You are on page 1of 2

ESEA Waiver Fact Sheet May, 2013

Fast Facts: ESEA flexibility program initiated by Obama administration in September 2011. o Provides states flexibility to certain requirements of ESEA (NCLB). o Thirty-seven states and the District of Columbia have approved waivers as of 5/13. o Eight states plus BIE and PR have submitted requests with pending approval. o Five states are not requesting waivers (two states withdrew after submission). o One LEA consortium (CORE) from CA has submitted a waiver that is under consideration by ED. Timeline: Many policy changes in states with approved waivers took effect in the 2012-13 school year. Current waivers are effective through end of 2013-14 SY. States may request extension for 2014-15. Under NCLB: States that received federal Title I funding were required to establish yearly targets or annual measurable objectives (AMOs) for the percentage of students scoring at the proficient level or above on state reading and math assessments and on at least one other academic indicator. In high school, this indicator must include graduation rate. For elementary and middle schools, many states chose attendance rate. AMOs had to rise on a trajectory that led to 100% of students reaching proficiency by 2013-2014. To make adequate yearly progress (AYP), a school/district had to meet every AMO for the overall student group as well as each student subgroup. (Exceptions for small subgroup size and safe harbor provision.) ESEA Flexibility Waivers: In exchange for flexibility, states had to agree to implement reforms in four key areas: 1. College and career ready expectations for all students 2. Differentiated recognition, accountability, and support for schools and districts 3. Supporting effective instruction and leadership 4. Reducing duplication and burden on schools and districts Principle 1: Adopt college- and career-ready standards in reading and mathematics (either Common Core State Standards or standards that have been approved and certified by a state network of IHEs) Develop and administer aligned, high-quality assessments that measure student growth o General assessment consortia: Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) and Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) States must also provide for alternate assessments based on grade-level academic achievement standards or alternate assessments based on alternate academic achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. States with approved waivers are no longer allowed to use alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards. o Dynamic Learning Maps Alternate Assessment System Consortium (DLM) o National Center and State Collaborative (NCSC) Alternate Assessment Adopt corresponding English language proficiency standards and aligned assessments o Assessment Services Supporting ELs through Technology Systems (ASSETS) Principle 2: Develop system to ensure continuous improvement in all Title I schools Set ambitious but achievable performance targets o States with waivers may replace NCLBs 2014 100% proficiency goal with one of three approved substitutes: Option A Reduce the achievement gap between subgroups of at-risk students and all students by half within six years (11 states) Option B Achieve 100% proficiency for all students by 2020 (1 state, Arizona)

ESEA Waiver Fact Sheet May, 2013 Option C Another state-designed target that is ambitious but achievable and that require schools and subgroups that are further behind to make greater rates of annual progress than other schools and subgroups (23 states) o States with waivers do not have to make AYP decisions but must still establish annual measurable objectives (AMOs) and report publicly on the progress of schools and districts toward AMOs by all student subgroups. And as long as states cut the achievement gap in half, at a minimum, they may set different AMOs for different groups of students, schools, or districts. According to an Education Week analysis of approved waiver applications, only 8 (AZ, CO, MI, MO, NV, NM, SC, and OR) set the same targets for all students. o Although states must still calculate and report progress toward AMOs for each student subgroup, they can base major accountability decisions on more broadly defined or combined subgroups. Examples of states combined subgroups include: Combined group of African American, Latino, and low-income students; Combined group of English Language Learners and students with disabilities; Lowest performing 25% of students States with waivers must identify schools in at least these three categories: o Reward (Schools demonstrating high performance or high levels of progress) o Priority (Schools that are among the lowest performing in the state; must total at least 5% of the states Title I schools) o Focus (Schools with large achievement gaps between subgroups or one or more low-performing subgroups) Provide recognition for high-progress and highest-performing schools Effect dramatic, systemic change in the lowest-performing schools (priority schools) Identify and implement interventions in schools with the greatest achievement gaps (focus schools) and with subgroups that are furthest behind Principle 3: Develop teacher and principal evaluation and support systems that: o Will be used for continual improvement of instruction o Meaningfully differentiate performance o Use multiple valid measures, including student growth o Evaluate teachers and principals on a regular basis o Provide clear, timely, and useful feedback and be used to inform personnel decisions Issues of Interest: Complexity and transparency of new state accountability system o Many of these states take so many factors into account that it may be difficult for school staff to understand how their performance is being measured. (Center on Education Policy) o CEP also worried about impact on families/publics understanding of school accountability. Treatment of student subgroups o States are using fewer, more broadly defined subgroups to make major accountability decisions. o CEP feels it is not yet clear whether super subgroups will result in more or less attention to the needs of certain populations (e.g., low-income students, SWD, etc.) Teacher evaluations for educators of students with disabilities o Evaluating teachers, in part, based on students academic achievement is a complicated endeavor. Applying such systems to educators of students with disabilities is even more complex. o The Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) asserts that very few states and districts are addressing the unique challenges associated with evaluating special education teachers, and this is an area where much work remains. Alignment with early childhood o Key questions include: How have states included young children in their waivers? How were early childhood stakeholders involved in the waiver process?

You might also like