Upload
charla-rice
View
213
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
CEP and WaiversHow New Initiatives Affect Federal Funding, Reporting, and
Accountability
Leigh Manasevit, [email protected]
Julia Martin, [email protected]
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLCSpring Forum 2015
Background on CEP
• Part of Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (Sec. 104(a))• CEP allows local educational agencies (LEAs) and
individual schools to bypass household applications for free and reduced-price meals and offer free meals to all students • Phased in starting in 2011; available in all States starting
in 2014
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 3
Who Can Participate?
• LEAs or schools that:•Meet a minimum of 40% “identified students”
determined eligible for free meals in the year prior to implementing CEP• Agree to serve free breakfast AND lunch to all students• Not collect free and reduced-price meal applications
from households in participating schools• Agree to cover any costs above federal reimbursement
amounts using non-federal funds
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 4
Who Can Participate?
• An LEA may participate in the CEP for all schools OR only for some schools.• 40% identified students minimum for eligibility can be
determined:• On a school-by-school basis• For a group of schools as a group
(not all must be above threshold)• For entire LEA as a whole
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 5
Who are “identified students?”
• Students “certified for free meals through means other than individual household applications”• Certified based on “direct certification” data from their/their families’
participation in:• Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) • Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)• Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR)• Head Start/Even Start• Programs for homeless (on local liaison’s list), runaway, and migrant youth• Non-applicants approved by local officials and identified through means other
than an application
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 6
How to Calculate ISP
• Identified students percentage (ISP) = (Total # of identified students)/(number of enrolled students)•“Enrolled students” = students who are enrolled in and attending schools participating in CEP, and who have access to at least one meal service daily (breakfast or lunch)• Not just CEP participating students
•Must be at least 40% to participate in CEP• May NOT round up: guidance says “a percentage of 39.98%, e.g., does
NOT meet the threshold”
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 7
How Expenses are Reimbursed
• Schools/LEAs receive reimbursement at federal free rate based on “claiming percentage” • Claiming percentage = ISP x multiplier•Multiplier set at 1.6 through school year
2014-15• HHFKA allows USDA to set it anywhere
between 1.3 and 1.6•May not exceed 100%• Remaining meals (equaling up to 100%)
reimbursed at federal paid reimbursement rates
8
CEP and ESEA
• National School Lunch Program data, especially free and reduced-price school meal data, is part of allocation calculations under a number of laws• This includes Title I of ESEA
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 10
Use of CEP Data
• ED: the “CEP percentage of identified students and direct certification data combined with household applications in non-CEP schools are all considered NSLP data under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act”• However, an LEA “may use another poverty data source” for a
school as long as that source is permitted under ESEA• May conduct own survey• though USDA guidance notes that CEP is supposed to reduce
burden
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 11
Data Surveys
• LEA may conduct its own survey to collect the equivalent of NSLP data, however:• Discouraged by ED/USDA• ED urges LEA to “give careful consideration” to decision (would
add burden)• May use the results for Title I purposes so
long as it is confident the survey data are accurate and used consistently• May not indicate that survey is required by
ED or USDA
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 12
Data Surveys
• LEA may use Title I funds to pay for a survey unless:• Similar surveys already being conducted for purposes of State law
(supplanting)• Examine “factual circumstances” within LEA to determine whether
use of Title I funds is necessary, reasonable, and allocable to Title I• E.g. does SNAP data not accurately represent school/LEA?
