More gain, no pain NCLB waiver
State plan isn't what Duncan had in mind
Gov. Jerry Brown described his relationship with U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan as a “work in progress” after a face-to-face meeting last week in Washington. Californians will soon find out how much progress if the State Board of Education next week approves a very different request for a waiver from the No Child Left Behind law than the one Duncan will be expecting.
Again assuming the role of the nonconformist state, California would ask Duncan for immediate relief from NCLB’s spending constraints and penalties without having to jump through the hoops that Duncan is demanding of other states. One of those is the adoption of a teacher and administrator evaluation system that would include student test scores as a factor – a requirement that the California Teachers Association staunchly opposes.
“California state law and our current fiscal condition make it virtually impossible to implement all of the waiver requirements in every district and school in the state,” says a draft letter to U.S. Acting Assistant Secretary of Education Michael Yudin that would be signed by Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson and State Board President Michael Kirst if the State Board approves. Unlike other states that have applied for a waiver, California would not try to negotiate a better deal. The state would argue that the waiver is warranted in its own right; districts want it, and student achievement would ultimately rise if California could be out from under much of NCLB.
The federal Department of Education thus far has granted waivers to 11 states; the next deadline, to which several dozen states may apply, is this week. A final deadline is Sept. 1, but it would be too late for a waiver for the 2012-13 school year. California would ask for an immediate two-year waiver.
Torlakson, who has called Duncan’s waiver requirements an overreaching swap of one set of burdens for another, is pushing the “state-devised” waiver idea. State Board Executive Director Sue Burr has followed its development and presumably informed Brown, another sharp critic of NCLB, the Race to the Top competition, and other Obama administration education reforms.
Brown probably has a better chance of trouncing Duncan one on one in basketball than California has in getting the waiver approved. But California would be making a point with its request: The waiver that the state is seeking is justifiable and permissible; it’s Duncan who is stretching his authority by demanding concessions for a waiver beyond what’s contained in NCLB.
California is not asking for all of the benefits from a waiver that Duncan is offering but it is seeking the primary ones: flexibility to use $353 million in Title I money now restricted to tutoring and transporting students to their districts of choice, and release from having to identify and prescribe turnaround programs for schools identified as failing under NCLB. In testimony before the State Board, superintendents have cited these benefits in calling for the state to pursue Duncan’s waiver option. Districts with Title I schools – about 60 percent of the state’s 10,000 schools – would still have to spend the money on low-income students, but could use it, say, for preparing teachers for Common Core standards or for their own school improvement plans outside of NCLB’s limited models.
In return, Duncan is requiring that states commit to:
- Adopt and implement college- and career-ready standards. California has partly met this by adopting the Common Core standards, but the state Department of Education estimates that the state and districts would have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars over the next two years in training teachers and purchasing textbooks – money the state doesn’t have or, in the case of instructional materials, lacks the current authority to approve. Other states have negotiated the deadline.
- Create a new school accountability system that identifies 15 percent of schools with the largest achievement gaps or the worst performance and create improvement plans for them. High-performing schools would be rewarded. State officials assert that Duncan is requiring adoption of a new state assessment system that tracks student growth from year to year, even though Common Core assessments would replace them in two years.
- Pass a new evaluation system for teachers and administrators while providing value-added student test scores to math and English language arts teachers. State education officials point out that the state cannot promise that the Legislature will revise the current Stull Act and, if it did, that unions and school boards in the every school district would negotiate the adoption next year.
Paul Hefner, spokesman for Torlakson, said the Superintendent considers the state’s proposed waiver “a third way” – a reasonable solution to districts’ need for flexibility and consistent with the “spirit of the law’s waiver authority.”
12 Comments
Trackbacks
- The Educated Guess: More gain, no pain NCLB waiver : SCOE News Reader
- Such a big cost, so little benefit: Why, Governor, persist with Common Core? | Thoughts on Public Education
- Districts want shot at NCLB waiver | Thoughts on Public Education
I’d be surprised if California sticks to its guns on this but I hope we do. A waiver is justified on its own merit. The fact that they’re being offered in the first place proves that.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Title 1 funds need to be directed to meeting the needs of those entitled to them. There’s already too much “flexible” use of such funds, and too little accountability. I realize some people want “out” of NCLB – but there are others who are grateful that the decades of under-achievement, particularly by specific sub-groups were finally addressed. NCLB has many failings, but it was the endless rounds of failings that got us to NCLB. I don’t think this proposal from California is realistic. And until we get CALPADS up and running, with transparent analysis of data, where is the potential empirical guidance coming from? Perhaps if there was open and transparent reporting, with school by school anaylsis of what is working and what is not, California could claim it was already meeting the federal goals and could be released from NCLB because it was so stridently seeking to remedy its own ills. Perhaps each district could voluntarily produce its own evaluations – with a narrative showing value added.
