Kansas Requests Federal Waiver to Unify School Accountability Systems

On Monday, October 27, Kansas joined the increasing number of states seeking to waive certain requirements of federal education law. Specifically, the waiver seeks to make a unified accountability system, merging the current state and federal systems into one within four years. 

This move comes at a time when other states have requested waivers from accountability and funding provisions of federal law, setting up a series of decisions that will shape the role of states versus the federal government in education policy for years to come. 

Current federal requirements 

Under Federal law (i.e., the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as updated by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2015)), every state must test students annually in math and reading, report results publicly, and identify schools that are struggling the most. Those identified schools fall into three categories:

• Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI): the lowest-performing schools overall.
• Targeted Support and Improvement (TSI): schools in which one or more student group (like English language learners or students with disabilities) are struggling.
• Additional Targeted Support and Improvement (ATSI): a middle layer of schools, where subgroup performance is consistently very low. 

Once identified, schools receive additional support, create improvement plans subject to federal scrutiny, and spend federal funds (mainly Title I, Section 1003 dollars) on evidence-based interventions. 

The current accountability system in Kansas

Each state sets its own accountability system in addition to the federal requirements outlined by ESSA. And Kansas has two overlapping systems right now:

• A federal ESSA system that uses test scores, growth, graduation rates, English language proficiency and other indicators to produce a list of CSI, TSI, ATSI list sent to the U.S. Department of Education.
• A state accountability and accreditation system called Kansas Education Systems Accreditation (KESA). 

Instead of ranking schools, KESA evaluates district systems on continuous improvement plans, leadership, and student success measures. KESA is built around the Kansas Can vision, which focuses on Kindergarten readiness, social-emotional growth, postsecondary success, among other things. 

Recently, the State Board of Education adopted new assessment cut scores — the levels that define proficiency on state assessments — which shifted how student achievement will look statistically going forward. 

Since these two systems use different measurements and timelines, schools end up juggling two sets of improvement plans, two reporting structures, and multiple definitions of success. The Kansas Department of Education (KDSE) argues that this dynamic creates confusion for districts and educators and does not lead to better student outcomes. 

What Kansas wants to change with this waiver

Kansas’ full proposal asks the U.S. Department of Education to do the following:

1. Pause new identifications of CSI, TSI, and ATSI schools until the 2028-2029 school year so that no new schools are added to the federal “in-need-of-improvement” list.
2. Keep existing identified schools under support through 2027-2028, instead of exiting or reidentifying them now.
3. Continue funding schools with federal improvement money during this break.

During which time, Kansas plans to merge its federal accountability system into one unified model with KESA: by 2028-29, the same framework used for state accreditation would also satisfy federal requirements for identifying and supporting low-performing schools. 

This is all coming at a time of major change for KSDE. In addition to new cut scores, Dr. Randy Watson, the longtime chief state school officer who plans to retire imminently, has announced plans for KESA 2.0 (which we covered in our latest newsletter). 

Under this more “coherent” vision, the state has identified four fundamental focus areas that will center their work going forward:

• Structured literacy. Teaching reading through a systematic, science of reading approach that emphasizes phonics, decoding, and language structure.
• Standards alignment. Ensuring what is taught in classrooms lines up with academic standards — so that instruction, materials, and assessments are pulling in the same direction.
• Balanced assessment. Using different types of assessments (like state and classroom tests, formative assessments) to get a fuller picture of student learning.
• Quality instruction. Supporting teachers with strong professional learning, evidence-based practices, and classroom coaching. This ties directly to the Kansas Learning Network that works with identified schools.

KSDE calls these “fundamentals” because every element will anchor the new accountability and improvement model under KESA 2.0. 

Weighing the arguments for and against the waiver

At its core, the waiver reflects a debate with a familiar tension in education policy: balancing coherence and efficiency with urgency and compliance. 

Supporters of Kansas’ waiver will say it’s a practical step toward stability and coherence. With new assessment cut scores and an updated accreditation system on the way, pausing federal designations gives schools and districts time to adjust before being labeled under new standards. 

They could also argue that unifying the federal and state systems will reduce duplication and create a single, clearer picture of performance — helping educators focus on continuous improvement instead of compliance. By centering the new system on the four fundamentals, Kansas aims to better connect accountability with actual classroom practice.

Critics may counter that the plan amounts to a pause from accountability. By suspending new identifications for several years, the state risks leaving struggling schools unnoticed and without timely intervention. Some might worry that merging with KESA could dilute federal oversight, shifting attention away from measurable student outcomes toward process-based evaluations. Others could note that long pauses can create inertia: once the pressure to identify and improve low-performing schools eases, the momentum for reform may fade.

Aligned’s Take: Aligned sees merit in Kansas’ effort to create a more efficient and coherent accountability system. Reducing duplication between state and federal requirements could save time for districts and educators while focusing attention on the fundamentals — literacy, standards alignment, assessment, and quality instruction — that we broadly support. The key question is whether this new approach will ensure that struggling schools continue to receive meaningful support and make measurable progress. Despite years of targeted interventions, improvement has often been slow or inconsistent. 

As Kansas redesigns its system, maintaining a clear focus on student outcomes and school improvement will be critical. As we think about submitting a public comment to share our perspective and questions, we encourage others to review the proposal and do the same (you can do so here). The decision now will shape how Kansas measures and supports school success for years to come.