Taking Stock of ESSA’s Potential Impact on Immigrant .docx

Taking Stock of ESSA’s Potential
Impact on Immigrant and English-
Learner Students
Webinar
January 21, 2016
Logistics
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/events
contact us by email at [email protected] or call
+1-202-266-1929.

throughout webinar to write questions.
protected] with your
question.
mailto:[email protected]
Presenters
Margie McHugh, Director, National
Center on Immigrant Integration
Policy, MPI
Delia Pompa, Senior Fellow for
Education Policy, MPI

Presenter
Margie McHugh is Director of the Migration Policy Institute’s
National
Center on Immigrant Integration Policy. The Center is a
national hub
for leaders in government, community affairs, business and
academia
to obtain the insights and knowledge they need to respond to the
challenges and opportunities that today’s high rates of
immigration
pose for communities across the United States. It provides in-
depth
research, policy analysis, technical assistance, training and
information resource services on a broad range of immigrant
integration issues. Ms. McHugh’s work focuses on education
quality
and access issues for immigrants and their children from early
childhood through K-12 and adult, post-secondary and
workforce skills
programs. She also leads the Center’s work seeking a more

coordinated federal response to immigrant integration needs and
impacts, and more workable systems for recognition of the
education
and work experience immigrants bring with them to the United
States.
Prior to joining MPI, Ms. McHugh served for 15 years as
Executive
Director of The New York Immigration Coalition, an umbrella
organization for over 150 groups in New York that uses
research,
policy development, and community mobilization efforts to
achieve
landmark integration policy and program initiatives.
Margie McHugh,
Director, MPI
National Center on
Immigrant
Integration Policy

MPI National Center on
Immigrant Integration Policy
Primary Areas of Work:
• Education and Training:
- Early Childhood
- K-16
- Adult Education and Workforce
Development
• Language Access and Other Benefits
• Governance of Integration Policy
www.migrationpolicy.org/integration
© 2016 Migration Policy Institute
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/integration
Context: Enormous EL Growth and
Geographic Dispersion in Recent Decades

Source: MPI calculations based on data obtained thought the
U.S. Department of Education, “ED Data Express Tool,”
accessed February 23, 2015.
Data on total student enrollment derive from the Common Core
of Data (CCD). Data on enrollment of EL students by state
derive from the
“Consolidated State Performance Report” (CSPR).
Top 15 States with Highest EL Student
Enrollment in Public Schools, SY 2012-13
State EL Enrollment Total K-12 Enrollment
Share of ELs among K-
12 Students (%)
United States 4,851,527 49,474,030 9.8
California 1,521,772 6,213,194 24.5
Texas 773,732 5,077,507 15.2
Florida 277,802 2,692,143 10.3
New York 237,499 2,708,851 8.8
Illinois 190,172 2,055,502 9.3
Colorado 114,415 863,121 13.3

Washington 107,307 1,051,694 10.2
North Carolina 102,311 1,506,080 6.8
Virginia 99,897 1,263,660 7.9
Georgia 94,034 1,703,332 5.5
Arizona 91,382 1,087,697 8.4
Michigan 80,958 1,513,153 5.4
Nevada 77,559 445,017 17.4
Massachusetts 71,066 954,507 7.4
Minnesota 70,436 845,291 8.3
Notes: National EL enrollment totals do not include outlying
territories such as Guam, American Samoa, the Marshall
Islands, or Puerto Rico. The share of ELs among K-12
students was calculated by dividing EL enrollment by total K-12
enrollment for all state and nation.
Source: MPI calculations are based on data obtained through the
U.S. Department of Education, “ED Data Express Tool,”
http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/index.cfm. Data on
total student enrollment derive from the Common Core of Data
(CCD). Data on enrollment of EL students by state derive from
the Consolidated State Performance Reports
(CSPR).
http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/index.cfm

Top 15 School Districts by EL Enrollment
SY 2011-12
Notes: Data are based on district or agency reports. “New York
City” includes 32 districts across the city’s five boroughs. The
share of ELs among K-12 students was
calculated by dividing EL enrollment by total K-12 enrollment
for all districts or agencies.
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “Local
Education Agency (School District) Universe
Survey,” 2011-12 v. 1a; “State Nonfiscal Public
Elementary/Secondary Education Survey,” 2011-12 v. 1a.
http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/elsi/default.aspx.
District/Agency Name State EL Enrollment
Total K-12
Enrollment
Share of ELs among K-
12 Students (%)
Los Angeles Unified CA 152,592 659,639 23.1
New York City* NY 142,572 968,143 14.7
Clark County NV 68,577 313,398 21.9

