1. Summary of Final Regulations: Accountability and State Plans
Augustus Mays
Director of Government Relations
WestEd
December 9, 2016

2. Overview of Regulations and Related Issues
ED officially published the final rule in the Federal Register on November 29, 2016.
The rule covers accountability provisions included in Title I and consolidated state plan requirements of ESEA.
The rule is effective (i.e. officially included within the Code of Federal Regulations) on January 28, 2017.
The effective date of this regulation could subject to delay under the incoming Administration or the regulation could be subject to repeal under the Congressional Review Act.
While nothing is certain, the future outlook for the applicability of this regulation is presently unclear.

3. Major Changes: NPRM versus Final Rule
Issue
NPRM
Final Rule
Plan Submission Dates
Two windows of submission: March 6, 2017 and July 5, 2017
Two submission windows maintained with delayed dates: April 3, 2017 and September 18, 2017
Stakeholders
Required consultation with stakeholders during the design and development of the plan, and prior to the submission of the plan or any revisions or amendments.
Add representatives of private school students and early childhood educators and leaders to the list of mandatory stakeholders with whom States must consult on plans.

4. Major Changes: NPRM versus Final Rule (cont.)
Issue
NPRM
Final Rule
Identification Start Date
States start identification of schools using new accountability system requirements before the start of the school year
 States start identification of schools using new accountability system requirements before the start of the school year
Academic Achievement and 5th Indicator
Required that school quality and student success indicators be supported by research demonstrating that progress on the indicator(s) is likely to increase student achievement or the high school graduation rate.
Expands NPRM requirement to include research showing student learning, such as grade point average, advance coursework, persistence, etc.
95% Assessment Participation
State option to be “equally” rigorous to options spelled out in the regulation
 State option to be “sufficiently rigorous” to options spelled out in regulation

5. Major Changes: NPRM versus Final Rule (cont.)
Issue
NPRM
Final Rule
Years needed to identify consistently underperforming subgroups
States must base determinations of consistently underperforming subgroups on 2 years worth of data
States may use more than 2 years worth of data based on demonstration of how longer timeframe will support low-performing students
School Improvement minimum grant amounts
States required to make grants of $500,000 to comprehensive support schools and $50,000 to targeted support schools unless the SEA can conclude (based on a demonstration by the LEA in its application) that a smaller amount would suffice
Maintain language from the NPRM regarding funding levels, but would require that determinations on awarding a lesser based on school’s size, identified needs, and selected interventions, and other relevant factors described in the LEA’s application

6. Major Changes: NPRM versus Final Rule (cont.)
Issue
NPRM
Final Rule
Summative Ratings
Required that schools receive a single summative rating, from among at least three distinct rating categories.
Change the requirement for schools to receive a “single summative rating” to a “single summative determination” from at least three distinct categories of schools. These categories could be 1) “comprehensive support and improvement schools”; 2) “targeted support and improvement schools”; and 3) “other schools”. (This is to clarify that the single summative determination does not need to use an A-F or similar system).

7. Indicator Indicator Regulatory Requirement(s)
Academic proficiency as measured through assessments
Removed the requirement that the Academic Achievement indicator equally weight reading/ELA and math scores
High school graduation rate
Must be based on four year adjusted cohort graduation rate
May also include an extended year graduation rate
Elementary/Middle school indicator
May be based on a measure of growth or another academic measure .
Progress towards ELP
Must use objective reliable measure of progress;
Not included for schools with number of EL students below state’s N size
School quality or student success
Does not have to be different from other indicators in state’s accountability system;
Cannot change the status of identified schools without significant progress on at least one other indicator (mechanism for ensuring academic indicators have “much greater weight”, as required in statute)
Note: all indicators must include 3 levels of performance

8. Student Subgroups
“Super subgroups” are not permitted in place of individual subgroups;
N size must be less than 30 or must be approved by ED. Lower N sizes are permitted for reporting purposes.
Students formerly identified as students with disabilities may be counted in such subgroup for up to 2 years; and
Permit a State to include, for up to four years, the results of former ELs within the EL subgroup only if it does so for all those students within the State and for the same period of time

9. Test Participation Lowest performance rating on academic indicator
Lower summative performance rating
Lowest performance rating on academic indicator
Identified for targeted support and improvement
State determined action that is “sufficiently” rigorous and described in the State’s plan

10. Identification Timing Comprehensive Support and Improvement
Targeted Support and Improvement
Identification of the new accountability structure must take place for , based on data available in and school years.
Identification of schools with consistently underperforming subgroups for targeted support does not have to take place until SY
Data can be averaged over a period of up to 3 years.
Identification must take place at least once every 3 years.
Requires that states use four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate (excludes use of extended year graduation rate).
Requires the establishment of a uniform, statewide definition of consistently underperforming subgroups based on at least one of the following factors:
Considers performance among the subgroup for no more than 2 years; or longer timeframe if State demonstrates this will enable attainment of State’s long term goals;
Is based on all accountability indicators, consistent with weighting requirements;
Defines such subgroups in a uniform manner across all LEAs in the State through a statewide definition, or whether the is (1) meeting at least one of the State’s interim progress measures, (2) not on track to meet at least one of the long-term goals, or (3) is performing below a State determined threshold on an indicator without long-term goals.

11. School Improvement
Require that state-determined interventions in schools must be supported “to the extent practicable” by the strongest level of evidence.
Require that evidence-based interventions for identified schools must be selected from an exhaustive State list of options, if the State has such a list.
Add new requirements to the needs assessment for an identified school, including about the school’s unmet need with respect to:
Access in elementary school to full-day kindergarten programs and to preschool programs.
Permits a planning year for the implementation of school improvement plans.

12. State Report Cards
Regulation provides “data dashboard” as one example of how to report data.
Maintains requirement that State report cards include the number and percentage of students enrolled in preschool programs.
State report cards must be disseminated by December 31 of each year
States must report on postsecondary enrollment data by high school if obtaining it. If states are not collecting and reporting this data, they must say when they will start reporting.

13. Questions?