1. ARRA IDEA, Part B & ARRA IDEA, sec. 619 funds Special Education Section OSPI 1

2. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Saving and Creating Jobs and Reforming Education “In a global economy where the most valuable skill you can sell is your knowledge, a good education is no longer just a pathway to opportunity – it is a pre-requisite. The countries that out-teach us today will out-compete us tomorrow.” -President Barack Obama, Feb. 24, 2009 2

3. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) Four Major Principles for Distributing and Using these Funds – Spend funds quickly to save and create jobs. – Improve student achievement through school improvement and reform. – Ensure transparency, reporting and accountability. – Invest one-time ARRA funds thoughtfully to minimize the “Funding cliff”. 3

4. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act State Fiscal Stabilization Funds Increases to Formula Grants Education Secretary’s Portion Governor’s Portion Title I-A Allocation  School Improvement Grants (1003 (g) Funds) Innovative Programs Grants Educational Technology Grant Homeless Grant IDEA, Part B & 619 Competitive Grant Applications Based on how well the state has used the Governor’s Portion of the Stabilization Funds 18.2% Used for Public Safety Initiatives – can be used for education 81.8% Distributed between K-12 and Higher Education to cover budget shortfalls Based on State Funding Formulas Leftover Funds – those funds that were not needed to cover budget shortfalls Funds will be distributed to LEAs based on their portion for the Title I Allocations NOT Title I Funds – can be used for activities under ESEA, IDEA, Perkins, or for Building Modernization 4 MOE Provisions

5. ARRA Special Education Funds* & State Fiscal Stabilization Funds ARRA Part B Funds – $221,357,461 State Fiscal Stabilization Fund – $819,946,848 ARRA sec. 619 Funds – $8,475,569 ARRA Part C Funds – $8,448,333 Used as an offset for state education dollars (LEAs and IHEs in 2009-11 state budget). * Does not include regular IDEA, Part B or 619 allocation 5

6. ARRA IDEA Funds are in addition to federal IDEA, Part B and sec. 619 funds available July 1. Source of FundsAmount IDEA, Part B (3-21) for ’09 (a 4.6% increase over ‘08) $220,001,988 IDEA, sec. 619 (3-5) for ‘09$8,039,543 IDEA, Part B (3-21) for ’10$220,001,988 IDEA, sec. 619 (3-5) for ‘10$8,039,543 ARRA IDEA, Part B (3-21) for ‘09-11$221,357,461 ARRA IDEA, sec. 619 (3-5) for ‘09-11$8,475,569 Total Federal Funds (09-11) (Includes ‘10 IDEA allocation) $685,916,092 6 *http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/statetables/index.html What Additional Resources are Available*?

7. Availability of funds Regular IDEA, Part B and sec. 619 allocations on July 1, 2009 (if LEA has provided a budget and written assurances). 50% of ARRA IDEA, Part B & 619 funds by end of July, 2009. (Remaining) 50% of ARRA IDEA, Part B & 619 funds by end of October, 2009. 7

8. How are funds Allocated? IDEA funds are not allocated on your IDEA federal childcount data. This change occurred in 1999. First, a base allocation is awarded every state based upon the 1999 headcount (hold harmless provision). Second, a secondary allocation (85%) is calculated in proportion to each states’ size of general education population (public and approved private schools). Finally, the remaining 15% of the funds are allocated to states based upon a poverty index. This process is repeated by each state as they allocate funds to LEAs.. 8

9. Allocation of Funds ARRA IDEA Funds are determined on the same basis as the IDEA formula grants. – Allocated on a census based formula. Districts report total enrollment to OSPI OSPI reports total enrollment to USDOE USDOE calculates relative population for each state based on total enrollment and allocates funds to state OSPI allocates funds for each district based on relative population of total enrollment and poverty index 9

10. Obligation and Carryover 100 % of ARRA IDEA funds are allocated to school districts. All ARRA IDEA funds must be used in accordance with IDEA, Part B regulatory requirements. All ARRA IDEA funds must be obligated by September 30, 2011. ARRA IDEA funds have specific and unique MOE requirements. 10

11. What is Maintenance of Effort (MOE)? For Local Educational Agencies (LEA) to be eligible to receive IDEA funding, the IDEA, Part B funds may not be used to reduce the level of expenditures from local or state and local funds for educating children with disabilities below the level of those expenditures for the preceding fiscal year. There are four separate MOE tests which will be presented later in this presentation. 11

12. Can IDEA funds be used to reduce your district’s MOE? Only LEAs with a “Meets Requirments” designation can use up to 50% of the increase in all federal IDEA and ARRA IDEA funds as state or state and local funds. For your district’s determination level, see: – http://www.k12.wa.us/specialed/SEDetMoe.aspx http://www.k12.wa.us/specialed/SEDetMoe.aspx 12

