FASFEPA/ECTAC
April, 2010
No Child Left Behind Act
Basics of Title I, Part A
Leigh Manasevit, Esq.
[email protected]
www.bruman.com
2
3
Three Pillars of Mandatory – State
Local Effort
• Maintenance of Effort
• Comparability
• Supplement not Supplant
4
Guidance:
 NEW: “Title I Fiscal Issues,” February 2008
(replaced May 2006)
 www.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/ fiscalguid.doc
 Consolidating funds in schoolwide programs,
MOE, SNS, Comparability, Grantbacks,
Carryover
5
Most Directly Affected by Declining
Budgets
6
MOE: The NCLB Rule
• The combined fiscal effort per student or the
aggregate expenditures of the LEA
• From state and local funds
• From preceding year must not be less than
90% of the second preceding year
7
MOE: Preceding Fiscal Year
• Need to compare final financial data
• Compare “immediately” PFY to “second” PFY
• EX: To receive FY2005 funds (available July
2005), compare FY2004 (2003-04) to FY2003
(2002-03)
8
MOE: Failure under NCLB
• SEA must reduce
amount of allocation
in the exact
proportion by which
LEA fails to maintain
effort below 90%
• Reduce all applicable
NCLB programs, not
just Title I
9
Aggregate
expenditures
1,000,000
Amount per
student
6,100
SY05 –
must spend 90%
05 –
Actual amount
Shortfall
900,000
5,490
850,000
5,200
-50,000
-290
Percent shortfall/
reduction
-5.6%
-5.3%**
SY 04
10
MOE: Waiver
• USDE Secretary may waive if:
▫ Exceptional or uncontrollable circumstances
such as natural disaster
▫ OR
▫ Precipitous decline in financial resources of
the LEA
11
ED Waivers
• To State to Grant to LEAs
12
MOE: IDEA
• State and Local
• Measures Only Expenditures for
▫ Special Education
• SEA – State Funds
• LEA – Local or State and Local Combined
13
MOE: IDEA
• Compare current year to prior
• Failure = Reduction as with NCLB
14
MOE: IDEA
•
•
•
•
State
USDE Secretary May Waive
Similar to NCLB
LEA – No Waiver!
However – LEA Flexibility
15
MOE: IDEA
•
•
•
•
Flexibility
50% Increase Over Prior Year
Treat as Local for MOE Only
Funds Remain Federal for Allowability!
16
MOE: IDEA
Flexibility – IDEA Part B Grant
2008 - 2009
$1,000,000
2009 - 2010
$1,800,000
Increase
$800,000
50%
$400,000
17
MOE: IDEA
Flexibility
Required Level of MOE for …
2009 – 2010 =
$7,000,000
50% of Increase =
$400,000
Required Level of MOE
=
$6,600,000
18
MOE: IDEA
Flexibility
• $400,000 Must Be Spent on
▫ ESEA Activities
▫ Caution – Reduced by EIS
19
Complications in calculating
expenditures from schoolwide
programs
• Need to calculate state and local expenditures
across district
• Use proportional approach
• IF 85% of school’s budget from state and local
sources
• THEN 85% of expenditures attributable to state
and local sources
20
Comparability
Legal Authority:
Title I Statute: §1120A(c)
21
General Rule- §1120A(c)
• An LEA may receive Title I Part A funds only if it
uses state and local funds to provide services in
Title I schools that, taken as a whole, are at least
comparable to the services provided in non-Title
I schools.
• If all are Title I schools, all must be
“substantially comparable.”
22
Timing Issues
• Guidance: Must be annual determination
• YET, LEAs must maintain records that are
updated at least “biennially” (1120A(c)(3)(B))
• Review for current year and make adjustments
for current year
23
Written Assurances
• LEA must file with SEA written assurances of
policies for equivalence:
▫ LEA-wide salary schedule
▫ Teachers, administrators, and other staff
▫ Curriculum materials and instructional supplies
• Must keep records to document implemented
and “equivalence achieved”
24
May also meet through. . .
