California’s Request for NCLB Waiver Rejected

Posted on January 14, 2013 by coreeducation

The California Department of Education, currently the lightning rod for national education policy, was recently denied a No Child Left Behind waiver by the U.S. Department of Education.

A total of 33 states and the District of Columbia have thus far been granted NCLB waivers, with 10 more states’ waiver applications pending. This means that California joins a small group that has been denied. Iowa was rejected by the Education Department earlier in 2012, although Iowa and five other states, Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Maine and West Virginia, were granted a one year freeze on the requirement to increase student test scores.

The fallout from this rejection is as of yet unclear, but the possibilities are quite drastic.

Based on the 2001 NCLB law, the time frame under which states were required by the law to meet certain standards, particularly that of increased student test scores to the level of “proficient” set by the law, is nearly here. For this reason, most states have been granted reprieves by waivers. Since California has not received a waiver, there is the possibility that they may have to offer parents the option for their children to transfer to other schools within their district as well as set aside money for tutoring, transportation, and teacher training. There is even the possibility that a failing school may be forced to have its entire leadership and staff be rehired.

There is still a possibility that the Education Department may grant individual waivers to certain school districts within California, such as LAUSD; however Education Secretary Arne Duncan has received negative feedback on this plan from state officials in the past.

Marc Tucker, president of the National Center on Education and the Economy, has also helpfully placed the situation with California in its larger context. He argues that a perfect storm of factors has put Education Secretary Arne Duncan in an unprecedented position of power. First, there is the lack of new legislation on NCLB, which is connected with the larger issues of the budgetary crisis and a gridlocked Congress. Second, there is the situation of budgetary need in which most states find themselves, meaning that states are unwilling to risk losing out on federal education funds. Third, there is the imminent NCLB deadline approaching. Marc Tucker asserts that, based on each of these factors which place pressure on state school systems, Arne Duncan has been able to, without Congressional check, demand state adherence to his own education reform efforts in return for waivers. Furthermore, since Duncan finds himself in this position of power, he has no great incentive to push for a reform bill on NCLB, further weakening education legislation.

California, in its response to having its waiver request denied, called on Congress to reform NCLB. This would put an end to the tight situation described by Tucker and would also mean greater Congressional control over the workings of the Education Department.

For more information on these stories, please visit these websites:

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2012/12/california_denied_nclb_waiver_.html?qs=california

http://www.mercurynews.com/education/ci_22259604/california-fails-win-waivers-from-restrictive-no-child

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2013/01/california_gets_official_nclb_.html

Are NCLB Waivers Ignoring the Importance of Graduation Rates?

Posted on December 2, 2012 by coreeducation

Various education-focused organizations, as well as government officials, have been questioning the recent policy of Education secretary Arne Duncan and the Obama Administration to provide waivers to those states who have not been able to meet the standards laid out by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Originally, NCLB laid out the goal of 100 percent proficiency for all students in math and reading by the end of the 2013-14 school year. In exchange for not being held to this unattainably high standard, the Obama administration has been offering plans in which states are required to intervene in the 15 percent of the lowest-performing schools, focus on closing achievement gaps, and implement teacher- and principal-evaluation systems that are based in part on student performance.

One of the specific areas of concern about the flexibility of the waiver system is that of graduation rates. In 2008, the Education Department, still under President Bush’s appointee Margaret Spellings, clarified NCLB’s perspective on the importance of high school graduation. At that time, the graduation rate was defined as the number of students who finish high school with a regular diploma within four years, and an addition of an extended-year graduation rate with ambitious goals for that period of time. The recent waivers have not officially changed these 2008 policies, which also urged states to adhere in a uniform fashion. However, a look at state policies confirms that states may be abusing the flexibility granted to them, and recent pleas to the Education Department from noteworthy organizations and individuals highlight this concern.

“An erosion of the bipartisan progress made in the area of high school graduation-rate accountability is an unacceptable byproduct of this [waiver] policy,” states a September 21 letter from 36 business, civil rights, and education groups, which include the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Council of La Raza, and the National School Boards Association.

In his letter from the same day to Secretary Duncan, George Miller, the senior House Democrat on the House Education and the Workforce Committee, wrote: “Of most immediate concern are those new state accountability systems approved by [the Education Department] that I believe undermine the role of graduation rates in determining school performance, are not supported by research or best practice, and erode the recent progress states have made on improving graduation rates.”

The only response from the Education Department was to refer those with concerns to a response letter to Rep. Miller, which states that the Education Department will “vigilantly monitor states to make sure their kids are getting over the bar and graduating them.”

