Transcript OAASFEP Fall Coordinators Conference Columbus, OH October

1
What is Happening?
Waivers and
Reauthorization
Spring 2012 Forum
Leigh Manasevit, Esq.
[email protected]
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
2
Where’s Waldo?
Mentions of NCLB are going, going…
3
…gone.
2008
2012
4
ESEA Reauthorization Timeline
• NCLB January 2001 to January 2002
5
Education Committees
• House Education & Workforce
• Chairman John Kline (R-MN)
• Ranking Member George Miller (D-CA)
• Senate HELP Committee
• Chairman Tom Harkin (D-IA)
• Ranking Member Michael Enzi (R-WY)
6
White House
• President Obama, Secretary Duncan:
• Reauthorization this year- urgent
• Chairman Kline:
• Cannot allow an arbitrary deadline to
undermine quality reforms
• “We can’t wait” 11/11 waivers granted
and 26 States + DC applied in 2nd round
8
FAUX
REAUTHORIZATION:
WAIVERS
9
Waiver Resources
• Statute – NCLB Section 9401
• Guidance –
• Title I, Part A – July 2009
• Maintenance of Effort – See program
statutes
10
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 $
Comparability
Supplement not supplant
Equitable service to private school students
Parent involvement
Civil rights
11
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 % low income
students is less than 10% below the lowest
eligible school
12
The Waiver Wars
Council of Chief State School Officers
(CCSSO) announces: Intention of our
members to seek waivers to use new
accountability systems.
Secretary Duncan announces that, in the
absence of reauthorization, ED will explore
flexibility options – regulatory and waivers in
return for other steps: more rigorous
accountability, teacher evaluation reform, etc.
13
The Waiver Wars
June 23, 2011 Chairman Kline/ Chairman Hunter to
Sec. Duncan.
“…the Departments proposal is cause for
concern….”
“….to grant conditional waivers in exchange for
reforms [is] not authorized by Congress…”
July 6, 2011 Sec. 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….”
14
The AYP Wars
April 25, 2011 Montana to Sec. Duncan
“I am delaying the scheduled increase of the …
(AMOs).”
June 21, 2011 Idaho to Sec. 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 Sec. Duncan
“…[We] intend to hold our…AMO targets at the
2009-2010 levels.”
15
The AYP Standoff
July 1, 2011 Sec. 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
16
• Montana to Secretary Duncan August 15, 2011:
“Our offices were able to agree to a compromise
would place our AMO’s at…”
“…[W]e will amend our…workbook…which will suffice
compliance with the law.”
• July 27, 2011: Secretary Duncan to Idaho:
“Idaho’s revised AMO’s are consistent with the
under….[NCLB]”
“…I am pleased to approve Idaho’s amended
that
for
requirements
plan…”
• South Dakota to ED August 2, 2011:
“…During that phone conversation, South Dakota’s
proposed AMO’s for reading were approved….”
17
June 28, 2011 Congressional Research Service
(CRS) Report on Secretary of Education’s
Waiver Authority
1. 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
18
Requested AYP Flexibility – Not the Waiver
Package
Arkansas – Denied
California – Requested freeze of sanctions and identification –
No response
Georgia – Requested flexibility in accountability – No response
Idaho – Granted (not a waiver)
Kansas – Denied
Kentucky – Requested use of own accountability model –No
response
CEP website:
http://www.cep-dc.org/page.cfm?FloatingPageID=22
as of February 11, 2012
19
Requested AYP Flexibility – Not the
Waiver Package (cont.)
Michigan – Requested SIG flexibility – Denied; Other
requests pending
Minnesota – Pending
Montana – Granted (not a waiver)
South Dakota – Granted (not a waiver)
Tennessee – Requested
Utah – Granted
CEP website:
http://www.cep-dc.org/page.cfm?FloatingPageID=22
as of February 11, 2012
20
ED Announcement
on Waivers
21
Waivers
• ED makes the 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
22
Letter
• Flexibility in exchange for rigorous
and comprehensive state plans
• Improve educational outcomes
• Close achievement gaps
• Increase equity
• Improve instruction
23
“ESEA Flexibility”
September 23, 2011
• 10 provisions subject to waiver
1.
