schoolwide programs – new guidance karen seay, director federal policy and esea research division...

Schoolwide Programs – New Guidance

Karen Seay, Director Federal Policy and ESEA Research Division

New Directors’ TrainingSeptember 17-18, 2015

[email protected] or 208.332.6978

mailto:[email protected]

Marcia BeckmanAssociate Deputy Superintendent, Federal Programs

[email protected](208) 332-6953

Christina NavaDirector, Title III/LEP &

Migrant Education [email protected]

(208) 332-6876

Kathy GaubyCoordinator, Title I-A Basic

[email protected]

(208) 332-6889

Jill MathewsCoordinator, Family & Community

Engagement (FACE)[email protected]

(208) 332-6855

Charlie SilvaDirector, Special Education


Karen SeayDirector, Federal Policy & ESEA

Research [email protected]

(208) 332-6978

Betsy BeardenAdministrative Assistant, FACE, School Improvement/Educator

Effectiveness, MTSS/[email protected]

(208) 332-6911

Teresa BurgessCoordinator, Title II-A Teacher and

Principal [email protected]

(208) 332-6891

Tyson CarterCoordinator, School Improvement

/ Educator [email protected]

(208) 332-6917

Michelle PerreiraAdministrative Assistant, Title I-A


Tina NaillonCoordinator, Title X-C Homeless

Education, Title VI-B Rural Education, Title I-D Neglected & Delinquent


Elmira FeatherFederal Grants [email protected]

(208) 332-6900

Alissa MetzlerCoordinator, Title III/LEP

[email protected]

(208) 332-6905

Sarah SeamountCoordinator, Title I-C

Migrant Education [email protected]

(208) 332-6958

Kelly WheelerProgram Specialist, Migrant

Education Program, Title III/LEP


Brenda ArnoldAdministrative [email protected]

(208) 332-6896

Alisa FewkesProgram Specialist, Data and Reporting


Ivana HotchkissCoordinator, Data and Reporting


Special Populations Coordinator(208) 332-6915

Grace DehnerProgram Specialist, Fiscal & Contracts


Wendy LeeCoordinator, Funding & Accountability


Alayna GeeCoordinator, Multi-Tiered System of

Support (MTSS)[email protected]

(208) 332-6979

Shannon DunstanCoordinator, Early Childhood & Medicaid


Lily RobbProgram Specialist, Dispute Resolution


Melanie ReeseCoordinator, Dispute Resolution


Secondary Special Education Coordinator

(208) 332-6918

Michelle Clement-TaylorCoordinator, School Choice


Title I-A Fast Facts

Nationwide Idaho

Allocation $14+ Billion $57,249,827

# of students served 24 million students 140,159 students

# of Title I schools 55,000 schools (TA & SW)

434 schools (TA and SW)

% Schoolwide schools 70% 75%

What is the name of the data collection that collects Title I-A data for Idaho?

How often is the data collected?When is it

due?

Title I-A Funds in Idaho: Where does the money go?

Schoolwide – New Guidance

The purpose of the July 30, 2015 Schoolwide guidance is to:

1. Highlight specific advantages and flexibilities in schoolwide programs;

2. Identify common misunderstandings about schoolwide programs;

3. Serve as a schoowide program resource tool for SEAs, LEAs, and school.

Implementing a Schoolwide Program to Support School Reform

• Comprehensive reform strategy designed to upgrade the entire educational program;

• Poverty percentage of 40% or more;

• Idaho’s highest priority schools (priority and focus) may operate as a schoolwide program without meeting the 40% poverty threshold.

Benefits of the Schoolwide Program Model

• Serves all students

• **Services do not need to be supplemental.

• Funds may be consolidated to better address the needs of all students.

Implementing a Schoolwide Program

• Three basic components:1. Comprehensive Needs Assessment (CNA)

• Entire school• Identify gaps:

– Academic achievement data– Perception data from staff, parents, community

• Root-cause analysis to determine cause for gaps

Purpose of the comprehensive needs assessment is to identify the major problem areas in student achievement that the school needs to address.