A sample of state divergence from the official policy on graduation rates indicates why so many groups have brought their concerns to the Education Department:

Louisiana and South Dakota use GED rates as part of their graduation rates.
Several states allow for longer than four years to graduate, including Colorado allowing up to seven years.
A wide range (from 10% in Michigan to 30% in Nevada) exists in the weight that graduation rates are given in the overall accountability system.

The Education Department has demanded some responses from some of these states of particular concern in return for the waivers, but for the most part, these have been only superficial. The perspective of some of the states, that of direct opposition to Education Department regulations, can be summed up by Colorado department of education spokeswoman, Megan McDermott: “We don’t want an accountability system that says, ‘If you can’t do it in four years, then it doesn’t count.’”

For more information, please see: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/10/31/10graduation.h32.html?cmp=ENL-EU-SUBCNT

Beginning K–12 Teacher Characteristics and Preparation

Posted on November 23, 2012 by coreeducation

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) demands that “all students have access to qualified teachers, particularly in core academic subjects” and requires that “state and local policies have introduced incentives to attract well-qualified teachers to low-performing and urban schools.” The Institute of Education Sciences/National Center for Education Statistics have recently released comprehensive statistics detailing exactly who it is that is teaching students, and which teachers are teaching poor, urban students.

Because of the difficulty of garnering statistics from various school districts, a survey was conducted to track teachers based on graduation from undergraduate education/teacher certification programs. The result was the 2008/2009 Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study (BB:08/09), the first follow-up of a nationally representative cohort of 2007-08 baccalaureate graduates. Findings focus on the experiences of recent graduates who entered K-12 teaching. Data include graduates’ demographic, educational, and employment characteristics, as well as the characteristics of the schools in which they are teaching, especially with a view towards schools with greater need, such as schools with higher percentages of FARMS students.

As an example, while 31.8% of teachers teaching in a school with a poverty level less than 10% were required to complete remedial level courses in college, 36.4% of teachers teaching in a school with 50% or more students with Free and Reduced Meal eligibility were required to do so. This statistic reveals a disparity in teaching quality that puts more affluent students at an advantage.

No conclusions are included with the data; however, these data are useful in evaluating the success/lack of success of NCLB in bringing about its stated goals and the need for further work in attracting high quality teachers to our most needy schools.

For more information and a link to download the extensive Web Tables, please visit this link: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2013153

Arne Duncan charts course for next four years

Posted on November 21, 2012 by coreeducation

Education Department Secretary Arne Duncan, in a press conference with the Council of Chief State School Officers last week, implied that he would continue as President Obama’s education secretary for another four years and would continue the course set in the last four years.

Duncan’s remarks to the CCSSO were his first scheduled speaking appointment since the election, although further clarification from the Education Department and from the administration are still expected in the coming weeks.

Saying, “We came out of the gates flying” in the last term, he added that he plans to “replicate that as much as we can.” Duncan suggested that the two main thrusts of the Education Department over the next four years would be to continue to use federal power to encourage state and district level educational improvement, especially through federal monetary incentives. Second, Duncan mentioned a new focus on principal preparation and evaluation.

In addition, Duncan stressed that re-authorization and/or changes to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, of which the No Child Left Behind Act is the most recent iteration, was up to the Congress and that the administration would move on with its agenda regardless of developments there. “We will lead, we will help, we will push, but Congress has to want to do it,” said Duncan. This middle-ground position does nothing to alleviate concerns of some that the department lacks a commitment to these laws, especially since it has given waivers to over 30 states. Duncan was also ambiguous, stating no during the press conference and yes during an interview afterwards, on whether the Education Department might also grant waivers to individual districts in states which do not seek or receive waivers.

Other policy initiatives mentioned by Duncan included:

Title II grants, which are used for professional-development-type activities, federal School Improvement Grant dollars, and other programs
Improving early-childhood education
Making college more affordable and attainable

For more information, please visit these sites: http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2012/11/Duncan_CCSSO_speech.html?cmp=SOC-SHR-TW and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/16/arne-duncan-obama-education_n_2145369.html

Is No Child Left Behind compatible with democracy?

Posted on November 6, 2012 by coreeducation

Kenneth R. Howe and David E. Means of the University of Colorado at Boulder’s National Education Policy Center have recently published a brief entitled “Democracy Left Behind: How Recent Education Reforms Undermine Local School Governance and Democratic Education.” In this brief, Howe and Means describe the negative impact of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) on local school governance and therefore also NCLB’s negative impact on American democracy. They offer guidelines for future federal education policy that addresses the loss of local control brought on by recent reforms:

Local control has historically been a prominent principle in education policymaking and governance. Culminating with the passage of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), however, the politics of education have been nationalized to an unprecedented degree, and local control has all but disappeared as a principle framing education policymaking.

