We, the six undersigned education and civil rights organizations, write to provide public comment on Indiana’s draft waiver application from Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) requirements. While we appreciate the state’s stated intention of reducing administrative burden and enabling strategic planning, the proposed approach would systematically retreat from federal protections designed to ensure equitable support for vulnerable students and underperforming schools. We urge Indiana to reconsider this broad waiver request and instead pursue its goals through existing federal flexibilities and targeted improvements.

State Set-Aside “Block Grant” — Equity and Transparency Concerns

Indiana’s proposal to consolidate allowable uses, conditions, and requirements under multiple federal funding streams — including those dedicated for migrant students; children and youth who are neglected, delinquent, or at risk; and English Learners — raises serious equity concerns. Rather than demonstrate adequate support for these students, the waiver application mentions these student populations only in the official names of programs being waived with no information about how Indiana would continue serving these specific student populations, supporting their needs, or closing opportunity gaps.

This approach fundamentally misunderstands — and threatens to undermine — the purpose of these targeted federal programs, which were created to address specific, documented gaps in support for vulnerable student populations. When Indiana lists numerous state priorities without any specific commitments to individual student groups, it signals that these populations would lose both dedicated attention and resources under the proposed consolidation.

Moreover, the waiver request extends beyond consolidating allowable uses of federal funds provided to the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) under ESSA; it would also waive critical requirements and conditions for receiving those funds. For example, Indiana is requesting to waive the requirement to establish and implement standardized statewide entrance and exit procedures for identifying English learners, including the requirement that all students who may be English learners be assessed using those procedures within 30 days of school enrollment. Likewise, Indiana is requesting to waive the requirement to name an individual in each affected correctional facility or institution to be responsible for issues relating to the transition of justice-involved youth from that facility or institution to other educational programs or the community. The current program-specific requirements exist precisely because vulnerable student populations have historically been underserved and their needs overlooked in broader educational initiatives. Indiana’s proposed plans for monitoring and evaluation lack detail on how it would ensure visibility into how districts and schools are serving specific student populations.

Indiana has not demonstrated why strategic planning across the state department cannot occur under current law, nor provided concrete evidence that administrative burdens cannot be addressed through existing flexibilities.

Alternative approach: Rather than seeking this broad waiver, Indiana could achieve similar administrative efficiencies, while maintaining equity protections, through existing federal authorities. Transferability provisions under Section 5103 of ESSA would allow Indiana flexibility in state activities across multiple Titles while still protecting funds that are designated for specific student groups. Additionally, consolidation of administrative funds under Section 8201 of ESSA would reduce administrative burdens and enable the type of intra-agency strategic planning the state seeks. If IDOE doesn’t currently meet this sections’ requirement to have at least 50% of SEA funds come from the state, the state could increase its allocation, or could instead apply to waive this threshold in lieu of its current broader request.

LEA “Block Grants” — Inadequate Evidence and Student Impact

The local education agency (LEA) block grant proposal similarly lacks adequate justification and would compromise protections for vulnerable students. Indiana argues that many LEAs receive such small grants that administrative burdens make the funds “not worth the work,” with several LEAs declining funds. However, the state provides insufficient data to support the need for such a broad policy change to address this concern.

In addition, similar to the proposal to consolidate state funding, Indiana’s requested flexibility around local uses of funds would also compromise essential requirements local entities must meet in order to be eligible to receive federal funding. These conditions ensure federal dollars are spent effectively, reach the students they are intended to support, and safeguard equal access and opportunity to high-quality education. Some of the local requirements Indiana seeks to waive include all program requirements for correctional facilities providing education to justice-involved youth, such as requiring that educational programs in the facility support students to meet the same academic standards and expectations as students attending public schools. Indiana’s request would also undermine the parents’ right-to-know provisions in ESSA by waiving the requirement that districts provide an assurance they are informing parents within 30 days that their child has been identified as an English learner and how the programs in the school will support their child in learning English and meeting the state’s academic standards.

Current transferability provisions under Title V already provide significant flexibility for LEAs to move funds between programs, allowing local districts to address the coordination and strategic planning challenges that Indiana cites. The state has not demonstrated why additional flexibility is needed beyond what already exists, particularly when that additional flexibility would primarily impact funding specifically designated for at-risk students, English learners, and rural students. Additionally, it’s not clear from the waiver application how much additional streamlining would be enabled via the waiver beyond what Indiana could achieve through existing authorities, and the Indiana Department of Education can support comprehensive strategic planning without the need for a waiver.

If certain LEAs are truly unable to effectively use small grants, Indiana should provide comprehensive data about which LEAs are rejecting funds, the dollar amounts involved, and the actual impact on students when these funds go unused.

Alternative approach: Indiana could address small LEA allocation concerns and administrative burden through better utilization of existing transferability provisions under Section 5103 of ESSA. These authorities allow significant movement of funds between programs, and notably, the allowable Titles cited in Indiana’s waiver were among those with many small LEA allocations, directly addressing that concern while still protecting funds for English learners. The state could also provide technical assistance to districts with small Title allocations to support their needs. These approaches would address the legitimate administrative concerns while preserving the program-specific protections that ensure vulnerable student populations receive dedicated attention and resources.

