Torlakson, Kirst write letter supporting nine-district NCLB waiver | EdSource Today:
by John Fensterwald
A waiver would give the districts flexibility to use more than $100 million of federal Title I money for low-income children and to propose creative ways to improve their lowest performing schools. It would also free them from other NCLB penalties, such as notifying parents that their schools are failures. The nine unified districts are Los Angeles, Fresno, Long Beach, San Francisco, Clovis, Sanger, Sacramento City, Oakland and Santa Ana.
State Board of Education President Michael Kirst and State Superintendent Tom Torlakson expressed support Friday for nine districts’ application for a waiver from the No Child Left Behind law. In letter to the U.S. Department of Education, they also raised questions about how the waiver would be implemented and enforced.
While stating that they would have preferred that Congress revise NCLB (or the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as it’s formally known), which they called a failure, Kirst and Torlakson wrote that “absent such action by Congress we are supportive of any attempt that will grant California’s local education agencies the relief they need.”
The CORE waiver proposal is based on three principles: 1) College- and career-ready expectations for all students, 2) State developed differentiated recognition, accountability and support, and 3) Supporting effective instruction and leadership. Source: CORE PowerPoint (Click to enlarge).
The districts, serving more than 1 million students, have formed a nonprofit organization, the California Office to Reform Education, or CORE. They submitted a unique request for a multi-district waiver, because the federal government last year rejected California’s application for a state waiver. A waiver would give the districts flexibility to use more than $10
While stating that they would have preferred that Congress revise NCLB (or the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as it’s formally known), which they called a failure, Kirst and Torlakson wrote that “absent such action by Congress we are supportive of any attempt that will grant California’s local education agencies the relief they need.”
