The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) emphasizes consistent academic standards across states, annual assessments aligned with those standards, and accountability systems that promote progress for all student groups, particularly those traditionally underperforming. It mandates comprehensive reporting on academic outcomes, equitable teacher assignments, and federal funds directed towards high-poverty schools, while allowing for the adoption of alternate achievement standards for students with significant disabilities. States must also ensure appropriate assessments for English learners and maintain mechanisms for meaningful differentiation of school performance and accountability.

1. Every Student Succeeds Act ESSA
Presented by:
The Honorable Robert Pasternack, Ph.D., NCSP
Chief Education Officer
Accelify Solutions, LLC
Robert.Pasternack@accelify.com

2. Summary of ESSA
• Consistent, state-adopted standards for all students that are aligned
with the demands of postsecondary education and work;
• Statewide annual assessments aligned with statewide standards;
• Clear requirements that statewide accountability systems must
expect more progress for the groups of students who have been
behind, base school ratings on the progress of all groups of students,
and expect action when any group of students is consistently
underperforming;

3. Summary of ESSA
• Richer public reporting on academic outcomes and opportunities to
learn for all groups of students, including, for the first time, school-
level per-pupil spending and access to rigorous coursework;
• Resources to support teachers and leaders, and a demand that states
and districts report on and address inequities in the rates at which
low-income students and students of color are assigned to ineffective,
out-of- field, or inexperienced teachers; and
• Continued targeting of federal funding to the highest poverty schools
and districts

4. State Academic Standards
[Sec. 1111(b)(1)]
• State assures adoption of academic content and achievement standards in math,
reading or language arts, and science, and other subjects at the state's discretion.
• Standards must include not less than 3 levels of achievement.
• Same standards must apply to all public schools and public school students with
same "knowledge, skills, and levels of achievement" expected of all students.
• State must demonstrate standards are aligned with entrance requirements for
public higher education institutions and relevant career and technical education
standards.

5. State Academic Standards
• States have to demonstrate that they’ve adopted challenging
academic standards for all public school students in math,
reading/language arts, and science.
• These standards must be aligned with both the entrance
requirements for credit-bearing coursework in the state’s public
higher education system and the state’s career and technical
education standards.

6. Things to Watch For
• How will states demonstrate that their standards are aligned to
entrance requirements for credit-bearing coursework for higher
education?
• Whose entrance requirements for credit-bearing coursework will
states align standards to? Community colleges? Four-year
institutions?

7. Watch for it
• How will states and districts ensure that educators have the supports
and instructional resources they need to teach all students to college-
and career-ready standards?
• How will states and districts monitor how well standards are being
implemented in high- versus low-poverty schools?

8. Alternate Academic Achievement Standards for Students with
the Most Significant Cognitive Disabilities
• The State may, through a documented and validated standards-
setting process, adopt alternate academic achievement standards for
students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, provided
those standards—
• are aligned with the challenging State academic content standards
• promote access to the general education curriculum, consistent with
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.);

9. Alternate Assessment
• reflect professional judgment as to the highest possible standards achievable by such
students;
• are designated in the IEP developed under section 614(d)(3) of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act) for each such student as the academic achievement
standards that will be used for the student;
• and are aligned to ensure that a student who meets the alternate academic
achievement standards is on track to pursue postsecondary education or
employment, consistent with the purposes of Public Law 93–112, as in effect on July
22, 2014, , i.e., to maximize opportunities for individuals with significant disabilities
for competitive integrated employment.

10. Alternate Assessment
• ESSA also prohibits States from developing or implementing any
other alternate academic achievement standards for use in meeting
the Act's requirements.
• This provision expressly prevents [bars] States from developing
alternate assessments other than an alternate assessment based on
alternate achievement standards developed exclusively for students
with the most significant cognitive disabilities

11. State Academic Standards
[Sec. 1111(b)(1)]
• States may adopt alternate achievement standards [Note: same language
previously in NCLB regulations].
• States prohibited from developing or implementing any other alternate or
modified standards that don't meet the requirements for "alternate academic
achievement standards" (Sec. 1111(b)(1)(E).

