Washington, DC - The U.S. Department of Education sent proposals to the committee working on proposed regulations for the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). The proposals focus on the issues being negotiated: Title I, Part A assessments, and the requirement that federal Title I-A funds supplement, not supplant, state and local resources.

The proposals are in response to input from negotiators given during the committee's first three-day session in March. The committee meets again this week from April 6-8.

"These proposals are part of the important work this committee is doing to ensure the law is implemented smoothly and with a focus on the most vulnerable students, consistent with the law's purpose," said Ann Whalen, senior advisor to the Secretary, delegated the duties of the assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education. "We look forward to continuing to work with the committee to promote equity and excellence for all students by providing states and school districts with timely regulations so that they can plan ahead to support students and educators."

Assessments

The Department sent the committee proposals that would support states and districts in fairly measuring the progress of all students by ensuring annual statewide assessments are valid, reliable, fair, and of high technical quality so that schools can provide good information on student performance for parents and educators. In particular, reflecting feedback from the committee, the Department's proposals address the need for inclusive and accessible assessments for students with disabilities and English learners. Specifically, the Department proposes language, consistent with the law, that:

• Supports the new statutory language explicitly allowing states to use computer-adaptive assessments while still making sure that students with disabilities receive all appropriate accommodations to which they are entitled under the law and that parents, and educators receive a valid and reliable determination of a student's grade level achievement and growth toward grade-level standards;
• Adopts safeguards to ensure that states meaningfully assess students with disabilities and to ensure only students with the most significant cognitive disabilities are assessed against alternate academic achievement standards;
• Ensures that states are using a statewide English language proficiency assessment to provide consistent determinations of each English learner's progress toward learning English;
• Increases meaningful access to statewide assessments in reading/language arts and mathematics if there is a high concentration of a particular population of English learners in a state, consistent with the practices of a majority of states in offering native language assessments;
• Ensures that students taking higher-level math coursework in eighth-grade are not subjected to double testing, while clarifying that all students must have the opportunity to be prepared for and to take advanced mathematics coursework in middle school; and
• Supports states in offering flexibility for a district to administer a nationally recognized high school assessment in place of the statewide assessment, by providing criteria and parameters for ensuring that any selected assessment will be offered to all students within the district and that such assessments are of high quality and will generate results comparable to the statewide assessment for all students, including students with disabilities and English learners.

Supplement, not supplant

Federal resources provided under Title I to high-poverty schools are intended to provide additional educational resources and supports that at-risk students need to succeed, instead of being used to make up for shortfalls in state and local funding. But in some places around the country, Title I schools receive fewer state and local dollars than the non-Title I schools within the same district. This prevents high-poverty schools from being able to provide supplemental supports to the children who need them the most.

The Department's proposal—based on feedback from the committee − clarifies how districts can meet the new compliance provision in the law and ensure that Title I schools receive at least as much in state and local funding as the average non-Title I school in that district. This clarification will help districts ensure that Title I funds provide truly supplemental supports for students, while also maintaining districts' authority to choose their own methodology to allocate state and local funds. The proposal also reflects the committee's input with respect to providing additional flexibility to accommodate unique circumstances.

ESSA

ESSA replaces the outdated No Child Left Behind law, and expands on the good work this Administration, states, districts and schools across the country have already started. The new law will help build on key progress that the country has made in education over recent years—including a record high school graduation rate of 82 percent, significant expansion of high-quality preschool, and a million more African American and Hispanic students enrolled in college than in 2008.

ESSA promotes equitable access to educational opportunities in critical ways, such as asking states to hold all students to high academic standards to prepare them for college and careers and ensuring action in the lowest-performing schools, high schools with low graduation rates, and in schools that are consistently failing subgroups of students. Maintaining effective, time-limited, high-quality assessments and ensuring that all states and districts know how to meet the updated "supplement not supplant" requirement are crucial to achieving these objectives.

The Department hosted numerous public forums, held more than 100 meetings with stakeholders and received hundreds of written comments on how to best support states, districts and schools in the transition to the new law, which informed the negotiated rulemaking process that is now underway. The negotiators represent the constituencies that are significantly affected by the topics proposed for negotiation, including state and local education administrators and board members, tribal leadership, parents and students, teachers, principals, other school leaders, and the civil rights and business communities.