FASFEPA/ECTACApril, 2010 No Child Left Behind ActBasics of Title I, Part ALeigh Manasevit, Esq.lmanasevit@bruman.com www.bruman.com

Cross cutting Fiscal Requirements

2

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

3

Guidance: NEW: “Title I Fiscal Issues,”

February 2008 (replaced May 2006) www.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/ fiscalgui

d.doc

Consolidating funds in schoolwide programs, MOE, SNS, Comparability, Grantbacks, Carryover

4

Maintenance of EffortMost Directly Affected by Declining Budgets

5

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

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)

7

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

Aggregate expenditures

Amount per student

SY 04 1,000,000 6,100SY05 – must spend 90%

900,000 5,490

05 –Actual amount

850,000 5,200

Shortfall -50,000 -290Percent shortfall/ reduction

-5.6% -5.3%**

9

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

ED Waivers•To State to Grant to LEAs

11

MOE: IDEA•State and Local•Measures Only Expenditures for

▫Special Education•SEA – State Funds•LEA – Local or State and Local Combined

12

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

13

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

However – LEA Flexibility

14

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

15

MOE: IDEAFlexibility – IDEA Part B Grant

16

2008 - 2009 $1,000,000

2009 - 2010 $1,800,000

Increase $800,000

50% $400,000

MOE: IDEAFlexibility

17

Required Level of MOE for …

2009 – 2010 = $7,000,000

50% of Increase = $400,000

Required Level of MOE =

$6,600,000

MOE: IDEAFlexibility•$400,000 Must Be Spent on

▫ESEA Activities▫Caution – Reduced by EIS

18

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

Comparability

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

20

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

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

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

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

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

25

•Basis for evaluation: ▫grade-span by

grade-span or ▫school by school

26

May divide to large and small schools

Exclusions:

•Federal Funds •Private Funds

27

Exclusions:

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

28

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

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

Comparability•Where stabilization dollars pay staff under

impact aid flexibility count as state/local

31

Supplement Not Supplant

Surprisingly Not Greatly Affected by Declining Budgets!

32

Supplement not Supplant•Federal funds must be used to

supplement and in no case supplant (federal), state, and local resources

33

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

34

Auditors’ Tests for SupplantingOMB Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement

35

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

Auditors presume supplanting occurs if federally funded services were . . . .

•Provided with non-federal funds in prior year

37

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

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

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

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

41

Rebuttal Example•LEA must document

a. State cut the programb. LEA does not have uncommitted funds

available in operating budget to pick upc. LEA would cut the program unless

federal funds picked it upd. The expense is allowable under Title I

42

Rebuttal Example 2•LEA pays a reading coach 2008 - 2009 •LEA revenue falls and wants to pay coach

with Title I

43

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

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

FlexibilityException: 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

How does supplanting apply in a schoolwide program?

47

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

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

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

50

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

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

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

Idaho Waiver•ED Waived the Perkins MOE requirement

in 2006 for a recession experienced in 2002-2003

54

note

“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

ESEA Reauthorization56

57

110th Congress: Second Session: ESEA Reauthorization

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

58

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

Reauthorization Issues•Career Technical Education (CTE)•State Directors recommend mandating

programs of study in ESEA

66

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

CEP’s Successful Strategies (cont…)

D. All successful states studied moved away from federal restructuring options

E. Reliance on partnershipsF. Increased monitoring or visits

68

Reauthorization Issues

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

69

Reauthorization & Arne Duncan, Secretary of the Department of EDArne 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

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

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

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

73

RTT Instruction

•Teacher equity•Teacher evaluation – student performance

Compensation Promotion Retention

•RTT Eligibility Student performance – teacher evaluation

Weakened in final?

74

RTTSupporting 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

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/2009-4/111209a.html

76

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/guidance-20091218.doc

• January Revisions – Consolidated Appropriations Act

http://www.ed.gov/programs/sif/dcl.pdfhttp://www.ed.gov/programs/sif/interim.doc

77

School Improvement Grants1003g http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/other/2009-3/082609d.html

•SEA application•95% flow to LEA•SEA may retain as LEA agreement•LEA

▫ $50,000 to $500,000But Secretary says $500,000

New (Approps): $2,000,000

78

School Improvement Grants1003g

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 performanceAnd No higher achieving than highest school under

previous Tier 1 category

79

School Improvement Grants1003g• 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 performanceAnd Not higher achieving than the highest school

under former Tier II or graduation rate under 60%

80

School Improvement Grants1003g• 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 yearsOr Lowest quintile

16 steps to determine “lowest achieving”

81

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

82

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

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, higher-performing 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

•SEA may not mandate which model

87

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

88

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 Sections1. College Career Ready Students2. Great Teachers and Great Learners3. Meeting the Needs of Diverse

Learners4. A Complete Education5. Successful, Safe, and Healthy

Students6. Fostering Innovation and Excellence7. 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 SchoolGrad ratesCollege enrollmentCollege 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 subgroupsRewards 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 lawPayments 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

▫OptionalOther academic, career or technical subjects

English proficiency▫By 2015 only eligible if standards are common to significant numbers of states.

NGA CCSSO

Common core standardsFinal – 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 orPartnerships: district – nonprofits

110

1. College Career Ready Standards - Turnaround Grants

▫One of 4 models “to be chosen locally”TransformationTurnaround 1003g ModelsRestart andClosure

•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, principalBased 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 placementStudent growthRetention 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 programsGraduatesGrowth Job placement StudentRetention

119

2. Great Teachers and Great Leaders•Competitive Grants

▫Ambitious Reforms Identify Recruit Prepare Develop Effective teachers, principals Retain Leadership teams Reward In high need schools Advance

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 pathwaysTraditional andAlternative

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 forRecruitmentPreparation 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”

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

143

5. Successful, Safe and Healthy Students

•Promise neighborhoods▫Competitive Grants

Community services Family support

▫Improve educational andDevelopmental 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 outcomesPromote community involvementLeverage 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

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

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

Questions???

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

Save-the-Date… May 5 - 7, 2010Brustein & Manasevit Forum onFederal Education Grants ManagementOmni Shoreham HotelWashington, DCRegistration Fee: $695For more information please contact:

Brustein & Manasevit1-800-914-8212forum@bruman.comwww.bruman.com