ESEA 1965

Question 1

ESEA (1965)

Answer 1

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 was passed as a part of United States President Lyndon B. Johnson’s “War on Poverty.” The original intent of the law was to close skill gaps in reading, writing and mathematics between children from low-income households who attended urban or rural school systems and children from the middle-class who attended suburban school systems.

Question 2

Title I

Answer 2

The law’s signature program aimed at helping districts cover the cost of educating disadvantaged students.

Question 3

1968 New Programs

Answer 3

Congress adds to the ESEA by incorporating new programs and titles, including for migrant children, for neglected or delinquent children, and by passing the Bilingual Education Act.

Question 4

1970 Tightening the Reins

Answer 4

After reports show that school districts have misused Title I aid, Congress tightens up the program, adding language that states the federal money should “supplement, not supplant” money spent by states and localities.

Question 5

1978 ‘Schoolwide’ Title I

Answer 5

President Jimmy Carter signs a reauthorization of the law specifying that schools in which at least 75 percent of children are in poverty can operate “schoolwide” programs with their Title I funds, rather than spending that money only on their low-income children.

Question 6

1979-1981 Growing Pains

Answer 6

The U.S. Department of Education is established under President Jimmy Carter. President Ronald Reagan champions an update of the ESEA that consolidates many programs into a single block grant, but maintains Title I—rechristened “Chapter 1”—as a separate program. The law also cuts down on regulatory requirements for districts and states.

Question 7

U.S. Department of Education

Answer 7

Established under President Jimmy Carter, October 17, 1979

Question 8

1988 Accountability

Answer 8

The law moves toward the expansion of student testing and accountability that will characterize later reauthorizations. Districts are required to take an annual look at the effectiveness of Chapter 1 by examining student test scores. Schools that don’t make progress are required to develop improvement plans.

Question 9

1989 Education Summit

Answer 9

President George H.W. Bush and nearly all the state governors meet in Charlottesville, Va., for a summit on public education. The meeting results in a pledge to set national education goals and helps fuel a federal-state partnership in standards and accountability.

Question 10

1994 A Call for Standards

Answer 10

President Bill Clinton signs the Improving America’s Schools Act, a renewal of the ESEA that calls for states to develop standards and aligned tests for all students. Districts must single out for improving schools that are not making “adequate yearly progress,” but the law has a much looser definition of AYP than the subsequent No Child Left Behind Act version. And “Chapter 1” goes back to being “Title I.”

Question 11

Improving America’s Schools Act 1994

Answer 11

Signed by President Bill Clinton, a renewal of the ESEA that calls for states to develop standards and align tests for all students.

Question 12

2002 No Child Left Behind Act

Answer 12

President George W. Bush signs the No Child Left Behind Act, which significantly expands the ESEA’s testing requirements. It calls for states to assess students annually in reading and math in grades 3-8 and once in high school, as opposed to certain grade spans only.

Question 13

Specific Interventions (NCLB)

Answer 13

The law also says that states are to use specific interventions—namely, public school choice and free tutoring—with schools that fail to make sufficient progress. And it requires that all teachers be “highly qualified.” The legislation is approved with overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress in December of 2001.

Question 14

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (2009)

Answer 14

Congress is behind on reauthorizing the ESEA, which had been due for renewal in 2007, but it adopts major education provisions as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The Obama administration ultimately uses $4 billion to create Race to the Top, which awards grants to a dozen states willing to embrace the president’s priorities on school turnarounds, state data systems, standards, assessments, and teacher evaluation.

Question 15

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (RTT) (2009)

Answer 15

Obama administration ultimately uses $4 billion to create Race to the Top, which awards grants to a dozen states willing to embrace the president’s priorities on school turnarounds, state data systems, standards, assessments, and teacher evaluation.

Question 16

Race to the Top (RTT) (2009)

Answer 16

Was a $4.35 billion United States Department of Education competitive grant created to spur and reward innovation and reforms in state and local district K-12 education. Awards grants to a dozen states willing to embrace the president’s priorities on school turnarounds, state data systems, standards, assessments, and teacher evaluation.

Question 17

2011 Federal Waivers

Answer 17

With ESEA reauthorization still stalled in Congress, the Obama administration offers states waivers easing many of the mandates of the NCLB law. To get the flexibility, states must embrace standards that will prepare students for college and the workforce, teacher evaluation that incorporates student outcomes, and aggressive school turnarounds.