• Three basic components:2. Comprehensive Schoolwide Plan (addresses 10 components

in the Law):• Addresses the major problem areas identified in the CNA;• Describes how the school will improve academic achievement,

focusing on the lowest-achieving students;• **This plan may be integrated into an existing improvement plan.


• Three basic components:3. Annually Review & Revise the Plan to Articulate Program

Changes:• Review data, including State assessment data (CNA);• Involve the school’s stakeholders – staff, parents, etc.;• Identify new evidence –based strategies and instructional methods

to address the gaps;• Revise the Plan as necessary to reflect program changes.

KEEP ALL EVIDENCE ALONG THE WAY!!

Federal Fund Flexibility in a Schoolwide Program

• Title I-A funds may be used for any educational activity that supports the needs of students as identified through the needs assessment and Plan.

• Implementing the Schoolwide plan must include:– Effective methods and instructional strategies based on

evidence– Highly qualified teachers– High-quality professional development for both teachers and

paraprofessionals– Increased parent involvement

Use of Funds Based on the Needs Assessment

• Increased learning time;• High quality preschool or full-day kindergarten;• Evidence-based strategies to accelerate the acquisition of

content knowledge for English Learners;• Equipment, materials, and training need to compile and

analyze data to monitor progress, alert the school to struggling students, and drive decision making;

Use of Funds Based on the Needs Assessment (cont.)

• Devices and software for students to access digital learning materials and collaborate with peers, and related training for educators;

• Instructional coaches to provide high-quality school-based professional development;

• Evidence-based activities to prepare low-achieving students to participate successfully in advanced coursework;

Use of Funds Based on the Needs Assessment (cont.)

• School climate interventions, e.g., anti-bullying strategies, positive behavior interventions and supports;

• Effective activities for increasing family and community engagement;

• Family literacy programs.

Funding Flexibility, Scenario 1

• An LEA proposes to use Title I funds for the salary of a principal in one of its schoolwide programs. The principal will serve as the school’s instructional leader and oversee the analysis of data from the school’s quarterly benchmark assessments?

Is this allowable?


• In 2014-2015, an LEA used state/local funds for the cost of an online credit recovery program in its high school that operates a schoolwide program. In 2015-2016, the LEA proposes to use a portion of the high school’s Title I allocation for the same program.

Is this allowable?


• In a non-Title I school an LEA uses state/local funds to implement its one-to-one technology initiative. In a Title I schoolwide school, an LEA uses Title I funds to implement its one-to-one technology initiative.

Is this allowable?

Dispelling the Schoolwide Myth

• Misconception: Title I funds may not be used to support activities that are “required by law,” were previously supported with State or local funds, or are provided to non-Title I students with State of local funds.

• Explanation: The Schoolwide program does not need to demonstrate that Title I funds are used only for activities that are supplemental. The presumptions used to determine if supplanting has occurred do not apply to uses of Title I funds in a schoolwide program.


• Misconception: Title I funds may only be used to support reading and math instruction.

• Explanation: Title I funds may be used in a to support academic areas that the school’s needs assessment identifies as needing improvement.


• Misconception: Title I funds may only be used to provide remedial instruction.

• Explanation: At times, it may be very appropriate to prepare low-achieving students to take advanced courses, for example:– Provide an intensive summer school course designed to

accelerate knowledge and skills;– Offer and elective course to prepare students to take advanced

courses;– Provide after-school tutoring while students are taking advance

courses


• Misconception: Title I funds may only be used to serve low-achieving students.

• Explanation: Consistent with the purpose of Title I, the reason to upgrade the entire educational program in a school is to improve the achievement of the lowest-achieving students. This might include providing enrichment activities for some students while others receive additional tutoring to support taking an advanced course or additional interventions to support core learning.


• Misconception: If a school does not consolidate funds, Title I funds may only be used to provide services in a pull-out setting.

• Explanation: A school need not use Title I funds to provide services only in a pull-out setting, although this practice is not prohibited either. Title I funds may be used to upgrade the entire educational program in a school and serve all students, even if the school does not consolidate its funds.


