The eight districts that have formed the nonprofit organization California Office to Reform Education, or CORE, are preparing their own application for a waiver from the penalties of the No Child Left Behind law, undeterred by the federal government’s rejection last month of a waiver for California. They’re hoping that U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan will be impressed by their size, serving a million schoolchildren, and their willingness to agree to conditions that Gov. Jerry Brown and the State Board of Education rejected.

Two unknowns lurk: Duncan hasn’t yet agreed to consider district waivers in states that either didn’t apply for them or had their applications turned down, and CORE hasn’t yet formally asked Brown for his blessing, which would considerably help their case. Regardless, at some point in the next month or so the districts plan to file anyway, because they want the waiver to take effect July 1, Los Angeles Unified Superintendent John Deasy confirmed Monday.

Brown and the State Board balked at the stipulation that the state require districts to use standardized test scores as a measure of student academic growth when evaluating teachers. CORE districts would have to agree to this – or finesse the condition – to get a waiver.

A waiver would free up tens of millions of dollars in restricted Title I money that the districts could use to train teachers and prepare for the implementation of Common Core standards. Schools in the districts would no longer have to notify families that their schools were failing under the terms of No Child Left Behind.

The CORE districts include Los Angeles, Long Beach, Fresno, Sacramento City, San Francisco, Oakland, Clovis and Sanger unified districts.

 


Filed under: No Child Left Behind, Quick Hits, State and Federal Policies, State Board of Education · Tags: , , ,

Comment Policy

EdSource encourages a robust debate on education issues and welcomes comments from our readers. The level of thoughtfulness of our community of readers is rare among online news sites. To preserve a civil dialogue, writers should avoid personal, gratuitous attacks and invective. Comments should be relevant to the subject of the article responded to. EdSource retains the right not to publish inappropriate and non-germaine comments.


EdSource encourages commenters to use their real names. Commenters who do decide to use a pseudonym should use it consistently.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 characters available

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

  1. el says:

    I’m still waiting to see the evaluation of Arne Duncan based on student test scores.

  2. Governor Brown and the state board were correct in balking at the requirement to use test scores as a measure of student growth in appraising teachers. In some cases this could be appropriate, but in many it is not, especially in primary school, where the backwash effect of emphasizing CSTs has hurt children’s educations, it is not. Where we should have a big test, which is at the end of 12th grade, when students are finishing secondary school and when many are trying to gain admission to college, is precisely when we don’t have one; we have senioritis instead. No single formula will be appropriate for all teachers, since their jobs vary so much; instead, we need a single process, as I argue here: http://principalfoundations.blogspot.com/2012/06/rather-than-single-formula-single.html