ESEA Waivers - SBE Mtg Exec Sum 9-11-11 (3)

8/4/2019 ESEA Waivers - SBE Mtg Exec Sum 9-11-11 (3)

1/4

September 12, 2011

Elementary and Secondary Education Act Waiver Consideration

No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the current iteration of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education

Act (ESEA), has served as a catalyst for constructive debate and action on educational issues such as

school and district performance, teacher quality, English language acquisition, and choice options for

students. However, Congress has failed to act on the long overdue reauthorization of ESEA. Significant

NCLB provisions have now become outdated and the constraints of the law prevent many from moving

innovative strategies for improvement forward. Because of the delay in reauthorization, Secretary ofEducation Duncan has made clear his intent to consider waivers to ESEA provisions and requirements

that were previously considered out of bounds. The Colorado Department of Education (CDE) believes

we should take advantage of this opportunity and asks for the support of the State Board of Education

(SBE) in making this request.

In recent years, the SBE, CDE, and Colorados General Assembly have taken steps to significantly reform

Colorados system of accountability for schools and districts. Some examples include:

The Colorado Growth Model that strengthens our ability to gauge students progress towardproficiency

U.S. Department of Education approval to use Colorados Growth Model as an additionalmethod to identify schools and districts for Title I Improvement

Enactment of CAP4K, SB08- 212, that resulted in leaner, clearer standards and a morecomprehensive assessment system focused on college and career readiness

Enactment of the Education Accountability Act of 2009, SB09- 163, which establishedperformance frameworks for the annual evaluation of school and district performance and

timelines for improvement, and created alignments between the state and federal

accountability systems

The launching of SchoolView, a web portal that provides parents, educators, and the generalpublic with access to a wealth of information regarding school and district performance

Development of the Unified Improvement Planning template, a tool that aligns state and federalimprovement planning requirements into a single document

Enactment of SB10- 191, which will help to ensure that every building has a strong leader andevery classroom has an effective teacher

In creating and implementing these reforms, the SBE, CDE, and state legislature have gone to great

lengths to maximize the alignment of the state and federal systems of accountability. However,

Colorado continues to implement a dual accountability system consisting of:

Two sets of criteria state and federal - that are used to assess school and district performance Schools and districts that are identified as in need of improvement under one system but not

the other


2/4

Two sets of labels, timelines and consequences for schools and districts identified forImprovement

Mixed messages to students, parents, and educators regarding school and district performance Choices options for students in some underperforming schools but not in others An inability to target resources to the schools and districts that most need them Unnecessary, duplicative and wasteful administrative burdens on schools, districts, and the state

For these reasons, CDE proposes to submit a comprehensive waiver package to the U.S. Department of

Education (USDE) that replaces most of NCLBs school and district accountability requirements with

Colorados accountability system. Specifically, CDE will request permission to:

Section 1111 - Replace NCLB adequate yearly progress with modified state school and districtperformance frameworks

Section 3122 Replace Title III annual measurable achievement objectives with State measuresof progress toward English language attainment

Section 1116 Use state accreditation rules instead of NCLB school and district improvementconsequences and timelines, and expand choice options to non-Title I schools

Section 1003 (a) and (g) - Target NCLB school improvement resources to schools and districtsidentified by the state as among the lowest performing 15%, regardless of Title I status

Section 2123(a) and (b) and EDGAR 76.700 Use Title II, Part A funds in support of thedevelopment and implementation of an educator evaluation system that focuses on increasing

educator effectiveness

Comparison of ESEA and State Accountability Requirements

ESEA State System Proposed

Goal All students proficient in

reading and math by 2013-

14

All students on track for

proficiency by 10th

grade and

college and career- ready by

exit

All students on track for

proficiency by 10th

grade

and college and career-

ready by exit

Student target foraccountability

Partially proficient orabove

Proficient and above Proficient and above

Assessment of

school/district

performance

criteria

Adequate yearly progress

Weights status over

growth, considers few

indicators outside of

status, comprehensively

disaggregates

performance by student

groups, considers English

language proficiency -

Pass/Fail system

School and district

performance frameworks

Weights growth and

college/career readiness over

status, considers indicators

outside of status,

Disaggregates performance by

student groups in growth.