• Misconception: Title I funds may only be used for instruction.

• Explanation: Title I funds may be used for activities and strategies designed to raise achievement of low-achieving students identified by a the school’s needs assessment and articulated in the school’s schoolwide plan. This may include using Title I funds to improve attendance, improve school climate, counteract bullying, or provide positive behavioral interventions and supports.


• Misconception: Title I funds may not be used to support children below kindergarten or the age of compulsory education.

• Explanation: A schoolwide program may use Title I funds to operate, in whole or in part, a preschool program to improve cognitive, health, and social-emotional outcomes for children below the grade at which the LEA provides a free public elementary education. All preschool children who reside in the school attendance area are eligible to participate.


• Misconception: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part B funds may not be consolidated in a schoolwide program.

• Explanation: A schoolwide program may consolidate IDEA, Part B funds. A school that consolidates funds under Part B may use those funds in its schoolwide program for any activities under its comprehensive schoolwide plan but must comply with all other Part B requirements.

Supplanting Test

• Three presumptions used to determine if supplanting has occurred:

1) If the activity is required by law;

2) If the activity was provided in prior years with non-Federal funds;

3) If the activity is provided to non-Title I students with non-Federal funds.

(These presumptions only apply in targeted assistance programs. They DO NOT APPLY in Schoowide

Programs!)

Safeguarding Interests of Historically Underserved Populations

• Purpose of schoolwide program is to upgrade entire educational program; however, the law (ESEA Sec. 1114(b)(1)) specifically protects two populations:– Low-achieving students– Historically underserved student populations


• Students who are not proficient on the State’s achievement test, must be provided effective, timely additional assistance;

• Schoolwide school must receive a basic level of funds from non-Federal sources to provide for English Learners and students with disabilities before using Title I funds;

• All other applicable laws must be adhered: civil rights laws; laws affecting English Learners and students with disabilities, such as IDEA and 504;


• If Federal funds are consolidated, the school must ensure that it meets the intent and purposes of each Federal program;

• If Title I, Part C Migrant Education funds are consolidated, migrant parents must be consulted and the school must document that the needs of the migrant families are met;

• If Title VII, Part A Subpart 1 Indian Ed funds are consolidated, the LEA’s parent committee must approve this inclusion.

To Consolidate or Not to Consolidate:That is the Question!

• Schoolwide consolidation (conceptual) advantages include:

1. Flexibility in allocating all available resources effectively and efficiently;

2. Specific Federal program funds lose their individual identity and the school may use the consolidated funds to support any activity without regard to which program contributed the specific funds;

3. Although intent and purpose of each Federal program must be met, most statutory and regulatory requirements of the specific Federal program is not required to be met;

4. Maintaining separate fiscal accounting records identifying specific activities by Federal program are not required;

5. Time and effort documentation is simplified.

Making a difference: Using Federal Funds to Supplement School

Reform• In order for Federal funds to make a difference in

supporting school reform, Title I funds must supplement those funds the school would otherwise receive.

Title I-A funds are supplemental, but activities beyond a basic program do not have to be supplemental.

Based on what you know now, is this allowable…

Scenario 1: An LEA proposes to use Title I funds for the salary of a principal in one of its schoolwide programs. The principal will serve as the school’s instructional leader and oversee the analysis of data from the school’s quarterly benchmark assessments?

Scenario 2: In 2014-2015, an LEA used state/local funds for the cost of an online credit recovery program in its high school that operates a schoolwide program. In 2015-2016, the LEA proposes to use a portion of the high school’s Title I allocation for the same program.

Scenario 3: In a non-Title I school an LEA uses state/local funds to implement its one-to-one technology initiative. In a Title I schoolwide school, an LEA uses Title I funds to implement its one-to-one technology initiative.

Program Contacts

• Kathy Gauby (Title I-A Coordinator) – [email protected] and 332.6889

• Karen Seay (Title I-A) – [email protected] and 332.6978

CALL US WHEN YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR NEED HELP!



schoolwide programs – new guidance karen seay, director federal policy and esea research division...

Documents