Various education-focused organizations, as well as government officials, have been questioning the recent policy of Education secretary Arne Duncan and the Obama Administration to provide waivers to those states who have not been able to meet the standards laid out by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Originally, NCLB laid out the goal of 100 percent proficiency for all students in math and reading by the end of the 2013-14 school year. In exchange for not being held to this unattainably high standard, the Obama administration has been offering plans in which states are required to intervene in the 15 percent of the lowest-performing schools, focus on closing achievement gaps, and implement teacher- and principal-evaluation systems that are based in part on student performance.
One of the specific areas of concern about the flexibility of the waiver system is that of graduation rates. In 2008, the Education Department, still under President Bush’s appointee Margaret Spellings, clarified NCLB’s perspective on the importance of high school graduation. At that time, the graduation rate was defined as the number of students who finish high school with a regular diploma within four years, and an addition of an extended-year graduation rate with ambitious goals for that period of time. The recent waivers have not officially changed these 2008 policies, which also urged states to adhere in a uniform fashion. However, a look at state policies confirms that states may be abusing the flexibility granted to them, and recent pleas to the Education Department from noteworthy organizations and individuals highlight this concern.
“An erosion of the bipartisan progress made in the area of high school graduation-rate accountability is an unacceptable byproduct of this [waiver] policy,” states a September 21 letter from 36 business, civil rights, and education groups, which include the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Council of La Raza, and the National School Boards Association.
In his letter from the same day to Secretary Duncan, George Miller, the senior House Democrat on the House Education and the Workforce Committee, wrote: “Of most immediate concern are those new state accountability systems approved by [the Education Department] that I believe undermine the role of graduation rates in determining school performance, are not supported by research or best practice, and erode the recent progress states have made on improving graduation rates.”
The only response from the Education Department was to refer those with concerns to a response letter to Rep. Miller, which states that the Education Department will “vigilantly monitor states to make sure their kids are getting over the bar and graduating them.”
A sample of state divergence from the official policy on graduation rates indicates why so many groups have brought their concerns to the Education Department:
- Louisiana and South Dakota use GED rates as part of their graduation rates.
- Several states allow for longer than four years to graduate, including Colorado allowing up to seven years.
- A wide range (from 10% in Michigan to 30% in Nevada) exists in the weight that graduation rates are given in the overall accountability system.
The Education Department has demanded some responses from some of these states of particular concern in return for the waivers, but for the most part, these have been only superficial. The perspective of some of the states, that of direct opposition to Education Department regulations, can be summed up by Colorado department of education spokeswoman, Megan McDermott: “We don’t want an accountability system that says, ‘If you can’t do it in four years, then it doesn’t count.’”
For more information, please see: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/10/31/10graduation.h32.html?cmp=ENL-EU-SUBCNT
