The State Board of Education has approved a new streamlined waiver policy, aiming to expedite the process by putting waiver requests on a “consent” file with little or no debate.
The new policy attempts to get the conversation started on allowing greater local control and flexibility. This would not be limited to waiving just one section of the Education Code but could involve numerous sections.
SBE has the authority to waive many, but not all, provisions of the Education Code. The action seems to be encouraging districts to act boldly and provide a vision of what they can do to close the achievement gap and increase student progress given greater local flexibility.
Board discussion
During the September meeting debate, ACSA, the California School Boards Association and the Suburban School Districts Association all spoke in favor of increased flexibility, even though the policy is moderate in nature.
ACSA and these other statewide groups strongly advocated against using federal Adequate Yearly Progress as part of the criteria. The SBE agreed, and eliminated AYP from the proposed draft. ACSA strongly advocated for not only putting waivers on consent but expediting and shortening the process.
The California Teachers Association opposed the policy, citing concerns that the SBE is exceeding its authority. Public Advocates and Californians Together expressed concerns that local districts may not protect minority students if given such broad waiver authority.
In the end, the board approved the policy with modifications based on the discussion on an 8-1 vote. Board member Ken Noonan, a retired district superintendent, voted no. Noonan was concerned the bar of 800 on the Academic Performance Index would institutionalize a bias against districts doing great work but that fall below that 800 score.
Waiver policy criteria calls for districts to achieve an API score of 800 or above in the current scoring cycle.
Schools within the district must achieve an API score of 800 or above in the current scoring cycle and meet API targets for all subgroups, or successfully meet API growth targets in three out of the past five years at an individual school.
It is not yet clear if SBE will identify certain code sections it will or will not waiver under this policy. The board is seeking advice from a stakeholders group comprised primarily of district superintendents. It should be noted that this policy in no way interferes with or prohibits the right of a district to bring forth a waiver request whether it meets this criteria or not, and for any reason deemed important to the district.
Conditions and requirements
Schools that meet the waiver criteria cannot apply independently for waivers from the district. If schools have interest in waivers they must go through their district and local governing board. The district will continue to follow all the same requirements for waiver requests.
The waiver request can be pulled off the SBE consent file by any member of the public, and the public will have the right to comment on the waiver request. Waivers granted under this policy will be for two years, less one day. Many waivers are for just one year, so this is an added advantage. State waiver workgroup
A yet to be fully defined working group will be formed, primarily comprising district superintendents and other stakeholders to identify what aspects of the Education Code impede success in schools and districts and what codes are helpful.
There is also the intent that the workgroup could assist the SBE with additional waiver opportunities for districts that do not meet the waiver criteria and to assist in finding areas of the Ed Code that need revisions.
Questions remain
Some eligible districts are asking to what extent this new policy will be worth the time locally to prepare the waiver package, given a number of unanswered questions.
ACSA’s view is that this is an important first step in what should be an ongoing dialogue about how the Education Code and certain funding streams have tied the hands of local administrators and boards.