Implementation of New York’s Approved ESSA Plan to Comply with the Provisions of the Every Stud...

NY-ADR

5/9/18 N.Y. St. Reg. EDU-19-18-00006-P
NEW YORK STATE REGISTER
VOLUME XL, ISSUE 19
May 09, 2018
RULE MAKING ACTIVITIES
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
PROPOSED RULE MAKING
NO HEARING(S) SCHEDULED
 
I.D No. EDU-19-18-00006-P
Implementation of New York’s Approved ESSA Plan to Comply with the Provisions of the Every Student Succeeds Act
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE State Administrative Procedure Act, NOTICE is hereby given of the following proposed rule:
Proposed Action:
Amendment of sections 100.2(ff), (m), 100.18, 100.19, Part 120; addition of section 100.21 to Title 8 NYCRR.
Statutory authority:
Education Law, sections 101, 112(1), 207, 210, 215, 305(1), (2), (20), 309, 3713(1), (2); The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, 20 U.S.C. sections 6301 et seq. (Public Law 114-95, 129 STAT. 1802)
Subject:
Implementation of New York’s approved ESSA plan to comply with the provisions of the Every Student Succeeds Act.
Purpose:
To implement New York’s approved ESSA plan and to comply with the provisions of the Every Student Succeeds Act.
Substance of proposed rule (Full text is posted at the following State website:http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/rules-andregs):
The Commissioner of Education proposes to amend sections 100.2(ff), 100.2(m), 100.18, 100.19 and Part 120 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education relating to Relating to the implementation of the State’s Approved Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Plan. The following is a summary of the proposed rule:
The proposed amendment to subdivision 100.2(ff) relates to the enrollment of youth released or conditionally released from residential facilities. This amendment clarifies the existing requirement that districts designate an employee(s) to be the transition liaison(s) with residential facility personnel, parents, students, and State and other local agencies for the purpose of facilitating a student’s effective educational transition into, between, and out of such facilities to ensure that each student receives appropriate educational and appropriate supports, services, and opportunities; and this amendment also provides an overview of the duties of the liaison(s).
The proposed amendment to subdivision 100.2(m) relates to requirements for the New York State report card for schools and districts. This amendment updates the information to be provided in report cards to align with the provisions of ESSA and requires local educational agencies (LEAs) to post the local report cards on their website, where one exists, to satisfy ESSA’s local report card requirements. If an LEA does not operate a website, the LEA must provide the information to the public in another manner determined by the LEA.
The proposed amendments to 100.18 clarify that this section, which contains provisions relating to implementation of New York’s approved ESEA flexibility waiver, only applies to accountability designations made prior to July 1, 2018, except as otherwise provided in the new section 100.21.
In order to implement the State’s approved ESSA plan, the proposed amendments to section 100.19 clarify that Failing Schools means schools that have been identified as Priority Schools and/or Comprehensive Support and Improvement Schools (CSI) for at least three consecutive years. (See Attachment A for criteria for identification of a Comprehensive Support and Improvement School.) These amendments also clarify that beginning with the 2018-19 school year, removal from receivership will be based upon a school’s status as a CSI rather than as a Priority School.
The proposed creation of section 100.21 implements the new accountability and support and interventions of the State’s approved ESSA plan commencing with the 2018-2019 school year. Such provisions shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
• Subdivision (a) sets forth an applicability clause which says that section 100.21 supersedes paragraphs (p)(1) through (11) and (14) through (16) of section 100.2 and section 100.18, which are the provisions of Commissioner’s Regulations that were in place under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and the Department’s Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) flexibility waiver, and that the new section 100.21 shall apply in lieu of such provisions during the period of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act, and any revisions and extensions thereof, except as otherwise provided in section 100.21. If a provision of section 100.2(p) or of section 100.18 conflicts with section 100.21, the provisions of section 100.21 shall prevail.
• Subdivision (b) defines various terms, which are divided into general definitions, definitions related to school and district accountability, definitions related to school and district accountability designations, and definitions related to interventions for designated schools and districts to implement the new accountability system in New York State’s approved ESSA plan.
• Subdivision (c) outlines the procedures and requirements for registration of public schools, which remain the same as under the previous accountability regulations.
• Subdivision (d) relates to the requirements for the registration of public schools.
• Subdivision (e) provides that, commencing with the 2017-2018 school year results, the Commissioner will annually review the performance of all public schools, charter schools, and school districts in the State. The Commissioner shall determine whether such public school, charter school or school district shall be identified for Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI), Targeted Support and Improvement (TSI), or identified as a Target District in accordance with the criteria set forth in subdivision (f) of the regulation.
