ESEA, Hot Issues and the Federal Education Outlook Prepared for - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
ESEA, Hot Issues and the Federal Education Outlook Prepared for NAFEPA, March 2015 Presented by David DeSchryver, Director, Whiteboard Advisors Table of Contents Educa tion Ins iders ..... 3 ESEA Outlook ..... 6 ESEA Hot Is s ues
ESEA, Hot Issues and the Federal Education Outlook Prepared for NAFEPA, March 2015 Presented by David DeSchryver, Director, Whiteboard Advisors
Educa tion Ins iders ..... 3 ESEA Outlook ..... 6 ESEA Hot Is s ues ..... 8 Wha t's Next ..... 22
4
Education Insiders
ESEA Reauthorization
Education Insider is a monthly report that cuts through the noise and provides real-time insights on national education policy trends, debates, and issues ? from the handful of decision makers that are really driving the process. We combine a survey of key education influencers with our own analysis to provide a unique perspective on the current state of debate. Who Are The Insiders? Influential leaders who are shaping federal education reform, including individuals who have or are currently serving as key policy and political ? insiders,? such as:
leaders;
governors; and
influentials
5
Education Insiders
ESEA Reauthorization
Some Insider quotes: "Lucy dressed up as HR5 and was all, "I'll hold the ball this time! Promise!" And we were all, "It's going to happen! ESEA is going to get reauthorized this time!" And then she ripped off the costume and laughed and laughed. And then Peppermint Patty and Linus who were sitting in the stands ripped off their costumes and they were actually Club for Growth and Heritage Action, and they just laughed and
"If it passes, it'll be signed quickly. And all sides want this done before we get too deep into the presidential primaries. Do we really want ESEA re authorization to be an issue in the Iowa caucuses? "
6
We have more work to do so every child has access to a great public education, but Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives are advancing legislation (H.R. 5) that would cement recent education cuts, allow states and local communities to waste their education investments on unrelated projects, and take funding from the schools that need it most and giving it to some of the nation? s wealthiest districts. This approach is backwards and our teachers and kids deserve better.
Issue: Veto Bait
ESEA Reauthorization
7
ESEA Reauthorization: Timeline
Murray say that they are aiming for a markup of their ESEA bill the week of April 13.
Winter Spring Summer Fall
Success Act (HR5) and passes it
party lines, Feb. 3, 2015.
from House floor due to conservative rebellion,
Sen, Lamar Alexander introduced ESEA "Discussion Draft," Jan. 13, 2015
Budget Season Presidential election season underway...
9
The Need for Evidence Issue: Funding Levels
The Obama Administration is asking for a $1 billion increase for FY 2016. The Houses bill HR5 authorizes $16,245,163,000 ? for each of fiscal years 2016 through 2021.? The Senate draft authorizes $15 billion through 2021. These levels do not account for inflation and growing numbers of children of poverty in our schools.
Congress is weary in investing in education without better evidence of efficacy. How this efficacy is presented is not clear. It is clear, however, that the burden of demonstrating the solutions will fall on the shoulders of today's superintendents and program leaders.
Background
Title I provides supplemental education funding to LEAs to fund schools with high concentrations of poverty. The schools use the funds to serve students at-risk of not making the state academic achievement standards or, in the case of schoolwide programs, to help all students in high poverty schools meet challenging State academic standards. Title I operates through one of two models: a ? targeted assistance? model or a ? schoolwide?
model allows schools to use Title I funds in combination with
instructional program for all children in a school.
ESEA Hot Issues
10
Uncertainty Issue: Portability
Senate: The State would provide funding to LEAs based on an amount equal to the sum of the amount available for each eligible child in the State multiplied by the number of eligible children identified by the local educational agency. LEAs, then, would distribute funds to the public schools based on the number of eligible children enrolled in the schools. House: Similarly, HR5 allow SEAs to allocate Title I funds based
served by each LEA.
Background
Under current law, the LEAs receive funds based on a 4 part formula that places heavy weight on the number of low income students in the LEA. LEAs identify eligible school based on concentrations of poverty in school attendance areas and distribute the funds based on the concentration of poverty in those schools, until the money runs out. The planning and management of the funding is largely a district based activity and they can rely on the funding levels for budget and planning.
If at-risk children leave poor preforming schools for better schools, that likely means leaving a poorer school for a wealthier one and taking Title I funding
for districts that rely on the funds for district services and for personnel expenses.
