School Accountability

The California Office to Reform Education (CORE) is now one step closer to becoming the first group of school districts to receive a waiver from No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Last week, the nine CORE districts received feedback from the Department of Education after their official peer review. Moving the application to peer review sent a clear signal that the Department was considering the request seriously; remember, California’s state-level request was denied prior to the review stage.

CORE chose not to release specific comments from the peer review until their districts have addressed any concerns in a revised proposal. According to Education Week’s Politics K-12 blog, a spokeswoman for CORE explained: "As you can imagine, the parties who are opposing district-level waivers are looking for any opportunity to criticize, and we worry that if we don't release the peer review and our responsive update at the same time we will face a 'death by a thousand paper cuts' situation."

But CORE did release a summary of the reviewers’ concerns. Reviewers clearly had questions about how additional districts could join CORE and begin implementing the waiver with, or without, further involvement from the Department. And they also requested more details across all three flexibility principles: standards and assessments, accountability and school improvement, and instruction and leadership.

As I wrote in an earlier post, I have several questions about the viability of district-level flexibility when waivers (and NCLB, for that matter) were designed to work through state-level policy. And my objections seem rather tame compared to those coming from some civil rights organizations, state leaders, lawmakers, and policy wonks. Given the number of organizations and leaders speaking out against district waivers, why does Department continue to press on? Despite my own hesitancy to embrace its plan, here is the best case I can muster in support of the CORE proposal.

Size matters. CORE’s waiver is under consideration, in part, because these districts represent over a million students, in one of the nation’s largest states. In fact, CORE serves more students than 24 of the 34 approved waiver states. Frankly, if nine small districts in Montana had applied, we likely wouldn’t be having this conversation. Further, CORE’s districts are well ahead of their state, enacting reforms the Department would like to see across California, including longitudinal data systems, Common Core implementation, and teacher evaluation. Rewarding these districts would send a strong signal to the state of California about its own policy choices.

Promoting Innovation. Despite cries for “multiple measures” and less emphasis on testing, most states didn’t use their waivers to experiment much with accountability. Instead, states continued to rely on math and reading proficiency levels to identify priority and focus schools. CORE took the opposite approach. The districts proposed to use tests from schools’ highest grade level only for accountability, While peer reviewers nixed this idea, CORE’s plan still broadens the scope of accountability by including social/emotional and school climate domains alongside academics. In addition to proficiency, growth, and graduation rates, CORE’s accountability system will include: chronic absenteeism, suspensions and expulsions, non-cognitive skills, student and parent perception surveys, special education identification, and redesignation for English language learners. These measures will provide a more holistic picture of students’ performance for educators, parents, and policymakers. If the Department is seeking to reward innovation via waivers, the CORE request is more inventive than any I’ve seen.

The problem with being creative, however, is that CORE can offer few details about how it will work. And based on reports of the reviewers’ comments, I suspect they want these details too. How will CORE measure non-cognitive skills? Who will design the surveys? What annual performance targets will be set in each domain, and will each carry the same weight? How will these targets be used to identify priority, focus, and reward schools? According to CORE’s request, these questions may not be answered until the 2015-16 school year. Given this timeline, does CORE merit flexibility now?

All Improvement is Local. CORE’s proposal hinges on unprecedented cooperation between districts. While other waivers rely on capacity provided by states, CORE does not have that luxury. Instead, CORE districts must agree to develop and share Common Core-aligned performance tasks and assessments, report common measures to a CORE data system, hold each other’s schools accountable for meeting performance targets, and use individual schools’ expertise as a primary tool for turnaround, pairing high-achieving schools with low-performing ones for coaching.

In some ways this could be a strength. School and district staff may have more credibility and expertise than state officials, far removed from the local context, in leading turnaround efforts and developing instructional resources or professional development. Additionally, given the size of CORE, they have greater capacity than many state education agencies. However, districts don’t have a stellar record of holding all schools and students to rigorous standards and providing meaningful accountability, and they certainly don’t have as many policy tools to wield as a state education agency.

The bottom line is that both districts and states have a role to play in implementing NCLB flexibility and improving the quality of teaching and learning. Many states have recognized this in their waivers by relying more heavily on districts’ strengths and capabilities to improve schools and support teachers. The question is whether CORE’s plan can work without a strong state role at all. I’m still not sold.