12. State Academic Standards
[Sec. 1111(b)(1)]
• States also have to adopt English language proficiency standards
addressing English learners' different proficiency levels and aligned
with state academic standards.
• States may revise current standards consistent with changes in the
law to meet these requirements

13. Academic Assessments
[Sec. 1111(b)(2)]
• Assessments in math and reading or language arts must be administered annually in
grades 3-8 and at least once in grades 9-12; science tests not less than once during
grades 3-5, 6-9, and 10-12.
• States must provide for "appropriate accommodations" (NCLB: "reasonable
accommodations"), such as "interoperability with, and ability to use, assistive
technology," including for students with disabilities receiving services under other Acts
(e.g., Sec. 504?).
• State may choose to use a single summative assessment or "multiple statewide interim
assessments" through the year that result in a single summative score providing
information of student achievement or growth.

14. Assessment
• This should mean multiple ways of measuring or assessing the same
proficiencies in order to help assure the validity of the determination
that students are or are not proficient.
• Consistent with the requirements that the assessments are valid,
reliable, and aligned with nationally recognized professional and
technical testing standards,
• They shall be developed, “to the extent practicable”, using the
principles of UDL

15. Assessing ELLs
• States have to measure English learners’ progress toward English-language
proficiency on statewide assessments given to all English learners annually.
•
States have to give English proficiency and math assessments to English learners
starting in their first year in U.S. schools.

16. Assessing ELLs
• In that first year, states may choose to excuse English learners from taking the
reading/language arts assessment.
• Starting in their second year in U.S. schools, ALL English learners have to
participate in all statewide annual assessments, though the reading/language arts
assessment may be administered in the
student’s native language for up to five years.

17. Academic Assessments
[Sec. 1111(b)(2)]
• Assessments must be developed, to the extent practicable, using principles of
UDL.
• States may adopt alternate assessments aligned with alternate standards.
• The IEP team, as defined in the IDEA, determines when a child with a significant
cognitive disability will participate in an alternate assessment aligned with
alternate academic achievement standards.
• The total number of students in each grade assessed using alternate tests may
not exceed 1 % of the total number of all students in the State (NCLB: total
number of students in the grade) assessed in that subject,

18. Academic Assessments
[Sec. 1111(b)(2)]
• Parents must be clearly informed, "as part of the process for
developing the IEP" that achievement will be measured based on
alternate standards and "how participation in such assessments may
delay or otherwise affect the student from completing the
requirements for a regular high school diploma.".
• State must describe in the state plan steps taken to incorporate UDL
in alternate assessments

19. Academic Assessments
[Sec. 1111(b)(2)]
• To enable the participation of ALL in assessments, States must provide all appropriate
accommodations, such as interoperability with, and ability to use, assistive technology, for SWDs
(as defined in section 602(3) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1401(3),
including students with the most significant cognitive disabilities.
• SWDs who are provided accommodations under an Act other than the IDEA (20 U.S.C. 1400 et
seq.), such as Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act), necessary to measure the academic
achievement of such children relative to the challenging State academic standards or alternate
academic

20. Academic Assessments
[Sec. 1111(b)(2)]
• The IDEA Amendments of 1997 required all States to develop and
implement an alternate assessment by the year 2000 for the small
number of SWDs who cannot participate in state and district-wide
assessment programs.
• Therefore, all States MUST have an alternate assessment based on
alternate achievement standards in order to comply with the IDEA.

21. Academic Assessments
[Sec. 1111(b)(2)]
• Students with significant cognitive disabilities are not precluded by
taking alternate assessments based on alternate standards from
trying to complete the requirements for a regular high school
diploma.
• States may not impose a cap on LEAs on the percentage of students
administered an alternate assessment;
• LEAs exceeding the state cap must submit information to the state
justifying the need to exceed the cap.

22. Alternate Assessment
• ESSA now places the limitation on the total number of students with
the most significant cognitive disabilities who can be assessed using
the State's alternate assessment.
• Few states assessed more than 10 % (roughly 1 % of all students) in
the 2011-2012 school year based on data reported in the 36th Annual
Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act.)

23. Alternate Assessment
• ESSA prohibits both the U.S. Dept. of Education and State educational
agencies from imposing a cap on the percentage of students with the
most significant cognitive disabilities who can be administered such
an alternate assessment at the local educational agency (district)
level.
• However, districts exceeding the cap must submit information to the
State educational agency justifying their need to exceed the cap.

24. Alternate Assessment
• ESSA authorizes States to include a student taking alternate
assessments based on alternate academic achievement standards
who is awarded a State-defined alternate diploma to be counted as a
regular high school graduate in the Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate -
the graduation rate that high schools will be held accountable for
within ESSA's accountability framework.
• This is a significant change from the ESEA graduation regulation
issued in 2008.

