THE EVERY STUDENT SUCCEEDS ACT:

Implications for Equity in Mississippi

Read ahead material for February 25, 2016 webinar

Passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) pages of this document outline specific opportunities for
represents new opportunities for shaping education stakeholder engagement in ESSA (see Appendix A).
policy and recasts the federal, state, and local roles in
ensuring educational equity. There is inherent risk in the There are several decision points that the Mississippi
increased state autonomy especially for communities Department of Education will need to address in
where there is little engagement or political will to make revising the state's accountability plan. Each of these
meaningful improvements on behalf of underserved decision points represent an opportunity for Mississippi
students and schools. However, it also presents great stakeholders to help design and implement effective and
opportunities for state-based civil rights and equity equitable accountability and support systems that best
communities and local education leaders to participate in meet the needs of students, educators, and decision-
strengthening a comprehensive system of accountability makers. The range of stakeholder groups that need to be
and improvement. engaged in this process include: civil rights organizations,
family/community groups, teachers and educator groups,
Input and support from a broad and politically inclusive organized labor and education personnel, researchers
set of stakeholders toward the development of state- and advocacy organizations, elected officials, student
specific equity agendas/strategies is critical to the groups, teacher educators and others from higher
successful development, implementation, and ultimate education, school boards, and the business community.
sustainability of ESSA in the states. The final three
Decision points are indicated with an arrow: DP

The Development of ESEA, in Brief:

1965: Elementary and 1994: Improving 2001: No Child Left 2011: Waivers December 2015:
Secondary Education America’s Schools Behind Act (NCLB) - formal way for Every Student
Act passes (ESEA) – first Act requires expands the federal states to apply Succeeds Act (ESSA)
major federal education states to develop role in holding for “flexibility” updates NCLB, with
legislation, prioritizes standards states and districts from certain full implementation
“full educational and aligned accountable for all provisions of of state accountability
opportunity.” assessments. students. NCLB/ESEA. plans in 2017.

1978-1981: The US 1983: A Nation at Risk: The 2013: For Each and Every Child:
Department of Education Imperative for Educational A Strategy for Education Equity
(US ED) was established. Reform is published. and Excellence is published.

DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION

 NCLB (2001)
Waivers (2011) ESSA (2015) Mississippi
Goals for Student Achievement

NCLB: A federally set goal of DP ESSA: States must set Currently in MS: The MS state
100% “proficiency” in math long-term goals for accountability task force specifies goals.
and English language arts (ELA) student achievement with
by 2014. States determine measurements of interim • Goal 1: Mobilize resources and
annual targets to get there. progress. supplies to help ensure that all
students exit 3rd grade reading on
Waivers: States set annual grade level.
goals that either:
• Goal 2: Reduce the dropout rate to
• reduce by half the 13% by 2015.
percentage of students
who are not proficient • Goal 3: Have 60% of students
within 6 years; scoring proficient or advanced
on assessments of the Common
• are set in annual equal Core State Standards by 2016 with
increments toward the goal incremental increases of 3% each
of having 100 % proficiency year thereafter.
by 2020; or
Moving Forward: MS will need to align
• are ambitious but these goals with ESSA, make them long-
achievable and must term, and engage with MS stakeholders
be approved by the US around this decision point.
Department of Education
(US ED).

Goals for High School Graduation Rates

NCLB: States must set a long- DP ESSA: States must set a long- Currently in MS: The state's waiver set a
term high school graduation term goal for 4-year high long-term goal of increasing its graduation
rate goal and annual targets school graduation rates with rate to 85% by the 2017-2018 school year,
for meeting that long-term measurements of interim with interim goals of 81% in 2016-17 and
goal that are “continuous and progress. 77% in 2015-16. The state uses a 4-year
substantial” (as defined in cohort graduation rate.
federal regulation). DP States may set goals for
extended-year high school Moving Forward: MS will need to report
Waiver: Same as NCLB. graduation rates, but those on graduation rates disaggregated by
goals must be higher than the subgroup, not just for all students. In
4-year graduation rate goal. addition, MS may consider setting goals
for extended-year high school graduation
rates.

Accountability Indicators

NCLB: For elementary and ESSA: For elementary and Currently in MS: The state's
middle schools, states must: middle schools, states must: accountability system assesses four
indicators (“components”):
• administer annual • administer annual
assessments (grades 3-8, in assessments (grades 3-8, • proficiency (based on statewide
math and ELA); and in math and ELA); and assessments and end-of-course
assessments required for graduation;
• include 1 indicator selected DP • include a “measure of only scores of proficient and above
by the state. student growth” or other are counted);
academic indicator that
For high schools, states must: allows for meaningful

2 | Partners for Each and Every Child DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION February 2016
 NCLB (2001)
Waivers (2011) ESSA (2015) Mississippi
Accountability Indicators - Continued

• administer annual • differentiation among • growth (increase of performance/

assessments (at least once, student groups. proficiency from one year to the
in math and ELA); and next);
For high schools, states:
• track graduation rates. • graduation rate (4-year cohort;
• must administer annual
Waivers: Multiple indicators assessments (at least once, • acceleration (beginning 2015-
are permitted. in math and ELA); 16 school year participation and
performance combined); and
• must track 4-year
graduation rate (states 10 measures within those components
DP may also use an extended- include: reading proficiency, math
year graduation rate); and proficiency, science proficiency, U.S.
history proficiency; reading growth (all
DP • may include student students and the lowest 25%), math
growth based on annual growth (all students and the lowest 25%);
assessments. graduation rate; acceleration.
Moving Forward: MS will need to make
annual determinations and report
on the indicators outlined in ESSA.
Specifically, MS will need to determine
appropriate weights for these indicators,
with academic indicators receiving
“substantial weight” individually and
collectively making up a “much greater
weight” than the additional indicator(s)
of school quality or student success. MS
stakeholders have an opportunity to
work together to determine the most
appropriate weights for the state’s system.