Education Innovation Grant — Diverting Resources from Highest-Need Schools

The proposal to remove school eligibility requirements from improvement and direct student services funds is perhaps the most concerning aspect of the waiver application. Indiana seeks to reallocate resources currently explicitly designated for federally identified schools and their students, ostensibly to provide families with “better options” when needed.

Despite claims that this approach is “not intended to abandon efforts to improve existing schools,” the waiver explicitly shifts focus from improving existing schools to providing alternatives elsewhere. This would effectively drain resources from struggling schools while propping up alternatives, creating a cycle where identified schools lose both students and funding. This will make supporting students who continue to attend identified schools more difficult, while providing no guarantee of improved outcomes for students enrolling in other schools.

Indiana’s argument that so few identified schools have improved is misleading given their highly targeted use of school improvement funds — providing support to only four or five schools annually rather than implementing comprehensive improvement strategies across all schools identified for improvement. The state cites national studies rather than evaluating the effectiveness of its own limited efforts. This approach abandons students who cannot or do not transfer, who are typically the most vulnerable populations that have the least mobility and fewest options.

Alternative approach: Rather than pulling funding away from identified schools, Indiana should conduct a robust evaluation of its current school improvement funding to understand what does and doesn’t work in the state’s specific context. This evaluation should examine the targeted approach of supporting only four or five schools annually and consider how to improve and scale up existing school improvement work rather than abandoning these schools. Based on these findings, the state could develop more comprehensive and effective supports for all identified schools within existing federal requirements, potentially increasing resources and developing multi-year improvement strategies that serve struggling schools and their students far better than simply reallocating resources elsewhere.

Aligned School Accountability — Removing Federal Equity Guardrails

While a unified accountability system has clear merit — providing understandable data for stakeholders, clear signals for improvement, and aligned use of resources — and Indiana makes a reasonable case for the benefits of a single system over dual systems, the proposed approach would eliminate important federal equity protections.

The most concerning aspect is the complete absence of any mention of continuing to identify schools for improvement — a fundamental retreat from the federal requirement that states identify and support their lowest-performing schools. When combined with the previous section’s proposal to reallocate improvement resources, this suggests Indiana intends to abandon systematic efforts to support struggling schools entirely.

The waiver language also fails to articulate why the new state system cannot connect directly to state priorities while also meeting federal requirements. These requirements around indicators, weighting, and school identification exist as equity guardrails to ensure that all students benefit from high expectations and targeted support when schools are not meeting their needs.

The current draft regulations for the new A-F system fail to meet federal requirements in several ways, including omitting a standalone indicator for high school graduation rates or English language proficiency for English Learners and not fully separating student proficiency against grade level standards from other measures like growth. The regulations also make no mention of how the performance of student groups will be factored, if at all, into school ratings or identification. The draft waiver request fails to acknowledge or justify these or any other aspects of the A-F system directly.

Beyond that, the proposed system undermines the very transparency and actionability the waiver states are the stated intentions of the new, unified system. It does that by incorporating many metrics as multipliers of academic achievement, rather than individual metrics, which ultimately obscure how students are performing on any single measure of the system.

Finally, Indiana is still in the process of developing its new state accountability system; regulations won’t be finalized and approved until December. The U.S. Department of Education staff should be making a waiver determination based on final regulations, rather than on draft proposals.

Alternative approaches: Indiana has two much better options than this broad waiver. First, the state could refine its new A-F system to align with ESSA requirements while maintaining the unified approach it desires. Many states have successfully created single systems that meet federal requirements for indicator inclusion, appropriate weighting of academic measures, and meaningful differentiation among schools. This would require Indiana to engage seriously with federal requirements during system design rather than seeking to avoid them entirely.

Alternatively, the state could apply for a more targeted waiver with a clear rationale, explaining exactly which requirements create problems and why. This approach would allow federal reviewers to consider the merits of specific flexibility requests while maintaining the overall framework of equity protections. Such targeted requests have received more favorable consideration because they demonstrate that states have seriously engaged with federal requirements and can articulate specific, legitimate needs for flexibility.

Indiana’s draft waiver application would undermine federal equity protections without demonstrating that existing flexibilities are inadequate to achieve the state’s goals. Rather than pursuing this broad waiver, Indiana should utilize existing federal authorities and pursue targeted improvements that can achieve the state’s legitimate goals while preserving crucial protections for vulnerable students.

Recommended alternatives to achieve stated goals:

• Use existing consolidation authorities for state funds to streamline operations and reduce administrative burden without eliminating program-specific safeguards for vulnerable students
• Leverage current transferability provisions to provide LEAs with significant flexibility while maintaining protections for at-risk students, English learners, and rural students
• Conduct a comprehensive evaluation of current school improvement efforts and develop more robust, evidence-based improvement strategies, rather than abandoning identified schools
• Work within ESSA requirements to create a unified accountability system, or pursue specific, targeted waivers with clear justification if particular requirements prove genuinely problematic

These approaches would allow Indiana to reduce administrative burden and enable strategic planning while preserving the federal equity protections that ensure all students — particularly the most vulnerable — receive the support they need.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide public comment on this important proposal.

Sincerely,

All4Ed
Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates
EdTrust
National Center for Learning Disabilities
National Parents Union
UnidosUS