You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘ESSA’ tag.

Nothing much.. Just John King’s adjustments to bypass the law Congress passed

“The Secretary proposes to amend the regulations… to include requirements for the submission of State plans. ”

  • Remove and reserve §200.7;
  • Remove §§200.12 to 200.22 of the current regulations, replace them with proposed §§200.12 to 200.22, and add proposed §§200.23 and 200.24;
  • Remove §§200.30 to 200.42 of the current regulations and replace them with proposed §§200.30 to 200.37; and
  • Add proposed §§299.13 to 299.19.

 

DEFINITIONS:  The ESEA is the shortened name for “No Child Left Behind” and the ESSA is the bill passed this last summer, allegedly ending “No Child Left Behind”….

 

A)  “Proposed §200.12 would replace the current regulations with regulations that summarize the requirements for accountability systems in the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA.”  (Translated bluntly.  “We will roll all the old accountability systems of “No Child Left Behind” into the new ESSA……. “)

B)  Proposed §200.13 would primarily incorporate into regulation the statutory requirements under the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA..  (Translated bluntly.  “We will roll all the old statutory requirements of “No Child Left Behind” into the new ESSA……. “)

 

C)  Proposed §200.14 would clarify the statutory requirements in the ESSA for States to include, at a minimum, four distinct indicators for each school that measure performance for all students and separately for each subgroup of students under proposed…  (Translated bluntly.  “We had four levels of requirements in “No Child Left Behind” and we will roll that over into the new ESSA……. “)

 

D) Proposed §200.15 would replace current §200.15 with regulations that update and clarify assessment participation rate requirements to reflect new statutory requirements. (Bluntly translated:  we will substitute cruel and severe penalties for opting out. We are taking this back from the states.)

E) Proposed §200.16 would replace the current regulations to clarify the statutory requirements under the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, for how a State must include subgroups of students in its State accountability system. (Translated bluntly.  “We will roll all the old statutory requirements of “No Child Left Behind” into the new ESSA……. “)

 

F) Proposed §200.17 would retain and reorganize the relevant requirements of current §200.7, which would be removed and reserved, so that these requirements are incorporated directly into the sections of the proposed regulations pertaining to accountability.. (Translated bluntly.  “We will bypass all the statutory requirements limiting data use in the new ESSA, and return to the no-holds-barred era  of “No Child Left Behind” in all matters regarding protection of child data,…. “)

 

G)  Proposed §200.18 would replace the current regulations with regulations implementing the ESEA statutory requirements, as amended by the ESSA, for States to establish systems of annual meaningful differentiation of all public schools. (Back to subbing the ESEA for the ESSA (replace the new bill with the procedures listed in the old)….

 

H)  Proposed §200.19 would replace the current regulations with regulations reflecting the new statutory requirements under the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, to identify schools for comprehensive support and improvement and for targeted support and improvement.  (Same thing here: Kill and replace with the old bill)

 

I)  Proposed §200.20 would replace current title I regulations with regulations that would update and clarify how data averaging may be used in the statewide accountability system for annual meaningful differentiation and identification of schools under proposed §§200.18 and 200.19. The proposed regulations would retain the requirements of current §200.20, while updating references to reflect new statutory requirements under the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA.   (Bluntly translated:  Again replace the old bill with the new.)

 

J) Proposed §200.21 would replace the current regulations with regulations that clarify the statutory requirements under the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, for States to help ensure that LEAs with schools identified for comprehensive support and improvement develop and implement plans that will be effective in increasing student academic achievement and school success. (Same thing… put new wine in old wineskins)….

 

K) Proposed §200.22 would replace the current regulations with regulations that clarify the statutory requirements in the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, for States and LEAs to ensure that schools identified for targeted support and improvement will implement plans that are effective in increasing student academic achievement for the lowest-performing students in those schools. (Same thing: take the requirements of No Child Left Behind, and add them to the new bill)….

 

L) Proposed §200.23 would clarify the statutory requirements in the ESEA related to continued support for school and LEA improvement. (Same:  take the old that was shot down by Congress bipartisanly (believe it or not), and substitute it into the new bill they did pass.

 

M) Proposed §200.24 would clarify the new requirements included in the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, for funds that the State must set aside for LEAs to support schools implementing comprehensive and targeted support and improvement plans. (By now you should be astute enough to translate these yourself…)

 

N) Proposed §200.30 would require a State to prepare and disseminate widely to the public an annual State report card that includes information on the State as a whole and is concise and presented in an understandable and uniform format and in a manner accessible to the public, including the parents of students in the State.. (This is a brand new regulation not in “No Child Left Behind” or the new ESSA.)

 

O) Proposed §200.31 would require an LEA to prepare and disseminate to the public an annual LEA report card that includes information on the LEA as a whole and each school served by the LEA and that is concise and presented in an understandable and uniform format and in a manner accessible to the public, including parents of students in the LEA.(This also is new; never a part of the old ESEA or new ESSA)

 

P)  Proposed §200.32(a) would restate the statutory requirements in section 1111(h)(1)(C)(i) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, for describing the State’s current accountability system on State report cards..

 

Q)  Proposed §200.33(a) would require State and LEA report cards to include the percentages of students performing at each level of achievement on the State’s academic achievement standards, by grade, …(This also is new; never a part of the old ESEA or new ESSA) .

 

R) Proposed §200.34 would revise and replace current regulations to align the regulations with the statutory requirements in sections 8101(23) and (25) and would clarify statutory requirements in section 1111(c)(4)(F)of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA.

