1. ESSA Improvement and Transitioning from NCLB
Leigh Manasevit, Esq.
Tiffany R. Winters, Esq.
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Spring Forum 2016

2. Improvement Transitioning From NCLB to ESSA
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

3. ED Transition Guidance
12/18/15 Dear Colleague Letter on Transition
12/22/15 Letter on Assessment Participation
1/28/16 Dear Colleague on Transition
2/26/16 FAQs Document
Available at:
Negotiated Rulemaking Documents
Available at: tml
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

4. Accountability Transition
NCLB accountability systems and goals only effective through August 1, 2016
States that agreed to provide updated lists as part of waiver renewal in 2015 are no longer bound by those requirements  new system/terms for transition
States must continue to support priority/focus schools and those in improvement through the transition (per the law)
Non-waiver States no longer required to provide choice, supplemental educational services, or related notice to parents (at State’s option), or recognition of high- performing schools
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

5. Accountability Transition (cont.)
By March 1st waiver states had to either:
Continue with the same group of identified schools through SY (“freezing” lists), OR
Identify a new group of schools
States that “freeze” their lists
May not exit schools from identification
BUT they may add more schools to lists to ensure that 5% and 10% minimums for intervention are met
Do not need to submit updated lists of schools to ED
States that create new lists are not required to add schools so long as they meet 5% and 10% minimums
But may add new schools
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

6. Accountability Transition (cont.)
ED says States and LEAs no longer need to comply with a number of provisions not in ESSA for SY (consistent with waivers), including:
Requirement to report performance against AMOs
Requirement to establish new annual measurable achievement objectives (AMAOs) in Title III
Notice to parents of failure to meet Title III AMAOs
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

7. Participation Transition
ED letter from 12/22 says that States must continue to comply with current requirement that all students be assessed (and that accountability is impacted if number dips below 95%)
Current requirements “set out the legal rule that all students in the tested grade must be assessed.” 
States with LEAs in violation of requirement will outline corrective actions they will take to meet the requirement in SY and
 If a State continues to test less than 95% of students, ED will take enforcement action, including:
Withholding Title I, Part A administrative funds
Placing the State’s Title I, Part A grant on high-risk status, or
Withholding Title VI State assessment funds.
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

8. Reporting Transition Reporting continues for SY 2016-17
State and LEAs must continue to collect and publish performance according to NCLB requirements, e.g.:
Performance against participation targets
Performance against academic indicators (not AYP)
Assessment results for each grade level, group, and subject
Participation rates for each grade level, subgroup, and subject
Graduation rates for each subgroup
LEAs in waiver States must report list of priority and focus schools for SY
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

9. Reporting Transition (cont.)
A few reporting requirements waived in ED guidance:
Reporting regarding HQTs for SY
Reporting of performance against AMOs/AYP for SY , , and
AMAO data for Title III for SY , , and
Data on SES and school choice for SY
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

10. Continuation of Flexibility
Some flexibility continues in SY to ease transition
Waiver States are not required to comply with:
Section 1003(a), requirement to distribute at least 95 percent of the funds it reserves to allocate to LEAs for use in Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring;
Section 1114(a)(1), 40% poverty threshold for schoolwide programs;
Section 6123(b), limits the amount of certain federal funds an LEA may transfer between programs;
Sections 6213(b) and 6224(e), permits an LEA that fails to make AYP to continue to participate in the Small, Rural School Achievement program and the Rural and Low-Income School program only if the LEA uses funds to carry out ESEA section 1116; and
Sections 1113(a)(3)-(4) and (c)(1), rank-and-serve requirements.
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

11. ESSA Comprehensive Support and Improvement
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

12. State Level Requirements Sec. 1111(c)
States must develop and institute a single, statewide accountability system which:
Includes a minimum number of students for disaggregation by subgroup (“n-size”) that is:
Common across subgroups
Statistically sound
Adopted in collaboration with stakeholders
Sufficient to not reveal any personal identifiable information
Must be based on “challenging State academic standards”
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