2013-2014 timeline –
develop new ambitious AMO’s
2.
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
24
Waivers
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
5.
25
Waivers
8.
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
26
Waivers
9. Transferability
•
Up to 100%, same programs
10. SIG
•
1003g awards for any priority school
27
Waivers
• Optional #11
• 21st Century Community Learning Centers
support expanded learning time during
school day
28
“In Exchange for…”
Must meet 4 principles
1. College and Career Ready Standards –
•
•
•
•
Develop and Implement
Reading/Language Arts
Math
Aligned assessments measuring growth
ELP assessment aligned to #1
29
2.
•
•
•
•
•
State Developed 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, and
Math
All students
All subgroups
Graduation Rates
30
• School Performance over time
• New AMOs (ambitious)
• State LEAs
• Schools
• Subgroups
• Incentives recognitions
• Dramatic systemic changes in lowest
performing schools
31
3. Effective Instruction/Leadership
•
Commit to develop/adopt pilot and
implement
• Teacher/principal evaluation
systems
• Student Growth = “Significant
Factor”
32
4. Reduce duplication and unnecessary
burden
33
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
34
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
35
Definitions
5. Reward Schools
• Highest performing “all students”
or
• High progress
36
Timelines
•
Notify of Intent to Apply by October
12, 2011
1. Submit November 14, 2011;
• Flexibility by end of 2011-2012
2. February 28, 2012
• 26 States, DC applied
• New window: September 6, 2012
•
May include LEAs
•
Unhappy Chiefs
37
Waivers Granted
1. Colorado
2. Minnesota
3. Oklahoma
4. Kentucky
5. Tennessee
6. Florida
7. Massachusetts
8. New Jersey
9. Georgia
10. Indiana
11. New Mexico
Granted
Granted
Granted
Granted
Granted
Granted
Granted
Granted
Granted
Granted
Denied Granted
38
Key Findings in Initial 11 Requests
• Greater coordination – federal – state accountability
systems
• 10/11 adopted common core
• Greater complexity in achievement targets multiple
performance levels
• 8/11 based accountability on 2 groups
• All Students
• Disadvantaged Students – (Note: Modified in review process)
• 9/11 Eliminate Choice/SES
Source: Center on Education Policy (CEP) December 20, 2011 Report
39
Waiver Granted with Conditions
• Florida:
• Inclusion policies don’t ensure all
• (SWD, ELL) included in accountability
• Unresolved SIG monitoring report
• Georgia
• Must study, refine and submit final versions of
College-and Career-Ready Performance
Index
• Oklahoma
• Must finalize and submit administrative rules
for A-F school grading system
40
Waiver Applications Filed February 28
• Arkansas
• Michigan
• South Dakota
• Arizona
• Missouri
• Utah
• Connecticut
• Mississippi
• Vermont
• Delaware
• North Carolina
• Virginia
• Iowa
• Nevada
• Washington
• Idaho
• New York
• Wisconsin
• Illinois
• Ohio
• Washington, DC
• Kansas
• Oregon
• Louisiana
• Rhode Island
• Maryland
• South Carolina
41
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)
42
Not So Happy Waiver Reactions
• California, Tom Torlakson
• “…thorough reassessment of the federal role in
education, not merely the substitution of one set of
inflexible requirements for another…”
43
Not So Happy Waiver Reactions
• Pennsylvania, Ron Tomalis
• “…the offer doesn’t make sense”
44
Not So Happy Waiver Reactions
• Texas, Spokeswoman Debbie Ratcliffe
• “…we’re worried about the strings attached…”
• “We prefer State control.”
45
Not So Happy Waiver Reactions
• Maine, New Hampshire – Stephen Bowen,
Virginia Barry
• “…the current timeline and waiver guidelines will
not work in New Hampshire and Maine…”
• Intend to develop new system and apply for 9401
waiver
46
New Waiver #12
• No AYP determination for LEAs or Schools
47
New Waiver #13
• LEA may serve Title I eligible priority high
school with graduation rate under 60%
without regard for rank and serve???
