memo-clab-dsid-aug11item01

Page 1 of 3

California Department of Education
Executive Office
SBE-002 (REV. 01/2011) / memo-clab-dsid-aug11item01
memorandum
Date: / August 4, 2011
TO: / MEMBERS, State Board of Education
FROM: / TOM TORLAKSON, State Superintendent of Public Instruction
SUBJECT: / Elementary and Secondary Education Act: Local Educational Agency Plan Review Process for Local Educational Agencies and Local Educational Agencies In Improvement.

Summary of Key Issues

In recent meetings, the State Board of Education (SBE) has expressed interest in better understanding and strengthening use of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Local Educational Agency (LEA) Plan.

This memo provides background on initial ESEA LEA Plan requirements, expectations for LEAs entering improvement under Title I, Title II, and/or Title III, and California Department of Education (CDE) processes for plan review, technical assistance, and monitoring of plan implementation.

A future SBE action item will recommend logical junctures at which the SBE may consider strengthening LEA Plans through enhanced expectations for LEAs as they enter or advance in improvement under any of Titles I, II, or III.

Summary of Requirements

ESEA requires submission of LEA Plans for any LEA seeking ESEA funds. LEAs are required to meet student achievement (including specific targets for English Learners under Title III) and teacher qualification targets under Titles I, II, and III or be subject to technical assistance and escalating consequences. The LEA Plan and revisions to the plan under ESEA are one part of the state’s accountability system, which also includes the Consolidated Application (ConApp), Single Plans for Student Achievement (SPSA), the student achievement Accountability Progress Report (APR) and Federal Program Monitoring (FPM).

Attachment 1 of this memorandum summarizes the history of LEA Plan implementation since the initial submission of LEA Plans in 2003. Attachment 2 is a sample copy of the annual notice letter that every ESEA-funded LEA receives to document its status under ESEA and identify technical assistance resources. Attachments 3–8 are the ESEA requirements for submission of the initial LEA Plan and subsequent accountability requirements for LEAs accepting Title I, II, and III revenues that fail to meet student achievement and teacher qualification targets.

Key Junctures for Strengthening LEA Plans

State Education Agency (SEA) efforts to strengthen the use of the LEA Plan to improve teaching and learning need to be responsive to current law, while anticipating that the reauthorization of ESEA may provide greater flexibility for states and LEAs within a new accountability structure. For example, ESEA Section 1112(d)(2) stipulates that each LEA Plan shall be submitted for the first year following the enactment of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and shall remain in effect for the duration of the agency’s participation under ESEA.

The California review of initial LEA Plans under the NCLB authorization of ESEA was discussed by the SBE in June and July 2003. In June 2003, the SBE directed CDE staff to assess the relative presence of each of the LEA Plan provisions required by federal law and to avoid adding any additional requirements. Staff from across the CDE were trained to use checklists of the required provisions.

At its July 2003 meeting, the SBE approved the CDE recommendation to approve all 1,040 LEA Plans, 395 of which required additional technical information but which were approved pending submission of additional materials. Because ESEA has not been reauthorized, the U.S. Department of Education has indicated that the SBE as the SEA will need to apply the same standard to new LEA plans as it did to all previously approved LEA Plans.

However, the law is more flexible for states to define expectations and resources for LEAs that fail to meet Title I, II, and III requirements. In California, LEAs in improvement under Title I (known as Program Improvement or PI) are required by state law to conduct a self assessment using materials and criteria provided by the CDE. (See Attachment 9.) Each of the four current state tools used initially at this stage, and recommended at other times based on need, is described in Attachment 10. These tools are designed to assess school implementation of key curricular and instructional components for improving teaching and learning with associated district supports and resources for English learners and students with disabilities. The CDE is initiating a review of these tools to assess their utility and support for implementation of Common Core State Standards (CCSS).

In addition, the CDE, in collaboration with the county offices of education and the CaliforniaComprehensiveCenter at WestEd, is conducting professional development for technical assistance providers on the effective use of the LEA Plan as a planning, implementation and monitoring tool. Each of four training modules, including PowerPoint slides and notes, will be posted on the CDE Web site.

Internally, CDE staff collaborate on the preparation of annual notice letters of LEA status under Titles I, II and III, joint review of LEA Plans for districts subject to improvement under multiple ESEA Titles, and aligned professional development to encourage LEAs to implement ESEA systemically across various Title requirements.

The CDE employs a graduated approach to ESEA LEA Plan review, technical assistance, and monitoring of LEA Plan implementation as LEAs advance in improvement status. The initial review of LEA plans is based upon the July 2003 standard. However, as LEAs advance in improvement under Titles I, II, and III, there is increased scrutiny of plans, budgets, timelines, and student achievement outcomes. Concurrently, there is increased technical assistance provided and more focused state interventions when improvement does not occur.

A future SBE item will make recommendations for areas where the state could require greater coherence in LEA Plan activities.

