NEW ESEA WAIVER FLEXIBILITY REQUIREMENTS

1
NEW ESEA WAIVER FLEXIBILITY REQUIREMENTS

• Leigh Manasevit, Esq.
• lmanasevit_at_bruman.com
• Brustein Manasevit, PLLC
• lmanasevit_at_bruman.com

2
Faux Reauthorization Waivers
3

• Problem with Waivers?
• Lack of Transparency!!

4
Waiver Resources

• Statute NCLB Section 9401
• Guidance
• Title I Part A July 2009
• Maintenance of Effort See program statutes

5
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 funds
• Comparability
• Supplement not supplant
• Equitable service to private school students
• Parent involvement
• Civil rights

6
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 the of low income students
  is less than 10 below the lowest eligible school

7
The AYP Waiver Wars

• Failure to make AYP
• Center for Education Policy Study
  http//www.cep-dc.org/cfcontent_file.cfm?Attachmen
  tUsher_FourYearsAYPTrends_121610.pdf
• Districts Failing AYP
• 2006 29
• 2009 36
• Schools Failing AYP
• 2006 29
• 2009 33
• 2013- 2014 SY 100 proficient Required
• Causing sharp increases in target levels

8
The AYP Waiver Wars

• Secretary Duncan
• 82 of schools could fail AYP this year (10-11)

9
The AYP Waiver Wars

• June 23, 2011 Chairman Kline/ Chairman Hunter to
  Secretary Duncan
• the Departments proposal is cause for
  concern.
• .to grant conditional waivers in exchange for
  reforms is not authorized by Congress
• July 6, 2011 Secretary 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.

10
The AYP Waiver Wars

• April 25, 2011 Montana to Secretary Duncan
• I am delaying the scheduled increase of the
  (AMOs).
• June 21, 2011 Idaho to Secretary Duncan
• In 2011Idaho will not lift its proficiency
  targets forAYP.
• Idahodoes 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  rigid requirements of an outdated accountability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 Secretary Duncan
• We intend to hold ourAMO targets at the
  2009-2010 levels.

11
The AYP Wars

• July 1, 2011 Secretary 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

12
The Peace Offerings

• August 15, 2011 Montana to Secretary Duncan
• Our offices were able to agree to a compromise
  that would place our AMOs at
• We will amend ourworkbookwhich will
  suffice for compliance with the law.
• July 27, 2011 Secretary Duncan to Idaho
• Idahos revised AMOs are consistent with the
  requirements under.NCLB
• I am pleased to approve Idahos amended plan
• August 2, 2011 South Dakota to ED
• During that phone conversation, South Dakotas
  proposed AMOs for reading were approved.

13
Requested AYP Flexibility

• Arkansas Denied
• Idaho Granted (not a waiver)
• Kansas Denied
• Michigan Part Denied, Part 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/
• As of November 11, 2011

14

• June 28, 2011 Congressional Research Service
  (CRS) Report on Secretary of Educations Waiver
  Authority
• ED has the authority to waive accountability
  provisions of Title I, Part A.
• It is unclear if Secretary can condition a waiver
  on other action(s) not required by law.

15
ED Announcementon Waivers
16
Waivers

• ED makes the big 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/11092
  3.html

17
Letter (cont)

• Flexibility in exchange for rigorous and
  comprehensive State plans
• Improve educational outcomes
• Close achievement gaps
• Increase equity
• Improve instruction

18
ESEA Flexibility September 23, 2011

• 10 provisions subject to waiver (1 waiver-10
  sections)
• 2013-2014 timeline
  develop new ambitious AMOs
• School improvement consequences LEA not required
  to take currently required improvement actions in
  Title I Schools
• LEA improvement identification not required to
  identify for improvement LEA that fails 2
  consecutive years
• Rural LEAs
• Small Rural School Achievement or Rural and Low
  Income program
• Flexibility regardless of AYP status

19
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
• School Improvement
• 1003a funds to serve any priority or focus school
  if SEA determines school in need of support
• Reward Schools
• Rewards to any reward school if the SEA
  determines appropriate

20
Waivers

• 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

21
Waivers

• Transferability
• Up to 100, same programs
• SIG
• 1003g awards for any priority school

22
Waivers

• Optional
• 21st Century Learning Centers support expanded
  learning time during school day

23
States Intending to Request ESEA FlexibilityAs
of November 8, 2011
The following is a list of States that have
indicated they intend to request ESEA
flexibility. This list is current as of the date
indicated above the Department will periodically
update this list to reflect changes after that
date. Please note that a States indication of
its intent to request is not binding. States are
listed in alphabetical order.

• November 14, 2011

• Mid-February, 2012

• Colorado
• Florida
• Georgia
• Indiana
• Kentucky
• Massachusetts

• Arkansas
• Arizona
• Connecticut
• D.C.
• Delaware
• Hawaii

24
States Intending to Request ESEA Flexibility
(cont.)As of November 8, 2011

• November 14, 2011

• Mid-February, 2012

• Minnesota
• New Jersey
• New Mexico
• Oklahoma
• Tennessee
• Vermont

• Idaho
• Illinois
• Iowa
• Kansas
• Maine
• Maryland

25
States Intending to Request ESEA FlexibilityAs
of November 8, 2011

• Mid-February, 2012 (cont.)

• Oregon
• Puerto Rico
• Rhode Island
• South Carolina
• South Dakota
• Utah
• Virginia
• Washington
• Wisconsin

• Michigan
• Mississippi
• Missouri
• Nevada
• New Hampshire
• New York
• North Carolina
• Ohio

26
In Exchange forMust meet 4 principles

• College Career Ready Standards develop and
  implement
• Reading / Language Arts
• Math
• Aligned assessments measuring growth
• ELP assessment aligned to 1

27

• State developed system of 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, Math
• All students
• All subgroups
• Graduation Rates
• Eliminates 2 alternate assessment based on
  modified achievement standards

28

• School Performance over time
• New AMOs (ambitious)
• State LEAs
• Schools
• Subgroups
• Incentive recognitions
• Dramatic systemic changes in lowest performing
  schools

29

• Effective Instruction / Leadership
• Commit to develop / adopt pilot and implement
• Teacher / principal evaluation systems
• Student Growth Significant Factor

30

• Reduce duplication and unnecessary burden

31
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

32
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

33
Definitions

• Reward Schools
• Highest performing all students or
• High progress

34
Timelines

• Notify of intent to apply by Oct 12, 2011
• Submit November 14, 2011 December Peer Review or
• Mid February, Spring 2012 Review
• Flexibility by end of 2011-2012

35
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)

36
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 client-lawyer 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
attorney-client 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.