A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

II. Progress Under Waivers

State Reports: Flexibility in Exchange for Accountability

After two years, and each subsequent year under a waiver, LEAs are required to report progress annually to their states and the states, in turn, are required to report to the Department. For each waiver, states are required to submit an annual report that:

• Describes how all affected schools continued to provide assistance to the same populations served by the programs for which waivers were granted; and

• Evaluates the progress of school districts and of affected schools in improving the quality of instruction or the academic performance of students.

The Department received state reports from the 15 states required to substantiate progress made under waivers granted beginning in the 1995-96 school year. In the reports, districts and states described changes in the quality of instruction or the academic performance of students affected by waivers and reported whether or not schools had made "adequate yearly progress" during the waiver period ^{[ 9 ]}.

According to the reports from the 15 states on behalf of 60 LEAs, 72 percent of the schools for which information was provided made adequate yearly progress (as defined by each state) in the 1995-96 school year; 67 percent of schools affected by waivers for the 1996-97 school year (for which information was provided) made adequate yearly progress in 1996-97. Adequate yearly progress was not reported for 50 schools for the 1995-96 school year and was not reported for 86 schools for 1996-97 school year.

For this current reporting period on waivers "adequate yearly progress" proves a difficult way to evaluate the progress of districts and schools operating under waivers. First, since final state assessment systems are not required to be in place until the 2000-2001 school year, many states are still in the process of defining what it means for schools to make adequate yearly progress. The varying number of schools that meet or fail to meet, adequate yearly progress standards from year to year is sometimes a result of shifting definitions rather than changing student achievement. Second, because definitions of adequate yearly progress differ across states, it is hard to determine whether schools operating under waivers across the nation are making comparable progress.

Because measures of adequate yearly progress are still evolving, the Department also invited states to submit narrative reports on how waivers have contributed to improved teaching and learning in the affected districts and schools. The examples below highlight improvements reported as a result of waivers:

• Burbank School District 111 in Illinois received a three-year waiver beginning in the 1995-96 school year permitting the District to provide Title I services at three otherwise ineligible elementary schools and to make Title I allocations below the 125 percent minimum required per pupil allocation. The waiver permitted the District to provide an extended day reading program for students below the 25th percentile in reading on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) at all of its seven elementary schools. With the waiver, student performance on school assessments and on the ITBS improved. Since the waiver took effect, 72 percent of the first through third graders involved in the program received a 70 percent or better in reading on their report cards and half of the participants in the reading program raised their scores to at or above the 25th percentile on the ITBS. Students who participated in a five-week summer school program had an average gain shown by pre- and post-tests of over five months for both the summer of 1996 and the summer of 1997. All seven schools made adequate yearly progress as defined by the State of Illinois in both 1996 and 1997.

• The Minnesota Department of Children, Youth, and Families received a waiver in 1995 allowing them to consolidate administrative funds for Bilingual Education and Emergency Immigrant Education with other Federal funds used to administer Federal programs. This consolidation allowed the State to train ten program specialists, called Area Directors, who provide comprehensive technical assistance to districts in their regions that serve limited English proficient populations. Minnesota is now in the process of gathering baseline achievement data for all students, including LEP students, using the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments as a measure of student.

• In 1995, a waiver of the mathematics and science priority of the Eisenhower Professional Development program in Title II of the ESEA was granted to Northwest Tri-County Intermediate Unit in Pennsylvania. The waiver allowed the consortium of schools to use a larger portion of Title II funds than the law allows for professional development outside the area of mathematics and science activities. As a result of the waiver, approximately 300 educators participated in professional development on the State's writing assessment. Even with the waiver, the consortium has used approximately 70 percent of its Eisenhower professional development funds for mathematics and science in the years since receiving the waiver.

• The Hempfield School District in Landisville, Pennsylvania received a waiver beginning in the 1995-96 school year allowing them to serve two ineligible elementary schools, Landisville and Mountville elementary schools, which are both below the district-wide average poverty rate. Because of the waiver, the district was able to provide an early intervention program focusing on beginning literacy in these schools just as it had in its other four elementary schools. Based on data collected from the 1995-96 school year, an additional 64 first-grade students were served by this program. Of those students, 30 percent improved enough to exit the program. Fifty-two percent will continue receiving Title I services through second grade. Other students will receive periodic support from less intensive reading support services.

• Conestoga Valley School District in Lancaster, Pennsylvania was granted a waiver allowing the district to provide Title I services to Brownstown Elementary School even though the number of low-income students at the school fell below the district-wide poverty average. In addition to being able to serve Title I students at Brownstown, the waiver allowed the district to allocate funds based on the programs' actual operating expenses. With the waiver, Brownstown became an Instructional Support building and received additional staff development. Trained reading volunteers provide extra assistance to students and teacher workshops helped teachers with reading and writing strategies. Brownstown's student achievement data for 1996-97 shows a 33 percent increase over 1995-96 in the number of students scoring proficient and above in three reading tasks.

• The Waiver Board granted Highlands School District in Natrona Heights, Pennsylvania a waiver to provide Title I services to the otherwise ineligible Fawn Elementary School. Under the waiver, the school was able to provide a reading specialist, instructional support teachers, a counselor, and other support services at the school. The overall student achievement ratings at Fawn have increased since the waiver was granted. The percentage of children reaching the "proficient" or "advanced" levels on the district assessment has increased from 17 percent in 1995 to 69 percent in 1996 and 74 percent in 1997. All elementary schools in the district have continued to make adequate yearly progress during the period of the waiver.

Footnotes:

^{[ 9 ]} According to section 1111(b)(2); ?200.3 of the ESEA, each state must develop a measure of 'adequate yearly progress' for schools that indicates whether the school is making continuous and substantial improvement toward the goal of all children meeting proficient and advanced levels of performance on the state's assessment. [ Return to text ]

-###-

[ Other Waivers granted... ] [ The Department's Administration... ]

Return to OESE Archived Information