25. Assessing High School Students
• States can choose to let districts give a nationally recognized
assessment — like the SAT or ACT — in place of the statewide high
school assessment.
• In order to use this option, the state has to make sure that the
nationally recognized assessment is aligned to state standards, meets
the same technical quality requirements as the state assessment,
generates information that’s comparable to the information
generated by the state test, and
can be used in the state’s accountability system.

26. Assessment Pilot
• The U.S. Secretary of Education can establish a pilot program for states that
want to develop innovative assessment systems, such as competency-
based or performance-based assessments.
• Participating states can choose to initially try out these assessments in only
some of their districts, but must use them statewide after successful
piloting, or discontinue their use.
• These systems must also meet all the technical requirements of statewide
assessments, including providing comparable data for all students.

27. Assessment Quantity vs Quality
• The law encourages states to review all the assessments they and
their districts give in order to get rid of low quality or duplicative
tests, and provides funding to states to support this process.

28. Watch for it…
• Both the option to use a nationally recognized assessment at the high school level
and the innovative assessment pilot introduce the possibility of students in
different districts taking different tests.
• What safeguards need to be in place to ensure that these assessments are
rigorous and truly comparable to statewide tests?

29. Questions about Assessment
• Have states developed appropriate assessments for English learners, including
assessments in the students’ native languages?
• How will they ensure that English learners are provided with the right assessment
accommodations?

30. Questions about Assessment
• How will states ensure that students with disabilities are provided
with the right assessment accommodations?
• Have states developed appropriate alternate assessments for
students with the most significant cognitive disabilities?

31. State Accountability System
[Sec. 1111(c)]
• Replaces the NCLB accountability system, including AYP, "100% proficiency," and
consequences for school failure.
• State describes, for any provision requiring disaggregation by the 4 subgroups*, the
minimum number of students necessary to carry out the requirement and how that
number is statistically sound; minimum number must be the same for all students and
for each subgroup.
• The 4 subgroups are defined as they were in NCLB to include: Economically
disadvantaged, major racial and ethnic groups, children with disabilities, and English
learners

32. School ratings based on the
performance of all groups of students
• States must set goals for increasing the percentage of students who
reach state standards in reading and math and for raising graduation
rates.
• These goals have to be set for ALL students, and for low-income
students, students from major racial/ethnic groups, students with
disabilities and English learners, respectively.

33. Accountability
• They must require improvement for all groups and faster
improvement for the groups that have been behind, meaning that, if
the goals are met, gaps between groups will narrow.

34. State Accountability System
[Sec. 1111(c)]
• State establishes long-term goals, which include measurements of interim
progress, for ALL students and for each subgroup.
• At a minimum, improved academic achievement measured on annual
assessments and high school graduation rates, including:
• ?4-year adjusted cohort rate
• ?at state's discretion, extended-year adjusted cohort rate, except that the state must set a
more rigorous long-term goal for this rate as compared to the goal for the 4-year adjusted
cohort rate.

35. School Ratings
Academic achievement:
• A measure of how schools’ proficiency rates in reading/language arts and
math for all students and each student group compare with state-set goals.
• For high schools, states can also include student growth as part of this
indicator.
• When calculating proficiency rates, states have to count most students who
do not participate in the assessment as not proficient.

36. School Ratings
Another academic indicator:
• For high schools, a measure of how graduation rates for all students and each
student group compare with state-set goals.
• For elementary and middle schools, this measure may include individual student
growth or another statewide, valid, and reliable indicator of student learning.

37. School Ratings
English-language proficiency:
• A measure of the progress that a school’s English learners are making toward
English proficiency.
• (This measure is for the English learner group only.)

38. School Ratings
Additional indicator of school quality:
• Another valid, reliable, and statewide indicator of school quality, which may
include measures of postsecondary readiness, student engagement, or school
climate.
• The indicator must measure these results for all students and each student group.

39. School Ratings
• States will determine exactly how much each indicator will count in
school accountability ratings, but the first three indicators (academic
achievement, another academic indicator, and English proficiency)
must each carry substantial weight, and together, carry much more
weight than the additional measure of school quality.

40. School Ratings
• In addition to including these indicators, states must also explain
what will happen to a school’s rating if fewer than 95 percent of all
students, or of any group of students, participate in the state
assessment.

