[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 104 (Tuesday, May 31, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34540-34621]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-12451]
[[Page 34539]]
Vol. 81
Tuesday,
No. 104
May 31, 2016
Part III
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
34 CFR Parts 200 and 299
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, As Amended by the Every
Student Succeeds Act--Accountability and State Plans; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2016 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 34540]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Parts 200 and 299
RIN 1810-AB27
[Docket ID ED-2016-OESE-0032]
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, As Amended by the
Every Student Succeeds Act--Accountability and State Plans
AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary proposes to amend the regulations implementing
programs under title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (ESEA) to implement changes to the ESEA by the Every Student
Succeeds Act (ESSA) enacted on December 10, 2015. The Secretary also
proposes to update the current ESEA general regulations to include
requirements for the submission of State plans under ESEA programs,
including optional consolidated State plans.
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before August 1, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not
accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after
the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies,
please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the
Docket ID at the top of your comments.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov to
submit your comments electronically. Information on using
Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency documents,
submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site
under ``Are you new to the site?''
Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: If you
mail or deliver your comments about these proposed regulations, address
them to Meredith Miller, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland
Avenue SW., Room 3C106, Washington, DC 20202-2800.
Privacy Note: The Department's policy is to make all comments
received from members of the public available for public viewing in
their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be careful to include
in their comments only information that they wish to make publicly
available.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Meredith Miller, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3C106, Washington, DC 20202-
2800.
Telephone: (202) 401-8368 or by email: [email protected].
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Purpose of This Regulatory Action: On December 10, 2015, President
Barack Obama signed the ESSA into law. The ESSA reauthorizes the ESEA,
which provides Federal funds to improve elementary and secondary
education in the Nation's public schools. ESSA builds on ESEA's legacy
as a civil rights law and seeks to ensure every child, regardless of
race, income, background, or where they live has the chance to make of
their lives what they will. Through the reauthorization, the ESSA made
significant changes to the ESEA for the first time since the ESEA was
reauthorized through the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB),
including significant changes to title I.
In particular, the ESSA significantly modified the accountability
requirements of the ESEA. Whereas the ESEA, as amended by the NCLB,
required a State educational agency (SEA) to hold schools accountable
based on results on statewide assessments and one other academic
indicator, the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, requires each SEA to have
an accountability system that is State-determined and based on multiple
measures, including at least one measure of school quality or student
success and, at a State's discretion, a measure of student growth. The
ESSA also significantly modified the requirements for differentiating
among schools and the basis on which schools must be identified for
further comprehensive or targeted support and improvement.
Additionally, the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, no longer requires a
particular sequence of escalating interventions in title I schools that
are identified and continue to fail to make adequate yearly progress
(AYP). Instead, it gives SEAs and local educational agencies (LEAs)
discretion to determine the evidence-based interventions that are
appropriate to address the needs of identified schools.
In addition to modifying the ESEA requirements for State
accountability systems, the ESSA also modified and expanded upon the
ESEA requirements for State and LEA report cards. The ESEA, as amended
by the ESSA, continues to require that report cards be concise,
presented in an understandable and uniform format, and, to the extent
practicable, in a language that parents can understand, but now also
requires that they be developed in consultation with parents and that
they be widely accessible to the public. The ESEA, as amended by the
ESSA, also requires that report cards include certain information that
was not required to be included on report cards under the ESEA, as
amended by the NCLB, such as information regarding per-pupil
expenditures of Federal, State, and local funds; the number and
percentage of students enrolled in preschool programs; where available,
the rate at which high school graduates enroll in postsecondary
education programs; and information regarding the number and percentage
of English learners achieving English language proficiency. In
addition, the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, requires that report cards
include certain information for subgroups for which information was not
previously required to be reported, including homeless students,
students in foster care, and students with a parent who is a member of
the Armed Forces.
Further, the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, authorizes an SEA to
submit, if it so chooses, a consolidated State plan or consolidated
State application for covered programs, and authorizes the Secretary to
establish, for each covered program, the descriptions, information,
assurances, and other material required to be included in a
consolidated State plan or consolidated State application.
We are proposing these regulations to provide clarity and support
to SEAs, LEAs, and schools as they implement the ESEA, as amended by
the ESSA--particularly, the ESEA requirements regarding accountability
systems, State and LEA report cards, and consolidated State plans--and
to ensure that key requirements in title I of the ESEA, as amended by
the ESSA, are implemented consistent with the purpose of the law: ``to
provide all children significant opportunity to receive a fair,
equitable, and high-quality education, and to close educational
achievement gaps.''
Summary of the Major Provisions of This Regulatory Action: As
discussed in greater depth in the Significant Proposed Regulations
section of this document, the proposed regulations would:
Establish requirements for accountability systems under
section 1111(c) and (d) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, including
requirements regarding the indicators
[[Page 34541]]
used to annually meaningfully differentiate all public schools, the
identification of schools for comprehensive or targeted support and
improvement, and the development and implementation of improvement
plans, including evidence-based interventions, in schools that are so
identified;
Establish requirements for State and LEA report cards
under section 1111(h) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, including
requirements regarding the timeliness and format of such report cards,
as well as requirements that clarify report card elements that were not
required under the ESEA, as amended by the NCLB; and
Establish requirements for consolidated State plans under
section 8302 of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, including
requirements for the format of such plans, the timing of submission of
such plans, and the content to be included in such plans.
Please refer to the Significant Proposed Regulations section of
this preamble for a detailed discussion of the major provisions
contained in the proposed regulations.
Costs and Benefits: The Department believes that the benefits of
this regulatory action outweigh any associated costs to SEAs and LEAs,
which would be financed with grant funds. These benefits would include
a more flexible, less complex and less costly accountability framework
for the implementation of the ESEA that respects State and local
decision-making; the efficient and effective collection and
dissemination of a wide range of education-related data that would
inform parents, families, and the public about the performance of their
schools and support State and local decision-making; and an optional,
streamlined consolidated application process that would promote the
comprehensive and coordinated use of Federal, State, and local
resources to improve educational outcomes for all students and all
subgroups of students. Please refer to the Regulatory Impact Analysis
section of this document for a more detailed discussion of costs and
benefits. Consistent with Executive Order 12866, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this action is
economically significant and, thus, is subject to review by the OMB
under the order.
Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding
these proposed regulations. To ensure that your comments have maximum
effect in developing the final regulations, we urge you to identify
clearly the specific section or sections of the proposed regulations
that each of your comments addresses and to arrange your comments in
the same order as the proposed regulations.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall
requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from these
proposed regulations. Please let us know of any further ways we could
refine estimates of the rule's impacts, reduce potential costs or
increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and
efficient administration of the Department's programs and activities.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public
comments about these proposed regulations by accessing Regulations.gov.
You may also inspect the comments in person in room 3C106, 400 Maryland
Ave. SW., Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Washington,
DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.
Please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Particular Issues for Comment: We request comments from the public
on any issues related to these proposed regulations. However, we
particularly request the public to comment on, and provide additional
information regarding, the following issues. Please provide a detailed
rationale for each response you make.
Whether the suggested options for States to identify
``consistently underperforming'' subgroups of students in proposed
Sec. 200.19 would result in meaningful identification and be helpful
to States; whether any additional options should be considered; and
which options, if any, in proposed Sec. 200.19 should not be included
or should be modified. (Sec. 200.19)
Whether we should include additional or different options,
beyond those proposed in this NPRM, to support States in how they can
meaningfully address low assessment participation rates in schools that
do not assess at least 95 percent of their students, including as part
of their State-designed accountability system and as part of plans
schools develop and implement to improve, so that parents and teachers
have the information they need to ensure that all students are making
academic progress. (Sec. 200.15)
Whether, in setting ambitious long-term goals for English
learners to achieve English language proficiency, States would be
better able to support English learners if the proposed regulations
included a maximum State-determined timeline (e.g., a timeline
consistent with the definition of ``long-term'' English learners in
section 3121(a)(6) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA), and if so,
what should the maximum timeline be and what research or data supports
that maximum timeline. (Sec. 200.13)
Whether we should retain, modify, or eliminate in the
title I regulations the provision allowing a student who was previously
identified as a child with a disability under section 602(3) of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), but who no longer
receives special education services, to be included in the children
with disabilities subgroup for the limited purpose of calculating the
Academic Achievement indicator, and, if so, whether such students
should be permitted in the subgroup for up to two years consistent with
current title I regulations, or for a shorter period of time. (Sec.
200.16)
Whether we should standardize the criteria for including
children with disabilities, English learners, homeless children, and
children who are in foster care in their corresponding subgroups within
the adjusted cohort graduation rate, and suggestions for ways to
standardize these criteria. (Sec. 200.34)
Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record: Upon request, we will provide an appropriate
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who
needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the
public rulemaking record for these proposed regulations. If you want to
schedule an appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary
aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Background
On December 10, 2015, President Barack Obama signed the ESSA, which
reauthorizes the ESEA, into law. Through the reauthorization, the ESSA
made significant changes to the ESEA, including significant changes to
title I of the ESEA. In particular, the ESSA significantly modified the
accountability requirements of the ESEA, and modified and expanded upon
the ESEA requirements for State and LEA report cards.
Further, the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, authorizes an SEA to
submit, if it so chooses, a consolidated State plan or consolidated
State application for covered programs and authorizes the Secretary to
establish, for each covered program, the descriptions, information,
assurances, and other material required
[[Page 34542]]
to be included in a consolidated State plan or consolidated State
application.
The Department is proposing these regulations to provide clarity
and support to SEAs, LEAs, and schools as they implement the ESEA
requirements regarding accountability systems, State and LEA report
cards, and consolidated State plans. The proposed regulations are
further described under the Significant Proposed Regulations section of
this NPRM.
Public Participation
On December 22, 2015, the Department published a request for
information in the Federal Register soliciting advice and
recommendations from the public on the implementation of title I of the
ESEA, as amended by ESSA. We received 369 comments. We also held two
public meetings with stakeholders--one on January 11, 2016, in
Washington, DC and one on January 18, 2016, in Los Angeles,
California--at which we heard from over 100 speakers, regarding the
development of regulations, guidance, and technical assistance. In
addition, Department staff have held more than 100 meetings with
education stakeholders and leaders across the country to hear about
areas of interest and concern regarding implementation of the new law.
Significant Proposed Regulations
The Secretary proposes to amend the regulations implementing
programs under title I of the ESEA (part 200) and to amend the ESEA
general regulations to include requirements for the submission of State
plans under ESEA programs, including optional consolidated State plans
(part 299).
To implement the changes made to the ESEA by the ESSA, we propose
to remove certain sections of the current regulations and replace those
regulations, where appropriate, with the proposed regulations.
Specifically, we are proposing to--
Remove and reserve Sec. 200.7;
Remove Sec. Sec. 200.12 to 200.22 of the current
regulations, replace them with proposed Sec. Sec. 200.12 to 200.22,
and add proposed Sec. Sec. 200.23 and 200.24;
Remove Sec. Sec. 200.30 to 200.42 of the current
regulations and replace them with proposed Sec. Sec. 200.30 to 200.37;
and
Add proposed Sec. Sec. 299.13 to 299.19.
We discuss the proposed substantive changes by section. The section
numbers in the headings of the following discussion are the section
numbers in the proposed regulations. Generally, we do not address
proposed changes that are technical or otherwise minor in effect.
Section 200.12 Single Statewide Accountability System
Statute: Section 1111(c) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA,
requires that each State plan describe a single statewide
accountability system for all public schools that is based on the
challenging State academic standards for reading/language arts and
mathematics, described in section 1111(b)(1), in order to improve
student academic achievement and school success. These provisions take
effect beginning with the 2017-2018 school year, as described in
section 5(e)(1)(B) of the ESSA. The system must also include the
following key elements:
Long-term goals and measurements of interim progress, in
accordance with section 1111(c)(4)(A);
Indicators, in accordance with section 1111(c)(4)(B);
Annual meaningful differentiation of all public schools,
in accordance with section 1111(c)(4)(C); and
Identification of schools to implement comprehensive or
targeted support and improvement plans, in accordance with section
1111(c)(4)(D) and (d)(2)(A)(i).
Section 1111(c) also requires that State systems include long-term
goals and measurements of interim progress for all students and
specific subgroups of students, indicators that are applied to all
students and specific subgroups of students, and a system of annual
meaningful differentiation that is based on all indicators in the
system, for all students and specific subgroups of students; that a
State determine a minimum number of students necessary to carry out any
title I, part A requirements that require disaggregation of information
by each subgroup of students; and that the State annually measure the
academic achievement of at least 95 percent of all students and 95
percent of the students in each subgroup of students on the State's
reading/language arts and mathematics assessments required under
section 1111(b)(2). Section 1111(c)(5) also specifies that
accountability provisions for public charter schools must be overseen
in accordance with State charter school law. Finally, section 1111(d)
requires States to ensure LEAs and schools develop and implement school
improvement plans in schools that are identified for comprehensive or
targeted support and improvement by the State accountability system.
Current Regulations: Section 200.12 of the title I regulations
provides a high-level summary of the statutory accountability
requirements in the ESEA, as amended by the NCLB, which took effect for
the 2002-2003 school year.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec. 200.12 would replace the
current regulations with regulations that summarize the requirements
for accountability systems in the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. The
proposed regulations would require that each State plan describe that
the State has developed and will implement a single statewide
accountability system to improve student academic achievement. The
proposed regulations would also require a State's accountability system
to: Be based on the challenging State academic standards and academic
assessments; include all public schools in the State, including public
charter schools; and improve student academic achievement and school
success. In addition, the proposed regulations include the general
requirements for States to meet the key elements of accountability and
improvement systems consistent with the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA,
which are described in greater detail in subsequent sections of the
proposed regulations:
Long-term goals and measurements of interim progress under
proposed Sec. 200.13;
Indicators under proposed Sec. 200.14;
Inclusion of all students and each subgroup of students,
and all public elementary and secondary schools consistent with
proposed Sec. Sec. 200.15 through 200.17;
Annual meaningful differentiation of schools under
proposed Sec. 200.18;
Identification of schools for comprehensive and targeted
support and improvement under proposed Sec. 200.19; and
The process for ensuring development and implementation of
comprehensive and targeted support and improvement plans, including
evidence-based interventions, consistent with proposed Sec. Sec.
200.21 through 200.24.
Finally, proposed Sec. 200.12 would include the statutory
requirement that the ESEA's accountability provisions for public
charter schools be overseen in accordance with State charter school
law.
Reasons: The ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, significantly changes
the requirements for school accountability and improvement systems from
those previously included in the ESEA, as amended by the NCLB. In
particular, the ESSA eliminates the requirement for schools, LEAs, and
States to make AYP and replaces it with requirements for new statewide
accountability systems that are based on different requirements for all
public schools. These
[[Page 34543]]
requirements do not apply to private schools, including private schools
that receive title I equitable services. With the new school
accountability and improvement provisions under the ESSA set to take
effect for the 2017-2018 school year, it is critical for the Department
to update the regulations to reflect these changes and provide clarity
for States in how to implement them. In effect, proposed Sec. 200.12
would serve as a table of contents for each required component of the
accountability system, which would be described in greater detail in
subsequent sections of the proposed regulations.
These clarifications are necessary to ensure that States clearly
understand the fundamental components of the new accountability systems
under the ESSA that will take effect for the 2017-2018 school year, and
that a description of each such component will be required in their
State plans submitted to the Department.
Section 200.13 Long-Term Goals and Measurements of Interim Progress
Statute: Section 1111(c)(4)(A)(i)(I) and (c)(4)(A)(ii) of the ESEA,
as amended by the ESSA, requires each State to establish ambitious
long-term goals, and measurements of interim progress toward those
goals, for specific indicators, for all students and for each subgroup
of students described in section 1111(c)(2): Economically disadvantaged
students, students from major racial and ethnic groups, children with
disabilities, and English learners. These goals and measurements of
interim progress must be set, at a minimum, for improved academic
achievement (as measured by proficiency on State assessments in
reading/language arts and mathematics), for improved high school
graduation rates (as measured by the four-year adjusted cohort
graduation rate), and for increases in the percentage of English
learners making progress toward English language proficiency (as
measured by the English language proficiency assessments required in
section 1111(b)(2)(G)) within a State-determined timeline. In addition,
States may establish long-term goals and measurements of interim
progress for graduation rates as measured by extended-year adjusted
cohort graduation rates, but such goals and interim measurements must
be more rigorous than those set based on the four-year adjusted cohort
graduation rate.
Section 1111(c)(4)(A)(i)(II) also requires that the State's
ambitious long-term goals for achievement and graduation rates use the
same multi-year length of time for all students and each subgroup of
students. This is explained further below.
Finally, section 1111(c)(4)(A)(i)(III) specifies that a State's
goals for subgroups of students must take into account the improvement
needed among subgroups that must make greater progress in order to
close achievement and graduation rate gaps in the State.
Current Regulations: Various sections of the current title I
regulations describe the role of goals and annual measurable objectives
(AMOs) in the State accountability system required by the ESEA, as
amended by the NCLB, and require each State to establish a definition
of AYP. These sections essentially repeat the NCLB, with the exception
of Sec. 200.19 regarding the four-year adjusted cohort graduation
rate, which was added to the title I regulations in 2008.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec. 200.13 would primarily
incorporate into regulation the statutory requirements under the ESEA,
as amended by the ESSA, for State-designed long-term goals and
measurements of interim progress for academic achievement, graduation
rates, and progress in achieving English language proficiency. The
proposed regulations also would clarify certain provisions to support
effective State and local implementation of the statutory requirements.
Goals for Academic Achievement and Graduation Rates
Proposed Sec. 200.13 would require each State to--
Establish ambitious long-term goals and measurements of
interim progress for academic achievement that are based on grade-level
proficiency on the State's academic assessments and set separately for
reading/language arts and mathematics;
In setting long-term goals and measurements of interim
progress for academic achievement, apply the same high standards of
academic achievement to all students and each subgroup of students,
except students with the most significant cognitive disabilities who
are assessed based on alternate academic achievement standards,
consistent with section 1111(b)(1);
Establish ambitious long-term goals and measurements of
interim progress for graduation rates that are based on the four-year
adjusted cohort graduation rate and, if a State chooses to use an
extended-year rate as part of its Graduation Rate indicator under
proposed Sec. 200.14, the extended-year adjusted cohort graduation
rate, except that goals based on the extended-year rate must be more
rigorous than goals based on the four-year rate;
Set long-term goals and measurements of interim progress
for academic achievement and graduation rates for all students and
separately for each subgroup of students that expect greater rates of
improvement for subgroups that need to make more rapid progress to
close proficiency and graduation rate gaps in the State; and
Use the same multi-year timeline in setting long-term
goals for academic achievement and graduation rates for all students
and for each subgroup (e.g., if the goal for all students is to improve
academic achievement by a certain percentage over 10 years, then the
goal for children with disabilities must also be set over 10 years,
even if the subgroup is expected to improve by a greater percentage
relative to all students over that timeframe).
Goals for Progress in Achieving English Language Proficiency
The proposed regulations would require each State to--
Establish ambitious long-term goals and measurements of
interim progress for English learners toward attaining English language
proficiency, as measured by the State's English language proficiency
assessment, that set expectations for each English learner to make
annual progress toward attaining English language proficiency and to
attain English language proficiency; and
Determine the State's long-term goals and measurements of
interim progress for English learners by developing a uniform procedure
for setting such goals and measurements of interim progress that would
be applied consistently to all English learners in the State, must take
into account the student's English language proficiency level, and may
also consider one or more of the following student-level factors at the
time of a student's identification as an English learner: (1) Time in
language instruction educational programs; (2) grade level; (3) age;
(4) Native language proficiency level; and (5) limited or interrupted
formal education, if any.
Reasons: The proposed regulations would primarily replace obsolete
provisions relating to goals and progress measures within State
accountability systems to reflect changes required by the ESEA, as
amended by the ESSA. In addition, the proposed regulations would
clarify requirements related to goals for academic achievement,
particularly for students with the most significant cognitive
disabilities, as well
[[Page 34544]]
as goals for English learners toward attaining English language
proficiency.
Goals for Academic Achievement and Graduation Rates
Under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(ii), State assessments must provide
information to students, parents, and educators about whether
individual students are performing at their grade level. This
determination provides valuable information about whether a student is
receiving the support he or she needs to meet the challenging State
academic standards and is on track to graduate ready to succeed in
college and career, and if not, to help identify areas in which the
student would benefit from additional support. This information also
helps States and LEAs identify statewide proficiency gaps when
establishing the State's goals and measurements of interim progress, as
required under section 1111(c)(4)(A)(i)(III). Goals based on grade-
level proficiency would provide consistency across the accountability
system, as the statute requires the Academic Achievement indicator
described in section 1111(c)(4)(B)(i)(I) to be based on a measure of
proficiency against the challenging State academic standards.
Therefore, the proposed regulations would clarify that the long-term
goals a State establishes must be based on a measure of grade-level
proficiency on the statewide assessments required under section
1111(b)(2) and must be set separately for reading/language arts and
mathematics.
Section 1111(b)(1) also requires that all students be held to the
same challenging State academic standards, except for students with the
most significant cognitive disabilities who are assessed based on
alternate academic achievement standards, as permitted under section
1111(b)(2)(D)(i). To ensure that all students are treated equitably and
expected to meet the same high standards, and that all schools are held
accountable for meeting these requirements, proposed Sec. 200.13 would
clarify that long-term goals must be based on the same academic
achievement standards and definition of ``proficiency'' for all
students, with the exception of students with the most significant
cognitive disabilities who take an alternate assessment aligned with
alternate academic achievement standards.
Finally, to provide relevant, meaningful information to districts,
schools, and the public about the level of performance and improvement
that is expected, proposed Sec. 200.13 would require a State to set
long-term goals and measurements of interim progress for graduation
rates that are based on the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate,
as well as the extended-year adjusted cohort graduation rate if such a
rate were used in the State's Graduation Rate indicator described in
section 1111(c)(4)(B)(iii). Given that the graduation rate could impact
whether a school is identified for support and improvement, and related
interventions, it is critical to require the State to set long-term
goals and measurements of interim progress for this measure in order to
establish clear expectations and support all schools in the State in
increasing the percentage of students graduating high school.
Goals for Progress in Achieving English Language Proficiency
Because the requirement for progress in achieving English language
proficiency goals has been added to title I in the ESEA, as amended by
the ESSA, we propose to explain and clarify how States can meet this
requirement in proposed Sec. 200.13. For English learners to succeed
in meeting the challenging State academic standards, it is critical for
these students to attain proficiency in speaking, listening, reading,
and writing in English, as recognized in section 1111(b)(1)(F),
including the ability to successfully make academic progress in
classrooms where the language of instruction is English, as recognized
in the definition of ``English learner'' in section 8101(20). For these
reasons, proposed Sec. 200.13 would clarify that States' long-term
goals must include both annual progress toward English language
proficiency and actual attainment of English language proficiency for
all English learners.
Recent data have highlighted the growing numbers of school-aged
English learners, particularly in States and LEAs with relatively
little experience in serving such students previously. The Census
Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS) data from 2013 show that
California, Florida, Illinois, New York, and Texas enroll 60 percent of
the Nation's English learners, but the growth rate in the English
learner population in other States has exceeded that of these five. For
example, ACS data show that from 2010 to 2013, the English learner
population increased by 21 percent in West Virginia, 13 percent in
Hawaii and North Dakota, and 12 percent in Iowa. In addition, some
States have experienced large increases of certain English learner
subgroups over a short period of time. Alaska, the District of
Columbia, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Iowa, Maine, and
Nebraska all experienced more than a 16-percent increase in their
immigrant population during the 2010 to 2013 timeframe.
Given the diversity of the English learner population, illustrated
in the examples above, a reasonable timeframe for schools to support
one English learner in attaining proficiency in English may be too
rigorous or too lenient an expectation for another English learner.
Setting the same long-term goals and measurements of interim progress
for all English learners in the State may fail to account for these
differences in the English learner population and would result in goals
that are inappropriate for some students. Furthermore, the time it
takes an English learner to attain proficiency can be affected by
multiple factors, such as age, level of English proficiency, and
educational experiences in a student's native language.\1\ Thus,
proposed Sec. 200.13(c) would require States to consider students'
English language proficiency level in setting goals and measurements of
interim progress and allow the consideration of additional research-
based student factors. The list of student characteristics in proposed
Sec. 200.13 is based not only on research but also on input from
grantees and experts during administration of the former title III
requirement for annual measurable achievement objectives (AMAOs). The
ESEA, as amended by the NCLB, required that those AMAOs (which included
progress toward and attainment of English language proficiency) reflect
the amount of time an individual child had been enrolled in a language
instruction educational program. Researchers, however, have found that
the other factors outlined in proposed Sec. 200.13 are important
factors that also should be included in setting goals for progress or
proficiency.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See, for example, Collier, V.P. (1995). ``Acquiring a second
language for school.'' Directions in Language & Education, 1(4);
Garc[iacute]a-V[aacute]zquez, E., V[aacute]zquez, L.A.,
L[oacute]pez, I.C., & Ward, W. (1997). ``Language proficiency and
academic success: Relationships between proficiency in two languages
and achievement among Mexican-American students.'' Bilingual
Research Journal, 21(4), 334-347; and Center for Public Education
(2007). ``Research Review: What research says about preparing
English language learners for academic success,'' pp. 6-7.
\2\ See, for example, Cook, G., Linquanti, R., Chinen, M., &
Jung, H. (2012). ``National evaluation of Title III implementation
supplemental report--Exploring approaches to setting English
language proficiency performance criteria and monitoring English
learner progress.'' U.S. Department of Education, Office of
Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, Policy and Program
Studies Service, pp. 68-69.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons, proposed Sec. 200.13(c) would require each
State to establish a uniform procedure for setting long-term goals and
measurements of interim progress for English learners
[[Page 34545]]
that can be applied consistently and equitably to all English learners
and schools with such students for accountability purposes, and that
consider a student's English language proficiency level, as well as
additional research-based student characteristics at a State's
discretion (i.e., time in language instruction educational programs,
grade level, age, native language proficiency level, and limited or
interrupted formal education) in determining the most appropriate
timeline and goals for attaining English language proficiency for each
English learner, or category of English learner. Though the State's
procedure must be consistently applied for all English learners and
consider the same student-level characteristics determined by the
State, this approach would allow differentiation of goals for an
individual English learner, or for categories of English learners that
share similar characteristics, based on English language proficiency
level, as well as factors such as grade level and educational
background, thereby recognizing the varied needs of the English learner
population.
Finally, proposed Sec. 200.13 would require a State's long-term
goals to expect each English learner to attain English language
proficiency within a period of time after the student's identification
as an English learner. This period of time could be informed by
existing academic research on the typical time necessary for English
learners to attain English language proficiency,\3\ and we encourage
States to consider the requirement in section 3121(a)(6) of the ESEA,
as amended by the ESSA, that subgrantees receiving title III funds
report the number and percentage of ``long-term'' English learners
(i.e., those that do not attain English language proficiency within
five years of initial classification), in order to align the related
title I and title III requirements. The long-term goals established by
each State would not change the SEA and LEA's obligation to assist
individual English learners in overcoming language barriers in a
reasonable period of time. Given these considerations, we are
particularly interested in receiving comments on whether, in setting
ambitious long-term goals to achieve English language proficiency,
States would be better able to support English learners if the proposed
regulations include a maximum State-determined timeline, and if so,
what the maximum timeline should be--including any research or data to
support the timeline--in order to ensure that State accountability
systems effectively promote progress in attaining English language
proficiency for these students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See, for example, Hakuta, K., Goto Butler, Y., & Witt, D.
(2000). ``How long does it take English learners to attain
proficiency?'' University of California Linguistic Minority Research
Institute Policy Report 2000-1; MacSwan, J., & Pray, L. (2005).
``Learning English bilingually: Age of onset of exposure and rate of
acquisition among English language learners in a bilingual education
program.'' Bilingual Research Journal, 29(3), 653-678; Motamedi,
J.G. (2015). ``Time to reclassification: How long does it take
English language learners in the Washington Road Map school
districts to develop English proficiency?'' U.S. Department of
Education, Institute of Education Sciences; and Slavin, R.E.,
Madden, N.A., Calder[oacute]n, M.E., Chamberlain, A., & Hennessy, M.
(2011). ``Reading and language outcomes of a five-year randomized
evaluation of transitional bilingual education.'' Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(1), 47-58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 200.14 Accountability Indicators
Statute: Section 1111(c)(4)(B) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA,
requires each State to include, at a minimum, four distinct indicators
of student performance, measured for all students and separately for
each subgroup of students, for each school in its statewide
accountability system. Although five types of indicators are described
in the statute, only four indicators must apply to each public school
in a State because two of the required indicators apply only to schools
in certain grade spans.
For all public schools in the State, section
1111(c)(4)(B)(i) requires an indicator of academic achievement, based
on the long-term goals established under section 1111(c)(4)(A), that
measures proficiency on the statewide assessments in reading/language
arts and mathematics required under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I). At the
State's discretion, this indicator may also include a measure of
student growth on such assessments, for high schools only.
For elementary and middle schools in the State, section
1111(c)(4)(B)(ii) requires an indicator that measures either student
growth or another valid and reliable statewide academic indicator that
allows for meaningful differentiation in school performance.
For all high schools in the State, section
1111(c)(4)(B)(iii) requires an indicator, based on the long-term goals
established under section 1111(c)(4)(A), that measures the four-year
adjusted cohort graduation rate, and, at the State's discretion, the
extended-year adjusted cohort graduation rate.
For all public schools in the State, section
1111(c)(4)(B)(iv) requires an indicator measuring progress in achieving
English language proficiency, within a State-determined timeline, for
all English learners. This indicator must be measured using the English
language proficiency assessments required under section 1111(b)(2)(G),
for all English learners in each of grades 3 through 8, and in the
grade in which English learners are assessed to meet the requirements
of section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) to assess students once in high school.
For all public schools in the State, section
1111(c)(4)(B)(v) requires at least one valid, reliable, and comparable
indicator of school quality or student success. Such an indicator may
include measures of student or educator engagement, student access to
and completion of advanced coursework, postsecondary readiness, school
climate and safety, or any other measure a State chooses that meets the
requirements of section 1111(c)(4)(B)(v). Section
1111(c)(4)(B)(v)(I)(aa) requires that any school quality or student
success indicator chosen by the State allow for meaningful
differentiation of school performance, and section
1111(c)(4)(B)(v)(I)(bb) requires that the school quality or success
indicator(s) be valid, reliable, comparable, and statewide (except that
such indicator(s) may vary for each grade span).
Current Regulations: Various sections of the current title I
regulations describe the measures used in the State accountability
systems required by the ESEA, as amended by the NCLB.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec. 200.14 would clarify the
statutory requirements in the ESSA for States to include, at a minimum,
four distinct indicators for each school that measure performance for
all students and separately for each subgroup of students under
proposed Sec. 200.16(a)(2).
Proposed Sec. 200.14(a)(2) would clarify that each State must use
the same measures within each indicator for all schools, except that
States may vary the measures within the Academic Progress indicator and
the School Quality or Student Success indicator or indicators by grade
span as would be described in proposed Sec. 200.14(c)(2). Proposed
Sec. 200.14 also would describe each of the five indicators that are
required, at a minimum, as part of a State's accountability system
under section 1111(c) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA.
Academic Achievement Indicator
Proposed Sec. 200.14(b)(1) would:
Require, for all schools, the Academic Achievement
indicator to equally measure grade-level proficiency on the reading/
language arts and mathematics assessments required under section
1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I);
[[Page 34546]]
Reiterate that the indicator must include the performance
of at least 95 percent of all students and 95 percent of all students
in each subgroup consistent with proposed Sec. 200.15; and
Clarify that, for high schools, this indicator may also
measure, at the State's discretion, student growth based on the
reading/language arts and mathematics assessments required under
section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I).
Academic Progress Indicator
Proposed Sec. 200.14(b)(2) would require, for all elementary and
middle schools, the Academic Progress indicator to measure either
student growth based on the reading/language arts and mathematics
assessments required under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I), or another
academic measure that meets the requirements of proposed Sec.
200.14(c).
Graduation Rate Indicator
Proposed Sec. 200.14(b)(3) would:
Require, for all high schools, the Graduation Rate
indicator to measure the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate; and
Allow States to also measure the extended-year adjusted
cohort graduation rate as part of the Graduation Rate indicator.
Progress in Achieving English Language Proficiency Indicator
Proposed Sec. 200.14(b)(4) would:
Require, for all schools, the Progress in Achieving
English Language Proficiency indicator to be based on English learner
performance on the English language proficiency assessment required
under section 1111(b)(2)(G) in each of grades 3 through 8 and in the
grades for which English learners are assessed in high school to meet
the requirements of section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I);
Require that the Progress in Achieving English Language
Proficiency indicator take into account a student's English language
proficiency level and, at a State' discretion, additional student-level
characteristics of English learners in the same manner used by the
State under proposed Sec. 200.13; use objective and valid measures of
student progress such as student growth percentiles (although the
indicator may also include a measure of English language proficiency);
and align with the State-determined timeline for attaining English
language proficiency under proposed Sec. 200.13.
School Quality or Student Success Indicators
Proposed Sec. 200.14(b)(5) would:
Require, for all schools, the School Quality or Student
Success indicator or indicators to meet the requirements of proposed
Sec. 200.14(c); and
Reiterate the statutory language that the indicator or
indicators may differ by each grade span and may include one or more
measures of: (1) Student access to and completion of advanced
coursework, (2) postsecondary readiness, (3) school climate and safety,
(4) student engagement, (5) educator engagement, or any other measure
that meets the requirements in the proposed regulations.
Requirements for Indicator Selection
Additionally, under proposed Sec. 200.14(c), a State would be
required to ensure that each measure it selects to include within an
indicator:
Is valid, reliable, and comparable across all LEAs in the
State;
Is calculated the same for all schools across the State,
except that the measure or measures selected within the indicator of
Academic Progress or any indicator of School Quality or Student Success
may vary by grade span;
Can be disaggregated for each subgroup of students; and
Includes a different measure than the State uses for any
other indicator.
Under proposed Sec. 200.14(d), a State would be required to ensure
that each measure it selects to include as an Academic Progress or
School Quality or Student Success indicator is supported by research
finding that performance or progress on such measure is likely to
increase student academic achievement or, for measures used within
indicators at the high school level, graduation rates. Finally, under
proposed Sec. 200.14(e), a State would be required to ensure that each
measure it selects to include as an Academic Progress or School Quality
or Student Success indicator aids in the meaningful differentiation
among schools under proposed Sec. 200.18 by demonstrating varied
results across all schools.
Reasons: Given the new statutory requirements in the ESEA, as
amended by the ESSA, and the increased role for States to establish
systems of annual meaningful differentiation, we propose to revise the
current regulations to reflect the new requirements and clarify how
States may establish and measure each indicator in order to ensure
these indicators thoughtfully inform annual meaningful differentiation
of schools (described further in proposed Sec. 200.18).
Although the statute provides a brief description of each
indicator, States will need additional guidance as they consider how to
design and implement school accountability systems that will meet their
intended purpose of improving student academic achievement and school
success. Because the indicators are used to identify schools for
comprehensive and targeted support and improvement, including
interventions to support improved student outcomes in these schools, it
is essential to ensure that the requirements for each indicator are
clear so that differentiation and identification of schools is
unbiased, accurate, and consistent across the State.
Proposed Sec. 200.14(a) would reinforce and clarify the statutory
requirement that all indicators must measure performance for all
students and separately for each subgroup of students, and that the
State must use the same measures within each indicator for all schools,
except for the Academic Progress indicator and the indicator(s) of
School Quality or Student Success, which may use different measures
among elementary, middle, and high schools. These proposed requirements
would ensure that indicators include all students similarly across the
State, including historically underserved populations, so that all
students are held to the same high expectations. Further, these
proposed requirements would ensure the indicators remain comparable
across the State in order to promote fairness and validity, as schools
will be held accountable on the basis of their students' performance on
each indicator.
While the proposed regulations would require all States to include
all of the required indicators, disaggregated by each subgroup, for
annual meaningful differentiation of schools in the 2017-2018 school
year, including the new indicators under the ESSA (i.e., Academic
Progress, Progress in Achieving English Language Proficiency, and
School Quality or Student Success indicators), we recognize that some
States may want to update their accountability systems as new data
become available. Accordingly, the proposed regulations would not
preclude States from adding measures to their accountability systems
over time that they currently do not collect or are unable to
calculate, or from replacing measures over time, if particular measures
of interest are not ready for the 2017-2018 school year, or if the
State would like to gather additional input prior to including these
measures in the accountability system for purposes of differentiation
and identification of schools.
Academic Achievement Indicator
Under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(ii) of the ESEA, as amended by the
ESSA, State
[[Page 34547]]
assessments must provide information about whether individual students
are performing at their grade level. This provides valuable information
to students, parents, educators, and the public about whether all
students are receiving the support they need to meet the challenging
State academic standards and are on track to graduate college- and
career-ready. It also ensures that students needing extra support to
meet the challenging State academic standards can be identified--
especially as school performance on the Academic Achievement indicator
would be a substantial part of annual meaningful differentiation of
schools under proposed Sec. 200.18 and identification of low-
performing schools, including those with low-performing subgroups, for
improvement under proposed Sec. 200.19. Accordingly, it is important
to clarify that the measure of proficiency on those assessments
included in the Academic Achievement indicator must reflect this grade-
level determination, and that reading/language arts and mathematics
must be equally considered within the indicator.
Progress in Achieving English Language Proficiency Indicator
In order for English learners to succeed in meeting the challenging
State academic standards, it is critical for them to attain proficiency
in speaking, listening, reading, and writing in English, as recognized
in section 1111(b)(1)(F), including academic English proficiency (i.e.,
the ability to successfully achieve in classrooms where the language of
instruction is English) as recognized in research and in the definition
of ``English learner'' in section 8101(20).\4\ For these reasons,
proposed Sec. 200.13 would clarify that States' long-term goals should
include both attainment of English language proficiency and annual
progress toward English language proficiency for all English learners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See, for example, Halle, T., Hair, E., Wandner, L.,
McNamara, M., and Chien, N. (2012). ``Predictors and outcomes of
early versus later English language proficiency among English
language learners.'' Early Childhood Research Quarterly Volume 27,
Issue 1; and Graham, J. (1987). ``English language proficiency and
the prediction of academic success.'' TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 21, No.
3, pp. 505-521.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, proposed Sec. 200.14(b)(4) would clarify how a State
measures progress in achieving English language proficiency for all
English learners for annual meaningful differentiation. The proposed
regulation would provide States flexibility to develop a specific
measure for this purpose, while ensuring that States use objective,
valid, and consistent measures of student progress. Critically, the
proposed regulations would require an objective and valid measure that
English learners are attaining, or are on track to attain, English
language proficiency in a reasonable time period, consistent with the
State-determined timeline in proposed Sec. 200.13. As the Progress in
Achieving English Language Proficiency indicator would receive
substantial weight in annual meaningful differentiation under proposed
Sec. 200.18 and could affect which schools are identified for support,
it is important for States to design this indicator in ways that are
valid and reliable and provide an accurate determination of English
learners' progress toward achieving proficiency in English. Finally,
the indicator chosen by the State must include a student's English
language proficiency level, as well as additional student
characteristics that are used, at a State's discretion, in the English
learner-specific long-term goals and measurements of interim progress,
for the reasons discussed previously in proposed 200.13(c) and to
provide consistency across the components of State accountability
systems.
Requirements for Indicator Selection
Proposed Sec. 200.14(c) would reiterate that all indicators
included in the accountability system must be valid, reliable, and
comparable across all LEAs in the State, and that each included measure
must be calculated in the same way for all schools. It would also
prevent a State from using the same indicators more than once. For
example, a State must choose a different indicator to measure school
quality or student success than it uses to measure academic
achievement.
Proposed Sec. 200.14(e) would require that the Academic Progress
and School Quality or Student Success indicator produce varied results
across all schools in order to support the statutory requirements for
meaningful differentiation and long-term student success. These
proposed requirements are designed to ensure that the indicators
provide meaningful information about a school's performance, enhancing
the information provided by other indicators and improving the ability
of the system to differentiate between schools. In this way, the
Academic Progress and School Quality or Student Success indicators can
provide a more holistic picture of a school's performance and, when
selected thoughtfully, support a State in meeting the statutory
requirement that these indicators allow for ``meaningful
differentiation.'' The proposed parameters would help improve the
validity of annual meaningful differentiation and support States'
identification of schools most in need of support and improvement. If a
State chose an indicator that led to consistent results across
schools--such as average daily attendance, which is often quite high
even in the lowest-performing schools--it would not allow states to
meaningfully differentiate between schools for the purposes of
identifying schools in need of comprehensive and targeted support and
improvement.
Finally, proposed Sec. 200.14(d) would ensure that a State selects
indicators of Academic Progress and School Quality or Student Success
that are supported by research showing that performance or progress on
such measures is positively related to student achievement or, in the
case of measures used within indicators at the high school level,
graduation rates. For example, a State might include at least one of
the following School Quality or Student Success indicators that
examine, for all students and disaggregated for each subgroup of
students:
``Student access to and completion of advanced
coursework'' through a measure of advanced mathematics course-taking
(e.g., the percentage of middle school students enrolled in algebra, or
of high school students enrolled in calculus);
``Postsecondary readiness'' through a measure of college
enrollment following high school graduation or the rate of non-remedial
postsecondary courses taken;
``School climate and safety'' through a robust, valid
student survey that measures multiple domains (e.g., student
engagement, safety, and school environment); or
``Student engagement'' through a measure of chronic
absenteeism based on the number of students that miss a significant
portion (e.g., 15 or more school days or 10 percent or more of total
school days) of the school year.
Further, since measures of ``postsecondary readiness'' may not be
available as an indicator in elementary schools, a State could consider
using an analogous measure in its accountability system, such as
``kindergarten readiness'' or another measure that would capture
important outcomes or learning experiences in the early grades.
These requirements would support the purpose of title I--to
``provide all children significant opportunity to receive a fair,
equitable, and high-quality education and to close educational
achievement gaps''--by requiring States to use measures that are
[[Page 34548]]
likely to close achievement gaps and are related to improvements in
critical student outcomes. It would also create consistency across
components of the accountability system described in proposed Sec.
200.12; the Academic Progress and School Quality or Student Success
indicators would both provide additional information to help a State
differentiate between, and identify, schools in a valid and reliable
way, and also be relevant to its other indicators and support the
State's efforts to attain its long-term goals.
Section 200.15 Participation in Assessments and Annual Measurement of
Achievement
Statute: Section 1111(c)(4)(E) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA,
requires each State, for the purpose of school accountability
determinations, to measure the achievement of not less than 95 percent
of all students, and 95 percent of all students in each subgroup of
students, who are enrolled in public schools on the annual statewide
assessments in reading/language arts and mathematics required by
section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I). The statute further ensures that this
requirement is taken into account when determining proficiency on the
Academic Achievement indicator by specifying that the denominator used
for such calculations must include at least 95 percent of all students
and 95 percent of students in each subgroup enrolled in the school.
Each State also must provide a clear and understandable explanation of
how the participation rate requirement will be factored into its
accountability system.
Current Regulations: Section 200.20(c)(1) of the current
regulations specifies that, for an LEA or school to make AYP, not less
than 95 percent of all students and 95 percent of the students in each
subgroup who are enrolled in the LEA or school must take the statewide
academic assessments. Title I schools that fail to make AYP due to the
participation rate requirement can be identified as schools in
improvement. Section 200.20(c)(2) of the current regulations further
states that this 95 percent participation requirement does not
authorize a State, LEA, or school to systematically exclude five
percent of students from the assessment requirements of the ESEA. The
regulations also allow a school to count students with the most
significant cognitive disabilities who take an assessment based on
alternate academic achievement standards as participants, and to count
recently arrived English learners (defined in Sec. 200.6(b)(4)(iv) of
the current regulations as an English learner ``who has attended
schools in the United States for less than twelve months'') who take
the English language proficiency assessment or the reading/language
arts assessment as participants on the State's reading/language arts
assessment (even if they do not actually take the State's reading/
language arts assessment). Section 200.20(d)(1) further allows States
to average participation rate data from up to three school years in
making a determination of whether the school, LEA, or State assessed 95
percent of all students and students in each subgroup.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec. 200.15 would replace current
Sec. 200.15 with regulations that update and clarify assessment
participation rate requirements to reflect new statutory requirements,
while retaining elements of current Sec. 200.20 that are consistent
with the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. Proposed Sec. 200.15(a) would
incorporate the ESSA requirement that States annually measure the
achievement of at least 95 percent of all students, and 95 percent of
all students in each subgroup of students under proposed Sec.
200.16(a)(2), who are enrolled in each public school. Participation
rates would be calculated separately on the assessments in reading/
language arts and mathematics required under section
1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I). Proposed Sec. 200.15(b)(1) would incorporate the
statutory requirements related to the denominator that must be used for
calculating the Academic Achievement indicator under proposed Sec.
200.14 for purposes of annual meaningful differentiation of schools,
while proposed Sec. 200.15(b)(2) would establish minimum requirements
for factoring the participation rate requirement for all students and
each subgroup of students into the State accountability system.
Specifically, the State would be required to take one of the following
actions for a school that misses the 95 percent participation
requirement for all students or one or more student subgroups: (1)
Assign a lower summative rating to the school, described in proposed
Sec. 200.18; (2) assign the lowest performance level on the State's
Academic Achievement indicator, described in proposed Sec. Sec. 200.14
and 200.18; (3) identify the school for targeted support and
improvement under proposed Sec. 200.19(b)(1); or (4) another equally
rigorous State-determined action, as described in its State plan, that
will result in a similar outcome for the school in the system of annual
meaningful differentiation under proposed Sec. 200.18 and will lead to
improvements in the school's assessment participation rate so that it
meets the 95 percent participation requirement. Proposed Sec.
200.15(c)(1) would further require schools that miss the 95 percent
participation rate for all students or for one or more subgroups of
students to develop and implement improvement plans that address the
reason or reasons for low participation in the school and include
interventions to improve participation rates in subsequent years,
except that schools identified for targeted support and improvement due
to low participation rates would not be required to develop a separate
plan than the one required under proposed Sec. 200.22. The improvement
plans would be developed in partnership with stakeholders, including
parents, include one or more strategies to address the reason or
reasons for low participation rates in the school and improve
participation rates in subsequent years, and be approved and monitored
by the LEA. In addition, proposed Sec. 200.15(c)(2) would require each
LEA with a significant number of schools missing the 95 percent
participation rate for all students or for one or more subgroups of
students to develop and implement an improvement plan that includes
additional actions to support the effective implementation of school-
level plans to improve low assessment participation rates, which would
be reviewed and approved by the State.
Finally, proposed Sec. 200.15(d) would require a State to include
in its report card a clear explanation of how it will factor the 95
percent participation rate requirement into its accountability system.
This section would also retain current regulatory requirements related
to: (1) Not allowing the systematic exclusion of students from required
assessments; (2) counting as participants students with the most
significant cognitive disabilities who take alternate assessments based
on alternate academic achievement standards; and (3) counting as
participants recently arrived English learners who take either the
State's English language proficiency assessment or the reading/language
arts assessment.
Reasons: The ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, continues to require the
participation of all students in the annual statewide assessments in
reading/language arts and mathematics and includes this requirement as
a significant component of State-developed accountability systems. In
particular, ensuring that results on these statewide assessments are
available for all students is essential for meeting
[[Page 34549]]
accountability system requirements related to the establishment and
measurement of interim progress toward State-designed, long-term goals
under section 1111(c)(4)(A); the development and annual measurement of
the indicators under section 1111(c)(4)(B); the annual meaningful
differentiation of school performance under section 1111(c)(4)(C); and
the identification of schools for improvement under section
1111(c)(4)(D) and (d)(2)(A)(i). The proposed regulations reflect the
critical importance of continuing to ensure that all students
participate in annual statewide academic assessments so that parents
and teachers have the information they need to help all students meet
the challenging State academic standards and to maintain the utility of
State accountability systems.
The proposed regulations would provide States with options to
ensure that they meet the requirement in section 1111(c)(4)(E)(iii) by
taking meaningful action to factor the 95 percent participation
requirement into their accountability systems. Such action is essential
to protect the credibility of a State's system of identifying schools
in need of comprehensive or targeted support, enhance the validity of
academic achievement information, and, most importantly, provide
parents and educators with information to support all students in
meeting the challenging State academic standards. These options suggest
ways States may provide greater transparency and accurate, meaningful
differentiation of schools to the public regarding low participation
rates. In particular, the proposed options would ensure that failure to
meet the 95 percent participation rate requirement is factored in the
State's accountability system in a meaningful, publicly visible manner
through a significant impact on a school's performance level or
summative rating, identification for targeted support and improvement,
or another equally rigorous, State-determined action, thus providing an
incentive for the school to ensure that all students participate in
annual State assessments. In addition to these options for factoring
the participation rate requirement into the accountability system, the
proposed regulations would ensure that all schools that miss the 95
percent participation rate develop plans to meaningfully address and
improve assessment participation. The proposed regulations also would
support State efforts to improve low participation rates by requiring
LEAs with a significant number of schools that miss the 95 percent
participation rate to develop separate LEA improvement plans that
include additional actions to ensure the effective implementation of
school-level plans.
Given the critical importance of assessing all students and
subgroups of students as part of providing a strong foundation for each
component of a State's accountability system, and in ensuring that
parents and educators have information to support all students in
meeting the challenging State academic standards, we are especially
interested in receiving public comment on additional or different ways
than those articulated in the proposed regulations to support States in
ensuring that low assessment participation rates are meaningfully
addressed as part of the State's accountability system, either as part
of annual meaningful differentiation of schools to increase
transparency around assessment participation rates or as part of
school-level actions to improve such rates.
Section 200.16 Subgroups of students
Statute: Section 1111(c)(2) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA,
delineates the required subgroups of students that must be included in
a statewide accountability system:
Economically disadvantaged students;
Students from major racial and ethnic groups;
Children with disabilities; and
English learners.
Under the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, subgroups of students are
included for multiple purposes in a statewide accountability system.
States are required to:
Establish long-term goals and measurements of interim
progress for achievement and graduation rates for each subgroup of
students, as well as for progress in attaining English language
proficiency for English learners, that take into account the
improvement necessary to make progress in closing proficiency and
graduation rate gaps as described in section 1111(c)(4)(A);
Produce disaggregated subgroup data for each required
accountability indicator and annually differentiate among all public
schools based on these indicators as described in section
1111(h)(1)(C); and
Identify schools with one or more consistently
underperforming subgroups of students and schools in which one or more
subgroups of students perform as poorly as any title I school that is
among the lowest-performing in the State for targeted support and
improvement as described in section 1111(c)(4)(C)(iii) and
1111(d)(2)(A)(i).
The ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, also includes accountability
requirements that apply only to English learners, including specific
provisions for recently arrived English learners who have been enrolled
in a school in the United States for less than 12 months, and students
who were previously identified as English learners.
Section 1111(b)(3)(A) provides a State that chooses not to include
results on academic assessments for recently arrived English learners
in the statewide accountability system in their first year enrolled in
schools in the United States with two options:
Under section 1111(b)(3)(A)(i), a State may exclude a
recently arrived English learner from one administration of the
reading/language arts assessment required under section 1111(b)(2)(A)
and exclude a recently arrived English learner's results on the
reading/language arts (if applicable), mathematics, or English language
proficiency assessment for accountability purposes in the first year of
the student's enrollment in schools in the United States; or
Under section 1111(b)(3)(A)(ii), a State may assess and
report a recently arrived English learner's results on the reading/
language arts and mathematics assessments required under section
1111(b)(2)(A), but exclude those results for accountability purposes in
the student's first year of enrollment in schools in the United States.
In the second year of a recently arrived English learner's enrollment
in schools in the United States, the State must include a measure of
such student's growth on the reading/language arts and mathematics
assessments for accountability purposes. In the third and each
succeeding year of a recently arrived English learner's enrollment, a
State must include a measure of such student's proficiency on the
reading/language arts and mathematics assessments for accountability
purposes.
The ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, also specifies a limited
exception to the requirement that a subgroup of students include only
students who meet the definition for inclusion in that subgroup. Under
section 1111(b)(3)(B), a State may include, for up to four years after
exiting the English learner subgroup, the assessment results of such a
student previously identified as an English learner in calculating the
Academic Achievement indicator in reading/language arts and mathematics
for the English learner subgroup in its statewide accountability
system.
Current Regulations: Various sections of the current title I
regulations describe how subgroups of students are factored
[[Page 34550]]
into the State accountability systems required by the ESEA, as amended
by the NCLB.
Section 200.13 specifies that, as part of its definition of AYP,
each State must apply the same AMOs to all required statutory subgroups
of students (economically disadvantaged students, students from major
racial and ethnic groups, students with disabilities, and students with
limited English proficiency), consistent with the regulations in Sec.
200.7 for setting a minimum number of students, or n-size, for
accountability and reporting that protects student privacy and produces
valid and reliable accountability results. Section 200.19 requires
disaggregated reporting on the other academic indicator in elementary
and middle schools and on graduation rates, but does not require a
State to use disaggregated subgroup data on the other academic
indicator in elementary and middle schools for AYP determinations.
Current Sec. 200.6 permits a State to exempt recently arrived
English learners from one administration of the State's reading/
language arts assessment. This section further defines a ``recently
arrived limited English proficient student'' as a limited English
proficient student who has attended schools in the United States (not
including Puerto Rico) for less than 12 months. The regulations also
require that a State and its LEAs report on State and district report
cards the number of recently arrived English learners who are not
assessed on the State's reading/language arts assessment, and clarify
that a State must still include recently arrived English learners in
its annual English language proficiency and mathematics assessments
annually.
Section 200.20 permits a State to exclude the performance of a
recently arrived English learner on a reading/language arts assessment
(if administered to these students), mathematics assessment, or both,
in determining AYP for a school or LEA. In other words, the performance
of recently arrived English learners on content assessments may be
excluded for accountability purposes for one administration of the
content assessments.
Section 200.20 provides that in determining AYP for English
learners and students with disabilities, a State may include in the
English learner and students with disabilities subgroup, respectively,
for up to two AYP determinations, scores of students who were
previously English learners, but who have exited English learner
status, and scores of students who were previously identified as
students with a disability under section 602(3) of the IDEA, but who no
longer receive services. The regulations require that, if a State
includes students who were previously identified as English learners or
students who were previously identified as students with a disability
under section 602(3) of the IDEA in the respective subgroups in
determining AYP, the State must include the scores of all such
students. A State may, however, exclude such students from determining
whether a subgroup meets the State's n-size within a particular school.
