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

APPENDIX B: Education Flexibility Demonstration Program (Ed-Flex)

Background

The Department administers waivers through authorities in each of the three Acts listed above. Through these authorities, States, districts, and schools apply to use federal funds or meet legislative requirements in a manner that is consistent with the intents and purposes of the authorizing legislation but differs from some of the more specific requirements. The purpose of granting waivers through these authorities is to give States, districts, or schools a greater opportunity to further student achievement and meet related goals (such as a reduction in the achievement gap between different student populations or an increase in the level of community participation) in the most effective manner possible. These authorities enable jurisdictions to seek alternative approaches to federal requirements in instances in which the requirements have an unintended impact due to the unique context of the State, district, or school, or when the jurisdictions wish to implement innovative strategies for furthering student achievement and these strategies conflict with specific requirements. In each of these instances, waiver recipients are accountable for meeting the intents and purposes of the legislation and furthering student achievement and related goals. (For more information on waivers granted through the Department's waiver authorities, please see the "Waiver Report to Congress," which was published on 9/30/97 and will be updated and republished by 9/30/98.)

The Educational Flexibility Demonstration Program (Ed-Flex) is similar to the other waiver authorities administered by the Department with one notable and significant exception; the State rather than the Department is the entity provided with the authority to decide whether a requested waiver meets the intents and purposes of the legislation and holds reasonable promise for increasing student achievement and meeting related academic goals. Through Section 311(e) of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, the Secretary has delegated to 12 States (the maximum number allowed by statute) the authority to waive for their school districts and schools statutory and regulatory requirements of certain programs of ESEA and the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act and general administrative regulations applicable to these programs.⁽⁶⁾ To be eligible to receive Ed-Flex authority, a State educational agency must have an approved Goals 2000 comprehensive improvement plan and possess the authority to waive State education requirements. The twelve States that have been delegated Ed-Flex authority are Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, and Vermont.

While the Ed-Flex waiver authority is broad, certain fundamental requirements may not be waived, including those pertaining to health, safety, and civil rights, provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and requirements relating to parental participation and involvement. Before a State may grant a waiver of any program requirement, it must determine that the underlying purposes of the affected program would continue to be met. States also may not waive requirements pertaining to the SEA; Ed-Flex provides them with the authority to waive requirements of districts and schools.

Each Ed-Flex State is required to report annually on its monitoring of waivers. Through these reports, States have provided information about how Ed-Flex has supported the implementation of standards-based reform. Ed-Flex States are also required to report on the achievement results of schools and districts that have had waivers in place for two school years. Because many States did not receive or begin implementing their Ed-Flex authority until after the 1995-96 school year began, few States have any information to report on student achievement changes in districts receiving waivers; it is anticipated that State annual reports submitted for 1998 will have a great deal more information on student achievement.

Ed-Flex Supports Comprehensive Standards-Based Reform

As noted at the beginning of the main body of this report, standards-based reform is centered on three basic principles:

• Students learn best when they, their teachers, administrators, and the community share clear and common expectations for education. States, districts, and schools need to agree on challenging content and performance standards that define what children should know and be able to do.
• Student achievement improves in environments that support learning to high expectations. The instructional system must support fulfillment of those expectations. School improvement efforts need to include broad parent and community involvement and the organization of the school, coordinated and aligned resources--including educational technology, teacher preparation and professional development, curriculum and instruction, and assessments--all aligned to agreed upon standards.
• Student success stems from concentrating on results. Education systems must be designed to focus and report on progress in meeting the pre-set standards. Education reform needs to be results oriented through reliable and aligned means that answer the critical, bottom-line question: to what extent are students and schools meeting the standards? Continuous improvement requires carefully developed accountability systems for interpreting and responding to results and supporting improved student performance for all children.

The State Ed-Flex reports submitted to the Department identify three primary ways that Ed-Flex supports standards-based reform.

1) Ed-Flex facilitates the coordination of programs and strengthens the planning process.

In Oregon, the State simplified its planning and application structure so that districts can develop a single plan that meets State planning requirements, consolidates the application for federal funds, and requests waivers of both federal and State requirements. The plan is driven by student needs, identified through the State's standards-based assessment process.

Kent County (Maryland) School District identified a trend in reading and math performance of middle school students who transitioned from two elementary schools. After looking at assessment results, student disruption data, community profiles, and other indicators, district planners realized that their greatest need was for better coordination of student support services and improved reading and math instruction at the elementary schools and the middle school. Though all three schools had a poverty rate slightly below the eligibility threshold for implementation of Title I schoolwide programs, the district sought and received a waiver to operate schoolwide programs in these schools; all had undergone the comprehensive planning needed for effectively implementing schoolwide approaches. The waiver enables the district to provide continuity and greater coordination of federal, State, and local resources in the schools. Now there are transitional opportunities for students coming from the two elementary schools, increased instruction in reading and mathematics in both schools, professional development for teachers in both schools concerning effective reading and math curricula, teaching strategies, assessment measures, and additional guidance services in the middle school.

