No Child Left Behind Waivers: Promising Ideas from Second Round Applications

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 in second round waiver applications • Method • Identify changes from current law and practice • Identify common themes across states • Identify promising or interesting ideas • Identify questions or concerns

3. State of applications: 33 states approved 3 states pending 1 state rejected, 1 withdrawn 13 states not applied

4. Principles of ESEA flexibility • College- and career-ready expectations for all students • State-developed differentiated recognition, accountability, and support • Supporting effective instruction and leadership • Reducing duplication and unnecessary burden

5. 1. College- and career-ready standards • To receive ESEA flexibility states must— • adopt college- and career-ready standards in at least reading and math, and implement them by 2013-14 • adopt and administer assessments that measure student growth • adopt English language proficiency standards • annually report college-going and credit-accumulation rates for all students and subgroups

6. Promising or interesting ideas • Some states (AZ, CT, MO) would prepare all teachers to support English learners, not just ESL teachers • Some states (CT, LA) would streamline the state agency to focus on college and career readiness • Some states (ID, LA) would provide funding for students to take rigorous courses • Some states (SC, VA, WA) would create early warning systems to identify students at risk of dropping out • Some states (CT, NC) would create competency- or standards-based report cards

7. 2. Differentiated accountability • To receive ESEA flexibility states must— • develop an accountability system based on at least reading and math, graduation rates, and student growth • set ambitious annual goals (AMOs) in at least reading and math • adopt and administer assessments that measure student growth in at least reading and math • recognize schools that make progress • identify the bottom 5% of low-performing schools as priority schools and effect change following federal principles • identify an extra 10% of schools with large achievement gaps as focus schools and work to close gaps • ensure improvement in all Title I schools and build capacity to improve learning in all schools

8. Promising or interesting ideas • Some states (AR, DE, IL, MD, NC, NY, RI, WA) would set ambitious new annual goals. Some (IA, NV) have unclear goals. • Some states would create school rating systems that align with the goals (AR, DE, NC, NY) while others would not (LA, MO, OR, NV). • 9 states would use letter grades or stars to rate their schools so that ratings are clear to the public. • Most states would increase accountability for districts.

9. Promising or interesting ideas • Many would combine student subgroups into super subgroups. Some (IA, IL, NV) would only use the super group when subgroups fall below a lower n-size. • States vary in how they would use subgroup performance to identify low-performing schools. • Many lacked detailed plans for school turnaround, but several (AR, DE, IL, LA, RI) had systemic plans that included mid-course corrections and clear supports and consequences for not making progress. • Most states would identify low-performing schools every 2 years, but some (MD, NC, OH, WI) would only do so every 3 or 4 years.

10. 3. Effective instruction and leadership • To receive ESEA flexibility states must adopt teacher and principal evaluation systems that— • support continual improvement of instruction • use at least 3 performance levels to meaningfully differentiate performance • use multiple valid measures, including as a significant factor data on student growth • evaluate teachers and principals on a regular basis • provide clear, timely, useful feedback that identifies needs, guides professional development, and informs personnel decisions

11. Promising or interesting ideas • 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.

12. Findings • Policy and practice have changed significantly from NCLB • 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 admirably using various sources of funding to implement their plans

13. Recommendations • Treat states as laboratories of reform that set the stage for ESEA reauthorization • The Department should ask for, and states should offer, more detail on state plans • States should learn from each other through consortia or replication • The Department should increase staffing and capacity to enforce and support state plans • States should implement plans coherently—with clear goals, mid-course corrections, and consequences for failure