Paula Love shares her insights on what the new legislation will mean to language and literacy educators in terms of funding, accountability, and professional development.
Late last year, President Obama signed the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which replaced No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Other than a different name, though, what does the transition from NCLB to ESSA actually bring to administrators as well as ELA (English Language Arts) and ELL (English Language Learner) educators? How will funding, measures of accountability, and professional development change, and how can educators take advantage of the opportunities ESSA offers? To answer these questions, here are my thoughts on how ESSA will impact districts and schools, as well as comments from a number of K-12 industry leaders who have decades of experience working with ELL and ELA educators around the country.
FUNDING GETS FLEXIBLE
First of all, ESSA discontinues two longstanding programs—Striving Readers and Reading First—and introduces a new signature literacy program, Literacy Education for All, Results for the Nation (LEARN). The LEARN program will provide grants to states to support literacy instruction in high-need schools. States and districts are required to use the funds to support students from birth through grade 12, with a minimum of 15% for children birth through age five, 40% for students in grades K–5, and 40% for students in grades 6–12. Under ESSA, the Department of Education will continue to value and emphasize evidence-based programs. In reviewing applications for the new LEARN grants, the U.S. Secretary of Education will give higher priority to states that use funds for evidence-based activities. The effective date for this and all the other changes to the funding for competitive grant programs in ESSA is October 1.
Another important change under ESSA is the formal authorization of the Innovative Approaches to Literacy grant program, which until now has received funding through appropriations. This signals longevity for this highly competitive grant program.
The Block grant, called the Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grant, is something school leaders are buzzing about. It’s a sizeable fund—$1.65 billion in fiscal year 2017—with few apparent restrictions. States will need to submit plans to the Department of Education, however we are not yet certain how those plans will be reviewed or approved. Initial language in the law appears to give broad flexibility for these funds, of which 95% will be allocated to districts. Districts are required to prioritize spending so that the highest-need student populations receive the most support and must conduct a needs assessment that will guide the use of funds.
- Activities to help students become well-rounded, such as STEM, arts programs, and Advanced Placement/International Baccalaureate test fee reimbursement (at least 20%); Activities to support healthy students such as drug abuse prevention and anti-bullying programs (at least 20%); andTechnology (up to 60%, though not more than 15% can be spent on infrastructure).
- ESSA’s new rules governing fund transferability have the potential to change how states and districts use several federal funding streams in order to fund their most pressing needs. Fund transferability is significantly increased under ESSA, allowing a transfer of up to 100% of a program’s funding between a number of federally-funded programs. As an example, a district with a sudden influx of students with limited English proficiency can choose to transfer funds from another program to its English Language Learner State Grant program.
- Another source of funding for literacy programs is Title I, which also has increased flexibility under ESSA. Before the passage of ESSA, a school could only use Title I funds for schoolwide programs if the school had more than 40% of students coming from low-income backgrounds. Under ESSA, a state can grant a waiver from that 40% threshold if the proposed use of funds would strongly impact student achievement. As Todd Brekhus, the president of myON, which offers students a personalized literacy environment, pointed out, “With this new flexibility, Title I funds are expected to be used more heavily for schoolwide purchases, particularly for large-scale literacy programs.”
INCREASED FUNDING FOR ELLs
Programs for English language learners funded under Title III will receive a 20% boost (to almost $885 million in funding) by 2020 under ESSA. According to Stacy Hurst, a former teacher who is currently a curriculum specialist for Reading Horizons, “The new legislation makes it possible for resources to be allocated to districts that have larger populations of low income and ELL students, and children with disabilities.” Hurst added that “such funding could potentially be used to inform the language development and proficiency of all learners who would benefit from additional support and instruction.”
“In my opinion, making English language learners a priority is one of the best components of ESSA,” said Ted Levine, the president and CEO of Kids Discover. “Additionally, I see an increased flexibility in the types of ELA resources and products that can be purchased. Under NCLB, social studies and arts got moved to the sidelines. In my view, products that integrate ELA, social studies, and science will come more into favor, and help meet the more efficient spending requirements under ESSA.”
As potential funding sources expand, accountability expectations are rising accordingly; every state’s school accountability system must now include improving English language proficiency as an academic indicator. How does ESSA define success? As Hurst put it, “Literacy funding will include stringent parameters around two areas: evidence and equity.”
