Generally waivers are seen as a device that makes things go somewhat easier, but that may not be the correct way to interpret the one that now applies to the state’s No Child Left Behind educational directive.
Last week the state Department of Education received approval for its waiver from key provisions of the 12-year-old federal educational mandate. In its place will be what officials describe as more comprehensive measures, a program dubbed Strive HI Performance System.
That is undeniably good news, given that it had been long established that the one-size-fits-all approach of No Child did not fit Hawaii very well at all. All but five states have applied for the same kind of waiver, with 37 of them already approved.
Every school district in the country faced No Child’s looming deadline of 2014 to get all students proficient in math and language arts, according to the law’s criteria. The exemption means that deadline is lifted, as are the increasing, often punitive schedule of consequences meted out to schools that fall short.
No Child Left Behind provided a needed push for schools to boost academic performance, but clearly something hasn’t been working here if almost everybody wants out.
Among other chief complaints of the state DOE, at least, was that NCLB simply wasn’t up to the task of preparing students for jobs and college, whichever path they choose. That assessment comes from the people in the thick of the department’s educational reform program, including Board of Education Chairman Don Horner and the DOE’s Stephen Schatz, directing the development of federally funded "Race to the Top" reform initiatives.
One problem, Schatz said, is that NCLB places emphasis fully on math and language arts, often to the detriment of other educational facets that are also important to success.
That sounds right. The drive to hit benchmarks in two areas — which educators sometimes call "teaching to the test" — has crowded out classes in the arts, technical fields and other areas. A narrow educational focus can’t fully serve the students planning to work after graduation, for whom success may require other skills as well.
It doesn’t even serve the college-bound, Schatz added, because universities are often looking for evidence of a well-rounded student experience.
Key to winning approval for Strive HI, and for similar systems designed by other states, was convincing federal authorities that the new system would be at least as rigorous as the old. Hawaii’s plan raises the bar rather than lowers it by folding additional tests into the assessment of the school’s performance. In addition to the Hawaii State Assessment reading and math scores used by No Child, the measures also will include:
» End-of-course science assessments.
» Eighth- and 11th-grade scores in the ACT standardized tests in reading, English, math and science.
» Chronic absenteeism — "Students can’t learn it if they’re not in class," Horner said.
» High school graduation rates.
» College enrollment.
State educators correctly point out that some of the NCLB criteria are simply arbitrary and unreasonable. In order for schools to be found making "adequate yearly progress," all the subgroups in the school population have to hit the mark. Horner pointed to his favorite example: At Moanalua High School, a generally high-performing school, the subpar scores of a few students in the special education subgroup meant the entire school essentially was deemed a failure.
No wonder school districts are bailing out in droves.
Further, Schatz said, the new system factors performance growth into the measure of success. The require- ment to show improvement applies across the board now, too. No Child schools that meet AYP have nothing further to prove, but Strive HI will track improvement by the high-achievers as well.
What’s critical now is that the more finely tuned measures be used to direct attention where it is most needed in a given school. The consequence of failure is more pointed now, Horner said: It factors into faculty and administrative job evaluations.
Strive HI promises to be a more effective driver of change in education. Signposts are clearer, and now it’s up to education leaders, and the public they serve, to follow them closely and respond to what they tell us.
