September 12, 2011 Elementary and Secondary Education Act Waiver Consideration No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the

current iteration of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), has served as a catalyst for constructive debate and action on educational issues such as school and district performance, teacher quality, English language acquisition, and choice options for students. However, Congress has failed to act on the long overdue reauthorization of ESEA. Significant NCLB provisions have now become outdated and the constraints of the law prevent many from moving innovative strategies for improvement forward. Because of the delay in reauthorization, Secretary of Education Duncan has made clear his intent to consider waivers to ESEA provisions and requirements that were previously considered out of bounds. The Colorado Department of Education (CDE) believes we should take advantage of this opportunity and asks for the support of the State Board of Education (SBE) in making this request. In recent years, the SBE, CDE, and Colorados General Assembly have taken steps to significantly reform Colorados system of accountability for schools and districts. Some examples include: The Colorado Growth Model that strengthens our ability to gauge students progress toward proficiency U.S. Department of Education approval to use Colorados Growth Model as an additional method to identify schools and districts for Title I Improvement Enactment of CAP4K, SB08- 212, that resulted in leaner, clearer standards and a more comprehensive assessment system focused on college and career readiness Enactment of the Education Accountability Act of 2009, SB09- 163, which established performance frameworks for the annual evaluation of school and district performance and timelines for improvement, and created alignments between the state and federal accountability systems The launching of SchoolView, a web portal that provides parents, educators, and the general public with access to a wealth of information regarding school and district performance Development of the Unified Improvement Planning template, a tool that aligns state and federal improvement planning requirements into a single document Enactment of SB10- 191, which will help to ensure that every building has a strong leader and every classroom has an effective teacher In creating and implementing these reforms, the SBE, CDE, and state legislature have gone to great lengths to maximize the alignment of the state and federal systems of accountability. However, Colorado continues to implement a dual accountability system consisting of: Two sets of criteria state and federal - that are used to assess school and district performance Schools and districts that are identified as in need of improvement under one system but not the other

Two sets of labels, timelines and consequences for schools and districts identified for Improvement Mixed messages to students, parents, and educators regarding school and district performance Choices options for students in some underperforming schools but not in others An inability to target resources to the schools and districts that most need them Unnecessary, duplicative and wasteful administrative burdens on schools, districts, and the state

For these reasons, CDE proposes to submit a comprehensive waiver package to the U.S. Department of Education (USDE) that replaces most of NCLBs school and district accountability requirements with Colorados accountability system. Specifically, CDE will request permission to: Section 1111 - Replace NCLB adequate yearly progress with modified state school and district performance frameworks Section 3122 Replace Title III annual measurable achievement objectives with State measures of progress toward English language attainment Section 1116 Use state accreditation rules instead of NCLB school and district improvement consequences and timelines, and expand choice options to non-Title I schools Section 1003 (a) and (g) - Target NCLB school improvement resources to schools and districts identified by the state as among the lowest performing 15%, regardless of Title I status Section 2123(a) and (b) and EDGAR 76.700 Use Title II, Part A funds in support of the development and implementation of an educator evaluation system that focuses on increasing educator effectiveness Comparison of ESEA and State Accountability Requirements
Goal ESEA All students proficient in reading and math by 201314 Partially proficient or above Adequate yearly progress State System All students on track for th proficiency by 10 grade and college and career- ready by exit Proficient and above School and district performance frameworks Weights growth and college/career readiness over status, considers indicators outside of status, Disaggregates performance by student groups in growth. Rating system with four possible ratings for each indicator and four plan types SB9- 163/SB Rules State law provides for intraand inter-district school choice Proposed All students on track for th proficiency by 10 grade and college and careerready by exit Proficient and above Modified school/ district performance frameworks*

Student target for accountability Assessment of school/district performance criteria

School and district improvement Choices for students in schools identified for Improvement

Weights status over growth, considers few indicators outside of status, comprehensively disaggregates performance by student groups, considers English language proficiency Pass/Fail system NCLB, Sec. 1116 Public School Choice Transportation and Supplemental Educations Services paid for by Title I ESEA Approximately $11 million

SB9- 163/SB9-163 Rules State law and School Choice Transportation and Supplemental Educational Services paid for by Title I Proposed Allow Title I school

Funds for schools

State System Provides no funds for schools

and districts identified for improvement

Funds for educator evaluation system

annually in Title I school improvement funds to support schools and districts identified for Title I Improvement Approximately $26 million in NCLB Title II funds

and districts identified for Improvement

Provides no additional funds for school and district implementation

improvement funds to flow to schools and districts identified for Improvement using state performance frameworks Allow state and local Title II funds to be used in support of the development and implementation of educator evaluation systems

*School and district performance frameworks will be evaluated and strengthened to: Ensure proper weighting and rigor across the four performance indicators Adequately account for academic performance among disaggregated groups of students Incorporate measures of progress toward English language proficiency among English language learners

If granted, the ESEA waivers will affect the number of schools and districts that are identified as in need of improvement. As noted above, without waivers, Colorado must use both state and federal measures to annually assess school and district performance. Some schools and districts are identified for improvement under one system but not by the other and some are identified for improvement under both systems. With the waivers, Colorado would only use the states modified performance frameworks. The table below delineates the number of schools and districts identified by the federal system (NCLB) in the 2010-11 school year as well as the potential impact of the waivers on the number of school and district improvement designations.
2010-11 Identified by school year NCLB Title IA status (09-10) data Schools 202 Districts 85 * Turnaround and Priority Improvement Total identified without waiver (state and NCLB) 372 91 Total that would be identified with waiver (state only)* 241 24

By taking advantage of the ESEA waiver opportunity in a strategic manner, Colorado will be able to improve upon the outdated accountability provisions of NCLB and move ahead with an accountability system that more effectively serves the citizens of Colorado. Colorados new accountability system will: Target college and career readiness, not partial proficiency Focus on student progress catch up, keep up, and move up Maintain and expand choice options for students in struggling schools Focus resources on all schools and districts that most need them Cut red tape; streamline and simplify the accountability system Reduce administrative costs and burdens for schools and districts and the State Be accessible, meaningful and useful to parents and educators CDE will not move ahead with its waiver request without the support of the Colorado State Board of Education. However, CDE believes Colorado should take advantage of this opportunity and asks for your support.

Projected timeline for USDE ESEA waiver process Action CDE internal analysis of the impact and legality of potential waiver requests CDEs review potential waiver request with State Board CDE sends summary of potential waiver request to USDE USDE releases call for state ESEA waiver requests CDE development of Colorados waiver request CDE sends out notice inviting public and stakeholder comment regarding Colorados waiver request Window for public and stakeholder comment closes CDE submits Colorados waiver request to USDE State waiver requests due to USDE USDE reviews Colorados waiver request USDE provides decision on Colorados waiver request If approved, CDE begins waiver implementation Timeline August to mid-September, 2011

Early September, 2011 Early September, 2011 Mid-September, 2011 September to late October, 2011 Mid-September, 2011 Mid-October, 2011 Late October, 2011 Late October, 2011 November, December, 2011 By December 31, 2011 January, 2012