These days, California is usually the state where systemic reform efforts go to die. Over the past four years, traditionalists led by the affiliates of the National Education Association and American Federation of Teachers have succeeded in rendering the Democrat-controlled state legislature servile, and putting the kibosh to teacher quality reforms such as Senate Bill 1530, which would have made it easier to fire teachers accused and convicted of criminal abuse of children. Thanks to their success in returning once-and-future governor Jerry Brown to the state’s top executive post, traditionalists have also succeeded in stopping efforts at providing families, schools, researchers, and policymakers with high-quality data on student progress, as well as ending efforts to use objective student test score growth data in evaluating teacher performance. Last year’s move by Brown to effectively eviscerate accountability through the signing of Assembly Bill 484 was the high-water mark for traditionalists who oppose any effort to hold districts and laggard teachers responsible for their failures in helping children succeed.

So reformers can’t help but be surprised by the results in yesterday’s primary for state superintendent. The fact that incumbent Tom Torlakson didn’t get enough votes to avoid a run-off election in November against former Green Dot Public Schools boss Marshall Tuck offers reformers an opportunity to bring the Golden State back on the path to transforming education for all of its children.

Certainly reformers must keep in mind that Tuck still has a tough road ahead. After all, Torlakson still managed to garner 47 percent of the vote thanks in part to the efforts of the NEA affiliate, the California Teachers Association, which spent $3.6 million (including $1.6 million to an independent expenditure committee the union, along with the national AFT and its state affiliate, has formed) on his behalf. Given the high stakes, the NEA’s national office will surely toss in a few million dollars to help Torlakson out the same way it spent $5 million two years ago to help pass Prop. 30 (which raised $50 billion in new taxes) and defeat Prop. 32 (which would have ended the ability of teachers’ unions to force teachers to pay dues into its coffers). So will the national AFT, which has already poured $50,000 into the independent committee backing Torlakson.

There’s also the fact that Tuck is a relative newcomer to political campaigning. While the one-time aide to former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has run a strong campaign so far, he lacks the natural advantages of incumbency that Torlakson, a former state senator, has at his disposal. This includes being able to cash in on the favors he has done for labor unions who dominate the Golden State Democratic Party’s activist core, as well as rally support from incumbents in the state legislature, who will naturally be pressed by the NEA and AFT to lend him a hand. Sure, Tuck’s 795,419 vote total is impressive, especially given that it is 57,387 more votes than that garnered by former state Sen. Gloria Romero in the primary four years ago, and just a few thousand votes less than what Torlakson gained in that same election. But Tuck wants to win, he will have to outwork and outspend Torlakson over the next five months.

Yet there are plenty of reasons why Tuck can oust Torlakson as the Golden State’s top schools chief. And if Tuck, along with his fellow reformers, take some important steps (including in rallying grassroots support), sending Torlakson and his traditionalist allies packing can become a reality.

Let’s remember this fact: California’s reversal on systemic reform is only a recent occurrence. For most of the previous two decades, the Golden State has been as much a hotbed for reform as Indiana, Florida, and Texas. Twenty-three years ago, it was the second state in the nation to allow for the existence of public charter schools; today, California is home to 1,069 charters — 17 percent of all charter schools operating in the nation — accounting for 10.7 percent of all public schools in the state, according to data from the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. Even with the successful effort of districts and traditionalists to kibosh the ability of the state Board of Education to authorize charters, the sector remains vibrant as more families look to escape failure mills and warehouses of mediocrity that serve their children poorly.

Five years ago, California helped spark the modern Parent Power movement by passing the nation’s first Parent Trigger law. Despite efforts by the NEA and AFT (along with districts), families have successfully used the laws to force the overhaul of failing schools in the neighbors in which they live. Last month, families of children attending West Athens Elementary School in the City of Angeles proved the value of Parent Trigger laws in helping them gain lead decision-making roles in education when they struck a deal with L.A. Unified to help them gain $300,000 in new funding from the district for school services as well as stronger roles in implementing Common Core reading and math standards.

