1. Overview of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
Augustus Mays
Director of Government Relations
WestEd
July 26, 2016

2. Agenda Overview The Key Policy Shifts ESSA Implementation Timeline
ESSA Highlights
Standards and Assessment
Accountability and School Supports and Interventions
Teachers and Leaders
Use of Funds

3. NCLB to ESSA: The Key Policy Shifts
Federal
State and Local

4. ESSA Implementation Timeline
Date
Event
December 2015
President Obama signs ESSA into law.
March-April 2016
Negotiated rule making committee convenes to address Title I Part A assessments, and supplement-not-supplant (SNS) regulations.
April 2016
Negotiators reach agreement only on assessment issues.
June 2016
USED releases proposed rules on Title I accountability, data reporting, and State plans. Public comments on the proposal are due August 1, 2016
July 2016
USED releases proposed rules on the Title I Part B Innovative Assessment and Demonstration Authority. Public comments on the proposal are due September 12, 2016.

5. ESSA Implementation Timeline (cont.)
Date
Event
August 2016
ESEA Flexibility waivers will become null and void.
August-September 2016
USED will review and respond to public comments received on Title I accountability, data reporting, and State plans, as well as comments received on the Title I Innovative Assessment Pilot.
October 2016
Changes to funding for ESSA competitive grant programs will go into effect.
October-November 2016
Final regulations will be published and go into effect.

6. ESSA Implementation Timeline (cont.)
Date
Event
March 2017
First opportunity for SEAs to submit their initial consolidated or individual State plans to USED for review.
July 2017
Changes to funding for ESSA formula grant programs will go into effect.
Final deadline for SEAs to submit their initial consolidated or individual State plans to USED for review. SY
All other ESSA provisions go into effect.

7. Standards Academic Content and Achievement Standards NCLB/Flex ESSA
States must develop or demonstrate “challenging” academic content and achievement standards in ELA, Math, and Science
Flex required States to adopt “college and career-ready standards” (CCRS) that are common to a significant number of States or the State had to adopt CCRS that have been approved and certified by a State network of institutions of higher education (IHE).
States must demonstrate that their standards are aligned to “entrance requirements for credit bearing coursework in the IHE system in the State and relevant CTE standards.”

8. Standards (cont.) Alternate Academic Achievement Standards NCLB/Flex
ESSA
NCLB permitted States to develop and adopt alternative standards for students with the most cognitive disabilities (1% regulation) and modified achievement standards for students with other learning disabilities (2% regulation).
Continues the 1% regulation.
Flex continued the 1% regulation. However, States were required to include students with disabilities in the regular assessment once states had developed their standards on CCRS, essentially phasing out the 2% regulation.
Does not authorize the 2% regulation.

9. Standards (cont.) English Language Proficiency Standards NCLB/Flex
ESSA
Under NCLB, each State was required to have English language proficiency (ELP) standards (derived from the domains of speaking, listening, reading, and writing).
Maintains the requirement for States to have ELP standards (derived from the domains of speaking, listening, reading, and writing); that address the different proficiency levels of ELs.
Flex maintained the requirement to have ELP standards. These standards were supposed to be aligned with any new CCR standards by SY
In addition, States ELP standards must be aligned with the state’s academic standards.

10. Standards (cont.) Limitation on Secretary’s Authority NCLB/Flex ESSA
Under NCLB, states were not required to submit their standards to the Secretary of Education.
Maintains requirement.
The Secretary also cannot mandate, direct, control, coerce, or exercise any direction or supervision over the standards adopted or implemented by the state, including conditioning or incentivizing the receipt of a grant or a waiver on adoption or implementation of specific standards, including Common Core State Standards.

11. Assessments NCLB/Flex ESSA
Must test in grades 3-8 and once in high school (HS) in ELA and Math.
Must test once in each grade band (3-5, 6-8, and HS) in Science.
Under NCLB, States were required to disaggregate achievement results by subgroup.
ESSA maintains this requirement but adds homeless and foster youth, and military connected students to the list of subgroups whose achievement results must be reported on.
Everyone must use the same assessment in each grade level.
ESSA added a new authority for a district, with State approval, to administer a “locally selected”, nationally recognized, high school academic assessment (e.g. the ACT or SAT) in place of the State high school ELA, math, or science assessment.
ESSA also allows a State to assess an 8th grade student through an end-of-course math assessment that is normally administered to high school students in lieu of the regular 8th grade math assessment.