•
•
•
•
Student/ instructional staff ratios;
Student/ instructional staff salary ratios;
Expenditures per pupil; or
A resource allocation plan based on student
characteristics such as poverty, LEP, disability,
etc. (i.e., by formula)
25
How to measure??
Compare:
• Average of all non-Title I schools to
• Each Title I school
26
• Basis for evaluation:
▫ grade-span by
grade-span
or
▫ school by school
May divide to large and small schools
27
Exclusions:
• Federal Funds
• Private Funds
28
Exclusions:
• Need not include
unpredictable changes in
students enrollment or
personnel assignments
that occur after the start of
a school year
29
Exclusions: LEA may exclude
state/local funds expended for:
• Language instruction for LEP students
• Excess costs of providing services to students
with disabilities
• Supplemental programs that meet the intent
and purposes of Title I
• Staff salary differentials for years of
employment
30
Who is “instructional staff”?
• Consistent between Title I and non-Title I
• Teachers (art, music, phys ed), guidance
counselors, speech therapists, librarians,
social workers, psychologists
• Paraprofessionals – up to SEA/ LEA
▫ Only if providing instructional support
▫ ED urges NO!
31
Comparability
• Where stabilization dollars pay staff under
impact aid flexibility
count as
state/local
32
Supplement
Not Supplant
Surprisingly Not Greatly Affected by
Declining Budgets!
33
Supplement not Supplant
• Federal funds must be used to supplement and
in no case supplant (federal), state, and local
resources
34
“What would have happened
in the absence of the federal
funds??”
35
Auditors’ Tests for
Supplanting
OMB Circular A-133
Compliance Supplement
36
Auditors presume supplanting occurs if
federal funds were used to provide
services . . .
• If required to be made available under other
federal, state, or local laws
37
Auditors presume supplanting occurs if
federally funded services
were . . . .
• Provided with non-federal funds in prior year
38
Presumption Rebutted!
 If SEA or LEA
demonstrates it would
not have provided
services if the federal
funds were not
available
 NO non-federal
resources available this
year!
39
What documentation needed?
• Fiscal or programmatic
documentation to confirm that,
in the absence of fed funds,
would have eliminated staff or
other services in question
• State or local legislative action
• Budget histories and information
40
Must show:
• Actual reduction in state or local funds
• Decision to eliminate service/position was made
without regard to availability of federal funds
(including reason decision was made)
41
Rebuttal Example
• State supports a reading coach program 2008 2009
• State cuts the program from State budget 2009 2010
• LEA wants to support Title I reading coach
program 2009 - 2010
42
Rebuttal Example
• LEA must document
a. State cut the program
b. LEA does not have uncommitted funds available
in operating budget to pick up
c. LEA would cut the program unless federal funds
picked it up
d. The expense is allowable under Title I
43
Rebuttal Example 2
• LEA pays a reading coach 2008 - 2009
• LEA revenue falls and wants to pay coach with
Title I
44
Rebuttal Example
• LEA must show
a. Reduction in Local funds
•
Budgets, etc.
b. Decision to cut based on loss of funds
•
Link salary to reduction
c. Absent Title I, LEA would have to cut
position
d. Position is allowable under Title I
45
Auditors presume supplanting occurs if
...
• Title I funds used to provide service to Title I
students, and the same service is provided to
non-Title I children using non-Title I funds.
46
Flexibility
Exception: 1120A(d)
• Exclusion of Funds:
• SEA or LEA may exclude supplemental state or
local funds used for program that meets intents
and purposes of Title I Part A
• EX: Exclude State Comp Ed funds
47
How does supplanting apply
in a schoolwide program?
48
Supplement not Supplant
• Statute 1114(a)(2)(B): Title I must supplement
the amount of funds that would, in the absence
of Title I, be made available from non-federal
sources.
▫ E-18 in schoolwide guidance
• The actual service need not be supplemental.
49
SNS: NEW!!