• Data used by other non-Title I programs • In this case, examine ways to share costs
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 13
Within-District Allocations
• For districts with both CEP and non-CEP schools, can use CEP data for within-district allocations under ESEA Sec. 1113(a)(5)• Use data from the prior year (so will be applicable in
second-year or later CEP schools)• ED: 2003 allocation guidance still generally
applies
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 14
CEP Data and Rank and Serve
•When an LEA has both CEP and non-CEP schools, must use a “common poverty metric” to rank schools and allocate funds• Common poverty metric must also then be used to
determine compliance with Title I comparability (see ED’s March 2015 guidance)
•ED suggests three methods of identifying a “common poverty metric”
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 15
CEP Data and Rank and Serve
• Suggested metric 1: multiply number of directly certified students in a school by 1.6 multiplier, then divide by the enrollment of school (provides approximation of free and reduced-price meal numbers)• Suggested metric 2: rank all schools (CEP and non-CEP) based solely on
percentage of students directly certified through SNAP (or other direct measure available annually for both CEP and non-CEP schools)• Suggested metric 3: apply 1.6 multiplier to number of students in CEP
and non-CEP schools who are directly certified (similar to metric 1, but yields a higher poverty percentage, meaning more schools may be Title I eligible)
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 16
CEP Data and Rank and Serve
• If an LEA is implementing CEP, or if all schools are using CEP, an LEA may use number of directly certified students only
• If application of the 1.6 multiplier results in more than one school at 100% poverty, LEA may take into consideration the direct certification percentage at each school for purposes of funding • Does not need to allocate same amount
• If an LEA groups CEP schools for purposes of eligibility/reimbursement, they do not need to be grouped for purposes of ranking
17
Data Collect Deadlines
• CEP reimbursement rate based on data collected April 1 of previous school year (unless LEA chooses to use count from earlier in grant cycle)• If CEP and Non-CEP data are collected at different times, three options:
• LEA can use CEP data from April 1 for CEP schools and NSLP data for non-CEP schools so long as both occur during same year• LEA can use count of NSLP applications and direct certification data accessed as
of approximately April 1• For Title I purposes only, LEAs using direct certification data can access that
data on approximately the same date it looks at other data for non-CEP schools
• LEA may not use older pre-CEP data to allocate funds
18
Private Schools
•Private schools are eligible to participate in CEP if they otherwise meet the eligibility requirements•But LEA may need to find new data
for determining need for equitable services, other items
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 19
CEP and Equitable Services
• LEA must identify method it will use to determine number of private school children from low-income families who reside in participating school attendance areas• Methods include:
• Using the same poverty measure used by LEA to count public school students (*guidance says this is preferred method*)• Using comparable poverty data from survey of private school families as
representative sample• Using comparable poverty data from another source• Applying low-income percentage of each participating attendance area to the
number of students (“proportionality”)• Using another measure of low income correlated with that used in public schools
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 20
CEP and Equitable Services
•Not every child in a private CEP school automatically generates Title I equitable services funds• ONLY students who live in a
participating public school attendance area would generate those funds
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 21
Within-State Allocations
•CEP data may be used in finalizing within-State allocations if:• ED’s list does not match State’s (due to, e.g., boundary
changes, charter schools, new schools, etc.)• State must derive estimate of Census poverty – can use CEP data if
State normally uses census poverty data• State combines allocation for small LEAs• May use direct certification data only, OR direct certification x 1.6
multiplier
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 22
CEP and Title I Reporting
• LEAs and SEAs must disaggregate data based on subgroup of economically disadvantaged students• And must offer school choice/SES
•ED: “for most LEAs, [school lunch] data, including CEP data, may be the best source to identify individual economically disadvantaged students”
23
CEP and Title I Reporting
•SEA can choose how to identify economically disadvantaged subgroup for purposes of Title I reporting/accountability:• Include only “identified students” directly
certified for poverty-based services like SES•Use survey data; or•Base reporting and accountability on all students
in a CEP school• In this case, “economically disadvantaged” subgroup is
same as “all students” subgroup• And all students then eligible for services based on
poverty24
CEP and Teacher Qualifications
• SEA must report on qualifications of teachers in schools in top and bottom quartiles• For a CEP school, an LEA may use either:• Direct certification data x 1.6 multiplier, or• Direct certification data only• In this case, must use counts from all schools
regardless of whether they participate in CEP
• Does not have to be the same method the LEAs uses to allocate funds
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 25
More CEP Resources
• USDA FNS: “Community Eligibility Provision: Guidance and Q&As”(memo SP16-2015)• ED: “Guidance: The CEP and Selected Requirements under
Title I, Part A” (March 2015)• FCC: Updated guidance letter on E-Rate for CEP participants
(November 21, 2014)• USDA: Proposed rule on CEP (November 4, 2013)
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 26
WAIVER STATES
42 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and California’s CORE districts
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 28
