Loading...
Res No 056-18-15088RESOLUTION NO. _0_5_6-_1_8_-15088 A Resolution urging the State of Florida to bring its educational plans into compliance with the Federal "Every Student Succeeds Act" WHEREAS, the "Every Student Succeeds Act" (ESSA) is the latest reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, whose purpose is to strengthen and improve educational quality and educational opportunities in the nation's elementary and secondary schools; and WHEREAS, the law has been reauthorized approximately every five years since 1965 yet the central focus on student academic achievement and vulnerable children has remained the same; and WHEREAS, states' plans for implementation of ESSA are developed by each state's department of education, reviewed, approved, or rejected by each state's governor, and submitted to the Secretary. of Education in Washington DC for review to ensure compliance with the law; and WHEREAS, ESSA requires meaningful stakeholder engagement, however, the U.S. Department of Education does not compel states to include a description of how they are engaging stakeholders while developing their plans; and WHEREAS, the Florida plan, submitted on September 20, 2017, denies students access to native language assessments on state content area tests, thereby failing to provide valid means to permit English language learners to demonstrate what they know in a language they understand; and WHEREAS, the student population of South Miami Senior High School is 89% Hispanic, and only 44% of students at South Miami Senior High School are rated by Miami- Dade County Schools as having English Language Arts proficiency http://public- schools.startclass.com/1119891/South-Miami-Senior-High-School-in-Florida ; and WHERAS, on Dec 19, 2017, the US Dept. of Education wrote of Florida's plan: "In its State plan, FDOE does not provide a definition for languages other than English that are present to a significant extent in the participating student population or identify the language or languages that meet the definition. While FDOE notes that it only provides services in English, ESEA section 1111 (b)(2)(F) and 34 CPR. § 200.6(f)(2)(ii) require FDOE to provide a definition of languages other than English that are present to a significant extent in the participating student population and identify the specific language(s) that meet this definition, which must include at least the most populous language other than English spoken by the State's participating student population. "; and WHEREAS, the Florida plan excludes subgroups defined by race/ethnicity, language, disability and family income from the accountability system, thereby failing to provide assurance that all schools with consistently low performing subgroups will be identified for targeted support; and Res. No. 056-18-15088 WHEREAS, the Florida plan excludes the state's measure of English language proficiency from the accountability system, thereby eliminating any accountability measure for the schools' important role in teaching the English language to English Language Learners; and WHEREAS, national civil rights organizations such as the Leadership Conference for Civil and Human Rights, LULAC National, and UnidosUS published statements decrying Florida's major deviations from the ESSA law enacted by Congress; and WHEREAS, organizations composed of experts in English language teaching and in policy development for education languages such as Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Language (TESO L) and the Joint National Council on Languages (IN CL) shared their concerns about these flaws in the Florida ESSA plan from the perspective of the academic community; and WHEREAS, education reform organizations such as the Education Trust and Bellwether Education Partners joined the chorus of critics of the Florida ESSA plan; and WHEREAS, diverse national organizations such as the NAACP, the National School Boards Association, the PTA, the Urban League, and the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights prioritize the importance of parent and community engagement in the development and implementation ofESSA plans; and WHEREAS, 90 Florida organizations and advocates, including the Florida PTA, the NAACP Florida State Conference, the Florida League of Women Voters, Fanm Ayisyen nan Miyamil Haitian Women of Miami, Americans for Immigration Justice, LULAC Florida, Bay Area Regional ESOL, Catalyst Miami, Sant La Haitian Neighborhood Center, the Central and South Florida Councils for Latin American Advancement, the Institute of Mexicans in the Exterior Consultative Committee, Decoding Dyslexia Florida, the Area 4 Family Care Center, the Farmworker Association of Florida, UnidosUS, United Filipiino and American Association, United Teachers of Dade, UTD Retired Chapter, the Florida Association of Bilingual/ESOL Supervisors, the Florida Association of Special Education Attorneys, the Florida Foreign Language Association, the Florida Justice Institute, the Florida Chapter of the National Conference of Puerto Rican Women, Florida Legal Services, International Embassy of the League of United Latin American Citizens, the Hispanic Health Initiatives, Hispanic Services Council, Hispanic Unity of Florida, Latino JusticelPRLDEF, the Legal Aid Society of Palm Beach, Miami- Dade TESOL and Bilingual Education Association, Organize Florida, Pilot Club of Florida, Pinellas County Urban League; Florida Real Talk Coalition for Educational Equity, ReDefiners World Languages, Saint Leo University Bridge Program, Southern Conference on Language Teaching, Spanish American League Against Discrimination, and Sunshine State TESOL, sent a letter outlining their major issues with Florida's ESSA plan to state and national policy makers; and WHEREAS, at the July 30, 2012 conference call meeting ofthe ELL Subcommittee of the state's Task Force on Inclusion and Accountability, nationally recognized Miami- Dade Superintendent and Task Force member Alberto Carvalho summarized the Page 2 of4 Res. No. 056-18-15088 subcommittee's priorities for Florida Department of Education draft legislation, including two recommendations now incorporated into ESSA: students' access to native language assessments on state content area