Be aligned with entrance requirements for credit-bearing college coursework; Be aligned with relevant state career and technical education (CTE) standards; and Include at least three levels of academic achievement. Current State Policy Gap Analysis Our state joined the Progressive English and Math Standards (PEMS) consortium in 2013, which adopted math and ELA standards aligned with college entrance requirements. We joined the Millennial Science Standards (MSS) consortium in 2014, which uses college-entrance-aligned standards. Each consortium has stated its intent to align with CTE standards by the end of school year 2017. Met Partial Not Met Policies are in place to comply with ESSA requirements by 2017; however, a number of districts have not fully implemented standards, and some alignment work remains. ESSA Implementation Status and/or Supporting Data The PEMS and MSS consortiums have held the first meetings in the process of aligning respective standards with national CTE standards by 2017. Evaluation results indicate that 90% of districts “agree” or “strongly agree” that math and ELA teachers have successfully implemented standards in their classrooms (State PEMS Evaluation, 2016). Next Steps State content experts will convene in February 2017 to continue work on analyzing standards’ alignment. State leaders will meet with LEAs to determine local needs to increase classroom-level implementation.
Next Steps IV. C. Optional State Technical Assistance May provide additional TA by: Initiating additional improvement in any LEA with— significant number of schools that are consistently identified for comprehensive support and not meeting exit criteria, or significant number of schools identified for targeted support; and Establishing alternative, evidence-based strategies for comprehensive support and targeted support status schools. Current State Policy Gap Analysis Met Partial Not Met ESSA Implementation Status and/or Supporting Data Next Steps IV. D. Exit Criteria for Low-Performing Schools Establish exit criteria for: Comprehensive support schools, not to exceed 4 years, otherwise resulting in more rigorous action, and Additional targeted support schools, not to exceed a state-determined number of years, otherwise resulting in identification for comprehensive support. Current State Policy Gap Analysis Met Partial Not Met ESSA Implementation Status and/or Supporting Data
Under NCLB, states were required to set targets for proficiency, graduation rates, participation rates, and at least one other academic indicator. ESSA eliminates participation rates as an explicit target but effectively embeds a 95% target within the proficiency calculation (see section III.C.). ESSA eliminates targets for the other academic indicator and moves the ELP progress target from Title III to Title I. NCLB required ambitious long-term proficiency targets of 100% by the year 2013–14 and intermediate targets that increased at least once every 3 years. ESSA requires that targets be ambitious but does not prescribe a timeline or a target-setting methodology for long-term or interim goals. Additional Resources Getting It Right: Crafting Federal Accountability for Higher Student Performance and a Stronger America (The Education Trust, 2011) III. C. Accountability Indicators The statewide accountability system must annually measure, for all students and for each subgroup in all public schools, the following indicators: Proficiency in mathematics and reading/ELA on statewide tests calculated by including in the denominator the greater of: The number of students participating in the assessments, or Ninety-five percent of all students or students in a subgroup. Four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate, with the option also to include an extended-year graduation rate (high schools); Student growth or another academic indicator (elementary and middle schools); Percentage of students making progress in attaining proficiency on statewide ELP assessment within a state-determined timeline, in each of Grades 3–8 and once in high school (measure for EL subgroup only); An additional indicator of school quality or student success that is valid and reliable, is comparable statewide (by grade span), and allows for meaningful differentiation in school performance, which may include: Student engagement; Educator engagement; Student access to and completion of advanced coursework; Postsecondary readiness; School climate and safety; and Any other indicator that meets technical requirements. Technical Requirements Each of the required indicators must be valid, reliable, and comparable statewide across all LEAs and calculated the same way in all schools (except that the additional indicator of school quality or success may vary by grade span). All indicators except ELP progress must be disaggregated by each subgroup. The additional indicator of school quality or student success also must aid in the meaningful differentiation of schools. Sec. 1111(c)(4)(B) Shifts From NCLB