Although the deadline for all students to achieve proficiency in math and reading has been lifted in most states by No Child Left Behind (NCLB) waivers, 2014 test anxiety is high as ever. That’s because the 2014-15 school year is the first time 45 states and Washington, D.C. will be fully implementing the Common Core State Standards – including new tests that will be used as part of high-stakes accountability systems for schools and, in many cases, teachers and students. But when the time comes, will states stay the course? Practical concerns along with escalating political arguments already threaten the emerging system of common standards and assessments.

As I wrote previously, Alabama became the first state to exit the Common Core test consortia, opting instead to administer ACT-based assessments. By 2014, Alabama will likely not be alone in its choice. ACT is a well-established player that has spent decades building an organization with a reputation for providing valid, reliable assessments. Conversely, the state consortia are upstarts, attempting to build next-generation assessments and a precarious, multi-state structure to support and sustain the effort simultaneously. Naturally, states are left with many unanswered questions. How much will the new tests costs, and what are the technical requirements? Will the tests accurately reflect a student’s readiness? And will the assessments even be completed on time? In his smart take on the issue, Bellwether Education Partner’s Andy Smarick writes, the ACT “is the ‘Plan B’ that many states – concerned about the reliability and cost of the consortia-developed tests – have been looking for. It enables a state to remain committed to tough standards and rigorous assessments without putting all of their eggs in the basket of a fragile multi-state entity.”

But this kind of pragmatic concern isn’t the only threat to the common standards. While the Common Core is a state-led initiative (I repeat, the Common Core is a state-led initiative), the effort has been supported by private and corporate philanthropy and by the federal government. Specifically, the requirement to adopt the common standards to compete for Race to the Top funding is at the heart of increasingly polarized and politicized arguments against the Common Core. In their words, “Obamacore” amounts to a “nationalized curriculum” and “leftist indoctrination” that has been “forced on state governments” and “imposed on the children of this nation.”

Reasonable individuals easily dismiss most of these arguments. But reasonable arguments are often overshadowed, especially when national politicians and parties start getting involved. Just last week, the Republican National Committee adopted an anti-Common Core resolution, echoing these same divisive arguments.  And President Obama frequently touts that his administration “convinced almost every state to develop smarter curricula and higher standards, all for about 1 percent of what we spend on education each year” – adding credibility to their claims.

The problem may be about to get worse. As noted in our Key Questions on the Obama Administration’s 2014 Education Budget Request, federal funding for the assessment consortia is set to expire before the tests are fully launched. To provide continued support, President Obama’s latest budget includes a $9 million competitive grant initiative that could finance some of their ongoing work. The other $380 million of the “Assessing Achievement” program would provide states with formula grants for their current assessment programs, although leftover funds could go toward Common Core implementation.

However, a significant change would occur in fiscal year 2015: Assessing Achievement formula funding would be available “only to States that have adopted college- and career-ready standards that are common to a significant number of States” (emphasis added). While Race to the Top included a similar requirement, that program was a competition, where states could opt-out. NCLB waivers also require states to adopt college- and career-ready standards, but they do not have to be common ones. The Assessing Achievement program would mark the first time federal formula funding – typically available to all states – required adoption of common standards. If enacted, this requirement will undoubtedly add fuel to the “Obamacore” fire. On the heels of the president’s budget request, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Ia) is calling for the federal government to eliminate all Department of Education funding that supports or prioritizes the Common Core – and he doesn’t even mention the Assessing Achievement program.

What can we make of these threats to the Common Core? To date, most of its political detractors have been contained outside of the mainstream and have had little success gaining traction or passing legislation to reverse Common Core adoption. Will the RNC resolution, Grassley’s letter, or potential changes in federal funding have a greater impact?

On the other hand, the pragmatic concerns about how the new standards and assessments will be implemented are just that – pragmatic. Few could fault Alabama’s decision to choose the ACT over PARCC and SmarterBalanced. All three of the developing testing systems could prove to be a great improvement over current assessments, measuring competencies better aligned to postsecondary work and providing more useful information to students, their teachers, parents, and policymakers.

The important difference between the practical and political critiques is that states deciding to use the ACT system are not necessarily backing away from their commitment to the Common Core altogether. Yes, the assessment consortia should do as much as possible to allay the concerns of wavering states. And yes, policymakers and stakeholders should closely monitor all of the emerging for-profit and non-profit ventures to ensure their assessments, curricula, textbooks, and other resources accurately reflect the new standards. But in the end, any damage done to the Common Core from these pragmatic objections to the consortia is far less severe than what would happen in the unlikely, but not out of the question, case that “Obamacore” goes mainstream. Common Core supporters would do well to distinguish between the two. 