• Subdivision (f) specifies the differentiated accountability methodology by which schools will be identified as either CSI (which will be identified every three years beginning with the 2018-2019 school year using 2017-2018 school year results) or TSI (which will be identified annually beginning with the 2018-2019 school year), and the methodology for identifying Target Districts. This section describes how six indicators (composite performance, student growth, combined composite performance and growth, English language proficiency, academic progress, and chronic absenteeism) are used in the methodology for identification of elementary and middle schools. This section also details how seven indicators (composite performance; graduation rate; combined composite performance and graduation rate; English language proficiency; academic progress; chronic absenteeism; and college, career, and civic readiness) are used in the methodology for identifying high schools. This subdivision also explains how each of these indicators is computed, how these computations are converted into a Level 1-4 for each accountability group for which a school or district is accountable, and how these levels assigned to the accountability groups are used to determine whether a school will be identified as in Good Standing, TSI, or CSI, and whether a district will be identified as a District in Good Standing or a Target District. This subdivision also contains provisions regarding the identification of high schools for CSI based on graduation rates below 67% beginning with 2017-18 school year results. In addition, this subdivision contains provisions regarding the identification of TSI schools for additional support as required by ESSA if an accountability group for which a school is identified performs at a level that would have caused the school to be identified as CSI if this had been the performance of the “all students” group.
• Subdivision (g) provides that preliminarily identified CSI and TSI schools and Target Districts shall be given the opportunity to provide the Commissioner with any additional information concerning extenuating or extraordinary circumstances faced by the school or district that should be cause for the Commissioner to not identify the school as CSI or TSI or the district as a Target District.
• Subdivision (h) establishes the public notification requirements upon receipt of a designation of CSI or TSI school or a Target District.
• Subdivision (i) specifies the interventions that must occur in schools identified as CSI or TSI, as well as districts identified as Target Districts. This section describes the requirements for identified schools as they relate to parental involvement, participatory budgeting, school comprehensive improvement plans, and school choice. This subdivision also describes the increased support and oversight that schools that fail to improve will receive. This subdivision also outlines the interventions for schools that, beginning with 2017-18 and 2018-19 school year results, fail for two consecutive years to meet the 95% participation rate requirement for annual state assessments for the same accountability group for the same accountability measure and are not showing improvement in the participation rate for that accountability group. This subdivision also specifies the support that districts must provide to a school that is not CSI or TSI but has performed at Level 1 for an accountability group for an accountability measure.
• Subdivision (j) establishes the criteria for a school’s or a district’s removal from an accountability designation.
• Subdivision (k) provides the criteria for the identification of schools for public school registration review. Under this subdivision, the Commissioner may place under preliminary registration review any school identified for receivership; any school that is identified as CSI for three consecutive years; and any school that has been identified as a poor learning environment. Also, under this subdivision, a school under registration review shall also be identified as a CSI school, and subject to all the requirements of that designation.
• Subdivision (l) specifies the process by which the Commissioner will place a school under registration review; and the required actions of the district and the school related to the designation. This subdivision also describes the requirements for receivership schools that have also been identified for registration review.
• Subdivision (m) specifies the criteria and process for removal of schools from registration review, school phase-out or closure.
The proposed amendments to Part 120 update provisions in the existing regulations pertaining to the sunsetting of No Child Left Behind requirements regarding highly qualified teachers and provide for the continuation under ESSA of provisions pertaining to persistently dangerous schools and unsafe school choice and updates to public school choice provisions.
Text of proposed rule and any required statements and analyses may be obtained from:
Kirti Goswami, Education Department, 89 Washington Avenue, Room 148, Albany, NY 12238, (518) 474-6400, email: legal@nysed.gov
Data, views or arguments may be submitted to:
Dr. Lisa Long, Education Department, Office of Accountability, 55 Hanson Place, 4th Floor, Brooklyn, NY 11217, (718) 722-4553, email: ESSAREGCOMMENT@nysed.gov
Public comment will be received until:
60 days after publication of this notice.
Summary of Regulatory Impact Statement (Full text is posted at the following State website:http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/rulesandregs):
1. STATUTORY AUTHORITY:
Ed.L. § 101 continues existence of Education Department, with Board of Regents as its head, and authorizes Regents to appoint Commissioner of Education as Department's Chief Administrative Officer, which is charged with general management and supervision of all public schools and educational work of State.
