Archives for category: Federal Waiver

The Washington Post has a good article about the aggressive way that the Obama administration has imposed its education agenda in the past three+ years.

The article notes, almost in passing, that there is no evidence for the success of any part of this agenda. No one will know for many years whether the Obama program of testing, accountability, and choice will improve education.

When reading the article, it is easy to forget that the U.S. Department of Education was not created to impose any “reforms” on the nation’s schools. It was created to send federal aid to hard-pressed districts that enrolled many poor children.

When the Department was created in 1980, there were vigorous debates about whether there might one day be federal control of the schools. The proponents of the idea argued that this would never happen. It has not happened until now because Democrats and Republicans agreed that they didn’t want the other party to control the nation’s schools.

But now that the Obama administration has embraced the traditional Republican ideas of competition, choice, testing and accountability, there is no more arguing about federal control. Republicans are quite willing to allow a Democratic administration to push the states to allow more privately managed schools, to impose additional testing, and to crush teachers’ unions.

Republicans would never have gotten away with this agenda at any time in the past three decades. The Democrats who controlled Congress would never have allowed it to happen.

Who would have imagined that it would take a Democratic President to promote privatization, for-profit schools, evaluating teachers by student test scores, and a host of other ideas (like rolling back the hard-won rights of teachers) that used to be only on the GOP wish-list?

Bruce Baker provides clear and convincing evidence that school reform in New Jersey is heading in the wrong direction, aided by NCLB waivers.

The schools that have been identified as the “priority” schools will be targeted for aggressive interventions, including mass firing and closings. The overwhelming majority of these schools enroll poor black and Hispanic students.

The schools that are identified as “reward” schools serve few needy students. To them them hath, more shall be given.

As Baker shows, the funding formula will take from the neediest and give to those who are already doing just fine.

Reverse Robin Hood: Stealing from the poor to give to the rich.

After a decade of No Child Left Behind and three years of Race to the Top, officials are getting much better at identifying “failing schools.”

Now we know.

A failing school is one with low test scores and low graduation rates.

A failing school enrolls large numbers of students who are eligible for free or reduced price lunch (i.e., poverty).

A failing school enrolls large numbers of African American and Hispanic students.

A failing school enrolls large numbers of students who are English language learners and new immigrants.

A failing school has disproportionate numbers of students with disabilities.

Based on current federal policy, these are the ways to “turnaround” these failing schools.

Fire the principal; fire half or all of the teachers; turn the school into a charter school under private management; close the school.

What, specifically, is done to address the educational needs of the students? See previous sentence.

Bruce Baker has another brilliant analysis, this time gauging the validity of school ratings just released by the state of New York. A thumbnail sketch: New York is stiffing its neediest schools and districts.

Here are the takeaways:

1. The waiver process is illegal. It is not the prerogative of any federal official–not even a cabinet member–to decide to disregard a federal law and to substitute his own policies for the ones in the law. If the law stinks, as NCLB does, revise it. That’s the way our legal system works. Once the precedent is set, any future cabinet member may decide to change the laws to suit his or her fancy. That’s wrong.

2. New York state released a list of schools in relation to their “performance.”  Surprise, surprise! Here is what Baker discovered:

Notably, schools in “good standing” are lowest BY FAR in % of children qualified for free lunch, percent of children who are black, or Hispanic, and are also generally lower in percent of children who are limited in their English Language Proficiency. Race and poverty differences are particularly striking!

In short, the Obama/Duncan administration has given NY State officials license to experiment disproportionately on low income and minority children – or for that matter – simply close their schools. No attempt to actually legitimately parse “blame” or consider the possibility that the state itself might share in that blame.

AFTER ALL, NEW YORK STATE CONTINUES TO MAINTAIN ONE OF THE MOST REGRESSIVE STATE SCHOOL FINANCE SYSTEMS IN THE COUNTRY! 

The third takeaway is that the state violates its own funding formula and underfunds all schools, but especially the schools that enroll the neediest students.

…the current New York State school foundation aid formula is hardly equitable or adequate for meeting the needs of children attending the state’s highest need districts. But to rub salt in the wound – FOR THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS, THE GOVERNOR AND LEGISLATURE HAVE CHOSEN TO DISREGARD ENTIRELY THEIR OWN WOEFULLY INADEQUATE STATE AID FORMULA.

