NEW ESEA WAIVER FLEXIBILITY REQUIREMENTS
Leigh Manasevit, [email protected] & Manasevit, [email protected]
1
Waiver Resources
Statute – NCLB Section 9401
Guidance – Title I Part A – July 2009
Maintenance of Effort – See program statutes
4
NCLB – What can be waived?The Secretary may grant a waiver of any ESEA statutory or regulatory provision EXCEPT:
Allocation or distribution of funds to SEAs, LEAs or other recipients of ESEA fundsComparabilitySupplement not supplantEquitable service to private school studentsParent involvementCivil rights
5
What can be waived? Cont., Secretary may waive any provision, EXCEPT:
Charter school requirements (Title V)Prohibitions regarding State aid (9522); using funds for religious purposes (9505)Selection of eligible school attendance areas under 1113, unless the % of low income students is less than 10% below the lowest eligible school
6
The AYP Waiver Wars Failure to make AYP
Center for Education Policy Study http://www.cep-dc.org/cfcontent_file.cfm?Attachment=Usher_FourYearsAYPTrends_121610.pdf
Districts Failing AYP 2006 29% 2009 36%
Schools Failing AYP 2006 29% 2009 33% 2013- 2014 SY 100% proficient: Required
Causing sharp increases in target levels
7
The AYP Waiver WarsJune 23, 2011 Chairman Kline/ Chairman
Hunter to Secretary Duncan:“…the Departments proposal is cause for
concern….”“….to grant conditional waivers in exchange
for reforms [is] not authorized by Congress…”
July 6, 2011 Secretary Duncan Response:“ESEA was due for reauthorization in 2007,
and students and teachers should not be burdened by its flaws for much longer.”
“…[We] have began to consider how to exercise our authority if Congress does not reauthorize ESEA soon, to invite requests for flexibility….”
9
The AYP Waiver WarsApril 25, 2011 Montana to Secretary Duncan: “I am delaying the scheduled increase of the
… (AMOs).”
June 21, 2011 Idaho to Secretary Duncan:“In 2011…Idaho will not lift its proficiency
targets for…[AYP].“Idaho…does not have the luxury of spending
limited time and limited resources on meeting the rigid requirements of an outdated accountability system….”
June 29, 2011 South Dakota to Secretary Duncan: “…[We] intend to hold our…AMO targets at
the 2009-2010 levels.”
10
The AYP WarsJuly 1, 2011 Secretary Duncan response
to Montana:“Unfortunately, this action leaves the
Department no alternative but to pursue enforcement action.”
-Special Conditions-Possible withholding of Part A Funds
11
The Peace Offerings August 15, 2011 Montana to Secretary Duncan:
“Our offices were able to agree to a compromise that would place our AMO’s at…”“…[W]e will amend our…workbook…which will suffice
for compliance with the law.”
July 27, 2011: Secretary Duncan to Idaho:“Idaho’s revised AMO’s are consistent with the
requirements under….[NCLB]”“…I am pleased to approve Idaho’s amended plan…”
August 2, 2011 South Dakota to ED:“…During that phone conversation, South Dakota’s proposed AMO’s for reading were approved….”
12
Requested AYP FlexibilityArkansas – DeniedIdaho – Granted (not a waiver)Kansas – DeniedMichigan – Part Denied, Part PendingMinnesota – PendingMontana – Granted (not a waiver)South Dakota – Granted (not a waiver)Tennessee – RequestedUtah – Granted
CEP website: http://www.cep-dc.org/As of November 11, 2011
13
June 28, 2011 Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report on Secretary of Education’s Waiver Authority1.ED has the authority to waive accountability provisions of Title I, Part A.2.It is unclear if Secretary can condition a waiver on other action(s) not required by law.
14
Waivers ED makes the big announcement September 23, 2011 Letter to Chiefs
NCLB became a barrier to reform: opportunity to request flexibility State LEA Schools
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/secletter/110923.html
16
Letter (cont…) Flexibility in exchange for rigorous
and comprehensive State plans Improve educational outcomes Close achievement gaps Increase equity Improve instruction
17
“ESEA Flexibility” September 23, 2011
10 provisions subject to waiver: (1 waiver-10 sections)1. 2013-2014 timeline –
develop new ambitious AMO’s2. School improvement consequences: LEA not
required to take currently required improvement actions in Title I Schools
3. LEA improvement identification: not required to identify for improvement LEA that fails 2 consecutive years
4. Rural LEAs Small Rural School Achievement or Rural and Low
Income program Flexibility regardless of AYP status
18
Waivers5. Schoolwide
operate as schoolwide regardless of 40% poverty threshold if
SEA identified as a priority or focus school with interventions consistent with turnaround principles
6. School Improvement 1003a funds to serve any priority or focus school
if SEA determines school in need of support
7. Reward Schools Rewards to any reward school if the SEA
determines appropriate
19
Waivers8. HQT improvement plans
LEA that does not meet HQT no longer must develop an improvement plan Flexibility in use of Title I and II funds
LEA-SEA develop “more meaningful” evaluation and support systems which eventually will satisfy the HQT requirement
SEA still must ensure poor and minority children not taught at higher rates by inexperienced, unqualified or out of field teachers
20
States Intending to Request ESEA FlexibilityAs of November 8, 2011
November 14, 2011 Colorado Florida Georgia Indiana Kentucky Massachusetts
Mid-February, 2012 Arkansas Arizona Connecticut D.C. Delaware Hawaii
The following is a list of States that have indicated they intend to request ESEA flexibility. This list is current as of the date indicated above; the Department will periodically update this list to reflect changes after that date. Please note that a State’s indication of its intent to request is not binding. States are listed in alphabetical order.
23
States Intending to Request ESEA Flexibility (cont.)As of November 8, 2011
November 14, 2011 Minnesota New Jersey New Mexico Oklahoma Tennessee Vermont
Mid-February, 2012 Idaho Illinois Iowa Kansas Maine Maryland
24
States Intending to Request ESEA FlexibilityAs of November 8, 2011
Mid-February, 2012 (cont.)
Michigan Mississippi Missouri Nevada New
Hampshire New York North Carolina Ohio
Oregon Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Utah Virginia Washington Wisconsin
25
“In Exchange for…”Must meet 4 principles1. College Career Ready Standards – develop
and implement Reading / Language Arts Math Aligned assessments measuring growth ELP assessment aligned to #1
26
2. State developed system of Differentiated Recognition, Accountability and Support
Must develop system of Differentiated Recognition, Accountability and Support All LEAs All Title I Schools
Must consider Reading, Language Arts, Math All students All subgroups Graduation Rates Eliminates 2% alternate assessment based on
modified achievement standards
27
• School Performance over time• New AMOs (ambitious)
State LEAs Schools Subgroups
• Incentive recognitions• Dramatic systemic changes in lowest
performing schools
28
3. Effective Instruction / Leadership• Commit to develop / adopt pilot and
implement Teacher / principal evaluation systems Student Growth = “Significant Factor”
29
Definitions• Focus Schools
Title I School contributing to achievement gap
Largest gap or Subgroups with low achievement – or
low high school graduation rate• At least 10% of Title I Schools in State
31
Definitions• Priority Schools
Lowest 5% of schools based on “all students” or
Title I participating or eligible high school or Graduation rate under 60% or
Tier I or II SIG utilizing intervention model
32
Timelines• Notify of intent to apply by Oct 12, 2011
Submit November 14, 2011; December Peer Review or Mid February, Spring 2012 Review
Flexibility by end of 2011-2012
34
Kline: Response to Waiver Announcement September 26, 2011 Press Release:
House Education & Workforce Committee Waiver Route Bypasses Congress Unprecedented Authority to Secretary Will Delay Reauthorization
Senator Lamar Alexander (R. TN) (Former U.S. Education Secretary) Fix NCLB Through Reauthorization - (Not
Waivers)
35
This presentation is intended solely to provide general information and does not constitute legal advice or a
legal service. This presentation does not create a client-lawyer relationship with Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC and, therefore, carries none of the protections
under the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct. Attendance at this presentation, a later review of any
printed or electronic materials, or any follow-up questions or communications arising out of this
presentation with any attorney at Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC does not create an attorney-client relationship with Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC. You
should not take any action based upon any information in this presentation without first
consulting legal counsel familiar with your particular circumstances.
36