13. What Determination Designation Does an LEA Use? Currently the November 1, 2008 determination level should direct your budgeting for the ‘09-10 school year. 13

14. Perform Determination Level Test Follow MR Instructions & use Meets Requirements MOE Test LEA may reduce level of expenditures up to 50% of allocation increase Perform Determination Level Test Follow NA, NI, NSI Instructions & use NA, NI, NSI MOE Test LEA may not reduce level of expenditures by 50% of allocation increase ARRA Flow Chart/IDEA, Part B Determination LevelDetermination Name 1 = MRMeets Requirements 2 = NANeeds Assistance 3 = NINeeds Intervention 4 = NSINeeds Significant Intervention 14

15. Overview of the Determination Process  IDEA 2004 requires the U.S. Department of Education to rate States according to their performance. IDEA 616(a) and CFR 300.600 & 300.602 address the requirement for the U.S. Department of Education to place each State in one of four levels of determination:  Meets Requirements (Level 1)  Needs Assistance (Level 2)  Needs Intervention (Level 3)  Needs Substantial Intervention (Level 4) 15

16. Federally-Required Criteria  The U.S. Department of Education requires that States must consider, at a minimum, the following criteria:  Audit results  Uncorrected issues of non-compliance  Timely, reliable, and accurate data  Performance on State Performance Plan (SPP) compliance indicators @ 100%  Indicator 11 - Timely initial evaluation and eligibility after parent consent.  Indicator 12 - Part C transition to Part B - IEP implemented by 3 rd birthday.  Indicator 13 – Secondary Transition.  States may also consider other compliance and/or results indicators.  The state of Washington uses the minimum compliance criteria. 16

17. Scoring rubric: CRITERIA (1) MEETS REQS. (2) NEEDS ASSISTANCE (3) NEEDS INTERV. (4) NEEDS SUBSTANTIAL INTERVENTION 1. Did the district resolve all material audit issues (if any)? (Source - State Auditor's Office) yes no (unresolved technical issues exist) no (unresolved program issues exist) 2. Did the district correct all identified issues of noncompliance, if any, within one year of identification so that there is no uncorrected noncompliance? (Source - OSPI general supervision, including program reviews, Safety Net, citizen complaints, etc.) yes no (not timely) no (not timely & uncorrected non- compliance remains) 3. Did the district submit timely and accurate data (Indicator 20)? (Source - District-submitted data reports, see below) yes (6 or more reports - see below) yes (4 or 5 reports - see below) yes (1, 2, or 3 reports - see below) no (no reports submitted timely and accurately - see below) 4a. Did the district demonstrate substantial compliance (indicators 11, 12, and 13)? (Source - District-submitted reports (Ind. 11 and 12 - see below), Safety Net (Ind. 13)) yes (95% or higher) 65.0% to 94.9% Below 65% 4b. Is disproportionate representation the result of inappropriate identification (indicators 9, 10)? (Source OSPI - Monitoring and program review, including disproportionality self-study) no yes 17

18. CCDDD:99999 District: Sample School District ESD: 999 Determination Level: 3 District Summary : CRITERIA DISTRICT RESULTS (1) MEETS REQS (2) NEEDS ASSISTANCE (3) NEEDS INTERV. (4) NEEDS SUBSTANTIAL INTERVENTION 1. Did the district resolve all material audit issues (if any)? yes   2. Did the district correct all identified issues of noncompliance, if any, within one year of identification so that there is no uncorrected noncompliance? yes   3. Did the district submit timely and accurate data? 5   4a. Did the district demonstrate substantial compliance (indicators 11, 12, and 13)? 11:84.9%   12:41.7% 13:41.2% 4b. Is disproportionate representation the result of inappropriate identification (indicators 9, 10)? no   18

19. What are the other provisions for the use of funds? Districts may set aside up to 15% of their regular IDEA and ARRA IDEA Part B funds for coordinated early intervening services (CEIS). Districts with the ability to use the flexibility of reducing its state and local effort by up to 50% of its increase in its subgrant must realize that the use of any funds for CEIS affects this flexibility (the worksheet calculates this for the district). Any “freed up” state or state and local money must be used to support activities authorized under the ESEA of 1965. 19

20. CEIS and MOE Example #1 (Both examples from appendix D-1 in special education regulations publication) 20 What are the maximum values that a district can use for CEIS and MOE reduction? Prior years federal allocation$900,000 Current years federal allocation$1,000,000 Increase$100,000 Maximum available for MOE reduction (up to 50% of increase) $50,000 Maximum available for CEIS (up to 15% of total) $150,000

21. 21 If the LEA chooses to set aside $150,000 for CEIS, it may not reduce its MOE. – (MOE maximum = $50,000 -$150,000 for CEIS = $0 for MOE) If the LEA chooses to set aside $50,000 for CEIS, it may not reduce its MOE. – (MOE maximum = $50,000 -$50,000 for CEIS = $0 for MOE) If the LEA chooses to set aside $30,000 for CEIS, it may reduce its MOE. – (MOE maximum = $50,000 -$30,000 for CEIS = $20,000 for MOE)

