1. OVERVIEW OF THE EVERY STUDENT SUCCEEDS ACT: TITLES I & III RIVERSIDE COUNTY PELD MEETING JANUARY 29, 2016 Presented by Patti F. Herrera, School Services of California Leticia Garcia, Office of the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools

2. TITLE 1, SUBPARTS  Part A: Improving Basic Programs  Part B: State Assessment Grants  Part C: Migrant Education  Part D: Neglected, Delinquent or At-Risk Youth Prevention & Interventions  Part E: Flexibility for Equitable Per-Pupil Funding

3. TITLE I: PART A, APPROPRIATIONS Fiscal YearAppropriation 2017$15.0 billion 2018$15.5 billion 2019$15.9 billion 2020$16.2 billion States shall:  Appropriate to LEAs  Monitor and evaluate use of funds by LEAs  “[Reduce] barriers and [provide] operational flexibility for schools in the implementation of comprehensive support and improvement activities or targeted support and improvement activities”

4. TITLE I, STATE SET ASIDES Formula funding remains the same  keeps 1% cap on State administrative funds Includes two new State set asides:  Mandatory 7% for School Improvement interventions and technical assistance (State determines distribution to LEAs - formula or competitive)  Optional 3% for Direct Student Services (competitive subgrants to LEAs – priority given to identified schools)

5. TITLE I: USE OF GRANTS BY LEA S  Improve course access  Advance courses  Career Technical Education  Credit Recovery/Academic Acceleration  Post-secondary Readiness Activities  AP/IB courses  College admissions tests – reimbursement for low-income students  Personalized learning activities/services  Transportation costs for students in lowest 5% of Title I schools

6. TITLE I: ASSESSMENTS States must assess:  English language Arts and Mathematics, every year in Grades 3-8  At least once in Grades 9-12  Science, at least once in  Grades 3-5  Grades 6-9  Grades 10-12  Other subjects and frequency at the State’s discretion  Alternate assessment tied to alternate standards for students with disabilities – limits to 1% statewide  Maintains 95% participation requirement

7. TITLE I: ASSESSMENTS  Scores must be disaggregated by LEA and by school by –  Racial and ethnic subgroup  Low-income students  Special education students  English proficiency status  Gender  Migrant status  Authorizes the inclusion of reclassified English learners to be included in the English learner subgroup for up to 4 years after reclassification

8. TITLE I: STATE ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM State Accountability System shall include:  Long-term goals and measurements for interim progress toward goals related to academic achievement, graduation, and progress toward English language proficiency for English learners  School-level weighted performance indicators  Academic achievement – summative assessments (greatest weight)  For K-8 – student growth  For high schools – graduation rate  English proficiency progress rates for English learners within State-determined timeline  School quality – student engagement, educator engagement, student access to and completion of advanced coursework, post-secondary readiness, school climate and safety, other

9. Comprehensive Support and Improvement  Beginning in SY 17-18, State must identify schools in need of Comprehensive Support and Improvement, and must do so at least once every three years  Identify at least the lowest-performing 5% of all Title I schools  Identify schools in which any subgroup that, on its own, is the lowest-performing 5%  All high schools failing to graduate at least 1/3 of their students  Evidence-based LEA-developed, state- approved plan  Requires more rigorous State action if there is no improvement after a State-determined number of years (up to 4 years) Targeted Support and Improvement  State shall notify LEAs of any schools in which any subgroup is consistently under-performing  School-developed, LEA-approved support and improvement plan  Requires additional action if there is no improvement after an LEA- determined number of years  Requires State assistance if there is no improvement after a State- determined number of years (up to 4 years) TITLE I TWO-TIERED SUPPORT AND IMPROVEMENT SYSTEM

10. TITLE I: COMPREHENSIVE SUPPORT AND IMPROVEMENT – LEA PLAN LEA plan for comprehensive support and improvement shall:  Use all State indicators in the State Accountability System, including measures of progress toward State long-term goals  Include evidence-based interventions  Be based on school-level needs assessment  Identify resource inequities  Be approved by the school, LEA, and the State State may authorize differentiated improvement activities for schools that predominantly serve drop-out students are students who are significantly off- track to accumulate credits to graduate from high school.

11. TITLE I: TARGETED SUPPORT AND IMPROVEMENT – SCHOOL PLAN School plan for targeted support and improvement shall:  Use all State indicators in the State Accountability System, including measures of progress toward State long-term goals  Include evidence-based interventions  Be approved by the LEA  Monitored by the LEA  Identify resource inequities if any subgroup is identified as consistently under- performing

12. TITLE I: PART E, FLEXIBILITY FOR EQUITABLE PER-PUPIL FUNDING ESSA includes new incentive grant program to enhance equity through the development and implementation of school funding system based on weighted per-pupil allocations for low-income students, English learners, lowest-achieving students, and students with disabilities.  Available for direct federal funding for no more than 50 LEAs  USDE-LEA agreements are valid for no more than three years  In the spirit of flexibility, Part E authorizes USDE to waive any ESSA provision that would prevent an LEA from using Federal funds as part of the agreement.  Greater requirements about fund sources, per-pupil expenditures, stakeholder engagement

13. TITLE III: APPROPRIATIONS Fiscal YearAppropriation 2017$756 million 2018$770 million 2019$785 million 2020$885 million

14. TITLE III  Moves accountability provisions to Title I – does not impact funding or services to English learners  Replaces “limited English proficient” with “English learner”  Requires reports, due every two years, to include the number and percentage of English learners who:  Meet State determined long-term goals  Achieve English proficiency  Meet state content standards for the subsequent four years after reclassification  Have not achieved English proficiency within five years of identification as an English learner

15. ESSA--IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE  Omnibus Appropriations bill extended ESSA formula-based grant programs through 2017-18  Competitive grants effective on October 1, 2016  State Accountability Plan effective school year 2017-18  ESSA refers to plan as “meaningfully differentiated system”  State Board of Education is poised to adopt the plan by November 2016 for submission to the USDE

16. CA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION SBE, at their January meeting, authorized two Title I waiver requests for 2016-17 to  authorize districts to locally develop high quality programs that meet the needs of their students, rather than use funds on prescriptive supplemental education services  provide relief from the AYP requirement that the State identify new schools for Program Improvement For copy of letter click http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/el/le/yr16ltr0113.asphttp://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/el/le/yr16ltr0113.asp

17. STATE ACCOUNTABILITY AND ESSA: OPPORTUNITY FOR ALIGNMENT Principally aligned in its efforts to  Decentralize decision-making  Enhance local flexibility to meet student needs and improve academic achievement  Develop an accountability system that uses multiple measures of student achievement and learning  Promote a system of support and continuous improvement for schools and LEAs

18. STATE ACCOUNTABILITY AND ESSA: OPPORTUNITY FOR ALIGNMENT Some areas that need to be further aligned or clarified  Extent to which States determine metrics and approaches to measure progress toward State-developed long-term goals  How to meaningfully differentiate – multiple measures versus single index  How to measure “lowest-performing” schools or subgroups – assessments versus multiple measures  School versus LEA support and improvement programs

19. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES ESSA available at http://www.ed.gov/essa?src=rnhttp://www.ed.gov/essa?src=rn ESSA and LCFF crosswalk presented to SBE at January meeting available at http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/yr16/agenda201601.asp http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/yr16/agenda201601.asp Council of Chief State School Officer: Implementation Summaries http://www.ccsso.org/Resources/Programs/Every_Student_Succeeds_Act.html http://www.ccsso.org/Resources/Programs/Every_Student_Succeeds_Act.html