U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos and her team have been approving state plans for implementing the Every Student Succeeds Act at a fast and furious pace: They鈥檝e announced approvals for 13 states and the District of Columbia over the past few weeks. And dozens of new applications were expected to pour into the agency this week.
So far, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, Tennessee, and Vermont have gotten the green light. Massachusetts was awaiting its approval as of last week. Colorado got feedback from the Education Department and then asked for more time to submit its revised plan.
And Michigan remained the biggest cliffhanger as of late last week. The department originally told the state its plan had huge holes and might not be ready for review.
Among the big takeaways from the first round of ESSA approvals were:
1. The department鈥檚 feedback on plans may not be as influential as would be expected.
The agency flagged certain issues with state plans. But by and large, states didn鈥檛 make big revisions in those areas鈥攁nd won approval anyway.
For instance, Connecticut and Vermont got their way on measuring student achievement. Both states will be able to use so-called 鈥渟cale scores.鈥� Those help capture student progress as opposed to straight up proficiency rates, which is what many people鈥攊ncluding, at least initially, the department鈥攕aid ESSA requires. Connecticut, in particular, did not stand down on this issue, telling the department that 鈥淲ebster鈥檚 Dictionary defines proficiency not only as a state of being proficient, but also as an advancement in knowledge or skill.鈥�
Tennessee will still be able to use so-called 鈥渟upersubgroups,鈥� which combine different historically overlooked groups of students, such as racial and ethnic minorities, English-language learners, and students in special education, for accountability purposes. That will be allowed despite the fact that the department said it was a no-no in its initial feedback to the state.
In its revised plan, Tennessee promised to use both combined and broken-out subgroups in identifying schools for 鈥渢argeted improvement鈥� under the law. And the state provided some data to explain its reasoning behind having a combined black, Hispanic, and Native American subgroup. Tennessee argued that more schools would actually be identified as needing help using the supersubgroup approach than would be otherwise. That appeared to persuade DeVos and her team, which gave Tennessee鈥檚 plan the thumbs-up late last month.
ESSA for the first time calls for states to factor into their accountability systems whether English-language learners are making progress in mastering the language. It鈥檚 supposed to be a separate component in the accountability system. But Connecticut incorporates English-language proficiency into the academic-growth part of its plan. The department told the Nutmeg State to change that. Connecticut instead provided more information to explain its thinking, and that seemed to work for the agency.
2. States worked the hardest to fix their plans in the areas in which the department pushed the most.
Delaware, Louisiana, and other states changed the way science factored into accountability, moving it to a different part of their system, at the behest of the Education Department. That was an issue the department clearly thought was important: It got flagged in numerous plans.
3. Some state plans may not be as ambitious as some ESSA experts would have hoped.
Arizona got the go-ahead to give lower weight to the reading and math scores of students who have only been at a particular school for a short amount of time. Some experts worry that this change could diminish the importance of children from transient populations鈥攊ncluding poor and minority students.
North Dakota was told it needed to make sure that academic factors鈥攕uch as test scores and graduation rates鈥攃arried 鈥渕uch greater weight鈥� than other factors, say, student engagement and college and career readiness. As a result, North Dakota upped the percentage from 48 percent for academic factors to 51 percent, according to an analysis by Chad Aldeman, a principal at the consulting group Bellwether Education Partners, who reviewed select plans. That may not be what Congress had in mind when it used the words 鈥渕uch greater鈥� weight, he said.
The department also asked North Dakota to be more specific about how it would decide which schools fall below the 67 percent graduation rate that triggers whole-school interventions. The state decided to go with schools where the six-year graduation rate falls below that threshold. That wouldn鈥檛 have flown under the Obama administration鈥檚 regulations for the law, which Congress nixed.
4. Some elements in plans are still to be determined, even though the plans themselves are approved.
Illinois is planning to use a mix of school quality indicators, including school climate and chronic absenteeism. But the state is also hoping to add another unspecified measure aimed at elementary and middle schools, as well as a fine arts measure. The Land of Lincoln still has to figure out the details of those indicators.
And states haven鈥檛 yet had to provide lists of which schools will be flagged as needing extra help. Also, most plans don鈥檛 go into detail about what kinds of strategies states and districts use to fix low-performing schools. The lists of schools pinpointed for improvement won鈥檛 be released until after the 2017-18 school year.
What鈥檚 next: It鈥檚 worth watching to see if the department will be as extensive in its feedback鈥攐r as flexible鈥攚hen the remaining 34 states turn in their plans.
