Skip to main content
Colorado General AssemblyToggle Main Menu
Agency NameToggle Agency Menu

I_COESSAComm_2016A 08/04/2016 09:09:09 AM Committee Summary




Date: 08/04/2016
Time: 09:09 AM to 02:12 PM
Place: HCR 0112
Neville T.
This Meeting was called to order by
Representative Pettersen
This Report was prepared by
Rachel Kurtz-Phelan
X = Present, E = Excused, A = Absent, * = Present after roll call
Bills Addressed: Action Taken:
Overview of the Task at Hand

Requirements of the Every Student Succeeds Act and Opportunities for States

Comparison of Every Student Succeeds Act to No Child Left Behind Act

Timeline for Implementation

Stakeholder Engagement

Update from CDE

Remarks from the State Board of Education
Witness Testimony and/or Committee Discussion Only

Witness Testimony and/or Committee Discussion Only

Witness Testimony and/or Committee Discussion Only

Witness Testimony and/or Committee Discussion Only

Witness Testimony and/or Committee Discussion Only

Witness Testimony and/or Committee Discussion Only

Witness Testimony and/or Committee Discussion Only

09:09 AM -- Overview of the Task at Hand

Representative Pettersen, Chair, called the meeting to order. Copies of the committee charge memorandum were distributed to the committee members (Attachment A). Representative Pettersen invited Michelle Exstrom, Education Program Director, National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), to come to the table. Ms. Exstrom introduced herself and her colleague, Lee Posey, Federal Affairs Counsel, NCSL. Ms. Exstrom provided background information about NCSL, and handed out copies of the powerpoint presentation (Attachment B).

Attachment A.pdfAttachment A.pdf Attachment B.pdfAttachment B.pdf

09:13 AM -- Requirements of the Every Student Succeeds Act and Opportunities for States

Ms. Posey began her portion of the presentation. She explained that the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) can be broken down into three main policy buckets: accountability, including state plans and state indicator systems; assessments; and turning around low performing schools. She stressed the need for communications between Local Education Agencies (LEAs) and the state when determining which strategies to implement for low performing schools. She talked about the requirements for states under the new law, which include having challenging academic standards, statewide assessments with 95 percent participation, teacher equity plans, and setting goals for student performance. She discussed the programs that ESSA reauthorizes, including: programs for English Language Learners; migrant children; homeless children and youth through the McKinney-Vento Act; Indian, Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native students; teachers and school leaders; and preschoolers.

09:26 AM

Ms. Exstrom spoke about waivers under the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, and how the passage of ESSA has and will lead to more flexibility for states. She discussed assessment and accountability legislation passed by states, and talked about the differences in standards, assessments, accountability, and turning around low performing schools before the passage of ESSA and after the passage of ESSA. She talked about states exploring new and creative ways to change their accountability systems in order to provide useful and robust data. Ms. Posey and Ms. Exstrom answered questions from the committee.

09:42 AM -- Comparison of Every Student Succeeds Act to No Child Left Behind Act

Ms. Posey discussed the differences between what states asked for and and what they received under ESSA. She discussed states' desire for flexibility in their accountability systems, and stated that states should be able to align their K-12 academic standards with their higher education and career preparation goals, as well as possibilities for innovation in assessment design. She discussed the elimination of the "highly qualified teacher" and "adequate yearly progress" metrics, the prohibition on federal approval or incentivizing of state standards or plan, and the prohibition on the use of additional or new federal requirements as a condition of waiver approval. She talked about performance goals for state indicator systems and requirements for proficiency rates and graduation rates.

10:03 AM

Ms. Posey talked about federal overreach, the role of the U.S. Secretary of Education, and the prohibition on federal agencies controlling the academic standards adopted by the states or endorsing any particular curriculum. Ms. Posey continued to discussed the differences between the requirements of ESSA and NCLB, and the support in ESSA for using Title I funds for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) programs and instruction in the arts and humanities. The committee discussed the differences between college readiness and career readiness and the need for states to focus on both.

10:23 AM

Ms. Posey explained ESSA's Student Support and Academic Enrichment formula grants, which can be used for three broad purposes: to provide students with access to a well-rounded education; to improve school conditions for student learning; and to improve the use of technology to improve academic achievement and digital literacy. She also discussed Title II funds to support teachers and school leaders in diverse academic areas, and explained the importance of disaggregated data on all of the indicators. Ms. Posey answered questions about expenditures, apportioning state and local funding, and directing Title II funding to impoverished and rural schools.

10:37 AM

Ms. Posey talked about assessment flexibility under ESSA, and explained that ESSA requires statewide assessments on the same schedule as was required under NCLB. She said that ESSA requires reporting of a summative score, but that the assessment can be broken down into separate parts to be given throughout the year. She talked about several other specific areas of flexibility for the assessments as required under ESSA, such as the Innovative Assessment pilot that allows Local Education Agencies to experiment with different kinds of assessments, and the associated issues with comparability.

11:04 AM

The presenters continued to answer questions about assessment flexibility, and talked about the difference in turnaround strategies between NCLB and ESSA.

11:15 AM -- Timeline for Implementation

Ms. Posey discussed the full implementation schedule for state plans under ESSA, and explained what the state plan should include, as well as regulatory issues that may come up.

11:27 AM -- Stakeholder Engagement

Ms. Exstrom discussed the importance of strong stakeholder involvement during the development and implementation of the state plan. She told the committee that the stakeholders may include: the Governor; state legislators; state board of education members; Local Education Agencies; representatives of Indian tribes; teachers, principals, and other school leaders; charter school leaders; parents and families; community based organizations; civil rights organizations; institutions of higher education; employers; and the public. Ms. Posey and Ms. Exstrom answered questions from the committee about the state plan implementation timeline and stakeholder engagement. Committee discussion ensued.

11:57 AM

The committee recessed for lunch.

01:15 PM -- Update from CDE

The committee came back to order. Katy Anthes, Interim Commissioner of Education, Colorado Department of Education (CDE), came to the table. She distributed a copy of her presentation (Attachment C), and several additional handouts to the committee (Attachments D, E, and F). She discussed the timeline for implementation of the ESSA state plan, as well as the ESSA listening tours and ESSA Feedback Report conducted by CDE. Dr. Anthes discussed CDE's stakeholder engagement process, and answered questions about the ability of legislators to be involved in the development and implementation process. She spoke about the draft rules released in the early summer by the U.S. Department of Education (department), and the feedback CDE provided to the department on the proposed rules. Dr. Anthes concluded her presentation by explaining that the meetings are open to the public, and that CDE will be implementing some electronic ways to provide feedback.

Attachment C.pdfAttachment C.pdf Attachment D.pdfAttachment D.pdf Attachment E.pdfAttachment E.pdf Attachment F.pdfAttachment F.pdf

01:49 PM

Dr. Anthes answered questions from the committee.

01:57 PM -- Remarks from the State Board of Education

Steve Durham, Chairman of the State Board of Education, and Angelika Schroeder, Vice-Chairman of the board, came to the table and introduced themselves to the committee. Dr. Schroeder talked about what she hopes will come out of the board's participation in the state plan process. Mr. Durham assured the committee that the Colorado Department of Education will not develop and submit a state plan that is in any way in conflict with current state law. Mr. Durham and Dr. Schroeder answered questions from the committee.

02:07 PM

Representative Pettersen thanked the presenters and audience members, and gave closing remarks. The committee discussed the committee's charge and purpose, and what they hope to achieve during the course of the interim.

02:12 PM

The committee adjourned.

Colorado legislature email addresses ending in are no longer active. Please replace with for Colorado legislature email addresses.  Details