1 / 9

No Child Left Behind Waivers

No Child Left Behind Waivers. Promising Ideas from Second Round Applications By Jeremy Ayers and Isabel Owen With Glenda Partee and Theodora Chang. Purpose and method. Purpose (“Checker’s Challenge”): identify innovation Method Identify changes from current law and practice

maxim
Download Presentation

No Child Left Behind Waivers

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. No Child Left Behind Waivers Promising Ideas from Second Round Applications By Jeremy Ayers and Isabel Owen With Glenda Partee and Theodora Chang

  2. Purpose and method • Purpose (“Checker’s Challenge”): identify innovation • Method • Identify changes from current law and practice • Identify common themes across states • Identify promising or interesting ideas • Identify questions or concerns

  3. Principles of ESEA flexibility • College- and career-ready expectations • State differentiated accountability • Effective instruction and leadership • Reducing duplication and burden

  4. College and career readiness • Some will prepare all teachers to support English learners (AZ, CT, MO). • Some will streamline state agency (CT, LA). • Some will fund rigorous courses (ID, LA). • Some will create early warning systems (SC, VA, WA). • Some will use competency- or standards-based report cards (CT, NC).

  5. Accountability • Some set ambitious annual goals (AR, DE, IL, MD, NC, NY, RI, WA). Others are unclear (IA, NV). • Some school rating systems align with the goals (AR, DE, NC, NY) while others do not (LA, MO, OR, NV). • 9 states would use letter grades or stars to rate schools. • Most states would increase district accountability.

  6. Accountability (cont.) • Many would combine student subgroups, and vary in how they will identify low-performing schools. • Many lacked detailed plans for turnaround, but several had systemic plans (AR, DE, IL, LA, RI). • Most would identify low-performing schools every 2 years, but some would only do so every 3 or 4 years (MD, NC, OH, WI).

  7. Instruction and leadership • States vary widely in what measures they would use to evaluate teachers in both tested and non-tested subjects and grades. • Some states (AZ, DE, NC, SC) would use technology to improve evaluation and professional development. • A few states (OH, RI) shared detailed plans for ensuring students have equal access to effective teachers, but most did not.

  8. Findings • Policy and practice have changed significantly. • Waivers per se did not stimulate innovation but were an opportunity to articulate a new vision. • States proposed interesting and promising ideas. • States lacked detail in aspects of accountability, teacher distribution, school turnaround, reducing burden, and increasing learning time. • States are using various sources of funding to implement plans.

  9. Recommendations • Waiver reforms should set the stage for a new ESEA. • The Department should ask for, and states should offer, more detail on plans. • States should learn from each other through consortia or replication. • The Department should increase staffing and capacity. • States should implement plans coherently.

More Related