Dade County FL 66,497 350,239 19.0
Dallas Independent TX 56,650 157,575 36.0
Houston Independent TX 54,333 203,066 26.8
City of Chicago IL 53,786 403,004 13.3
Fairfax County VA 36,551 177,606 20.6
San Diego Unified CA 36,453 131,044 27.8
Santa Ana Unified CA 32,170 57,250 56.2
Orange County FL 28,311 180,000 15.7
School District 1 County of Denver CO 25,417 80,890 31.4
Hawaii Department of Education HI 24,750 182,706 13.5
Broward County FL 24,143 258,478 9.3
Hillsborough County FL 22,474 197,041 11.4
http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/elsi/default.aspx
Overview: DLL/Young ELs
0% of U.S young-child population

childhood program data
often not reflected in teacher training,
certification or program quality
measures
Overview: DLL/Young ELs
-off to K-3 systems, where L1
and L2 language learning needs are again
often overlooked in policy and program
approaches
- and fourth-grade scores often
indicate gaps for EL, former EL and Latino
youth; underscore concerns re adequacy
of EL instructional approaches
Overview: Older EL Concerns

significant challenges in acquiring
academic proficiency in English and grade-
level content knowledge
ng LTELs, newcomer
students and other ELs are often
inadequately addressed, leading to high
dropout/low graduation rates for EL and
many immigrant youth
Presenter
Delia Pompa is Senior Fellow for Education Policy at MPI’s
National Center on
Immigrant Integration Policy where her work focuses on
research and policy analysis
related to improving educational services for immigrant
students and English Language
Learners (ELLs).

Ms. Pompa came to MPI from the National Council of La Raza
(NCLR), where she was
Senior Vice President for Programs, overseeing its education,
health, housing,
workforce development, and immigrant integration work, and
where she previously
served as Vice President of Education. She has had a key role in
shaping federal
education policy through her positions as Director of the Office
of Bilingual Education
and Minority Languages Affairs in the U.S. Department of
Education, and as Executive
Director of the National Association for Bilingual Education.
Ms. Pompa came to Washington, DC to serve as Director of
Education for the
Children’s Defense Fund after serving as Assistant
Commissioner for Program
Development at the Texas Education Agency. Her previous
experience as Executive
Director for Bilingual and Migrant Education in the Houston
Independent School District
and as a bilingual classroom teacher and instructor to
prospective teachers at the

graduate level has anchored her work.
Her influence has been felt widely throughout the field of
education policy; she has
served as an advisor or board member for many key institutions
including the Chapter I
Commission and the Stanford Working Group, the Civil Rights
and Business Coalition
on the Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act, the American
Youth Policy Forum, EdReports, the National PTA,
International Baccalaureate, and the
Joan Ganz Cooney Center.
Delia Pompa
Senior Fellow for
Education Policy
MPI
• Roots in civil rights
• A place at the table

• Devolution to the states
ESEA’s Long History
Every Student Succeeds Act
• A compromise
• Maintains subgroup accountability
• English proficiency standards
• Annual assessment of English
proficiency
General Provisions of ESSA
• State-designed accountability systems
• Must identify 5% in need of
“comprehensive support and
improvement” and additional schools
that have low-performing student
subgroups as in need of “targeted

support and improvement”
• Limitations on the authority of the
Secretary of Education
Major Provisions for English Learners
• English proficiency included in state
accountability systems
• Extension of former EL inclusion
• Standardized entry/exit criteria
• Potential adjustment of how ELs are
counted
• New option for exempting EL outcomes
in accountability systems
A Sea Change for English Learners
English proficiency included in state
accountability systems

• Included as an academic indicator
• Goals set by state
• Potential subject for federal
regulation or guidance
Implications
Implications for community stakeholders
• Understand state’s accountability
system
• Engage in designing new processes
Implications for the state
• Recognize the opportunity to focus
attention on English learners
A Double Edged Sword

