CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
TOM TORLAKSON, State
Superintendent of Public Instruction
916-319-0800
CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
MICHAEL W. KIRST, President
916-319-0827
1430
N Street Sacramento, CA 95814-5901
June 15, 2012
Deborah Delisle, Assistant Secretary
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20202
Dear Assistant Secretary
Delisle:
Subject: Request for
Waiver of Provisions of Sections 1116(b) and (c) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, Pursuant to Section 9401 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act
As President of the
State Board of Education and State Superintendent of Public Instruction, and on
behalf of all California districts, we are requesting a waiver of certain
provisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Like Secretary of
Education Arne Duncan, we recognize that the No Child Left Behind Act, with its
escalating proficiency targets and associated sanctions, is no longer useful
for identifying which schools need improvement or for intervening appropriately
in those schools. The appropriate solution is to reauthorize the Act, replace
its inflexible requirements with provisions that accommodate the differences in
state policy approaches, and give districts adequate flexibility to improve
student achievement. In the meantime, we seek more immediate relief through
this waiver request.
The members of the State
Board of Education and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction have
given careful consideration to the waiver package offered by Secretary Duncan
and appreciate that Acting Assistant Secretary Michael Yudin visited our state
and discussed its provisions with us.
As we conveyed to Acting Assistant
Secretary Yudin at the January State Board of Education meeting, California
state law requires that the state reimburse local educational agencies for the
cost of any state-mandated activities. Given California’s severe, ongoing
fiscal challenges, it is impossible for the state or its districts to implement
the requirements of the Secretary’s waiver package effectively and within the
required timeline, and we are not willing to make promises that we are unable
to carry out. We ask that you consider instead our waiver request contained in
this letter, which has three main objectives:
1.
Ending
the ineffective practice of over-identifying schools and districts for program
improvement. Unrealistic and
ever-increasing performance targets have forced us to label 63 percent of Title
I schools and 47 percent of districts receiving Title I funds as “needing
improvement,” and to apply sanctions that do not necessarily lead to improved
learning for the students in those schools. This practice has confused the
public, demoralized teachers, and tied up funds that could have been more
precisely targeted on the schools and districts that are most in
need of improvement.
2.
Giving
districts greater spending flexibility to increase student achievement. We request a waiver of the requirements that
schools in improvement set aside funds for Title I professional development,
supplemental educational services, and choice-related transportation
activities. Instead, these funds should be available for the activities that
will be most effective for improving teaching and learning in the local
context, which could include, for example, targeted tutoring provided by the
districts and schools, teacher coaching to improve instruction, or systems for
identifying specific student achievement problems and developing targeted
instructional interventions.
3.
Transitioning
to a single, transparent accountability system. After more than a decade of living under two
conflicting accountability systems, California’s districts, schools, and public
want to return to a single system that works. Before President George W. Bush
signed the No Child Left Behind Act into law, California had implemented a
robust accountability system that encouraged school improvement and sent a
single, consistent message to the public about how well schools were doing to
improve the achievement of students. The state statutes that established that
system are still in place and represent a more effective approach. Now that the
shortcomings of the federal system are more widely understood, we want to
return our focus to our state system that has a proven track record of measuring
growth.
To achieve these ends,
the State Board of Education as the State Educational Agency is specifically
seeking a waiver to exempt local educational agencies in California from Title
I, Part A sections 1116(b) and (c) with the exception of subsections 1116(b)(13)
and 1116(c)(4). We are requesting this waiver for the 2012–13 and 2013–14
academic years.
In accordance with the
waiver authority established in federal law (Section 9401 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act), we outline in this letter California’s specific,
measurable educational goals, describe how the state will measure progress
toward these goals, and explain the state’s plan for assisting schools and
districts in meeting those goals. Please note that in this request, we only
describe current and planned initiatives to the extent that they address these
requirements and fit within the policy parameters established by the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act. We can provide additional information about other
aspects of our education system that are of interest to the Secretary, but do
not consider such information pertinent to this specific request.