But the benefits of the state’s Parent Trigger law go beyond just allowing families to lead the overhaul of schools. Because the law also involves families becoming active in education politics, they also get involved in spurring reform on the ground. This was seen two years ago in Adelanto, Calif., during the successful effort by families of kids attending the former Desert Trails Elementary to take over the school. That campaign led to another successful push — this time, to oust two Adelanto district board members who helped lead the opposition to the takeover initiative.

The fact that families have embraced choice and Parent Power so wholeheartedly even amid strong opposition from traditionalists shows that reformers can make a strong case for transforming public education. Latino families whose children now make up the majority of the state’s student population, along with those from immigrant households, recognize that high-quality education is key to their long-term success in becoming part of the nation’s economic mainstream. That the Golden State’s traditional public schools are still performing abysmally in improving student achievement for all kids (including the fact that 42 percent of fourth-graders reading Below Basic on the 2013 National Assessment of Educational Progress (versus just 33 percent of children nationwide), also gives reformers ammunition.

Meanwhile Torlakson, along with Brown and affiliates of the NEA and AFT, have also given reformers plenty of evidence to support their cause. Torlakson’s unwillingness (and that of Brown’s appointees on the state board) to embrace even simple teacher quality reforms was made clear last month when they rejected a request by San Jose Unified and the NEA local there to increase the time some newly-hired teachers to work one more year (from an already too easy two years to a slightly better three) before being able to gain near-lifetime employment. The fact that neither Torlakson nor Brown lifted a finger two years ago to back S.B. 1530 shows that they are all too willing to do the bidding of NEA and AFT affiliates in protecting even criminally-abusive teachers who shouldn’t be in classrooms.

At the same time, reformers can easily make the case that Torlakson and his colleagues inn Sacramento are too corrupt and too beholden to NEA and AFT interests to be trusted with high office.  Last April’s federal indictments against state Sen. Leland Yee on corruption charges are particularly damaging to Torlakson. Not only did Yee receive $29,000 in funds from the NEA’s state affiliate between 2006 and 2010, he was also worked closely with Torlakson while the latter was in the state senate. [Yee, by the way, garnered 288,000 votes in yesterday’s primary race for his current seat, enough to take third place in the race.]

This isn’t to say that Torlakson engaged in any of the crimes with which Yee has been charged. But Yee’s alleged misbehavior, and Torlakson’s toadying toward the NEA and AFT offer prime examples of the culture of sleaze and abetting of educational abuse toward children, both in California and throughout the nation, that can reformers can clean help up. And while some reformers may call this mudslinging, the reality is that you can’t take on those who support failed policies and practices without calling things what they are.

So how can Tuck and his fellow reformers take advantage of this opportunity? It starts with money. Considering that California’s retail political environment — including the high cost of television ads — Tuck and reformers need to raise plenty to beat back the millions that will be spent by Torlakson and his traditionalist allies. Eli Broad, whose eponymous foundation is the leading reform outfit in the Golden State, is already spending big on Tuck’s campaign as is entrepreneur Bill Bloomfield. But as evidenced by the fact that Tuck has raised just $558,326.60 so far, other reformers have barely chipped in their dimes. This is unacceptable. Given that money is the mother’s milk of politics, reformers can’t lament about not winning political support for their cause if they don’t put their dollars where their mouths are.

At the same time, reformers must build grassroots support — including appealing to immigrant households as well as Latino and black families in the state — in order for Tuck to win office.This is especially important because the state superintendent’s race has long been dominated by NEA and AFT affiliates, who have counted on strong turnout from their rank-and-file to get their way. School reformers should reach out to Parent Power activists and families of kids attending charter schools to remind them that another day of Torlakson in office means greater obstacles to expanding choice and giving them lead decision-making roles in schools they deserve. They should also launch registration drives that attract more people to voting.