12. Assessments (cont.) NCLB/Flex ESSA
Under NCLB, States were required to meet 95 percent participation and all non-test takers are counted as basic.
States are still required to meet a 95 percent participation rate, but State determines consequences for not meeting 95 percent for LEAs/schools.
Not authorized under NCLB.
Under ESSA, State assessments may be administered in a single summative assessment or as assessments that are given throughout the school year (that result in a single summative score) to provide more frequent information on student achievement and growth.
ESSA specifically recognizes a state’s authority to use a Computer Adaptive Test (CAT), provided that it meets all the statutory requirements for assessments.

13. Assessments (cont.) NCLB/Flex ESSA Not authorized under NCLB.
ESSA allows pilots for states to develop and administer “innovative assessment systems” (e.g. competency-based assessments, performance based assessments, interim etc.).
ESSA provides for state grants, and for states to make subgrants to districts to conduct assessment audits to streamline and improve the State/district assessment systems.

14. Assessments (cont.) Assessments Related to Students with Disabilities
NCLB/Flex
ESSA
Under NCLB, States were allowed to administer an alternate assessment aligned with alternate academic achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, but limits the number of students who may take such an alternate assessment to no more than 1% (1% regulation) of the total number of all students in the State who are assessed in a given subject.
Continues the 1% regulation.
Also under the new law, a State must ensure that the alternate assessment meets specific requirements, including new requirements with respect to parental notification, educator training in using accommodations such as Universal Design for Learning (UDL).
ESSA specifically prohibits ED or a State from setting a district-level cap on the percentage of students who may be assessed with an alternate assessment, but the law also specifies that any district that exceeds the 1 percent cap must submit information to the State justifying the need to exceed it.
The alternate assessment requirements are subject to the Secretary’s waiver authority (i.e., the Secretary may waive the 1 percent cap).

15. Assessments (cont.) Assessments Related to English Learners NCLB/Flex
ESSA
NCLB required that states’ ELA, math, and science assessments provide for the inclusion of ELs, who must be assessed in a valid and reliable manner and provide appropriate accommodations (including, to the extent practicable, providing the assessment in the student’s native language).
ESSA continues this requirement.
NCLB required that states assess, using tests administered in English, the ELA proficiency of any student who has attended school in the US for at least three consecutive years, except that an LEA may extend the period in which a student may be assessed in another language if it determines that doing so would yield more accurate and reliable information and the student has not yet attained a sufficient level of English proficiency to be tested in English.
ESSA continues this requirement and allowable flexibility at the district level.

16. Assessments (cont.) Assessments Related to English Learners (cont.)
NCLB/Flex
ESSA
Through regulations, a State may exempt a recently arrived EL (i.e., a student who has been in US schools less than 12 months) student from one annual administration of the State’s ELA assessment.
With respect to recently arrived ELs who have been enrolled in a school in the US for less than 12 months, a state may select to exclude ELs from taking the Reading/Language Arts assessment the first year they are in the country; OR
A state may assess and report on the performance of a recently arrived EL, but it must exclude the test scores from the accountability determinations in the first year with subsequent plans in years 2 and 3.
Under Title I, NCLB required the state to ensure that its LEAs provide for an annual assessment of the English proficiency of all ELs in their schools.
ESSA continues this requirement but also requires that these assessments must align with the state’s ELP standards.

17. Accountability NCLB/Flex ESSA
Under NCLB, states were held accountable on two measures—the number of students who tested “proficient” in math and reading each year (with the goal of reaching 100% proficiency by 2014) and student performance on at least one other academic indicator, such as graduation rates.
Under ESSA, states choose their own goals, both long and short term addressing proficiency on assessments, EL proficiency and graduation rates.
Under Flex, states were required to pick one of three options:
Half to 100% proficiency in six years
100% proficiency by 2020
State-developed option: States could develop their own AMOs on a different timeline than the previous two proposals.
Required indicators, all of which must be able to be disaggregated: 1) academic proficiency as measured through state assessments, 2) rates of high school graduation, 3) one or more academic indicators applicable to elementary and middle schools, 4) ELs progress in attaining proficiency in English, and 5) at least one school quality or student success indicator.
ESSA requires that state accountability systems give “substantial weight” to all indicators but “much greater weight”, in the aggregate, to the specified indicators (numbers 1-4).
Ninety-five percent participation must be part of State Accountability System

18. Accountability (cont.)
The proposed regulations regarding goals would:
Clarify that student proficiency goals and measures must be based on grade-level proficiency, and that a State must use the same definition of grade-level proficiency for all students;
Specify that “taking account” of the improvement needed for lower- performing students to make significant progress means setting interim measures that require greater rates of improvement for those subgroups; and,
Provide that ELP goals and measures must set expectations for both annual progress in achieving ELP and for attainment of ELP within a period of time after a student’s identification as an EL.

