1. Ensuring Every Student Succeeds: Opportunities and Challenges of ESSA
Maureen Wentworth
Director, Education Data & Information Systems
Council of Chief State School Officers

2. “By passing this bill, we bridge the gap between helplessness and hope for more than five million educationally deprived children. We put into the hands of our youth more than 30 million new books, and into many of our schools their first libraries. We reduce the terrible time lag in bringing new teaching techniques into the nation's classrooms. We strengthen state and local agencies which bear the burden and the challenge of better education. And we rekindle the revolution--the revolution of the spirit against the tyranny of ignorance. As a son of a tenant farmer, I know that education is the only valid passport from poverty.” -- President Lyndon B. Johnson, April 11, 1965
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965, as part of his “War on Poverty.”
President Johnson signed ESEA into law on Palm Sunday, saying, “I do not wish to delay by a single day the program to strengthen this nation's elementary and secondary schools.”
Before putting pen to paper, he explained the importance of this law and why it remains a cornerstone piece of legislation today:
“By passing this bill, we bridge the gap between helplessness and hope for more than five million educationally deprived children. We put into the hands of our youth more than 30 million new books, and into many of our schools their first libraries. We reduce the terrible time lag in bringing new teaching techniques into the nation's classrooms. We strengthen state and local agencies which bear the burden and the challenge of better education. And we rekindle the revolution--the revolution of the spirit against the tyranny of ignorance. As a son of a tenant farmer, I know that education is the only valid passport from poverty.”
This law was originally put in place to provide educational opportunities to children President Johnson referred to as “educationally deprived.” The goal was to reduce the time it took to bring new teaching techniques into the classroom and strengthen state and local education agencies to address education for all kids.
For much of the 15 years following its creation, reauthorizations of ESEA has focused on altering formulas and other efforts. But a few major reauthorizations have happened over the years.

3. “It will extend programs for the disadvantaged and other students with special needs, stimulate education innovation and reform, enhance local control and flexibility, improve program accountability, and focus program benefits on those with the greatest need.”
-- President Ronald Reagan, April 28, 1988
In 1988, President Ronald Reagan signed the Hawkins-Stafford reauthorization of ESEA, which began to shift the conversation beyond just distributing targeted funding to also include policies addressing student achievement and school improvement.
In signing the law, President Reagan said this law will “extend programs for the disadvantaged and other students with special needs, stimulate education innovation and reform, enhance local control and flexibility, improve program accountability, and focus program benefits on those with the greatest need.”
This reauthorization specifically aimed to increase achievement among low-income students by focusing on advanced skills and accountability for results. It also introduced the concept of required program improvements in schools and districts where student achievement wasn’t improving.

4. “Education is the one investment that means more for our future because it means the most for our children. Real improvement in our schools is not simply a matter of spending more: It's a matter of asking more—expecting more—of our schools, our teachers, of our kids, of our parents, and ourselves.” -- President George H. W. Bush, 1990
The next major reauthorization was in 1994, but was years in the making before that.
This reauthorization, dubbed the Improving America’s Schools Act, was based in large part on consensus reached during a 1989 summit that then-President George H.W. Bush held in Charlottesville, Virginia with many of the nation’s governors, including then-Governor Bill Clinton. As President, Clinton would go on to sign this Act into law.
During his time in office, President Bush heralded the progress made at the summit in In his 1990 State of the Union Address, he said, “Education is the one investment that means more for our future because it means the most for our children. Real improvement in our schools is not simply a matter of spending more: It's a matter of asking more—expecting more—of our schools, our teachers, of our kids, of our parents, and ourselves.”