Based on the authors’ interpretation of this situation, they recommend four initiatives for the future:

Move from a punitive model to a participatory model for engaging local communities in reform efforts. Rather than threatening to withhold funding from struggling schools, provide additional support and incentives for staff, parents, and other community members to get involved in deliberation about education problems and their solutions.
Encourage the adoption by states and locales of curriculum standards that include a conscious and substantive focus on developing the deliberative skills and dispositions required of democratic citizenship.
Curtail the privatization of public resources. Keep individuals and organizations that receive public funds accountable to the public through democratic procedures; support elected school boards, which are the bodies best positioned to exercise discretion in allocating education funding within firm guidelines based on democratic principles.
Seek ways to integrate schools to ensure access to equal educational opportunities and the diverse context of learning that all students need for the inculcation of democratic character.

For more information, please see http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/democracy-left-behind

Five More States Get Waivers

Posted on July 3, 2012 by coreeducation

On June 29, the Department of Education announced that waiver applications from five more states have been approved. Arkansas, Missouri, South Dakota, Utah and Virginia bring the total of waiver-approved states to 24, with 13 states still waiting for a decision.

The big surprise for many observers was the approval of Virginia’s waiver. Part of the waiver process requires that a state adopt standards that prepare students for college or career, which some conservative critics have argued is simply the administrations way of forcing states to adopt the Common Core. Virginia is one of the handful of states who has not adopted the Common Core, which could put to rest this argument. Virginia has proved that the second option offered in the waiver application—that of adopting state standards that the state’s university system agrees will prepare students for non-remedial college coursework—is viable path for states to take.

Prior to approval, all five states were required to revamp their applications to better spell out how they would intervene in schools that are missing achievement targets because of particular subgroups of students—even if those schools are not in the bottom 5 or 10% of performance.

The states also had to make changes to their proposed teacher evaluation systems in their original waiver application. For example, Arkansas and Missouri had to revise their systems so that teachers with low-performing students will not be able to be rated at the highest levels.

Each state also had to revise their applications to better communicate how students in special education and English Language Learners would be transitioned to college- and career-ready standards.

States that don’t get waiver approval by the start of the coming school year have been allowed to freeze their AMOs for one year. However, to be eligible for the freeze, states must take steps: adopting college- and career-ready standards, making data about achievement gaps public, and sharing data about student growth with teachers. Iowa, which had its original waiver request denied, has already applied for the freeze.

Waivers: Round Two Approvals

Posted on June 6, 2012 by coreeducation

The Obama administration approved eight additional states for flexibility from key provisions of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in exchange for state-developed plans to prepare all students for college and career, focus aid on the neediest students, and support effective teaching and leadership. The announcement brings the number of states with waivers to 19. Eighteen additional applications are still under review.

U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan announced waivers for Connecticut, Delaware, Louisiana, Maryland, New York, North Carolina, Ohio and Rhode Island. “These eight additional states are getting more flexibility with federal funds and relief from NCLB’s one-size-fits-all federal mandates in order to develop locally-tailored solutions to meet their unique educational challenges,” Duncan said.

Duncan pointed out that many of the new state-created accountability systems capture more students at risk, including low-income students, students with disabilities, and English learners, adding, “States must show they are protecting children in order to get flexibility. These states met that bar.”

Connecticut’s plan, for example, raises the number of schools accountable for the performance of students with disabilities from 276 to 683; free and reduced-price lunch students from 757 to 928; African American students from 280 to 414; Hispanic students from 356 to 548; and English learners from 97 to 209.

For those keeping tally, here’s the waiver standings:

Approved: 19 (CO, NM, OK, MN, LA, IN, KY, TN, OH, GA, FL, NC, NY, MA, RI, CT, NJ, DE, MD)
Intend to Apply: 5 plus Puerto Rico (ND, WV, ME, NH, HI)
No application: 6 (CA, WY, NE, TX, AL, PA)
No intention to apply: 1 (MT)
Application Under Review: Everyone else!

To keep track of developments in waivers, check out CEP’s “Waiver Watch” application, linked here.