The experience of administrators in Kent County is echoed in Colorado, Texas, Ohio, Michigan, and other Ed-Flex States, where the focus is on using Ed-Flex to promote schoolwide programs. These programs offer the greatest flexibility of all, enabling a school to use federal, State, and local funds together to focus on improving the whole school with standards-based reform strategies and doing so with minimal administrative burden.

2) Ed-Flex provides the opportunity for States to streamline the administration of programs.

3) Ed-Flex supports the use of resources in a way that can, together with the implementation of standards-based approaches, lead to increased student achievement and a reduction in the gap in achievement between different populations.

One of the key provisions of Ed-Flex waivers is the requirement that applicants demonstrate specific, measurable effects that will be achieved through the use of the waivers (with the help of other strategies). By focusing on accountability for improved student performance in exchange for increased flexibility, Ed-Flex--and waivers in general--signals that results are a far better measure of the effective use of resources than are the specific strategies used to implement programs. Thus, this results-focused accountability helps to draw attention to improving student achievement.

For example, in Texas students are assessed each year at multiple grades and in multiple subjects on the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS). Data from the TAAS and other indicators (such as student dropout rates) are disaggregated for various student populations and reported to the public. From the results of these assessments and other indicators, each district and school in Texas is rated annually as exemplary, recognized, academically acceptable, or academically unacceptable. Based on this State system of accountability, districts and schools that receive Ed-Flex waivers are expected to make performance gains that exceed those established for districts and schools to be considered academically acceptable. 

In Texas, as in other States, the use of waivers is not sufficient to improve student achievement. However, in conjunction with effective standards-based approaches to improving teaching and learning, waivers (whether through the Department's authorities or through Ed-Flex) can contribute to increases in student achievement. In annual reports to be submitted in early 1999, achievement data will be available from nearly every State and this will indicate whether the trends identified in Texas are also found in other States.

Ed-Flex Waiver Activity in the Twelve States

Finally, there are vastly different numbers of districts from one State to another and waivers can be requested both by schools and districts. While Maryland has fewer than 30 districts, Texas has over 1,000. Also, three waivers to large school districts may affect a large number of schools, but appear to represent a less significant use of the waiver authority than ten individual school waivers. Thus, the number of waivers does not completely demonstrate the extent of waiver activity in a State.

As indicated in the above table, there have been slightly more requests for waivers than approved waivers. With the exception of a handful of requests, this difference is explained by waivers that were requested but not needed due to the fact that the proposed activity is already allowable under current law. (Some States indicate a much larger number of such requests, though they were not reported because the SEA was able to provide clarity regarding what is currently allowable.) Such requests indicate that there are a significant number of districts and schools that are not using the existing flexibility in the legislation simply because they are unaware of it.

*Texas awarded an additional 3,788 administrative waivers.

The lack of waiver activity in Illinois, Iowa, and Michigan is largely due to the fact that these States only very recently received Ed-Flex authority. While not indicated in the table because it occurred in 1998, in Michigan a State-wide waiver has been approved to lower the Title I schoolwide program eligibility threshold. Nearly 100 schools have stated an intent to utilize this waiver.

In each of the States where there are a significantly larger number of waivers, the State has utilized its authority to grant waivers on a State-wide basis. State-wide authority provides the State with the ability to pre-approve a specific type of waiver, and districts then need only indicate their intent to utilize the waiver and be accountable for it, as directed by the State. Texas has made the most significant use of these types of waivers, granting waivers of eight types of programmatic requirements, resulting in a total of 379 waivers.

Texas has also used State-wide waivers of administrative requirements, granting four types of these waivers, resulting in a total of 3,788 waivers. Administrative requirements are general education regulations that apply to multiple programs; for example, the requirement that a district obtain prior approval from the SEA when it desires to transfer more than ten percent of its total budget in a given program from one budget category to another category (such as from equipment to salaries). Under this waiver, the Texas Education Agency permitted districts to forego obtaining prior approval for transfers up to 25 percent of the total budget for a given program. Audits and other forms of oversight that occur after a district has expended funds maintain a check to ensure that funds are expended in accordance with requirements not waived.

Another reason that may be contributing to Texas having granted such a significant number of waivers relative to other States is that Texas has established clear accountability requirements for each type of waiver. Thus, any district electing to utilize a State-wide waiver has clear expectations for how they will be held accountable.

The States that have granted relatively few waivers offer several possible explanations. Some States say that while waivers help schools and districts believe they have greater flexibility, the ways they wish to use this flexibility are already available under current law. Others note that it has been very difficult to provide enough information to the appropriate staff in districts and schools on waivers and how they might be used. Many States note that the provisions for which districts would most like waivers, such as certain provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, are not covered by Ed-Flex. Similarly, a couple of States have noted that there are inconsistencies in the programs covered in Ed-Flex, consolidated planning options, and schoolwide programs and that these differences create confusion that stymies creativity and change. One additional explanation could be that there are instances in which districts do not want to be held to the accountability provisions associated with a given waiver.