• Guidance: School must receive all the state and
local funds it would otherwise need to operate in
the absence of Federal funds
▫ Includes routine operating expenses such as
building maintenance and repairs, landscaping
and custodial services
50
• Where stabilization dollars used under
impact aid flexibility
count as
state/local
51
Stimulus MOE Relief for Programs
• (d) Maintenance of effort: upon prior approval
from the Secretary, a state or LEA that receives
funds under this title may treat any portion of
such funds that is used for elementary,
secondary, or post secondary education as
nonfederal funds for the purpose of any
requirement to maintain fiscal efforts under
any other program administered by the
Secretary.
52
Fiscal Relief
• IDEA
“prior approval”
• ESEA
Automatic if
▫ Meets Stabilization MOE
▫ % of Rev/ED equal or greater than last
FY
▫ Additional specific requirements for
IDEA
53
Section 14012, fiscal relief
• Notwithstanding (d), the level of effort required
by a state or local educational agency for the
following fiscal year shall not be reduced.
54
Idaho Waiver
• ED Waived the Perkins MOE requirement in
2006 for a recession experienced in 2002-2003
55
“Title I Initiatives of the Current Administration
and How They Relate to Reauthorization of NCLB
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act”
Revised January 20, 2010
56
ESEA Reauthorization
57
110th Congress: Second Session:
ESEA Reauthorization
58
ESEA Background
• President Johnson’s legacy: The War on
Poverty, announced on January 8, 1964.
▫ Original Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) was signed into
law by President Johnson in 1965,
 ESEA in 1965 = 32 pages
 NCLB of 2001 = 670 pages
59
ESEA Reauthorization: 2007, ouch!
• House Draft Bill imploded for many
reasons
▫ Urgency prior to 2008 elections
▫ Complexity of House Discussion Draft
identification schema
▫ Complexity of House Discussion Draft intervention
schema
▫ Union antagonism toward teacher effectiveness
provisions
▫ Gone is the post 9/11 partisan moment. Strange
bedfellows are, again, strangers.
60
ESEA Reauthorization: Two Years
Later
• Evolution of data systems and growth
models
• Progress (some) with school
turnaround
• Change in union leadership and
strategy – Better relationships under
Secretary Duncan?
• Democratic majorities?
• Healthcare outcome??
61
ESEA Reauthorization: Recovery Act
• Is ARRA a “pre-authorization” reform model?
• Four core education reform priorities
▫ Human capital: teachers and principals
▫ Quality and use of academic data to drive
instruction
▫ Common standards and valid/reliable assessments
▫ School interventions (and charter school
innovation)
• Will Secretary Duncan lead?
62
ESEA Reauthorization:
Recovery Act and current ESEA Structure
• In addition to program changes, there
may be fiscal changes
▫ Reexamine comparability
▫ Reconsider the fundamental structure of
federal fiscal support.
▫ Is the 1965 ESEA model appropriate to
the contemporary education reform
focus?
63
ESEA Reauthorization: Congressional Strategy
• Original architects, particularly George
Miller (D-CA) remain central
• Vulnerable Democrats are strategic
▫ Success of Race to the Top
▫ Recovery Act accountability fatigue
• Inverse relation to Health Care?
64
ESEA Reauthorization: Congressional Strategy
• Republican strategy
▫ Returning to federalist roots?
▫ House Committee on Education and
Labor Ranking Member Representative
John P. Kline (MN)
 "I'm not looking to tweak No Child Left Behind,"
Kline said. "As far as I'm concerned, we ought to
go in and look at the whole thing." (Nick Anderson,
“GOP Leaving ‘No Child’ Behind,” Washington
Post, July 13, 2009)
65
ESEA Reauthorization Timeline
• NCLB Jan 2001 to
Jan 2002
66
Reauthorization Issues
• Career Technical Education (CTE)
• State Directors recommend mandating
programs of study in ESEA
67
Center for Education Policy (CEP)
December, 2009 Study
 Improving Low-Performing Schools
 Key Findings and Recommendations
 Successful Strategies:
A. Multi-faceted approaches changed over
time
B. Frequent use of data for decision making
C. Replaced Staff
–
Sometimes resulting in difficulty in replacing
68
CEP’s Successful Strategies (cont…)
D. All successful states studied moved
away from federal restructuring
options
E. Reliance on partnerships
F. Increased monitoring or visits
69
Reauthorization Issues
• What do Secretary Duncan, RTT, 1003(g) and
Stabilization, Phase 2 Rules tell us?