Waivers Withdrawn & Rejected
•Rejected:•California•Iowa
•Withdrawn: •North Dakota•Vermont
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 30
New (Potential) Waiver Application
•California: •Seeking limited waiver on using assessment for accountability•Would use graduation rates, attendance rates and assessment participation instead•Discussed by State Board but not yet formally submitted
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 31
“High Risk” & Revoked Waivers
“High Risk”:California’s CORE districts,
September 2014Revoked:
Washington, April 2014Failed to include student
achievement in teacher and principal evaluations
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 32
“High Risk” & Revoked Waivers
Oklahoma, August 2014Repealed Common Core and failed to
replace it with equally rigorous standards
Implemented more rigorous standards in October
Restored in November
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 33
Non-Waiver States
•Montana has not applied for a waiver•Nebraska has now applied
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 34
New Waiver
•New Hampshire•4 Districts will use pilot competency tests – not statewide assessments
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 35
Secretary Duncan
•2014 – 2015 transition year – teacher accountability•New 2015 - 2016 deadline teacher accountability –
student test scores•See Deborah Delisle Letter • http://www2.ed.gov/policy/eseaflex/secretary-letters/
cssoltr8212014.html
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC36
Teacher accountability
•Rep. George Miller (D-CA)• Former ranking Member of the House Committee on
Education and the Workforce• Supporter of Common Core and accountability; One of
the architects of NCLB• Believes a “smart pause” is needed before tying teacher
evaluations to Common Core-aligned tests
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 37
GAO Study on Waivers
•Senator Lamar Alexander (R–TN)•Representative John Kline (R–MN) •August 12, 2014 – requested study on •ED process • Issues for states•Accountability
•http://www.help.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=f9e1224c-21e6-4f1a-9602-ff4e361ac2dc&groups=Ranking
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 38
Waiver Renewal Guidance – November 13, 2014
•Waiver renewal through 2017-2018 school year•Some States can get expedited 4-year renewal
through 2018-2019•Applications due March 31, 2015• January deadline for States seeking expedited
renewal•New guidance document:
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/flex-renewal/flexguidrenewal2014.doc
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 39
Renewal Guidance (cont.)
Policy:•New plans to identify and intervene in low-performing schools •Beyond what the States have already implemented•Describe, in detail, what “rigorous interventions”
they are using in schools with the biggest achievement gaps
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 40
Renewal Guidance (cont.)
Policy:•States must:• Update list of priority/focus schools• Ensure that evaluation systems do not allow schools with
persistent achievement gaps to obtain highest ratings• Resolve any current implementation or non-compliance
issues, monitoring findings, high-risk status designations, and other conditions
•NO requirement that States show their waiver plans/interventions are working
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 41
Repealed Common Core
• Indiana (April, 2014)• Implemented standards very similar to Common Core
•Oklahoma (June, 2014)• Initially reverted to old standards, then implemented new
ones in October• South Carolina (May, 2014)•Using Common Core for 2014-2015• Adopted new standards in March for 2015-2016
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 43
Reconsidering Common Core
•Mississippi (March, 2015)• Passed legislation to review Common Core and make
recommendations by December•Missouri (July, 2014)• Reviewing Common Core and potentially revising for 2016-
2017•North Carolina (July, 2014)• Created a commission to review Common Core and make
recommendations for improvement•West Virginia (March, 2015)• State Dept. of Education will review Common Core this
summerBrustein & Manasevit, PLLC 45
Growing Pressure to Repeal
LouisianaGov. Bobby Jindal wants Common Core repealedJindal had suspended the use of PARCC exams, saying
Superintendent John White and the State board did not properly follow contracting procedures
However, a judge lifted Jindal’s PARCC suspensionJindal has now filed a lawsuit against ED and Sec. Duncan,
claiming that offering ESEA waivers and Race to the Top went beyond Duncan’s legal authority and coerced States into adopting Common Core
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 46
Growing Pressure to Repeal
New YorkMore than 62,000 residents signed onto an effort
creating a "Stop Common Core" ballot line to allow voters to voice their concerns about the state's new education standards
The ballot line received over 50,000 votes in the November election
New JerseyGov. Chris Christie has created a commission to
review the effectiveness of Common Core assessments, and the assessments now have less importance in teacher evaluations
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC47
Growing Pressure to Repeal
MontanaA bill has been introduced in the state Senate to repeal
and replace Common Core Wisconsin
Gov. Scott Walker has called for the legislature to repeal Common Core or make it optional for districts
UtahGov. Gary Herbert had the state attorney general
review the standards’ connections to the federal government – A.G. determined they were not illegally adoptedBrustein & Manasevit, PLLC 48
PDK/Gallup Poll on Education
•60% of Americans oppose Common Core – too restrictive for teachers•http://pdkintl.org/noindex/PDK_Poll_46.pdf
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 49
Common Core
•Growing Parent Opposition = High level of opt outs•New York•Colorado•Florida•New Mexico•North Carolina•Pennsylvania
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 50
Disclaimer
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, PLLC 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, PLLC 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.
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 53