Hi, everybody. Thank you for coming. Were going to get started, running a couple of minutes late here. I think everybody is still trying to find the room. So, just a couple of housekeeping things, if youre tweeting, please use the ewa17. Everything here is on the record. Remember to use the signin sheet, wherever that is going around. Please sign in. Its right here. Okay. Yeah. Sign the signin sheet. Awesome. We are here today to talk about the every Student Succeeds act and the states. My name is caitlin emma. Im a reporter here at politico in d. C. I cover education policy. The law passed in 2015 that replace nod child left behind and where states are at right now. Y were going to talk about that today. To bring you up to speed, essentially, there are two submission windows for states to send in their plans under this law for Holding Schools accountable, for how they plan to intervene in schools, for how they plan to intervene in groups of students that are consistently underperforming. We have about 16 states and d. C. So far have submitted for this spring window. We have another window coming up this september. Im sure youre familiar with the fact that education secretary betsy devos is tasked with reviewing these plans, along with a group of people known as peer reviewers. So with that, id love to get started with our panelists who are experts on these plans. We have chris, the executive director of the council of chief state school officers. We have linda darling hammond. The president of the thomas b. Fordham student. At the far end is liz king, the director of education policy at the leadership conference. I would love to get started by, you know, jumping into this and make sure we have a lot of times for questions at the end. Id like to ask you, chris, if you can sort of just give us a high level overview of where states are right now. Obviously ccsso is an important partner in this process. Talk a little bit about that work and where you see states right now. Thanks, caitlin. Its a real honor to be on the panel with these three folks. I dont often get to speak with them. Its great to be here and thanks for inviting me to ewa. I think essa has been a devolution to the states as promised. 17 states have submitted so far. The rest coming in in september. If youre in a state where theyve submitted you probably are pretty aware of their plan. If youre in a state thats not yet submitted theres a lot of work going on before september to define that for that state. Theres two pieces i think were most interested in, one making sure that as states set these plans we dont go back to a time preno child left behind where we were able to ignore groups of kids or ignore poor performance in any sort of way in any school. Before no child left behind, we didnt report out subgroups. So a school could just sort of skate by on averages or things like that. And so i think its really important thats good in the first 17 plans that we dont see a real backing away from student performance as the goal for the states. And so i think thats a real positive. I think another area where i think we have a lot of work to do is on the intervention side. Lets say we grade a school, if youre in a letter grade state, a d or an f. Or if youre in a star state, at the low end of the star, one or two stars. What are we going to do as a state or as a district to help that school improve . There are new parts of the law that gives states more flexibility with those resources, the money. And i think we will largely look back on this law as a success or failure about how we do with the schools that arent getting it done with kids right now. Meaning, the lowest performing in our state are we able to significantly improve those schools . And i think some of the techniques weve been using in the past havent necessarily worked in states. Largely under no child left behind, states did a lot of reporting data. And then asking districts and schools to improve themselves. Either by coming up with a plan or, you know, just saying, you need to improve. That didnt work as well. And i think we need a structure in place in each state, and it has really been left up to the states. One area where im really interested in states improving is to think about how do we intervene in low performing schools. The last thing ill say, i dont want to take all my time, is just as we have these conversations, its really important that we get into the plans and figure out what states are actually doing. States may have submitted something to the federal government that may not have everything in it that theyre going to do in their state. Because of the way the template played out and some other things. The federal government is only asking for certain types of information from states. Their process and their plan may be bigger than what they submit to the federal government. I think its an important thing for reporters to ask is what else besides the federal plan is going to go on in the state to help improve the schools. Ill stop there. Awesome, thank you, chris. I would like to turn to liz and ask about, you know, what the change in this Administration Means for these plans. Obviously, civil rights advocates have been concerned about President Trump and secretary of education devos and how theyll be looking at these plans and what level of scrutiny theyll be giving these plans. Theres sort of a concern out there that essentially this will be a rubber stamp. Weve yet to see how that will play out. Id love to hear about what is the Civil Rights Community looking for when youre going through these plans . What are the concerns you might have about how this administration will be scrutinizing them . One thing i would just say right off the bat, because of who you are is a big thank you on behalf of marginalized community to education reporters and just investigative reporting right now is so important. Theres a great piece in the Atlanta Journal constitution about the qualifications and background of Police Officers who are serving in schools, so that the individuals charged