41. State Accountability System
[Sec. 1111(c)]
• Term set for these goals must be the same for all students and for each subgroup.
• For subgroups behind on academic achievement and graduation rate, state must
take into account improvement necessary on these measures to make significant
progress in closing statewide proficiency and graduation gaps.
• For English learners, goals are established for increases in percentage of students
making progress toward English proficiency as defined by the state and within
state-determined timeline

42. State Accountability System
[Sec. 1111(c)]
• States will decide what constitutes "significant progress" in closing statewide
proficiency and graduation rate gaps for subgroups.
• While the time period for progress must be the same for all students and student
subgroups, the expectations can look substantially different.
• States will set proficiency goals based on the proficiency rate for each subgroup.

43. State Accountability System
[Sec. 1111(c)]
• Students must be measured annually on the following indicators:
• For all public schools in the state, based on the long-term goals, academic
achievement
• ?measured by proficiency on annual assessments;
• ?at state's discretion, for public high schools, students growth, as measured on annual
assessments.
• [NOTE: States must measure achievement on annual assessments of not less than
95 % of all students and 95 % of all students in each subgroup and must explain
how this will be factored into the academic achievement indicator; however, the
"95%" is not an indicator on its own.]

44. State Accountability System
[Sec. 1111(c)]
• For elementary and middle schools:
• ?a measure of student growth, if determined appropriate by the state; or,
• ?another valid and reliable academic indicator allowing for "meaningful
differentiation in school performance”

45. State Accountability System
[Sec. 1111(c)]
• For high schools, based on long-term goals:
• ?Four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate; and,
• ?At state's discretion, extended-year adjusted cohort graduation rate. [NOTE:
This is defined in Title VIII, Sec. 8101 "Definitions."]

46. State Accountability System
[Sec. 1111(c)]
• Specifically, the State system for accountability and improvement must include performance reports in the aggregate and
disaggregated by each subgroup on each of the following Indicators:
• student scores on annual assessments and, at the state's discretion, for high schools also may include student growth based on
annual assessments in addition to high school students' annual assessment scores;
• for elementary and middle schools, a "measure of student growth" or other academic indicator that allows for meaningful
differentiation in student performance;
• for high schools, graduation rates as measured by the Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate
• English language proficiency for English learners;
• at least one indicator of school quality or success (e.g., school climate and safety rates, student and/or teacher engagement,
student access to and completion of advanced courses, postsecondary readiness) that allows for meaningful differentiation among
student performance and can be disaggregated by student subgroup

47. State Accountability System
[Sec. 1111(c)]
• Progress in achieving English language proficiency in each of grades 3-8 and the
same high school grade in which state assesses for math/English language arts.
• Not less than one indicator of school quality or student success that allows for
meaningful differentiation in school performance, is valid, reliable, and
comparable and statewide (same indicator or indicators used for each grade
span).
• ?Examples include: Student engagement, educator engagement, access to and
completion of advanced coursework, postsecondary readiness, and school
climate and safety

48. State Accountability System
[Sec. 1111(c)]
• States must establish a system to annually meaningfully differentiate all public
schools.
• ?Must be based on indicators for all students and for each subgroup.
• ?Substantial weight is given to the first 4 indicators and, in the aggregate, much
greater weight is given to the first 4 than to the state-determined indicator(s) of
school quality and student success.
• ?System must differentiate any school where a subgroup is underperforming

49. Struggling Schools
Comprehensive Support and Improvement Schools:
• This category includes the lowest performing 5 percent of Title I schools and all
high schools with graduation rates below 67 percent
• For these schools, LEAs must develop improvement plans, which may include a
review of district- and school-level budgeting.

50. Struggling Schools
• The state has to review and approve these improvement plans and set “exit
criteria” for these schools (i.e., levels of performance that they have to reach to
no longer be identified in this category).
• If a school fails to meet these criteria within no more than four years (the state
can set a shorter time frame), the state has to intervene.

51. Struggling Schools
Targeted Support and Improvement Schools:
• These are schools where one or more groups of students are consistently
underperforming, as noted in the ratings.
• These schools must develop improvement plans, which have to be approved by
their district.
• If schools fail to improve within a district-determined number of years, the
district has to require additional action.

52. Struggling Schools
Additional Targeted Support and Improvement Schools:
• These are schools that have one or more groups of students whose performance
would place them in the bottom 5 % of Title I schools.
• Like Targeted Support and Improvement schools, these schools are required to
put together improvement plans that must be approved by their district, but
these improvement plans also have to address resource inequities.