The California Office to Reform Education (CORE) is closer to becoming the first consortium of school districts to receive a flexibility waiver from No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Although the nine CORE districts -- Clovis, Fresno, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, Sacramento, Sanger, and Santa Ana Unified -- submitted a formal waiver proposal to the U.S. Department of Education in February, speculation around district-level waivers had been percolating for months, particularly in states that were reluctant to apply for a waiver or failed to meet the Department’s waiver guidelines, like California.

Naturally, groups representing states -- like the Council of Chief State School Officers -- have significant concerns about district waivers, as it throws the relationship between local, state, and federal authority off kilter. Meanwhile, influential leaders in California, including State Board of Education President Michael Kirst and State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson, theoretically support the CORE request, but raise questions about how it would work in practice.

I share these concerns. Many states sought to unify state and federal policies via waivers and create a streamlined, more effective system of school accountability and improvement. But despite their intentions, most waivers are convoluted, confusing, and vague, presenting a challenge to those trying to monitor states’ progress and figure out what’s working (like me!). In other words, despite a common map and itinerary from the U.S. Department of Education, states chose very different, and often, indirect routes to arrive at their final waiver destination. Don’t get me wrong: variation and creativity aren’t necessarily bad things. Some states needed to spend more time developing teacher evaluations, or take a side trip and explore new approaches to student assessment. But, these variations certainly make the system more difficult to understand.

When it comes to waivers at the district level, the roadmap simply flies out the window. Most of the flexibility provisions within NCLB operate at the state level, making districts a far less logical driver of change. In most waiver states, local policies can be aligned with the federal-state waiver approach through legislation, regulation, and technical assistance from state education agencies. Schools and stakeholders within district waivers, however, will still have to navigate changing local, state, and federal systems -- just with fewer tools and resources at their disposal to bring the systems together. Thus, district waivers, by design, will likely create even more confusion.

Despite its deviations from the Department’s careful roadmap, the CORE proposal deserves to be taken seriously by waiver-watchers. Last week, the Department moved the request to the peer review stage, which means CORE’s proposal has already made it further down the road than California’s failed attempt. Therefore, it’s worth taking a closer look at the specifics within the CORE approach. Stay tuned for a full rundown of the CORE request in an upcoming post.

Texas has joined Pennsylvania, Wyoming, and 46 other states (including Washington, D.C.) in seeking waivers from No Child Left Behind (NCLB). With Nebraska and Montana sitting out, Vermont and North Dakota withdrawing, and California flat-out rejected, the pool of non-waiver states continues to shrink. But despite jumping on the waiver bandwagon, Texas breaks the mold in many respects.

Although the Lone Star State’s refusal to adopt the Common Core is one important distinction from other waiver winners, this wasn’t the detail I was most keen to uncover in their formal request. Texas’ plan to implement their own college- and career-ready standards and assessments actually stood out as one of the stronger points of their waiver, and other non-Common Core states, like Virginia and Minnesota, have successfully applied. Rather, Texas had originally considered asking the Department of Education for leeway to redesign the federal Title I funding formula – a provision that would have gone well beyond the flexibility granted to other states and a demand that would have undoubtedly made Texas’ waiver dead on arrival. To their credit, Texas officials removed this request, bringing their final proposal much closer to what the Department is offering.

But does this mean Texas’ waiver will be a hit with the U.S. Department of Education? Not so fast. While the proposal has strong points – like working with higher education to gain buy-in for college- and career-ready standards and articulating a plan to pilot teacher evaluations and scale them statewide – Texas’ proposed system of school accountability and improvement is not among them. In fact, Texas’ waiver could significantly undermine efforts to hold schools accountable for the performance of individual student subgroups.

Texas’ request is complicated by the fact that its state accountability system, which has operated in parallel to NCLB, is undergoing a significant overhaul, with many provisions yet to be finalized. Because Texas would like to fit its existing system into the waiver requirements, the state simply excluded these half-baked provisions from its request. Therefore, Texas’ waiver omits critical details, including how student progress will be measured, what annual performance targets will be, how each component within accountability will be weighted, and how focus and priority schools will be selected. Further, the application doesn’t even include Texas’ proposed framework, burying the information in attachments and hyperlinks.

For those that do seek out the information, Texas’ new performance index leaves a lot to be desired. Similar to other states, Texas plans to use a combination of four indices for accountability: student achievement, student progress, achievement gap closure, and postsecondary readiness. But the state does not specify how the index would translate into specific interventions, i.e. focus and priority schools.

Even more worrisome is how student subgroups and academic subjects will be treated across the four indices. While some states created “super-subgroups,” Texas took a different approach: ignore subgroups altogether.  Within the student achievement index, only the all students group is considered, with proficiency rates combined further across all subject areas. Yet for measuring student progress, subjects are considered separately and all traditional subgroups count– with the exception of low-income students, who are only considered within the performance gap closure index. But the gap closure measures do not consider English Language Learners or special education students. Finally, within the postsecondary readiness index, only racial subgroups are considered on one measure (advanced proficiency rates), while all subgroups (except low-income students) are considered for graduation rates. Texas does not provide a rationale for picking and choosing which indices apply to which subgroups.

Texas could also be plagued by an issue that cropped up in other waivers: annual performance targets. Texas’ targets would be based on the goal of cracking the top ten states nationally on college and career readiness by 2020 – a novel approach worth considering. But it’s unclear how the state could judge itself against others to define the annual targets. Texas is not a Common Core state, and existing national measures, like the SAT or ACT, would only apply to high schools. If the proposed readiness index were used instead, the ranking would be based on Texas assessments, students graduating with advanced Texas diplomas, and graduation rates. Using these measures, Texas would be number one by default – no other state has similar data.

Given these issues, I am doubtful that the Department could approve Texas’ request in its current form. There are simply too many unanswered questions and missing details. That said, Texas’ request is strong enough in other areas to allow for productive negotiations with the Department. With additional assurances and information from the Lone Star State, along with some give and take, NCLB flexibility could reach deep in the heart of Texas by the 2013-2014 school year.

While many education advocates prepare for the looming sequester on March 1, the education policy news in D.C. wasn’t all bad this week. The nation is now on track – for the first time– to reach a 90 percent high school graduation rate by 2020, according to the fourth annual Building a Grad Nation report. Released at the Grad Nation Summit, hosted by America’s Promise Alliance, the report analyzes trends in the national graduation rate, which increased from 71.7 percent in 2001 to 78.2 percent in 2010, and celebrates the significant advances states have made.

States’ progress has accelerated since 2006, thanks in part to an outsized 2.7 percentage point increase in the graduation rate between 2009 and 2010. The recent gains are also largely due to improved graduation rates for Hispanic students (10.4 point gain) and for black students (6.9 point gain). Two states – Wisconsin and Vermont – have already hit the 90 percent mark, and eighteen more are on pace to meet it by 2020.

Notably, these gains come at a time when many states also increased high school requirements and when schools faced heightened accountability measures under No Child Left Behind. In 2012, nine states required students to pass end-of-course exams to graduate, compared to only two in 2002. Six more states required students to take end-of-course exams in 2012, but did not require a passing score. States are also continuing to raise the bar with adoption of the Common Core and other college- and career-ready standards.

Further, Grad Nation reports that over a million students are no longer attending dropout factories, compared to 2002, and the overall number of dropout factories fell by nearly 600 schools. Dropout factories are high schools where twelfth grade enrollment is 60 percent or less then ninth grade enrollment three years earlier. Again, the beneficiaries of this trend were mostly minority students: in 2002, almost half of America’s black students attended a dropout factory, but in 2011, only a quarter did so – a fifty percent decline.

While celebrating the achievements of the last decade, the report also cites the challenges that lie between today’s status quo and the 2020 goal. Over twenty states are not on pace to achieve a 90 percent graduation rate. More troubling, persistent achievement gaps remain. In 30 states, at least one-third of students with disabilities fail to graduate. The same is true for English Language Learners in 33 states, black students in 20 states, and Hispanic students in 16 states. In many cases, the proportion of students failing to graduate in these subgroups is much higher.

Another challenge lies within the data. The 78.2 percent mark was determined using the Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate (AFGR), rather than the 4-year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate – the uniform methodology states and the federal government agreed to use in 2008. The Cohort Rate will enable a more consistent measure of graduation rates and allow states to more precisely identify schools and strategies that are preventing dropout. But there are technical questions about how to calculate the new rates. After the switch to the Cohort Rate in 2012, the difference between the old and new calculation methods was over five percentage points in nine states. Without a consistent measure, it is unclear how far and how fast states will need to improve to meet the 2020 goal.

Because of these lingering challenges, it is incredibly important for states and the federal government to remain vigilant in reporting accurate data and holding schools accountable for graduation rates, especially for at-risk students. As Ed Money Watch previously reported, many states have backtracked on commitments to graduation rate accountability in their waivers from No Child Left Behind – giving schools equal credit for students that take longer than four years to graduate, or counting GEDs and other non-diplomas. Further, many states are not holding schools accountable for – or even reporting – other measures that are critical early warning indicators of dropout, like chronic absenteeism.

With increased attention on students’ preparedness for college and careers after graduation, schools cannot forget about supporting students who are struggling just to finish their high school degree. To help, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan announced a new grant competition to place more AmeriCorps volunteers in the nation’s lowest-performing schools. While admirable, this is hardly a comprehensive solution. Federal and state lawmakers must do more and consider both goals – preventing dropout and increasing college and career readiness – equally when creating policies to measure and improve student achievement in our nation’s high schools.

Last week, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) hosted a panel of education reform leaders to discuss the role of transformational mindsets and management in celebration of Rick Hess’ new book, Cage-Busting Leadership. Hess argues that most would-be education reform leaders feel hemmed-in by a cage of regulations, policies, and collective bargaining agreements that prevent them from implementing real change. However, most of these perceived roadblocks are the result of group mindsets – “a culture of can’t” – rather than actual restrictions.

“Cage-busting” education leaders, like those featured on the panel, work to find places where they can play through the rules to break organizational habits and achieve true reform. Here are the lessons they’ve learned:

Human Capital is Key (And A Good Lawyer is Essential)

Nearly every leader mentioned a time when they were told they couldn’t implement an initiative because of legal or contract barriers. But in each case, the rule either didn’t exist or was superfluous. Instead, institutional culture had built up to the point where the status quo was perceived as carved in stone.

Rhode Island Commissioner of Education Deborah Gist recalled the power of asking “why?” – pushing others to think beyond “the way it’s always been done.” Michelle Rhee, CEO of StudentsFirst, referenced her experiences in a contentious contract negotiation with the Washington Teacher’s Union (WTU) over a pay-for-performance system. When talks stalled, outside mediator Kurt Schmoke found a “cage-busting” solution by writing a provision that gave DCPS the power to institute a pay system that the WTU would not have to oppose or endorse.

Others cited the importance of bringing on employees who share the same vision. Chris Barbic, of the Tennessee Achievement School District (ASD) and former CEO of charter network YES Prep Public Schools, spoke of “unplugging from the Matrix” those teachers who had spent several years in traditional schools. He estimated that only about half of them were able to shift their mindset and adapt to the charter school culture.

Collaboration Should Be Goal- and Vision-Oriented

To many on the panel, collaboration was another means to get change going. As a school principal, Adrian Manuel wanted to move all of his teachers’ prep time to one day to allow for cross-grade collaboration, site visits to model schools, and more intentional planning. In the process, teachers would need to teach more periods on other days, a move prohibited by the contract. Manuel sent teacher representatives on a weekend retreat with the contract to find a way to implement the idea. The representatives returned with a solution that they presented to the staff, bringing the majority of teachers onboard without making the measure feel like a top-down initiative.

A shared vision is also critical in the central office. When D.C. Public Schools reallocated funds after closing fifteen under-enrolled schools, Chancellor Kaya Henderson’s leadership team initially pushed for more of the same programming they already had. Rather than stick to the status quo, Henderson asked a different question – what would you want to spend money on if your child was in DCPS? This new framework pushed her staff to imagine beyond what they had already done to consider new enrichment programming and technology initiatives.

Flexibility and Vertical Integration of Policy Is Crucial

Education reform doesn’t happen in a vacuum; each of the leaders also cited the importance of flexibility and cohesiveness within federal, state, district, and school policy.

When the Providence Public School District wanted to establish a new labor-management contract as part of their School Improvement Grant (SIG), Gist and her staff were able to work with the U.S. Department of Education to implement the reform under the “Restart” model, which is normally used to transform traditional schools to charters. This flexibility allowed the district to gain ownership and tailor reform to their needs.

Barbic found that implementation and alignment of state policy to the local level was also a challenge – even within the state-led ASD. It took two separate pieces of legislation to get the parameters of the ASD right, and even then, the effects of reform often didn’t trickle down to schools. Tennessee eliminated a last-in, first-out policy for teacher layoffs, but when Barbic visited principals in Chattanooga, they hadn’t even heard of the change.

