Education Week - September 16, 2015 - 20

GOVERNMENT & POLITICS

With Waivers, Ed. Dept. Loosens Teacher-Evaluation Reins
Earlier hard-line approach
giving way to flexibility
By Alyson Klein
Perhaps no single K-12 policy is more closely
associated with the Obama administration
than teacher evaluations tied to student test
scores, which the president and U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan have championed, first through Race to the Top, and then
through No Child Left Behind Act waivers.
And perhaps no policy has been as difficult
to implement, particularly as states make the

transition to new tests aligned to the Common
Core State Standards.
The administration initially took a hard line
on evaluations, asking states to roll them out
over a specific time period and to include state
test scores as part of the mix.
But over the past year and a half, the U.S.
Department of Education has offered states
more and more flexibility when it comes to
getting evaluations aligned to common-core
tests in place and using them to make personnel decisions. In the latest twist, the department this summer has allowed at least two
states-Arkansas and Massachusetts-until
the 2017-18 school year to finish putting in
place teacher evaluations aligned to new,

statewide tests that gauge students' collegeand-career readiness, according to the states'
waiver-renewal letters.
That's well after the Obama administration leaves town. And it's an open question
whether the next education secretary will
expect those states to follow through on their
promises.
Meanwhile, about a dozen states have
been given until the 2016-17 school year-or
Duncan's last year at the helm of the department-to get their evaluation systems using
state tests aligned to the common core or
other standards fully in place, according to
state waiver-renewal letters sent over the
summer.

Those states include: Alabama, Alaska,
Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Kansas, New
Hampshire, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. Many
of them already have evaluation systems
in place, but need time to link them to tests
aligned with the common core or use them for
personnel decisions, like hiring and firing.

ESEA Complication
Complicating matters: Neither of the bills
to revise the Elementary and Secondary Education Act making their way through Congress would continue to require states to dePAGE 24 >

Proposal to Boost Head Start Hours, Year-Length Draws Concern
By Christina A. Samuels
A proposal to expand center-based
Head Start programs to six hours a
day and 180 days a year-the centerpiece of a major revision to Head
Start rules that was years in the
making-is drawing deep concern
from providers who say they would
have to cut children from the program because of a lack of facilities
or teachers.
The concerns were raised in many
of the hundreds of comments the
public had submitted as of late last
week on the proposed rules governing the 50-year-old early-learning
program. Head Start, aimed at children from low-income families, has
not had a rewrite of its performance
standards since 1975. This revision
has been in the works since 2008
and were released for public comment in June. The public comment
period ends Sept. 17.

Administration Priorities
The issue also potentially sets
some Head Start grantees at odds
with the Obama administration,
which has had the establishment of
full-day prekindergarten at the top
of its domestic policy agenda since
2013. That year, in his State of the
Union address, the president brought
forward a $75 billion proposal to assist states in expanding prekindergarten. The specific plan has stalled,
though Congress has funded smaller
prekindergarten efforts, such as
the Preschool Development Grants
awarded to 18 states last year.
Head Start's current minimum requirement is that centers operate at
least 3.5 hours a day, 128 days a year.
The Head Start proposal says that if
Congress complies with the administration's request for $10.1 billion in
Head Start funding-$1.5 billion more
than the program's current budget-
the program can expand without any
loss of services. If Congress does not
come up with the money, however,
about 126,000 fewer children would
be served, and 9,400 teacher jobs
would be lost.

SOUNDING OFF
The federal Office of Head Start is in the midst of its first comprehensive revision of the federal preschool
program's performance standards since 1975. The proposed revisions aim to streamline some 1,400
regulatory standards and add new guidelines, such as one that would require Head Start programs
to operate for a full school day and year. The public has until Sept. 17 to submit comments. Here's a
sampling of feedback so far:

On Extending the Head Start
Day and Year
"We need more Head Start slots,
not fewer. If we move to all-day
classes universally, many slots would
be lost as the building would only
accommodate one class instead of a
morning and afternoon session."

"I feel that the minimum number
of home-based visits should not be
[boosted to] 46 per year, that is almost
a year-around program."

On Home-Visiting
Changes

"[Removing] the requirement to have
parent committee meetings, which were
difficult to recruit parents to attend as
they didn't see much value in the activity,
will allow for a heightened focus to be on
parenting-education activities."

20 | EDUCATION WEEK | September 16, 2015 | www.edweek.org

"Our [double-session] program, with two
classes, can currently serve up to 37 students. If
we extended the day, we could serve only 17."

"I am a ... teacher in Lee County,
Va. There is a need here for teaching
in the homes of a lot of our kids [that]
live in poor communities and have many
disabilities and cannot attend school ... we
may only be with that child for couple of
hours, but that means a lot to the family,
and they depend on us to do our job
and reach out to their child."

"While I understand the goal of
wanting to reduce the bureaucratic burden
on centers, eliminating parent engagement is
moving backward in quality."

On Parental Engagement
SOURCE: Office of Head Start

The National Head Start Association says that the expanded-day requirement would be disruptive for
many programs.
"While expanding access to fullday Head Start is an important
goal, resources are critical and the
[proposed changes] will do lasting damage to relationships and
quality of programming across the
country," the organization wrote in
its comments.
But the current program minimums are simply not enough time
for children to build the skills they
need for success once they start
school, Head Start says in its proposal. About 57 percent of current
Head Start preschool children are
getting services for six or more
hours a day, and 31 percent receive
services for 180 days or more.
The research into state prekindergarten programs such as those in
North Carolina and Georgia, as well
as in Boston, show that those programs have strong positive effects on
children's academic readiness, and
they all operate a longer school day
and year, the proposal states. Head
Start, in contrast, has come under fire
from opponents who point to a national evaluation showing that gains
made by children in the program fade
by the time they reach 3rd grade.
"Continuing to operate under widely
varying minimums for program dosage, in the face of the mounting
evidence provided here, limits Head
Start's overall effectiveness and undermines Head Start's mission," the
proposal says.
However, many providers said in
their comments that they don't want
to chance the potential loss of students and teachers if the proposal
passes without funding to go with
it. Also, many of their families don't
want a longer-day option. They say the
shorter day allows providers to serve
both a morning and an afternoon session, and it allows families more time
with their children.
"Although I do wish for more instruction time in my classroom I do
not see full days fixing this problem,"
PAGE 24 >

http://www.edweek.org

Education Week - September 16, 2015

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Education Week - September 16, 2015