53. Struggling Schools
• In addition, states must set exit criteria for these schools, and if
schools don’t meet these criteria in a state-determined number of
years, they become Comprehensive Support and Improvement
Schools.

54. Questions??
• What are aggressive but achievable goals, especially on new assessments aligned
with college- and career-ready standards?
• Beyond tests and graduation rates, what indicators will add to the picture of
school performance for all students as opposed to masking important outcomes?

55. Questions??
• What’s a rigorous definition of “consistently underperforming” for
student groups, especially on indicators for which there aren’t clear
goals?
• What are the appropriate supports and interventions for the lowest
performers? For schools with underperforming groups?

56. Questions??
• What time frames for supports and interventions allow time for improvement
activity to take hold, but don’t allow students to languish?

57. State Accountability System
[Sec. 1111(c)]
*States must provide information on:
• - how it determined the minimum number of students (also known as "n" size or "subgroup size")
that are necessary to be included to carry out the requirements in the State Accountability
System
• how that number is statistically sound,
• 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 the minimum number; and
• how the State ensures that such minimum number is sufficient to not reveal any personally
identifiable information.

58. State Accountability System
[Sec. 1111(c)]
• The minimum number of students represented by “n” must be the
same for all students and for each subgroup of students in the State.
• However, States may determine different subgroup minimum sizes for
elements of the accountability system, such as proficiency,
participation and graduation rate

59. Accountability Calculations
• For the purposes of the accountability system, states have to calculate
proficiency rates by dividing the number of students who score at the
proficient or advanced levels by the larger of two numbers:
a) The number of students who took the test, OR
b) 95 percent of students who were supposed to take the test.

60. State Accountability System
[Sec. 1111(c)]
• ESSA directs the U.S. Dept. of Education to publish a report (within 90 days of
enactment) on “best practices for determining valid, reliable, and statistically
significant minimum numbers of students for each of the subgroups of students
for the purposes of inclusion as subgroups of students in an accountability
system.”
• The study must not recommend a specific subgroup number.

61. State Accountability System
[Sec. 1111(c)]
• This language does not allow States to consolidate subgroups as part of their
accountability systems—a tactic in use by many States under ESEA Flexibility.
• Such an amalgamation—frequently referred to as a “super subgroup” or “gap
group” was use to subvert accountability provisions of NCLB

62. State Accountability System
[Sec. 1111(c)]
• Based on this system, state establishes a methodology to identify
• ?Beginning with school year 2017-18 and at least once every three year after,
one statewide category of schools for comprehensive support and improvement,
to include
• Not less than the lowest 5% of all Title I schools;
• High schools not graduating 1/3 or more of students; and,
• Schools where a subgroup is consistently underperforming in the same manner
as a school under the lowest 5% category for a state-determined number of
years.

63. State Accountability System
[Sec. 1111(c)]
• Each State must, beginning with school year 2017–2018, identify one statewide
category of schools for "Targeted Support and Improvement." This category shall
include:
• - schools in which any subgroup of students is consistently underperforming (as
defined by the state);
- schools in which the performance of any subgroup of students is below the level
used to identify schools for the bottom 5% in the state.
• States may include additional categories of schools via their system of
"meaningful differentiation."
• Subsequent to 2017-2018, States must identify these categories of schools at
least once every three years.
State Accountability System [Sec. 1111(c)]

64. State Accountability System [Sec. 1111(c)]
• Following identification of schools as required, LEAs must locally
develop and implement a comprehensive support and improvement
plan for the school to improve student outcomes, that:
• is informed by all indicators including student performance against State-
determined long-term goals;
• includes evidence-based interventions;
• is based on a school-level needs assessment;

65. State Accountability System [Sec. 1111(c)]
• identifies resource inequities, which may include a review of LEA and school level
budgeting, to be addressed through implementation
of the comprehensive support and improvement plan;
• is approved by the school, LEA and SEA;
• is monitored and periodically reviewed by the SEA which must initiate additional
interventions if a school so-identified fails to improve after a designated period.