Building support on the ground should also include concretely connecting California’s and the nation’s education crisis to the other statewide issues that are of concern to voters. Thanks to the efforts of former L.A. Mayor Villaraigosa and his predecessor, Richard Riordan, more citizens in the City of Angels are aware of how failing and mediocre schools weigh down on its economic and social fortunes. But voters in the rest of California — especially dual-income households without children as well as those concerned with other issues —don’t always see the connection between the Golden State’s abysmally high levels of functional illiteracy and the state’s struggles to compete economically against Florida and other states with strong focus on overhauling public education. The job is for Tuck and his fellow reformers to connect the proverbial dots, not for voters to do the work.

Finally, reformers need to both explain how systemic reform can help all children gain the knowledge they need for lifelong success (along with the communities in which they live), and at the same time, take aim at how Torlakson has done the bidding of traditionalists less-concerned about the futures of kids than with comforting themselves ideologically and financially. One one side, this means vividly detailing how expanding choice and bringing back accountability helps families provide their kids with high-quality teachers and comprehensive college-preparatory education. On the other, reminding voters that Torlakson stood by as legislators refused to pass legislation that would protect kids from criminally-abusive teachers such as notorious former Miramonte Elementary School instructor Mark Berndt is critical. NEA and AFT affiliates are already taking aim at Tuck; reformers must do the same to Torlakson.

Thanks to Tuck’s campaign, the school reform movement now has an opportunity to revive systemic reform in California, and help its children attain high-quality education. But it is up to reformers to take advantage of the moment.

Photo courtesy of the Los Angeles Times.

Let’s say this much about California Gov. Jerry Brown’s plan to address the Golden State’s virtually-insolvent teachers’ defined-benefit pension: At least he has put a plan on the table. By proposing that an additional $5 billion annually will be poured into the California Teachers’ Retirement System by the 2020-2021 fiscal year — and that some of $2.4 billion in additional tax revenue it is collecting should go to that purpose — Brown is forcing the state to admit that it must address the biggest drag on its long-term fiscal prospects. Considering that his colleagues in the Democrat-controlled state legislature would rather spend more money on their pet programs, Brown is actually acting like the grown up Golden State taxpayers need at this time.

Yet Brown’s plan for addressing CalSTRS’ insolvency isn’t nearly as adequate as it should be. For one, Brown’s proposal to require the state, districts, and teachers to contribute an additional $450 million to the pension next fiscal year doesn’t even come close to the $5.5 billion Dropout Nation estimates will be needed to make it solvent in 17 years. [More on the timeline later.] Certainly it would be difficult for Brown to use all $2.4 billion in additional tax collections in order to help make that possible; after all, two-fifth of any additional revenue goes to school funding as a result of Prop. 98 , the three decades-old law governing education finance. There’s also the fact that districts (along with the National Education Association’s and American Federation of Teachers’ state affiliates the California Teachers’ Association and California Federation of Teachers), would balk at such immediate hikes. But in light of the Golden State’s penchant for fiscal fecklessness, Brown would be better off forcing everyone to pay the piper now than hope that legislators and districts (both of which have proven more than willing to do the bidding of the NEA and AFT) will go along with a gradual increase over the next seven years. If that means opposing any increases in spending on other programs — and ditching his own plan to revive the state’s senseless high-speed rail project — then in should be done.

Part of any revised plan would likely have to include the state and teachers paying even larger shares of contribution increases than Brown currently proposes. Under Brown’s plan, districts would pay 75 percent of the $450 million in new contributions (along with the nine percent that teachers are supposed to pay themselves, but in most cases, will actually be covered by the districts as part of collective bargaining agreements with NEA and AFT locals), while the Golden State contribute the rest; this is greater than the 38 percent districts currently contribute (along with the 39 percent that they pay on behalf of teachers). In light of the Golden State constitution’s provision barring the state from forcing local governments to bear unfunded mandates, Brown’s attempt to shift the bulk of contributions to districts is unlikely to survive any legal challenge. So Brown should figure out a way for the Golden State to cover at least 23 percent of any new contribution increases — which is equal to its current level of contributions to CalSTRS — as well as force legislators to pass a law mandating that veteran teachers actually contribute to the pension out of their own pay checks. Pushing the legislature to give CalSTRS the ability to increase contribution rates without seeking state permission, something that sister pension CalPERS can do now, would also make sense.