tests and inclusion in the accountability system of the state's measure of English language proficiency; (Available at Subcommittee on English Language Learners Conference Call-July 30, 2012, http://data.fldoe.org/winmed/esealESE73012.vv'llw); and WHEREAS, state accountability system law doesn't factor in student subgroups' test scores, English Language Proficiency exam scores, or native language assessments as ESSA now requires; therefore, Florida law is in conflict with federal law; and WHEREAS, the Florida plan and Florida statutes do not meet the letter and intent of the law to provide all children significant opportunity to receive a fair, equitable, and high-quality education, and close educational achievement gaps; and WHEREAS, strengthening historically underserved communities and fostering economic development through quality education is consistent with the principles of this body and relevant to our major activities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, THAT: Section 1. The City Commission hereby urges elected and appointed state policy makers to amend accountability system legislation to resolve conflicts between state and federal law, revise the state ESSA plan to bring about congruence with ESSA requirements, and adopt a statutory definition of meaningful stakeholder engagement so that all students receive the support and attention they deserve through the implementation of ESSA. Section 2. The City Commission hereby insists that the U.S. Office of Education reject any ESSA plan that fails to serve the interests of marginalized students in the state, fails to document meaningful stakeholder engagement, and fails to comply with requirements ofESSA described above. Section 3. The City Commission directs the City Clerk to transmit copies of this resolution to the Governor, the Senate President, the House Speaker, the Chair and Members of the State Board of Education, the Commissioner of the Florida Department of Education, and the members of our state and congressional delegations. Section 4. Directs our state lobbyist to advocate for the remedies described in Sections 1 and 2 above and authorizes and directs the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs to amend the 2018-2020 State Legislature Package to include this item. Section 5. If any section clause, sentence, or phrase of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, the holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this resolution. Section 6. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. Page 3 of4 Res. No. 056-18-15088 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 20 th day of March ,2018. APPROVED: lY1~ COMMISSION VOTE 5-0 Mayor Stoddard: Yea Vice Mayor Harris: Yea Commissioner Gil: Yea Commissioner Welsh: Yea Commissioner Liebman: Yea Page 40[4 September 15, 2017 Governor Rick Scott The Capitol 400 S. Monroe St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001 Pam Stewart Commissioner Florida Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dear Governor Scott and Commissioner Stewart, On behalf of the undersigned civil and human rights and community-based organizations and local leaders, we write to express our opposttion, in the strongest terms, to the draft waiver request made available for public comment. Our state plan should be a declaration of our commitment to educate all children in Florida. The plan should be developed in partnership with the students, parents and families who have faced barriers to success in our state and the input of our communities should drive the development of the plan. The requirements of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) provide vital protections for the education of English learners, students with disabilities, students of color and low-income students in our schools. Waiving these requirements would hinder the advancement of all Florida students. Parents and communities deserve to know that schools will be held accountable for ensuring the educational success of their children and that problems will not be ignored or swept under the rug. We cannot afford to let our children down. Hold Schools Accountable for Disaggregated Students Performance Florida's waiver request wrongly seeks to hold schools accountable only for the whole-school average and the performance of students in the lowest quartile of performance, instead of separately the performance of all major racial and ethnic groups, students with disabilities, low- income students, and English learners. ESSA's requirement that schools be held accountable separately for the performance of each subgroup of students is essential to ensuring that historic barriers to the success of these students are removed and appropriate supports are provided. The fact that children of color, those with disabilities, or those who are low-income or who are English learners are overrepresented among the "lowest-performing" students in our schools is precisely why we cannot ignore the barriers these students face on the basis of their identity. "Low-performing" should never be used as a proxy for any category of students based on their identity. Use English Language Proficiency Assessments to Measure English Language Proficiency 1 Florida's waiver request wrongly seeks to measure the English language proficiency of English learners with the English Language Arts assessment and to exclude a separate indicator of English language proficiency from the accountability system. ESSA's requirement that English language proficiency be counted as a separate indicator in a state's accountability system provides the opportunity to focus attention on English Learners and the supports they need to achieve skills in use of the English language. The English language arts assessment was not designed for the purpose of assessing English Learners in areas of reading, writing, listening, and speaking an additional language and should not be used in that manner. The English language proficiency assessment should be used to measure what it was designed to measure and the importance of English language acquisition should not be undermined. Make Native Language Assessments Available Florida's waiver request wrongly seeks to deny children access to