2 EDCAL December 7, 2015
ESEA
Continued from page 1
tion but will likely last longer. ESEA had
a five-year reauthorization as the No Child
Left Behind Act, and it has taken 14 years
to reauthorize.
Following are several details that have
emerged on the plan:
• Assessment: The legislation would
maintain annual assessments in grades 3-8
in math and English language arts (ELA),
as well as once in high school. It would also
maintain three assessments in science – one
per grade span.
• Standards: State and local districts
would determine standards with no federal
role for incentivizing a specific set of standards. A state could use Common Core,
acquire another set of generated standards,
or create its own set of standards.
Innovative Technology – Perris
Starts January 16, 2016
Innovative Technology – Napa
Starts January 23, 2016
Innovative Technology – Oxnard
Starts January 30, 2016
www.acsa.org • Educational Services
• Accountability: The bill would go
into effect for the 2017-18 school year.
The 2015-16 school year would be the last
year states and districts would be required
to submit data as currently required. The
changes would be funded in the next budget
cycle, including:
1.) States must continue to disaggregate
data by student subgroup and calculate
graduation rates using the adjusted cohort
graduate rate as currently established.
2.) States must identify and intervene in
schools in the bottom 5 percent of Title 1
and in high schools that graduate less than
67 percent of their students. States would
be required to generate the list of schools
every three years. Additionally, states would
develop exit criteria to be removed from the
list within the three-year reporting cycle, if
student achievement is increased.
3.) States must include intervention
remedies for consistently underperforming
schools. The state would have to develop an
improvement plan regarding the length of
time a local educational agency (LEA) that
is underperforming can go without showing
improvement. Also, the state would have to
develop supports and interventions. There
are no federally prescribed turnaround
models, leaving it to the state and LEAs to
determine what options will be established.
4.) The state accountability plan would
have to include subgroup performance targets that trigger no action. The targets must
include: graduation rates, reading and math
scores, as well as English language proficiency for English language (EL) learners.
5.) This new accountability program
Paid Advertisement
Education California | The official newspaper of the Association of California School Administrators
EdCal® (USPS 684-390, ISSN 0740-0357)
is published Weekly, except for the following dates in 2015-16: 7/6, 7/20, 8/3, 8/17, 8/31,
9/14, 10/5, 10/19, 11/9, 11/23, 11/30, 12/14, 12/21,
12/28, 1/4, 2/22, 5/9 and 6/6, by the Association
of California School Administrators, 1575
Bayshore Highway, Burlingame, CA 94010.
Periodical postage paid at Burlingame, CA
94010 and additional offices. Subscription
price: $90 value to members; offered to nonmembers on a qualifying basis. For further
information, contact the membership department at (650) 692-4300. POSTMASTER: Sen d
address changes to EdCal, c/o ACSA, 1575
Bayshore Highway, Burlingame, CA 94010.
EdCal keeps ACSA members informed of
association activities, efforts on their behalf
and issues pertinent to education and education administration. Advertising or the mention
of products, services or programs in EdCal does
not imply endorsement by ACSA.
ACSA is affiliated with the American Association of School Administrators, National
Association of Secondary School Principals,
National Association of Elementary School
Principals, American Association of School
Personnel Administrators, California Association of Latino Superintendents and Administrators, California Association of Education
Office Professionals and the American
Association for Adult and Continuing Education.
ACSA Executive Director, Wesley Smith
Director, Communications/PIO, Naj Alikhan
Assistant Executive Director, Educational
Services, Chris Adams
Directors, Governmental Relations, Edgar Zazueta
and Adonai Mack
Director, Member Services, Margarita Cuizon
Chief Financial Officer, David Gasser
EdCal Editor, London Roberts
Assistant Editor/Reporter, Cary Rodda
Writer/Asst. Web Content Editor, Elizabeth Penney
Advertising Coordinator, Emily Senecal
ACSA CareerConnect Coordinator, Tracy Olmedo
ACSA Board of Directors
President, Tom Armelino
President-elect, Ralph Gomez Porras
Vice President, Lisa Gonzales
VP for Legislative Action, Linda Kaminski
Past President, Randall Delling
Editorial Offices: 1029 J St., Suite 500,
Sacramento, CA 95814; (916) 444-3216
Members: Eric Andrew, Mauricio Arellano,
Randy Bangs, Jonathon Brunson, Tammie
Calzadillas, Katherine Castleberry, Will Ector, Holly
Edds, Mary Grace, Jeff Harris, Andrew Ishibashi,
Darrien Johnson, Peter Johnson, Sue Kaiser,
Heidi Lawler, Jon LeDoux, Robert Martinez, Cindy
Petersen, Terri Rufert, Rob Stockberger, Edward
Trimis, Craig Wheaton, Ron Williams
• Job ads: e-mail [email protected]
• News: e-mail [email protected]
Burlingame, (650) 692-4300; Sacramento, (916) 444-3216;
Ontario, (909) 484-7503; toll-free (800) 608-ACSA
would reduce the reliance on high-stakes,
one-time standardized testing.