A State also cannot include such former students in those subgroups for
reporting on other data beyond AYP determinations (e.g., for reporting
participation rates).
Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec. 200.16 would replace the
current regulations to clarify the statutory requirements under the
ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, for how a State must include subgroups of
students in its State accountability system. Specifically, the
subgroups of students included in the proposed regulations are--
Economically disadvantaged students;
Students from each major racial and ethnic group;
Children with disabilities, as defined in section 8101(4)
of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA; and
English learners, as defined in section 8101(20) of the
ESEA, as amended by the ESSA.
The proposed regulations would require each State to--
Include each subgroup of students, separately, and the all
students group, consistent with the State's minimum number of students,
or n-size, when establishing long-term goals and measurements of
interim progress under proposed Sec. 200.13, measuring school
performance on each of the indicators under proposed Sec. 200.14,
annually meaningfully differentiating schools under proposed Sec.
200.18, and identifying schools for comprehensive and targeted support
and improvement under proposed Sec. 200.19.
Include, at the State's discretion, for not more than four
years after a student exits the English learner subgroup, the
performance of a student previously identified as an English learner on
the Academic Achievement indicator within the English learner subgroup
for purposes of annual meaningful differentiation and identification of
schools for support and improvement under proposed Sec. Sec. 200.18
and 200.19, if the State includes all such students previously
identified as English learners and does so for the same State-
determined number of years.
Include, with respect to an English learner with a
disability for whom there are no appropriate accommodations for one or
more domains of the English language proficiency assessment required
under section 1111(b)(2)(G) because the disability is directly related
to that particular domain (e.g., a non-verbal English learner who
cannot take the speaking portion of the assessment), as determined by
the student's individualized education program (IEP) team or 504 team
on an individualized basis, in measuring performance against the
Progress in Achieving English Language Proficiency indicator, such a
student's performance on the English language proficiency assessment
based on the remaining domains in which it is possible to assess the
student.
Select a single statutory exemption from the two options
included in section 1111(b)(3)(A) for the inclusion of recently arrived
English learners in its accountability system and apply that exemption
uniformly to all recently arrived English learners in the State; or
Establish a uniform statewide procedure for determining
how to apply the statutory exemption(s), if the State chooses to
utilize either, or both, of the additional options included in section
1111(b)(3)(A) for the inclusion of recently arrived English learners in
its accountability system. The proposed regulations would require a
State, in establishing its uniform procedure, to take into account
English language proficiency level and at its discretion, other
student-level characteristics: Grade level, age, native language
proficiency level, and limited or interrupted formal education. Each
State's uniform procedure must be used to determine which, if any,
exemption is appropriate for an individual English learner.
Report annually on the number and percentage of recently
arrived English learners included in accountability under the options
described in section 1111(b)(3)(A).
Reasons: The ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, includes the same
subgroups of students for purposes of a statewide accountability system
as included under the ESEA, as amended by the NCLB. However, the ESSA
changes the requirements for how the performance of students in each
subgroup is included in the accountability system.
Proposed Sec. 200.16 would clarify that a State must include each
of the required subgroups of students separately when establishing
long-term goals and measurements of interim progress, measuring school
performance
[[Page 34551]]
on each of the indicators, annually meaningfully differentiating
schools, and identifying schools for comprehensive and targeted support
and improvement. This clarifies that, for example, ``students from
major racial and ethnic groups'' cannot be combined into one large
subgroup, or super-subgroup, that includes students from all major
racial and ethnic groups together as a substitute for considering each
of the major racial and ethnic groups separately. Relying exclusively
on a combined subgroup or a super-subgroup of students, instead of
using such groups in addition to individual subgroups of students (if a
State chooses to do so), may mask subgroup performance and conflate the
distinct academic needs of different groups of students, inhibit the
identification of schools with one or more consistently underperforming
subgroups of students for targeted support and improvement, and limit
information available to the public and parents, which is contrary to
the statutory purpose to increase transparency, improve academic
achievement, and hold schools accountable for the success of each
subgroup.
Permitting the inclusion of former English learners in the English
learner subgroup for up to four years after they have exited the
English learner subgroup recognizes that the population of English
learners in a school changes over time, as new English learners enter
and others are reclassified as English language proficient. Including
students previously identified as English learners in the subgroup
would allow schools to be recognized for the progress they have made in
supporting such students toward meeting the challenging State academic
standards over time. However, selecting which former English learners
to include, for which purposes, and for how long could undermine the
fairness of accountability determinations across the State by
encouraging the inclusion of higher-achieving former English learners
only, or encouraging the inclusion of higher-achieving former English
learners for longer periods of time than their lower-achieving peers.
Further, the inclusion of former English learners should be used to
increase school-level accountability and recognition for supporting the
English learner subgroup, which is possible only if such students are
counted within the subgroup for purposes of meeting the State's n-size.
For these reasons, proposed Sec. 200.16 would clarify that if a
State chooses to include former English learners in the English learner
subgroup for up to four years, it must include all such former English
learners in the subgroup for the same period of time. Further, former
English learners must be included in determining whether the English
learner subgroup meets the State's n-size in a particular school if a
State chooses to include former English learners in the Academic
Achievement indicator. The proposed regulations in Sec. 200.16 would
prohibit States from including former English learners in the English
learner subgroup for purposes other than calculating and reporting on
the Academic Achievement indicator. However, the proposed regulations
would not prohibit States from establishing their own additional
subgroups of students that include former English learners; we are
aware that some States track the performance of ``ever English
learners''--students who have at any time been classified as English
learners--and the proposed regulations would not prevent that practice.
The proposed regulations also would clarify that a State must
include in the Progress in Achieving English Language Proficiency
indicator the composite score of an English learner who has a
disability that prevents that student from taking, even with
appropriate accommodations, one or more domains of the English language
proficiency assessment (speaking, listening, reading, or writing). The
statute requires that each State assess all English learners annually
in all four domains with the English language proficiency assessment,
provide appropriate accommodations to an English learner who is also a
child with a disability, and hold schools accountable for the
performance of all English learners. We propose this regulation in
recognition that, in a limited number of situations, the nature of a
student's disability may make it impossible to validly assess the
student in a particular domain of the English language proficiency
assessment, even with appropriate accommodations. For example, it may
not be possible, even with appropriate accommodations, to administer
the speaking domain of the English language proficiency assessment to a
non-verbal English learner. The purpose of the proposed regulation is
to ensure that such a student is still included within the
accountability system based on his or her performance on the remaining
domains of the English language proficiency assessment.
To ensure that this exception is used only where necessary,
proposed 200.16(b)(2) would require a State to include the performance
of such a student in the Progress in Achieving English Language
Proficiency indicator based on fewer than all four domains of language
only where, as determined by the student's IEP or 504 team on an
individualized basis, it is not possible, even with appropriate
accommodations, for the student to participate in one or more domains
of the English language proficiency assessment. A State may not adopt
categorical rules for excluding English learners with certain
disabilities from corresponding domains of the English language
proficiency assessment; rather, just as the IEP or 504 team makes the
decision about accommodations on an individualized basis, so too the
decision as to domain participation would be made by the IEP or 504
team on an individualized basis, and only for this limited subset of
English learners.
The ESSA provides new flexibility in how States may include the
performance of recently arrived English learners on academic
assessments in the statewide accountability system by their second year
of enrollment in schools in the United States. Proposed Sec. 200.16
would clarify that recently arrived English learners must be included
in meaningful and appropriate ways, acknowledging the diversity and
varying needs of this population. Research has demonstrated that a
student's language proficiency, age, and educational background (such
as amount of formal education and native language proficiency) have an
impact on that student's development of English language proficiency
and academic achievement.\5\ While some recently arrived English
learners may be best served by taking the reading/language arts
assessment in their first year of enrollment in U.S. schools, and
subsequently included in growth calculations for accountability in
their second year of enrollment, this exemption may be inappropriate
for other recently arrived English learners. Thus, based on the
existing research base, the proposed regulations would clarify that
States could either choose to apply one of the statutory options for
exempting recently arrived English learners uniformly to all recently
arrived English learners, or have the option of taking into account
English language proficiency level and, at a State's discretion,
certain additional student-level characteristics, including grade
level, age, native language proficiency level, and limited or
interrupted formal education, when determining which approach for
[[Page 34552]]
inclusion in the accountability system is most appropriate for each
recently arrived English learner. The proposed regulations would also
clarify that a State must establish a uniform procedure for making this
student-level determination, which will ensure fairness across LEAs and
maximize the inclusion of recently arrived English learners, while
recognizing the heterogeneity of such students, and promote the
availability of comparable data for recently arrived English learners
statewide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. (1997). ``School effectiveness
for language minority students.'' Washington, DC: National
Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the statute specifically states that the scores of
students previously identified as an English learner may be included
for up to four years for the calculation of the Academic Achievement
indicator, the statute is silent about whether States may include the
scores of a student who was previously identified as a child with a
disability under section 602(3) of the IDEA. Accordingly, proposed
Sec. 200.16 would differ from the current title I regulations, which
allow States to count the scores of students who were previously
identified as a child with a disability for the purposes of making
accountability determinations for up to two years. Unlike English
learners, who all share a goal of attaining English language
proficiency and exiting the English learner subgroup, the goal for all
children with disabilities is not always or necessarily to exit special
education services. The flexibility in the current title I regulations
is intended to allow school assessment results for the student with
disabilities subgroup to reflect the gains that students exiting the
subgroup had made in academic achievement. As a result, however, the
academic achievement results used for accountability for the students
with disabilities subgroup in a particular school may not fully reflect
the achievement of students receiving special education services.
Because this provision was not included in the ESEA, as amended by
ESSA, we seek specific comments on whether the provision to allow a
student who was previously identified as a child with a disability
under section 602(3) of the IDEA, but who no longer receives special
education services, to be included in the children with disabilities
subgroup for the limited purpose of calculating the Academic
Achievement indicator should be retained or modified in proposed Sec.
200.16, and if so, whether such students should be permitted in the
subgroup for up to two years consistent with the current title I
regulations, or for a shorter proposed period of time.
Section 200.17 Disaggregation of Data
Statute: Section 1111(c)(3) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA,
requires each State to determine, in consultation with stakeholders, a
minimum number of students (hereafter ``n-size'') that the State will
use for accountability and reporting purposes. The n-size must be
statistically sound, the same for all students and for each subgroup of
students, and sufficient to not reveal any personally identifiable
information.
Current Regulations: Section 200.7(a)(1) prohibits a State from
using disaggregated data for reporting purposes or AYP determinations
if the number of students in the subgroup is insufficient to yield
statistically reliable information. Section 200.7(a)(2) requires a
State, using sound statistical methods, to determine and justify in its
consolidated State plan the minimum number of students sufficient to
yield statistically reliable information for each purpose for which
disaggregated data are used.
Section 200.7(a)(2)(i) requires a State, in determining its minimum
subgroup size, to consider statistical reliability in setting such
number to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that all students
are included, particularly at the school level, for purposes of making
accountability decisions. Section 200.7(a)(2)(ii) requires each State
to revise its Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook to
include: (1) An explanation of how the State's minimum subgroup size
meets the requirements of Sec. 200.7(a)(2)(i); (2) an explanation of
how other components of the State's AYP definition, in addition to the
State's minimum subgroup size, interact to affect the statistical
reliability of the data and to ensure maximum inclusion of all students
and subgroups of students; and (3) information on the number and
percentage of students and subgroups of students excluded from school-
level accountability determinations. Section 200.7(a)(2)(iii) requires
each State to submit a revised Consolidated State Application
Accountability Workbook that incorporates the information required in
Sec. 200.7(a)(2)(ii) for technical assistance and peer review.
The section also clarifies that students excluded from
disaggregation and accountability at the school level must be included
at the level (LEA or State) for which the number of students is
reliable. It stipulates that a State must apply section 444 of the
General Education Provisions Act (the Family Educational Rights and
Privacy Act of 1974) in determining whether disaggregated data would
reveal personally identifiable information.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec. 200.17 would retain and
reorganize the relevant requirements of current Sec. 200.7, which
would be removed and reserved, so that these requirements are
incorporated directly into the sections of the proposed regulations
pertaining to accountability, instead of regulations pertaining to
assessments in current Sec. Sec. 200.2 through 200.10. Further,
proposed Sec. 200.17 would update the requirements in current Sec.
200.7 to reflect new statutory requirements that promote statistical
reliability and inclusion of subgroups for accountability in the ESSA.
Proposed Sec. 200.17 would also clarify data disaggregation
requirements. Specifically, proposed Sec. 200.17(a)(2)(iii) would
clarify that, for the purposes of the statewide accountability system
under section 1111(c), a State's n-size may not exceed 30 students,
unless the State is approved to use a higher number after providing a
justification, including data on the number and percentage of schools
that are not held accountable for the results of each required subgroup
of students in the State's system of annual meaningful differentiation,
in its State plan. Proposed Sec. 200.17(a)(2)(iv) would further
clarify that the n-size sufficient to yield statistically reliable
information for purposes of reporting under section 1111(h) may be
lower than the n-size used for purposes of the statewide accountability
system under section 1111(c).
Reasons: The ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, continues to focus on
holding schools accountable for the outcomes of specific subgroups of
students. The statute specifically requires that accountability
determinations be based on the performance of all students and each
subgroup of students, and requires a State to disaggregate data for
purposes of measuring progress toward its long-term goals performance
on each indicator under proposed Sec. Sec. 200.13 and 200.14. The need
to ensure statistical reliability and protect student privacy qualifies
these disaggregation requirements; thus, the statute requires States to
set an n-size and prohibits accountability determinations or reporting
by subgroup if the size of the subgroup is too small to yield
statistically reliable results, or would reveal personally identifiable
information about individual students. Because these are statutory
requirements for State accountability systems under section 1111(c), we
propose to reorganize the current
[[Page 34553]]
regulations so that requirements related to a State's n-size are
included within the regulatory sections pertaining to accountability,
instead of State assessment systems, by removing and reserving current
Sec. 200.7 and replacing it with proposed Sec. 200.17.
A State's n-size should be no larger than necessary to ensure the
protection of privacy for individuals and to allow for statistically
reliable results of the aggregate performance of the students who make
up a subgroup. The n-size must also be small enough to ensure the
maximum inclusion of each student subgroup in accountability decisions
and school identification, including measuring student progress against
the State's long-term goals and indicators and notifying schools with
consistently underperforming subgroups of students for targeted support
and improvement, consistent with the statutory requirements to
disaggregate data for such purposes.
Setting an n-size that is statistically reliable has been a
challenge for States. Previous approaches have, at times, prioritized
setting a conservative n-size (e.g., 100 students) in order to yield
more reliable accountability decisions. However, the use of an n-size
is intended to ensure that results are both reliable and valid. While,
in general, the reliability of results increases as the sample size
increases, the validity of the results can decrease as more student
subgroups are excluded from the accountability system. In other words,
in determining an n-size, a State must appropriately balance the goal
of producing reliable results with the goal of holding schools
accountable for the outcomes of each subgroup of students. For example,
under the ESEA, as amended by the NCLB, 79 percent of students with
disabilities were included in the accountability systems of States with
an n-size of 30. However, only 32 percent of students with disabilities
were included in the accountability systems of States with an n-size of
40.\6\ Similarly, in a 2016 examination of the effect of using
different subgroup sizes in California's CORE school districts,\7\ the
study found that when using an n-size of 100, only 37 percent of
African American students' math scores are reported at the school-
level. However, using an n-size of 20 increases the percentage of
``visible'' African American students to 88 percent. The impact for
students with disabilities is even larger: when the n-size is 100, only
25 percent of students with disabilities are reported at the school-
level; however, 92 percent of students with disabilities are reported
when using an n-size of 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Harr-Robins, J., Song, M., Hurlburt, S., Pruce, C.,
Danielson, L., & Garet, M. (2013). ``The inclusion of students with
disabilities in school accountability systems: An update (NCEE 2013-
4017).'' Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation
and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education, pp. 24-26.
\7\ Hough, H., & Witte, J. (2016). ``Making students visible:
Comparing different student subgroup sizes for accountability.''
CORE-PACE Research Partnership, Policy Memo, 16-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other analyses have shown that an n-size of 60 can potentially
exclude all students with disabilities from a State's accountability
system.\8\ Basic statistics (i.e., the Central Limit Theorem) support
the use of 30 as an n-size.\9\ The Central Limit Theorem states that as
long as one uses a reasonably large sample size (e.g., sample size
greater than or equal to 30), the mean will be normally distributed,
even if the distribution of scores in the sample is not.\10\ Finally,
some researchers have suggested that an n-size of 25 is sufficient to
yield reliable data on student performance.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Simpson, M.A., Gong, B., & Marion, S. (2006). ``Effect of
minimum cell sizes and confidence interval sizes for special
education subgroups on school-level AYP determinations.'' Council of
Chief State School Officers; Synthesis Report 61. National Center on
Educational Outcomes, University of Minnesota.
\9\ Urdan, T.C. (2010). Statistics in Plain English. New York:
Routledge.
\10\ Ibid.
\11\ Linn, R.L., Baker, E. L., & Herman, J.L. (2002). ``Minimum
group size for measuring adequate yearly progress.'' The CRESST
line. http://www.cse.ucla.edu/products/newsletters/cresst_cl2002_4.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons, proposed Sec. 200.17(a)(2) would allow states
to establish a range of n-sizes, not to exceed 30, so that States may
select an n-size that is both valid and reliable. The proposed
regulations would also allow a State to set an n-size that exceeds 30
students if it demonstrates how the higher number promotes sound,
reliable accountability decisions and the use of disaggregated data in
making those decisions in its State plan, including data on the number
and percentage of schools that would not be held accountable for the
results of students in each subgroup under its proposed n-size.
Section 200.18 Annual Meaningful Differentiation of School Performance
Statute: Section 1111(c)(4)(C)(i) of the ESEA, as amended by the
ESSA, requires that each State establish a system for meaningfully
differentiating all public schools in the State each year. The system
of annual meaningful differentiation must be based on all of the
indicators in the State accountability system under section
1111(c)(4)(B) for all students and for each subgroup of students.
Section 1111(c)(4)(C)(ii) requires that the system of annual meaningful
differentiation afford substantial weight to each of the following
indicators:
Academic achievement;
Graduation rates for high schools;
A measure of student growth, if determined appropriate by
the State, or another valid and reliable academic indicator that allows
for meaningful differentiation in school performance for elementary and
secondary schools that are not high schools; and
Progress in achieving English language proficiency.
These indicators, combined, must also be afforded much greater
weight than the indicator or indicators of school quality or student
success.
Current Regulations: Various sections of the current title I
regulations describe how a school's performance against its AMOs in
reading/language arts and mathematics and other academic indicators,
including graduation rates, determine whether a school makes, or fails
to make, AYP in a given school year. These sections essentially restate
the statutory language in the ESEA, as amended by the NCLB.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec. 200.18 would replace the
current regulations with regulations implementing the ESEA statutory
requirements, as amended by the ESSA, for States to establish systems
of annual meaningful differentiation of all public schools.
Performance Levels and Summative Ratings
The proposed regulations would require each State's system of
annual meaningful differentiation to--
Include the performance of all students and each subgroup
of students in a school on all of the indicators, consistent with
proposed regulations for inclusion of subgroups in Sec. 200.16, for
disaggregation of data in Sec. 200.17, and for inclusion of students
that attend the same school for only part of the year in Sec.
200.20(c);
Include at least three distinct levels of performance for
schools on each indicator that are clear and understandable to the
public, and set those performance levels in a way that is consistent
with the school's attainment of the State's long-term goals and
measurements of interim progress in proposed Sec. 200.13;
Provide information on each school's level of performance
on each indicator in the accountability system separately as part of
the description of the State's accountability system under
[[Page 34554]]
section 1111(h)(1)(C)(i)(IV) that is included as part of LEA report
cards consistent with proposed Sec. 200.32;
Result in a single rating from among at least three
distinct rating categories for each school, based on a school's level
of performance on each indicator, to describe a school's summative
performance and include such a rating as part of the description of the
State's system for annual meaningful differentiation on LEA report
cards consistent with proposed Sec. Sec. 200.31 and 200.32;
Meet the requirements of proposed Sec. 200.15 to annually
measure the achievement of not less than 95 percent of all students and
95 percent of all students in each subgroup of students on the
assessments under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I); and
Inform the State's methodology to identify schools for
comprehensive and targeted support and improvement described in
proposed Sec. 200.19.
Weighting of Indicators
To annually meaningfully differentiate among all public schools in
the State, including determining the summative rating for each school,
proposed Sec. 200.18 would require States to use consistent weighting
among the indicators for all schools within each grade span. In
particular, proposed Sec. 200.18 would require States to give
substantial weight to each of the Academic Achievement, Academic
Progress, Graduation Rate, and Progress in English Language Proficiency
indicators, consistent with the statutory requirements in section
1111(c)(4)(C)(ii)(I). Proposed Sec. 200.18 would also require States
to give much greater weight to those indicators, in the aggregate, than
to the indicator or indicators of school quality or student success,
consistent with the statutory requirements in section
1111(c)(4)(C)(ii)(II).
Further, to show that its system of annual meaningful
differentiation meets these requirements for providing substantial and
much greater weight to certain indicators, under proposed Sec. 200.18
each State would be required to:
Demonstrate that school performance on the School Quality
or Student Success indicator(s) may not be used to change the identity
of schools that would otherwise be identified for comprehensive support
and improvement, unless such schools are making significant progress
for the all students group under proposed Sec. 200.16(a)(1) on at
least one of the indicators that is afforded substantial weight and can
be measured for all students; and
Demonstrate that school performance on the School Quality
or Student Success indicator(s) may not be used to change the identity
of schools that would otherwise be identified for targeted support and
improvement, unless each consistently underperforming or low-performing
subgroup is making significant progress on at least one of the
indicators that is afforded substantial weight.
In other words, the four substantially weighted indicators,
together, would not be deemed to have much greater weight in the system
if performance on the other, not substantially weighted indicator could
remove a school from identification. Thus, in order for the school to
be removed from identification it must also be making progress for the
relevant subgroup of students on an indicator that receives substantial
weight.
Similarly, under proposed Sec. 200.18 each State would be required
to demonstrate, based on the performance of all students and each
subgroup of students, that a school performing in the lowest
performance level on any of the substantially weighted indicators does
not receive the same summative rating as a school performing in the
highest performance level on all of the indicators. In other words, an
indicator would not be considered to have substantial weight, and the
overall system would not be meaningfully differentiating among schools,
if low performance on that indicator failed to result in a school being
rated differently than a school performing at the highest level on
every indicator.
Finally, proposed Sec. 200.18 would clarify that a State would not
be required to afford the same substantial weight to each of the
indicators that are required to receive a substantial weight in the
system of annual meaningful differentiation. Further, it would clarify
that if a school did not meet the State's n-size for English learners,
a State must exclude the Progress in English Language Proficiency
indicator from annual meaningful differentiation for the school and
afford all of the remaining indicators for such a school the same
relative weight that is afforded to those indicators in schools that
meet the State's n-size for the English learner subgroup. It would not
necessarily, however, relieve a school from its reporting requirements
for English learners under the law if a State selects an n-size that is
lower for reporting purposes than for purposes of annual meaningful
differentiation consistent with proposed Sec. 200.17.
Reasons: Given the changes in the ESEA statutory requirements and
the heightened role for States in establishing systems of annual
meaningful differentiation, we propose to revise the current
regulations to reflect the new requirements and clarify how annual
meaningful differentiation is related to other parts of the
accountability system, such as participation in assessments in proposed
Sec. 200.15 and the identification of schools for comprehensive and
targeted support and improvement in proposed Sec. 200.19.
Without successful annual meaningful differentiation of schools,
low-performing schools may not be identified for needed resources and
interventions, and States and LEAs may be unable to provide appropriate
supports and recognition that are tailored to schools' and students'
needs based on their performance. Additionally, parents and the public
will lack access to transparent information about the quality of
schools in their communities and how well schools are educating all
students. Providing information for each of these purposes is
particularly difficult, given that accountability systems must include
multiple indicators, disaggregated by multiple subgroups. For these
reasons, proposed Sec. 200.18 would further clarify the statutory
requirements to ensure that annual meaningful differentiation results
in actionable, useful information for States, LEAs, educators, parents,
and the public.
Performance Levels and Summative Ratings
First, proposed Sec. 200.18(b) would require States to establish
at least three distinct performance levels for schools on each
indicator and ensure that LEAs include how each school fared against
these performance levels, separately by indicator, as part of the
description of the accountability system on annual LEA report cards. To
ensure that differentiation of schools is meaningful, the
accountability system should allow for more than two possible outcomes
for each school, and a requirement for at least three performance
levels on each indicator would enable the system to recognize both
high-performing and low-performing schools that are outliers, and
distinguish them from more typical school performance.
Second, proposed Sec. 200.18(b) would require each State to set
performance levels on each indicator in a way that is consistent with
attainment of the State's long-term goals and measurements of interim
progress. If a school is
[[Page 34555]]
repeatedly failing to make sufficient progress toward the State's goals
for academic achievement, graduation rates, or English language
proficiency, that would be reflected in the performance level the
school receives on those indicators. This would help ensure that the
system of annual meaningful differentiation and the State's long-term
goals work together to provide a coherent picture of school performance
to parents and the public, and that schools receive a consistent signal
regarding the student progress and outcomes they are expected to
achieve each year.
In addition, proposed Sec. 200.18(b) would require the performance
levels to be clear and understandable to parents and the public. For
example, creating three levels of performance that are all synonyms for
``meeting expectations'' would likely be unhelpful, confusing, and fail
to differentiate between schools in a meaningful way. Instead, the
levels should indicate distinct differences in performance in user-
friendly terms that the local community, especially students' parents,
can understand.
These performance levels would need to be reported separately for
each indicator under proposed Sec. 200.14, because each measures a
distinct aspect of school quality and performance, as well as reported
together in a single summative rating, from among at least three
overall school rating categories. Many schools may excel on some
indicators, and struggle on other indicators--information that could be
hidden if only an aggregate rating were reported, or if performance
levels were reported on some, but not all, of the indicators. This also
serves as an important safeguard to ensure that the Academic
Achievement, Academic Progress, Graduation Rates, and Progress in
Achieving English Language Proficiency indicators--the substantially
weighted indicators in the system--are not overshadowed in a summative
rating by School Quality or Student Success indicators that States may
add. Further, by presenting the performance level on each indicator
separately, States and districts would be better equipped to customize
supports, technical assistance, and resources to meet the needs of each
school.
However, there is significant value in providing a summative rating
for each school that considers the school's level of performance across
all of the indicators, and many States have already chosen to aggregate
multiple measures into a single rating (e.g., A-F school grades,
performance indices, accreditation systems) for State or Federal
accountability purposes. A single summative rating is easy for
stakeholders, parents, and the public to understand, summarizes
complicated information into a more digestible format, and provides
clear comparisons among schools, just as grade point averages provide a
quick, high-level snapshot of students' average academic performance,
while students' grades in each subject provide more detailed
information about particular strengths and weaknesses. Further, a
summative rating sends a strong signal to educators and school leaders
to focus on improving school performance across all indicators in the
system, as each will contribute to the summative result. Research has
shown that accountability systems have a stronger impact on increasing
student achievement, particularly in mathematics, when summative
ratings are linked to accountability determinations and potential
rewards and interventions for schools than when systems rely on
reporting information without school-level consequences based on that
information.\12\ For these reasons, proposed Sec. 200.18 would require
States to provide schools with summative ratings, across all
indicators, and to report those ratings for each school on LEA report
cards, as described in proposed Sec. Sec. 200.31 and 200.32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See, for example, Dee, Thomas S., & Jacob, B. (May 2011).
``The impact of No Child Left Behind on student achievement.''
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(3), 418-446; Carnoy,
Martin, & Loeb, S. (2002). ``Does external accountability affect
student outcomes? A cross-state analysis.'' Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis, 24(4), 305-31; and Ahn, T., & Vigdor, J. L.
(September 2014). ``The impact of No Child Left Behind's
accountability sanctions on school performance: Regression
discontinuity evidence from North Carolina.'' NBER Working Paper No.
w20511.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighting of Indicators
Proposed Sec. 200.18(c) and (d) would clarify the requirements for
four indicators--Academic Achievement, Academic Progress, Graduation
Rates, and Progress in Achieving English Language Proficiency, as
described in proposed Sec. 200.14--to be afforded substantial weight
separately, and much greater weight together, than the State's
indicator or indicators of School Quality or Student Success in the
summative rating by specifying three checks that States must meet to
demonstrate that their systems comply with this requirement. Taken
together, these checks would help ensure that the indicators that are
required in the statute to receive much greater weight, in the
aggregate, ultimately drive annual determinations of school quality and
identification of schools for support and improvement. Similarly, they
would help ensure that each substantially weighted indicator is not
overshadowed by indicators that are not afforded that distinction by
the statute. In addition to clarifying the statute, the checks required
in proposed Sec. 200.18(d) would provide critical parameters to help
ensure that State accountability systems will emphasize student
academic outcomes, like academic achievement, graduation rates, and
English language proficiency, and will help close achievement gaps,
consistent with the purpose of title I of the ESEA.
Proposed Sec. 200.18(c) and (e) would clarify that in meeting the
requirement to use consistent weighting across all schools within a
grade span and for particular indicators to be afforded substantial
weight, each indicator does not have to receive the same substantial
weight. This would allow States to prioritize among the substantially
weighted indicators, based on their unique goals and challenges, and
customize their systems of annual meaningful differentiation to
emphasize certain indicators more heavily within a particular grade
span.
Further, proposed Sec. 200.18(e) would clarify how a State must
meet the requirements that they afford indicators substantial weight
when a school does not enroll sufficient numbers of English learners to
include the Progress in Achieving English Language Proficiency
indicator. By requiring the same relative weighting among the remaining
indicators in such a school as the weighting used in schools that meet
the State's n-size for the English learner subgroup, the proposed
regulation would help promote fair, comparable differentiation among
all public schools, regardless of variation in the demographics of a
school's student population. If the Academic Achievement indicator
typically receives twice the weight of School Quality or Student
Success indicators, as determined by the State, in schools that meet
the State's n-size for English learners, the Academic Achievement
indicator would continue to receive twice the weight of the School
Quality or Student Success indicators in schools that do not meet the
State's n-size for English learners. In this way, the proposed
regulations would ensure that the weight that would have otherwise been
given to the Progress in Achieving English Language Proficiency
indicator is distributed among the other indicators in an unbiased and
consistent way, so that the overall accountability system does not
place relatively more, or less, emphasis on a particular
[[Page 34556]]
indicator in schools without sufficient numbers of English learners.
Overall, proposed Sec. 200.18 would provide clarity to States,
support consistency in how terms are defined, and help ensure that key
indicators, especially those most directly related to student learning
outcomes, receive the emphasis required by the statute in the
accountability system. The terms ``substantial'' and ``much greater''
are ambiguous, especially when States could employ various approaches
in order to differentiate schools. The proposed regulations would give
consistent meaning to these terms and help protect subgroups of
students whose performance could be overlooked, and whose schools could
go unidentified, if certain indicators were afforded insufficient
weight. For example, if Progress in Achieving English Language
Proficiency received less than ``substantial'' weight in a State's
system of annual meaningful differentiation, it is possible that
schools failing to support their English learners in attaining English
language proficiency would go unidentified for targeted support and
improvement, and students in those schools would not receive the
supports, resources, and services they would have otherwise been
eligible for as a school identified for improvement.
Section 200.19 Identification of Schools
Statute: Section 1111(c)(4)(D) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA,
requires each State to create a methodology, based on the system of
annual meaningful differentiation described in section 1111(c)(4)(C),
for identifying certain public schools for comprehensive support and
improvement. This methodology must identify schools beginning with the
2017-2018 school year, and at least once every three years thereafter,
and must include three types of schools, specified in section
1111(c)(4)(D)(i)--
The lowest-performing five percent of all title I schools
in the State;
Any public high school in the State failing to graduate
one-third or more of its students; and
Title I schools with a consistently underperforming
subgroup that, on its own, is performing as poorly as all students in
the lowest-performing five percent of title I schools and that has
failed to improve after implementation of a targeted support and
improvement plan.
Section 1111(c)(4)(C)(iii) and section 1111(d)(2)(A)(i) also
require a State to use its method for annual meaningful
differentiation, based on all indicators in the accountability system,
to identify any public school in which one or more subgroups of
students is consistently underperforming, as determined by the State,
and to notify each LEA in the State of any public school served by the
LEA of such identification so that the LEA can ensure the school
develops a targeted support and improvement plan. The notification must
also specify, beginning with the 2017-2018 school year as described in
section 1111(d)(2)(D), if a subgroup of students in the school, on its
own, has performed as poorly as all students in the bottom five percent
of title I schools that have been identified for comprehensive support
and improvement. This type of targeted support and improvement schools
must implement additional targeted supports, as described in section
1111(d)(2)(C).
Section 1111(c)(4)(D)(ii) specifies that a State may also add other
statewide categories of schools in addition to the categories of
schools described above.
Current Regulations: Section 200.32 of the current title I
regulations requires all LEAs to identify any title I school for
improvement that fails to make AYP for two or more consecutive years.
Generally, under the regulations, title I schools must be identified by
the beginning of the school year following the school year in which the
LEA administered the assessments that resulted in the school's failure
to make AYP.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec. 200.19 would replace the
current regulations with regulations reflecting the new statutory
requirements under the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, to identify
schools for comprehensive support and improvement and for targeted
support and improvement.
Comprehensive Support and Improvement, Generally
With regard to identification for comprehensive support and
improvement, the proposed regulations would require each State to
establish a methodology, based on its system of annual meaningful
differentiation under proposed Sec. 200.18, to identify a statewide
category of schools for comprehensive support and improvement, which
must include three types of schools: The lowest-performing schools,
high schools with low graduation rates, and schools with chronically
low-performing subgroups.
Lowest-Performing Five Percent of Title I Schools
The proposed regulations would require that each State identify the
lowest-performing schools to include at least five percent of title I
elementary, middle, and high schools in the State, taking into
account--
A school's summative rating among all students on the
State's accountability indicators, averaged over no more than three
years consistent with proposed Sec. 200.20(a), which describes data
procedures for annual meaningful differentiation and identification of
schools; and
The statutory requirement to assign substantial weight
individually, and much greater weight overall, to the indicators of
Academic Achievement, Academic Progress, Graduation Rates, and Progress
in Achieving English Language Proficiency.
Low Graduation Rate High Schools
Proposed Sec. 200.19 would require low graduation rate high
schools to include any high school in the State with a four-year
adjusted cohort graduation rate among all students below 67 percent, or
below a higher percentage selected by the State, averaged over no more
than three years consistent with proposed Sec. 200.20(a).
Schools With Chronically Low-Performing Subgroups
Proposed Sec. 200.19 would also require States to identify schools
with chronically low-performing subgroups of students, which are
defined as any title I school with one or more subgroups that performs
as poorly as all students in any of the lowest-performing five percent
of title I schools under proposed Sec. 200.19(a)(1) and that have not
sufficiently improved, as defined by the State, after implementation of
a targeted support and improvement plan over no more than three years.
Identification for Targeted Support and Improvement
With regard to identification of schools for targeted support and
improvement, the proposed regulations would establish requirements for
identifying two types of schools. First, a State would be required to
identify under proposed Sec. 200.19(b)(2) each school with at least
one low-performing subgroup of students, which is defined as a subgroup
of students that is performing at a level at or below the summative
performance of all students in any of the lowest-performing five
percent of title I schools in comprehensive support and improvement.
Second, each State would establish a methodology, based on its system
of annual meaningful differentiation under proposed Sec. 200.18, to
identify schools with consistently underperforming subgroups for
targeted
[[Page 34557]]
support and improvement under proposed Sec. 200.19(b)(1). Proposed
Sec. 200.19(c) would require that the State's methodology--
Include any school with at least one consistently
underperforming subgroup of students; and
Take into account (1) a school's performance on the
accountability indicators, over no more than two years, and (2) the
statutory requirement to assign substantial weight individually, and
much greater weight overall, to the indicators of Academic Achievement,
Academic Progress, Graduation Rates, and Progress in Achieving English
Language Proficiency. This methodology could also, at the State's
discretion, include schools with low participation rates consistent
with proposed Sec. 200.15(b)(2)(iii).
In addition, proposed Sec. 200.19(c) would require each State to
identify subgroups of students that are consistently underperforming
using a uniform definition across all LEAs, which may include:
A subgroup of students that is not on track to meet the
State's long-term goals or is not meeting the State's measurements of
interim progress under proposed Sec. 200.13;
A subgroup of students that is performing at the lowest
performance level in the system of annual meaningful differentiation on
at least one indicator, or is particularly low performing on measures
within an indicator (e.g., performance on the State mathematics
assessments);
A subgroup of students that is performing at or below a
State-determined threshold compared to the average performance among
all students, or the highest-performing subgroup, in the State;
A subgroup of students that is performing significantly
below the average performance among all students, or the highest-
performing subgroup, in the State, such that the performance gap is
among the largest in the State; or
Another definition, determined by the State, which the
State demonstrates in its State plan would meet all proposed
requirements for identification of schools for targeted support and
improvement.
Frequency and Timeline for Identification
Proposed Sec. 200.19 would also establish the timeline for
identification of schools for comprehensive and targeted support and
improvement, as follows:
The lowest-performing title I schools, low graduation rate
high schools, and title I schools with chronically low-performing
subgroups would be identified for comprehensive support and improvement
at least once every three years, beginning with the 2017-2018 school
year, except that schools with chronically low-performing subgroups of
students would not be required to be identified the first time a State
identifies its lowest-performing and low graduation rate high schools
in the 2017-2018 school year.
Schools with consistently underperforming subgroups of
students would be identified for targeted support and improvement
annually, beginning with the 2018-2019 school year.
Schools with low-performing subgroups of students that are
performing at a level at or below the summative performance of all
students in any of the lowest-performing five percent of title I
schools would be identified at least once every three years, with
identification occurring in each year that the State identifies the
lowest-performing five percent of title I schools for comprehensive
support and improvement, beginning with the 2017-2018 school year.
Finally, proposed Sec. 200.19 would require that each State
identify schools for comprehensive and targeted support and improvement
by the beginning of the school year for which such school is
identified. Specifically, the year of identification would be defined
as the school year immediately following the year in which the State
most recently measured the school's performance on the indicators under
proposed Sec. 200.14 that resulted in the school's identification. In
other words, schools identified for the 2017-2018 school year would be
identified, at a minimum, on the basis of their performance in the
2016-2017 school year and schools identified for the 2018-2019 school
year would be identified, at a minimum, on the basis of their
performance in the 2017-2018 school year, consistent with proposed
Sec. 200.20(a) regarding uniform procedures for averaging data.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Recognizing that identification of schools in 2017-2018 may
be delayed in some States due to the Department's review and
approval process for State plans under section 1111 of the ESEA, as
amended by the ESSA, the Department plans to issue non-regulatory
guidance to allow delayed identification of schools in the 2017-2018
school year in States whose plans have not yet been approved by the
beginning of the 2017-2018 school year consistent with the State
plan submission timeline in proposed Sec. 299.13. Because proposed
Sec. Sec. 200.21 and 200.22 would allow identified schools to have
a planning year, States and LEAs could allow schools that were
identified for comprehensive or targeted support and improvement
partway through the 2017-2018 school year to engage in planning and
pre-implementation activities for the remainder of the 2017-2018
school year, so that all schools are fully implementing their
support and improvement plans, as required by the ESEA, as amended
by the ESSA, on the first day of the 2018-2019 school year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reasons: Proposed Sec. 200.19 replaces obsolete provisions of
current regulations with new regulations incorporating the requirements
under the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, for the identification of low-
performing schools.
Appropriate, accurate, and timely identification of low-performing
schools is critical to ensuring that State accountability systems work
and help improve student academic achievement and school success, as
intended in the statute. LEAs are eligible to receive additional
funding from their States, as described in proposed Sec. 200.24, to
support these schools. If low-performing schools are misidentified and
excluded from comprehensive or targeted support and improvement,
students who are struggling may not receive the additional resources
and support they need. In addition, research has demonstrated that
accountability systems with meaningful consequences for poor school
performance are more effective at improving student outcomes than
systems that rely primarily on reporting of school-level data to
encourage improvement.\14\ For these reasons, and given the extent of
the statutory changes, we propose to update the current regulations to
reflect the new requirements and support State implementation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See, for example, Dee, Thomas S., & Jacob, B. (May 2011).
``The impact of No Child Left Behind on student achievement.''
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(3), 418-446; and
Hanushek, Eric A., & Raymond, M.E. (2005). ``Does school
accountability lead to improved student performance?'' Journal of
Policy Analysis and Management, 24(2), 297-327.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed regulations would also clarify statutory school
improvement provisions through additional requirements that align
identification for school improvement with other accountability
requirements, help ensure appropriate and timely identification of
schools with low-performing students and subgroups of students, and
create a cohesive system of school accountability and improvement, with
distinct reasons for school identification and clear timelines for
identification.
Comprehensive Support and Improvement, Generally
Proposed Sec. 200.19 would clarify that identification of title I
schools in the lowest-performing five percent of title I schools in the
State and identification of high schools with low graduation rates
[[Page 34558]]
is based on the performance of all students in the school. This
clarification would help distinguish these schools, which proposed
Sec. 200.19 refers to as the lowest-performing schools and low
graduation rate high schools, from schools identified due to
consistently underperforming subgroups of students or low-performing
subgroups. Further, because schools identified due to chronically low-
performing subgroups of students are identified by directly comparing
subgroup performance in a particular school to the performance of
students within schools in the lowest-performing five percent of
schools, the lowest-performing schools must be identified on the basis
of all students' performance for this comparison to be meaningful.
Similarly, proposed Sec. 200.19 would clarify that identification
of each type of school in comprehensive support and improvement must be
based on a school's performance over no more than three years,
consistent with the statutory requirement to identify these schools
once every three years and with proposed regulations regarding
averaging data across years under proposed Sec. 200.20(a). If data
were considered over a longer period of time, it may not reflect the
school's current learning conditions, potentially leading to
inappropriate identification of schools that have improved
dramatically, or non-identification of schools that have experienced
significant declines, since the last time the State identified these
schools. Limiting the window over which performance may be considered
at three years would help ensure identification is timely and accurate,
and that improvement plans are developed for schools most in need of
support.
Lowest-Performing Five Percent of Title I Schools
The proposed regulations would help ensure annual meaningful
differentiation and school identification work together, creating a
coherent accountability system that parents, the public, and other
stakeholders can understand and that provides consistent information to
schools regarding the progress and outcomes they are expected to
achieve. For these reasons, proposed Sec. 200.19 would ensure the
lowest-performing schools are identified school summative ratings. For
similar reasons, proposed Sec. 200.19 would clarify that
identification of the lowest-performing schools would be consistent
with the statutory requirement that the Academic Achievement, Academic
Progress, Graduation Rate, and Progress in Achieving English Language
Proficiency indicators be given substantial weight individually, and
much greater weight together, than indicator(s) of School Quality or
Student Success.
Low Graduation Rate High Schools
Proposed Sec. 200.19 would specify that any high school with a
four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate below 67 percent, averaged
over no more than three years, must be identified due to low graduation
rates, consistent with the statutory requirements in section
1111(c)(4)(d)(i)(II). However, the proposed regulations also would
permit a State to set a threshold that is higher than 67 percent for
identifying low graduation rate high schools, in recognition of the
wide range of average graduation rates across different States.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ EDFacts Data Groups 695 and 696, School year 2013-14;
September 4, 2015. http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/tables/ACGR_RE_and_characteristics_2013-14.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the statute permits the use of an extended-year adjusted
cohort graduation rate within the Graduation Rate indicator, the four-
year adjusted cohort graduation rate is the only measure within the
Graduation Rate indicator required for all schools. Relying exclusively
on the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate for identification
would provide a consistent benchmark for holding schools accountable
across States and LEAs, and signal the importance of on-time high
school graduation as a key determinant of school and student success.
If extended-year rates were considered in the identification of such
high schools, the performance of students failing to graduate on-time
could compensate for low on-time graduation rates, as calculated by the
four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate, and prevent identification
of high schools with low on-time graduation rates.
Identification for Targeted Support and Improvement
Proposed Sec. 200.19 would also support States in accurately
identifying schools for targeted support and improvement by aligning
the methodology for identifying these schools with other components of
the State accountability system. Specifically, proposed Sec. 200.19(b)
would clarify the two types of schools identified for targeted support
and improvement: Schools with low-performing subgroups of students and
schools with consistently underperforming subgroups of students. First,
a State would be required under proposed Sec. 200.19(b)(2) to identify
schools with one or more subgroups of students performing, as an
individual subgroup, as poorly as all students in any school in the
lowest-performing five percent of title I schools based on the State's
summative ratings. These schools would be referred to as schools with
low-performing subgroups in proposed Sec. 200.19 and would receive
additional targeted support under proposed Sec. 200.22. The proposed
regulations are needed to clarify how identification of these schools
enables the State to meet the statutory requirement to identify, at
least once every three years, any school with low-performing subgroups
of students for comprehensive support and improvement if such a school
receives title I funds and does not meet the State's exit criteria
after implementing a targeted support and improvement plan (described
further in proposed Sec. 200.22).
Second, proposed Sec. 200.19(c) would require States, in
identifying schools with consistently underperforming subgroups of
students for targeted support and improvement, to consider a school's
level of performance on the indicators described in proposed Sec.
200.14. Further, a State's methodology for identifying such schools
would need to be consistent with the statutory requirement for the
Academic Achievement, Academic Progress, Graduation Rate, and Progress
in Achieving English Language Proficiency indicators to be given
substantial weight individually, and much greater weight, in the
aggregate, than indicator(s) of School Quality or Student Success. This
clarification would help ensure a State's system of annual meaningful
differentiation and system of identification are coherent to parents
and the public, and send a consistent signal to educators and schools
regarding what level of student progress and achievement is considered
sufficient.
Proposed Sec. 200.19(c) would further clarify the methodology
States would use to identify schools with consistently underperforming
subgroups of students by specifying that identification of these
schools must be based on school performance in the system of annual
meaningful differentiation over no more than two years. If data were
considered over a longer period of time, it may not reflect the most
current level of subgroup performance in the school, leading to
inappropriate identification. Further, by ensuring identification
following no more than two years of low subgroup performance, schools
can receive the supports needed to help the subgroup improve prior to
that particular cohort of students exiting the
[[Page 34559]]
school. Early identification of schools for targeted support and
improvement also may result in increased achievement in such schools,
which would help avoid subsequent identification for comprehensive
support and improvement and avoid strain on State and local improvement
capacity.
Proposed Sec. 200.19(c) would also provide parameters around how a
State must define ``consistently underperforming,'' with multiple
suggested approaches. The accountability systems established in the
ESSA require disaggregated information by subgroup in each of its
components: long-term goals and measurements of interim progress,
indicators, assessment participation rates, and annual meaningful
differentiation. In this way, the statute signals the importance of
including subgroups of students to the maximum extent possible.
However, identification of schools specifically based on subgroup
performance, and subsequent interventions to support improved outcomes
for all students in the school, depends on a robust definition of
``consistently underperforming.'' For these reasons, proposed Sec.
200.19(c) would suggest ways for States to define ``consistently
underperforming'' to help ensure that each State system of
identification meaningfully considers performance for subgroups of
students. Given that there likely are numerous ways to establish a
methodology for identifying consistently underperforming subgroups, we
are especially interested in receiving public comment on whether the
suggested methods in Sec. 200.19 would result in meaningful
differentiation and identification of schools; which additional options
should be considered, if any; and which options, if any, in proposed
Sec. 200.19 should not be included or should be modified because they
do not adequately identify underperforming subgroups of students.
Frequency and Timeline for Identification
Finally, proposed Sec. 200.19 would clarify the timeline for
identification of schools under the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. The
statute is clear that identification begins with the 2017-2018 school
year and that a State must identify schools for comprehensive support
and improvement at least once every three years, but does not indicate
at which point during the year such identification must occur. Because
a clear, regular timeline for identification of schools is critical to
meet the needs of students, allow sufficient time for planning
meaningful interventions, and permit full and effective implementation
of support and improvement plans, proposed Sec. 200.19 would require
identification of all schools by the beginning of each school year for
which the school is identified and would clarify that the year for
which the school is identified (e.g., the 2017-2018 school year) means
the school year immediately following the year in which the State most
recently measured the school's performance on the indicators under
proposed Sec. 200.14 that resulted in the school's identification
(e.g., the 2016-2017 school year).
Further, proposed Sec. 200.19 clarifies when State accountability
systems under the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, take effect, with the
lowest-performing schools, high schools with low graduation rates, and
schools with chronically low-performing subgroups in comprehensive
support and improvement and schools with low-performing subgroups in
targeted support and improvement identified at least once every three
years starting in 2017-2018, and with schools that have consistently
underperforming subgroups of students identified annually starting in
2018-2019. However, because identification of a school with chronically
low-performing subgroups only occurs after such a school has
implemented a targeted support and improvement plan and failed to meet
the State's exit criteria under proposed Sec. 200.22, a State could
not identify such schools in 2017-2018. Accordingly, proposed Sec.
200.19 requires identification of schools with chronically low-
performing subgroups for comprehensive support and improvement the
second time a State identifies its lowest performing schools for
comprehensive support and improvement, no later than the 2020-2021
school year, as title I schools with low-performing subgroups would
have had an opportunity to implement a targeted support and improvement
plan and demonstrate that they met the exit criteria at that time.
Section 200.20 Data Procedures for Annual Meaningful Differentiation
and Identification of Schools
Statute: Section 1111(c)(4)(B) and (C) of the ESEA, as amended by
the ESSA, requires States to annually measure indicators and
meaningfully differentiate among all public schools in the State,
including by using disaggregated data on each subgroup in a school that
meets the minimum subgroup size set by the State under section
1111(c)(3). Section 1111(c)(4)(D) requires States to identify low-
performing schools for comprehensive support at least once every three
years and to annually identify schools with consistently
underperforming subgroups. The statute does not specify how data
averaging procedures may be applied for purposes of measuring school
performance on each indicator, or for reporting purposes, and how that
interacts with the State's minimum subgroup size.
Section 1111(c)(4)(F) contains requirements for including students
that do not attend the same school in an LEA for the entire school year
in State accountability systems. The statute indicates that the
performance of any student enrolled for at least half of the school
year must be included on each indicator in the accountability system;
students enrolled for less than half of the school year in the same
school may be excluded. For graduation rates, if a high school student
enrolled for less than half of the school year drops out and does not
transfer to another high school, such student must be included in the
denominator for calculating the four-year adjusted cohort graduation
rate and assigned either to the school the student most recently
attended, or to the school where the student was enrolled for the
greatest proportion of school days during grades 9 through 12.
Current Regulations: Section 200.20 describes how schools make AYP
and clarifies that, for the purposes of determining AYP, a State is
permitted to establish a uniform procedure for averaging data, which
may include averaging data across school years and combining data
across grades, within subject area and subgroup, in a school or LEA.
Additionally, if a State averages data across school years, the State
may average data from the school year for which the AYP determination
is made with data from the immediately preceding one or two school
years. Consistent with Sec. Sec. 200.13 through 200.20, a State that
averages data across school years must continue to meet annual
assessment and reporting requirements, make annual AYP determinations
for all schools and LEAs, and implement school improvement
requirements.
Section 200.20(e) requires a State to include all students that
have been enrolled in schools in an LEA for a full academic year in
determining AYP for each LEA, but students that are not enrolled in the
same school for the full academic year may be excluded from AYP
determinations for the school. The current title I regulations do not
define ``full academic year.''
[[Page 34560]]
Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec. 200.20 would replace current
title I regulations with regulations that would update and clarify how
data averaging may be used in the statewide accountability system for
annual meaningful differentiation and identification of schools under
proposed Sec. Sec. 200.18 and 200.19. The proposed regulations would
retain the requirements of current Sec. 200.20, while updating
references to reflect new statutory requirements under the ESEA, as
amended by the ESSA. The requirements retained from the current
regulations would also be reordered for clarity.
Proposed Sec. 200.20(a)(1)(ii)(A)-(B) would clarify that, if a
State averages data across years, the State must continue to report
data for a single year, without averaging, on State and LEA report
cards under section 1111(h). Further, under proposed Sec.
200.20(a)(1)(ii)(C), a State that averages data across years would be
required to explain its uniform procedure for averaging data in its
State plan and specify the use of such procedure in its description of
the indicators used for annual meaningful differentiation in its
accountability system on the State report card under section
1111(h)(1)(C)(i)(III).
Proposed Sec. 200.20(a)(2) would retain requirements from the
current regulations on combining data across grades and further clarify
that a State choosing to combine data across grades must, consistent
with the requirements for averaging data across years, use the same
uniform procedure for all public schools; report data for each grade in
the school on State and LEA report cards under section 1111(h); and,
consistent with proposed Sec. 200.20(a)(1)(ii)(C), explain its uniform
procedure in its State plan and specify the use of such procedure on
its State report card.
Proposed Sec. 200.20(b) would restate, and restructure, the
requirements on partial enrollment from section 1111(c)(4)(F). Section
200.20(b)(2)(ii) would clarify that the approach used by an LEA for
assigning high school students who exit without a diploma and who do
not transfer to another high school must be consistent with the
approach established by the State for calculating the denominator of
the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate under proposed Sec.
200.34(f). Additionally, proposed Sec. 200.20(b)(2)(iii) would clarify
that all students, regardless of their length of enrollment in a school
within an LEA during the academic year, must be included for purposes
of reporting on the State and LEA report cards under section 1111(h)
for such school year.
Reasons: Proposed Sec. 200.20 would retain from the current
regulations the flexibility for States to average data across years or
combine data across grades, because the reliability of data used to
make accountability determinations continues to be important for
supporting systems that fairly measure the performance of all students
and, to the greatest extent practicable, all subgroups of students in a
school. Averaging data across school years, or across grades, in a
school can increase the data available to consider as part of
accountability determinations, improving reliability of accountability
determinations and increasing the likelihood that a particular subgroup
in a school will meet the State's minimum n-size. We propose to reorder
the requirements in proposed Sec. 200.20 to make the regulations
easier to understand and to facilitate compliance.
Proposed Sec. 200.20(a)(1)(ii) would also require that a State
explain its uniform procedure for averaging data in its State plan and
specify the use of such procedure on its annual State report card in
order to increase transparency. Such information is important to help
stakeholders understand how accountability determinations are made.
