No Child Left Behind Waivers: Promising Ideas from Second Round Applications By Jeremy Ayers and Isabel Owen with Glenda Partee and Theodora Chang

Purpose and method Purpose (“Checker’s Challenge”): identify innovation in second round waiver applications Method 1.Identify changes from current law and practice 2.Identify common themes across states 3.Identify promising or interesting ideas 4.Identify questions or concerns

State of applications: 33 states approved 3 states pending 1 state rejected, 1 withdrawn 13 states not applied

Principles of ESEA flexibility 1.College- and career-ready expectations for all students 2.State-developed differentiated recognition, accountability, and support 3.Supporting effective instruction and leadership 4.Reducing duplication and unnecessary burden

1. College- and career-ready standards To receive ESEA flexibility states must— ▫adopt college- and career-ready standards in at least reading and math, and implement them by ▫adopt and administer assessments that measure student growth ▫adopt English language proficiency standards ▫annually report college-going and credit-accumulation rates for all students and subgroups

Promising or interesting ideas Some states (AZ, CT, MO) would prepare all teachers to support English learners, not just ESL teachers Some states (CT, LA) would streamline the state agency to focus on college and career readiness Some states (ID, LA) would provide funding for students to take rigorous courses Some states (SC, VA, WA) would create early warning systems to identify students at risk of dropping out Some states (CT, NC) would create competency- or standards-based report cards

2. Differentiated accountability To receive ESEA flexibility states must— ▫develop an accountability system based on at least reading and math, graduation rates, and student growth ▫set ambitious annual goals (AMOs) in at least reading and math ▫adopt and administer assessments that measure student growth in at least reading and math ▫recognize schools that make progress ▫identify the bottom 5% of low-performing schools as priority schools and effect change following federal principles ▫identify an extra 10% of schools with large achievement gaps as focus schools and work to close gaps ▫ensure improvement in all Title I schools and build capacity to improve learning in all schools

Promising or interesting ideas Some states (AR, DE, IL, MD, NC, NY, RI, WA) would set ambitious new annual goals. Some (IA, NV) have unclear goals. Some states would create school rating systems that align with the goals (AR, DE, NC, NY) while others would not (LA, MO, OR, NV). 9 states would use letter grades or stars to rate their schools so that ratings are clear to the public. Most states would increase accountability for districts.

Promising or interesting ideas Many would combine student subgroups into super subgroups. Some (IA, IL, NV) would only use the super group when subgroups fall below a lower n-size. States vary in how they would use subgroup performance to identify low-performing schools. Many lacked detailed plans for school turnaround, but several (AR, DE, IL, LA, RI) had systemic plans that included mid-course corrections and clear supports and consequences for not making progress. Most states would identify low-performing schools every 2 years, but some (MD, NC, OH, WI) would only do so every 3 or 4 years.

3. Effective instruction and leadership To receive ESEA flexibility states must adopt teacher and principal evaluation systems that— ▫support continual improvement of instruction ▫use at least 3 performance levels to meaningfully differentiate performance ▫use multiple valid measures, including as a significant factor data on student growth ▫evaluate teachers and principals on a regular basis ▫provide clear, timely, useful feedback that identifies needs, guides professional development, and informs personnel decisions

Promising or interesting ideas States vary widely in what measures they would use to evaluate teachers in both tested and non-tested subjects and grades. Some states (AZ, DE, NC, SC) would use technology to improve evaluation and professional development. A few states (OH, RI) shared detailed plans for ensuring students have equal access to effective teachers, but most did not.

Findings Policy and practice have changed significantly from NCLB Waivers per se did not stimulate innovation but were an opportunity to articulate a new vision States proposed interesting and promising ideas States lacked detail in aspects of accountability, teacher distribution, school turnaround, reducing burden, and increasing learning time States are admirably using various sources of funding to implement their plans

Recommendations Treat states as laboratories of reform that set the stage for ESEA reauthorization The Department should ask for, and states should offer, more detail on state plans States should learn from each other through consortia or replication The Department should increase staffing and capacity to enforce and support state plans States should implement plans coherently—with clear goals, mid-course corrections, and consequences for failure