70
Reauthorization & Arne Duncan,
Secretary of the Department of ED
Arne Duncan, Secretary of the
Department of Education
› NCLB got it backwards: Restrictive where it
should have been flexible
 Interventions
 Incentives
› Flexible where it should have been restrictive
 Quality of Standards
(Race to the bottom)
› Better tests
› Accountability based on achievement
› State flexibility
71
Reauthorization & Arne Duncan,
Secretary of the Department of ED
•
•
•
•
Targeted to Failing Schools – Subgroups
Flexibility in Allocation
Title I Waivers
Title I Waivers in non-Title I Schools
72
Reauthorization & Arne Duncan,
Secretary of the Department of ED
• Support for much greater variety LEA tutoring
programs, etc.
• SES plus Choice in year 1
▫ Title I Waiver
73
Reauthorization Issues
• Stabilization, Phase 2: Rules, Commentary, etc.,
11/12/09 - 91 pages
▫ Guidance - 12/24/09, 9 pages
• RTT: Rules, Commentary, etc., 11/18/09 - 148
pages
• 1003(g): Rules, Commentary, etc., 12/10/09 43 pages
▫ Guidance - 12/18/09, 40 pages
▫ 1003g Statute- 1 ¼ pages
74
RTT Instruction
• Teacher equity
• Teacher evaluation – student performance
 Compensation
 Promotion
 Retention
• RTT Eligibility
 Student performance – teacher evaluation
Weakened in final?
75
RTT
Supporting Struggling Schools
Statewide student gain
Definition of persistently lowest achieving
performing schools (RTT)
Number of persistently lowest achieving performing
schools (RTT)
Number of persistently lowest achieving performing
schools (RTT) that have been turned around,
restarted, closed or transformed
Title I vs. non-Title I
Charters
Sub-ranking of Schools In Need of Improvement
76
SFSF: Phase 2 Background
• “[ED] proposes specific data and information
requirements that a State receiving
funds…must meet with respect to statutory
assurances.” (at 58436).
• “[ED intends] to use the data information
collected in assessing whether a state is
qualified to participate in and received funds
from other reform oriented programs
administered by the Department." (at
58436).
http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/finrule/2
009-4/111209a.html
77
School Improvement Grants
(NCLB, Sec. 1003(g) funds)
• Funding History – Annual Appropriations
▫ FY 2002-2003 – FY 2006-2007 – zero funded
▫ FY 2007-2008 – $125 million
▫ FY 2008-2009 – $491 million
▫ FY 2009-2010 – $546 million
• ARRA – $3 billion
• December 18, 2009 Guidance
http://www.ed.gov/programs/sif/guidance20091218.doc
• January Revisions – Consolidated Appropriations Act
http://www.ed.gov/programs/sif/dcl.pdf
http://www.ed.gov/programs/sif/interim.doc
78
School Improvement Grants
1003g
http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/other/20093/082609d.html
•
•
•
•
SEA application
95% flow to LEA
SEA may retain as LEA agreement
LEA
▫ $50,000 to $500,000
But Secretary says $500,000
New (Approps): $2,000,000
79
School Improvement Grants
1003g
SEA identify 3 tiers
▫ Tier 1 – lowest achieving school 5% of Title I
improvement, CA, or Restructuring
(or 5 – greater)
 Schoolwide waiver
▫ New (Final)
or high school graduation rate under
60%
▫ New (Approps):
 Title I eligible elementary
 No AYP 2 years OR
 State’s lowest quintile on performance
And
 No higher achieving than highest school under previous
Tier 1 category
80
School Improvement Grants
1003g
• SEA identify 3 tiers
▫ Tier 2 – lowest achieving middle or high Title I
eligible not participating
 Waiver for $ to Non Title I school – New (Approps) –
No Waiver Required
▫ New (Final)
or high school graduation rate
under 60%
▫ New (Approps):
 Eligible secondary school –
 No AYP 2 years or lowest quintile in performance
And
 Not higher achieving than the highest school under
former Tier II or graduation rate under 60%
81
School Improvement Grants
1003g
• SEA identify 3 tiers
▫ Tier 3 – Remaining Title I schools in
improvement, corrective action, or restructuring
 SEA encouraged to develop internal tier 3 priorities
▫ New (Approps):
 Title I eligible
 No AYP 2 years
Or
 Lowest quintile
16 steps to determine “lowest achieving”
82
Schools Receiving SIG Funds can
Select between 4 Different Models
•
•
•
•
Turnaround Model
Restart Model
Close/Consolidate Model
Transformation Mode
83
Turnaround Model
Replace principal and at least 50% of the staff,
adopt new governance, and implement a new
or revised instructional program. This model
should incorporate interventions that take into
account the recruitment, placement and
development of staff to ensure they meet
student needs; schedules that increase time for
both students and staff; and appropriate socialemotional and community-oriented
services/supports.