Additional Accountability Indicators

NCLB: N/A ESSA: For All Schools, states Moving Forward: MS does not currently
must: use EL proficiency as an indicator in its
accountability system. The state will have
Waivers: Multiple indicators DP • include annual English to measure and report EL proficiency at
language (EL) proficiency the elementary, middle, and high school
are permitted. rates; and levels and will need to incorporate EL
DP • include at least 1 additional proficiency in a more significant and
indicator of school quality relevant way in its state accountability
or success that allows for system moving forward.
meaningful differentiation Additionally, MS will need to determine
among student groups which additional indicator(s) that measure
(e.g., school discipline, school quality or student success is most
chronic absenteeism). appropriate for its student population.
These gaps provide an opportunity for MS
stakeholders to work together to design
and implement the use of EL proficiency
and to determine the appropriate
additional indicator(s) for the state’s
system.

3 | Partners for Each and Every Child DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION February 2016
 NCLB (2001)
Waivers (2011) ESSA (2015) Mississippi
Report Cards and Data Reporting

NCLB: Annual state and district ESSA: Annual state and district Currently in MS: The MS annual state and
report cards are required, report cards are required and district report card includes:
including: must include information on:
• % students making 1 year's progress
• performance on academic 1. State’s accountability in 1 year’s time on the state
assessments; system, including: assessment, with an emphasis on the
progress of the lowest 25% in the
• graduation rates; DP • long-term goals, measures school or district;
of interim progress for all
• an additional indicator for students and subgroups, • the number of students who graduate
all students; and on all accountability in 4 years from a school or district
• information on teacher indicators; with a regular high school diploma
qualifications. divided by the number of students
DP • minimum number of who entered 4 years earlier as first-
All data must be disaggregated students for subgroups time 9th graders.
by subgroup. (N-size); and
• % students scoring proficient or
Waivers: Annual state and DP • a system for meaningfully advanced on the current state
district report cards are differentiating schools, assessments (ELA, math, science,
required. including schools identified history);
for Comprehensive Support
& Improvement and • % of students participating in
respective exit criteria. statewide assessments for ELA,
mathematics, and science; and
2. Performance on
annual assessments (ELA, • the components of its accountability
mathematics, and science): system with grades "A-F" assigned
Performance of all students based on five performance categories.
and subgroups disaggregated
by: economic disadvantage; Moving Forward: Currently, MS does
each major racial and ethnic not measure subgroups by N-size and
group; gender; disability, instead measures subgroups that are
English learner, and migrant included in the “lowest 25%” in schools,
status; homeless; foster care; which may mask important information
and military-connection. about students. Under ESSA, MS will be
required to determine N-size, to show
3. Educator Equity: Equitable how the number is statistically sound, and
distribution of teachers (and collaborate with MS stakeholders (e.g.,
potentially school leaders). See teachers, principals, other school leaders,
page 10, "Educator Equity," for and parents) in determining the minimum
more information. number.
DP 4. Civil Rights Data: e.g., Under ESSA, MS report cards will need to
bullying and harassment. include educator equity, civil rights, and
early childhood data.
5. Early Childhood Data: %
students enrolled in preschool State report cards must be presented in
programs. an understandable and uniform format
that is developed in consultation with
parent and family stakeholders, and
in a language parents and families can
understand.

4 | Partners for Each and Every Child DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION February 2016
 NCLB (2001)
Waivers (2011) ESSA (2015) Mississippi
Schools Identified for Comprehensive Reform Based on Performance of All Students

NCLB: No requirement for ESSA: States must identify Currently in MS: Priority schools are
states to differentiate between schools for Comprehensive schools that have been identified as
schools based on degrees of Support & Improvement, at among the lowest performing in the State
improved performance or least once every 3 years: (total number must be at least 5% of the
levels of need. Title I schools in the state) or any school
• the lowest performing 5% that receives an “F” for 2 consecutive
Waivers: States must classify of Title I schools; and years. Priority schools are responsible
the lowest performing 5% for implementing interventions for a
of Title I schools as Priority • all high schools with a
graduation rate at or below minimum of 3 years.
schools.
67%. Moving Forward: MS will have to
States must classify Title I high reclassify schools identified for support
schools with a graduation rate Note: Schools that are
consistently underperforming and improvement in different ways
below 60% as Priority or Focus based on all of the annual accountability
schools. over a period of time, and
that fail to achieve state indicators, disaggregated by subgroup.
DP determined “exit criteria,” Under ESSA, for each Comprehensive
must be reclassified by the school identified by the state, and
state as Comprehensive in partnership with stakeholders,
Support & Improvement each district shall locally develop and
schools. implement a Comprehensive Support
& Improvement plan for the school
to improve student outcomes. Plans
must be approved by the school,
school district, and the MS and must
include evidence-based interventions, a
school-level needs assessment, and an
identification of resource inequities – all
areas of opportunity for MS stakeholder
engagement.

Schools Identified for Targeted Reform Based on Subgroup Performance

NCLB: Any school that misses ESSA: States must identify, Currently in MS: Focus schools are
a performance target for annually, any school with a schools that receive a “D” or “F” for 2
any subgroup for 2 or more subgroup of students that is consecutive years, and are responsible
consecutive years is identified consistently underperforming for implementing interventions for
for improvement. based on all of the indicators a minimum of 2 years. Any schools
in the state accountability identified as Focus will remain on the
Waivers: States must classify system for Targeted Support & Focus list until the school meets the exit
10% of Title I schools with the Improvement. criteria.
largest achievement gaps as
Focus schools. States must also identify Moving Forward: Each Targeted and
schools where the Additional Targeted school should
DP performance of any subgroup develop and implement school-level
of students is below the level plans in partnership with stakeholders
used to identify schools for (e.g., parents, teachers, principals, school
the bottom 5% in the state for leaders). Plans must be approved by the
Additional Targeted Support & district and must include evidence-based
Improvement. If these schools interventions and an identification of
fail to meet “exit criteria," resource inequities – areas of opportunity
(state-defined and for a state- for MS stakeholder engagement.
determined period of time)
they will be reclassified as
Comprehensive schools.

