July 7, 2016 Michael Kirst, President California State Board of Education 1430 N Street, Room 5111 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear President Kirst, In 2013, the US Department of Education granted a waiver to eight (8) California school districts. These eight districts submitted a joint request for waivers as part of the California Office to Reform Education (CORE). The Department approved the CORE districts for a oneyear waiver from six ESEA requirements and their associated regulatory, administrative and reporting requirements. These waivers were authorized under ESEA section 9401, and were granted directly to the districts participating in CORE, and not to the CORE organization itself. The waiver was extended twice and was placed on high risk status through the end of the 2014-15 school year. In September 2015, the Department granted the second extension of the waiver, with conditions through the 2015-16 school year. An element of the conditional extension of the final waiver included requirements for work on the CORE system of recognition, accountability and support that would continue into the 2016-17 school year. The Every Student Succeeds Act was signed into law in December 2015. The law is clear in ESSA section 4(c), that there would be an automatic and mandatory termination of waivers granted by the Secretary of Education on August 1, 2016. We are writing to express our deep concern regarding the status of the CORE district waivers. It has been brought to our attention by superintendents in Long Beach Unified and Oakland Unified that the CORE waiver has in fact been extended; that additional local education agencies will be added to the waiver; and that elements of the CORE accountability system will be incorporated into the state’s new accountability system beginning in the 2017-18 school year. The Presidents whose signatures are added to mine on this letter represent the educators who work in those CORE districts. Their Associations have never endorsed and do not now support the extension of the CORE waivers. Further, these education leaders strongly believe the CORE waiver is a serious impediment to the collective education change efforts in California. As educators, we are committed to improving the conditions of teaching and learning, advancing the cause of quality public education, and ensuring that the dignity and civil rights of all children are protected. At a time when we are working hard in California to implement positive changes that safeguard the quality public education all students deserve, this top-down waiver system which excludes teacher input and collaboration is counterproductive and divisive. The CORE waiver process does not reflect the work of a broad-based diverse group of individuals with a genuine stake in their school. The stakeholders are cut-out of the development and execution of viable education reform implementation strategies. July 7, 2016 Page 2 CORE does not allow for meaningful engagement of educators and parents. The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) is a broad-education change linking funding to reform initiatives in a way that shows student improvement. LCFF increases local district flexibility and accountability, and each district must work with stakeholders, including educators, students, parents and other community members, in developing the Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP). The Plan is then considered during an open meeting of the school board where the public may comment. This collaboration ensures those closest to the students are making the decisions necessary for the design, development and execution of programs and curriculum to benefit the students. CORE is wasteful and duplicative of work already implemented through LCAP. The LCAP includes actions that the district will take to provide the basic conditions necessary for student achievement, including implementing the Common Core standards, improving academic outcomes, and addressing the needs of English learners, foster children, and students from low income backgrounds. In the Plan, the Local Education Agency (LEA) is required to address both statewide and local priorities. As you know, a LCFF evaluation rubric and accountability system is being developed which will allow educators and districts to examine program effectiveness, their values and priorities about collaboration, as well as stakeholder engagement. The CORE district waivers are not as transparent or consistent. Once the evaluations are completed then there is an integrated State and Federal continuous support and accountability system in place to assist districts in improvement. CORE is a distraction from this comprehensive and broad-based coherent system. CORE does not align fiscal priorities with academic outcomes. CORE does not differentiate the types of or intensity of support to be provided to participating districts. For example, student poverty, especially concentrated poverty, is a critical variable affecting LCFF funding levels and CORE does not support this type of prioritized need. These CORE districts create their own accountability system outside of the State of California, while California’s LCFF has a broader accountability system. The LCFF requires that districts track a range of academic performance metrics, parent involvement and school climate. CORE waiver requirements have not been met. CORE required changes to the evaluation systems of educators. The changes envisioned to the evaluation systems have not been negotiated with the unions. Educator effectiveness is being addressed by the LCAP by addressing student achievement. We believe that CORE district waivers undermine and weaken a comprehensive yet coherent approach to education reform. Together, California’s law makers and voters have supported education reform through the passage of Proposition 30 to support public education funding, establishment of the LCFF/LCAP, and implementation of Common Core State Standards. There is no authority for the assertion that CORE superintendents have made concerning the extension of the CORE waiver. The statutory termination provision in ESSA is couched in mandatory language -"notwithstanding any other provision of this Act ... a waiver ... shall be null and void and have no legal effect on or after August 1, 2016.” The Secretary of Education does not have the authority to extend the CORE Districts' current waivers. Finally, we assert that the conditions of the September 2015 waiver could not be construed as automatically carrying over beyond August 1. Nor does it appear that the California's ESSA Transition Plan would provide any legal cover for the CORE Districts to argue that their waivers continue beyond August 1. July 7, 2016 Page 3 For these reasons, we urge you to oppose extending the CORE district waivers. Further, we would ask that you direct the districts to implement the supplemental services addressed in the transition plan to assure the full and appropriate use of the SES funds that are contracting for CORE. Respectfully, Tish Rice, President Fresno Teachers Association Trish Gorham, President Oakland Education Association Barry Welsch, President Teachers Association of Long Beach Alex Caputo-Pearl, President United Teachers Los Angeles Barbara Pearson Lita Blanc, President United Educators of San Francisco Eric C. Heins, President California Teachers Association c: Theresa Montaño, Vice President David B. Goldberg, Secretary-Treasurer CTA Board of Directors Joe Nuñez, Executive Director Karen Kyhn, Deputy Executive Director Barbara Pearson, President Santa Ana Educators’ Association July 7, 2016 Page 4