19. Accountability (cont.)
The proposed regulation regarding indicators would:
Indicators
Key Proposed Regulatory Requirement(s)
Academic proficiency as measured through assessments
Must equally weight 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 indicator
May be based on a measure of growth.
Clarification: The Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) also clarifies that States may add indicators over time, or make replacements, if some of the indicators they would like to include are not ready for use in (such as if the data are not yet available).

20. Accountability (cont.)
The proposed regulation regarding indicators would:
Indicators
Key Proposed Regulatory Requirement(s)
Progress towards English language proficiency (ELP)
Must use objective and reliable measure of progress;
Not included for schools with number of English learner students below state’s N size.
School quality or student success
Must be different from other indicators in state’s accountability system;
Cannot change the status of identified schools without significant progress on at least one other indicator (mechanism for ensuring academic indicators have “much greater weight”, as required in statute);

21. Accountability (cont.)
The proposed regulations regarding assessment participation would:
Require a State to factor the 95 percent requirement into its system for differentiating school performance in such a manner that a school’s failure to assess 95 percent of students (as a whole or in any subgroup) results in:
The school receiving a lower summative performance rating;
The receiving the lowest performance level on the accountability system’s academic achievement indicator;
The school’s identification for targeted support and improvement; or
Another rigorous State determined action that is rigorous and approved by ED.

22. Accountability (cont.)
Student Subgroups
NCLB/Flex
ESSA
NCLB defined subgroups as economically disadvantaged students, students from major ethnic and racial groups, children with disabilities, and ELs.
ESSA maintains the subgroup language reflected in NCLB.
Under NCLB, regulations allowed states to include (with the EL subgroup) the assessment scores of former EL students
for up to two AYP determination
cycles.
Under ESSA, the law provides that
for not more than four years
after a student ceases to be identified as an EL, a state may include the results of the student’s assessments within the results for the EL subgroup for the purposes of the state accountability system.

23. Accountability (cont.)
The proposed regulations regarding student subgroups would:
Provide that the law’s reference to “students from major racial and ethnic groups” means students from each of those groups. That is, “super subgroups” are not permitted in place of individual subgroups;
Permit a State to include, for up to four years, the results of former ELs within the EL subgroup only if it does so for all those students within the State and for the same period of time; and
Require that the N size not be less than 30 or must be approved by ED.

24. School Supports and Interventions
NCLB/Flex
ESSA
Under NCLB, schools either met AYP or did not- then consequences were determined by number of years NOT making AYP .
States determine goals (AMOs), and districts (and in some cases schools) must develop and implement improvement plans for schools identified.
Priority schools (bottom 5 percent of achievement).
Comprehensive support and improvement schools (the lowest performing schools identified by the SEA).
Focus schools (top 10 percent of largest achievement gaps).
Targeted support and improvement schools (schools with consistently underperforming subgroups identified by the SEA).
Under Flex, priority schools were required to implement one of the four school intervention models under School Improvement Grants (SIG) or state determined intervention model based on a federally defined set of turnaround principles.
For comprehensive schools, LEAs determine evidence-based interventions with State approval.
For Targeted schools, schools develop plans approved by the LEA.
All strategies and interventions must be “research based”.
All strategies and interventions must be “evidenced based”.

25. School Supports and Interventions (cont.)
Schools in Need of Comprehensive Support and Improvement
States must use the annual accountability indicators to identify a statewide category of schools - at least once every three years – that consists of:
Schools in the lowest-performing 5% of all Title I schools in the state (or more, at the state's discretion);
High schools failing to graduate at least two thirds of their students (67% graduation rate or lower).
Title I schools that have a subgroup that is performing as poorly as the “all students” group in the lowest performing 5 percent and that has failed to improve after the school’s implementation of a Targeted Support and Improvement plan.

26. School Supports and Interventions (cont.)
Comprehensive Support and Improvement Plan
For each of these schools, school districts must develop a comprehensive support and improvement plan.
This plan must:
Be approved by the school, LEA, and SEA;
Be monitored and periodically reviewed by the SEA;
Include evidence-based interventions;
Be based on a school-level needs assessment; and
Identify resource inequities to be addressed through plan implementation.