5 | Partners for Each and Every Child DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION February 2016
 NCLB (2001)
Waivers (2011) ESSA (2015) Mississippi
Interventions and Supports for Struggling Schools

NCLB: Interventions escalate ESSA: 1. Comprehensive Currently in MS: Priority schools: Each
based on the number of Support & Improvement district works with its Priority Schools to
years a school is identified for Schools set annual goals; MS approves the annual
improvement. Interventions goals with consultation with the district.
include: States identify; districts If a school does not improve after 2 years
write and submit plans; in the process, state conservatorship is
• public school choice; the state monitors. States a possibility. The MS Code requires that
intervene after no more than schools failing for 2 consecutive years may
• supplemental educational 4 consecutive years. District
services (e.g., tutoring); be transformed into a New Start School
plans must: under the administration and control of
• corrective action; and • be based on a school-level the MS Recovery School District within
• restructuring. needs assessment; the state. Schools failing to exit Priority
status after 3 years will be required
Waivers: Priority schools must • be approved by the school, to attend all MDE training regarding
implement comprehensive school district, and state; turnaround principles that align to the
interventions that incorporate • be monitored and approved implementation/action plan for
seven turnaround principles: periodically reviewed by the school.
• strong leadership; the state; and Focus schools: MDE staff provide
• effective teaching; DP • identify resource inequities additional support and quarterly follow-
to be addressed. up training for any school not exiting
• redesigning school time; Priority or Focus status after 3 years of
2. Targeted Support & implementation. This training and support
• strengthening instructional Improvement Schools:
program; is aligned to the turnaround principles,
Districts identify; schools write is different and more rigorous when
• using data to strengthen and submit plans; the district compared to support provided to other
instruction; monitors. States and districts Priority and Focus schools, and is required
• strengthening school have to take more-aggressive for all schools that have not met exit
climate; and action in schools where criteria.
subgroups are “consistently Moving Forward: MS will need to align
• family and community underperforming,” despite
engagement. Priority and Focus school interventions
local interventions. School and supports with those required for
Focus schools must implement plans must: ESSA's Comprehensive, Targeted, and
interventions determined by • be approved and Additional Targeted schools. See page 5
the school district. monitored by the school for more information about how these
district; and schools must be identified.
• result in additional action State and districts must locally develop
for underperformance plans for interventions and supports for
over a period of time Comprehensive, Targeted, and Additional
determined by the district. Targeted schools in consultation with MS
stakeholders.
3. Additional Targeted
Support Schools:
Districts identify schools.
Schools must submit plans.
DP Failure to meet “exit criteria”
results in reclassification by the
state as Comprehensive. Plans
have same criteria as Targeted,
and must identify and address
DP resource inequities.

6 | Partners for Each and Every Child DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION February 2016
 NCLB (2001)
Waivers (2011) ESSA (2015) Mississippi
Intervention Timeline

NCLB: Schools must meet ESSA: Comprehensive Support Currently in MS: Priority school
increasingly rigorous targets & Improvement schools interventions must be implemented for a
each year or implement have 4 years to meet state- minimum of 3 years. If the school’s grade
interventions that escalate set criteria that allow them level improves, the school will take the
annually toward 100% to exit the Comprehensive higher grade level but continue to be
proficiency in 2014. interventions status. If they considered as a Priority school for federal
do not meet these criteria, reporting and continue to implement the
Waivers: Priority schools must they must implement more Priority school interventions for the 3-year
implement interventions for at
least 3 years. DP rigorous state-determined minimum.
interventions, which
may include school-level Focus school interventions must be
States set criteria to enable implemented for a minimum of 2 years.
schools to exit Priority status. operations.
If the school’s grade level improves, the
Any school with a subgroup school will take the higher grade level but
performing at the level of continue to be considered a Focus school
the lowest-performing 5% of for federal reporting and will continue to
all Title I-receiving schools implement the Focus school interventions
and implementing Targeted for the 2-year minimum.
interventions must reach
Moving Forward: MS need to determine
DP state-set "exit criteria" by a a timeline for intervention that aligns
state-set time period or the
school will be identified for with the requirements under ESSA.
Comprehensive Support & Determining both the timeline and the
Improvement. required interventions are opportunities
for MS stakeholder engagement.

School Improvement Funding

NCLB: A separate federal ESSA: States must use 7% of Currently in MS: Priority schools are
funding stream is authorized Title I allocations for school required to spend “up to 20%” of their
for school improvement. States improvement activities. Title I funds on improvement.
are required to implement
specific intervention models to DP States may use 3% of Title I Focus schools are required to spend 10%
receive funding. allocations for “direct student of their Title I funds on improvement.
services,” in consultation with
Waivers: States can be eligible districts, including: Moving Forward: In order to receive
for School Improvement ESSA’s school improvement resources,
Grants (SIG) to support school • Advanced Placement, the state and local districts must develop
improvement activity. International implementation plans with input from MS
Baccalaureate, and other stakeholders (e.g., policy makers, district
advanced course work; leadership, representatives of Indian
tribes located in the State, teachers,
• career and technical principals, other school leaders, charter
education that leads to school leaders, specialized instructional
an industry-recognized support personnel, paraprofessionals,
credential; administrators, other staff, parents and
• credit recovery programs; families).
• personalized learning; and In addition, MS might consider the
strategic opportunity of using Title II
• transportation from professional learning funds to support
Comprehensive Support & teacher and staff development in high-
Improvement schools to poverty schools.
higher performing schools.

7 | Partners for Each and Every Child DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION February 2016
 NCLB (2001)
Waivers (2011) ESSA (2015) Mississippi
Standards

NCLB: States must adopt DP ESSA: States must demonstrate Currently in MS: Mississippi College and
�hallenging academic that their challenging Career Ready Standards (MCCRS) are
standards. academic standards are aligned with Common Core, and based on
aligned with entry-level proficiency needed for students to attend
Waivers: States must adopt course requirements in the college.
federally-approved college and state’s public system of higher
career ready standards. education and the state’s Moving Forward: MS will need to
career and technical education demonstrate that the MCCRS are
standards. "challenging" under the new law.