To be consistent with the proposed requirements for averaging data
across years and create a coherent system, proposed Sec. 200.20(a)(2)
would clarify that States choosing to combine data across grades must
report data individually for each grade in a school, use the same
uniform procedure for combining data across grades in all schools, and
explain the procedure in the State plan and specify its use in the
State report card.
Proposed Sec. 200.20(b) would clarify that the inclusion of
students for accountability must be based on time enrolled in a school,
rather than attendance, which we believe is more consistent with the
new statutory requirements under section 1111(c)(4)(F) of the ESEA, as
amended by the ESSA, which are intended to ensure accountability
systems and reporting are maximally inclusive of all students and each
subgroup of students, while promoting fairness in school accountability
determinations by excluding students whose performance had little to do
with a particular school because they were only enrolled for a short
period of time. Furthermore, basing the inclusion of students on
attendance could create a perverse incentive to discourage students who
are low-performing from attending schools--contrary to the purpose of
title I to provide all children significant opportunity to receive a
fair, equitable, and high-quality education, and to close educational
achievement gaps.
Section 200.21 Comprehensive Support and Improvement
Statute: Section 1111(d) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA,
requires a State to notify each LEA of any school served by the LEA
that is identified for comprehensive support and improvement. Upon
receiving such information from the State, section 1111(d)(1)(B)
requires the LEA, in partnership with stakeholders, to design and
implement a comprehensive support and improvement plan that is informed
by the State's long-term goals and indicators described in section
1111(c)(4); includes evidence-based interventions; is based on a
school-level needs assessment; identifies resource inequities; is
approved by the school, LEA, and SEA; and upon approval and
implementation, is monitored and periodically reviewed by the SEA.
With respect to any high school identified for comprehensive
support and improvement due to low graduation rates, as described in
section 1111(c)(4)(D)(i)(II), the State may permit differentiated
improvement activities under section 1111(d)(1)(C) that utilize
evidence-based interventions for schools that predominately serve
students returning to school after exiting without a regular diploma or
who are significantly off track to accumulate sufficient academic
credits to meet high school graduation requirements. Section
1111(d)(1)(C) also allows a State to exempt high schools with less than
100 students that are identified for comprehensive support and
improvement due to low graduation rates from implementing the required
improvement activities.
Section 1111(d)(1)(D) allows an LEA to provide all students
enrolled in a school identified by the State for comprehensive support
and improvement with the option to transfer to another public school
served by the LEA, unless such an option is prohibited by State law.
Section 1111(d)(3)(A)(i)(I) also requires a State to establish
statewide exit criteria for comprehensive support and improvement
schools, which, if not satisfied within a State-determined number of
years (not to exceed four years), must result in more rigorous State-
determined action in the school, such as the implementation of
interventions (which may address school-level operations).
Current Regulations: Sections 200.30 to 200.49 of the current title
I
[[Page 34561]]
regulations require States and LEAs to ensure escalating improvement
measures over time for title I schools that do not make AYP for
consecutive years and require LEAs to implement specific strategies for
students attending schools identified for each phase of improvement,
based on the number of years a school has failed to make AYP.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec. 200.21 would replace the
current regulations with regulations that clarify the statutory
requirements under the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, for States to help
ensure that LEAs with schools identified for comprehensive support and
improvement develop and implement plans that will be effective in
increasing student academic achievement and school success.
Notice
Proposed Sec. 200.21 would require that each State notify any LEA
that serves a school identified for comprehensive support and
improvement no later than the beginning of the school year for which
the school is identified. Proposed Sec. 200.21 would also require that
an LEA that receives such a notification from the State promptly notify
the parents of each student enrolled in the identified school,
including, at a minimum, the reason or reasons for the school's
identification and an explanation for how parents can be involved in
developing and implementing the school's improvement plan. This notice
must--
Be in an understandable and uniform format;
Be, to the extent practicable, written in a language that
parents can understand or, if it is not practicable to provide written
translations to a parent with limited English proficiency, be orally
translated for such parent; and
Be, upon request by a parent or guardian who is an
individual with a disability as defined by the Americans with
Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12102, provided in an alternative format
accessible to that parent.
Needs Assessment
Proposed Sec. 200.21 would require that an LEA with a school
identified for comprehensive support and improvement complete, in
partnership with stakeholders (including principals and other school
leaders, teachers, and parents), a needs assessment for the school that
examines--
Academic achievement information based on the performance,
on the State assessments in reading/language arts and mathematics, of
all students and each subgroup of students in the school;
The school's performance, including among subgroups of
students, on all indicators and on the State's long-term goals and
measurements of interim progress described in proposed Sec. Sec.
200.13 and 200.14;
The reason or reasons the school was identified for
comprehensive support and improvement; and
At the LEA's discretion, the school's performance on
additional, locally selected indicators that are not included in the
State's system of annual meaningful differentiation that affect student
outcomes in the school.
LEA Development of Comprehensive Support and Improvement Plan
The proposed regulations would require an LEA with a school
identified for comprehensive support and improvement to develop and
implement a comprehensive support and improvement plan to improve
student outcomes in the school. Specifically, the proposed regulations
would require that the comprehensive support and improvement plan--
Be developed in partnership with stakeholders (including
principals and other school leaders, teachers, and parents);
Describe how early stakeholder input was solicited and
taken into account in the plan's development, and how stakeholders will
participate in the plan's implementation;
Incorporate the results of the school-level needs
assessment;
Include one or more interventions (e.g., increasing access
to effective teachers or adopting incentives to recruit and retain
effective teachers; increasing or redesigning instructional time;
interventions based on data from early warning indicator systems;
reorganizing the school to implement a new instructional model;
strategies designed to increase diversity by attracting and retaining
students from varying socioeconomic backgrounds; replacing school
leadership; in the case of an elementary school, increasing access to
high-quality preschool; converting the school to a public charter
school; changing school governance, closing the school; or, in the case
of a public charter school, revoking or non-renewing the school's
charter by its authorized public chartering agency consistent with
State charter school law) that: (1) Are evidence-based; (2) are
supported, to the extent practicable, by the strongest level of
evidence that is available and appropriate to meet the needs of the
school, as identified by the needs assessment, and by research
conducted on a sample population or setting that overlaps with the
population or setting of the school to be served; and (3) may be
selected from among State-established evidence-based interventions or a
State-approved list of evidence-based interventions;
Identify and address resource inequities by including, at
a minimum, a review of LEA- and school-level resources among schools
and, as applicable, within schools with respect to disproportionate
rates of ineffective, out-of-field, or inexperienced teachers
identified by the State and LEA under sections 1111(g)(1)(B) and
1112(b)(2) and per-pupil expenditures of Federal, State, and local
funds reported annually under section 1111(h)(1)(C)(x), and, at the
LEA's discretion, a review of LEA and school-level budgeting and
resource allocation with respect to disproportionate rates of
ineffective, out-of-field, or inexperienced teachers and per-pupil
expenditures and any other resource, including access and availability
of advanced coursework, preschool programs, and instructional materials
and technology;
Be made publicly available by the LEA, including to
parents consistent with the notice requirements described above; and
Be approved by the school, the LEA, and the State.
Additionally, an LEA may have a planning year for a school
identified for comprehensive support and improvement, during which the
LEA must carry out the needs assessment and develop the school's
comprehensive support and improvement plan to prepare for the
successful implementation of the school's interventions. Such a
planning year is limited to the school year in which the school was
identified.
State Responsibilities
Proposed Sec. 200.21 would require that a State review and approve
each comprehensive support and improvement plan in a timely manner, as
determined by the State, and take all actions necessary to ensure that
each school and LEA develops and implements a plan that meets all of
the requirements of proposed Sec. 200.21 within the required
timeframe. Further, the proposed regulations would require that the
State monitor and periodically review each LEA's implementation of its
plan.
Exit Criteria
Proposed Sec. 200.21 would also require that the State establish
uniform statewide exit criteria for schools implementing comprehensive
support and improvement plans to help ensure continued progress to
improve student
[[Page 34562]]
academic achievement. In establishing the exit criteria, the proposed
regulations would require a State to ensure that a school meeting the
exit criteria within a State-determined number of years, not to exceed
four years, both increases student outcomes and no longer meets the
criteria for comprehensive support and improvement under proposed Sec.
200.19.
The proposed regulations would specify that, if a school does not
meet the exit criteria, the State would require the LEA to conduct a
new school-level needs assessment and, based on its results, amend its
comprehensive support and improvement plan to--
Address the reasons the school did not meet the exit
criteria, including whether the school implemented the interventions
with fidelity and sufficient intensity, and the results of the new
needs assessment;
Update how it will continue to address previously
identified resource inequities and identify and address any new
resource inequities consistent with the requirements to review those
inequities in its original plan; and
Implement additional interventions in the school that (1)
must be determined by the State; (2) must be more rigorous and based on
strong or moderate levels of evidence; (3) must be supported, to the
extent practicable, by evidence from a sample population or setting
that overlaps with the population or setting of the school to be
served; and (4) may address school-level operations, such as changes to
budgeting, staffing, or the school day and year.
The proposed regulations would require that the LEA submit the
amended plan to the State in a timely manner, as determined by the
State. Upon receipt of the LEA's amended plan, proposed Sec. 200.21
would require that the State review and approve the plan in a timely
manner, as determined by the State, and take all actions necessary to
ensure that each school and LEA meets the requirements of proposed
Sec. 200.21 to develop and implement the amended plan within the
required timeframe. The proposed regulations would also require that
the LEA make the amended plan publicly available, including to parents,
consistent with the manner in which they provided the required notice
described above.
Finally, the proposed regulations would require that a State
increase its monitoring, support, and periodic review of each LEA's
implementation of an amended comprehensive support and improvement plan
based on a school's failure to meet the exit criteria.
State Discretion for Certain High Schools
Proposed Sec. 200.21 would incorporate the flexibility in section
1111(d)(1)(C) for States with respect to certain high schools
identified for low graduation rates. First, the proposed regulations
would permit differentiated school improvement activities, as long as
those activities still meet the requirements for schools in
comprehensive support and improvement described above, including in a
high school that predominantly serves students who (1) have returned to
education after having exited high school without a regular high school
diploma and (2) based on their grade or age, are significantly off
track to earn sufficient academic credits to meet the State's
graduation requirements. Second, the proposed regulations would permit
a State to allow an LEA to forgo implementation of a comprehensive
support and improvement plan in a high school that was identified under
proposed Sec. 200.19 for low graduation rates, but has a total
enrollment of less than 100 students.
Public School Choice
Proposed Sec. 200.21 would clarify the option for students to
transfer to a different public school included in section 1111(d)(1)(D)
by precluding the option to transfer from a school identified for
comprehensive support and improvement to another school identified for
comprehensive support and improvement and specifying that, if such an
option is inconsistent with a federal desegregation order, the LEA must
petition and obtain court approval for such transfers.
Reasons: Proposed Sec. 200.21 would provide clarity where the
statute is ambiguous and reorganize the statutory requirements to
facilitate a better understanding of, and compliance with, those
requirements. Specifically, proposed Sec. 200.21 would clarify the
requirements regarding notice, development, approval, and
implementation of comprehensive support and improvement plans,
including a strengthened role for the State in supporting such
implementation in schools that fail to meet the State's exit criteria
over time.
Notice
Before a comprehensive support and improvement plan is implemented
in an identified school, the statute requires the LEA to develop such a
plan in partnership with stakeholders, including parents. In order to
ensure that parents are meaningfully included in this process, proposed
Sec. 200.21 would require an LEA to provide notice to parents of the
school's identification in order to ensure that the notice is not only
understandable and clear about why a school was identified, but also
enables parents to be engaged in development and implementation of the
comprehensive support and improvement plan, as required by the statute.
These requirements would provide greater transparency and help parents
understand the need for, and the process for developing, a school's
comprehensive support and improvement plan, including the needs
assessment, so that they can be meaningful participants in school
improvement activities and take an active role in supporting their
child's education. Parents and guardians with disabilities or limited
English proficiency have the right to request notification in
accessible formats. We encourage States and LEAs to proactively make
all information and notices they provide to parents and families
accessible, helping to ensure that parents are not routinely requesting
States and LEAs to make information available in alternative formats.
For example, one way to ensure accessibility would be to provide orally
interpreted and translated notifications and to follow the requirements
of section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act.
Needs Assessment
To inform the development of a comprehensive support and
improvement plan, an LEA with a school identified for comprehensive
support and improvement must complete a needs assessment for the
school. The proposed regulations would specify certain elements that
must be part of the school-level needs assessment, ensuring that a
needs assessment is conducted in partnership with stakeholders; is
informed by relevant data, including student performance on the State
academic assessments and other measures the LEA determines are relevant
to their local context; and examines the reason the school was
identified for comprehensive support and improvement. These elements
would provide a sound basis for a comprehensive support and improvement
plan, and would increase the likelihood that such a plan would be
effective, by examining multiple dimensions of school performance and
specifically analyzing the reason or reasons the school was identified.
[[Page 34563]]
LEA Development of Comprehensive Support and Improvement Plan
Proposed Sec. 200.21 would also clarify requirements for the
development of the comprehensive support and improvement plan. First,
the regulations would require (1) meaningful, ongoing stakeholder input
in the development and implementation of plans, and (2) that the plans,
and any amendments to the plans, be made publicly available in a manner
that will ensure parents can access them. A plan cannot be implemented
in partnership with parents, teachers, and principals if the plan
itself is not easily accessible.
Second, the proposed regulations would clarify that the evidence
requirements for comprehensive support and improvement plans are based
on the definition of ``evidence-based'' in section 8101(21) of the
ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. Specifically, proposed Sec. 200.21 would
specify that one or more of a school's activities and interventions, as
opposed to all activities and interventions, must be evidence-based,
and would require an LEA to take into consideration, in selecting an
evidence-based intervention, the strongest level of evidence that is
available and appropriate and its relevance to the context in which the
intervention will be implemented, if practicable. Schools implementing
comprehensive support and improvement plans are more likely to see
improvements if they employ particular strategies that are grounded in
evidence. Because the evidence base for interventions in low-performing
schools is relatively nascent and still growing, proposed Sec. 200.21
would help support LEAs in making prudent, smart choices when selecting
among evidence-based interventions by encouraging the use of
interventions that are supported by the strongest level of evidence
that is available and appropriate to meet the needs of the school,
including, where possible, evidence suggesting that the intervention
was effective for an overlapping population or in an overlapping
setting to those of the identified school.
Third, proposed Sec. 200.21 would specify minimum requirements for
the LEA's efforts to review and address resource inequities, which may
include LEA- and school-level budgeting. Specifically, at a minimum,
the identification of resource inequities must include a review of
disproportionate rates, among schools and, as applicable, within
schools, of ineffective, out-of-field, or inexperienced teachers and
per-pupil expenditures of Federal, State, and local funds--using data
already required to be collected and reported under the ESEA, as
amended by the ESSA. In addition, we propose clarifications that would
emphasize the importance of equity and access in other areas (e.g.,
access to advanced coursework or high-quality preschool programs). In
total, these clarifications would encourage LEAs to correct deficits in
resources that will be critical to developing and implementing a
successful improvement plan for schools in need of comprehensive
support.
Finally, the proposed regulations would clarify an LEA may have,
with respect to each school identified for comprehensive support and
improvement, a planning year limited to the school year in which the
school was identified. This would allow time to prepare for the
successful implementation of interventions specified in the plan by,
for example, consulting with stakeholders, conducting a needs
assessment, and identifying resource inequities and evidence-based
interventions, and to ensure that such planning does not inordinately
delay the full implementation of interventions that are needed to
support improved student achievement and school success.
State Responsibilities
The proposed regulations would clarify the State's responsibilities
regarding plan approval. Specifically, the State would be required to
conduct a timely review of the LEA's plan and take necessary actions to
ensure that each school and LEA is able to meet all of the requirements
of proposed Sec. 200.21 to develop and implement the plan within the
required timeframe. These clarifications would ensure plans are
approved expeditiously and meet key statutory requirements, and prevent
significant delays at the LEA or school level in implementation of
activities and interventions that will help improve student achievement
and outcomes in identified schools.
Exit Criteria
Further, to ensure continued progress in student academic
achievement and school success, proposed Sec. 200.21 would require the
State to establish uniform statewide exit criteria for any school
implementing a comprehensive support and improvement plan, including
that the school no longer meets the criteria for identification under
proposed Sec. 200.19(a) and demonstrates improved student outcomes.
Requiring improved student outcomes would help ensure that schools do
not exit improvement status before making meaningful gains in
performance, consistent with the statutory requirement in section
1111(d)(3), that a State ensure schools identified for comprehensive
support and improvement achieve continued progress to improve student
academic achievement and school success.
Proposed Sec. 200.21 also would clarify additional actions a
school identified for comprehensive support and improvement must take
if it does not meet the exit criteria. In particular, as noted above,
schools implementing comprehensive support and improvement plans are
more likely to see improvements if they employ strategies that are
grounded in research. In addition, the proposed regulations would
ensure the State has a larger role in supporting an LEA in the
development and oversight of an amended comprehensive support and
improvement plan after its initial plan was unsuccessful, which is
necessary when an LEA's plan for improvement has been ineffective.
Section 200.22 Targeted Support and Improvement
Statute: Section 1111(d) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA,
requires a State to notify each LEA of any school served by the LEA in
which any subgroup of students is consistently underperforming, as
described in section 1111(c)(4)(C)(iii), as well as ensure such an LEA
provides notification to identified schools. Upon receiving
notification from the LEA, the school, in partnership with
stakeholders, must design a school-level targeted support and
improvement plan to improve student outcomes based on the indicators in
the statewide accountability system. The plan must be informed by all
indicators described in section 1111(c)(4)(B), including student
performance against the State's long-term goals described in section
1111(c)(4)(A); include evidence-based interventions; be approved by the
LEA prior to implementation; be monitored, upon submission and during
implementation, by the LEA; and result in additional action following
unsuccessful implementation of the plan after a number of years
determined by the LEA.
Section 1111(d) requires additional targeted support for schools
with any subgroup of students performing at or below the level of
students in the lowest-performing five percent of all title I schools
identified for comprehensive support and improvement under section
1111(c)(4)(D)(i)(I). In addition to implementing targeted support and
[[Page 34564]]
improvement plans as described in clauses (i) through (iv) in section
1111(d)(2)(B), schools identified for additional targeted support must
also identify resource inequities, which may include a review of LEA-
and school-level budgeting, to be addressed through plan
implementation.
Section 1111(d) also requires a State to establish statewide exit
criteria for schools requiring additional targeted support, as
described in section 1111(d)(2)(C). If these exit criteria are not met
within a State-determined number of years, the State must identify
title I schools requiring additional targeted support as comprehensive
support and improvement schools.
Current Regulations: Sections 200.30 through 200.49 of the current
title I regulations require States and LEAs to ensure improvement
measures escalate consequences over time for title I schools that do
not make AYP for consecutive years. In addition, LEAs must implement
specific strategies for students attending schools identified for each
phase of improvement, based on the number of years a school has failed
to make AYP.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec. 200.22 would replace the
current regulations with regulations that clarify the statutory
requirements in the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, for States and LEAs
to ensure that schools identified for targeted support and improvement
will implement plans that are effective in increasing student academic
achievement for the lowest-performing students in those schools.
Notice
Proposed Sec. 200.22 would require a State to notify each LEA that
serves one or more schools identified for targeted support and
improvement of the identification, and would then require each LEA to
notify each identified school, no later than the beginning of the
school year for which the school is identified, including notice of the
subgroup or subgroups that have been identified by the State as
consistently underperforming or low-performing, or, at the State's
discretion, the subgroup or subgroups that are identified under
proposed Sec. 200.15(b)(2)(iii) for low assessment participation
rates.
Proposed Sec. 200.22 would also require that an LEA that receives
such a notification from the State promptly notify the parents of each
student enrolled in the identified school so that parents may be
meaningfully involved in improvement efforts. The parental notice would
be required to be understandable and accessible in the same manner as
the notice under proposed Sec. 200.21(b)(1)-(3) and include at a
minimum, the reason or reasons for identification and an explanation of
how parents can be involved in developing and implementing the school's
support and improvement plan, consistent with the statutory requirement
that parents serve as partners in the development of such plans.
Development of Targeted Support and Improvement Plans
The proposed regulations would require a school identified for
targeted support and improvement to develop and implement a plan that
addresses the reason or reasons for identification and that will
improve student outcomes for the lowest-performing students in the
school. Specifically, the proposed regulations would require that the
targeted support and improvement plan--
Be developed in partnership with stakeholders (including
principals and other school leaders, teachers, and parents);
Describe, at a minimum, how early stakeholder input was
solicited and taken into account in the plan's development, and how
stakeholders will participate in the plan's implementation;
Be designed to improve student performance for the lowest-
performing students on each of the indicators in the statewide
accountability system that led to the school's identification, or, in
the case of a school identified under proposed Sec. 200.15(b)(2)(iii)
to improve assessment participation rates in the school;
Take into consideration the school's performance on all
indicators in the statewide accountability system and student
performance against the State's long-term goals and measurements of
interim progress, including student academic achievement on each of the
assessments required under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v), and, at the
school's discretion, locally selected indicators that are not included
in the State's system of annual meaningful differentiation that affect
student outcomes in the school;
For any school operating a schoolwide program under
section 1114 of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, address the needs
identified by the needs assessment required under section 1114(b)(6);
Include one or more interventions that (1) must be
evidence-based; (2) must be appropriate to address the reason or
reasons for identification and to improve student outcomes for the
lowest-performing students in the school, consistent with the
requirement in section 1111(d)(2)(B) of the ESEA, as amended by the
ESSA; (3) must be, to the extent practicable, supported by research
conducted on a sample population or setting that overlaps with the
population or setting of the school to be served; and (4) may be
selected from a State-approved list of evidence-based interventions;
Be submitted by the school to the LEA for review and
approval; and
For a school with low-performing subgroups as described
under proposed regulations in Sec. 200.19(b)(2), identify and address
resource inequities that affect the low-performing subgroup by
including, at a minimum, a review of LEA- and school-level resources
among schools and, as applicable, within schools with respect to
disproportionate rates of ineffective, out-of-field, or inexperienced
teachers identified by the State and LEA under sections 1111(g)(1)(B)
and 1112(b)(2) and per-pupil expenditures of Federal, State, and local
funds reported annually under section 1111(h)(1)(C)(x), and, at the
LEA's discretion, a review of LEA- and school-level budgeting and
resource allocation with respect to disproportionate rates of
ineffective, out-of-field, or inexperienced teachers and per-pupil
expenditures and any other resource, including access and availability
of advanced coursework, preschool programs, and instructional materials
and technology.
Additionally, a school identified for targeted support and
improvement due to consistently underperforming or low-performing
subgroups of students may have a planning year during which the school
must carry out stakeholder engagement, selection of interventions, and
other activities necessary to prepare for successful implementation of
the plan. The planning year is limited to the school year in which the
school was identified.
LEA Responsibilities
The proposed regulations would also require that an LEA review and
approve each targeted support and improvement plan in a timely manner
and take all actions necessary to ensure that each school is able to
meet all of the requirements of proposed Sec. 200.22 to develop and
implement the plan within the required timeframe. Further, the proposed
regulations would require that the LEA monitor each school's
implementation of its plan. Finally, the proposed regulations would
require that the LEA make each targeted support and improvement plan,
and any amendments to the plan, publicly available, including to
parents
[[Page 34565]]
consistent with the manner in which the LEA is required to provide
notice as described above.
Exit Criteria
The proposed regulations would require that the LEA establish
uniform exit criteria for schools implementing targeted support and
improvement plans, except for title I schools with low-performing
subgroups as described in proposed Sec. 200.19(b)(2), and make the
exit criteria publicly available. The proposed regulations would
require that, in establishing the exit criteria, an LEA ensure that a
school meeting the exit criteria successfully implemented its targeted
support and improvement plan such that it no longer meets the criteria
for identification and has improved student outcomes for its lowest-
performing students, including each subgroup of students that was
identified as consistently underperforming, or in the case of a school
identified under proposed Sec. 200.15(b)(2)(iii), met the requirement
for student participation in assessments, within an LEA-determined
number of years.
If a school does not meet the exit criteria within an LEA-
determined number of years, the proposed regulations specify that the
LEA would:
Require the school to amend its targeted support and
improvement plan to include additional actions that address the reasons
the school did not meet the exit criteria and encourage the school to
include interventions that meet a higher level of evidence consistent
with section 8101(21) than the interventions required to be included in
the school's original plan or to increase the intensity of effective
interventions included in the school's original plan;
Review and approve, in the same manner in which the LEA
reviewed and approved the original plan, the amended targeted support
and improvement plan; and
Increase its monitoring and support of the school's
implementation of the plan.
Schools With Low-Performing Subgroups Requiring Additional Targeted
Support
For a school with one or more low-performing subgroups (i.e.,
subgroups that are performing as poorly as students in the lowest-
performing schools in the State) that is identified for targeted
support and improvement, as described in proposed Sec. 200.19(b)(2),
proposed Sec. 200.22 would require its targeted support and
improvement plan to identify and address resource inequities that
affect the low-performing subgroup or subgroups. This would include, at
a minimum, a review of LEA- and school-level resources among schools
and, as applicable, within schools with respect to disproportionate
rates of ineffective, out-of-field, or inexperienced teachers
identified by the State and LEA under sections 1111(g)(1)(B) and
1112(b)(2) and per-pupil expenditures of Federal, State, and local
funds reported annually under section 1111(h)(1)(C)(x), and may include
a review of LEA- and school-level budgeting and resource allocation
with respect to disproportionate rates of ineffective, out-of-field, or
inexperienced teachers and per-pupil expenditures and any other
resource, such as access and availability of advanced coursework,
preschool programs, and instructional materials and technology.
Further, for a title I school with one or more low-performing
subgroups that is identified for targeted support and improvement, the
proposed regulations would require that the State establish uniform
statewide exit criteria that, at a minimum, ensure that each such
school meeting the exit criteria has improved student outcomes for its
lowest-performing students, including each subgroup identified as low-
performing, and no longer meets the criteria for identification as a
targeted support and improvement school. If such a school does not meet
the uniform statewide exit criteria for low-performing targeted support
and improvement title I schools after a State-determined number of
years not to exceed three years, the State would be required to
identify that school as a comprehensive support and improvement school,
consistent with the requirement in section 1111(c)(3)(D) that a State
identify such schools for comprehensive support and improvement at
least every three years.
Reasons: Proposed Sec. 200.22 would provide clarity where the
statute is ambiguous and reorganize the statutory requirements to
facilitate a better understanding of, and compliance with, those
requirements. Specifically, proposed Sec. 200.22 would clarify the
requirements regarding notice, development, approval, and
implementation of targeted support and improvement plans, including
provisions to strengthen the rigor and increase effective
implementation of plans in schools that fail, over time, to meet exit
criteria established by the LEA or State.
Notice
Before a targeted support and improvement plan is implemented, the
LEA must provide notice to parents of the school's identification. The
proposed regulations would clarify the requirements of such notice,
specifically that the notice is timely, understandable, and accessible
to all parents, including those with limited English language
proficiency and disabilities. Moreover, the proposed regulations would
require the notice to clearly explain to parents why a school was
identified and how parents can be involved in developing and
implementing the school's targeted support and improvement plan,
consistent with the statutory requirement for parents to serve as
partners in developing these plans. The proposed requirements would
enable parents to become meaningfully and actively engaged in efforts
to improve their child's school by creating a mechanism for parents to
learn how they can become involved in the development and
administration of the plan and the issues the plan will be designed to
address.
Development of Targeted Support and Improvement Plans
Proposed Sec. 200.22 would also clarify the requirements for the
development of the targeted support and improvement plan. First, these
requirements would require meaningful, ongoing stakeholder input in the
development and implementation of targeted support and improvement
plans, as well as that the plans be made available to the public,
particularly to ensure transparency for parents of enrolled students
and those who are members of consistently underperforming or low-
performing subgroups. Plans cannot be implemented in partnership with
parents, teachers, and principals if the plan itself is not easily
accessible.
Second, the proposed regulations would clarify that the evidence
requirements for targeted support and improvement plans are based on
the definition of ``evidence-based'' in section 8101(21) of the ESEA,
as amended by the ESSA. Specifically, proposed Sec. 200.22 would
require that one or more of a school's activities and interventions, as
opposed to all activities, be evidence-based and would require certain
considerations regarding the selection of evidence, if practicable.
Schools implementing targeted support and improvement plans are more
likely to see improvements for low-performing students, including low-
performing subgroups of students, if they employ strategies that are
grounded in research. Because the evidence base for interventions in
low-performing schools that will support the lowest-performing
[[Page 34566]]
students is nascent, proposed Sec. 200.22 would help support schools
in making choices when selecting among evidence-based interventions by
encouraging the use of interventions supported by the strongest level
of evidence that is available and appropriate based on the needs of the
school and that have been proven effective in a setting or sample
population that overlaps with the identified school and its needs.
This, in turn, would help support effective implementation of the
overall plan and improvement in student outcomes for the school as a
whole, including the subgroups that are struggling.
Finally, the proposed regulations would clarify that a school
identified for targeted support and improvement due to low-performing
or consistently underperforming subgroups of students may have a
planning year limited to the school year in which the school was
identified. This would allow time for the activities necessary to
prepare for the successful implementation of interventions specified in
the plan, including consulting with stakeholders, analyzing the reasons
the school was identified for targeted support, and selecting
appropriate evidence-based interventions to address those reasons, and
to ensure that such planning does not inordinately delay the full
implementation of interventions that are needed to support improved
student achievement and school success.
LEA Responsibilities
The proposed regulations would clarify that the targeted support
and improvement plan must be submitted by the school to the LEA for
review and approval. The LEA would be required to conduct a timely
review of the plan and take all actions necessary to ensure that each
school is able to meet all of the requirements of proposed Sec. 200.22
to develop and implement the plan within the required timeframe.
Further, LEAs would be required to make the approved plans and all
approved amendments to the plans publicly available. These
clarifications are intended to ensure that plans are approved
expeditiously, meet key statutory requirements, and are transparent and
widely available to the public, and to prevent significant delays in
the implementation of activities and interventions that will help
improve student achievement and outcomes for low-performing students,
including consistently underperforming subgroups, in identified
schools.
Exit Criteria
Proposed Sec. 200.22 would make clear that each LEA must establish
and make public exit criteria for schools implementing targeted support
and improvement plans in order to meet the statutory requirement that
an LEA must require a school that unsuccessfully implements its
targeted support and improvement plan to take additional action. These
exit criteria must, at a minimum, require that the school no longer
meet the criteria for identification as a school for targeted support
and improvement and demonstrate improved academic achievement for its
lowest-performing students, including underperforming subgroups. These
criteria must also be tailored to consider participation in statewide
assessments in States that choose to identify schools with low
participation rates for targeted support and improvement under proposed
Sec. 200.15(b)(2)(iii). Overall, this structure is similar to the
parameters for exit criteria for comprehensive support and improvement
so that there is consistency across the accountability system. Further,
these clarifications would help make clear that schools improving
educational outcomes are able to exit targeted support and improvement
status, while providing safeguards to ensure that consistently
underperforming subgroups do not struggle indefinitely if plans are
inadequate or ineffectively implemented, and that schools are provided
with additional help and support, when needed.
Schools With Low-Performing Subgroups Requiring Additional Targeted
Support
Proposed Sec. 200.22 would clarify and reorganize the statutory
requirements that, in the case of a school with low-performing
subgroups that are performing as poorly as all students in the lowest-
performing five percent of title I schools, the school's targeted
support and improvement plan also identifies and reviews resource
inequities and their effect on each low-performing subgroup in the
school. The proposed regulations would ensure this review is aligned
with the review that would be required in comprehensive support and
improvement plans, creating coherence across the statewide
accountability system. Further, these clarifications are intended to
emphasize the importance of equity and encourage LEAs and schools to
correct resource disparities (e.g., disproportionate rates with respect
to ineffective, out-of-field, or inexperienced teachers and per-pupil
expenditures) that will be critical to developing and implementing
successful support and improvement plans for schools identified for
targeted support and improvement.
Additionally, proposed Sec. 200.22 would clarify the State-
developed exit criteria for title I schools with low-performing
subgroups and ensure that such a school that has not improved is
identified for comprehensive support and improvement on the same
timeline on which the State identifies schools in need of comprehensive
support and intervention, consistent with 200.19(d)(1)(i). If the
targeted support and improvement plan developed by the school has not
helped its lowest-performing students, including low-performing
subgroups, improve, it is imperative that these students receive the
same supports, resources, and attention as similarly performing
students in the bottom five percent of schools--those provided by the
LEA for schools in comprehensive support and improvement. While many
schools identified for comprehensive support and improvement
demonstrate low performance among all students, LEAs and the State must
also take responsibility and rigorous action to improve student
outcomes for schools with low-performing subgroups, particularly when a
school-developed improvement plan has not been effective. By providing
for comprehensive support and improvement in schools with chronically
low-performing subgroups, proposed Sec. 200.22 would help States and
LEAs meet the purpose of title I: ``providing all children significant
opportunity to receive a fair, equitable, and high-quality education,
and to close educational achievement gaps.''
Section 200.23 State Responsibilities To Support Continued Improvement
Statute: Section 1111(d)(3)(A)(ii) of the ESEA, as amended by the
ESSA, requires each State to provide support for LEA and school
improvement, including the periodic review of resource allocation to
support school improvement in LEAs serving significant numbers of
schools identified for either comprehensive support and improvement or
targeted support and improvement. Section 1111(d)(3)(A)(iii) requires
each State to provide technical assistance to each of its LEAs serving
significant numbers of schools identified for either comprehensive
support and improvement or targeted support and improvement. Section
1111(d)(3)(B)(i) allows a State to take additional improvement actions
in any LEA serving a significant number of schools identified for
comprehensive support and improvement and not meeting State-established
exit criteria or any LEA serving a significant number of
[[Page 34567]]
schools identified for targeted support and improvement. Section
1111(d)(3)(B)(ii) allows a State to establish alternative evidence-
based, State-determined strategies that may be used by LEAs to assist
schools identified for comprehensive support and improvement,
consistent with State law.
Current Regulations: Section 200.49 describes an SEA's
responsibilities to make technical assistance available to schools that
have been identified for improvement, corrective action, or
restructuring and requires an SEA to take additional actions if it
determines that an LEA has failed to carry out its school improvement
responsibilities. Section 200.50(a)(1)(ii) requires an SEA to annually
review each of its LEAs receiving title I funds to determine whether
the LEA is carrying out its responsibilities with respect to school
improvement .
Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec. 200.23 would clarify the
statutory requirements in the ESEA related to continued support for
school and LEA improvement.
State Review of Resource Allocation
Proposed Sec. 200.23(a) would require each State to periodically
review resource allocations for each LEA serving significant numbers of
schools identified either for comprehensive or targeted support and
improvement. The proposed regulations would further specify that the
required review must consider allocations between LEAs and between
schools and any inequities identified in school support and improvement
plans consistent with proposed Sec. 200.21(d)(4) and Sec.
200.22(c)(7), and would require each State to take action, to the
extent practicable, to address any resource inequities identified
during its review.
State Responsibilities for Technical Assistance
Proposed Sec. 200.23(b) would require each State to describe in
its State plan the technical assistance it will provide to each of its
LEAs serving significant numbers of schools identified for either
comprehensive support and improvement or targeted support and
improvement. The proposed regulations would specify minimum
requirements for such technical assistance, including a requirement
that the State describe how it will assist LEAs in developing and
implementing comprehensive support and improvement plans and ensuring
that schools develop and implement targeted support and improvement
plans, conducting school-level needs assessments, selecting evidence-
based interventions, and reviewing and addressing resource inequities.
Additional State Action To Support LEA Improvement
The proposed regulations also would permit a State to take certain
additional improvement actions consistent with section 1111(d)(3)(B) of
the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. Proposed Sec. 200.23(c)(1) would
permit a State to take additional improvement actions in (1) any LEA,
or authorized public chartering agency consistent with State charter
school law, serving a significant number of schools identified for
comprehensive support and improvement and not meeting State-established
exit criteria, or (2) any LEA, or authorized public chartering agency
consistent with State charter school law, serving a significant number
of schools implementing targeted support and improvement plans. Such
actions could include, for each school that does not meet State-
established exit criteria following implementation of a comprehensive
support and improvement plan, reorganizing the school to implement a
new instructional model; replacing school leadership; converting the
school to a public charter school; changing school governance; closing
the school; or, in the case of a public charter school, revoking or
non-renewing the school's charter consistent with State charter school
law.
In addition, proposed Sec. 200.23(c)(2) would allow a State to
establish an exhaustive or non-exhaustive list of State-approved,
evidence-based interventions for use in schools implementing
comprehensive or targeted support and improvement plans. Proposed Sec.
200.23(c)(3) would permit a State to establish, or to use previously
developed and established, evidence-based, State-determined
interventions, which may include whole-school reform models, for use by
LEAs to assist schools identified for comprehensive support and
improvement. Proposed Sec. 200.23(c)(4) would allow a State to
establish a process for review and approval of amended targeted support
and improvement plans developed following a school's unsuccessful
implementation of its targeted support and improvement plan, consistent
with proposed Sec. 200.22(e)(2).
Reasons: The proposed regulations would clarify State
responsibilities to provide support and technical assistance to LEAs
with significant numbers of schools identified for either comprehensive
support and improvement or targeted support and improvement. A key
purpose of the proposed regulations is to ensure that the support and
technical assistance from the State required by section 1111(d)(3)(A)
is provided in a timely manner to support LEAs. The proposed
regulations would also reinforce the LEA's role in development and
implementation of effective support and improvement plans for low-
performing schools. Similarly, the proposed regulations would require
States to periodically review and take action, to the extent
practicable, to address any resource inequities uncovered by their
review of resource allocation between LEAs and schools; such action
would support effective implementation of improvement plans by helping
to coordinate actions at the State, district, and school levels and
promote making sufficient resources available to support improvement.
We encourage States to time their periodic review of resource
allocation to align with existing, ongoing processes for reviewing the
support they provide to LEAs and schools, such as each time the State
submits its title I plan to the Department, or each time it identifies
its lowest-performing schools.
The proposed regulations also would help ensure that the technical
assistance provided by States is aligned with the statutory school
improvement requirements, including those related to conducting needs
assessments for schools identified for comprehensive support and
improvement, the use of evidence-based interventions, and review of
resource inequities. Such technical assistance is essential to building
local capacity at both the LEA and school levels to carry out critical
new responsibilities under the ESSA, including greater use of evidence-
based interventions.
In addition, the proposed regulations would clarify State authority
to take additional actions aimed at ensuring effective local
implementation of comprehensive and targeted support and improvement
plans. For example, the proposed regulations specify that States may
take additional improvement actions in LEAs, as well as in authorized
public chartering agencies consistent with State charter school law, so
that States have tools to support the capacity of these entities to
help improve low-performing schools. Further, permitting States to
establish or maintain lists of evidence-based interventions would
facilitate the selection and implementation of evidence-based
improvement actions by LEAs with schools identified for improvement.
The proposed regulations also would clarify that the alternative,
evidence-based,
[[Page 34568]]
State-determined strategies authorized by section 1111(d)(3)(B)(ii) may
include whole-school reform strategies that could simplify LEA efforts
to identify appropriate, comprehensive approaches to turning around
their lowest-performing schools.
Finally, the proposed regulation recognizes the critical role of
States in providing additional support to schools that were identified
for targeted support and improvement and did not implement their plans
successfully, by permitting States to establish a review and approval
process for such schools' amended targeted support and improvement
plans. Implementation of a State-level review and approval process
would help ensure that LEAs and affected schools benefit from the
State's experience in working with schools facing similar challenges
and increase the likelihood that the additional actions proposed for
such schools are of sufficient rigor to ensure meaningful improvement
for consistently underperforming and low-performing subgroups of
students.
Section 200.24 Resources To Support Continued Improvement
Statute: Section 1003 of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, provides
dedicated resources for school improvement.
Under section 1003(a), States must reserve seven percent of title
I, part A allocations for school improvement, at least 95 percent of
which must be distributed to LEAs either competitively or by formula to
serve schools implementing comprehensive or targeted support and
improvement activities, including the implementation of evidence-based
interventions, under section 1111(d). Section 1003(c) allows States to
award subgrants for up to four years, which may include one planning
year.
Under section 1003, States must prioritize funds for LEAs that
serve high numbers, or a high percentage, of schools identified for
comprehensive support and improvement; LEAs with the greatest need for
such funds, as defined by the State; and LEAs with the strongest
commitment to improving student achievement and outcomes. Additionally,
subgrants must be of sufficient size to enable an LEA to effectively
implement selected strategies, and LEAs receiving a subgrant must
represent the geographic diversity of the State.
Section 1003(b)(1)(B) allows a State, with the approval of the LEA,
to directly provide for the improvement activities required under
section 1111(d) or to arrange for their provision through other
entities such as school support teams, educational service agencies, or
nonprofit or for-profit external providers with expertise in using
evidence-based strategies to improve student achievement, instruction,
and schools. Additionally, under section 1003(b)(2), States are
required to use any funds not distributed to LEAs to establish a method
to allocate funds under section 1003, to monitor and evaluate the use
of such funds by LEAs, and, as appropriate, to reduce barriers and
provide operational flexibilities for schools in the implementation of
comprehensive and targeted support and improvement activities under
section 1111(d). In addition, section 1003(i) requires States to
include on State report cards a list of all LEAs and schools receiving
funds under section 1003, including the amount of funds each school
received and the types of strategies each school implemented.
To receive funds under section 1003, an LEA must submit an
application to the State that includes, at a minimum, a description of
how the LEA will carry out its responsibilities for school improvement
under section 1111(d), including how the LEA will: Help schools develop
and implement comprehensive and targeted support and improvement plans;
monitor schools receiving funds under section 1003; use a rigorous
review process to recruit, screen, select, and evaluate any external
partners with whom the LEA will partner; align other Federal, State,
and local resources to carry out the activities supported with funds
under section 1003; and, as appropriate, modify practices or policies
to provide operational flexibility that enables full and effective
implementation of school improvement plans.
Current Regulations: Section 200.99 requires each State to reserve
two percent of its fiscal year 2003 and 2004 title I, part A
allocation, and four percent of its title I, part A allocation for each
succeeding fiscal year, to carry out State and local responsibilities
for school improvement under sections 1116 and 1117 of the ESEA, as
amended by NCLB.
Section 1003(g) of the ESEA, as amended by NCLB, authorized an
additional source of school improvement funding through the School
Improvement Grants (SIG) program, which was first funded in fiscal year
2007 and which provided formula grants to States that then were
competitively subgranted to LEAs to support the activities required
under sections 1116 and 1117.
Following a one-time appropriation of $3 billion for SIG under the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the Department
promulgated regulations to significantly strengthen the SIG program.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec. 200.24 would clarify the new
requirements included in the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, for funds
that the State must set aside for LEAs to support schools implementing
comprehensive and targeted support and improvement plans.
LEA Eligibility
The proposed regulations would clarify that an LEA is eligible for
school improvement funds under section 1003(a) if it has one or more
schools identified for comprehensive support and improvement or
targeted support and improvement and if it applies to serve each school
identified for comprehensive support and improvement before applying to
serve a school identified for targeted support and improvement.
Proposed Sec. 200.24 would also clarify that funds may not be used to
serve schools that are identified for targeted support and improvement
under proposed Sec. 200.15(b)(2)(iii) for low assessment participation
rates, if the State chooses to identify such schools for targeted
support and improvement, because funds for school improvement provided
under section 1003 are intended to serve low-performing schools,
including schools with low-performing subgroups, that are identified on
the basis of the indicators under proposed Sec. 200.14.
LEA Application
Proposed Sec. 200.24 would require that an LEA seeking school
improvement funds submit an application to the State that includes, at
a minimum--
A description of one or more evidence-based interventions
based on strong, moderate, or promising evidence consistent with
section 8101(21) that will be implemented in each school the LEA
proposes to serve;
A description of how the LEA will: (1) Carry out its
responsibilities to develop and implement a comprehensive support and
improvement plan that meets the requirements in proposed Sec. 200.21
for each school identified for comprehensive support and improvement
that the LEA applies to serve, and (2) support each school identified
for targeted support and improvement that the LEA applies to serve in
developing, approving, and implementing a targeted support and
improvement plan under proposed Sec. 200.22;
[[Page 34569]]
A budget indicating how it will allocate school
improvement funds among schools identified for comprehensive and
targeted support and improvement that it intends to serve;
The LEA's plan to monitor each school for which the LEA
receives school improvement funds, including its plan to increase
monitoring of schools that do not meet State or LEA exit criteria, as
applicable;
A description of the rigorous review process that the LEA
will use to recruit, screen, select, and evaluate any external
providers with which the LEA intends to partner;
A description of how the LEA will align other Federal,
State, and local resources to carry out the activities in the schools
it applies to serve and sustain effective activities in such schools
after funding under section 1003 is completed;
As appropriate, a description of how the LEA will modify
practices and policies to provide operational flexibility, including
with respect to school budgeting and staffing, that will help enable
full and effective implementation of the school's comprehensive or
targeted support and improvement plan under proposed Sec. Sec. 200.21
and 200.22;
For an LEA that plans to allow a school to use the first
year, or a portion of the first year, it receives school improvement
funds for planning activities, a description of those planning
activities, the timeline for implementation of those activities, and a
description of how those activities will support successful
implementation of the school's comprehensive or targeted support and
improvement plan; and
An assurance that each school the LEA proposes to serve
will receive all of the State and local funds it would have otherwise
received.
State Allocation of Funds
The proposed regulations would also clarify the State's
responsibilities in allocating school improvement funds to LEAs.
Specifically, they would require that a State review, in a timely
manner, each LEA application and award funds to an LEA application that
meets the requirements of the proposed regulations in an amount that is
of sufficient size to enable the LEA to effectively implement the
comprehensive or targeted support and improvement plan. Under the
proposed regulations, to be of sufficient size, each award would be at
least $50,000 per school identified for targeted support and
improvement the LEA is applying to serve and at least $500,000 for each
school identified for comprehensive support and improvement the LEA is
applying to serve, except that a State could conclude, based on a
demonstration from the LEA in its application, that a smaller award
would be sufficient to successfully implement the plan in a particular
school.
If a State has insufficient school improvement funds to make awards
to all eligible LEAs that are of sufficient size, the proposed
regulations would require that a State, whether through formula or a
competition, award funds to an LEA applying to serve a school
identified for comprehensive support and improvement before awarding
funds to an LEA applying to serve a school identified for targeted
support and improvement. Further, the proposed regulations would
require that a State prioritize its funding such that it--
Gives priority in funding to an LEA that demonstrates the
greatest need for the funds, as determined by the State, based, at a
minimum, on the number or percentage of schools in the LEA implementing
either a comprehensive or targeted support and improvement plan and
based on the State's review of resource inequities among and within
LEAs, required under proposed Sec. 200.23(a);
Gives priority in funding to an LEA that demonstrates the
strongest commitment to using the school improvement funds to enable
the lowest-performing schools to improve, taking into consideration,
with respect to each school the LEA proposes to serve: (1) The proposed
use of evidence-based interventions that are supported by the strongest
level of evidence available; and (2) commitment to family and community
engagement; and
Considers geographic diversity within the State. The
proposed regulations would further require that a State make awards to
LEAs either on a competitive or formula basis for not more than four
years, which may include a planning year. If a State permits an LEA to
have a planning year with respect to a particular school, the State
would be required to review the performance of the LEA during the
planning year against the LEA's approved application and determine that
the LEA will be able to ensure that the school fully implements the
activities and interventions that will be supported with school
improvement funds by the beginning of the next school year before
renewing the school improvement award.
State Responsibilities
The proposed regulations would require that each State--
Establish the method to allocate school improvement funds;
Monitor the use of school improvement funds;
Evaluate the use of school improvement funds including by,
at a minimum, engaging in ongoing efforts to examine the effects of the
evidence-based interventions implemented using school improvement funds
on student outcomes and other relevant outcomes and disseminate its
findings to LEAs with schools required to implement evidence-based
interventions;
Determine that the school is making progress on the
indicators in the statewide accountability system in proposed Sec.
200.14 prior to renewing an LEA's award of school improvement funds
with respect to a particular school is implementing evidence-based
interventions with fidelity to the requirements in proposed Sec. Sec.
200.21 and 200.22 in the LEA's application; and
Reduce barriers and provide operational flexibility for
schools in LEAs receiving school improvement funds, including with
respect to school budgeting and staffing, as appropriate.
Further, the proposed regulations would clarify that a State may
set aside up to five percent of its school improvement fund reservation
under section 1003(a) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, to carry out
these five activities.
Finally, the proposed regulations would clarify that a State may
directly provide for school improvement activities or arrange for their
provision through an external partner, such as school support teams,
educational service agencies, or nonprofit or for-profit entities. An
external partner would be required to have expertise in using evidence-
based strategies to improve student achievement, instruction, and
schools, and the proposed regulations would require that, with respect
to each school, either the State has the authority to take over the
school consistent with State law or the LEA approves the arrangement.
If the State arranges for the provision of services through an external
partner, the regulations would require that the State undertake a
rigorous review process in recruiting, screening, selecting, and
evaluating an external partner the State uses to carry out the
activities and the external partner have a demonstrated success
implementing the evidence-based interventions that it will implement.
[[Page 34570]]
Reporting
The proposed regulations would require that each State include in
its State report card a list of all the LEAs and schools receiving
school improvement funds, including the amount of funds each LEA
receives to serve each school and the type of intervention or
interventions being implemented in each school with school improvement
funds.
Reasons: The proposed regulations would clarify State and LEA
responsibilities to ensure that the schools in need of the most support
receive funds under section 1003 of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA,
and use such funds appropriately and effectively to improve student
outcomes and school success. We propose to update the current
regulations to address the increased State reservation of funds
required by the statute and explain how these funds must be used to
reinforce the statutory requirements for supporting school improvement
in schools identified under section 1111(d).
LEA Eligibility
Proposed Sec. 200.24 would clarify that States should prioritize
funding to serve schools identified for comprehensive support and
improvement. Schools in comprehensive support and improvement have been
identified due to systemic low performance or graduation rates for all
students, or chronically low-performing subgroups of students. We
recognize that, given limited resources, pervasive, schoolwide
challenges in student performance and outcomes should be addressed with
improvement funds prior to addressing challenges in schools that are
localized or smaller in scope.
LEA Application
Proposed Sec. 200.24 would clarify the statutory components of
each LEA's application for funds under section 1003 from the State,
with a particular emphasis on how the application requirements align
with the expectations of LEAs to support schools identified for
comprehensive or targeted support and improvement under section
1111(d), in implementing evidence-based interventions. Proposed Sec.
200.24 would specify that one or more school interventions funded under
section 1003 must meet a higher level of evidence (i.e., strong,
moderate, or promising levels of evidence), even though other
interventions that can be included in support and improvement plans
under section 1111(d) could meet a lower evidence level. Similarly, the
proposed regulations would clarify how the planning year that is
permitted for a school in comprehensive or targeted support and
improvement under proposed Sec. Sec. 200.21 and 200.22 is distinct
from a planning year for use of section 1003 funds to ensure that
receipt of school improvement funding does not delay full
implementation of a support and improvement plan under section 1111(d).
In addition, the proposed regulations would clarify the minimum
requirements an LEA must address in its application to the State to
receive funds under section 1003 to ensure effective local
implementation of comprehensive support and improvement plans and
targeted support and improvement plans for schools in LEAs that receive
school improvement funds. For example, in addition to describing the
LEA's plan to monitor each school for which the LEA receives school
improvement funds, the LEA would also be required to include its plan
to increase monitoring of schools that do not meet the exit criteria.
This would help ensure that schools identified for comprehensive or
targeted support and improvement do not linger in such a status for
multiple years without increased attention from the LEA, and reinforce
the goals of the statewide accountability system. An LEA would also
describe how it will plan for school improvement activities to be
sustained in schools once funding is completed, in addition to
describing how it will align Federal, State, and local resources.
State Allocation of Funds
To ensure funding for school improvement has a meaningful impact,
particularly for schools that are the lowest-performing in the State
and require comprehensive support and improvement and whole-school
reform, the proposed regulations would require States to allocate
grants of sufficient size so that each school identified for
comprehensive support and improvement would receive at least $500,000
per year and each school identified for targeted support and
improvement would receive at least $50,000 per year, unless the LEA
provides a justification to the State that a lesser amount would be
sufficient. The minimum award amount of $500,000 for a school
identified for comprehensive support and improvement would help ensure
that it has the resources it needs to implement the comprehensive
interventions that will lead to sustained school improvements. The
amount is based on data about the size of awards under the School
Improvement Grants program, under which low-performing schools
implemented whole-school comprehensive reform models aimed at turning
around the schools' performance.\16\ The minimum award amount of
$50,000 for a school identified for targeted support and improvement
would ensure that school improvement resources are not spread so thinly
across LEAs in the State that funds for an individual school are
inadequate to support high-quality, faithful implementation of an
evidence-based intervention that will improve student and school
outcomes and assist the school in exiting improvement status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Hulburt, S., Therriault, S.B., Le Floch, K.C., and Wei,
T. (2012). ``School improvement grants: Analyses of state
applications and eligible and awarded schools.'' U.S. Department of
Education, Institute of Education Sciences, pp. 29-34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed regulations would also emphasize that, in determining
the greatest need for funds if insufficient funds are available to
award a grant of sufficient size to all LEAs, States must examine the
number and percentage of schools identified in the LEA for
comprehensive or targeted support and improvement, the resource
inequities the State has identified under proposed Sec. 200.23, and
academic achievement and student outcomes in the identified schools.
Similarly, in determining the strongest commitment, a State must
examine the proposed use of evidence-based interventions, and the LEA's
commitment to family and community engagement. The purpose of these
proposed regulations is to increase the likelihood that funds are
awarded to LEAs that will successfully implement interventions in
schools identified for comprehensive or targeted support and
improvement. Specifically, the use of more rigorous evidence-based
interventions and strong support from the local community are likely to
increase a school's chances of significantly improving student
achievement and outcomes.
State Responsibilities
Proposed Sec. 200.24 would clarify the statutory requirements for
States to support LEAs in using funds under section 1003, and help
align these responsibilities with the expectations on the State to
support schools identified for comprehensive or targeted support and
improvement under section 1111(d). For example, States would be
required to evaluate the use of funds under section 1003 including by
examining the effects of evidence-based interventions on student
achievement and outcomes in schools supported by 1003 funds and
disseminating those
[[Page 34571]]
results to LEAs. This activity would reinforce the technical assistance
States would be providing to LEAs under proposed Sec. 200.23, which
will be critical to guide LEAs' and schools' implementation of the new
evidence requirements in the statute and to help build stronger
evidence of effective interventions. By specifying the minimum
requirements a State must meet, States will be better equipped to
support effective implementation of comprehensive support and
improvement plans and targeted support and improvement plans for
schools in LEAs that receive funds under section 1003.