Ed.L. § 112(1) authorizes Commissioner to require schools and school districts to facilitate the prompt enrollment of children who are released or conditionally released from residential facilities.
Ed.L. § 207 empowers Regents and Commissioner to adopt rules and regulations to carry out State education laws and functions and duties conferred on the Department.
Ed.L.§ 210 authorizes Regents to register domestic and foreign institutions in terms of State standards, and fix the value of degrees, diplomas and certificates issued by institutions of other states or countries and presented for entrance to schools, colleges and professions in the State.
Ed.L. § 215 authorizes Commissioner to require schools and school districts to submit reports containing such information as Commissioner shall prescribe.
Ed.L. § 305(1) and (2) provide Commissioner, as chief executive officer of the State's education system, with general supervision over all schools and institutions subject to the Education Law, or any statute relating to education, and responsibility for executing all educational policies of the Regents.
Ed.L. § 305(20) provides Commissioner shall have such further powers and duties as charged by the Regents.
Ed.L. § 309 charges the Commissioner with the general supervision of boards of education and their management and conduct of all departments of instruction.
Ed.L. § 3713(1) and (2) authorize State and school districts to accept federal law making and appropriations for educational purposes and authorize Commissioner to cooperate with federal agencies to implement such law.
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, 20 U.S.C. sections 6301 et seq.(Public Law 114-95, 129 STAT.1802).
2. LEGISLATIVE OBJECTIVES:
The proposed rule is consistent with the above statutory authority and is necessary to implement New York’s approved ESSA plan and to comply with the provisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, 20 U.S.C. sections 6301 et seq. (Public Law 114-95, 129 STAT. 1802).
3. NEEDS AND BENEFITS:
On December 10, 2015, ESSA was signed into law by President Obama. This bipartisan measure reauthorized the 50-year-old ESEA, which provides federal funds to improve elementary and secondary education in the nation's public schools and requires states and school districts, as a condition of funding, to take a variety of actions to ensure all children, regardless of race, income, background, or where they live, receive the education they need to prepare them for success in postsecondary education, careers, and citizenship. New York State receives approximately $1.6 billion annually in funding through ESSA.
After an extensive, 18-month long public engagement process, the Department, with Board approval, submitted New York State’s ESSA plan to the USDE for review on September 17, 2018. On January 17, 2018, the USDE approved the State’s plan. In April 2018, the Department provided the Board of Regents with a description of the draft regulatory terms and the Board directed the Department to finalize the draft regulatory terms for publication in the State Register.
The rule will ensure a seamless transition to the revised accountability plan as authorized under the approved ESSA plan, and provide school districts with the opportunity to demonstrate improvements by creating improvement plans that address the needs and resource issues found in identified schools.
For a more complete explanation please see the Regulatory Impact Statement posted here: http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/rulesandregs
4. COSTS:
Cost to the State: The proposed rule does not generally impose any new costs beyond those consistent with the provisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, 20 U.S.C. sections 6301 et seq. (Public Law 114-95, 129 STAT. 1802).
Costs to local government: The rule does not generally impose any new costs beyond those consistent with the provisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, 20 U.S.C. sections 6301 et seq. (Public Law 114-95, 129 STAT. 1802), but rather requires, in some instances, that school districts spend a portion of their Title I, Title IIA, and Title III funds on specific programs and activities, except that a school identified for Comprehensive Support and Improvement may in some cases need to spend an amount that is anticipated to be less than $10,000 per year in state and/or local funds to meet the participatory budgeting requirements of the regulations. The rule also provides school districts with substantial additional flexibility in how they use program funds compared to current regulations pertaining to schools identified as Priority or Focus.
Based upon the requirements described in the rule to implement certain activities based upon a school or district’s accountability status, there may be some associated costs. These activities, include, but are not necessarily limited to, annual notifications of accountability status; participation in comprehensive needs assessments; conduct of parent, staff and student surveys; and development and implementation of improvement plans. For school districts with schools receiving Title I, IIA or III funding, these funds may be used to pay the associated costs. School districts with Title I funded schools that are designated as Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) schools or Targeted Support and Improvement (TSI) schools, will also be required to use their Title I, IIA, III funding to implement programs and services in CSI and TSI schools that address the needs and resource limitations found as a result of the needs assessments conducted at the schools. CSI schools that fail to show progress on their Annual Achievement Progression targets for two consecutive years will be required to enter into a partnership with a BOCES, Regional Bilingual Education Resource Network, Teacher Center or other Regional Technical Assistance Center, or other technical assistance provider as determined by the Commissioner to support the implementation of the Comprehensive Education Plan. Depending on the nature of such partnership, and whether such partnership already exists, a school district may incur costs to implement this provision of the regulations.