Note: The US Secretary of

Education cannot mandate,
direct, control, coerce, or
exercise any direction or
supervision over standards
adopted or implemented by
the state.

Assessments

NCLB: States must assess ESSA: States must assess Currently in MS: The state’s new
at least 95% of all students at least 95% of all students Mississippi Assessment Program (MAP)
annually in grades 3-8, and at annually in grades 3-8, and at assesses students using online, computer-
least once in high school, in least once in high school, in based tests in grades 3-8 in ELA and math.
math and ELA. math and ELA, with science The ACT is administered to all students
assessments required at least classified as Juniors.
Waivers: States must assess once in each grade span.
at least 95% of all students Beginning in the 2016-2017 school year,
annually in grades 3-8, and States may use an alternate the 3rd grade ELA assessment will be
at least once in high school, DP assessment to assess up to used for promotion/retention decisions as
in math and English language 1% of students with the most required by current state law.
arts. significant cognitive disabilities
in each grade level and subject MS has a goal of 95% assessment and
Innovative assessments (approximately 10% of all must report on progress towards this goal
allowed on a limited basis. students in special education). as part of its annual report card.
Moving Forward: MS will need to meet or
surpass their goal of 95% assessment for
compliance, and will need to determine
if it will use an alternative assessment
for the subset of students with the most
significant cognitive disabilities.

Assessment: Flexibility and Innovations

NCLB: N/A DP ESSA: States may use: Currently in MS: Computer assessments
are available as part of the MAP
Waivers: N/A • computer adaptive assessment program.
assessments that include
items above or below Moving Forward: MS will need to
students’ grade level; consider the opportunity to apply for

8 | Partners for Each and Every Child DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION February 2016
 NCLB (2001)
Waivers (2011) ESSA (2015) Mississippi
Assessment: Flexibility and Innovations - Continued

• interim assessments during specific Assessment Audit Grants to

the year that result in a provide a structured process to get
single summative score; feedback from teachers, school leaders
and/or and administrators, on the supports they
need to better use assessment data to
• complementary improve instruction and how data can
assessments that use be regularly provided to communicate
projects, portfolios, and effectively with and build understanding
extended performance of all stakeholders.
tasks.
If MS applies for the Innovative
DP In high schools, districts Assessment pilot, the design and
may implement nationally implementation plans should be
recognized assessments developed in consultation with MS
that meet state and federal stakeholders representing students
technical standards, approved with disabilities, English learners, and
by “peer review” and the state. other vulnerable children (e.g., teachers,
Innovative Assessment/ principals, and other school leaders; LEAs;
Accountability pilot criteria: parents; and civil rights organizations). MS
will need to specify how parents can learn
DP • Participating states about the system at the beginning of
may pursue a variety each year of implementation, and engage
of innovations, e.g., and support teachers in developing and
entirely performance-or scoring assessments that are part of the
competency-based. innovative assessment system.
DP • Participants may begin
with a subset of districts,
but the system must
eventually apply statewide.
DP Assessment Audit Grants are
available for states to:
• audit the number and
quality of assessments
statewide and by district;
and
• provide district subgrants
to improve assessment
systems and capacity to
use results to improve
teaching and learning.

9 | Partners for Each and Every Child DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION February 2016
 NCLB (2001)
Waivers (2011) ESSA (2015) Mississippi
Educator Equity

NCLB: States must define ESSA: States no longer need Currently in MS: MS currently reports
Highly Qualified Teachers (HQT) to define and track HQTs, on high-qualified teachers by district and
and ensure their equitable but maintains that states state across 3 measures:
distribution. develop, report and share
plans describing how they will • inexperienced teachers;
States must develop plans identify and address educator
describing how they will • inappropriately licensed teachers; and
equity disparities that result
identify and address any in poor and minority students • educator effectiveness, measured
disparities that result in being taught by ineffective, against both student achievement
poor and minority students inexperienced, unqualified, or outcomes and standards-based
being taught by ineffective, out-of-field teachers at higher teacher actions.
inexperienced, unqualified, or rates than other students.
out-of-field teachers at higher High poverty and minority students are
disproportionately located in the lowest
rates than other students DP States must collect and publicly performing schools, which have half
report data on these disparities
Waivers: Same as NCLB. and describe the metrics used as many highly effective and 1.5 times
to determine the disparities. as many ineffective teachers as high-
performing schools.
States must also report on,
where available, the annual MS Critical Teacher Shortage Act: Any
retention rates of effective and district with over 10% of teachers who are
ineffective teachers, principals, inexperienced or inappropriately licensed
and other school leaders. is eligible for incentives to help recruit
and retain highly qualified teachers.
DP States may use federal Moving Forward: MS has already
professional development
funds to increase access to identified 10 districts with the highest
effective teachers for students educator equity gaps, and is working
from low-income families and with districts to reduce those gaps. MS
students of color. stakeholders should understand, assess,
and refine the interventions used in these
DP Districts must describe how 10 districts to inform implementation of
they will identify and address statewide strategies.
any educator equity, and
must have mechanisms to Title II fund allocations, which are
notify parents regarding the specifically meant to support preparing,
professional qualifications of training, and recruiting high-quality
their child’s teacher. teachers and principals, require state
and local districts to work with MS
stakeholders (e.g., teachers, school
leaders, paraprofessionals, specialized
instructional support personnel, charter
school leaders, parents, and community
partners) to assess, develop, and refine
strategies to meet the state’s goals
around high quality teachers and school
leaders.

