View
220
Download
1
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
WHAT TITLE I REQUIREMENTS REMAIN IN THE LAND OF THE WAIVER INITIATIVE?
1Leigh M. Manasevit, Esq.lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit, PLLCwww.bruman.comSpring Forum 2013
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
Waiver Resources
•Statute – NCLB Section 9401
•Guidance – •Title I, Part A – July 2009
•Maintenance of Effort – See program statutes
2
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
NCLB – What can be waived?The Secretary may grant a waiver of any ESEA statutory or regulatory provision EXCEPT:•Allocation or distribution of funds to SEAs, LEAs, or other recipients of ESEA funds•Comparability•Supplement not supplant•Equitable services to private school students•Parent involvement
3
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
NCLB – What can be waived?The Secretary may grant a waiver of any ESEA statutory or regulatory provision EXCEPT:
•Civil rights•Maintenance of Effort•Charter School requirements•Use of funds for religion 4
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
June 28, 2011 Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report on Secretary of Education’s Waiver Authority1.ED has the authority to waive accountability provisions of Title I, Part A2.It is unclear if the Secretary can condition a waiver on other action(s) not required by law
5
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
ED Announcementon Waivers
6
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
Waivers • ED makes the announcement• September 23, 2011 Letter to Chiefs•NCLB became a barrier to reform•Opportunity to request flexibility• State• LEA• Schoolshttp://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/
secletter/110923.html 7
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
Letter•Flexibility in exchange for rigorous and comprehensive state plans• Improve educational outcomes•Close achievement gaps• Increase equity• Improve instruction
8
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
“ESEA Flexibility” September 23, 2011
• 10 provisions subject to waiver1. 2013-2014 timeline –
develop new ambitious AMO’s2. School improvement consequences: LEA not required to
take currently required improvement actions in Title I Schools
3. LEA improvement identification: Not required to identify for improvement LEA that fails 2 consecutive years
4. Rural LEAs• Small Rural School Achievement or Rural and Low
Income program• Flexibility regardless of AYP status
9
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
Waivers
5. SchoolwideOperate as schoolwide regardless of 40% poverty threshold if• SEA identified as a priority or focus school with
interventions consistent with turnaround principles6. School Improvement
• 1003a funds to serve any priority or focus school if SEA determines school in need of support
7. Reward Schools• Rewards to any reward school if the SEA determines
appropriate
10
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
Waivers8. HQT improvement plans
• LEA that does not meet HQT no longer must develop an improvement plan• Flexibility in use of Title I and Title II funds
• LEA-SEA develop “more meaningful” evaluation and support systems which eventually will satisfy the HQT requirement
• SEA still must ensure poor and minority children not taught at higher rates by inexperienced, unqualified or out-of-field teachers
11
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
Waivers
9. Transferability• Up to 100%, same programs
10. SIG• 1003g awards for any priority school
12
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
Waivers
•Optional #11•21st Century Community Learning Centers support expanded learning time during school day
13
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
New Waiver #12
•No AYP determination for LEAs or Schools
14
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
New Waiver #13
•LEA may serve Title I eligible priority high school with graduation rate under 60% without regard for rank and serve???
15
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
New Waiver!