native language assessments. Florida is fortunate to have so many children learning more than one language and it will make us a stronger and more attractive state. Native language assessments provide an important opportunity for students to demonstrate their competency with subject matters, even when they are not able to demonstrate it in English. Even as our children are still learning English, we.want to know how they are progressing across· content areas. Include All Students in the State Assessment Florida's waiver request wrongly seeks to hold schools accountable only for the whole-school test participation rate and not also the participation rate for each subgroup of students. ESSA' s requirement that schools demonstrate that at least 95 percent of all students and 95 percent of all groups of students are included in the assessment is in the law to make sure that there is no incentive to exclude children from the state assessment. Counting the participation rate for each individual group is critical because it will make it harder for schools to hide the performance of students in groups that have not received the support they need. School-wide percentages only . will not indicate whether there is a pattern of excluding specific groups of students from the assessment. We believe that Florida's waiver request would undermine the education of the children in our communities and we strongly urge you to reconsider submitting the request to the U.S. Department of Education. Please do not hesitate to contact Rosa Castro Feinberg (rcf2012@att.net; 305-815-4185;) with any questions about this letter. Sincerely, ABCs for Life Success Americans for Immigrant Justice, Inc. Andrea Lypka, Education Advocate, Pinellas County Antonio White, 1 st Vice President, United Teachers of Dade Babak Khoshnevisan, University of Southern Florida Instructor Barbara Smith-Palinkas, EAP Instructor, Hillsborough Community College Bay Area Regional TESOL 2 Brian Graefe, Teacher, Miami-Dade County Schools, Member UTD Bridge2excel1ence, Inc. Carolina Toledo, Teacher, Palm Beach County Public Schools, Education Advocate, Wellington, FL Catalyst Miami Central Florida Labor Council for Latin American Advancement Consultative Committee, Institute of Mexicans in the Exterior Councilman Alix Desulme Decoding Dyslexia Florida Democratic Women's Club of Florida, Inc. Dr. Beatrice Schnell-Anzola, Ed.D., ESOL Teacher, Scheck Hillel Community School Dr. David Mann, Adjunct Professor, F AU College of Education Dreamers Academy Emerald Coast TESOL Evelyn Rivera, P A Family Care Council, Area 4 FANM, Inc.lHaitian Women of Miami, Inc. Florida Association of Bilingual/ESOL Supervisors (FABES) Florida Association of Special Education Attorneys Florida Foreign Language Association, Inc. Florida Justice Institute, Inc. Florida Legal Services, Inc. Florida PTA . Gleason Hope Law, P.A. Grace Prieto, Community Activist, Miami-Dade County, FL Hamner Law Office, LLC Hispanic Health Initiatives, Inc. (HHI) Hispanic Services Council, Inc. Hispanic Unity of Florida, Inc. Huseyin Uysal, Graduate Student, University of Florida, College of Education, Gainesville, FL IEP Coaching & Advocacy International Embassy, League of United Latin American Citizens Jane F. Jones, Florida Citizen Advocate, Wakulla County, FL Jeanna Ojeda, Faculty of Academic ESL, Communications Dept., St. Petersburg College Jennifer Killam, Adjunct Professor, Broward College Jose Carmona, Professor, Pasco-Hernando State College Judy Macdonald, EAP Instructor, St. Petersburg College Katya Goussakova, Education Advocate, Seminole County KIDCO Child Care, Inc. L.I.F.E. LULAC Council 7241 LatinoJustice PRLDEF League of United Latin American Citizens, Council #7259 League of Women Voters of Florida Legal Aid Society of Palm Beach County, Inc. Li-Lee Tunceren, Academic Chair, Communications, S1. Petersburg College Lofton Alley, Education Advocate, Hillsborough County. 3 Luciana C. de Oliveira, TESOL Professor, University of Miami LULAC 7232 LULAC Florida Making School Work, PL Mark S. Kamleiter, Esquire, Special Education Law and Advocacy Melissa Nicholas, Education Advocate, Monroe County Miami Springs Activists Miami-Dade TESOL & Bilingual Education Association NAACP Florida State Conference National Conference of Puerto Rican Women (NACOPRW) Florida Chapter Nicole Hammond, Education Advocate, Orange County, FL Organize Florida Pilot Club of Miami Pinellas County Urban League, Inc. Real Talk Coalition for Educational Equity ReDefiners World Languages Rosemary N. Palmer, Attorney at Law Saint Leo University, Bridge Program Sant La, Haitian Neighborhood Center Shuzhan Li, Doctoral candidate, University of Florida South Florida LCLAA Southern Conference on Language Teaching (SCOLT) Spanish American League Against Discrimination Special Education Law and Advocacy Steven Mercier, Senior Instructor, University of South Florida Sunshine State TESOL Sunshine State TESOL of Florida at Tampa Sunshine TESOL Association (Florida) Susan Magers, Advocate The Farmworker Association of Florida, Inc. Tuba Yilmaz, Education Advocate, Gainesville, FL UnidosUS United Filipino and American Association, Inc. United Teachers of Dade UToD, Retired Chapter Valli Katzl, Professor, St. Petersburg College Vice Mayor Angelo Castillo, City of Pembroke Pines Vicki Murphy, ESOL Teacher, Escambia County School District Windsor Law CC: Florida State Board of Educatiol1, U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, Speaker Richard Corcoran, President Joe Negron, Senator Bill Nelson, Representative Carlos Curbelo, Representative Mario Diaz-Balart, Representative Kathy Castor, Representative Stephanie Murphy, Representative Michelle Lujan Grisham, Representative Cedric Richmond, Representative Virginia Foxx, Senator Lamar Alexander, Representative Darren Soto, Senator 4 -Marco Rubio, Representative Val Demings, Representative Al Lawson, Representative Alcee_ Hastings, Representative Frederica Wilson 5 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF ELEMENT AR Y AND SECONDARY EDUCATION The Honorable Pam Stewart Commissioner of Education Florida Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100 Dear Commissioner Stewart: December 19,2017 Thank you for submitting