Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Nassau BOCES Presented by Ira - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Nassau BOCES

Presented by Ira Schwartz June 17, 2016

Background Information

• The ESEA was last reauthorized in 2001 as the No Child Left Behind Act.
• A Joint House-Senate Conference Committee reported out the “Every Student

Succeeds Act” (ESSA) to both houses on November 30, 2015.

• December 2, 2015: The ESSA was passed by the US House of Representatives.
• December 9, 2015: The ESSA was passed by the US Senate.
• December 10, 2015: The President signed the bill into law.
• December 2015 and January 2016: United State Department of Education

(USDE) issued “Dear Colleague” letters.

• February and May 2016: USDE issued ESSA Transition FAQ.
• March and April 2016: USDE conducted negotiated rulemaking sessions on

supplement not supplant, standards and assessments.

• May 2016: USDE issued draft regulations on accountability, data reporting and

state applications.

2

Major Programs Funded Through the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)

• Title IA: Funding for Schoolwide Programs and Targeted Assistance

Schools

• Title IB: State Assessment Grants
• Title IC: Education of Migratory Children
• Title ID: Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children & Youth

Who are Neglected, Delinquent and At-Risk

• Title II: Preparing, Training and Recruiting High Quality Teachers,

Principals and Other School Leaders

• Title III: Language Instruction: English Learners and Immigrant Students
• Title IV: 21st Century Schools, Charter Schools, Magnet Schools, Family

Engagement, Education Innovation and Research, Promise Neighborhoods, School Safety, and Academic Enrichment

• Title V: Rural Schools
• Title VI: Indian, Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native Education
• Title VII: Impact Aid
• Title IX: Homeless Children and Youth

3

The BIG Picture

• Some provisions of NCLB and/or of the ESEA flexibility waiver,

especially as related to assessment and reporting requirements, are maintained.

• There are areas where states now have significantly more flexibility

than under NCLB or the ESEA flexibility waiver, particularly in terms

• f standards, supports and interventions for identified schools, and

educator evaluation systems.

• The Secretary’s authority to issue regulations and non-regulatory

guidance in order to interpret the provisions of the statute have been significantly circumscribed.

• More funding is now distributed through block grants.

4

Overview of ESSA – Transition and Implementation

• States and districts are required to continue to

implement the activities and programs they have in place now through the end of the 2015-16 school year.

• The majority of funds in the 2016-17 school year

will be administered in accordance with NCLB.

• Transition FAQ’s and additional resources are

available on USDE’s ESSA webpage at www.ed.gov/ESSA.

5

Accountability Status for Nassau BOCES

Accountability Status 2013-14 School Year Results 2014-15 School Year Results Focus Districts 2 2 Priority Schools 4 Focus Schools 5 4 Local Assistance Plan Schools (LAP) 9 4 Good Standing Schools 346 356 Reward Schools 41 21

6

Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) - Basic Elements of Proposed Regulations

• The U.S. Department of Education (ED) officially published a

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register

• n Tuesday, May 31, 2016
• The NPRM covers accountability provisions included in Title I,

reporting, and consolidated state plan requirements in the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)

• Public comments may be submitted through August 1, 2016 at:

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2016/05/31/2016- 12451/elementary-and-secondary-education-act-of-1965-as- amended-by-the-every-student-succeeds.

• Following review of public comment, USDE will issue final

rulemaking.

• States may choose to submit their applications on either March

6, 2017 or July 5, 2017.

7

ESSA Statutory Accountability Provisions: Standards

• States must establish “challenging state

academic standards” in reading/language arts, math, and science.

• Standards must be aligned with college

entrance requirements and state CTE standards.

• States must also establish English language

proficiency (ELP) standards for English learners (EL).

8

Overview of ESSA- Assessments

Requirements:

• In English language arts and mathematics, students must be tested annually in grades

3-8 and once in high school.

• In science, students must be tested once in elementary, middle, and high school.
• Assessments must include multiple up-to-date measures of student academic

achievement.

• Assessments must be aligned to the state’s “challenging academic standards.”

Opportunities:

• States may administer either a single summative test or multiple state-wide interim tests

that are combined to create a single summative score.

