You are here: Home / Archives for waivers

Obama, the education president

February 17, 2012 by

Obama’s Education Record includes some success stories — and soft spots, write Mike Petrilli and Tyson Eberhardt in Education Next.

His Race to the Top (RttT) initiative catalyzed a chain reaction of legislative action at the state level, securing key reforms on issues ranging from charter schools to teacher evaluations to rigorous standards. His stimulus and “edujobs” bills seemed to maintain a critical level of investment in the public schools during a time of difficult budget cuts and financial strain. His administrative action to provide flexibility on No Child Left Behind’s most onerous provisions bypassed a paralyzed Congress and partially fulfilled his campaign promise to lift the law’s yoke off the backs of decent but maligned schools. . . .

. . . both the Common Core State Standards effort and the move toward rigorous teacher evaluations could lead to dramatic increases in student achievement, if implemented faithfully by states and school districts. Neither of these reforms would have been adopted so quickly, in so many places, were it not for the president’s leadership.

But the stimulus wasted a lot of money, they write. Race to the Top states have back-pedaled on reforms.

And Washington keeps tightening the screws on the states, while promising flexibility. Race to the Top required states to “develop plans that complied with federal guidelines set forth in excruciating detail.”  No Child Left Behind waivers required more hoop jumping. Now the Education Department has declared that “a disproportionate percentage of white students in Advanced Placement (AP) classes constitutes evidence of racial discrimination.”

“Obama and Duncan have been good on education reform” compared to their Democratic predecessors, write Petrilli and Eberhardt.  But “the administration deserves to be pressed on the cost-effectiveness of its education system bailouts, on the results of its Race to the Top initiative, and on the wisdom of its approach to federalism and separation of powers.”

 

Filed Under: Education Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Meet the new teacher, Uncle Sam

February 10, 2012 by

President Obama has waived No Child Left Behind requirements for 10 states ”in exchange for embracing the Obama administration’s educational agenda,” reports the New York Times.

Education Trust analyzes what each state promised to earn a waiver, highlighting the best and “most worrisome” ideas.

Obama and Duncan Waive Goodbye to Systemic Reform, headlines RiShawn Biddle, who objects to putting low-income, minority, disabled and non-fluent student  in one high-needs subgroup.

States had to jump through a lot of hoops to get very limited flexibility, writes Rick Hess.

The U.S. Department of Education could be violating federal law by using Race to the Top to push Common Core Standards, argues The Road to a National Curriculum (pdf), sponsored by the Pioneer Institute, the Federalist Society, the American Principles Project, and the Pacific Research Institute of California.

By law, the department is barred from “directing, supervising, or controlling elementary and secondary school curriculum, programs of instruction, and instructional materials.”

Lance Izumi piles on in Obama’s Education Takeover.

It’s time to reboot the ever-growing federal role in education argues Choice and Federalism by the Hoover Institution’s Koret Task Force on K-12 Education: States should be free of federal constraints as long as they provide information on school performance and let parents choose their children’s schools.

The federal government has three critical responsibilities, the task force concluded:

creating and disseminating information on school performance, enforcing civil rights, and providing financial support to high-need students via “backpack” funding attached to individual pupils.

“Today, Washington is stuck in an education policy rut,” said task force chairman Chester E. Finn Jr. “On one side we find those who would simply let states do whatever they like with the federal dollars. On the other side are those who want the federal government to tighten the centrally prescribed accountability screws even harder. This debate is going nowhere, as is evident from Congress’s multiyear failure to reauthorize what just about everyone agrees is a badly flawed law.”

Filed Under: Education Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Flexibility? Not so much

February 8, 2012 by

Despite promises of flexibility on No Child Left Behind, the Education Department is micromanaging waivers, writes Mike Petrilli on Flypaper.

He cites Education Department letters to the states reported by AP, which show federal nitpicking.  Even “Massachusetts —the first-place finisher in the Race to the Top, the state with the highest achievement in the land, the one that has seen dramatic gains across all subgroups of students, a strong supporter (for better or worse) of the Common Core standards” gets no respect from the feds.

Petrilli predicts most of the 11 waiver-seeking states will be approved.

Upon closer inspection, observers will notice that the amount of flexibility granted on accountability is tiny. Approved plans will amount to minor changes away from the AYP system we’ve got today.

The number of states planning to apply for waivers by February 21 will drop precipitously, as they realize that it’s just not worth the effort.

This will raise congressional enthusiasm for rewriting No Child Left Behind, but “nothing will come of it this year.”

Filed Under: Education Tagged With: , , , ,

Alternative accountability

November 25, 2011 by

Eleven states have applied for No Child Left Behind waivers. Mike Petrilli looks at how they propose to deal with accountability.