Questions Remain

It is clear from this panel that flexibility in regulation can be a useful tool for school leaders – an important point given ongoing debates over No Child Left Behind waivers and the implementation of reforms like Race to the Top that allow for state innovation. However, it seems to be equally important to push for a deep bench of future “cage-busting” leaders. Can “cage-busting” be taught, and if so, how should policymakers think about preparing future principals and superintendents? Policy can include all the flexibility in the world, but it won’t matter if schools don’t have leaders with the determination and vision to use it well.

Tuesday was a big night for early education and higher education. But what about all the education that happens in between? Teachers were mentioned once, but in the context of deficit reduction, not education. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and waivers fared even worse, with nary a word. But never fear, waiver watchers got all the coverage they needed last week from the Senate HELP Committee and Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). In a hearing and subsequent CCSSO panel, policymakers and experts debated the early lessons from the waivers and implications for a near- or distant-future NCLB reauthorization.

For those following the waivers, however, the hearings were largely a disappointment – offering few specific insights from year one of implementation. District waivers? Still a possibility. Super subgroups are diluting accountability? Old news. If anything, the discussions mirrored  the HELP Committee markup over a year ago in its attempt at ESEA reauthorization. In fact, we learned more about reauthorization’s prospects than we did about the waivers. The hearing may have promised “lessons learned,” but those lessons depended entirely on who you asked:

Secretary Duncan – obviously – is a big cheerleader for the waivers, as opposed to working with Congress on a reauthorization: “My team and I put in hundreds and hundreds of hours in what proved to be a fruitless effort over the past two years. In all candor, I would like to have gone to waivers earlier.” He highlighted how states are focusing on subjects beyond math and reading, how more schools are being held accountable for student subgroup performance, and how states are promoting teacher quality, instead of credentials.

Although giving states options has benefits, not all states made good choices. As Andy Rotherham asked later, what do waivers look like in the hands of not-so-great state chiefs? Many declined to take advantage of new measures of student growth or postsecondary readiness. Worse, states often backtracked on plans to strengthen graduation rate and subgroup accountability, concerns highlighted by the Alliance for Excellent Education and Education Trust.

Democratic Senators and their allies, including Education Trust’s Kati Haycock, are no fans of NCLB, but have still taken issue with many of the features emerging in states’ waivers: super-subgroups, uneven goals that do not close achievement gaps and are not linked to any consequences, toothless school improvement policies, and more. Unfortunately, these groups are pointing out flaws in states’ waivers, but offering fewer solutions to fix them.

One option is for the Department to require states to amend their waivers if they don’t sufficiently meet the needs of vulnerable students (states can also voluntarily do so, with Department approval). But chiefs, like New Jersey’s Chris Cerf and Kentucky’s Terry Holliday, aren’t keen on the idea of mid-course corrections and more negotiations with ED. Given their reluctance and questions about how to monitor waivers, it seems unlikely that states will make significant changes. This doesn’t mean policymakers won’t learn anything from the waiver experiment, but it may take years for these lessons to be applied.

Another option is to push strongly for reauthorization. But this carries risks for civil rights groups given the preference for local control and even more state flexibility among Republican legislators, state chiefs, and governors. While HELP members like Senators Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Michael Bennet (D-CO) spoke of reauthorization, they appear unable to offer any new solutions that would present a departure from NCLB, recognize the concerns of the civil rights community, and maintain a strong federal role in education.

State schools chiefs, however, are advocating for reauthorization, but for a variety of reasons. First, they point out that many states do not have waivers. To New York Commissioner John King, this means there is no “floor” for state policy to safeguard against poor decisions. Alternatively, Holliday cited the need for long-term stability, because the waivers are subject to the Secretary of Education’s priorities. Regardless, all chiefs would welcome a new NCLB that maintains – or expands – flexibility. And most likely, the level of flexibility in the waivers would be the default starting point for any reauthorization right now. Lawmakers would receive incredible pushback if a new NCLB required states to dramatically alter the plans in which they’ve already invested a great deal of time, energy, and resources.

Republican Senators appear to be aligning most closely with the chiefs on reauthorization – less so in supporting waivers. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) equated the waivers to an inside-the-beltway version of 'Mother May I,’ while Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS) lambasted the “regulatory purgatory” the Department created. In particular, Alexander was adamant that the government should not require states to adopt teacher evaluations based on student achievement. In one exchange with King, Alexander pressed: “We only give you 10 percent of your money. Why do I have to come from the mountains of Tennessee to tell New York that’s good for you?” But despite Alexander’s strong opinions, there is no consensus among the minority either – Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA) seemed quite pleased with what his state accomplished in their waiver.