• Tests may be partially delivered in the form of portfolios, projects, or extended

performance tasks.

• States may use computer adaptive assessments with the option to use on grade level,

above grade level and below grade level items to measure student proficiency.

• More flexibility in score reporting provisions could allow for shorter tests.
• Districts, with state approval, can choose to use a nationally-recognized high school

academic assessment, such as the ACT or SAT, in lieu of a state assessment.

• The grade 8 “double testing” waiver continues, with the caveat that students impacted

by the waiver must take a more advanced math assessment in high school.

9

Overview of ESSA- Assessments

Opportunity: USDE Pilot to Develop Innovative Assessment Systems

• Provides Secretary with authority to allow pilot of innovative assessment

systems in no more than seven states during the first three years of ESSA.

• Systems may include assessments that are:
• competency-based,
• instructionally embedded,
• interim,
• cumulative year-end assessments or performance based assessments

that combine into an annual summative score,

• computer-based, and
• Assessments that validate proficiency or demonstrate mastery.
• After the initial three-year period, the Secretary must issue a progress report.

The Secretary then has the authority to expand the program to other states.

10

Requirements:

• States must demonstrate that local educational agencies will provide for an

annual assessment of English proficiency of all English language learners.

• States can include former English language learners in the ELL subgroup

for up to four years. Under ESEA, they could only be included for two years.

• States can exempt newly arrived English language learners (ELLs) based
• n specific options (provided below).

Opportunities:

• Two options states have for testing recently arrived English language

learners (ELL) are to:

• Exclude ELLs from one administration of the ELA assessment and

exclude results on ELA, math and NYSESLAT for the first year of enrollment for accountability purposes, or

• Test ELLs in the school year in which they arrive, but instead of using

that score to determine school accountability in the first year, incorporate the results into a measure of growth to be used in school accountability in the second year after arrival. In the third year and beyond, student proficiency results must be used for accountability

• purposes. This is the model currently approved for use in Florida.

Overview of ESSA - Assessment of English language learners

11

Overview of ESSA - Assessment of Students with Disabilities

Requirements:

• States must continue to not exceed having more than 1% of students in

the state assessed using alternative assessments for students with severe cognitive disabilities.

• States may not impose on any local educational agency a cap on the

percentage of students administered an alternate assessment. Opportunities:

• States may apply to the Secretary of Education to exceed the one

percent state cap. Districts can apply for a waiver of this limit – but must provide a justification.

• States may now administer computer adaptive exams with an option to

measure student proficiency and growth with items above or below a student’s grade level. This provision will be helpful in effectively assessing both students with disabilities and English language learners.

12

ESSA Statutory Accountability Provisions: School Identification

• Each state is required to identify schools for:

– Comprehensive Support and Improvement:

• lowest-performing 5% of Title I schools,
• all public high schools with a graduation rate below 67%,
• additional schools that have chronically low-performing

subgroups and have not improved with targeted support.

• Targeted Support and Improvement:

– Schools with low-performing subgroups, as defined by state.

13

ESSA Statutory Accountability Provisions: School Improvement

• Authorizes new flexibility in determining what

actions to take to improve underperforming schools.

• Requires “evidence-based” interventions.
• In place of the School Improvement Grants

program and Title I set-aside for school improvement, states receive a single 7 percent set-aside of their Title I allocations for state administration and sub-grants to LEAs.

14

ESSA Proposed USED Regulations: Indicators

Indicator Key Proposed Regulatory Requirement(s) Academic Proficiency as Measured through Assessments

• Must equally weight reading/language arts and math
• For high schools, indicator may also include growth

High School Graduation Rate

• Must be based on four year adjusted cohort graduation

rate

• May also include an extended year graduation rate

Elementary/Middle School Academic Progress Indicator

• Growth on academic assessments or another indicator

Acquisition of English Language Proficiency

• Measures of progress for English language learners

towards attaining English language proficiency

15

Note: all indicators must include at least 3 levels of performance

ESSA Proposed USED Regulations re: Indicators (cont.)

