Did a focus on teacher evaluations work?

As I approach my retirement date of August 31, my last few blogs will focus on my thoughts about education initiatives at the state and national levels over the past six years. I caution readers that these blogs will reflect my thoughts and not those of the Kentucky Board of Education or the Kentucky Department of Education. My hope is that these last few blogs will encourage others to reflect and prepare for the future of education in Kentucky and across the nation.

As part of the Race to the Top (RTTT) and No Child Left Behind (NCLB) waivers, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan promoted improvements in teacher and leader (principals) evaluation programs across the nation. With a little more than one year left in President Obama’s and Secretary Duncan’s terms, there will be a lot of debate as to whether the emphasis on teacher and leader evaluation programs has paid any dividends in improving educator effectiveness and/or improving student learning.

As I reflect on the last six plus years, there were several different approaches that states took to improve teacher and leader evaluation programs. There were states that took a fast track. Overnight, it seemed that several states had a plan for new teacher and leader evaluation programs. Some states, like Kentucky, took a slower approach and asked for delays from the United States Department of Education (USED) until the state had time to review research and make the transition to new standards and assessments.

States took different approaches as to components of teacher and leader evaluation systems. A number of states were quick to develop a weighted model for teacher evaluation. Many states interpreted the federal requirements as requiring student achievement to be weighted at least 50 percent of a teacher’s evaluation rating. Other states, including Kentucky, took a matrix approach that did not use weights but relied on principals and teachers to review the evidence from student learning and then using a matrix developed by the state come to agreement on the teacher’s rating for student achievement.

States took different approaches as far as the major purpose for new teacher and leader evaluation systems. Some states felt the new evaluation systems would drive a focus on student achievement and failure to improve student achievement would allow the state and school districts to dismiss ineffective teachers. Other states, like Kentucky, focused on teacher professional growth and effectiveness and did not see the new teacher evaluation system as primarily being an instrument for dismissal of ineffective teachers.

The time is fast approaching where every state will be reporting out the results from teacher and leader evaluation systems. USED has required a focus on distribution of effective teachers across school districts to ensure students in low performing schools have equal access to effective teachers as those in high performing schools.

Teacher preparation programs will be completing accreditation processes that require them to report on how well their graduates are doing on state teacher evaluations and with student achievement.

State tests will soon be reported across the nation. The 2015 National Assessment of Educational Progress results will be released this fall.

There will be TONS of articles and opinions about the impact of Race to the Top and No Child Left Behind waivers.

I have a prediction about what we will see from all the data. Those who supported RTTT and NCLB waivers will present data to support the positive impact of these programs. Those who did not support RTTT and NCLB waivers will present data that show these programs did not have a positive impact.

As the results are reported, here are a few things to watch for:

     • Will every state report that they have over 90 percent of their teachers
        rated effective or highly effective? 

     • Will NAEP student achievement results show any improvement? 

     • Will state student learning results show any improvement? 

     • Are there large gaps between state achievement results and NAEP
        results? 

     • How many state evaluation programs will be challenged in court as the
        impact of these programs start to impact teacher assignments? 

     • As Governor’s change and chief state school officers change, will the
        evaluation systems fall away and be replaced by more local control? 

     • Will teacher preparation programs utilize accreditation results to
        improve their programs? 

     • What role will the teacher evaluation debate play in local, state and
        national elections? 

I caution educators as they prepare for the bombardment of information this fall. In 43 years of education, I have learned that there will always be someone who thinks they have the latest and greatest answer to the perplexing problem of closing achievement gaps and improving student learning. However, my warning to those who will lead education for the next generation is that there is no silver bullet.

Education issues are very complex. Poverty, unequal opportunities, leadership, inadequate preparation programs, low morale, low teacher pay, community expectations, lack of parental involvement, and many other issues impact student learning. My advice? Education leaders should never focus on just one of these challenges. Instead, they must recognize that the public education system is multifaceted with many interconnections and they must work to improve the entire system in order to realize real progress. 

What does the ESEA waiver extension mean for us?

My blog this week is written by Kentucky Department of Education Chief of Staff Tommy Floyd and Executive Director of the Kentucky Board of Education, Mary Ann Miller.  Though it was a team effort, Mary Ann was primarily responsible for our waiver application.  They share what the waiver means for Kentucky.

Terry Holliday, Ph.D.
Education Commissioner

This week, we received some good news – the United States Department of Education (USED) approved Kentucky’s Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) flexibility waiver extension request. The waiver, which was to expire at the end of the current school year, now will run through the end of the 2018-19 school year. Kentucky was one of only a handful of states allowed to apply for a four-year waiver extension because of our demonstrated successes.

Seemingly countless hours were spent preparing the nearly 200 page request and in communication with USED staff on the fine points and clarifications needed in order to receive approval – all with good reason. We didn’t want schools and districts to have to take a step back to the prescriptive nature of federal accountability.