Florida's consolidated State plan to implement requirements of covered programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), and of the amended McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (McKinney-Vento Act). I am writing to provide initial feedback based on the U.S. Department of Education's (the Department's) review of your consolidated State plan. As you know, the Department also conducted, as required by the statute, a peer review of the portions of your State plan related to ESEA Title I, Part A, ESEA Title III, Part A, and the McKinney-Vento Act using the Department's State Plan Peer Review Criteria released on March 28, 2017. Peer reviewers examined these sections of the consolidated State plan in their totality, while respecting State and local judgments. The goal ofthe peer review was to support State-and local-led innovation by providing objective feedback on the technical, educational, and overall quality of the State plan and to advise the Department on the ultimate approval of the plan. I am enclosing a copy of the peer review notes for your consideration. Based on the Department's review of all programs submitted under Florida's consolidated State plan, including those programs subject to peer review, the Department is requesting clarifying or additional information to ensure the State's plan has met all statutory and regulatory requirements, as detailed in the enclosed table. Each State has flexibility in how it meets the statutory and regulatory requirements. Please note that the Department's feedback may differ from the peer review notes. I encourage you to read the full peer notes for additional suggestions and recommendations for improving your consolidated State plan. ESEA section 8451 requires the Department to issue a written determination within 120 days of a State's submission of its consolidated State plan. Given this statutory requirement, I ask that you revise Florida's consolidated State plan and resubmit it through OMB Max by January 4, 2018. We encourage you to continue to engage in consultation with stakeholders, including representatives from the Governor's office, as you develop and implement your State plan. If you would like to take more time to resubmit your consolidated State plan, please contact your Office of State Support Program Officer in writing and indicate your new submission date. 400 MARYLAND AVE .. SW, WASHINGTON. DC 20202 ww\V.ed.gov The Deparfmmt o/EduClIlioll's mission is 10 promote student achievement ondpreparalionjor global competitil'enes5 by fostering edUClIlionaf excel/enc" and ensuring equal access. Page 2 -The Honorable Pam Stewart Please recognize that if we accommodate your request for additional time, a determination on the ESEA consolidated State plan may be rendered after the l20-day period. Department staff will contact you to support Florida in addressing the items enclosed with this letter. If you have any immediate questions or need additional information, I encourage you to contact your Program Officer for the specific Dep'artment program. Please note that the Department only reviewed information provided in Florida's consolidated State phtn that was responsive to the Revised Template for the Consolidated State Plan that was issued on March 13,2017. Each State is responsible for administering all programs included in its consolidated State plan consistent with all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. Additionally, the Department can only review and approve complete information. If Florida indicated that any aspect of its plan may change or is still under development, Florida may include updated or additional information in its resubmission. Florida may also propose an amendment to its approved plan when additional data or information are available consistent with ESEA section 11 1 1 (a)(6)(B). The Department cannot approve incomplete details within the State plan until the State provides sufficient information. Thank you for the important work that you and your staff are doing to support the transition to the ESSA. The Department looks forward to working with you to ensure that all children have the opportunity to reach their full potential. Enclosures cc: Governor State Title I Director State Title II Director State Title III Director State Title IV Director State Title V Director Sincerely, /s/ Jason Botel Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Delegated the authority to perform the functions and duties ofthe position of Assistant Secretary, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education State 21 st Century Community Learning Center Director State Director for McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act: Education for Homeless Children and Youths Program Page 3 -The Honorable Pam Stewart Items That Require Additional Information or Revision in Florida's Consolidated State Plan Title I, Part A: Improvin2 Basic Pro2rams Operated by Local Educational A2encies (LEAs) A.2.iii: Eighth Grade Math Section 11 1 1 (b)(2)(C) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by Exception: Strategies the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESEA), and 34 C.F.R. § 200.5(b) permit the Florida Department of Education (FDOE) only to exempt an eighth-grade student who takes the high school mathematics course associated with the end-of-course (EOC) assessment(s) the State administers to high school students under ESEA section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I)(bb) from the mathematics assessment the State typically administers in eighth grade under ESEA section A.3.i: Native Language Assessments Definition AA.i.a: Major Racial and Ethnic Subgroups of Students 1111 (b )(2)(B)(v)(I)(aa). In order for the Department to ensure thatFDOE is meeting the requirement in ESEA section 1111 (b )(2)(B)(v)(I)(bb), FDOE must specify the mathematics EOC assessment(s) that it administers. FDOE may not exempt middle school students who are not in 8th grade who take the high school mathematics assessment(s) the State uses for Federal accountability purposes under ESEA section 1111(b)(2)(8)(v)(I)(bb) or 8th -grade students who take an advanced mathematics course that the State does not use to meet the requirements