Even worse, when the Governor and Legislature have levied CUTS TO THAT FORMULA, they have levied those cuts such that they disproportionately cut more state aid per pupil from the higher need districts. As of 2011-12, some high need districts including the city of Albany had shortfalls in state funding (from what would be expected if the foundation formula was actually funded) that were greater than the total foundation aid they were actually receiving.

A reader this morning said I should make a clear distinction between what the Republicans and the Democrats say/do about education.

I wish I could.

Race to the Top is no different from No Child Left Behind, other than the timetable.

It shares the same assumptions that testing, choice, and data are the magic keys to the kingdom of 100% proficiency.

The waivers to NCLB are more of the same data-mania.

A reader sent me this survey from Governor Scott Walker’s education department. Testing and data, plus charters and vouchers.

That’s the combination that won a waiver.

Why doesn’t Arne Duncan ever speak out against what is happening in Louisiana? in Tennessee? in Florida? in Ohio? in Indiana?

Why doesn’t Obama?

Why is there no prominent Democratic voice standing up against privatization?

Strange bedfellows.

An educator in Oregon sent the following message:

To get a waiver from NCLB the state of Oregon promised that 100% of students
will graduate from high school and 80% will complete college.  I’m not sure
if this is madness or deliberate deception because the date set for reaching
these goals is 2025.  By then,the governor and legislators will be long

gone, and/or the education pendulum will have swung in some other weird direction.

This is not quite right. The goals are:

100% will get a high school diploma.

And to quote one of the commenters on this post, who quotes the state’s waiver request (p. 24):

“Eighty percent must continue their education beyond high school with half of those earning associate’s degrees or professional/technical certificates, and half achieving a bachelor’s degree or higher. This goal, commonly referred to and as the 40/40/20 Goal, gives Oregon the most ambitious high school and college completion targets of any state in the country.”

A reader adds this astute observation:

Utterly idiotic. The goal relies on self-reporting, since the students in question can’t be legally bound to tell the school anything they do after they leave. They could lie, disappear, move out of state or out of country, join the military, or even die. The school could simply fail to hear from them. The school where I teach graduates 400 seniors every year. How would the counseling department keep track of all those people once they left? And why would the school be responsible for their learning four years–or even four months–after they’ve graduated? Are the elementary teachers who had them in kindergarten held responsible for the ones who don’t get bachelor’s degrees? (“I’m sorry, Miss Flowers, but of those students you had sixteen years ago, only 10% got a college degree, so we have to put you on probation. Let’s hope the ones you had fifteen years ago do better.”)

Vermont decided not to apply for a waiver from NCLB.

Not because it loves NCLB. No one does.

But because Vermont education officials had their own ideas about how to help their schools.

And they discovered that Arne Duncan’s offer to give them “flexibility” was phony.

He did not want to hear Vermont’s ideas. Contrary to his claims, the waivers do not offer flexibility.

What Arne Duncan wants states to do is to agree to his own demands, not to shape their own destiny.

He wants them to allow more privately managed charters. He wants them to evaluate teachers by student test scores. He wants them to adopt Common Core state standards.  He wants them to agree to threaten and close down schools with low test scores. He has a laundry list of what he wants them to do.

Of course, this is all very puzzling since none of Arne Duncan’s mandates have a solid basis in research or evidence. In that regard, they are not much different from NCLB. You might say they represent NCLB without the timetable.

Even more puzzling is the assumption that Arne Duncan and the U.S. Department of Education know how to reform the schools of the nation. It is not as if anyone would look at Arne Duncan’s Chicago as a model for the nation. That district is once again being “reformed,” this time by Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

And from a strictly Constitutional point of view, the U.S. Department of Education has never been empowered to tell schools and school districts how to reform themselves.

Quite candidly, there is no one at the U.S. Department of Education who is competent to tell entire states how to reform their schools.

So, kudos to Vermont.

A state that said no to federal control, federal mandates, privatization, and other bad ideas.

As often, I add a footnote to the original post: Bruce Baker of Rutgers alerted me to a change in governance in Vermont. The legislature just passed a bill to have the state commissioner of education report to the governor. This opens the way for business community and privatizers to exert more influence. Privatizers like to eliminate input from parents and communities, making it easier for them to get what they want.

Vermonters: Don’t let it happen.

Stay outside the consensus.

Keep Vermont and Vermont parents and communities in charge of your schools.

Diane