I am in a situation where two of my children are being taught math using material that is not aligned with the Standards. The results are disastrous, so we are now personally purchasing books, preparing for a long summer of remediation at home .. etc. If scores, materials and teachers were evaluated, the gaps would be seen quickly and action taken. They are a full year to 18 months behind their cohort in the area from which we moved three years ago, and where their siblings were at their age. In the same State, with the same funding … this should not be happening! They have also lost most of their Visual and Performing Arts education. There’s a reason why so many people are so tired of the status quo. I was teacher – so I am not an “outsider” for sure.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Such a deal: CA gets to transfer $353 million in Title I funds from education to Pearson’s bailout to make a partial payment on the Common Core price tag of $1.6-$2 billion, so we’ll only still owe a billion plus. If Brown and Torlakson really want to appear to be bargaining with Duncan, they would ask him to pay the entire tab on CCSSI, since CA never asked for the standards and, as everyone in the field knows, we don’t need them.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Hi Sue. Just to be clear, I agree wholeheartedly with your first sentence. However, I dont believe that any of the hoops the Feds want CA to jump through for their waiver medal will make that more likely. In fact, if the cost of those jumps is more than the state feels responsible in bearing, then it will feel even more justified in doing exactly the opposite of what you state. And thats not even taking into account any negative impact of those policies on the educational environment.
I am concerned that the alternative is not seen as not applying for a waiver at all (ie leaving things as they are–not that I like that either) it is instead giving in to the Feds demands in order to get that waiver. In other words, that ‘flexibility’ to not put the money where it needs to be would still be there (and as mentioned above, would probably then be even more likely to occur).
I could not agree with you more on the data question. I think it is tragic how we currently use a misleading snippet of data to drive policy in this state. I am convinced there is some meaningful information there somewhere, however, little to none of it is currently or reasonably accessible, let alone in the public consciousness. Without knowledge choice is unlikely to be productive.
What the best and wisest parent wants for his own child, that must the community want for all its children. Any other ideal for our schools is narrow and unlovely; acted upon, it destroys our democracy.” – John Dewey, The School and Social Progress
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Is it true that charter schools are 100% exempt from the RTTT policies including teacher evaluation systems and value added test score analysis?
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Ms.Moore:
What makes you think curriculum materials aligned with the standards would be so much superior? Other materials emphasize thinking and problem solving better than standards aligned ones. Instruction using alternative materials may not result in stellar CST scores, but recall, the US and CA are spending a billion or so to improve the CSTs and other more narrow assessments. Learning may be occurring, rather than test scores, and that ain’t all bad.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Hopefully the state of CA may have the courage to submit a waiver application that truly reflects fiscal conditions in CA as well as an educational vision that is a good fit for CA. The collaboratively developed Blueprint for Great Schools is not a perfect document but, as a basis for a waiver application, it could craft a vision for CA’s schools that would have a very good chance of bringing the best in school management and instructional practices to a system in dire need of support.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Mr. Ravani – I don’t necessarily think that curriculum materials that are aligned with the Standards are superior. In fact, I think the Standards in California are somewhat lacking in many areas, and don’t challenge students sufficiently. What I do think, is the materials used by some teachers are quite inferior to the materials that are recommended, and the fact that my younger kids are some 18 months behind their friends in the school district we left a few years ago (after they were at parity) is pretty telling! As a teacher I primarily created curriculum materials to supplement the basic materials that were provided. However, when materials are used that do not support the children’s learning (yes, I have access to in-school, district and State results) then I prefer that a textbook with online support (for students and parents) that is well respected by the external groups that review materials, is utilized.
As a teacher with experience in Europe and US, and lecturer in higher education (in Education) – - my analysis of the materials used by my children is fairly objective. I also asked for input from an excellent math teacher in this specific case, as well as others who are experts in math – and parents.
Thanks Navigio – - your points on the waiver are well taken. With respect to the data – it is all there! There is so much that is known, but the “airing” of it is not about to happen! If we did have the data – then maybe we would have much more idea as to what curriculum is effective with x – - but not with - y-. I know from having worked for SDUSD for many years, that the amount of data there is incredible – but it’s just not pulled together and used! If that data - especially for the poorly performing sub-groups – had been well analyzed and presented to teachers and parents, I think a lot of improvement within schools and communities could have occurred. I wrote a specific curriculum to support my students in English (Outsiders’ Voices), and it really drew in students who had felt excluded because the literature didn’t reflect them. It did a lot more, but the most important aspect for me, was to reflect minority students (Hmong, Cambodian, etc.) through their literature, while they in their turn were able to lead discussions, and become more a part of the learning community. I saw reading and vocabulary scores rise, and a greater engagement with the overall learning emerged. (I loved the process – and that can influence the classroom!)
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Ms. Moore:
I have 35 years of classroom experience (right here in CA not Europe), several credentials, and considerable graduate work in assessment and educational statistics. That being said, I can’t quite grasp what you mean when you say: and the fact that my younger kids are some 18 months behind their friends in the school district we left a few years ago (after they were at parity) is pretty telling!
There is some common measure that accurately describes differences in student achievement in months? The CSTs?
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity