Schools would have to accept new reforms in exchange for the waiver, and state Superintendent Mike Flanagan said that includes a new report card to hold schools accountable for student performance – including the achievement gaps between various student groups. Read More…

Twenty-six more states asked to be excused from key requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act, an exemption that would curb the education law’s impact considerably.

The states, from Washington to Mississippi to New York, were joined by the District of Columbia. Last month, the Obama administration granted waivers for all 11 states that applied in the first round. If it grants waivers to all the new applicants, three quarters of the states would be exempt.

Signed into law with bipartisan support in 2002, No Child Left Behind is now reviled by Republicans, who say it gets the federal government too involved in education, and by Democrats, who complain that its rigid definitions of performance have seen almost half the nation’s schools listed as failures. But Congress has been unable to agree on an overhaul. In response, the administration decided to let states get around central tenets of the law, such as ensuring that 100% of students pass reading and math exams by 2014.

Republicans have complained that the exemptions usurp congressional authority. On Tuesday, Republicans on the House Committee on Education and the Workforce approved two bills that Chairman John Kline (R., Minn.) said aim to “shrink federal intrusion in classrooms and return responsibility for student success to states and school districts.”

States seeking waivers have to adopt education policies favored by the administration, such as linking teacher evaluations to student test scores and adopting college- and career-ready standards. In exchange, they can create their own targets for annual student achievement and craft their own policies to help the lowest-performing schools.

“The best ideas to meet the needs of individual students are going to come from the local level,” Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said in a statement. These applications will “give states the freedom to implement reforms that improve student achievement.”

The other states that applied for a waiver in the latest round are Arkansas, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia and Wisconsin.

The Department of Education said it plans to make a formal decision on the latest requests in the spring. The administration has set a Sept. 6 deadline for additional states to apply for relief from the law.

Since the law hasn’t been reauthorized and the prospects for that happening on a bipartisan basis grow increasingly dimmer as we enter an election year, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and President Obama felt waivers based on states committing to certain ideas of high standards were the only way to provide relief to the states. This isn’t the first time the President rewarded states that promised to change their standards, teacher evaluations, or reform policies. Race to the Top was a grant competition based on states willing to push for reform, although the best intentions did not bring about the best results.

The big question is whether or not granting these waivers, but only for states that pledge to pursue the President’s policy reform agenda by agreeing to various conditions not part of the statutory waiver process, is legal. It is legal for Secretary Duncan to issue waivers, but it is unclear if they can be tied to reforms not authorized by Congress.

Debate will continue on this issue, with some education reformers supporting the efforts, and some opposing them.

Chiefs for Change, a coalition of state school chiefs working to advance an education reform agenda in their states, support the waivers set forth by the administration. State Superintendents within this group include Deborah Gist of Rhode Island, Gerard Robinson of Florida, and Tony Bennett of Indiana. This group issued a statement in support of the Administration’s decision. “We applaud both the flexibility waivers will grant states and districts and the reforms the Administration’s waiver policy will reward.” Because many of the states in this coalition have led the charge for education reform and have already reached many of the goals laid out by Sec. Duncan, they are pleased not to be penalized under the old NCLB law. While they see it as a chance to move forward with the reauthorization of ESEA without worry about 100% proficiency, others see waivers as a detriment to education reform.

Rep. John Kline (R-MN), chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, believes that issuing these waivers will actually detract from the education reform bills House Republicans are currently advancing to re-issue NCLB and improve charter schools. He issued a statement after the waiver announcement and says his main concern is that the “proposal could mean less transparency, new federal regulations, and greater uncertainty for students, teachers, and state and local officials.”

While Rep. Kline and other Republicans understand the urgent need to reform the education system in the United States, they are fearful of what will happen to these plans for reform if the federal government continues to create requirements, incentives, and additional regulations and burdens on states and superintendents. He believes, as do others, that it’s a controversial plan with no positive side effects now or long-term.

Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) wrote an op-ed, which appeared in the New York Times on Tuesday, September 27, echoing the concerns of Rep. Kline that the federal government is putting too many regulations on states. Earlier this month, Sen. Alexander, and other Republicans introduced a set of bills to reauthorize NCLB that would put more responsibility on the states to reform education and be held accountable for results. Many legislators believe that now is the time to focus on working together to reauthorize ESEA to move education forward in the U.S. and not to worry about state-specific agendas.

Subject: Eugene Hickok: When a “Wavier” is an Unconstitutional, Illegal, and Immoral Mandate

Dear Colleagues,

Two weeks ago, President Obama announced his plan to grant “waivers,” from No Child Left Behind (NCLB). The plan, however, is a misnomer. The “waivers” plan does not give states more freedom. Rather, the plan forces states to comply with nearly 40 new government mandates. This is the nationalization of education policy. It would deny parent-driven tutoring to hundreds of thousands of low-income students trapped in failing schools. And it would force school choice and parental empowerment from cornerstones of education reform to afterthoughts.

In short, waivers are Unconstitutional, Illegal, and Immoral.

In undermining Congress’ role in legislation, waivers are unconstitutional. See a letter from Senator Marco Rubio to Secretary of Education Arne Duncan making that case here.

In undermining parental participation and involvement, waivers are illegal. NCLB expressly denies the Secretary of Education the right to waive the parental participation and involvement it contains. In other words, the Secretary cannot waive school choice policies, and he cannot waive common sense tutoring provisions which encourage parental engagement. By explicitly waiving these policies, the Secretary is exceeding his authority under the law. The United Farmworkers of America made this compelling case directly to the Secretary of Education.

Finally, in kicking 650,000 low-income children trapped in failing schools out of parent-driven tutoring, waivers are immoral. As Secretary Duncan has said, “children only get one chance at an education.” We already know that schools are failing to teach these low-income students. Without tutoring and school choice, they are condemned to a poor education. When we waive tutoring, we are “waiving” these children’s one chance at an education.

As advocates for school choice, parental empowerment, and state control of education, we must make our voices heard. Please blog about the issue, work with your membership and local organizations to get the word out, and contact your members of Congress to let them know you stand against waivers. Neal Urwitz, copied on this email, has all of the details, and will be happy to help.

We need to defeat the unconstitutional, illegal, and immoral waivers that will nationalize education policy. With your help, we can.

Sincerely,
Eugene Hickok
Former Deputy Secretary of Education

Chiefs for Change — a group of 8 current and 2 former school chiefs who share a zeal for reform — took umbrage with this. They “oppose suspending accountability provisions of the ESEA through blanket waivers or universal modifications, as the American Association of School Administrators and the National School Board Association recently petitioned.” Until a real reauthorization occurs, we cannot be lowering standards and weakening the quality of education.

Kudos to these new leaders, who dare to step out of the box. Let’s hope they stay there a good long time and that others follow suit.