SHIFTING ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES
Programs for English la In terms of accountability for ELLs, ESSA offers new options for reporting. For example, it allows states to exclude students who are learning English from both testing and reporting for one year. When students successfully reach proficiency and leave the ELL subgroup, states can continue to include them in that subgroup for accountability reporting for up to four years—a win for educators who believe that immediate removal from the subgroup is unfair.
Hurst went on to say that, with English Language proficiency “now one of the four indicators that must be included in the accountability systems of state plans, all schools will need to demonstrate that they are improving the outcomes for this population.” When asked how they can demonstrate this improvement, she speculated that “accountability in this area will likely focus on the extent to which schools can move ELL students from pull-out/push-in and sheltered instruction models to full English inclusion.” The final regulations will be published and go into effect in October 2016.
Stephan Knobloch, Ed.D, who spent ten years as the director of Research at Loudoun County Public Schools (VA) and is now senior vice president of research and advisory services at K12 Insight, had other thoughts about how districts can define and measure accountability. According to Knobloch, ESSA “expands the lens of success to other non-academic indicators, such as school culture and professional development.” And, Knobloch pointed out, “It isn’t just the scope of student performance that’s wider under ESSA. The new law deliberately expands the scope of accountability beyond yearly testing metrics to include other non-academic factors, such as school climate and student engagement.
ESSA improves on NCLB here, Knobloch said, because “for teachers and principals as well as for parents/guardians, non-academic indicators provide a more holistic approach to assess both student and school performance.” Many educators may applaud moving beyond end-of-year testing as a measure of success, but the question remains: How do you quantify “non-academic indicators”? According to Knobloch, “Gathering feedback via online channels, in-person channels, and paper in multiple languages can ensure that all voices are invited to participate and all voices are valued.”
Levine believes that districts can also gather actionable information through the educational materials they use. “Digital resources and platforms often offer accurate data and feedback loops to educators about how their students are performing,” Levine said. “As we move away from an over-emphasis on testing, particularly large summative assessments, educators will need to find smaller pockets of data on their students, whether that comes from frequent formative assessments or data analysis”.
All of these changes, said Hurst, put teachers “on the front lines, implementing instructional approaches that integrate language instruction, content, and accountability.” As with any transformation of teaching and learning, PD will be key. As Hurst put it, “Informed teachers are better equipped to help identify and influence the distribution of funds that can be allocated to ELL students under the ESSA provisions.”
Collaborative, Evidence-Based Professional Development
Title II funds, which are often called Teacher-Quality grants, are typically earmarked for recruitment, professional development, and retention of high-quality teachers and principals. Under ESSA, Title II funds can also be used for instructional services provided by school libraries. That’s going to make a world of difference for some schools.
However, the Title II funding formula is changing under ESSA to favor high-poverty districts over those with larger populations, so some states will see huge increases or decreases in Title II funding. This swing in funds, which will happen in phases over four years, will present new opportunities for some states and new challenges for others.
“ESSA encourages shared responsibility, which will likely lead to increased collaboration between offices within departments of education and local education agencies,” said Amy Howie, who is applying her years of experience as a special ed teacher and assistant principal to direct Project SUCCESS for PCG Education.
Under ESSA, Howie said, “Professional development will need to be focused on evidence-based practices that impact student performance. To meet the individual needs of all students, teachers and administrators need PD on how to design instruction based on the principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) as well as more effective use of data to inform instruction. States and LEAs will need ongoing PD and coaching to effectively implement Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS). Teachers and administrators will need continued support in implementing alternate achievement standards and insuring all students have access to grade-level standards.”
Howie concluded, “The goal of every educator is the same: provide access to grade-level content with high quality instruction and support all students to reach high levels of achievement. For this to happen, a culture must be created in which educators are provided resources based on needs that are determined by careful review of multiple data points and information.”
I couldn’t agree with her more. ESSA offers states and districts the authority and flexibility to implement programs and services that address their unique needs. This is exciting and has the potential to really improve student outcomes. On the flip side, I worry about the squeaky wheel getting the grease, leaving the most underserved students without the support they need. Another issue of concern is the capacity of state and local education agencies to provide the technical assistance that is needed. Time will tell if ESSA has struck the right balance between federal and state/local decision-making.
Dr. Paula Love, the founder and president of RFPMatch.com, is known in the education industry as the Matchmaker of Funding or the Funding Doctor. She is a funding expert with decades of experience delivering grant strategies to state and local educational agencies, schools, and institutions of higher learning.