California’s Current
Accountability System
California’s Public
Schools Accountability Act of 1999 established the state’s school
accountability program. Specifically, it:
·
Created the Academic
Performance Index, a composite, test-based score ranging from 200 to 1,000 that
reflects overall school performance and measures improvement in school
performance from one year to the next;
·
Established a statewide
performance target of 800 on the Academic Performance Index and a system for
setting annual school-level targets that encourage steady improvement toward
that statewide goal;
·
Required schools to
demonstrate improvement for all numerically significant student groups
including racial and ethnic student groups, socioeconomically disadvantaged
pupils, English learners, and students with disabilities;
·
Defined a system of
intervention in under performing schools, including standards, criteria, and
qualifications for external evaluators to assist low-performing schools; and
·
Established eligibility
criteria for an awards program for schools meeting or exceeding state growth
targets.
Investments in
Intervention
Since establishing the
state accountability system, California has invested heavily in interventions
for schools that failed to make significant growth as measured by the Academic
Performance Index. Between 2000–01 and 2007–08, the state provided funding and
technical assistance to 1,288 schools under the Immediate Intervention Under-performing Schools Program at a cost of $668.6 million. Of these, 1,140
schools ultimately met their growth targets and exited the program.
Also during that time,
802 schools participated in the High Priority Schools Grant Program at a cost
of $749.3 million. Of those schools, 309 that failed to make significant growth
were assigned to work with an intervention team. While this program was helpful
to many participating schools, program evaluations suggested that longer term
district-level approaches could be more effective, leading the state to shift
its focus accordingly. From 2008–12, California allocated $177 million to districts
in program improvement, for district-level assistance and intervention teams,
and other activities. The first three years of evaluation data suggest that the
district assistance and intervention model is effective for increasing student
achievement.
In addition, the state
established the Quality Education Investment Act in 2006. This $3 billion state
initiative assists schools that were performing in the lowest two deciles of
the Academic Performance Index at the program’s inception. This infusion of
resources has helped these schools reduce class size, increase student access
to school counselors, provide professional development, increase the number of
highly qualified teachers, and improve facilities, among other activities.
(Note that in 2008, California’s severe budget crisis led the state to collapse
several categorical programs, including the Immediate Intervention Under-performing Schools Program and the High Priority Schools Grant Program
described above. Funding for the Quality Education Investment Act remains
intact.)
Outcomes to Date
In the past 13 years,
California’s accountability system has led to increased student achievement
overall and strong progress on closing the achievement gap. Since the full
implementation of the California Standards Tests in 2003, academic achievement
for all students in both English-language arts and mathematics has been
steadily increasing. In English-language arts, the percent of students scoring
proficient or advanced increased from 35 percent in 2003 to 54 percent in 2011,
marking a substantial increase in the number of students who are prepared to
succeed in college or career. California’s most vulnerable students also showed
major improvement: the percent of students scoring at the lower level of achievement
decreased by 13 percentage points over that same period, from 32 percent in
2003 to 19 percent in 2011.
California students have
also made impressive gains in mathematics: the percent of students scoring
proficient or advanced increased from 35 percent in 2003 to 50 percent in 2011.
Across that same time period, the percent of students scoring at the lower
level of achievement decreased by 11 percentage points from 38 percent in 2003
to 27 percent in 2011.
These substantial gains
in test scores are reflected in the state accountability system. In 2003, for
example, an elementary school in the lowest 10 percent had an Academic
Performance Index score between 564 and 609 points. In 2011, an elementary
school in the lowest 10 percent had an Academic Performance Index score between
700 and 714 points.
To summarize, while the
federal system has subsumed increasing numbers of schools and districts under
the banner of failure for the last decade, California’s system has consistently
differentiated between schools that are improving and those that are not.
Looking Ahead: Plans for
Change
With this state-defined
request, we are seeking to return to a single system of school accountability
that is both understandable and rigorous. We intend to keep the Academic Performance
Index at the core of our state accountability system, while making
improvements. This waiver request will provide much-needed flexibility and
relief from the adverse effects of the No Child Left Behind Act, while
increasing our focus on the schools most in need of improved student learning.
