1. ESEA: “The” Federal Role in K-12 Education 1965: focus: disadvantaged students 1965: focus: disadvantaged students 1968: added migrant students and EL students 1968: added migrant students and EL students 1973: In San Antonio v. Rodriguez (no right to an education). 1973: In San Antonio v. Rodriguez (no right to an education). 1978: focus school-wide spending 1978: focus school-wide spending 1981: introduced consolidation and block grants 1981: introduced consolidation and block grants 1988: standardized tests to measure student performance 1988: standardized tests to measure student performance 1994: added waivers and “continuous improvement” content standards 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 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

2. Range of Responses to NCLB Balloon Payments All states facing NCLB “balloon payments” in 2013-14 (with almost half back loading): All states facing NCLB “balloon payments” in 2013-14 (with almost half back loading): All students proficient in ELA and math; and All students proficient in ELA and math; and All schools making AYP by 2014 All schools making AYP by 2014 2011 Senate bipartisan ESEA reauthorization rejected by civil rights organizations because of: 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) 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 2013 Senate and House partisan reauthorization attempts In late-2011, the Obama Administration “We Can’t Wait”: 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” “The country is on track to see 82% of its schools labeled ‘failing’ this year”

3. 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 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: Section 9401, however, does NOT allow the ED Secretary to waive requirements related to: Maintenance of effort; Maintenance of effort; Comparability of services; Comparability of services; Supplement, not supplant; Supplement, not supplant; Parental participation and involvement; and Parental participation and involvement; and Civil rights requirements like Title III (ELL students). Civil rights requirements like Title III (ELL students).

4. 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; Extending AYP Balloon Payments; Concentrating School Improvements Corrective Action at the Bottom; and Concentrating School Improvements Corrective Action at the Bottom; and Fostering Next Generation Teacher Evaluation Systems. Fostering Next Generation Teacher Evaluation Systems. ESEA 2011 Flexibility Bargain 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 -and- Funds used for Public School Choice and Free Tutoring Services 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) HQT improvement plans“More meaningful” evaluation teacher evaluation systems and supports based on student performance

5. 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) Of 53 SEAs, 47 states and DC, PR, and the Bureau of Indian Education applied (VT withdrew and IA rejected) Nov. 201 Nov. 201 Feb. 2012 Feb. 2012 Sept. 2012: Sept. 2012: Blue = Approved Green = Pending Range of Applications: Range of Applications: Implementation “Details”: NM w/ 3 pages to MN with 37 pages 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 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 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 EL Students: CO’s English language proficiency in new accountability index Graduation Rates: IN 30% of index to KY 14% of index Graduation Rates: IN 30% of index to KY 14% of index

6. 5 Main Concerns with 2011 Waivers Under-engagement: Under-engagement: Negligible engagement with civil rights and minority communities prior to application Negligible engagement with civil rights and minority communities prior to application Under-representation: Under-representation: Advocates for student groups missing from peer review panels except for special education and EL student Advocates for student groups missing from peer review panels except for special education and EL student Half-the-Gap/Bigotry of Soft Expectations?: Half-the-Gap/Bigotry of Soft Expectations?: Same approach to student groups, but different goal by group Same approach to student groups, but different goal by group Transparency for Parents?: Transparency for Parents?: Grades (A to F and beyond); Color Flags; and Other Coding Systems Grades (A to F and beyond); Color Flags; and Other Coding Systems Weight graduation rates, achievements gaps, and other factors get within an index Weight graduation rates, achievements gaps, and other factors get within an index So-called “Super” Subgroups: So-called “Super” Subgroups: Collapsing of student subgroup data: Collapsing of student subgroup data: Masking subgroup-specific issue Masking subgroup-specific issue De-emphasizing specific intervention for subgroup De-emphasizing specific intervention for subgroup Encouraging coasting with the curve Encouraging coasting with the curve

7. 2013 Waiver of the Waiver States will be able to ask ED for: States will be able to ask ED for: Teacher-Principal Evaluation Pause: Teacher-Principal Evaluation Pause: An extra year, until 2016-17, to use their new teacher and principal evaluation systems to inform personnel determinations; and 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: 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. 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.