In 2001, Congress reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. The measure took effect on January 8, 2002 and has been the law of the land ever since, even as the time for congressional reauthorization in 2007 passed. In last week’s blog, Commissioner Terry Holliday explained the need for reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Until reauthorization occurs, however, the waiver is essential to prevent school districts from facing negative consequences under NCLB.
   • Annual performance determinations, known as Adequate Yearly
      Progress (AYP), would use only proficiency as the indicator.
   • All students would have to demonstrate proficiency in reading/
      language arts and mathematics (a laudable, but unrealistic goal).
   • A school would be identified as failing if it missed AYP for even one   
      student group. Schools that are identified as failing would be required to
      implement a series of interventions that increase in severity over several 
      years, with no differentiation between the lowest performing schools
      and those needing help in only a few areas.
   • Districts would have to reserve up to 30 percent of their Title I, Part A 
      allocation to provide mandatory professional development,
      supplemental educational services (SES), and public school choice;
      districts also would face funding limits and mandated SES.
   • The hiring of paraprofessionals with Title I, Part A funds would be 
      restricted for LEAs that miss AYP and fail to make progress toward 
      reaching annual objectives for highly-qualified teachers.
   • For districts in improvement, the percentage of Title II, Part A funds 
      available to be transferred into Title I, Part A would be restricted to 
      no more than 50 percent; also districts would have to notify the 
      state 30 days prior to making a transfer of funds to a different category
      of need.
   • Spending requirements for Rural and Low-Income School funding
      would be tied to accountability.

Moreover, Kentucky would have to operate under a dual system of accountability, responding to federal AYP requirements while also moving forward with Kentucky’s Unbridled Learning system based on the Kentucky General Assembly’s Senate Bill 1 (2009). This would cause undue confusion for parents, students and educators. For example, schools could be labeled as failing under federal benchmarks, but successful under state benchmarks.

Because of the waiver, districts have been freed from these requirements, allowing them to serve more schools with better quality academic services in order to meet the needs of students. The state has implemented regulations and statutes that have allowed us to build a single, aligned system of accountability, using multiple measures and focused on college- and career-readiness for all students. Additionally, all Priority and Focus schools and districts have an improvement plan aligned with Kentucky Board of Education (KBE) strategic goals.

The waiver provides the opportunity to:
    • implement the latest revisions to the accountability system approved by 
      the Kentucky Board of Education that aim to make the system more fair,
      valid and reliable
   • use one accountability system (Unbridled Learning), focused on 
      continuous improvement, for state and federal purposes
   • implement a new statewide plan that will close achievement gaps by 
      providing additional supports to schools and districts, and reducing the 
      number of students scoring Novice on the state tests
   • continue our focus on increasing the college- and career-readiness 
      rate and the graduation rate
   • move forward with the aligned, statewide evaluation system for
      teachers, principals and superintendents that stresses professional
      growth, effectiveness and continuous improvement
   • strengthens the supports for Priority Schools that do not exit this 
      status in three years

Kentucky is currently seen as a national leader in educational improvement. This great work across our Commonwealth is taking place thanks to daily leadership in buildings and districts adhering to a demanding system that is achieving results for students. We know that students, teachers, principals, superintendents, support staff and local board members will benefit from the continuance and enhancement of our current Kentucky Unbridled Learning for ALL accountability model that is provided by our waiver extension.

Until ESEA is reauthorized, the four-year waiver is our “best bet” to continue the progress made in Kentucky districts for the benefit of students.

The changing odds on ESEA reauthorization

Over the past few months, I have written numerous blogs about the need for reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), also known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB). 

This past week, I joined 48 other state chiefs and deputies in Washington, D.C. to continue to push for reauthorization. We were honored to meet with President Obama, Education Secretary Arne Duncan, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), Rep. John Kline (R-MN) and Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA). Sen. Alexander is chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) committee; Sen. Murray is the ranking member. Rep. Kline is chair of the House Workforce and Education committee.

ESEA reauthorization is critical. Let me offer a couple of reasons why. 
•  No Child Left Behind (2001) is broken and is no longer a valid method of accountability for our nation’s public schools. 
•  While waivers granted by the United States Department of Education have served as a stop-gap fix, the nation’s schools deserve stability and long term direction from Congress. 
•  The waiver process has led to the possibility of federal intrusion in states. For example, the original No Child Left Behind did not require states to address teacher evaluation; however, the waiver process has made that a requirement of states. 
•  While the Obama administration has been fairly flexible in the implementation of waivers, it is possible that the next administration could eliminate waivers or put more conditions into the waiver process that many states would not be able to implement.

Perhaps the key reason for reauthorization is the need for changes to the law of the land. If Kentucky were not able to get a waiver to NCLB, our school districts would have to notify parents that every school in their district was a low performing school (defined as not meeting Adequate Yearly Progress under NCLB). Losing a waiver and having to go back to NCLB requirements would mean that Kentucky school districts would lose flexibility on how they use more than $58 million in Title I monies and on other NCLB programs. In addition, school districts would be required to return to set asides for transportation, supplemental education services, school choice and professional development.

My take from the last week is that Sen. Alexander and Sen. Murray are working hard to find a way to get bipartisan support. Rep Kline is having difficulty getting enough Republican votes to pass a bill. The way the process should work is that House passes a bill, the Senate passes a bill, and then a conference committee is formed to work out the differences. Usually, the President and Sec. Duncan would be involved in working with the conference committee to get a bill that the President could sign.

I told an audience this week that in Kentucky we know a lot about basketball, bourbon and betting on horses. If I were to handicap the chances of ESEA reauthorization, it is probably an 80:1 shot that it will be reauthorized. I would encourage readers to let members of the Kentucky delegation (especially House members) know how important it is for Congress to reauthorize the nation's main law governing education. 

Fixing a broken law

This blog is the third in a series about the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act. My two previous blogs, Let the games begin and Grappling with testing questions  provide additional background information.

This week, it was my honor to represent Kentucky and my fellow chief state school officers at a U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension (HELP) committee meeting. I was one of five individuals to testify. The committee heard from a researcher, local superintendent, high school principal, a teacher and me. Each individual had five minutes to give prepared remarks. Readers may watch a video of the entire hearing – my testimony starts about 41 minutes in – or you may want to access a written text of my testimony.