States Get Feedback on Waiver Applications

Posted on May 17, 2012 by coreeducation

The second round of waiver applicants, 26 states plus the District of Columbia, have received feedback from the Department of Education on their requests. Education Week examined 22 of the 27 letters sent to applicants, and found some common areas of concern:

Almost every state needs to do a better job of explaining how they will train teachers/principals to implement the Common Core.
Many states were asked to be explicit about how they would make the standards accessible for ELLs and special education students.
Many states had trouble clarifying how they would cope with transitions (i.e., from old standards to the Common Core or from old accountability systems to new ones).
The Department was also unimpressed with the way in which many states created their “annual measurable objectives.” Many of the targets weren’t rigorous enough or didn’t explain how states would intervene in schools that were not meeting targets.
Many states also were called out for not explicitly addressing how they would handle “Priority” (bottom 5%) and “Focus” (those in danger of slipping into the bottom) schools.
Almost every state was also critiqued for not doing enough to explain how they were working with stakeholders, particularly groups representing students who are typically underserved (ELLs, students with disabilities, minorities).

Education Week also notes that the Department commented that some of the requests went beyond the scope of what the NCLB waivers are meant to do. For example, Vermont wanted to add a fifth model it could use with schools getting SIG funds, and Ohio wanted to give ELLs an extra year before they are tested in ELA for accountability purposes.

To find out specifics on each state’s waiver status, please visit http://tinyurl.com/c4ydx62. You can also get caught up on what has already taken place with NCLB waivers by visiting my earlier posts here and here.

More States Apply for Waivers

Posted on March 4, 2012 by coreeducation

Twenty six more states plus DC have applied for waivers to free them from many NCLB requirements. If the new applicants are approved, only 13 states will still be operating under the full law (11 states have already received waivers—you can read the story here). In exchange for waivers, the states have to agree to adopt specific reforms designated by the Obama administration.

The following states have applied: Arkansas, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin, along with D.C.

The states will receive notice of their approval status later this spring; the third round of waivers applications is expected to take place in the fall. New Hampshire and Maine have said they still need more time to figure out what they are willing to do to make the waiver requirements work in their states; California, on the other hand, has expressed its skepticism toward the whole process.

It is assumed that the Department of Education will approve most of the waiver applications, given that they approved all eleven applicants from the previous round. To keep track of waiver applications, you can also visit Waiver Watch, discussed here.

10 States Receive NCLB Waivers

Posted on February 13, 2012 by coreeducation

On February 9, the Department of Education announced that ten states received waivers from some of the stringent requirements of the No Child Left Behind law. Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oklahoma, and Tennessee will now have the opportunity to use alternative methods to improving student achievement, and to gauge achievement by means other than standardized test scores. New Mexico has asked for a waiver but was not granted one, and continues to work with the Department of Education to get approval; 28 other states plus DC and Puerto Rico have also signaled they plan to ask for waivers.

While many across the ten states celebrated, Republicans in Congress accused President Obama of executive overreach, and education and civil rights groups questioned if the waivers would allow districts to stop efforts to provide an equitable education for low-income, high-minority schools. Though the waiver process required each state to submit a plan for promoting and measuring student achievement statewide, the concerns of these groups are certainly valid.

The waivers allow states to bypass the 2014 deadline of having students up to par in reading and math. Instead, their plans must show they will be preparing students for college and career, set new targets for improving achievement among all students, reward the best performing schools, and focus help on the ones doing the worst. As the deadline approaches, more schools across the country are failing to meet requirements under NCLB, with almost half not doing so last year according to the Center on Education Policy. This is because some states have harder tests or higher numbers of immigrant and low-income children, but also because each year the state does meet the standard, the standard is raised the following year.

The waivers do not excuse states from the standardized math and reading tests, but does give them the freedom to include other subjects in their measures of student progress. They can also use scores on college entrance exams and other tests in their calculations (such as AP exams). Essentially, says Gene Wilhoit, executive director of the Council of Chief State School Officers, “under the waiver plan states have a contractual relationship with the federal government to deliver on the approved plan…by giving these waivers….they have raised the standards. They have put in place much more focused attention to the lowest performing, they have put in place professional development activities that didn’t exist prior, and they are holding those schools much more accountable.”

However, there have been accusations of President Obama using education as a “political poker chip.” Sen. Mike Enzi, the ranking member of the Senate committee with jurisdiction over education, believes “this action clearly politicizes education policy, which historically has been a bipartisan issue.” Rep. John Kline of Minnesota, chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, released new legislation Thursday that would rewrite NCLB, and includes a provision that prohibits the education secretary from coercing states into adopting specific academic standards in exchange for a waiver.

It can only be speculated how this latest in education policy clashes will turn out. In an election year, it is hard to say what will happen to NCLB or the waivers if the Executive Branch changes hands. However, the action taken by the President and Department of Education will certainly push education into the political spotlight, and perhaps encourage a more concrete discussion of these issues during the election process.

The "Core" of Education

Tag Archives: No Child Left Behind