Key State Decisions Required Under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)

Transcription

1 Key State Decisins Required Under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) INTRODUCTION While it will be mnths befre the U.S. Department f Educatin releases even draft regulatins and guidance related t the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), State Educatin Agencies (SEAs) can take sme actin nw t prepare fr the transitin t the new law. Belw, rganized int key tpic areas, are sme essential questins that States shuld begin t familiarize themselves with; states shuld cnsider hw these questins and their pssible answers -- might affect their thinking abut implementing ESSA when final regulatins are released. In additin t cnsidering these key questins, there are sme specific actins States may take right nw in rder t put themselves in a gd psitin: Cnstituency Outreach. State shuld begin cnstituency utreach t gather ideas fr implementatin. Input is a requirement under the new law, but it is als a gd strategy t help generate supprt. The prcess f gathering input is als an pprtunity t identify partners t help implement and cmmunicate abut the new plan. Visin Develpment. With new flexibility cmes the pprtunity fr states t d mre, better and differently. States can hst brainstrming discussins t develp a visin fr underperfrming schls and students. States can use this visin as the basis fr cncrete planning when final regulatins are released by the Department. While certain elements f the visin may need t be adapted in rder t adhere t the rules and cnstructs f the new law, it s wrth taking the pprtunity t think big and differently befre diving int the specifics. Cmmunicatins and Messaging. When a new law passes, teachers, parents, principals, superintendents and legislatrs want t knw what s changing tday? ESSA is being branded as a law that prvides tremendus state flexibility, but we knw that there are still requirements that states and lcal districts must adhere t. Bth f these issues present a cmmunicatins and messaging challenge that states shuld get ahead f. Accuntability Alignment. Fr bth waiver and nn-waiver states, nw is a gd time t analyze current accuntability systems in the cntext f the new requirements, which will help states understand what can stay the same and what will need t change. This will prvide states the right jumping ff pint t create a new plan that builds n the current system and meets a new visin. Current Schl Imprvement Alignment: In bth waiver and nn-waiver states, fficials can begin thinking abut what parts f their schl imprvement system they want t maintain, and which they want t change. The new law prvides states with significant flexibility regarding what actins t take with identified schls. States shuld start researching and planning nw fr what kinds f evidence-based interventins make sense, and what partnerships might be needed t assist in implementatin. Teacher Evaluatin. Fr waiver states, teacher evaluatins are n lnger a requirement. States shuld start talking internally abut hw teacher evaluatin plicies and prgrams may change given the flexibility allwed by the new law. Cnslidated Applicatin. States shuld discuss whether a cnslidated applicatin will be the right apprach, and begin t crdinate and plan accrdingly with apprpriate

2 ffices. State plans will g int effect beginning with the schl year (after receiving US Department f Educatin apprval). Plan Ahead fr the EL/Title III Transitin. All previus Title III standards, assessment, and accuntability requirements have migrated t Title I, althugh the Title III prgram remains in the new law. In rder t leverage expertise and efficiencies, states might cnsider hw this affects staffing, crdinatin, and cllabratin amng the Title I and Title III. POTENTIAL QUESTIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS, BY MAJOR ISSUE Title I Direct Student Services States will need t decide if they want t set aside up t 3% f their Title I funds in rder t establish a prgram f direct student services, and, if s, hw much (beginning with the FY2017 funding). If the answer is yes, states will need t: Begin the prcess f designing such a prgram; Engage in required cnsultatin with LEAs; Develp grant applicatins; Develp and implement prcesses fr cmpiling and maintaining a list f apprved academic tutring prviders (nte: prviders f ther services d nt require state apprval); and, Develp a prcess fr mnitring the quality f all prviders. State Plans This year, state s must begin the develpment f their new State plans, including develping a prcess t cnsult with the Gvernr, state legislature, state bard f educatin, and stakehlders, and deciding if their plan will be part f a cnslidated plan. Cnsultatin with the Gvernr in the develpment f a State s Title I, Title II r ESEA cnslidated applicatin requires a 30 day review perid by the Gvernr s ffice as well as cnsultatin befre submissin f the plan t the Secretary. Challenging Academic Standards State plans must include an assurance that the state has adpted challenging academic cntent standards and aligned academic achievement standards. States must decide if they will create new standards r revise current standards t meet these new requirements. States will need t decide hw they will demnstrate that their standards are aligned with entrance requirements fr credit-bearing cursewrk in the system f public higher educatin in the State and relevant State career and technical educatin standards. States will need t determine if they want t adpt alternative standards fr students with disabilities r whether any changes are necessary t these standards if a state has previusly adpted them. If a state has recently adpted new academic standards (e.g., Cmmn Cre), it may need t review its English language prficiency (ELP) standards t ensure that they are in alignment with the new requirement under ESSA that ELP standards address different 2

