Graduation Rates. In a letter dated November 15th, the National Education Association requested, "common-sense flexibility in calculating graduation rates for students."  We strongly oppose yet another renegotiation or delay on this issue, and ask that USDOE finally and decisively implement and enforce the common measure of graduation rates that has been under discussion for the past decade.

 

Exactly five years ago, the National Governors Association announced, with some fanfare, its support for the common graduation measure. In mid-2008, Secretary Spellings proposed a regulation consistent with the NGA proposal and the Bush Administration, after garnering and incorporating feedback, approved it. Secretary Duncan went through a similar process when the reg was put in statute under ARRA, and made some additional modifications via negotiated rule-making in reaction to calls for yet more flexibility. We see no reason to keep moving the goalpost. States should be expected to meet USDOE's 2012 deadline for implementation under the current ARRA statute and the accompanying regulation [34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)].

 

Additional Flexibility Around Adequate Yearly Progress. We have seen proposals from a number of groups to let states adjust their plans on adequate yearly progress. While we do not object in principle to modifying some aspects of current law, we would point out that 1) the regulatory process has already proved to be a fundamentally flawed mechanism for doing so and 2) virtually every one of these proposals is built on faulty arguments or assumptions.

Annual Measurable Objectives. In July of this year, for example, we learned that USDOE had approved a waiver for Virginia that allowed the state to set its 2009-2010 annual objectives, overall and for at-risk subgroups, after the state administered and analyzed its assessment results for the school year. Moreover, the Department approved Virginia's proposal to have its 2010-11 objectives "to be determined" which is where they still stand, well into the current school year. We are under no illusions about the sub-optimal process for using data to drive education policymaking and practice, but this makes a complete mockery of the entire concept.

 

Use of Growth Models. Growth models offer advantages over those that do not look at gains in student performance over multiple, consecutive years.  Fifteen states are currently piloting growth models that were the subject of extensive peer-review and were approved under the previous Administration between 2005 and 2008.

 

No systematic evaluation has been done of the fifteen pilots. A paper published last year by the Education Sector did raise questions about key aspects of the Tennessee growth model. While the paper notes that the Tennessee model has some advantages, it also makes the point that the state, and at least three others (Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Texas) have made student achievement data proprietary and in turn have greatly reduced transparency for parents and the general public. Just a few weeks ago, a state legislator in Texas uncovered - to the apparent surprise of the state education agency - that under its new growth model, students can make no actual gains on the state assessment and still be counted as making annual progress.

 

Clearly, more study is needed before other states implement growth models with these types of fundamental problems.

 

Eliminating Annual Testing. Some of the same proponents of expanded growth models, such as the American Association of School Administrators, also want to eliminate annual testing of students, which is the very foundation of measuring student growth over multiple, consecutive years. We find the contradiction telling about both the integrity of such proposals and the dangers of amending the law through a backdoor, piecemeal process.

 

Annual testing is also fundamental to the "value-added models" many states are pursuing as part of their new teacher evaluation systems. In fact, critics of value-added (some of whom, paradoxically, also oppose annual testing) have pointed out that testing twice a year - once at the beginning, and once at the end - would increase the validity of value-added models. Obviously, eliminating testing once a year is a move in the opposite direction and those who propose these contradictory changes are smart enough to know that.

 

Counting All Students. Some proposals ask the Department to allow states and/or districts to count students in only one subgroup category for the purposes of data reporting and accountability. If a student were, for example, both African-American and identified as having a learning disability, he or she only would be counted in one of the two categories.

 

States have already left hundreds of thousands of students out of their accountability systems through overly high "N" size requirements for the number of students in any one subgroup. This proposal would allow an even greater number of students to be excluded. Moreover, the ability to cross-tab students in multiple categories and hold districts and schools accountable is fundamental to being able to assess issues such as whether minority students are over- or under-indentified as having certain disabilities or are disproportionately subject to suspension or expulsion.

 

So-Called "One Size Fits All" Consequences for Chronically Low-Performing Schools. Several of the groups lobbying for waivers claim that the consequences for districts or schools not making adequate yearly progress are too rigid, punitive, or hasty. Nothing could be farther from the truth. 

 

Section 1116 of ESEA, which specifies the conditions for corrective action, already has a huge loophole that allows chronically low-performing schools to avoid having to undertake fundamental reforms - ever. The General Accounting Office found that the "other" i.e., non-specific option for school restructuring was by far the most frequently selected by districts and schools. This is the very reason Secretary Duncan has pressed for more transformational interventions in exchange for the $3.5 billion Congress and the President have allocated to states and school districts for school improvement. We strongly oppose any retreat on this policy.

 

This is not an exhaustive list of our concerns. But we do consider it illustrative. We think the Department of Education should remain steadfast on school reform, resist these misguided, misinformed, and misleading waiver proposals, and continue to vigorously pursue comprehensive changes to ESEA in cooperation with Congress through the regular legislative process with the goal of a final bill before the end of next year.