5. “The first thing this bill does is to encourage schools to take kids that are from underprivileged backgrounds and instead of separating them out from other students, bring them into the classrooms, have smaller classes, work with them, have kids help kids to get everybody into the mainstream, and everybody develop to the fullest of their God-given capacities.”
-- President William Clinton, October 20, 1994
Based on this collaborative work, the 1994 reauthorization was bipartisan. The overarching theme of standards and accountability were reflected, which made significant changes to Title I, including requiring all states to apply the same state standards to all students.
The reauthorization also included relatively broad school improvement provisions for schools where students were not meeting the established standards.
In signing this bill into law, President Clinton said, “The first thing this bill does is to encourage schools to take kids that are from underprivileged backgrounds and instead of separating them out from other students, bring them into the classrooms, have smaller classes, work with them, have kids help kids to get everybody into the mainstream, and everybody develop to the fullest of their God-given capacities. We know now that works better than separating kids out and trying to help them, instead of bringing them in and challenging them to do the best they can do.”
It is important to note that prior to the 1990s, ESEA was rarely front-page news.
Reauthorizations were generally bipartisan and under the radar. Beginning with the 1989 summit, and carrying into President Clinton’s presidency, however, education began to have more of a role in the national political conversation and more of a “dinner table” conversation across the country.

6. “No longer is it acceptable to hide poor performance
“No longer is it acceptable to hide poor performance. No longer is it acceptable to keep results away from parents. One of the interesting things about this bill, it says that we're never going to give up on a school that's performing poorly; that when we find poor performance, a school will be given time and incentives and resources to correct their problems.”
-- President George W. Bush, January 8, 2002
At the beginning of his administration, President George W. Bush expressed concern that the most disadvantaged students were not making enough progress. He believed that annual, grade-by-grade testing and robust accountability were part of the solution.
In 2002, President Bush signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act, which maintained the state standards introduced in the 1994 reauthorization but also mandated annual testing and created a robust and specific accountability system for schools and districts where students were failing to meet the standards.
When signing this law, President Bush said, “No longer is it acceptable to hide poor performance. No longer is it acceptable to keep results away from parents. One of the interesting things about this bill, it says that we're never going to give up on a school that's performing poorly; that when we find poor performance, a school will be given time and incentives and resources to correct their problems.”
As we are all aware, No Child Left Behind dramatically strengthened the federal role in public education and was much more prescriptive about school improvement strategies than previous reauthorizations.

7. “And finally, this bill upholds the core value that animated the original Elementary and Secondary Education Act signed by President Lyndon Johnson -- the value that says education, the key to economic opportunity, is a civil right.  With this bill, we reaffirm that fundamental American ideal that every child, regardless of race, income, background, the zip code where they live, deserves the chance to make out of their lives what they will.”
-- President Barack Obama, December 10, 2015
Today, we have the Every Student Succeeds Act – or ESSA as many of us already are calling it.
President Obama signed this bill into law in December 2015, just a few short months ago.
In signing the law, the President emphasized the original purpose of ESEA, saying, “this bill upholds the core value that animated the original Elementary and Secondary Education Act signed by President Lyndon Johnson -- the value that says education, the key to economic opportunity, is a civil right. With this bill, we reaffirm that fundamental American ideal that every child, regardless of race, income, background, the zip code where they live, deserves the chance to make out of their lives what they will.”
Through this law, lawmakers sought to address the growing notion that there was too much federal involvement in public education, while still maintaining accountability and school improvement requirements.
The resulting law dramatically increases state and local flexibility, while continuing to require that state and local officials establish standards, test annually at certain grade levels, set long-term and interim goals, and intervene in schools where students, or subgroups of students, are not meeting those goals.
State and local officials have much greater flexibility in establishing the standards and identifying intervention strategies than under No Child Left Behind.

8. As you can see, the major reauthorizations of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act have two things in common:
First, they all were bipartisan efforts. People from both sides of the aisle and all stakeholders came together to improve education for all kids.
Second, and perhaps most importantly, every bill – every reauthorization – has focused on the original intent of this law: to provide educational opportunities to our students who need it the most, those traditionally underserved by our public school system.
Under the Every Student Succeeds Act, we as states now have the opportunity – and the significant responsibility – to take the lead and address the challenges facing our poor and minority students, our students with special needs and those who are learning English.
We have to make sure the kids – and all kids, regardless of income level or background – have the best educational opportunities available to them.