I was very impressed with the level of preparation of each senator. The committee staff does a great job in organizing the hearings and providing senators with background information. I was also very pleased to see the senators focus a number of questions to the teacher and principal. We all need to do more listening to our teachers and principals.

The Senate hearing was the second in a series of hearings to gain feedback on what the components of a reauthorized NCLB should be. The first hearing focused on annual testing and this week’s hearing focused on supporting teachers and leaders. Next week, the committee will have a roundtable with practitioners to discuss innovation.

As for my predictions on reauthorization based on movement in the House and Senate, I would say that the odds are 50/50 that we will see a reauthorized bill out of Congress before the end of the year. These odds are significantly higher than at any point since 2007. What are the potential stumbling blocks?

Annual testing and accountability seem to be the key issues that must be resolved. It appears there is growing support for continuing the annual testing required by NCLB (reading and math annually in grades 3-8 and once in each in high school; science once in elementary, middle and high school). This is a total of 17 federally required tests. Annual reporting and disaggregation of test results by NCLB subgroups also seems to have strong support. 

The line in the sand will probably be drawn with the accountability component. States and districts have added significantly to the number of tests given and percentage of time dedicated to testing due to federal and state ranking/rating of schools and districts based on test scores and to meet the Race to the Top and NCLB waiver requirements that tie teacher evaluation to test score performance. Teachers focus much more on teaching to the test and assessing students more often due to their evaluations being tied to the tests. 

My prediction on the accountability model is that reauthorization will provide general guidelines on accountability, however, the final accountability models will be developed by states. The United States Department of Education (USED) will be prohibited from approving or disapproving a state-developed model for accountability unless the USED can provide significant research to support why the state model is not a valid model for accountability. This resolution on accountability will support the states that are working to create a more balanced model of accountability that focuses on the skills and outcomes that we need our students to achieve in order to be successful in postsecondary education and training, careers and as a contributing member of society.

My prediction on teacher evaluation models, required by Race to the Top and No Child Left Behind, is that these decisions will be left to states with flexibility to use federal funds to implement meaningful effectiveness systems that support teacher and leader professional growth which, in turn, impact growth in student learning. While the original intent of the NCLB waiver requirement for states to develop teacher and leader evaluation systems was a good idea, the implementation has led to micromanagement of states by USED. Also, there is scant evidence that states who have implemented the required plans have been able to provide any results that the new evaluation plans actually differentiate performance of teachers and/or impact student learning.

As I think back to the last reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), I can recall the debates between Democrats and Republicans as NCLB was moving through Congress in 2001. Republicans were pushing for more state accountability. Democrats were agreeing with the accountability as long as results were disaggregated by subgroup so that the original intent of ESEA was met. It was interesting to me that in the hearing this week, the Republican senators were supporting the reauthorization language that would push accountability back to states with flexibility to merge funding streams. However, Sen. Warren (D – MA) was clear that federal dollars should not flow to states without accountability for how the funds were expended.

So how do the next few months look for reauthorization? The timeline for the Senate would be bill mark-up in February and hopefully floor debate in the spring with possible passage in the summer. The House timeline may be similar. A late summer or fall conference committee where the USED and President Obama would be heavily involved may be possible, with the potential for a bill signing by the end of the year. 

Lots of moving pieces have to come together. Lots of potential pitfalls loom. However, I give it 50/50 odds because it is clear that both sides agree that the law is broken and must be fixed. It is also clear that educators and parents across the nation are disillusioned with the current testing and accountability requirements of NCLB and they are very vocal about the need for change. Stay tuned!!!

Grappling with testing questions

This is the second blog in a series on the reauthorization of the Elementary Secondary Education Act (ESEA), last reauthorized in 2001 as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Last week's blog provides the overview.

Many will look at education reform from 1983-2015 as having four distinct waves. During the period from 1983-1989, several key governors and state legislatures led the way in education reform based on reports like A Nation at Risk. From 1989-2000, these governors were bolstered in their efforts by national legislation supporting the implementation of more rigorous standards for learning and development of optional state assessments and accountability. 2001-2011 was the era of NCLB. The fourth wave began in 2011 with the NCLB waivers made possible through executive action by President Obama and implemented by Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan.

We come now to 2015 and it appears Congress is finally serious about reauthorization of a law that was due for reauthorization in 2007. Last week, Sen. Lamar Alexander (who served as U.S. Secretary of Education under President George H.W. Bush) presented a discussion draft for a bill called the Every Child College and Career Ready Act of 2015. One of the key elements in the proposed legislation and discussion draft has to do with annual testing requirements. 

NCLB required every student to be tested annually in grades 3-8 in reading and math and once in high school. Also, schools were required to test every student in science at least once in elementary, middle and high school.

Many supporters of annual testing say that it is a civil rights issue and a moral imperative. This concept was supported by the requirement in NCLB that every student make annual yearly progress and the public receive annual information on the progress of certain groups of students who were identified in NCLB.  Supporters of annual testing also say that schools, parents and students need to know if students are learning and if they are not, then teachers, schools, districts, and states should be required to do something to address the learning gaps.

On the other side of the equation, there are many who say that annual testing has narrowed the curriculum in schools, led to reductions in the arts, social studies, science and other curriculum offerings that lead to a balanced curriculum. They focus blame on schools and teachers when the real issue is poverty. Also, many opponents of annual testing fear that the testing regiment has had a negative impact on critical thinking and other 21st-century skills.