In some instances, school districts newly identified as Target Districts with schools that are designated as CSI or TSI that do not receive Title I funding may incur costs. These costs will generally be limited to the cost of site visits and implementation of any elements of District Comprehensive Education Plans and Comprehensive Education Plans that involve activities that are in addition to the district's or the school's regular educational program and that the district chooses not to fund through reallocation of existing resources. However, it is anticipated that non-Title I schools will be eligible to receive federal 1003 School Improvement Grants that can be used to fund these activities.
Districts that have schools that fail to meet the 95% participation rate requirements must develop a participation rate improvement plan, which in some cases beginning in the 2021-22 school year shall include partnering with a BOCES or other technical assistance provider to conduct a participation rate audit and to update the participation rate improvement plan. Because these partnerships will likely vary significantly in cost based on the number of schools for which a plan is required no estimate can be made at this time regarding required costs. Similarly districts that have schools that will be closed or phased out as a consequence of these regulations may incur costs in developing and implementing a closure or phase out plan.
In other instances, school districts and their schools will be designated as in Good Standing, when under the present accountability system these school districts and schools might otherwise have been designated as Priority, Focus or Local Assistance Plan schools. In these cases, school districts may incur cost savings as they will no longer be required to participate in site visits or in the other previously required interventions for districts with such designations. In addition, a number of previous requirements for schools identified as Priority or Focus have been reduced or eliminated, thereby providing districts with increased flexibility in use of funds. For example, the current requirement for Title I Schools that are designated as Priority and Focus Schools to offer public school choice has been replaced by a substantially more limited public school choice program for a subset of Comprehensive Support and Improvement Schools. Because of the number of school districts and schools involved, and the fact that the allowable services and activities to be provided will vary greatly from district-to-district, as well as school-to-school, depending on the school and district designation, the district’s choices, and the needs presented in each school, a complete cost statement cannot be provided. No additional costs have been identified with respect to the implementation of the updated accountability system, given the similarities in current requirements and an inability to determine differences aside from those in respect to depth of focus.
Cost to private regulated parties: None.
Cost to regulating agency for implementation and continued administration of this rule: None.
5. LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANDATES:
The rule is necessary to assist school districts to be able to meet the provisions of New York’s approved ESSA plan. The proposed regulation will require districts with schools identified as CSI or TSI to make significant changes to these schools’ educational programs. See the response to Question #3, Needs and Benefits in the full Regulatory Impact Statement available here: http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/rulesandregs
6. PAPERWORK:
The proposed rule generally contains paperwork requirements consistent with those in existing regulations and does not generally impose any new paperwork requirements beyond those consistent with the above statutory authority and the provisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, 20 U.S.C. sections 6301 et seq. (Public Law 114-95, 129 STAT. 1802). For further information please see the above response to Question #3, Needs and Benefits in the full Regulatory Impact Statement available here: http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/rulesandregs
7. DUPLICATION:
The rule does not duplicate existing State or federal regulations.
8. ALTERNATIVES:
After an extensive, 18-month long public engagement process, the Department, with Board approval, submitted New York State’s ESSA plan to the USDE for review on September 17, 2018 which was approved on January 17, 2018. The proposed rule is necessary conform Commissioner's Regulations to New York's approved ESSA plan.
9. FEDERAL STANDARDS:
The rule is necessary to conform regulations to New York's approved ESSA plan and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, 20U.S.C.§ 6301 et seq. (Public Law 114-95, 129 STAT.1802).
10. COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE:
It is anticipated that parties will be able to timely implement the rule’s requirements beginning with its effective date.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Small Businesses:
The proposed rule relates to public school and school district accountability and is necessary to implement New York’s approved ESSA plan and to comply with the provisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, 20 U.S.C. sections 6301 et seq. (Public Law 114-95, 129 STAT. 1802).Commissioner's Regulations to New York State's Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Flexibility Waiver Request; which was approved by the Secretary to the United States Education Department on May 29, 2012 pursuant to ESEA section 9401.
The purpose of the proposed rule is to ensure a seamless transition to the revised accountability plan as authorized under the approved ESSA plan, and provide school districts with the opportunity to demonstrate improvements by creating improvement plans that address the needs and resource issues found in identified schools. The State and local educational agencies (LEAs) are required to comply with the ESSA as a condition to their receipt of federal funds under Title I of the ESEA Act of 1965, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015.