There’s also the fact that Brown is going along with CalSTRS’ push to address the insolvency over the next 30 years instead of in a shorter, more-sensible, 17 year period. This makes no sense. For one, given that CalSTRS will likely add 13,398 new annuitants (excluding deaths and other removals) to its rolls every year for at least the next decade before retirements slow down, and will have to pay out at least $611 million more in annuities every year, there’s no way that a 30-year payment plan can address those additional increases. Based on Dropout Nation‘s estimate, CalSTRS will end up paying out at least $6.1 billion in additional annuities (excluding reductions because of deaths and other removals) by 2021-2022 — and that’s not accounting for the usual cost-of-living increases. If Brown wants to address the insolvency in a meaningful way, he needs to have it done in the next 17 to 20 years.

Then there is the fact that Brown’s bases its assumptions on CalSTRS’ official numbers, which deliberately hide the true extent of its virtual insolvency. This is because CalSTRS assumes a 7.5 percent rate of return on its investments, which is far higher than the 5.2 percent five-year rate experienced in the market and the pension’s own actual five-year rate of return of 3.7 percent. [That CalSTRS also excludes all but a smattering of investment losses and gains through actuarial tricks such as smoothing is another reason why the officially-reported numbers aren’t real.] Based on a more-realistic 5.5 percent rate of return, CalSTRS’ insolvency is likely $93.3 billion, or 27 percent higher than the $74 billion it officially reported in 2011-2012. The only way Brown and the state can get a real handle on CalSTRS’ pension underfunding is by getting the real numbers and basing any plan on that data.

But the biggest problem with Brown’s plan is that it doesn’t offer better options for younger teachers to save for their retirements. Defined-benefit pensions such as CalSTRS are of no use to most newly-hired teachers because half of them are likely to leave classrooms within five years, which means they are unlikely to fully vest in the pension and be able to collect any kind of annuity payment. Particularly for high-quality new teachers, whose attrition rates are likely even higher, both because of the lack of support they get from school leaders and districts as well as because of their own desires to utilize their talents beyond classroom instruction, CalSTRS ends up being a bum deal; the lack of reward (in the form of performance-based bonuses and other recognition) they receive for their good-to-great work is compounded by a shoddy retirement deal that only works well for laggards (who often remain in classrooms because they are not sent out of the profession).

Brown should have proposed a new retirement option for younger teachers so that they can reap the full rewards of their work. This would feature a defined-contribution account toward which teachers can contribute as much of their income to retirement as they see fit (with a five percent match from districts and the state), as well as a cash-balanced plan that guarantees an annual savings rate. Such a move, by the way, would also help CalSTRS (and ultimately, taxpayers) by reducing the number of new annuitants that will add to its insolvency.

Don’t expect Brown to take up any of these suggestions. After all, Brown’s fealty to the state’s NEA and AFT affiliates is well-established. But in light of the fact that Brown has offered a plan to address CalSTRS’ insolvency, perhaps he will do the right thing.

Photo courtesy of the Sacramento Bee.

These days, Illinois’ virtually-insolvent defined-benefit pensions — along with those of Chicago — have become as much a topic of conversation for taxpayers in the state as last night’s Bulls or Cubs game. From the lawsuit filed earlier this year by a group of unions (including the National Education Association affiliate and that of the American Federation of Teachers), to the move last week by state legislators to help the Second City address insolvencies in two of its pensions, to the declarations of pension reform by both Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn and Republican rival Bruce Rauner, there will be more talk about how the Land of Lincoln must pay down its $95 billion in long-term pension obligations, the nation’s second-largest after California, according to data from the Pew Charitable Trusts.

But none of the discussions will matter unless the Land of Lincoln deals honestly with the level of insolvencies it faces. This is especially true when it comes to dealing with the Teachers’ Retirement System, which likely has the second-worst teachers’ pension deficit in the nation after that of the notoriously-underfunded California Teachers Retirement System. And based on TRS’ latest comprehensive annual financial report, the state is still refusing to deal candidly with reality.