27. School Supports and Interventions (cont.)
Comprehensive Support and Improvement Plan (cont.)
The state may establish alternative evidence-based strategies that can be used by LEAs in comprehensive improvement schools.
If a school continues to be identified for comprehensive support and improvement for a number of years decided by the state (up to four years), the state must determine further intervention action.

28. Definition of Evidenced Based in ESSA
(1) Strong
At least well-designed and well-implemented experimental study
(2) Moderate
At least well-designed and well-implemented quasi experimental study
(3) Promising
At least well-designed and well-implemented correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias

29. School Supports and Interventions (cont.)
Targeted Support and Improvement Plan
The state must annually notify districts of any school where a group of students is “consistently underperforming”.
Each school must then develop and implement an improvement plan.
The plan must:
Be informed by all indicators in the statewide accountability system;
Include evidence-based interventions;
Be approved and monitored by the school district; and
Result in additional action for underperformance over a period of time determined by the school district.
If the school is unsuccessful in implementing its improvement plan within a district-determined number of years, the district must take additional action.

30. School Supports and Interventions (cont.)
The proposed regulations regarding identification would:
Timing
Comprehensive Support and Improvement
Targeted Support and Improvement
Identification of the new accountability structure must take place for SY , based on data available in the SY
Identification of schools with consistently underperforming subgroups for targeted support does not have to take place until SY
Data can be averaged over a period of up to three years.
Identification must take place every 3 years.
Requires that states use four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate (excludes use of extended year graduation rate).
Requires the establishment of a uniform, statewide definition of consistently underperforming subgroups based on at least one of the following factors:
Whether a subgroup is on track to meet the state’s long term goals;
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; or
Another, state determined factor.

31. School Supports and Interventions (cont.)
The proposed regulation regarding school improvement would:
Require that state-determined interventions in schools must be supported “to the extent practicable” by the strongest level of evidence.
Allow states to provide a state-approved list of intervention strategies.
Permits a planning year for the implementation of school improvement plans.

32. School Supports and Interventions (cont.)
Allowable Activities/Use of Funds
ESSA
Title I State-Set Aside for School Improvement
ESSA eliminates a line item for SIG and replaces it with a required 7% state-level set-aside of Title I funds.
This set-aside would support comprehensive, targeted, and other school improvement activities.
At least 95% of these funds must pass through to school districts (which may include educational service agencies, consortia of districts, or statewide school districts), by formula or competition.

33. School Support and Interventions (cont.)
Allowable Activities/Use of Funds
ESSA
Title I State-Set Aside for School Improvement (cont.)
The School Improvement awards may be for up to four years, which may include a planning year.
Prioritize school districts with high numbers of identified schools, those with greatest need for funds, and those with strongest commitment to improvement.
Optional State Reservation for Direct Student Services
States may also reserve an additional 3 percent of their overall Title I funds to award grants to school districts serving the highest percentages of schools identified for comprehensive or targeted support and improvement.
Allowable activities include academic and Career Technical Education (CTE) coursework, credit recovery, early college high school, tutoring, AP/IB test fees.

34. Teachers and Leaders NCLB/Flex ESSA
Teachers were required to be “highly qualified”.
States determine teacher qualifications. In addition teachers in Title I schools must meet State certification/licensure requirements.
Under Flex, States were required to create statewide Teacher Principal Evaluation systems with a student growth element.
States may choose to develop a Teacher Principal Evaluation system and may use Title II, Part A funds to support those efforts.
States were required to submit State Educator Equity Plans describing how low income and minority children enrolled in Title I schools were not being served at disproportionate rates by unqualified, out of field, and inexperienced teachers and principals.
Under ESSA, states would still need to report data on teachers’ professional qualifications between high- and low-poverty schools.
In addition, states would still need to describe the measures they will use to ensure at risk students are not served at disproportionate rates by “ineffective, out-of-field, or inexperienced teachers“—with “ineffective” replacing “unqualified.” 

35. Teachers and Leaders (cont.)
Allowable Activities/Use of Funds
ESSA
Title II Formula Grants to States
Basic Title II-Part A grants flow by formula to states and to school districts, as under NCLB; although ESSA changes the formula to more heavily weight poverty.
Now, states generate 35% based on population and 65% based on poverty. The percentages shift between 2018 and until it is 20% based on population and 80% based on poverty.