with policing children really value that work. Thank you to all of you and please keep going. So on the sort of essa implementation, our two biggest priorities are that the process itself is inclusive of Diverse Communities and that there are diverse parents and Community Stakeholders at the table when decisions are made. And that at each point in the process that we strive towards equity. And so thats what were looking for. I think were absolutely concerned about the review process coming from this administration. We keep hearing over and over a deference to states, even at times when states are violating federal law. I think we saw, for example, recently in the appropriations labor hhs hearing, secretary devos was not willing to commit that federal dollars would not be used to discriminate against students. I think that is something we should all be concerned about. Using federal dollars to discriminate violates federal law. Its the responsibility of the secretary of education to stop that. We have not gotten the assurances that we need, that this administration is going to make sure that these essa plans are consistent with the law and the laws longstanding intent to raise achievement for marginalized children. Were listening and hoping for that assurance. We have seen some bright signs in plans being returned to states because they are insufficiently complete. We need to make sure that its not just theyre using a sufficient number of words but the words that are included in the plans are compliant with the law. And describe a system of accountability which holds schools accountable not just for the performance of children on average but the performance of each group of children. The purpose of the law is not just to raise educational quality overall. But to address longstanding barriers to success, based on lowincome students, students of color, students with disabilities and English Learners. If a state is not doing that. If thats not what theyve described, then their plan should not be approved. Were absolutely concerned we wont be able to count on secretary devos to do that job. So, linda, from what youve seen so far of the plans that have been handed in or the draft plans that are out there, you know, do you feel as though states are delivering on this promise of insuring equity, you know, are they being innovative and thinking about accountability differently . I mean, what are you seeing . Well, theres a whole gamut of approaches. The earliest filed plans are less ambitious in some ways in innovating in some cases than the ones that are still under construction. Partly because, you know, when you have more time you think think harder and do more modeling of different kinds of approaches. Thats not to say there arent some interesting innovations in some of the plans that have been filed. I think theres even more to come in the next batch. There are some places that are really picking up, just to take up lizs equity theme, which is so important. That are taking up equity in some really interesting ways. One of those is taking up the place of the kinds of indicators that typically discriminate between and among subgroups and have strong implications for whether kids will graduate and go on. For example, places like california are taking up an indicator of whether kids are suspended at differential rates and having had that in the state accountability system, has reduced the suspension rates quite a lot. School climate indicators are being looked at in a number of states. Illinois is one thats really taking that very seriously. If you look at that carefully, those kinds of indicators can create quite a lot of information about how kids are being treated in school, as well as giving School People information that will allow them to improve. Access to rich curriculum for all kids. A number of states are doing college and career ready indicators. This is really important. Course taking is a stronger predictor of success in college and beyond than test scores. And so getting access which is typically been unequally allocated to advanced courses, dual credit courses, as a lot of states are measuring, to strong career Technical Education programs that meet a quality standard. Those kinds of things. And getting to a place where 100 of kids are really prepared to go on in life would be a huge change in where we are as a nation. A lot of countries have been way ahead of us in thinking about to making sure everyone is prepared to go ahead. A number of states is looking at those things. New york is looking at a diversity indicator which would look at the extent to which within a district students are together in schools and classrooms relative to their proportion in the district by race, by class, by special education and english learner status. So there are a lot of states that are taking up these questions in very interesting ways. And looking for the equity nuggets in the law, which we identified in a publication called equity in essa. There are ways by which you can highlight the School Funding differentials across districts. Encourage student formulas, it gets more money to the kids who need them the most. 50 districts that can engage in pilots. Look at assignment practices to encourage integration. All of those things are baked into law. And theyre kind of lurking there for states to pick them up and pursue them. Not all of the states are doing that. But some of them really are pursuing those kinds of strategies. Mike, i know that you have a few thoughts about how you feel states are doing in this respect. Ive seen you write about how they could be doing better when it comes to high achieving students. Where do you think theres room for improvement in what youre saying . Is there a state you think is being particularly innovative. Its great to be with you all today. If i knew that cspan was coming i would have worn my flashy jacket instead. Just kidding. I look forward to the ewa, you know, you love twitter, i love twitter. You like getting quotes, i like giving quotes. You are my favorite peeps. Its great