every student succeeds act (essa) every student succeeds...essa requires that the state plan “is...

1

Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)

ENSURING EQUITY IN STATE PLAN DEVELOPMENT & IMPLEMENTATION

June 15, 2017

Every Student Succeeds Act (P.L. 114‐95)Signed December 10, 2015

Reauthorized the Elementary & Secondary Education Act, replaces No Child Left Behind and ends ESEA waivers

Purpose of the Act

”The purpose of this title is to provide all children significant opportunity to receive a fair, equitable, and high‐quality

education, and to close educational achievement gaps.''

AUCD Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Webinar June 15, 2017

2

Plan submission and approval required in order to receive annual

federal ESEA funds.

Two windows to submit plan to USED: May 3 and September 18,

2017.

State development timeline must allow for at least 30 days for public comment and 30 days for review by

Governor.

16 states and DC submitted plans to USED in April 2017. Those plans are now going through the peer review process. USED has 120 days to approve submitted plans.

• Remaining states will submit on Sept. 18, 2017. Many draft plans open for public comment now.

• Approx. 75% of SWDs are educated in the states submitting in Sept.

• 58 percent of IDEA‐eligible students are also served by Title I (3.4 million). Percent served by both varies by state from low of 12% in NH to 85% or more in KY, LA, NM.

• Status of all state plans available at: • UnderstandingESSA.org • Additional links in Review Guide


3

Stakeholder Engagement

Title I State Plans must be developed by the SEA “with timely and meaningful consultation with

• the Governor,

• members of the State Legislature and State board of education (if

the State has a State board of education),

• Local Educational Agencies (including those located in rural areas),

• representatives of Indian tribes located in the State,

• Teachers,

• Principals, and other school leaders,

• Charter School Leaders (if the State has charter schools),

• Specialized instructional support personnel,

• Paraprofessionals,

• Administrators,

• Other Staff,

• Parents.”

ESSA requires that the state plan “is coordinated with other programs under this Act,

• the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,• the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, • the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006, • the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act,• the Head Start, • the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990, • the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002,• the Education Technical Assistance Act of 2002, • the National Assessment of Educational Progress Authorization

Act, • the McKinney‐Vento Homeless Assistance Act, and • the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act.”

Walks through key provisions of the ESSA state plan according to

the March 2017 Consolidated State Plan

Template with explanations and advocacy tips.

Online at goo.gl/IbUVG0

(PDF, 22 pgs.)


4

SubgroupsESSA maintains requirement for states to disaggregate data for accountability purposes for: • Each major racial and ethnic group• Economically disadvantaged students• Children with disabilities• English leaners• Students count in EVERY applicable subgroup! Can’t combine

subgroups above (aka super subgroups). • Additional groups at state discretion (e.g., gifted)

ESSA adds requirement to report disaggregated data on achievement on state assessments for:• Homeless• Foster care• Parent in Armed Services

Minimum N‐Size States must determine minimum number of students that are necessary to be included to carry out the requirements of any provisions that require disaggregation of information by each subgroup of students for accountability purposes (academic assessment; growth; graduation; participation). This plays critical role in identification of schools for Targeted Support and Improvement (discussed later).

> States are setting N‐size ranging from 0 (New Mexico) to 30 (CA, MI, NC, NY). Most are setting lower N‐size for reporting than for accountability.

Describe how the minimum number of students was determined by the State, including how the State collaborated with teachers, principals, other school leaders, parents, and other stakeholders when determining such minimum number. > Few states are providing data on #, % of students, schools included (or excluded) due to N‐size

N‐size for Assessment

Number (n) of students across the grades assessed required for a school to have the assessment results (separately

for ELA and Math) of the subgroup included in the accountability system.

* Students count in the “all student” results even if below ‘n’ size for

subgroup accountability. Students count in all applicable subgroups.


5

Source: http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Every‐Student‐Succeeds‐Act‐ESSA/ESSA‐Stakeholder‐Engagement/ESSA‐Past‐Webinars‐and‐Stakeholder‐Meetings

Data on % of students included in school accountability based on various N‐size

N‐size for Graduation

Number (n) of students in the graduating class for a high school to have the graduation rate of the subgroup included in the accountability system.

Students count in the “all student” graduation rate even if below ‘n’ size for subgroup accountability.

