NGA Office of Federal Relations Page 1 Last Updated: July 6, 2015

NGA Policy Positions

& NGA-NCSL Plan to Reauthorize ESEA

U.S. Senate Every Child Achieves Act

S.1177

U.S. House Student Success Act

H.R. 5 TITLE I State academic standards are

a state-led decision and process. The federal government should recognize and support state authority over education. To this end, the federal government should provide technical assistance in the oversight, development, implementation, and ongoing utilization of state academic standards and refrain from directing, mandating, or interfering directly or indirectly in this process. Federal funding requirements should not be linked to a particular set of standards, such as the Common Core State Standards, but should be available to all states, as long as states can show they have rigorous standards deemed college and career ready.

Reflecting current law, state education agency would be required to:

o (1) ensure that the state has academic content and achievement standards in mathematics, reading, science and other subjects the state deems necessary; and

o (2) provide assurance that the academic content and achievement standards are challenging

State academic standards would need to be aligned with higher education entrance requirements (without remediation) and state performance measures agreed to under the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act.

Increases the number of levels of academic achievement that must be used by the state from two to three.

Reflecting current law, states would be permitted to adopt alternate academic content and achievement standards for students with the most severe cognitive disabilities.

Every state education agency would be required to provide assurance that English language proficiency standards are aligned with academic content standards.

No state education agency would be required to submit academic achievement or content standards to the U.S. Secretary of Education for approval.

The Secretary would be prohibited from altering or requiring states to adopt additional academic content or achievement standards, using specific assessment instruments, or prescribing specific state standards.

States would be required to adopt academic content and academic achievement standards in reading or language arts, science and math. The standards must:

o Apply to all public school students in the state; and

o For academic achievement standards, include the same knowledge, skills and levels of achievement expected of all public school students in the state.

o No requirement that the standards be college and career ready.

State would be required to have science academic standards and assessments in place.

States would be permitted to adopt alternate achievement standards for students with the most severe cognitive disabilities on a case by case basis.

Each state would be required to adopt English language proficiency standards aligned to the states reading or language arts content standards does not provide a deadline for implementation.

The U.S. Secretary of Education would be specifically prohibited from interfering with a states standards.

Stan

dar

ds

NGA Office of Federal Relations Page 2 Last Updated: July 6, 2015

Federal policy should support the on-going and promising work of states to come together to streamline, align, and improve assessments aligned to rigorous state standards.

State education agencies would be required to continue administering assessments in mathematics and reading annually in grades 3-8 and at least once during high school.

State education agencies would be required to continue administering science assessments at least once in grades 3-5, grades 6-8 and 9-12, respectively.

States would be permitted to request flexibility for local school districts to pilot innovative assessments, including competency- and portfolio-based assessments.

State education agencies would be required to provide assurance that they have implemented high-quality, academic assessments for math, English language arts and science and ensure that they are aligned with academic content and achievement standards states have adopted.

State education agencies would limit alternative assessments for students with disabilities to one percent of the overall student population, codifying a long-standing federal regulation.

Requires that English proficiency be assessed by state education agencies annually.

State education agencies would be required to ensure that assessment results continue to be disaggregated by major subgroups.

Competitive grants would be provided to state education agencies to:

o improve the quality, validity or reliability of state assessments;

o develop or improve assessments for students with disabilities;

o measure student growth over time; o evaluate student achievement through new

assessments, such as competency-based models, computer adaptive test, or portfolios; and

o audit state assessments.

States, in consultation with local education agencies, would be required to demonstrate that they have implemented assessments in math and reading or language arts.

o Math, science and reading or language arts assessments must be given each year from grades 3-8 and at least once in grades 9-12. States may use one summative assessment or multiple assessments given throughout the course of the school year.

The bill would require that assessments allow states to measure individual student growth.

States will also be permitted to develop assessments in other subjects at their discretion.

States would be required to continue to disaggregate assessment results by subgroup.

States would be required to provide assessments, to the extent practicable, in languages most suitable to English learners.

The bill would allow students with cognitive disabilities to receive alternate assessments.