The rule applies to public schools, school districts and charter schools that receive funding as LEAs pursuant to the ESSA, and does not impose any adverse economic impact, reporting, record keeping or any other compliance requirements on small businesses. Because it is evident from the nature of the proposed amendment that it does not affect small businesses, no further measures were needed to ascertain that fact and none were taken. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis for small businesses is not required and one has not been prepared.
Local Governments:
1. EFFECT OF RULE:
The rule applies to public schools, school districts and charter schools that receive funding as LEAs pursuant to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended.
2. COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS:
See the response to Question #3, Needs and Benefits in the full Regulatory Impact Statement available here: http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/rulesandregs
3. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES:
The rule imposes no additional professional service requirements.
4. COMPLIANCE COSTS:
For further information related to the costs of implementation please see the response to Question #4, Costs in the full Regulatory Impact Statement available here: http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/rulesandregs
5. ECONOMIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL FEASIBILITY:
The rule imposes no technological requirements on school districts. Costs are discussed under the Compliance Costs section above.
6. MINIMIZING ADVERSE IMPACT:
The proposed rule is necessary to implement New York’s approved ESSA plan and to comply with the provisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, 20 U.S.C. sections 6301 et seq. (Public Law 114-95, 129 STAT. 1802).Commissioner's Regulations to New York State's Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Flexibility Waiver Request; which was approved by the Secretary to the United States Education Department on May 29, 2012 pursuant to ESEA section 9401. The State and local educational agencies (LEAs) are required to comply with the ESEA as a condition to their receipt of federal funds under Title I of the ESEA Act of 1965, as amended.
The rule adds a new section 100.21 and revises sections 100.2(m), 100.2(ff), 100.18, 100.19 and Part 120 of the Commissioner's Regulations to align New York’s public school and school district accountability system to the approved ESSA plan and to ensure a seamless transition to the revised accountability plan as authorized under the approved ESSA plan. The rule has been carefully drafted to meet specific federal and State requirements.
7. LOCAL GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATION:
Copies of the proposed rule have been provided to District Superintendents with the request that they distribute it to school districts within their supervisory districts for review and comment. Copies were also provided for review and comment to the chief school officers of the five big city school districts and to charter schools.
Rural Area Flexibility Analysis
1. TYPES AND ESTIMATED NUMBERS OF RURAL AREAS:
The proposed rule applies to public schools, school districts and charter schools that receive funding as LEAs pursuant to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), including those located in the 44 rural counties with less than 200,000 inhabitants and the 71 towns in urban counties with a population density of 150 per square mile or less.
2. REPORTING, RECORDKEEPING AND OTHER COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS; AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES:
The rule is necessary to necessary to implement New York’s approved ESSA plan and to comply with the provisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, 20 U.S.C. sections 6301 et seq. (Public Law 114-95, 129 STAT. 1802). For a more complete explanation please see the Regulatory Impact Statement posted here: http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/rulesandregs
3. COSTS:
Cost to the State: The proposed rule does not generally impose any new costs beyond those consistent with the provisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, 20 U.S.C. sections 6301 et seq. (Public Law 114-95, 129 STAT. 1802).
Costs to local government: The rule does not generally impose any new costs beyond those consistent with the provisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, 20 U.S.C. sections 6301 et seq. (Public Law 114-95, 129 STAT. 1802), but rather requires, in some instances, that school districts spend a portion of their Title I, Title IIA, and Title III funds on specific programs and activities, except that a school identified for Comprehensive Support and Improvement may in some cases need to spend an amount that is anticipated to be less than $10,000 per year in state and/or local funds to meet the participatory budgeting requirements of the regulations. The rule also provides school districts with substantial additional flexibility in how they use program funds compared to current regulations pertaining to schools identified as Priority or Focus.
Based upon the requirements described in the rule to implement certain activities based upon a school or district’s accountability status, there may be some associated costs. These activities, include, but are not necessarily limited to, annual notifications of accountability status; participation in comprehensive needs assessments; conduct of parent, staff and student surveys; and development and implementation of improvement plans. For school districts with schools receiving Title I, IIA or III funding, these funds may be used to pay the associated costs. School districts with Title I funded schools that are designated as Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) schools or Targeted Support and Improvement (TSI) schools, will also be required to use their Title I, IIA, III funding to implement programs and services in CSI and TSI schools that address the needs and resource limitations found as a result of the needs assessments conducted at the schools. CSI schools that fail to show progress on their Annual Achievement Progression targets for two consecutive years will be required to enter into a partnership with a BOCES, Regional Bilingual Education Resource Network, Teacher Center or other Regional Technical Assistance Center, or other technical assistance provider as determined by the Commissioner to support the implementation of the Comprehensive Education Plan. Depending on the nature of such partnership, and whether such partnership already exists, a school district may incur costs to implement this provision of the regulations.
