ACSA: Waiver too weak as is
Administrators offer ways to strengthen it
The organization representing state school administrators says that if California wants its request for a waiver from the No Child Left Behind law to be taken seriously, then the State Board should give Secretary of Education Arne Duncan more of what he is demanding.
The Association of California School Administrators (ACSA) is suggesting several amendments that it says would strengthen a waiver request that Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson’s staff at the state Department of Education is recommending to the State Board. Chief among the changes would be a pledge to halve the number of students who are not proficient in math and English language arts over the next six years.
ACSA focused on the area of school accountability, a key part of the waiver proposals. “We believe however, the recommended proposal (by CDE) is too weak for serious consideration by federal officials,” ACSA President Alice Petrossian wrote in a letter last week to State Board of Education President Michael Kirst. “The CDE proposal offers no real alternative to improving student achievement. While it may be appealing to have unfettered relief we believe it’s very unrealistic.” The State Board will vote on the waiver proposal on Wednesday.
Duncan is offering to give states flexibility from NCLB spending dictates and temporary relief from its severest penalties if they meet four broad conditions he has set. They include creating improvement plans for districts with the biggest achievement gaps and adopting statewide teacher and principal evaluation systems that take student results on standardized tests into consideration.
Eleven states already have received the two-year waivers, which take effect this fall, and 26 others applied by the second-round deadline last week. California still can apply for a third round by Sept. 1, but it would take effect in 2013-14.
From the start, Torlakson has viewed Duncan’s offer as stretching his authority to grant waivers from NCLB – a point highly debated in Washington. He called Duncan’s offer “not so much a waiver as a substitution for a new set of requirements and a new set of challenges.” And he has cited the multibillion-dollar costs of implementing Common Core standards, another condition for the waiver, and uncertainty that the Legislature would act on teacher evaluations this year as reasons the state can’t meet Duncan’s demands.
Instead, Torlakson is recommending that Duncan be asked to use his overall waiver authority to give California immediate, two-year relief: flexibility for districts to use $353 million in Title I dollars and suspension of sanctions against schools deemed failing under NCLB.
ACSA: Commit to making progress
Last fall, when Duncan first announced the waiver idea, ACSA’s board recommended that the state pursue it. ACSA still prefers that option, said Sherry Griffith, ACSA’s lobbyist, but it can support a request for a general NCLB waiver, as the state Department of Education is proposing, if it is strengthened.
One of district superintendents’ chief complaints about NCLB is that schools are labeled as failures under the federal measures even though they meet growth targets under the state’s performance index.
That wouldn’t change under CDE’s proposal. Although the sanctions would be suspended for two years, NCLB’s chief – and generally scorned – requirement, that all students be proficient in math and English language arts by 2014, would remain in effect. So over the next two years, hundreds, if not thousands, of additional schools would be given the scarlet “F” even if, for now, there would be no additional consequences.
Instead, ACSA is proposing that California agree to Duncan’s requirement that districts commit to reduce the proportion of remaining non-proficient students by 50 percent over six years. Consistent with that, the state would raise the target API score for schools and districts, now 800, to 838 (halfway to 875, signifying that all students, on average, would be at grade level).
ACSA is also suggesting that CDE do something else that Duncan is requiring: identify the 15 percent of schools that are either the worst-performing schools or those with the biggest achievement gaps and require that districts create plans to turn them around. “This commitment is in keeping with ACSA’s position that federal and state accountability should be focused on the lowest performing schools while higher performing schools are more autonomous,” Petrossian’s letter said.
CDE’s waiver plan doesn’t deal with the issue of teacher and principal evaluations. Its position is that it’s the Legislature’s prerogative to change current law.
ACSA isn’t suggesting that the state commit to mandating a new evaluation system that requires some use of student achievement as a measure. But, in a nod to Duncan, it does recommend that the state at least “commit to developing ‘voluntary’ state guidelines for teacher and principal evaluations” while the Legislature sorts through changes in the law.
“While not perfect, ACSA’s amendments make for a stronger, more viable plan,” Petrossian wrote. “We would rather be rejected making our best effort then go through an exercise in futility.”