10 |Partners for Each and Every Child DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION February 2016
 NCLB (2001)
Waivers (2011) ESSA (2015) Mississippi
Teacher and Leader Evaluation Systems

NCLB: States are not required ESSA: States are not required Currently in MS: MS’s teacher evaluation
to have teacher and leader to have teacher and leader system is the MSTAR. MSTAR assesses
evaluation systems. evaluation systems. teachers based on “standards-based
teacher actions” across 5 domains and 20
Waivers: States are required DP States may use federal standards such as student engagement,
to have and/or reform teacher professional development learning delivery, as well as student
and leader evaluation systems. funds and Teacher and achievement and progress on state
School Leader Incentive assessments.
Fund competitive grants to
implement teacher and leader Moving Forward: MS will need to
evaluation systems based on determine if or how it will use federal
student achievement, growth, professional development funds and
and multiple measures of Teacher and School Leader Incentive
performance, and to inform Fund competitive grants to implement
professional development. current or new evaluation systems. These
decisions are important opportunities for
MS stakeholder engagement.

Early Childhood Education

NCLB: Targeted resources are DP ESSA: New authorization Currently in MS: Before 2013, MS had
available for early childhood created for a Preschool no statewide preschool program. MS
education. Services for children Development Grant (PDG) transferred authority for early childhood
birth to school entry are an program: Authorized at education from the Department of
allowable use of Title I and Title $250M for FYs 2017-20. PDG Human Services (MDHS) to MDE in 2013
II funds if districts choose to is administered by HHS jointly through the Early Learning Collaborative
use funds in that way. with US ED. Act (ELCA), which appropriated
$3,000,000 to fund 11 Early Learning
Waivers: Through a Funds can be used to develop, Collaboratives Grants that include school
competitive process jointly update, or implement a plan districts, nonprofit groups, Head Start
administered by US ED and to increase collaboration or Centers, and private child-care providers
Health and Human Services coordination among existing to provide preschool.
(HHS), the Race to the Top Early early childhood programs
Learning Challenge Grants and participation of children Moving Forward: Under ESSA, MS
provide new funds to states from low-income families in school districts will need to determine
to invest in systems of quality, high quality early childhood if they plan to use Title I funds for
create and expand high quality programs early childhood education. If so, their
opportunities for infants, plans must develop and describe the
toddlers and preschoolers, and Secretaries of HHS and US ED district strategy to support participating
improve coordination across are restricted from prescribing students’ transition to local elementary
the early childhood system. early learning development schools. These decisions should be made
guidelines, standards, specific with engagement of MS stakeholders,
Preschool Development grants assessments, and specific especially local early childhood and
are funded through annual measures or indicators of childcare experts.
appropriations (outside of quality early learning and care.
NCLB structure).

11 |Partners for Each and Every Child DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION February 2016
 NCLB (2001)
Waivers (2011) ESSA (2015) Mississippi
Early Childhood Education - Continued

ESSA’s provisions aim to

promote:
• early learning coordination
within communities;
• greater alignment with the
early elementary grades;
and
• early childhood education
focused on capacity
building for teachers,
leaders, and other staff
serving young children.
DP The new legislation includes
a birth to 12th grade
literacy initiative, and also
includes early childhood as
a component of education
and interventions for Native
American and Alaskan Native
students, dual language
learners, and children
experiencing homelessness.

English Language Learners

NCLB: EL learners are not a ESSA: Accountability for EL Currently in MS: MS acknowledges in its
reported subgroup within the learners is shifted to Title flexibility waiver that its current system
Title I accountability provisions. I, which increases funding that uses the “lowest 25%” metric to
opportunities and visibility for identify subgroup proficiency (while
Title III funds and programs are EL learners. increasing accountability for traditional
to “ensure that Limited English subgroups vs. using N size) does not
Proficient (LEP) students attain States must: necessarily capture proficiency of all
EL proficiency, develop high members of this subgroup. MS uses the
levels of academic attainment • include EL proficiency
as an indicator in their World-Class Instructional Design and
in English, and meet the same Assessment (WIDA)-ACCESS Placement
challenging state academic accountability systems;
Test (W-APT) for assessing EL learner
content and student academic • annually assess and needs.
achievement standards as all report EL proficiency,
children are expected to meet.” and students who have Moving Forward: MS will have to
not attained English measure and report EL proficiency at
States have flexibility to define the elementary, middle, and high school
the LEP/EL learner subgroup, proficiency within 5 years
of identification as an EL levels and will need to figure out how
as well as standards of EL to incorporate EL proficiency in a more
proficiency and must annually learner;
significant and relevant way in its state
assess and report on student DP • clarify a standardized accountability system moving forward.
performance on EL proficiency process for classifying EL
for English learners. learners and re-designating ESSA’s explicit accountability focus on EL
students as EL proficient; learners provides an opportunity for the
and state and local districts to work with and
learn from MS stakeholders (e.g.,

12 |Partners for Each and Every Child DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION February 2016
 NCLB (2001)
Waivers (2011) ESSA (2015) Mississippi
English Language Learners - Continued

Waivers: Some waivers asked • disaggregate EL learners EL teachers and administrators and
to give EL learners more than with a disability from EL families of EL learners). Their guidance
1 year in a US school before learners in general. will be instrumental to clarifying a
integrating their ELA/math process for identifying, classifying, and
scores into Adequate Yearly DP States have two options redesignating EL learners; and ensuring
Progress (AYP). regarding timing for testing EL that MS provides sufficient resources to
learners: data infrastructure, student supports, and
Note: Most EL testing flexibility capacity building efforts.
requests were denied; FL • Include test scores after
was approved to 1) count EL they have been in the In order to receive Title III funding to
learners after 2 years, and 2) country 1 year (consistent support EL programs, state and district
substitute growth on reading with current law); OR plans must explicitly include parent,
assessments for proficiency. • Refrain from counting EL family, and community stakeholder
learners's test scores in engagement as part of their EL learner
a school’s rating in their strategy, and develop implementation
first year, but require EL plans with all MS stakeholders.
learners to take both math
and ELA assessments and
publicly report the results.