We plan to strengthen
California’s system of accountability and interventions as follows:
California will
transition to a single system of performance goals that uses the annual
Academic Performance Index schoolwide and student group targets as the state’s
Annual Measureable Objectives. The state will continue to identify schools and
districts needing improvement, but will use its own accountability system to
identify them. The State Board of Education will initiate conforming changes as
needed to California’s Accountability Workbook and submit these to the U.S.
Department of Education for review. (California’s current Annual Measureable
Objectives, as required by Section 9401 (b)(1)(C), are documented in the state’s
approved Accountability Workbook, available on the California Department of
Education Accountability Workbook Web page at http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/wb.asp.)
·
The State Board of
Education will consider by January 2013 revisions to the statewide Academic
Performance Index target or revisions to the method for calculating annual
schoolwide and student group targets. While the Academic Performance Index was
designed to encourage growth at all performance levels, we believe we need to
carefully examine the effects of the target structure, particularly for schools
that have long met the statewide target, to encourage continued focus on
students who are not proficient. We will seek input from the Public Schools
Accountability Act Advisory Committee and California’s education community at
large to help make this determination. If the State Board of Education adopts
new targets, those will become California’s Annual Measureable Objectives in
the following school year.
·
By March 2013, the State
Board of Education, with input from the Public Schools Accountability Act
Advisory Committee, will determine how it will use the Academic Performance
Index to identify a targeted number of schools and districts that have not
shown improvement over time or have low absolute performance. This process will
replace the process of identifying schools and districts for Program
Improvement under the No Child Left Behind Act.
o The State Board of Education will identify a
more targeted set of schools and districts for intervention, specifically those
low-performing schools and districts that have not improved.
o The State Board of Education will develop clear
criteria to identify the targeted set of schools and districts that have not
improved and require intervention, but will not require that a specific
percentage be identified each year, or set other requirements that lead to
schools and districts bouncing in and out of this status. The State Board of
Education will also develop clear criteria to identify when schools and
districts have improved sufficiently to regain full flexibility and autonomy
from state interventions.
o The State Board of Education will consider
moving to a multi-year (“rolling”) accountability measure or other techniques
to smooth out fluctuations in scores, prevent schools from bouncing in and out
of improvement status from year to year, and focus attention on the schools
with the most intractable problems.
·
By July 2013, the State
Board of Education, with input from the Title I Committee of Practitioners,
will identify what sanctions will be imposed on schools and districts that have
been identified as not improving, based on the severity and persistence of
underachievement problems. Those sanctions, currently authorized under state
law, include: (a) replacing district personnel; (b) removing schools from the
jurisdiction of the district and establishing alternative governance and
supervision arrangements; (c) appointing a state receiver or trustee to
administer the affairs of the district in place of the local governing board;
(d) abolishing or restructuring the district; (e) authorizing students to
transfer to higher performing schools in other districts and providing
transportation; (f) instituting a new curriculum based on state content
standards; and (g) deferring programmatic funds or reducing administrative
funds. In recent years California has exercised its takeover option, appointing
state trustees in three persistently low-performing districts. (Two of these
districts have improved and regained autonomy from the state; the trustee is
still in place in the third.)
o The state will focus its monitoring efforts at
the district level, both because of capacity constraints, and to ensure
district support for school improvement.
o Specific improvement activities will be selected
based on the needs of the school and district, as determined by local data
analysis and the qualitative judgments of individuals who are familiar with the
school and district.
o Required improvement activities will largely
focus on instruction, including activities that promote teacher collaboration
and instructional coaching. Instructional improvement activities will emphasize
a broad curriculum. Numerous California schools districts have been
implementing research-based interventions which are improving student
achievement and will be considered for incorporation in a statewide
intervention model.
o The State Board of Education will bring more
qualitative judgment to the process of identifying appropriate interventions
and sanctions, using as guidance existing state standards and criteria for
assessing district performance in seven key areas: governance; alignment of
curriculum, instruction, and assessments to state standards; fiscal operations;
parent and community involvement; human resources; data systems and achievement
monitoring; and professional development. The State Board of Education may use
local review panels to identify problems and assign required activities.
o If our waiver is granted, these activities can
be paid for, in part, with federal funds that are currently set aside for SES,
Title I professional development, and choice-related transportation. Under the
current system, local educational agencies and schools are obligated to direct
Title I improvement resources to activities that frequently do not align with
their local needs.
o Another possible source of funds is the
approximately $35 million annual allocation for local educational
agencies that are newly identified as needing improvement under the No Child
Left Behind Act ($50,000, $100,000, or $150,000 per local educational agency,
depending on the severity of the performance problem). Because of escalating performance
targets, these funds are going currently to districts with moderate performance
problems and could be better targeted. This may require a change in state
statute to re-purpose the funds.