Source: NJ State Plan; N‐size of 20

Data on # and % of students included in school accountability for graduation based on various N‐size


6

Long‐term Goals and Measurements of Interim Progress (previously known as AMOs)

States must establish ambitious long‐term goals and measurements of interim progress for all students and for each subgroup of students for, at a minimum, improved academic achievement, as measured by grade–level proficiency on the annual academic assessments in math and reading/language arts and high school graduation rates.

Goals must take into account improvement necessary to make significant progress in closing statewide gaps in proficiency and graduation

ISSUES :: Long‐term Goals

• Few states make a commitment to hold goals/interim progress targets steady. Only one state – MD – explicitly commits to maintaining goals over time.

• Timelines range from 6 years to 20 years – often with same long‐term goal. • Goals for students with disabilities reflect significant progress not

representative of past performance or rate of improvement and are not supported by activities to accomplish goals (proficiency and graduation). Revision of goals downward is highly likely in order to align with actual achievement.

• Goals for academic proficiency and grad rate not aligned (DE, MI, NM, NV, TN)• Some states propose to measure academic achievement by scale scores

instead of proficiency on statewide assessments (CO, CT)• Many states fail to provide (1) baseline data (2) long‐term goals (3) goals by

subgroup (4) measurements of interim progress• One state (MI) proposes that achievement of goals only expected of 75% of

schools, students. • No/little alignment with SSIP. Only a couple of states (NM most prominent)

even mention SSIP/SIMR.

Source: NJ State Plan submitted May 3, 2017. Long‐term goal reached in school year 2029‐2030.

EXAMPLE of setting same goal for all groups


7

EXAMPLE of setting goals based on gap‐closing (reduce proficiency gap by half)

Source: Delaware State Plan submitted May 3, 2017 page 3

SWD 4‐year ACGR goal is 81.9%

Source: NCEO Report 405‐ 2014‐15 Publicly Reported Assessment Results for Students with Disabilities and ELs with Disabilities, May 2017.

Four Year Regulatory Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate by State

2010 ‐ 2014

SWD 4‐year ACGRs range from low of 31% in MS (gap= 50 pts) to high of 82% in AR (gap= 3 pts)


8

Indicators ESSA requires states to use the following indicators (for the types of schools described in bold). Performance on these indicators will be used by the state to identify which schools are low performing and in need of support and improvement.

Elementary & Secondary Schools that are not High Schools• Academic Achievement Indicator: measured by proficiency on the required

reading/language arts and mathematics annual state assessments; • Other Academic Indicator: another measure of academic performance, which can be a

measure of student growth.

High Schools • Academic Achievement Indicator: measured by proficiency on the required

reading/language arts and mathematics annual state assessments; • Graduation Rate Indicator: the 4‐year ACGR is required, and the state can also use

extended‐year graduation rates;• Optional: Another measure of academic performance such as student growth.

All Schools (Elementary, Secondary, High Schools)• Progress in achieving English Language Proficiency (ELP)• Not less than one state‐defined indicator of school quality or student success that is

valid, comparable, and statewide (aka 5th indicator).

Issues :: Indicators

• Many states not assigning weighting to indicators• Many states assigning too much weight to growth (vs.

proficiency) and using student growth percentiles (SGPs) as growth measure, which only measures growth compared to peers and not growth to proficiency (standard)

• Some states (CT) incorporating too many indicators of school quality/student success; OR including only ONE (chronic absenteeism) which could lead to corruption.

• Some states (MI, CT) including participation in indicators with limited weight.

Annual Meaningful Differentiation of School Performance

States must describe a system of annual differentiation of ALL public schools which must:• Include weighting of each indicator;• Be based on all indicators for all students and each subgroup;• Relate to the Long‐term Goals and interim progress;• Be used to identify schools in need of improvement.

*Also must address any different methodology that will be used for schools for which accountability determinations can’t be made, e.g. alternative schools, schools for special pops.


9

Identification of Schools

Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI)

At least once every three years a statewide category of schools needing CSI must be identified, which must include the following three categories of schools. However, the state may use its discretion, to make additional statewide categories of schools eligible for comprehensive support and improvement.

1. Not less than the lowest‐performing 5% of all schools receiving Title I funding (those with high levels of economically disadvantaged students)

2. All public high schools failing to graduate one‐third or more of their students (e.g. graduation rate of 67% or less)

3. Certain other Title I public schools, which have a subgroup or subgroups performing as poorly as the “all student group” in bullet #1, have been identified for targeted support and improvement, and have not exited that category for a state determined number of years (“low‐performing” subgroups that are now considered “chronically low‐performing” subgroups).