The pension officially reports a deficit of $56 billion for 2012-2013. The problem is that the pension is understanding the level of its insolvency. For one, the underfunding only includes $1.6 billion in investment losses and not all of the losses (or gains) TRS has achieved over the past five years. This is because of an actuarial technique called smoothing, an actuarial trick the state forced the pension to adopt five years ago, which effectively allows the pension to effectively hide investment losses under the guise of keeping the volatility pensions experience with investments from wrecking havoc on state and district budgets. As a result, taxpayers and policymakers aren’t getting a full picture of the pension’s insolvency.

The bigger problem is that TRS is using overly inflated assumptions of investment growth over time. The pension assumes an eight percent rate of return even though it admits that its assets have only achieved a rate of return (net of investment fees) of just five percent between 2009 and 2013. In fact, TRS admits that its assets have only increased by 63 percent within the past 13 years (even as liabilities have increased by nearly a three-fold in that same period). What TRS should be doing is assuming a more-realistic actuarial rate of return, somewhere around 5.2 percent (or the five-year rate of return for investments, according to investment firm Wilshire Associates). This would then force politicians to deal more-honestly with the pension woes.

To get to the true level of TRS’ insolvency, Dropout Nation uses a version of a technique developed by Moody’s Investors Service, which assumes a more-realistic 5.5 percent rate of a return. [Moody’s bases its rate of return on the performance of a bond index, which can range between four and six percent.] Based on those numbers, TRS’ true insolvency is likely $76 billion, or 36 percent higher than officially reported. This means that TRS’ insolvency has increased by seven percent (or $5 billion) within the last year, based on an earlier Dropout Nation estimate of the pension’s unfunded liabilities. If Illinois state government was forced to pay down the insolvency over a 17-year period of amortization, it would cost taxpayers $4.5 billion, or more than double the $3.8 billion contributed to the pension this past fiscal year.

Getting to the heart of the numbers is particularly critical because TRS will face even more Baby Boomers heading into retirement over the coming years. On average, 6,140 teachers covered by TRS have retired every year over the past decade, based on a Dropout Nation analysis of the pension’s retirement data. Each retiree and their surviving spouse, on average, collects an annual annuity of $45,792. So TRS can easily expect to pay out at least an additional $293 million in annuities every year, and likely, even more than that; TRS reports that it paid out an additional $344 million in annuities in 2012-2013, higher than even Dropout Nation‘s estimate. Since the pension reform plan enacted last year, SB-1, still allows for teachers who joined payrolls before this coming June to cash in unused sick and vacation days in order to boost pension payouts — and still allows Baby Boomers to collect three percent annual cost-of-living raises for all but two of the first 1o years in retirement — this means that TRS will become even more insolvent than it currently is. And, in turn, estimates that the plan will reduce the state’s overall pension deficit by $24 billion over the next 30 years is likely an illusion.

With more-realistic numbers, state legislators and Gov. Quinn (or Rauner, if he beats Quinn in November) can deal with TRS’ woes more decisively. This should start with requiring teachers (and in many cases, thanks to collective bargaining agreements, the districts) to contribute even more than the 24 percent of annual contributions made to the pension every yearpercent of salary they currently pay toward retirement. It is increasingly clear that the state can no longer assume 71 percent of the burden. Addressing these issues will require Illinois officials to take bolder steps than they have been willing to do. This includes overhauling how TRS (along with other state pensions) are managed; as I noted today in this week’s column in Rare, the NEA’s and AFT’s state affiliates have long controlled pension operations and won’t give up that influence without a fight.

But addressing TRS’ insolvency isn’t just about the red ink. One of the problems with SB 1 (and similar pension reforms across the country) is that the brunt of the changes are borne not by Baby Boomers, but by younger workers, who are both forced to subsidize veteran colleagues (both in the form of contributions as well as taxes they also pay) and at the same time, lose out on opportunities to truly save for their own retirements. Under the pension reform plan, for example, younger Illinois teachers will lose out on five three-percent cost of living raises during the first 10 years of annuity payments. This means they lose money twice, both in the form of contributions (which are supposed to be savings, but actually goes to fund the retirements of others), and in money they expected to get in exchange for subsidizing other people’s pensions.