 

S) Proposed §200.35 would implement the statutory provisions requiring a State and its LEAs to annually report per-pupil expenditures of Federal, State, and local funds on State and LEA report cards, disaggregated by source of funds. (There is no current regulation in the ESSA).

 

T)  Proposed §200.36 would restate the statutory requirement that State and LEA report cards include information at the State, LEA, and school level about which students graduate from high school and enroll in programs of postsecondary education in the academic year immediately following the students’ high school graduation. ..

 

U) Proposed §200.37 would implement statutory requirements for reporting on educator qualifications in State and LEA report cards.. (There is not current regulation in the ESSA).

 

V)  Proposed §299.13 would outline the general requirements for State plans authorized under the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA.

 

W) Proposed §§299.14 through 299.19 would outline the requirements for consolidated State plans authorized under section 8302 of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA.

 

It is clear that these regulations were handed to John King by a lobbyist representing educational profit funds.  Their wording and language is exactly the same as some of the ones handed to our state senators and reps from the exact same people.

Lamar Alexander has good reason to be pissed… He wrote the bill (with help) to achieve a certain goal.  John King is undercutting it… Time to get rid of the Federal  Department of Education…..

 

 

 

 

 

For Mike O:  http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/nprmaccountabilitystateplans52016.pdf

==========

States can choose their own indicators of school quality or student success that move beyond traditional accountability measures based on test scores and graduation rates.

Regulations do not prescribe an “n-size,” or minimum number of a particular group of students at a school, for that group of students to be included for accountability purposes.

If a school is scoring at the lowest-possible level on any academic indicator, it has to get a different summative rating than a school that’s getting top marks on all the indicators.

The regulations state that, “To ensure that differentiation of schools is meaningful, the accountability system should allow for more than two possible outcomes for each school.”

For each accountability indicator, there must be three distinct levels of performance assigned to schools that are “clear and understandable to the public.”

Regulations do not dictate how states must deal with schools that assess less than 95 percent of all their students.States find the solution themselves.

States now have these four options to address an individual school’s low test-participation rates: (below 95%)

(1) assign a lower summative rating to the school;

(2) assign the lowest performance level on the State’s Academic Achievement indicator;

(3) identify the school for targeted support and improvement.

(4) switch to a different test and vendor.

States must identify schools with subgroups that, based on the state’s indicators, underperform over two or more years.

Of the weights that must be used for different accountability factors, the academic factors would have to have a “much greater” weight than the measures of school quality or student success in accountability systems.

Schools identified for “comprehensive support” can’t get that label removed on the basis of progress in that indicator, unless it is making sufficient progress on other indicators.

Each subgroup of students (like economically disadvantaged students and those in special education) must be considered separately for accountability.  (“super subgroups” or the big groups combining several different subgroups of students that proliferated under waivers from No Child Left Behind, can no longer be used in place of an individual subgroup of students.)

Schools in need of comprehensive support include: the bottom 5 percent of Title I schools in the state; high schools with graduation rates below 67 percent for all students based on the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate; and Title I schools with chronically low-performing subgroups that have not improved after receiving additional targeted support.

Schools in need of targeted support include schools with a low-performing subgroup performing similarly to all students in the bottom 5 percent of Title I schools

The end of the “pass/fail” era of No Child Left Behind: “Proposed regulations clarify ESSA’s statutory language by ensuring the use of multiple measures of school success based on academic outcomes, student progress, and school quality, thereby reinforcing that all students deserve a high-quality and well-rounded education that will prepare them for success.”

 

 

Big items in the ESSA:

States will no longer have to do teacher evaluation through student outcomes, as they did under NCLB waivers.  The NCLB law’s “highly qualified teacher” requirement is officially a thing of the past….

States are required to adopt “challenging” academic standards. That could be the Common Core State Standards, but doesn’t have to be.  The U.S. Secretary of Education is expressly prohibited from forcing or even encouraging states to pick a particular set of standards (including the common core)…

States can create their own testing opt-out laws, and states decide what should happen in schools that miss targets….

Up to seven states can apply to try out local tests for a limited time, with the permission of the U.S. Department of Education….

Districts will work with teachers and school staff to come up with an evidence-based turnaround plan.States will monitor the turnaround effort.If schools continue to founder, after no more than four years the state will be required to step in with its own plan. A state could take over the school if it wanted, or fire the principal, or turn the school into a charter.

Only 1 percent of students overall can be given alternative tests. (That’s about 10 percent of students in special education.)

Districts that get more than $30,000 have to spend at least 20 percent of their funding on at least one activity that helps students become well-rounded, and another 20 percent on at least one activity that helps students be safe and healthy.

The current Title I funding formula remains intact, but there are some changes to the Title II formula (which funds teacher quality) that will be a boon to rural states.

A pilot program will let 50 districts try out a weighted student-funding formula, combining state, local, and federal funds to better serve low-income students and those with special needs.

States have to figure in participation rates on state tests. (Schools with less than 95 percent participation are supposed to have that included, somehow.) But participation rate is a stand-alone factor, not a separate indicator on its own.

=======

Recommended new State Actions to deal with the new law.

A.  General Assembly: create bill prohibiting linking teacher accountability with test scores in the state of Delaware.

B.   General Assembly: remove Delaware from the Smarter Balanced Assessment and come up with State test designed by real educators.

C.  General Assembly:  pass bill that says all those applying for OPT OUT before March 1st, will not be counted in the participation rate of test takers. They will be a separate class removed from the formula in figuring participation rates. Participation rates will be figured based on those students who did not opt out before the deadline.

D.