1 / 37

U.S. Department of Education – Policy Updates

U.S. Department of Education – Policy Updates. February 13, 2012 Lily Clark & Ross Santy Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development. TODAY’S TOPICS. ESEA Flexibility. National School Lunch Program. ESEA Flexibility Core policies. Set a high bar for students and schools.

donnel
Download Presentation

U.S. Department of Education – Policy Updates

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. U.S. Department of Education – Policy Updates February 13, 2012 Lily Clark & Ross Santy Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development

  2. TODAY’S TOPICS ESEA Flexibility National School Lunch Program

  3. ESEA Flexibility Core policies 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 Protect all students Provide flexibility to move forward with reform

  4. 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

  5. PRINCIPLES FOR IMPROVING ACHIEVEMENT AND INSTRUCTION College- and career-ready expectations for all students 1. State-developed differentiated recognition, accountability, and support 2. Supporting effective instruction and leadership 3. Reducing duplication and unnecessary burden 4.

  6. 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 Adopt CCR standards Implement CCR standards and pilot assessments Administer assessments 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

  7. Principle 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 Set new targets Recognize schools, implement interventions & build capacity 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

  8. 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 Adopt state guidelines Develop local systems Pilot local systems Implement local systems 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

  9. 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 Clarify reporting requirements Submit only necessary data, leverage existing collections, improve monitoring 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

  10. Rigorous & comprehensive state-developed plans • 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 Encouraging ongoing state and local reform and innovation by supporting state plans to:

  11. Process and timeline • 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 ESEA Flexibility released States submit requests Initial approvals States submit requests Announce approvals SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN States develop requests with stakeholder input Peer review States revise based on feedback Peer review States revise based on feedback

  12. waivers approved February 9th • Colorado • Florida • Georgia • Indiana • Kentucky • Massachusetts • Minnesota • New Jersey • Oklahoma • Tennessee

  13. APPROVED 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

  14. APPROVED 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.

  15. APPROVED 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.

  16. 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.

  17. APPROVED WAIVERS – Increase State and district capacity for school improvement Capacity-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

  18. APPROVED WAIVERS – Increase State and district capacity for school improvement, cont’d Providing 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.

  19. APPROVED WAIVERS – Increase State and district capacity for school improvement, cont’d Creating 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.”

  20. APPROVED WAIVERS – Holistic views of success allow schools to focus on well-rounded education Considering 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.

  21. APPROVED WAIVERS – Provide teachers and principals support and effective professional development Improving 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.

  22. Data reporting on flexibility Leverage existing collections to demonstrate progress for approved accountability system Waive reporting for the NCLB accountability system

  23. 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.

  24. 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

  25. 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)

  26. 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)

  27. ESEA FLEXIBILITY RESOURCES ESEA Flexibility Web Site: http://www.ed.gov/esea/flexibility ESEA Flexibility Request Peer review guidance FAQs Questions, comments, etc.: ESEAflexibility@ed.gov

  28. Data on Free or Reduced Price Lunch Eligibility Impact of Healthy, Hunger Free Kids Act of 2010 on program implementation data Implications on use of eligibility data as a proxy for socio-economic status

  29. Changes in how FRPL Eligibility can be determined The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (PL 111-296) includes three major areas that affect data: Use of ‘direct certification’ is encouraged Provision 4: Community Eligibility is introduced The Secretary of Agriculture is directed to identify alternatives to annual eligibility applications

  30. Encouraged use of direct certification A 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.

  31. 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

  32. 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)

  33. Gradual 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

  34. USDA investigation into individual application options Implementation Plan: Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 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)

  35. 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?

  36. 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?

  37. 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 Program http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/lunch/ Program Fact Sheet Program History Reauthorization Resources EDFacts White Paper (to be posted to ED’s website)

More Related