Recent NCLB waiver requirements have received significant concern from both sides. Many critics say they support annual testing but do not support the use of test results for evaluation of teachers, principals or schools. Opponents of annual testing also promote more creative and innovative ways of assessing student progress and reporting the annual results of student progress.

Several education writers have said that NCLB worked so we should keep the component of annual testing. Others have said that NCLB did not work. Some critics say that states actually made more progress in 1992-2000 than after NCLB was implemented in 2001.

While many states did make significant reforms to education finance and education processes during the waves of reform, I want to highlight three specific states – Kentucky, North Carolina and Texas. Of course, Kentucky reform efforts were driven by the General Assembly through the passage of the Kentucky Education Reform Act in 1990. North Carolina certainly had strong leadership from Gov. James Hunt to develop and implement the ABC’s of Public Education. Texas, however, was the state that became the eventual model for No Child Left Behind assessment and accountability provisions. Governor George W. Bush certainly championed the efforts in Texas.

I looked at national progress and the progress in KY, NC and Texas on the ONLY independent measure of student learning that we have as nation and is respected as the Nation’s Report Card – National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). NAEP is given every 2 years in 4th grade and 8th grade for reading and mathematics. I looked at scale score gains. One important caveat is that NAEP had adjustments due to implementing more accommodations for special needs students and increasing the percentage of special needs students taking the NAEP during this period.

In reading at 4th grade during the pre-NCLB era of 1992-2000, the nation lost 4 points in reading; KY gained 6; NC gained 10; and Texas gained 4. In 4th grade reading for the post-NCLB era of 2000-2013, the nation gained 9 points; KY gained 5; and NC/TX stayed the same.

In 8th grade reading for the pre-NCLB era, the nation gained 4; KY gained 3; and there were no gains in NC or TX. In the post-NCLB era, the nation gained 4; KY gained 5; NC had no gain; and TX gained 2.

In 4th grade math for the pre-NCLB era, the nation gained 8 points, KY gained 6; NC gained 19; and TX gained 15. In the post-NCLB era, the nation gained 18; KY gained 22; NC gained 15; and TX gained 11.

In 8th grade math for the pre-NCLB era, the nation gained 12; KY gained 15; NC gained 30; and TX gained 17. In the post-NCLB era, the nation gained 12; KY gained 11; NC gained 10; and TX gained 15.

I will leave readers to do their own analysis; however, it does appear that the nation has gained in reading and math during both eras. As is usually the case, schools are able to impact math achievement more than reading achievement.

I used the three states for comparison for a very specific purpose. NC and TX were both states that were implementing strong annual testing and accountability programs well in advance of NCLB. Kentucky had to be dragged into NCLB. The Kentucky Education Reform Act of 1990 pushed for more authentic assessment of student progress and Kentucky was leading the nation in development of performance-based assessment through a robust portfolio system. Of course, the annual testing was the route the nation followed due to validity, reliability, and low cost of a multiple choice annual assessment.

My key point – there are many methods that states could use to provide annual determinations of student progress and report the results for individual students, groups of students, parents, schools and districts. Annual low cost multiple choice tests are not the only answer. In the 1990s Kentucky made significant progress in providing more performance-based assessments that informed instruction, however, the efforts were lost because the performance assessments lacked the validity and reliability of multiple choice tests. Also, performance assessments are more expensive due to teacher training and assessment scoring.

My concern is that advocates of annual testing are trying to paint anyone who proposes an alternative model such as grade span testing with more formative assessments that drive instructional improvement as being an opponent of civil rights and equity for all students. This seems to be a false dichotomy since more formative assessment could better inform instruction and allow for earlier interventions for students who have learning gaps.

As states, our problems stem from our own lack of leadership in the pre- and post-NCLB era. Our track record in closing achievement gaps and pushing for higher standards has been mixed from state to state. Many believe that without federal requirements that states will go back to an era of “bigotry of low expectations.” They may be right. The debate will continue.

My hope is that all parties will engage in serious dialogue utilizing the rich research that we have built since the 1980s on education reform rather than engage in hyperbole and casting opponents in a negative light.

Let the games begin

For the first time in years, it appears there may be serious talk of trying to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It’s most recent iteration, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 was due for reauthorization in 2007, but like its predecessor, political acrimony has held up progress.  

However, recent activity in Congress signals the best chance for reauthorization in the last 8 years. Of course, if we are to see reauthorization, both the Senate and House must agree, which will take some Democrats in the Senate crossing the aisle, and the president would have to agree to sign the bill. So it is not a slam dunk.

Over the next few weeks, I will use this blog to keep readers up to date on the progress toward reauthorization and discuss some of the key issues that must be resolved.

The first question is, why do we need reauthorization? 

No Child Left Behind aspired to ensure all children would become proficient in reading and math. To reach this noble yet lofty goal, all states would adopt high standards, assess those standards, and hold schools accountable for helping all children reach proficiency. It was a great goal and a great strategy that was championed by both Democrats and Republicans. Yet, history has shown that excessive federal involvement in education has always been problematic.

The problems began almost immediately upon passage of NCLB in 2001. It became more about the numbers of kids who crossed the proficiency finish line than about teaching kids the skills they needed for success. 

Some states actually lowered standards and set the cut point for proficiency very low. Schools started teaching to the test and in many cases there were cuts to student opportunities for the arts, physical education, science, social studies, world language and other activities that ensure a balanced education. Many schools began teaching only to the “bubble kids” – those students closest to meeting the state proficiency score. Students who had already reached the state proficiency level or who were well below it were often ignored. 