13. State Level Requirements (cont.) Sec. 1111(c)
State accountability systems (cont.)
Must establish “ambitious long-term goals” which are:
Measured over the same length of time for all students and subgroups
Take into account progress necessary to close proficiency and graduation rate gaps
Based on academic achievement and graduation rates
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

14. School Differentiation Sec. 1111(c)
State system must annually differentiate all public schools, for each subgroup and for all students based on:
Academic achievement against long-term goals (may include growth)
This factor must have the greatest weight in accountability systems
For high schools, graduation rates
May be four-year graduation rate or adjusted cohort rate (at State’s discretion)
For elementary and middle schools, growth
Progress in achieving English language proficiency (one subgroup only)
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

15. School Differentiation (cont.) Sec. 1111(c)
At least one indicator of school quality that is:
Valid
Reliable
Comparable, and
Statewide
And which may include:
Student and /or educator engagement
Access to and completion of advanced course work
Postsecondary readiness
School climate and safety
Other factors as determined by the State
Secretary is prohibited from requiring additional indicators
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

16. Charter School Accountability Sec. 1111(b)(2)(K) and 1111(c)(5)
The accountability provisions under this Act shall be overseen for charter schools in accordance with State charter school law. It is unclear what accountability provisions will apply to charter schools, but seems to default to State discretion.
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

17. Identification of Schools Sec. 1111(c)(4)(D)
(NEW) Two levels of improvement
Targeted Support and Improvement
Comprehensive Support and Improvement
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

18. Identification of Schools Sec. 111(c)(4)(D)
Evaluation of all public schools and subgroups must occur every year
System must identify schools for comprehensive and targeted interventions and support at least once every three years
Text of ESSA says starting in , but may be delayed by Omnibus
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

19. Targeted Support and Improvement Sec. 1111(d)(2)
(NEW) Each SEA must:
Notify each LEA of any school in which any subgroup of students is consistently underperforming; and
Ensure the LEA provide notification to the school re: subgroup(s) identification.
Applies to all public schools, not only Title I schools
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

20. Targeted Support and Improvement Plan Sec. 111(d)(2)(B)
(NEW) Upon notice that a school has been identified, the school must (in partnership with stakeholders) develop and implement a targeted support and improvement plan for each identified school.
The plan must:
Include information on student performance against all indicators;
Include evidence based interventions;
Be approved by the LEA prior to implementation; and
Identify resource inequities to be addressed through implementation if a subgroup, on its own, would lead to identification.
The LEA must monitor and implement additional action if there is unsuccessful implementation
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

21. Targeted Support and Improvement (cont.) Sec. 1111(d)(2)
All schools are eligible to be identified for Targeted Support and Improvement.
Any school in which any subgroup of students is consistently underperforming.
But only Title I schools (who would have been previously identified for targeted support) in which any subgroup, on its own, would be identified as lowest-performing 5% and has not improved in a number of years (as defined by the State) could then be identified for comprehensive support and improvement.
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

22. Comprehensive Support and Improvement 1111(c)(4)(D)
(NEW) States must establish a methodology for identifying schools for comprehensive support that must include:
At least the lowest performing 5% Title I schools;
All public high schools in the State failing to graduate 1/3 or more of their students; and
At SEA discretion this may include an extended year adjusted Graduation Rate
One or more additional years after 4;
Summer sessions; or
1% receiving alternate diplomas.
Title I schools in which any subgroup, on its own, would be identified as lowest-performing 5% and has not improved in a number of years (as defined by the State).
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

23. Comprehensive Support and Improvement (cont.) 1111(c)(4)(D)
State may add additional state-wide categories
(NEW) The State must use that methodology to conduct an annual evaluation on the performance of LEAs, schools, and subgroups
Applies to all public schools
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

24. Comprehensive Support and Improvement (cont.) 1111(c)(4)(D)
(NEW) Beginning , must identify schools for comprehensive support and improvement at least once every 3 years
States must use meaningful differentiation for this determination
Does the omnibus delay the effective date?
Likely, leading to start in
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