Attachment(s)

Attachment 1:History of California Local Educational Agency Planning and Implementation Support Under No Child Left Behind (5 Pages)

Attachment 2:Sample Notice of Improvement Status Under Titles I, II, and III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act—Change in Status Letter (4 Pages)

Attachment 3:Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Section 1112 (4 Pages)

Attachment 4:Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Section 1116 (3 Pages)

Attachment 5:Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Section 1119 (1 Page)

Attachment 6:Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Section 2141 (2 Pages)

Attachment 7:Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Section 3116 (2 Pages)

Attachment 8:Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Section 3122 (1 Page)

Attachment 9:CaliforniaEducation Code Section 52055.57 (4 Pages)

Attachment 10:State Tools for Assessing School and District Structures and Supports for Strong Instructional Programs (5 Pages)

10/22/2018 7:19 AM

memo-clab-dsid-aug11item01

Attachment 1

Page 1 of 5

History of California Local Educational Agency Planning and Implementation Support Under No Child Left Behind

California Local Educational Agency Plan History

In June 2003, the State Board of Education (SBE) received information about No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Local Educational Agency(LEA) Plan submission and California Department of Education (CDE) processes for review and submission to the SBE for approval in July 2003. The SBE directed staff to assess the relative presence of each of the LEA Plan provisions required by federal law and to avoid adding any additional requirements. Staff from across the CDE were trained to use checklists of the required provisions. No assessment of program quality was made because none was required under federal law.

At its July 2003 meeting, the SBE approved the CDE recommendation to approve all 1,040 LEA Plans, 395 of which required additional technical information but which were approved pending submission of additional materials. Currently, all initial LEA Plans are reviewed using the2003 checklists to document the presence or absence of required plan elements. Within CDE, content area specialists function as goal reviewers. They are responsible for working with LEAs until the individual goal requirements for receiving federal funds are deemed complete.Unless an LEA is in improvement, it does not submit its LEA Plan to the CDE.

Any LEA receiving Title I, Title II, and/or Title III funds annually receives an Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) notice letter in October or November. LEAs are informed of their status under each of the three ESEA Titles, directed to requirements and technical assistance on the CDE Web site, and provided with CDE contact persons for more information. A sample Notice of Improvement Status Under Titles I, II, and III of ESEA—Change in Status letter is included. (See Attachment 2.)

LEAs receive technical assistance on LEA Plan development through a variety of state supported Web pages, on-line Webinars, and statewide conferences. In addition, numerous local and regional activities are supported by the county-office-based Regional System of District and School Support, the CaliforniaComprehensiveCenter at WestEd, the California Association of State and Federal Educational Program Officers, the Co-Operative Directors, and the Association of California School Administrators, among others.

LEAs are required by federal law to periodically review and revise their LEA Plans. (See Attachment 3.) Since July of 2003, the CDE has advised LEAs to annually review and update their LEA Plan. The review typically occurs in the fall with the release of the state’s Accountability Progress Report (APR) and in the spring with the release of data from the California English Language Development Test (CELDT). Changes in student achievement results, revenues, and a number of other factors may result in a revision to the LEA Plan. If so, the revised Planmust be adopted by the local governing board, but it is not submitted to the CDE. However, as an LEA advances in improvement under Titles I, II, and/or III, expectations for local needs assessments, work with technical assistance providers, use of human and fiscal resources, and state scrutiny of plans, budgets, and implementation progress increase.

Performance requirements differ somewhat for each ESEA Title, but are anchored in student achievement. If an LEA accepting ESEA funds fails to meet these requirements, the LEA may advance annually in improvement. These annual decision points, when federal accountability requirements may increase if LEAs do not make progress, are potentially the best entry points where the SBE can intervene to require more explicit LEA planning and accountable implementation.

Title I

LEAs receiving Title I revenues are required to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) two years in a row or become subject to PI at the LEA level. A description of the measurement of LEA AYP status is included in the CDE 2010 Adequate Yearly Progress Report Information Guide Web document located at

