Transcript Case Study: The Fatal Beating of Luis Ramirez

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
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”
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).
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.
Replace:
With:
Current AMOs toward 2013-14 AYP deadline and annual
report cards cast in terms of AYP
New “ambitious, but achievable” AMOs in ELA and math
aligned with College- and Career Readiness standards
and assessments and revised reports cards cast in terms
of new AMOs
School improvement, correct action, and restructuring
sanctions and reporting
Investments in:
1.Priority Schools (lowest performing 5%) with Turnaround
Principles
2.Focus Schools (10 percent with largest achievement
gaps between subgroups or HS graduating fewer than
60% of students)
3.Reward Schools (high performing or high progress
schools)
-andFunds used for Public School Choice and Free Tutoring
Services
HQT improvement plans
“More meaningful” evaluation teacher evaluation systems
and supports based on student performance
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
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
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.