The result? In some states, 90 percent of students performed at the proficient level on state tests. Yet on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a uniform test given across the country as a means of comparison between the states, only 20 percent of that same state’s students performed at the proficient level. A study of state cut scores compared with NAEP cut scores revealed a huge discrepancy in what was considered proficient among the states. U.S. Chamber of Commerce reports showed the truth in labeling of each state based on the NAEP comparisons. In Tennessee, the Governor and other policy makers basically said the state was lying to parents and students. The very law that was supposed to make sure no child was left behind was, in fact, leaving masses of children behind.

By 2004, it became clear that there were big problems with the implementation of No Child Left Behind. While the vision and strategy were excellent, the implementation was very poor and had an unpredictable, pernicious impact on students.

In attempting to respond to the inaction of Congress to right the wrongs of NCLB through reauthorization, Secretary Duncan and President Obama worked through executive action to allow states to seek flexibility and waivers from some of the requirements of No Child Left Behind. Again, on the surface, this sounded like a great idea. Chief state school officers appreciated this relief and the opportunity to improve schools – more than 40 states requested a waiver. I have written previous blogs (The good news and bad news on NCLB waivers; USED action contrary to state, federal law; Politics as usual or not?) that have provided the developing concerns and problems with the waiver process and my true hope and desire for reauthorization.

Now, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), chair of the Senate Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee, has laid out a plan for reauthorization of No Child Left Behind. Rep. John Kline (R-MN), chair of the House Education Committee, has done the same. Every education organization and think tank in Washington, D.C. and many civil rights organizations have brought forth guiding principles for reauthorization. The next 3 – 6 months could be very interesting. 

So, let the games begin and let’s hope everyone can set aside the political acrimony in favor of our children. 

Next week, I will address the top issue that must be considered with ESEA/NCLB reauthorization – standardized testing.

Politics as usual or not?

As the dust settles from last week’s election, there is much talk and speculation about the impact the election may have on public education in this country. At least that has been a primary topic for discussion this week at the Council of Chief State School Officers Annual Policy Forum that I am attending.

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan attended the meeting and took it as his opportunity to roll out the new Elementary and Secondary Education Act/No Child Left Behind waiver process to state education leaders.

In the past few months, I have been critical of Secretary Duncan and the waiver process (see my blogs, USED action contrary to state, federal law; The good news and bad news on NCLB waivers). My criticism has been focused on the fact that the original language in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act said states could submit waiver requests to improve teaching and learning. As long as they met that goal, the waivers were unconditional. However, it appears in recent years waivers have become conditional – based on whether a state meets the requirements of the three guiding principles of college/career ready standards, a differentiated accountability system and educator evaluation. Additionally, I have expressed concerns about the time and resources involved at the state level in the waiver application process.

Listening to the Secretary talk about the upcoming waiver process, it was apparent that he and his team had listened not only to me, but also to other state chiefs. Secretary Duncan told us as did the communication and guidance from the U.S. Department of Education (USED) that the waiver process is being streamlined and states will be able to seek a three year extension and in some cases a four year waiver extension.

While I am confident that the Secretary and his staff have listened to our concerns, during our meeting, I asked him about his priorities given the recent election. Despite being there to talk about the waiver process, it was very clear that his priority was reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

I wholeheartedly agree! It is time for us to make reauthorization of No Child Left Behind the top priority. Given the new Senate leadership in Congress, I am hopeful that the Senate and House will be able to work in a bipartisan manner to pass legislation. While the waivers have been helpful, it is critical to have a long term solution through reauthorization. We will see in early January whether new congressional leadership works to govern or continues politics as usual. I certainly hope it is the former rather than the latter.

Putting aside micromanagement for the sake of students

Last week, the Kentucky Department of Education (KDE) held the second annual Superintendent Summit; almost all 173 school districts were represented either by the superintendent or their designee. The summit is designed so that superintendents can provide feedback on KDE initiatives and they can hear from each other about best practices happening in each district.

We asked for superintendents to respond to three basic questions about KDE/Kentucky Board of Education (KBE) initiatives: What is working well? What needs to be improved? What specific suggestions do you have for improvement? We then compile the superintendent responses and provide a summary of the feedback. Throughout the school year, KDE reacts to concerns and suggestions and provides a summary at the next summit on specific actions KDE/KBE took to address the superintendent’s feedback.

During this year’s summit, I was reminded that every level of an organization believes the level above is micromanaging. Superintendents were certainly clear that they had concerns about KDE micromanagement of local districts and KDE oversight of data and evidences for specific state programs. Of course, principals usually express similar concerns about superintendents and teachers express similar concerns about principals and district office. This reminder was significant because as a state chief, I have expressed similar concerns with the United States Department of Education (USED). Many of my fellow state chiefs also have expressed similar concerns.

Readers may remember several recent posts related to my concerns with USED over the No Child Left Behind waiver process (USED action contrary to state, federal law; The good news and bad news on NCLB waivers; Congressional inaction leaving education behind). As a result of my blogs and expressions of concerns by other state chiefs, Education Secretary Arne Duncan asked for a meeting with the board of directors of the Council of Chief State School Officers. That meeting was held on September 12.

The meeting was a very productive. Secretary Duncan and his team wanted to hear our specific concerns about the waiver process. The concerns expressed by my fellow chiefs were very much the same that I had written about. Secretary Duncan and his team had already prepared some possible solutions to our concerns. Secretary Duncan apologized for the breakdown in communication with regard to Kentucky’s waiver request around science assessments. All in all, the chiefs felt they had been listened to and USED was responding to our concerns. Just like my meeting with local superintendents, a leader should listen to concerns from the field and respond with improvements where possible and explain why certain concerns cannot be addressed.