In some instances, school districts newly identified as Target Districts with schools that are designated as CSI or TSI that do not receive Title I funding may incur costs. These costs will generally be limited to the cost of site visits and implementation of any elements of District Comprehensive Education Plans and Comprehensive Education Plans that involve activities that are in addition to the district's or the school's regular educational program and that the district chooses not to fund through reallocation of existing resources. However, it is anticipated that non-Title I schools will be eligible to receive federal 1003 School Improvement Grants that can be used to fund these activities.
Districts that have schools that fail to meet the 95% participation rate requirements must develop a participation rate improvement plan, which in some cases beginning in the 2021-22 school year shall include partnering with a BOCES or other technical assistance provider to conduct a participation rate audit and to update the participation rate improvement plan. Because these partnerships will likely vary significantly in cost based on the number of schools for which a plan is required no estimate can be made at this time regarding required costs. Similarly districts that have schools that will be closed or phased out as a consequence of these regulations may incur costs in developing and implementing a closure or phase out plan.
In other instances, school districts and their schools will be designated as in Good Standing, when under the present accountability system these school districts and schools might otherwise have been designated as Priority, Focus or Local Assistance Plan schools. In these cases, school districts may incur cost savings as they will no longer be required to participate in site visits or in the other previously required interventions for districts with such designations. In addition, a number of previous requirements for schools identified as Priority or Focus have been reduced or eliminated, thereby providing districts with increased flexibility in use of funds. For example, the current requirement for Title I Schools that are designated as Priority and Focus Schools to offer public school choice has been replaced by a substantially more limited public school choice program for a subset of Comprehensive Support and Improvement Schools. Because of the number of school districts and schools involved, and the fact that the allowable services and activities to be provided will vary greatly from district-to-district, as well as school-to-school, depending on the school and district designation, the district’s choices, and the needs presented in each school, a complete cost statement cannot be provided. No additional costs have been identified with respect to the implementation of the updated accountability system, given the similarities in current requirements and an inability to determine differences aside from those in respect to depth of focus.
Cost to private regulated parties: None.
Cost to regulating agency for implementation and continued administration of this rule: None.
4. MINIMIZING ADVERSE IMPACT:
The rule is necessary to conform the Commissioner's Regulations to New York State's approved ESSA plan and to comply with the provisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, 20 U.S.C. sections 6301 et seq. (Public Law 114-95, 129 STAT. 1802).
The rule adds a new section 100.21 and revises sections 100.2(m), 100.2(ff), 100.18, 100.19 and Part 120 of the Commissioner's Regulations to align New York’s public school and school district accountability system to the approved ESSA plan and to ensure a seamless transition to the revised accountability plan as authorized under the approved ESSA plan. The rule has been carefully drafted to meet specific federal and State requirements. Since these requirements apply to all local educational agencies in the State that receive ESSA funds, it is not possible to adopt different standards for school districts in rural areas.
5. RURAL AREA PARTICIPATION:
The rule was submitted for review and comment to the Department’s Rural Education Advisory Committee, which includes representatives of school districts in rural areas.
Job Impact Statement
The proposed rule making relates to public school and school district accountability and is necessary to implement New York’s approved ESSA plan and to comply with the provisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, 20 U.S.C. sections 6301 et seq. (Public Law 114-95, 129 STAT. 1802).
The purpose of the proposed rule is to ensure a seamless transition to the revised accountability plan as authorized under the approved ESSA plan, and provide school districts with the opportunity to demonstrate improvements by creating improvement plans that address the needs and resource issues found in identified schools. The State and local educational agencies (LEAs) are required to comply with the ESSA as a condition to their receipt of federal funds under Title I of the ESEA Act of 1965, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015.
The proposed rule applies to public schools, school districts and charter schools that receive funding as LEAs pursuant to the ESSA, and will not have an adverse impact on jobs or employment opportunities. Because it is evident from the nature of the proposed rule that it will have no impact, on jobs or employment opportunities, no further steps were needed to ascertain those facts and none were taken. Accordingly, a job impact statement is not required and one has not been prepared.
End of Document© 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.