States would be required to annually assess the English language proficiency of all English language learners ensuring 95% participation rate.

States would be permitted to develop computer adaptive assessments.

Ass

ess

me

nts

NGA Office of Federal Relations Page 3 Last Updated: July 6, 2015

Governors believe in a transparent, rigorous, and strong state-led and state-determined accountability system in education that annually tests students and disaggregates individual student performance. The current federal accountability system is broken, and a new state-led system is needed to support, reward, and incentivize high expectations. States, working with the federal government, should be allowed to develop a workable transition and timeline to migrate from the current accountability framework to a new system.

States would set their own annual achievement goals for the overall population and each subgroup of students.

The states plan must include a single, statewide accountability system based on challenging academic content and achievement standards to ensure students are prepared for college or the workforce.

State education agencies would ensure that their standards measure, at a minimum: academic achievement that takes into account graduation rates, one measure of college readiness OR one measure of workforce readiness, achievement gaps and overall performance of subgroups.

States may include any additional measures as part of the states accountability system.

Graduation rates would be calculated using a four-year adjusted cohort basis.

States would meaningfully differentiate schools based on state-determined measures.

The U.S. Secretary of Education would be prohibited from establishing or prescribing any specific assessments, standards or teacher evaluation systems for any state as condition of state plan approval.

State education agencies would determine the statewide accountability system to be implemented by their state and local education agencies.

The current adequate yearly progress system would be eliminated and replaced with a new accountability plan.

States would be required to adopt a single, statewide accountability system that ensures all students graduate from high school prepared for college or career. The accountability system shall, at a minimum:

o Annually measure the academic achievement of all public students in the state against the states academic standards. States may use measurements of student growth on statewide assessments or other state determined indicators of student performance.

o Annually evaluate the academic performance of each public school students in the state including the performance of each subgroup of students.

o Include a state-developed school improvement system for low-performing Title I schools.

States would be given two-year timeline to implement accountability requirements after enactment.

Under this new accountability plan, the U.S. Secretary of Education would be prohibited from interfering with the development or adoption of a states accountability system.

The federal government should economize, downsize, eliminate duplication, consolidate programs, cut federal red tape, minimize reporting requirements, and avoid the imposition of federal unfunded mandates in education.

State Plan

In order to receive an ESEA grant, the state education agency would submit the state plan without required collaboration with other state or local official, agencies or entities.

The U.S. Secretary of Education would be required to establish peer review teams with state representation and approve the plan within 90 days of submittal.

State Plan States would be required to submit a plan in

collaboration with a wide range of stakeholders including local education agencies, teachers, specialized school personnel and parents that demonstrates the states compliance with the bills standards, assessment, and accountability provisions.

The plan would need to demonstrate how it coordinates with other programs including

Stat

e P

lan

A

cco

un

tab

ility

NGA Office of Federal Relations Page 4 Last Updated: July 6, 2015

The federal governments new role should focus on sharing research, information, and data on state and local best practices, and bringing states and schools together to promote innovations to better serve students. Across the country, states, districts, and schools have been forced to economize, prioritize, consolidate, and reinvent government. The federal government can benefit from these state and local lessons and also move to restore fiscal discipline to promote the long-term sustainability and success of the nations education system.

The state plan would cover a 7 year period with state education agencies given flexibility to resubmit state plans.

The plans would be reviewed to ensure that they promote implementation of challenging academic standards through state- and local-led innovation.

If the Secretary determines that the plan does not meet the requirements of Title I, states would be permitted to revise and resubmit the plan within 45 days. The Secretary must provide technical assistance for re-submittal of the plan.

The Secretary would be prohibited from requiring as a condition of state plan approval the following: specific state standards, assessments, state accountability systems, systems that measure student growth, measures of other academic indicators, teacher/school leader evaluation systems or indicators of teacher/school leader effectiveness.

States would be permitted to continue operating under plans approved under ESEA Flexibility Waivers.

State Report Card

A state education agency that accepts Title I assistance would be required to prepare and disseminate an annual state report card.

