The Every Student Succeeds Act
Deborah Rigsby
February 16, 2016

Every Student Succeeds Act
Public Law 114-95

•
•
•
•
Overview
Key Issues
•
•
•
Implementation
Related Materials:
Fiscal Year 2017 Budget & Appropriations
Child Nutrition
Career and Technical Reauthorization

Every Student Succeeds Act
(ESSA)
•
Signed into law December 10, 2015
•
Four-year reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act
•
Affirms local governance
•
Goal is to facilitate greater flexibility and local innovation for student achievement

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Title I – Improving the Academic Achievement of the
Disadvantaged
Title II – Preparing, Training, and Recruiting High-Quality
Teachers, Principals, and Other School Leaders
Title III – Language Instruction for English Learners and
Immigrant Students
Title IV – 21 st Century Schools
Title V – Flexibility and Accountability
Title VI – Indian, Native American and Alaska Native Education
Title VII - Impact Aid
Title VIII – General Education Provisions
Title IX – Education for the Homeless and Other Laws

•
Section 1003 directs states to set aside at least 7 percent of Title I allocations for school improvement and eliminates the School
Improvement Grant (SIG) program, providing more discretion for local and state oversight and innovation, as well as for identification and targeted intervention of lowest performing 5 percent of schools
•
Provides greater discretion to states to design respective standards and accountability systems
•
Authorizes pilot project for equitable funding distribution for up to
50 school districts to maximize funding/per pupil spending for targeted needs, such as English learners and students from lowincome families

•
States are to adopt “challenging” academic standards
•
Participation in Common Core is not mandated
•
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is to be replaced with stateestablished benchmarks
•
State set-aside for direct student services/interventions
•
Comprehensive support and improvement focused on lowest performing 5% of schools
•
Title I funding formula study by Institute of Education Sciences

•
Changes Title II, Part A funding formula over four years to target more resources to children in poverty
•
Greater emphasis on support for principals and other school leaders, such as an optional 3% state set aside for systemic, infrastructure improvements that can be targeted to smaller districts
•
Eliminates highly qualified teacher (HQT) requirement and requires teachers working in Title I programs to meet applicable state certification and licensure standards
•
Authorizes the Teacher and Leader Incentive Fund (TIF) for teacher and principal compensation systems

•
•
•
•
•
•
Local Uses of Funds
Developing and improving teacher and leader evaluation systems
Recruiting and retaining teachers
Training and technical assistance on assessments
Supporting school libraries
Professional development for STEM subjects and incorporation of Career and Technical Education
•
School districts are to consult with stakeholders when developing local Title II plans

•
Eliminates requirement that states develop annual measurable achievement objectives for English language proficiency and replaces it with such proficiency assessments as a required indicator for school performance under Title I
•
Requires states to establish standardized English Learner entrance and exit criteria
•
State reservation of 15% of funds for grants to districts with large influxes of immigrant students
•
Allows states to use part of the state share of Title III funds for bonuses to districts with large gains in EL proficiency and academic achievement

•
Authorizes flexible grants for “Student Support and Academic
Enrichment” that can be used for several purposes that address:
•
Access to, and opportunities for, a well-rounded education for all students
•
School conditions for student learning for healthy and safe environments
•
Access to personalized learning experiences supported by technology and professional development for effective use of data and technology

•
District(s) must submit an application and needs assessment to qualify for “Student Support and Academic
Enrichment” grant funds
•
District grantees may not use more than 15% of funds for technology infrastructure
•
Focuses on expanded learning time with options for states to dedicate funding to district and school programs

•
•
•
•
•
Local governance
Authorized funding
State plans
Testing & Assessments
Next steps

•
Includes provision affirming local governance championed by NSBA and sponsored by Senators Deb Fischer (R-NE),
Jon Tester (D-MT) and Angus King (I-ME)
•
Section 8541: Clarifies the delineation among federal, state, and local governance authority
•
Supports the U.S. Department of Education rulemaking and guidance processes and consultation with local school boards (pursuant to provisions under Title I, Part A,
Section 1901)

The following appropriations are authorized for all programs under
ESSA:
FY 2017 = $24,540,409
FY 2018 = $25,053,614
FY 2019 = $25,566,819
FY 2020 = $26,080,025
*Authorizations are subject to the annual appropriations process, in which the final amount allocated each fiscal year may not reflect the amount provided.

•
ESSA maintains provisions allowing states and districts to apply for main formula programs through a consolidated application or separate program applications
•
State education agencies are required to develop plans “with timely and meaningful consultation” with the governor and other state policymakers, districts, representatives of teachers, principals, other school staff, and parents
•
Plans are to include targeted support to low performing schools
•
Plans are to be available for public comment for at least 30 days before they are submitted to the U.S. Department of Education (ED)
•
ED approval will involve a peer review process

•
ESSA defers to state and local policies regarding students opting out of assessments.
•
School districts must notify parents at the beginning of the year that they may request information regarding state or local policies on student participation in assessments, including parental right to opt out “where applicable.”
•
Sec. 1112 (e)(2) TESTING TRANSPARENCY.— (A)…shall notify the parents of each student…regarding any State or local educational agency policy regarding student participation in any assessments…which shall include a policy, procedure, or parental right to opt the child out of such assessment, where applicable.

•
•
•
August 1, 2016
State plans are to remain effective until August 1 st
Existing waivers scheduled for termination
•
ED “will not require states to submit AMOs [annual measurable objectives] (for school years 2014–2015 or 2015–2016) in January
2016 for ED’s review and approval, nor will ED require States to report performance against AMOs for the 2014–2015 or 2015–
2016 school years.”
•
Department published its Request for Information regarding Title I on December 22, 2015

•
2017-2018 school year: New state plans scheduled for implementation and effective date for formula grant programs
•
FY2017: Effective date for competitive grant programs
•
U.S. Department of Education (ED) to publish transition guidance soon.

Federal Policy and Regulation

Regulations

Guidance

“Dear Colleague” Letters

FAQs

Fact Sheets

Blogposts

ESSA Public Input Meetings
•
January 11 - First hearing at the U.S. Department of Education
“Although we are at the very beginning of what should hopefully prove to be an open, transparent regulatory effort to implement
ESSA, it is exceedingly important that any Departmental regulations and non-regulatory guidance accomplish what Congress sought with this reauthorization—to restore significant decision-making impacting public education to the local level and recalibrate the federal role in education.” – Thomas J. Gentzel, Executive Director, NSBA
•
January 19 – Second hearing in California

•
•
December 31, 2016
Rules not finalized and published could be discarded by the incoming administration
•
Title I negotiated rulemaking possible (assessments and/or supplement, not supplant)

•
ESSA grants Congress the authority to oversee the regulatory process for implementation.
•
Congressional Oversight Hearings


Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee
House Education and the Workforce Committee

•
•
•

Working with and through our State
Associations, to advocate for equity and excellence in public education through school board leadership.