High Risk Students

NCLB: NCLB establishes the DP ESSA: HSGI is eliminated, but Currently in MS: MS has a statewide goal
High School Graduation states may use an extended of achieving an 85% 4-year graduation
Initiative (HSGI) – the only year graduation rate for rate by 2017-18.
program dedicated to dropout accountability.
prevention and recovery. MS currently requires that any high school
DP A new funding program, the with a graduation rate lower than 80% be
States allowed to use extended Student Support and Academic placed in “restructuring status” and must
year graduation rates for Enrichment Grant, may be used implement a dropout prevention /high
accountability purposes. for dropout prevention and school completion plan.
activities supporting a well-
Waivers: HGSI is maintained rounded education, improving MS’s current policy does not allocate
under waivers. school conditions, and digital specialized funds specifically for dropout
literacy. prevention, aside from funding to support
States are allowed to use interventions within Priority/Pocus
extended year graduation rates These grants allow states to: schools (of which graduate rate can be a
for accountability purposes. trigger).
• set-aside 3% of Title I funds
for direct student services, Moving Forward: MS now has the
provided by districts or opportunity to take advantage of
partnerships, that may the Student Support and Academic
include accelerated Enrichment Grant program, and would
credit recovery, rigorous need to determine which student
coursework including early supports to implement with this new
college high schools, dual funding. These decisions should be
enrollment, AP/IB; and/or made in consultation with local MS
stakeholders.

13 |Partners for Each and Every Child DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION February 2016
 NCLB (2001)
Waivers (2011) ESSA (2015) Mississippi
High Risk Students - Continued

• create an alternative
school intervention and
support process for
“alternative” high schools
in the bottom 5% of
schools or in “dropout
factories,” if the schools
serve large portions of at-
risk students and students
who have dropped out.

Funding

NCLB: States and local school DP ESSA: The new law includes Currently in MS: The MS Adequate
districts receive more federal some funding provisions and a Education Program (MAEP) funding
funding than ever before for new Weighted Student Funding formula produces a base student cost,
all programs. A large portion (WSF) pilot: the amount that is required to provide
of these funds are provided each student an adequate education.
through grants under Title I • States and districts no Each district is required to provide up to
awarded to states and local longer have to show that 27% of the base student cost through
education agencies to help their use of ESSA funds local contribution (local taxes). The state
states and school districts does not supplant state funds the difference between what a
improve the education of or local funding for the local community is able to provide (up to
disadvantaged students; activity or program. a maximum of 27%) and the total base
turn around low-performing • Maintenance of Effort student cost. This amount is multiplied
schools; improve teacher requirements for K-12 by the school district’s average daily
quality; and increase choices remain in place. attendance to calculate the district’s
for parents. MAEP allocation.
• Under NCLB, schoolwide
The grant formula includes a programs were only The state has had problems with
65% weight on poverty. allowed in schools with underfunding its education system in
40% poverty and above, the past, and advocates have been
Waivers: Like NCLB, states pushing for fair funding in the state. For
are required to “supplement ESSA allows higher-income
schools to operate Title I example, Initiative 42 (November 2015)
not supplant” federal funds was a ballot initiative to hold the state
for support. States are also programs for all students.
legislature accountable for keeping its
required to follow Maintenance • WSF pilot: 50 school promise to fully fund its public schools.
of Effort (MOE) provisions that districts to continuously
requires them to maintain improve school finance Moving Forward: A full assessment
"fiscal effort" to districts. systems, with evaluation. should be conducted, with the input and
engagement of multiple MS stakeholder
Title II funding formula places a The Title II formula shifts to groups, as to whether applying for the
65% weight on poverty. a more significant weight on WSF pilot is feasible.
poverty (80% of the formula by
2020). Districts who apply to participate in the
WSF pilot should develop their proposals
with the input of MS stakeholders (e.g.,
teachers, principals, other school leaders,
administrators of federal programs
impacted by the agreement, parents, and
community leaders).

14 |Partners for Each and Every Child DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION February 2016
 NCLB (2001)
Waivers (2011) ESSA (2015) Mississippi
Rural Schools

NCLB: The Rural Education DP ESSA: Spending flexibility of Currently in MS: Approximately $5 million
Achievement Program (REAP) SRSA- and RLIS-directed funds in total funds are available for rural MS
initiatives are designed to help is expanded to best meet the schools, disbursed to qualifying districts
rural districts that may lack the needs of underperforming based on a per pupil formula as recorded
personnel and resources to students and schools. by average daily attendance records for
compete effectively for federal the month of March.
competitive grants and that These funds can be used to
often receive grant allocations support teacher recruitment Eligible MS school districts are those with
too small to be effective. and retention, teacher 20% or more of the children ages 5-17
professional development, years are from families with incomes
The Alternative Uses of increasing access to below the poverty lines and must be
Funds Authority is a flexibility educational technology, family designated with a school locale code of 6,
provision allows eligible rural engagement, EL support, 7 or 8. These districts may apply directly
districts to maximize rural grant as well as partnerships that to US ED for funds.
programs, including the Small increase access to student
Rural School Achievement enrichment, in and out of the Districts and schools receiving these
Program (SRSA) and Rural school day. funds may use them for teacher
and Low Income School (RLIS) recruitment and retention, professional
funds. development, educational technology,
family engagement, violence and
Waivers: N/A drugsprevention, and/or EL support.
Moving Forward: MS should continue to
utilize this avenue of funding and now has
the opportunity to use these funds for
increasing access to student enrichment,
which is another opportunity for MS
stakeholder engagement.