• New optional waiver from March 2013 FAQ Addendum
14) SEAs and LEAs would no longer have to make AYP determinations• http://www2.ed.gov/policy/eseaflex/
faqaddendum.doc
16
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
“In Exchange for…”Must meet 4 principles
1. College and Career Ready Standards – Develop and Implement:• Reading/Language Arts• Math• Aligned assessments measuring
growth• ELP assessment aligned to #1 17
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
“In Exchange for…”
2. State Developed Differentiated Recognition, Accountability and Support• Must develop system of Differentiated
Recognition, Accountability and Support• All LEAs• All Title I Schools
• Must consider Reading, Language Arts, and Math
• All students• All subgroups• Graduation Rates
18
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
• School Performance over time•New AMOs (ambitious)• State LEAs• Schools• Subgroups
• Incentives and recognitions•Dramatic systemic changes in lowest
performing schools19
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
“In Exchange for…”
3. Effective Instruction/Leadership• Commit to develop/adopt pilot and
implement• Teacher/principal evaluation
systems• Student Growth = “Significant
Factor” 20
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
“In Exchange for…”
4. Reduce duplication and unnecessary burden
21
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
Waiver States• 34 States and the District of
Columbia• Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado,
Connecticut, District of Columbia, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin 22
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
Waivers Pending• Alabama• Alaska• Hawaii• Illinois• Maine• New Hampshire• Pennsylvania• Texas• West Virginia• Wyoming
23
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
Waivers Withdrawn & Rejected
•Rejected:• California• Iowa•Withdrawn: •North Dakota• Vermont
24
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
Non-Waiver States
•Montana & Nebraska have not applied for a waiver
25
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
Center for American ProgressReport on Waivers - July 12, 2012• Did not stimulate new innovations (except
accountability)• Did stimulate comprehensive plans for
improvement• Some interesting ideas• Few States have plans to reduce duplication and
unnecessary burden• Creative sources of fundshttp://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/
issues/2012/07/pdf/nochildwaivers_intro.pdf 26
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
Center on Education Policy Waiver Report - March 2013• Report found that States are supportive of the waivers because of the
relief from some of the burdensome requirements of ESEA• States were concerned with the effect of ESEA reauthorization on
waivers including confusion and additional costs of implementing accountability systems and developing new teacher evaluation systems
• 24 of 38 States identified that costs could be greater under ESEA waivers
• 11 of 34 States and D.C. that have received waivers have needed to revise or implement new teacher and principal evaluations
• One State official commented on ED’s quantity of revisions to their application as “erred on the side of ridiculous”
http://www.cep-dc.org/cfcontent_file.cfm?Attachment=McMurrerYoshioka%5FReport%5FStatesPerspectivesonWaivers%5F030413%2Epdf 27
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
Alliance for Excellent Education ESEA Waivers Study-February 2013• Study concluded that a majority of waiver States have
ignored federal regulations to promote accountability with high school graduation rates• 2008 – ED regulations required States to measure high
school graduation rates as an accountability measure, a four-year cohort rate• 23 waiver States were permitted to use an accountability
system inconsistent with the regulations by including GED certificates and drop out rates• 12 States decreased the weight of graduation rates to less
than 25%• http://www.all4ed.org/files/ESEAWaivers.pdf
28
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
ED Monitoring
• ED to monitor State Waivers SY 2012-2013• 3 components: “Part A”- ongoing to include
technical assistance and implementation of waiver components; “Parts B & C” TBA• Flexibility Monitoring Part A Protocol:
http://www.ed.gov/esea/flexibility/documents/monitoring-part-a-protocol-acc.doc
29
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
BASIC ESEA TITLE I, PART A REQUIREMENTS NOT SUBJECT TO WAIVER
30
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
Title I, Part A Topics General Program Requirements Ranking and Serving Parental Involvement Set-asides Maintenance of Effort Comparability Supplement Not Supplant SES/Choice Equitable Services
31
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
Title I Basics• Title I, Part A is a State-administered
program• ED grants funds to States based on
statutory formulas• State grants funds to LEAs based on
statutory formula• LEA allocates funds to schools based
on ranking and serving 32
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
Title I Basics (cont.)
33
•Allocations are based on poverty levels
•Service is based on academic need
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
Program Design
• Two models of Title I, Part A program:1. Targeted Assistance2. Schoolwide
34
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
Targeted Assistance: Focus on Identified Students• Identify “Title I students” and provide
with supplemental services
• Ensure Title I $ solely used to benefit identified students
• For schools ineligible or choose not to operate schoolwide
35
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
Who is a Title I student?
Students identified as failing or at risk of failing State standards: NOT based on poverty!