Section 200.30 Annual State Report Card
Statute: Section 1111(h)(1)(A) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA,
requires a State that receives assistance under title I, part A to
disseminate widely to the public an annual State report card for the
State as a whole. Section 1111(h)(1)(B) of the ESEA, as amended by the
ESSA, further requires the State report card to be: Concise; presented
in an understandable and uniform format that is developed in
consultation with parents; presented to the extent practicable in a
language that parents can understand; and widely accessible to the
public.
In addition, section 1111(h)(1)(C) of the ESEA, as amended by the
ESSA, establishes minimum requirements for the content of State report
cards, including requirements for a State to include disaggregated
information for certain data elements by subgroup. Included among the
subgroups for which disaggregation is required for some data elements
are migrant status, homeless status, status as a child in foster care,
and status as a student with a parent who is a member of the Armed
Forces on active duty.
Finally, section 1111(i) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA,
provides that disaggregation of data for State report cards shall not
be required if such disaggregation will reveal personally identifiable
information about any student, teacher, principal, or other school
leader, or will provide data that are insufficient to yield
statistically reliable information.
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec. 200.30 would require a State
to prepare and disseminate widely to the public an annual State report
card that includes information on the State as a whole and is concise
and presented in an understandable and uniform format and in a manner
accessible to the public, including the parents of students in the
State.
Proposed Sec. 200.30(a) restates statutory requirements that a
State that receives title I, part A funds must prepare and disseminate
widely to the public an annual State report card, which must include,
at a minimum the information required under section 1111(h)(1)(C) of
the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. It also requires that State report
cards include, for each authorized public chartering agency in the
State, demographic and academic achievement data for each school
authorized by such agency compared to the community in which the
charter school is located.
Proposed Sec. 200.30(b) restates the statutory requirement that a
State report card be concise and presented in an understandable and
uniform format that is developed in consultation with parents. It also
would clarify that to meet these requirements, a State, in addition to
meeting all minimum requirements under section 1111(h)(1)(C) of the
ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, must develop with parental input a report
card format that begins with a clearly labeled overview section that is
prominently displayed. Under proposed Sec. 200.30(b), the overview
section of a State report card would include statewide results for all
students and, at a minimum, each subgroup of students described in
proposed Sec. 200.16(a)(2) on the following: The State's academic
assessments in each of reading/language arts, mathematics, and science;
each measure within the Academic Progress indicator for public
elementary schools and secondary schools that are not high schools; the
four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate, and each measure within each
indicator of School Quality or Student Success. In addition, the
overview section would include the number and percentage of English
learners achieving English language proficiency on the State's English
language proficiency assessment.
Proposed Sec. 200.30(c) would also require that each State report
card be in a format and language, to the extent practicable, that
parents can understand consistent with proposed Sec. 200.21(b)(1)-(3).
Proposed Sec. 200.30(d) would restate the statutory requirements
for a State to disseminate widely to the public the State report card,
which at a minimum must be made available on a single page of the SEA's
Web site, and to include on the SEA's Web site the report card for each
LEA in the State required under proposed Sec. 200.31 as well as the
annual report to the Secretary required under section 1111(h)(5) of the
ESEA, as amended by the ESSA.
Proposed Sec. 200.30(e) would require the dissemination of the
State report cards no later than December 31 each year, beginning with
report cards based on information from the 2017-2018 school year. If a
State is unable to meet this deadline for the 2017-2018 school year for
some or all of the newly required information under section
1111(h)(1)(C) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, proposed Sec.
200.30(e) would allow the State to request from the Secretary a one-
time, one-year extension for reporting on such required elements of the
report cards. A State would be required to submit an extension request
to the Secretary by July 1, 2018, and include evidence demonstrating
that the State cannot meet the deadline, as well as a plan and timeline
for how the State would publish the newly required information by
December 31, 2019.
Finally, proposed Sec. 200.30(f) would define certain terms
related to the subgroups for which disaggregated data must be reported
under section 1111(h) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. It would
clarify the meaning of the terms ``migrant status,'' ``homeless
status,'' ``child in foster care status,'' and ``student with a parent
who is a member of the armed forces on active duty'' by reference to
established statutory and regulatory definitions. Proposed Sec.
200.30(e) would also clarify that, consistent with proposed Sec.
200.17, disaggregation on State and LEA report cards is not required if
the number of students in the subgroup is insufficient to yield
statistically reliable information or the results would reveal
personally identifiable information about a student.
Reasons: State report cards were conceived under the ESEA, as
amended by the NCLB, as a mechanism to increase the availability of
school accountability data for parents and the public, enabling them to
reward and hold accountable public officials, State and local
administrators, and educators for the performance of their public
schools. Built on decades of education performance reporting that
started with the Nation's Report Card in 1969, school performance
reporting requirements under the ESEA, as amended by the NCLB,
significantly expanded the depth and breadth of accountability data
available to parents and the public. These audiences had to make
meaning out of the data provided on report cards, which were often
lengthy and complex despite requirements that they be concise and
understandable.
With respect to State report cards, section 1111(h)(1) of the ESEA,
as
[[Page 34572]]
amended by the ESSA, maintains the requirement that report cards be
concise and understandable. At the same time, however, report cards
must include valuable new data elements, which could make report cards
longer and more complex, and if confusing, potentially not as useful to
stakeholders. As a result, we are proposing Sec. 200.30 to clarify
what States must do to meet these seemingly conflicting requirements.
In addition, we are requiring that State report cards provide
information for each authorized public chartering agency in the State
in order to provide transparency regarding the demographic composition
and academic achievement of charters schools authorized by such agency
as compared to the broader community in which the schools are located.
Proposed Sec. 200.30 would require States to develop a format and
process to share report cards with parents, as well as the public in a
manner that is concise, accessible, informative, timely, and
understandable. The proposed regulations would specify that States
design and disseminate an overview section that would be prominently
displayed on annual report cards. These requirements would help parents
and the public more effectively access and use State-level data.
The proposed regulations would also encourage States to creatively
design and publish report cards that are truly concise while not
abandoning minimum report card requirements related to transparent and
accurate presentation of a broad range of data. These requirements
would maintain a commitment to the civil rights legacy of the ESEA by
ensuring that objective, disaggregated evidence of student academic
achievement, graduation rates, other academic indicators, and
indicators of school quality or success are visible to the public in a
format that clearly conveys where gaps exist between subgroups of
students.
Proposed Sec. 200.30(c)-(d) is also intended to provide clarity to
States related to statutory reporting requirements that call for report
cards to be widely accessible, including on the SEA's Web site. To
clarify this statutory requirement, proposed Sec. 200.30(c) would
require that report cards be provided in a format and language, to the
extent practicable, that parents can understand, increasing the access
and availability to all members of the public, regardless of language
barrier or disability.
Proposed Sec. 200.30(e) would also require States to make report
cards publicly available no later than December 31 each year. This
would create a more well-informed public that is better prepared to
work with educators and local school officials during the school year
to effectively address and close achievement, opportunity, and equity
gaps in a timely manner.
To ensure States and LEAs disaggregate student data on report cards
so that it is accurate and comparable across and within States and
LEAs, proposed Sec. 200.30(f) would define the terms used to identify
certain subgroups for which disaggregated data must be provided under
applicable reporting requirements in section 1111(h)(1)(C) of the ESEA,
as amended by the ESSA. Specifically, proposed Sec. 200.30(f) would
clarify the meaning of the terms ``migrant status,'' ``homeless
status,'' ``child in foster care status,'' and ``student with a parent
who is a member of the Armed Forces on active duty'' by reference to
established statutory and regulatory definitions. In addition to
clarifying these definitions, proposed Sec. 200.30 would also correct
a technical error under section 1111(h)(1)(C)(ii) of the ESEA, as
amended by the ESSA, which defines ``active duty'' by reference to 10
U.S.C. 101(d)(5). Section 101(d)(5) of title 10 of the United States
Code defines ``full-time National Guard duty,'' not ``active duty.''
``Active duty'' is defined under 10 U.S.C. 101(d)(1) to mean full-time
duty in the active military service of the United States, including
``full-time training duty, annual training duty, and attendance, while
in the active military service, at a school designated as a service
school by law or by the Secretary of the military department concerned.
Such term does not include full-time National Guard duty.'' Finally, to
ensure States and LEAs report disaggregated data that is reliable and
protects student privacy, proposed Sec. 200.30 would also reinforce
statutory requirements under section 1111(i) of the ESEA, as amended by
the ESSA, and proposed Sec. 200.17, which require that disaggregated
data only be shared when information is statistically reliable and in a
format that protects the identity of individual students.
The Department will pursue options to help ensure the transparency,
accessibility, and utility of State report cards, which may include
providing links to State report cards on our Web site.
Section 200.31 Annual LEA Report Card
Statute: Section 1111(h)(2)(A) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA,
requires an LEA that receives assistance under title I, part A to
prepare and disseminate an annual LEA report card that includes
information on the LEA as a whole and each school served by the LEA.
Section 1111(h)(2)(B) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, further
requires that each LEA report card be: Concise; presented in an
understandable and uniform format; presented to the extent practicable
in a language that parents can understand; and accessible to the
public. Further, LEA report cards must be available on the LEA's Web
site, if the LEA operates a Web site. If the LEA does not operate a Web
site, the LEA must make the report card available to the public in
another manner determined by the LEA.
In addition, sections 1111(h)(1)(C) and 1111(h)(2)(C) establish
minimum requirements for the content of LEA report cards, including
requirements for an LEA to include disaggregated information for
certain data elements by subgroup. Included among the subgroups for
which disaggregation is required for some data elements are migrant
status, homeless status, status as a child in foster care, and status
as a student with a parent who is a member of the Armed Forces on
active duty.
Finally, section 1111(i) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA,
provides that disaggregation of data for LEA report cards shall not be
required if such disaggregation will reveal personally identifiable
information about any student, teacher, principal, or other school
leader, or will provide data that are insufficient to yield
statistically reliable information.
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec. 200.31 would require an LEA to
prepare and disseminate to the public an annual LEA report card that
includes information on the LEA as a whole and each school served by
the LEA and that is concise and presented in an understandable and
uniform format and in a manner accessible to the public, including
parents of students in the LEA.
Proposed Sec. 200.31(a) restates statutory requirements that an
LEA that receives title I, part A funds must prepare and disseminate to
the public an annual LEA report card, which must include, at a minimum,
the information required under section 1111(h)(1)(C) of the ESEA, as
amended by the ESSA, for the LEA as a whole and each school served by
the LEA.
Proposed Sec. 200.31(b) restates the statutory requirement that an
LEA report card be concise and presented in an understandable and
uniform format. Proposed Sec. 200.31(b) would clarify that, to meet
these requirements, an LEA, in
[[Page 34573]]
addition to meeting all minimum requirements under section
1111(h)(2)(C) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, must develop a
report card format in consultation with parents, that begins with, for
the LEA as a whole and for each school served by the LEA, a clearly
labeled overview section that is prominently displayed and that, for
each school served by the LEA, can be distributed to parents on a
single piece of paper. Proposed Sec. 200.31(b) would require that the
overview section include, at a minimum, for the LEA as a whole and for
each school served by the LEA, the same information as is required on
State report cards under proposed Sec. 200.30(b)(2), for all students
and each subgroup of students described in proposed Sec. 200.16(a)(2).
In addition, proposed Sec. 200.31(b) would require the overview
section for the LEA as a whole to include information on the
achievement on the State's academic assessments in reading/language
arts, mathematics, and science of students served by the LEA compared
to students in the State as a whole, and the overview section for each
school to include corresponding information for the school's students
compared to students served by the LEA and the State as a whole. The
overview section would also be required to include, for each school,
information on school-level accountability results, including, as
applicable, identification for comprehensive or targeted support and
improvement described in proposed Sec. Sec. 200.18 and 200.19 and, for
the LEA and for each school, basic LEA or school identifying
information (e.g., name, address, phone number, and status as a
participating Title I school).
Proposed Sec. 200.31(c) would also require that each LEA report
card be in a format and language, to the extent practicable, that
parents can understand consistent with proposed Sec. 200.21(b)(1)-(3).
Proposed Sec. 200.31(d) would restate the statutory requirements
for an LEA report card to be made available on the LEA's Web site,
except that an LEA that does not operate a Web site may provide the
information to the public in another manner determined by the LEA.
Proposed Sec. 200.31(d) would further require that the LEA provide the
information required for the overview section under proposed Sec.
200.31(b)(2) to parents of each student enrolled in each school in the
LEA directly though such means as regular mail or email and in a timely
manner consistent with Sec. 200.31(e).
Proposed Sec. 200.31(e) would require the dissemination of LEA
report cards on the same timeline as State report cards under proposed
Sec. 200.30(e). If an LEA is unable to meet this deadline for some or
all of the newly required information under section 1111(h)(1)(C) of
the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, proposed Sec. 200.31(e) would allow
the State to request from the Secretary, on behalf of the LEA, a one-
time, one-year extension for reporting on such required elements
consistent with the requirements for State report card extensions under
Sec. 200.31(e)(2). Additionally, proposed Sec. 200.31(f) would
incorporate by reference the requirements regarding disaggregation of
data under proposed Sec. 200.30(f).
Reasons: For the same reasons as the parallel requirements for
annual State report cards under proposed Sec. 200.30, proposed Sec.
200.31 would require LEAs to develop a format and process for
developing and disseminating LEA report cards in a manner that is
concise, accessible, informative, timely, and understandable. With
respect to LEA report cards in particular, there is evidence that when
school quality information, including information about school
accountability results, is provided to parents, they pay attention and
respond. This suggests that concise presentation of school quality data
would increase the likelihood that more parents are knowledgeable about
the academic achievement of their children and the students in their
community, and the performance of their child's school, including the
relative standing of the school compared to LEA-wide and statewide
performance.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Black, S.E. (1999). ``Do better schools matter? Parental
valuation of elementary education.'' Quarterly Journal of Economics,
114 (2): 577-99.
Charbonneau, E., & Van Ryzin, G.G. (2012). ``Performance
measures and parental satisfaction with New York City Schools.''
American Review of Public Administration, 42 (1): 54-65.
Figlio, D.N. & Lucas, M.E. (2004). ``What's in a grade? School
report cards and the housing market.'' American Economic Review, 94
(3): 591-604.
Hastings, J.S. & Weinstein, J.M. (2008). ``Information, school
choice, and academic achievement: Evidence from two experiments.''
Quarterly Journal of Economics, 123 (4): 1373-414.
Jacobsen, R. & Saultz, A. (2013). ``Do good grades matter?
Public accountability data and perceptions of school quality.'' In
The Infrastructure of Accountability, ed. Anagnostopoulos, D.,
Rutledge, S.A., & Jacobsen, R. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education
Press.
Jacobsen, R., Saultz, A. & Snyder, J.W. (2013). ``When
accountability strategies collide: Do policy changes that raise
accountability standards also erode public satisfaction?''
Educational Policy, 27 (2): 360-89.
Koning, P. & Wiel, K.V.D. (2013). ``Ranking the Schools: How
school-quality information affects school choice in the
Netherlands.'' Journal of the European Economic Association, 11 (2):
466-493.
Nunes, L.C., Reis, A.B., & Seabra, C. (2015). ``The publication
of school rankings: A step toward increased accountability?''
Economics of Education Review, 49 (December): 15-23.
Rockoff, J.E. & Turner, L.J. (2008). Short run impacts of
accountability on school quality. Working Paper 14564, National
Bureau of Economic Research, http://www.nber.org/papers/w14564.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recognizing the importance of LEA and school information to
parents, proposed Sec. 200.31(d) includes an additional requirement,
not included in the State report card requirements under proposed Sec.
200.30, that would require an LEA to provide the information required
for the overview section under proposed Sec. 200.31(b)(2) to parents
of each student enrolled a school served by the LEA directly though
such means as regular mail or email and in a timely manner consistent
with proposed Sec. 200.31(e). This proposed requirement is necessary
to ensure that key information about LEA and school performance reaches
parents on a timeline such that they have relevant information to work
effectively with educators and local school officials during the school
year.
Section 200.32 Description and Results of a State's Accountability
System
Statute: Section 1111(h)(1)(C)(i) and section 1111(h)(2)(C) of the
ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, require State and LEA report cards to
include a description of the State's accountability system under
section 1111(c) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, including:
The minimum number of students that the State determines
are necessary to be included in each of the subgroups of students, as
defined in section 1111(c)(2), for use in the accountability system;
The long-term goals and measurements of interim progress
for all students and for each of the subgroups of students, as defined
in section 1111(c)(2);
The indicators described in section 1111(c)(4)(B) used to
meaningfully differentiate all public schools in the State;
The State's system for meaningfully differentiating all
public schools in the State, including: The specific weight of the
indicators described in section 1111(c)(4)(B) in such differentiation;
the methodology by which the State differentiates all such schools; the
methodology by which the State identifies a school as consistently
underperforming for any subgroup of students described in section
1111(c)(4)(C)(iii), including the time period used by the State to
determine consistent underperformance; and the methodology by which the
State identifies a school for comprehensive
[[Page 34574]]
support and improvement as required under section 1111(c)(4)(D)(i);
The number and names of all public schools in the State
identified by the State for comprehensive support and improvement under
section 1111(c)(4)(D)(i) or implementing targeted support and
improvement plans under section 1111(d)(2); and
The exit criteria established by the State as required
under section 1111(d)(3)(A)(i) for schools in comprehensive support and
improvement and for schools requiring additional targeted support,
including the number of years by which a school requiring additional
targeted support must meet the exit criteria as established under
section 1111(d)(3)(A)(i)(II).
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec. 200.32(a) would restate the
statutory requirements in section 1111(h)(1)(C)(i) of the ESEA, as
amended by the ESSA, for describing the State's current accountability
system on State report cards and clarify that the description must
include:
The minimum number of students under proposed Sec.
200.17;
The long-term goals and measurements of interim progress
under proposed Sec. 200.13;
The indicators under proposed Sec. 200.14 and the State's
uniform procedure for averaging data across years or combining data
across grades under proposed Sec. 200.20, if applicable;
The system of annual meaningful differentiation under
proposed Sec. 200.18, including the weight of each indicator, how
participation rates factor into such differentiation consistent with
proposed Sec. 200.15, and the methodology to differentiate among
schools using performance levels and summative ratings;
The methodology used to identify schools with one or more
consistently underperforming subgroups for targeted support and
improvement consistent with proposed Sec. 200.19(c);
The methodology used to identify schools for comprehensive
support and improvement consistent with proposed Sec. 200.19(a); and
The exit criteria established by the State under
Sec. Sec. 200.21(f) and 200.22(f) for schools in comprehensive support
and improvement and for schools in targeted support and improvement
with low-performing subgroups consistent with proposed Sec.
200.19(b)(2), including the number of years by which schools must meet
the applicable exit criteria.
Further, proposed Sec. 200.32(b) would clarify that, to the extent
that a description of the required accountability system elements is
provided in the State plan or in another location on the SEA's Web
site, a State or LEA may provide the Web address or URL of, or direct
link to, the State plan or other location on the SEA's Web site to meet
the reporting requirements for these accountability system elements.
The Web site content referred to in such a Web address or link must be
in a format and language that parents can understand, in compliance
with the requirements under Sec. 200.21(b)(1)-(3).
Proposed Sec. 200.32(c) would also require LEA report cards to
include, for each school served by the LEA, the performance level
described in proposed Sec. 200.18(b)(3) on each indicator under
proposed Sec. 200.14, as well as the school's single summative rating
described in proposed Sec. 200.18(b)(4). In reporting each school's
performance level on each of the accountability system indicators, an
LEA would be required to include, if the State accountability system
includes more than one measure within any indicator, results on all
such measures individually in addition to the performance level for
each indicator (which takes into account the school's results on all of
the measures within the indicator).
Proposed Sec. 200.32(c) would also require State and LEA report
cards to include the reason for which the State identified a school for
comprehensive support and improvement under proposed Sec. 200.19(a)
(i.e., lowest-performing school, low graduation rates, chronically low-
performing subgroups). In the case that a school is identified for
comprehensive support with one of more chronically low-performing
subgroups of students under proposed Sec. 200.19(a)(3), State and LEA
report cards would be required to include the name of the subgroup or
subgroups of students that led to such identification. State and LEA
report cards would also be required to indicate, for each school
identified for targeted support and improvement under proposed Sec.
200.19(b), the reason for such identification (i.e., consistently
underperforming subgroups or low-performing subgroups) and the subgroup
or subgroups of students that led to such identification.
Reasons: Proposed Sec. 200.32 is intended to ensure that parents,
teachers, principals, and other key stakeholders have access to
complete and transparent information about school performance and
progress on the State's accountability system. Under the ESEA, as
amended by the ESSA, States have the opportunity to develop and
implement accountability systems that take into account multiple
indicators of school performance and progress, weighting these
indicators as they choose, within certain guidelines set by the
statute, in order to annually differentiate among all schools and
identify certain schools for comprehensive or targeted support and
improvement. While this allows for States to develop and implement
accountability systems that reflect their unique State contexts and
beliefs about how to hold schools accountable for improving student
achievement and closing gaps, it also necessitates that States and LEAs
inform parents, teachers, principals, and other key stakeholders about
the key components of the accountability system and how they work
together--and the results of such system for each school--to help
ensure they can understand and meaningfully contribute to school
improvement efforts.
The statute requires each State and LEA report card to describe
certain elements of the accountability system, and proposed Sec.
200.32(a) clarifies these elements in order to ensure they reflect the
proposed regulations in Sec. Sec. 200.13 through 200.24 and provide
the public with a complete picture of how each required element works
together in a coherent system of accountability, including the State's:
Minimum n-size; long-term goals and measurements of interim progress;
indicators and procedures for averaging data across years or grades;
system for annual meaningful differentiation, including the weighting
of each indicator and role of participation rates; methodology to
identify schools for comprehensive or targeted support and improvement;
and exit criteria for identified schools.
Proposed Sec. 200.32(b) also would permit the State or LEA report
card to link to the State plan or another location on the SEA's Web
site for certain elements of the accountability system description. The
Department recognizes that repeating this information on the report
card may be burdensome and may also undermine the design of a concise
report card. We also recognize that a detailed description of some of
the accountability system elements may not add significantly to
parents' or other stakeholders' understanding. For these reasons, we
believe it is appropriate to allow the State or LEA to provide a Web
address for, or direct link to, the State plan or another location on
the SEA's Web site for detailed information on the accountability
system description required under 1111(h)(1)(C)(i) (e.g., the minimum
number of students under proposed Sec. 200.17). We encourage States in
developing report cards to consider
[[Page 34575]]
the amount of information needed to help parents and other stakeholders
engage in and understand the State accountability system. For example,
States may wish to indicate the minimum subgroup size on the report
card because such information likely facilitates understanding of how
school performance is measured, and then provide more detailed
information on how the minimum subgroup size was determined in the
State plan or another location on the SEA's Web site.
In addition to a description of the accountability system, proposed
Sec. 200.32(c) would require school-level accountability results to
also be included on report cards. Because of the potential complexity
of multi-indicator State accountability systems under the ESEA, as
amended by the ESSA, information on a school's performance level on
each of the individual indicators is critical for parents and
stakeholders to understand school performance across multiple
dimensions of success and the relationship of the performance on each
indicator to how a school is ultimately identified in the State's
accountability system. Further, knowing a school's single summative
rating will be important for conveying a school's performance overall,
in a way that reflects performance across the individual indicators.
For these reasons, proposed Sec. 200.32(c) would require each LEA
report card to include each school's performance level on every
indicator, as well as the summative rating.
In addition to reporting on the performance levels, proposed Sec.
200.32(c) would require that State and LEA report cards include, along
with the number and names of all schools identified for comprehensive
or targeted support and improvement as required by statute, the
particular reason for such identification, including, as applicable,
any subgroup of students whose performance contributed to such
identification. This information would help parents and the public
better understand the quality of public schools in their communities
and bolster the efforts of schools, districts, and States to target
support, resources, and technical assistance to address specific needs
of students and schools.
Section 200.33 Calculations for Reporting on Student Achievement and
Meeting Measurements of Interim Progress
Statute: Section 1111(h)(1)(C)(ii) of the ESEA, as amended by the
ESSA, requires State and LEA report cards to include information on
student achievement on the academic assessments in reading/language
arts, mathematics, and science described in section 1111(b)(2) at each
level of achievement (as determined by the State under section
1111(b)(1)) for all students and disaggregated by each subgroup of
students described in section 1111(b)(2)(B)(xi), homeless status,
status as child in foster care, and status as a student with a parent
who is a member of the Armed Forces (as defined in 10 U.S.C. 101(a)(4))
on active duty (as defined in 10 U.S.C. 101(d)(5)) Further, section
1111(h)(2)(C) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, requires LEA report
cards to include, for the LEA as a whole, information that shows the
achievement on the academic assessments described in section 1111(b)(2)
of students served by the LEA compared to students in the State as a
whole and, for each school served by the LEA, corresponding information
for the school's students compared to students served by the LEA and
the State as a whole. Section 1111(h)(1)(C)(vi) of the ESEA, as amended
by the ESSA, requires State and LEA report cards to include information
on the progress of all students and each subgroup of students, as
defined in section 1111(c)(2), toward meeting the State-designed long-
term goals for academic achievement in reading/language arts and
mathematics under section 1111(c)(4)(A), including the progress of all
students and each subgroup of students against the State's measurements
of interim progress established under such section. Section
1111(h)(1)(C)(vii) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, requires State
and LEA report cards to include, for all students and disaggregated by
each subgroup of students described in section 1111(b)(2)(B)(xi), the
percentage of students assessed and not assessed.
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec. 200.33(a) would require State
and LEA report cards to include the percentages of students performing
at each level of achievement on the State's academic achievement
standards, by grade, for all students and disaggregated for each
subgroup of students, on the reading/language arts, mathematics, and
science assessments described in section 1111(b)(2), using the
following two calculation methods: (1) The method used in the State
accountability system, as described in proposed Sec. 200.15(b)(1), in
which the denominator includes the greater of--
95 percent of all students and 95 percent of each subgroup
of students who are enrolled in the school, LEA, or State,
respectively; or
the number of such students participating in these
assessments;
and (2) a method in which the denominator includes all students with a
valid test score. Proposed Sec. 200.33(b) would also clarify the
calculation method used for the statutory requirement that State and
LEA report cards include an indication of whether all students and each
subgroup of students described in proposed Sec. 200.16(a)(2) met or
did not meet the State's measurements of interim progress for academic
achievement under proposed Sec. 200.13(a). Under proposed Sec.
200.33(b), the determination of whether all students and each subgroup
of students met or did not meet these State measurements of interim
progress (based on the percentage of students meeting or exceeding the
State's proficient level of achievement) would be calculated using the
method in proposed Sec. 200.15(b)(1), in which the denominator
includes the greater of--
95 percent of all students and 95 percent of each subgroup
of students who are enrolled in the school, LEA, or State,
respectively; or
the number of all such students participating in these
assessments.
Finally, proposed Sec. 200.33(c) would clarify that, to meet the
requirements under section 1111(h)(1)(C)(vii), State and LEA report
cards would include information on the percentage of all students and
each subgroup of students assessed and not assessed in reading/language
arts, mathematics, and science based on a calculation method in which
the denominator includes all students enrolled in the school, LEA, or
State, respectively.
Reasons: Proposed Sec. 200.33(a) is intended to ensure that
parents, teachers, principals, and other key stakeholders have access
to information about student academic achievement in schools, LEAs, and
the State as a whole based on two calculation methods: (1) One
consistent with the method of calculating student academic achievement
for accountability purposes; and (2) one that reflects student
achievement based only on students with a valid test score. Together,
these two different methods would provide a more nuanced picture of
school, LEA, and State performance on the assessments required under
the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. In addition, these two different
methods would ensure consistency between information that is publicly
reported on State and LEA report cards and information that is
considered by the State in making school accountability
[[Page 34576]]
determinations. Similarly, proposed Sec. 200.33(b) would require the
same method for determining whether or not all students and each
student subgroup met or did not meet the State's measurements of
interim progress for academic achievement as is used for measuring
performance on the Academic Achievement indicator for accountability
purposes (see proposed Sec. 200.15(b)(1)), which will help create
stronger alignment between the measurements of interim progress and
long-term goals and the indicators that are based on those goals.
Finally, in order for parents and the public to fully understand the
numerous pieces of information on academic achievement reported on
State and LEA report cards, the percentage of students assessed and not
assessed must be clear. With accurate information on the percentage of
students assessed in the school, LEA, and State as a whole, for all
students and each subgroup of students, the public will be more likely
to draw appropriate conclusions about the performance of schools, LEAs,
and the State. Thus, proposed Sec. 200.33(c) ensures such accuracy.
Sec. 200.34 High School Graduation Rate
Statute: Section 1111(h)(1)(C)(iii)(II) of the ESEA, as amended by
the ESSA, requires a State and its LEAs to report four-year adjusted
cohort graduation rates and, at the State's discretion, extended-year
adjusted cohort graduation rates on State and LEA report cards. The
adjusted cohort graduation rates must be reported in the aggregate for
all students and disaggregated by subgroup at the school, LEA, and
State levels.
Section 8101(23) and (25) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA,
requires the State to use a specific definition and process for the
calculation of the adjusted cohort graduation rate. This section
specifies that the denominator must consist of students who form the
original grade 9 cohort, adjusted by adding students into the cohort
who join later and subtracting students who leave the cohort. The
section further specifies that the numerator must consist of (1)
students who earn a regular high school diploma within four years (or
one or more additional years for any extended-year cohort), and (2)
students with the most significant cognitive disabilities who are
assessed using the alternate assessment aligned to alternate academic
achievement standards and earn an alternate diploma defined by the
State. This section specifies that the alternate diploma must be
standards-based, aligned with State requirements for the regular high
school diploma, and obtained within the time period for which the State
ensures the availability of a free appropriate public education (FAPE)
under section 612(a)(1) of the IDEA.
Section 8101(23) and (25) requires that the State obtain
documentation to remove a student from the cohort, and specifies that a
student can be removed from the cohort only if the student transfers
out, emigrates to another country, transfers to a juvenile justice
facility or prison, or is deceased. Further, this section requires that
a student can be transferred out only if the student transfers to
another school from which the student is expected to receive a regular
high school diploma or to another educational program from which the
student is expected to receive a regular high school diploma or
alternate diploma that meets the statutory requirements. If there is no
documentation for a student transferring out of the cohort, or if the
student participates in a program that does not issue or provide credit
toward diploma types that meet the requirements of this section, such a
student must remain in the cohort.
Section 8101(23) and (25) outlines special rules for high schools
starting after grade 9. It also includes special rules for small
schools, which apply to section 1111(c)(4) and are not applicable to
report card requirements under section 1111(h).
Finally, section 1111(c)(4)(F) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA,
describes how States and LEAs must include students in the adjusted
cohort graduation rate cohort if they have attended a school for less
than half of the academic year and leave the school without earning a
regular high school diploma, or alternate diploma for students with the
most significant cognitive disabilities, and without transferring to a
high school that grants such a diploma. The section allows the State to
decide whether to include such a student in the adjusted cohort for the
school where the student was enrolled for the greatest proportion of
school days while enrolled in grades 9 through 12, or the school in
which the student was most recently enrolled.
Current Regulations: Section 200.19(b)(1) of the title I
regulations describes how to calculate an adjusted cohort graduation
rate. This section defines the phrase ``adjusted cohort'' and describes
the conditions under which students may be transferred into and out of
the cohort, including how transfers must be documented and who cannot
be removed from the cohort. It also defines ``students graduating in
four years'' and ``regular high school diploma.'' In addition, Sec.
200.19(b)(1) allows States to propose to the Secretary one or more
extended-year graduation rates.
Section 200.19(b)(2) allows States to use a transitional graduation
rate prior to implementation of the adjusted cohort graduation rate.
When calculating the transitional graduation rate, Sec. 200.19
requires States to define ``regular high school diploma'' and
``standard number of years'' in the same manner they are defined for
the purpose of calculating an adjusted cohort graduation rate, and does
not allow dropouts to be included as transfers. Section 200.19(b)(3)
requires States to set a single graduation rate goal and annual targets
for all students and for each subgroup of students that reflect
continuous and substantial improvement toward meeting or exceeding the
goal. It further requires States to meet or exceed the graduation rate
goal or target in order to meet AYP.
Section 200.19(b)(4) requires a State and its LEAs to report the
four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate on annual report cards at the
school, LEA, and State levels, in the aggregate and disaggregated by
each subgroup of students. It also requires a State and its LEAs to
report separately an extended-year graduation rate, if the State has
adopted such a rate, beginning with the first year that the State
calculates such a rate. Prior to the year in which the State implements
the adjusted cohort graduation rate, this section requires the State to
use its transitional rate.
Section 200.19(b)(5) describes the timelines for using the adjusted
cohort graduation rate for AYP determinations, and the requirements for
including graduation rates in making AYP determinations prior to the
use of the adjusted cohort graduation rate. Section 200.19(b)(6)
requires the State to update its Accountability Workbook with:
Information about the State's transitional graduation rate
and plan to transition to the adjusted cohort graduation rate;
The State's goals and targets and the rationale for how
they were established;
Percentiles of its most recent graduation rates; and
An explanation of how the State chooses to use its
extended-year graduation rate (if applicable).
Section 200.19(b)(7) allows the State to request an extension from
the Secretary if it cannot meet the requirements of the section and can
submit satisfactory evidence demonstrating why it cannot meet the
requirements.
[[Page 34577]]
Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec. 200.34 would revise and
replace current regulations to align the regulations with the statutory
requirements in sections 8101(23) and (25) and would clarify statutory
requirements in section 1111(c)(4)(F) of the ESEA, as amended by the
ESSA. In addition, proposed Sec. 200.34(a) would clarify that, for
high schools that start after grade 9, States must calculate and report
a four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate based on a time period
shorter than four years. Proposed Sec. 200.34(b) would provide greater
specificity as to when States can adjust the cohort by requiring that
States remove students who transfer to a prison or juvenile facility
from the denominator of the cohort only if such facility provides an
educational program that culminates in a regular high school diploma or
State-defined alternate diploma. Proposed Sec. 200.34(c) would clarify
that the term ``regular high school diploma'' does not include diplomas
based solely on meeting individualized education program (IEP) goals
that are not fully aligned with the State's grade-level academic
content standards. Additionally, it would clarify that the definition
of a student with significant cognitive disabilities is the same as
defined in the proposed requirement in Sec. 200.6(d)(1) that was
subject to negotiated rulemaking under the ESSA and on which the
negotiated rulemaking committee reached consensus. Additionally,
proposed Sec. 200.34(d) would limit the length of an extended-year
adjusted cohort graduation rate to seven years. Proposed Sec.
200.34(e) would require States to report four-year adjusted cohort
graduation rates and, if adopted by the State, extended year graduation
rates on time (i.e., States would be prohibited from delaying the
reporting of adjusted cohort graduation rates beyond the immediately
following school year). It would further specify that States that offer
State-defined alternative diplomas for students with the most
significant cognitive disabilities within the time period that the
State ensures the availability of a FAPE cannot delay reporting of the
four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate and, if adopted by the State,
extended year graduation rates. Instead, a State would be required to
report on-time adjusted cohort graduation rates, and then annually
update their adjusted cohort graduation rates for prior school years to
include all qualifying students in the numerator. Finally, proposed
Sec. 200.34(f) would clarify statutory requirements in section
1111(c)(4)(F) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA with respect to
reporting on the adjusted cohort graduation rate for students partially
enrolled within a school year. It would specify that States can use
either approach allowed by that section but must use the same approach
across all LEAs.
Reasons: The current adjusted cohort graduation rate regulations in
Sec. 200.19(b) require a uniform and accurate measure of student
graduation in order to hold schools, LEAs, and States accountable for
increasing the number of students who graduate on time with a regular
high school diploma and to provide accurate, consistent information to
the public about the percentage of students graduating on time.
Proposed Sec. 200.34 would preserve existing regulatory language in
order to reinforce the important progress made through the current
regulations to make graduation rates a consistent and comparable
measure of student success. Further, it would revise the current
regulations to incorporate new statutory graduation rate requirements,
including providing States a pathway to recognize graduation outcomes
for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities.
Proposed Sec. 200.34(a) would clarify statutory language to ensure
that the adjusted cohort graduation rate is calculated as intended
(i.e., that high schools starting after grade 9 would have a graduate
rate representing a time period that is shorter than 4 year), and would
clarify that the State would calculate a rate based on the standard
number of years for that particular school. By clarifying statutory
language regarding when States may remove students from the cohort if
they transfer to a prison or juvenile detention facility by specifying
that such students should be treated in the same way as any other
transfer, proposed Sec. 200.34(b) would help ensure that this high-
risk population of students would not disappear from a graduation
cohort so that either the school or facility remains accountable for
the students' graduation outcome. In clarifying the meaning of the term
``regular high school diploma,'' proposed Sec. 200.34(c) would exclude
diplomas based solely on meeting IEP goals that are not fully aligned
with the State's grade-level academic content standards. This reflects
the definition of a ``regular high school diploma'' in section 8101(43)
of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, which states that a regular high
school diploma does not include a recognized equivalent of a diploma,
such as a general equivalency diploma, certificate of completion,
certificate of attendance, or similar lesser credential. Because IEPs
goals are designed to meet the educational needs that result from a
child's disability, a diploma based solely on meeting IEP goals that
are not fully aligned with the State's grade-level academic content
standards, is a ``lesser credential'' and is not equivalent to a
regular high school diploma. Under ESSA, an alternate diploma must be
standards-based and aligned with the State requirements for a regular
high school diploma; therefore, the alternate diploma may not be based
solely on meeting IEP goals that are not fully aligned with the State's
grade-level academic content standards. The Department has not yet
identified a State with an alternate diploma that meets the
requirements in proposed Sec. 200.34(c) that such diploma is fully
aligned to the ESSA requirements for an alternate diploma for students
with the most significant cognitive disabilities. The Department will
work to assist States in developing alternate diploma requirements
consistent with the definition in ESSA to ensure these students are
held to high standards. Further, proposed Sec. 200.34(d) would cap the
extended-year rate calculation at seven years, because such a time
period is consistent with the time period during which a State may
ensure the availability of FAPE and is the longest extended-year rate
that the Department has approved under the current regulations.
Additionally, proposed Sec. 200.34(e) would ensure that families
and other stakeholders have timely access to comparable adjusted cohort
graduation rate information by requiring on-time reporting of four-year
adjusted cohort graduation rates and, if adopted by the State,
extended-year adjusted cohort graduation rates and specifying that
States cannot lag reporting of graduation rates for report card
purposes; they must provide the data for the immediately preceding
school year. Proposed Sec. 200.34(e) would also clarify reporting
requirements related to the new statutory language allowing States to
include students with the most significant cognitive disabilities that
earn an alternate diploma within the time period in which a State
ensures the availability of a FAPE. Proposed Sec. 200.34 would not
allow States to delay reporting until after the time period in which
the State ensures the availability of a FAPE has ended. States would be
required to report on all students in a timely manner, but could
annually update their report cards to reflect students with the most
significant cognitive disabilities graduating within the time period
during which the State ensures the availability of a FAPE. This
[[Page 34578]]
would ensure that States and LEAs will be basing decisions on the most
recent data available and, as a result, that parents and other
stakeholders have access to timely information on critical outcomes. In
subsequent years, it also would allow a State and its LEAs to reflect
graduation outcomes for students with the most significant cognitive
disabilities who take longer to graduate by updating their graduation
rates to additionally include those that graduated with an alternate
diploma within the time period in which a State ensures the
availability of a FAPE. Proposed Sec. 200.34(e) would also maintain
language from the current regulations requiring that States adopting
extended-year graduation rates report them separately from their four-
year rates to maintain transparent reporting on students who graduate
from high school on time. Proposed Sec. 200.34(f) would clarify the
language related to partial enrollment to ensure that regardless of the
approach used by the State, the information on the adjusted cohort
graduation rate is comparable across districts.
Taken together, the requirements in proposed Sec. 200.34 would
generally promote increased consistency in graduation rate reporting
and support States in implementing new statutory requirements related
to reporting accurate and timely graduation rates. However, a number of
commenters responding to the RFI expressed concern that States use
different criteria for including students in certain subgroups when
calculating the adjusted cohort graduation rate for inclusion on their
State and LEA report cards. Accordingly, we are seeking comment on
whether to regulate to standardize the criteria for including children
with disabilities, English learners, children who are homeless, and
children who are in foster care in their corresponding subgroups within
the adjusted cohort graduation rate. For example, should a student's
membership in the subgroup be determined only at the time when the
student is enrolled in the cohort or should a student be included in
the subgroup if the student is identified as a child with disabilities,
English learner, homeless child, or child who is in foster care at any
time during the cohort period? Should the criteria be standardized
across subgroups, or should different criteria apply to different
subgroups?
Section 200.35 Per-Pupil Expenditures
Statute: Section 1111(h)(1)(C)(x) and section 1111(h)(2)(C) of the
ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, require a State and its LEAs to annually
report on the State and LEA report cards the per-pupil expenditures of
Federal, State, and local funds, including actual personnel
expenditures and actual nonpersonnel expenditures of Federal, State,
and local funds, disaggregated by source of funds, for each LEA and
each school in the State for the preceding fiscal year.
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec. 200.35 would implement the
statutory provisions requiring a State and its LEAs to annually report
per-pupil expenditures of Federal, State, and local funds on State and
LEA report cards, disaggregated by source of funds. It would make clear
that these provisions require States to develop a single, statewide
procedure that LEAs must use to calculate and report LEA-level per-
pupil expenditures of Federal, State, and local funds, and a separate
single, statewide procedure that LEAs must use to calculate and report
school-level per-pupil expenditures of Federal, State, and local funds.
A State and its LEAs would also be required to provide on State and LEA
report cards the Web address or URL of, or direct link to, a
description of the uniform procedure for calculating per-pupil
expenditures.
Proposed Sec. 200.35 would also establish minimum requirements for
the State and LEA per-pupil expenditure uniform procedure.
Specifically, in calculating per-pupil expenditures, a State and its
LEAs would be required to use current expenditures, include or exclude
in the numerator certain types of expenditures consistent with existing
Federal expenditure reporting requirements, and use an October 1
student membership count as the denominator. In addition, a State and
its LEAs would be required to report per-pupil expenditures in total
(i.e., including all Federal, State, and local funds) and disaggregated
by (1) Federal funds, and (2) State and local funds. For disaggregation
purposes, proposed Sec. 200.35 would require that title VII (Impact
Aid) funds be included with State and local funds, rather than Federal
funds. Lastly, proposed Sec. 200.35 would also require a State and its
LEAs to separately report the current LEA per-pupil expenditures not
allocated to public schools in the State.
Reasons: Proposed Sec. 200.35 is intended to clarify the statutory
reporting requirements for per-pupil expenditures and help facilitate
State and LEA compliance. Proposed Sec. 200.35 would require the
development of a single statewide approach for reporting LEA per-pupil
expenditures and a single statewide approach for reporting per-pupil
expenditure for schools, consistent with existing Federal expenditure
reporting requirements. Developing such an approach would be economical
for a State and its LEAs because it aligns with existing Federal
expenditure reporting requirements, allowing for more efficient
administration of new collection and reporting processes. Moreover, a
statewide approach for calculating per-pupil expenditures increases
public awareness and accountability for any funding disparities at the
school level, because it allows for accurate comparisons of resource
allocations across and within LEAs, increasing transparency around
State and local budget decisions.
In addition, the proposed requirement to include title VII (Impact
Aid) funds as State and local funds, rather than Federal funds, in
disaggregated reporting is appropriate because these funds compensate
LEAs for the fiscal impact of Federal activities by partially replacing
revenues that LEAs do not receive due to the exemption of Federal
property from local property taxes.
Overall, proposed Sec. 200.35 would increase the likelihood that
LEAs within a State will publicly report expenditure data in a manner
that is informative, accurate, comparable, and timely. It would also
ensure States and LEAs are able to accurately assess resource
inequities, as described in proposed Sec. Sec. 200.21, 200.22, and
200.23, and would provide the public with information needed to analyze
differences in school spending so they are able to, if necessary,
demand a more equitable approach to school spending. In addition, by
requiring States and LEAs to report expenditure data for the preceding
fiscal year no later than December 31, consistent with proposed
Sec. Sec. 200.30(e) and 200.31(e), stakeholder awareness of LEA budget
decisions from the preceding fiscal year would increase, allowing for
more informed budgetary decisions in the subsequent fiscal year.
Section 200.36 Postsecondary Enrollment
Statute: Section 1111(h)(1)(C)(xiii) of the ESEA, as amended by the
ESSA, requires a State and its LEAs to report, where available and
beginning with the report card prepared for 2017, rates of enrollment
of high school graduates in the academic year immediately following
graduation in programs of public postsecondary education in the State
and, if data are available and to the extent practicable, in programs
of private postsecondary education in the State or programs of
postsecondary education outside the State. The
[[Page 34579]]
postsecondary enrollment cohort rate must be reported in the aggregate
and disaggregated by each subgroup under section 1111(c)(2) of the
ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, for each high school in the State for the
immediately preceding school year.
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec. 200.36 would restate the
statutory requirement that State and LEA report cards include
information at the State, LEA, and school level about which students
graduate from high school and enroll in programs of postsecondary
education in the academic year immediately following the students' high
school graduation. Proposed Sec. 200.36 would specify that the term
``program of postsecondary education'' has the same meaning as the term
``institution of higher education'' under section 101(a) of the Higher
Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA). It also would specify, for the
purpose of calculating the postsecondary enrollment cohort rate, that a
State and its LEAs must use as the denominator the number of students
who in the immediately preceding year graduated with a regular high
school diploma or State-defined alternate diploma, as those terms are
defined under proposed Sec. 200.34. Consistent with the statutory
requirement, proposed Sec. 200.36 would require States and LEAs to
report postsecondary enrollment information where the information is
available for programs of public postsecondary education in the State,
and if available and to the extent practicable, for programs of private
postsecondary education in the State or programs of postsecondary
education outside the State. It would specify that such information is
available if the State is obtaining the information, or if it is
obtainable, on a routine basis. In addition, States and LEAs that
cannot meet the reporting requirement under proposed Sec. 200.36 would
be required to publish on their report cards the school year in which
they expect to be able to report postsecondary enrollment information.
Reasons: Proposed Sec. 200.36 would restate the requirements under
the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, with respect to reporting of
postsecondary enrollment cohort rates. This would reinforce the
emphasis on college and career readiness in the ESEA, as amended by the
ESSA, by providing parents and other stakeholders with timely and
comparable information about the ability of high schools to prepare
students to enroll in postsecondary institutions.
By requiring States to define programs of postsecondary education
using the definition in section 101(a) of the HEA, proposed Sec.
200.36 would promote consistency in data reporting, which would allow
users to compare outcomes across States, LEAs, and schools. Proposed
Sec. 200.36 would also help advance the Department's goals of raising
awareness about the differences across States and LEAs in rates of
enrollment in programs that are offered by accredited two-and four-year
institutions by increasing the transparency of postsecondary outcomes.
Proposed Sec. 200.36 would also clarify that the ESEA, as amended
by the ESSA, requires that, in calculating a postsecondary education
enrollment rate, the numerator include students who enroll in
postsecondary education in the academic year immediately following
their high school graduation, instead of within 16 months after
receiving a high school diploma, as was the reporting requirement under
the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, a program authorized under the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Proposed Sec. 200.36
would also require that the denominator include only students receiving
a regular high school diploma or an alternate diploma (consistent with
proposed Sec. 200.34) in the immediately preceding school year. This
is the easiest population for States to track, as it would already be a
defined group for reporting on graduation rates. It is also the
population of students for which high schools in the State are directly
accountable in a given year. As such, outcomes for that student
population are the most representative of how successfully public high
schools have prepared them for postsecondary programs. Finally, by
requiring a State to report information if it is routinely obtaining
such information or if the information is obtainable to the State on a
routine basis, we seek to ensure that as many States as possible make
postsecondary education enrollment information publicly available.
According to information from the Data Quality Campaign, 47 States can
currently produce high school feedback reports, which are reports that
provide information on a class of high school graduates and their
postsecondary outcomes.\18\ This indicates that most States will be
able to meet the requirement to track postsecondary outcomes for some,
if not all, students in a graduating class. States that could not meet
the reporting requirement would be required to include on their report
card the date by when they expect to be able to report the information.
By requiring States unable to report the information to acknowledge
this limitation publicly, proposed Sec. 200.36 would encourage those
States that are not currently able to meet the requirements under this
proposed section to alter their reporting processes so they can obtain
and make available this information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ ``State by State Analysis of High School Feedback
Reports.'' Data Quality Campaign. 2013. http://dataqualitycampaign.org/find-resources/state-by-state-analysis-of-high-school-feedback-reports/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 200.37 Educator Qualifications
Statute: Section 1111(h)(1)(C)(ix) of the ESEA, as amended by the
ESSA, requires State and LEA report cards to include the professional
qualifications of teachers, including information on the number and
percentage of: (1) Inexperienced teachers, principals, and other school
leaders; (2) teachers teaching with emergency or provisional
credentials; and (3) teachers who are not teaching in the subject or
field for which the teacher is certified or licensed. This section
requires that the information be presented in the aggregate and
disaggregated by high-poverty compared to low-poverty schools.
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec. 200.37 would implement
statutory requirements for reporting on educator qualifications in
State and LEA report cards. In addition, proposed Sec. 200.37 would
require States to adopt a uniform statewide definition of the term
``inexperienced'' and the phrase ``not teaching in the subject or field
for which the teacher is certified or licensed.'' Proposed Sec. 200.37
would also define ``high poverty school'' as a school in the top
quartile of poverty in the State and ``low poverty school'' as a school
in the bottom quartile of poverty in the State.
Reasons: Proposed Sec. 200.37 is intended to ensure consistency
and comparability within States with respect to reporting on the
professional qualifications of teachers, principals, and other school
leaders, both overall and disaggregated by high- and low-poverty
schools. Because this information is disaggregated by high-poverty
compared to low-poverty schools, it will be a key indicator of
equitable access to non-novice, qualified teachers and school leaders
in schools across the State. Ensuring that these terms have consistent
meaning when reported will increase understanding of staffing needs in
high-poverty and difficult-to-staff schools and will encourage States
to target efforts to
[[Page 34580]]
recruit, support, and retain excellent educators in these schools. To
promote consistency, the Department has also proposed that a State use
the same definitions of ``inexperienced'' and ``not teaching in the
subject or field for which the teacher is certified or licensed'' that
it adopts for reporting purposes to meet the proposed State plan
requirements for educator equity in 299.18(c).
Section 299.13 Overview of State Plan Requirements
Statute: In order to receive Federal funding, the ESEA, as amended
by the ESSA, requires each State to submit plans or applications for
the following formula grant programs: Part A of title I (Improving
Basic Programs Operated by LEAs); part C of title I (Education of
Migratory Children); part D of title I (Prevention and Intervention
Programs for Children and Youth Who Are Neglected, Delinquent, or At-
Risk); part A of title II (Supporting Effective Instruction); part A of
title III (English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and
Academic Advisement Act); part A of title IV (Student Support and
Academic Enrichment Grants); part B of title IV (21st Century Community
Learning Centers); and subpart 2 of part B of title V (Rural and Low-
Income School program). Section 8302 of the ESEA, as amended by the
ESSA, permits each SEA, in consultation with the Governor, to apply for
program funds through the submission of a consolidated State plan or a
consolidated State application.
Current Regulations: On May 22, 2002, the Department published in
the Federal Register a notice of final requirements (2002 NFR) (67 FR
35967), announcing the final requirements for optional consolidated
State applications submitted under section 9302 of the ESEA, as amended
by NCLB. The 2002 NFR specified that States could elect to submit
individual program State plans or a consolidated State application and
outlined the process for submitting a consolidated State application.
The 2002 NFR also described the public participation requirements for
submitting a consolidated State application, the documentation
requirements for demonstrating compliance with program requirements,
and the authority for LEAs to receive funding by submitting a
consolidated local plan to the SEA.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec. 299.13 would outline the
general requirements for State plans authorized under the ESEA, as
amended by the ESSA. The requirements in proposed Sec. 299.13 would
apply whether a State submits a consolidated State plan under proposed
Sec. 299.14 or an individual program State plan consistent with Sec.
299.13. The proposed regulations would create new procedural
requirements for submitting and revising a State plan, including
proposed deadlines for submission and proposed consultation
requirements. The proposed regulations would also codify and update the
requirements in the 2002 NFR for optional State consolidated
applications submitted under section 9302 of the ESEA, as amended by
NCLB, in order to align with the final requirements in the ESEA, as
amended by the ESSA.
Proposed Sec. 299.13(b) would require SEAs to engage in timely and
meaningful consultation, including notification and outreach
requirements, with required stakeholders in the development of a
consolidated State plan or individual program State plans.
Specifically, proposed Sec. 299.13(b) would require SEAs to engage
stakeholders during the design and development of the State plan,
following the completion of the State plan, and prior to the submission
of any revisions or amendments to the State plan. Additionally,
proposed Sec. 299.13(b) would require an SEA to meet the requirements
of section 8540 of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, regarding
consultation with the Governor during the development of a consolidated
State plan or individual title I or title II State plan and prior to
submitting that State plan to the Secretary.
Proposed Sec. 299.13(c) would describe the assurances all SEAs
would submit to the Secretary in order to receive Federal funds whether
submitting an individual program State plan or a consolidated State
plan. In addition to the assurances required in section 8304 of the
ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, proposed Sec. 299.13(c) would specify
that the SEA would need to meet new assurances that address the
requirements in title I, part A regarding partial school enrollment
consistent with proposed Sec. 200.34(f) and transportation of children
in foster care to their school of origin under section 1112(c)(5)(B);
part A of title III regarding English learners; and subpart 2 of part b
of title V regarding the Rural and Low-Income School Program.
Proposed Sec. 299.13(d) would specify the process for submitting a
consolidated State plan or an individual program State plan including
the specific timelines for submission and requirements for periodic
review of State plans that SEAs must follow. Proposed Sec.
299.13(d)(2)(i) would clarify that the Secretary has the authority to
establish a deadline for submission of a consolidated State plan or
individual program State plan. Proposed Sec. 299.13(d)(2)(ii) would
clarify that an SEA's consolidated State plan or individual program
State plan would be considered to be received by the Secretary for the
purpose of making a determination under sections 1111(a)(4)(A)(v) or
8451 of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, on the deadline date
established by the Secretary if it addresses all of the requirements in
Sec. 299.14 or all statutory and regulatory application requirements.
