PERKINS FUNDING BASED ON ENROLLMENTS AND IMPROVEMENT: Indiana’s Model Welcome

INDIANA Perkins Funding Indiana Department of Workforce Development Indiana Department of Education

INDIANA INDIANA (As of April 1, 2011) Perkins Funding Indiana Department of Workforce Development Indiana Department of Education

Two Major Issues

ISSUE 1 New state Superintendent of Public Instruction

ISSUE 1 New state Superintendent of Public Instruction  Focused on High School Accountability  Giving schools letter grades A-F  Basing letter grades on: o Growth o Performance  Can CTE measure growth & performance?

ISSUE I

ISSUE 1I CTE Districts Concerned About Enrollment

ISSUE 1I CTE Districts Concerned About Enrollment  Perkins formula favored CTE Districts with high census #’s and high poverty o 70% on census data of 5-19 year olds o 30% on census data of 5-19 year olds in poverty  Does NOT account for CTE enrollments

ISSUE 1I CTE Districts Concerned About Enrollment  State data showed: o Perkins formula favors urban populations o Some CTE districts with highest Perkins $$’s have very low CTE enrollments o Formula creates a disincentive for increasing CTE enrollments

Our Solution

OUR SOLUTION Ask USDOE/OVAE for change to funding formula  Long discussions on how to change formula  83% of CTE Directors supported this: o 50% based on CTE enrollments o 25% on 5-19 year olds in poverty o 25% on Core Indicator performance and/or improvement

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Biggest Gains $326,165Rural $138,056 Rural $274,001Rural $271,333Rural $116,647Rural $214,145Rural $253,977Rural $111,997Urban $207,429Rural Biggest Losses ($1,102,079)Urban ($489,804)Urban ($1,120,801)Urban ($499,377) ($210,859)Urban ($486,958)Urban ($370,220) ($195,691)Urban ($372,023)Urban Option 1 50% of Perkins dollars allocated based on CTE enrollment number/25% of Perkins dollars allocated based on CTE concentrators number and 25% of Perkins dollars allocated based on CTE free/reduced number. Option 2 50% of Perkins dollars allocated based on CTE enrollment number/50% of Perkins dollars allocated based on poverty number from Census Bureau (not CTE only). Option 3 50% of Perkins dollars allocated based on CTE enrollment number/25% of Perkins dollars allocated based on CTE concentrators number /25% of Perkins dollars allocated based on number of CTE performance indicators met.

OUR SOLUTION  USDOE/OVAE said “no”  Federal funding formula changes can’t dis- advantage low-income youth  Illinois, Missouri and Kansas already tried  CAN advocate for change in Perkins V

Our Next Solution

NEXT SOLUTION Use 10% Reserve for Incentive  50% on CTE enrollments  50% on Growth and/or Performance

NEXT SOLUTION Use 10% Reserve for Incentive  50% on CTE enrollments  50% on Growth and/or Performance May do in – Depending on Federal Funding

BASIC GRANT & TECH PREP GRANT Tech Prep Grant appears to be gone Basic Grant Considerations:  Do we take money from CTE programs for third year of failed student indicators?  What are YOUR state plans?  Limit Funding, Floors/Ceilings and Incentives

LIMIT FUNDING & INCENTIVES Limit Funding  If Target core indicator is not met: o Must allocate X% toward improvement o Must allocate X% to state-required program(s) Floors and Ceilings  Only so much can be spent on certain areas (ceiling) or can’t spend less than X (floor) Provide Incentives  Use 10% reserve or SL dollars to reward growth

Your Ideas

QUESTIONS

THANK YOU Melissa Rekeweg Matt Fleck