Rating system with four

possible ratings for each

indicator and four plan types

Modified school/ district

performance frameworks*

School and district

improvement

NCLB, Sec. 1116 SB9- 163/SB Rules SB9- 163/SB9-163 Rules

Choices for

students in schools

identified for

Improvement

Public School Choice

Transportation and

Supplemental Educations

Services paid for by Title I

State law provides for intra-

and inter-district school choice

State law and School Choice

Transportation and

Supplemental Educational

Services paid for by Title I

ESEA State System Proposed

Funds for schools Approximately $11 million Provides no funds for schools Allow Title I school


3/4

and districts

identified for

improvement

annually in Title I school

improvement funds to

support schools and

districts identified for Title

I Improvement

and districts identified for

Improvement

improvement funds to flow

to schools and districts

identified for Improvement

using state performance

frameworks

Funds for educator

evaluation system

Approximately $26 million

in NCLB Title II funds

Provides no additional funds

for school and district

implementation

Allow state and local Title II

funds to be used in support

of the development and

implementation of educator

evaluation systems

*School and district performance frameworks will be evaluated and strengthened to:

Ensure proper weighting and rigor across the four performance indicators Adequately account for academic performance among disaggregated groups of students Incorporate measures of progress toward English language proficiency among English language learners

If granted, the ESEA waivers will affect the number of schools and districts that are identified as in need

of improvement. As noted above, without waivers, Colorado must use both state and federal measures

to annually assess school and district performance. Some schools and districts are identified for

improvement under one system but not by the other and some are identified for improvement underboth systems. With the waivers, Colorado would only use the states modified performance

frameworks. The table below delineates the number of schools and districts identified by the federal

system (NCLB) in the 2010-11 school year as well as the potential impact of the waivers on the number

of school and district improvement designations.

2010-11

school year

status (09-10)

data

Identified by

NCLB Title IA

Total identified

without waiver

(state and NCLB)

Total that would

be identified with

waiver

(state only)*

Schools 202 372 241

Districts 85 91 24* Turnaround and Priority Improvement

By taking advantage of the ESEA waiver opportunity in a strategic manner, Colorado will be able to

improve upon the outdated accountability provisions of NCLB and move ahead with an accountability

system that more effectively serves the citizens of Colorado. Colorados new accountability system will:

Target college and career readiness, not partial proficiency Focus on student progress catch up, keep up, and move up Maintain and expand choice options for students in struggling schools Focus resources on all schools and districts that most need them Cut red tape; streamline and simplify the accountability system Reduce administrative costs and burdens for schools and districts and the State Be accessible, meaningful and useful to parents and educators

CDE will not move ahead with its waiver request without the support of the Colorado State Board of

Education. However, CDE believes Colorado should take advantage of this opportunity and asks for your

support.


4/4

Projected timeline for USDE ESEA waiver process

Action Timeline

CDE internal analysis of the impact and legality of

potential waiver requests

August to mid-September, 2011

CDEs review potential waiver request with State Board Early September, 2011

CDE sends summary of potential waiver request to USDE Early September, 2011

USDE releases call for state ESEA waiver requests Mid-September, 2011

CDE development ofColorados waiver request September to late October, 2011

CDE sends out notice inviting public and stakeholder

comment regarding Colorados waiver request

Mid-September, 2011

Window for public and stakeholder comment closes Mid-October, 2011

CDE submits Colorados waiver request to USDE Late October, 2011

State waiver requests due to USDE Late October, 2011

USDE reviews Colorados waiver request November, December, 2011

USDE provides decision on Colorados waiver request By December 31, 2011

If approved, CDE begins waiver implementation January, 2012

Documents

ESEA Waivers - SBE Mtg Exec Sum 9-11-11 (3)