9. Overview
The Every Student Succeeds Act aligns with Key Priorities CCSSO outlined for reauthorization:
Maintains annual assessments
Authorizes assessment pilots to foster innovation
Increases state flexibility to design school accountability systems, school interventions and student supports
Gives states flexibility to work with local stakeholders to develop educator evaluation and support systems
Increases state and local flexibility in the use of federal funds
The CCSSO Board of Directors published their priorities for reauthorizing ESEA in January 2015.
We are pleased that these priorities are now embedded in the final law and will increase the flexibility and authority states have under federal law to improve outcomes for all kids.
Now, I will provide an overview of the major components of the law.

10. Accountability Systems
Each state accountability systems must “meaningfully differentiate” schools using the following components:
Academic proficiency on state assessments
Graduation rates for high school
Growth or another statewide academic indicator for K-8 schools
English language proficiency
At least one additional state-determined (non-academic) indicator of school quality or student success
95% assessment participation rate
These elements are required but can be weighted as states see fit as long as the first four “academic” indicators carry “much greater weight” than “nonacademic” factors.

11. Accountability Systems
The accountability components in the law are a minimum. States can add additional subgroups or elements as they see fit.
The law does not specify how a state must weight these components within its accountability system. States have the flexibility to weight each component, but academic indicators must carry “much greater weight” than nonacademic indicators.
The US Department of Education is very likely to issue implementing regulations on accountability (and other policy areas) in CSSSO is deeply engaged in the regulatory process and will provide ongoing supports to states and timely information about regulatory outcomes.
This is a substantial departure from NCLB, which focused exclusively on test scores on graduation rates.

12. School Improvement
States must identify and publicly report the following schools based on the state-determined accountability system:
Lowest-performing 5% of Title I schools;
High schools with less than a 67% graduation rate, and
Schools with underperforming subgroups that do not improve after a state-determined number of years.
States must use “evidence based” strategies to improve identified schools. School Improvement Grant (SIG) models are no longer required.
There is much more flexibility in the statute on school improvement than has existed in recent years. Unlike NCLB or SIG, federal policy does not dictate specific models or interventions. States should begin thinking now about how best to support underperforming schools in the absence of specific federally-required interventions. They should begin examining evidence-based interventions that respond to the needs of students in their states.

13. Teacher and Leader Quality
The Every Student Succeeds Act does not require specific educator evaluation measures or methods.
The law does allow, but does not require, states to use Title II funds to implement teacher evaluations
Title II Part A allows states to fund their priorities in attracting, preparing, supporting and retaining effective teachers and leaders to serve high-poverty, minority students.  
The law reauthorizes the Teacher Incentive Fund, a competitive grant to support innovative educator evaluation systems.
In the absence of specific teacher evaluation metrics from the federal level, states should use the transition to full ESSA implementation to consider if or how to revise existing teacher evaluation and support mechanisms to provide excellent teachers in every classroom.

14. Teacher and Leader Quality
ESSA authorizes new allowable federal funding for states to develop and implement:
Teacher and School Leader Academies;
Activities to support principals (new 3% Title II set-aside);
Educator training on the use of technology and data privacy;
Reform of state certification, licensure and tenure systems;
Development and implementation of teacher evaluation and support systems;
And other state educator workforce priorities.
Under the law, states have increased flexibility in how to spend federal funds toward the educator workforce. Some examples include setting aside 3% for activities to support principals or training for educators on the use of technology and data privacy.

15. Data Collection and Reporting
ESSA expands requirements for data collection and reporting:
State report cards must include certain OCR data
School-by-school and LEA-by-LEA finance data
Achievement reporting for homeless, military-connected, and foster status
Must make certain data available to the public “in an easily accessible and user-friendly manner that can be cross-tabulated by, at a minimum, each major racial and ethnic group, gender, English proficiency status, and children with or without disabilities.”

16. Educational Technology
Title I: Digital Learning Resource study by IES
Title I: State Assessment Grants
Title II: PD focused on Technology and Student Data Privacy
Title IV-A: Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants
Providing all students with access to a well-­rounded education;
Improving school conditions for learning; and
Improving the use of technology in order to improve the academic achievement, academic growth and digital literacy of all students.