While the chiefs certainly appreciate Sec. Duncan listening and responding to our concerns, the entire basis for the conversation needs to change. Congress needs to do its job. Education must not fall victim to micromanagement by political interests on either side of the aisle – if it does, our children are the ones who lose. Congress needs to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (No Child Left Behind) and allow states the flexibility to manage K-12 education as long as there is a focus on improving teaching and learning.

With upcoming mid-term elections, the electorate has an opportunity to send our elected officials a message – do your job!

Standards on trial in the court of public opinion

Abraham Lincoln once said, "Public opinion in this country is everything." And whether you subscribe to that notion or not, the recent release of two national polls on the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) would seem, at least on the surface, to be a blow to standards supporters.

The first results came from the Education Next (EdNext) poll that has been given annually for about 14 years. When asked the question about support for the Common Core State Standards the following groups responded.

EDUCATION NEXT POLL

Support for CCSS

	2013	2014
Public	65%	53%
Republicans	57%	43%
Democrats	64%	63%
Teachers	76%	46%

In another poll released last week, we saw similar results.  The PDK/Gallup poll, which has been around for more than 50 years and is one of the most respected of the polls, indicated 60 percent of respondents oppose using CCSS in their local schools to guide what teachers teach; 18 percent of respondents said the standards were too challenging; 40 percent said the standards were not challenging enough; and 36 percent said the standards were just right.

Both polls showed an erosion in support for the CCSS from the previous year. In 2012, hardly anyone in the general public had even heard of the CCSS. Why such a steep drop in such a short time and why do we see such a steep drop in teacher support?

In a pre-release media call for the PDK/Gallup poll last week, I made the following points.
     1) There has been a significant increase in media reporting about CCSS. Depending on your media source, the public has been confronted with a barrage of information, some factual, some not, that has led to a polarization of opinions with regard to the Common Core State Standards.
     2) With the rush to implement No Child Left Behind (NCLB) waiver requirements for standards, assessments and teacher evaluations, the general public and especially teachers have connected CCSS with federal overreach.
     3) With the rush to implement NCLB waiver requirements in some states, teachers feel they have not been provided adequate support in training or resources to implement the standards. With the rush to assess the standards and utilize the results from testing in waiver-required teacher evaluation systems, again, teachers feel they are being held accountable for implementing standards, assessments, and teacher evaluation systems without adequate support and time.

When we dig deep and go back to the PDK poll in the late 1980’s, we find tremendous support for the concept of more rigorous standards that all states would adhere to in order for more students to reach college- and career-readiness. Even in the current polling, when the term Common Core was removed, there was a majority of support for more rigorous state standards across all states.

Several positive things happened last week as the polls were being released. Education Secretary Arne Duncan announced that the United States Department of Education (USED) would relax the timeline for states that need more time to implement teacher evaluation systems that use test scores as part of the evaluation. Also, Sec. Duncan announced his concerns about “too much testing” in our schools. The PDK/Gallup poll indicated that the general public would support Sec. Duncan’s concerns about too much testing. More than 50 percent of those polled said standardized tests are not helpful; however, in excess of 80 percent support college placement tests, grade placement tests, and exit exams. It appears the public supports testing as long as the purpose of testing is clear.

A few other items of note from the recent polls:
     • Charter Schools – the PDK poll shows 70 percent support, EdNext shows 54 percent support
      • Vouchers – the PDK poll shows 63 percent oppose with EdNext showing 51 percent support

While the department's own anonymous survey of nearly 7,000 Kentucky teachers earlier this year showed stronger support for the standards than is evidenced nationwide, Kentucky is being proactive with regard to CCSS. This week, I announced the Kentucky Core Academic Standards Challenge, which will inform our regular review of the standards taught in our classrooms. I urge all readers, regardless of your opinion on the standards, to take the challenge.  It will be open until April 30, 2015.

USED action contrary to state, federal law

For readers who missed my blog last week, you may want to review the good news and bad news about No Child Left Behind (NCLB) waivers. In the blog I said, “I believe the current waiver process represents a major federal intrusion into the rights of each state to develop, implement, and manage the public education of the state.” This created quite a stir in certain circles.

Let me explain my thinking on that by first giving a little background on NCLB waivers. In the original No Child Left Behind Act (2001) language, Section 9401 (b) provides the following guidance:

REQUEST FOR WAIVER –
(1) IN GENERAL – A State educational agency, local educational agency, or Indian tribe that desires a waiver shall submit a waiver request to the Secretary that –
(A) identifies the Federal programs affected by the requested
            waiver;
(B) describes which Federal statutory or regulatory requirements 
             are to be waived and how the waiving of those requirements
             will –
            (i) increase the quality of instruction for students; and
            (ii) improve the academic achievement of students;
(C) describes, for each school year, specific, measurable
             educational goals, in accordance with section 1111(b),
             for the State educational agency and for each local
             educational agency, Indian tribe, or school that would 
             be affected by the waiver and the methods to be 
             used to measure annually progress for meeting such
             goals and outcomes;
(D) explains how the waiver will assist the State educational
             agency and each affected local educational agency, Indian
             tribe, or school in reaching those goals; and
(E) describes how schools will continue to provide assistance
             to the same populations served by programs for which
             waivers are requested.