Proposed Sec. 299.13(d)(2)(iii) would require each SEA to submit
either a consolidated State plan or an individual program State plan
for all of the programs in proposed Sec. 299.13(i) in a single
submission. Proposed Sec. 299.13(d)(3) would allow an SEA to request a
two-year extension if it is unable to calculate and report the educator
equity data outlined in proposed Sec. 299.18(c)(3), which requires
student-level data to be used in calculating disparities in access to
certain types of teachers for students from low-income families and
minority students, at the time it submits its initial consolidated
State plan or title I, part A individual program State plan for
approval.
Proposed Sec. 299.13(e) would provide an SEA the opportunity to
revise its initial consolidated State plan or its individual program
State plan in response to a preliminary written determination by the
Secretary. While the SEA revises its plan, the period for Secretarial
review under sections 1111(a)(4)(A)(v) or 8451 of the ESEA, as amended
by the ESSA, would be suspended. If an SEA failed to submit revisions
to its plan within 45 days of receipt of the preliminary written
determination, proposed Sec. 299.13(e) clarifies that the Secretary
would be able to issue a final written determination under sections
1111(a)(4)(A)(v) or 8451 of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA.
Proposed Sec. 299.13(f) would require each SEA to publish its
approved consolidated State plan or its individual program State plans
on the SEA's Web site. Proposed Sec. 299.13(g) would require an SEA
that makes a significant change to its State plan to submit an
amendment to the Secretary for review and approval after engaging in
timely and meaningful consultation as defined in proposed Sec.
299.13(b). Proposed Sec. 299.13(h) would also require each SEA to
periodically review and revise its consolidated State plan or
individual program State plans, at a minimum, every four years after
engaging in timely and meaningful consultation. Each State
[[Page 34581]]
would submit its State plan revisions to the Department.
In addition to the programs that may be included in a consolidated
State plan under section 8002(11) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA,
proposed Sec. 299.13(j) would include two additional programs
consistent with the Secretary's authority in section 8302 of the ESEA,
as amended by the ESSA: Section 1201 of title I, part B (Grants for
State Assessments and Related Activities) and the Education for
Homeless Children and Youths program under subtitle B of title VII of
the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (McKinney-Vento).
Proposed Sec. 299.13(k) would describe the requirements an SEA
would have to meet if it chose to submit individual program State plans
for one or more of the programs listed in proposed Sec. 299.13(j)
instead of including the program in a consolidated State plan. In doing
so, an SEA would address all individual State plan or application
requirements established in the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA for the
individual programs not included in its consolidated State plan,
including all required assurances and any applicable regulations.
Additionally, the proposed regulations would require SEAs submitting
individual program State plans to meet requirements described as part
of the consolidated State plan in three places: (1) Proposed Sec.
299.18(c) regarding educator equity when addressing section
1111(g)(1)(B) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA; (2) proposed Sec.
299.19(c)(1) regarding the SEA's process and criteria for approving
waivers of the 40-percent poverty threshold to operate schoolwide
programs; and (3) proposed Sec. 299.19(c)(3) regarding English
learners when addressing section 3113(b)(2) of the ESEA, as amended by
the ESSA.
Reasons: Proposed Sec. 299.13 would establish the general
requirements governing the development and submission of consolidated
State plans and individual program State plans. Proposed Sec. 299.13
is designed to ensure SEA compliance with the ESEA, as amended by the
ESSA, by codifying existing requirements and providing additional
clarification including with respect to consultation with stakeholders
and parameters for the periodic review and revision of State plans.
Proposed Sec. 299.13(a) is necessary to establish the basic statutory
framework for consolidated State plans and individual program State
plans.
Section 299.13(b) proposes specific requirements to ensure timely
and meaningful consultation with stakeholders when developing,
revising, or amending a State plan. The proposed regulations would
clarify that timely and meaningful consultation includes both
notification and outreach. The proposed regulations align with the
consultation, public review, and public comment requirements in
sections 1111(a)(1), 1111(a)(5), 1111(a)(8), 1111(g), 1304(c), 2101(d),
and 3113(d) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. Specifically, the
proposed regulations would require each SEA to engage stakeholders
during the design and development of the State plan, prior to the
submission of the initial State plan, and prior to the submission of
any revisions or amendments to the State plan. The proposed regulations
would require an SEA to conduct outreach at more than one stage of
State plan development because stakeholders should have an opportunity
to ensure that the concerns raised during public comment are adequately
considered and addressed prior to submission of a consolidated State
plan or individual program State plans. Proposed Sec. 299.13(b)(4)
also codifies the statutory requirements in section 8540 of the ESEA,
as amended by the ESSA, regarding consultation with the Governor in
order to ensure that the SEA includes the Governor's office during the
development of and prior to the submission of its consolidated State
plan or individual title I or title II State plan.
Proposed Sec. 299.13(c) would require an SEA, whether submitting a
consolidated State plan or an individual program State plan, to submit
to the Secretary specific assurances for certain covered programs, in
addition to those assurances described in section 8304 of the ESEA, as
amended by the ESSA. These additional assurances are essential for
clarifying the steps all SEAs would need to implement to successfully
meet statutory requirements and ensure public transparency and
protections for vulnerable student populations. Consistent with section
8304 of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, an SEA submitting a
consolidated State plan would not have to submit the individual
programmatic assurances included in the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA,
for programs included in its consolidated State plan. However,
consistent with proposed Sec. 299.13(l), an SEA would be required to
maintain documentation of compliance with all statutory requirements,
including programmatic assurances whether submitting a consolidated
State plan or an individual program State plan.
Proposed Sec. 299.13(d)(2) would clarify that the Secretary will
establish a deadline for submission of consolidated State plans or
individual program State plans on a specific date and time. We intend
to establish two deadlines by which each SEA would choose to submit
either a consolidated State plan or individual program State plans:
March 6 or July 5, 2017. Developing thoughtful State plans that
consider stakeholder feedback in response to timely and meaningful
consultation takes a substantial amount of time. Those States already
engaging in timely and meaningful consultation and developing plans
that align with the proposed requirements in Sec. 299.14 and relevant
program requirements included in the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA,
would have the opportunity to submit plans in March. A second, later
deadline in July 2017 would ensure that all States have sufficient time
to develop thorough State plans that consider stakeholder feedback and
meet the proposed requirements of Sec. 299.14 or relevant program
requirements, as applicable. The Secretary plans to request that SEAs
file an optional notice of intent to submit indicating which of the two
deadlines the SEA is planning towards in order to assist the Department
in designing a high quality peer review process.
We recognize that some States may not have the ability to calculate
and report the data outlined in proposed Sec. 299.18(c)(3) related to
educator equity. Proposed Sec. 299.13(d)(3) would offer each State a
one-time extension if it is unable to calculate and report the data
outlined in proposed Sec. 299.18(c)(3) at the student level at the
time it submits its consolidated State plan or individual title I, part
A program State plan for approval. We anticipate that the majority of
States, including those that have received funds from the Department
through the State Longitudinal Data System grant program, would not
need to request such an extension.
Proposed Sec. 299.13(e) would provide an SEA the opportunity to
revise its initial consolidated State plan or its individual program
State plan in response to a preliminary written determination by the
Secretary regarding whether the State plan meets statutory and
regulatory requirements based on comments from the required peer review
process under sections 1111(a)(4) and 8451 of the ESEA, as amended by
the ESSA. While the SEA revises its plan, the period of Secretarial
review would be suspended. This would ensure an SEA has sufficient time
to follow its process for review and revision prior to any final
written determination by the Secretary under
[[Page 34582]]
sections 1111(a)(4)(A)(v) or 8451 of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA.
Proposed Sec. 299.13(f) would require each SEA to publish its
approved consolidated State plan or individual program State plans on
the SEA's Web site. Section 1111(a)(5) of the ESEA, as amended by the
ESSA, requires the Secretary to publish information regarding the
approval of State plans on the Department's Web site to ensure
transparency. Publication of the approved consolidated State plan or
individual program State plans on each SEA's Web site will ensure that
stakeholders have access to the valuable information in each SEA's
State plan to ensure ongoing meaningful consultation with stakeholders
regarding implementation of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA.
Section 1111(a)(6)(B) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, requires
States to periodically review and revise State plans and submit
revisions or amendments when there are significant changes to the plan.
Under section 1111(a)(6)(B)(i), significant changes include the
adoption of new challenging State academic standards, academic
assessments or changes to its accountability system. Proposed Sec.
299.13(g) would require an SEA to submit amendments to its State plan
that reflect these changes in order to ensure transparency and
compliance with statutory requirements. Consistent with section
1111(a)(6)(A)(ii) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, proposed Sec.
299.13(h) would require each SEA to periodically review all components
and revise as necessary its consolidated State plan or individual
program State plans, at a minimum, every four years, and submit its
revisions to the Secretary. Four years is a reasonable time period
because it will allow SEAs and LEAs sufficient time to implement
strategies and activities outlined in its consolidated State plan or
individual program State plans; collect and use data, including input
from stakeholders to assess the quality of implementation; monitor SEA
and LEA implementation; and continuously improve SEA and LEA strategies
to ensure high-quality implementation of programs and activities under
the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. In addition, proposed Sec.
299.13(b)(2)(iii), (g) and (h) would require a State to engage in
timely and meaningful consultation prior to submitting any amendments
or revisions to the Department. Soliciting stakeholder feedback on
significant changes or revisions is necessary to improve implementation
and ensure progress towards State and local goals. Finally, this
amendment, review and submission process would ensure that each State
and the Department have the most up to date State plan information
ensuring transparency and compliance with statutory requirements.
Proposed Sec. 299.13(j) would identify the programs that may be
included in a consolidated State plan under section 8302 of the ESEA,
as amended by the ESSA, including section 1201 of title I, part B
(Grants for State Assessments and Related Activities) and the McKinney-
Vento program. Consistent with the 2002 NFR, section 1201 of title I,
part B of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA (previously section 6111 of
the ESEA, as amended by NCLB), directly relates to the goals of other
covered programs in that it supports State efforts to build high-
quality assessment systems that are essential for informing State
accountability systems and the identification of needs for subgroups of
students. Proposed Sec. 299.13(j) also would include the McKinney-
Vento program because it closely aligns with the title I, part D
program that is included as a covered program. Both programs--McKinney-
Vento and title I, part-D--serve particularly vulnerable populations
and have similar program goals.
Proposed Sec. 299.13(k) would require an SEA that chooses to
submit an individual program State plan for title I, part A to also
meet the State plan requirements for consolidated State plans in
proposed Sec. 299.18(c) related to educator equity and proposed Sec.
299.19(c)(1) related to schoolwide waivers of the 40-percent poverty
threshold. An SEA that chooses to submit an individual program State
plan for title III, part A must meet the State plan requirements in
proposed Sec. 299.19(c)(3) related to English learners. It is
essential for all State plans to address these requirements as they
provide necessary clarifications for each SEA as it addresses new
statutory requirements included in the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA.
Additional rationales for those sections are included in Sec.
299.18(c) and Sec. 299.19(c)(3).
Consistent with the 2002 NFR, proposed Sec. 299.13(l) would
emphasize the requirement that each SEA must administer all programs in
accordance with all applicable statutes, regulations, program plans,
and applications, and maintain documentation of this compliance.
Sections 299.14 Through 299.19 Consolidated State Plans
Statute: Section 8302 of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, permits
the Secretary to establish procedures and criteria under which, after
consultation with the Governor, an SEA may submit a consolidated State
plan or a consolidated State application in order to simplify the
application requirements and reduce burden for SEAs. The Secretary must
establish, for each covered program under section 8302 of the ESEA, as
amended by the ESSA, and additional programs designated by the
Secretary, the descriptions, information, assurances, and other
material required to be included in a consolidated State plan or
consolidated State application.
Current Regulations: The 2002 NFR outlines the requirements for a
consolidated State application under section 9302 of the ESEA, as
amended by NCLB.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec. Sec. 299.14 through 299.19
would outline the requirements for consolidated State plans authorized
under section 8302 of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. These sections
would identify those requirements that are essential for implementation
of the included programs, and would eliminate duplication and
streamline requirements across the included programs. Except as noted
below, all of the requirements outlined in proposed Sec. Sec. 299.14
through 299.19 are taken directly from the ESEA, as amended by the
ESSA, and applicable regulations, including proposed regulations.
Proposed Sec. 299.14 Requirements for the Consolidated State Plan
Proposed Sec. 299.14(b) would establish the framework for a
consolidated State plan. The Department has identified five overarching
components and corresponding elements that cut across all of the
included programs. Each SEA would address each component in its
consolidated State plan. Within each component, each SEA would be
required to provide descriptions, strategies, timelines, and funding
sources, if applicable, related to implementation of the programs
included in the consolidated State plan. The proposed components, as
reflected in proposed Sec. Sec. 299.15 through 299.19 are:
Consultation and Coordination (proposed Sec. 299.15);
Challenging Academic Standards and Academic Assessments
(proposed Sec. 299.16);
Accountability, Support, and Improvement for Schools
(proposed Sec. 299.17);
Supporting Excellent Educators (proposed Sec. 299.18);
and
Supporting All Students (proposed Sec. 299.19).
[[Page 34583]]
Under proposed Sec. 299.14(c), for all of the components, except
Consultation and Coordination, each SEA would be required to provide a
description, including strategies and timelines, of its system of
performance management of implementation of State and LEA plans. This
description would include the SEA's process for supporting the
development, review, and approval of the activities in LEA plans;
monitoring SEA and LEA implementation; continuously improving
implementation; and the SEA's plan to provide differentiated technical
assistance to LEAs and schools.
Proposed Sec. 299.15: Consultation and Coordination
Proposed Sec. 299.15 would combine requirements across all
included programs for each SEA to engage in timely and meaningful
consultation with relevant stakeholders, consistent with proposed Sec.
299.13(b), and coordinate its plans across all programs under the ESEA,
as amended by the ESSA, as well as other Federal programs such as the
IDEA in order to ensure all children receive a fair, equitable, and
high-quality education. SEAs that submit a consolidated State plan
would address how they consulted with stakeholders for the following
components of the consolidated State plan: Challenging Academic
Standards and Assessments; Accountability, Support, and Improvement for
Schools; Supporting Excellent Educators; and Supporting All Students.
Proposed Sec. 299.16: Challenging Academic Standards and Academic
Assessments
Proposed Sec. 299.16 would outline the State plan requirements for
challenging academic standards and academic assessments consistent with
section 1111(b) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. Proposed Sec.
299.16(a) would include the requirements related to challenging State
academic standards under section 1111(b)(1) of the ESEA, as amended by
the ESSA. Specifically, this section would require each SEA to provide
evidence demonstrating that: It has adopted challenging academic
content standards and aligned academic achievement standards in the
required subjects and grades; its alternate academic achievement
standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities
meet the requirements of section 1111(b)(1)(E) of the ESEA, as amended
by the ESSA; and it has adopted English language proficiency standards
consistent with the requirements of section 1111(b)(1)(F) of the ESEA,
as amended by the ESSA. Proposed Sec. 299.16(b) would require SEAs to
describe how the State is meeting the requirements related to academic
assessments under section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA, as amended by the
ESSA, and the proposed requirements in Sec. Sec. 200.2 to 200.6 that
were subject to negotiated rulemaking under the ESSA and on which the
negotiated rulemaking committee reached consensus. Specifically, each
SEA would identify the high-quality student academic assessments it is
implementing in the required grades and subjects, including any
alternate assessments aligned to alternate academic achievement
standards for students with the most significant cognitive
disabilities, the annual assessment of English proficiency for all
English learners, any approved locally selected nationally recognized
high school assessments consistent with Sec. 200.3, and any
assessments used under the exception for advanced middle school
mathematics. Each SEA would not be required to submit information and
evidence that is collected as part of the Department's assessment peer
review process in its State plan. Each SEA would also meet the
requirements related to assessments in languages other than English
consistent with proposed Sec. 200.6 and describe how it will ensure
all students have the opportunity to take advanced coursework in
mathematics consistent with proposed Sec. 200.5. Finally, each SEA
would provide a description of how they intend to use the formula grant
funds awarded under section 1201 of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA to
support assessment and assessment-related activities. These activities
may include ensuring that assessments are high-quality, result in
actionable, objective information about students' knowledge and skills;
time-limited; fair for all students and used to support equity; and
fully transparent to students and parents.
Proposed Sec. 299.17: Accountability, Support, and Improvement for
Schools
Proposed Sec. 299.17 would include the State plan requirements
related to statewide accountability systems and school support and
improvement activities consistent with the requirements in section
1111(c) and 1111(d) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, and proposed
Sec. Sec. 200.12 through 200.24. Proposed Sec. 299.17(a) would
require each SEA to provide its State-determined long-term goals and
measurements of interim progress for academic achievement, graduation
rates, and English language proficiency under section 1111(c)(4)(A) of
the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, and proposed Sec. 200.13. Consistent
with section 1111(c) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, and proposed
Sec. Sec. 200.12 through 200.20, proposed Sec. 299.17(b) and (c)
would require each SEA to describe its statewide accountability system
that: Is based on challenging State academic standards for reading/
language arts and mathematics; includes all indicators under proposed
Sec. 200.14 and meets the participation rate requirements under
proposed Sec. 200.15; meaningfully differentiates all public schools
in the State on an annual basis under proposed Sec. 200.18; and
identifies schools for comprehensive and targeted support and
improvement under proposed Sec. 200.19.
Proposed Sec. 299.17(d) would require each SEA to describe its
State support and improvement activities for low-performing schools.
Each SEA would describe how it will allocate funds consistent with the
requirements under section 1003 of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA,
and proposed Sec. 200.24, and the supports it is providing to LEAs
with schools identified for comprehensive and targeted support and
improvement under proposed Sec. Sec. 200.21 through 200.23 in order to
improve student academic achievement and school success. Proposed Sec.
299.17(e) would require each SEA to describe its processes for
approving, monitoring, and periodically reviewing LEA comprehensive
support and improvement plans for identified schools consistent with
section 1111(d)(1)(B) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, and proposed
Sec. 200.21. Further, each SEA would describe additional activities to
support continued improvement consistent with proposed Sec. 200.23,
including State review of resource allocation, technical assistance for
LEAs with schools identified for comprehensive and targeted support and
improvement, and additional State action to support LEA improvement.
Proposed Sec. 299.18: Supporting Excellent Educators
Proposed Sec. 299.18 would require each SEA to provide key
descriptions, strategies, and funding sources outlining the State's
approach to supporting excellent educators for all students. Proposed
Sec. 299.18(a) would require each SEA to describe its educator
development, retention, and advancement systems consistent with the
requirements in sections 2101 and 2102 of the ESEA, as amended by the
ESSA. Further, in proposed Sec. 299.18(b), each SEA would describe how
it intends
[[Page 34584]]
to use title II, part A funds, as well as funds from other included
programs, to support State-level strategies to develop, retain, and
advance excellent educators in order to improve student outcomes and
increase teacher and leader effectiveness. Each SEA would also describe
how it will work with LEAs in the State to develop or implement State
or local teacher and principal or other school leader evaluation and
support systems, and how it will improve educator preparation programs
if it chooses to use funds from one or more of the programs included in
its consolidated State plan for these purposes.
Proposed Sec. 299.18(c) would clarify the steps for each State to
take in order to meet the statutory requirement in section
1111(g)(1)(B) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, that low-income
students and minority students are not taught at disproportionate rates
by ineffective, out-of-field, or inexperienced teachers. The
definitions that would be required under proposed Sec. 299.18(c)(2)
ensure that calculations of disproportionality can be conducted and
reported statewide using data that is similar across districts.
Proposed Sec. 299.18(c)(3) would clarify that the calculation required
under proposed Sec. 299.18(c)(1) must be conducted using student level
data, subject to appropriate privacy protections. Proposed Sec.
299.18(c)(4) and (5) would clarify the publishing and reporting
expectations and specify that data on disproportionality must be
reported annually to ensure transparency for parents and stakeholders
regarding progress towards closing equity gaps. Proposed Sec.
299.18(c)(6)(i) and (ii) would clarify the steps a State must take if
it demonstrates under proposed Sec. 299.18(c)(3) that low income or
minority students enrolled in schools receiving funds under title I,
part A of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, are taught at
disproportionate rates by ineffective, out-of-field, or inexperienced
teachers. These steps would include a description of the root cause
analysis, including the level of disaggregation (e.g., Statewide,
between districts, within district, and within school), that identifies
the factor or factors causing or contributing to the disproportionate
rates and providing its strategies to eliminate the disproportionate
rates. Proposed Sec. 299.18(c)(7)(i) would clarify that an SEA may
direct an LEA to use a portion of its title II, part A funds,
consistent with allowable uses of those funds, to support LEAs' work to
eliminate disproportionalities consistent with section 1111(g)(1)(B) of
the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. Proposed Sec. 299.18(c)(7)(ii) would
also clarify that an SEA may deny an LEA's application for title II,
part A funds if an LEA fails to describe how it will address identified
disproportionalities or fails to meet other local application
requirements applicable to title II, part A.
Proposed Sec. 299.19: Supporting All Students
Proposed Sec. 299.19 would require each SEA to describe how it
will ensure that all children have a significant opportunity to meet
the State's challenging academic standards and attain a regular high
school diploma. In proposed Sec. 299.19(a)(1), each SEA would describe
its strategies, rationale, timelines, and funding sources that address
the continuum of a student's education from preschool through grade 12,
equitable access to a well-rounded education and rigorous coursework,
school conditions to support student learning, effective use of
technology, parent and family engagement, and the accurate
identification of English learners and children with disabilities. In
developing these strategies, each SEA must consider the unique needs of
all subgroups of students included in proposed Sec. 299.19(a)(2)(i)
and the information and data from a resource equity review as described
in proposed Sec. 299.19(a)(3), including the data that is collected
and reported consistent with section 1111(h) of the ESEA, as amended by
ESSA and proposed Sec. 200.35 and Sec. 200.37. Proposed Sec.
299.19(a)(4) would require each SEA to describe how it will leverage
title IV, part A and part B funds, along with other Federal funds, to
support its State-level strategies described in proposed Sec.
299.19(a)(1) and the process it will use to award subgrants authorized
under included programs, as applicable.
In addition to the performance management and technical assistance
requirements in proposed Sec. 299.14(c), each SEA would describe how
it uses the data described in proposed Sec. 299.19(a)(3) to inform its
review and approval of local applications for ESEA program funds.
Under proposed Sec. 299.19(c), each SEA would be required to
address essential program-specific requirements to ensure compliance
with statutory requirements for particular programs included in the
consolidated State plan. Proposed Sec. 299.19(c)(1) would require each
SEA to describe the process and criteria it will use under section
1114(a)(1)(B) of the Act to grant waivers of the 40-percent poverty
threshold required to operate a schoolwide program. The Department is
not proposing to limit State discretion to grant such waivers, but
believes it is important that each State develop and implement a
process for approving requested waivers of the 40-percent schoolwide
program poverty threshold that is consistent with the purposes of a
schoolwide program and that protects the interests of students most at
risk of not meeting challenging State academic standards.
Proposed Sec. 299.19(c)(3) includes the new requirement in section
3113(b)(2) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, for each State to
establish standardized statewide entrance and exit procedures for
English learners under title III. The proposed regulations would
clarify that this statutory provision requires State procedures for
both entrance and exit of English learners to include uniform criteria
that are applied statewide.
Reasons: Proposed Sec. Sec. 299.14 through 299.19 would ensure
that each SEA provides the descriptions, information, assurances, and
other materials necessary for consideration of the consolidated State
plan consistent with the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, and applicable
regulations. Consistent with the principles in the ESEA, as amended by
the ESSA, consolidated State plans are intended to address requirements
across included programs, rather than addressing specific requirements
individually for each program, many of which overlap. The proposed
regulations would significantly reduce burden on each SEA choosing to
submit a consolidated State plan rather than individual program State
plans for the included programs outlined in proposed Sec. 299.13(i) by
eliminating duplication and streamlining requirements. The proposed
regulations aim to encourage each State to think comprehensively about
implementation of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, and leverage
funding across the included programs. Further, proposed Sec. Sec.
299.14 through 299.19 would help remove ``silos'' between different
funding streams and support collaboration and efficiency across
multiple programs to ensure that all children have a significant
opportunity to receive a fair, equitable, and high-quality education
and that each SEA continues to close achievement gaps.
In developing the framework for the consolidated State plan
outlined in proposed Sec. 299.14, we seek to improve teaching and
learning by encouraging greater cross-program coordination, planning,
and service delivery; provide greater flexibility to State and local
authorities through consolidated plans and reporting; and enhance the
[[Page 34585]]
integration of programs under the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, with
State and local programs. The components outlined in proposed Sec.
299.14(b) encompass the essential statutory programmatic requirements
of the included programs under the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, and
represent the core goals of equity and excellence for all students.
The proposed Performance Management and Technical Assistance
requirements in Sec. 299.14(c) are grounded in the SEA's
responsibilities to support the development of, review, and approval of
LEA plans; monitor SEA and LEA implementation; continuously improve
implementation; and provide technical assistance to support
implementation across the included programs. Proposed Sec. 299.14(c)
would focus on how the SEA will coordinate planning, monitoring, and
use of data and stakeholder feedback to improve State and local plans
if they are not leading to satisfactory progress towards improved
student outcomes. Further, each SEA would describe how it will provide
technical assistance to LEAs and schools to support and improve
implementation and build capacity to support sustained improvement in
student outcomes.
The consultation requirements in proposed Sec. 299.15(a) are
essential to ensuring that each SEA solicits input in the development
of each component of its consolidated State plan. These requirements
are consistent with the requirements for timely and meaningful
consultation under proposed Sec. 299.13(b). In addition, by requiring
each SEA to describe how it is coordinating across programs with
respect to each of the components, proposed Sec. 299.15(b) would help
to ensure that each SEA is thinking holistically about implementation
across all programs to close achievement gaps and support all children.
Proposed Sec. 299.16 would require each SEA to demonstrate that it
is meeting the requirements in the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA and to
have challenging academic standards and a high-quality, annual
statewide assessment system that includes all students. Such a system
is essential to provide local leaders, educators, and parents with the
information they need to identify the resources and supports that are
necessary to help every student succeed and continue the work toward
equity and closing achievement gaps among subgroups of historically
underserved students by holding all students to the same high
expectations. An SEA would not be required to submit information
required under proposed Sec. 299.16(a) and (b)(2) with its initial
consolidated State plan because each SEA is required to submit such
information as part of the separate peer review of State assessment
systems.
The requirements in proposed Sec. 299.17(a)-(c) would ensure
accountability and support for all subgroups of students and all public
schools consistent with the requirements for accountability systems in
section 1111(c) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, and the related
regulations in proposed Sec. Sec. 200.12 through 200.20. Proposed
Sec. 299.17(d) would require an SEA to describe how it will meet the
statutory requirements outlined in sections 1003 and 1111(d) of the
ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, and the related regulations proposed in
Sec. Sec. 200.21 through 200.24 related to school support and
improvement. Finally, proposed Sec. 299.17(e) would include specific
performance management and technical assistance requirements consistent
with proposed Sec. 200.23. Please see proposed Sec. Sec. 200.12
through 200.24 for a detailed discussion of the rationale of the
proposed regulations.
Proposed Sec. 299.18 would require each SEA to include key
descriptions, strategies, and applicable funding sources to outline the
State's approach to supporting excellent educators. These descriptions
are necessary to provide stakeholders and the public with a complete
understanding of each State's plan, coupled with the resources that
each State intends to make available, for ensuring that educators have
the necessary training, support, and advancement opportunities at each
stage of their career to best support all subgroups of students and
improve student outcomes. Proposed Sec. 299.18(a) would require each
SEA to describe its systems of educator development, retention, and
advancement systems consistent with the requirements in sections 2101
and 2102 of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, and in doing so, would
help to ensure that such systems are designed and implemented with the
stakeholder awareness and input that will ultimately yield success in
implementation. Proposed Sec. 299.18(b) would support implementation
of the systems described in proposed Sec. 299.18(a) by requiring each
SEA to describe how it intends to use title II, part A funds, as well
as funds from other included programs, to fund strategies to support
and develop excellent educators in order to improve student outcomes
and increase teacher and leader effectiveness for all students. If it
chooses to use funds from one or more of the programs included in its
consolidated State plan for these purposes, each State would also
describe how it will work with LEAs in the State to develop or
implement State or local teacher and principal or other school leader
evaluation and support systems and how it will improve educator
preparation programs. For States and LEAs that elect to implement such
systems, teacher and principal evaluation and support systems provide
rich data that enable educators to improve throughout their career.
Further, high-quality educator preparation programs are essential for
ensuring that all educators have the skills they need to serve student
populations with unique academic and non-academic needs.
Proposed Sec. 299.18(c) would clarify the steps each State must
take to meet the statutory requirement in section 1111(g)(1)(B) of the
ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, that low-income students and minority
students are not taught at disproportionate rates by ineffective, out-
of-field, or inexperienced teachers. These requirements align with the
work all States have been doing in recent years to develop and
implement State Plans to Ensure Equitable Access to Excellent Educators
(Educator Equity Plans). The definitions that would be required under
proposed Sec. 299.18(c)(2) ensure that calculations of
disproportionality would be conducted and reported statewide using data
that is similar across districts. The definitions must be different
from each other and based on distinct criteria so that each provides
useful information about educator equity and disproportionality rates.
Proposed Sec. 299.18(c)(3) would clarify that the calculations
required under proposed Sec. 299.18(c)(1) must be conducted using
student level data, subject to appropriate privacy protections. Such
transparency is critical to enable stakeholders and the public to
understand how each State is meeting its statutory obligation under
section 1111(g)(1)(B) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. Student-
level data are essential to illuminate within-school
disproportionalities that a school-level analysis would necessarily
obscure. Nevertheless, we recognize that not all States may be prepared
to calculate these data at the student level by submission of their
initial consolidated State plan; therefore, as described in proposed
Sec. 299.13(d)(3), we provide an opportunity for a one-time extension,
if necessary. Proposed Sec. 299.18(c)(4) and (5) would clarify the
publishing and
[[Page 34586]]
reporting expectations and timelines for updating the data calculations
described in proposed Sec. 299.18(c)(3) to ensure transparency and a
continued focus on closing any equity gaps. Additionally, proposed
Sec. 299.18(c)(6) would list the steps that would be required if a
State demonstrates that low-income or minority students are taught at
disproportionate rates by ineffective, out-of-field, or inexperienced
teachers, including conducting a root cause analysis, which is critical
to help States identify the underlying causes or contributing factors
of any disproportionalities that exist, and describing the strategies,
timelines, and funding sources the State will use to eliminate the
identified disproportionality. Disproportionality may exist at many
different levels (e.g., statewide, between districts, within districts,
within schools), and the root cause analysis should disaggregate data
sufficiently to identify the source(s) of the disproportionality.
Finally, proposed Sec. 299.18(c)(7) would clarify that an SEA may, in
order to meet the requirements of section 1111(g)(1)(B) of the ESEA, as
amended by the ESSA, direct an LEA to use a portion of its title II,
part A funds to eliminate disproportionalities consistent with section
1111(g)(1)(B) and deny an LEA's application for title II, part A funds
if an LEA fails to describe how it will address identified
disproportionalities. Proposed Sec. 299.18(c)(7) also clarifies the
SEA's authority to deny an LEA's application if the LEA fails to meet
other local application requirements applicable to title II, part A.
Consistent with section 432 of the General Education Provisions Act, if
an SEA were to deny an LEA's application, an LEA would be entitled to
an appeal of that decision to the Secretary. This clarification is
necessary to enable SEAs to ensure that LEAs have adequate resources
available to address existing disproportionalities.
To encourage SEAs and LEAs to think comprehensively about how to
implement strategies and interventions to improve student outcomes,
proposed Sec. 299.19 would focus on support for all students, rather
than separately for individual subgroups of students under each
included program in order to ensure all students meet the State's
challenging academic standards and attain a regular high school diploma
that will prepare them to succeed in college and careers. Each SEA
would describe its strategies, timelines, and funding sources for each
of the requirements included in proposed Sec. 299.19(a)(1). Requiring
a State to consider a student's education from preschool through grade
12 would support that State's efforts to ensure that all students,
beginning at the earliest stage in their education and continuing
through high school, have the opportunity to acquire the skills and
abilities necessary to earn a high school diploma, which is critical to
allow them to pursue postsecondary education or a career of their
choosing. Because these skills and abilities increase over the course
of a child's schooling, it is essential for States to consider
equitable access across a student's educational experience, beginning
in preschool and ensure that all subgroups of students have access to a
well-rounded education, including accelerated and advanced coursework.
Proposed Sec. 299.19(a)(1)(iii) would emphasize school conditions for
student learning consistent with the requirement in section
1111(g)(1)(C) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, so all students have
access to a safe and healthy learning environment. Each SEA would also
describe strategies for the effective use of technology to improve
academic achievement and digital literacy so all students have the
skills they need to participate in the global economy. Finally,
proposed Sec. 299.19(a)(1)(v) and (vi) would require each State to
include strategies for meaningful and active parent and family
engagement in their children's education and ensure the accurate
identification of English learners and children with disabilities.
When developing the strategies in Sec. 299.19(a)(1), each State
would be required to consider all dimensions of schooling, including
both academic and nonacademic factors, for each subgroup of students
and the data and information from its review of resource equity
consistent with proposed Sec. 299.19(a)(3). An SEA may describe
strategies that address all or a portion of the subgroups of students,
or specific strategies based on the unique needs of particular student
groups. Proposed Sec. 299.19(a)(3) would require each SEA to use
information and data on resource equity that section 1111(h) of the
ESEA, as amended by the ESSA and proposed Sec. 200.35 and Sec.
200.37, requires them to publically report. This will help each State
identify inequities that may hinder a student's educational success at
any point in terms of access to the well-rounded education necessary
for them to meet the State's challenging academic standards and earn a
high school diploma.
Proposed Sec. 299.19(b) would require each SEA to describe how it
will utilize the resource equity data and information in proposed Sec.
299.19(a)(3) to inform the review and approval of LEA plans and
technical assistance to LEAs. This review is essential to ensure that
local plans meet the unique needs of each LEA and school and SEAs
target technical assistance to those LEAs and schools most in need.
In developing the consolidated State plan, we recognized that a
number of covered programs include specific statutory requirements that
are unique and essential to the implementation and oversight of those
programs. Therefore, proposed Sec. 299.19(c) captures those
requirements to ensure each SEA provides sufficient detail to award
funds for title I, part A; title I, part C; title III, part A; title V,
part B, subpart 2; and the McKinney-Vento Act to supplement the
descriptions, strategies, and timelines it provides in its consolidated
State plan. Regarding title I, part A, proposed 299.19(c)(1) would not
limit State discretion to grant such waivers, but we believe it is
important that each State develop and implement a process for approving
requested waivers of the 40-percent schoolwide program poverty
threshold that is consistent with the purposes of a schoolwide program
and that protects the interests of students most at risk of not meeting
challenging State academic standards. Regarding the title III entrance
and exit procedures required by section 3113(b)(2) of the ESEA, as
amended by the ESSA, proposed Sec. 299.19(c)(3) would clarify that
this statutory provision requires a State to set uniform procedures
that include criteria for both entrance into and exit from the English
learner subgroup that are applied statewide, and prohibits a ``local
option,'' which cannot be standardized and under which LEAs could have
widely varying criteria. We consider this clarification essential so
that each State will adopt uniform procedures that will increase
transparency around how students are identified, ensure consistency
within a State with respect to which students are identified as English
learners, and promote better outcomes for English learners.
Specifically, the proposed regulations would clarify that exit
procedures must include objective, valid, and reliable criteria,
including a score of proficient on the State's annual English language
proficiency assessment, to ensure each State implements the statutory
requirement regarding exit from the English learner subgroup and to
ensure consistency with civil rights obligations for English
learners.\19\ Though performance on
[[Page 34587]]
content assessments may be affected by a student's level of English
language proficiency, content assessments are not valid and reliable
measures of English language proficiency. Relying on content
assessments may result in students being included in the English
learner subgroup beyond the point when they are actually English
learners, which may lead to negative academic outcomes for an
individual student, and, if a student held in English learner status is
denied the opportunity to meaningfully participate in the full
curriculum, may constitute a civil rights violation. Thus, the proposed
regulations would make it clear that scores on content assessments
cannot be included as part of a State's exit criteria. Finally, to
ensure consistency in reporting and accountability, the proposed
regulations would clarify that the State's exit criteria must be
applied to both the title I subgroup and title III services, such that
a student who exits English learner status based on the statewide
standardized exit criteria must be considered to have exited English
learner status for both title I and title III purposes. The proposed
regulations would provide broad parameters, but also retain the
flexibility for each State to choose its specific entrance and exit
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See, for example, U.S. Department of Education and U.S.
Department of Justice joint Dear Colleague Letter, English Learner
Students and Limited English Proficient Parents, January 7, 2015.
www.ed.gov/ocr/letters/colleague-el-201501.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether
this regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to
the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the
OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a ``significant
regulatory action'' as an action likely to result in a rule that may--
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or
tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the
Executive order.
This proposed regulatory action is an economically significant
regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866.
We have also reviewed these regulations under Executive Order
13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order
13563 requires that an agency--
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits
and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into
account, among other things and to the extent practicable, the costs of
cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must
adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including economic incentives such as user fees or
marketable permits, to encourage the desired behavior, or provide
information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes.''
We also have determined that this regulatory action would not
unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the
exercise of their governmental functions.
We have assessed the potential costs and benefits of this
regulatory action. The potential costs associated with the proposed
regulations are those resulting from statutory requirements and those
we have determined as necessary for administering these programs
effectively and efficiently. Elsewhere in this section under Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, we identify and explain burdens specifically
associated with information collection requirements.
In assessing the potential costs and benefits--both quantitative
and qualitative--of these proposed regulations, we have determined that
the benefits would justify the costs.
The Department believes that the majority of the changes proposed
in this regulatory action would not impose significant costs on States,
LEAs, or other entities that participate in programs addressed by this
regulatory action. For example, the proposed regulatory framework for
State accountability systems, which primarily incorporates statutory
requirements, closely parallels current State systems, which include
long-term goals and measurements of interim progress; multiple
indicators, including indicators of academic achievement, graduation
rates, and other academic indicators selected by the State; annual
differentiation of school performance; the identification of low-
performing schools, and the implementation of improvement plans for
identified schools. In addition, the proposed regulations, consistent
with the requirements of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, provide
considerable flexibility to States and LEAs in determining the specific
approaches to meeting new requirements, including the rigor of long-
term goals and measurements of interim progress, the timeline for
meeting those goals, the selection and weighting of indicators of
student and school progress, the criteria for identification of schools
for improvement, and the development and implementation of improvement
plans. For example, this flexibility allows States and LEAs to build on
existing measures, systems, and interventions rather than creating new
ones, and to determine the most cost-efficient and least burdensome
means of meeting proposed regulatory requirements, instead of a
standardized set of prescriptive requirements.
The proposed regulations also reflect certain statutory changes to
the accountability systems and school improvement requirements of the
ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, which would result in a significant
reduction in costs and administrative burdens for States and LEAs.
First, the current regulations, which are based on the core goal of
ensuring 100 percent proficiency in reading and mathematics for all
students and all subgroups, potentially result in the identification of
the overwhelming majority of participating title I schools for
improvement,
[[Page 34588]]
corrective action, or restructuring. Such an outcome would produce
unsustainable demands on State and local capacity to develop, fund,
implement, and monitor school improvement plans and related school
improvement supports. Indeed, it was the immediate prospect of this
outcome that drove the development of, and rapid voluntary requests
for, waivers of certain accountability and school improvement
requirements under ESEA flexibility prior to enactment of the ESSA. The
proposed accountability regulations instead would require, consistent
with the requirements of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, more
flexible, targeted systems of differentiated accountability and school
improvement focused on the lowest-performing schools in each State,
including the bottom five percent of schools based on the performance
of all students, as well as other schools identified for consistently
underperforming subgroups. Based on the experience of ESEA flexibility,
the Department estimates that States would identify a total of 10,000-
15,000 schools for school improvement--of which the Department
estimates 4,000 will be identified for comprehensive support and
improvement--nationwide under the proposed regulations, compared with
as many as 50,000 under the current regulations in the absence of
waivers. While the costs of carrying out required school improvement
activities under the current regulations varies considerably across
schools, LEAs, and States depending on a combination of factors,
including the stage of improvement and locally selected interventions,
it is clear that the proposed regulations would dramatically decrease
potential school improvement burdens for all States and LEAs.
Second, under the proposed regulations, LEAs also would not be
required to make available SES to students from low-income families who
attend schools identified for improvement. This means that States would
not be required to develop and maintain lists of approved SES
providers, review provider performance, monitor LEA implementation of
SES requirements, or set aside substantial amounts of title I, part A
funding for SES. States and LEAs also would no longer be required to
report on either student participation or expenditures related to
public school choice or SES. While States participating in ESEA
flexibility generally already have benefited from waivers of the
statutory and regulatory requirements related to public school choice
and SES, the proposed regulations would extend this relief to all
States and LEAs without the additional burden of seeking waivers.
Third, the proposed regulations would eliminate requirements for
State identification of LEAs for improvement and the development and
implementation of LEA improvement and corrective action plans. As would
be the case for schools, the current regulations would require such
plans for virtually all participating title I LEAs; the proposed
regulations would no longer require identification of LEAs for
improvement and related actions.
While most of the elements and requirements of State accountability
systems required by the proposed regulations involve minimal or even
significantly reduced costs compared to the requirements of the current
regulations, there are certain proposed changes that could entail
additional costs, as described below.
Goals and Indicators
Proposed Sec. 200.13 would require States to establish a uniform
procedure for setting long-term goals and measurements of interim
progress for English learners that can be applied consistently and
equitably to all students and schools for accountability purposes and
that consider individual student characteristics (e.g., grade level,
English language proficiency level) in determining the most appropriate
timeline and goals for attaining English language proficiency for each
English learner. We estimate that each State would, on average, require
80 hours of staff time to develop the required uniform procedure.
Assuming a cost of $40 per hour for State staff, the proposed
regulation would result in a one-time cost, across 50 states, the
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico would be $166,400. We believe
that the development of a uniform, statewide procedure would minimize
additional costs and administrative burdens at the LEA level, and that
any additional modest costs would be outweighed by the benefits of the
proposed regulation, which would allow differentiation of goals for an
individual English learner based on his or her language and educational
background, thereby recognizing the varied needs of the English learner
population. Setting the same long-term goals and measurements of
interim progress for all English learners in the State would fail to
account for these differences in the English learner population and
would result in goals that are inappropriate for at least some students
and schools.
Proposed Sec. 200.14(b)(5) would require States to develop at
least one indicator of School Quality or Student Success that measures
such factors as student access to and completion of advanced
coursework, postsecondary readiness, school climate and safety, student
engagement, educator engagement, or any other measure the State
chooses. Proposed Sec. 200.14(c) would specify that measures within
School Quality and Student Success indicators must, among other
requirements, be valid, reliable, and comparable across all LEAs in the
State and support meaningful differentiation of performance among
schools. We recognize that the development and implementation of new
School Quality and Student Success indicators, which may include the
development of instruments to collect and report data on one or more
such measures, could impose significant additional costs on a State
that elects to develop an entirely new measure. However, the Department
also believes, based in part on its experience in reviewing waiver
requests under ESEA flexibility, that all States currently collect data
on one or more measures that may be suitable as a measure of school
quality and student success consistent with the requirements of
proposed Sec. 200.14(b)(5). Consequently, we believe that all, or
nearly all, States will choose to adapt a current measure to the
purposes of proposed Sec. 200.14(b)(5), rather than developing an
entirely new measure, and thus that the proposed regulation would not
impose significant new costs or administrative burdens on States and
LEAs.
Participation Rate
Proposed Sec. 200.15(c)(2) would require an LEA with a significant
number of schools that fail to assess at least 95 percent of all
students or 95 percent of students in any subgroup to develop and
implement an improvement plan that includes support for school-level
plans to improve participation rates that must be developed under
proposed Sec. 200.15(c)(1). Proposed Sec. 200.15(c)(2) would further
require States to review and approve these LEA plans.
These proposed requirements are similar to current regulations that
require States to: Annually review the progress of each LEA in making
AYP; identify for improvement any LEA that fails to make AYP for two
consecutive years, including any LEA that fails to make AYP as a result
of not assessing 95 percent of all students or each subgroup of
students; and provide technical assistance and other support related to
the development and implementation of LEA improvement
[[Page 34589]]
plans. Current regulations also require States to take certain
corrective actions in LEAs that miss AYP for four or more consecutive
years, including LEAs that miss AYP due to not assessing 95 percent of
all students or each subgroup of students. As noted previously, the
proposed regulations would no longer require annual State review of LEA
progress; State identification of LEAs for improvement; or the
development, preparation, or implementation of LEA improvement or
corrective action plans. This significant reduction in State burden
more than offsets the proposed regulations related to reviewing and
approving LEA plans to address low assessment participation rates in
their schools. In addition, State discretion to define the threshold
for ``a significant number of schools'' that would trigger the
requirement for LEA plans related to missing the 95 percent
participation rate would provide States a measure of control over the
burden of complying with the proposed regulations. Consequently, the
Department believes that the proposed regulations would not increase
costs or administrative burdens significantly for States, as compared
to the current regulations. Moreover, we believe that these proposed
requirements would have the significant benefit of helping to ensure
that the plans include effective interventions that will improve
participation in assessments, facilitate transparent information for
families and educators on student progress, and assist schools in
supporting high-quality instruction and meeting the demonstrated
educational needs of all students.
School Improvement Process
The school improvement requirements proposed in this regulatory
action generally are similar to those required under the current
regulations. The current regulations require identification of schools
for multiple improvement categories, State and LEA notification of
identified schools, the development and implementation of improvement
plans with stakeholder involvement, State support for implementation of
improvement plans, LEA provision of public school choice and SES
options (the latter of which also imposes significant administrative
burdens on States), and more rigorous actions for schools that do not
improve over time. However, the current regulations include a
prescriptive timeline under which schools that do not improve must
advance to the next stage of improvement, typically only after a year
or two of implementation at the previous stage (e.g., a school is given
only one year for corrective action to prove successful before
advancing to restructuring). The current regulations also do not
consistently allow for a planning year prior to implementation of the
required improvement plans. The proposed regulations, consistent with
the statute, would provide more flexibility around the timeline for
identifying schools (e.g., once every three years for comprehensive
support and improvement schools), up to a full year to develop
comprehensive support and improvement and targeted support and
improvement plans, and more time for full and effective implementation
of improvement plans based on State- and LEA-determined timelines for
meeting improvement benchmarks. The proposed regulations also would
eliminate the public school choice and SES requirements, which impose
substantial administrative costs and burdens on LEAs that are not
directly related to turning around low-performing schools. We believe
that the proposed regulations would thus significantly reduce the
administrative burdens and costs imposed by key school improvement
requirements in the current regulations.
The proposed regulations would clarify certain elements of the
school improvement process required by the ESEA, as amended by the
ESSA, including the needs assessment for schools identified for
comprehensive support and improvement, the use of evidence-based
interventions in schools identified for both comprehensive support and
improvement and targeted support and improvement, and the review of
resource inequities required for schools identified for comprehensive
support and improvement as well as for schools identified for
additional targeted support and improvement under proposed Sec.
200.19(b)(2). Proposed Sec. 200.21 would require an LEA with such a
school to carry out, in partnership with stakeholders, a comprehensive
needs assessment that takes into account, at a minimum, the school's
performance on all indicators used by the State's accountability system
and the reason(s) the school was identified. The proposed regulations
also would require the LEA to develop a comprehensive support and
improvement plan that is based on the needs assessment and that
includes one or more evidence-based interventions. These proposed
requirements are similar to the requirements in the current
regulations, under which LEAs with schools identified for improvement
must develop improvement plans that include consultation with
stakeholders. Thus we believe that the proposed regulations related to
conducting a needs assessment and the use of evidence-based
interventions would not increase costs or administrative burdens
significantly for LEAs, as compared to the current regulations.
Moreover, we believe that these proposed requirements would have the
significant benefit of helping to ensure that the required improvement
plans include effective interventions that meet the demonstrated
educational needs of students in identified schools, and ultimately
could improve outcomes for those students.
Proposed Sec. 200.21 also would require LEAs with schools
identified for comprehensive support and improvement, as well as
schools identified for additional targeted support and improvement
under proposed Sec. 200.19(b)(2), to identify and address resource
inequities, including any disproportionate assignment of ineffective,
out-of-field, or inexperienced teachers and possible inequities related
to the per-pupil expenditures of Federal, State, and local funds. While
this is not a new requirement, it would involve an additional use of
data and methods that LEAs would be required to develop and apply to
meet other requirements in the proposed regulations, including
requirements related to ensuring that low-income and minority students
are not taught at disproportionate rates by ineffective, out-of-field,
or inexperienced teachers, the inclusion of per-pupil expenditure data
on State and LEA report cards, and the use of per-pupil expenditure
data to meet the title I supplement not supplant requirement. In
addition, the proposed regulations would not specify how an LEA must
address any resource inequities identified through its review. We
believe it is critically important to ensure equitable access to
effective teachers, and that the fair and equitable allocation of other
educational resources is essential to ensuring that all students,
particularly the low-achieving, disadvantaged, and minority students
who are the focus of ESEA programs, have equitable access to the full
range of courses, instructional materials, educational technology, and
programs that help ensure positive educational outcomes.\20\
Consequently, we believe that the benefits of the required review of
resource inequities outweigh the
[[Page 34590]]
minimal additional costs that may be imposed by the proposed
regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See, for example, U.S. Department of Education, Office for
Civil Rights Dear Colleague Letter, Resource Comparability, October
1, 2014. http://www.ed.gov/ocr/letters/colleague-resourcecomp-201410.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Sec. 200.21 would establish a new requirement for State
review and approval of each comprehensive support and improvement plan
developed by LEAs with one or more schools identified for comprehensive
support and improvement, as well as proposed amendments to previously
approved plans. This proposed requirement would potentially impose
additional costs compared to the requirements in the current
regulations. The Department estimates that States would identify
approximately 4,000 schools for comprehensive support and improvement
under the proposed regulations, and that it would take, on average, 20
hours for a State to review and approve each LEA comprehensive support
and improvement plan, including any necessary revisions to an initial
plan. Assuming a cost of $40 per hour for State staff, the proposed
review and approval process would cost an estimated total of
$3,200,000. Over the course of the four-year authorization of the law,
this cost is expected to be incurred twice. We note that under the
proposed regulations, States would incur these costs once every three
years, when they identify schools for comprehensive support and
improvement. We also note that this cost represents less than 2 percent
of the funds that States are authorized to reserve annually for State-
level administrative and school improvement activities under part A of
title I of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. Given the critical
importance of ensuring that LEAs implement rigorous improvement plans
in their lowest-performing comprehensive support and improvement
schools, and that a significant proportion of the approximately $1
billion that States will reserve annually under section 1003 of the
ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, will be used to support effective
implementation of these plans, we believe that the potential benefits
of State review and approval of comprehensive support and improvement
plans would far outweigh the costs. Moreover, those costs would be
fully paid for with formula grant funds made available through the
ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, including the 1 percent administrative
reservation under title I, part A and the 5 percent State-level share
of section 1003 school improvement funds.
The proposed regulations also would require that the State monitor
and periodically review each LEA's implementation of approved
comprehensive support and improvement plans. We believe that this
proposed requirement is essentially the same as the current requirement
for States to ensure that LEAs carry out their school improvement
responsibilities related to schools identified for improvement,
corrective action, and restructuring, as well as State-level monitoring
requirements under the School Improvement Grants program. In addition,
section 1003 of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, which requires States
to reserve a total of approximately $1 billion annually to support
implementation of comprehensive support and improvement and targeted
support and improvement plans, permits States to use up to 5 percent of
these funds for State-level activities, including ``monitoring and
evaluating the use of funds'' by LEAs using such funds for
comprehensive support and improvement plans. For these reasons, we
believe that the proposed requirement to monitor and periodically
review each LEA's implementation of approved comprehensive support and
improvement plans would impose few, if any, additional costs compared
to current regulatory requirements, and that any increased costs would
be paid for with Federal funding provided for this purpose.
States also would be required to establish exit criteria for
schools implementing comprehensive support and improvement plans and
for certain schools identified for additional targeted support under
proposed Sec. 200.19(b)(2) and implementing enhanced targeted support
and improvement plans. In both cases, the proposed regulations would
require that the exit criteria established by the State ensure that a
school (1) has improved student outcomes and (2) no longer meets the
criteria for identification. Schools that do not meet exit criteria
following a State-determined number of years would be identified for
additional improvement actions (as outlined by an amended comprehensive
support and improvement plan for schools already implementing such
plans, and a comprehensive support and improvement plan for schools
previously identified for additional targeted support). We believe that
the proposed requirement for States to establish exit criteria for
schools implementing comprehensive support and improvement plans, as
well as additional targeted support plans, would be minimally
burdensome and entail few, if any, additional costs for States.
Moreover, most States already have developed similar exit criteria for
their priority and focus schools under ESEA flexibility, and would be
able to easily adapt existing criteria for use under the proposed
regulations. Rigorous exit criteria linked to additional improvement
actions are essential for ensuring that low-performing schools, and,
more importantly, the students who attend them, do not continue to
underperform for years without meaningful and effective interventions.
Moreover, the additional improvement actions primarily involve revision
of existing improvement plans, which would be less burdensome, for
example, than moving from corrective action to restructuring under
current regulations, which requires the creation of an entirely new
plan involving significantly different interventions. For these
reasons, we believe that the benefits of the proposed regulations would
outweigh the minimal costs.
In addition to requiring States to review and approve comprehensive
support and improvement plans, monitor implementation of those plans,
and establish exit criteria, the proposed regulations would require
States to provide technical assistance and other support to LEAs
serving a significant number of schools identified either for
comprehensive support and improvement or targeted support and
improvement.
Proposed Sec. 200.23 would require each State to review resource
allocations periodically between LEAs and between schools. The proposed
regulations also would require each State to take action, to the extent
practicable, to address any resource inequities identified during its
review. These reviews would not require the collection of new data and,
in many cases, would likely involve re-examining information and
analyses provided to States by LEAs during the process of reviewing and
approving comprehensive support and improvement plans and meeting title
I requirements regarding disproportionate assignment of low-income and
minority students to ineffective, out-of-field, or inexperienced
teachers. In addition, the proposed regulations would give States
flexibility to identify the LEAs targeted for resource allocation
reviews. Consequently, we believe that the proposed regulations
regarding State resource allocation reviews would be minimally
burdensome and entail few if any new costs, while contributing to the
development of statewide strategies for addressing resource inequities
that can help improve outcomes for students served under ESEA programs.
