Guest blogger Christine Wolfe served in the George W. Bush Administration as the Associate Deputy Secretary for Policy and is currently President of Wolfe Policy Consulting.
In June I wrote about how, instead of a complicated waiver process, the Department of Education should simply consider not enforcing some of the most contentious NCLB policies, such as the requirement to reach 100 percent proficiency by 2014.? For example the Department could ?issue a statement that, as a ?matter of policy' it will allow states to freeze their AYP annual measurable objectives (AMOs) for one year or so, or perhaps until reauthorization, without creating huge hoops to jump through to get that flexibility.?
[pullquote]In other words, ED?does not intend to enforce the requirement that states increase their AMOs. Ditto for Highly Qualified Teachers requirements, which also won't be enforced.[/pullquote]On Tuesday, the Department did just that.? Well, it ignored that part about not creating a complicated waiver process.? However, in the PowerPoint presentation for states about the new ESEA Flexibility the Department indicated that it will provide states with one year of relief and will not require them to increase their AMOs. In other words, ED does not intend to enforce the requirement that states increase their AMOs.? Ditto for Highly Qualified Teachers requirements, which also won't be enforced.
What is not yet clear, though, is whether a state is required to apply for waivers in order to get this one-year relief.? The Department says that ?If [a state] needs additional time to plan for implementation of the flexibility package, it may request approval to use the same AMOs for AYP determinations in the 2011-2012 school year."
Given that ED can't actually require a state to submit a waiver application, as is typically the case, the intent deadline may not be all that meaningful in determining who will apply?especially if declaring an ?intent? to apply opens the door to short-term flexibility.
It is also difficult to imagine that the Department will require a ?non-waiver? state, after holding its AMO flat for one year, to then continue to increase it when other states have redesigned accountability systems and are no longer using AYP.? The next AMO increase, 2012-13, will also be after the next Presidential election and it is possible ESEA would be reauthorized in 2013, if not this year.
So, if there's a state out there that is concerned about the resources required to apply for the ESEA waiver package, perhaps the easier route is to take the breathing room on AMOs?Easy Flex, instead of the Administration's ESEA flex.
As a footnote, it turns out that the Department of Education did actually approve Idaho's request to hold AMOs flat.? But it came up with legal rationale to permit it as simply an accountability workbook amendment.? It was able to do this since Idaho would be adding one more year of the same AMO for a total of three years, as permitted by law, and since it would stay on the same trajectory to 100 percent proficiency.
-Christy Wolfe