The following table indicates that the overwhelming majority of programmatic waivers have been for Title I requirements, and of these most waivers were made to allow schools below 50 percent poverty to become eligible to operate schoolwide programs. Schools often seek these waivers because operating a schoolwide program offers increased opportunities to support comprehensive efforts to upgrade an entire school and more effectively help to improve the achievement levels of the lowest achieving students. In addition, schoolwide programs offer tremendous flexibility in the use of federal funds from multiple programs to carry out this whole-school approach.

**Note: It is anticipated that approximately 85 waivers of this type will be granted early in 1998.

The two other most frequent types of programmatic waivers are for within-district allocations of Title I funds and for the use of Title II professional development funds to support subject areas other than mathematics and science (subjects which the law targets as a priority for funding and for which, at current funding levels, the majority of the funds must be used). Waivers for within-district allocations of Title I dollars enable a district to allocate Title I funds to schools on a basis other than required school poverty data. Examples for why such a waiver is made are to target the funds more directly to areas where achievement is low or to provide temporary services to a school that will soon be affected by redistricting. The Title II waiver enables a district to first identify the subject areas where achievement is low and to fund professional development in these areas. Often, a district receiving such a waiver uses funds to bolster training for teachers in reading and is held accountable for ensuring that reading scores improve and that scores for math and science (the subject areas of priority in the legislation) are maintained or improved.

While States are required to be able to waive State requirements in order to be eligible to receive Ed-Flex authority, most of the State waivers granted have been unrelated to the waivers made through Ed-Flex. Many State waivers are for requirements such as those regarding the length of the school day and school year. In Maryland, there were modifications made in the use of State Compensatory Education funds so that the use of these funds aligned with funds made available through Ed-Flex waivers to support schoolwide programs in some high schools in Baltimore City.

Summary Observations

1) Well-developed State accountability systems appear to support effective implementation of Ed-Flex.

Several States, including Maryland, Oregon, and Texas, have developed State-wide assessment and accountability systems that focus efforts on improving student achievement and coordinating resources to do so. In Texas, and to a lesser extent in the other two States, there has been widespread use of certain waivers to further standards-based reform strategies and a system to ensure that the waivers are improving student achievement. The achievement data collected after the first year of implementation of waivers in Texas demonstrate that its accountability system can influence decision- making to support teaching and learning. Without such a State system of accountability, it may be much more difficult for a State to ensure that there is adequate accountability for the flexibility provided.

2) Waivers provide the greatest promise when used in the context of strong local planning efforts.

Comments from many States emphasize that in order for waivers to be valuable tools for improving student achievement, they must be a part of a comprehensive planning effort to utilize all available funds to improve the achievement of all students. Waivers can support coordinated planning processes such as that available through ESEA. The following comment is made in the Illinois report:

Waivers of program requirements should not be promoted as a solution for all problems a school or district may be experiencing; waiver opportunities should be viewed as one component of overall school improvement efforts. Waivers requested without the benefit of a viable, comprehensive school improvement plan may not result in positive, effective improvement.

3) There appears to be substantial flexibility inherent in the programs subject to waiver.

The limited number of waivers that have been sought and granted in some States and comments from the State administrators indicate that there is already a great deal of flexibility in the programs covered by Ed-Flex. It appears that one of the barriers to the use of this flexibility is the lack of awareness among staff in districts and schools of what the law allows and how these opportunities can be utilized.

4) States vary significantly in the manner in which they promote and utilize Ed-Flex.

While some Ed-Flex States are actively promoting Ed-Flex and assisting districts in how to use it to effectively promote improved student achievement, other States have taken a more hands-off approach and have left the waiver opportunities almost entirely in the hands of the districts.

5) There appear to be benefits from delegating federal waiver authority to States instead of operating waiver authorities through the Department.

With Ed-Flex, participating States can integrate their authority to waive federal rules with their own processes for waiving State rules. They can also link approval of waivers to State school reform initiatives and State accountability systems. Similarly, since State educational agencies usually have closer relationships with school districts than the Federal government does, they may be better positioned to provide technical assistance to districts exploring or operating under waivers. By having a number of States administer waivers, there is greater opportunity for innovation in how the waiver authority is administered, the way information about waivers is disseminated, the development and implementation of strategies for linking waivers to standards-based reform, and how waiver recipients are held accountable.

In conclusion, the use of Ed-Flex and other waivers represents a marked increase in the flexibility available to States. Whether this flexibility will help to increase student achievement appears to depend on the extent to which waivers are part of a set of standards-based reform strategies and that there is a strong accountability system that is used to ensure that waivers result in improved academic performance.

Footnotes:

6. Enacted in 1994, the Goals 2000: Educate America Act authorized the Secretary to select six States to participate in Ed-Flex; the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996 expanded the allowable number of Ed-Flex States to twelve.
-###-

[Appendix A]

[Appendix C]