25. Comprehensive Support and Improvement Plan Sec. 1111(d)
(NEW) Upon notice that a school has been identified, the LEA must (in partnership with stakeholders) develop and implement a comprehensive support and improvement plan for each identified school.
The plan must:
Include information on student performance against all indicators;
Include evidence based interventions;
Be based on school-level needs assessment;
Identify resource inequities to be addressed through implementation; and
Be approved by the school, LEA and SEA.
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

26. Continued Support and Improvement Sec. 111(d)(3)
(NEW) The State must:
Establish statewide exit criteria;
For schools identified for comprehensive support:
If exit criteria is not satisfied after a number of years (not to exceed 4 years) the State must apply more rigorous interventions;
such as the implementation of interventions (which may include addressing school-level operations);
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

27. Continued Support and Improvement Sec. 111(d)(3)
(NEW) The State must (cont.):
Establish statewide exit criteria;
For schools identified for targeted support:
Title I schools: If the exit criteria is not satisfied after a number of years (determined by the State) shall result in the identification of the school for comprehensive support.
Non-Title I schools: ???
State discretion
The State must also periodically review resource allocation and provide technical assistance to LEAs serving significant identified schools
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

28. District Improvement? Sec. 1111(d)(3)(B)
Maybe.
(NEW) The State may take action to initiate improvement in any LEA with a significant number of schools:
that are consistently identified for comprehensive support that do not meet the exit criteria; or
identified for targeted support and improvement.
What could this include?
Up to the SEA!
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

29. How Title I Schools are Identified For Improvement
Targeted Support and Improvement
Comprehensive Support and Improvement
More Rigorous Intervention if No Improvement After 4 Years or Less
Lowest 5% Title I Schools
All Public High Schools graduate less than 1/3
Title I Schools Not Improved Under Targeted Support in “X” Years
All Schools in Which any Subgroup of Students is Consistently Underperforming
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

30. How Non-Title I Schools are Identified For Improvement
Targeted Support and Improvement
All Schools in Which any Subgroup of Students is Consistently Underperforming
If no improvement up to the State to Determine Consequences, if any
Comprehensive Support and Improvement
All Public High Schools graduate less than 1/3
More Rigorous Intervention if No Improvement After 4 Years or Less
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

31. Improvement Funding
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

32. School Improvement Funds Sec. 1003(b)-(d)
SEA reserves 7% for School Improvement
95% for grants to LEAs
Formula or Competitive Basis
Grants are for no more than 4 years (may include planning year)
To implement comprehensive and targeted support and improvement activities
States are permitted to award grants to:
A statewide school district,
Consortium of LEAs, or
Educational service agencies serving schools implementing improvement activities if such entities are legally constituted or recognized as LEAs.
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

33. School Improvement Funds (cont.) Sec. 1003(f)
SEAs must give priority to LEAs that:
Serve high numbers, or a high percentage of, elementary schools and secondary schools in improvement
Demonstrate the greatest need for such funds, as determined by the State; and
Demonstrate the strongest commitment to using funds under this section to enable the lowest-performing schools to improve student achievement and student outcomes.
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

34. 1003 LEA Grant Applications Sec. 1003(e)
States determines the application but must include:
Description of how the LEA will meet requirements under 1111(d):
Develop comprehensive support plans for identified schools;
Support schools developing/implementing targeted improvement plans
Monitor identified schools;
Use a rigorous review process to recruit, screen, select, and evaluate any external partners with whom the LEA will partner;
Align other Federal, State, and local resources to carry out the activities; and
Modify practices and policies to provide operational flexibility that enables full and effective implementation of the plans.
Assurance that each school the LEA proposes to serve will receive all of the State and local funds it would have received in the absence of 1003 funds.
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

35. School Improvement Funds (cont.) Sec. 1003(b)-(c)
Remaining Funds are used by the SEA to:
Ensure allocations represent the geographic diversity of the State
Ensure that allotments are of sufficient size to enable a LEA to effectively implement selected strategies;
Monitor and evaluate the use of funds by LEAs; and
Reduce barriers and provide operational flexibility for schools in the implementation of improvement activities.
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

