Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

FASFEPA/ECTAC April, 2010 No Child Left Behind Act Basics of Title I, Part A Leigh Manasevit, Esq.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "FASFEPA/ECTAC April, 2010 No Child Left Behind Act Basics of Title I, Part A Leigh Manasevit, Esq."— Presentation transcript:

1 FASFEPA/ECTAC April, 2010 No Child Left Behind Act Basics of Title I, Part A Leigh Manasevit, Esq.

2 2

3 Three Pillars of Mandatory – State Local Effort Maintenance of Effort Comparability Supplement not Supplant 3

4 Guidance:  NEW:“Title I Fiscal Issues,” February 2008 (replaced May 2006)  fiscalguid.doc fiscalguid.doc  Consolidating funds in schoolwide programs, MOE, SNS, Comparability, Grantbacks, Carryover 4

5 Most Directly Affected by Declining Budgets 5

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 6

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 ( ) to FY2003 ( ) 7

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 8

9 Aggregate expenditures Amount per student SY 041,000,0006,100 SY05 – must spend 90% 900,0005, – Actual amount 850,0005,200 Shortfall-50, Percent shortfall/ reduction -5.6%-5.3%** 9

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 10

11 ED Waivers To State to Grant to LEAs 11

12 MOE: IDEA State and Local Measures Only Expenditures for ▫Special Education SEA – State Funds LEA – Local or State and Local Combined 12

13 MOE: IDEA Compare current year to prior Failure = Reduction as with NCLB 13

14 MOE: IDEA State USDE Secretary May Waive Similar to NCLB LEA – No Waiver! However – LEA Flexibility 14

15 MOE: IDEA Flexibility 50% Increase Over Prior Year Treat as Local for MOE Only Funds Remain Federal for Allowability! 15

16 MOE: IDEA Flexibility – IDEA Part B Grant $1,000, $1,800,000 Increase$800,000 50%$400,000

17 MOE: IDEA Flexibility 17 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 18

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 19

20 Comparability Legal Authority: Title I Statute: §1120A(c) 20

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.” 21

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 22

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” 23

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) 24

25 How to measure?? Compare: Average of all non-Title I schools to Each Title I school 25

26 Basis for evaluation: ▫grade-span by grade-span or ▫school by school 26 May divide to large and small schools

27 Exclusions: Federal Funds Private Funds 27

28 Exclusions: Need not include unpredictable changes in students enrollment or personnel assignments that occur after the start of a school year 28

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 29

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! 30

31 Comparability Where stabilization dollars pay staff under impact aid flexibility count as state/local 31

32 Supplement Not Supplant Surprisingly Not Greatly Affected by Declining Budgets! 32

33 Supplement not Supplant Federal funds must be used to supplement and in no case supplant (federal), state, and local resources 33

34 “What would have happened in the absence of the federal funds??” 34

35 Auditors’ Tests for Supplanting OMB Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement 35

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 36

37 Auditors presume supplanting occurs if federally funded services were.... Provided with non-federal funds in prior year 37

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! 38

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 39

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) 40

41 Rebuttal Example State supports a reading coach program State cuts the program from State budget LEA wants to support Title I reading coach program

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 42

43 Rebuttal Example 2 LEA pays a reading coach LEA revenue falls and wants to pay coach with Title I 43

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 44

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. 45

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 46

47 How does supplanting apply in a schoolwide program? 47

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. 48

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 49

50 Where stabilization dollars used under impact aid flexibility count as state/local 50

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. 51

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 52

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. 53

54 Idaho Waiver ED Waived the Perkins MOE requirement in 2006 for a recession experienced in

55 “Title I Initiatives of the Current Administration and How They Relate to Reauthorization of NCLB the Elementary and Secondary Education Act” 55 Revised January 20, 2010

56 ESEA Reauthorization 56

57 th Congress: Second Session: ESEA Reauthorization

58 ESEA Background President Johnson’s legacy: The War on Poverty, announced on January 8, ▫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 58

59 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 66

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 67

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 68

69 Reauthorization Issues What do Secretary Duncan, RTT, 1003(g) and Stabilization, Phase 2 Rules tell us? 69

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 70

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 71

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 72

73 Reauthorization Issues Stabilization, Phase 2: Rules, Commentary, etc., 11/12/ pages ▫Guidance - 12/24/09, 9 pages RTT: Rules, Commentary, etc., 11/18/ pages 1003(g): Rules, Commentary, etc., 12/10/ pages ▫Guidance - 12/18/09, 40 pages ▫1003g Statute- 1 ¼ pages 73

74 RTT Instruction Teacher equity Teacher evaluation – student performance  Compensation  Promotion  Retention RTT Eligibility  Student performance – teacher evaluation Weakened in final? 74

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 75

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) /111209a.html 76

77 School Improvement Grants (NCLB, Sec. 1003(g) funds) Funding History – Annual Appropriations ▫FY – FY – zero funded ▫FY – $125 million ▫FY – $491 million ▫FY – $546 million ARRA – $3 billion December 18, 2009 Guidance doc January Revisions – Consolidated Appropriations Act 77

78 School Improvement Grants 1003g 3/082609d.html 3/082609d.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 78

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 79

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% 80

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” 81

82 Schools Receiving SIG Funds can Select between 4 Different Models Turnaround Model Restart Model Close/Consolidate Model Transformation Mode 82

83 83 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 social- emotional and community-oriented services/supports. Turnaround Model

84 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 85 Close/Consolidate Model Closing the school and enrolling the students who attended the school in other, higher- performing schools in the LEA.