36. Teachers and Leaders (cont.)
Allowable Activities/Use of Funds
ESSA
State Uses of Title II Funds
State grants: At least 95% to subgrants, up to 1% to administration:
State may reserve up to 3% of amount reserved for subgrants to LEAs for activities for principals and other school leaders
Up to 4% (remaining State-level reservation) to be used for State activities
State activities include reforming teacher certification/licensure, equitable access to teachers, establishing or expanding teacher and school leaders academies, professional development, and others.

37. Teachers and Leaders (cont.)
Title II, Part B contains all national activities and is split into four subparts:
Subpart 1—Teacher and School Leader Incentive Program ( —49.1%, 2020, 47%)
Competitive grants to SEAs, LEAs, or partnerships
Up to 3 years with possibility of two year extension
Subpart 2—Literacy Education for All, Results for the Nation ( —34.1%, 2020—36.8%)
Competitive grants to States to improve academic literacy instruction
95% of the award to make subgrants to LEAs
5 year grants with 2 year extension/renewal
Subpart 3—American History and Civics Education ( —1.4%)
Subpart 4—Programs of National Significance ( —15.4%, 2020—14.8%)
School Leader Recruitment and Support

38. Teachers and Leaders (cont.)
The proposed regulations regarding supporting teachers and leaders would:
Require that a consolidated plan describe how the SEA will improve the skills of educators in identifying students with specific learning needs and provide the appropriate kind of instruction based on the needs of such children.
Require that a consolidated plan describe the steps the SEA will take to meet the statutory requirement for ensuring that low-income and minority students in Title I schools are not taught at disproportionate rates by ineffective, out-of-field, inexperienced teachers.
Toward that end, the SEA would be required to put in place Statewide definitions of “ineffective teacher,’ “out-of-field teacher,’ “inexperienced teacher,” “low-income student,” and “minority student” and to calculate rates at which students in the two groups (and non-low-income and non-minority students) are taught by teachers in the three categories.

39. Use of Funds The Title I Formula
The Act makes slight changes to how much of Title I funds flow through each of the four formulas.
The Act makes no other changes to the Title I formula. Money continues to flow to districts the way it does under current law, and is distributed to schools the same way as under current law.

40. Use of Funds (cont.) Title I: School-Wide vs Targeted Title I Programs
Under ESSA, states will receive the power to grant waivers from the requirement that only schools with more than 40 percent of students from low-income families can operate a school-wide program.
The state may grant a school with a low-income rate of less than 40 percent a waiver to operate a school-wide program, after considering how such a program would improve academic achievement.

41. Use of Funds (cont.) Per-Pupil Funding Pilot
Allows an LEA to apply directly to ED for a pilot program. Pilot districts may consolidate certain federal funds (Titles I, II, III, Part A of IV, and Part C of V), State, and local funds to create weighted per-pupil funding systems
LEA must demonstrate annually that no high-poverty school received less per-pupil for low-income students, ELs
May renew for an additional 3 years at discretion of the Secretary
3-year demonstration agreements with up to 50 LEAs.
If successful, can expand to any LEA in

42. Use of Funds (cont.) Supplement not Supplant
Under NCLB, districts had to itemize the cost of services and programs to show that Title I aid was providing supplemental services.
But under ESSA, districts don’t have to itemize those individual costs—they only have to show in fiscal terms that the Title I dollars only supplement state and local dollars, and they don’t need a waiver to do so.
The Secretary cannot prescribe the methodology a district uses to demonstrate supplement, not supplant, compliance.

43. Use of Funds (cont.)
Title IV: New Student Support and Academic Enrichment Programs
Formula grants to States based on share of Title IA
Small State minimum: 0.5% of total amount
1% State administrative set aside (includes requirement to report on how funds are being expended)
95% for subgrants to LEAs or consortia of LEAs
Allocated by formula based on share of Title IA
LEAs that receive more than $30,000 will have 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), which includes bullying and drug abuse prevention.
Technology (at least one activity, and no more than 15% can go toward the purchase of technology infrastructure).

44. Use of Funds (cont.) Other Notable Funding Provisions
Title III: Maintains formula grants to states.
Preschool Development Grants: Authorizes — with significant changes — the Preschool Development Grants, which had previously been authorized by ARRA and the 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act.
Charter Schools: Maintains the public charter schools program as a separate program with changes to accountability.

45. Contact Information
Augustus Mays Director of Government Relations WestEd Phone: (202)