Eight California districts receive historic NCLB waiver

Eight California school districts individually* (see note below)  will receive the first district waivers from penalties under the No Child Left Behind law, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan announced Tuesday.

Duncan praised the districts’ “creative, thoughtful, innovative proposal.” He said that 1 million students will benefit from the districts’ “rigorous expectations” and that other states will learn from the collaborative strategies that the districts are pledging to carry out. “Frankly, working directly with districts wasn’t an easy decision,” Duncan said. “We’re not taking this up because it was simple, but because it was the right thing to do.”

The one-year waiver, issued after weeks of intense negotiations between federal officials and superintendents in the CORE districts, will free the districts from key sanctions of NCLB and provide them with flexibility to use about $110 million in Title I money for school improvement, including training teachers in Common Core standards. The districts will stop NCLB’s accountability clock, in which additional schools would be labeled as failing, and instead be able to create broader measures of student achievement beyond standardized test scores.

The CORE districts are spread out geographically and represent 1.1 million California students. More than half of those students are from two southern California districts, Los Angeles Unified and Long Beach Unified. Clovis Unified, which is included in the charts, withdrew its application late in the process.

The CORE districts are spread out geographically and represent 1.1 million California students. More than half of those students are from two southern California districts, Los Angeles Unified and Long Beach Unified. Clovis Unified, which is included in the charts, withdrew its application late in the process.


The eight unified districts applying through their umbrella organization, the California Office to Reform Education, or CORE, serve more than one in six students in the state; the districts are Los Angeles, Long Beach, San Francisco, Oakland, Santa Ana, Sanger, Sacramento City and Fresno. Clovis Unified, an original applicant that concluded the waiver was similar to its accountability system, has dropped out.

The waiver comes in the nick of time to take effect this school year. Duncan has issued waivers to 39 states so far and is reviewing applications for five more. An additional six states either have not applied or, like California, had their applications denied.

The waiver, the first that was not issued to a state department of education, has been strongly opposed by state chiefs of education, teachers unions and some advocacy groups that see a district waiver as a potential end run around federal accountability rules. Duncan said in a press conference that the law authorizes him to grant waivers to districts, as previous education secretaries have done for specific provisions. But Chris Minnich, executive director of the Council of Chief State School Officers, characterized the CORE waiver Tuesday as “an unprecedented shift in the federal role in education — clearly usurping state leadership.” California Department of Education officials expressed skepticism as well. In a statement Tuesday, California Teachers Association President Dean Vogel reiterated criticism of the waiver, though primarily for the districts’ failure to consult with local teachers unions in crafting the application, which he termed “counterproductive and divisive.”

The CORE superintendents argued to Duncan that they were seeking a stronger, “holistic” alternative to a narrowly focused and unworkable federal system. Districts, the application said, “have been too often chasing success in a system that does not define success in a comprehensive or rigorous manner.”

U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan during an interview on the PBS program NewsHour.  Source:  NewsHour.  (click to enlarge).

U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan granted the CORE districts’ waiver Tuesday.

Duncan agreed and singled out CORE’s commitment to significantly expand the accountability system to include more minority and special education students than currently required under federal law. CORE’s proposal calls for significantly lowering the number of students represented in a subgroup as part of a school’s accountability measure. The waiver requires any subgroup of 20 or more children in a school to be included, instead of a minimum of 100 students, a threshold that Duncan said left 153,000 children “invisible” in the CORE districts under NCLB. Dozens of elementary schools, for example, in which students with disabilities, Hispanic children or African American children account for between 20 and 99 students will now track the progress of those student groups.

“These students face the same issues of poverty and should be treated with the same notions of accountability,” said Los Angeles Unified Superintendent John Deasy.

Liz Guillen, the legislative director of Public Advocates, a civil rights law firm, said that what the CORE superintendents didn’t say was that this year, under the Local Control Funding Formula, the Legislature lowered the statewide subgroup number to 30 students anyway.

The students will now be measured not only on standardized test results but by broader dimensions of student engagement and performance in a new School Quality Improvement System.

  • Scores on state tests, high school graduation rates and persistence rates – the percentage of 8th graders that go on to enroll in 10th grade — will comprise 60 percent of the index;
  • Factors of school performance, based on parent, teacher and student surveys, rates of redesignating English learners and identifying special education students, with an eye to over-identifying minority students, will comprise 20 percent;
  • CORE will pilot a new domain, making up another 20 percent, of social and emotional factors including rates of chronic absenteeism, suspensions and expulsions and difficult-to-quantify measures of grit and determination that are predictive of success in college or work.