66. State Accountability System [Sec. 1111(c)]
• For high schools in the State identified as failing to graduate 1/3 or more of their
students (i.e., a graduation rate of 67 percent or better), the SEA may:
- permit differentiated improvement activities that utilize evidence-based
interventions in the case of such a school that predominantly serves students—
- returning to education after having exited secondary school without a regular
high school diploma; or

67. State Accountability System [Sec. 1111(c)]
• Who, based on their grade or age, are significantly off track to accumulate
sufficient academic credits to meet high school graduation requirements, as
established by the State;
• in the case of a high school that has a total enrollment of less than 100 students,
permit the LEA to forego implementation of improvement activities required
under this paragraph

68. State Accountability System [Sec. 1111(c)]
The Targeted Support and Improvement Plan must:
• be informed by all Indicators including student performance against long-term
goals;
• include evidence-based interventions;
• be approved by the LEA prior to implementation of such plan;
• be monitored, upon submission and implementation, by the LEA;
• and result in additional action following unsuccessful implementation of such
plan after a number of years determined by the LEA

69. State Accountability System [Sec. 1111(c)]
• In schools in which any subgroup of students, on its own, would lead to
identification, the improvement plan must also identify resource inequities
(which may include a review of LEA and school level budgeting), to be addressed
through implementation of such plan.
• Any of these schools that fail to attain the State’s ‘exit criteria’ [necessary to be
released from its designation as a targeted support and improvement school]
within the State defined timeline must be reclassified by the State as in need of
comprehensive support and improvement.

70. Public School Choice
• Under ESSA a LEA may allow students enrolled in a school identified by the State
for comprehensive support and improvement to transfer to another public school
served by the LEA
• unless such an option is prohibited by State law.
• The LEA must give priority to transfer to the lowest-achieving children from low-
income families.

71. Public School Choice
ESSA requires States to provide details on all of the following:
• how the State will provide assistance to LEAs and individual elementary
schools choosing to use Title I funds to support early childhood education
programs;
• how low-income and minority children enrolled in Title I schools are not
served at disproportionate rates by ineffective, out-of-field, or inexperienced
teachers, and the measures the State educational agency will use to evaluate
and publicly report the progress of the State educational agency with respect
to such description;

72. State Accountability System [Sec. 1111(c)]
how the SEA will support LEAs receiving assistance under this part 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;

73. Parent Engagement
• ESSA continues the Parents Right-to-Know provision of NCLB which requires that at the beginning
of each school year, a LEA that receives funds under the Act shall notify the parents of each
student attending any Title I school that the parents may request, and the LEA will provide the
parents on request (and in a timely manner), information regarding the professional qualifications
of the student's classroom teachers, including at a minimum, the following:
- Whether the student's teacher has met State qualification and licensing criteria for the grade
levels and subject areas in which the teacher provides instruction; is teaching under emergency
or other provisional status through which State qualification or licensing criteria have been
waived; and is teaching in the field of discipline of the certification of the teacher.
- Whether the child is provided services by paraprofessionals and, if so, their qualifications.

74. Parent Engagement
A Title I school shall provide to each parent:
• information on the level of achievement and academic growth of the student, if
applicable and available, on each of the State academic assessments required
under this part; and
• timely notice that the student has been assigned, or has been taught for 4 or
more consecutive weeks by, a teacher who does not meet applicable State
certification or licensure requirements at the grade level and subject area in
which the teacher has been assigned.

75. Parent Engagement
• At the beginning of each school year, a LEA that receives funds under
the Act shall notify the parents of each student attending any Title I
school that the parents may request, and the LEA will provide the
parents on request (and in a timely manner), information regarding
any State or LEA policy regarding student participation in any
assessments mandated by ESSA and by the State or LEA, which shall
include a policy, procedure, or parental right to opt the child out of
such assessment, where applicable.

76. FUNDING CHANGES
• ESSA provides some new opportunities to spend money differently
than NCLB allowed

77. Targeting of dollars to the highest
poverty schools and districts
• While far from perfect, the Title I formula allocates Title I funds in a
way that benefits the highest poverty LEAs and schools in each state.
• High-poverty districts within a state generally receive more Title I
dollars per poor student than wealthier districts.
• Within districts, high-poverty schools must be first in line for Title I
funds.

78. Protections to ensure state
investment in education
• Maintenance of effort:
• States cannot reduce their investment in education by more than 10
percent from year to year.
• If they do, they may lose some of their federal funding. (IDEA)

79. Protections to ensure state
investment in education
• Supplement, not supplant:
• Districts must demonstrate that schools received all the state and
local funds they would have gotten if there were no federal dollars on
the table.

80. Protections to ensure state
investment in education
• Comparability:
• Districts must demonstrate that schools that receive Title I funds got
at least as much state and local funding as schools that do not receive
Title I dollars.

