U.S. Department of Education – Policy Updates
description
Transcript of U.S. Department of Education – Policy Updates
U.S. Department of Education – Policy Updates
February 13, 2012Lily Clark & Ross Santy
Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development
U.S. Department of Education
TODAY’S TOPICS
National School Lunch Program
ESEA Flexibility
U.S. Department of Education
ESEA FLEXIBILITY CORE POLICIES
Protect all students
Provide flexibility to move forward with reform
Set a high bar for students and schools
“We’re going to let states, schools and teachers come up with innovative ways to give our children the skills they need to compete for the jobs of the future.”
– President Obama
U.S. Department of Education
FLEXIBILITY TO IMPROVE ACHIEVEMENT AND INSTRUCTION• Flexibility regarding the 2013-2014 timeline
for achieving 100 percent proficiency• Flexibility regarding district and school
improvement and accountability requirements
• Flexibility related to the use of Federal education funds
“This voluntary opportunity will provide educators and State and local leaders with flexibility … to improve educational outcomes for all students, close achievement gaps, increase equity, and improve the quality of instruction.”
– Secretary Duncan
U.S. Department of Education
PRINCIPLES FOR IMPROVING ACHIEVEMENT AND INSTRUCTION
State-developed differentiated recognition, accountability, and support
Supporting effective instruction and leadership
College- and career-ready expectations for all students
Reducing duplication and unnecessary burden
1.
2.
3.
4.
U.S. Department of Education
PRINCIPLE 1: COLLEGE- AND CAREER-READY EXPECTATIONS• Adopt college- and career-ready standards in
reading and mathematics• Transition to and implement standards statewide
for all students and schools• Develop and administer aligned, high-quality
assessments that measure student growth• Adopt corresponding English language
proficiency standards and aligned assessments
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
Adopt CCR standards
Administer assessments
Implement CCR standards and pilot assessments
U.S. Department of EducationPRINCIPLE 2: DIFFERENTIATED RECOGNITION, ACCOUNTABILITY & SUPPORT
• Develop system to ensure continuous improvement in all Title I schools
• Set ambitious but achievable performance targets• Provide recognition for high-progress and highest-performing
schools• Effect dramatic, systemic change in the lowest-performing schools• Identify and implement interventions in schools with the greatest
achievement gaps and with subgroups that are furthest behind• Build state, district, and school capacity to improve student learning
in all schools
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
Set new targets
Recognize schools, implement interventions & build capacity
U.S. Department of Education
PRINCIPLE 3: SUPPORTING EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION & LEADERSHIP
• Teacher and principal evaluation and support systems that:– Will be used for continual improvement of instruction– Meaningfully differentiate performance– Use multiple valid measures, including student growth– Evaluate teachers and principals on a regular basis– Provide clear, timely, and useful feedback– Will be used to inform personnel decisions
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
Adopt state guidelines
Implement local systems
Develop local systems
Pilot local systems
U.S. Department of Education
PRINCIPLE 4: REDUCING DUPLICATION AND UNNECESSARY BURDEN• Coordinate ESEA Flexibility
implementation with requirements for other programs– Recent SFSF Notice regarding teacher
and principal evaluation data– EDFacts and CSPR adjustments to
account for ESEA Flexibility changes
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
Clarify reporting requirements
Submit only necessary data, leverage existing collections, improve monitoring
U.S. Department of Education
RIGOROUS & COMPREHENSIVE STATE-DEVELOPED PLANSEncouraging ongoing state and local reform and innovation by supporting state plans to:• Develop coherent and comprehensive systems
that support continuous improvement • Tailor systems to the needs of the state, its
districts, its schools, and its students• Improve educational outcomes, close
achievement gaps, increase equity, and improve the quality of instruction
U.S. Department of Education
PROCESS AND TIMELINE
SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
ESEA Flexibility released
States develop requests with stakeholder input
States submit requests
Peer review
Initial approval
s
States submit requests
Announce approvals
Peer review States revise based on feedback
• New partnership with States to support innovation and reform
• Peer review to help maintain a high bar and ensure accountability
• Provide feedback, technical assistance, and additional opportunities for States to submit requests
States revise based on feedback
U.S. Department of Education
WAIVERS APPROVED FEBRUARY 9TH
U.S. Department of EducationAPPROVED WAIVERS – Promote continuous improvement for all kids• Differentiate among schools to focus on
those most in need of support• Set ambitious progress targets for all
students• Tailor interventions to individual schools• Reward and recognize schools for success• Identify and address schools at the very
bottom• Identify schools with the largest
achievement gaps for specific interventions
U.S. Department of EducationAPPROVED WAIVERS – Transition all students to higher standards
•Massachusetts is aligning its professional standards for teacher licensure to the new college- and career-ready standards.