The state also is transitioning to a broader accountability system, although the pieces aren’t in place. The state’s Academic Accountability Index, or API, currently based solely on standardized tests, will incorporate graduation rates and other factors. Legislation establishing the Local Control Funding Formula requires that districts start tracking a range of academic performance metrics, parent involvement and school climate.

Long Beach Superintendent Christopher Steinhauser said that measures under the CORE waiver are “in total alignment” with the new state funding formula. Fresno Unified Superintendent Michael Hanson said that CORE wanted to press forward now to reduce academic disparities affecting low-income and minority students but that CORE’s accountability index would prove valuable to the state. Members of the State Board of Education, in strongly endorsing the waiver earlier this year, agreed.

But in statements on Tuesday, neither Gov. Jerry Brown nor Superintendent of Public Instruction Torlakson was particularly complimentary or pointed to any benefit from the waiver.

“Several local school districts have now received a one-year waiver of the proficiency goals of the No Child Left Behind law,” said Evan Westrup, the governor’s press secretary. “From our perspective, however, the primary challenge is to implement vigorously the landmark Local Control Funding Formula and the Common CORE curriculum.”

“All California schools deserve relief from the unworkable mandates of No Child Left Behind, so it’s noteworthy that a few districts have — temporarily at least — managed to navigate the complex waiver requirements imposed by the Administration,” Torlakson said. “I continue to believe … that relief from the failings of federal policy should not be reserved only for those prepared to provide Washington an ever-expanding role in the operation of California’s public schools.”

A collaborative model

The CORE superintendents based their plan on the work of Canadian author Michael Fullan, who introduced in Ontario a collaborative model of school improvement that he contrasts with the top-down “blame and shame” interventions in which low-performing schools have been closed or their teachers replaced under NCLB.

Instead, CORE will identify highly successful schools and place them as partners with low performers. Fullan emphasizes “non-judgmental” efforts to improve instruction based on a collective “moral imperative” to do right by all children: Only if there is little improvement after several years of work will stronger actions be required.

Fullan, who described this process to 450 CORE district teachers and administrators last week in San Francisco, will likely be hired as an adviser during the waiver’s roll-out. He already has worked in several CORE districts.

CORE’s superintendents, however, can expect initial resistance.

Vogel and union leaders in the CORE districts blasted the superintendents for paying lip service to Fullan while ignoring them in the creation of a waiver that includes commitments for new teacher evaluations.

“I’m extremely disappointed,” said Susan Mercer, president of the Santa Ana Teachers Association. The wavier “takes away the voice of the teachers. It’s top-down and a step backward. Reform only happens when everyone works together to make change.”

While  acknowledging that unions were not involved in developing the waiver, Deasy said “they must be involved as we start our journey today.” And he said that nothing in the waiver superseded teachers’ bargaining rights.

Two evaluation options

To qualify for a waiver, the CORE districts had to commit to use growth in student achievement as a factor in teacher and principal evaluations. Most teachers unions oppose this, although the Stull Act, the state law on evaluations, also requires it.

CORE’s application offered two options.

  • The Massachusetts alternative: Based on that state’s NCLB waiver, results from standardized and other tests would be used indirectly, as a check. If test scores didn’t agree with an evaluation based on classroom observations and other criteria, the district would take a second look to identify the discrepancy and could create a one-year improvement plan for the teacher.
  • The 20 percent minimum: Growth in student achievement, based a model that the CORE districts will develop, will comprise a minimum of 20 percent of a teacher’s or principal’s evaluation. Districts with their own models, like Los Angeles Unified, could seek approval to use their variations from the CORE board of directors.

This year, the districts will consult with unions on the criteria for an evaluation; bargaining would occur after the first year of a waiver. A new system would take effect in the third year of a waiver, assuming there is one. If teachers did not agree to one of the options, the district would no longer qualify for a waiver.