What this language describes is a state-led waiver process to encourage innovation to improve instruction and student achievement outcomes for the students served by the NCLB law. The current waiver process being implemented by the U. S. Department of Education (USED) is a conditional waiver process. States must submit waiver plans that meet three basic conditions:
     • standards/assessments
     • accountability systems
     • teacher/leader effectiveness 
In exchange for meeting these conditions, states are granted 11-13 waivers from the original requirements of NCLB.

Originally, this was a great deal for Kentucky since we had a state law (Senate Bill 1 – 2009) that required the Kentucky Department of Education (KDE) to implement new standards/assessments, accountability systems, and teacher/principal evaluations. As Commissioner, I was fully supportive of Secretary Duncan's waiver process since the reform efforts were a great match for Kentucky. However, the waiver process has now started to stifle innovation and have a negative impact on improving instruction and student achievement. 

Here is one case in point. Kentucky adopted new science standards as required by Senate Bill 1. Our teachers began to implement these standards this school year. We have learned from teachers that they need at least two years of implementing standards prior to assessing them. Additionally, Kentucky teachers and national science assessment experts told us that new science assessments will need to be very different than typical multiple choice tests. Students will actually need to do science and exhibit scientific thinking. Our National Assessment of Educational Progress has given us an early look at this type of assessment through the Technology and Engineering Literacy assessment. Kentucky wanted to develop a model of science assessment using Kentucky teachers and national experts that would provide innovative ways to measure student achievement in science and provide teachers with much more meaningful feedback on student performance throughout the school year so that teachers could improve instruction and student achievement. 

Kentucky requested a one-year waiver from science assessment from the USED. We needed the waiver in order to provide time for our teachers to actually implement standards and develop new assessment items for field testing in spring of 2015. We committed to having an assessment of student achievement in science by 2016. 

Despite having set a precedent for this type of waiver by granting the PARCC and Smarter Balanced assessment consortia states a waiver from accountability and reporting math and language arts assessments for the 2014 year, USED rejected our request. Obviously we were stretching the limits of USED staff to provide a state-led waiver request that meets the original requirements of Sec 9401 of NCLB. 

This is only one example of how the current waiver process is stifling innovation and intruding on a state's ability to implement state requirements contained in state legislation. There are other Kentucky examples and, in a recent meeting with other state chiefs, I heard many similar stories from other states.

What now? USED expects Kentucky to give a science assessment that measures our previous science standards in spring 2015. This expectation not only violates our state law, but, also violates NCLB that requires states to assess science (once in elementary and middle school) based on current state standards.

Kentucky and many other states supported the waiver process since we had state laws matching the conditional requirements. Kentucky will be able to sustain our efforts for years to come; however, I do have concerns about other states that used the leverage of the Race to the Top (RTTT) grant and waiver process to implement reforms without state law. What happens when the current administration departs? What happens as the waiver process continues to become even more prescriptive and time consuming?

States are responsible for education. Local school districts have tremendous flexibility and control in implementing state expectations. The federal role is and should continue to be limited to support for disadvantaged children. Hopefully, Congress will reauthorize NCLB soon and build in the flexibility for states and local school districts to be innovative in meeting the needs of all children by improving teaching and learning.

Next week, I will review recent results from national polls showing the impact of RTTT and NCLB waivers on public opinion related to Common Core standards, standardized tests, and teacher evaluation.

The good news and bad news on NCLB waivers

First, the good news: this week the U.S. Department of Education (USED) notified us that it approved Kentucky's application for a one-year extension of our Elementary and Secondary Education Act/No Child Left Behind (NCLB) waiver flexibility. The extension will run through the 2014-15 school year.

The bad news is that we are still operating under an NCLB waiver, as we have been since the 2012-13 school year. Education Secretary Arnie Duncan offered the waivers to states due to the inability of Congress to reauthorize No Child Left Behind (which was due for reauthorization in 2007). State chiefs and local school superintendents were very excited about the waivers as an opportunity to move public education forward; while the number one priority was and always has been for Congress to reauthorize NCLB.

There are several pros to the NCLB waiver, especially for Kentucky.  The federal waiver requirements were an excellent match to our Senate Bill 1 (2009) requirements for new standards, new assessments, a new accountability system, and professional development and support for educators to implement these new requirements. When Sec. Duncan announced the waiver requirements, Kentucky moved quickly to apply. With the waiver in hand we were able to implement new standards, assessments, and a single accountability system for reporting school results, rather than having two systems – one for federal accountability, one for state – as we had in the past. Also, the federal waiver provided tremendous flexibility to our school districts on how to spend federal funds. All in all, we felt that the waiver was an excellent idea in the short term; however, no one thought waivers were a good idea in the long run.

As election seasons started to roll around, as if on cue, there was a lot of criticism of Sec. Duncan and the U.S. Department of Education. I for one found it hypocritical that Congress would complain about the waiver process when it was Congress' failure to reauthorize No Child Left Behind that led to the process.

While the initial waiver process was something we supported in Kentucky, it has become problematic. When the state chiefs talked with Sec. Duncan about what would happen at the end of the initial waiver period, we recommended a "streamlined and expedited" process for one-year extensions. It remained our hope as state chiefs that, in the meantime, Congress would reauthorize NCLB. That has not happened.

There is significant evidence from many states that the waiver extension process has not been streamlined. State chiefs have reported to me and our Kentucky experience has shown that our staffs spent hundreds of hours in preparing what was supposed to have been a streamlined application (our initial waiver extension request was almost 200 pages). Also, our staff spent many hours in conference calls and rewriting our waiver application based on questions raised from USED staff.  Click here if you’d like to read it.