Expansion of former English leaner
inclusion in EL subgroup
• May include former ELs for up to 4
years
• Potential for masking performance of
current ELs
• Communicate the importance of
disaggregating outcomes for current
English learners
Implications for states
• Monitor performance of both current
and former English learners
• Intervene in response to poor
outcomes as early as possible

Implications
A Step Toward Equity
Standardized state entry/exit criteria
• Affects a significant number of states
• Addresses issues of mobility and
accountability
• May have historical implications
Implications
• Understand current range of entry exit
criteria within the state
• Identify appropriate criteria for state

Implications (cont’d)
• Identify best practices that are both
evidence-based and appropriate for
state needs
• Actively seek input from stakeholders
• Review current state laws and court
rulings that may affect criteria
Numbers Drive Resources
Potential adjustment of how English
Learners are counted
• State count, ACS, or blend
• Federal decision
• Implications for funding and some
accountability decisions

Implications
• Understand optimal method for state
• Model results of each method
• Communicate preference to federal
officials
State’s Choice
New option for exclusion of English Learner
outcomes in accountability systems
• Addresses validity issues
• Differences in test administration
requirements

State’s Choice (cont’d)
• Two options
• May exclude an EL from one administration
of the English language arts test and may to
exclude from the accountability system any
or all of the ELA, Math and ELP exams for
one year
• May assess and report on ELA and math for
the first year a student is enrolled, but not
include in accountability system. Second
year use a growth measure
Implications
• Understand how English learners would
benefit from each option

• Understand how English learners would
benefit from each option
• Understand how each option interacts
with the state’s overall accountability
system
• Consult with stakeholders
Next Steps
• Establish relationships with state
education agency staff
• Determine state process and timeline
for developing state accountability plan
• Know the issues

Q & A
ilable at:
Important Policies for English Learners, Potential
Pitfalls for their Advocates is available here:
http://bit.ly/1ORLiWy
uestions, please email
[email protected]
Use Q&A chat function to write questions
Or email [email protected] with your questions

Thank You For Joining Us!
Delia Pompa
Senior Fellow for Education Policy
NCIIP, Migration Policy Institute
[email protected]
For additional information and to receive updates:
www.migrationpolicy.org
www.migrationpolicy.org/integration
For more information:
Margie McHugh
Director of NCIIP
Migration Policy Institute
[email protected]

Michelle Mittelstadt
Director of Communications
and Public Affairs, MPI
[email protected]
+1-202-266-1910
Reporters can contact:
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/
Major Provisions of Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
Related to the Education of English Learners
February 2016
1Major Provisions of Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
Introduction
The purpose of this document is to describe the major
provisions of the recently enacted Every Student
Succeeds Act (ESSA) as they affect the education of English
learners (ELs), focusing in particular on

issues that state educational agencies (SEAs) should be aware of
as they begin implementation of the
new statute. The Council of Chief State School Officers
(CCSSO) commissioned the Penn Hill Group to
develop this resource that should be beneficial to states as they
begin implementation of ESSA. We begin
first with an overview of the new Act and then provide a
detailed analysis of the provisions most relevant
to services for ELs.
Overview of the Every Student Succeeds Act
On December 10, 2015, President Obama signed into law ESSA,
the most recent reauthorization of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The
reauthorized ESEA will replace the version
of the law that was reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind
Act of 2001 (NCLB) and includes major
revisions to the previous statute. Enactment of the new
amendments came some seven years after the
scheduled expiration of NCLB and followed lengthy and
contentious debates about the appropriate
federal role in K–12 education; the proper balance between state
and local control over education
decision-making versus the need for strong and consistent

national requirements for the education of
at-risk populations; and whether the Act should provide
categorical assistance focused on particular
national needs and priorities or flexible block grants to states
that could be used to meet individual
state and local needs.
Major provisions of the new law include:
• ESSA continues the NCLB requirement that states have in
place academic content and
achievement standards in reading or language arts and in
mathematics and science. These
must be the same standards for all students in the state and,
unlike under NCLB, must align
with the entrance requirements for credit-bearing coursework in
the state’s system of public
higher education and with applicable state career and technical
education standards.
• ESSA also continues the requirement that states
administer assessments aligned with their
standards. For mathematics and reading or language arts
assessments, this must be done
in grades 3–8 and once in high school. For science assessments,
this must be done once in