Moving away from defined-benefit pensions to hybrid pension plans that features defined-contribution accounts as well as cash-balanced accounts that guarantees an annual savings rate to actually save for their old age, would help younger teachers reap the rewards of their labors in their senior citizen years. This, along with overhauling the rest of traditional teacher compensation, would particularly benefit high-quality teachers in the first 15 years of their careers, who deserve reward for all they do to help children succeed.

But none of this is possible until Quinn and his colleagues get real about the true extent of TRS’ virtual insolvency as well as deal with the state’s other long-term debts. Until this happens, Illini will be merely toying with their problems.

One of the problems with the Obama Administration’s effort to eviscerate the No Child Left Behind Act and its accountability provisions lies with its focus on just the worst-performing five percent of schools and another 10 percent of schools with wide achievement gaps. Because of this narrow focus, the administration has given 41 states and the District of Columbia carte blanch to let schools and districts — especially those in suburbia — off the hook for serving up mediocre instruction and curricula. Obama Administration officials, including U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, have defended this approach by arguing that No Child’s Adequate Yearly Progress system penalized far too many schools arbitrarily for failing to improve student achievement — and claimed that as many as 90 percent would be found failing under No Child if nothing was done. At the same time, Duncan argued that the waivers was allowing states to develop accountability systems that would put more schools under scrutiny. For one, states promised to lower the minimum number of students identified in a socioeconomic subgroup for accountability purposes in exchange for evading federal law. And because states gained the flexibility to use approaches other than subgroup accountability to hold districts and schools responsible for improving student achievement, states could, in theory, actually expand accountability, if they wanted.

But as Dropout Nation and reformers such as Andy Rotherham and Charles Barone of Democrats for Education Reform had pointed out before the administration formally launched the waiver effort — and as the administration’s own data proved — the first argument had no merit at all. As for the second? It makes no sense. How can the waiver gambit narrow accountability and yet expand it at the same time? On any intellectual basis, the administration’s double-talk doesn’t square with reality.

Your editor has predicted that this narrowing of accountability, along with the overall evisceration of No Child’s straightforward and sensible approach, would have dire consequences on advancing systemic reform and ultimately, on poor and minority children often subject to the worse American public education has to offer before the implementation of No Child 11 years ago. Some of these consequences are being borne out in a study released today by the New America Foundation on how states are failing to identify schools and districts failing to serve all children well. The waiver gambit clearly allowed the states to develop accountability systems that allow most failing schools off the hook for poor performance. Even worse, the new accountability systems may actually be causing the kind of arbitrary labeling of schools that Duncan wrongly accused No Child of doing.

On one hand, the New America report, written by its resident expert on the waiver, Anne Hyslop, clearly shows that the waiver gambit is letting persistently failing schools off the hook. Seventy-three percent of 6,058 failure mills in 16 states identified under No Child in 2011-2012 escaped scrutiny under the waiver gambit this year. This means 4,458 schools were allowed to provide shoddy curricula and instruction to 2.4 million children (based on Dropout Nation‘s analysis of federal Common Core data). Worst among the offenders is Nevada, which allowed 88 percent of its schools identified as failing under No Child in 2011-2012 to avoid scrutiny a year later, followed by Florida, with nearly 82 percent of failing schools let off the hook, and South Carolina with four-fifths of schools identified as failing under No Child allowed to escape the disinfecting spotlight of accountability a year later. On average, a state’s new accountability system allowed two-thirds of schools identified as failing under No Child to suddenly avoid accountability.