Charter Schools

NCLB: Charter schools are ESSA: All public schools Currently in MS: The first MS charter
subject to state and district are included in the state’s schools were approved for the 2015-16
accountability, in accordance accountability system, school year; only 2 have opened so far
with state charter school law. including charter schools. (both in Jackson).
States must:
The charter authorizer is The MS Charter Schools Act of 2013
primarily responsible for DP • establish charter school requires that charter school applicants
holding charter schools authorization standards, receive permission via a majority vote
accountable under Title I, which may include from the local school board in order
including determining whether approving, monitoring to establish a public charter school in
individual schools make AYP. and re-approving or districts with an “A,” “B,” or “C” rating.
revoking the authority The law prohibits private schools
Charter schools must of an authorized public from becoming public charter schools
conduct the same reporting chartering agency and requires public charter schools’
and intervention activities based on charter school enrollment of “underserved students”
(e.g., steps after Program performance in the areas to be at least 80% of the underserved
Improvement), and are also of student achievement, enrollment in the school district in which
eligible to receive Title I funds, student safety, financial the charter schools are located.
and operational
management, The MS Charter School Authorizer

15 |Partners for Each and Every Child DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION February 2016
 NCLB (2001)
Waivers (2011) ESSA (2015) Mississippi
Charter Schools - Continued

specifically for the purpose • and compliance with all Board (state controlled) is responsible
of carrying out the State and applicable statutes and for approving/authorizing applications
local accountability-related regulations; for new charter schools through
responsibilities, including a competitive proposal process.
activities to assist schools • ensure charter school Proposals must include descriptions of
identified for improvement annual reports include accountability systems, and standards.
responsibilities, including academic measures that
activities to assist schools are part of the state Moving Forward: In addition to a formal
identified for improvement accountability system (4 process for authorizing charter programs,
academic, 1 additional), MS will now have to ensure annual
Districts may list charter as well as adjusted reporting on indicators used for district
schools under their jurisdiction 4-year and extended schools under the state accountabilitity
that have not been identified cohort graduation system and ensure equitable distribution
for improvement, corrective rates, disaggregated by of teachers.
action, or restructuring as subgroups, including
choice options. Similarly, if a plans for intervention and
charter school is identified for supports; and
improvement, families must be
notified of its status. • provide assurance of
equitable distribution of
Waivers: Charter schools are effective educators.
part of the state’s system of
differentiated accountability,
recognition, and support,
including using college and
career ready standards and
assessments, applying annual
goals and identifying Reward,
Priority, and Focus school (and
associated interventions).
If a charter school is identified
as a Priority or a Focus school,
it may face revocation of its
charter by its authorizer.
Charter schools must develop
and implement teacher and
principal evaluation and
support systems consistent
with state guidelines and meet
all of the elements of the
waiver.

16 |Partners for Each and Every Child DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION February 2016
 NCLB (2001)
Waivers (2011) ESSA (2015) Mississippi
Mitigating the Effects of Poverty

NCLB: NCLB transfers DP ESSA: Funds include Currently in MS: MS’s priority for 21st
administration of the 21st competetive grants for CCLC funding is given to programs serving
Century Community Learning supportive programs, students at Priority, Focus, or Approaching
Centers grant (21st CCLC) from such as Full-Service Target schools, schools located in
US ED to states, based on its Community Schools, Promise geographical areas underrepresented by
share of Title I funding for low- Neighborhoods and 21st 21st CCLC programs, and middle and/or
income students. Century Community Learning high schools with programs that use an
Centers. These grants are evidence-based bullying program.
NCLB also narrows the focus of intended to expand equitable
21st CCLC from a community access to comprehensive Moving Forward: MS’s application for
learning center model to an student enrichment and Title IV funding, and its plans to allocate
afterschool program model. supports, including integrated funds to local Districts and partnerships
community partnerships and will need to emphasize and incentivize
Services are provided to greater collaboration between education
students attending high- professional development for
educators to work effectively decision makers, including state and local
poverty, low-performing agencies that fund before and after school
schools, including academic with families and communities.
programs, health and mental health
enrichment activities; drug and agencies, after-school networks, and
violence prevention programs; representatives from MS stakeholder
counseling programs; art, groups (e.g., teachers, districts, and
music, and recreation community based organizations).
programs; technology
education programs; Districts and community partners should
and character education learn from established and effective 21st
programs. Literacy and related CCLC grant partnerships and the Delta
educational development Promise Neighborhoods initiative in
services are available to order to deepen community partnerships
families of children who are and consider opportunities to leverage
served in the program. additional public and private funds. The
funding guidelines outline significant
Waivers: N/A opportunities for input from a broad
array of stakeholders (e.g., specialized
instructional support personnel, students,
teachers, school leaders, community
based organizations, law enforcement,
child welfare agencies, public housing
agencies) to help MS refine resource and
program implementation priorities.
In addition, competitive grant programs
(e.g., Promise Neighborhoods, Full-
Service Community Schools) provide an
opportunity for deeper understanding of
student, family and community needs, by
working directly with parents, families,
and community stakeholders in the
planning and implementation of strategic
programs.

**The table above has been adapted with permission from the following organization’s materials: Alliance for Excellent
Education (http://all4ed.org/essa/); EducationCounsel (http://educationcounsel.com/?publication=summary-analysis-
every-student-succeeds-act); First Five Years Fund (http://ffyf.org/resources/).

17 |Partners for Each and Every Child DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION February 2016
 APPENDIX A: Stakeholder Engagement in ESSA