Indicator Key Proposed Regulatory Requirement(s) School Quality or Student Success • Must be different from other indicators in state’s accountability system;

• Must be valid, reliable, and comparable;
• Must be capable of disaggregation by

subgroup;

• Cannot change the status of identified

schools w/o significant progress on at least one other indicator (mechanism for ensuring academic indicators have “much greater weight,” as required in statute);

• Progress must be likely to increase

student achievement or HS graduation rate; and

• Must aid in the meaningful differentiation
• f schools.

16

ESSA Proposed USED Regulations re: Student Subgroups

• “Super subgroups” are not permitted in place
• f individual subgroups, but may supplement

them.

• N size must be less than 30 or must be

approved by USDE; lower N sizes are permitted for reporting purposes.

• Former EL students may continue to be

counted for up to 4 years in the EL subgroup count; these students would continue to count towards the EL subgroup N size.

17

ESSA Statutory Accountability Provisions – Participation Rate

• The law requires that each state must:

“Calculate any measure in the Academic Achievement indicator under 200.14(b)(1) so that the denominator of such measures for all students and all students in each subgroup includes the greater of – (i) 95 percent of all students in the grades assessed who are enrolled in the school; or (ii) The number of all such students enrolled in the school who are participating in the assessments required under section 111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) of the Act.” Note: According to USDE draft rulemaking on reports cards, when reporting students at each level of achievement, the state must report both the results using the methodology above and one in which the denominator is the number of students with a valid test score.

18

ESSA Statutory Accountability Provisions – Participation Rate

• What this means:

– School A has 100 students who are required to participate in State assessments. Of these, 97 participate and 97 achieve a score of proficiency. For accountability purposes, proficiency will be calculated as 97/97 or 100%. – School B has 100 students who are required to participate in State assessments. Of these, 80 participate and 80 achieve a score of proficiency. For accountability purposes, proficiency will be calculated as 80/95 or 84%.

19

ESSA Proposed Regulations re: Test Participation

• States must use one of four methods to respond to

participation rates that fall below the 95 percent threshold (all students or subgroup):

– Lower summative performance rating, – Lowest performance level on academic proficiency indicator, – Identification for targeted support and improvement, or – State-determined action that is rigorous and approved by USDE.

• Schools not meeting the 95 percent participation

requirement must develop an improvement plan that is approved and monitored by the local educational agency.

• LEAs with significant number of schools must implement

improvement plans reviewed and approved by the state.

20

ESSA Proposed Regulations re: School Identification

• Identification for Comprehensive Support under

new accountability structure must take place for the 2017-18 school year, based on data available in the 2016-17 school year.

• Identification of schools with consistently

underperforming subgroups for Targeted Support does not have to take place until the 2018-19 school year.

• All schools must receive a single summative rating,

from at least 3 rating categories.

21

ESSA Proposed Regulations re: Identification for Comprehensive Support and Improvement

• Data can be averaged over a period of up to

3 years.

• Identification must take place at least once

every 3 years.

• Would require that states use four-year

adjusted cohort graduation rate (excludes use of extended year graduation rate).

22

ESSA Proposed Regulations re: Identification for Targeted Support and Improvement

• Requires the establishment of a uniform, statewide definition
• f consistently underperforming subgroups that allows for the

identification of subgroups based on at least one of the following factors:

– Whether a subgroup is on track to meet state’s long-term goals – Whether a subgroup is at or below a state-determined threshold – Whether a subgroup is performing at the lowest performance level on one of the State’s annual indicators – Whether a subgroup is performing significantly below the state average for all students – Another, state-determined factor

• Schools with one or more subgroups performing at or below

the level of Comprehensive Support and Improvement schools (bottom 5%) must also be identified.

23

ESSA Proposed Regulations re: Interventions for School Improvement

• Interventions must be supported “to the

extent practicable” by the strongest level of evidence.

• States may provide an exhaustive or non-

exhaustive state-approved list of intervention strategies.

• The implementation of school improvement

plans may provide for a planning year.

24

Overview of ESSA – School Improvement Plans

• All identified schools must develop a comprehensive or targeted

support and improvement plan.

• In order to ensure that stakeholders, including parents,

teachers, principals, and other school leaders are engaged:

– Parents must be notified if their student attends an identified school and told how they can engage in developing the plan. – The plans must be publically available. – The plans must describe how stakeholder input was received and any changes that were made as a result.