36
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
Eligible Title I students• Student eligibility is based on:•Multiple • Educationally related •Objective criteria •Developed by LEA
• If preschool - grade 2, judgment of teacher, interviews with parents, and other developmentally appropriate means 37
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
Automatically Eligible If student in the previous 2 years received services in
Head Start Even Start Early Reading First or Migrant Part C
If the student is currently eligible under Neglected and Delinquent or Homeless
Migrant (not receiving Part C services), IDEA and LEP students are eligible on the same basis as any other student
38
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
Recordkeeping
• Records must be maintained that document that Part A funds are spent on activities and services for only Title I, Part A participating students
39
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
Schoolwide Programs• Combine Federal, State, and local programs
(sometimes funds) to upgrade the entire educational program• However, in most States the SEA must approve
consolidation!• All students in schoolwide schools may be served by Title I employees• Pre-requisite: 40% poverty• TAS by default, unless this threshold is met
40
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
Ranking and Serving Schools Under Section 1113
41
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
Eligible School Attendance Areas•Percentage of children from low-income
families who reside in area . . . AT LEAST AS HIGH AS . . . •Percentage of children from low-income
families in LEA• LEA has flexibility to serve any school
attendance area with at least 35% poverty – even if percentage is lower than average of LEA
42
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
Eligible School Attendance Areas
•Residency Model
OR
•Enrollment Model43
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
Ranking and Serving • Exceeding 75% poverty• Strictly by poverty•Without regard to grade span
•At or below 75% poverty•May rank by grade span
Serve strictly in order of rank! 44
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
Allocation to Schools
•After set-asides •Allocate to schools based on total # of low income residing in area (including nonpublic)•Discretion on amount of PPA•Higher PPAs must be in higher schools on ranked list•No regard to SWP or TAS 45
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
Exception: Rank & Serve• “Skip” school, if:
1. Comparability met2. Receiving supplemental State/local
funds used in Title I-like program3. Supp. State/local funds meet or
exceed amount would be received under Title I
• Still count and serve nonpublic in area 46
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
Parental Involvement
47
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
Parental Involvement Overview•Annual meeting• Involvement in planning, review and
improvement of Title I programs•Provide parents timely information
about Title I programs•Coordinate with other programs,
parent resource centers 48
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
Parental Notifications
• Annual LEA report cards • Parents “right to know” of teacher qualifications• Highly qualified teacher status• Achievement levels on State academic assessments• School improvement status• School Choice notice as a result of school
improvement status• Supplemental educational services as a result of
school improvement status • Schoolwide program authority 49
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
Parental Involvement Policies
• LEA parental involvement policy• School parental involvement policy• School/Parent compact
50
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
Parental Involvement•1% of LEA’s Title I allocation•95% of 1% to schools•LEA may keep anything over 1% for LEA-level parental involvement•Private school portion based on entire amount
51
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
52
Other LEA Set-Asides;
Maintenance of Effort,
Comparability and Supplement Not
Supplant
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
LEA Reservations of Title I Funds•20% Choice transportation & SES•5% Teacher & paraprofessional
qualifications???? •1% Parental involvement•10% Professional development (if LEA
identified)
53
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
1% Parent Involvement
•Reserve at least 1%•95% of 1% to schools• If reserve >1%, still only need to distribute 95% of first 1% to schools•But ALL reserved subject to equitable participation for private school students
54
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
10% Professional Development• If the LEA is identified for improvement.• May include any teachers that serve Title I
students at some point during the day
• “Title I funds cannot be used to pay for professional development of staff who do not serve any Title I students at some point during the school day.”• Ray Simon guidance letter (2004)
• Question: Include teachers who do not serve any Title I students if there is no additional cost to the Title I program?