each of the three grade spans (3–5, 6–9, and 10 –12).
• States must also have in place English language
proficiency (ELP) standards (derived from
the domains of speaking, listening, reading, and writing) for
English learners that are aligned
with their academic standards.
• States must provide for an annual assessment of English
language proficiency, aligned with
their English language proficiency standards, for all ELs.
• In place of NCLB’s “adequate yearly progress”
provisions, each state must implement a
state-designed accountability system that includes long-term
goals and annual indicators
for all students, including student subgroups. These indicators
must specifically include
indicators of students’ academic proficiency as measured
through state assessments, rates
of high school graduation, one or more academic indicators
applicable to elementary and
middle schools, ELs’ progress in attaining proficiency in

English, and at least one school
quality or student success indicator. Two major changes to Title
I from NCLB are the required
inclusion of an English proficiency indicator and the
requirement to include at least one
school quality or student success indicator. States will annually
differentiate the progress
of their schools using an accountability index or other
mechanism that gives “substantial
weight” to all indicators in the state’s accountability system but
“much greater weight,” in the
aggregate, to the assessment, high school graduation,
elementary and middle school, and
EL proficiency indicators.
• Using its system for differentiating school progress, each
state will identify at least 5 percent
of its Title I schools as in need of “comprehensive support and
improvement” and additional
schools that have low-performing student subgroups as in need
of “targeted support
and improvement.” States and their local educational agencies
(LEAs) will then work with
these schools to improve outcomes for the school in general or
for selected subgroups, as

indicated based on the needs identified through their
accountability systems. States will
have significant new flexibility, compared to the NCLB
requirements, in identifying schools
as in need of improvement and in determining what actions to
take with regard to low-
performing schools.
• In place of the School Improvement Grants program and
the separate Title I set-aside
for school improvement, states will draw on a single 7 percent
set-aside of their Title I
allocations for making subgrants to LEAs for activities to
improve low-performing schools.
States and LEAs will have significant new flexibility in using
these funds; there will no longer
be a single, federally defined list of actions or school
turnaround models from which states
and LEAs must draw.
• In place of the NCLB provisions on public school choice
and supplemental educational
services, states will be able to reserve up to 3 percent of their
Title I funds to make grants to
LEAs for “Direct Student Services,” such as academic tutoring,

provision of advanced courses,
credit-recovery programs, academic acceleration programs, and
paying for transportation
costs associated with public school choice.
• Under Title III, ESSA deletes the accountability-related
provisions of NCLB (because
accountability for progress of ELs in gaining English language
proficiency and making
academic progress is now incorporated into Title I) but requires
states to have standardized
statewide entrance and exit procedures for identifying ELs.
• ESSA creates a new “Student Support and Academic
Enrichment” state block grant. States
will receive formula allocations and in turn will subgrant 95
percent of the funds to LEAs
by formula. Each LEA will have considerable flexibility in
spending these funds but must
use at least 20 percent of its subgrant for activities to support
well-rounded educational
opportunities, at least 20 percent for activities to support safe

and healthy students, and
some portion for activities to support the effective use of
technology.
• ESSA places new limitations on the authority of the
Secretary of Education to regulate ESEA
provisions. Most notably, the new law specifically prohibits
federal prescription of the goals
and measures of school progress that states include in their
accountability systems, the weights
states give to various indicators, the improvement strategies
that states adopt for their low-
performing schools, and the components of teacher and school
leader evaluation systems.
As for timing, the Fiscal Year 2016 appropriations act clarified
that the ESSA provisions affecting
formula grants will not take effect until the 2017–2018 school
year. The formula funds (for Titles I, II,
and III, etc.) that states will receive in July 2016 and use mainly
in 2016–2017 will be carried out under
No Child Left Behind. However, ESSA also terminates states’
Education Flexibility Waivers on August
1, 2016; it is not yet clear which rules states will need to follow
during the upcoming transition year.
ESSA provides the Secretary of Education with the authority to