17. Regulations

18. Transition Timeline
August
2016
ESEA Flexibility Waivers will expire.
School Year
Transition period to work with stakeholders an develop state plans.
New state plans in compliance with ESSA will go into effect.
Familiarize SEA staff and stakeholders with ESSA; Read and Respond to NPRM
Now
This is an overview of the transition timeline based on what we know now.
USED will provide additional information about timelines as the transition process proceeds. CCSSO will communicate to states any additional transition information it receives from ED.

19. Our Big Picture
To ensure that all students – regardless of background – are prepared for success in college, careers, and life

20. CCSSO’s ESSA Implementation
State Strategic Vision
“Big Decisions”/ Framework
Accountability
Decision Tree
Assessment
ELL
Federal Funding Streams
Innovative Pilots
School Improvement Supports
Teacher & Leader Quality
CCSSO’s ESSA Implementation
Cross-Cutting Actions
(Decision Tree Includes)
Equity
Content Knowledge & Evidence
Anchor documents
Communication
Data Use & Technology Supports
Stakeholder Engagement
Advocacy
Continuous Improvement
ESSA Implementation Support
CCSSO spent most of the last year advocating for ESEA Reauthorization. Now with the passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act, we are shifting our focus to how we best help states implement the law.
With this flexibility comes some real opportunities but also decisions and responsibility. We are gearing up to help support states as they navigate the changes in the law.
In the next couple week, CCSSO will be sending out two guiding documents for chiefs. We will using these documents to guide a more detailed conversation at our Legislative Conference on the afternoon of Sunday, April 3 when we have dedicated time just for Chiefs and their senior leaders to discuss and work on ESSA issues.
Strategic Vision and Big Decisions
We are in the process of creating a couple of documents targeted specifically to chiefs. The first one is to help identify the strategic vision of the chief and how the reauthorization can support that vision.
The second document is called “Big Decisions.” The Big Decisions document is divided up into 6 critical areas with the biggest changes in the law. The document has a list of all the questions that need to be considered by the Chief as you both strive to implement the strategic vision and direct your agency to implement through the more specific and technical details of the law.
Critical Areas: Key areas of work for implementation
We have identified seven critical areas listed. Let me give you the list and an example of the kind of support we are working to provide under each of these areas:
Federal Funding Strategies – CCSSO has in the past done some state specific work and also published several papers on allowable uses of federal funds. With some additional flexibility in Title II for example, we will work with the Fed Ed Group who has done extensive work to unwind what is allowable with federal fund usage.
Innovation Pilots – Under ESSA there will be an allowed 7 states that can apply to be a part of the pilot, to deliver assessment and accountability differently. CCSSO helped support New Hampshire when they pushed a pilot forward over a year ago and we will help support the work through what we learned in that process through a state commitment document (like committing to ensure all kids are assessed in some way) and a guardrails document that set up parameters (like ensuring students with disabilities continue to progress under a competency-based system).
Accountability systems and Non Academic Indicators – CCSSO has done extensive work with states helping build new accountability systems under the waivers and we are gearing back up to help look at new accountability systems. With some of the barriers removed states can now look at aligning state and federal system (if they haven’t already), states need to also add non-academic indicators. We are working to create some exemplar models and components of state models for use.
Teacher and Leader Quality- The biggest question for states will be, now that waivers will expire and the federal law doesn’t require teacher evaluation, what will the state chose to do? We are working to provide assistance to modify those systems but also help set up support systems that align with evaluation to help teachers and leaders improve. Use of Title II dollars to support a strategic vision for Teacher and Leader Quality will also be a high priority in our assistance.
ELL – Under reauthorization, the assessment and accountability of English Language Learners is moved to Title I and must be included in the states overall accountability plan. CCSSO will provide support on ways to include the proficiency rates in accountability systems, helping with entrance and exit requirements by sharing best practices across states.
Assessment– While the law still requires states to test annually in grades 3-8 and once in HS for ELA and Math and grade spans for Science, there are some key questions states will need to take on. CCSSO will support the work in this area by providing pros/cons to many of the choices such as: will a state put a 2% cap on state testing time?
School Improvement Supports
There are also activities that are a part of each of these critical areas:
Communications – (ex. Development of a communications plan from start to finish of rolling out accountability changes)
Data – (ex. , data is an important consideration as states think about adding new indicators, if the data is collected and if not, how long it would take to get, what the right measures are, etc.)
Stakeholder engagement
Advocacy – (ex. What laws will need to be changes in state?)
Let me stress that these critical areas do not represent all the specifics of the law. The critical areas defined here are the ones that have the most pressing need for implementation support by us.
Multi-State Support
Tools, Self Assessment & Direct Technical Assistance

