Every Student Succeeds Act ESSA Roy Stehle Office

Every Student Succeeds Act ESSA Roy Stehle Office of Federal and State Accountability 803 -734 -8118 rstehle@ed. sc. gov

Every Student Succeeds Act • The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was signed into law in December 2015 as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). • ESEA was first passed in 1965 as part of Lyndon Johnson’s “War on Poverty” program. • The purpose is to ensure that all students have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging state academic achievement standards and assessment. • There is special emphasis on at risk subgroups of students.

Every Student Succeeds Act • South Carolina receives around $270, 000 in ESEA funds. • 2016 -17 will be a transition year for the major programs for ESSA. • To implement ESSA, South Carolina will submit a Consolidated State Plan to the US Department of Education (USED). • The ESSA Consolidated State Plan will support the Profile of the South Carolina Graduate.

ESSA Overview • There are state activities, national activities, formula and competitive funding, and requirements and assurances for the various ESSA programs. • Title I programs Parts A-D receive the largest share of the ESEA funding. • Title I includes requirements for college and career ready standards and assessments. • Title I also incudes requirements for a single state accountability system and requirements for school improvement.

ESSA Overview • Title I programs include Part A, Basic programs; Part B, State assessment; Part C, Migrant programs; and Part D, Neglected and Delinquent programs. • Local Education Agencies (LEA’s) and schools receive the majority of the ESEA funding. • Title II Part A – Preparing, Recruiting, and Training Teachers, Principals, and Other School Leaders • Title III – Part A - English Language Acquisition • The English Learner (EL, ELL, ESOL) program is a core instructional program supplemented by Title I and Title III.

ESSA Overview • Title IV – 21 st Century Schools Part A – Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants (new) Part B - 21 st Century Community Learning Centers Part C – Charter Schools Part D – Magnet Schools Part E – Family Engagement

ESSA Overview • Title V – Flexibility and Accountability Part A – Transferability Part B – Rural Education: Rural Low Income School Program • Title VI – Indian, Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native Education Part A – Indian Education • Title VII – Impact Aid

ESSA Overview • Title VIII – General Provisions Part A – Definitions Part B - Flexibility in the Use of Funds Part C – Coordination Part D – Waivers Part F – Uniform Provisions Private School, MOE, Civil Rights, Sense of Congress, Etc. • Title IX – Homeless and Other Laws Homeless Preschool

ESSA Overview • English Learner accountability is now in Title I instead of Title III. • Increased emphasis is placed on at-risk subgroups including homeless, foster care, and migrant children. • Emphasis is placed on at-risk students not being taught by inexperienced, out of field, and ineffective (IOI ) teachers. • The Highly Qualified (HQ) requirement for teachers has ended. • Instructional paraprofessional qualifications are still required for working in Title I funded schools.

ESSA Overview • States have greater flexibility under ESSA than under No Child Left Behind. • The test for supplement, not supplant will change. • Increased emphasis is placed on professional development for teachers and school leaders. • Most ESEA Flexibility Waiver provisions expire August 1, 2016.

ESSA Consolidated State Plan Components • Cross cutting components include Consultation and Coordination Challenging Academic Standards and Academic Assessments Accountability, Support, and Improvement for Schools Supporting Excellent Educators Supporting All Students • Specific information formula grant programs include Title I, III, IV, V, and Homeless.

ESSA Consolidated State Plan Tentative Timeline • June – Development of State Management Team, Steering Committee, and workgroups. • Six workgroups include the following: Consultation and Coordination; Challenging Academic Standards and Academic Assessment Accountability, Support, and Improvement for Schools; Supporting Excellent Educators, Supporting All Students; and Specific ESSA Program Plans (Title I for example). • June through July - Steering Committee and workgroups will determine assignments as they relate to the development of a draft framework. • July through August - Completion of workgroup assignments and review by Steering Committee.

ESSA Consolidated State Plan Tentative Timeline • August - Development of the SC draft framework. • August through September - Senior staff reviews, provides feedback, suggests adjustments/approves draft framework. • September through November - SCDE revises framework based on stakeholder input including the State Board of Education, EOC, and Legislature. • Thirty day review period – Governor’s Office. • December – Complete draft framework and convert to USED templates.