Similarly, proposed Sec. 200.23(b) would require each State to
describe in its State
[[Page 34591]]
plan the technical assistance it will provide to each of its LEAs
serving a significant number of schools identified for either
comprehensive support and improvement or targeted support and
improvement. The proposed regulations would also specify minimum
requirements for such technical assistance, including a requirement
that the State describe how it will assist LEAs in developing and
implementing comprehensive support and improvement plans and targeted
support and improvement plans, conducting school-level needs
assessments, selecting evidence-based interventions, and reviewing and
addressing resource inequities. We believe that the proposed
regulations related to State-provided technical assistance to certain
LEAs would be better differentiated, more reflective of State capacity
limits, and significantly less burdensome and costly than current
regulatory requirements related to LEA improvement and corrective
action and the operation of statewide systems of support for schools
and LEAs identified for improvement. Moreover, given the schools that
would be targeted for technical assistance, most costs could be paid
for with the State share of funds reserved for school improvement under
section 1003 of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA.
Data Reporting
The ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, expanded reporting requirements
for States and LEAs in order to provide parents, practitioners, policy
makers, and public officials at the Federal, State, and local levels
with actionable data and information on key aspects of our education
system and the students served by that system, but in particular those
students served by ESEA programs. The proposed regulations would
implement these requirements primarily by clarifying definitions and,
where possible, streamlining and simplifying reporting requirements
consistent with the purposes of the ESEA. Although the proposed
regulatory changes in Sec. Sec. 200.30 through 200.37 involve new
requirements that entail additional costs for States and LEAs, we
believe the costs are reasonable in view of the potential benefits,
which include a more comprehensive picture of the structure and
performance of our education system under the new law. Importantly, the
ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, gives States and LEAs considerable new
flexibility to develop and implement innovative, evidence-based
approaches to addressing local educational needs, and the proposed
regulations would help ensure that the comprehensive data reporting
requirements of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, capture the shape and
results of that innovation without imposing unreasonable burdens on
program participants.
The Department estimates that, to meet new data reporting
requirements in the proposed regulations, it would impose a one-time
increased burden of 230 hours per State. Assuming an average cost of
$40 an hour for State staff, we estimate a total one-time cost of
$478,400 for meeting the new State report card requirements. The
Department further estimates that the preparation and dissemination of
LEA report cards would require a new one-time burden of 80 hours per
respondent in the first year and annual burden of 10 hours per
respondent, resulting in a one-time total burden across 16,970 LEAs of
1,357,600 hours and annual burden of 169,700 hours per LEA.\21\
Assuming an average cost of $35 an hour for LEA staff, we estimate the
one-time total cost to be $47,516,000 and a total annual cost of
$5,939,500. The annual burden on LEAs for creating and publishing their
report cards would remained unchanged at 16 hours per LEA, posing no
additional costs relative to the costs associated with the current
statutory and regulatory requirements. The Department believes these
additional costs are reasonable for collecting essential information
regarding the students, teachers, schools, and LEAs served through
Federal programs authorized by the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, that
currently award more than $23 billion annually to States and LEAs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 16,790 is, according to NCES data, the total number of
operating school districts of all types, except supervisory unions
and regional education service agencies; including these types would
result in double-counting. We note that the number of LEAs
fluctuates annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A key challenge faced by States in meeting current report card
requirements has been developing clear, effective formats for the
timely delivery of complex information to a wide range of customers.
Proposed Sec. Sec. 200.30 and 200.31 specifies requirements intended
to promote improvements in this area, including a required overview
aimed at ensuring essential information is provided to parents in a
manageable, easy-to-understand format; definitions for key elements;
dissemination options; accessible formats; and deadlines for
publication. We believe the benefits of this proposed regulation are
significant and include transparency, timeliness, and wide
accessibility of data to inform educational improvement and
accountability.
Proposed Sec. 200.32 would streamline reporting requirements
related to State and local accountability systems by permitting States
and LEAs to meet those requirements by referencing or obtaining data
from other existing documents and descriptions created to meet other
requirements in the proposed regulations. For example, proposed Sec.
200.32 would allow States and LEAs to meet the requirement relating to
a description of State accountability systems through a link to a Web
address, rather than trying to condense a complex, lengthy description
of a statewide accountability system into an accessible, easy-to-
understand ``report card'' format. Proposed Sec. 200.33 would clarify
calculations and reporting of data on student achievement and other
measures of progress, primarily through modifications to existing
measures and calculations. These proposed changes would help ensure
that State and local report cards serve their intended purpose of
providing the public with information on a variety of measures in a
State's accountability system that conveys a complete picture of
school, LEA, and State performance. The proposed regulations would have
a key benefit of requiring all LEA report cards to include results from
all State accountability system indicators for all schools served by
the LEA to ensure that parents, teachers, and other key stakeholders
have access to the information for which schools are held accountable.
A critical new requirement in the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, is
the collection and reporting of per-pupil expenditures. Proposed Sec.
200.35 includes requirements and definitions aimed at helping States
and LEAs collect and report reliable, accurate, comparable data on
these expenditures. We believe that these data will be essential in
helping districts meet their obligations under the supplement, not
supplant requirement in Title I-A, which requires districts to develop
a methodology demonstrating that federal funds are used to supplement
state and local education funding. In addition, making such data widely
available has tremendous potential to highlight disparities in resource
allocations that can have a significant impact on both the effective
use of Federal program funds and educational opportunity and outcomes
for the students served by ESEA programs. Broader knowledge and
understanding of such disparities among educators, parents, and the
public can lead to a more informed debate about how to improve the
[[Page 34592]]
performance of our education system, and the ESEA, as amended by the
ESSA, highlights the importance of resource allocation considerations
by making them a key component of school improvement plans.
Proposed Sec. 200.36 would provide specifications for the newly
required collection of information on student enrollment in
postsecondary education, including definitions of key data elements.
Proposed Sec. Sec. 200.34 and 200.37 would clarify guidelines for
calculating graduation rates and reporting on educator qualifications,
respectively, and reflect a change to existing reporting requirements
in current regulations rather than new items (e.g. requirements related
to the reporting of highly-qualified teachers, a term that no longer
exists in the ESEA, as amended by ESSA).
Optional Consolidated State Plans
We believe that the proposed State plan regulations in Sec. Sec.
299.13 to 299.19 generally would not impose significant costs on
States. As discussed in the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 section of
this document, we estimate that States would need on average 1,200
additional hours to carry out the requirements in the proposed State
plan regulations. At $40 per hour, the average additional State cost
associated with these requirements would accordingly be an estimated
$48,000, resulting in a total cost across 52 States of $2,496,000. We
expect that States would generally use the Federal education program
funds they reserve for State administration to cover these costs, and
that any costs not met with Federal funds would generally be minimal.
Moreover, the proposed regulations would implement statutory
provisions expressly intended to reduce burden on States by simplifying
the process for applying for Federal education program funds. Section
8302 of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, allows States to submit a
consolidated State plan in lieu of multiple State plans for individual
covered programs. The Department anticipates, based on previous
experience, that all States will take advantage of the option in
proposed Sec. 299.13 to submit a consolidated State plan, and we
believe that the content areas and requirements proposed for those
plans in Sec. Sec. 299.14 to 299.19 are appropriately limited to those
needed to ensure that States and their LEAs provide all children
significant opportunity to receive a fair, equitable, and high-quality
education and close achievement gaps, consistent with the purpose of
title I of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA.
As discussed elsewhere in this document, section 8302(a)(1) of the
ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, permits the Department to designate
programs for inclusion in consolidated State plans in addition to those
covered by the statute. In Sec. 299.13, the Department proposes adding
to the covered programs the Grants for State Assessments and Related
Activities in section 1201 of title I, part B of the ESEA, as amended
by the ESSA, and the Education for Homeless Children and Youths program
in subpart B of title VII of the McKinney-Vento Act. Inclusion of these
programs in a consolidated State plan would further reduce the burden
on States in applying for Federal education program funds.
In general, the Department believes that the costs of the proposed
State plan regulations (which are discussed in more detail in the
following paragraphs) are clearly outweighed by their benefits, which
include, in addition to reduced burden on States: Increased flexibility
in State planning, improved stakeholder engagement in plan development
and implementation, better coordination in the use of Federal education
program funds and elimination of funding ``silos'', and a sustained
focus on activities critical to providing all students with equitable
access to a high-quality education.
Proposed Sec. 299.13 would establish the procedures and timelines
for State plan submission and revision, including requirements for
timely and meaningful consultation with stakeholders that are based on
requirements in titles I, II, and III of the ESEA, as amended by the
ESSA. The Department does not believe that the proposed consultation
requirements would impose significant costs on States. We expect that,
as part of carrying out their general education responsibilities,
States will have already developed procedures for notifying the public
and for conducting outreach to, and soliciting input from,
stakeholders, as the regulations would require. In the Department's
estimation, States would not incur significant costs in implementing
those procedures for the State plans.
Proposed Sec. Sec. 299.14 to 299.19 would establish requirements
for the content of consolidated State plans (i.e., the ``necessary
materials'' discussed in section 8302(b)(3) of the ESEA, as amended by
the ESSA). Proposed Sec. 299.14 would establish five content areas of
consolidated State plans, including: Consultation and coordination (the
requirements for which are specified in proposed Sec. 299.15);
challenging academic standards and assessments (in proposed Sec.
299.16); accountability, support, and improvement for schools (proposed
Sec. 299.17); supporting excellent educators (proposed Sec. 299.18);
and supporting all students (proposed Sec. 299.19). We believe that,
in general, the proposed requirements for these content areas would
minimize burden on States insofar as they consolidate duplicative
requirements and eliminate unnecessary requirements from State plans
for individual covered programs.
Proposed Sec. 299.15 would require States to describe how they
engaged in timely and meaningful consultation with specified
stakeholder groups in consolidated State plan development and how they
are coordinating administration of covered programs and other Federal
education programs. We estimate that the costs of complying with the
proposed requirements in this section would be minimal.
Proposed Sec. 299.16 would require States to demonstrate that
their academic standards and assessments meet the requirements in
section 1111(b) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, and to describe
how they will use Grants for State Assessments and Related Activities
program funds to develop and administer such assessments or carry out
other allowable activities. These proposed requirements would not
impose significant new costs on States, which are already separately
engaged in a review of their standards and assessment systems that
would satisfy the applicable proposed requirements in this section.
The Department believes that the proposed requirements in
Sec. Sec. 299.17 and 299.18 would similarly not involve significant
new costs for most States. Proposed Sec. 299.17 would establish
consolidated State plan requirements for describing the State's long-
term goals, accountability system, school identifications, and support
for low-performing schools, consistent with the requirements in section
1111(c) and (d) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. Proposed Sec.
299.18 would require States to describe their educator development,
retention, and advancement systems and their use of Federal education
program funds for State-level activities to improve educator quality
and effectiveness, and to demonstrate that low-income and minority
students in title I-participating schools are not taught at
disproportionate rates by ineffective, out-of-field, or inexperienced
teachers compared to their peers, consistent with the requirements in
sections 1111(g), 2101, and 2102 of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA.
The Department anticipates that, in complying with proposed
[[Page 34593]]
Sec. Sec. 299.17 and 299.18, States would rely to some degree on
existing State ESEA flexibility requests and Educator Equity Plans.
Accordingly, the proposed regulations should generally not result in
significant new costs for States.
Finally, proposed Sec. 299.19 would require States to describe how
they and their LEAs are using Federal and other funds to close
achievement gaps and provide all students equitable access to a high-
quality education, and would include program-specific requirements
necessary to ensure that such access is provided to particularly
vulnerable student groups, including migrant students, English
learners, and homeless children and youths. We believe that the
proposed requirements in this section would accomplish this purpose
with minimal burden on, and cost to, States, consistent with section
8302(b)(3) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA.
The major benefit of these proposed regulations, taken in their
totality, is a more flexible, less complex and costly accountability
framework for the implementation of the ESEA that respects State and
local decision-making while continuing to ensure that States and LEAs
use ESEA funds to ensure that all students have significant opportunity
to receive a fair, equitable, and high-quality education, and to close
educational achievement gaps.
Accounting Statement
As required by OMB Circular A-4 (available at www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/circulars/a004/a-4.pdf), in the
following table we have prepared an accounting statement showing the
classification of the expenditures associated with the provisions of
these proposed regulations. This table provides our best estimate of
the changes in annual monetized costs, benefits as a result of the
proposed regulations. The transfers reflect appropriations for the
affected programs. We note that the regulatory baselines differ within
the table; the cost estimates are increments over and above what would
be spent under ESEA if it had not been amended with ESSA, whereas the
transfers (appropriations) are totals, rather than increments relative
to ESEA. We further note that, although we refer to appropriations
amounts as transfers, where they pay for new activities they would
appropriately be categorized as costs.
Accounting Statement Classification of Estimated Expenditures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
More flexible and less complex and Not Quantified.
costly accountability framework with
uniform procedures.
More transparency and actionable data Not Quantified.
and information with uniform
definitions, all of which provide a
more comprehensive picture of
performance and other key measures.
Less burden on States through Not Quantified.
simplified process for applying and
planning for Federal education program
funds.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Costs
(over 4-year authorization)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uniform procedure for setting long-term $166,400.
goals and measurements of interim
progress for English learners.
Review and approval of LEA $6,400,000.
comprehensive support and improvement
plans.
State Report Cards..................... $478,400.
LEA Report Cards....................... $65,334,500.
Consolidated State Plans............... $2,496,000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Transfers
(over 4-year authorization;
based on FY 2016
appropriations)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I, part A: Improving Basic $59,639,208,000.
Programs Operated by State and Local
Educational Agencies.
Title I, part B: Grants for State $1,512,000,000.
Assessments.
Title I, part C: Education of Migratory $1,499,004,000.
Children.
Title I, part D: Prevention and $190,456,000.
Intervention Programs for Children and
Youth Who Are Neglected, Delinquent,
or At-Risk.
Title II, part A: Supporting Effective $9,399,320,000.
Instruction.
Title III, part A: Language Instruction $2,949,600,000.
for English Learners and Immigrant
Students.
Title IV, part A: Student Support and $6,450,000,000 (no FY 2016
Academic Enrichment Grants. funding; reflects
authorization of
appropriations).
Title IV, part B: 21st Century $4,666,692,000.
Community Learning Centers.
Title V, part B, Subpart 2: Rural and $351,680,000.
Low-Income School Program.
Education for Homeless Children and $280,000,000.
Youths program under subtitle B of
title VII of the McKinney-Vento
Homeless Assistance Act.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarity of the Regulations
Executive Order 12866 and the Presidential memorandum ``Plain
Language in Government Writing'' require each agency to write
regulations that are easy to understand.
The Secretary invites comments on how to make these proposed
regulations easier to understand, including answers to questions such
as the following:
Are the requirements in the proposed regulations clearly
stated?
Do the proposed regulations contain technical terms or
other wording that interferes with their clarity?
Does the format of the proposed regulations (grouping and
order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce
their clarity?
[[Page 34594]]
Would the proposed regulations be easier to understand if
we divided them into more (but shorter) sections? (A ``section'' is
preceded by the symbol ``Sec. '' and a numbered heading: for example,
Sec. 361.1 Purpose.)
Could the description of the proposed regulations in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble be more helpful in
making the proposed regulations easier to understand? If so, how?
What else could we do to make the proposed regulations
easier to understand?
To send any comments that concern how the Department could make
these proposed regulations easier to understand, see the instructions
in the ADDRESSES section.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1531), an
agency must assess the effects of its regulatory actions on State,
local, and tribal governments. The Department has set forth that
assessment in the Regulatory Impact Analysis. The UMRA in Sec. 1532
also requires that an agency provide a written statement regarding any
regulation that would involve a Federal mandate. These proposed
regulations do not involve a Federal mandate as defined in Sec. 658 of
UMRA because the duties imposed upon State, local, or tribal
governments in these regulations are a condition of those governments'
receipt of Federal formula grant funds under the ESEA.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
The Secretary certifies that these proposed requirements would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Under the U.S. Small Business Administration's Size
Standards, small entities include small governmental jurisdictions such
as cities, towns, or school districts (LEAs) with a population of less
than 50,000. Although the majority of LEAs that receive ESEA funds
qualify as small entities under this definition, the requirements
proposed in this document would not have a significant economic impact
on these small LEAs because the costs of implementing these
requirements would be covered by funding received by these small LEAs
under ESEA formula grant programs, including programs that provide
funds exclusively for such small LEAs (e.g., the Rural and Low-Income
School program authorized under subpart 2 of part B of title V). The
Department believes the benefits provided under this proposed
regulatory action outweigh the burdens on these small LEAs of complying
with the proposed requirements. In particular, the proposed
requirements would help ensure that State plans for using ESEA formula
grant funds, as well as State-provided technical assistance and other
support intended to promote the effective and coordinated use of
Federal, State, and local resources in ensuring that all students meet
challenging State standards and graduate high school college- and
career-ready, reflect the unique needs and circumstances of small LEAs
and ensure the provision of educational resources that otherwise may
not be available to small and often geographically isolated LEAs. The
Secretary invites comments from small LEAs as to whether they believe
the requirements proposed in this document would have a significant
economic impact on them and, if so, requests evidence to support that
belief.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent
burden, the Department provides the general public and Federal agencies
with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections
of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This helps ensure that: The public
understands the Department's collection instructions, respondents can
provide the requested data in the desired format, reporting burden
(time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are
clearly understood, and the Department can properly assess the impact
of collection requirements on respondents.
Sections 200.30, 200.31, 200.32, 200.33, 200.34, 200.35, 200.36,
200.37, and 299.13 contain information collection requirements. Under
the PRA the Department has submitted a copy of these sections to OMB
for its review.
A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of
information unless OMB approves the collection under the PRA and the
corresponding information collection instrument displays a currently
valid OMB control number. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
no person is required to comply with, or is subject to penalty for
failure to comply with, a collection of information if the collection
instrument does not display a currently valid OMB control number. In
the final regulations, we will display the OMB control numbers assigned
by OMB to any information collection requirement in the proposed
regulations and adopted in the final regulations.
The proposed regulations would affect two currently approved
information collections, 1810-0576 and 1810-0581. Under 1810-0576,
Consolidated State Application, the Department is approved to collect
information from States. We will replace the previously authorized
consolidated State application with the consolidated State plan,
authorized under section 8302 of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. The
consolidated State plan seeks to encourage greater cross-program
coordination, planning, and service delivery; to enhance program
integration; and to provide greater flexibility and less burden for
States. We will use the information from the consolidated State plan as
the basis for approving funding under the covered programs. Under the
proposed regulations, a State would be required to update its
consolidated State plan at least every four years.
Proposed Sec. 299.13 would permit a State to submit a consolidated
State plan, instead of individual program applications. Each
consolidated State plan must meet the requirements described in
proposed Sec. Sec. 299.14 to 299.19.
States may choose not to submit consolidated State plans; however,
for purposes of estimating the burden, we will assume all States will
choose to submit consolidated State plans. We estimate that over the
three-year period for which we seek information collection approval,
each of the 52 grantees will spend 1,200 additional hours developing
the accountability systems to be described in the consolidated State
plans, reporting on all elements that must be described in the
consolidated State plans, and making any optional amendments to the
consolidated State plans. Accordingly, we anticipate the total
additional burden over three years to be 62,400 hours for all
respondents, resulting in an increased annual burden of 20,800 hours
under current information collection 1810-0576. Overall, the total
burden under OMB 1810-0576 will be 23,200.
[[Page 34595]]
Collection of Information From SEAs: Consolidated State Plan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB Control No. and
Regulatory section Information estimated change in
collection burden
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 299.13.............. This proposed OMB 1810-0576. The
regulatory provision burden would
would allow States increase by 20,800
to submit hours.
consolidated State
plans.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under 1810-0581, State Educational Agency, Local Educational
Agency, and School Data Collection and Reporting Under ESEA, Title I,
Part A, the Department is approved to require States and LEAs to
collect and disseminate information. The information collection
currently authorizes the Department to require States and LEAs to
develop and disseminate report cards, as well as information previously
required through ESEA flexibility. The proposed regulations in
Sec. Sec. 200.30 to 200.37 would require additional burden, as they
would require States and LEAs to revise the current report cards to
include additional elements. However, the revised information
collection would also reduce some of the existing burden, due to the
elimination of currently approved reporting requirements and
adjustments in the estimated time required to report on other required
elements.
Section 1111(h) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, requires
States and LEAs to prepare and disseminate annual report cards; these
report cards provide essential information to school communities
regarding activities under title I of the ESEA.
Proposed Sec. 200.30(a) would require each State to prepare and
disseminate an annual State report card, and proposed 200.30(c) would
require each annual State report card to be accessible. Currently,
under 1810-0581, the Department estimates that the preparation and
dissemination of State report cards requires 370 hours per respondent,
resulting in a total burden across 52 States of 19,240 hours annually.
On an annual basis, the Department estimates that the preparation and
dissemination of accessible State report cards will continue to take
370 hours per respondent. However, as described below, the Department
also anticipates a one-time increase in burden relating to some report
card elements, based upon the changes in the proposed regulations.
Proposed Sec. 200.30(b)(2) would require each State to add an
overview to each report card. We anticipate that these requirements
would require a one-time increase in burden for each State of 80 hours,
for a total increase in burden across 52 grantees of 4,160 hours. Over
the three-year period for which we seek approval for this information
collection, this would result in an annual increase in burden of 1,387
hours.
Proposed Sec. 200.30(e) would require each State that is unable to
update its State and LEA report cards to reflect the proposed
regulations by the established deadline to request an extension of the
deadline, and to submit a plan to the Secretary addressing the steps
the State will take to update the report cards. We anticipate the
development of such a plan would require a one-time increase in burden
for 15 States of 50 hours, for a total increase in burden of 750 hours.
Over the three-year period for which we seek approval for this
information collection, this would result in an annual increase in
burden of 250 hours.
Proposed Sec. 200.32(a) would require each State to describe
provide a description of the State's accountability system. We
anticipate that this requirement would add a one-time increase in
burden for each State of 30 hours, for a total increase in burden
across 52 grantees of 1,560 hours. Over the three-year period for which
we seek approval for this information collection, this would result in
an annual increase in burden of 520 hours.
Proposed Sec. Sec. 200.32(c), 200.33, 200.34, 200.35, 200.36 and
200.37 would establish new requirements regarding the ways in which
States calculate and report elements that are required on the State and
LEA report cards. In total, we anticipate that these requirements would
require a one-time increase in burden for each State to adjust its data
system to address these requirements of 120 hours, for a total increase
in burden across 52 grantees of 6,240 hours. Over the three-year period
for which we seek approval for this information collection, this would
result in an annual increase in burden of 2,080 hours.
Additionally, under 1810-0581, the Department is authorized to
collect information regarding SES providers and ESEA flexibility. As
SES is not required, and ESEA flexibility is not applicable, under the
ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, we intend to reduce the burden
attributable to these elements. The Department also includes burden
estimates for some reporting requirements that we now intend to reduce,
because these elements include data system adjustments that have
already been completed. These changes decrease the annual burden for
SEAs by 35,426 hours. Overall, the total burden for SEAs under 1810-
0581 is reduced by 31,189 hours.
Collection of Information From SEAs: Report Cards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB Control No. and
Regulatory section Information estimated change in
collection burden
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 200.30(a); Sec. The proposed OMB 1810-0581. No
200.30(c); Sec. regulatory changes. The
200.30(d). provisions would current information
require States to collection assumes
prepare and that each State
disseminate widely will require 370
an annual State hours to report the
report card, and to results of its
ensure that the accountability
report cards are systems, for a
accessible. total burden of
19,240 hours. The
proposed
regulations do not
affect this
estimate.
Sec. 200.30(b)(2)........ The proposed OMB 1810-0581. We
regulatory provision estimate that the
would require State burden would
report cards to increase by 1,387
include an overview. hours.
Sec. 200.30(e)........... The proposed OMB 1810-0581. We
regulatory provision estimate the burden
would require any would increase by
State that is 250 hours.
unable, to update
its State or LEA
report cards with
required elements by
the deadline to
develop and submit
plans for updating
the report cards.
Sec. 200.32(a)........... The proposed OMB 1810-0581. We
regulatory estimate that the
provisions would burden would
require State report increase by 520
cards to include a hours.
description of the
State's
accountability
system.
[[Page 34596]]
Sec. 200.32(c); Sec. The proposed OMB 1810-0581. The
200.33; Sec. 200.34; regulatory burden would
Sec. 200.35; Sec. provisions would increase by 2,080
200.36; Sec. 200.37. establish hours.
requirements
regarding the ways
in which States
calculate certain
data elements
required on report
cards.
None....................... Due to statutory OMB 1810-0581. The
changes under the burden would
Act, the Department decrease by 35,426
reduces the burden hours.
estimates, as the
Department will no
longer collect
previously approved
information, as
described above.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Sec. Sec. 200.21(d)(6) and 200.22(d)(2) would require
each LEA to make publicly available, including by notifying parents
under proposed Sec. Sec. 200.21(b) and 200.22(b), the comprehensive
and targeted support and improvement plans, including any amendments,
for all identified schools served by the LEA to help ensure that plans
may be developed in partnership with parents, teachers, and principals
and other school leaders. We estimate that the resulting burden for
each LEA will be 30 hours, on average, resulting in a total burden for
16,970 LEAs of 509,100 hours. Over the three-year period for which we
seek approval, this would result in an annual increase in burden of
169,700 hours.
Proposed Sec. 200.31(a) would require each LEA to prepare and
disseminate an annual LEA report card, and proposed Sec. 200.31(c)
would require each annual LEA report card to be accessible. Currently,
under 1810-0581, the Department estimates that the preparation and
dissemination of LEA report cards requires 16 hours per respondent; we
do not anticipate that the annual burden for each respondent will
change, based upon the proposed regulations. However, we are changing
the burden estimate, based upon an increase in the number of LEAs
according to the most recently available data; there are currently
16,970 LEAs, an increase of 3,883 LEAs from the last estimate. As a
result, we increase the estimated annual burden for preparation and
dissemination of LEA report cards by 16 hours for each of these LEAs
not previously incorporated, or 62,128 hours.
Proposed Sec. 200.31(b)(2) would require each LEA to add an
overview to each report card. We anticipate that these requirements
would require a one-time increase in burden for each LEA of 80 hours,
for a total increase in burden across 16,970 LEAs of 1,357,600 hours.
Over the three-year period for which we seek approval, this would
result in an annual increase in burden of 452,533 hours.
Proposed Sec. Sec. 200.32 to 200.37 would establish requirements
regarding the ways in which LEAs calculate and report elements that are
currently required on the LEA report cards. However, we expect that the
increase in burden resulting from these required changes would be
addressed by similar required changes in the State's data system.
Therefore, we do not anticipate an increase in the burden on LEAs
resulting from these requirements.
Additionally, under 1810-0581, the Department is authorized to
collect information regarding requirements from the ESEA, as amended by
the NCLB, which are no longer applicable, such as restructuring plans
for schools that do not meet AYP. The Department also includes in this
information collection burden estimates for some reporting requirements
that we now intend to reduce, because these elements include data
system adjustments that have already happened. These changes result in
a total decrease in annual burden for LEAs of 1,261,039 hours. Overall,
based on the addition of new burden and the removal of burden that is
no longer applicable, the total burden for LEAs under 1810-0581 is
reduced by 786,070 hours.
Collection of Information From LEAs: Report Cards and Public Reporting
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB Control No. and
Regulatory section Information estimated change in
collection burden
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 200.21(b); Sec. The proposed OMB 1810-0581. The
200.21(d)(6); Sec. regulatory burden would
200.22(b); Sec. provisions would increase by 169,700
200.22(d)(2). require LEAs with hours.
schools identified
for comprehensive or
targeted support and
improvement to make
publicly available
the resulting plans
and any amendments
to these plans,
including notifying
parents of the
identification.
Sec. 200.31(a); Sec. Adjusted estimate OMB 1810-0581. The
200.31(c); Sec. regarding the burden burden would
200.31(d). hours for increase by 62,128
preparation and hours.
dissemination of LEA
report cards,
including the
requirement these
reports cards are
accessible to
parents.
Sec. 200.31(b)........... The proposed OMB 1810-0581. The
regulatory burden would
provisions would increase by 452,533
require LEAs to hours.
develop an overview
of the report cards.
None....................... Adjusted burden OMB 1810-0581. The
estimate, based upon burden would
changes to the decrease by 786,070
reporting hours.
requirements from
the ESEA, as amended
by the NCLB, to the
ESEA, as amended by
the ESSA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have prepared an Information Collection Request (ICR) for these
collections. If you want to review and comment on the ICR please follow
the instructions listed under the ADDRESSES section of this document.
Please note the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OMB) and
the Department review all comments on an ICR that are posted at
www.regulations.gov. In preparing your comments you may want to review
the ICR in www.regulations.gov or in www.reginfo.gov. The comment
period will run concurrently with the comment period for the proposed
regulations. When commenting on the information collection
requirements, we consider your comments on these collections of
information in--
[[Page 34597]]
Deciding whether the collections are necessary for the
proper performance of our functions, including whether the information
will have practical use;
Evaluating the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of
the collections, including the validity of our methodology and
assumptions;
Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the
information we collect; and
Minimizing the burden on those who must respond.
This includes exploring the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques.
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collections of
information contained in these proposed regulations between 30 and 60
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register.
Therefore, to ensure that OMB gives your comments full consideration,
it is important that OMB receives your comments by June 30, 2016. This
does not affect the deadline for your comments to us on the proposed
regulations.
ADDRESSES: Comments submitted in response to this document should be
submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
www.regulations.gov by selecting Docket ID ED-2016-OESE-0032 or via
postal mail commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please specify the
Docket ID number and indicate ``Information Collection Comments'' on
the top of your comments if your comment relates to the information
collections for the proposed regulations. Written requests for
information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be
addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance
Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW.,
Mailstop L-OM-2-2E319LBJ, Room 2E115, Washington, DC 20202-4537.
Comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the
comment period will not be accepted.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Electronically mail
[email protected]. Please do not send comments here.
Intergovernmental Review
This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the
regulations in 34 CFR part 79.
Assessment of Educational Impact
In accordance with section 411 of the General Education Provisions
Act, 20 U.S.C. 1221e-4, the Secretary particularly requests comments on
whether these proposed regulations would require transmission of
information that any other agency or authority of the United States
gathers or makes available.
Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print,
audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free
Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the
Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well
as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal
Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF
you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the
site.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Register by using the article search feature at:
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published
by the Department. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number does
not apply.)
List of Subjects
34 CFR Part 200
Elementary and secondary education, Grant programs--education,
Indians--education, Infants and children, Juvenile delinquency, Migrant
labor, Private schools, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
34 CFR Part 299
Administrative practice and procedure, Elementary and secondary
education, Grant programs--education, Private schools, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: May 23, 2016.
John B. King, Jr.,
Secretary of Education.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary of
Education proposes to amend parts 200 and 299 of title 34 of the Code
of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 200--TITLE I--IMPROVING THE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF THE
DISADVANTAGED
0
1. The authority citation for part 200 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6301 through 6376, unless otherwise noted.
Sec. 200.7 [Removed and Reserved]
0
2. Remove and reserve Sec. 200.7.
0
3. Section 200.12 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 200.12 Single statewide accountability system.
(a)(1) Each State must describe in its State plan under section
1111 of the Act that the State has developed and will implement,
beginning no later than the 2017-2018 school year, a single, statewide
accountability system that meets all requirements under paragraph (b)
of this section in order to improve student academic achievement and
school success among all public elementary and secondary schools,
including public charter schools.
(2) A State that submits an individual program State plan for
subpart A of this part under Sec. 299.13(j) must meet all application
requirements in Sec. 299.17.
(b) The State's accountability system must--
(1) Be based on the challenging State academic standards under
section 1111(b)(1) of the Act and academic assessments under section
1111(b)(2) of the Act, and include all indicators under Sec. 200.14;
(2) Be informed by the State's long-term goals and measurements of
interim progress under Sec. 200.13;
(3) Take into account the achievement of all public elementary and
secondary school students, consistent with Sec. Sec. 200.15 through
200.17 and 200.20;
(4) Be the same accountability system the State uses to annually
meaningfully differentiate all public schools in the State under Sec.
200.18, and to identify schools for comprehensive and targeted support
and improvement under Sec. 200.19; and
(5) Include the process the State will use to ensure effective
development and implementation of school support and improvement plans,
including evidence-based interventions, to hold all public schools
accountable for student academic achievement and school success
consistent with Sec. Sec. 200.21 through 200.24.
(c) The accountability provisions under this section must be
overseen for public charter schools in accordance with State charter
school law.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6311(c); 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3)
0
4. Remove the undesignated center heading ``Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP)'' following Sec. 200.12.
0
5. Section 200.13 is revised to read as follows:
[[Page 34598]]
Sec. 200.13 Long-term goals and measurements of interim progress.
In designing its statewide accountability system under Sec.
200.12, each State must establish long-term goals and measurements of
interim progress for, at a minimum, each of the following:
(a) Academic achievement. (1) Each State must describe in its State
plan under section 1111 of the Act how it has established ambitious
State-designed long-term goals and measurements of interim progress for
improved academic achievement, as measured by grade-level proficiency
on the annual assessments required under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) of
the Act, for all students and separately for each subgroup of students
described in Sec. 200.16(a)(2).
(2) In establishing the long-term goals and measurements of interim
progress under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, a State must--
(i) Apply the same high standards of academic achievement to all
public school students in the State, except as provided for students
with the most significant cognitive disabilities consistent with
section 1111(b)(1) of the Act;
(ii) Set the same multi-year timeline to achieve the State's long-
term goals for all students and for each subgroup of students;
(iii) Measure achievement separately for reading/language arts and
for mathematics; and
(iv) Take into account the improvement necessary for each subgroup
of students described in Sec. 200.16(a)(2) to make significant
progress in closing statewide proficiency gaps, such that the State's
measurements of interim progress require greater rates of improvement
for subgroups of students that are lower-achieving.
(b) Graduation rates. (1) Each State must describe in its State
plan under section 1111 of the Act how it has established ambitious
State-designed long-term goals and measurements of interim progress for
improved graduation rates for all students and separately for each
subgroup of students described in Sec. 200.16(a)(2).
(2) A State's long-term goals and measurements of interim progress
under paragraph (b)(1) of this section must include--
(i) The four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate consistent with
Sec. 200.34(a); and
(ii) If a State chooses to use an extended-year adjusted cohort
graduation rate as part of its Graduation Rate indicator under Sec.
200.14(b)(3), the extended-year adjusted cohort graduation rate
consistent with Sec. 200.34(d), except that a State must set more
rigorous long-term goals for such graduation rate, as compared to the
long-term goals for the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate.
(3) In establishing the long-term goals and measurements of interim
progress under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, a State must--
(i) Set the same multi-year timeline to achieve the State's long-
term goals for all students and for each subgroup of students; and
(ii) Take into account the improvement necessary for each subgroup
of students described in Sec. 200.16(a)(2) to make significant
progress in closing statewide graduation rate gaps, such that a State's
measurements of interim progress require greater rates of improvement
for subgroups that graduate high school at lower rates.
(c) English language proficiency. (1) Each State must describe in
its State plan under section 1111 of the Act how it has established
ambitious State-designed long-term goals and measurements of interim
progress for English learners toward attaining English language
proficiency, as measured by the English language proficiency assessment
required in section 1111(b)(2)(G) of the Act.
(2) The goals and measurements of interim progress under paragraph
(c)(1) of this section--
(i) Must set expectations that each English learner will--
(A) Make annual progress toward attaining English language
proficiency; and
(B) Attain English language proficiency within a period of time
after the student's identification as an English learner, except that
an English learner that does not attain English language proficiency
within such time must not be exited from English learner services or
status; and
(ii) Must be determined using a State-developed uniform procedure
applied consistently to all English learners in the State that takes
into consideration, at the time of a student's identification as an
English learner, the student's English language proficiency level, and
may take into consideration, at a State's discretion, one or more of
the following student characteristics:
(A) Time in language instruction educational programs.
(B) Grade level.
(C) Age.
(D) Native language proficiency level.
(E) Limited or interrupted formal education, if any.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6311(c); 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3)
0
6. Section 200.14 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 200.14 Accountability indicators.
(a) In its statewide accountability system under Sec. 200.12, each
State must, at a minimum, include four distinct indicators for each
school that--
(1) Measure performance for all students and separately for each
subgroup of students under Sec. 200.16(a)(2); and
(2) Use the same measures within each indicator for all schools in
the State, except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(b) A State must annually measure the following indicators
consistent with paragraph (a) of this section:
(1) For all schools, an Academic Achievement indicator which--
(i) Must equally measure grade-level proficiency on the annual
reading/language arts and mathematics assessments required under
section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) of the Act;
(ii) Must include the performance of at least 95 percent of all
students and 95 percent of all students in each subgroup consistent
with Sec. 200.15(b)(1); and
(iii) For high schools, may also measure, at the State's
discretion, student growth based on the reading/language arts and
mathematics assessments required under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) of
the Act.
(2) For elementary and secondary schools that are not high schools,
an Academic Progress indicator, which must include either--
(i) A measure of student growth based on the annual assessments
required under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) of the Act; or
(ii) Another academic measure that meets the requirements of
paragraph (c) of this section.
(3) For high schools, a Graduation Rate indicator, which--
(i) Must measure the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate
consistent with Sec. 200.34(a); and
(ii) May measure, at the State's discretion, the extended-year
adjusted cohort graduation rate consistent with Sec. 200.34(d).
(4) For all schools, a Progress in Achieving English Language
Proficiency indicator, based on English learner performance on the
annual English language proficiency assessment required under section
1111(b)(2)(G) of the Act in each of grades 3 through 8 and in grades
for which English learners are otherwise assessed under section
1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I)(bb) of the Act, that--
(i) Takes into account students' English language proficiency level
and,
[[Page 34599]]
at a State's discretion, one or more student characteristics in the
same manner in which the State determines its long-term goals for
English learners under Sec. 200.13(c)(2)(ii);
(ii) Uses objective and valid measures of progress such as student
growth percentiles;
(iii) Is aligned with the State-determined timeline for attaining
English language proficiency under Sec. 200.13(c)(2)(i)(B); and
(iv) May also include a measure of proficiency (e.g., an increase
in percentage of English learners scoring proficient on the English
language proficiency assessment required under section 1111(b)(2)(G) of
the Act compared to the prior year).
(5) One or more indicators of School Quality or Student Success
that meets the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section, which may
vary by each grade span and include indicators of one or more of the
following:
(i) Student access to and completion of advanced coursework.
(ii) Postsecondary readiness
(iii) School climate and safety.
(iv) Student engagement.
(v) Educator engagement.
(vi) Any other indicator the State chooses that meets the
requirements of paragraph (c) of this section.
(c) A State must demonstrate in its State plan under section 1111
of the Act that each measure it selects to include within an indicator
under this section--
(1) Is valid, reliable, and comparable across all LEAs in the
State;
(2) Is calculated in the same way for all schools across the State,
except that measures within the indicator of Academic Progress and
within any indicator of School Quality or Student Success may vary by
each grade span;
(3) Is able to be disaggregated for each subgroup of students
described in Sec. 200.16(a)(2); and
(4) Is used no more than once in its system of annual meaningful
differentiation under Sec. 200.18.
(d) A State must demonstrate in its State plan under section 1111
of the Act that each measure it selects to include within the
indicators of Academic Progress and School Quality or Student Success
is supported by research that performance or progress on such measures
is likely to increase student achievement or, for measures within
indicators at the high school level, graduation rates.
(e) A State must demonstrate in its State plan under section 1111
of the Act that each measure it selects to include within the
indicators of Academic Progress and School Quality or Student Success
aids in the meaningful differentiation of schools under Sec. 200.18 by
demonstrating varied results across all schools in the State.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6311(c); 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3)
0
7. Section 200.15 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 200.15 Participation in assessments and annual measurement of
achievement.
(a)(1) Each State must annually measure the achievement of at least
95 percent of all students, and 95 percent of all students in each
subgroup of students under Sec. 200.16(a)(2), who are enrolled in each
public school on the assessments required under section
1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) of the Act.
(2) Each State must measure participation rates under paragraph
(a)(1) of this section separately in reading/language arts and
mathematics.
(b) For purposes of annual meaningful differentiation under Sec.
200.18 and identification of schools under Sec. 200.19, a State must--
(1) Calculate any measure in the Academic Achievement indicator
under Sec. 200.14(b)(1) so that the denominator of such measure, for
all students and for all students in each subgroup, includes the
greater of--
(i) 95 percent of all such students in the grades assessed who are
enrolled in the school; or
(ii) The number of all such students enrolled in the school who are
participating in the assessments required under section
1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) of the Act; and
(2) Factor the requirement for 95 percent student participation in
assessments under paragraph (a) of this section into its system of
annual meaningful differentiation so that missing such requirement, for
all students or for any subgroup of students in a school, results in at
least one of the following actions:
(i) A lower summative rating in the State's system of annual
meaningful differentiation under Sec. 200.18(b)(4).
(ii) The lowest performance level on the Academic Achievement
indicator in the State's system of annual meaningful differentiation
under Sec. 200.18(b)(3).
(iii) Identification for, and implementation of, a targeted support
and improvement plan consistent with the requirements under Sec.
200.22.
(iv) Another equally rigorous State-determined action described in
its State plan under section 1111 of the Act that will result in a
similar outcome for the school in the system of annual meaningful
differentiation and will improve the school's participation rate so
that the school meets the requirements under paragraph (a) of this
section. (c) To support the State in meeting the requirements of
paragraph (a) of this section--
(1) A school that fails to assess at least 95 percent of all
students or 95 percent of each subgroup of students must develop and
implement an improvement plan that--
(i) Is developed in partnership with stakeholders (including
principals and other school leaders, teachers, and parents);
(ii) Includes one or more strategies to address the reason or
reasons for low participation rates in the school and improve
participation rates in subsequent years;
(iii) Is approved by the LEA prior to implementation; and
(iv) Is monitored, upon submission and implementation, by the LEA;
and
(2) An LEA with a significant number of schools that fail to assess
at least 95 percent of all students or 95 percent of each subgroup of
students must develop and implement an improvement plan that includes
additional actions to support effective implementation of the school-
level plans developed under paragraph (c)(1) and that is reviewed and
approved by the State.
(3) If a State chooses to identify a school for targeted support
and improvement under paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section, the
requirement for such a school to develop and implement a targeted
support and improvement plan consistent with Sec. 200.22 fulfills the
requirements of this paragraph.
(d)(1) A State must provide a clear and understandable explanation
of how it has met the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section in
its State plan under section 1111 of the Act and in its description of
the State's system for annual meaningful differentiation of schools on
its State report card pursuant to section 1111(h)(1)(C)(i)(IV) of the
Act.
(2) A State, LEA, or school may not systematically exclude students
in any subgroup of students under Sec. 200.16(a) from participating in
the assessments required under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) of the Act.
(3) To count a student who is assessed based on alternate academic
achievement standards described in section 1111(b)(1)(E) of the Act as
a participant for purposes of meeting the requirements of this section,
the State must have guidelines that meet the requirements described in
section 1111(b)(2)(D)(ii) of the Act and must ensure that its LEAs
adhere to such guidelines.
(4) A State may count a recently arrived English learner as defined
in section 1111(b)(3)(A) of the Act as a
[[Page 34600]]
participant in the State assessment in reading/language arts for
purposes of meeting the requirements in paragraph (a) of this section
if he or she takes either the State's English language proficiency
assessment under section 1111(b)(2)(G) of the Act or reading/language
arts assessment under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) of the Act.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)-(c); 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3)
0
8. Section 200.16 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 200.16 Subgroups of students.
(a) In general. In establishing long-term goals and measurements of
interim progress under Sec. 200.13, measuring performance on each
indicator under Sec. 200.14, annually meaningfully differentiating
schools under Sec. 200.18, and identifying schools under Sec. 200.19,
each State must include the following categories of students consistent
with the State's minimum number of students under Sec. 200.17(a)(1):
(1) All public school students.
(2) Each of the following subgroups of students, separately:
(i) Economically disadvantaged students.
(ii) Students from each major racial and ethnic group.
(iii) Children with disabilities, as defined in section 8101(4) of
the Act.
(iv) English learners, as defined in section 8101(20) of the Act.
(b) English learners. (1) With respect to a student previously
identified as an English learner who has achieved English language
proficiency consistent with the standardized, statewide entrance and
exit procedures in section 3111(b)(2)(A) of the Act--
(i) A State may include such a student's performance within the
English learner subgroup under paragraph (a)(2)(iv) of this section for
not more than four years after the student ceases to be identified as
an English learner for purposes of calculating the Academic Achievement
indicator if the State develops a uniform statewide procedure for doing
so that includes all such students and includes them--
(A) For the same State-determined period of time; and
(B) In determining if a school meets the State's minimum number of
students for the English learner subgroup under Sec. 200.17(a)(1).
(ii) A State may not include such a student within the English
learner subgroup under paragraph (a)(2)(iv) of this section for--
(A) Any purpose in the accountability system, except as described
in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section; or
(B) Purposes of reporting information on State and LEA report cards
under section 1111(h) of the Act, except for providing information on
each school's level of performance on the Academic Achievement
indicator consistent with Sec. 200.18(b)(3).
(2) With respect to an English learner with a disability for whom
there are no appropriate accommodations for one or more domains of the
English language proficiency assessment required under section
1111(b)(2)(G) of the Act because the disability is directly related to
that particular domain (e.g., a non-verbal English learner who cannot
take the speaking portion of the assessment) as determined by the
student's individualized education program (IEP) team or 504 team on an
individualized basis, a State must, in measuring performance against
the Progress in Achieving English Language Proficiency indicator,
include such a student's performance on the English language
proficiency assessment based on the remaining domains in which it is
possible to assess the student.
(3) With respect to a recently arrived English learner as defined
in section 1111(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a State must include such an
English learner's results on the assessments under section
1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) of the Act upon enrollment in a school in one of
the 50 States or the District of Columbia (hereafter ``a school in the
United States'') in calculating long-term goals and measurements of
interim progress under Sec. 200.13(a), annually meaningfully
differentiating schools under Sec. 200.18, and identifying schools
under Sec. 200.19, except that the State may either--
(i)(A) Exempt such an English learner from the first administration
of the reading/language arts assessment;
(B) Exclude such an English learner's results on the assessments
under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) and 1111(b)(2)(G) of the Act in
calculating the Academic Achievement and Progress in Achieving English
Language Proficiency indicators in the first year of such an English
learner's enrollment in a school in the United States; and
(C) Include such an English learner's results on the assessments
under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) and 1111(b)(2)(G) of the Act in
calculating the Academic Achievement and Progress in Achieving English
Language Proficiency indicators in the second year of such an English
learner's enrollment in a school in the United States and every year of
enrollment thereafter; or
(ii)(A) Assess, and report the performance of, such an English
learner on the assessments under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) of the Act
in each year of such an English learner's enrollment in a school in the
United States;
(B) Exclude such an English learner's results on the assessments
under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) of the Act in calculating the
Academic Achievement indicator in the first year of such an English
learner's enrollment in a school in the United States;
(C) Include a measure of such an English learner's growth on the
assessments under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) of the Act in calculating
the Academic Progress indicator, in the case of an elementary or middle
school, and the Academic Achievement indicator, in the case of a high
school, in the second year of such an English learner's enrollment in a
school in the United States; and
(D) Include a measure of such an English learner's proficiency on
the assessments under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) of the Act in
calculating the Academic Achievement indicator in the third year of
such an English learner's enrollment in a school in the United States
and every year of enrollment thereafter.
(4) A State may choose one of the exceptions described in
paragraphs (b)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section for recently arrived
English learners and must--
(i)(A) Apply the same exception to all recently arrived English
learners in the State; or
(B) Develop and consistently implement a uniform statewide
procedure for all recently arrived English learners that, in
determining whether such an exception is appropriate for an English
learner, considers the student's English language proficiency level and
that may, at a State's discretion, consider one or more of the student
characteristics under Sec. 200.13(c)(2)(ii)(B) through (E); and
(ii) Report on State and LEA report cards under section 1111(h) of
the Act the number and percentage of recently arrived English learners
who are exempted from taking such assessments or whose results on such
assessments are excluded from any indicator under Sec. 200.14 on the
basis of each exception described in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and (ii) of
this section.
(c) State plan. Each State must describe in its State plan under
section 1111 of the Act how it has met the requirements of this
section, including by describing any subgroups of students used in the
accountability system in addition to those in paragraph (a)(2) of this
section, its uniform procedure for including former English learners
under paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section, and
[[Page 34601]]
its uniform procedure for including recently arrived English learners
under paragraph (b)(4) of this section, if applicable.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)-(c), (h); 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3)
0
9. Section 200.17 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 200.17 Disaggregation of data.
(a) Statistically sound and reliable information. (1) Based on
sound statistical methodology, each State must determine the minimum
number of students sufficient to--
(i) Yield statistically reliable information for each purpose for
which disaggregated data are used, including purposes of reporting
information under section 1111(h) of the Act or for purposes of the
statewide accountability system under section 1111(c) of the Act; and
(ii) Ensure that, to the maximum extent practicable, each student
subgroup in Sec. 200.16(a)(2) is included at the school level for
annual meaningful differentiation and identification of schools under
Sec. Sec. 200.18 and 200.19.
(2) Such number--
(i) Must be the same number for all students and for each subgroup
of students in the State described in Sec. 200.16(a)(2);
(ii) Must be the same number for all purposes of the statewide
accountability system under section 1111(c) of the Act, including
measuring school performance for each indicator under Sec. 200.14;
(iii) Must not exceed 30 students, unless the State provides a
justification for doing so in its State plan under section 1111 of the
Act consistent with paragraph (a)(3)(v) of this section; and
(iv) May be a lower number for purposes of reporting under section
1111(h) under the Act than for purposes of the statewide accountability
system under section 1111(c) of the Act.
(3) A State must include in its State plan under section 1111 of
the Act--
(i) A description of how the State's minimum number of students
meets the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) of this section;
(ii) An explanation of how other components of the statewide
accountability system, such as the State's uniform procedure for
averaging data under Sec. 200.20(a), interact with the State's minimum
number of students to affect the statistical reliability and soundness
of accountability data and to ensure the maximum inclusion of all
students and each student subgroup under Sec. 200.16(a)(2);
(iii) A description of the strategies the State uses to protect the
privacy of individual students for each purpose for which disaggregated
data is required, including reporting under section 1111(h) of the Act
and the statewide accountability system under section 1111(c) of the
Act, as required in paragraph (b) of this section;
(iv) Information regarding the number and percentage of all
students and students in each subgroup described in Sec. 200.16(a)(2)
for whose results schools would not be held accountable in the State
accountability system for annual meaningful differentiation under Sec.
200.18; and
(v) If applicable, a justification, including data on the number
and percentage of schools that would not be held accountable for the
results of students in each subgroup under Sec. 200.16(a)(2) in the
accountability system, that explains how a minimum number of students
exceeding 30 promotes sound, reliable accountability determinations.
(b) Personally identifiable information. (1) A State may not use
disaggregated data for one or more subgroups under Sec. 200.16(a) to
report required information under section 1111(h) of the Act if the
results would reveal personally identifiable information about an
individual student, teacher, principal, or other school leader.
(2) To determine whether the collection and dissemination of
disaggregated information would reveal personally identifiable
information about an individual student, teacher, principal, or other
school leader, a State must apply the requirements under section 444 of
the General Education Provisions Act (the Family Educational Rights and
Privacy Act of 1974).
(3) Nothing in paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section may be
construed to abrogate the responsibility of a State to implement the
requirements of section 1111(c) of the Act to annually meaningfully
differentiate among all public schools in the State on the basis of the
performance of all students and each subgroup of students under section
1111(c)(2) of the Act on all indicators under section 1111(c)(4)(B) of
the Act.
(4) Each State and LEA must implement appropriate strategies to
protect the privacy of individual students in reporting information
under section 1111(h) of the Act and in establishing annual meaningful
differentiation of schools in its statewide accountability system under
section 1111(c) of the Act on the basis of disaggregated subgroup
information.
(c) Inclusion of subgroups in assessments. If a subgroup under
Sec. 200.16(a) is not of sufficient size to produce statistically
sound and reliable results, a State must still include students in that
subgroup in its State assessments under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(i) of the
Act.
(d) Disaggregation at the LEA and State. If the number of students
in a subgroup is not statistically sound and reliable at the school
level, a State must include those students in disaggregated information
at each level for which the number of students is statistically sound
and reliable (e.g., the LEA or State level).
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6311(c), (h); 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3)
0
10. Section 200.18 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 200.18 Annual meaningful differentiation of school performance.
(a) In its State plan under section 1111 of the Act each State must
describe how its statewide accountability system under Sec. 200.12
establishes a system for annual meaningful differentiation for all
public schools.
(b) A State must define annual meaningful differentiation in a
manner that--
(1) Includes the performance of all students and each subgroup of
students in a school, consistent with Sec. Sec. 200.16, 200.17, and
200.20(c), on each of the indicators described in Sec. 200.14;
(2) Includes, for each indicator, at least three distinct levels of
school performance that are consistent with attainment of the long-term
goals and measurements of interim progress under Sec. 200.13 and that
are clear and understandable to the public;
(3) Provides information on a school's level of performance on each
indicator described in Sec. 200.14, separately, as part of the
description of the State's system for annual meaningful differentiation
on LEA report cards under Sec. 200.32;
(4) Results in a single rating from among at least three distinct
rating categories for each school, based on a school's level of
performance on each indicator, to describe a school's summative
performance as part of the description of the State's system for annual
meaningful differentiation on LEA report cards under Sec. Sec. 200.31
and 200.32;
(5) Meets the requirements of Sec. 200.15 to annually measure the
achievement of at least 95 percent of all students and 95 percent of
all students in each subgroup of students on the assessments described
in section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) of the Act; and
(6) Informs the State's methodology described in Sec. 200.19 for
identifying schools for comprehensive support and
[[Page 34602]]
improvement and for targeted support and improvement.
(c) In providing annual meaningful differentiation among all public
schools in the State, including providing a single summative rating for
each school, a State must--
(1) Afford substantial weight to each of the following indicators,
as applicable, under Sec. 200.14--
(i) Academic Achievement indicator.
(ii) Academic Progress indicator.
(iii) Graduation Rate indicator.
(iv) Progress in Achieving English Language Proficiency indicator;
(2) Afford, in the aggregate, much greater weight to the indicators
in paragraph (c)(1) of this section than to the indicator or indicators
of School Quality or Student Success under Sec. 200.14(b)(5), in the
aggregate; and
(3) Within each grade span, afford the same relative weight to each
indicator among all schools consistent with paragraph (e)(3) of this
section.
(d) To show that its system of annual meaningful differentiation
meets the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section, a State must--
(1) Demonstrate that performance on the indicator or indicators of
School Quality or Student Success may not be used to change the
identity of schools that would otherwise be identified for
comprehensive support and improvement under Sec. 200.19(a) unless such
a school is also making significant progress, for all students
consistent with Sec. 200.16(a)(1), on at least one of the indicators
described in paragraph (c)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section;
(2) Demonstrate that performance on the indicator or indicators of
School Quality or Student Success may not be used to change the
identity of schools that would otherwise be identified for targeted
support and improvement under Sec. 200.19(b), unless such a school is
also making significant progress, for each consistently underperforming
or low-performing subgroup of students, on at least one of the
indicators described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section; and
(3) Demonstrate, based on the performance of all students and each
subgroup of students, that a school performing in the lowest
performance level under paragraph (b)(2) of this section on any of the
indicators described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section receives a
different summative rating than a school performing in the highest
performance level on all indicators under Sec. 200.14; and
(e)(1) A State must demonstrate in its State plan under section
1111 of the Act how it has met the requirements of paragraphs (c) and
(d) of this section, including a description of how a State calculates
the performance levels on each indicator and a summative rating for
each school.
(2) In meeting the requirement in paragraph (c)(1) of this section
to afford substantial weight to certain indicators, a State is not
required to afford each such indicator the same substantial weight.
(3) If a school does not meet the State's minimum number of
students under Sec. 200.17(a)(1) for the English learner subgroup, a
State must--
(i) Exclude the Progress in Achieving English Language Proficiency
indicator from the annual meaningful differentiation for such a school
under paragraph (b) of this section; and
(ii) Afford the Academic Achievement, Academic Progress, Graduation
Rate, and School Quality or Student Success indicators the same
relative weights in such a school as are afforded to such indicators in
a school that meets the State's minimum number of students for the
English learner subgroup.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6311(c), (h); 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3)
0
11. Section 200.19 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 200.19 Identification of schools.
(a) Schools identified for comprehensive support and improvement.
Based on its system for annual meaningful differentiation under Sec.
200.18, each State must establish and describe in its State plan under
section 1111 of the Act a methodology to identify one statewide
category of schools for comprehensive support and improvement under
Sec. 200.21, which must include, at a minimum, the following three
types of schools:
(1) Lowest-performing. The lowest-performing five percent of
elementary, middle, and high schools in the State participating under
subpart A of this part, based on each school's summative rating among
all students and consistent with the requirements of Sec. 200.18(c),
over no more than three years consistent with Sec. 200.20(a).
(2) Low high school graduation rate. Any public high school in the
State with a four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate, as calculated
under Sec. 200.34(a), below 67 percent, or below a higher percentage
selected by the State, over no more than three years consistent with
Sec. 200.20(a).
(3) Chronically low-performing subgroup. Any school participating
under subpart A of this part and identified pursuant to paragraph
(b)(2) of this section that has not improved, as defined by the State,
after implementing a targeted support and improvement plan over no more
than three years consistent with paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section.
(b) Schools identified for targeted support and improvement. Based
on its system for annual meaningful differentiation under Sec. 200.18,
each State must establish and describe in its State plan under section
1111 of the Act a methodology to identify schools for targeted support
and improvement under Sec. 200.22, which must include, at a minimum,
the following two types of schools:
(1) Consistently underperforming subgroup. Any school with one or
more consistently underperforming subgroups of students, as defined in
paragraph (c) of this section and consistent with Sec. Sec. 200.16 and
200.17, including at the State's discretion, any school identified due
to assessment participation rates under Sec. 200.15(b)(2)(iii)
consistent with Sec. 200.24(a)(1).
(2) Low-performing subgroup receiving additional targeted support.
Any school in which one or more subgroups of students is performing at
or below the summative level of performance of all students in any
school identified under paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(c) Methodology to identify consistently underperforming subgroups.
The State's methodology to identify schools with one or more
consistently underperforming subgroups of students under paragraph
(b)(1) of this section must--
(1) Consider each school's performance among each subgroup of
students in the school consistent with Sec. Sec. 200.16 and 200.17,
over no more than two years consistent with Sec. 200.20(a);
(2) Take into account the indicators under Sec. 200.14 used for
annual meaningful differentiation under Sec. 200.18 consistent with
the requirements for weighting of indicators described in Sec.
200.18(c); and
(3) Define a consistently underperforming subgroup of students in a
uniform manner across all LEAs in the State, which must include one or
more of the following:
(i) A subgroup of students that is not meeting the State's
measurements of interim progress or is not on track to meet the State-
designed long-term goals under Sec. 200.13.
(ii) A subgroup of students that is performing at the lowest
performance level under Sec. 200.18(b)(3) in the system of annual
meaningful differentiation on at least one indicator under Sec.
200.14, or is particularly low performing on a measure within an
indicator (e.g.,
[[Page 34603]]
student proficiency on the State mathematics assessments).
(iii) A subgroup of students that is performing at or below a
State-determined threshold as compared to the average performance among
all students, or the highest-performing subgroup of students, in the
State.
(iv) A subgroup of students that is performing significantly below
the average performance among all students, or the highest-performing
subgroup, in the State, such that the performance gap is among the
largest in the State.
(v) Another definition that the State demonstrates in its State
plan meets the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this
section.
(d) Timeline. (1)(i) A State must identify each type of school for
comprehensive support and improvement under paragraphs (a)(1) through
(3) of this section at least once every three years, beginning with
identification for the 2017-2018 school year, except that
identification of schools with chronically low-performing subgroups
under paragraph (a)(3) of this section is not required for the 2017-
2018 school year.
(ii) A State must identify schools with one or more consistently
underperforming subgroups of students for targeted support and
improvement under paragraph (b) of this section annually, beginning
with identification for the 2018-2019 school year.
(iii) A State must identify schools with one or more low-performing
subgroups of students for targeted support and improvement under
paragraph (b)(2) of this section at least once every three years, with
such identification occurring in each year, consistent with paragraph
(d)(1)(i) of this section, that the State identifies schools under for
comprehensive support and improvement, beginning with identification
for the 2017-2018 school year.
(2) A State must identify schools for comprehensive and targeted
support and improvement by the beginning of each school year, with the
year of identification defined as the school year immediately following
the most recent school year in which the State measured the school's
performance on the indicators under Sec. 200.14 that resulted in the
school's identification (e.g., data from the 2016-2017 school year
inform identification for the 2017-2018 school year).
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6311(c) and (d); 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3)
0
12. Section Sec. 200.20 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 200.20 Data procedures for annual meaningful differentiation and
identification of schools.
(a) Averaging data. For the purposes of meeting the requirements
for annual meaningful differentiation under Sec. 200.18 and
identification of schools under Sec. 200.19, a State may establish a
uniform procedure that includes one or both of the following:
(1) Averaging data across school years. (i) A State may average
data across up to three school years.
(ii) If a State averages data across school years for these
purposes, the State must--
(A) Use the same uniform procedure for averaging data from the
school year for which the identification is made with data from one or
two school years immediately preceding that school year for all public
schools;
(B) Report data for a single school year, without averaging, on
report cards under section 1111(h) of the Act; and
(C) Explain its uniform procedure for averaging data in its State
plan under section 1111 of the Act and specify that such procedure is
used in its description of the indicators used for annual meaningful
differentiation on the State report card pursuant to section
1111(h)(1)(C)(i)(III) of the Act.
(2) Combining data across grades. (i) A State may combine data
across grades in a school.
(ii) If a State combines data across grades for these purposes, the
State must--
(A) Use the same uniform procedure for combining data for all
public schools;
(B) Report data for each grade in the school on report cards under
section 1111(h) of the Act; and
(C) Explain its uniform procedure for combining data in its State
plan under section 1111 of the Act, and specify that such procedure is
used in its description of the indicators used for annual meaningful
differentiation in its accountability system on the State report card
pursuant to section 1111(h)(1)(C)(i)(III) of the Act.
(b) Partial enrollment. (1) In calculating school performance on
each of the indicators for the purposes of annual meaningful
differentiation under Sec. 200.18 and identification of schools under
Sec. 200.19, a State must include all students who were enrolled in
the same school within an LEA for at least half of the academic year.
(2) A State may not use the performance of a student who has been
enrolled in the same school within an LEA for less than half of the
academic year in its system of annual meaningful differentiation and
identification of schools, except that--
(i) An LEA must include such student in calculating the Graduation
Rate indicator under Sec. 200.14(b)(3), if applicable;
(ii) If such student exited a high school without receiving a
regular high school diploma and without transferring to another high
school that grants a regular high school diploma during such school
year, the LEA must assign such student, for purposes of calculating the
Graduation Rate indicator and consistent with the approach established
by the State under Sec. 200.34(f), to either--
(A) The high school in which such student was enrolled for the
greatest proportion of school days while enrolled in grades 9 through
12; or
(B) The high school in which the student was most recently
enrolled; and
(iii) All students, regardless of their length of enrollment in a
school within an LEA during the academic year, must be included for
purposes of reporting on the State and LEA report cards under section
1111(h) of the Act for such school year.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6311(c); 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3)
0
13. Section 200.21 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 200.21 Comprehensive support and improvement.
(a) In general. A State must notify each LEA in the State that
serves one or more schools identified for comprehensive support and
improvement under Sec. 200.19(a) of such identification no later than
the beginning of the school year for which such school is identified.
(b) Notice. Upon receiving the notification from the State under
paragraph (a) of this section, an LEA must promptly notify the parents
of each student enrolled in the school of the school's identification
for comprehensive support and improvement, including, at a minimum, the
reason or reasons for the identification under Sec. 200.19(a) (e.g.,
low performance of all students, low graduation rate, chronically low-
performing subgroup), and an explanation of how parents can become
involved in the needs assessment under paragraph (c) of this section
and in developing and implementing the comprehensive support and
improvement plan described in paragraph (d) of this section. Such
notice must--
(1) Be in an understandable and uniform format;
[[Page 34604]]
(2) Be, to the extent practicable, written in a language that
parents can understand or, if it is not practicable to provide written
translations to a parent with limited English proficiency, be orally
translated for such parent; and
(3) Be, upon request by a parent or guardian who is an individual
with a disability as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42
U.S.C. 12102, provided in an alternative format accessible to that
parent.
(c) Needs assessment. For each identified school, an LEA must
conduct, in partnership with stakeholders (including principals and
other school leaders, teachers, and parents), a comprehensive needs
assessment that examines, at a minimum--
(1) Academic achievement data on each of the assessments required
under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v) of the Act for all students in the
school, including for each subgroup of students described in Sec.
200.16(a)(2);
(2) The school's performance, including among subgroups of students
described in Sec. 200.16(a)(2), on the indicators and long-term goals
and measurements of interim progress described in Sec. Sec. 200.13 and
200.14;
(3) The reason or reasons the school was identified for
comprehensive support and improvement under Sec. 200.19(a); and
(4) At the LEA's discretion, the school's performance on
additional, locally selected indicators that are not included in the
State's system of annual meaningful differentiation under Sec. 200.18
and that affect student outcomes in the identified school.
(d) Comprehensive support and improvement plan. Each LEA must, with
respect to each school identified by the State for comprehensive
support and improvement, develop and implement a comprehensive support
and improvement plan for the school to improve student outcomes that--
(1) Is developed in partnership with stakeholders (including
principals and other school leaders, teachers, and parents), as
demonstrated, at a minimum, by describing in the plan how--
(i) Early stakeholder input was solicited and taken into account in
the development of the plan, including the changes made as a result of
such input; and
(ii) Stakeholders will participate in an ongoing manner in the
plan's implementation;
(2) Includes and is based on the results of the needs assessment
described in paragraph (c) of this section;
(3) Includes one or more interventions (e.g., increasing access to
effective teachers or adopting incentives to recruit and retain
effective teachers; increasing or redesigning instructional time;
interventions based on data from early warning indicator systems;
reorganizing the school to implement a new instructional model;
strategies designed to increase diversity by attracting and retaining
students from varying socioeconomic backgrounds; replacing school
leadership; in the case of an elementary school, increasing access to
high-quality preschool; converting the school to a public charter
school; changing school governance; closing the school; and, in the
case of a public charter school, revoking or non-renewing the school's
charter by its authorized public chartering agency consistent with
State charter school law) to improve student outcomes in the school
that--
(i) Meet the definition of ``evidence-based'' under section
8101(21) of the Act;
(ii) Are supported, to the extent practicable, by evidence from a
sample population or setting that overlaps with the population or
setting of the school to be served;
(iii) Are supported, to the extent practicable, by the strongest
level of evidence that is available and appropriate to meet the needs
identified in the needs assessment under paragraph (c) of this section;
and
(iv) May be selected from among any State-established evidence-
based interventions or a State-approved list of evidence-based
interventions, consistent with State law and Sec. 200.23(c)(2) and
(3);
(4) Identifies and addresses resource inequities, by--
(i) Including a review of LEA and school-level resources among
schools and, as applicable, within schools with respect to--
(A) Disproportionate rates of ineffective, out-of-field, or
inexperienced teachers identified by the State and LEA consistent with
sections 1111(g)(1)(B) and 1112(b)(2) of the Act; and
(B) Per-pupil expenditures of Federal, State, and local funds
required to be reported annually consistent with section
1111(h)(1)(C)(x) of the Act; and
(ii) Including, at the LEA's discretion, a review of LEA- and
school-level budgeting and resource allocation with respect to
resources described in paragraph (d)(4)(i) of this section and the
availability and access to any other resource provided by the LEA or
school, such as--
(A) Advanced coursework;
(B) Preschool programs; and
(C) Instructional materials and technology;
(5) Must be fully implemented in the school year for which such
school is identified, except that an LEA may have a planning year
during which the LEA must carry out the needs assessment required under
paragraph (c) of this section and develop the comprehensive support and
improvement plan to prepare for successful implementation of
interventions required under the plan on, at the latest, the first full
day of the school year following the school year for which the school
was identified;
(6) Must be made publicly available by the LEA, including to
parents consistent with the requirements under paragraphs (b)(1)
through (3) of this section; and
(7) Must be approved by the school identified for comprehensive
support and improvement, the LEA, and the State.
(e) Plan approval and monitoring. The State must, upon receipt from
an LEA of a comprehensive support and improvement plan under paragraph
(d) of this section--
(1) Review such plan against the requirements of this section and
approve the plan in a timely manner, as determined by the State, taking
all actions necessary to ensure that the school and LEA are able to
meet all of the requirements of paragraphs (a) through (d) of this
section to develop and implement the plan within the required
timeframe; and
(2) Monitor and periodically review each LEA's implementation of
such plan.
(f) Exit criteria. (1) To ensure continued progress to improve
student academic achievement and school success, the State must
establish uniform statewide exit criteria for each school implementing
a comprehensive support and improvement plan under this section. Such
exit criteria must, at a minimum, require that the school--
(i) Improve student outcomes; and
(ii) No longer meet the criteria for identification under Sec.
200.19(a) within a State-determined number of years (not to exceed four
years).
(2) If a school does not meet the exit criteria established under
paragraph (f)(1) of this section within the State-determined number of
years, the State must, at a minimum, require the LEA to conduct a new
comprehensive needs assessment that meets the requirements under
paragraph (c) of this section.
(3) Based on the results of the new needs assessment, the LEA must,
with respect to each school that does not meet the exit criteria, amend
its
[[Page 34605]]
comprehensive support and improvement plan described in paragraph (d)
of this section, in partnership with stakeholders consistent with the
requirements in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, to--
(i) Address the reasons the school did not meet the exit criteria,
including whether the school implemented the interventions with
fidelity and sufficient intensity, and the results of the new needs
assessment;
(ii) Update how it will continue to address previously identified
resource inequities and to identify and address any newly identified
resource inequities consistent with the requirements in paragraph
(d)(4) of this section; and
(iii) Include implementation of additional interventions in the
school that may address school-level operations (which may include
staffing, budgeting, and changes to the school day and year) and that
must--
(A) Be determined by the State, which may include requiring an
intervention from among any State-established evidence-based
interventions or a State-approved list of evidence-based interventions,
consistent with State law and Sec. 200.23(c)(2) and (3);
(B) Be more rigorous such that one or more evidence-based
interventions in the plan are supported by strong or moderate evidence,
consistent with section 8101(21)(A) of the Act; and
(C) Be supported, to the extent practicable, by evidence from a
sample population or setting that overlaps with the population or
setting of the school to be served.
(4) Each LEA must--
(i) Make the amended comprehensive support and improvement plan
described in paragraph (f)(3) of this section publicly available,
including to parents consistent with paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of
this section; and
(ii) Submit the amended plan to the State in a timely manner, as
determined by the State.
(5) After the LEA submits the amended plan to the State, the State
must--
(i) Review and approve the amended plan, and any additional
amendments to the plan, consistent with the review process required
under paragraph (e)(1) of this section; and
(ii) Increase its monitoring, support, and periodic review of each
LEA's implementation of such plan.
(g) State discretion for certain high schools. With respect to any
high school in the State identified for comprehensive support and
improvement under Sec. 200.19(a)(2), the State may--
(1) Permit differentiated improvement activities consistent with
paragraph (d)(3) of this section as part of the comprehensive support
and improvement plan, including in schools that predominantly serve
students--
(i) Returning to education after having exited secondary school
without a regular high school diploma; or
(ii) Who, based on their grade or age, are significantly off track
to accumulate sufficient academic credits to meet high school
graduation requirements, as established by the State; and
(2) In the case of such a school that has a total enrollment of
less than 100 students, permit the LEA to forego implementation of
improvement activities required under this section.
(h) Public school choice. Consistent with section 1111(d)(1)(D) of
the Act, an LEA may provide all students enrolled in a school
identified by the State for comprehensive support and improvement under
Sec. 200.19(a) with the option to transfer to another public school
that is served by the LEA and that is not identified for comprehensive
support and improvement under Sec. 200.19(a), unless such an option is
prohibited by State law or inconsistent with a Federal desegregation
order, in which case the LEA must petition and obtain court approval
for such transfers.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6311(d); 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3)
0
14. Section 200.22 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 200.22 Targeted support and improvement.
(a) In general. With respect to each school that the State
identifies under Sec. 200.19(b) as a school requiring targeted support
and improvement, each State must--
(1) Notify, no later than the beginning of the school year for
which such school is identified, each LEA serving such school of the
identification; and
(2) Ensure such LEA provides notification to each school identified
for targeted support and improvement, including the reason for
identification (i.e., the subgroup or subgroups under Sec.
200.16(a)(2) that are identified as consistently underperforming under
Sec. 200.19(b)(1), including, at the State's discretion, the subgroup
or subgroups that are identified under Sec. 200.15(b)(2)(iii), or the
subgroup or subgroups that are low-performing under Sec.
200.19(b)(2)), no later than the beginning of the school year for which
such school is identified.
(b) Notice. (1) Upon receiving the notification from the State
under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the LEA must promptly notify
the parents of each student enrolled in the school of the school's
identification for targeted support and improvement, consistent with
the requirements under Sec. 200.21(b)(1) through (3).
(2) The notice must include--
(i) The reason or reasons for the identification under Sec.
200.19(b) (i.e., which subgroup or subgroups are consistently
underperforming under Sec. 200.19(b)(1), including any subgroup or
subgroups identified under Sec. 200.15(b)(2)(iii) if the State chooses
to require such schools to implement targeted support and improvement
plans, or which subgroup or subgroups are low-performing under Sec.
200.19(b)(2)); and
(ii) An explanation of how parents can become involved in
developing and implementing the targeted support and improvement plan
described in paragraph (c) of this section.
(c) Targeted support and improvement plan. Upon receiving the
notification from the LEA under paragraph (a)(2) of this section, each
school must develop and implement a school-level targeted support and
improvement plan to address the reason or reasons for identification
and improve student outcomes for the lowest-performing students in the
school that--
(1) Is developed in partnership with stakeholders (including
principals and other school leaders, teachers, and parents) as
demonstrated by, at a minimum, describing in the plan how--
(i) Early stakeholder input was solicited and taken into account in
the development of each component of the plan, including the changes
made as a result of such input; and
(ii) Stakeholders will have an opportunity to participate in an
ongoing manner in such plan's implementation;
(2) Is designed to improve student performance for the lowest-
performing students on each of the indicators under Sec. 200.14 that
led to the identification of the school for targeted support and
improvement or, in the case of schools implementing targeted support
and improvement plans consistent with Sec. 200.15(b)(2)(iii), to
improve student participation in the assessments required under section
1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) of the Act;
(3) Takes into consideration--
(i) The school's performance on the indicators and long-term goals
and measurements of interim progress described in Sec. Sec. 200.13 and
200.14, including student academic achievement on each of the
assessments required under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v) of the Act; and
[[Page 34606]]
(ii) At the school's discretion, the school's performance on
additional, locally selected indicators that are not included in the
State's system of annual meaningful differentiation under Sec. 200.18
and that affect student outcomes in the identified school;
(4) Includes one or more interventions to address the reason or
reasons for identification and improve student outcomes for the lowest-
performing students in the school that--
(i) Meet the definition of ``evidence-based'' under section
8101(21) of the Act;
(ii) Are supported, to the extent practicable, by evidence from a
sample population or setting that overlaps with the population or
setting of the school to be served;
(iii) May be selected from among a State-approved list of evidence-
based interventions, consistent with Sec. 200.23(c)(2); and
(iv) Are supported, to the extent practicable, by the strongest
level of evidence that is available and appropriate to improve student
outcomes for the lowest-performing students in the school;
(5) Must be fully implemented in the school year for which such
school is identified, except that a school identified under Sec.
200.19(b)(2) or (c) may have a planning year during which the school
must develop the targeted support and improvement plan and complete
other activities necessary to prepare for successful implementation of
interventions required under the plan on, at the latest, the first full
day of the school year following the school year for which the school
was identified;
(6) Is submitted to the LEA for approval, pursuant to paragraph (d)
of this section;
(7) In the case of a school with low-performing subgroups as
described in Sec. 200.19(b)(2), identifies and addresses resource
inequities and their effect on each low-performing subgroup in the
school by--
(i) Including a review of LEA and school-level resources among
schools and, as applicable, within schools with respect to--
(A) Disproportionate rates of ineffective, out-of-field, or
inexperienced teachers identified by the State and LEA consistent with
sections 1111(g)(1)(B) and 1112(b)(2) of the Act; and
(B) Per-pupil expenditures of Federal, State, and local funds
required to be reported annually consistent with section
1111(h)(1)(C)(x) of the Act; and
(ii) Including, at the school's discretion, a review of LEA and
school-level budgeting and resource allocation with respect to
resources described in paragraph (c)(7)(i) of this section and the
availability and access to any other resource provided by the LEA or
school, such as--
(A) Advanced coursework;
(B) Preschool programs; and
(C) Instructional materials and technology; and
(8) For any school operating a schoolwide program under section
1114 of the Act, addresses the needs identified by the needs assessment
required under section 1114(b)(6) of the Act.
(d) Plan approval and monitoring. The LEA must, upon receipt of a
targeted support and improvement plan under paragraph (c) of this
section from a school--
(1) Review each plan against the requirements of this section and
approve such plan in a timely manner, taking all actions necessary to
ensure that each school is able to meet all of the requirements under
paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section within the required
timeframe;
(2) Make the approved plan, and any amendments to the plan,
publicly available, including to parents consistent with the
requirements under Sec. 200.21(b)(1) through (3); and
(3) Monitor the school's implementation of the plan.
(e) Exit criteria. Except with respect to schools described in
paragraph (f) of this section, the LEA must establish and make publicly
available, including to parents consistent with the requirements under
Sec. 200.21(b)(1) through (3), uniform exit criteria for schools
identified by the State under Sec. 200.19(b)(1) and use such criteria
to make one of the following determinations with respect to each such
school after a number of years as determined by the LEA:
(1) The school has successfully implemented its targeted support
and improvement plan such that it no longer meets the criteria for
identification and has improved student outcomes for its lowest-
performing students, including each subgroup of students that was
identified as consistently underperforming under Sec. 200.19(c), or,
in the case of a school implementing a targeted support and improvement
plan consistent with Sec. 200.15(b)(2)(iii), has met the requirement
under Sec. 200.15(a) for student participation in the assessments
required under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) of the Act, and may exit
targeted support and improvement status.
(2) The school has unsuccessfully implemented its targeted support
and improvement plan such that it has not improved student outcomes for
its lowest-performing students, including each subgroup of students
that was identified as consistently underperforming under Sec.
200.19(c), or, in the case of a school implementing a targeted support
and improvement plan consistent with Sec. 200.15(b)(2)(iii), has
failed to meet the requirement under Sec. 200.15(a) for student
participation in the assessments required under section
1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) of the Act, in which case the LEA must
subsequently--
(i) Require the school to amend its targeted support and
improvement plan to include additional actions that continue to meet
all requirements under paragraph (c) of this section and address the
reasons the school did not meet the exit criteria, and encourage
interventions that either meet a higher level of evidence under
paragraph (c)(4) of this section than the interventions included in the
school's original plan or increase the intensity of effective
interventions in the school's original plan;
(ii) Review and approve the school's amended plan consistent with
the review process required under paragraph (d)(1) of this section; and
(iii) Increase its monitoring and support of such school's
implementation of the plan.
(f) Special rule for schools with low-performing subgroups. (1)
With respect to any school participating under subpart A of this part
that has one or more low-performing subgroups as described in Sec.
200.19(b)(2), the State must establish uniform statewide exit criteria
that, at a minimum, ensure each such school--
(i) Improves student outcomes for its lowest-performing students,
including each subgroup identified as low-performing under Sec.
200.19(b)(2); and
(ii) No longer meets the criteria for identification under Sec.
200.19(b)(2).
(2) If a school does not satisfy the exit criteria established
under paragraph (f)(1) of this section, the State must identify the
school for comprehensive support and improvement under Sec.
200.19(a)(3), consistent with the requirement under Sec.
200.19(d)(1)(i) for States to identify such schools at least once every
three years.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6311(d); 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3)
0
15. Add Sec. 200.23 to read as follows:
Sec. 200.23 State responsibilities to support continued improvement.
(a) State support. Each State must, with respect to each LEA in the
State serving a significant number of schools identified for
comprehensive support
[[Page 34607]]
and improvement under Sec. 200.19(a) and each LEA in the State serving
a significant number of schools identified for targeted support and
improvement under Sec. 200.19(b), periodically review resource
allocation between LEAs and between schools, consider any inequities
identified under Sec. Sec. 200.21(d)(4) and 200.22(c)(7), and, to the
extent practicable, address any identified inequities in resources.
(b) State technical assistance. Each State must include in its
State plan under section 1111 of the Act a description of technical
assistance it will provide to each LEA in the State serving a
significant number of schools identified for comprehensive or targeted
support and improvement, including, at a minimum, a description of how
it will provide technical assistance to LEAs to ensure the effective
implementation of evidence-based interventions and support and increase
their capacity to successfully--
(1) Develop and implement comprehensive support and improvement
plans that meet the requirements of Sec. 200.21;
(2) Ensure schools develop and implement targeted support and
improvement plans that meet the requirements of Sec. 200.22; and
(3) Develop or use tools related to--
(i) Conducting a school-level needs assessment consistent with
Sec. 200.21(c);
(ii) Selecting evidence-based interventions consistent with
Sec. Sec. 200.21(d)(3) and 200.22(c)(4); and
(iii) Reviewing resource allocation and identifying strategies for
addressing any identified resource inequities consistent with
Sec. Sec. 200.21(d)(4) and 200.22(c)(7).
(c) Additional improvement actions. The State may--
(1) Take action to initiate additional improvement in any LEA, or
in any authorized public chartering agency consistent with State
charter school law, with a significant number of schools that are
consistently identified for comprehensive support and improvement under
Sec. 200.19(a) and are not meeting exit criteria established under
Sec. 200.21(f) or a significant number of schools identified for
targeted support and improvement under Sec. 200.19(b), including
school-level actions such as reorganizing a school to implement a new
instructional model; replacing school leadership; converting a school
to a public charter school; changing school governance; closing a
school; or, in the case of a public charter school, revoking or non-
renewing the school's charter consistent with State charter school law;
(2) Establish an exhaustive or non-exhaustive list of State-
approved, evidence-based interventions consistent with the definition
of evidenced-based under section 8101(21) of the Act for use in schools
implementing comprehensive or targeted support and improvement plans
under Sec. Sec. 200.21 and 200.22;
(3) Consistent with State law, establish evidence-based State-
determined interventions consistent with the definition of ``evidenced-
based'' under section 8101(21) of the Act that can be used by LEAs in a
school identified for comprehensive support and improvement under Sec.
200.19(a), which may include whole-school reform models; and
(4) Request that LEAs submit to the State for review and approval,
in a timely manner, the amended targeted support and improvement plan
for each school in the LEA described in Sec. 200.22(e)(2) prior to the
approval of such plan by the LEA.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6311(d); 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3)
0
16. Add Sec. 200.24 to read as follows:
Sec. 200.24 Resources to support continued improvement.
(a) In general. (1) A State must allocate school improvement funds
that it reserves under section 1003(a) of the Act to LEAs to serve
schools implementing comprehensive or targeted support and improvement
plans under Sec. Sec. 200.21 and 200.22, except that such funds may
not be used to serve schools implementing targeted support and
improvement plans consistent with Sec. 200.15(b)(2)(iii).
(2) An LEA may apply for school improvement funds if--
(i) It has one or more schools identified for comprehensive support
and improvement under Sec. 200.19(a) or targeted support and
improvement under Sec. 200.19(b); and
(ii) It applies to serve each school in the LEA identified for
comprehensive support and improvement that it has sufficient capacity
to serve before applying to serve any school in the LEA identified for
targeted support and improvement.
(b) LEA application. To receive school improvement funds under
paragraph (a) of this section, an LEA must submit an application to the
State to serve one or more schools identified for comprehensive or
targeted support and improvement. In addition to any other information
that the State may require, such an application must include each of
the following:
(1) A description of one or more evidence-based interventions that
are based on strong, moderate, or promising evidence under section
8101(21)(A) of the Act and that will be implemented in each school the
LEA proposes to serve.
(2) A description of how the LEA will carry out its
responsibilities under Sec. Sec. 200.21 and 200.22 for schools it will
serve with funds under this section, including how the LEA will--
(i) Develop and implement a comprehensive support and improvement
plan that meets the requirements of Sec. 200.21 for each school
identified under Sec. 200.19(a), for which the LEA receives school
improvement funds to serve; and
(ii) Support each school identified under Sec. 200.19(b), for
which the LEA receives school improvement funds to serve, in developing
and implementing a targeted support and improvement plan that meets the
requirements of Sec. 200.22.
(3) A budget indicating how it will allocate school improvement
funds among schools identified for comprehensive and targeted support
and improvement that it commits to serve.
(4) The LEA's plan to monitor schools for which the LEA receives
school improvement funds, including the LEA's plan to increase
monitoring of a school that does not meet the exit criteria consistent
with Sec. 200.21(f) or Sec. 200.22(e) and (f).
(5) A description of the rigorous review process the LEA will use
to recruit, screen, select, and evaluate any external partners with
which the LEA will partner in carrying out activities supported with
school improvement funds.
(6) A description of how the LEA will align other Federal, State,
and local resources to carry out the activities supported with school
improvement funds, and sustain effective activities in schools after
funding under this section is complete.
(7) As appropriate, a description of how the LEA will modify
practices and policies to provide operational flexibility, including
with respect to school budgeting and staffing, that enables full and
effective implementation of comprehensive targeted support and
improvement plans.
(8) For any LEA that plans to use the first year of its school
improvement funds for planning activities in a school that it will
serve, a description of the activities that will be supported with
school improvement funds, the timeline for implementing those
activities, how such timeline will ensure full implementation of the
comprehensive or targeted support and improvement
[[Page 34608]]
plan consistent with Sec. Sec. 200.21(d)(5) and 200.22(c)(5), and how
those activities will support successful implementation of
comprehensive or targeted support and improvement plans.
(9) An assurance that each school the LEA proposes to serve will
receive all of the State and local funds it would have received in the
absence of funds received under this section.
(c) Allocation of school improvement funds to LEAs. (1) A State
must review, in a timely manner, an LEA application for school
improvement funds that meets the requirements of this section.
(2) In awarding school improvement funds under this section, a
State must--
(i) Award the funds on a competitive or formula basis;
(ii) Make each award of sufficient size, with a minimum award of
$500,000 per year for each school identified for comprehensive support
and improvement to be served and a minimum award of $50,000 per year
for each school identified for targeted support and improvement to be
served, to enable the LEA to effectively implement all requirements of
a support and improvement plan under Sec. 200.21 or Sec. 200.22, as
applicable, including selected evidence-based interventions, except
that a State may determine that an award of less than the minimum award
amount is appropriate if the LEA demonstrates, in its application, that
such lesser amount will be sufficient to support effective
implementation of such plan; and
(iii) Make awards not to exceed four years, which may include a
planning year consistent with paragraph (b)(7) of this section during
which the LEA must plan to carry out activities that will be supported
with school improvement funds by, at the latest, the beginning of the
school year following the school year for which the school was
identified, and that will support the successful implementation of
interventions required under Sec. Sec. 200.21 and 200.22, as
applicable.
(3) If a State permits an LEA to have a planning year for a school
under paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section, prior to renewing the
LEA's school improvement award with respect to such school, the State
must review the performance of the LEA in supporting such school during
the planning year against the LEA's approved application and determine
that the LEA will be able to ensure such school fully implements the
activities and interventions that will be supported with school
improvement funds by the beginning of the school year following the
planning year.
(4) If a State has insufficient school improvement funds to award a
grant of sufficient size to each LEA that submits an approvable
application consistent with paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the State
must, whether awarding funds through a formula or competition--
(i) Award funds to an LEA applying to serve a school identified for
comprehensive support and improvement before awarding funds to an LEA
applying to serve a school identified for targeted support and
improvement;
(ii) Give priority in funding to an LEA that demonstrates the
greatest need for such funds, as determined by the State, and based, at
a minimum, on--
(A) The number or percentage of elementary and secondary schools in
the LEA implementing plans under Sec. Sec. 200.21 and 200.22;
(B) The State's review of resource allocation among and within LEAs
under Sec. 200.23(a); and
(C) Current academic achievement and student outcomes in the school
or schools the LEA is proposing to serve.
(iii) Give priority in funding to an LEA that demonstrates the
strongest commitment to use such funds to enable the lowest-performing
schools to improve academic achievement and student outcomes, taking
into consideration, with respect to the school or schools to be
served--
(A) The proposed use of evidence-based interventions that are
supported by the strongest level of evidence available; and
(B) Commitment to family and community engagement.
(iv) Take into consideration geographic diversity within the State.
(d) State responsibilities. (1) Each State must--
(i) Establish the method described in paragraph (c) of this section
that the State will use to allocate school improvement funds to LEAs;
(ii) Monitor the use of funds by LEAs receiving school improvement
funds;
(iii) Evaluate the use of school improvement funds by LEAs
receiving such funds including by, at a minimum--
(A) Engaging in ongoing efforts to analyze the impact of the
evidence-based interventions implemented using funds allocated under
this section on student outcomes or other relevant outcomes; and
(B) Disseminating on a regular basis the State's findings on
effectiveness of the evidence-based interventions to LEAs with schools
identified under Sec. 200.19;
(iv) Prior to renewing an LEA's award of school improvement funds
with respect to a particular school each year and consistent with
paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section, determine that--
(A) The school is making progress on the State's long-term goals
and measurements of interim progress and accountability indicators
under Sec. Sec. 200.13 and 200.14; and
(B) The school is implementing evidence-based interventions with
fidelity to the LEA's application and the requirements under Sec. Sec.
200.21 and 200.22, as applicable; and
(v) As appropriate, reduce barriers and provide operational
flexibility for each school in an LEA receiving funds under this
section, including flexibility around school budgeting and staffing.
(2) A State may--
(i) Set aside up to five percent of the school improvement funds
the State reserves under section 1003(a) of the Act to carry out the
activities under paragraph (d)(1) of this section; and
(ii) Directly provide for school improvement activities funded
under this section or arrange for their provision in a school through
external partners such as school support teams, educational service
agencies, or nonprofit or for-profit entities with expertise and a
record of success in implementing evidence-based strategies to improve
student achievement, instruction, and schools if the State has the
authority under State law to take over the school or, if the State does
not have such authority, with LEA approval with respect to each such
school, and--
(A) The State undertakes a rigorous review process in recruiting,
screening, selecting, and evaluating any external partner the State
uses to carry out activities directly with school improvement funds;
and
(B) The external provider has demonstrated success implementing the
evidence-based intervention or interventions that are based on strong,
moderate, or promising evidence consistent with section 8101(21)(A) of
the Act that it will implement.
(e) Reporting. The State must include on its State report card
required under section 1111(h)(1) of the Act a list of all LEAs, and
schools served by such LEAs, that received funds under this section,
including the amount of funds each LEA received to serve each such
school and the types of interventions implemented in each such school
with the funds.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6303; 20 U.S.C. 6311(d); 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3)
0
17. Revise the undesignated center heading following Sec. 200.29 to
read as follows:
State and LEA Report Cards
0
18. Section 200.30 is revised to read as follows:
[[Page 34609]]
Sec. 200.30 Annual State report card.
(a) State report cards in general. (1) A State that receives funds
under subpart A of this part must prepare and disseminate widely to the
public, consistent with paragraph (d) of this section, an annual State
report card for the State as a whole that meets the requirements of
this section.
(2) Each State report card must include, at a minimum--
(i) The information required under section 1111(h)(1)(C) of the
Act;
(ii) As applicable, for each authorized public chartering agency in
the State--
(A) How the percentage of students in each subgroup defined in
section 1111(c)(2) of the Act for each charter school authorized by
such agency compares to such percentage for the LEA or LEAs from which
the charter school draws a significant portion of its students, or the
geographic community within the LEA in which the charter school is
located, as determined by the State; and
(B) How academic achievement under Sec. 200.30(b)(2)(i)(A) for
students in each charter school authorized by such agency compares to
that for students in the LEA or LEAs from which the charter school
draws a significant portion of its students, or the geographic
community within the LEA in which the charter school is located, as
determined by the State; and
(iii) Any additional information that the State believes will best
provide parents, students, and other members of the public with
information regarding the progress of each of the State's public
elementary schools and secondary schools, which may include the number
and percentage of students requiring remediation in postsecondary
education and the number and percentage of students attaining career
and technical proficiencies.
(b) Format. (1) The State report card must be concise and presented
in an understandable and uniform format that is developed in
consultation with parents. Additionally, a State may choose to meets
its cross-tabulation requirements under section 1111(g) of the Act
through its State report cards.
(2) The State report card must begin with a clearly labeled
overview section that is prominently displayed and includes the
following statewide information for the most recent school year:
(i) For all students and disaggregated, at a minimum, for each
subgroup of students under Sec. 200.16(a)(2), results on--
(A) Each of the academic assessments in reading/language arts,
mathematics, and science under section 1111(b)(2) of the Act, including
the number and percentage of students at each level of achievement;
(B) Each measure included within the Academic Progress indicator
under Sec. 200.14(b)(2) for students in public elementary schools and
secondary schools that are not high schools;
(C) The four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate and, if adopted
by the State, any extended-year adjusted cohort graduation rate
consistent with Sec. 200.34; and
(D) Each measure included within the School Quality or Student
Success indicator under Sec. 200.14(b)(5).
(ii) The number and percentage of English learners achieving
English language proficiency, as measured by the English language
proficiency assessments under section 1111(b)(2)(G) of the Act.
(3) If the overview section required under paragraph (b)(2) of this
section does not include disaggregated data for each subgroup required
under section 1111(h)(1)(C) of the Act, a State must ensure that the
disaggregated data not included in the overview section are otherwise
included on the State report card.
(c) Accessibility. Each State report card must be in a format and
language, to the extent practicable, that parents can understand in
compliance with the requirements under Sec. 200.21(b)(1) through (3).
(d) Dissemination and availability. (1) A State must--
(i) Disseminate widely to the public the State report card by, at a
minimum, making it available on a single page of the SEA's Web site;
and
(ii) Include on the SEA's Web site--
(A) The report card required under Sec. 200.31 for each LEA in the
State; and
(B) The annual report to the Secretary required under section
1111(h)(5) of the Act.
(e) Timing of report card dissemination. (1) Beginning with report
cards based on information from the 2017-2018 school year, a State must
annually disseminate report cards required under this section for the
preceding school year no later than December 31.
(2) If a State cannot meet the December 31, 2018, deadline for
reporting some or all of the newly required information under section
1111(h)(1)(C) of the Act for the 2017-2018 school year, the State may
request from the Secretary a one-time, one-year extension for reporting
on those To receive an extension, a State must submit to the Secretary,
by July 1, 2018--
(i) Evidence satisfactory to the Secretary demonstrating that the
State cannot meet the deadline in paragraph (e)(1) of this section; and
(ii) A plan and timeline addressing the steps the State will take
to disseminate, as expeditiously as possible, report cards for the
2017-2018 school year consistent with this section.
(f) Disaggregation of data. (1) For the purpose of reporting
disaggregated data under section 1111(h) of the Act, the following
definitions apply:
(i) The term ``migrant status'' means status as a ``migratory
child'' as defined in section 1309(3) of the Act, which means a child
or youth who made a qualifying move in the preceding 36 months--
(A) As a migratory agricultural worker or a migratory fisher; or
(B) With, or to join, a parent or spouse who is a migratory
agricultural worker or a migratory fisher.
(ii) The term ``homeless status'' means status as ``homeless
children and youths'' as defined in section 725 of the McKinney-Vento
Homeless Assistance Act, which means individuals who lack a fixed,
regular, and adequate nighttime residence (within the meaning of
section 103(a)(1) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act) and
includes--
(A) Children and youths who are--
(1) Sharing the housing of other persons due to loss of housing,
economic hardship, or a similar reason;
(2) Living in motels, hotels, trailer parks, or camping grounds due
to the lack of alternative adequate accommodations;
(3) Living in emergency or transitional shelters; or
(4) Abandoned in hospitals;
(B) Children and youths who have a primary nighttime residence that
is a public or private place not designed for or ordinarily used as a
regular sleeping accommodation for human beings (within the meaning of
section 103(a)(2)(C) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act);
(C) Children and youths who are living in cars, parks, public
spaces, abandoned buildings, substandard housing, bus or train
stations, or similar settings; and
(D) Migratory children (as defined in this paragraph) who qualify
as homeless for the purposes of this section because they are living in
circumstances described in paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(A) through (C) of this
section.
(iii) With respect to the term ``status as a child in foster
care,'' the term ``foster care'' has the same meaning as defined in 45
CFR 1355(a), which means 24-hour substitute care for children
[[Page 34610]]
placed away from their parents and for whom the title IV-E agency has
placement and care responsibility. This includes, but is not limited
to, placements in foster family homes, foster homes of relatives, group
homes, emergency shelters, residential facilities, child care
institutions, and preadoptive homes. A child is in foster care in
accordance with this definition regardless of whether the foster care
facility is licensed and payments are made by the State, tribal, or
local agency for the care of the child, whether adoption subsidy
payments are being made prior to the finalization of an adoption, or
whether there is Federal matching of any payments that are made.
(iv) With respect to the term ``student with a parent who is a
member of the Armed Forces on active duty,'' the terms ``Armed Forces''
and ``active duty'' have the same meanings as defined in 10 U.S.C.
101(a)(4) and 101(d)(1):
(A) ``Armed Forces'' means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps,
and Coast Guard.
(B) ``Active duty'' means full-time duty in the active military
service of the United States, including full-time training duty, annual
training duty, and attendance, while in the active military service, at
a school designated as a service school by law or by the Secretary of
the military department concerned. Such term does not include full-time
National Guard duty.
(2) A State is not required to report disaggregated data for
information required on report cards under section 1111(h) of the Act
if the number of students in the subgroup is insufficient to yield
statistically sound and reliable information or the results would
reveal personally identifiable information about an individual student,
consistent with Sec. 200.17.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3; 6311(h))
0
19. Section Sec. 200.31 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 200.31 Annual LEA report card.
(a) LEA report cards in general. (1) An LEA that receives funds
under subpart A of this part must prepare and disseminate to the
public, consistent with paragraph (d) of this section, an annual LEA
report card that meets the requirements of this section and includes
information on the LEA as a whole and each school served by the LEA.
(2) Each LEA report card must include, at a minimum, the
information required under section 1111(h)(2)(C) of the Act.
(b) Format. (1) The LEA report card must be concise and presented
in an understandable and uniform format that is developed in
consultation with parents.
(2) Each LEA report card must begin with, for the LEA as a whole
and for each school served by the LEA, a clearly labeled overview
section that is prominently displayed and includes the following
information for the most recent school year:
(i) For all students and disaggregated, at a minimum, for each
subgroup of students required under Sec. 200.16(a)(2)--
(A) All information required under Sec. 200.30(b)(2);
(B) For the LEA, how academic achievement under Sec.
200.30(b)(2)(i)(A) compares to that for students in the State as a
whole; and
(C) For each school, how academic achievement under Sec.
200.30(b)(2)(i)(A) compares to that for students in the LEA and the
State as a whole.
(ii) For each school--
(A) The summative rating of the school consistent with Sec.
200.18(b)(4);
(B) Whether the school is identified for comprehensive support and
improvement under Sec. 200.19(a) and, if so, the reason for such
identification (e.g., lowest-performing school, low graduation rates);
and
(C) Whether the school is identified for targeted support and
improvement under Sec. 200.19(b) and, if so, each consistently
underperforming or low-performing subgroup for which it is identified.
(iii) Identifying information, including, but not limited to, the
name, address, phone number, email, student membership count, and
status as a participating Title I school.
(3) Each LEA must ensure that the overview section required under
paragraph (b)(2) of this section for each school served by the LEA can
be distributed to parents, consistent with paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this
section, on a single piece of paper.
(4) If the overview section required under paragraph (b)(2) of this
section does not include disaggregated data for each subgroup required
under section 1111(h)(1)(C) of the Act, an LEA must ensure that the
disaggregated data not included in the overview section are otherwise
included on the LEA report card.
(c) Accessibility. Each LEA report card must be in a format and
language, to the extent practicable, that parents can understand in
compliance with the requirements under Sec. 200.21(b)(1) through (3).
(d) Dissemination and availability. (1) An LEA report card must be
accessible to the public.
(2) At a minimum the LEA report card must be made available on the
LEA's Web site, except that an LEA that does not operate a Web site may
provide the information to the public in another manner determined by
the LEA.
(3) An LEA must provide the information described in paragraph
(b)(2) of this section to the parents of each student enrolled in each
school in the LEA--
(i) Directly, through such means as regular mail or email, except
that if an LEA does not have access to individual student addresses, it
may provide information to each school for distribution to parents; and
(ii) In a timely manner, consistent with the requirements under
paragraph (e) of this section.
(e) Timing of report card dissemination. (1) Beginning with report
cards based on information from the 2017-2018 school year, an LEA must
annually disseminate report cards under this section for the preceding
school year no later than December 31.
(2) If an LEA cannot meet the December 31, 2018, deadline for
reporting some or all of the newly required information under section
1111(h)(2)(C) of the Act for the 2017-2018 school year, a State may
request from the Secretary a one-time, one-year extension for reporting
on those elements on behalf of the LEA consistent with the requirements
under Sec. 200.30(e)(2).
(f) Disaggregation of data. For the purpose of reporting
disaggregated data under section 1111(h)(2)(C) of the Act, the
requirements under Sec. 200.30(f) apply to LEA report cards.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3; 6311(h))
0
20. Section 200.32 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 200.32 Description and results of a State's accountability
system.
(a) Accountability system description. Each State and LEA report
card must include a clear and concise description of the State's
current accountability system under Sec. Sec. 200.12 to 200.24. Each
accountability system description must include--
(1) The minimum number of students that the State establishes under
Sec. 200.17 for use in the accountability system;
(2) The long-term goals and measurements of interim progress that
the State establishes under Sec. 200.13 for all students and for each
subgroup of students, as described in Sec. 200.16(a)(2);
(3) The indicators used by the State under Sec. 200.14 to annually
meaningfully
[[Page 34611]]
differentiate among all public schools, including, if applicable, the
State's uniform procedure for averaging data across years or combining
data across grades consistent with Sec. 200.20;
(4) The State's system for annually meaningfully differentiating
all public schools in the State under Sec. 200.18, including--
(i) The specific weight, consistent with Sec. 200.18(c), of each
indicator described in Sec. 200.14(b) in such differentiation;
(ii) The way in which the State factors the requirement for 95
percent student participation in assessments under Sec. 200.15(a) into
its system of annual meaningful differentiation described in Sec. Sec.
200.15(b) and 200.18(b)(5);
(iii) The methodology by which the State differentiates all such
schools under Sec. 200.18(b), including information on the performance
levels and summative ratings provided by the State consistent with
Sec. 200.18(b)(3) and (4);
(iv) The methodology by which the State identifies a school for
comprehensive support and improvement as described in Sec. 200.19(a);
and
(v) The methodology by which the State identifies a school with one
or more consistently underperforming subgroups of students for targeted
support and improvement as described in Sec. 200.19(c), including the
time period used by the State to determine consistent underperformance
of a subgroup; and
(5) The exit criteria established by the State under Sec. Sec.
200.21(f) and 200.22(f), including the number of years by which a
school must meet the exit criteria.
(b) Reference to State plan. To the extent that a State plan or
another location on the SEA's Web site provides a description of the
accountability system elements required in paragraph (a)(1) through (5)
of this section that complies with the requirements under Sec.
200.21(b)(1) through (3), a State or LEA may provide the Web address or
URL of, or a direct link to, such State plan or location on the SEA's
Web site to meet the reporting requirement for such accountability
system elements.
(c) Accountability system results. (1) Each State and LEA report
card must include, as applicable, the number and names of each public
school in the State or LEA identified by the State for--
(i) Comprehensive support and improvement under Sec. 200.19(a); or
(ii) Targeted support and improvement under Sec. 200.19(b).
(2) For each school identified by the State for comprehensive
support and improvement under Sec. 200.19(a), the State and LEA report
card must indicate which of the following reasons led to such
identification:
(i) Lowest-performing school under Sec. 200.19(a)(1).
(ii) Low graduation rates under Sec. 200.19(a)(2).
(iii) One or more chronically low-performing subgroups under Sec.
200.19(a)(3), including the subgroup or subgroups that led to such
identification.
(3) For each school identified by the State for targeted support
and improvement under Sec. 200.19(b), the State and LEA report card
must indicate--
(i) Which subgroup or subgroups led to the school's identification;
and
(ii) Whether the school has one or more low-performing subgroups,
consistent with Sec. 200.19(b)(2).
(4) Each LEA report card must include, for each school served by
the LEA, the school's performance level consistent with Sec.
200.18(b)(3) on each indicator in Sec. 200.14(b) and the school's
summative rating consistent with Sec. 200.18(b)(4).
(5) If a State includes more than one measure within any indicator
under Sec. 200.14(b), the LEA report card must include each school's
results on each individual measure and the single performance level for
the indicator overall, across all such measures.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3; 6311(c), (h))
0
21. Section 200.33 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 200.33 Calculations for reporting on student achievement and
progress toward meeting long-term goals.
(a) Calculations for reporting student achievement results. (1)
Consistent with paragraph (a)(3) of this section, each State and LEA
report card must include the percentage of students performing at each
level of achievement under section 1111(b)(1)(A) of the Act (e.g.,
proficient, advanced) on the academic assessments under section
1111(b)(2) of the Act, by grade.
(2) Consistent with paragraph (a)(3) of this section, each LEA
report card must also--
(i) Compare the results under paragraph (a)(1) of this section for
students served by the LEA with students in the State as a whole; and
(ii) For each school served by the LEA, compare the results under
paragraph (a)(1) of this section for students enrolled in the school
with students served by the LEA and students in the State as a whole.
(3) Each State and LEA must include, with respect to each reporting
requirement under paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section--
(i) Information for all students;
(ii) Information disaggregated by--
(A) Each subgroup of students in Sec. 200.16(a)(2);
(B) Migrant status;
(C) Gender;
(D) Homeless status;
(E) Status as a child in foster care; and
(F) Status as a student with a parent who is a member of the Armed
Forces on active duty; and
(iii) Results based on both--
(A) The percentage of students at each level of achievement, in
which the denominator includes the greater of--
(1) 95 percent of all students, or 95 percent of each subgroup of
students, who are enrolled in the school, LEA, or State, respectively;
or
(2) The number of all such students enrolled in the school, LEA, or
State, respectively, who participate in the assessments required under
section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v) of the Act; and
(B) The percentage of students at each level of achievement, in
which the denominator includes all students with a valid test score.
(b) Calculation for reporting on the progress of all students and
each subgroup of students toward meeting the State-designed long-term
academic achievement goals. (1) Each State and LEA report card must
indicate whether all students and each subgroup of students described
in Sec. 200.16(a)(2) met or did not meet the State measurements of
interim progress for academic achievement under Sec. 200.13(a).
(2) To meet the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this section,
each State and LEA must calculate the percentage of students who are
proficient and above on the State assessments required under section
1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) of the Act based on a denominator that includes the
greater of--
(i) 95 percent of all students, and 95 percent of each subgroup of
students, who are enrolled in the school, LEA, or State, respectively;
or
(ii) The number of all such students enrolled in the school, LEA,
or State, respectively who participate in the assessments required
under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) of the Act.
(c) Calculation for reporting the percentage of students assessed
and not assessed. (1) Each State and LEA report card must include the
percentage of all students, and the percentage of students
disaggregated by each subgroup of students described in Sec.
200.16(a)(2), gender, and migrant status, assessed and not assessed on
the assessments required under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v) of the Act.
[[Page 34612]]
(2) To meet the requirements of paragraph (c)(1) of this section,
each State and LEA must include in the denominator of the calculation
all students enrolled in the school, LEA, or State, respectively, at
the time of testing.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3; 6311(c), (h))
0
22. Section 200.34 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 200.34 High school graduation rate.
(a) Four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate. A State must
calculate a four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate for each public
high school in the State in the following manner:
(1) The numerator must consist of the sum of--
(i) All students who graduate in four years with a regular high
school diploma; and
(ii) All students with the most significant cognitive disabilities
in the cohort, assessed using an alternate assessment aligned to
alternate academic achievement standards under section 1111(b)(2)(D) of
the Act and awarded a State-defined alternate diploma.