ESEA Hot Issues
11
Standards
Senate: requires States to provide assurances that they have adopted challenging academic standards in reading/ELA, math, and science. House: requires states to adopt standards in ELA/reading, math, and science. May adopt standards in other subjects. Both versions prohibit the secretary from prescribing standards or telling states what to do, generally.
Background
The Common Core standards have become a political litmus test or conservative politicisions. Only Jeb Bush is bucking the trend. Will he be able to survive the primaries with this position?
In the News
ESEA Hot Issues
12
Accountability
Senate: Each state shall describe a single statewide accountability system that annually measures achievement in math and reading (which may include growth) and that annually identifies and differentiates all public schools based on subgroup gaps and achievement, overall performance, & grad rates (at 35). The Sec. is prohibited from est. criterion on these matters. If a state changes its standards, tests, or accountability systems it just "notifies" the Secretary. House: Requires single statewide plan to annually measure school and student performance, but states do not need to establish performance targets. Accountability for charter schools is in accord with state law (at 39.)
Background
Under NCLB, schools and districts had to make adequate yearly progress (AYP). Under the waivers, States have school performance targets. They can design their own, cut the number of non-proficient students in half by 2017, or reach 100% proficiency by 2020. The notion that state's have an accountability plan carries into the reauthorizing debates, yet the details are left to the states to figure out.
? ? (4) PROHIBITION ON REGULATION. ? Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to permit the Secretary to establish any criterion that specifies, defines, or prescribes the standards or measures that State or local educational agencies use to establish,implement, or improve? (A) State standards; (B) assessments; (C) State accountability systems; (D) systems that measure student academic growth; (E) measures of other academic indicators; (F) teacher, principal, or other school leader evaluation systems; or
ESEA Hot Issues
13
Deemed Approved! Senate:
STATE PLANS. (a) DEEMED APPROVAL. ? A plan submitted by a State pursuant to section 2101(d), 4103(d), or 9302 shall be deemed to be approved by the Secretary unless?
House:
DEEMED APPROVAL.? An application submitted by a State educational agency under subsection (a) shall be deemed to be approved by the Secretary unless the Secretary makes a written determination, prior to the expiration of the 120-day period beginning on the date on which the Secretary received the application, that the application is not in compliance with this subpart.
ESEA Hot Issues
14
SNS Game Changer Fiscal Rules
House: Does not change comparability requirements. It eliminates maintenance of effort. It maintains "supplement not supplant? rules that specify federal funds cannot replace state and local funds. It eliminates the schoolwide 40% threshold. Senate: Does not change comparability requirements. It eliminates maintenance of effort. It totally rewrites supplement, not supplant. It eliminates the schoolwide 40% threshold.
Background
The waivers made no changes to Title I formulas, comparability, MOE, or SNS rules. The notable change was to schoolwide. Title I schools are allowed to operate a ? schoolwide? program in a school with fewer than 40% of children in poverty if they are identified as a priority or focus school. Goodbye to schoolwide? In order to comply, districts would have to demonstrate that "the methodology used to allocate state and local funds to each school receiving assistance under this part ensures that such school receives all of the state and local funds it would otherwise receive if it were not receiving assistance under this part." In other words, the method of distributing state and local funds must ensure that the schools get their due of state and local funding. The bill goes on to say that the Secretary does not have the authority to ? establish any criterion that specifies, designs, or prescribes the methods or manners by which a district would demonstrate compliance? with the new supplement, not supplant compliance test. It also says that no district would be required to identify individual costs or provide specific services through a particular instructional method or setting in order to demonstrate compliance.
?
ESEA Hot Issues
15
Testing
Senate: Testing Option 1 is to grant states flexibility to create a ? state designed system? that may be for each grade, for grade spans, and/or include a competency based system and more. Option 2 is a 3 through 8 and at least once in grades 9 through 12 annual assessment, like current law.
House: Annual testing 3-8, and at least once in 9-12. The tests may be summative or given during the course of the year.
Background
high school
use of student growth and competency based models, such as the pioneering state of New Hampshire.
states.
New Hampshire? s Performance Assessment for Competency Education (PACE) pilot will allow locally managed assessments to count toward federal accountability requirements. New Hampshire? s PACE project began in 2012 as an opt-in effort for districts to coordinate local approaches to performance assessment. Starting in 2015, the four PACE implementing districts ? Sanborn Regional, Rochester, Epping, and Souhegan ? will administer SBAC once in elementary school, once in middle school, and once in high school (in three grades instead of seven). In all other years, the PACE districts will administer carefully designed common and locally managed ? performance assessments? that were developed by the districts themselves and validated at the state level.