“take such steps as are necessary for
the orderly transition” from NCLB to ESSA, so the U.S.
Department of Education (ED) will likely issue
guidance on the transition in the coming months.
Specific Provisions Most Relevant to the Education of
English Learners
The following is a more detailed discussion of the ESSA
provisions that are likely to have the most impact
on English learners. We have flagged issues and questions that
SEA personnel might want to focus on as
they commence implementation of the new law and, as
appropriate, might want to pose to ED as it works
with states on that implementation. It is important to note that
there is a major shift in the new law: the
accountability for English language proficiency has moved from
Title III to Title I. This shift alone will give
SEAs a lot to consider as they make the transition.
English Language Proficiency Standards
As discussed briefly above, states must demonstrate in their
Title I plans that they have adopted ELP

standards derived from the four recognized domains of
speaking, listening, reading, and writing; that
address the different proficiency levels of ELs; and that are
aligned with the state’s academic standards.
This is largely a restatement of similar language that was in
Title III of the previous law, although the earlier
language did not require that the English proficiency standards
address the different English proficiency
levels of English learners. (That is, they could previously
establish a single definition of “proficiency”
rather than defining multiple proficiency levels.)
ESSA specifies that states may not be required to submit their
standards (including their English proficiency
standards) to ED for review and prohibits the Secretary from
exercising any direction or control over a
state’s standards.
Issues and Questions for States—
• In states that have recently adopted
new
academic standards (such as the Common
Core), SEAs may want to review their ELP
standards to ensure that they align with the

new standards.
• Because the Secretary of Education is
prohibited from requiring states to submit
their standards for review, we assume that it
will be entirely up to the states to determine
if their ELP standards and academic content
standards are aligned, but SEAs might ask the
Department to clarify this point.
• If a state’s ELP standards do not
address
multiple proficiency levels, the state will need
to revise its standards so that they do.
• SEAs might want to request that
ED clarify
the timeline for ensuring that a state’s English
proficiency standards meet the requirements
of the new law. New state Title I plans will
likely be due in the spring of 2017. Will that
also be the deadline for completing revisions

of the standards?
Academic Content Assessments for English Learners
ESSA continues the NCLB requirement that states’ reading or
language arts, math, and science
assessments provide for the inclusion of ELs, who must be
assessed in a valid and reliable manner
and provided appropriate accommodations (including, to the
extent practicable, assessments in the
language and form most likely to yield accurate information on
what those students know and can
do in the content area assessed) until they have attained English
proficiency as measured through
the English proficiency assessments administered in the state.
ESSA also continues the NCLB provisions requiring that states
assess, using tests administered in
English, the reading or language arts proficiency of any student
who has attended school in the
United States (not including Puerto Rico) for at least three
consecutive years, except that an LEA

may extend the period in which a student may be assessed in
another language if it determines that
doing so would yield more accurate and reliable information
and the student has not yet attained a
sufficient level of English proficiency to be tested in English.
Separately, the new law permits states to exclude, from one
administration of reading or language
arts assessments (but not math), recently arrived English
learners, who are defined as ELs who
have been enrolled in US schools for less than 12 months. This
language was not in NCLB but is
consistent with regulations ED issued on implementation of the
statute. Alternatively, a state may
assess and report on the performance of a recently arrived EL
student in both reading or language
arts and math for each year of his or her enrollment in a school.
If a state adopts this option, it must:
(1) for a student’s first year of enrollment in the school, exclude
his or her assessment results from
the school’s accountability determinations; (2) for the student’s
second year of enrollment, include
a measure of his or her academic growth in those
determinations; and (3) for the student’s third
year and each succeeding year, include a measure of his or her

proficiency in those determinations.
Issue for States—
• An SEA will need to decide which
allowable
option to adopt for the assessment of
recently arrived ELs in the content areas.
Note that if a state elects to adopt the second
option described above, it must include in
its accountability system a student growth
measure, which is not otherwise required.
Assessments of English Language Proficiency
Under Title I, ESSA requires the state to ensure that its LEAs
provide for an annual assessment of the
English proficiency of all ELs in their schools. These
assessments must align with the state’s English
proficiency standards. NCLB had similar language but did not
require alignment of the assessments
with state English proficiency standards.