The report card would need to include: o aggregate student achievement on state

academic assessments; o percentage of students tested in each

student subcategory; o graduation rates; o professional qualifications of teachers; o school and district performance

information; o school climate and quality; o per-pupil expenditures; o the evaluation results of teachers and

school leaders if the state has implemented

Individuals with Disabilities Act, Perkins, Head Start, Adult Education, and McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act.

The plan would need to include a timeline to implement the state academic standards, assessments, and accountability system within two years.

States would be required to participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) only if the cost is fully paid for by the U.S. Secretary of Education.

The plan would also require states to provide a number of assurances including that states will provide the least restrictive and burdensome regulations for local education agencies receiving Title I funds.

The bill would require state education agencies to develop a parental involvement plan.

The U.S. Secretary of Education is required to ensure the plans go through a peer review process. The Secretary would maintain final authority to approve or deny a state plan.

Local education agencies would also be required to develop a plan and submit it to the state for approval.

State Report Card

States would be required to annually publish a publically disseminated report card for all schools, school districts and the state.

The report card would include information on the performance of students and schools, high school graduation rates, results from teacher evaluations, and other academic indicators.

Protection from Federal Influence:

The Secretary of Education shall not influence, incentivize, or coerce State adoption of the Common Core State Standards developed under

Stat

e P

lan

(co

nt.

)

NGA Office of Federal Relations Page 5 Last Updated: July 6, 2015

a teacher and school leaders evaluation system;

o English language proficiency; o number and percentage of students

enrolled in talented and gifted programs, Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate, career and technical education and National Assessment of Educational Progress scores.

o information on the number and academic achievement of military-connected children; and

o any other information the state deems necessary.

State and local education agencies are prohibited from including information that could reveal personally identifiable information of students or educators.

Local education agencies would be required to provide parents information on the qualifications of their childs teacher upon request.

the Common Core State Standards Initiative, any other academic standards common to a significant number of States, or assessments tied to such standards; or participation in any such partnerships.

School turnaround strategies must be state-led, transparent, nimble, and evolve with best practices and research. The federal government should grant states and territories greater flexibility in the use of federal funds. Current federal policy prescribes limited options for states and schools to improve student academic performance. The knowledge of today will not solve all the problems of tomorrow.

State education agencies may reserve four percent of their Title I funds for state-led school improvement activities.

Local school districts would develop strategies for improving low-performing schools in consultation with school personnel, parents and the local community.

State education agencies would perform an annual needs assessment of every public school in the state based on indicators in the States accountability system and other indicators as-determined by the state.

The state educational agency must provide notice to local education agencies, teachers, parents and school leaders on low-performing schools and make technical assistance available.

The state education agency shall take state-determined action if a local education agency fails to adequately

The bill would strike Sections 1116 and 1117 of NCLB, which require states to adopt certain corrective actions in schools identified for improvement under the law. States would have authority to design school intervention strategies, as required as part of their accountability plans.

The bill would increase the state set-aside for school improvement from 2% to 7%.

The bill would require states to set-aside 3% of Title I money to provide competitive grants to school districts that wish to offer tutoring or public school choice to their students, including those in poor performing schools.

Sch

oo

l Im

pro

vem

en

t

NGA Office of Federal Relations Page 6 Last Updated: July 6, 2015

The federal government should refrain from directing, limiting, or requiring specific academic and human resource strategies in all schools, districts, or states.

address a low-performing school or school in their jurisdiction.

Local education agencies and schools must indicate in their report cards to parents if a school is failing.

State education agencies must ensure that all public schools that receive federal funds for school improvement activities implement evidence-based state- or local-designed implementation strategies and prioritize support in the identified schools most in need of intervention based on the states accountability system.

The state education agency would be able to establish alternative state-determined strategies to improve low-performing schools.

States and schools must be given increased funding flexibility to create efficiencies and achieve results. Any decreases in federal funding should be accompanied by an increase in state authority to manage programs, streamline federal sources of funding, and find savings. More importantly, states and schools should be allowed to consolidate federal funding streams to maximize taxpayers investment and fully utilize the limited funds that are available to states and schools.