48
New Waiver Not Numbered
• 11-12 assessment use 10-11 AMOs
• For waiver intent
49
• ED to Monitor Waivers SY 12-13
• Supplement Title I Monitoring
50
House
•Fully into 2012 election year
•Chairman Kline’s initial piecemeal
approach –five small bills
•Eliminating some federal education programs
(passed Committee)
•Promoting Charter expansion and replication (passed)
•Only one of these bills with bipartisan support
•Increasing funding flexibility (passed
Committee)
•Student Success Act, H.R. 3989
•Passed Committee on February 28, 2012
•Encouraging Innovation and Effective
Teachers Act, H.R. 3990
•Passed Committee on February 28, 2012
51
A Bill That Will Not Become Law But
May Influence the Debate
Chairman Kline Flexibility Bill (H.R. 2445) (passed
committee July 13, 2011)
“State and Local Funding Flexibility Act”
• Creates essentially unlimited transferability
• Unlikely to become law
• However all reauthorizations add some
flexibility.
-NCLB
• ED Flex
• Transferability
• State Flex, Local Flex
52
Opposition to Flexibility Bill
• George Miller- Violates Civil Rights intent of ESEA and
•
•
•
•
•
•
Brown vs. Board of Education
Center for American Progress
Education Trust
La Raza
NEA
AFT
Special Ed Groups
53
Support for Flexibility Bill
• American Association of School Administrators
• National School Boards Association
54
Student Success Act (H.R. 3989) and Encouraging
Innovation and Effective Teachers Act (H.R. 3990)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Eliminates AYP – Returns responsibility to States
Eliminates mandatory interventions
Retains SEA/LEA Report Cards
Allows Greater Transferability
Removes MOE
Eliminates 40% threshold for SW
Requires teacher and principal evaluations
with student achievement as significant factor
55
H.R. 3989 and H.R. 3990 - Response
– “…step in the right direction…”
– But concerns with:
• Lost focus on disaggregation of subgroup data
• MOE elimination
• Expanded vouchers
• Diminished focus on PD
• Weak charter accountability
• Implementation of teacher evaluations
• Many groups support
• CCSSO, NSBA, AASA
• Highly critical reaction from Ranking Member Miller, civil
rights groups, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
H.R. 3989 and H.R. 3990 – What the
Future Holds
• Future not so bright
• Strictly partisan legislation
• And some Republicans wary of certain provisions
• Not a priority for House Republicans
• Focus on debt, 2012 elections
• Harkin has said he won’t move his Senate bill without
passage of a bipartisan bill in the House
57
Quality Charter Schools Act
• Boost Expansion / Replication of
• Quality Charters
• House Already Passed = Likelihood of Passage
HIGH
58
The Harkin Bill: Key Changes
• No more AYP or 100% proficiency
goal
• State-designed assessments and
accountability systems
• No longer label schools passing or
“in need of improvement”
• Federally mandated focus on
bottom 5% of schools
• Codifies Race to the Top, Invest in
Innovation
59
The Harkin Bill: Other Significant
Provisions
• More flexibility and control at State level
• Fewer specified areas of accountability
• Includes the 4 models for school improvement (plus three
others)
• Defines “college and career readiness” and makes it the
focus of State-driven accountability
• Changes to comparability (looking at expenditures down to
school site level)
60
Harkin Bill: Conflict and Quick Capitulation
…er… Resolution with Teachers
• 1st Draft conditioned Title II funding on implementation of
teacher/principal evaluations
• Unions and others came out strongly against this
provision
• Original draft modified to make evaluations suggested,
but not required
61
The Harkin Bill: What’s Next
• Hearing in Committee
November 8th
• Place on Senate Calendar
• Debate on the Senate Floor,
amend, and vote
• Conference and/or negotiations
with House
62
Harkin Bill Reaction
• October 19, 2011
• Civil Rights Groups, Business Groups, State
Education Officials, Education Advocates
• “We cannot support the bill at this time.”
• Weak accountability provisions
• Inadequate protections for
• SWD
• Low income
• Students of color
• ELL
• Migrants
63
Secretary Duncan on Reauthorization:
Freeze
Title I
IDEA
Increase
Competitive Program $
64
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 clientlawyer 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 attorneyclient 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.