• SEAs will need to ensure that the
English
proficiency assessments used in their states
align with their English proficiency standards.
• Some states may have to revise their
English
proficiency assessments in response to
the new requirements. If they do, will
ED specify a deadline for implementing
assessments that are fully aligned with
English proficiency standards?
• Will ED’s peer review of states’
assessment
systems include review of their English
language proficiency assessments? If so,
what documentation will SEAs be required
to provide? What will be the timing? More
specifically, will review of ELP assessments

be part of the assessment peer review that
the Department is planning to conduct in
April and June of 2016? (Note that review of
ELP assessments was not discussed in the
September 2015 guidance from ED for this
peer review because the guidance predates
and is not aligned to the new law that was
enacted in December 2015.)
• If therewill be an ED peer review, will it
include
a determination of whether a state’s ELP
assessments align with its ELP standards?
Inclusion of English Learners in State Accountability Systems
ESSA requires that states establish (for “all students” and for
each student subgroup) ambitious
state-determined long-term goals, measurements of interim
progress, and performance indicators.

The law defines subgroups as economically disadvantaged
students, students from major ethnic and
racial groups, children with disabilities, and ELs. This
definition is a continuation of the subgroup
language in NCLB.
Specifically with regard to the EL subgroup, the law provides
that for not more than four years after a
student ceases to be identified as an EL, a state may include the
results of the student’s assessments
within the results for the EL subgroup for the purposes of the
state accountability system. This is an
expansion of what the Title I regulations permitted under
NCLB; they allowed states to include (with
the EL subgroup) the assessment scores of formerly EL students
for up to two AYP determination
cycles.
Issue for States—
• SEAs will need to decide whether
and how
to make use of the added flexibility on the
inclusion of formerly EL students within the
EL subgroup. Note that this added flexibility

appears not only to allow both two additional
years but also to cover all annual indicators
(not just assessment scores).
English Proficiency Goals and Annual Indicators
ESSA requires that a state’s accountability system include long-
term goals and interim measures of
progress for increases in the percentage of ELs who make
progress in achieving English proficiency, as
defined by the state and as measured by the state’s ELP
assessments, within a state-determined timeline.
In addition, the state’s system of performance indicators must
include an indicator of the extent to which
all ELs in the state are making progress in achieving English
language proficiency. Progress towards
proficiency would be as defined by the state and as measured by
the state’s ELP assessments, within a
state-determined timeline, as determined in each of grades 3–8
and in the high school grade in which
the state administers assessments in reading or language arts
and math. The high school ELP assessment

data for a student must be measured against the student’s results
for the previous year.
NCLB did not require inclusion of an English language
proficiency indicator as part of AYP. Instead,
Title III had its own accountability system under which states
held LEAs accountable for reaching three
“annual measureable achievement objectives” (AMAOs), one of
which was achieving annual increases in
the number or percentage of EL students making progress in
learning English.
• The Title III AMAO under prior
law called
for states to measure annual increases in the
number or percentage of EL students “learning
English.” ESSA calls for an indicator of EL
students “making progress in achieving English
language proficiency.” Under the new Title I
state accountability system, from an individual
state’s perspective, are these the same thing,
or should the state revise its previous AMAO
to meet the terms of the new statute and its
use under Title I? Will ED regulate or provide
guidance on this issue?
• States will need to determine how long to
set
their long-term goals and determine what is
meant by an “interim measure of progress?”

Will ED establish any parameters?
• Does “making progress in achieving
English
language proficiency” include a measure of the
extent to which students are actually gaining
full proficiency, or does the language just call
for measurements of students’ progress toward
that goal? Similarly, should a state’s indicator of
progress establish an expectation for how quickly
an EL student achieves English proficiency? Will
ED regulate or provide guidance on these issues?
• AMAOs under NCLB applied only to
LEAs
receiving Title III funds. The new language
covers the education of all ELs in the state. This
change may require an adjustment of state data
collection, reporting, and accountability systems.
• The new law generally requires that states’
performance indicators be annual indicators,
but it appears to exempt from that requirement
the indicator on ELs’ progress in achieving
English proficiency. Will ED regulate on this
issue, such as by requiring that all the indicators
be annual indicators? If not, should a state
implement the English proficiency indicator on
a less-than-annual basis?
• The requirement for the progress of a
high
school EL student in achieving proficiency
to be measured by comparing the student’s
assessment scores from one year to the next