The act would maintain the ESEA maintenance of effort provision at 90 percent of the fiscal effort from the previous year, but includes two new flexibilities:

o A one year grace period for states and districts to restore K-12 education funding if the federal government determines that their financial support fell below the federally-mandated level.

o If states or districts institute policies to make state or district school systems more efficient, they will not be penalized.

The bill does not alter the Comparability of Services provision.

The supplement, not supplant provision will include additional flexibility to prohibit the federal government from requiring states and localities to:

o justify individual costs or services are supplemental; and

o provide services through a particular instruction method.

The bill would eliminate the federal Maintenance of Effort requirements.

The bill does not alter the Comparability of Services provision in current law.

Source: Page 393

Fun

din

g

NGA Office of Federal Relations Page 7 Last Updated: July 6, 2015

State education agencies would be able to request a waiver for any statutory or regulatory requirement receiving authority from ESEA at any time after passage of the Act.

Local education agencies would be permitted to request a waiver from ESEA statutory and regulatory requirements only after approval for the waiver request is granted by the state education agency.

The U.S. Secretary of Education would be required to approve the waiver request within 60 days after the state submits it.

State education agencies would be given an opportunity to revise and re-submit the waiver request within 60 days after the Secretary notifies that state that their waiver has not been approved.

State education agencies would be granted the right to request a hearing if their waiver request is denied after re-submission of the request.

The Secretary would be prohibited from disapproving a waiver request for conditions outside of the scope of the waiver request.

The U.S. Secretary of Education would not, as a condition of approving a waiver, be able to require inclusion of provisions related to standards (names Common Core), assessment, accountability systems or teacher/principal evaluations.

The bill would require states to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on state and district waiver requests.

Ensure the common state-led NGA high school graduation rate is authentic and consistent with state best practices.

The high school graduation rate must include both of the following

Adjusted Cohort the entering cohort plus students transferring in minus students removed from cohort

Entering Cohort Number of first time students enrolled in 9th grade 1 month after the start of the school year

Cohort Removal to remove a student from a cohort, a school must provide documentation that they have transferred out, emigrated to another country, or is deceased.

Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate the percentage of students in the original cohort adjusted for transfers in and out who entered high school together that graduated before or at the conclusion of the exit year of high school or a summer school session immediately following the exit year.

Extra-Year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate Same as above definition except that students who graduated after an extra year of high school - or a summer session immediately following the extra year are counted in the rate.

Gra

du

atio

n R

ate

W

aive

rs

Rat

e

NGA Office of Federal Relations Page 8 Last Updated: July 6, 2015

TITLE II Support and incentivize state

led strategies and innovations to prepare, recruit, retain, reward, and evaluate high quality teachers and school leaders. The federal government can accelerate state work to improve teaching through pay for contribution, improvements in professional development, and numerous other sound human capital practices to build a high quality education workforce.

The Highly Qualified Teacher provision created by No Child Left Behind is repealed.

The federal government may not require statewide or local teacher evaluations as a condition for receiving federal funds.

State and territorial education agencies would be permitted to use Title II funds for the development and implementation of statewide teacher and principal evaluation systems, although these evaluations are not required for a state to qualify for Title II funding.

State education agencies would also be permitted to use funding to identify high-performing teachers, train teachers to work in high-need academic subject areas and to increase teacher professional development.

The act would establish a teacher incentive fund for states to implement performance-based compensation systems for teachers and principals.

The formula for distribution of Title II funds to states would change from 65% poverty and 35% population to 80% poverty and 20% population.

If this formula were to become law, the transition to the new formula would take place over seven years with a 14.29% reduction each year for states losing money under this new provision.

State education agencies would be permitted to use funding to create teacher and principal preparation academies.

State and local education agencies would be permitted to use funding to increase the number and quality of Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) instructors, including the creations of a STEM Master Teacher Corps.

The Highly Qualified Teacher provision created by No Child Left Behind is repealed.