under ESEA section 11 1 1 (b)(2)(B)(v)(I)(bb). Moreover, FDOE may not exempt any middle school students, including 8th grade students, who take high school EOC assessments in reading/language arts or science under 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I)(bb) and (II)(cc). In its State plan, FDOE does not provide a definition for languages other than English that are present to a significant extent in the participating student population or identify the language or . languages that meet the definition. While FDOE notes that it only provides services in English, ESEA section II 11(b)(2)(F) and 34,C.F.R. § 200.6(f)(2)(ii) require FDOE to provide a definition of languages other than English that are present to a significant extent in the participating student population and identify the specific language(s) that meet this definition, which must include at least the most populous language other than English spoken by the State's participating student population. The ESEA requires a State to include in its accountability system subgroups of students, . including students from each major racial and ethnic group. FDOE's State plan is inconsistent between the subgroups listed in A.4.i.a and the subgroups listed in other sections of the plan. In particular, the Asian subgroup is missing from the list of subgroups on page 9. Additionally, the charts identifying long-term goals and measurements of interim progress provided on pages 61-62 in Appendix A combine two subgroups (American Indians and Pacific Islanders) into a single "Other Students" subgroup. This subgroup is only permissible if each ofthe individual racial and ..... _ .. _-.. --.. ---~.--.----.--.--- Page 4 -The Honorable Pam Stewart _ .. __ . ______________ j-;-et=h7:n=-ic~su=:b~g'2.:r_;:o...:cUQ.c..=:;:s:;:;is::_=;;al::;s~o-=s~epLa::;.r~a;~te:...:I'!_y.:..in:::.c::.;l:.::u-=d:-...ed=--::in:::...::th..::e:....L:::.St7_a:.:.te::...'~s.l:p:..:la=n..::. __ __;:__:__""_:---_---::--__ _ AA.iii.a.1: Academic In its State plan, FDOE provides long-tenn goals and measurements of interim progress for Achievement Long-tenn Goals academic achievement that are based on the size ofthe achievement gap between each subgroup and a comparison subgroup. Although FDOE provides baseline data for the all students group, it does not provide baseline data for any subgroup. The ESEA requires a State to identify and describe ambitious long-term goals and measurements of interim progress for improved academic achievement, as measured by grade-level proficiency, on the annual statewide reading/language arts and mathematics assessments for all students and for each subgroup of students. The ESEA also requires that a State's long-tenn goals and measurements of interim progress for academic achievement take into account the improvement necessary for subgroups of students who are behind in reaching those goals to make significant progress in clOSing statewide proficiency gaps (requirements AA.iii.a.2 and 3). Because FDOE does not include baseline data for each subgroup of students, it is unclear whether FDOE meets the statutory requirements that the goals be ambitious and take into account the improvement necessary for subgroups of students who are behind in reaching those goals to make significant progress in closing proficiency gaps, as well as AA.iii.b.l: Long-term Goals for Four-year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate A.4.iv.a: Academic Achievement ndicator ensuring that high-~rforming subgroups continue to improve their perfonnance. In its State plan, FDOE provides long-tenn goals and measurements of interim progress for graduation rates that are based on the size of the graduation rate gap between each subgroup and a comparison subgroup. Although FDOE provides baseline data for the all students group, FDOE does not provide baseline data for any subgroup. The ESEA requires a State to identify and describe ambitious long-term goals and measurements of interim progress to improve the four- year acUusted cohort graduation rate for all students and for each subgroup of students. The ESEA also requires that a State's long-tenn goals and measurements of interim progress for graduation rate take into account the improvement necessary for subgroups of students who are behind in reaching those goals to make significant progress in closing statewide graduation rate gaps (requirements A.4.iii.b.2 and 3). Because FDOE does not include baseline data for each subgroup, it is unclear whether FDOE meets the statutory requirements that the goals be ambitious and take into account the improvement necessary for subgroups of students who are behind in reaching those goals to make significant progress in closing graduation rate gaps, as well as ensuring that high-performing subgroups continue to improve their perfonnance. • FDOE indicates that its Academic Achievement indicator is calculated as a percentage of the students taking the State assessment who are deemed to have earned a "passing" (page 18) score. The ESEA requires that the Academic Achievement indicator be measured by grade- Page 5 -The Honorable Pam Stewart ,---------------------------,--~--~--~~----~------------------------------.--------------------------level proficiency on the annual statewide reading/language arts and mathematics assessments. AA.iv.d: Progress in Achieving English Language Proficiency Indicator FDOE indicates that a passing score is any score at Level 3 or above, but it is unclear what score level FDOE considers to be an indication that a student has attained grade-level proficiency. As a result, it is unclear whether FDOE has met this requirement. • The ESEA requires a State, for purposes of measuring, calculating, and reporting the· Academic Achievement indicator, to include in the denominator the greater of 95 percent of all students (or 95 percent of students in each subgroup, as the case may be) or the number of students participating in the assessments (ESEA section 1111(c)(4)(E)(ii)). While a State is permitted to lower a school \ s determination in the system of annual meaningful differentiation as a result of participation lower than 95 percent at the discretion of the Commissioner of Education, the ESEA does not provide