Here’s what the future holds if the Department of Education gives its assent:

1. A deadline for getting all kids to “proficiency” will go the way of the dinosaur. None of the states opted to set a deadline for universal proficiency. A few agreed to reduce the number of not-yet-proficient students by 50 percent over the next six years, but most developed their own twist on “annual measurable objectives.”

2. A focus on growth will eclipse the need for “subgroup accountability.” Models such as the one proposed by Colorado would set “annual measurable objectives” at the kid-level. Schools would be expected to help all students make enough progress to get them to a college-and-career ready standard by high school. (For high achieving students who are already approaching this standard, schools would be held accountable for making sure they grow at least a year’s worth of learning every year.) This is exactly the right concept–have a real-live standard (college readiness) and ask schools to aim at getting all kids to it by graduation. That will require making the most rapid progress for the students who are furthest behind. Since those kids are more likely to be poor and from minority groups, it makes subgroup accountability per se unnecessary. (Though the Administration’s guidelines still require it.)

3. Subjects beyond reading and math will count again. Seven of the states are taking the opportunity to expand the subjects included in their accountability systems. Colorado will look at writing, science, and ACT results; Florida will add writing and science; Georgia will include science and social studies for grades 3-8 and a whole suite of exit exams for high school; Kentucky and Oklahoma add science, social studies, and writing; and Massachusetts and Tennessee will both add science to the mix. This should be helpful in counteracting the narrowing of the curriculum.

These are “sensible alternatives” that should be endorsed by the Education Department, Petrilli writes.

 

 

Filed Under: Education Tagged With: , , ,

California: NCLB waiver costs too much

November 10, 2011 by

Education Secretary Arne Duncan’s No Child Left Behind waivers would cost California at least $2 billion, state education officials told the California Board of Education yesterday.

Qualifying for a waiver would commit the state to using standardized test scores or equivalent data as part of the evaluations for teachers and principals.

State Superintendent Tom Torlakson, the state’s two major teachers unions and the California PTA appeared willing to go waiver-less and let California take its lumps when schools fail to meet NCLB proficiency goals. Perhaps they think it won’t matter how many schools are labeled “needs improvement,” since NCLB’s version of accountability is on the way out. Forty states plan to seek waivers, but if California doesn’t bother, other states may decide it’s not necessary.  Teacher Anthony Cody hopes California will lead a no-waiver movement.

Los Angeles Unified, the state’s largest district, belongs to a consortium of districts that’s seeking a waiver, notes the Los Angeles Times. A consortium spokesman said the waiver will save money.

 

 

Filed Under: Education Tagged With: , , , ,

A good school leaves a few behind

November 1, 2011 by

Despite years of high scores without really trying, Oyster River Middle School is trying test prep to meet No Child Left Behind targets, writes Michael Winerip in the New York Times. The school in a prosperous New Hampshire town “needs improvement” because some special ed students aren’t proficient on the state exam, he writes.

In September the school announced a new motto, “Fill the Box.” Students have been told that their best chance for a high score on the state English test is to use all the blank space allotted for the essay. “You have to write as much as you can,” says Jay Richard, the principal. “People have studied these things.”

Actually, writing well works too.

The school also makes sure students get a good night’s sleep and eat “brain food” before the state tests.

In hopes of raising reading scores, Principal Richard, a former special education teacher, has decided to pull special ed students from mainstream classes at times for individual instruction.

Will this be better or just different?

“I believe we can do better,” Mr. Richard said. “We have to. This is the law.”

OK, the principal thinks it’s better. Surely, that’s a good thing.

Under Arne Duncan’s waivers, schools wouldn’t need to focus as much on low-achieving subgroups, Winerip writes. Isn’t that a bad thing? Apparently not.

Winerip’s story shows why No Child Left Behind was necessary, responds Eduwonk. It’s easy to ignore special ed students (the school’s low-income students may be lagging too),  if nobody’s looking.  “What about the poor students or special education students there? Don’t they matter?”

 

Filed Under: Education, Testing Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

What to do with a longer school day

October 3, 2011 by

It’s n0t enough to add time to the school day, advises a new National Center on Time & Learning report. Effective extended-learning schools use eight “powerful practices” concludes “Time Well Spent,” which profiles successful schools serving low-income students.

  1. Making every minute count or maximizing added time;
  2. Prioritizing increased hours that are tailored to the school and their students;
  3. Individualizing the added time for each student based on diverse needs;
  4. Building a positive school culture of high expectations and mutual accountability;
  5. Providing new experiences for students that make their education more well-rounded;
  6. Preparing students for the future by encouraging college readiness and career goals;
  7. Strengthening instruction by providing increased time for teacher professional development; and
  8. Evaluating how well goals are met by assessing and analyzing data.

Massachusetts  is the only state to fund longer school days: 19 schools now get the extra funding. However, NCTL estimates there are 1,000 expanded-learning-time schools nationwide. Not all have seen significant achievement gains.