•New Jersey is developing a model curriculum aligned to the new standards that will include lessons, assessments, professional development.
U.S. Department of EducationAPPROVED WAIVERS – Renewed focus on closing achievement gaps•Tennessee has created both achievement progress targets and gap closure targets to ensure that all groups of students are making progress.
•Minnesota’s new accountability index will make a school’s ability to close achievement gaps worth one-quarter to one-third of a school’s rating.
U.S. Department of Education
APPROVED WAIVERS – Accountability based on student growth and progress
• Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Tennessee are pairing high growth schools with low-performing schools to share best practices.
• Massachusetts will give schools credit for helping students get on-track and for helping on-track students gain advanced skills.
U.S. Department of Education
APPROVED WAIVERS – Increase State and district capacity for school improvementCapacity-building strategies utilizing third party support entities:•New Jersey’s Regional Service Centers•Kentucky’s Office of District 180 •Georgia’s Regional Education Service Agencies•Florida’s Differentiated Accountability Regional Teams
U.S. Department of Education
APPROVED WAIVERS – Increase State and district capacity for school improvement, cont’dProviding new data tools to help principals and teachers: •Colorado’s Web-based SchoolView system is an interactive tool providing student-level reports for parents and school/district/State snapshots of whether all students and all subgroups are making enough growth to meet college- and career-ready standards. •Georgia will publish reports on subgroup performance on multiple measures including the percentage of students that enter 2- and 4-year colleges without the need for remediation.
U.S. Department of Education
APPROVED WAIVERS – Increase State and district capacity for school improvement, cont’dCreating systems of tiered supports for schools and districts that focus the most intensive support on the lowest performers while providing more autonomy for others:•Florida will require increasingly specific district and State support, monitoring, and oversight for schools that receive grades of “C,” “D,” or “F.”
U.S. Department of Education
APPROVED WAIVERS – Holistic views of success allow schools to focus on well-rounded educationConsidering additional factors beyond performance on reading and math assessments: •Kentucky will measure schools by the strength of their arts/humanities, practical living/career studies, writing, K-3 reviews, and world language. •Oklahoma’s school grading system will include achievement in science, social studies, and writing and factors such as school culture, parent and community engagement, student attendance, dropout rates, and rates of taking higher level coursework.
U.S. Department of EducationAPPROVED WAIVERS – Provide teachers and principals support and effective professional developmentImproving evaluation systems to support a new learning culture with meaningful feedback:•In Indiana, evaluations must also directly support teachers by identifying areas of improvement to be targeted via professional development. They also redesigned the State’s funding structure to help support schools in leveraging resources for professional development.
U.S. Department of Education
DATA REPORTING ON FLEXIBILITY
Waive reporting for the NCLB accountability system
Leverage existing collections to demonstrate progress for approved
accountability system
U.S. Department of Education
DATA REPORTING IMPLICATIONS• States granted ESEA Flexibility will be
required to provide the Department certain reports, data and evidence regarding progress in implementing their approved plans.
• ED will take steps to utilize existing data collections and monitoring opportunities to gather as much of this information as possible.
• EDFacts and the CSPR will continue to be the primary collection vehicles.