Identification of Schools

Targeted Support and Improvement (TSI)

TSI identified schools must include any schools (whether or not they receive Title I funding) that have:

• One of more subgroups (e.g. disability subgroup) that are “consistently underperforming,” as that term is defined in the state plan (identified annually), or

• One or more subgroups that are “low‐performing,”which means they are performing as poorly as the “all student” group in the lowest performing 5% of Title I schools (identified at least once every three years).

ISSUES :: SCHOOL IDENTIFICATION

• Many states not providing details on methodology on identification for CSI and/or TSI.

• Many states excluding schools with high percentage of special education from accountability system. ESSA allows different approach but not exclusion.

• Many states not including high schools with graduation rate of 67% or below (only using below 67%)

• Many states using multiple ACGRs for identification (minimizes primacy of 4‐year graduation)

• Withdrawal of Federal regs re accountability eliminated language re counting subgroups in ACGR

• Definition of “consistently underperforming subgroups” often not well defined. Many states require 3 years of poor performance before identification; subgroup must be low performing on all indicators.

• Setting limit on percentage of schools that can be identified for TSI (WI)


10

School Improvement Plans

Following identification for CSI or TSI the school district must develop and implement a plan to improve student outcomes in the identified schools which:• is informed by all indicators including student performance against

State‐determined long‐term goals;• includes evidence‐based interventions (as defined by ESSA);• is based on a school‐level needs assessment;• identifies resource inequities;• is approved by the school, local educational agency, and State

educational agency;• is monitored and periodically reviewed by the State educational agency

ISSUES :: School Improvement Plans • States not focusing interventions on subgroup(s) that resulted in

identification

Annual Measurement of Achievement

ESSA maintains the requirement that at least 95% of all students, including at least 95% of the students in each student subgroup in a school, must participate in annual state assessments. (IDEA also requires that students with disabilities be included in all state assessments.) ESSA requires states to factor this requirement into the accountability system.

Calculating proficiency. ESSA requires that when test participation falls below 95%, students not tested must be counted as non‐proficient. In other words, states must not remove non‐tested students from the proficiency calculation.

ISSUES :: Annual Measurement of Achievement

• Many states NOT providing any meaningful way test participation will be factored into the accountability system as required by ESSA. For example, a school’s rating will be lowered by one grade, so a B school could be rated as a C school or merely adding a minus to grade.

• Many states using different (higher) N‐size for participation.• Some only including info regarding the ESSA requirement to count

untested students (below 95%) as non‐proficient in assessment results.• Many states do not acknowledge the calculation requirement, raising

concerns about it being carried out.• One state (CT) measuring only for all students and High Needs group.• One state (NJ) proposes to provide two sets of data on achievement –

one w/o non‐participants and one with. This will invariably lead to criticism of policy by inferring that schools are being penalized for something beyond their control.


11

School Conditions

ESSA requires the state plan to describe how the state will support LEAs receiving assistance under Title I, Part A (those with high numbers or high percentages of children from low‐income families) to improve school conditions for student learning, including through reducing: • incidences of bullying and harassment; • the overuse of discipline practices that remove students from the

classroom; and • the use of aversive behavioral interventions that compromise student

health and safety.

ISSUES :: SCHOOL CONDITIONS

• Most states ignore issue of aversive behavioral interventions;• Few states are providing specifics regarding SWDs despite

disproportionate use. Data available from Civil Rights Data Collection (ocrdata.ed.gov)

Improving Skills of EducatorsTitle II, Part A

States are required to describe how they will improve the skills of teachers, principals, or other school leaders in order to enable them to identify students with specific learning needs, particularly children with disabilities, English learners, students who are gifted and talented, and students with low literacy levels, and provide instruction based on the needs of such students.

ISSUES :: Improving Skills of Educators

• Few states are providing strategies that would build the capacity of educators to provide a fair, equitable and high‐quality education to ALL students.

• Most states fail to discuss UDL implementation, in spite of the fact that many states claimed to be implementing UDL in their ESEA Flexibility Requests.

• No state provides meaningful references to the use of inclusive best practices, despite decades of evidence as to its effectiveness to improve the education of students with and without disabilities. Almost 95% of students who take alternate assessments are still taught outside the general education classroom, impacting their participation and progress in the general education curriculum under IDEA and ESSA.


every student succeeds act (essa) every student succeeds...essa requires that the state plan “is...

Documents