Cross-section of outside monitors

The approved waiver has several key changes from what CORE had proposed in May:

  • The waiver is for one year, not three. Duncan said he had imposed the same limitation on several other states and implied the CORE waiver could be folded into a future state waiver or extended if the state did not obtain one next year.
  • The waiver applies to only the eight districts this year. CORE had proposed to offer the waiver to any district that met the federal criteria and agreed to the rules of the consortium.
  • CORE created a 14-member School Quality Improvement System Oversight Panel to add teeth to the accountability system. CORE had proposed a decentralized system based on peer review and a board of directors. The oversight panel, meeting twice a year, will review the districts’ data and school improvement plans. For districts disregarding data requirements or chronically failing to show student improvement, the panel can recommend that the federal Department of Education yank their waivers.

Its biannual meetings  will be subject to the state’s open meeting law. Among those who will appoint one representative are the governor, the State Board of Education, the California Teachers Association, the California School Boards Association, the State Board of Education, the Association of California School Administrators Association, the state PTA, the California County Superintendents Education Services Association, Education Trust-West (an advocate for minority students), the California Collaborative on District Reform and groups representing students with disabilities, English learners and higher education research organizations.

Staff writers Susan Frey and Kathryn Baron contributed to this report. Check back for updates to this story.

*Note: Previous versions incorrectly characterized the approval as a collective waiver for the CORE districts. The Department of Education is granting individual waivers to the eight districts in the CORE network. The distinction is important, because the feds will monitor each district separately for compliance, not through CORE.

Filed under: Federal Education Policy, State Education Policy

Tags: , , , , ,


Leave a Comment

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

Comment Policy

EdSource encourages a robust debate on education issues and welcomes comments from our readers.

  • 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 offensive comments.
  • EdSource encourages commenters to use their real names. Commenters who do decide to use a pseudonym should use it consistently.
  • Please limit comments to 250 words to prevent comment clutter; if you intend to say more please link out to a place that contains your full comment.
  • Comments with more than one link automatically enter moderation. Comments from new commenters are automatically moderated.
  • Repeated violation of this comment policy will lead to a warning. Continued violations will lead to a ban.

18 Responses to “Eight California districts receive historic NCLB waiver”

EdSource does not track who "likes or dislikes" a comment. We only track the number of likes and dislikes.

  1. Jerry Heverly on Aug 8, 2013 at 2:41 am08/8/2013 2:41 am

    • 000

    Does this mean that teachers’ unions have a veto of this whole thing?

    This year, the districts will consult with unions on the criteria for an evaluation; bargaining would occur after the first year of a waiver. A new system would take effect in the third year of a waiver, assuming there is one. If teachers did not agree to one of the options, the district would no longer qualify for a waiver.


    • John Fensterwald on Aug 8, 2013 at 8:49 am08/8/2013 8:49 am

      • 000

      Jerry: The one-year waiver is now in effect. However, nothing in the waiver overrides state law and existing contracts over issues that must be bargained. Depending on the timeline for implementing teacher evaluations, a waiver extension would be contingent in the second or third year on successfully negotiating a new evaluation system that meets the commitments in the waiver and satisfies teachers — at least that’s my initial read.

      • navigio on Aug 8, 2013 at 10:10 am08/8/2013 10:10 am

        • 000

        In other words, yes. :-)
        But only in the 2nd or 3rd year. Personally I think it’s probable the entire state will piggyback on this waiver within the next two years.

  2. el on Aug 7, 2013 at 7:43 am08/7/2013 7:43 am

    • 000

    By the way, is there a mathematical justification for a subgroup of 20 (or 30), or is that just a bureaucratic finger in the wind?

    Absolutely every child deserves to have her needs met, but situations where schools that are successful for a majority of their students are completely reorganized because of a struggling subgroup are appalling to me, and I suspect, fail to meet anyone’s needs well.


    • navigio on Aug 7, 2013 at 8:04 am08/7/2013 8:04 am

      • 000

      Smaller subgroups are by definition less representative and subject to more variability. The change is a doubling down on the notion of accountability, something CA also did, btw when it lowered subgroup sizes as well. Ideally smaller groups sizes would be accompanied by more detailed explanations of variability. But there is no reason to expect that to happen.

      • el on Aug 7, 2013 at 8:19 am08/7/2013 8:19 am

        • 000

        True. I mean, statistics is hard. Visiting schools to understand them is icky.

        • navigio on Aug 7, 2013 at 8:37 am08/7/2013 8:37 am

          • 000

          Yes. Even the SSC, which is already at the school does not do this. And it often looks at even smaller ‘subgroups’.

          I think your comment is important. Such changes in statistical should be justified by our law- and policy-makers. Simply saying these kids are invisible is not sufficient, especially if they become visible for the wrong reason. Even if these people don’t want to have to explain it to the general public, they should at least do it for people who care.