appears to call for the establishment of some
type of growth model for ELP.
• SEAs might want to consider whether a
state’s
goals, interim measures, and indicators for
English language proficiency should be tied in
any way to a student’s progress in reading or
language arts and math.
• The new inclusion of a performance
indicator on
ELP under Title I, and the deletion of accountability
requirements under Title III (as discussed below),
may well have implications for how SEAs should
organize their staffs who deal with Title I and Title
III issues.
Weighting of Performance Indicators
ESSA requires that state accountability systems include
indicators of:
• Student proficiency on state assessments and, at state
option, student academic growth as
demonstrated on those assessments;
• For schools that are not high schools, student growth or
another valid and reliable academic indicator;
• For high schools, the four-year adjusted cohort

graduation rate and, at state option, an extended-
year adjusted cohort graduation rate;
• As described above, the progress of EL students in
achieving English language proficiency (as
measured using the state’s ELP assessments); and
• At least one indicator of “school quality or student
success” that allows for meaningful
differentiation in school performance and is a valid, reliable,
comparable and statewide indicator.
Examples listed in the statute include measures of student
engagement, educator engagement,
student access to and completion of advanced coursework,
postsecondary readiness, and school
climate and safety.
With the exception of the indicator on EL progress in achieving
English proficiency, all of the indicators
must be measured separately for all students in a school and for
each student subgroup. The law further
specifies that a state’s system for measuring school performance
must give “substantial weight” to each
indicator and also that the indicators listed in (1) through (4)
above must have “much greater weight” than
the school quality or student success indicators described in (5).
• Compared to other indicators, the
indicator

on ELs’ progress in attaining English language
proficiency could receive quite a lot of, or very
little, weight in a state’s accountability index,
or anything in between. This will quite likely
be predominantly up to the state because
of the law’s limitation on the authority of the
Secretary to regulate on weights.
• Similarly, the law requires that state systems
account separately for the performance of
all subgroups but does not specify the “n
size” for inclusion of subgroups or whether
states can weight or treat different subgroups
differently. States have addressed this issue
in various ways under the ESEA Flexibility
Waiver agreements and will have to consider
how to address them in the new ESSA plans.
• SEAs will want to consider how to
ensure
that their indicators for ELP align well with

their indicators for reading or language
arts and math achievement (and, at state
option, growth) as those academic content
indicators apply to EL students. In other
words, what is the proper weight for
progress in English proficiency, and what is
the proper weight for progress in the two
content areas in considering the overall
progress of an EL student?
• Will ED regulate on the terms “substantial
weight” and “much greater weight”? Will ED
regulate on subgroup accountability?
Standardized Statewide Entrance and Exit Requirements
Under Title III, ESSA adds a new requirement that states
establish and implement, after consultation

with LEAs representing the geographic diversity of the state,
standardized English learner entrance
and exit procedures, which must include a requirement that all
students who might be ELs are
assessed for that status within 30 days of enrollment in a school
within the state. SEAs may use
the 5 percent of Title III funds that is set-aside for state-level
activities to suppor t this endeavor.
• The new language on standardized state-
wide entrance and exit procedures could be
read as requiring that a state have uniform
entrance and exit criteria, but this is not
clear. Will ED regulate on this issue?
• In states that do not currently have
uniform,
statewide procedures for identifying
students as English learners and then for
exiting students from that status once
they have achieved a certain level of
English proficiency (or whose procedures

do not require assessment within 30 days
of enrollment), creating these procedures
will likely be a major endeavor. SEAs may
need technical assistance and/or may want
to work with other states that have deeper
experience in this area to decide how to
implement this provision.
• ESSA requires each state to
describe how
it will develop and implement standardized
procedures, but it does not give them a
deadline for completing the process. Will ED
regulate on this issue?
• The law requires that students who are
potentially ELs be assessed for their English
proficiency within 30 days of enrollment but
does not provide a deadline for providing
services to students who are identified as EL.