84
Restart Model
Close the school and restart it under the
management of a charter school operator, a
charter management organization (CMO), or an
educational management organization (EMO).
A restart school must admit, within the grades it
serves, any former student who wishes to
attend.
85
Close/Consolidate Model
Closing the school and enrolling the students
who attended the school in other, higherperforming schools in the LEA.
86
Transformation Model
1.Develop teacher and leader effectiveness
2.Comprehensive instructional programs
using student achievement data:
3.Extend learning time and create
community-oriented schools
4.Provide operating flexibility and intensive
support
87
• SEA may not mandate which model
88
ARRA Waivers
• 1003(g) funds availability
▫ From September 30, 2011 to September 30, 2013
• 1003(g) – greater flexibility for use of
▫ Title I Improvement dollars in non Title I schools
• 1003(g) Targeted assistance/SW Waiver
▫ Serve non Title I students in TA
• Title I
▫ Schools In Need of Improvement or Districts in
Need of Improvement as SES
89
ESEA Reauthorization:
Administration Proposal
“A Blueprint for Reform”
90
A Blueprint for Reform
• Instead of labeling failures, we will
reward success. Instead of a single
snapshot we will recognize progress and
growth.
• My… blueprint for reauthorization is not
only a plan to renovate a flawed law but
also an outline for a re-envisioned
federal role in education.
91
A Blueprint for Reform
• Builds on reforms of ARRA
▫ Teacher effectiveness
▫ Information to (data)
 Families
 Teachers
▫ College and career ready standards
 Aligned assessments
▫ Lowest performing schools
92
A Blueprint for Reform - 7 Sections
1. College Career Ready Students
2. Great Teachers and Great Learners
3. Meeting the Needs of Diverse
Learners
4. A Complete Education
5. Successful, Safe, and Healthy
Students
6. Fostering Innovation and Excellence
7. Additional Cross Cutting Priorities
93
1. College Career Ready Students
• State standards generally do not
reflect knowledge/ skills necessary
for college career readiness
• New Approach
▫ College/career ready
standards/students
▫ Growth rather than static scores
▫ Turnaround lowest performing
schools
94
1. College Career Ready Standards
• Upgrade existing standards
• Or common state standards
• Science standards continued
• May add others – i.e. history
• English Language Proficiency
Standards - required
▫ Reflect language skills necessary to
master content
95
1. College Career Ready Standards Rigorous Fair Accountability & Support at
Every Level
• Reward progress
• Rigorous interventions
• Local flexibility on improvement and
support
▫ For most schools
96
1. College Career Ready Standards Data on School Performance
• Data
▫ High School
 Grad rates
 College enrollment
 College enrollment without
remediation – New!
97
1. College Career Ready Standards Data on School Performance
• Disaggregated
▫ Race, gender, ethnicity,
disability, ELL, income
98
1. College Career Ready Standards Data on School Performance
• Accountability Systems
▫ Recognize progress/growth, reward
success rather than only identify
failure
▫ All students graduate or on track by
2020 – (New: All students proficient
by 13-14?)