36. Unused Funds 1003(g)
If, after consultation with LEAs the SEA determines that the amount of funds reserved to carry out the LEA subgrants is greater than the amount needed to provide the assistance
Then the SEA shall allocate the excess amount to LEAs in accordance with —
The relative allocations the SEA made to those agencies for that fiscal year; or
The reallocation procedures under Section 1126(c).
The SEA makes excess amounts available to other LEAs in the State that need the additional funds in accordance with criteria established by the SEA.
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

37. School Improvement Hold Harmless 1003(h)
Starting fiscal year 2018, the SEA must not decrease the amount of funds each LEA receives below the amount received by the LEA for the preceding fiscal year.
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

38. State 1003 Reporting Sec. 1003(i)
The State shall include in the 1111(h)(1) report a list of all the LEAs and schools that received funds under this section, including the amount of funds each school received and the types of strategies implemented in each school with such funds.
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

39. LEA Use of Funds for Direct Student Services 1003A(c)
1% Outreach and communications to parents re: available services
2% Administration
Remainder on allowable uses of funds
In paying the costs associated with the direct student services the LEA shall—
First, pay such costs for students who are enrolled in schools identified for comprehensive support and improvement
Second, pay such costs for low-achieving students who are enrolled in schools implementing targeted support and improvement plans; and
With any remaining funds, pay such costs for other low-achieving students served by the local educational agency.
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

40. Improvement Activities
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

41. School Support Teams Sec. 1003
With LEA approval, SEAs can provide services directly through:
School support teams;
Educational service agencies; or
Nonprofit or for-profit external providers with expertise in using evidence-based strategies to improve student achievement, instruction, and schools.
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

42. Public School Choice Sec. 1111(d)(1)(D)
(NEW) A LEA may provide all students enrolled in an identified school the option to transfer to another public school.
Priority given to lowest-achieving children from low income families.
Remain in that school until he/she has completed the highest grade
LEA must provide sufficient number of options to provide a meaningful choice for parents.
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

43. Public School Choice Funding Sec. 1111(d) and 1003A(e)
(NEW) 5% of Title I, A allocation for Public School Choice Transportation OR
(NEW) 1003(A) funds may be used for school choice transportation only if the LEA does not reserve 5% for 1111(d) transportation
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

44. High Quality Academic Tutoring Sec. 1003A(c)(3)
LEA allowable expenditures may include high quality academic tutoring.
The SEA must:
Compile and maintain and updated list of State-approved high-quality academic tutoring providers;
Ensure that each LEA provides an adequate number of tutoring options to provide meaningful choice to parents;
Develop procedures for monitoring the quality of services; and
Establish and implement clear removal criteria if the provider is unsuccessful.
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

45. High Quality Academic Tutoring (cont.) Sec. 1003A(c)(3)
Other available activities include:
Academic/CTE coursework aligned to academic/industry standards;
Credit recovery; and
Post-secondary instruction and examination costs, including Advance Placement and International Baccalaureate test fees
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

46. What About Prior SIG Models?
Turnaround
Restart
Closure
Transformation
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

47. What About Prior SIG Activities?
Replace the principal
Measure the staff effectiveness
Implement strategies to recruit, place, and retain staff
Identify and reward school leaders, teachers, and other staff
Provide ongoing, high-quality job-embedded professional development
Use data to identify and implement an instructional program
Establish schedules and implement strategies that provide increased learning time
Provide appropriate social-emotional and community-oriented services and supports for students
Adopt new governance structure
Convert or close and reopen under a CMO or EMO
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

48. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © 2016. All rights reserved.

49. Disclaimer
This presentation is intended solely to provide general information and does not constitute legal advice or a legal service.  This presentation does not create a client-lawyer relationship with Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC and, therefore, carries none of the protections under the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct.  Attendance at this presentation, a later review of any printed or electronic materials, or any follow-up questions or communications arising out of this presentation with any attorney at Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC does not create an attorney-client relationship with Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC.  You should not take any action based upon any information in this presentation without first consulting legal counsel familiar with your particular circumstances.
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.