See more at: http://www.christenseninstitute.org/new-hampshire-testing-pilot-breaks-the-federal-accountability-mold/#sthash.YOT2PI3U.dpuf; http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/NH_PACE_3.5.15.pdf
New Hampshire's new model
ESEA Hot Issues
16
See more at: http://www.christenseninstitute.org/new-hampshire-testing-pilot-breaks-the-federal-accountability-mold/#sthash.YOT2PI3U.dpuf; http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/NH_PACE_3.5.15.pdf
Competency Based Landscape
ESEA Hot Issues - More
17
Will SEAs & LEAs remain firm on accountability? Standards and Assessments related to SWD
HR5 langauge: A State may, through a documented and validated standards-setting process, adopt alternate academic achievement standards. Senate language: A State may, through a documented and validated standards-setting process, adopt alternate academic achievement standards.
Background
NCLB regulations had a 1% cap on alternate assessments on alternate academic achievement standards (AA-AAS) and 2% cap on alternate assessments on modified academic achievement standards (AA-MAS). USED later eliminated the 2% cap. These caps determine the number of advanced and proficient scores from these assessments that may be used for accountability
students taking any assessments even though these particular assessments are only taken by students with disabilities. Therefore, the caps translate to approximately 10% and 20% of students with disabilities whose scores from these assessments can be used as proficient for accountability purposes.
Under NCLB, alternative assessments were only for those students with severe cognitive disabilities. These restrictions were important because they ensured that SWD were included in the general assessment (and general instruction), whenever
accountable for the academic progress of SWD and schools made more of an effort to work with these
their parents. These bills put that progress in jeopardy. Lindsay Jones, NCLD, Director pf Public Policy & Advocacy
ESEA Hot Issues
18
Federal laws ? NCLB and IDEA ? require that students with disabilities take an annual assessment. Under NCLB, students are tested annually in reading and math in grades 3-8 and
district and state must report student performance on these yearly tests. This reporting allows parents to see how students with disabilities are performing compared to their peers without disabilities
See: http://www.ncld.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/NCLD_TestingRequirements-Final.pdf
ESEA Hot Issues - More
19
Teacher Effectiveness
House: Eliminates ? highly qualified teacher? requirement. States are not required to develop educator evaluation systems, but may use Title II funds to do so. Consolidates Teacher Incentive Fund, Teacher Quality Partnership Grants, and other programs into a new Teacher and School Leader Flexible Grant. Senate: Eliminates ? highly qualified teacher?
II must be focused on increasing the number of teachers, principals, and other school leaders who are effective in improving student academic achievement. Allowable district activities must meet these identified needs and be consistent with the principles of effectiveness, and may... be used for evaluation systems based on evidence of student achievement, for teacher residency programs, and more. All Title II and Title IV funds can be transferred between programs at the state level in the draft. The bill enshrines the Teacher Incentive Fund.
Background
The ESEA waivers eliminated the requirement to provide ? highly qualified teacher? improvement plans. Instead, states had to create teacher and principal evaluation systems that consider multiple measures including student growth. The waivers introduced teacher "effectiveness" into the ESEA.
The New Principles
c) PRINCIPLES OF EFFECTIVENESS.? (1) IN GENERAL.? For a program or activity developed pursuant to this title to meet the principles
(A) be based upon an assessment of objective data regarding the need for programs and activities in the schools to be served to ? increase the number of teachers, principals, and other school leaders who are effective in improving student academic achievement;... (B) be based upon established and locally- determined criteria ? ? ? (i) aimed at ensuring that all students receive a high-quality education taught by effective teachers; and ... (C) [based in research] (D) include meaningful and ongoing consultation with and input from teachers, principals, other school leaders, parents, and (where applicable) institutions
application and administration of the program or activity.
ESEA Hot Issues
20
State Set Asides
House: Allows up to 7% for state support activities. It also requires states to set aside 3% of Title I money to provide competitive grants to school districts that wish to offer tutoring or public school choice to their students. It also includes a new Local Academic Flexible Grant,
spend their funds on activities authorized under state law. Under this program, states will reserve 8% of their funds to support state and local programs that operate outside of traditional public school systems. Senate: Each State may reserve not more than 8 percent of the amount the State receives to carry out the State educational agency? s responsibilities [to provide technical assistance and suport].