 Targets- whole school and subgroups
 Rewards for improvement
99
1. College Career Ready Standards Accountability Systems
• Success on performance targets or
• Increased student performance or
• Closing achievement gap or
• Turning around low performers
100
1. College Career Ready Standards Accountability Systems
• “Reward”
▫ Schools, Districts, States
▫ $ For innovative programs in high
performing schools and districts
▫ May include $ for staff and students
101
1. College Career Ready Standards Accountability Systems
▫ May include flexibility for ESEA funds
▫ Competitive preference for high need
reward districts and schools in other
grant programs
▫ Flexibility in interventions
102
1. College Career Ready Standards
“Challenge:” School, Districts, States
• Cat 1- Lowest 5% Schools
▫ Academic achievement
▫ Student growth
▫ Graduation rates
▫ No progress
▫ Must implement 1 of 4 turnaround
models
103
1. College Career Ready Standards
“Challenge:” School, Districts, States
• Cat 2 – Next 5%
▫ Warning: Implement locally
determined strategy
104
1. College Career Ready Standards
“Challenge:” “GAP Challenge” Schools
• Cat 3
• Persistent achievement gaps
• Data driven interventions to close gap
▫ Warning
▫ Locally determined strategy
▫ States/districts to implement locally
determined strategy
105
1. College Career Ready Standards
• For all challenge schools
▫ Options – Expanded learning time SES
– NCLB SES?
▫ Choice – NCLB Choice?
▫ Other
106
1. College Career Ready Standards
State District Support: Reservations
• Address equity (comparability)
▫ Comparability “loophole” in current
law
 Payments for years of service
excluded
• Assessment
▫ Formula grants for high quality
assessments aligned to college/career
 English & Math
107
1. College Career Ready Standards
State District Support: Reservations
▫ Optional
 Other academic, career or
technical subjects
 English proficiency
▫ By 2015 only eligible if standards
are common to significant
numbers of states.
108
NGA
CCSSO
Common core standards
Final – Anticipated – End of May
109
1. College Career Ready Standards Turnaround Grants
• Significant grants for lowest
performing
▫ Challenge schools
• Formula to States
▫ Reservation for low performing
▫ Competitive to Districts or
 Partnerships: district – nonprofits
110
1. College Career Ready Standards Turnaround Grants
▫ One of 4 models “to be chosen
locally”
 Transformation
 Turnaround
1003g Models
 Restart and
 Closure
• 3 year awards – 2 additional possible
111
2. Great Teachers and Great Leaders
• New Approach
▫ Elevate the profession – rewards
▫ Teacher effectiveness – improved
outcomes
▫ Bold action
▫ Strengthen pathways to high needs
schools
112
2. Great Teachers and Great Leaders
• Effective teachers and leaders
▫ continue to improve formula grants to
improve effectiveness (Title II?)
▫ Statewide definition of “effective” teacher,
principal; “highly effective” teacher,
principal
 Based significantly on student
growth
• Maintain HQT but with additional
flexibility
113
2. Great Teachers and Great Leaders
• Data linking
▫ Teacher and principal prep
programs to:
Job placement
Student growth
Retention outcomes of
graduates
114
2. Great Teachers and Great Leaders
• District Level evaluation
▫ Differentiate teachers and principals by
effectiveness
▫ Consistent with definitions: effective,
highly effective
▫ Meaningful Feedback
 Developed in consultation with
 Teachers
 Principals
 Other educational stakeholders
115
2. Great Teachers and Great Leaders
• Equitable distribution of teachers
with at least “effective” rating.