  • CaliforniaEducation Code (EC) Section 52055.57(a), passed in 2004, requires an LEA “Early Warning” program to put LEAs on notice that they are at risk of PI LEA status. (See Attachment 9.) The notice is intended to raise districts’ awareness of PI LEA requirements and provide criteria by which an LEA is encouraged to conduct a self-assessment of its academic needs and revise and implement its LEA Plan to address any academic deficits identified in the self-assessment.
  • ESEA Section 1116 (c )(7) and EC Section 52055.57(b) describe requirements for LEAs in PI Year 1 to revise their LEA Plan to address eight issues, including the reasons why the LEA’s prior plan failed to bring about increased student academic achievement, and describe what the LEA is going do to improve student achievement. (See Attachments 4 and 9.) California law requires LEAs in PI Year 1 to conduct a self-assessment using materials and criteria based on current research and provided by CDE. (See Attachment10.) The CDE uses a binary checklist to assess the completeness of the LEA’s responses to the eight issues, which are typically prepared in an Addendum to the Title I LEA Plan. Following the review, LEAs receive recommendations for improvement, but no secondary submission to CDE is required.
  • LEAs receiving Title I funds must make AYP two years in a row in order to exit PI status at the LEA level. If not, they advance in PI. ESEA Section 1116 (c)(10) and EC Section 52055.57 (c) describe requirements for LEAs in PI Corrective Action to implement one or more SBE assigned corrective actions. (See Attachments 4 and 9.)State law requires LEAs to adopt any technical assistance recommendations unless granted a waiver by the SBE. SBE policy requires LEAs in PI Year 3 to revise their LEA plans to document implementation of the assigned Corrective Action and any technical assistance recommendations. Plans are analyzed relative to a Rubric for Evaluating Program Improvement Year 3 LEA Plan Revisions adopted by the SBE in March 2010. The rubric can be found on the CDE State Program Assessment Tools Web page at LEAs receive written recommendations for improving their Plans.
  • Select LEAs in PI Year 3 in Cohorts 1 and 2, all LEAs in Cohort 3, and no LEAs in Cohort 4 are required by SBE policy to submit quarterly reports on the implementation of their LEA Plan activities. All LEAs in PI Year 3 Corrective Action are required by SBE policy to: (1) post their LEA Plan to a Web site locally and (2) provide the CDE with the URL to the posted plan. LEA plans are available on the CDE LEA Plans for LEAs in PI Year 3 Web page at
  • The ESEA does not define a status beyond corrective action. However, EC Section 52055.57(e) requires an LEA that has received a sanction under EC Section 52055.57(c), and has not exited PI, to appear before the SBE within three years to review the progress of the LEA. This review began in March 2011 for the 89 LEAs in PI Year 3 Corrective Action Cohort 1. SBE items in March and May2011 addressed this review.

Compliance with ESEA Section 1116 is measured in CPM Items CE- 4 and CE- 5. These items are located on the CDE CPM Web page at

Title II

LEAs are required to reach the federal goal of 100 percent Highly Qualified Teachers (HQT) as specified in ESEA Section 1119. (See Attachment 5.) Those LEAs that have reached 100 percent HQT are deemed compliant. LEAs which do not have 100 percent HQT are subject to the accountability requirements in ESEA Section 2141. (See Attachment 6.)

The Compliance, Monitoring, Intervention and Sanctions (CMIS) Program was developed by the CDE in response to ESEA Section 2141, SBE approval of the CDE’s Revised State Plan for Highly Qualified Teachers (September 2006), and language in the California State Budget Act of 2007. Documentation on the Revised State Plan and the Teacher Equity Plan appears in the California’s Revised State Plan for No Child Left Behind: Highly Qualified Teacher and Elementary and Secondary Education Act Title II, Part A Teacher Equity Plan Web documents at

LEAs that have not reached the 100 percent HQT goal for one year are placed in Level A of CMIS (monitoring); LEAs that have not reached the 100 percent goal of HQT for two consecutive years are placed in Level B of CMIS (intervention); and LEAs that have not reached the goal of 100 percent HQT for three consecutive years and which have not made the LEA’s AYP for three consecutive years are placed in Level C of CMIS (sanctions). The SBE policy for LEAs to meet the federal HQT accountability requirements for Title II, Part A, Levels A, B, and C are located on the CDE Title II CMIS Levels A, B, and C Web page at

  • Level A: An LEA is placed in Level A (monitoring) if it fails to demonstrate 100 percent HQT compliance for one year. The LEA must complete the Non-HQT Action Plan which lists each school site that has any ESEA core academic courses taught by teachers who are not Highly Qualified. CMIS Level A is notice of a warning stage when LEAs are encouraged to have teachers pursue professional development activities that will ensure that all the LEAs teachers become HQT.
  • Level B: An LEA is placed in Level B (interventions) if it fails to demonstrate 100 percent HQT compliance for two consecutive years (Intervention) and is subject to Title II accountability requirements. According to ESEA Section 2141 (a), the LEA must complete and submit an Improvement Plan. In California this plan is also the Equitable Distribution Plan and was approved by the SBE in September 2010. Any LEA that makes AYP remains in Level B until reaching its HQT goals for two consecutive years.
  • Level C: An LEA is placed in Level C (sanctions) and is subject to Title II accountability requirements if it fails to demonstrate 100 percent HQT for three consecutive years and fails to make AYP for three consecutive years. According to ESEA Section 2141 (c) the LEA must enter into an agreement with the State Educational Agency (SEA). The agreement consists of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding how the LEA will ensure all teachers become HQT and a Budget Agreement demonstrating alignment of the LEA’s Title II funds with the MOU.

Compliance with ESEA Section 2141 requirements is measured in CPM Monitoring Items III-ITQ 3, IV-Itq 4, IV-ITQ 5, andV-ITQ 6. The items are located on the CDE CPM Web page at