General Questions
So Colorado got waivers from NCLB. Why is that important? Why should taxpayers, parents or educators care?
The ESEA waiver affirms the strength of Colorado's education reform initiatives in the areas of accountability, educator effectiveness, standards, and assessments. With the waiver, Colorado can shift from an accountability system based on federal definitions and sanctions to its own state accountability system. This allows the state, districts, schools and parents to share a common understanding of district and school performance and to meaningfully distinguish those schools and districts that are meeting performance expectations from those that are not. CDE and districts will be better able to direct resources to those that need them the most, and to focus their improvement efforts on what matters most: ensuring college- and career-readiness for all students.
How does this waiver improve education in Colorado?
The waiver creates the right conditions for educational improvement in Colorado. Educators have long worried about the unintended consequences of No Child Left Behind. While the federal law promoted a focus on student performance outcomes at a time when not all states had such a focus, it identified some schools as struggling when they were in fact fostering great growth among students. Other schools were not identified while their students were not making much growth at all. The waiver allows Colorado to focus on what matters most in the performance of schools and districts: student academic growth, or learning, which is the heart of the state's accountability system. When the accountability system incentivizes the right goals, school and district resources and instruction follow based on that focus.
Does the waiver impact any kind of funding for the state or districts? Or, is this simply relief from some federal requirements? Will it reduce paperwork, staff time or effort?
Approval of the waiver does not bring any additional funds, nor does it take any existing funds away. Some of the Title I funds allocated to districts may be used with greater flexibility as a result of the waiver. The waiver removes the duplicative reporting requirements, paperwork, and staff time associated with implementing two separate accountability systems.
Was it difficult to get the waiver? How so?
Colorado was well-positioned for approval as the state was already implementing next-generation standards, assessments, accountability, and educator effectiveness measures (rather than just plans for those reforms), based on state legislation passed during the last three years. In that regard, Colorado was essentially already well down the path of implementing the system required by the waiver, even before the waiver opportunity was announced.
However, challenges did exist throughout this process, including:
- Negotiating how Colorado's accountability and support system aligns with the requirements set by the U.S. Department of Education
- Collecting and incorporating various stakeholder feedback
- Working across CDE, and the state, to present a cohesive description of Colorado's reform system.
Some say this waiver will actually reduce the level of accountability and that some schools that have been on improvement plans through the old federal system, are now just going to be able to re-set the clock and "take a pass." Is that true? Explain.
One of the main reasons the President called on the U.S. Department of Education to open this waiver process to states was that the federal system of AYP had become outdated. With expectations nearing 100% proficiency, AYP was no longer able to distinguish between schools that were truly struggling and those that weren't as high-performing as we'd wish they could be. Schools received either a pass or a fail determination, and too many schools were being identified as failing.
Our state system doesn't just label all schools that aren't near 100% proficiency as failing. Colorado recognizes there are nuances, and that rating everyone as failing isn't particularly helpful. So, the Colorado system gives schools one of four performance ratings and districts one of five accreditation ratings. This doesn't give schools or districts a "pass" and it doesn't re-set the clock. The state accountability system includes at least two years of results for schools and three years of results for districts on the School and District Performance Framework report. Those schools and districts on five consecutive years of Priority Improvement or Turnaround (our lowest performance ratings) will face sanctions, as directed by the State Board, which may include school closure or loss of district accreditation. These are serious consequences for schools and districts that don't improve.
Additionally, our state system actually holds more schools and students accountable than the AYP system did. For example, by calculating a minority disaggregated group in the School Performance Framework reports, as opposed to the calculations required for AYP, nearly all minority students in the state are included in accountability determinations. The state's system accounts for 98 percent of minority students, whereas AYP accounted for 82 percent of minority students.
Colorado's accountability system is also more comprehensive, moving beyond just math and reading proficiency and graduation rates. Colorado's system incorporates performance on achievement (proficiency) in writing and science, growth and growth to standard, gaps in student group growth and growth to standard, and postsecondary and workforce readiness indicators that, in addition to graduation rate, also includes dropout rate and ACT scores.
This provides a more complete look at school and districts' success in moving students to college and career readiness.
Additionally, through Colorado's Unified Improvement Plan process, all schools and districts annually participate in a continuous improvement process, using data to reflect on their performance, identifying performance challenges and root causes, and creating plans for improvement. All schools and districts annually submit these plans to CDE and they are posted for public review. We know even our high-performing schools can find ways to do even better.
We firmly believe the waiver will allow for greater improvements and focus on school and district performance. It is a step forward for meaningful, student-centered accountability.
How does the granting of a waiver change what schools and districts now do?
Rather than having to communicate and respond to results on both a federal and a state accountability system, schools and districts can now work within a single accountability system which sends a consistent set of signals. Accountability determinations under Title IA of NCLB through Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) will be replaced by the state accountability determinations, and certain sanctions under Title IA of NCLB will no longer need to be implemented. Schools and districts can instead focus on the results of the State Performance Framework reports and the improvement planning process that follows. This will allow for targeted attention on student growth, allowing educators to focus their attention on their efforts to move students towards college- and career-readiness. Removing AYP has the added benefit of reducing the amount of time and effort Colorado's school districts and CDE staff spend on AYP calculations and appeals at a time when resources are needed elsewhere.
Will AYP still be calculated and reported?
AYP will no longer be an accountability measure. Some components of AYP calculations, like participation rates and graduation rates, will still be reported publicly because they are included as a part of the state's accountability system.
What happens to schools or districts previously identified for Improvement under AYP?
With implementation of this waiver from provisions of NCLB, schools and districts will only be identified for accountability based on the state system as approved by the US Dept. of Education. Previous designations based on AYP results will no longer apply.
How soon will the waiver be applied in Colorado's schools and districts?
Work on implementation planning will take place immediately. However, the noticeable impact will occur in August 2012 when AYP results are not calculated and consequences are no longer based on those results.
Because Colorado's waiver application was based largely on its existing system, the existing state accountability requirements as outlined in SB09-163 will remain in effect, with some small changes. Any changes in accountability determinations and sanctions will be in effect for the coming fall (the 2012-13 school year, based on the results of the 2011-12 assessments and the most recent postsecondary and workforce readiness measures).
Did the USDE require any changes to the performance frameworks?
No. However, for the 2012-13 performance frameworks, Colorado had intended to add CELApro (English language acquisition) growth data and – in the absence of disaggregated AYP data – disaggregated graduation rate; these elements were included in the description of the performance frameworks in Colorado’s waiver application. USDE highly valued the adequate growth components and disaggregations within the performance frameworks. These components were crucial to approval.
Will this waiver status improve Colorado's chances for other opportunities such as grants or relief from other laws?
The waiver status indicates that Colorado is a leader in the country around accountability, standards and assessments, and educator effectiveness. As much as other grants or future waiver possibilities are based on those conditions, we have documented that our state has strong, effective policies and practices in these areas.
What aspects of Colorado's reform plan are other states emulating?
Because many of the reform initiatives are already in motion in Colorado, many states are looking to build and implement components of Colorado's education reform package in their own states. In particular, states are looking to Colorado's Great Teachers and Great Leaders Bill (SB-191) as a model for how to develop educator effectiveness systems and to Colorado's Educational Accountability Act (SB-163) for how to develop accountability and support systems. Within the latter, other states are particularly interested in Colorado's use of growth data within its accountability system. Nineteen other states have already signed on to use the Colorado Growth Model. They share the value that Colorado places on being able to measure how much progress students make towards proficiency and college- and career-readiness.