3 prficiency levels, which was nt a requirement f NCLB. States will thus need t determine if their ELP standards meet this requirement, and revise them if they d nt. Assessments State plans must demnstrate that the SEA, in cnsultatin with LEAs, has implemented a set f high-quality academic assessments in mathematics, reading r language arts, and science. States may decide if they will implement assessments in any ther subjects. States may als decide t have assessments delivered, at least partially, in the frm f prtflis, prjects, r extended perfrmance tasks. States may decide if assessments will be administered thrugh a single summative assessment r thrugh multiple statewide interim assessments during the curse f the academic year that result in a single summative scre that prvides valid, reliable, and transparent infrmatin n student achievement r grwth. States will need t determine if their ELP assessments align with their ELP standards, and revise thse assessments if they d nt. States may decide if they will exempt 8 th graders wh take advanced mathematics in middle schl frm the regular state assessment. States will have t determine whether they will adpt alternative assessments fr students with significant cgnitive disabilities r mdify such assessments if a State already has them in place. States are als required t determine hw they will d additinal versight ver lcal educatinal agencies which administer these assessments shuld they be assessing mre than 1% f their ttal student ppulatin via these assessments. Lcally selected assessments states must determine if they will make natinally recgnized high schl assessments available fr selectin. If s, they must carry ut additinal actins, a prcess that wuld likely have t begin this year. In the event any district seeks t use a lcally selected assessment, states are required t establish technical criteria t determine if any such assessments meet the requirement. States may decide if they want t develp and administer cmputer-adaptive assessments. States may set a limit n the aggregate amunt f time devted t the administratin f assessments fr each grade, expressed as a percentage f annual instructinal hurs. States need t determine when they wuld make this decisin and, if they want t institute the limit during the schl year, states wuld need t begin the prcess sn. Statewide Accuntability System Each state plan must include a descriptin f the statewide accuntability system key decisins include: The minimum number f students (n-size) that the State determines are necessary with respect t the disaggregatin f infrmatin, including: Hw that number is statistically sund; Hw such minimum number f students was determined by the State, including hw the State cllabrated with teachers, principals, ther 3