21. http://www. ccsso. org/Resources/Programs/Every_Student_Succeeds_Act

22. Director, Education Data and Information Systems
Questions?
Maureen Wentworth
Director, Education Data and Information Systems

23. Appendix
More on Regulations

24. Basic Elements of Proposed Regulations
The U.S. Department of Education (ED) officially published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register on Tuesday, May 31, 2016
The NPRM will remain open for public comment for 60 days, with comments due on Monday, August 1, 2016
The NPRM covers accountability provisions included in Title I, reporting, and consolidated state plan requirements in the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)

25. 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

26. ESSA Statutory Accountability Provisions: Assessments
States must administer assessments for reading/language arts and math annually in grades 3-8 and once in high school, and once in each of three grade spans for science
ESSA requires that states assess 95% of all students and subgroups, but statute allows states flexibility in how that requirement is factored into state accountability systems

27. ESSA Statutory Accountability Provisions: Indicators
Required indicators, all of which must be able to be disaggregated:
1) academic proficiency as measured through state assessments,
2) high school graduation rates,
3) growth or another academic progress indicator for elementary and middle schools,
4) ELs’ progress in attaining proficiency in English, and
5) at least one school quality or student success indicator.
State accountability systems must give “substantial weight” to all indicators and “much greater weight,” in the aggregate, to the specified indicators 1-4.

28. 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.

29. ESSA Statutory Accountability Provisions: School Improvement
Authorizes significant 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 the separate Title I set-aside for school improvement, states receive a single 7 percent set-aside of their Title I allocations for state administration and subgrants to LEAs

30. Proposed USED Regulations re: Indicators
Key Proposed Regulatory Requirement(s)
Academic proficiency as measured through assessments
Must equally weight reading/ELA 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
Note: all indicators must include at least 3 levels of performance

31. Proposed USED Regulations re: Indicators (cont.)
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;
Must aid in the meaningful differentiation of schools.

32. Proposed USED Regulations re: Student Subgroups
“Super subgroups” are not permitted in place of individual subgroups, but may supplement them
N size must be less than 30 or must be approved by ED; 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

33. 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
State-determined action that is rigorous and approved by ED
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 state

34. Proposed Regulations re: School Identification
Identification for Comprehensive Support under new accountability structure must take place for school year, based on data available in the school year
Identification of schools with consistently underperforming subgroups for Targeted Support does not have to take place until school year
All schools must receive a single summative rating, from at least 3 rating categories

35. Data can be averaged over a period of up to 3 years
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)

36. Proposed Regulations re: Identification for Targeted Support and Improvement
Requires the establishment of a uniform, statewide definition of 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

37. 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

38. Proposed Regulations re: Consolidated State Plans
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 plans is required to take place at least every four years

39. Proposed Regulations re: Consolidated State Plans (cont.)
Key Content
Description of state strategies for ensuring the low-income and minority children are not taught disproportionately by ineffective, out-of-field, or inexperienced teachers
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 process a state will use to waive the 40 percent schoolwide program threshold
Description of the entrance and exit criteria for EL students

40. Comments must be filed by August 1, 2016.
Public Comment Period
Comments must be filed by August 1, 2016.
Please comment!

41. Additional Questions can be directed to: Peter Zamora
Director of Federal Relations