For More Information & To Submit Comments • The South Carolina Department of Education is engaging stakeholders in the development of components of the consolidated plan. • Stakeholder engagement will occur throughout the development of the plan (through November 2016). • The Department’s intent is to have the consolidated state plan framework completed by December 2016. • The Department intends to submit to the USED by March 2017 (or earlier). • Please go to the SCDE’s website under Hot Topics and follow the ESSA link. There are ESSA resources and an e-mail address to submit comments. Please submit your comments at http: //ed. sc. gov/newsroom/every-studentsucceeds-act-essa/.

Supplement, Not Supplant According to federal guidance: LEAs may use Title I funds only to supplement or increase the level of funds that would, in the absence of Title I funds, be made available from non-federal sources for the education of students participating in Title I programs.

Supplement, Not Supplant ~In plain language - Please~ • Another way to look at supplement, not supplant is to ask the question - what would districts and schools be required to offer in the absence of any federal funding? For example – the state required Defined Minimum Program for elementary, middle, and high schools. • Title I funds (and most federal funds) should be used in addition to state and/or local funding and not in the place of state or local funding. • Title I funds should not be used to meet other federal requirements (Title III, IDEA, etc. )

How to Determine if Activities are Supplemental • Testing for Presumptions of Supplanting: – Is it required by the state, district, or federal statute or regulation? – Are the same services provided for in non. Title I schools or students with (nonsupplemental) state/local funds? – Were these activities paid for in prior years with state/local funds?

Other Questions to Consider • Are the Title I schools receiving similar services provided for by state/local funding as non-Title schools? • Are Title I schools receiving their “fair share”? • Are the Title I schools being treated comparably (similar positions, technology, etc. )?

Supplanting Defense/Rebuttals • Similar Title I – like activity is funded in a non. Title school with supplemental funding, such as: – State At-Risk Funding – Discretionary Grant – Possibly, other funds that all schools are not eligible – This is generally known as the “exclusion” rule to supplement, not supplant. – An example might be an afterschool program funded with Title I funds at Title I schools and funded with state At Risk funding at non Title I schools.

Supplanting Defense/Rebuttals • Activities funded in prior year with state/local funds – However, the state/local funds used to pay for activities were reduced/eliminated and during budget prioritization the activities are to be eliminated • Document in Board agendas, minutes, etc. • Document via directives from the state (funding levels, allocations, etc. ) • Budget reports/meetings

Supplanting Defense/Rebuttals • Activities required by local, state, or federal statute • This presumption of supplanting is almost always not rebuttable. It is presumed that in the absence of federal funding, the district/school would be required to do the activity anyway. • Basic ESOL programs would be a good example of a program that districts would have to provide in the absence of any federal funding.

Supplemental Title I Activities • Common supplemental uses of Title I funds: – Decreasing class size (below state requirements) – Providing extra supplies/materials – Providing additional professional development – Extending learning time (before/after school or summer school) – Funding extra support services - nurses, guidance counselors, etc. – The greatest flexibility for use of Title I funds is in the schoolwide project. Always call your Title I Program Contact to get an opinion on supplement, not supplant issues.

Proposed SNS Regulation – Districts will develop a methodology for demonstrating that Title I funded schools receive their fair share of state and local dollars. – Compliance by December 2017 or plans to transition to the new SNS by 2019 -20. – There are four proposed methodologies discussed in the proposed regulation. 1 - A weighted funding formula that provides additional resources for students with disadvantages such as EL’s and Special Needs students. 2 - A formula that allocates resources, including staff and non -personnel resources directly to schools.

Proposed SNS Regulation 3 - An alternative funds-based test developed by the state and approved by a peer review panel that is as rigorous as the first two options. 4 - A methodology selected by the district that ensures per-pupil funding in each Title I school is at least as much as the average per -pupil funding in non-Title I schools. – SC may be able to develop an allocation method based on MOE, Comparability, weighted per-pupil funding, a staffing formula, meeting the defined minimum program as required in state regulations, and defining what funds we would use for the allocation method. – The difficulty will be if the SCDE/LEA has to compare state and local expenditures as opposed to what was allocated. – The SCDE will pull together some program, finance, and auditing experts to suggest methodologies.

Questions