Provides formula funds to states for providing grants to LEAs to develop teacher evaluation systems. o State Activities states must reserve 95% of grant

funds for distribution to LEAs. States must use the remaining funds to implement a state-wide teacher evaluation system OR to provide technical assistance to LEAs to implement a local evaluation system if the state chooses to not implement a state-wide system. The state may also use funds to disseminate best practices and provide professional development.

o Local Activities LEAs must submit an application to the state to receive their share of the grant funding. If located in a state that has not implemented a teacher evaluation system, the LEA must use the funding to develop a teacher evaluation system.

o Deadline Teacher evaluation systems prescribed under the act must be adopted within 3 years.

Provides formula funds to states for providing competitive grants to LEAs, or other entities in partnership with LEAs, for teacher quality programs. This program consolidates other teacher quality programs in current law.

The bill provides an optional state set-aside of up to 3% so states can award grants to eligible entities for the establishment or expansion of teacher or school leader preparation academies.

Teac

he

rs a

nd

Sch

oo

l Le

ade

rs

NGA Office of Federal Relations Page 9 Last Updated: July 6, 2015

OTHER TITLES Special Programs A new competitive grant program, Early Learning

Alignment and Improvement Grants, would provide funding for states to improve coordination, quality and access for early childhood.

Governors would be the main grantee who designate a lead agency to coordinate the funding.

States would apply for a three-year grant and provide matching funds to support sustainable improvements and better coordination of their early learning and care systems.

States would match the grant funds (30 percent in the first year, and not less than 30 percent in the second and third years, and the funds could come from federal and non-federal sources, cash or in-kind).

State education agencies are permitted to spend Title I funding on early childhood education programs.

State education agencies may utilize Title II funding (funding to prepare, train, and recruit high-quality educators) for training early childhood educators.

In Title I, academic standards would be aligned with relevant state early learning guidelines.

The comprehensive literacy state development grant program (in Title II) includes subgrants to support high-quality early literacy programs, and there is language in the English language learner programs and family engagement programs focusing on early learners.

No similar provision.

Although Title IV is a flexible title for states and localities, no similar program exists in the Senate bill.

Does not statutorily authorize Race to the Top, but offers an alternative program.

Local Academic Flexible Grant Provides $2.7 billion in formula grants to states to pursue state-designated education priorities and to make competitive subgrants to local and nongovernmental entities. o State Activities States must reserve 85% of funds

for competitive subgrants to local and nongovernmental entities. States could use the F

lex

Gra

nt

Earl

y C

hild

ho

od

Ed

uca

tio

n

NGA Office of Federal Relations Page 10 Last Updated: July 6, 2015

remaining funds for virtually any activity promoting academic achievement authorized under state law, including development and administration of state assessments.

o Local Activities 75% of funding is reserved for LEAs, in partnership with other LEAs or other entities, to apply for grants. Funding must be used to support students through programs including, but not limited to, before, after or summer school activities, tutoring and expanded learning time and academic subject specific programs. Funds could not be used for class size reduction, construction or compensation.

o Nongovernmental Activities 10% of funding is reserved for grants to nongovernmental activities that establish programs supporting academic achievement of elementary or secondary school students. A 50% non-federal match is required.

States and schools must be given increased funding flexibility to create efficiencies and achieve results. The federal government should economize, downsize, eliminate duplication, consolidate programs, cut federal red tape, minimize reporting requirements, and avoid the imposition of federal unfunded mandates in education.

States and LEAs may transfer all of their funds allotted as part of a formula grant for State or LEA level activities to any state or LEA level activities authorized in the Act except that no funds may be transferred out of Title I (College and Career Readiness) and Title III (English Language Learners / Immigrant Students).

The bill would consolidate or eliminate 70 existing elementary and secondary education programs.

States would be permitted to consolidate any funds they receive for state administration under the bill.

In addition to administration, states would be able to consolidate funds for dissemination of best practices, technical assistance, personnel training, and other state-level activities designed to implement the Act.

The state would not be required to keep separate records for each programs administrative funds that were consolidated.

States could also consolidate the funding they receive to develop standards and assessments.

Fun

din

g Fl

exi

bili

ty