·
To support improved
teaching and learning, districts will revise annual district and school plans
to document how schools and local educational agencies are using their formerly
reserved Title I, Part A funds to meet the needs of Title I eligible students.
These plans will be uploaded to the state’s web-based system, allowing the
California Department of Education to monitor the plans and provide timely
technical assistance to districts as they redirect funds and human resources to
better support student learning.
In Conclusion
California is moving
forward with a plan to increase student learning, building on the strong
foundation we already have. We understand the obvious and important link
between quality teaching and learning. The State has adopted the Common Core
State Standards and is on course to implement them on the timeline established
in state statute, in line with what the state budget allows. As you know,
California is also a governing state in the Smarter Balanced Assessment
Consortium and anticipates a transition to new online assessments in 2015. In anticipation
of this, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction and the State Board of
Education will recommend action by the State to reauthorize and streamline the
State’s assessment system and ensure a smooth transition to the new tests. At
the direction of Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr., the State Board of Education
will concurrently review our state accountability system and consider how to
keep the Academic Performance Index intact as a strong quantitative measure of
school performance, while giving additional emphasis to local judgments of
quality and other, more qualitative accountability mechanisms, such as the
School Accountability Report Cards that all schools must produce annually.
Our goals now are the
same as they were when we first established the state accountability system in
1999—to maintain challenging yet achievable goals, and to assist
underperforming schools in ways that improve student learning. California has
been a leader and innovator in numerous fields, and we plan to return to that
role in education accountability. Just as California led the way in developing
auto emission standards that were ultimately adopted across the nation, we now
want to lead the nation in education accountability and student learning as
well. As we approach reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act, we believe that our state system of accountability provides a strong model
for national consideration.
In the absence of
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we request this
waiver to provide districts with the flexibility they need to use Title I
resources effectively and improve the academic achievement of their students.
As we have described in this letter, we are committed to upholding school
accountability in our state and excellence in our schools. Using our
established state system of accountability and the tough sanctions authorized
in existing state law, we will redouble our efforts to hold districts and
schools accountable for improving student learning.
We have developed this
waiver request by working collaboratively with local educational agencies and
stakeholders, and we will implement the plan with continued collaboration.
Prior to submitting this
waiver request, California provided all local educational agencies and
educational stakeholders in the state with notice and a reasonable opportunity
to comment on this request. The specific notice posting is available on the
California Department of Education Public Notices Web page athttp://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/pn/.
Copies of all comments that California received from local educational agencies
in response to this notice are attached. California has provided notice and
information regarding this waiver request to the public in the manner in which
California customarily provides such notice and information to the public.
If you have questions
regarding this request, please contact Deborah V.H. Sigman, Deputy
Superintendent, District, School, and Innovation Branch, by phone at 916-319-0812 or
by e-mail at dsigman@cde.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
TOM TORLAKSON
State Superintendent of Public Instruction
California Department of Education
MICHAEL W. KIRST
President
California State Board of Education
TT/MK:
California Department of Education
1430 N Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Last Reviewed: Tuesday, June 19, 2012
The prospects for healthcare reform may be chillier than DC weather, but Democrats in the House and Senate are turning their attention to another warmer but still significant national issue: the increasing number of runaway and throwaway youth who are being forced into prostitution. In response to the growing concerns that desperate, runaway teens will be forced into prostitution in a sluggish economy, Congress is pushing several bills to improve how runaway kids are tracked by the police, fund crucial social services, and prevent teens from being caught in sex trafficking. Here's the gist of what the new legislation is trying to accomplish:
