Section 111(b)(2)(B)1. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-114s1177enr/pdf/BILLS-114s1177enr.pdf
State Plans: The Basics
Gone is the nationwide goal of 100% grade-level proficiency under NCLB. States set their own reachable long-term goals and benchmarks for school performance and student achievement based on multiple indicators.
States define a rating system based on A-F, 100 point grading system, or a combination of rating system based on state-defined performance indicators. States must identify the lowest-performing 5% of schools for improvement based on test scores as well as graduation rates and identifying struggling student subgroups.
Just as with NCLB, state tests for reading and math are still required annually for grades 3-8, and once in high school grades 9-12. Science tests must take place once in elementary school, once middle school and once high school. Under ESSA, states have more flexibility with how and when testing takes place. Teacher evaluations based on student test scores are no longer a federal mandate.
Academic assessments serve as a key indicator for school performance. States select their own “challenging academic standards” and proficiency levels for each grade. High school graduation rates also serve as indicators. ESSA expands the definition of core subject matter to include other subjects such as music, art, STEM and computer science.
School quality and student success indicators may include attendance records, school climate survey data, social-emotional support, access to “well-rounded education” including challenging courses (Advanced Placement), ACT/SAT test scores, and entry into post-secondary programs.
The ‘N’ Size Group is the lowest subgroup size that can be reported in a state accountability system in a manner that is statistically sound. Student subgroups include race/ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, disability, and English language learners (ELLs). Subgroups used for data reporting (but not accountability measures) include homeless status, students with parents in the military, and students in foster care.
ESSA & Educational Technology
The biggest change from NCLB to ESSA is that State Education Departments have greater leeway in establishing long-term goals, school performance ratings, accountability measures, indicators for student achievement, and defining ‘N’ groups of students. The legislation also gives states and districts control over localized improvement programs that prioritize struggling schools and student subgroups for school-wide improvement and targeted support. Another significant change is ESSA’s expanded definition of what constitutes academic subjects. State plans must measure academic achievement. However, state exam scores for English Language Arts and math are not the only indicators. ESSA’s broader definition of core subjects expands to include STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Art and Mathematics), computer science, civics, service learning and internships as part of a “well-rounded education” among others. Furthermore, school performance indicators in state plans must include high school graduation rates as well as another indicator including attendance records, enrollment in post-secondary education, access to enrichment experiences and marks of improved school climate and safety.
As education becomes more data-driven, technology proves to be an integral component in carrying out all aspects of ESSA at the state and local levels. In the past, NCLB offered technology funding through a single grant program, Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT), that only supported isolated technology-based initiatives. Fortunately, ESSA provisions offer flexible federal funding streams to support a wide range of initiatives geared toward delivering “high quality” education. States and districts an opportunity leverage provisions in the law to invest in technology to address a spectrum of educational needs while going beyond legislative requirements.
Academic assessment scores are no longer the sole indicator of student achievement and school performance. The purpose of including additional measures and disaggregating student subgroups aim to gather more data on schoolwide and individual student performance.
Given the intrinsic role of technology in carrying out state plans under ESSA, student data privacy protection becomes all the more important.References:
- Every Student Succeeds Act, S.1177, 114th Cong. (2015). Retrieved from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-114s1177enr/pdf/BILLS-114s1177enr.pdf
- No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Public Law 107-110. (2002). Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html
- Summary of the Every Student Succeeds Act, Legislation Reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Retreived from: http://www.ncsl.org/documents/educ/ESSA_summary_NCSL.pdf