The ESSA sections below highlight specific opportunities for engagement with various stakeholders in the
state:
Title I, Section 1005 – State Plans
• Development: Requirement that to receive grant funds plan must be developed by SEA with timely
and meaningful consultation with the Governor, members of the State legislature and the State board
of education, LEAs, representatives of Indian tribes located in the State, teachers, principals, other
school leaders, charter school leaders, specialized instructional support personnel, paraprofessionals,
administrators, other staff, and parents
• Public Comment: Requirement that each state shall make the State plan publicly available for comment
for no less than 30 days. Must be available electronically in an easily accessible format. Must happen
before submission of the plan to the Secretary. Assurances must be provided in the plan that this has
taken place.
• Determining ‘N’ size: States must demonstrate how it determined N size, including how it collaborated
with teachers, principals, other school leaders, parents, and other stakeholders when determining the
minimum number.
• Comprehensive Support and Improvement Plans: For each Comprehensive school identified by the state,
and in partnership with stakeholders (e.g., parents, teachers, principals, school leaders) locally develop
and implement a Comprehensive plan for the school to improve student outcomes.
• Targeted Support and Improvement Plans: For each Targeted school identified by the district, and in
partnership with stakeholders (e.g., parents, teachers, principals, school leaders), shall develop and
implement school-level Targeted plans.
• Assurances – Parent/Family Engagement: Each SEA plan shall include assurances that the SEA will
support the collection and dissemination to LEAs and schools of effective parent and family engagement
strategies, including those in the parent and family engagement policy under section 1116.
• State Report Card: Must be presented in an understandable and uniform format that is developed in
consultation with parents, and in a language parents can understand.
Title I, Section 1006 – LEA Plans
• LEA subgrants: May only be received by the LEA if it has on file with the SEA an SEA-approved plan that
is developed with timely and meaningful consultation with teachers, principals, other school leaders,
paraprofessionals, specialized instructional support personnel, and charter school leaders, administrators,
other appropriate school personnel, and with parents of children in schools.
• LEA plans: In its plan, each LEA shall describe the strategy it will use to implement effective parent and
family engagement under section 1116…how teachers and school leaders, in consultation with parents,
administrators, paraprofessionals, and specialized instructional support personnel, in schools operating a
targeted assistance school program under section 1115, will identify the eligible children most in need of
services under this part.
Title I, Section 1202 – State Option to Conduct Assessment System Audit
• Application: Applications for state assessment audit grants must include information on the stakeholder

18 |Partners for Each and Every Child February 2016

 feedback the State will seek in designing the audit.
• State assessment system audit: Each State assessment system audit shall include feedback on the system
from stakeholders including - how teachers, principals, other school leaders, and administrators use
assessment data to improve and differentiate instruction; the timing of release of assessment data;
the extent to which assessment data is presented in an accessible and understandable format for all
stakeholders.
Title I, Section 1204 – Innovative Assessment and Accountability Demonstration Authority
• Application: Applications for innovative assessments must demonstrate that the innovative assessment
system will be developed in consultation with stakeholders representing the interests of children with
disabilities, English learners, and other vulnerable children; teachers, principals, and other school leaders;
LEAs; parents; and civil rights organizations in the State. The application shall also include a description
of how the SEA will inform parents about the system at the beginning of each year of implementation,
and engage and support teachers in developing and scoring assessments that are part of the innovative
assessment system.
Title I, Section 1501 – Flexibility for Equitable Per-Pupil Funding
• Assurances: LEAs interested in applying for the weighted student funding flexibility pilot shall include
in the application an assurance that the LEA developed and will implement the pilot in consultation
with teachers, principals, other school leaders, administrators of Federal programs impacted by the
agreement, parents, community leaders, and other relevant stakeholders.
Title II, Section 2101 – Formula Grants to States
• Application: Each SEA shall meaningfully consult with teachers, principals, other school leaders,
paraprofessionals, specialized instruction support personnel, charter school leaders, parents, community
partners, and other organizations or partners with relevant and demonstrated expertise, and seek advice
regarding how to best improve the State’s activities to meet the purpose of this title.
Title II, Section 2102 – Subgrants to LEAs
• Application: In developing the application LEAs shall meaningfully consult with teachers, principals, other
school leaders, paraprofessionals, specialized instructional support personnel, charter school leaders,
parents, community partners, and other organizations or partners with relevant and demonstrated
expertise and seek advice regarding how to best improve the State’s activities to meet the purpose of this
title.
Title III, Section 3003 – English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement
• Assurances: SEA and specifically qualified agency plans must provide an assurance that the plan has
been developed in consultation with LEAs, teachers, administrators of programs implemented under this
subpart, parents of English learners, and other relevant stakeholders.
Title III, Section 3115 – Subgrants to Eligible Entities
• Local Plans: Local grants must describe how the eligible entity will promote parent, family, and
community engagement in the education of English learners and contain assurances that the eligible
entity consulted with teachers, researchers, school administrators, parents and family members,
community members, public or private entities, and institutions of higher education in developing the

19 |Partners for Each and Every Child February 2016

 plan.
Title III, Section 3131 – National Professional Development Project
• Grant use: Grants awarded under this section may be used to support strategies that strengthen and
increase parent, family and community member engagement in the education of English learners.
Title IV, Section 4106 – LEA Applications
• Applications: an LEA, or consortium of LEAs, shall develop its application through consultation with
parents, teachers, principals, other school leaders, specialized instructional support personnel, students,
community based organizations, local government representatives (including law enforcement,
local juvenile court, local child welfare agency, or local public housing agency), Indian tribes or tribal
organizations, charter school teachers, principals, and other school leaders, and others with relevant and
demonstrated expertise in programs and activities designed to meet the purpose of this subpart. The LEA
or consortium shall engage in continued consultation with the entities described above.
Title IV, Section 4203 – State Application
• Applications: SEAs shall submit an assurance that the application was developed in consultation and
coordination with appropriate State officials, including the chief State school officer, and other State
agencies administering before and after school programs and activities, heads of the State health and
mental health agencies or their designees, statewide after-school networks and representatives of
teachers, LEAs, and community based organizations and a description of any other representatives
of teachers, parents, students, or the business community that the State has selected to assist in the
development of the application if applicable.
Title IV, Section 4624 – Promise Neighborhoods
• Application: Eligible entities desiring a grant under this part must include in their application an analysis of
the needs assets of the neighborhood identified including a description of the process through which the
needs analysis was produced including a description of how parents, families, and community members
were engaged; an explanation of the process the eligible entity will use to establish and maintain family
and community engagement including how a representative of the members of such neighborhood
will be involved in the planning and implementation of the activities of each award granted; and an
explanation of how the eligible entity will continuously evaluate and improve the continuum of high
quality pipeline services to provide for continuous program improvement and potential expansion.
Title IV, Section 4625 – Full Service Community Schools
• Grant awards: in awarding grants under this subpart, the Secretary shall prioritize eligible entities that are
consortiums comprised of a broad representation of stakeholders or consortiums demonstrating a history
of effectiveness.

20 |Partners for Each and Every Child February 2016

21 |Partners for Each and Every Child February 2016