States should consider how to ensure that
placement quickly follows identification.
Other Amendments to Title III
As under NCLB, Title III under ESSA authorizes a program of
formula grants to states to support the
education of English learner and immigrant students, with a
small portion retained at the federal level
for national activities. The main changes to Title III, as
discussed above, are: (1) that it no longer includes
language on accountability for the progress of ELs because this
responsibility has been subsumed
within the Title I accountability requirements; and (2) the new
requirement for development of statewide
entrance and exit criteria and procedures. Other revisions to
Title III include:
• Authorizing SEAs to use the 5 percent state set-aside to
provide recognition and financial rewards
to LEAs that have significantly improved the achievement and
progress of ELs;
• Reducing the portion of the state set-aside that SEAs may

use for administrative costs from 60
percent to 50 percent of the 5 percent set-aside;
• Authorizing the Secretary of Education to use Census
Bureau data or state counts of the number
of students assessed for English proficiency, or a combination
of those two sources, to compute
states’ Title III allocations. NCLB required the use of either
Census or state data and did not permit
the two data sets to be blended. Note that ESSA does not have a
“hold-harmless” provision;
• Requiring SEAs to describe, in their Title III plans, how
LEAs receiving subgrants will be given the
flexibility to teach ELs using a high-quality, effective
instructional curriculum and in the manner
the LEA determines to be most effective;
• Requiring that the state plan describes the steps that the
SEA will take to assist an LEA if the LEA’s
strategies for educating ELs are not effective; and
• Replacing the requirement for Title III local evaluations
with a requirement that each subgrantee
report to the SEA (every second year) on the programs and
activities it has carried out with its
Title III funds and on the number or percentage of ELs who are:

making progress in achieving
English proficiency (disaggregated for students with
disabilities); attaining English proficiency;
exiting language instruction programs for ELs; meeting state
academic standards (for each of
the four years after they exit EL status, and disaggregated for
students with disabilities); and
not achieving English proficiency after four years of their
initial classification as EL. Note that the
language on disaggregation of data on EL students with
disabilities is similar to language in Title I
requiring states to make public data on achievement, graduation
rates, academic indicators, and
assessment rates in a manner that permits cross-tabulation by, at
a minimum, race and ethnicity,
gender, EL status, and disability status.
• SEAs should consider whether they want
to
use any of the state set-aside for recognition

and rewards.
• Reduction in the percentage of formula
grant funds that may be used for state
administration may necessitate changes
in SEA staffing. In addition, there is more
EL focus in Title I. Therefore, SEAs might
consider how to increase capacity in their Title
I staff for addressing the new EL policies and/
or increasing coordination and collaboration
between their Title I and Title III staff.
• If ED decides to use blended data in
making
Title III allocations, this could have a major
impact on states’ relative shares of the funding.
• The new reporting requirements, including
the requirement for disaggregated data on
EL students with disabilities and the related
Title I data requirements, will likely require

changes to states’ data systems. SEAs might
want to work with one another on designing
new systems. Will ED provide any technical
assistance?
• Disaggregation of data on EL students with
disabilities could support state efforts to
rethink their strategies for serving those
students. The 2015 ED-DOJ letter on services
to ELs provides guidance on this issue.
English Learner Definition
Within its general provisions (the provisions that cover all
programs under the Act, unless otherwise
specified), ESSA defines an “English learner” as an individual
who, among other things, has difficulties
in speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English
language that may be sufficient to deny
the individual the ability to meet challenging state academic
standards. The NCLB definition of

“limited English proficient” referred to an individual with
difficulties in speaking, reading, writing,
or understanding that may be sufficient to deny him or her the
ability to meet the state’s proficient
level of achievement on state assessments but was otherwise
substantively identical.
Issue for States—
• While the new definition is almost
identical
to the old one, SEAs will want to determine
whether the reference to meeting state
standards (rather than testing at the proficient
level) will necessitate any changes in their
programs for ELs.
One Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 700
Washington, DC 20001-1431
voice: 202.336.7000 | fax: 202.408.8072

Taking Stock of ESSA’s Potential Impact on Immigrant .docx

Taking Stock of ESSA’s Potential Impact on Immigrant .docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Taking Stock of ESSA’s Potential Impact on Immigrant .docx

Similar to Taking Stock of ESSA’s Potential Impact on Immigrant .docx (20)

More from AASTHA76

More from AASTHA76 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Taking Stock of ESSA’s Potential Impact on Immigrant .docx