81. Transparency
• For the first time, states must include actual per-pupil spending by
school on state, district, and school report cards.
• These expenditures must be reported by funding source (federal,
state, and local), and must include actual personnel salaries, not
district or state averages.

82. Blended Funding Pilot
• The U.S. Secretary of Education can set up a pilot program that would
allow up to 50 LEAs to combine funding from multiple federal
sources, as well as state and local sources, to create a weighted
student funding formula.

83. Blended Funding Pilot
• To be approved for this Pilot LEAs will need to show that their formula
allocates more money per low-income child, and at least as much
money per English learner, to each high-poverty school than that
school received before the pilot.
• If the pilot is successful, the secretary may expand the program to all
districts.

84. Fiscal Requirements
Supplement, not supplant (Sec. 1118):
• The general statement remains that SEAs and LEAs must use federal funds only
to supplement funds that, in the absence of federal funds, would be made
available from State and local sources, and not to supplant these funds.
The law adds:
• ?To demonstrate compliance with the general statement, LEAs must
demonstrate their methodology to allocate State and local funds to schools

85. Title II
• This Title of the Act includes teacher, principal, and school leader training and
professional development.
• New to this Title is the "Literacy Education for All, Results for the Nation"
(LEARN) program, a comprehensive birth through Grade 12 literacy program
focused on improving student achievement in reading and writing, targeted
particularly to LEAs serving a high percentage of high-need schools with higher
numbers or percentages of children reading or writing below grade level.
• All sections of the program address SWDs.

86. Title IV
• Most of the small competitive grant programs, such as the Carol White Physical
Education Program, the Elementary and Secondary School Counseling Program,
and STEM education programs were eliminated.
• Some of the activities under those programs are now contained in the "Student
Support and Academic Enrichment Grants." These formula grants have three
components:
• (a) access to a well-rounded education;
• (b) improving school conditions for learning (safe and healthy environment);
• and (c) using technology to improve academic achievement and digital literacy.

87. Fiscal
• Formula grants are allocated to states in the same proportion as the
Title I formula grants, including a small state minimum, awarded with
submission of a state plan.
• 95% of state grants must be allocated to LEAs.
• LEAs receiving at least $30,000 must conduct a comprehensive needs
assessment once every 3 years to determine areas in need of
improvement in each of the three components, with grant funds
targeted to schools with the highest need

88. Fiscal
• LEAs must use not less than 20 % of grant funds to support activities
for well-rounded education,
• Not less than 20 % for safe and healthy environment,
• And a "portion of funds" for technology.

89. Activities to support well-rounded
education may include:
• College and career guidance and counseling programs
• Music and arts activities that promote student engagement, problem
solving, and conflict resolution
• STEM programming
• Accelerated learning programs
• Developing and strengthening history, civics, economics, geography, or
government education
• Foreign language instruction
• Environmental education.

90. Activities to support safe and healthy
students may include:
• Drug and violence prevention
• School-based mental health services
• Programs supporting a healthy, active lifestyle (e.g., nutrition, physical education, preventing
bullying/harassment, mentoring and school counseling, dropout and reentry programs)
• Training for school personnel on suicide prevention, trauma-informed classroom management,
crisis management and conflict resolution, bullying and harassment prevention, and substance
abuse and violence prevention
• Child sexual abuse awareness and prevention
• Design of programs to prevent exclusionary discipline policies
• Implementing schoolwide PBIS.

91. Activities to support effective use
of technology may include
• Professional development
• Building technological capacity and infrastructure
• Using effective or innovative strategies for delivery of specialized or advance
courses technology, including digital learning and assistive technologies
• Blended learning projects
• Providing students in rural, remote and underserved areas with resources to
access digital learning experiences.

92. Fiscal
• This title also includes the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program,
and the charter schools and magnet schools programs.
• A new family engagement program has also been added, providing grants to
statewide organizations to establish family engagement centers that will carry out
parent education and family engagement in education programs and training and
technical assistance to states, LEAs, schools, and organizations supporting family-
school partnerships.

93. PreK Funding
• ESSA includes a new $250 million Preschool Development Grants program to
coordinate existing early learning programs, improve preschool programs, expand
access, and strengthen transition to elementary school, which would be jointly
administered between the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and
U.S. Department of Education.
• The focus of this program will be on children who are from low-income or
vulnerable backgrounds.