(2) The denominator must consist of the number of students who form
the adjusted cohort of entering first-time students in grade 9 enrolled
in the high school no later than the date by which student membership
data is collected annually by the State for submission to the National
Center for Education Statistics.
(3) For those high schools that start after grade 9, the cohort
must be calculated based on the earliest high school grade students
attend.
(b) Adjusting the cohort. (1) ``Adjusted cohort'' means the
students who enter grade 9 (or the earliest high school grade) plus any
students who transfer into the cohort in grades 9 through 12, and minus
any students removed from the cohort.
(2) ``Students who transfer into the cohort'' means the students
who enroll after the beginning of the date of the determination of the
cohort, up to and including in grade 12.
(3) To remove a student from the cohort, a school or LEA must
confirm in writing that the student--
(i) Transferred out, such that the school or LEA has official
written documentation that the student enrolled in another school or
educational program that culminates in the award of a regular high
school diploma, or a State-defined alternate diploma for students with
the most significant cognitive disabilities;
(ii) Emigrated to another country;
(iii) Transferred to a prison or juvenile facility and participates
in an educational program that culminates in the award of a regular
high school diploma, or State-defined alternate diploma for students
with the most significant cognitive disabilities; or
(iv) Is deceased.
(4) A student who is retained in grade, enrolls in a general
equivalency diploma program or other alternative education program that
does not issue or provide credit toward the issuance of a regular high
school diploma or a State-defined alternate diploma, or leaves school
for any reason other than those described in paragraph (b)(3) of this
section may not be counted as having transferred out for the purpose of
calculating the graduation rate and must remain in the adjusted cohort.
(c) Definition of terms. For the purposes of calculating an
adjusted cohort graduation rate under this section--
(1) ``Students who graduate in four years'' means students who earn
a regular high school diploma at the conclusion of their fourth year,
before the conclusion of their fourth year, or during a summer session
immediately following their fourth year.
(2) ``Regular high school diploma'' means the standard high school
diploma awarded to the preponderance of students in the State that is
fully aligned with State standards, or a higher diploma, except that a
regular high school diploma shall not be aligned to the alternate
academic achievement standards described in section 1111(b)(1)(E) of
the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA; and does not include a general
equivalency diploma, certificate of completion, certificate of
attendance, or any similar or lesser credential, such as a diploma
based on meeting individualized education program (IEP) goals that are
not fully aligned with the State's grade-level academic content
standards.
(3) ``Alternate diploma'' means a diploma for students with the
most significant cognitive disabilities, consistent with the State's
definition under the proposed requirement in Sec. 200.6(d)(1) that was
subject to negotiated rulemaking under the ESSA and on which the
negotiated rulemaking committee reached consensus, who are assessed
with a State's alternate assessment aligned to alternate academic
achievement standards under section 1111(b)(2)(D) of the Act and is--
(i) Standards-based;
(ii) Aligned with the State's requirements for a regular high
school diploma; and
(iii) Obtained within the time period for which the State ensures
the availability of a free appropriate public education under section
612(a)(1) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C.
11412(a)(1)).
(d) Extended-year adjusted cohort graduation rate. In addition to
calculating a four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate, a State may
calculate and report an extended-year adjusted cohort graduation rate.
(1) ``Extended-year adjusted cohort graduation rate'' means the
number of students who graduate in one or more additional years beyond
the fourth year of high school with a regular high school diploma or a
State-defined alternate diploma, divided by the number of students who
form the adjusted cohort for the four-year adjusted cohort graduation
rate, provided that the adjustments account for any students who
transfer into the cohort by the end of the year of graduation being
considered minus the number of students who transfer out, emigrate to
another country, transfer to a prison or juvenile facility, or are
deceased, as described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
(2) A State may calculate one or more extended-year adjusted cohort
graduation rates, except that no extended-year adjusted cohort
graduation rate may be for a cohort period longer than seven years.
(e) Reporting on State and LEA report cards. (1) A State and LEA
report card must include, at the school, LEA, and State levels--
(i) Four-year adjusted cohort graduation rates and, if adopted by
the State, extended-year adjusted cohort graduation rates for all
students and disaggregated by each subgroup of students in Sec.
200.16(a)(2), homeless status, and status as a child in foster care.
(ii) Whether all students and each subgroup of students described
in Sec. 200.16(a)(2) met or did not meet the State measurements of
interim progress for graduation rates under Sec. 200.13(b).
(2) A State and its LEAs must report the four-year adjusted cohort
graduation rate and, if adopted by the State, extended-year adjusted
cohort graduation rate that reflects results of the immediately
preceding school year.
(3) If a State adopts an extended-year adjusted cohort graduation
rate, the State and its LEAs must report the extended-year adjusted
cohort graduation rate separately from the four-year adjusted cohort
graduation rate.
(4) A State that offers an alternate diploma for students with the
most significant cognitive disabilities within the time period for
which the State ensures the availability of a free appropriate public
education must--
[[Page 34613]]
(i) Not delay the timely reporting of graduation rates under
paragraph (e)(2) of this section; and
(ii) Annually update the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rates
and, if adopted by the State, extended-year adjusted cohort graduation
rates reported for a given year to include in the numerator any
students with the most significant cognitive disabilities who obtain a
State-defined alternate diploma within the time period for which the
State ensures the availability of a free appropriate public education.
(f) Partial school enrollment. Each State must apply the same
approach in all LEAs to determine whether students who are enrolled in
the same school for less than half of the academic year as described in
Sec. 200.20(b) who exit high school without a regular high school
diploma and do not transfer into another high school that grants a
regular high school diploma are counted in the denominator for
reporting the adjusted cohort graduation rate--
(1) At the school in which such student was enrolled for the
greatest proportion of school days while enrolled in grades 9 through
12; or
(2) At the school in which the student was most recently enrolled.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3; 6311(h); 7801(23), (25))
0
23. Section 200.35 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 200.35 Per-pupil expenditures.
(a) State report card requirements. (1) Each State report card must
include the following:
(i) Current expenditures per pupil from Federal, State, and local
funds, for the preceding fiscal year, consistent with the timeline in
Sec. 200.30(e), for each LEA in the State, and for each school served
by each LEA--
(A) In the aggregate; and
(B) Disaggregated by source of funds, including--
(1) Federal funds; and
(2) State and local funds combined (including Impact Aid funds),
which must not include funds received from private sources.
(ii) The Web address or URL of, or direct link to, a description of
the uniform procedure required under paragraph (c) of this section that
complies with the requirements under Sec. 200.21(b)(1) through (3).
(2) Each State report card must also separately include, for each
LEA, the amount of current expenditures per pupil that were not
allocated to public schools in the LEA.
(b) LEA report card requirements. (1) Each LEA report card must
include the following:
(i) Current expenditures per pupil from Federal, State, and local
funds, for the preceding fiscal year, consistent with the timeline in
Sec. 200.31(e), for the LEA and each school served by the LEA--
(A) In total (Federal, State, and local funds); and
(B) Disaggregated by source of funds, including--
(1) Federal funds; and
(2) State and local funds combined (including Impact Aid funds),
which must not include funds received from private sources.
(ii) The Web address or URL of, or direct link to, a description of
the uniform procedure required under paragraph (c) of this section.
(2) Each LEA report card must also separately include the amount of
current expenditures per pupil that were not allocated to public
schools in the LEA.
(c) Uniform procedures. A State must develop a single statewide
procedure to calculate LEA current expenditures per pupil and a single
statewide procedure to calculate school-level current expenditures per
pupil, such that--
(1) The numerator consists of current expenditures, which means
actual personnel costs (including actual staff salaries) and actual
nonpersonnel expenditures of Federal, State, and local funds, used for
public education--
(i) Including, but not limited to, expenditures for administration,
instruction, instructional support, student support services, pupil
transportation services, operation and maintenance of plant, fixed
charges, and preschool, and net expenditures to cover deficits for food
services and student body activities; but
(ii) Not including expenditures for community services, capital
outlay, and debt service; and
(2) The denominator consists of the aggregate number of students in
elementary and secondary schools to whom the State and LEA provide free
public education on October 1, consistent with the student membership
data collected annually by States for submission to the National Center
for Education Statistics.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3; 6311(h))
0
24. Section 200.36 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 200.36 Postsecondary enrollment.
(a) Reporting information on postsecondary enrollment. (1) Each
State and LEA report card must include the information at the SEA, LEA
and school level on postsecondary enrollment required under section
1111(h)(1)(C)(xiii) of the Act, where available, consistent with
paragraph (c) of this section. This information must include, for each
high school in the State (in the case of a State report card) and for
each high school in the LEA (in the case of an LEA report card), the
cohort rate (for all students and each subgroup of students under
section Sec. 200.16(a)(2)) at which students who graduate from high
school enroll in programs of postsecondary education, including--
(i) Programs of public postsecondary education in the State; and
(ii) If data are available and to the extent practicable, programs
of private postsecondary education in the State or programs of
postsecondary education outside the State.
(2) For the purposes of this section, ``programs of postsecondary
education'' has the same meaning as the term ``institution of higher
education'' under section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965,
as amended.
(b) Calculating postsecondary enrollment. To meet the requirements
of paragraph (a) of this section, each State and each LEA must
calculate the cohort rate in the following manner:
(1) The numerator must consist of the number of students who enroll
in a program of postsecondary education in the academic year
immediately following the students' high school graduation.
(2) The denominator must consist of the number of students who
graduated with a regular high school diploma or a State-defined
alternate diploma from each high school in the State, in accordance
with Sec. 200.34, in the immediately preceding school year.
(c) Information availability. (1) For the purpose of paragraph (a)
of this section, information is ``available'' if either--
(i) The State is routinely obtaining the information; or
(ii) The information is obtainable by the State on a routine basis.
(2) If the postsecondary enrollment information described in
paragraph (a) of this section is not available or is partially
available, the State and LEA report cards must include the school year
in which such information is expected to be fully available.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1001; 1221e-3; 6311(h))
0
25. Section 200.37 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 200.37 Educator qualifications.
(a) Professional qualifications of educators in the State. Each
State and LEA report card must include, in the aggregate and
disaggregated by high-
[[Page 34614]]
poverty and low-poverty schools, the number and percentage of the
following:
(1) Inexperienced teachers, principals, and other school leaders;
(2) Teachers teaching with emergency or provisional credentials;
and
(3) Teachers who are not teaching in the subject or field for which
the teacher is certified or licensed.
(b) Uniform definitions. To meet the requirements of paragraph (a)
of this section--
(1) ``High-poverty schools'' means schools in the top quartile of
poverty in the State and ``low-poverty schools'' means schools in the
bottom quartile of poverty in the State; and
(2) Each State must adopt, and the State and each LEA in the State
must use, a statewide definition of the term ``inexperienced'' and of
the phrase ``not teaching in the subject or field for which the teacher
is certified or licensed.''
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3; 6311(h))
Sec. Sec. 200.38 through 200.42 [Removed and Reserved]
0
26. Remove and reserve Sec. Sec. 200.38 through 200.42.
0
27. Add an undesignated center heading following reserved Sec. 200.42
to read as follows:
Other State Plan Provisions
Sec. 200.43 [Removed]
0
28. Remove Sec. 200.43.
Sec. 200.58 [Redesignated as Sec. 200.43]
0
29. Redesignate Sec. 200.58 as Sec. 200.43.
Sec. Sec. 200.44 through 200.47 [Removed and Reserved]
0
30. Remove and reserve Sec. Sec. 200.44 through 200.47.
0
31. Add an undesignated center heading following reserved Sec. 200.47
to read as follows:
Local Educational Agency Plans
Sec. 200.48 [Removed]
0
32. Remove Sec. 200.48.
Sec. 200.61 [Redesignated as 200.48]
0
33. Redesignate Sec. 200.61 as Sec. 200.48.
Sec. Sec. 200.49 through 200.53 [Removed and Reserved]
0
34. Remove and reserve Sec. Sec. 200.49 through 200.53.
0
35. Add an undesignated center heading following reserved Sec. 200.54
to read as follows:
Participation of Eligible Children in Private Schools
Sec. Sec. 200.55 through 200.57 [Removed and Reserved]
0
36. Remove Sec. Sec. 200.55 through 200.57.
Sec. Sec. 200.62 through 200.64 [Redesignated as Sec. Sec. 200.55
through 200.57]
0
37. Redesignate Sec. Sec. 200.62 through 200.64 as Sec. Sec. 200.55
through 200.57.
Sec. Sec. 200.58 through 200.60 [Removed]
0
38. Remove Sec. Sec. 200.58 through 200.60.
Sec. 200.65 [Redesignated as Sec. 200.58]
0
39. Redesignate Sec. 200.65 as Sec. 200.58.
Sec. Sec. 200.66 through 200.67 [Redesignated as Sec. Sec. 200.59
through 200.60]
0
40. Redesignate Sec. Sec. 200.66 through 200.67 as Sec. Sec. 200.59
through 200.60.
Sec. 200.61 [Reserved]
0
41. Add reserved Sec. Sec. 200.61.
Sec. 200.62 [Removed and Reserved]
0
42. Remove and reserve Sec. 200.62.
0
43. Add an undesignated center heading following reserved Sec. 200.62
to read as follows:
Allocations to LEAs
Sec. Sec. 200.63 through 200.67 [Removed]
0
44. Remove Sec. Sec. 200.63 through 200.67.
Sec. Sec. 200.70 through 200.75 [Redesignated as Sec. Sec. 200.63
through 200.68]
0
45. Redesignate Sec. Sec. 200.70 through 200.75 as Sec. Sec. 200.63
through 200.68.
0
46. Add an undesignated center heading following reserved Sec. 200.69
to read as follows:
Procedures for the Within-District Allocation of LEA Program Funds
Sec. Sec. 200.77 and 200.78 [Redesignated as Sec. Sec. 200.70 and
200.71]
0
47. Redesignate Sec. Sec. 200.77 and 200.78 as Sec. Sec. 200.70 and
200.71.
0
48. Add an undesignated center heading following Sec. 200.71 to read
as follows:
Fiscal Requirements
Sec. 200.79 [Redesignated as Sec. 200.73]
0
49. Redesignate Sec. 200.79 as Sec. 200.73.
Sec. 200.79 [Reserved]
0
50. Add reserved Sec. 200.79.
PART 299--GENERAL PROVISIONS
0
51. The authority citation for part 299 is revised to read as follows:
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3(a)(1), unless otherwise noted)
0
52. Add Subpart G to read as follows:
Subpart G--State Plans
Sec.
299.13 Overview of State Plan Requirements.
299.14 Requirements for the consolidated State plan.
299.15 Consultation and coordination.
299.16 Challenging academic standards and academic assessments.
299.17 Accountability, support, and improvement for schools.
299.18 Supporting excellent educators.
299.19 Supporting all students.
Subpart G--State Plans
Sec. 299.13 Overview of State plan requirements.
(a) In general. In order to receive a grant under a program
identified in paragraph (j) of this section, an SEA must submit a State
plan that meets the requirements in this section and:
(1) Consolidated State plan requirements detailed in Sec. Sec.
299.14 to 299.19; or
(2) Individual program application requirements under the Act
(hereinafter ``individual program State plan'') as detailed in
paragraph (k) of this section.
(b) Timely and meaningful consultation. In developing, revising, or
amending a consolidated State plan or an individual program State plan,
an SEA must engage in timely and meaningful consultation with
stakeholders. To satisfy its obligations under this paragraph, each SEA
must--
(1) Provide public notice, in a format and language, to the extent
practicable, that the public can access and understand in compliance
with the requirements under Sec. 200.21(b)(1) through (3), of the
SEA's processes and procedures for developing and adopting its
consolidated State plan or individual program State plan.
(2) Conduct outreach to, and solicit input from, the individuals
and entities listed in Sec. 299.15(a) for submission of a consolidated
State plan or the individuals and entities listed in the applicable
statutes for submission of an individual program State plan--
(i) During the design and development of the SEA's plan to
implement the programs included in paragraph (j) of this section;
(ii) Prior to submission of the consolidated State plan or
individual program State plan by making the plan available for public
comment for a period of not less than 30 days; and
(iii) Prior to the submission of any revisions or amendments to the
consolidated State plan or individual program State plan.
(3) Describe how the consultation and public comment were taken
into account in the consolidated State plan or individual program State
plan submitted for approval, including--
(i) How the SEA addressed the issues and concerns raised through
consultation and public comment; and
(ii) Any changes made as a result of consultation and public
comment.
(4) Meet the requirements under section 8540 of the Act regarding
[[Page 34615]]
consultation with the Governor, or appropriate officials from the
Governor's office, including consultation during the development of a
consolidated State plan or individual title I or title II State plan
and prior to submission of such plan to the Secretary and procedures
regarding the signature of such plan.
(c) Assurances. An SEA that submits either a consolidated State
plan or an individual program State plan must submit to the Secretary
the assurances included in section 8304 of the Act. An SEA also must
include the following assurances when submitting either a consolidated
State plan or an individual program State plan for the following
programs:
(1) Title I, part A. (i) The SEA will assure that, in applying the
same approach in all LEAs to determine whether students who are
enrolled in the same school for less than half of the academic year as
described in Sec. 200.20(b) who exit high school without a regular
high school diploma and do not transfer into another high school that
grants a regular high school diploma are counted in the denominator for
reporting the adjusted cohort graduation rate using one of the
following:
(A) At the school in which such student was enrolled for the
greatest proportion of school days while enrolled in grades 9 through
12; or
(B) At the school in which the student was most recently enrolled.
(ii) The SEA will ensure that an LEA receiving funds under title I,
part A of the Act will provide children in foster care transportation,
as necessary, to and from their schools of origin, consistent with the
procedures developed by the LEA in collaboration with the State or
local child welfare agency under section 1112(c)(5)(B) of the Act, even
if the LEA and local child welfare agency do not agree on which agency
or agencies will pay any additional costs incurred to provide such
transportation.
(2) Title III, part A. In establishing the statewide entrance
procedures required under section 3113(b)(2) of the Act, the SEA will
ensure that:
(i) All students who may be English learners are assessed for such
status using a valid and reliable instrument within 30 days after
enrollment in a school in the State;
(ii) It has established procedures for the timely identification of
English learners after the initial identification period for students
who were enrolled at that time but were not previously identified; and
(iii) It has established procedures for removing the English
learner designation from any student who was erroneously identified as
an English learner, which must be consistent with Federal civil rights
obligations.
(3) Title V, part b, subpart 2. The SEA will assure that, no later
than March of each year, it will submit data to the Secretary on the
number of students in average daily attendance for the preceding school
year in kindergarten through grade 12 for LEAs eligible for funding
under the Rural and Low-Income School program, as described under
section 5231 of the Act.
(d) Process for submitting an initial consolidated State plan or
individual program State plan. When submitting an initial consolidated
State plan or an individual program State plan, an SEA must adhere to
the following timeline and process.
(1) Assurances. In order to receive Federal allocations for the
programs included in paragraph (j) of this section for fiscal year
2017, no later than March 6, 2017, the SEA must submit the required
assurances described in paragraph (c) of this section.
(2) Submission deadlines. (i) Each SEA must submit to the
Department either a consolidated State plan or individual program State
plan for each program in paragraph (j) of this section on a date and
time established by the Secretary.
(ii) A consolidated State plan or an individual program State plan
is considered to be submitted on the date and time established by the
Secretary if it is received by the Secretary on or prior to that date
and time and addresses all of the required components in Sec. 299.14
for a consolidated State plan or all statutory and regulatory
application requirements for an individual program State plan.
(iii) Each SEA must submit either a consolidated State plan or an
individual program State plan for all of the programs in paragraph (j)
in a single submission on the date and time established by the
Secretary consistent with paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section.
(3) Extension for educator equity student-level data calculation.
If an SEA cannot calculate and report the data required under paragraph
Sec. 299.18(c)(3)(i) when submitting its initial consolidated State
plan or individual title I, part A State plan, the SEA may request a
two-year extension from the Secretary.
(i) To receive an extension, the SEA must submit to the Secretary,
by eight weeks after the effective date of this section--
(A) Evidence satisfactory to the Secretary demonstrating that the
State cannot calculate and report the data described under paragraph
Sec. 299.18(c)(3)(i) when it submits either its initial consolidated
State plan or individual title I, part A program State plan; and
(B) A detailed plan and timeline addressing the steps the SEA will
take to calculate and report, as expeditiously as possible but no later
than two years from the date it submits its initial consolidated State
plan or individual title I, part A program State plan, the data
required under Sec. 299.18(c)(3)(i).
(ii) An SEA that receives an extension under paragraph (d)(3) of
this section must, when it submits either its initial consolidated
State plan or individual title I, part A program State plan, still
calculate and report disproportionalities based on school-level data
for each of the groups listed in Sec. 299.18(c)(2) and describe how
the SEA will eliminate any disproportionate rates consistent with Sec.
299.18(c)(6).
(e) Opportunity to revise initial State plan. An SEA may revise its
initial consolidated State plan or its individual program State plan in
response to a preliminary written determination by the Secretary. The
period for Secretarial review of a consolidated State plan or an
individual program State plan under sections 1111(a)(4)(A)(v) or 8451
of the Act is suspended while the SEA revises its plan. If an SEA fails
to resubmit revisions to its plan within 45 days of receipt of the
preliminary written determination, the Secretary may issue a final
written determination under sections 1111(a)(4)(A)(v) or 8451 of the
Act.
(f) Publication of State plan. After the Secretary approves a
consolidated State plan or an individual program State plan, an SEA
must publish its approved consolidated State plan or individual program
State plan on the SEA's Web site in a format and language, to the
extent practicable, that the public can access and understand in
compliance with the requirements under Sec. 200.21(b)(1) through (3).
(g) Amendments and Significant Changes. If an SEA makes significant
changes to its approved consolidated State plan or individual program
State plan at any time, such as the adoption of new academic
assessments under section 1111(b)(2) of the Act or changes to its
accountability system under section 1111(c) of the Act, such
information shall be submitted to the Secretary in the form of an
amendment to its State plan for review and approval. Prior to
submitting an amendment to its consolidated State plan or individual
program State plan, the SEA must engage in timely and
[[Page 34616]]
meaningful consultation, consistent with paragraph (b) of this section.
(h) Revisions. At least once every four years, an SEA must review
and revise its approved consolidated State plan or individual program
State plans. The SEA must submit its revisions to the Secretary for
review and approval. In reviewing and revising its consolidated State
plan or individual program State plan, each SEA must engage in timely
and meaningful consultation, consistent with paragraph (b) of this
section.
(i) Optional consolidated State plan. An SEA may submit either a
consolidated State plan or an individual program State plan for any
program identified in paragraph (j) of this section. An SEA that
submits a consolidated State plan is not required to submit an
individual program State plan for any of the programs to which the
consolidated State plan applies.
(j) Programs that may be included in a consolidated State plan. (1)
Under section 8302 of the Act, an SEA may include in a consolidated
State plan any programs authorized by--
(i) Title I, part A: Improving Basic Programs Operated by State and
Local Educational Agencies;
(ii) Title I, part C: Education of Migratory Children;
(iii) Title I, part D: Prevention and Intervention Programs for
Children and Youth Who Are Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk;
(iv) Title II, part A: Supporting Effective Instruction;
(v) Title III, part A: Language Instruction for English Learners
and Immigrant Students;
(vi) Title IV, part A: Student Support and Academic Enrichment
Grants;
(vii) Title IV, part B: 21st Century Community Learning Centers;
and
(viii) Title V, part B, Subpart 2: Rural and Low-Income School
Program.
(2) In addition to the programs identified in paragraph (j)(1) of
this section, under section 8302(a)(1)(B) of the Act, an SEA may also
include in the consolidated State plan the following programs as
designated by the Secretary--
(i) The Grants for State Assessments and Related Activities program
under section 1201 of title I, part B of the Act.
(ii) The Education for Homeless Children and Youths program under
subtitle B of title VII of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act
(McKinney-Vento).
(k) Individual program State plan requirements. An SEA that submits
an individual program State plan for one or more of the programs listed
in paragraph (j) of this section must address all State plan or
application requirements applicable to such programs as outlined in the
Act and applicable regulations, including all required statutory
programmatic assurances. In addition to addressing the statutory and
regulatory plan or application requirements for each individual
program, an SEA that submits an individual program State plan--
(1) For title I, part A, must:
(i) Meet the educator equity requirements in Sec. 299.18(c) in
order to address section 1111(g)(1)(B) of the Act; and
(ii) Meet the schoolwide waiver requirements in Sec. 299.19(c)(1)
in order to implement section 1114(a)(1)(B) of the Act; and
(2) For title III, must meet the English learner requirements in
Sec. 299.19(c)(2) in order to address section 3113(b)(2) of the Act.
(l) Compliance with program requirements. Each SEA must administer
all programs in accordance with all applicable statutes, regulations,
program plans, and applications, and maintain documentation of this
compliance.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 7801(11), 7842, 7844, 7845)
Sec. 299.14 Requirements for the consolidated State plan.
(a) Purpose. Pursuant to section 8302 of the Act, the Department
defines the procedures under which an SEA may submit a consolidated
State plan for any or all of the programs listed in Sec. 299.13(j).
(b) Framework for the consolidated State plan. Each consolidated
State plan must address the requirements in Sec. Sec. 299.15 through
299.19 for the following five components and their corresponding
elements:
(1) Consultation and coordination.
(2) Challenging academic standards and academic assessments.
(3) Accountability, support, and improvement for schools.
(4) Supporting excellent educators.
(5) Supporting all students.
(c) Performance management and technical assistance. In its
consolidated State plan, each State must describe its system of
performance management for implementation of State and LEA plans for
each component required under Sec. Sec. 299.16 through 299.19. This
description must include--
(1) The SEA's process for supporting the development of, review,
and approval of the activities in LEA plans in accordance with
statutory and regulatory requirements, including a description of how
the SEA will determine if LEA activities are aligned with the specific
needs of the LEA and the State's strategies described in its
consolidated State plan.
(2) The SEA's plan, including strategies and timelines, to--
(i) Collect and use data and information, including input from
stakeholders, to assess the quality of SEA and LEA implementation of
strategies and progress toward improving student outcomes and meeting
the desired program outcomes;
(ii) Monitor SEA and LEA implementation of included programs using
the data in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section to ensure compliance
with statutory and regulatory requirements; and
(iii) Continuously improve implementation of SEA and LEA strategies
and activities that are not leading to satisfactory progress toward
improving student outcomes and meeting the desired program outcomes;
and
(3) The SEA's plan, including strategies and timelines, to provide
differentiated technical assistance to LEAs and schools to support
effective implementation of SEA, LEA, and other subgrantee strategies.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 7842)
Sec. 299.15 Consultation and coordination.
(a) Consultation. In its consolidated State plan, each SEA must
describe how it engaged in timely and meaningful consultation
consistent with Sec. 299.13(b) with stakeholders in the development of
each of the four components identified in Sec. Sec. 299.16 through
299.19 of its consolidated plan. The stakeholders must include the
following individuals and entities and must reflect the geographic
diversity of the State:
(1) The Governor, or appropriate officials from the Governor's
office;
(2) Members of the State legislature;
(3) Members of the State board of education (if applicable);
(4) LEAs, including LEAs in rural areas;
(5) Representatives of Indian tribes located in the State;
(6) Teachers, principals, other school leaders, paraprofessionals,
specialized instructional support personnel, and organizations
representing such individuals;
(7) Charter school leaders, if applicable;
(8) Parents and families;
(9) Community-based organizations;
(10) Civil rights organizations, including those representing
students with disabilities, English learners, and other historically
underserved students;
[[Page 34617]]
(11) Institutions of higher education (IHEs);
(12) Employers; and
(13) The public.
(b) Coordination. In its consolidated State plan, each SEA must
describe how it is coordinating its plans for administering the
included programs, other programs authorized under the ESEA, as amended
by the ESSA, and IDEA, the Rehabilitation Act, the Carl D. Perkins
Career and Technical Education Act of 2006, the Workforce Innovation
and Opportunity Act, the Head Start Act, the Child Care and Development
Block Grant Act of 1990, the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002, the
Education Technical Assistance Act of 2002, the National Assessment of
Educational Progress Authorization Act, and the Adult Education and
Family Literacy Act.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 6311, 7842)
Sec. 299.16 Challenging academic standards and academic assessments.
(a) Challenging State academic standards. In its consolidated State
plan, each SEA must--
(1) Provide evidence at such time and in such manner specified by
the Secretary that the State has adopted challenging academic content
standards and aligned academic achievement standards in the required
subjects and grades consistent with section 1111(b)(1)(A)-(D) of the
Act;
(2) If the State has adopted alternate academic achievement
standards for students with the most significant cognitive
disabilities, provide evidence at such time and in such manner
specified by the Secretary that those standards meet the requirements
of section 1111(b)(1)(E) of the Act; and
(3) Provide evidence at such time and in such manner specified by
the Secretary that the State has adopted English language proficiency
standards under section 1111(b)(1)(F) of the Act that--
(i) Are derived from the four recognized domains of speaking,
listening, reading, and writing;
(ii) Address the different proficiency levels of English learners;
and
(iii) Are aligned with the State's challenging academic standards.
(b) Academic assessments. In its consolidated State plan, each SEA
must--
(1) Identify the high-quality student academic assessments that the
State is implementing under section 1111(b)(2) of the Act, including:
(A) High-quality student academic assessments in mathematics,
reading or language arts, and science consistent with the requirements
under section 1111(b)(2)(B) of the Act;
(B) Any assessments used under the exception for advanced middle
school mathematics under section 1111(b)(2)(C)(iii) of the Act;
(C) Alternate assessments aligned with the challenging State
academic standards and alternate academic achievement standards for
students with the most significant cognitive disabilities;
(D) Uniform statewide assessment of English language proficiency,
including reading, writing, speaking, and listening skills consistent
with Sec. 200.6(f)(3); and
(E) Any approved locally selected nationally recognized high school
assessments consistent with Sec. 200.3;
(2) Provide evidence at such time and in such manner specified by
the Secretary that the State's assessments identified in paragraph
(b)(1) of this section meet the requirements of section 1111(b)(2) of
the Act;
(3) Describe its strategies to provide all students in the State
the opportunity to be prepared for and to take advanced mathematics
coursework in middle school consistent with section 1111(b)(2)(C) and
Sec. 200.5;
(4) Describe the steps it has taken to incorporate the principles
of universal design for learning, to the extent feasible, in the
development of its assessments, including any alternate assessments
aligned with alternate academic achievement standards that the State
administers consistent with sections 1111(b)(2)(B)(xiii) and
1111(b)(2)(D)(i)(IV) of the Act;
(5) Consistent with Sec. 200.6, describe how it will ensure that
the use of appropriate accommodations, if applicable, do not deny an
English learner--
(A) The opportunity to participate in the assessment; and
(B) Any of the benefits from participation in the assessment that
are afforded to students who are not English learners;
(6) Describe how it is complying with the requirements in Sec.
200.6(f)(1)(ii)(B) through (E) related to assessments in languages
other than English;
(7) Describe how the State will use formula grant funds awarded
under section 1201 of the Act to pay the costs of development of the
high-quality State assessments and standards adopted under section
1111(b) of the Act or, if a State has developed those assessments, to
administer those assessments or carry out other assessment activities
consistent with section 1201(a) of the Act.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 6311(b), 7842)
Sec. 299.17 Accountability, support, and improvement for schools.
(a) Long-term goals. In its consolidated State plan, each SEA must
describe its long-term goals, including how it established its
ambitious long-term goals and measurements of interim progress for
academic achievement, graduation rates, and English language
proficiency, including its State-determined timeline for attaining such
goals, consistent with the requirements in Sec. 200.13 and section
1111(c)(4)(A) of the Act.
(b) Accountability system. In its consolidated State plan, each SEA
must describe its statewide accountability system consistent with the
requirements of section 1111(c) of the Act and Sec. 200.12,
including--
(1) The measures included in each of the indicators and how those
measures meet the requirements described in Sec. 200.14(c) through (e)
and section 1111(c)(4)(B) of the Act for all students and separately
for each subgroup of students used to meaningfully differentiate all
public schools in the State;
(2) The subgroups of students from each major racial and ethnic
group, consistent with Sec. 200.16(a)(2);
(3) If applicable, the statewide uniform procedures for:
(i) Former English learners consistent with Sec. 200.16(b)(1), and
(ii) Recently arrived English learners in the State to determine if
an exception is appropriate for an English learner consistent with
section 1111(b)(3) of the Act and Sec. 200.16(b)(4);
(4) The minimum number of students that the State determines are
necessary to be included in each of the subgroups of students
consistent with Sec. 200.17(a)(3);
(5) The State's system for meaningfully differentiating all public
schools in the State, including public charter schools, consistent with
the requirements of section 1111(c)(4)(C) of the Act and Sec. 200.18,
including--
(i) The distinct levels of school performance, and how they are
calculated, under Sec. 200.18(b)(3) on each indicator in the statewide
accountability system;
(ii) The weighting of each indicator, including how certain
indicators receive substantial weight individually and much greater
weight in the aggregate, consistent with Sec. 200.18(c) and (d); and
(iii) The summative ratings, including how they are calculated,
that are provided to schools under Sec. 200.18(b)(4);
(6) How the State is factoring the requirement for 95 percent
student participation in assessments into its
[[Page 34618]]
system of annual meaningful differentiation of schools consistent with
the requirements of Sec. 200.15;
(7) The State's uniform procedure for averaging data across school
years and combining data across grades as defined in Sec. 200.20(a),
if applicable;
(8) If applicable, how the State includes all public schools in the
State in its accountability system if it is different from the
methodology described in paragraph (b)(5), including--
(i) Schools in which no grade level is assessed under the State's
academic assessment system (e.g., P-2 schools), although the State is
not required to administer a formal assessment to meet this
requirement;
(ii) Schools with variant grade configurations (e.g., P-12
schools);
(iii) Small schools in which the total number of students that can
be included on any indicator under Sec. 200.14 is less than the
minimum number of students established by the State under Sec.
200.17(a)(1), consistent with a State's uniform procedures for
averaging data under Sec. 200.20(a), if applicable;
(iv) Schools that are designed to serve special populations (e.g.,
students receiving alternative programming in alternative educational
settings, students living in local institutions for neglected or
delinquent children, students enrolled in State public schools for the
blind, recently arrived English learners); and
(v) Newly opened schools that do not have multiple years of data,
consistent with a State's uniform procedure for averaging data under
Sec. 200.20(a), if applicable.
(c) Identification of schools. In its consolidated State plan, each
SEA must describe--
(1) The methodologies by which the State identifies schools for
comprehensive support and improvement under section 1111(c)(4)(D)(i) of
the Act and Sec. 200.19(a), including:
(i) Lowest-performing schools;
(ii) Schools with low high school graduation rates; and
(iii) Schools with chronically low-performing subgroups;
(2) The uniform statewide exit criteria for schools identified for
comprehensive support and improvement established by the State under
section 1111(d)(3)(A)(i) of the Act and consistent with the
requirements in Sec. 200.21(f)(1), including the number of years over
which schools are expected to meet such criteria;
(3) The State's methodology for identifying schools with
``consistently underperforming'' subgroups of students, including the
definition and time period used by the State to determine consistent
underperformance, under Sec. 200.19(b)(1) and (c);
(4) The State's methodology for identifying additional targeted
support schools with low-performing subgroups of students under Sec.
200.19(b)(2); and
(5) The uniform exit criteria for schools requiring additional
targeted support due to low-performing subgroups established by the
State consistent with the requirements in Sec. 200.22(f).
(d) State support and improvement for low-performing schools. In
its consolidated State plan, each SEA must describe--
(1) Its process for making grants to LEAs under section 1003 of the
Act consistent with the requirements of Sec. 200.24 to serve schools
implementing comprehensive or targeted support and improvement plans
under section 1111(d) of the Act and consistent with the requirements
in Sec. Sec. 200.21 and 200.22;
(2) Its process to ensure effective development and implementation
of school support and improvement plans, including evidence-based
interventions, to hold all public schools accountable for student
academic achievement and school success consistent with Sec. Sec.
200.21 through 200.24, and, if applicable, the list of State-approved,
evidence-based interventions for use in schools implementing
comprehensive or targeted support and improvement plans;
(3) The more rigorous interventions required for schools identified
for comprehensive support and improvement that fail to meet the State's
exit criteria within a State-determined number of years consistent with
section 1111(d)(3)(A)(i) of the Act and Sec. 200.21(f);
(4) Its process, consistent with the requirements in section
1111(d)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act and Sec. 200.23(a), for periodically
reviewing and addressing resource allocation to ensure sufficient
support for school improvement in each LEA in the State serving a
significant number of schools identified for comprehensive support and
improvement and in each LEA serving a significant number of schools
implementing targeted support and improvement plans; and
(5) Other State-identified strategies, including timelines and
funding sources from included programs consistent with allowable uses
of funds provided under those programs, as applicable, to improve low-
performing schools.
(e) Performance management and technical assistance. In addition to
the requirements in Sec. 299.14(c), each SEA must describe--
(1) Its process to approve, monitor, and periodically review LEA
comprehensive support and improvement plans consistent with the
requirements in section 1111(d)(1)(B)(v) and (vi) of the Act and Sec.
200.21(e); and
(2) The technical assistance it will provide to each LEA in the
State serving a significant number of schools identified for
comprehensive and targeted support and improvement, including technical
assistance related to selection of evidence-based interventions,
consistent with the requirements in section 1111(d)(3)(A)(iii) of the
Act and Sec. 200.23(b).
(3) Any additional improvement actions the State may take
consistent with Sec. 200.23(c), including additional supports for or
interventions in LEAs, or in any authorized public chartering agency
consistent with State charter school law, with a significant number of
schools identified for comprehensive support and improvement that are
not meeting exit criteria or a significant number of schools identified
for targeted support or improvement.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 6303, 6311(c), (d), 7842)
Sec. 299.18 Supporting excellent educators.
(a) Systems of educator development, retention, and advancement. In
its consolidated State plan, consistent with sections 2101 and 2102 of
the Act, each SEA must describe its educator development, retention,
and advancement systems, including, at a minimum--
(1) The State's system of certification and licensing of teachers
and principals or other school leaders;
(2) The State's system to ensure adequate preparation of new
educators, particularly for low-income and minority students; and
(3) The State's system of professional growth and improvement,
which may include the use of an educator evaluation and support system,
for educators that addresses induction, development, compensation, and
advancement for teachers, principals, and other school leaders if the
State has elected to implement such a system. Alternatively, the SEA
must describe how it will ensure that each LEA has and is implementing
a system of professional growth and improvement for teachers,
principals, and other school leaders that addresses induction,
development, compensation, and advancement.
(b) Support for educators. (1) In its consolidated State plan, each
SEA must
[[Page 34619]]
describe how it will use title II, part A funds and funds from other
included programs, consistent with allowable uses of funds provided
under those programs, to support State-level strategies designed to:
(i) Increase student achievement consistent with the challenging
State academic standards;
(ii) Improve the quality and effectiveness of teachers and
principals or other school leaders;
(iii) Increase the number of teachers and principals or other
school leaders who are effective in improving student academic
achievement in schools; and
(iv) Provide low-income and minority students greater access to
effective teachers, principals, and other school leaders consistent
with the provisions described in paragraph (c) of this section.
(2) In its consolidated State plan, each SEA must describe--
(i) How the SEA will improve the skills of teachers, principals, or
other school leaders in identifying students with specific learning
needs and providing instruction based on the needs of such students
consistent with section 2101(d)(2)(J) of the Act, including strategies
for teachers of, and principals or other school leaders in schools
with:
(A) Low-income students;
(B) Lowest-achieving students;
(C) English learners;
(D) Children with disabilities;
(E) Children and youth in foster care;
(F) Migratory children, including preschool migratory children and
migratory children who have dropped out of school;
(G) Homeless children and youths;
(H) Neglected, delinquent, and at-risk children identified under
title I, part D of the Act;
(I) Immigrant children and youth;
(J) Students in LEAs eligible for grants under the Rural and Low-
Income School Program under section 5221 of the Act;
(K) American Indian and Alaska Native students;
(L) Students with low literacy levels; and
(M) Students who are gifted and talented;
(ii) If the SEA or its LEAs plan to use funds under one or more of
the included programs for this purpose, how the SEA will work with LEAs
in the State to develop or implement State or local teacher, principal
or other school leader evaluation and support systems consistent with
section 2101(c)(4)(B)(ii) of the Act; and
(iii) If the SEA plans to use funds under one or more of the
included programs for this purpose, how the State will improve educator
preparation programs consistent with section 2101(d)(2)(M) of the Act.
(3) In its consolidated State plan, each SEA must describe its
rationale for, and its timeline for the design and implementation of,
the strategies identified under paragraph (b)(1) and (2) of this
section.
(c) Educator equity. (1) Each SEA must demonstrate, consistent with
section 1111(g)(1)(B) of the Act, whether low-income and minority
students enrolled in schools that receive funds under title I, part A
of the Act are taught at disproportionate rates by ineffective, out-of-
field, or inexperienced teachers compared to non-low-income and non-
minority students enrolled in schools not receiving funds under title
I, part A of the Act in accordance with paragraph (c)(3) of this
section.
(2) For the purposes of this section, each SEA must establish and
provide in its State plan different definitions, using distinct
criteria so that each provides useful information about educator equity
and disproportionality rates, for each of the terms included in
paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section--
(i) A statewide definition of ``ineffective teacher'', or statewide
guidelines for LEA definitions of ``ineffective teacher'', that
differentiates between categories of teachers;
(ii) A statewide definition of ``out-of-field teacher'' consistent
with Sec. 200.37;
(iii) A statewide definition of ``inexperienced teacher''
consistent with Sec. 200.37;
(iv) A statewide definition of ``low-income student'';
(v) A statewide definition of ``minority student'' that includes,
at a minimum, race, color, and national origin, consistent with title
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; and
(vi) Such other definitions for any other key terms that a State
elects to define and use for the purpose of making the demonstration
required under paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
(3) For the purpose of making the demonstration required under
paragraph (c)(1) of this section--
(i) Rates. Each SEA must annually calculate and report, such as
through a State report card, statewide based on student level data,
except as permitted under Sec. 299.13(d)(3), the rates at which--
(A) Low-income students enrolled in schools receiving funds under
title I, part A of the Act, are taught by--
(1) Ineffective teachers;
(2) Out-of-field teachers; and
(3) Inexperienced teachers; and
(B) Non-low-income students enrolled in schools not receiving funds
under title I, part A of the Act, are taught by--
(1) Ineffective teachers;
(2) Out-of-field teachers; and
(3) Inexperienced teachers;
(C) Minority students enrolled in schools receiving funds under
title I, part A of the Act are taught by--
(1) Ineffective teachers;
(2) Out-of-field teachers; and
(3) Inexperienced teachers; and
(D) Non-minority students enrolled in schools not receiving funds
under title I, part A of the Act are taught by--
(1) Ineffective teachers;
(2) Out-of-field teachers; and
(3) Inexperienced teachers;
(ii) Other rates. Each SEA may annually calculate and report
statewide at the student level, except as permitted under Sec.
299.13(d)(3), the rates at which students represented by any other key
terms that a State elects to define and use for the purpose of this
section are taught by ineffective teachers, out-of-field teachers, and
inexperienced teachers.
(iii) Disproportionate Rates. Each SEA must calculate and report
the differences, if any, between the rates calculated in paragraph
(c)(3)(A) and (B), and between the rates calculated in paragraph
(c)(3)(C) and (D) of this section.
(4) Each SEA must publish and annually update--
(i) The rates and disproportionalities required under paragraph
(c)(3) of this section;
(ii) The percentage of teachers categorized in each LEA at each
effectiveness level established as part of the definition of
``ineffective teacher'' under paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section,
consistent with applicable State privacy policies;
(iii) The percentage of teachers categorized as out-of-field
teachers consistent with Sec. 200.37; and
(iv) The percentage of teachers categorized as inexperienced
teachers consistent with Sec. 200.37.
(v) The information required under paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through
(iv) of this section in a manner that is easily accessible and
comprehensible to the general public, available at least on a public
Web site, and, to the extent practicable, provided in a language that
parents of students enrolled in all schools in the State can
understand, in compliance with the requirements under Sec.
200.21(b)(1) through (3). If the information required under paragraphs
(c)(4)(i) through (iv) is made available in ways other than on a public
Web site, it must be provided in compliance with the requirements under
Sec. 200.21(b)(1) through (3).
[[Page 34620]]
(5) Each SEA must describe where it will publish and annually
update the rates and disproportionalities calculated under paragraph
(c)(3) of this section and report on the rates and disproportionalities
in the manner described in paragraph (c)(4)(v) of this section.
(6) Each SEA that demonstrates, under paragraph (c)(1) of this
section, that low-income or minority students enrolled in schools
receiving funds under title I, part A of this Act are taught at
disproportionate rates by ineffective, out-of-field, or inexperienced
teachers must--
(i) Describe the root cause analysis, including the level of
disaggregation of disproportionality data (e.g., statewide, between
districts, within district, and within school), that identifies the
factor or factors causing or contributing to the disproportionate rates
demonstrated under paragraph (c)(1) of this section; and
(ii) Provide its strategies, including timelines and funding
sources, to eliminate the disproportionate rates demonstrated under
paragraph (c)(1) of this section that--
(A) Is based on the root cause analysis required under paragraph
(c)(6)(i) of this section; and
(B) Focuses on the greatest or most persistent rates of
disproportionality demonstrated under paragraph (c)(1) of this section,
including by prioritizing strategies to support any schools identified
for comprehensive or targeted support and improvement under Sec.
200.19 that are contributing to those disproportionate rates.
(7) To meet the requirements of paragraph (c)(6) of this section,
an SEA may--
(i) Direct an LEA, including an LEA that contributes to the
disproportionality demonstrated by the SEA in paragraph (c)(1) of this
section, to use a portion of its title II, part A, funds in a manner
that is consistent with allowable activities identified in section
2103(b) of the Act to provide low-income and minority students greater
access to effective teachers and principals or other school leaders,
and
(ii) Require an LEA to describe in its title II, part A plan or
consolidated local plan how it will use title II, part A funds to
address disproportionality in educator equity as described in this
paragraph (c) and deny an LEA's application for title II, part A funds
if an LEA fails to describe how it will address identified
disproportionalities or fails to meet other local application
requirements applicable to title II, part A.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 6311(g), 6601, 6611(d), 8302)
Sec. 299.19 Supporting all students.
(a) Well-rounded and supportive education for students. (1) In its
consolidated State plan, each SEA must describe its strategies, its
rationale for the selected strategies, timelines, and how it will use
funds under the programs included in its consolidated State plan and
support LEA use of funds to ensure that all children have a significant
opportunity to meet challenging State academic standards and career and
technical standards, as applicable, and attain, at a minimum, a regular
high school diploma consistent with Sec. 200.34, for, at a minimum,
the following:
(i) The continuum of a student's education from preschool through
grade 12, including transitions from early childhood education to
elementary school, elementary school to middle school, middle school to
high school, and high school to post-secondary education and careers,
in order to support appropriate promotion practices and decrease the
risk of students dropping out;
(ii) Equitable access to a well-rounded education and rigorous
coursework in subjects such as English, reading/language arts, writing,
science, technology, engineering, mathematics, foreign languages,
civics and government, economics, history, geography, computer science,
music, career and technical education, health, physical education, and
any other subjects in which female students, minority students, English
learners, children with disabilities, and low-income students are
underrepresented;
(iii) School conditions for student learning, including activities
to reduce--
(A) Incidents of bullying and harassment;
(B) The overuse of discipline practices that remove students from
the classroom, such as out-of-school suspensions and expulsions; and
(C) The use of aversive behavioral interventions that compromise
student health and safety;
(iv) The effective use of technology to improve the academic
achievement and digital literacy of all students;
(v) Parent, family, and community engagement;
(vi) The accurate identification of English learners and children
with disabilities; and
(vii) Other State-identified strategies.
(2) In describing the strategies, rationale, timelines, and funding
sources in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, each SEA must consider--
(i) The academic and non-academic needs of subgroups of students
including--
(A) Low-income students.
(B) Lowest-achieving students.
(C) English learners.
(D) Children with disabilities.
(E) Children and youth in foster care.
(F) Migratory children, including preschool migratory children and
migratory children who have dropped out of school.
(G) Homeless children and youths.
(H) Neglected, delinquent, and at-risk students identified under
title I, part D of the Act.
(I) Immigrant children and youth.
(J) Students in LEAs eligible for grants under the Rural and Low-
Income School program under section 5221 of the Act.
(K) American Indian and Alaska Native students.
(ii) Data and information on resource equity consistent with
paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
(3) In its consolidated State plan, the SEA must use information
and data on resource equity collected and reported under section
1111(h) of the Act and Sec. Sec. 200.35 and 200.37 including a review
of LEA-level budgeting and resource allocation related to--
(A) Per-pupil expenditures of Federal, State, and local funds;
(B) Educator qualifications as described in Sec. 200.37;
(C) Access to advanced coursework; and
(D) The availability of preschool.
(4) In its consolidated State plan, each SEA must describe how it
will use title IV, part A and part B funds, and other Federal funds--
(i) To support the State-level strategies described in paragraph
(a)(1) of this section and other State-level strategies, as applicable;
and
(ii) To ensure that, to the extent permitted under applicable law
and regulations, the processes, procedures, and priorities used to
award subgrants under an included program are consistent with the
requirements of this section.
(b) Performance management and technical assistance. In addition to
the requirements in Sec. 299.14(c), each SEA must describe how it will
use the information and data described in paragraph (a)(3) of this
section to inform review and approval of LEA applications and technical
assistance in the implementation of LEA plans.
(c) Program-specific requirements--(1) Title I, part A. Each SEA
must describe the process and criteria it will use to waive the 40
percent schoolwide
[[Page 34621]]
poverty threshold under section 1114(a)(1)(B) of the Act submitted by
an LEA on behalf of a school, including how the SEA will ensure that
the schoolwide program will best serve the needs of the lowest-
achieving students in the school.
(2) Title I, part C. In its consolidated State plan, each SEA must
describe--
(i) How the SEA and its local operating agencies (which may include
LEAs) will--
(A) Establish and implement a system for the proper identification
and recruitment of eligible migratory children on a statewide basis,
including the identification and recruitment of preschool migratory
children and migratory children who have dropped out of school, and how
the SEA will verify and document the number of eligible migratory
children aged 3 through 21 residing in the State on an annual basis;
(B) Assess the unique educational needs of migratory children,
including preschool migratory children and migratory children who have
dropped out of school, and other needs that must be met in order for
migratory children to participate effectively in school;
(C) Ensure that the unique educational needs of migratory children,
including preschool migratory children and migratory children who have
dropped out of school, and other needs that must be met in order for
migratory children to participate effectively in school, are identified
and addressed through the full range of services that are available for
migratory children from appropriate local, State, and Federal
educational programs; and
(D) Use funds received under title I, part C to promote interstate
and intrastate coordination of services for migratory children,
including how the State will provide for educational continuity through
the timely transfer of pertinent school records, including information
on health, when children move from one school to another, whether or
not such move occurs during the regular school year;
(ii) The unique educational needs of the State's migratory
children, including preschool migratory children and migratory children
who have dropped out of school, and other needs that must be met in
order for migratory children to participate effectively in school,
based on the State's most recent comprehensive needs assessment;
(iii) The current measurable program objectives and outcomes for
title I, part C, and the strategies the SEA will pursue on a statewide
basis to achieve such objectives and outcomes;
(iv) How it will ensure there is consultation with parents of
migratory children, including parent advisory councils, at both the
State and local level, in the planning and operation of title I, part C
programs that span not less than one school year in duration consistent
with section 1304(c)(3) of the Act;
(v) Its processes and procedures for ensuring that migratory
children who meet the statutory definition of ``priority for services''
are given priority for title I, part C services, including--
(A) The specific measures and sources of data used to determine
whether a migratory child meets each priority for services criteria;
(B) The delegation of responsibilities for documenting priority for
services determinations and the provision of services to migratory
children determined to be priority for services; and
(C) The timeline for making priority for services determinations,
and communicating such information to title I, part C service
providers.
(3) Title III, part A. Each SEA must describe its standardized
entrance and exit procedures for English learners, consistent with
section 3113(b)(2) of the Act. These procedures must include valid and
reliable, objective criteria that are applied consistently across the
State. At a minimum, the standardized exit criteria must--
(i) Include a score of proficient on the State's annual English
language proficiency assessment;
(ii) Be the same criteria used for exiting students from the
English learner subgroup for title I reporting and accountability
purposes;
(iii) Not include performance on an academic content assessment;
and
(iv) Be consistent with Federal civil rights obligations.
(4) Title V, part B, subpart 2. In its consolidated State plan,
each SEA must provide its specific measurable program objectives and
outcomes related to activities under the Rural and Low-Income School
program, if applicable.
(5) McKinney-Vento Education for Homeless Children and Youths
program. In its consolidated State plan, each SEA must describe--
(i) The procedures it will use to identify homeless children and
youths in the State and assess their needs;
(ii) Programs for school personnel (including liaisons designated
under section 722(g)(1)(J)(ii) of the McKinney-Vento Act, principals
and other school leaders, attendance officers, teachers, enrollment
personnel, and specialized instructional support personnel) to heighten
the awareness of such school personnel of the specific needs of
homeless children and youths, including such children and youths who
are runaway and homeless youths;
(iii) Its procedures to ensure that--
(A) Disputes regarding the educational placement of homeless
children and youths are promptly resolved;
(B) Youths described in section 725(2) of the McKinney-Vento Act
and youths separated from the public school are identified and accorded
equal access to appropriate secondary education and support services,
including by identifying and removing barriers that prevent youths
described in this paragraph from receiving appropriate credit for full
or partial coursework satisfactorily completed while attending a prior
school, in accordance with State, local, and school polices;
(C) Homeless children and youths have access to public preschool
programs, administered by the SEA or LEA, as provided to other children
in the State;
(D) Homeless children and youths who meet the relevant eligibility
criteria do not face barriers to accessing academic and extracurricular
activities; and
(E) Homeless children and youths who meet the relevant eligibility
criteria are able to participate in Federal, State, and local nutrition
programs; and
(iv) Its strategies to address problems with respect to the
education of homeless children and youths, including problems resulting
from enrollment delays and retention, consistent with section
722(g)(1)(H) and (I) of the McKinney-Vento Act.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 6311(d), (g), 6394, 6823, 7113(c),
7842; 42 U.S.C. 11432(g))
[FR Doc. 2016-12451 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P