Along with ACSA, superintendents of the seven districts that led the state’s application for Race to the Top money also have called for pursuing Duncan’s waiver. The districts, which include Los Angeles Unified, Fresno Unified, and Sacramento City Unified, have continued their work through a nonprofit, the California Office to Reform Education. Its executive director, Rick Miller, is a former deputy state superintendent.
“We support all ideas for needed flexibility for schools failing under No Child Left Behind,” Miller told me this week. “We’re in favor of a general waiver if we can get relief, but I have grave doubts whether it (CDE’s proposal before the State Board) will be acceptable to the feds.”
12 Comments
Trackbacks
- The Educated Guess: ACSA: NCLB waiver too weak as is : SCOE News Reader
- California seeks to dump Adequate Yearly Progress | Thoughts on Public Education
- CA Gov’t Schools Decide AGAINST Adequate Progress Each Year
So um,
Chief among the changes would be a pledge to halve the number of students who are not proficient in math and English language arts over the next six years.
They’re saying that they’ve been waiting for this waiver to pursue this goal? It hasn’t been their goal all along?
I seriously have no idea what this means.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Unless there is a hammer, ACSA’s well remunerated clients won’t act? Hmmm – I thought school administrators were already supposed to be closing the gaps they now suggest closing. Wasn’t this the whole point of SAT9/STAR testing, along with class size reduction, the improved ELA Standards and funds for second language teaching … and so on and so on?
And … the CDE and ACSA didn’t talk before the CDE crafted the waiver? Wouldn’t decision-making of this importance require input from the very people who would be in charge of managing schools to make the changes?
“We’re in favor of a general waiver if we can get relief …”
This reads as: “We’re in favor of a change if it protects us from having to attempt to meet the NCLB demands, even though we have shifted numerous children to the watered down test … ”
In a single year in high school, I have raised students reading comprehension and vocabulary levels by four grades or more (using a time honored, respected, consisted test). I’ve moved kids from the 2nd percentile to the 24th percentile – - it can be done. I’m not a brilliant person or super teacher, just someone who was well educated, well trained, and constantly read the research literature globally. There are a few “key” things you have to do – - but many of them don’t fit the California literacy teaching ideology, so they aren’t done. I feel so sorry for the children and families in the 15% of under-performing schools – - seems that ACSA wants them shut down – - -but aren’t ACSA clients running them? Aren’t ACSA clients (for want of a better term) evaluating the teachers? Aren’t ACSA clients formally approving curriculum selections, teaching methods, and analyzing the data? There is such a profound disconnect at the top.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Sue: My understanding (correct me, CDE) is that CDE staff worked on the general waiver on their own and did not present it to outside groups until last Friday, after the draft was already completed and posted.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Im sorry, but this is just a bunch of state and federal officials talking so they can listen to their own voices.
‘ACSA is also suggesting that CDE do something else that Duncan is requiring: identify the 15 percent of schools that are either the worst-performing schools or those with the biggest achievement gaps and require that districts create plans to turn them around. “This commitment is in keeping with ACSA’s position that federal and state accountability should be focused on the lowest performing schools while higher performing schools are more autonomous,” Petrossian’s letter said.’
Um, HELLO? I would venture to guess that nearly 100% of those lowest performing schools are already in PI (how else are they measuring this?). I would even venture to guess that the vast majority (again likely 100%) have been in PI status for many years, perhaps even as much as, you know, the magic number of 4? Current law requires that LEAs create a plan to significantly modify the structure and/or environment at such schools, including firing the entire staff, converting to a charter, blah, blah, blah, blah. Our valued administrators have already been doing this, right? Why would we ask the State to do something our districts have already been doing? And if we havent been doing it, what do we need a waiver for? Seriously, can someone please explain that? Petrossian?
‘While it may be appealing to have unfettered relief we believe it’s very unrealistic.”’
Again, what does this really mean? Isnt the Gov’s proposed new funding mechanism even more extremely ‘unfettered’? Are people really complaining about too much freedom in receiving funds for disadvantaged kids?!
Regarding Common Core. There seems to be a lot of disagreement how much better these standards are. I wont debate that point, but if some people believe that, why are we necessarily assuming CC is a requirement of a waiver?