• Districts must review and approve targeted support plans.
• States and districts must review and approve comprehensive

support plans.

25

Overview of ESSA – Definition of Evidence Based

(21) EVIDENCE-BASED.— The term ‘‘evidence-based,’’ when used with respect to a State, local educational agency, or school activity, means an activity, strategy, or intervention that— (i) demonstrates a statistically significant effect on improving student outcomes

• r other relevant outcomes based on—

(I) strong evidence from at least 1 well-designed and well-implemented experimental study; (II) moderate evidence from at least 1 well-designed and well-implemented quasi- experimental study; or (III) promising evidence from at least 1 well designed and well-implemented correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias; or (ii)(I) demonstrates a rationale based on high quality research findings or positive evaluation that such activity, strategy, or intervention is likely to improve student

• utcomes or other relevant outcomes; and

(II) includes ongoing efforts to examine the effects of such activity, strategy, or intervention.

26

Overview of ESSA – School Interventions

• Allows schools, districts, and states to select evidence-based

intervention or strategy tailored to local needs.

• Each plan must include at least one evidence-based strategy,

and the regulations do not prescribe a specific level of evidence but refer to the definition under Title VIII.

• States may establish a list of approved interventions.
• Comprehensive and additional targeted support school plans

must also review resource inequities, including per-pupil expenditures and access to ineffective, out-of-field, or inexperienced teachers.

• States and districts must set meaningful exit criteria that expect

improved student outcomes, and require additional actions in schools where initial interventions do not improve those

• utcomes.

27

Overview of ESSA – Funding Under Section 1003

• States must direct funds set aside for school improvement (i.e.,

funds under section 1003 to districts with schools most in need

• f support:

– States may distribute funds by formula or competitively but must consider schools with the “greatest need” and “strongest commitment” via a district application. – Districts that receive funds for school improvement must receive a minimum of $500,000 for each comprehensive support school it serves and $50,000 for each targeted support school, unless the state determines that a smaller amount is sufficient. – States must provide technical assistance, as well as monitoring, to districts to oversee and improve the use of funds for evidence- based interventions. – States must also engage in ongoing efforts to evaluate the use of these funds for evidence-based interventions to improve student

• utcomes.

28

ESSA Proposed Regulations re: Consolidated State Plans

29

Components

• Consultation and

Coordination

• Challenging Academic

Standards and Aligned Assessments

• Accountability, Support, and

Improvement for Schools

• Supporting Excellent

Educators

• Supporting All Students

Submission and Review

• States have the option to

submit by either March 6 or July 5, 2017

• Review (and any necessary

revision) of state plan is required to take place at least every four years

ESSA Proposed Regulations re: Consolidated State Plans (cont.)

30

Description of state strategies for supporting:

• The continuum of a child’s education from

preschool through grade 12

• Equitable access to a well-rounded

education and rigorous coursework

• School conditions for learning
• The effective use of technology

Description of the entrance and exit criteria for EL students Description of the process a state will use to waive the 40 percent schoolwide program threshold Description of state strategies for ensuring the low-income and minority children are not taught disproportionately by ineffective, out-of- field, or inexperienced teachers

Key Content

Overview of ESSA – Assessment and Supplement not Supplant Negotiated Rule Making

• Prior to releasing these draft regulations,

USDE released draft rulemaking on assessments and “supplement not supplant.”

• Some issues have been raised regarding

the assessment provisions.

• Many issues have been raised about the

“supplement not supplant” provisions.

31

Overview of ESSA – Timeline for Implementation

• Under the proposed regulations, states must submit state plans in either March 2017
• r July 2017.
• The proposal requires that all states identify schools for comprehensive and

additional targeted support for the first time in the 2017-2018 school year, with annual identification of schools with consistently underperforming subgroups for targeted support beginning in the 2018-2019 school year. Chronically underperforming schools need not be identified until a school has been a target support and improvement school for three years.

• Identifications are to be made using the prior school year data prior to the start of the

school year. (For example, identifications for the 2017-18 school year are to be made based on 2016-17 school year data prior to the start of the 2017-18 school year.

