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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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.


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


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.


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.”


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.


DATA REPORTING ON FLEXIBILITY

Waive reporting for the NCLB accountability system

Leverage existing collections to demonstrate progress for approved

accountability system


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.


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


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)


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)


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]

http://www.ed.gov/esea/flexibility

mailto:[email protected]


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


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:


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.


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


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


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)

http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Governance/Legislation/implementation_actions.pdf


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?


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?


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)

http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Governance/Legislation/CNR_resources.htm

http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/lunch/

u.s. department of education – policy updates

Documents

careerready standards

school improvement

local leaders

studentsprovide flexibility

differentiated recognition

school capacity

aligned assessments

close achievement gaps