Background
Under Section 1003 of the ESEA, LEAs with schools identified for school improvement, corrective action and restructuring under Section 1116 of Title I, Part A may be awarded supplemental funds to support efforts and initiatives aimed at raising student academic
set-aside that the State Education Agency (SEA) reserves from its total Title I, Part A allocation from the US Department of Education. This is in combination with the School Improvement Grant funding under section 1003(g).
See http://www.tesol.org/docs/default-source/advocacy/tesolcomments-hr5-final.pdf?sfvrsn=4
Today 4% + SIG Tomor r ow 7 or 8% - SIG
3%Ch oi ce Local Fl ex Gr ant
ESEA Hot Issues
21
English Learners
House: Merges Title III into Title I and eliminates AMAOs. Senate: Maintains Title III, at level funding, but eliminates the AMAOs under NCLB Title III
Background
Under Title III law, all LEP students are to be assessed annually to determine proficiency and growth in the English language; more specifically, English proficiency is derived from the four recognized domains of speaking, listening, reading, and writing. All LEAs, Title III and non-Title III LEAs alike, which serve LEP students, are held accountable to growth and proficiency measures, not only in regards to English language acquisition, but also in regards to making adequate yearly progress in meeting the State? s student academic achievement standards.
See http://www.tesol.org/docs/default-source/advocacy/tesolcomments-hr5-final.pdf?sfvrsn=4
While the number of ELs has grown dramatically since 1980, the key challenge in recent years has been a shift in the numbers of such students in non-traditional
Florida, Illinois, New York, and Texas enroll 60 percent
s ELs (excluding Puerto Rico), but the growth rate in the EL student population in other States has exceeded that of these five.
1 mi l l i on, 1 980
4 mi l l i on i n 201 2
ESEA Hot Issues
23
Next: Efficiency
Grant competitions and grant management requirements are moving toward evidence based practices
The Office of Management & Budget (OMB) is requesting that agencies issue and monitor based on evidence of effectiveness, while trimming activities that evidence shows are not effective. ? Proposals should expand or improve the use of grant program designs that focus Federal dollars on effective practices while also encouraging innovation in service delivery. These include tiered-evidence grants, Pay for Success initiatives and other pay for performance approaches, Performance Partnerships allowing blended funding, waiver demonstrations, incentive prizes, competitive incentive funds that encourage the use of evidence-based practices in formula grants, or other strategies to make grant programs more evidence focused.?
24
Next: Efficiency
Grant competitions and grant management requirements are moving toward evidence based practices Evidence based practice and grant planning inevitably entails the blending and braiding
Association of Government Accountants (AGA) provides a useful guide. ? In an era of fiscal restraints, when governments are leveraging resources to ? do more with less,? this guide is intended to help officials at all levels of government put their resources to optimal use.?
25
Next: Data & Policy
The Federal Role is Shifting
? Specifically, this Memorandum requires agencies to collect or create information in a way that supports downstream information processing and dissemination activities. This includes using machine- readable and
common core and extensible metadata for all new information creation and collection efforts.[? ]?
26
Next: Data & Policy
Education is one of the last industries to be touched by Internet technology, and we? re seeing a lot of catch-up going on,? said Betsy Corcoran, the chief executive of EdSurge, an industry news service and research company.
Venture and equity financing for ed tech companies soared to nearly $1.87 billion last year, up 55 percent from the year before, according to a new report from CB Insights, a venture capital database. The figures are the highest since CB Insights began covering the industry in 2009.
New tech tools means more data
27
Next: Data & Policy
Fidelity of implementation is ... everything
Today? s schools and entrepreneurs are charting new paths. They are redesigning
They are necessarily forging new contracts, new terms of service, and new business rules. They have and will make mistakes ? and that is good (yes ? good!) because it tends to be the byproduct of ambition and vision.
28
Next: Data & Policy
There is a belief amongst some school leaders that compliance with existing law and regulation regarding data and privacy is sufficient. That view fails to realize that we are entering an era of data ubiquity. It is like water and the weave of existing federal & state laws provide basic rules, but they do capture/ address much of the data out there. To get ahead of this, school leaders must develop better business rules and anticipatory public relations strategies.
29
Next: Data & Policy
Back in July 2014, we asked NAFEPA Members "Are you comfortable with the way your district handles student data issues? "
30
Next: Data & Policy
31
Next: Backward Reels the Mind
The role of social science lies not in the formulation of social policy, but in the measurement of its results. Agencies need to refocus technology and information to amplify the efforts of communities of practice to drive performance improvement.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, 1965 John Seeley Brown, 2010
2016
Join the community