Nor has the waiver extension process been expedited, as we were promised.  We submitted our extension request May 1 and it was mid-August before we got word on its status.  Our initial waiver took less time to approve.  In fact, of the 42 states that originally obtained waivers and the 31 that have submitted waiver extensions, to date, 13 are still waiting for word from USED on their status. In many cases, school has already started and school districts are not certain of which set of rules they will be governed by for the school year - NCLB or the waiver.

Now, USED is asking us to give feedback on the process for a two-year waiver extension for school years 2015-16 and 2016-17.

As one state chief, speaking only for Kentucky, it is time to end this process. It is time for Congress to act. We need a stable long range plan, not a series of cobbled together waivers that take away staff time from the work of improving education for all children.

Next week, I will provide more insight as to why I believe the current waiver process represents a major federal intrusion into the rights of each state to develop, implement, and manage the public education of the state.

Congressional inaction leaving education behind

No Child Left Behind – it’s been part of our vernacular since 2001 when Congress passed the bipartisan legislation.  The idea was to change the Elementary and Secondary Education Act through an emphasis on closing achievement gaps and greater accountability. The hallmark of the legislation was the goal that 100 percent of students would reach proficiency in reading and math by 2014. 

While a laudable goal, there were major problems in the implementation of the law. States were allowed to set their own standards, design their own tests and set proficiency cut scores as they saw fit. The result was a wide variation among the states in the percentage of students reaching proficiency in reading and math. The National Assessment Governing Board highlighted these differences in a comparison of state testing data and data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). In several cases, states reported 80-90 percent of students scored proficient on state tests, while less than 20 percent reached proficiency on NAEP assessments. When many students reached college, this disparity became evident – they were not adequately prepared.   

In 2007 Congress was due to reauthorize No Child Left Behind.  In the meantime, there has been significant debate about how to do so. President Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan proposed a blueprint to reauthorize NCLB; both the House and Senate have tried to move legislation that would reauthorize this important education law. However, to date, there has been no consensus on change and no success. 

While a 100 percent proficiency goal was worthy, it was also an impossible goal to reach. With the 2014 deadline looming, states and schools faced a deadline that would label all schools as failures. No Child Left Behind had lost all credibility with educators, parents, and the public. Something had to be done.

So in absence of ESEA reauthorization, the President and Secretary utilized executive orders and existing language in No Child Left Behind to allow states to seek waivers with the proviso they would do a better job preparing all children for college and careers. I had the opportunity to serve on a task force with the Council of Chief State School Officers that developed next-generation accountability principles that were a foundation for many states as they asked for a No Child Left Behind waiver. To date 44 states have received waivers.

The waiver issue has been in the news lately. Washington became the first state to lose a waiver when the state was unable to meet key requirements that it had agreed to in its waiver application.  During hearings on the administration’s proposed education budget, many of the questions from committee members focused on the No Child Left Behind waivers. Education writers have been criticizing the administration about how the Department of Education has handled the waivers.

The criticism is misplaced. States asked for relief from No Child Left Behind due to the impending 2014 deadline.  The criticism should be redirected to the root of the problem – Congress. Through its inability to pass a reauthorized No Child Left Behind law, Congress has left states floundering and the Department of Education attempting to help without any clear guidance or vision from lawmakers. 

Congress has failed to meet minimum expectations on reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.  The public recognizes this as evidenced by the low ratings on opinion polls. With a mid-term election in November, it is time to ask candidates what they would do to get Congress moving again so that our education system is not left behind.

Closing Achievement Gaps and NCLB Waiver

During 2011, I was working with a committee of the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) to develop guidelines for next generation accountability models. The timing was good for Kentucky since Senate Bill 1 (2009) required new standards, assessments, and accountability model.

My hope in working at the state and national level was reauthorization of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) with a focus on college and career readiness similar to Senate Bill 1. As it played out, reauthorization was stalled. However, President Obama and Secretary Duncan moved forward with a waiver process for states that included many of the recommendations from the CCSSO accountability committee. To date, 34 states have been approved for a waiver and several other states are asking for specific waivers.


While we appreciate the waiver process, state chiefs agree that the most stable solution is reauthorization of NCLB by Congress. Early in February, I hope to testify before a Senate committee holding hearings on the waiver process and NCLB reauthorization. I know that one of the key concerns for Congress and for advocacy groups across the nation is closing achievement gaps. I wanted to connect a few points through this blog.


This week, we have sent out maps to all school districts and major stakeholders showing the proficiency rates of key groups of students. Our expectation in Kentucky is that school districts and schools will have annual goals to raise proficiency rates and that over a five year period, we will cut in half the gap between current performance and the aspirational goal of 100 percent proficient. As with NCLB, we continue to have the aspirational goal of 100 percent proficient, however, we are being much more focused on how to make steady progress and we have created rigorous but achievable annual targets for improvement. Interested readers can find these annual targets for every district and school by going to the new school report card, choosing a school or district and then clicking on the “delivery” tab on the profile page.


The most critical element of closing achievement gaps are the strategies used by schools and districts. The Commissioner's Raising Achievement/Closing Gaps Council has provided a comprehensive report and recommendations. The Kentucky Department of Education is providing strong support for schools and districts that have significant achievement gaps through our focus and priority schools implementation. Also, we are tracking the progress of each school and district and their plans for closing gaps through a comprehensive planning software program called ASSIST.


As I prepare for my testimony to the Congressional committee, I will emphasize that in Kentucky we have not backed up on our push to close achievement gaps. Closing achievement gaps remains the moral, economic and civil rights issue of our times and every educator in Kentucky is committed to helping all children reach college and career readiness.