������Ƶ

To prompt changes that it believes will improve schools, the U.S. Department of Education is promising to loosen requirements under No Child Left Behind if states can demonstrate a commitment to the departments’ favored policies. 

The shame is that investing in high-quality early education is not one of them.  

When the department released its “flexibility” plans in late September, we wrote about what they could mean for early ed. But questions remained, and most of our analysis focused on what states could do, not what they would be pushed to do.

In November, 11 states asked the U.S. Department of Education for waivers that would allow them to avoid NCLB sanctions, such as the requirements to make major changes or close schools that are not showing “adequately yearly progress” in test scores.  Twenty-eight more plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have they will submit their requests early next year.  The deadline is February 21, 2012.

It’s clear now that the Education Department is not using this new leverage to press for more investments in early education from birth up through third grade nor for more strategies to improve outcomes for children in this age range.  States that want to promote early education will have to take the initiative on their own, hopefully inspired by the few districts and communities that are investing in quality pre-K and full-day kindergarten and promoting teacher collaboration and aligned standards throughout the preK-3rd grades.

Consider from states instead. The is on three areas:  standards and assessments; teacher and principal evaluation systems; and accountability systems.  The department wants states to track how schools are doing based on student test performance, reward the schools that make the most progress with low-income populations, and single out the lowest performing schools for interventions, such as turnaround programs.

The consolation prize is that the waiver process does keep the door open for states to do these things by building better early education systems. For example, nothing in the  would keep states from aligning their “college-and-career ready” standards with state preschool standards; in fact the department explicitly states that such an activity would be allowed.

Nothing in the waiver process prohibits states from building teacher and principal evaluation systems that would include, say, pre-K teachers or principals who oversee early learning centers that include pre-K, kindergarten and the early grades. 

And there are no prohibitions on channeling dollars to improve training for preK-3^rd teachers or developing other interventions that could lead to better outcomes for young kids. (Our Watching Teachers Work paper suggests, for example, that states employ valid and reliable observation tools as they revamp evaluation systems and improve professional development. That would not be precluded under the waiver process.)

But will states feel any pressure to move forward on these activities without a stronger push from the feds? There’s reason to be doubtful, given states’ and in some cases disastrous track records in investing in pre-K in the aftermath of the recession, the , and relative silence on developing  plans for shared professional development with elementary schools. Let’s hope we’re wrong.

We should note there are a few nods to early learning in the FAQ document that accompanies the , though the nods came a little late. In an published a month after came out, early learning was mentioned in the question labeled C-34a. (Jargon alert: An SEA is a state educational agency and an LEA is a local education agency, such as a school district. A priority school is a school in the state’s bottom 5-percent based on state test scores and graduation rates.):

May an SEA incorporate activities to strengthen or expand access to early learning programs as part of implementing interventions that meet the turnaround principles in priority schools?

Yes.  For example, as part of meeting the turnaround principle regarding redesigning the school day, week, or year to include additional time for student learning and teacher collaboration, an LEA may choose to expand the school program to offer full-day kindergarten or high-quality preschool.  Similarly, as part of meeting the turnaround principle regarding strengthening the school’s instructional program based on student needs, an LEA may choose to improve the school’s kindergarten or preschool program so that it is research-based, rigorous, and aligned with State standards.

It’s good to see this spelled out, and we hope that states will show some leadership by ensuring that school districts expand access to high-quality pre-K and full-day kindergarten in their priority schools at the very least.

Another question that also revolves around early learning – but which wasn’t specifically addressed in the FAQs – is whether states might be able to use the department’s “optional flexibility” provision to expand early learning programs. The provision says that a state may request a waiver from the current law’s requirements for activities in the Twenty-First Century Community Learning Centers, a federal program that is designed to expand learning time.

Could “expanded learning time” include expanding kindergarten to a full day or expanding access to, or the length of time within, pre-kindergarten programs? We sent a request to the department to find out. Here’s the response, a reprint of what is stated in the FAQ:

Whatever is normally allowable under the 21^st CCLC program is still allowable. However, under ESEA flexibility, an SEA may request flexibility to permit its LEAs to use funds for community learning centers under the 21st CCLC program to support activities that provide high-quality expanded learning time during the school day in addition to activities during non-school hours or periods when school is not in session (i.e., before and after school or during summer recess). 

Supporting activities to provide high-quality expanded learning time might include:

• Adding significantly more time by expanding the school day, school week, or school year to increase learning time for all students;
• Using the additional time to support a well-rounded education that includes time for academics and enrichment activities;
• Providing additional time for teacher collaboration and common planning; and
• Partnering with one or more outside organizations, such as a nonprofit organization, with demonstrated experience in improving student achievement.

This answer does not explicitly answer our question, and we hope there will be more guidance on this in the future. Would a partnership with a nonprofit preschool be allowed? Does adding full-day kindergarten count as increasing learning time for “all students”?

Now that the department has a new Office of Early Learning – headed by Jacqueline Jones, who was originally tapped as a senior advisor to Secretary Arne Duncan – we hope to see more of a push on these issues. The waiver process could become a powerful force for change, especially when it’s unlikely that we’ll see movement in Congress on ESEA in the near future.  Incentives within the department’s waiver program may be one of the few remaining federal levers for promoting more investment in pre-K and kindergarten and in assuring better alignment across the PreK-3^rd grades.