94. Title IX, Sec. 9214(d) – Use of the Term ”
Highly Qualified" in Other Laws, IDEA:
• With the elimination of HQT from ESSA, they have also amended the IDEA to reflect the change.
• The definition of HQT in Sec. 602 is eliminated.
• In Sec. 612(a)(14) – Personnel Qualifications – references to HQT are replaced with language
indicating the individual has obtained full state certification as a special education teacher,
including through alternate routes to certification, or have passed the state special education
teacher licensing exam, hold a license to teach special education, have at least a bachelor's
degree, and not have had certification or licensure waived on an emergency, temporary, or
provisional basis.
• Teachers in charter schools must meet state public state charter school requirements.

95. Public Reporting
• Every year, each state must publish a statewide report card and each
district must publish a district report card.
• District report cards must include information for the district as a
whole, as well as for each school in that district.

96. Report Cards
• Details of the state accountability system, including schools identified
for Comprehensive Support and Improvement and Targeted Support
and Improvement
• Disaggregated results on all accountability indicators, including state
assessments and graduation rates.
• Disaggregated assessment participation rates

97. Report Cards
• Disaggregated results on the indicators that the state and its districts are already
reporting to the Civil Rights Data Collection, including, but not limited to:
• access to advanced coursework, such as AP,
IB, and dual enrollment;
• exclusionary discipline rates; and
• chronic absenteeism.

98. Report Cards
• The professional qualifications of educators, including the number and
percentage of inexperienced teachers, principals, and other school leaders;
• teachers teaching with emergency credentials; and
• teachers who are out-of-field.
• Districts and state report cards must include comparisons of high-poverty and
low-poverty schools on these metrics.

99. Report Cards
• State, local, and federal per-pupil expenditures, by funding source.
• These expenditures have to include actual personnel expenditures for each
school, not just district averages.

100. Questions??
• The number and percentage of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities
taking the alternate assessment.
• At the state level, results of the NAEP , as compared with national averages
• Disaggregated rates at which high school graduates enroll in higher education, if available

101. Report Cards
• How can states present all of these data in a way that is understandable to
parents and community leaders?
• Will states make these report cards available in languages other than English?
• What kinds of tools, training, or accompanying materials would help parents and
advocates use this information to fight for stronger opportunities to learn for all
children?

102. References to Multi-Tier System of Support
• The term is defined as "a comprehensive continuum of evidence-based, systemic
practices to support a rapid response to students' needs, with regular
observation to facilitate data-based instructional decisionmaking" (Title IX, Sec.
8002(33)).

103. MTSS
• The term appears three times in the law, with 2 additional references to a "schoolwide tiered
model" focused on behavior (e.g., PBIS). Following are the references to both terms in the law:
• "Schoolwide tiered model"
• Schoolwide Programs, Sec. 1114(7): Schoolwide program plans must include a description of how
needs of at risk children will be met, which may include "implementation of a schoolwide tiered
model to prevent and address problem behavior, and early intervening services, coordinated with
similar activities and services" under the IDEA.

104. MTSS
• Targeted Assistance Schools, Sec. 1115(b)(2)(B)(ii): Targeted assistance programs
must serve eligible children using methods and instructional strategies to
strengthen the academic program, which may include "a schoolwide tiered model
to prevent and address problem behavior, and early intervening services,
coordinated with similar activities and services" under the IDEA

105. MTSS
• "Multi-tier System of Supports"
• Subgrants to LEA, Title II, Sec. 2103(b)(3)(F): LEAs may use Title II funds
for professional development to increase teachers' ability to effectively
teach children with disabilities and English learners, which may include
the use of multi-tier systems of supports and positive behavioral
intervention and supports

106. MTSS
• Subpart 2, Title II, Sec. 2224(e)(4): "Providing for a multi-tier system of supports for
literacy services" is an allowable use of funds under the LEARN comprehensive
literacy grants

107. MTSS
• Title IX, Sec. 8002(42): In the definition of "professional development," among
the possible activities are those designed to give teachers of children with
disabilities or developmental delays and other teachers and instructional staff
knowledge and skills to instruct and provide academic supports to those children,
including PBIS, MTSS, and use of accommodations

108. Effective Dates
• – The Secretary is given authority to take necessary steps for an
"orderly transition" from NCLB to ESSA.
• Competitive programs: Oct. 1, 2016
• Formula grant programs: July 1, 2016
• Accountability requirements: School year 2017-18
• Current waivers expire on Aug. 1, 2016.