1. Washington Educational Research Association – WERA March 28, 2008

2.  Exempt Limited English Proficient (LEP) students who are new to the United States from taking any test given entirely in English for one year, and not count the results of LEP students in their first three years in the state program or until they reach English proficiency status, whichever comes first.

3.  Identify a school or district for improvement when the same subgroup, in the same subject, does not make AYP for two consecutive years.

4.  Consistent “N size of 40” - across all groups  the five major racial/ethnic groups, students with disabilities, ELL, and low-income students).  Through the 2006–07 assessment cycle the “N size” for the students with disabilities group and the limited English proficient group has been 40.  With a standard “N” size we may be eligible to apply the 17% “proxy” in lieu of a 2% alternative assessment to the 2008 assessment results.

6.  Districts are unable to access their federal formula funds until grants are approved, which sometimes results in districts front-funding grants for many months.  Find a way to move the timelines up and enable districts to access funds earlier.  Some Districts don’t have staff available during the summer to work on grant applications.  Again, move up the timeline for when applications are available. 6

7.  Federal regulations (34 CFR 76.708) required for federal formula grants, state that funds may not be obligated (incur costs) until the later of July 1 or the date that the application was submitted in substantially approvable form to the State.  Federal regulations also require final approval of the application before payment can be made. 7

8. The following federal programs are impacted:  Title I, Part A  Title II, Part A  Title II, Part D (E2T2)  Title III  Title IV, Safe and Drug Free  Migrant  Perkins/CTE  Special Education 8

9.  Districts will be given a longer window for accessing federal grant applications.  The grant application process will be moved up so that districts could receive substantially approvable status as early as July 1. 9

10.  Preliminary allocations for federal formula grants will be determined by May 1 st. These will be PRELIMINARY and not the final amounts.  Grant applications will be available around May 1 st. 10

11.  Preliminary awards are for planning purposes, and would not be a guarantee of the grant award. 11

12.  State determines what substantially approvable means.  What is this likely to mean? All assurances have been signed. A budget has been completed with either the preliminary or final allocation, whichever is available. Other application components for which the district has the necessary information submitted. Many applications would likely still need more work, that’s ok and to be expected. 12

13. Federal requirements: 1.Submitted for substantially approvable status before costs can be incurred. 2.Final approval of the application before reimbursed. 13

14.  June 2, 2008 – Deadline for preliminary application submittal for districts who wanted to start incurring costs for their grant money as of July 1 st and want to find out prior to July 1 if their application was substantially approvable.  June 30, 2008 – Last day to send in application to have July 1 be the start date. OSPI would let districts know within 30 days of submittal whether their application is substantially approvable or not. 14

15.  July 1, 2008 – Districts who submitted a preliminary grant application before July 1 AND received substantially approvable status could start incurring costs.  September 2008 – Districts with July 1 start dates could claim and receive reimbursement for all costs incurred, provided that the application has final approval. 15

16.  Summer 2008 - Districts can submit grant application after final allocations are posted. Allowable grant expenditures can be incurred when the application was submitted in substantially approvable form. 16

17. PROSCONS Application is available earlier, when more staff is in the district. Districts would have to complete a preliminary budget and later in the fall a budget revision (if the preliminary and final amounts were different) to include the final allocation amount. District can receive grant payments as early as September. Reimbursement is dependant on final application approval. What are other options? How do other states do this? Grant budgets would align more closely with timing of districts’ budget process. 17

18. PROSCONS No additional paperwork. Allowable grant expenditures do not start until application is submitted in substantially approvable form, so if districts wait to submit until October, September expenditures would not be eligible for reimbursement. OSPI would notify districts within 30 calendar days of submittal of substantially approvable status. Reimbursement is dependant on final application approval. 18

20. Outlook  According to House Education and Labor Committee staff, the Democratic staffers are huddling on their strategy and reviewing the 3,000 comments (and growing) they have received. They have not met with Republican staff on the matter to date but will do so before Chairman Miller introduces the bill and attempts to move it through the House before the close of the month. “I am not sure what the trends are yet,” said one staffer, “other than everyone seems to hate it.”

21. Reauthorization: Likely to see…  Emerging consensus to grant states discretion to design their accountability models to allow for a growth/improvement model and multiple measures of performance.  Emerging consensus that focus needs to be on high schools.

22. Reauthorization: Likely to see…  More flexibility for LEP students.  More flexibility for appropriately testing students with disabilities.  Targeted interventions for schools and student populations with the most needs.

23. Reauthorization: Likely to see…  Increased flexibility for HQT requirements for multiple subject teachers in rural districts and teachers who instruct students with disabilities.

24. Perkins – Voc Ed (Perkins IV) Reauthorized August 12, 2006

25. Perkins IV Requirements  States are required to submit plans for approval.  Main result is Perkins = NCLB  Goal of more valid and reliable accountability system for career and technical education.