In short, reauthorization has not stalled because the waivers are popular. Rather, Republicans cannot make a strong-enough case for the level of local control many in their caucus seek, and Democrats prefer the temporary waiver policy to a decade of local control with little federal oversight. Without a clear alternative to NCLB that also provides a strong, compelling case for federal involvement in education, waivers really are their best choice.

The silver lining, as Bellwether Education Partners' Andy Smarick pointed out, is that with another year, or two, or three of waivers, some actual lessons might emerge that could inform and transform the thinking of those who seek a stronger federal role in K-12 policy – and those that don’t. We’ll be watching for them. Stay tuned.

Everyone from U.S. News to David Letterman knows that a surefire way to get attention is to produce a ranking. Few – including my colleagues – can resist their clear-cut simplicity (or the opportunity to be judgmental). Add a controversial figure like former DCPS Chancellor Michelle Rhee to the mix, and it’s no surprise that StudentsFirst’s State Policy Report Card has received so much attention.

Love or hate Rhee, these rankings matter – at least to policymakers, the media, and wonks. Two-thirds of states couldn’t muster a ‘C’ on their report card, which examined twenty-four policies across three categories: elevating teaching, empowering parents, and improving school governance and spending. Only two states, Florida and Louisiana, scraped by with a ‘B-’ average. Now, state policymakers are using the rankings to tout their (relative) success, while others are vowing to use the Report Card as a roadmap for education reform in their states.

Many, including the American Federation of Teachers, have criticized StudentsFirst for excluding student achievement from the grades (yes, you read that correctly: the AFT wants to use student test scores) and focusing only on policy. While the omission is worth noting, it shouldn’t diminish the credibility of the StudentsFirst grades outright. Policy choices matter. They create incentives, signal what’s important, and enable or prevent certain actions at the local level. And it’s appropriate for an organization centered around a policy agenda, like StudentsFirst, to produce rankings focused on whether states have enacted those policies. That said, the only thing I learned from this report card was which states had adopted Michelle Rhee’s favored education reforms.

Those policies, and the theory of action accompanying them, are where I have issues with StudentsFirst. Often, they rewarded states for arbitrary, highly specific choices, without the rationale to support such specificity. For example, StudentsFirst calls for 50 percent of teacher and principal evaluations to be based on value-added data, despite inconclusive research. Why insist on 50 percent for an ‘A’ grade, particularly when the MET project found that "there is a range of reasonable weights" for reliable, composite measures of teacher quality?

Similarly, StudentsFirst rewarded states with A-F school grades to help parents better understand school quality. But if states used alternative ways of labeling schools, like a five-star system, they could not earn higher than a ‘D’ on that policy from StudentsFirst. What is included in school accountability systems is surely as important as how schools are labeled, and there is no reason to think a five-star system couldn’t be as successful as an A-F one.

More troubling, StudentsFirst frequently rewarded states with high marks for enacting the most severe version of reform – even if the policies are new, untested ideas like parent trigger laws. This may not be the wisest choice for state policymakers, as divisive reform agendas are often bogged down in criticism: too extreme, too dogmatic, hastily conceived, and poorly communicated. See: Tom Luna in Idaho, Tony Bennett in Indiana, and yes, even Michelle Rhee in DCPS.

Take the case with parent information about teachers’ effectiveness: to earn an ‘A’ for this policy, StudentsFirst requires parental consent to place students with teachers labeled ineffective. But with something so controversial, it may make more sense to start first with parental notification. This would be a huge policy shift for many states, but warrants only a ‘C’ grade. Further, before you have parental notification about ineffective teaching, states probably want to pilot and refine their teacher evaluation systems so that they are accurate and fair – building buy-in from educators. But without parental notification on the books now, StudentsFirst deems states as failing. Why penalize policymakers for making thoughtful, logical choices about the sequencing and implementation of reform? 

Change doesn’t come easy, and it often requires patience and compromise – rather than bulldozing. Policy choices are critical, but building trust and respect among stakeholders can make or break whether those policies take root. In the case of DCPS, many of Rhee’s reforms have been sustained, albeit under the radar by her successor, Kaya Henderson. It’s unclear whether Indiana and Idaho will see similar results. In any case, it would be nice if StudentsFirst could also reward states for taking less severe – but perhaps more inclusive – action to elevate teaching, empower parents, and improve school governance.

