1

Every Child Achieves Act of 2015 introduced by

Sen. Lamar Alexander, Chairman of the Senate HELP Committee

Sen. Patty Murray, Ranking Member of the Senate HELP Committee

Bill Summary

Updated to include adopted Committee amendments On April 7, 2015, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Chairman and Ranking

Member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, introduced a bipartisan bill to

reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) entitled the Every Child Achieves Act of 2015. Beginning April 14, HELP held a three day markup of the bill. New key provisions added at the Committee markup are italicized. The text of the post- Committee markup legislation may be accessed here.

Recommendations included in the bill from the NGA-NCSL Plan to Reauthorize ESEA and NGA policy are

highlighted in green.

The following provides an analysis of major provisions of interest to governors:

Education Governance Throughout the Law o Governors are added to a list of 15 representative groups that must be informed when the state plan is

submitted, but still provides no recognized role for governors in the implementation and ongoing

administration of the law.

School Improvement Pages 16, 140-60 o State education agencies may reserve four percent of their Title I funds for state-led school

improvement activities.

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

o 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.

o 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.

o The state education agency shall take state-determined action if a local education agency fails to adequately address a low-performing school or school in their jurisdiction.

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

o 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.

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

o Local education agencies may provide students enrolled in a low-performing school the option to transfer to another public school under the agencys jurisdiction.

o States may only reserve five percent of reserved school improvement funds for state administration and statewide activities, with 95 percent reserved for grants to local education agencies.

2

State Plans for Title I Funding Pages 19-30 o 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.

o 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.

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

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

o 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.

o 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.

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

Early Childhood Education Throughout the Bill o A new competitive grant program, the 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).

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

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

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

Academic Standards Pages 30-36 o Reflecting current law, state education agency would be required to (1) ensure that the state has

academic content and achievement standards in mathematics, reading, science and other subjects the

state deems necessary and (2) provide assurance that the academic content and achievement standards

are challenging

o 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.

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

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

3

o Reflecting current law, every state education agency would be required to provide assurance that English language proficiency standards are aligned with academic content standards.

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

o 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.

Assessments Pages 36-51 o 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.

o 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.

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

o 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.

o 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.

o Requires that English proficiency be assessed by state education agencies annually. o State education agencies would be required to ensure that assessment results continue to be

disaggregated by major subgroups.

o Competitive grants would be provided to state education agencies to: improve the quality, validity or reliability of state assessments; develop or improve assessments for students with disabilities; measure student growth over time; evaluate student achievement through new assessments, such as competency-based

models, computer adaptive test, or portfolios; and

audit state assessments.

Accountability Pages 51-69 o States would set their own annual achievement goals for the overall population and each subgroup of

students.

o 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.

o 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.

o States may include any additional measures as part of the states accountability system. o Graduation rates would be calculated using a four-year adjusted cohort basis. o States would meaningfully differentiate schools based on state-determined measures. o 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.

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

Teachers and Principals Pages 247-359 o The Highly Qualified Teacher provision created by No Child Left Behind is repealed. o The federal government may not require statewide or local teacher evaluations as a condition for

receiving federal funds.

4

o 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.

o 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.

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

o 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.

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

o 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.

Title III English Language Learners Pages 166-168 o New opportunities are provided in this chapter for states to emphasize a focus on helping English

language learners develop English language proficiency and academic standards.

o States would be permitted to use funding to establish entrance and exit procedures for English language learner programs, and includes requirements on reporting information on the number and

percentage of English language learners with disabilities and long-term English learners.

Maintenance of Effort Pages 166-168 o 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:

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.

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

State Innovation and Flexibility Pages 729-737 o 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.

o 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.

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

o 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.

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

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

o State and local education agencies would be provided with flexibility to transfer 100% of funds between all Titles, except for Title I.

Portability Throughout the Bill

5

o Private school and public school portability provisions are not included in the bill.

Report Cards Pages 70-95 o A state education agency that accepts Title I assistance would be required to prepare and disseminate

an annual state report card.

o The report card would need to include: aggregate student achievement on state academic assessments; percentage of students tested in each student subcategory; graduation rates; professional qualifications of teachers; school and district performance information; school climate and quality; per-pupil expenditures; the evaluation results of teachers and school leaders if the state has implemented a teacher and

school leaders evaluation system;

English language proficiency; 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.

Information on the number and academic achievement of military-connected children. any other information the state deems necessary

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

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

Supplement, Not Supplant Pages 173-174 o The supplement, not supplant provision will include additional flexibility to prohibit the federal

government from requiring states and localities to:

justify individual costs or services are supplemental; and provide services through a particular instruction method.

Other Authorizations Throughout Bill o The act would reauthorize and update the Charter School State Grant program to reflect bipartisan

legislation introduced in the 113th Congress.

o 21st Century Learning Communities is reauthorized as an allowable use of Title IV funding, but not as a program with dedicated funding.

o The act would extend the reauthorization of the Impact Aid Program. o The act would reauthorize the Magnet School Assistance, Rural and Low-Income Schools, and Rural

Education Achievement Programs.

o The act would reauthorize and provide new flexibility for the Indian, Native Hawaiian and Alaskan Education Programs.

o The act would reauthorize the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act.

****

Please contact Stephen Parker at 202.624.5369; sparker@nga.org or David Quam at 202.624.5309 for

more information.