55
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
LEA Reservations (cont.)No % specified Administration (public & private) Private school students Homeless
To serve students in non-Title I schools Neglected & Delinquent (N&D)
To serve students in N&D institutions or day facilities
Incentives to teachers in ID’d schools (< 5%) Professional development “Other authorized activities”
56
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
If No % Specified• “Necessary and reasonable” amount• Example: Administration•Government Accountability Office
found national average is around 10%• Example: Homeless• Shelter counts•Match McKinney-Vento subgrant
57
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
Maintenance of Effort
•Most Directly Affected by Declining Budgets
58
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
MOE• 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
59
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
MOE: Preceding Fiscal Year•Need to compare final financial data•Compare “immediately” PFY to
“second” PFY • EX: To receive funds available July 2009,
compare 2007-08 school year to 2006-07 school year
60
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
MOE: Failure under NCLB
61
• 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
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
MOE: Waiver•USDE Secretary may waive if:•Exceptional or uncontrollable circumstances, such as natural disaster
OR•Precipitous decline in financial resources of the LEA 62
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
ED Waivers
•To State to Grant to LEAs
63
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
Comparability •How is this calculated and why does it matter?
Legal Authority:Title I Statute: §1120A(c)
64
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
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.” 65
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
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 66
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
Supplement Not Supplant
•Surprisingly Not Greatly Affected by Declining Budgets!
67
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
Supplement Not Supplant
•Federal funds must be used to supplement, and in no case supplant, State and local resources
68
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
“What would have happened in the absence of the federal funds??”
69
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
Auditors’ Tests for Supplanting
•OMB Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement
70
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
Auditors presume supplanting occurs if federal funds were used to provide services . . .
•Required to be made available under other federal, state, or local laws•Paid for with non-federal funds in prior
year•Same service to non-Title I students
with State/local funds 71
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
School Choice and Supplemental Educational
Services (SES)
72
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
73
Equitable Services for Private School Students
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
Consultation• LEA must provide “timely and
meaningful” consultation• Timely• Before the LEA makes any decisions•Meaningful • Genuine opportunity for parties to express their views• Views seriously considered 74
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
Consultation (cont.)Consultation must include:
1. How the LEA will identify the needs of eligible private school children
2. What services the LEA will offer 3. How and when the LEA will make decisions about the
delivery of services4. How, where, and by whom the LEA will provide
services 5. How the LEA will assess the services and use the
results of that assessment to improve Title I services6. The size and scope of the equitable services 7. The method or the sources of poverty data used 8. The services the LEA will provide to teachers and
families of participating private school children
• MUST Document Consultation was timely and meaningful!
75
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
Consultation must include: (cont.)
Discussion about use of 3rd Party Providers•Must consider private school officials’ views
– but LEA decides whether it will use 3rd Party Providers• If LEA says no, LEA must provide written
analysis of why officials’ opinion rejected•Must be a written record if private schools
want to appeal to SEA about LEA decision76
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
Consultation: Written Affirmation• LEAs must obtain written affirmation from
private school officials stating timely and meaningful consultation occurred• Signed by officials from each school
with participating children, or representative
• Send to SEA and maintain in LEA’s files
Example in Guidance77
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
Deriving Instructional Allocation
General Formula:• Based on number of:
1. Private school students 2. From low-income families3. Who reside in Title I-participating
public school attendance areas
78
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
Private school students also must get equitable share of some set-asides:
•Off the top for districtwide instruction•Off the top for parental involvement•Off the top for professional
development
79
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
Administrative Costs• Off the top!!• Before public and private school
allocations are calculated • LEA administrative costs for public and
private school program• Third party contractors (private
companies) administrative costs80
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
Agostini: Safeguards• Services may be on-site at private school,
with safeguards•Guidance: Need not remove religious
objects from room•Must have safeguards in place to
ensure NOT promoting religion•Neutral, secular and non-ideological
81
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
QUESTIONS??? 82
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
Disclaimer
This presentation is intended solely to provide general information and does not constitute legal advice.
Attendance at the presentation or later review of these printed materials does not create an attorney-client
relationship with Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC. You should not take any action based upon any information in this
presentation without first consulting legal counsel familiar with your particular circumstances.
83
Brus
tein
& M
anas
evit,
PLL
C
Recommended