Education reform is divisive enough without encouraging all-out aggression. This may not be the Michelle Rhee-way, but it can be an equally effective way to enact and sustain the kinds of reforms Rhee would like to see.

Each January, Early Ed Watch predicts where we will see the most action, innovation and consternation in the year ahead. Here are the hot spots we see for 2013. Notable is the absence of the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary School Act, otherwise known as No Child Left Behind. Prognosticators don’t give the bill much chance of making progress this year, given stalemates between the two houses of Congress.

The Child Care Development Block Grant, on the other hand, could see some action on Capitol Hill.  Debates on how to evaluate teachers will likely continue to dominate, as they did in 2011 and 2012. And at least one topic has popped up consistently since 2010 when we started this exercise: Head Start reform via the new "re-competition” process.

Last week on Ed Money Watch, Clare McCann reported on the new, comparable, statewide high school graduation rates released by the U.S. Department of Education. The bottom line: graduation rates are lower than previously reported, and achievement gaps are a huge challenge for states. But even though the news is grim, the fact that the data exist is a major achievement. The more accurate rates are the result of years of negotiations and efforts by governors, state education agencies, the U.S. Department of Education, and advocacy groups. It’s been no secret that previous graduation rate numbers were inflated, and often flat-out wrong. Unfortunately, though, just as states gain better graduation rate data, many are failing to use them to their full potential.

Originally, graduation rates were a component of high school accountability under No Child Left Behind (NCLB), but schools could often make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) if they showed very little improvement. That changed in 2008 with the adoption of the 4-year adjusted cohort rate. By the 2011-2012 school year, not only would accountability judgments be made with accurate data, but states would also base high schools’ AYP determinations on “continuous and substantial” progress toward graduation rate targets for all students and for student subgroups.

So far, so good. But the 2008 Department of Education couldn’t travel in time to see that in the 2011-2012 school year, many states would be transitioning away from NCLB-style accountability and AYP altogether. With the recent addition of Pennsylvania, only four states will not apply for some sort of NCLB waiver (if you count Texas and California as submitting valid requests). In the era of federal education policy via waiver, many states have refined their accountability plans by adding individual student growth, college and career readiness, and other measures to provide a better picture of school achievement than determinations based mostly on proficiency rates.

But adding multiple measures to accountability schemes – and then condensing them into one overall grade or ranking – can introduce new problems. An aggregate grade may be simple to understand, but it also provides less information to parents and policymakers than the data for each component within the grade. And under some states’ waivers, performance on one indicator – like graduation rates – could be masked by above-average performance on another, like test scores. Finally, while many argue NCLB placed too much weight on tests, diluting the significance of existing data by adding more measures to the system sends a different signal (and perhaps a negative one) to educators and parents about what matters most.

Before, low graduation rates could trigger a school not to make AYP and, therefore, to be placed in improvement status. Now, college and career readiness factors (like SAT or ACT scores and AP exam performance) are often weighted equally with graduation rates. This may create incentives for high school administrators and educators to focus on improving college and career readiness at the expense of efforts to prevent dropouts. To be sure, college and career readiness is important. But students will never be college- and career-ready if they don’t graduate from high school. Schools must pursue both goals – higher graduation rates and higher readiness rates – at the same time, and accountability systems should reflect both.

Even more alarming, many states’ waivers are a step backward from the carefully-negotiated 2008 regulations. States are still required to report the 4-year adjusted cohort rates, but many are not using the new measure as intended for accountability in their waivers. In some cases, states are backing away from commitments to hold schools accountable for subgroup performance. Worse, others have modified the 4-year adjusted cohort rate for accountability purposes by giving schools credit for students graduating in five or six years, or with a GED. With mounting criticism from advocacy groups and key policymakers, the U.S. Department of Education recently sent states a “Dear Colleague” letter to clarify that the 2008 regulations are still in effect.

However, actions speak louder than words, and the Department has not required any state to modify its waiver plan if it undermines the intent of the 2008 regulations. They should – and there is already a model for how to do it. The Department successfully negotiated with Virginia to adopt new, more rigorous goals for minority and disadvantaged students after their initial performance targets sparked a public controversy. Without getting serious about graduation rate accountability, the 2008 regulations will remain half-baked. States will know how bad the problem is, but they won’t be creating a policy environment in which schools are motivated to fix it.