Even worse, the waivers allowed states to let off the hook those failure mills in “restructuring” or forced to overhaul their operations after six or more years of persistently failing status. On average, three out of every five schools identified as persistently failing were let off the hook thanks to the Obama Administration’s waiver gambit, according to Hyslop in the report. That’s 578 schools allowed to educationally neglect more than 319,000 children (based on Dropout Nation‘s analysis). Nevada was again the worst offender, with 87 percent — or nearly nine out of every ten — of its worst failure mills allowed to avoid the consequences of educational abuse and neglect. South Carolina followed behind Nevada, with 78 percent of its worst failure mills allowed to skip out on accountability, while three out of every four of Tennessee’s long-term failure mills allowed to escape consequences of educational neglect. Meanwhile two-thirds of schools failing to make Adequate Yearly Progress for the last four to five years — 688 schools serving another 377,230 children — were also let off the hook thanks to the waiver gambit. This time, Massachusetts was the worst offender, with 87 percent of these failure mills let off the hook, while Nevada and South Carolina followed behind with, respectively, 85 percent and 74 percent of failure mills let off the hook.

The New America report also shows that few states used the flexibility given under the waivers to hold more districts and schools accountable for poorly serving kids, especially those from poor and minority households. Eleven of the 16 states analyzed by New America significantly identified fewer schools for restructuring and other interventions in 2012-2013 than they did seven years earlier. Only five states — Indiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Tennessee — went the opposite direction and targeted more schools for overhaul. This isn’t shocking given the Obama Administration’s goals for the waiver gambit, the administration’s sloppiness in implementation, and evidence from other studies — including a report issued in February by the Education Trust — that show that states have used the waiver gambit to effectively render poor and minority children invisible.

It would have been great if Hyslop provided some demographic and socioeconomic details on the schools that have been allowed to escape scrutiny; one suspects that most of the failure mills let off the hook are in suburban districts which have been the most-exposed by No Child’s accountability measures, and thus, were more than happy with the results of the administration’s gambit, but that’s hard for your editor to know without looking through the source data himself. In any case, Hyslop’s report provides more evidence that the waiver gambit has so far not been of benefit to children subjected to the worst educational malpractice.

But the weakening of accountability isn’t the only problem identified by Hyslop in the report. The fact that the new accountability regimes seem to arbitrarily identifying new schools as being academically failing — something which Duncan claimed was a problem under No Child’s accountability measures — makes the administration’s gambit an even greater farce than your editor ever anticipated.

On average, just 22 percent of persistent failure mills targeted for restructuring under No Child in 2011-2012 were identified as being so-called Focus and Priority schools under the waiver gambit a year later. The remaining 88 percent were schools previously considered mediocre or otherwise under No Child While Massachusetts managed to make sure that persistent failure mills accounted for 81 percent of Focus and Priority schools, most states allowed its worst-performing schools (and the districts that run them) to escape the consequences of educational neglect, while putting under scrutiny new schools which were considered relatively well-performing. By lumping in new collections of schools previously deemed well-performing under No Child while allowing persistent failure mills to escape scrutiny, waiver states are essentially communicating to the public that they aren’t serious in their accountability efforts. After all, how can one school now be subjected to school improvement measures when a longstanding failure mill is left off the hook often without having improved how it educates children in its care?

One can easily argue that states are on the path to ruining the credibility of their own accountability systems. This has already happened in Indiana, where the A-to-F grading system implemented as part of its No Child waiver has fallen apart amid revelations that former Supt. Tony Bennett amended rules governing the grading of 13 schools that served children from kindergarten to 10th grade, a non-traditional format (and, ultimately, changed grades for 165 schools throughout the Hoosier State), and sparring matches between Bennett’s successor, Glenda Ritz (who surreptitiously revealed Bennett’s move) and the state board of education over additional alterations to the accountability system. One can imagine more trouble coming down the line as districts, as well as affiliates of the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers, complain about how some failure mills have been left off the hook while other schools have been placed under academic watch.

This year has provided more evidence that the Obama Administration’s waiver gambit is shoddy and disgraceful policymaking. It’s time for the administration — or better yet, Congress — to put this counterproductive initiative to an end. And it is time to go back to No Child’s more-sensible approach to accountability.