4 schl leaders, parents, and ther stakehlders when determining such minimum number; and Hw the State ensures that such minimum number is sufficient t nt reveal any persnally identifiable infrmatin States will have t establish ambitius lng-term gals, which shall include measurements f interim prgress tward meeting such gals. States must decide what cnstitutes ambitius lng-term and interim. These gals include: Academic achievement as measured by prficiency n annual state assessments; and Graduatin rates in which states must decide if they want t use the extended-year rate in additin t the required 4-year chrt graduatin rate. With respect t English learners, increases in the percentage f student making prgress achieving English language prficiency, within a timeline which must be determined by the State. States will have t annually measure fr all students and separately fr each subgrup f students, the fllwing indicatrs: Fr all schls and based n the lng-term gals, academic achievement as measured by prficiency n annual state assessments and at the the discretin f the state, student grwth n such assessments fr each public high schl in the state; Fr nn-high schls, any ther measure f grwth as determined by the state (nt necessarily based n the state assessments), r anther valid and reliable indicatr that allws fr meaningful differentiatin in schl perfrmance ; Fr high schls, graduatin rates in which states must decide if they want t use the extended-year rate in additin t the required 4-year chrt graduatin rate. Fr all schls, prgress f ELs in attaining English language prficiency states must decide what is meant by prgress. This culd be just a cntinuatin f the indicatr a state is currently using under the similar NCLB language in Title III; Fr all schls, ne additinal schl quality r student success indicatr states must decide what additinal indicatr r indicatrs they will use that allw fr meaningful differentiatin in schl perfrmance. States must develp a system t meaningfully differentiate all public schls in the state based n the indicatrs nted abve. In develping such a system, states will have t decide hw much weight t assign t each indicatr, while ensuring that each such indicatr has substantial weight. States must als ensure that, in the aggregate, the indicatrs which d nt include the additinal schl quality r student success indicatrs, are assigned a much greater weight. States will need t decide what cnstitutes substantial and much greater. States will need t decide whether t cunt frmer ELs as part f the EL subgrup fr up t fur years after they exit EL status. (Under the regulatins fr NCLB, this was allwed nly fr up t tw years.) Based n the wrding f the statute, the indicatr measuring prgress f ELs in attaining English prficiency des nt need t be an annual 4

5 indicatr. Unless the Department requires thrugh regulatin that it must be annual, states will need t decide hw ften t use this indicatr. States must decide a methdlgy fr identifying schls (based n the system f differentiatin), fr cmprehensive supprt and imprvement (CSI), and fr determining if additinal categries f schls, beynd what is required by the new law, shuld be included. This must be nt less than the lwest-perfrming 5 percent f all schls receiving funds under this part in the State. ESSA requires that high schls that graduate fewer than tw-thirds f their students be identified fr cmprehensive supprt and imprvement, but des nt specify whether this identificatin is t be made based n the fur-year adjusted chrt rate, an extended rate, r sme ther rate. Unless the Department regulates n this issue, states will need t decide what rate t use. States must decide hw the requirement that 95% f all students and students in each subgrup participate in assessments will factr int their state accuntability systems. Districts with schls identified by the state fr cmprehensive supprt and imprvement must develp a plan fr each such schl. States must determine the plan apprval prcess and what will be required fr apprval. They must als develp the prcess by which the state will prvide n-ging mnitring and review f the plan. States must decide if they will permit differentiated imprvement activities fr high schls that predminantly serve students wh are either retuning back t schl after drpping ut r are significantly ff track t graduate. States must decide if they will permit high schls with a ttal enrllment f less than 100 students t frg therwise required imprvement activities. States must ntify districts if they have any schl where any subgrup f students is cnsistently underperfrming. These schls will be identified fr Targeted Supprt and Imprvements (TSI). States must decide what cnstitutes cnsistently and underperfrming. States must decide hw frequently t identify these schls. States must decide what the exit criteria will be fr schls identified as in need f cmprehensive supprt and imprvement. States must decide hw many years schls will have t be underperfrming in rder t meet the criteria fr cntinued supprt, and decide which mre rigrus actins must be taken by such schl (which may include addressing schl level peratins). Fr targeted schls, states must determine the number f years after which such schls will instead be identified fr cmprehensive supprt and imprvement. States must develp a prcess t peridically review resurce allcatin fr supprting schl imprvement in each district that serves a significant number f schls identified fr cmprehensive supprt and imprvement and schls identified fr targeted supprt. The state must als determine hw it will prvide technical assistance t each such district. States must decide if they will take actins t initiate additinal imprvement in districts where a significant number f schls are cnsistently identified by the state fr cmprehensive schl imprvement 5