86 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 87

88 ARRA Waivers 1003(g) funds availability ▫From September 30, 2011 to September 30, (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 88

89 ESEA Reauthorization: Administration Proposal “A Blueprint for Reform” 89

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. 90

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 91

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 92

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 93

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 94

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 95

96 1. College Career Ready Standards - Data on School Performance Data ▫High School  Grad rates  College enrollment  College enrollment without remediation – New! 96

97 1. College Career Ready Standards - Data on School Performance Disaggregated ▫Race, gender, ethnicity, disability, ELL, income 97

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 98

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 99

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 100

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 101

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 102

103 1. College Career Ready Standards “Challenge:” School, Districts, States Cat 2 – Next 5% ▫Warning: Implement locally determined strategy 103

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 104

105 1. College Career Ready Standards For all challenge schools ▫Options – Expanded learning time SES – NCLB SES? ▫Choice – NCLB Choice? ▫Other 105

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 106

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. 107

108 NGA CCSSO Common core standards Final – Anticipated – End of May 108

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 109

110 1. College Career Ready Standards - Turnaround Grants ▫One of 4 models “to be chosen locally”  Transformation  Turnaround1003g Models  Restart and  Closure 3 year awards – 2 additional possible 110

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 111

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 112

113 2. Great Teachers and Great Leaders Data linking ▫Teacher and principal prep programs to:  Job placement  Student growth  Retention outcomes of graduates 113

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 114

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 115

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 116

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 117

118 2. Great Teachers and Great Leaders Measuring Success ▫Teachers and principal prep programs  Graduates  Growth  Job placementStudent  Retention 118

119 2. Great Teachers and Great Leaders Competitive Grants ▫Ambitious Reforms  Identify  Recruit  Prepare  DevelopEffective teachers, principals  RetainLeadership teams  Reward In high need schools  Advance 119

120 2. Great Teachers and Great Leaders Use of student growth for ▫Credentialing ▫Professional development ▫Retention Decisions ▫Advancement 120

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 121

122 2. Great Teachers and Great Leaders Teacher pathways ▫Strength pathways  Traditional and  Alternative 122

123 2. Great Teachers and Great Leaders Competitive grants for recruitment and preparation ▫For high needs:  Schools; subjects, areas 123

124 2. Great Teachers and Great Leaders Transformational Leaders ▫Competitive grants for  Recruitment  Preparation Principals and other leaders  Support 124

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 125

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 126

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 127

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 128

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 129

130 3. Meeting the Needs of English Learners and Other Diverse Learners - Migrant Continue and strengthen program Update funding formula Strengthen interstate coordination 130

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 131

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 132

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 133

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 134

135 4. A Complete Education – A New Approach Strengthen instruction ▫Literacy ▫STEM ▫Aligned to improved college career ready standards 135

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 136

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 137

138 4. A Complete Education – Literacy Priority to states with common state ▫College – Career ready standards Competitive Grants ▫Develop and support comprehensive literacy programs 138

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 139

140 4. A Complete Education - Well Rounded Education Competitive Grants ▫Arts ▫Foreign Languages ▫History and Civics ▫Financial Literacy ▫Environmental ▫“Other” 140

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 141

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 142

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 143

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 144

145 5. Successful, Safe and Healthy Students 21 st Century Community Learning Centers ▫Competitive Grants  Comprehensive redesign of  School day  Year  Full service community schools  Before/After school services 145

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.” 146

147 6. Successful, Safe and Healthy Students Competitive Grants ▫State or districtwide “climate needs assessments”  School engagement and  School safety ▫Public reporting 147

148 5. Successful, Safe and Healthy Students Grant funds to improve ▫School safety ▫Student mental and physical health ▫Eating ▫Physical fitness 148

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 149

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 150

151 7. Additional Cross Cutting Priorities Flexibility for success??? Replicate successful priorities Building the knowledge base 151

152 7. Additional Cross Cutting Priorities Technology Evidence – Review i3 Efficiency ELLs and SWDs Rural 152

153 153

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 client- lawyer 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. 154

155 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


Download ppt "FASFEPA/ECTAC April, 2010 No Child Left Behind Act Basics of Title I, Part A Leigh Manasevit, Esq."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google