to be back here. When it comes to q a i hope somebody is going to ask linda about her son who is the american Ninja Warrior superstar who is a big name in our house. Competing june 19th in the national Ninja Warrior competition in las vegas. Which then becomes my vacation. Amazing. Okay. But back to essa. Yes. So i think when we look at these plans, and were talking about the accountability plans. And especially when it comes to the ratings. A couple things i hope you ask when you look at your own states plan. The first one is whether or not it does a good job helping parents and taxpayers regular, you know, man and woman on the street understand if a given school is a good school or not. You know, this law does provide more flexibility. And it does not in the end say absolutely that you have to provide one final rating. And there are a few states, including california, most famously, that are going to provide a ton of data and thats good. That data is a form of transparency. You all are going to be able to get access to that data and probably do some really cool stories with those data. And those data can be helpful when schools, teachers, parents, administrators sit down and try to understand how they can improve what theyre doing. But what that doesnt do is provide a very clear answer to the public or the taxpayers. Hey, is this school a good school or not . So ask that question. You know, certainly in my view the f ratings or five star ratings are the most clear way to do that. If youve got a rating where its in a language. The school got a good rating. Thats number one. By the way, if theres not a clear rating, this is something that your newspapers could do something about. You could take the data that youre getting from the states, and you could build your own ratings. In california, hey, california reporters, if the state of california is not willing to do this, you could do this and you could construct your own ratings using the state data to come out and say, you know, based on all the information weve got are these schools doing a good job or not. The second thing id look at is whether or not the ratings are doing a good job differentiating between really good High Poverty Schools and really bad High Poverty Schools. As we know from the no child left behind era, we had a huge problem, which was that basically every High Poverty School got labelled as a Failing School. So many indicators were strongly correlated with demographics and prior achievement. Because we looked at proficiency rates, Graduation Rates. If youre a high poverty High School Even if you were doing a phenomenal job if youre a High Poverty School and you do a great job and kids make a great progress while theyre under your car, is it possible for you to get an a or five stars . If not, whats wrong with that system . And finally, what are the signals that states are sending to the schools in terms of who matters . Weve heard a lot from liz and rightfully so that we want to make sure the signal is that all kids matter. That we dont go back to the old days as chris said where you could do well on average and sweep low performance from minority kids or others under the rug. We also want to make sure that kids across the achievement spectrum matter. Not just low performing kids, but also kids at the middle and the top. The message i hope we want to send with all schools is, hey, its your job to help everybody in your school make progress. As much progress as possible. We have a particular problem, and had a big problem under no child left behind that kids at the middle and at the top were not a priority because the standards were so low. Because all of the incentives were about getting kids to that proficient level. And as a result, schools learned that, you know, kids who are going to pass the test in september, they were ready by the fall to pass that spring test. You could ignore them, and youd still do fine. And schools that were especially at risk of hitting the interventions had a particularly strong incentive. So that meant in High Poverty Schools, that High Achievers, especially low income High Achievers were not at all in priority. And we see that in the data. We see that there has not been as much progress for those kids as there should be. Now states have a chance, by moving especially to gross model, looking at progress over time and looking at growth for all kids they can send their message to those schools, everybody matters, low performers, middle, High Achievers, and so ask those questions. When you look at your state accountability system what signals are they sending. Who matters . Do all kids matter . Are they prioritizing some kids over others . And who are the winners and losers in that kind of a system . Because we do know from Good Research that schools do tend to Pay Attention to those signals, and so we should take them seriously. In terms of a state thats doing well we like colorados plan, at least on the ratings, quite a lot. They have gone out of their way to make sure that the way they measure academic achievement sends a message that everybody matters. You look at average scale scores and thats a way to basically the school has to improve for everybody to get those scale scores up. They also do a lot at looking at growth over time. So we think thats a promising start. D. C. s is pretty good. Massachusetts is pretty interesting. A little complicated. But many of the others, unfortunately, have not moved very far past no child left behind. They are still looking at proficiency ratings at high school, still put a lot of weight on graduation. I think theres a very good chance in those states youre going to have a situation where basically, if you serve a lot of poor kids youre going to get a low grade and if you serve a lot of rich kids youre going to get a high grade. That is not a good accountability system. I know that chris and linda would like to share their thoughts on that. About my jacket . Im ready for it. This is kind of like your super bowl i think. You just love this panel. But i mean i think my i