• Funds to
▫ Develop and implement fair and
meaningful:
 Teacher and principal evaluation
systems
116
2. Great Teachers and Great Leaders
• Districts with equitable
distribution systems implemented
▫ Spend funds flexibly
▫ Unless not improving in
 Equitable distribution – then new
plan
117
2. Great Teachers and Great Leaders
• Measuring success
▫ Report cards – every 2 years
 State and District
▫ Topics
 Teacher qualifications
 Designation of effectiveness
 Hires from high performing pathways
 Teacher surveys on level of support they
receive
 Novice status – teacher and principals
 Attendance teachers and principals
 Retention
118
2. Great Teachers and Great Leaders
• Measuring Success
▫ Teachers and principal prep
programs
 Graduates
 Growth
 Job placement
 Retention
Student
119
2. Great Teachers and Great Leaders
• Competitive Grants
▫ Ambitious Reforms
 Identify
 Recruit
 Prepare
 Develop
principals
 Retain
 Reward
 Advance
Effective teachers,
Leadership teams
In high need schools
120
2. Great Teachers and Great Leaders
• Use of student growth for
▫ Credentialing
▫ Professional development
▫ Retention
Decisions
▫ Advancement
121
2. Great Teachers and Great Leaders
• Use of funds
▫ Reform Compensation Systems
 Differentiated Compensation and
Opportunities
 To effective educators
 Not linked to effectiveness - i.e. student
performance
 Eliminate incentives for credentials not
linked to student performance
122
2. Great Teachers and Great Leaders
• Teacher pathways
▫ Strength pathways
 Traditional and
 Alternative
123
2. Great Teachers and Great Leaders
• Competitive grants for
recruitment and preparation
▫ For high needs:
 Schools; subjects, areas
124
2. Great Teachers and Great Leaders
• Transformational Leaders
▫ Competitive grants for
 Recruitment
 Preparation Principals and other leaders
 Support
125
3. Meeting the Needs of English
Learners and Other Diverse Learners
• Continued commitment
▫ Meet needs of ELL students
▫ Maintain and strengthen programs for






Native Americans
Homeless
Migrant
Neglected and Delinquent
Rural Districts
Federally Impacted Districts
▫ Meet needs of SWD through IDEA and
ESEA
126
3. Meeting the Needs of English
Learners and Other Diverse Learners
• SWD
▫ Primarily IDEA But
▫ ESEA – Support for
 Inclusion
 Improved outcomes
▫ Better prepared teachers
▫ More accurate assessments
▫ Universal design
127
3. Meeting the Needs of English Learners
and Other Diverse Learners - ELL
• Formula grants continued
• Dual language programs
• Transitional bilingual education
• Professional Development for
teachers
128
3. Meeting the Needs of English Learners
and Other Diverse Learners - ELL
• States must establish new criteria for
▫ Identification
▫ Eligibility
▫ Placement
▫ Duration
• Based on valid and reliable ELL
proficiency assessment
129
3. Meeting the Needs of English Learners
and Other Diverse Learners - ELL
• States not showing improvement
▫ Lose flexibility in this program
• New competitive grants
▫ For innovative programs
• States must develop
▫ Grade x Grade E.L. proficiency
 Standards linked to college/career ready
standards
130
3. Meeting the Needs of English
Learners and Other Diverse Learners
- Migrant
• Continue and strengthen program
• Update funding formula
• Strengthen interstate coordination
131
3. Meeting the Needs of English
Learners and Other Diverse Learners
- Homeless
• Continue and strengthen formula
grants
• Target based on homeless counts not
Title I counts
• Require reporting on academic
outcomes
132
3. Meeting the Needs of English Learners and
Other Diverse Learners – Neglected and
Delinquent
• Continue and strengthen formula
grants and ask districts to reserve
funds for college and career ready
programs
133
3. Meeting the Needs of English Learners and
Other Diverse Learners – Neglected and
Delinquent
• Indian, Native Hawaiian, Alaska Native
Education
▫ Continue support through formula and
competitive grant programs
▫ Greater flexibility in Indian education
program
▫ Improve tribal access to ESEA
▫ Expand eligibility to LEAs and charters
under
 Native Hawaiian and Alaska Native
Programs
134
3. Meeting the Needs of English Learners and
Other Diverse Learners – Neglected and
Delinquent
• Rural
▫ Continue formula grants
▫ Update identification method
▫ Expand REAP flexibility eligibility
• Impact Aid
▫ Continue program
135
4. A Complete Education – A New
Approach
• Strengthen instruction
▫ Literacy
▫ STEM
▫ Aligned to improved college career
ready standards
136
