This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon, Sept. 1, 2011 - Missouri education officials have already modified their application for a waiver from federal education sanctions, based on suggestions from various school groups, but more work is expected before next month's deadline to submit the document to Washington.
Since the state Board of Education voted last month to seek public comment on its application for a waiver from the requirements of No Child Left Behind, the proposal has already been changed and the deadline for public comments -- originally set for last Thursday -- has been extended. The board is still expected to vote on a final draft of the application at its meeting on Jan. 17 in Jefferson City.
For it to be in force in the school year that begins this fall, the application would have to be submitted to Washington by Feb. 21.
One of the main reasons the state is seeking the waiver, education officials said, is to make sure Missouri schools are judged by rules tailored to the state's needs rather than a one-size-fits-all report card used nationwide. Those guidelines from Washington have led to longstanding, widespread criticism, with few schools able to meet the targets set up for how many students are proficient on standardized tests by a set date.
Under the law, by 2014 all students were expected to meet that proficiency target. But a new document posted on the website of the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education shows clearly that the goal is not realistic.
Under the No Child Left Behind rules, only 17.6 percent of the more than 500 school districts in the state met the standard for adequate yearly progress last year, with 290 having scores placing them on a list of districts needing corrective action.
If the standards under the Missouri School Improvement Plan had been used, as sought by the waiver application, schools would still remain accountable, education officials say. But instead of facing the punitive actions called for by the federal program, the waiver would allow the poorly performing schools to be identified for special support under a consistent program designed to bring improvement.
Individualized improvement plans, tailored for particular districts or school buildings, would be a more effective method of achieving the gains that the federal law is aiming for, the state application says.
Comments from Educators, Others
Education groups and others from around the state have commented on the drafts of the waiver application. While they do not necessarily oppose seeking the waiver, some have questioned whether the proposal has enough detail to achieve what state officials are seeking, and they worry that new requirements may be imposed without any money to pay for them.
Brent Ghan, spokesman for the Missouri School Boards Association, said boards need more information about precisely what benefits the waiver would bring.
"While we support DESE's efforts to seek a waiver from some of the NCLB requirements that have become especially onerous and punitive," Ghan said, "we're concerned that the waiver request doesn't provide enough details about what portions of the federal law DESE would like waived.
"We are urging DESE and the state Board of Education to reconsider submitting the request in its current form and to take time to create a more thorough, research-based plan with more stakeholder input. We think there is likely to be significant resistance from the education community to implement a plan with so few details."
Ghan added that instead of a waiver for individual states, the better solution would be for Congress to reauthorize the national education law and make the changes to No Child Left Behind that states and schools have been proposing for years. This month marks the 10th anniversary of the program's passage, but efforts in Congress to reauthorize and revamp it have stalled.
As far as reauthorization goes, Ghan said that "given the current political environment, that doesn't seem likely any time soon."
Margie Vandeven, Missouri's assistant education commissioner for the office of quality schools, agreed that reauthorization would be the best outcome but is probably doomed because of Washington's political climate. So, she said, the next best thing would be changes to let schools be more accurately classified so they can get the help they need.
"The majority is saying that they are not satisfied," she said. "The system is misidentifying schools and requiring that sanctions be applied as a result of that misidentification. We'd like to see some changes there."
What Teachers Say
The Missouri State Teachers Association isn't very happy with No Child Left Behind, but it also opposes the state's waiver application.
"While the concept of a waiver sounds appealing," the group said on its website, "the reality is that NCLB is dead and a waiver from a dead program is meaningless. Specific details are not available regarding the waiver requirements and DESE's offerings don't add any additional critical information."
Rather than providing relief to states, the group added, the waivers offered by Education Secretary Arne Duncan are really a way for Washington to gain more influence in schools across the nation.
"Duncan's end goal is to move every state public education system into a federal public education system featuring evaluation (and eventually testing, curriculum, etc.)," its statement said.
"The bottom line is this takes control away from local districts, parents and teachers in the education of their children. Not all test are created equal, whether for our students or our teachers. There is no compelling evidence of any sort to support the validity or effectiveness of a single evaluation procedure."
It also said that if Missouri is granted a waiver, the state would accelerate putting into place the fifth version of the Missouri School Improvement Plan, known as MSIP5. But, the teachers group added, there would be no new money attached.
"No resources (funding) from the federal or state budgets mean the tab for these changes is likely going to be the local school districts," the group said.
Vandeven said that MSIP5 still would not be used as the yardstick for district accreditation for another couple of years, but the scoring guide that it includes could be used to gauge the level of student achievement under a waiver.
Further, she said, "we would align funding and use it in the best manner possible, and we would give districts more flexibility to use their federal funding."
Another statewide teachers group, the Missouri National Education Association, has taken a more neutral stand on the proposed waivers. Ann Jarrett, the association's teaching and learning director, said that it has been working with officials at DESE, and some of its suggestions made it into the revised version of the waiver.
Still, she added, the association has concerns, particularly as the changes apply to teachers, noting that one requirement of the waiver would be that student achievement be part of teacher evaluations.
"We have real questions about how that is worded and that is implemented," Jarrett said, adding that if MAP tests are used to help gauge teacher effectiveness, "there are lots of problems with that.
"It would force further narrowing of the curriculum, which is not good for students or for society. It also has not been found to be valid. There are lots of factors outside the control of teachers that have an effect on student achievement. Within the school the teacher is the most important factor, but there are other factors, poverty being the largest one. Teachers do not teach in isolation."
She said the association is also concerned about how schools where student achievement is low would be reconstituted; it favors keeping teachers in those schools and raising their effectiveness with professional development rather than forcing them to go to another school in favor of wholesale staff changes.
But Jarrett applauded Missouri's efforts toward holding school districts accountable and said that the state's record should be a plus in any effort to change the current federal guidelines.
"Missouri is ahead of the game in several areas, like the accountability system," she said. "We have had an accountability system for more than 20 years, but some states don't have one at all. We know more about what works and what doesn't work in that area."