement, at a time when California and many other states remain in financial crisis,” Torlakson continued in a news release.
“I would hope that the Administration is prepared to provide the funds necessary to implement these provisions, or provide greater flexibility to California, which already has a strong school accountability system in place.
“With bipartisan support for a new generation of accountability systems that measure growth in student achievement over time, I will continue to advocate for Congress to approve a new Elementary and Secondary Education Act.”
Torlakson stuck a similar note in an Aug. 25 letter to Obama about reports of waiver proposals that were circulating then. Torlakson proposed that “California be permitted to freeze sanctions and mandatory identification required under NCLB … at the 2010–11 level.”
Correctly anticipating the thrust of the waiver conditions, Torlakson also wrote that “The conditional nature of the waivers presents problems for California. … These policy priorities would mark dramatic deviations from the existing policies required under NCLB. States would be asked to make commitments beyond NCLB with no commensurate funding to provide the state capacity to implement such requirements. The appropriate forum for consideration of any new legal mandates is through the reauthorization process involving transparency and Congressional democratic debate.”
Easy links