6 Additinal State Plan Prvisins and are nt meeting the state s exit criteria r have a significant number f schls implementing targeted supprt and imprvement plans. States must decide if they will establish alternative, evidence-based strategies that can be used by districts t assist a schl that is identified fr cmprehensive schl imprvement and, if s, what these strategies will be. States must determine hw they will prvide assistance t districts and schls using Title I funds fr early childhd educatin. States must decide hw t determine whether, and ensure that, lw-incme and minrity children enrlled in schls assisted under Title I are nt served at disprprtinate rates by ineffective, ut-f-field, r inexperienced teachers. The state must als determine the measures the SEA will use t evaluate and publicly reprt the prgress f the State educatinal agency with respect t such descriptin, althugh a teacher/leader evaluatin system is nt required. States must determine hw they will help districts imprve cnditins fr student learning (safe schls) and help decrease risk f students drpping ut. States will have t decide hw they will ensure educatinal stability fr children in fster care, including the prcess fr allwing fster students t (1) remain at their schl f rigin, (2) immediately enrll in a schl even if recrds are nt available, (3) ensure the transfer f fster student recrds, and hw and hw a pint f cntact with be fr child welfare agencies. States will have t decide hw they will prvide supprt t districts serving hmeless yuth. State Reprt Card States will have t determine what additinal infrmatin they must cllect t meet the law s new requirements (e.g. new subgrups, schl quality and climate data, preschl data, schl-level expenditure data). States will have t reprt n prfessinal qualificatins f teachers. As part f this reprting, states will have t determine what cnstitutes inexperienced teachers. States must decide if they will include any additinal infrmatin regarding schl prgress, beynd what is required under the law. States will need t meet the requirement that they publicly prvide crss-tabulated (by racial and ethnic grup, gender, English prficiency status, and disability status) data n student achievement, high schl graduatin, the ther academic indicatr, and assessment/nn-assessment rates. Lcal Plans States must develp a prcess fr apprving lcal plans, which must include hw the state will determine if the lcal plan prvides that schls served under this part substantially help children served under this part meet the challenging State academic standards. In additin, the lcal plan must include hw the LEA will identify and address any disparities that result in lw-incme students and minrity students being taught at higher rates than ther students by ineffective, inexperienced, r ut-f-field teachers. 6

7 Participatin f Children Enrlled in Private Schls Each State must decide wh will serve as the mbudsmen within their Department respnsible fr mnitring and enfrcing requirements under ESSA related t nn-public schl participatin in federal educatin prgrams. This is a new requirement. State Assessment Grants The Secretary will cntinue t be required t award grants fr assessments and related activities. Hwever, states will be allwed t use these funds t supprt additinal activities, including refining science assessments in rder t integrate engineering design skills, develping and imprving grwth mdels, develping new assessment instruments such as cmputer adaptive assessments, and designing imprved reprt cards. States must decide if they will seek additinal funds frm the Secretary t cnduct an audit f their assessment system. The Secretary can prvide states with the authrity t establish an alternative, innvative assessment system. States will have t decide if they want t participate in such a demnstratin prject if made available. Title II - Teacher Quality States must decide if they will reserve up t 3% f their state held funds under Title II in rder t carry ut state-level activities fr principals r ther schl leaders and, if s, hw t use thse funds. States must als decide if they wish t use ther state reservatins fr ther activities, including teacher/leader evaluatins and nt mre f 2% f their state alltment fr teacher/leader preparatin academies. States must decide if they will cntinue teacher evaluatin systems develped under waivers. Title III - ELL If they d nt already have them, states will need t develp and implement unifrm statewide criteria and prcedures fr entrance int and exit ut f EL status. The prcedures must include assessing all ptential ELs fr their English prficiency within 30 days f enrllment. States will need t decide if they want t use state set-aside funds t prvide recgnitin and rewards t LEAs that have significantly imprved the achievement and prgress f ELs. States shuld cnsider the impact f the reductin frm 60 percent t 50 percent (f the 5 percent state-level set-aside) that may be used fr state administratin may require states t make changes in SEA staffing. States will need t develp prcedures fr the semi-annual LEA reprt, including prcedures fr disaggregated data n EL students wh have disabilities. Nte: The vast majrity f the infrmatin abve is excerpted frm a dcument develped by the Penn Hill Grup in Washingtn, DC thrugh the Cuncil f Chief State Schl Officers. 7