THE EVERY STUDENT SUCCEEDS ACT (ESSA) FSBA 2016 Annual Summer Conference June 10, 2016 Alex Nock Penn Hill Group
ESEA Reauthorization The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) was passed by the Senate on December 9, 2015. The President signed the bill into law (P.L. 114-95) one day later, on December 10. ESSA reauthorizes the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965. ESSA makes several significant changes, but the most substantial difference, compared to No Child Left Behind (NCLB) – the previous version of ESEA, passed in 2002 – is a reduced Federal and stronger state and local role in accountability, school improvement, teacher quality/evaluation, and the use of funds in Federal programs.
Key Implementation Dates The law specifies that ESEA waivers are null and void on or after August 1, 2016. Current adequate yearly progress (AYP) requirements are effective through August 1, 2016. While the law is generally effective upon the date of enactment, it also includes special effective dates for the following provisions: Formula Programs. For noncompetitive programs (i.e. formula programs like Title I) the effective date is July 1, 2017 (per the 2016 Appropriations Act). Competitive Programs. For competitive programs, the effective date is October 1, 2016 (unless otherwise provided for). Accountability systems are supposed to be take effect with the 2017-2018 year (see regulations).
Guidance and Regulation The U.S. Department of Education (ED) has begun the regulatory and guidance process, including: Soliciting comments on guidance and regulatory topics; Publishing Dear Colleague letters and guidance; Conducting negotiated rulemaking on assessment and supplement, not supplant issues; and, Issuing a proposed rule on accountability and state plans (comments due 8/1/2016). Final rules (on accountability assessments, supplement, not supplant and State consolidated plans) are expected to be released in the fall. ED’s accountability and State plan NPRM provides States with two submission options for their state plans (early March or early July 2017).
Title I
What’s the Same? ESSA continues the NCLB requirement that states have in place academic content and Standards and Assessments must be aligned. achievement standards in reading or language arts, mathematics, and science. ESSA continues the requirement that states States must have in place English language administer assessments in grades 3-8 and at proficiency (ELP) standards for English learners least once in high school in (ELs) that are aligned with their academic reading/language arts and math, and at standards, and must provide for an annual least once in each of the three grade spans assessment of English proficiency, aligned (3-5, 6-9, and 10-12) in science. with their ELP standards, for all ELs.
What’s Different? Accountability System Design In place of NCLB’s “adequate yearly progress” provisions, each state must implement a state - designed accountability system that includes long-term goals and interim measures (based on those goals) for all students, including student subgroups. There is no statutory timeline for proficiency (as in NCLB). Indicators Under the statute, Each State accountability system must include 5 accountability indicators – 4 of which would be applied depending on the school (i.e. elementary or high school). This is a major difference when compared to NCLB’s focus on assessments, graduation rate/elementary school indicator: Academic achievement (i.e. State assessment results); High school graduation rate (4 year or extended year rate – except for 67% schools); Academic indicator for elementary and middle Schools; English language proficiency; and, School quality and student success (State-selected indicator).
What’s Different? (cont.) Indicators (cont.) Under the proposed regulation: States must have 3 levels of performance for each indicator, and overall for schools; Academic achievement indicators must equally weight math and reading/language arts; The school quality and student success indicator must be different from other indicators (i.e. can’t use test results twice), and the success on the indicator must be likely to generate progress in student achievement and graduation rates. All schools must receive a “summative” rating based on all the indicators (i.e. no rating schools on just test scores). States will annually differentiate the progress of their schools using an accountability index or other mechanism that gives “substantial weight” to all indicators, but “much greater weight,” in the aggregate, to the first 4 indicators (i.e. everything but school quality and student success indicator) The school quality and student success indicator may not change identification status of school without significant progress being made on another indicator (ED mechanism to ensure that other indicators carry “much greater weight”).
What’s Different? (cont.) Subgroups Under the proposed regulation: States may not use an “N size” greater than 30 unless a State submits a justification for a larger number and receives approval from ED Former EL students who are maintained in the subgroup for reporting and accountability purposes count towards the N size. Assessment Participation Under the statute, failing to meet the 95% test participation requirement no longer automatically identifies a school. Under the regulation, a school that does not assess 95% of students (and subgroups of students above N size) must develop a plan to address. In addition, States must adopt one of four measures to respond: Provide a lower summative performance rating Award the lowest performance level on an academic indicator Identify for targeted support and improvement Another state determined action approved by ED
What’s Different? (cont.) Identification States identify schools for Comprehensive Support and Improvement and Targeted Support and Improvement. Under the proposed regulation, identification under the new accountability system has to take place for the 2017-2018 school year (i.e. identification prior to the start of 2017-2018 school year) based on 2016-2017 data. Schools must be identified for Comprehensive Support and Improvement Schools if they: Are in the lowest performing 5% of Title I schools; Are graduating less than 67% of their students and additional schools; or, Have a subgroup that is performing as poorly as the “all students” group in the lowest -performing 5 percent, which has failed to improve after the school’s implementation of a Targeted Support and Improvement plan. Under proposed regulation data can be averaged over up to a 3 year time period, and low graduation rate high schools are identified using the 4 year cohort rate only. Schools are identified for Targeted Support and Improvement Schools identified if: They have consistently under performing subgroups based on several criteria.
What’s Different? (cont.) School Improvement In place of the School Improvement Grants (SIG) program and the separate Title I set-aside for school improvement, under ESSA, states must reserve 7 percent of their Title I allocations for making subgrants to LEAs for activities to improve low-performing schools. Specific, statutorily-required interventions are no longer required (i.e. SIG models). Under the proposed regulations, interventions must be supported to the extent practicable by the strongest level of evidence. LEAs will no longer have provide public school choice or supplemental educational services. However, states will be able to reserve up to up to 3 percent of their Title I funds to make grants to LEAs for “Direct Student Services.”
What’s Different? (cont.) Supplement, Not Supplant ESEA for many years has required Federal funds to be supplementary to, and not replace (supplant) State and local funds. ED regulations, proposed as part of a negotiated rulemaking process, would significantly modify how an LEA must demonstrate supplement, not supplant compliance. In demonstrating compliance, LEAs would be required to adopt a methodology that provides each of its Title I schools with at least the same per-student funding amount (from state and local funds) as the average received by the LEA's non-Title I schools. Significant concerns and support for these provisions were raised as a part of negotiated rulemaking leading to a lack of consensus. ED is expected to propose regulations later this summer.
Title II
State Activities 5 percent of Title II funds can be used for state-level activities. Of that 5 percent, not more than 2 percent may be used to establish or expand teacher, principal or other school leader preparation academies with some restrictions. In addition, up to 3 percent of Title II funding can be used, at the discretion of the State, for additional state activities specific to principals and other school leaders. This is an exception to the state requirement to subgrant 95 percent of funds. States could chose to subgrant 92 percent of funds and reserve the additional 3 percent for more systemic, state-level activities.
Recommend
More recommend