4. A Complete Education – A New
Approach
• More rigorous standards for literacy
• Well-rounded education in high
needs schools
• Expand access to accelerated course
work in high needs schools
137
4. A Complete Education – Literacy
• Competitive grants
▫ Higher standards
▫ High quality literacy especially in high
needs districts
• Required: State develop comprehensive,
evidence-based pre-k to 12 literacy plan
138
4. A Complete Education – Literacy
• Priority to states with common state
▫ College – Career ready standards
• Competitive Grants
▫ Develop and support comprehensive
literacy programs
139
4. A Complete Education – STEM
• Competitive Grants
▫ Transition to higher standards
▫ Support to high needs districts
 High quality instruction and
 Science and Math
• Priority to states with common
standards
• Competitive subgrants – State – LEA
▫ STEM in high needs schools
140
4. A Complete Education - Well
Rounded Education
• Competitive Grants
▫ Arts
▫ Foreign Languages
▫ History and Civics
▫ Financial Literacy
▫ Environmental
▫ “Other”
141
4. A Complete Education - Well
Rounded Education
• August, 2009 letter from Secretary
Duncan
 “Arts” core academic subject
 Significant role in development
 Title I; Title II for professional
development for Arts teachers
142
4. A Complete Education - Well
Rounded Education
• College Pathways
▫ Competitive Grants for accelerated
learning opportunities
 High School – College level work
 Dual enrollment
 Advanced Placement
 International Baccalaureate
 Gifted and Talented
143
5. Successful, Safe and Healthy
Students
• Promise neighborhoods
▫ Competitive Grants
 Community services
 Family support
▫ Improve educational and
 Developmental outcomes through:
 Effective public schools
 CBO’s
 Other local agencies
144
5. Successful, Safe and Healthy
Students
• Needs assessments of all children in
the community
 Establish baseline
 Improve outcomes
 Promote community involvement
 Leverage other public/private
resources
145
5. Successful, Safe and Healthy
Students
• 21st Century Community Learning
Centers
▫ Competitive Grants
 Comprehensive redesign of
 School day
 Year
 Full service community schools
 Before/After school services
146
5. Successful, Safe and Healthy
Students
• Secretary Duncan:
 “I’m a big fan of tutoring but not SES as
mandated. Should be more flexibility.”
147
6. Successful, Safe and Healthy
Students
• Competitive Grants
▫ State or districtwide “climate needs
assessments”
 School engagement and
 School safety
▫ Public reporting
148
5. Successful, Safe and Healthy
Students
• Grant funds to improve
▫ School safety
▫ Student mental and physical health
▫ Eating
▫ Physical fitness
149
6. Fostering Innovation and Excellence
• RTT
▫ Competitive grants modeled after RTT
• i3
▫ Competitive grant to build on and expand
i3
• Expanded education options
▫ Competitive grants
 Start or expand charter schools
 Other “high performing” autonomous
public schools – Like charters – only more
so
150
6. Fostering Innovation and Excellence
• Choice
▫ “High quality public school educational
options”
▫ Inter and intra district transfers
▫ Theme based schools
▫ On-line learning
• Magnet Schools
▫ Competitive grants
 Expand and improve options
151
7. Additional Cross Cutting Priorities
• Flexibility for success???
• Replicate successful priorities
• Building the knowledge base
152
7. Additional Cross Cutting Priorities
• Technology
• Evidence – Review i3
• Efficiency
• ELLs and SWDs
• Rural
153
154
This presentation is intended solely to provide general
information and does not constitute legal advice or a
legal service. This presentation does not create a clientlawyer relationship with Brustein & Manasevit and,
therefore, carries none of the protections under the D.C.
Rules of Professional Conduct. Attendance at this
presentation, a later review of any printed or electronic
materials, or any follow-up questions or communications
arising out of this presentation with any attorney at
Brustein & Manasevit does not create an attorney-client
relationship with Brustein & Manasevit. You should not
take any action based upon any information in this
presentation without first consulting legal counsel
familiar with your particular circumstances.
Save-the-Date…
May 5 - 7,
2010
Brustein & Manasevit Forum on
Federal Education Grants Management
Omni Shoreham Hotel
Washington, DC
Registration Fee: $695
For more information please contact:
Brustein & Manasevit
1-800-914-8212
[email protected]
www.bruman.com
Descargar

Slide 1