22. CEIS and MOE Example #2 22 What are the maximum values that a district can use for CEIS and MOE reduction? Prior years federal allocation$1,000,000 Current years federal allocation$2,000,000 Increase$1,000,000 Maximum available for MOE reduction (up to 50% of increase) $500,000 Maximum available for CEIS (up to 15% of total) $300,000

23. 23 If the LEA chooses to set aside no funds for MOE, it may set aside up to $300,000 for CEIS. – (CEIS maximum = $300,000 -$0 for MOE = $300,000 for CEIS) If the LEA chooses to set aside $150,000 for MOE, it may set aside $150,000 for CEIS. – (CEIS maximum = $300,000 -$150,000 for MOE = $150,000 for CEIS) If the LEA chooses to set aside $300,000 for MOE, it may not set aside anything for CEIS. – (CEIS maximum = $300,000 -$300,000 for MOE = $0 for MOE)

24. What are the other provisions for the use of funds? Districts with significant disproportionality based upon race and ethnicity are required to set aside 15% of regular IDEA and ARRA IDEA Part B funds for CEIS. Restricted indirect cost rates apply to ARRA IDEA Part B and preschool grant funds. There are other specific but allowable provisions of ARRA IDEA funds for construction and the purchase of equipment. All are subject to prior approval by the USDOE. Be sure to read and implement the guidance! 24

25. Use of funds Follow IDEA, Part B statutory and regulatory requirements Align with core goals of ARRA – Improve teaching and learning and results for children with disabilities; – Save and create jobs and advance reforms; – Focus on short-term investments with potential for long-term benefits. 25

26. A rubric for decision making Drive results for students? Will the proposed use of funds drive improved results for students, including students in poverty, students with disabilities, and English language learners? Increase capacity? Will the proposed use of funds increase educators’ long-term capacity to improve results for students? Accelerate reform? Will the proposed use of funds advance state, district, or school improvement plans and the reform goals encompassed in ARRA? 26

27. A rubric for decision making Avoid the cliff and improve productivity? Will the proposed use of funds avoid recurring costs that states, school systems, and schools are unprepared to assume when this funding ends? Given these economic times, will the proposed use serve as “bridge funding” to help transition to more effective and efficient approaches? Foster continuous improvement? Will the proposed use of funds include approaches to measure and track implementation and results and create feedback loops to modify or discontinue strategies based on evidence? 27

28. Some uses that align with IDEA and support core reform goals Obtain state-of-the-art assistive technology devices AND provide training in their use to enhance access to the general curriculum for students with disabilities. Professional development for proven evidence- based school wide strategies in reading, math, writing, science, and positive behavior supports to improve outcomes for students with disabilities. 28

29. Uses (continued) Develop or expand the capacity to collect and use data to improve teaching and learning. Expand inclusive placement options for preschoolers with disabilities by developing more capacity of public and private programs. Hire transition coordinators to work with employers in the community to develop job placements for youths with disabilities. 29

30. Invitation for Waivers The Secretary intends to issue regulations to allow reasonable adjustments to the limitation on state administration expenditures to help states defray the costs of ARRA data collection. There are no LEA waivers for MOE. 30

31. Accountability Issues ARRA requires the separate accounting of these funds and additional reporting requirements. ARRA IDEA funds will have separate CFDA numbers and separate budget forms for tracking and reporting the use of these funds. 31

32. Accountability Districts must use these funds prudently and in accordance with the law Districts receiving ARRA IDEA funds shall file reports consistent with section 1512 (c) of the ARRA District must report how funds were spent at www.recovery.gov www.recovery.gov 32

33. Report on Use of Funds section 1512 (c) of ARRA Filed no later than 10 days after the end of each quarter; Amount of ARRA funds received and expended; A list of all projects or activities including name, description, evaluation, and number of jobs created or retained; SEA shall make reports filed by LEAs available to the public by posting them on a website. 33

34. Web Resources OSPI Determination website and Excel spreadsheet for MOE. – http://www.k12.wa.us/specialed/SEDetMoe.aspx http://www.k12.wa.us/specialed/SEDetMoe.aspx USDOE Q & A for ARRA IDEA funds – http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/guidance/ide a-b.pdf http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/guidance/ide a-b.pdf 34

35. Web Resources (continued) Use of Funds for Services to Children with Disabilities – Fact Sheet Fact Sheet CEC Q & A of ARRA IDEA recovery funds – http://www.cec.sped.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Policy Advocacy/CECPolicyResources/EconomicStimulus/ARRA_Q &A_Final_April_2009.pdf http://www.cec.sped.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Policy Advocacy/CECPolicyResources/EconomicStimulus/ARRA_Q &A_Final_April_2009.pdf 35