SUCCEEDS ACT (ESSA) FSBA 2016 Annual Summer Conference June 10, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

THE EVERY STUDENT SUCCEEDS ACT (ESSA)

FSBA 2016 Annual Summer Conference June 10, 2016 Alex Nock Penn Hill Group

 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.

ESEA Reauthorization

 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).

Key Implementation Dates

 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).

Guidance and Regulation

Title I

What’s the Same?

ESSA continues the NCLB requirement that states have in place academic content and achievement standards in reading or language arts, mathematics, and science. Standards and Assessments must be aligned. ESSA continues the requirement that states administer assessments in grades 3-8 and at least once in high school in reading/language arts and math, and at least once in each of the three grade spans (3-5, 6-9, and 10-12) in science. States must have in place English language proficiency (ELP) standards for English learners (ELs) that are aligned with their academic standards, and must provide for an annual assessment of English proficiency, aligned with their ELP standards, for all ELs.

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

• f 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?

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.

What’s Different? (cont.)

Title II

 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

• f funds. States could chose to subgrant 92 percent of funds and

reserve the additional 3 percent for more systemic, state-level activities.

State Activities

 As mentioned earlier, states may elect to reserve up to 3 percent of their

funding until Title II, Part A to support activities related to principals and

• ther school leaders.

 This 3 percent does not come out of the existing 5 percent state

reservation, but is in addition to it.

 States have wide-ranging flexibility when it comes to funding principal

and other school leader activities, but potential examples include:

 Helping schools and districts attract and retain highly effective

school leaders;

 Supporting the development of high quality professional

development for principals and other leaders; and,

 Supporting principals and other leaders’ efforts to improve

instruction in specific areas, including STEM.

3% Set-Aside for School Leadership

Title III

 The provisions in Title III remain relatively consistent with the provisions

under prior law.

 The authorization level for Title III is increased to $756 million, with

subsequent annual increases throughout the law’s authorization period.

 It is important to be clear that accountability for the performance of ELs

has been removed from Title III and integrated into the statewide accountability systems required under Title I.

Language Instruction for English Learners

Title IV Block Grant



ESSA Includes a newly authorized Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants program that is able to fund a wide range of activities and purposes.



The new program is authorized at $1.65 billion – funding outlook determined as part of current appropriations discussions for FY2017.



Under the program, States receive formula grants and allocate 95 percent to LEAs and reserve 5 percent for State level activities. Among others, authorized State level activities include:



Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate test fee reimbursement, as well as support for dual enrollment and early college high school programs;



Geography, civics and well-rounded activities;



Fostering safe, healthy and drug free environments; and,



Technology related activities.



LEAs receiving grants must do a needs assessment and are expected to fund activities in each of three categories:



Well-Rounded (at least 20% of funds), which include AP and IB test fee reimbursement, STEM, arts and computer science;



Healthy Students (at least 20% of funds); and,



Technology (at least one activity, and a limitation on the purchase of technology infrastructure).

Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants

Questions?

anock@pennhillgroup.com 202 618-3900