a State with discretion in determining the number to be used in the denominator when calculating the Academic Achievement indicator. FDOE does not meet this statutory requirement because FDOE proposes to allow the State's Commissioner of Education to improve a school's determination in the system of annual meaningful differentiation if the calculation has been negatively affected by a participation rate lower than 95 percent. • The ESEA requires that this indicator be measured by proficiency on the annual assessments required under ESEA section 111 1 (b)(2)(B)(v)(I). Because FDOE is not clear about which high school assessments are included as part ofthis indicator, it is unclear whether the State meets this requirement. FDOE indicates that it will measure progress in achieving English language proficiency at the school level but does not include this measure in its accountability calculation. In addition, FDOE indicates that it will only include students in kindergarten through lih grade that are enrolled in an ESOL program. The ESEA requires a State to establish and describe a Progress in Achieving English Language Proficiency indicator that includes an annual measure of progress of English learners in achieving English language proficiency, as defined by the State and measured by the statewide English language proficiency assessment, and include this indicator, along with all the State's other indicators, in the State's accountability system to meaningfully differentiate among schools. Because FDOE does not include a Progress in Achieving English Language Proficiency indicator in its accountability system, it has not met this requirement. When FDOE includes this indicator in its accountability system, it must ensure that the indicator consistently measures the progress of all English learners in the State, not just those enrolled in ESOL programs, and ensure that the indicator does not exclude students on the basis of length of time in Page 6 -The Honorable Pam Stewart ~-------------------'----------,---~--------------~~~~~----~~--~~~=---------------------------~ attendance, except as provided in ESEA section 1111(c)(4)(F). A.4.iv.e: School Quality or Student Success Indicator(s) In its State plan, FDOE describes School Quality or Student Success indicators for middle and high schools that it calls "acceleration measures." For middle schools,the acceleration measure is the "percentage of eligible middle school students who passed a high school level EOC or industry certification." For high schools, the acceleration measure "is based on the percentage of . graduates from the graduation rate cohort who earned a score on an acceleration examination (AP, lB, or AICE)or a grade in a dual enrollment course that qualified the students for college credit or an industry certification." The ESEA requires that each indicator annually measure results for all students and separately for each subgroup of students and allow for meaningful differentiation in school performance across the State. Because FDOE has not fully described how it will calculate these acceleration measures for middle and high schools to ensure that they include all students or how the indicators will allow for meaningful differentiation, it is unclear . __ . _________________ -..,. ______ +w~h.::..et.c:..h::..c:e.::..r.:::..F.:=D'_O=__=E..::m.:c:~ets the statutory requireme.:.n __ ts'_'~ ____ ~----:--__:_--_-_--:---~'-:---------i A.4.v.a: State's System of Annual The ESEA requires a State to establish and describe in its State plan its system of annual Meaningful Differentiation meaningful differentiation, including a description of how the system is based on all indicators, for all students and all subgroups of student.s. In describing its system of annual meaningful differentiation in its State plan, FDOE does not include the Progress in Achieving English Language Proficiency indicator. As a result, PDOE has not met the statutory requirements. A.4.v.b: Weighting of Indicators The ESEA requires a State to establish and describe in its State plan its system of meaningfully differentiating all public schools based on all indicators, including the Progress in Achieving English Language Proficiency indicator, which must receive substantial weight in the State's system. Because PDOE does not describe how the Progress in Achieving English Language Proficiency indicator is included in the system and that it receives substantial weight individually, FDOE has not met the statutory requirements . .. -.. -------------------------I-~-=--==-=~.::::.::..:....::.;:.:..-.....~-------"--.......:..:;......:."--~-~--~___:_--------_::_--___::__--__:___::__:_-----I The ESEA requires a State to include all public schools in its system of annual meaningful A.4. v .c: If Applicable, Different Methodology for Annual Meaningful Differentiation differentiation and to describe that system in its State plan. • FDOE indicates that K-3 schools that do not receive a school grade on their own are eligible to receive the school grade ofthe school to which a majority of their students matriculate. If K-3 schools are only considered eligible to receive a grade, it is not clear whether all K-3 schools are in fact receiving a grade and therefore included in the State's accountability system. It is therefore unclear whether FDOE meets the statutory requirements. • FDOE indicates that alternative schools and Exceptional Student Education (ESE) center schools in Florida have a choice as to whether to receive an accountability determination --------------------------------------. -. __ .