Schools applying for No Child Left Behind waivers should use extended learning time as a reform strategy, NCTL urges. At a Center for American Progress forum on the report, Education Secretary Arne Duncan endorsed a longer school day and year.

“Right now, children in India, children in China and other places, they’re going to school, 30, 35 days more than our students. If you’re on a sports team and you’re practicing three days a week and the other team is practicing five days a week, who is going to win more? Anybody who thinks we need less time, not more, is part of the problem,” he said.

Top-performing students don’t need more time in school, forum participants said. For disadvantaged students, schools can be both places to learn and safe havens from dangerous neighborhoods.

Filed Under: Education Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

ObamaFlex isn’t very flexible

September 28, 2011 by

ObamaFlex — the reform-linked waivers for No Child Left Behind — claim to be tight on goals and loose on strategies, but the plan is heavy on tight and light on loose, writes Mike Petrilli on Flypaper.

States would have to adopt Common Core Standards or prove their own standards prepare graduates for college. But states want waivers now and it will take time to prove  standards are “college ready.”

If a state decides to back out of Common Core Standards — perhaps because the standards-linked tests are inadequate –will the feds withdraw the waiver? Cut off funding?

A state can propose its own approach to accountability, for example – as long as it includes “annual measurable objectives,” “priority schools,” “focus schools,” “reward schools,” and on and on and on. This is kind of like Henry Ford’s approach to car colors.

The teacher evaluation mandate sets out six rules for all school districts to follow.

If we’ve learned anything from No Child Left Behind, it’s that to mandate a good idea is to kill it.

There’s a better way to fix No Child Left Behind, argues Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, in the New York Times. Alexander, a former Education secretary, has introduced a set of bills in Congress.

Filed Under: Education Tagged With: , , , , ,

Waiving the white flag

September 27, 2011 by

No Child Left Behind waivers are “a white flag for the kind of systemic reform needed to help all students, including poor and minority children, succeed in school and in life, writes RiShawn Biddle.

No Child Left Behind gave schools 12 years to improve, writes Steve Perry, a magnet school principal, also on Biddle’s Dropout Nation.

An entire generation to fix schools is too long, and now the president is going to extend it? Brilliant. Just freaking brilliant. Here’s a timeline tweak: Take as long as you want to fix your school. But the American people are only going to send our hundreds of millions of dollars to good schools. So holla when you feel you’re ready, in the meantime while you do your educations reforming, we’re going to make sure our kids go to good schools tomorrow.

Obama’s plan trades accountability for common standards, writes Russ Whitehurst of the Brookings Institution.

Standards and accountability go together like Sonny and Cher. Separate them and, well you know what happens. So we’re to have the same college- and career-ready standards for what children should learn in Minnesota and Mississippi, but different definitions of what schools and teachers are to be held accountable for accomplishing against those standards? Where does that get us?

In addition, it’s dangerous to take “boilerplate secretarial waiver authority” intended for minor tweaks and turn it into “a virtually limitless authority for the executive branch to substitute its preferred policies for the law of the land.”

The federal role in K-12 education isn’t working well and needs major restructuring, Whitehurst argues. While Congress is working on this, the administration could buy time by moving the proficiency deadline from 2014 to 2016, or capping the percentage of schools within a state subject to the accountability sanctions. “Gutting NCLB and setting its own policy direction using the waiver authority is misguided, confused, and will prove to be counterproductive.”

In National Journal’s discussion, the waiver plan takes hits for going too far and not going far enough.

 

Filed Under: Education Tagged With: , , , , ,

Flexibility surprises

September 25, 2011 by

There are a few surprises in the U.S. Education Department’s flexibility plan, writes Anne Hyslop on Quick and the Ed’s Waiver Wire

The broad strokes of the plan are what we’ve known all along: higher expectations for students based on better standards and assessments; state-designed accountability systems, with discretion to determine how schools should be labeled based on their performance and the interventions they should undertake; annual teacher and principal evaluation systems that are based, in part, on student’s academic growth; and funding flexibility within Title I and Title II to support these reforms.

The good news, writes Hyslop, is that waiver-winning states will have to report college enrollment and credit-accumulation rates for all students (disaggregated into subgroups) by district and high school.

. . . collecting and reporting these specific outcomes will provide policymakers, educators, and the public with real evidence of college readiness. I would have added remediation rates to this list, but I am please that the administration is encouraging states to link high school and postsecondary outcomes.

In addition, states will have to try to do something about 15 percent of schools, not just the bottom 5 percent.

The feds will work with states to evaluate the effectiveness of reform strategies.

On the negative side, Hyslop is disappointed that states won’t be required to use their new teacher evaluation systems to ensure that low-income and minority children have equal access to effective teachers. They won’t even be required to report who gets the best teachers.

 

Filed Under: Education Tagged With: , , , , ,
«Older Posts
Newer Posts»