26. Perkins IV = NCLB  Law now requires core indicators of performance.  Baseline goals are outlined in plan, and states and/or districts and schools who do not meet targets must develop a corrective action plan.  2007-2008 is the “transition” year.

27. Core Indicators of Performance 1. Academic Attainment – Reading 2. Academic Attainment – Math 3. Technical Skill Attainment 4. Secondary School Completion 5. Student Graduation Rates 6. Secondary Placement 7. Nontraditional Participation 8. Nontraditional Completion

28. Core Indicators of Performance  Districts may choose to accept the state performance targets or work with the state to negotiate levels more applicable to their specific circumstances (District’s baseline plus 3%).  Guidance from ED to clarify this requirement has not been issued.

29. Who’s Performance is Being Measured?  CTE (Career and Technical Education) Participant: A student who has enrolled in one or more credits in any CTE program area.  CTE Concentrator: A student who has enrolled in 3 or more credits in a single CTE program area.  CTE Completer: A student who has completed a CTE instructional program.

30. Academic Attainment – Reading and Math  Number of CTE concentrators who passed the WASL, and were included in AYP calculations and who, in the reporting year left secondary education.

31. Technical Skill Attainment  Number of CTE concentrators who passed technical skill assessments during the reporting year.

32. Secondary School Completion  Number of CTE concentrators who earned a regular diploma, GED, or other State recognized equivalent during the reporting year.

33. Student Graduation Rate  Number of CTE concentrators who, in the reporting year, were included as graduated in the State’s graduation rate calculation for AYP.

34. Secondary Placement  Number of CTE concentrators who left secondary education and were placed in post secondary education or advanced training, joined the military or were employed in the second quarter following the program year in which they left secondary education.

35. Nontraditional Participation  Number of CTE participants from underrepresented gender groups who participated in program that leads to employment in nontraditional fields during the reporting year.

36. Nontraditional Completion  Number of CTE concentrators from underrepresented gender groups who completed a program that leads to employment in nontraditional fields during the reporting year.

37. What are the immediate impacts?  State report is due December 31, 2007, which reports on the 2006-2007 school year.  Only WASL and grad rate performance indicators are required to be reported this year.  OSPI will compile all other data elements from currently submitted reports.

38.  Must be accessible to public via the internet, aka “Perkins” report card (December 2008).

40. FY08-09 Funding for State Formula Programs - Increased Funding ProgramSchool Year 2007- 2008 School Year 2008- 2009 Increase Title I$182 M$188 M$6 M School Improvement $1.8 M$7.0 M$5.2 M Title II, Improving Teacher Quality $47.4 M$48.0 M$587K Title III, Language Acquisition $12.8 M$13.4 M$607K IDEA, Part B$207.5 M$210.4 M$2.8 M 21 st Century$13 M$14.8 M$1.8 M 40

41. FY08-09 Funding for State Formula Programs - Decreased Funding ProgramSchool Year 2007- 2008 School Year 2008- 2009 Decrease Reading First$16.1 M$5.9 M($10.2) M Even Start$1 M$818K($182) K Migrant$15.5 M$15.3 M($226) K Education Technology $3.7 M$3.5 M($226) K Safe and Drug Free$5.6 M$4.7 M($858) K Perkins$23 M$21.6 M($1.4) M 41

42. Title V, Innovative ED($1.975) Million 42

43. President’s Federal FY09 Budget (State/Local FY09-10) Key Programs FFY2007FFY2008 President’s Requested FFY2009 2009 vs. 2008 Title I$12.83 B$13.9 B$14.3 B$403 M IDEA$10.78 B$10.95 B$11.3 B$337 M State Assessments $407 M$408 M $0 School Improvement $125 M$491.3 M $0 Title II, Teacher Quality $2.88 B$2.93B$2.83B($100) M 43

44. President’s Federal FY09 Budget (State/Local FY09-10) Key Programs FFY2007FFY2008 President’s Requested FFY2009 2009 vs. 2008 Education Technology $272.2 M$267.5 M$0($267.5) M Reading First $1.029 B$393 M$1 B$607 M Perkins (Career-Tech) $1.181 B$1.160 B$0($1.160) B Even Start $82.28 M$66.45 M$0($66.45) M Migrant Ed $386.5 M$379.8 M$399.8 M$20 M 44

45. President’s Federal FY09 Budget (State/Local FY09-10) Key Programs FFY2007FFY2008 President’s Requested FFY2009 2009 vs. 2008 Impact Aid $1.091 B$1.105 B $0 21 st Century Learning Centers $981 M$1,081 M$800 M($281) M Title III, Language Acquisition $620.5 M$649.9 M$677.6 M$27 M Safe and Drug Free $346.5 M$294.8 M$100 M($195) M 45

46.  $300 M for Pell Grants to Kids ◦ A new scholarship program that would allow low- income students attending schools in restructuring or that have high dropout rates to transfer to local private schools or out-of-district public schools.  $2.6 B increase for traditional Pell Grants ◦ Would raise the maximum award to $4,800 and increase the number of recipients 33%. 46