Description: The article talks about some of the specifics of what accountability requirements are needed for transition year of Every Student Succeeds Act, some ways the teachers can be qualified by using No Child Left Behind definition.
There are additional services, there will be a need for a much more collaboration between title one and title three at the state agencies and certainly at the federal level as well.
There’s an increased collaborative effort underway to make sure that our English learners are served under title one and then also still title three program is intact.
There are still requirements under title three for professional development and they’ve added a new required element under title 3 which is family and community engagement.
English language learners are definitely a focus under sa, if you look at the S legislation, you’ll see English learners throughout the bill about charter schools.
There’s a focus on charter schools and that’s something that under sa, you can see there is definitely the desire under every student succeeds to give States as many options to meet students needs as possible.
Charter schools have become one of those ways that states can look at their systems and develop new and innovative ways of serving kids, so charter schools do have a pretty prominent place in the S legislation.
Let’s talk about some of the specifics of what accountability requirements are required for this transition year, we talked a little bit about accountability in general in regards to this act.
What about this transition year? During the transition year, states are still required to continue to support students and families and schools who are working on corrective action plans.
Under nclb, if you were not meeting requirements under accountability, after two years, you were required to write a corrective action plan, after four years, you were required to wrap up that plan and have some state sanctions that were applied.
What states are doing is that they’re continuing to implement and monitor those corrective action plans for schools that were determined in need of assistance under nclb.
If you weren’t one of those schools who were determined in need of assistance this year, you’re carrying on the plans that you were making, but you’re not under any corrective action, so states that have plans with districts that are in corrective action are still carrying out those plans and monitoring those plans in the transition year.
One of the helpful things that the US Department of Education did was to acknowledge some of the challenges with a transition, that’s large enough to help smooth the change and to put less burden on states and districts.
The Department of Education asked that states do not comply with some elements of No Child Left Behind that were not covered by the new education law SS.
For example, states are no longer required to report on the achievement of specific student subgroups using No Child Left Behind standards, they are not required to track student achievement, it looks somewhat different under essa and similarly states and districts no longer need to report their progress toward ensuring that all teachers are highly qualified using the No Child Left Behind definition.
This isn’t to say that essa eliminates any focus on strong teaching an equitable distribution of such teachers across different schools, essa provides lots of support to ensure that students have access to good teachers funding for professional development.
Anytime you have new legislation, there’s going to be mixed, some people may love it, some people may be scared of it and it depends on your perspective and where you’re at.
One of the things I’d like to talk about is some of the positive aspects of essa, there are many, but when you think about this, what do you think are some of the major provisions of essa?
States are excited to have an opportunity to step back and explore their context and think about how they can take everything, they learn from No Child Left Behind in terms of how they’re accountable for.
As Caitlin mentioned, students from poverty and subgroups like English learners, I’m some of our most needy students in terms of learning about how that works your accountability, taking those lessons learned and using your local context to build something new states are excited about the opportunity to do that.
But it’s a little scary, because that’s a heavy lift for states and a lot of our states are working hard to figure out how to do the best thing for their state context.
I think that’s very exciting opportunity for States, I’m some of the other positive aspects of s, I think you’re hearing about it in the news, some of the reports that are coming out would be the ability for states to use a multi metric approach, so moving away from a one-shot single major of school success and student success.
All the ways to measure outcomes for kids and building those into those accountability system, so having a lot more flexibility, what might that have looked like before?
Before you had your statewide assessment, we had the statewide assessments and you had that single major annually of achievement, you had one major and you gave it annually and that was the only indicator of success or lack of success.
There are opportunities to bring in not only that statewide major, but also wraparound portfolio assessments more qualitative measures and bring in additional metrics around school quality, so getting a better sense of what a well-rounded education looks like for kids will be possible under the new accountability system.
We’re focusing on all of our kids and making sure that they are growing and reaching proficiency, but they are in safe and healthy school environments.
One of the things I’d like to talk about is the shift in the annual statewide assessments under SF. We had to assess students and report every year.
We have a change in a shift and accountability where they have to assess in three through eight, once in high school, but they only have to report out on school accountability every three years, so it’s not an annual report every three years, they’ll identify schools who are not meeting the requirements under accountability.
If you start working with a district in an improvement status, it takes several years to implement the types of changes that are going to turn around student performance, so changing that up annually probably wasn’t producing results that we were hoping for schools.
When you think about accountability, you’re looking at the four indicators which our proficiency growth grad rates and then English learners proficiency towards in progress towards English proficiency.
Then states have to take those four indicators and then the fifth indicator and build an accountability system where they determine how what metrics will they use to measure each of those five areas and how they will wait those.
So there’s a waiting component, that’s new for most states, we had some of our state’s head waivers under NCLB and they’ve already started to play with that waiting system for accountability, but for a lot of states, that’s new, so they’re looking at whether or not proficiency becomes more heavily weighted than growth or grad rates becomes more heavily rated weighted than English language proficiency.
Every state will look at their own context again and determine how they want to wait for those indicators to try to balance out, even the playing field to make sure at the end of the day, the real true major is to make sure that our kids have access to a well-rounded education.
I’d like to know more about what some of the issues will be for those under essa, one of the key provisions for English learners moving from nclb to essa was that accountability for English learners has moved under Title one.