• All schools are eligible for a planning year in the year of identification (e.g., 2017-

2018) but must implement interventions in the following year (e.g., 2018-2019).

• States may update their accountability systems as necessary to include new

indicators or new measures within their indicators.

32

Next Steps

The Department will:

• Submit official comments and questions through the Federal Register at:

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2016/05/31/2016-12451/elementary-and- secondary-education-act-of-1965-as-amended-by-the-every-student-succeeds.

• Bring to the Regents proposed “guiding principles” for development of the State

plan.

• With Regents approval, share the guiding principles with the field for public

comment.

• Ask the Regents to approve the guiding principles, as the basis for Department staff

with consultation with the field, to develop a draft state plan.

• Seek permission from the Regents to release the draft plan for formal public

comment.

• Revise the draft plan based on public comment and submit to the Board of Regents

for approval.

• Submit to United States Department of Education after approval by the Board of

Regents.

33

Current Membership in ESSA Think Tank

Afterschool Works! NY: The New York State Afterschool Network Advocates for Children Allegany-Limestone Central School District Alliance for Quality Education Aspira of New York Association of Mathematics Teachers of New York State Association of Small City School Districts Batavia School District Broadalbin-Perth Central School District Buffalo Public Schools Capital Area School Development Association Capital Region BOCES Children's Defense Fund City University of New York Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA) Coalition of Special Act School Districts Commissioner’s Nonpublic School Advisory Council Conference of Big 5 School Districts Council of School Supervisors & Administrators Deer Park Union Free School District Disability Rights New York Down Syndrome Aim High Resource Center Early Childhood Advisory Council Ed Trust New York Educators 4 Excellence Empire State Supervisors and Administrators Association High Achievement New York Hispanic Federation Include NYC Jefferson-Lewis-Hamilton-Herkimer-Oneida BOCES Learning Disabilities Association of NYS Legal Aid Society Levittown Public Schools Long Island Association of Special Education Administrators Lower Hudson Council of School Superintendents Mohawk Regional Migrant Education Tutorial and Support Services (METS) Program Center - New York State Migrant Education Program Consortium Mount Vernon Central School District NAACP - New York State Conference National Art Education Association (NAEA) National Association for Health Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance National Association for Music Education (MENC) National Indian Education Association New York Association for Career and Technical Education New York Association for Pupil Transportation New York City Charter School Center New York City Department of Education New York City Special Education Collaborative New York Council of Special Education Administrators New York Immigration Coalition

New York Schools Data Analysis Technical Assistance Group (DATAG) New York State Art Teachers Association New York State Association for the Education of Young Children New York State Association of Bilingual Education New York State Association of School Business Officials New York Library Association Section of School Librarians New York State Council for Social Studies New York State Council of Educational Associations New York State Council of School Superintendents New York State Council on Leadership and Student Activities New York State Dance Education Association New York State Education Department Middle Level Liaisons New York State English Council New York State Federation of School Administrators New York State Middle School Association New York State Migrant Education Program Consortium New York State Office of Children and Family Services New York State Parent Teacher Association New York State Reading Association New York State School Boards Association New York State School Music Association New York State Special Education Parent Centers- Long Island New York State Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (NYS TESOL) New York State Theater Education Association New York State United Teachers North East Charter Schools Network Northeast Comprehensive Center Northeast Regional Information Center NYC Special Education Collaborative Office of Mental Health, Information for Military and Their Families Parent Network of Western New York Pre-K thru Grade 3 Administrators Association Regional Special Education Technical Assistance Support Centers Rochester City School District Rural Schools Association of New York School Administrators Association of New York State Science Teachers Association of New York State Society for Health and Physical Educators - Eastern District Society for Literature, Science, and the Arts Staff/Curriculum Development Network (SCDN) State University of New York Syracuse Public Schools The Business Council of New York State, Inc. The New York Urban League The NYC Coalition for Educational Justice Ticonderoga Central School District Tompkins-Seneca-Tioga BOCES Union Endicott Central School District United Federation of Teachers Yonkers Public Schools District Superintendents were asked to nominate one superintendent from each Joint Management Team.