- Page 7 -The Honorable Pam Stewart A.4.vi.a Comprehensive Support and Improvement Schools- Lowest Performing AA.vi .. c: Comprehensive Support and Improvement Schools- Additional Targeted Support Not Exiting Such Status AA.vi.e: Targeted Support and Improvement Schools- "Consistently U nderperforming" Subgroups based on the statewide system of annual meaningful differentiation. Because FDOE proposes to use a different accountability methodology for these schools even though an accountability determination can be made under its statewide system of annual meaningful differentiation, it appears that FDOE does not meet the statutory requirements, including that any high school that fails to graduate one third or more of its students be identified for comprehensive support and improvement. • In regards to education programs at Department of Juvenile Justice facilities, which appear not to receive accountability determinations, it is unclear whether these are public schools consistent with State law; whether they receive Federal education funds under the ESEA or the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; and whether these schools are under the jurisdiction of the SEA. As a result, it is unclear ifFDOE meets the statutory requirement to include all public schools in its system of annual meaningful differentiation. The ESEA requires that a State identify for comprehensive support and improvement at least the lowest-performing five percent of all Title 1, Part A schools. Although FDOE indicates that its proposed methodology results in at least the lowest-performing five percent of Title 1 schools based on data from schoo I year 2016-2017, it does not describe how it will ensure that, each time comprehensive support and improvement schools are identified, at least five percent of its lowest- performing Title I schools will be identified. As a result, it is unclear that FDOE has met the statutory requirements. Because FDOE has not proposed a methodology for identifying additional targeted support schools that meets requirements (see AA.vi.f below), FDOE has not met the requirement to identify as comprehensive support and improvement schools those additional targeted support schools that receive Title I, Part A funds and that have not exited such status within a State- determined number of years. When FDOE revises its methodology for identifying additional targeted support schools to meet statutory requirements, it should also make commensurate adjustments to this section of its plan to reflect the change. The ESEA requires a State to describe a methodology for identifying schools in which any subgroup of students is consistently underperforming, as defined by the State, based on all indicators in the statewide system of annual meaningful differentiation. FDOE proposes a methodology that is based on its system for awarding school letter grades, which is based on the performance of only the all students group and the lowest performing 25 percent subgroup rather than on the performance of each subgroup. In addition, FDOE's method for identifying schools is not based on all required indicators, as it does not currently include the ELP indicator. Page 8 -The Honorable Pam Stewart A.4.vi.f: Targeted Support and Improvement Schools- Additional Targeted Support The ESEA requires that a State describe its methodology for identifying schools for additional targeted support in which any subgroup of students, on its own, would lead to identification for comprehensive support and improvement under ESEA section 111 1 (c)(4)(D)(i)(I) using the State's methodology under ESEA section 1111(c)(4)(D) (i.e., would lead to identification as among the lowest-performing five percent of schools receiving Title I, Part A funds). FDOE identifies a methodology for identifying additional targeted support schools as any school that receives a D grade in the State's accountability system and that has not already been identified for comprehensive support and improvement (i.e., a school that has received two consecutive D grades). This methodology does not identify each school iri which any subgroup of students, on its own, is performing as poorly as the lowest-performing five percent of schools receiving Title T, _ .... __ . _______________ t--P~art_A_fu~n~d_s and as a result it does not a~ar that FDOE has met the statutory requirements. __ _ 1\.4.viii.d: Resource Allocation The ESEA requires a State to periodically review resource allocation to support school Review 1\.5: Disproportionate Rates of Access to Educators improvement in each LEA in the State serving a significant number or percentage of schools identified for comprehensive or targeted support and improvement. In its State plan, FDOE describes the regional field teams it will deploy to provide "strategic problem solving and capacity building" to comprehensive and targeted support and improvement schools. However, it is not clear from this description that FDOE will periodically review resource allocation to support school improvement in each LEA in the State serving a significant number or percentage of schools identified for comprehensive or targeted support and improvement. • Although FDOE provides definitions for ineffective, inexperienced, and out-of-field teachers, FDOE does not describe the extent to which low-income or minority students enrolled in schools assisted under Title I, Part A are served at disproportionate rates by any of these types of educators. The ESEA requires a State to describe the extent, if any, that low-income and minority children enrolled in schools assisted under Title I, Part A are served at disproportionate rates by ineffective, out-of-field, or inexperienced teachers. • The ESEA also requires a State to describe the measures it will use to evaluate and publicly report its progress with respect to how low-income and minority children are not served at disproportionate rates by ineffective, out-of-field, and inexperienced teachers; FDOE has not t--. _ met thi~'_u_ir~em_e~n~t. ____ ~ ___________________ . _____ _j r-T~i~tl~e~I~,~P.~a~r~t~C~,:~E~·'d~u~c~a~t~io~n~o~f~~~i~~r~a~to~~~~C~h~il~d~r~e~n~ _________________ ~--~---~-~~--~~~----i B.l: Supporting Needs of • FDOE describes how it will identify the unique educational needs of migratory children. Migratory Children However, the ESEA requires that a State also describe how it will identify the unique __ . educational needs of preschool migratory children and migratory children who have dropped Page 9 -The Honorable Pam Stewart out of school. • The ESEA requires that a State describe how, in planning, implementing, and evaluating the Migrant Education Program, it will address the unique educational needs of migratory children, including preschool migratory children and migratory children who have dropped out of school, through: o The full range of services that are available for migratory children from appropriate local, State, and Federal educational programs; o Joint planning among local, State, and Federal educational programs. serving migratory children, including language instruction educational programs under Title III, Part A; and o The integration of services available under Title I, Part C with services provided by those other programs. FDOE did not provide sufficient infonnation to address these requirements. Title I, Part D: Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children and Youth Who Are Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk C-e.1: Transitions Between Correctional Facilities and Local Programs Although FDOE includes a plan for assisting in the transition of children and youth from correctional facilities to locally operated programs, it does not include a plan for assisting in the transition of children and youth between locally operated programs and correctional facilities (i;e., the transition from correctional facilities to locally operated programs as well as the transition from locally operated programs to correctional facilities). The ESEA requires a plan for assisting in the transition of children and youth between locally operated programs and correctional facilities. Title III, Part A, Subpart 1: En~lish Lan~uage Acquisition and Language Enhancement E.l : Entrance and Exit Procedures • In this section, FDOE does not provide a description of how it will establish and implement statewide entrance and exit procedures for English learners, although it does discuss the consultation held on the issue. • On page 17, FDOE mentions exiting English learners based on a score on the reading/language arts assessment without a proficient score on the ELPassessment, and the use of committees for exit decisions, without clarity on whether a passing ELP assessment score is reqUired. These exit criteria appear inconsistent with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI) and the Equal Educational Opportunities Act, which require a valid and reliable assessment of the four language domains (speaking, listening, reading, and writing) for the purpose of ensuring that English learners have achieved English language proficiency before exiting such students from EL services (See ED/DOJ Dear Colleague Letter: English i . i I Page 10 -The Honorable Pam Stewart Learner Students and Limited English Profici~nt Parents (2015); Policy Update o~· Schools' Obligations Toward National-Origin Minority Students with Limited-English Proficiency (September 1991)). o Please note that the Department only reviewed information provided in Florida's consolidated State plan that was responsive to the Revised Template for the Consolidated State Plan that was issued on March 13,2017. The Department's review of consolidated State plans is not a det.ermination that all the information and data included in the State plan comply with Federal civil rights requirements, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX ofthe Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. It is FLDOE's reS£onsibility to comply with all civil rights requirements. Education for Homeless Children and youthS Program, McKinney-Vento l~omeless Assistance Act, Title yn, Subtitle B~_-I 1.2: Dispute Resolution In its State Plan, FDOE describes procedures for the resolution of disputes regarding educational placement. FDOE does not, however, include procedural timelines or any other information that indicates that these procedures would result in the prompt resolution of disputes. The McKinney- ~. Vento Act requires a State to describe procedures for the prompt resolution of disputes. 1.3: Support for School Personnel In its State plan, FDOE describes training and outreach by LEA liaisons, with support from the SEA, for school personnel to heighten the awareness of such school personnel of the needs of homeless children and youth, including unaccompanied homeless youth. FDOE does not, however, describe how these activities will heighten the awareness of such school personnel of the specific needs of runaway and homeless children and youth. The McKinney-Vento Act requires the State to describe programs for school personnel (including the LEA liaisons for homeless children and youth, principals and other school leaders, attendance officers, teachers, enrollment personnel, and specialized instructional support personnel) to heighten the awareness of such schoolJ~ersonnel of the specific needs of runaway and homeless children and youth. 1.5: Strategies to Address Other Problems While FDOE provides several general strategies in its State plan to address problems resulting from enrollment delays, FDOE does not make clear whether these strategies specifically address problems resulting from enrollment delays that are caused by -(i) requirements of immunization and other required health records; (ii) residency requirements; (iii) lack of birth certificates, school records, or other documentation; (iv) guardianship issues; (v) uniform or dress code requirements. The McKinney-Vento Act requires a State to provide strategies to address problems resulting from enrollment delays that are caused by -(i) requirements of immunization ~-.. -~.---.-.~. .-.--_._---~ _ ... ----.---.--.~--...• --.~------ Page 11 -The Honorable Pam Stewart and other required health records; (ii) residency requirements; (iii) lack of birth certificates, school records, or other documentation; (iv) guardianship issues; (v) uniform or dress code requirements. 1.6: Policies to Remove Barriers While FDOE describes several processes in its State Plan for the SEA and LEA to develop, review and revise policies to remove barriers to the identification, enrollment and retention of homeless children and youth, FDOE does not demonstrate that the SEA and LEAs have . developed policies that they will review and revise to address specific to barriers to enrollment and retention due to outstandingfees orfines, or absences. The McKinney-Vento Act requires the State to demonstrate how the SEA and LEAs in the State have developed policies that they will review and revise to remove barriers to the enrollment and retention of homeless children and youth in the State due to outstanding fees or fines, or absences.