  3. Ann on Aug 7, 2013 at 7:42 am08/7/2013 7:42 am

    • 000

    “…low-performing schools have been closed or their teachers replaced under NCLB.” Please name one.


      • el on Aug 7, 2013 at 7:54 am08/7/2013 7:54 am

        • 000

        Curiously, as “terrible” as its scores are, in 2011 that school was ranked 7/10 when demographics are considered, and the API was 753. It’s a “failure” because of the subgroups.

        I’m not sure whether the district felt it had no choice or whether it was actively enthusiastic about closing this school or what.

      • Ann on Aug 7, 2013 at 8:55 am08/7/2013 8:55 am

        • 000

        oh I see after a decade SOMETHING happens….just as NCLB is ending and Arne is handing out waivers. Let’s see…. how many eight graders have traveled through Mar Vista in ten years and where are they now? By the way the article seems to point to the community that was fed up with staff a MV?

        • el on Aug 7, 2013 at 9:24 am08/7/2013 9:24 am

          • 000

          On the other hand, this school was ranked 7/10 and had an api of 750 with a substantial percentage of migrant students and student churn, and an award winning jazz program. Will the new school, if it has the same students, do better than that? It is actually not clear at all to me from my perch 800 miles away that this *was* a low performing school in the sense that we would think so if we walked inside.

          My own child attends a school with worse numbers than that.

        • CarolineSF on Aug 8, 2013 at 7:55 am08/8/2013 7:55 am

          • 000

          That’s kind of a misinterpretation, @Ann. The article emphasizes that people in the wider community who were UNfamiliar with the school and its challenges were the critics.

          “Many local residents, especially those with no direct involvement with the school, believed what they were repeatedly hearing about this “failing school” – “the problem is bad teachers unwilling to change.” Even teachers from across town who do not work with students of poverty or significant numbers of language learners suspected there must be something wrong with the MVM staff.”

          The general experience in the world is that even when very badly troubled schools are threatened with being shut down, school communities (parents, that is) fight to try to save them. I’m also totally unfamiliar with this school and the situation — just wanted to correct the serious misinterpretation of the article.

  4. Paul on Aug 7, 2013 at 7:20 am08/7/2013 7:20 am

    • 000

    Who else is alarmed that the CORE waiver application was written by school district bureaucrats, without substantial input from teachers? And that it was approved by a federal administration that is ambivalent toward teachers? Was it worth alienating the very constituency responsible for implementing the academic part of the plan?

    Also, was restoring local discretion in the use of federal Title I funds really such an important goal? Local Control Funding, which grants broad discretion in the use of state funds, was already on the table (as “weighted student funding”, originally) when CORE was being conceived. The bureaucrats in these school districts will have their hands full figuring out how best to allocate formerly restricted (“categorical”) state funds, to say nothing of the annual funding increases/restorations due as LCFF is phased in. It would have been prudent (and more humble) for CORE district bureaucrats to develop/demonstrate a capacity for effective allocation of state funds before asking for an exception to current rules for federal funds.


    • navigio on Aug 7, 2013 at 8:11 am08/7/2013 8:11 am

      • 000

      Actually, this seems like the kind of thing bureaucrats are supposed to be doing. Anyway, according to the story, teachers still have the ability to control the waiver’s evaluation contents through bargaining. Even to the extent of having the power to disqualify districts from the waiver with their actions. So I am not so alarmed at that yet, especially as it applies to the tiny slice of pie (that is optional in the first place) that the waiver deals with. I am, however, alarmed at some of the representatives who will be on the oversight panel. I wonder how transparent those meetings will be.

  5. el on Aug 6, 2013 at 10:30 pm08/6/2013 10:30 pm

    • 000

    That was sure a lot of effort and time spent… to allow districts to spend Title 1 money on students to further their education, as intended.

    How lovely that everyone can look forward to performing the same dog & pony show next year.


    • navigio on Aug 7, 2013 at 12:10 am08/7/2013 12:10 am

      • 000

      Except for Matt Damon.

  6. navigio on Aug 6, 2013 at 8:20 pm08/6/2013 8:20 pm

    • 000

    If there is anything that will spur the Feds to finally re-author/ize nclb, this has to be it. It would also be good to know whether any lawsuits emerge within these CORE districts.

Template last modified: