ESEA: “The” Federal Role in K-12 Education

1. ESEA: “The” Federal Role in K-12 Education • 1965: focus:disadvantaged students • 1968: added migrant students and EL students • 1973: In San Antonio v. Rodriguez (no right to an education). • 1978: focus school-wide spending • 1981: introduced consolidation and block grants • 1988: standardized tests to measure student performance • 1994: added waivers and “continuous improvement” content standards • 2002: NCLB approach: uniform accountability (100% AYP by 2014); measure of basic skills (AMOs on reading, math, and ELP); subgroup student data; HQT; SES; school choice; turnaround model

2. Range of Responses to NCLB Balloon Payments • All states facing NCLB “balloon payments” in 2013-14 (with almost half back loading): • All students proficient in ELA and math; and • All schools making AYP by 2014 • 2011 Senate bipartisan ESEA reauthorization rejected by civil rights organizations because of: • Shift from 100% accountability with interventions for all to undefined annual progress goals and interventions for some (capped by percentages) • 2013 Senate and House partisan reauthorization attempts • In late-2011, the Obama Administration “We Can’t Wait”: • “The country is on track to see 82% of its schools labeled ‘failing’ this year”

3. Waiver Authority • Section 9401 of ESEA grants the ED Secretary has authority to issue waivers of certain requirements of ESEA for states and local education agencies for up to 4 years. • Section 9401, however, does NOT allow the ED Secretary to waive requirements related to: • Maintenance of effort; • Comparability of services; • Supplement, not supplant; • Parental participation and involvement; and • Civil rights requirements like Title III (ELL students).

4. ESEA 2011 Flexibility Bargain In 9/2011, ED invited states to submit flexibility applications, under set guidelines, to waive 10 aspects of ESEA law and regulations including: Extending AYP Balloon Payments; Concentrating School Improvements Corrective Action at the Bottom; and Fostering Next Generation Teacher Evaluation Systems.

5. Three Rounds of 2011Waiver Applications • Of 53 SEAs, 47 states and DC, PR, and the Bureau of Indian Education applied (VT withdrew and IA rejected) • Nov. 201 • Feb. 2012 • Sept. 2012: Blue = Approved Green = Pending • Range of Applications: • Implementation “Details”: NM w/ 3 pages to MN with 37 pages • Professional Development: GA’s multiple year through TV and FL/NM’s new teachers first • Exiting Priority Status: MA’s multiple measures and MN’s out of bottom quartile for 2 years in a row • EL Students: CO’s English language proficiency in new accountability index • Graduation Rates: IN 30% of index to KY 14% of index

6. 5 Main Concerns with 2011 Waivers • Under-engagement: • Negligible engagement with civil rights and minority communities prior to application • Under-representation: • Advocates for student groups missing from peer review panels except for special education and EL student • Half-the-Gap/Bigotry of Soft Expectations?: • Same approach to student groups, but different goal by group • Transparency for Parents?: • Grades (A to F and beyond); Color Flags; and Other Coding Systems • Weight graduation rates, achievements gaps, and other factors get within an index • So-called “Super” Subgroups: • Collapsing of student subgroup data: • Masking subgroup-specific issue • De-emphasizing specific intervention for subgroup • Encouraging coasting with the curve

7. 2013 Waiver of the Waiver • States will be able to ask ED for: • Teacher-Principal Evaluation Pause: • An extra year, until 2016-17, to use their new teacher and principal evaluation systems to inform personnel determinations; and • Regular Test or Field Test Option: • Ability to avoid double-testing students, which often happens during the shift to a new test, by allowing schools participating field tests of new tests to administer only one assessment in 2013-2014 to any individual student -- either the current statewide assessment or the field test.