By Dale Chu
Indiana’s ESSA waiver request is ambitious: less a targeted flexibility play than a deliberate effort to rethink assessment, accountability, and how federal K-12 dollars are governed, monitored, and evaluated. The state is seeking broad relief across federal programs, arguing that ESSA-era compliance has diverted too much time, money, and resources away from students.
This isn’t a grab bag of asks. Indiana is proposing a different operating model and making a case that it has earned the credibility to try. Its draft A-F system (more below) calculates school grades using a student-level point system approach. Each student earns points based on academic performance, growth, and selected non-academic measures (e.g., earning workforce credentials). A school’s overall grade is the average of all students’ points.
Ultimately, Indiana’s waiver will be successful if flexibility doesn’t come at the expense of real accountability.
What I Like
- A coherent theory of action: Indiana clearly identifies the problem it’s trying to solve: federal silos and compliance demands crowd out strategic focus. The state backs this up with concrete estimates of time and staffing devoted to paperwork rather than student outcomes.
- Leadership matters: Katie Jenner, Indiana’s capable and charismatic education secretary, brings a record of results-oriented leadership. Her recent op-ed on the state’s request underscores that this waiver isn’t about dodging responsibility, but about aligning flexibility with results and reducing red tape without abandoning rigor. Previous initiatives in early literacy and college and career readiness suggest the state has the capacity to implement complex reforms.
Questions I Have
- A-F accountability requires restraint: Indiana’s draft A-F model, expected to be voted on in January, has its heart in the right place. But not everything that matters lends itself to accountability, and not all metrics are created equal. The risk is overloading the system with well-meaning but hard-to-measure, or easy-to-game, indicators. For example, counting work-based learning completion or attendance as proxies for readiness without considering quality. And attendance alone is a poor measure of work ethic or preparedness. Clarity will depend as much on what the state leaves out as what it includes.
- Academic guardrails: Will local schools be able to earn full credit in the new system without credible test-based measures? If reading and math metrics carry the same weight as non-academic indicators, the system could inadvertently reward schools for non-academic success while masking weak core achievement. Thoughtful weighting and transparency are critical to prevent accountability from being hollowed out.
- Access and opportunity: Schools in better-resourced districts may be better positioned to capitalize on non-academic pathways, such as dual-credit courses, credentials, or work-based learning. Without supports for less affluent schools, Indiana’s waiver risks widening opportunity gaps even as it broadens the definition of success.
- A one-off or a model?: If approved, Indiana’s waiver wouldn’t just grant flexibility; it could signal a broader shift toward rethinking how assessment results are prioritized or sidelined. Other states watching closely will need to distinguish Indiana-specific capacity from a generalizable template.
Bottom Line
Indiana’s request is bolstered by strong leadership and a record of sustained achievement. It reflects confidence that states can do better if Uncle Sam gets out of the way. In Indiana’s case, that confidence may be warranted.
The central question is whether the flexibility the state is seeking can preserve assessment and accountability without compromising on rigor. If the waiver is approved, federal officials should make clear that it reflects a judgment about Indiana’s capacity, not a copy and paste template. Put simply, what works in Indiana won’t automatically work elsewhere.
What did I miss? Send your thoughts my way and we may feature your response in a future Waiver HQ post.