Question 18

Every Student Succeeds Act (2015)

Answer 18

Bill introduced by Alexander
& Murray 4/2015; Approved b House359-64 on
12/2/2015; Approved by Senate85-12 on
12/9/2015; Signed into law by President Obama on 12/10/2015

Question 19

Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) (2015)

Answer 19

Reauthorizes the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and replaces the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act.

Question 20

NCLB Standards

Answer 20

Title-IA funding required standards in reading, math, and science at all grade levels.

Question 21

ESSA Standards

Answer 21

Requires states to adopt challenging standards in reading, math, and science, and may have standards for any other subject.

Levels of achievement aligned with entrance requirements for higher education and CTE institutions.

Question 22

NCLB Assessments

Answer 22

Title I-A funding required state testing in reading and math annually in grades3-8 and once in high school; and in science annually in grades 3-5, 6-8, and 10-12.

Title I-A funding allowed states to administer alternative tests to students with disabilities; to be used by no more than 1% of the students being assessed.

Required states to administer assessments to at least 95% of each student subgroup.

Question 23

ESSA Assessments

Answer 23

Same testing requirements.

Allows states to use a single annual summative assessment or multiple interim assessments that result in one summative score.

Allows districts to use other nationally recognized tests in high school if approved by the state. States must have criteria and a process in place.

Allows states to administer alternate tests for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities; 1% cap still applies.

Maintains 95% participation requirement but states create its own “opt-out” policy and decides how to include in its accountability system.

Question 24

NCLB Accountability

Answer 24

Title I-A funding required that 100%of students be proficient in reading and math by the end of the2013-14SY.

Required that schools make adequate yearly progress(AYP) for all students and subgroups.

Title I-A funding established student subgroups for accountability and data disaggregation, including:
Economically disadvantaged.
Limited English language proficiency.
Students with disabilities.
Major racial and ethnic groups as determined by the state.

Question 25

ESSA Accountability

Answer 25

Replaces AYP with a state-defined system; states must include: Long term and interim goals for all students and subgroups on Academic achievement on state assessments, graduation rates, and English language proficiency for English learners (EL).

The state-defined system includes the following indicators:
AcademicIndicators -
State tests(ELA/math).
Student growth or other statewide academic indicator.
Graduation rates for high schools
English language proficiency.

School Quality or Student Success Indicators -
At least one indicator, determined by the state,e.g.student engagement, access to advanced coursework, school climate, or other.

Weighting the Indicators:
States decide how much the individual indicator will count.
Academic Indicators in the aggregate will be given “much greater weight” than the “other” measures of school quality or student success.
States decide how the 95% participation rate is factored into the accountability system.

Based on the performance of schools and subgroups on the indicators, states are required to “meaningfully differentiate” all public schools on an annual basis.

Same as NCLB (funding established student subgroups for accountability and data disaggregation) with three additional subgroups for data reporting only:
Homeless status
Students with parents in the military
Students in foster care

Shifts the accountability for English language learners from Title III into Title I.

Question 26

NCLB Report Card

Answer 26

Required publicly available annual State Report Card that includes:
Data on student achievement at each grade level disaggregated by subgroup
Comparison of state’s actual achievement to its objectives
Percentage of students not tested
State’s achievement trends over two years
Other indicators used to determine AYP
Graduation rates
Info on Highly Qualified Teachers
Other information as determined by the state

Question 27

ESSA Report Card

Answer 27

Required publicly available annual State Report Card that includes:
A description of the state accountability system, including indicators and weights
Schools identified as in need of support and improvement
Student performance disaggregated by subgroup
NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) results
Student state test participation rates
Performance of EL students
Data from Civil Rights Data Collection survey
Teacher qualifications
Per-pupil expenditures (federal, state, local funds),
Number and % of students taking alternative assessments
Post secondary enrollment

Question 28

Title II

Answer 28

A much smaller chunk of federal funds than Title I designed to support states and districts in recruiting, preparing, training and developing teachers and school leaders.
Applies to State and local government entities, and, in subtitle A, protects qualified individuals with disabilities from discrimination on the basis of disability in services, programs, and activities provided by State and local government entities.