U.S. Department of Education
POSSIBLE CHANGES TO CSPR• States granted flexibility would need to
use their CSPR answers on the following topics to specifically address the implementation of their approved plans:– Changes to content standards and assessments– Assessment participation (for subgroups and
on alternate assessments)– Cohort graduation rates– List of priority, focus and reward schools, and
reasons for their identification
U.S. Department of Education
PENDING AND POSSIBLE CHANGES TO EDFACTS• Expand permitted values of Data Group
34 (School Improvement Status) to include values for “Priority”, “Focus” and “Reward” (PLANNED FOR 2012-13)
• Enhanced comments/metadata related to data on indication of whether all students and individual subgroups in each school meet their annual measurable objectives (DETAILS PENDING)
U.S. Department of Education
EDFACTS DATA GROUPS POSSIBLY REMOVED FROM ANNUAL REPORTING
– Corrective Actions Table (Data Group 686)– Restructuring Action Table (Data Group 687)– Public School Choice – Applied for transfer (Data
Group 574)– Public School Choice – Eligible (Data Group 700)– Public School Choice – Transferred (Data Group 544)– Public School Choice funds spent (Data Group 652)– Public School Choice/SES 20 percent obligation (Data
Group 679)– SES – Applied to receive services (Data Group 575)– SES – Eligible to receive services (Data Group 578)– SES – Received services (Data Group 546)– SES – Funds Spent (Data Group 651)
U.S. Department of Education
ESEA FLEXIBILITY RESOURCES• ESEA Flexibility Web Site:
http://www.ed.gov/esea/flexibility – ESEA Flexibility– Request– Peer review guidance– FAQs
• Questions, comments, etc.: [email protected]
U.S. Department of Education
DATA ON FREE OR REDUCED PRICE LUNCH ELIGIBILITY
Implications on use of eligibility data as a proxy for socio-economic status
Impact of Healthy, Hunger Free Kids Act of 2010
on program implementation data
U.S. Department of Education
CHANGES IN HOW FRPL ELIGIBILITY CAN BE DETERMINED
Provision 4: Community Eligibility is introduced
The Secretary of Agriculture is directed to identify alternatives to annual eligibility applications
Use of ‘direct certification’ is encouraged
The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (PL 111-296) includes three major areas that affect data:
U.S. Department of Education
ENCOURAGED USE OF DIRECT CERTIFICATIONA student’s eligibility for FRPL is established through one of two sources of income data:•A household application•Establishment of ‘categorical eligibility’ under three conditions:
– A member of the household is receiving assistance under a qualifying program
– The student is enrolled in Head Start or Even Start on the basis of meeting that program’s low-income criteria
– The student is homeless, migrant or a runaway receiving assistance under the Runaway or Homeless Youth Act.
U.S. Department of Education
ENCOURAGED USE OF DIRECT CERTIFICATION• ‘Categorical eligibility’ may be determined
through direct certification when the appropriate agency certifies that he or she meets any of the categorical eligibility criteria.
• ‘Direct verification’ is the form of direct certification that directly uses public records to determine eligibility
• Encouraged use of direct certification could have implications for:– Connections of SLDS to other state systems– Availability of annually updated data on individual
eligibility
U.S. Department of Education
ELIGIBILITY PROVISIONS TO REDUCE PAPERWORK• Provision 1: Schools with at least 80% of students
eligible can certify student every 2 years rather than annually (effective since 1980)
• Provisions 2 and 3: Schools electing to offer free meals to all students do not need to collect and process applications, verification every 4 years (#2 since 1980; #3 since 1995)
• Provision 4: Community Eligibility: At least 40% of students identified as eligible via direct certification, school/LEA may not collect applications from households in participating schools; free lunch and breakfast must be served to all students (NEW)
U.S. Department of EducationGRADUAL INTRODUCTION OF COMMUNITY ELIGIBILITY PROVISION• July 2011: available to 3 states (IL, KY, MI)• July 2012: available to 4 additional states• July 2013: available to 4 additional states• July 2014: available nationwide
U.S. Department of Education
USDA INVESTIGATION INTO INDIVIDUAL APPLICATION OPTIONS
Implementation Plan: Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010
Provisions/Sections of Law
Statutory Deadlines for Actions
Actions and Estimated Timeframes
Eliminating individual applications through community eligibility (Sec. 104 (a))
Evaluation report must be published by December 31, 2013
•Release Request for Proposals for Evaluation (Spring 2011) •Award Evaluation Contract (Fall 2011) •Report enters clearance (Fall 2013)
Adapted from USDA Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 Implementation Actions and Timeframes (http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Governance/Legislation/implementation_actions.pdf) Updated 09/28/2011 (accessed online 2/9/2012)
U.S. Department of Education
SEVERAL KEY QUESTIONS FOR STATE AND LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCIES• Is your state using FRPL eligibility for
accountability? • What risks need to be addressed if districts or
schools choose community eligibility?• Can your agency continue to collect individual
information used to directly certify students if NLSP no longer requires individual data?
• How do you currently deal with the variety in certification methods? What if variations increase in coming years?
U.S. Department of Education
SEVERAL KEY QUESTIONS FOR ED• Could estimates based upon the American
Community Survey satisfy ESEA needs?• How will changes in eligibility procedures affect
use of eligibility data as a proxy for socio-economic status?
• Is student-level FRPL eligibility data necessary for current and future ED uses of FRPL eligibility counts submitted to EDFacts?
• How will ED program offices deal with differences within states about how school and LEA eligibility is determined?
U.S. Department of Education
HHFKA 2010 and NSLP RESOURCES• Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010:
http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Governance/Legislation/CNR_resources.htm – Resources and Guidance– Implementation Updates
• National School Lunch Programhttp://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/lunch/ – Program Fact Sheet– Program History– Reauthorization Resources
• EDFacts White Paper (to be posted to ED’s website)