6.) Fifty-one percent of the accountability determination includes: math and
EL testing, graduation rates, an indicator
for elementary and middle schools to be
developed by the state, and EL proficiency.
7.) A 95 percent test participation rate
must be part of the accountability system,
but it is not part of the academic indicators. The weight of test participation rates
is left up to the state to determine.
• Title 1: School Improvement Grants
would be consolidated into Title 1. The
funds previously available under SIG will
flow through the regular Title 1 formula. Seven percent of those funds would
remain available to states, which must move
at least 95 percent of that to schools for
innovation. It is up to the state to determine
if the money will be allocated through competition or a formula. Also under Title 1:
1.) Portability is not included. However,
the framework includes a weighted student
formula. A pilot program would be established for 50 LEAs in the country to allow
them to aggregate state and local dollars
with federal dollars from Titles 1-4. Further,
participants in the program could design
their own allocation formula to target the
neediest schools. There is a requirement
for the 50 selected LEAs to demonstrate
that their neediest schools receive at least as
much under the weighted formula as they
did before the pilot.
2.) Maintenance of effort would be continued, requiring states and LEAs to continue to invest at least 90 percent of what
they had spent the year before in order to
receive federal funds.
3.) The Title 1 formula does not change.
However, an amendment was adopted to
require a Title 1 study conducted by the
Institute of Education Sciences regarding the effectiveness of the formulas used
for funding. The study is to be completed
within 18 months with a report to Congress
upon its completion.
• Rural Education: The Rural Education
Achievement Program would remain as a
stand-alone program. The U.S. Department
of Education would be required to study
and evaluate how they are serving or not
serving rural schools. The Rural School
Consolidated Grant Applications would
be maintained, which would allow rural
schools to coordinate a consolidated application through their local education service
agency.
• Early Education: The bill would
include an early education component to
be administered jointly through the Health
and Human Services Department and the
U.S. Department of Education. The Health
and Human Services Department would act
as the fiscal agency.
This program is in addition to Head
Start and Child Care Development block
grants. It would also require a study to
improve quality and access to early childhood education. This study will show overlaps within programs.
• Alternate Assessment: The legislation
would continue to cap alternate assess-
ments for the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, but it is now 1 percent at the
state level with local individualized education program teams working to make their
determinations driven by IDEA. There are
explicit prohibitions on both the secretary
of education and the state from forcing a
local cap, which is current practice.
LEAs’ alternate assessment rate would
be determined by need. Further, it would
require the state to monitor LEAs individually to determine the overall state level. If a
state determines it has an alternate assessment rate above 1 percent, the state could
pursue a waiver.
• Student Privacy: The Family Educa
tional Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) is
out of the bill. ACSA had advocated for the
Senate version relating to privacy, establishing a one-year student privacy commission
to review and recommend changes to student privacy.
Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., chairman
of the House Education and Work Force
Committee, wants to address FERPA next
year and does not want to wait until a report
is issued. So, while FERPA would not be
included in this reauthorization, it will most
likely be addressed next year.
• School Climate: The bill would consolidate programs in Title 4 into a block
grant. LEAs must use at least 20 percent of
this allocation for well-rounded education
and at least 20 percent for safety and health
programs. Funds can be used for technology,
including devices, equipment and software,
and would be capped at 5 percent. LEAs
could use up to 60 percent of their grant
under this program for technology-related
activities, including training teachers to use
technology, blended learning, personalized
learning and buying content.
• Comparability: The piece of legislation would maintain current law and does
not include teacher salaries in the calculation.
• Title 2: The formula would be
revamped with no details at press time.
The latest amendments taken in
Conference Committee include:
• Expanding the list of allowable activities in Title 4 grants that adds the allowance of improved instruction in STEM
subjects and integrates arts in the study of
STEM. There are no new requirements
for school districts. It would simply provide
LEAs with more flexibility to integrate
music and art into STEM studies using
these grants.
• Allowing states to set targets for the
amount of time students spend on standardized tests. This is not required but
permissive.
• Allowing professional development
funding under Title 2. The funding would
be used for teachers to get education and
training on the appropriate uses of student
data and student privacy.
• Allowing some funding to go toward
dual or concurrent enrollment programs for
English language learners under Title 3.
• Allowing districts to use funds to
improve dropout and re-entry programs
within the community.
Paid Advertisement