‘One of district superintendents’ chief complaints about NCLB is that schools are labeled as failures under the federal measures even though they meet growth targets under the state’s performance index.’
And Im sorry but we really need to just get over this. Everyone understands that NCLB is stupid, broken and meaningless. Why do we care what its telling us? I vote that we move up the 100% requirement from 2014 to now. Then everyone can be equally sad about being labelled a failure. We can have a statewide whiner party, be sad for a day, then get on with focusing on our kids! We have schools that have been labelled “FAILURE” for almost 10 years now and no one seems to have found that bothersome or important enough to do anything about. Why?
and finally:
‘“While not perfect, ACSA’s amendments make for a stronger, more viable plan,” Petrossian wrote. “We would rather be rejected making our best effort then go through an exercise in futility.”’
Well, I disagree. I would rather not spend the time and money trying to implement things that will make education worse, or trying to convince others that we’re willing to do that. And if no one stands up to the Feds then they’re just going to implement another lame set of NCLB/ESEA contingencies.
Sorry for the attitude, but its a ‘no whiners’ morning today. :-)
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
So (to back off a bit) the whole point of why we find ourselves here is that getting all the kids to measure proficient on a standardized test is (a) difficult and (b) not under any one person’s control.
Exhortations or pledges to “try harder” are a waste of energy. There is plenty of evidence that competent people and even teams who try hard, even above and beyond the call of duty, are still unable to meet this goal (save cheating).
How about instead an intensive pilot to evaluate a group of low performing kids, and to determine (a) actual proficiency when evaluated directly by a human (b) reasons those deficiencies might remain and (c) recommendations for improvement? How about restoring funding for counselors and reading and math tutors? Help every kid we can help.
This is a hard problem, but as a good friend of mine would say, it’s the kind you solve like water on a rock. You wear away at it imperceptibly a bit at a time. You look for breakthroughs. But there’s no miracle incantation, and taking away the water, or yelling at the water, won’t make it happen sooner.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Hi El. That water on a rock analogy is perfect. I totally agree.
I hope you didnt see my post as merely yelling, nor that my questions were seen as any less valid due to how I posed them. I was serious about wanting to know the answers.
I dont think its acceptable to be calling for additional punitive measures to duplicate those we’ve either already implemented or already decided to ignore. Perhaps I simply have not yet had enough coffee today, but that seems absurd to me. I guess alternatively it could be nothing more than political posturing, which then would simply warrant an alternative, albeit equality valid (imho) criticism. :-)
I think your point about the goal being difficult and not under any one person’s control is key. To that I would add a third component that we probably dont actually understand when we have success because no one is willing to discuss performance in enough detail for it to be meaningful (this perhaps gets back to questioning where we ‘really are at’ and what that is a function of).
Someone should create a couple of balance sheets that show the cost of ignoring the waiver and the cost of implementing the waiver. And not just the apparent costs, but all the costs (including the time and effort required to fix policy changes that were thought up at the very last minute to try to meet the some deadline for a waiver..)
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Is ACSA posturing for a district-level Race to the Top? What a bunch of whiny windbags. No vision.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Thanks everyone - – I like the “no whiners” – that’s where I am right now!
John – it is stunning that the CDE would prepare its own document, and not consult those who actually “do’” something about education. The endless vertical and horizontal decision-making that goes on ad infinitum. I hope that CDE “really” did talk to the stakeholders – but doubt it!
Just to keep pushing my agenda: if we actually looked at the data held by every school, district, county (even the State) I pretty much think we could find a lot of “what works” – but that might upset a textbook company, or show that some teachers are more effective with specific populations. I just don’t find California really wanting the answers. There are far too many sacred cows at stake to end the rhetoric and examine the data. (And by data: I mean talk to teachers, talk to students, talk to parents as well as analyze numbers.)
Many thanks John for this blog opportunity.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
If it’s true that “CDE staff worked on the general waiver on their own and did not present it to outside groups until last Friday …after the draft was already completed and posted” it suggests that they adhere to the “cooperating with the enemy” definition of collaboration over ” working together to achieve a goal”.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity