Transcript Recovery Act: Overview - Osceola County School District

Title I, No Child Left Behind Act
American Recovery & Reinvestment Act
Federal Legislative/Executive Update
CHRISTOPHER PORTER, ESQ.
BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT
WWW.BRUMAN.COM
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
1
Overview
• Federal Legislative/Executive Update
• School Improvement Grant Funds (FY 09-10 and
ARRA)
• ARRA Competitive Grants
– Race to the Top Funds
– Innovation Grant Fund
– State Longitudinal Data Systems
• Title I FY 09-10/Title I ARRA Developments
• ARRA Reporting
• Student Achievement and School Accountability
(SASA) Program Monitoring
• Office of Inspector General Audit Developments
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
2
Federal Legislative/Executive Update
• No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
Reauthorization
• American Recovery & Reinvestment Act
(ARRA) Effect on NCLB Reauthorization
– State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (Phase II App.)
• FY 2010-2011 Appropriations Allocations
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
3
ESEA Reauthorization in 2007
• House Draft Bill imploded for many reasons
– Urgency prior to 2008 elections
– Tarnished brand in Congress – Critics from left and
right
• Republicans – loss of State/local control
• Democrats – funding issues/sanctions
– Complexity of House Discussion Draft identification
schema – multiple measures convoluted
– Complexity of House Discussion Draft intervention
schema – tiering of schools (high-priority vs. lowpriority schools) convoluted
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
4
ESEA Reauthorization in 2007
• House Draft Bill imploded for many reasons
(cont.)
– Post-9/11 bipartisanship long gone
– Democratic Majority in Congress
– Union antagonism toward teacher effectiveness
provisions
– Pushback from State Educational Agencies/Governors
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
5
ESEA Reauthorization: Two Years Later
• Evolution of data systems and growth
models
• Progress (some) with school turnaround
• Change in union leadership and strategy
• Democratic Administration and Congress
and subsequent political strategies
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
6
ESEA Reauthorization: Recovery Act
• Is ARRA a “pre-authorization” reform model that will
drive ESEA reauthorization?
• 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 be able to champion the debate
and bring Congress along in the fall/spring?
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
7
ESEA Reauthorization: Recovery Act
SFSF Phase I Application Assurances
• Make improvements in teacher effectiveness and in the
equitable distribution of qualified teachers for all
students, particularly students who are most in need;
• Establish pre-K-to-college-and-career data systems that
track progress and foster continuous improvement;
• Make progress toward rigorous college- and careerready standards and high-quality assessments that
are valid and reliable for all students, including limited
English proficient students and students with disabilities;
and
• Provide targeted, intensive support and effective
interventions for the lowest-performing schools.
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
8
Recovery Act and Current ESEA Structure
• Section 1111 - accountability systems
– Evolving State standards based accountability
system.
– Role of common / national standards?
– 100% grade level proficiency by 2013-2014? Will
growth model pilots wean Congress away from this
date?
• Section 1116 – interventions
– Impact on choice and SES and cascading
interventions?
• Will innovation in “turnaround” and better data and
growth models affect intervention schema?
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
9
Recovery Act and Current ESEA Structure
Early
Learning
K - 12
Higher
Education
Standards &
Assessments
Effective Teachers &
Leaders
Data Systems
Struggling Schools
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
10
Recovery Act and Current ESEA Structure
• In addition to program changes, there
may be fiscal changes
– Re-examine comparability
• Title VII of ARRA – requires reach LEA to file a
school-by-school listing of per pupil
expenditures by 12/1/09
– Reconsider the fundamental structure of
Federal fiscal support
– Is the 1965 ESEA model appropriate to the
contemporary education reform focus?
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
11
Reauthorization and the SFSF:
Phase II Application
• “[ED] proposes specific data and information
requirements that a State receiving funds…must
meet with respect to statutory assurances.” (7/29/09
Federal Register).
• “[ED intends] to use the data information collected in
assessing whether a state is qualified to participate
in and receive funds from other reform oriented
programs administered by the Department." (7/29/09
Federal Register).
• Comments were due 8/28/09.
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
12
Reauthorization and the SFSF:
Phase II Application
• Application requires metrics that include 3
descriptors and 30 indicators
– Of the 30 indicators, nine request confirmation on
existing information. It will be pre-populated.
– Of the 21 new indicators, eight are yes/no
questions.
• “The beauty of SFSF is that everyone can be
a winner.” Ann Whalen, Special Assistant to
the Secretary, August 4, 2009.
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
13
Reauthorization and the SFSF:
Phase II Application
• State plan (submitted to USDE) must detail :
– current and planned ability to collect the data needed
for proposed assurance indicators and descriptors,
including the status of the State’s current ability to
make the data or information available to the public
OR
– If the State cannot collect or report the data, the plan
must describe the process and timeline for developing
and implementing the means to do so…
no later than September 30, 2011.
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
14
SFSF Phase II: Achieving Equity in Teacher
Distribution [8]
• States and districts will need to collect,
publish, and analyze basic information about
how districts evaluate:
– Teacher and principal effectiveness and
– How districts distribute their highly qualified and
effective teachers among schools.
• Principals play a critical role in teaching and
learning.
– “It is important to highlight inequities that result in lowincome and minority students being taught in schools
overseen by ineffective principals at higher rates than
other students.”
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
15
SFSF Phase II: Teacher Distribution
[6 indicators and 2 descriptors]
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
16
SFSF Phase II: Data [2 indicators]
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
17
SFSF Phase II: Standards and Assessments
[13 indicators]
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
18
SFSF Phase II: Supporting Struggling Schools
[9 indicators]
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
19
Recovery Act: Funding Timeline
Leading to Reauthorization?
•
State Stabilization, phase 2: Sept./Oct - $16.1 billion (33%)
•
IDEA, Parts B & C: Sept. 1 - $6.1 billion (50%)
–
•
Update: The remaining 50%, accelerated and to be available to all states on or around
September 1.
Title I, Part A: Sept. 1 - $5 billion (50%)
–
Update: The remaining 50%, accelerated and to be available to all states on or around
September 1.
•
Title I School Improvement Grant (ARRA and FY 09-10): January 2010 $3 billion (100%)
•
Vocational Rehabilitation: Sept. 1 - $270 million (50%)
–
Update: The remaining 50%, accelerated and to be available to all states on or around
September 1.
•
Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems: Late 2009/Early 2010 - $250
million (100%)
•
Teacher Incentive Fund: Early 2010, $200 million (100%)
•
Teacher Quality Enhancement: Oct./Nov. 2009, $100 million (100%)
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
20
Recovery Act: Funding Timeline
Leading to Reauthorization?
•
State Stabilization, phase 2: Sept./Oct….Dec., $16.1 billion (33%)
•
IDEA, Parts B & C: Sept. 1, $6.1 billion (50%)
–
•
Update: The remaining 50%, accelerated and to be available to all states on or around
September 1.
Title I, Part A: Sept. 1, $5 billion (50%)
–
Update: The remaining 50%, accelerated and to be available to all states on or around
September 1.
•
Title I School Improvement Grant : January 2010 (?), $3 billion (100%)
•
Enhancing Education Through Technology: July 24, $650 million
(100%)
•
Vocational Rehabilitation: Sept. 1, $270 million (50%)
–
Update: The remaining 50%, accelerated and to be available to all states on or around September 1.
•
Statewide Data Systems: Late 2009/ early 2010.…, $250 million (100%)
•
Teacher Incentive Fund: Early 2010, $200 million (100%)
•
Teacher Quality Enhancement: Oct./Nov., $100 million (100%)
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
21
ESEA Reauthorization: Congressional Strategy
• Original architects? Only Rep. George
Miller (D-CA) remains
• Vulnerable Democrats are strategic
– Success of Race to the Top
– Recovery Act accountability fatigue
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
22
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)
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
23
Rebuilding the Conventional Wisdom in DC
• Perspectives from Policy Experts
– “Congress should get rid of No Child Left Behind
because it is a failed law. It is dumbing down our
children by focusing solely on reading and
mathematics. By ignoring everything but basic skills,
it is not preparing students to compete with their
peers in the high-performing nations of Asia and
Europe, nor is it preparing them for citizenship in our
complex society. It has usurped state and local control
of education. Washington has neither the knowledge
nor the capacity to micromanage the nation’s
schools.”
Diane Ravitch, education historian and fellow at Brookings
Institution.
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
24
Rebuilding the Conventional Wisdom in DC
• Retain standards based accountability:
– “Standards-based reform works. The No Child Left
Behind Act has worked. We need fixes (not
weakening), and we need to make important next
steps. But before we listen to those whose failed
policies have not worked in the past telling us to kill
NCLB, let’s be very, very careful. That would be the
absolutely wrong move for our children, particularly
poor children and children of color.”
Sandy Kress, former senior advisor to President
George Bush.
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
25
ESEA Reauthorization Timeline
• In Congressional Committees
– Spring 2010?
• September 2010
– Over / Under?
• Political futures market
– https://www.intrade.com/
– http://www.biz.uiowa.edu/iem/index.cfm
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
26
Recovery Act Funding
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
27
FY 2010-2011 Appropriations
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
28
School Improvement Grants
(NCLB, Sec. 1003(g) funds)
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
29
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
• Proposed Requirements in Federal Register (74 FR
43101) for FY 2009-2010 and ARRA funds – 8/26/09
• Comments due by 9/25/09
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
30
School Improvement Grants
(NCLB, Sec. 1003(g) funds)
• ED likely to merge ARRA 1003(g) and FY09 1003(g) into single
grant and delay release until Jan. 2010.
• ED seeks focus on same bottom 5% of schools. ED is seeking 4
Models:
1) Turnaround Model: New leadership, staff, plan.
2) Close/Consolidate Model: Close & enroll students elsewhere.
3) Restart Model: Restart under new organization.
4) Transformation Model: Comprehensive transformation.
• Planning is key: ED wants SEAs to develop turnaround zones,
special units in SEA to be entrepreneurial and responsible for this
effort.
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
31
School Improvement Grants
13,457 schools in some form of improvement status under
NCLB
4,941 schools in some form of restructuring status
(planning + implementation)
~3,200 schools in restructuring implementation
1,000 schools = ED’s annual target for turnarounds
673 schools = 5% of schools in some form of
improvement status
247 schools = 5% of schools in some form of
restructuring status
Current NCLB Definition of Struggling
Schools
 Title I schools that fail to make AYP for 2+
consecutive years are “in improvement”
 Schools that fail to make AYP after 4
years are in “corrective action”
 Schools that fail to make AYP after 5
years are “in restructuring”
(year 5 = planning year;
year 6 = implementation) and must do
one of the following:
 Close and reopen as charter
 Contract with private management
company
 Replace all or most staff
 State management, or
 Other major governance
restructuring that makes
fundamental reforms
[most common option taken]
Note: There are ~1,600 “dropout factory” schools that are
Title I eligible schools.
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
32
School Improvement Grants
 Schools enter restructuring at much higher rates
than they exit
1521 more schools entered restructuring
than exited restructuring over 3 years
– Illustrative data from a sample of ~14,540
schools*
– 4,289 schools were in restructuring at
some point in SY 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08
or 2008-09
14000
12000
10000
8000
–
Of those, 12% (503 schools) exited
restructuring at some point in SY 2006-07,
2007-08 or 2008-09
–
Of those, 67% (2,858 schools) entered
restructuring at some point in SY 2006-07,
2007-08 or 2008-09
6000
4000
2000
0
2006-07
2007-08
* Data from EDFacts; analyzed by OPEPD
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
33
School Improvement Grants
The Center in Education Policy (CEP) analyzed five states’ restructuring efforts and
found that they often choose the least prescriptive option: “other” (Option 5)
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
34
SFSF Phase II:
ED’s Proposed Definition of Struggling Schools:
Bottom 5% Based on Performance + Growth
 Draft Notice of Proposed Priority (NPP) on the State Fiscal
Stabilization Fund (SFSF) program proposes that each state define
struggling schools within the state, as follows:
 The bottom 5% of schools in school improvement, corrective action and
restructuring targeted for turnaround, closing or consolidation is defined by
the State, except that in so defining the State must consider:
– Both
the absolute performance of schools on State assessments in
reading/language arts and mathematics; and
– Whether
schools have made progress on those assessments (i.e., whether gains
on the assessment are equal to or greater than the average gains of schools in
the State on that assessment, in the all students category)

Add additional flexibility to allow SEA to create another eligibility category of
schools that include Title I eligible, but not participating, secondary
schools that are performing similarly or worse than bottom 5% of schools in
improvement, corrective action or restructuring

SEAs must have a plan in place by Sept. 30, 2011.
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
35
ED’s Tiered Approach
SFSF Meets SIG
Which schools will receive SIG funds?
There are three tiers of schools that are eligible for SIG funds:
Tier I: The state’s bottom 5% of Title I schools in improvement, corrective
action, or restructuring (or the state’s bottom 5 lowest-achieving Title I
schools, whichever is greater).*
Tier II: The state’s Title I eligible (but not necessarily participating) secondary
schools with equivalently poor performance as Tier I schools.
Tier III: [only for SEAs that have sufficient funding for all Tier I and II schools
and still have a surplus of SIG funds] Any state Title I school in
improvement, corrective action, or restructuring; SEAs will set exact criteria,
which could include rewards for schools with low absolute performance but
high growth rates over a number years, or the bottom 6–10% of Title I
schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring.
LEAs must prioritize their Tier I schools
(i.e., LEAs cannot apply for SIG funds solely for Tiers II or III)
* Draft Notice of Proposed Priority (NPP) on the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) program proposes that each state define
struggling schools within the state
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
36
Schools Receiving SIG Funds can
Select between 4 Different Models
Turnaround Model
Restart Model
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.
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.
Close/Consolidate Model
Transformation Model
Closing the school and enrolling the students who
attended the school in other, higher-performing schools
in the LEA.
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
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
37
Definition of SIG’s
Transformation Model
Under SIG’s transformation model, a school is required to implement all of the following four
strategies:
1) Developing teacher and school leader effectiveness.
A. Use evaluations that are based in significant measure on student growth to improve teachers’ and school leaders’
performance;
B. Identify and reward school leaders, teachers, and other staff who improve student achievement outcomes and
identify and remove those who do not;
C. Replace the principal who led the school prior to commencement of the transformation model;
D. Provide relevant, ongoing, high-quality job-embedded professional development
E. Implement strategies designed to recruit, place, and retain high-quality staff.
2) Comprehensive instructional reform strategies.
A. Use data to identify and implement comprehensive, research-based, instructional programs that are vertically
aligned from one grade to the next as well as aligned with State academic standards; and
B. Differentiate instruction to meet students’ needs.
3) Extending learning time and creating community-oriented schools.
A. Provide more time for students to learn core academic content by expanding the school day, the school week, or the
school year, and increasing instructional time for core academic subjects during the school day;
B. Provide more time for teachers to collaborate,
C. Provide more time for enrichment activities for students
D. Provide ongoing mechanisms for family and community engagement.
4) Providing operating flexibility and sustained support.
A. Give the school sufficient operating flexibility (including in staffing, calendars/time, and budgeting) to implement fully a
comprehensive approach to substantially improve student achievement outcomes; and
B. Ensure that the school receives ongoing, intensive technical assistance and related support from the LEA, the SEA,
or a designated external lead partner organization (such as a school turnaround organization or an EMO).
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
38
SEA Role
1) Identify Tier I and Tier II schools in the State
2) Determine Tier III criteria
3) Establish criteria related to the overall quality of the LEA’s application and to the
LEA’s capacity to implement fully and effectively the required interventions
–
Must include the extent to which the LEA analyzed the needs of the school and matched an
intervention to those needs; the design of the interventions; whether the interventions are part of a
long-term plan to sustain gains in student achievement; the coordination with other resources; and
whether the LEA will modify its practices, if necessary, to be able to implement the interventions
fully and effectively
–
If an LEA lacks the capacity to implement one of the four interventions in each of its Tier I schools,
the SEA would adjust the size of the LEA’s SIG accordingly.
–
Ensure that an LEA with nine or more Tier I and Tier II schools does not implement the same
model in more than 50% of those schools.
4) Monitor the LEA’s implementation of interventions in and the progress of its
participating schools
5) Hold each Tier I and Tier II school accountable annually for meeting, or being on
track to meet, the LEA’s student achievement goals
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
39
LEA Role
LEA would be required to:
1) Serve each of its Tier I schools, unless the LEA demonstrates that it lacks
sufficient capacity or sufficient funds
2) Implement one of the four models in Tier I and Tier II schools it has the
capacity to serve
– An LEA with nine or more Tier I and Tier II schools may not implement the same
model in more than 50% of those schools.
3) Provide adequate resources to each Tier I and Tier II school it commits to
serve in order to implement fully one of the four proposed interventions
4) Serve Tier I schools before it serves Tier III schools
5) Establish three-year student achievement goals in reading/language arts
and mathematics and hold each Tier I and Tier II school accountable
annually for meeting, or being on track to meet, those goals
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
40
Proposed Flexibility
 LEAs serve the number of Tier I and Tier II schools they has the capacity to
serve
 Tier I and Tier II schools - SIG funds are not “capped”, but instead receive
amount need to successfully implement
 Waivers
 Turnaround or restart schools could receive waivers to permit the school
to “start over” under NCLB’s school improvement timeline and waive the
choice/SES NCLB provisions.
 SEAs and LEAs will receive waivers to expend the funds over three
years.
 LEAs may receive a waiver to serve Tier II schools
 LEAs may receive waivers to enable Tier I schools that are operating
targeted assistance programs to operate a schoolwide programs
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
41
Proposed Reporting and Evaluation
 For schools receiving SIG funds, SEAs will be required to
report annual, school-level data on outcome measures and
leading indicators
 ED is planning a multi-year evaluation of SIG grantees to
generate knowledge for the field and to help these schools
improve their performance over time.
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
42
Proposed Reporting and Evaluation
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
43
SIG Comments
Comments due by 9/25/09
To submit comments on our Notice of
proposed requirements, go to
www.regulations.gov
or
send your comments via postal mail,
commercial delivery, or hand delivery.
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
44
Race to the Top Funds
• As Secretary Duncan framed it at the
kickoff event on Friday July 24, it is an
education “moon shot.”
– “It is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, and
this Department will not pass that up.”
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
45
Race to the Top Funds
• $4.3 billion for the race to the top fund, the
state incentive grant fund in the statute.
• Competitive grant designed to encourage
and reward states that are implementing
significant education reforms across the four
core reform / assurance areas.
– Implement standards and assessments,
– improving teacher effectiveness and achieving equity
and teacher distribution,
– improving collection and use of data, and
– supporting struggling schools.
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
46
Race to the Top Funds
• States providing 50% of the grant to
participating LEAs based on the
relative shares of funding under Part A
of Title I as required by section
14006(c).
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
47
Race to the Top Funds
• Phase 1: open in late calendar year 2009.
– Fall 2009 – notice inviting applications available
– Two months later applications from the states are due
– First-half 2010 winners announced for phase 1 and feedback
for those who did not win.
• Phase 2: open in late spring of 2010.
– Application deadline for phase 2, spring 2010
– Winners announced for phase 2, Sept. 2010
• States that apply in phase 1 but not awarded grants may
reapply in phase 2, together with first time States.
• States apply individually and collaboration will be rewarded
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
48
RTT: Priorities, requirements & criteria
• The Federal Register notice of July 29, 2009
provides:
– Proposed priorities
– Requirements
– Selection Criteria
• ED expects to set “a high bar on both state reform
conditions and reform plan criteria.” (74 FR 37804).
• Comments were due August 28, 2009.
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
49
RTT: Proposed Priorities
• Five proposed priorities for the
competition
– Priority 1 is absolute (the state must address
this in the application).
– Priority 2 is a competitive preference priority
(May earn points and use as tiebreaker).
– Priorities 3-5 are invitational priorities. (No
points are awarded, USED encourages).
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
50
RTT: Proposed Priority 1
Priority 1: Absolute Priority –
Comprehensive approach to the four
education reform areas.
• How State & participating districts will use
the funds for comprehensive and coherent
policies and practices designed to
increase achievement and reduce the gap
as measured by the National Assessment
of Education Progress (NAEP).
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
51
RTT: Proposed Priority 2
Priority 2: Competitive preference priority
– emphasis on STEM.
– Offering rigorous course of study in STEM
– Cooperation with industry experts and
resources
– Prepare more students for advanced study &
careers in STEM, including addressing needs
of underrepresented groups and women and
girls.
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
52
RTT: Proposed Priorities 3-4 – “Invitational”
Priority 3: Data Interoperability
• Expanding statewide longitudinal data systems to
include or integrate data from special-education, limited
English proficiency, early childhood, human resources,
finance, health, postsecondary, and other relevant areas.
Priority 4: Program interoperability
• Pre-K-20 coordination and vertical alignment
• How to address early childhood programs, K-12,
postsecondary institutions, and workforce organizations
to create a more seamless P-20 route for students.
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
53
RTT: Proposed Priority 5: invitational
• Priority 5
– School level conditions for reform and
innovation that include flexibility and
autonomy for:
• Staff selection
• New structures and formats in the school
• Budget flexibility and management
• Promotion based on credit not on time, and
provision of comprehensive services to high
needs students
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
54
RTT: Requirements - Eligibility
1.
State must have an approved application under
both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of SFSF.
2.
State must not have “any” legal, statutory, or
regulatory barriers to linking student achievement
or student growth data to teachers for the purpose
of teacher and principal evaluation.
–
“One of the most effective ways to accurately assess teacher
quality is the measure growth and achievement of a teacher’s
student.” (p. 37806).
–
The capacity to tie teacher data to student achievement data is
“fundamental” to race to the top reforms and to the
requirement of ARRA that states take action to improve
teacher effectiveness. (p. 37806).
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
55
RTT: Requirements - Application
• Application must be signed by the Governor, State’s
Chief School Officer, and the president of the State
Board of Education.
• State must describe progress to date in each of the four
education reform areas, including how the state has
used other federal and state funding over the last several
years to pursue reforms in these areas.
• Provide financial data to compare percentage of total
revenues available to the State used to support
education (elem., secondary and public high ed.) in
FY2009 and FY2008.
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
56
RTT: Requirements - Application
• Provide a detailed plan for the use of the grant funds
for each reform plan criterion that includes seven
express elements.
– Key activity is undertaken
– Goals and rationale for the activity
– Timeline for implementing
– The parties responsible for implement
– The resources they will use to support the activities (funding,
personnel, systems, etc.)
– States annual targets and, where applicable, alignment for the
four school years beginning with 2010 – 2011 school year
– Information requested as supporting evidence
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
57
RTT: Requirements - Application
• Submit a certification from the State
Attorney General … that the State’s
statements, descriptions, and conclusions
concerning state law are accurate and
complete and reasonable.
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
58
RTT: Selection Criteria
• Two categories of selection criteria:
– State reform condition criteria (rewarding states
that have demonstrated the will and capacity to
improve education by creating a regulatory, statutory
atmosphere for reform) and
– Reform plan criteria (requires work with
participating districts across and within each of the
four education reform areas).
• Reminder – Annual report requires progress
with respect to performance measures and
annual targets.
– It must be “ambitious but realistic.”
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
59
RTT: Selection Criteria
Standards and Assessments
•
State reform condition criteria
– (A)(1), (2) Developing and adopting hiqh-quality common
standards and assessments
• A State's responses to SFSF Phase 2 application may contain
information responsive, in part, to this State Reform Conditions
Criterion, to which the State may refer and incorporate in its Race to the
Top application (specifically regarding State Assessments and USDE
approval)
•
Reform plan criteria
– (A)(3) supporting transition to enhanced standards and high
quality assessments
• A State's responses to proposed SFSF Phase 2 application, Indicators
(c)(1)-(c)(13) and Descriptor (c)(1) may contain information related to
this Reform Plan Criterion.
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
60
RTT: Selection Criteria
Data Systems
• State reform condition criteria
– (B)(1) fully implementing a statewide
longitudinal data system.
• The State's responses to proposed Indicator (b)(1)
and requirements II.c.1.A and II.c.1.B.(i-iii) in its
Stabilization program Phase 2 application may
contain responsive information… to which the
State can refer and build upon.
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
61
RTT: Selection Criteria
Data Systems
• Reform plan criteria
– (B)(2) accessing and using state data
– (B)(3) using data to improve instruction
• A State's responses to proposed Indicator (b)(2)
and requirements II.c.2.A and II.c.2.B(i-iii) in its
SFSF Phase 2 application may contain information
related to [these] Reform Plan Criterion, to which
the State can refer and build upon in its Race to
the Top application.
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
62
RTT: Selection Criteria
Teachers and Leaders
•
State reform condition criteria
– (C)(1) providing alternative pathways for aspiring teachers
and principals
•
Reform plan criteria
– (C)(2) differentiating teacher and principal effectiveness
based on performance
• Cross reference with State's responses to proposed Indicators (a)(2) and
(a)(5) and Descriptors (a)(1) and (a)(2) in its SFSF Phase 2 application.
– (C)(3) ensuring equitable distribution of effective teachers
and principals
• Cross reference State's response to proposed Indicator (a)(1) in its SFSF
Phase 2 application.
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
63
RTT: Selection Criteria
Teachers and Leaders
• Reform plan criteria
– (C)(4) reporting the effectiveness of teacher
and principal preparation programs
• Annual targets liking student's achievement data to
the student's teachers and principals and linking this
information to the programs where each of those
teachers and principals was prepared for
credentialing.
– (C)(5) providing effective support to teachers
and principals
• high-quality plan to use “rapid-time” student data to
inform and guide the support provided to teachers and
principals … in order to improve the overall
effectiveness of instruction.
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
64
RTT: Selection Criteria
School Turnaround
•
State reform condition criteria
– (D)(1) intervening in the lowest performing schools
and districts
– (D)(2) increasing the supply of high-quality charter
schools
• Cross reference with a State's responses to proposed Indicator
(d)(6) in its SFSF Phase 2 application
•
Reform plan criteria
– (D)(3) turning around struggling schools
• Cross reference with a State's responses to proposed Indicators
(d)(3)-(d)(5) in its SFSF Phase 2 application.
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
65
RTT: Selection Criteria
Overall Criteria
•
State reform condition criteria
– (E)(1) Demonstrating significant progress in the four
education reform areas, use of federal funds to promote these
reforms, creative law or policy favorable to reform and
innovation, increase student achievement and decreased
achievement gap as measured on NEAP.
– (E)(2) Making education funding a priority, providing the
percent of total revenues used to support elementary,
secondary, and public higher education in FY09 compared to
FY08.
– (E)(3) Enlisting statewide support and commitment that
includes a memoranda of understanding which must be, at a
minimum, signed by the LEA superintendent, the president of the
local school board, and the local teachers union (if applicable).
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
66
RTT: Selection Criteria
Overall Criteria
•
Reform plan criteria
– (E)(4) Raising achievement and closing gaps
• Targets for increasing student achievement results overall and by
students subgroups in reading and math as reported on NAEP.
• Annual targets for increasing graduation rates overall and by
student subgroup.
– Cross reference with a State's responses to proposed Indicator (c)(11) in its
Stabilization program Phase 2 application that may contain information related to
this Reform Plan Criterion.
– (E)(5) Building strong statewide capacity to implement,
scale, and sustain proposed plans
• The extent to successful administration, disbursement of funds,
supporting its success, leveraging in-state and out-of-state
economic, political and human capital resources.
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
67
RTT: Key definitions
• “Effective” teacher / principal
– Students demonstrate (overall/each subgroup) at least one
grade level growth per academic year
• “Highly effective” teacher / principal
– Students demonstrate (overall/each subgroup) more than one
grade level growth per academic year
• “Persistently lowest performing schools”
• “High Need LEA”
– One or more high poverty school (highest quartile in State by
poverty level)
• “Rapid Time” Data & “Formative Assessment”
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
68
What Works and Innovation Fund
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
69
What Works and Innovation Fund
Up to $750 million in competitive grants to:
(a) Local educational agencies (LEAs), and
(b) Partnerships between a nonprofit organization and one
or more LEAs or a consortium of schools
For the purposes:
1. Expand their work and serve as models of best practice
2. To allow eligible entities to work in partnership with
private entities and the philanthropic community
3. Identify and document best practices that can be shared
and taken to scale.
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
70
What Works and Innovation Fund
• Eligibility Requirements
 Have significantly closed achievement gaps
 Exceeded State’s AMOs for 2 or more
consecutive years (could be an issue for larger
districts)
 Significant improvement in others areas
such as graduation rates or HQT
 Demonstrated effectiveness in partnerships w/
private sector & non-profit entities
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
71
What Works and Innovation Fund
How Many Grantees?
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
72
State Longitudinal Data Systems
• Funding – Up to $245 million total under
ARRA in competitive grants
• Grants (to SEAs only) will range from $2
million to $20 million
• Applications due November 19, 2009
• SEA must submit an application that
addresses data system capabilities and
interoperability on a statewide level
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
73
Title, Part A Issues
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
74
Title I Waivers
•
Big Issue – Set-asides; per-pupil expenditure
requirements
•
Waivers under current ESEA section 9401 are
available.
•
ED invited interested SEAs to apply, on behalf
of its LEAs, for a waiver of one or more of the
statutory requirements.
•
SEA must then require written waivers from
LEAs
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
75
Title I Flexibility – LEA waivers
• The waiver will allow an LEA, if it so chooses, to exclude some or
all of its Title I, Part A, ARRA funds in calculating the set-aside
amounts.
– An LEA’s obligation to spend an amount equal to at least 20% of its
fiscal year (FY) 2009 Title I, Part A, Subpart 2 allocation on
transportation for public school choice and on SES (ESEA section
1116(b)(10); 34 C.F.R. § 200.48).
– The responsibility of a school in improvement to spend 10% of its Title
I, Part A funds on professional development (ESEA section
1116(b)(3)(A)(iii); 34 C.F.R. § 200.41(c)(5)).
– The responsibility of an LEA in improvement to spend 10% of its FY
2009 Title I, Part A, Subpart 2 allocation on professional development
(ESEA section 1116(c)(7)(A)(iii); 34 C.F.R. § 200.52(a)(3)(iii)).
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
76
Title I Flexibility – LEA waivers
• (Con’t.) LEA waiver to exclude some
or all of its Title I, Part A, ARRA funds
in calculating the set-aside amounts.
– The responsibility of an LEA to
calculate the per-pupil cap for SES
based on its FY 2009 Title I, Part A,
Subpart 2 allocation (ESEA section
1116(e)(6); 34 C.F.R. § 200.48(c)).
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
77
Title I Flexibility – LEA waivers
• Prohibition on an SEA’s ability to grant to
its LEAs waivers of the carryover
limitation more than once every three
years (ESEA section 1127(b)).
• Sec. may grant waivers of MOE for LEAs
under Section 9521(c) of the ESEA (for
individual program MOE requirements).
• Sec. may grant waivers of MOE for
States under Section 1125A(e) of the
ESEA.
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
78
Title I: Accounting & Transparency
School Level Expenditures
• Each LEA that receives Title I, Part A
ARRA funds must file with the SEA a
school-by-school listing of its per-pupil
educational expenditures from State and
local sources during the 2008-09 school
year by December 1, 2009. ARRA Title
VIII
• SEA must report to ED by March 31, 2010
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
79
School-by-school Listing
Per-pupil Educational Expenditures
• What are the requirements?
• ED published a notice of proposed
requirements on Sept. 2, 2009 (74 FR
45431) – Seeking expedited approval from
OMB of these requirements by Sept. 30,
2009
• Very burdensome reporting requirements
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
80
School-by-school Listing
Per-pupil Educational Expenditures
• Personnel salaries, including base salaries, incentive
pay, bonuses, and supplemental stipends for mentoring
or other additional roles, at the school level for all schoollevel instructional and support staff. The survey
classifications include:
– Instruction: Includes teachers and instructional aides.
– Support services – pupils: Includes guidance counselors, nurses,
attendance officers, speech pathologists, and other staff who provide
support services for students.
– Support services – instructional staff: Includes salaries for staff involved
in curriculum development, staff training, operating the library, media
and computer centers.
– Support services – school administration: Includes principals and other
staff involved in school administration.
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
81
School-by-school Listing
Per-pupil Educational Expenditures
• Personnel salaries at the school level for instructional
staff only.
• Personnel salaries at the school level for teachers only.
• Non-personnel expenditures at the school level (if
available), such as:
– Professional development for teachers and other staff
– Instructional materials and supplies
– Computers, software, and other technology
– Contracted services such as distance learning services
– Library books and media center learning materials
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
82
School-by-school Listing Per-pupil Educational
Expenditures: 5 State Sample
• In addition, ED will choose 5 States that
will be required to provide more data for
more in-depth analysis
• States not chosen yet by ED
• Personnel-level data
• School-level data
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
83
School-by-school Listing Per-pupil Educational
Expenditures: 5 State Sample
• Personnel-level dataset showing the following
information for each school staff member:
– School district name and NCES district ID code
– School assignment and NCES school ID code
– Job classification
– Base salary
– Other salary
– Benefits
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
84
School-by-school Listing Per-pupil Educational
Expenditures: 5 State Sample
• School-level dataset showing the following information
for each school:
– School district name and NCES district ID code
– School name & NCES school ID code
– Total expenditures – general education
– Total expenditures – special education
– Total state and local expenditures – general education
– Total state and local expenditures – special education
– Total expenditures from federal sources
– Title I expenditures
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
85
Title I ARRA– New ED Guidance
• ED released new Title I ARRA Guidance on Sept. 2, 2009 http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/guidance/titlei-reform.pdf
• Overview
– General Principles for Uses
– Determining Allowable Uses
– Standards and High-Quality Assessments
– Data Systems
– Increasing Teacher Effectiveness and Equitable Distribution of Effective
Teachers
– Turning Around Lowest-Achieving Title I Schools
– Improving Results for Students in Title I Schools
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
86
General Principles
• Avoid the Funding Cliff
• Examples:
– Programs that can be easily terminated after
2 years
• New teacher induction programs
• Intensive professional development
• Costs related to attracting effective teachers to
Title I Schools
• Conducting pilot programs that can be replicated in
the future
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
87
Allowable Uses of Funds – Specific Issues
• Supplement not Supplant Restriction and
the Presumptions:
– Activities required under Federal, State, and
local law
– Activities paid for in prior years with nonFederal funds
– Similar Activities provided to non-Title I and
Title I students
• Rebutting the Presumption
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
88
Allowable Uses of Funds – Specific Issues
• Be wary of using Title I ARRA for “off the
top” uses for Title I, district-wide uses
• Generally, general district-wide initiatives
are unallowable (ineligibility and
supplanting)
• LEAs may increase per-pupil allocations to
all Title I schools (within the ranking/
serving required under Sec. 1113(c))
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
89
Allowable Uses:
Additional Considerations
•
Drive results for students. Will the proposed use of funds drive improved results for
failing students
•
Increase capacity. Will the proposed use of funds increase educators’ long-term
capacity to improve results for Title I students?
•
Accelerate reform. Will the proposed use of funds advance SEA, LEA, or
participating Title I school improvement objectives and the reform goals
encompassed in the ARRA?
•
Avoid the “funding cliff” and improve productivity. Will the proposed use of funds
avoid recurring costs that SEAs, LEAs, and participating Title I schools are
unprepared to assume when the period of availability of the ARRA funds ends? Given
the current state of the economy, will the proposed use serve as “bridge funds” to
help transition to more effective and efficient approaches?
•
Foster continuous improvement. Will the proposed use of funds include
approaches to measure and track implementation and results and create feedback
loops to modify or discontinue strategies that evidence indicates are ineffective in
improving achievement of Title I students?
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
90
Allowable Uses:
Data Systems
• Hiring data experts to work with Title I staff in low-achieving Title I
schools to better analyze student data to improve instruction? YES
• A district-wide data system to track all student achievement? NO
• Develop a pilot system designed to identify and analyze data to
improve instruction for low-achieving students? YES
• Extended time for teachers in Title I schools to review data for at-risk
students and to identify effective intervention techniques? YES
• District-wide extended time for teachers? NO
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
91
Allowable Uses:
Increasing Teacher Effectiveness/Distribution
•
Financial incentives to attract and retain effective teachers to work in Title I
schools? YES
•
Financial incentives to recruit in hard-to-staff subjects such as math and
science? YES (but only for Title I schools)
•
Performance-based compensation program in Title I schools? YES
(including a pilot program)
•
If an LEA has a performance-based compensation program for all teachers,
can use Tit
•
Pilot program for induction for new teachers in Title I schoolwide schools?
YES
•
Stipends to teachers in a Title I school to participate in professional
development? YES (if reasonable)
•
Professional development for all instructional staff? NO
•
LEA in improvement to pay for professional development for all instructional
staff? YES
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
92
Allowable Uses:
Turn Around Lowest-Achieving Schools
• Additional Title I resources in lowest achieving Title I schools to
implement rigorous intervention to turn around achievement? YES,
but keep in mind ranking and serving and schoolwide vs. targeted
assistance – more appropriate for “off the top” activities to serve a
subset of low achieving schools
• Contracting with an outside organization (Charter Management
Organization or Education Management Organization) to implement
a rigorous intervention? YES, but only for a schoolwide program
• Community school model (a school with academics, health and
social services, community development, etc.)? YES, but only for a
schoolwide program
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
93
Recovery Act: Reporting and Accountability
Unique tracking & reporting
requirements required for
all ARRA funds.
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
94
Recovery Act: Reporting and Accountability
U.S. Department of Education
(ED) officials have made it
clear that they expect
unprecedented accountability
and reporting for the American
Recovery and Reinvestment
Act (Recovery) funds.
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
95
ARRA Reporting Overview
• Key reporting requirements:
– Section 1512 quarterly reporting applies to all
ARRA funds “recipients”
– Section 14008 ARRA SFSF annual reports
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
96
Sec. 1512 Quarterly Reporting
• Reporting applies to recipients and the Recovery
Act defines a “Recipient” in sec. 1512 as any
entity that receives Recovery Act funds directly
from the federal government.
• Prime recipients may delegate certain reporting
requirements to sub-recipients. If the reporting
is delegated to a sub-recipient, the delegation
must be made in time for the sub-recipient to
prepare for the reporting, including registering in
the system.
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
97
Sec. 1512 Quarterly Reporting: Structure
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
98
Sec. 1512 Quarterly Reporting Structure
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
99
Sec. 1512 Quarterly Reporting Structure
Planning is critical
• Has there been delegation of reporting
responsibility?
• If the reporting is delegated to a sub-recipient,
the delegation must be made in time for the subrecipient to prepare for the reporting, including
registering in the system.
• If not, prime recipients reporting for the subrecipients would complete all data elements.
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
100
Sec. 1512 Quarterly: Prime & Sub activities
• Register at Federalreporting.gov (both) Aug. 17 registration
opens.
– Must have received ARRA award
– Prime must have registered in CCR and DUNS. Sub-recipients need to
only register in DUNS.
– May have multiple people registered for a reporting entity.
– Need only register once for multiple awards.
• Report (has there been delegation?)
– 1 –10 days after end of Quarter: Enter reporting data into federal
reporting.gov
– May import completed provided “locked” MS-Excel template
– May use XML file conforming to Recipient Reporting XML Schema
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
101
Sec. 1512 Quarterly: Prime & Sub activities
• Register at Federalreporting.gov (both) Aug. 17 registration
opens.
– Must have received ARRA award
– Prime must have registered in CCR and DUNS. Sub recipients need to
only register in DUNS.
– May have multiple people registered for a reporting entity.
– Need only register once for multiple awards.
• Report (has there been delegation?)
– 1 –10 days after end of Quarter: Enter reporting data into federal
reporting.gov
– May import completed provided “locked” MS-Excel template
• Don’t mess with the templates! Final version may be complete by early Aug.
– May use XML file conforming to Recipient Reporting XML Schema
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
102
Sec. 1512 Quarterly: Prime & Sub activities
• Review – shared duty, BUT burden is
ultimately on the prime!
– 11–21 days after end of quarter
– Are there review “business rules” in place?
– Monitoring for redundancies?
– Prime cannot change the sub recipient data, but
reviews and comments.
• Correct
– 22-29 days after the end of Quarter
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
103
Sec. 1512 Quarterly Reporting: Timing
• OMB guidance states: initial statutory
reporting deadline is October 10, 2009,
with quarterly reports to be submitted by
recipients 10 days after the end of each
calendar quarter thereafter.
• Oct. 10 is a Saturday, but the deadline
does not shift to the next Monday.
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
104
Sec. 1512 Quarterly Reporting Duties
• Prime recipients that decentralize reporting at
the prime recipient level and/or delegate
reporting responsibilities to sub-recipients must
take special precautions to ensure coordinated
reporting.
• Prime recipients, as owners of the prime and
subrecipient data submitted, have the
responsibility for the quality of the information
submitted.
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
105
Sec. 1512 Quarterly Reporting Duties
• Prime must implement internal control measures as
appropriate to ensure accurate and complete
information.
– Avoid material omissions
– Avoid errors
• Sub-recipients delegated to report on behalf of prime
recipients share in this responsibility.
• Agencies funding Recovery Act projects and
activities provide a layer of oversight that augments
recipient data quality.
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
106
Sec. 1512 Quarterly Reporting Duties
• Internal control measures are key
– Data review protocol
– Cross-validation of data
– Establishing control totals
– Estimated distribution of expected data
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
107
Sec. 1512 Quarterly Reporting Liability
• Non-compliance with the reporting requirement is
considered a violation of the award agreement.
• The award term language is found in the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) in 2 CFR Part 176.50.
• The Awarding Agency (ED) may use any customary
remedial actions necessary to ensure compliance,
including withholding funds, termination, or suspension
and debarment, as appropriate.
• No waivers will be granted for any recipients required to
report under Section 1512 of the Recovery Act.
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
108
Sec. 1512 Quarterly Reporting Liability
• Federal agencies will perform data quality
checks. Will work to identify and remediate
instances in which:
– Recipients that demonstrate systemic or chronic
reporting problems
– Sub-recipients that demonstrate systemic or chronic
reporting problems
– Recipients that demonstrate systemic or chronic
deficiencies in reviewing and identifying sub-recipient
data quality issues
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
109
Sec. 1512 Quarterly: Prime Recipient Data Elements
Funding Agency Code
Project/Grant Period End Date
Funding Agency Name
Report Period End Date
Program Source (TAS)
Final Report
Award Number
Report Frequency
Recipient DUNS Number
Award Type
Recipient Marketing Partner Identification Number (MPIN)
Award Date
Recipient Type
Award Description
Solicitation/CFDA number
Amount of Award
Recipient Account Number
Project Name
Project/Grant Period Start Date
Project Status- Not started; Less than 50% completed;
Completed 50% or more; etc.
Project Description
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
110
Sec. 1512 Quarterly: Prime Recipient Data Elements
Description of Jobs Created/Retained
Primary Place of Performance – State
Number of Jobs
Primary Place of Performance-Location Code
Federal Expenditure
Primary Place of Performance-County Code
(optional)
Total Infrastructure Expenditure
Primary Place of Performance – Zip Code
Total Federal ARRA Expenditure
Primary Place of Performance Congressional District
Total Federal Non-ARRA Expenditure
Recipient Area of Benefit
Total Aggregate Amount of payments to vendors
under $25,000 (do not need to name vendor)
Total of Non-Federal Share of Expenditure
Payments to Vendors more than $25,000 (must
name vendor)
Infrastructure Rationale
Sub-awards to individuals
State/Local Contact Congressional District
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
111
Sec. 1512 Quarterly: Sub-Recipient Data Elements
Sub-Recipient Place of Performance
Sub-Recipient Congressional District (required)
Sub-Recipient Place of Performance-Location Code
Amount of Sub-Award
Sub-Recipient Place of Performance-County Code
(optional)
Sub-Award Date
Sub-Award Period Start Date
Sub-Recipient Place of Performance-ZIP Code
Sub-Recipient Place of Performance –
Congressional District
Sub-Award Period Start Date
Sub-Recipient Area of Benefit
Sub-Award Period End Date
Sub-Recipient DUNS Number
Sub-Award Number
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
112
Sec. 1512 Quarterly: Prime recipient data
elements
• Project Description
– Prime is responsible for reporting a statewide
view, not sub recipient project.
– For an award that funds multiple projects or
activities, such as a formula block grant, the
purpose and outcomes or results may be
stated in broad terms.
– “Description of the overall purpose and expected
outputs and outcomes or results of the award and
first-tier Subaward(s), including significant
deliverables and, if appropriate, units of
measure.”
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
113
Sec. 1512 Quarterly Reporting
Prime recipient data elements
• Description of Jobs Created/Retained
– Prime recipients are required to generate estimates of
job impact by directly collecting specific data from
sub-recipients and vendors on the total FTE
resulting from the sub-award
– Prime recipients will report the number created and
retained using a standard calculation, translating
both full and part time employees into “full-time
equivalents”, or FTEs, then adding the total hours
worked by all employees in the quarter, and dividing
by the total hours in a full-time schedule
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
114
Calculating Jobs Created
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
115
Sec. 1512 Quarterly Reporting:
Prime Recipient Data Elements
• Description of Jobs Created/Retained
– Gather information from the sub and first vendor level.
Prime collects directly from them.
– Prime may run statistical sample.
– Not seeking indirect job impact.
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
116
Sec. 1512 Quarterly Reporting: Prime recipient
Review
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
117
SFSF Annual Reporting Requirements
• For each year of the program, the State
receiving SFSF must submit a report describing
eight identified elements.
• As with Sec. 1512, the report requires a
description of the uses of funds and the number
of estimated jobs saved or created with the
funds.
• Unlike Section 1512 reporting, however, the
focus is less on recipient information, description
of activity, and evaluation of progress. It is
focused on the education assurances of the
SFSF.
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
118
SFSF Annual Reporting Requirements
• Specifically, the Section 14008 annual State report
must include, among the eight requirements, the
State’s progress in:
(1) The uses of funds
(2) State distribution the funds it received under this
title;
(3) The number of jobs that the Governor estimates
were saved or created with funds the State received
(4) Tax increases that the Governor estimates were
averted because of the availability of SFSF funds
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
119
SFSF Annual Reporting Requirements
• State Annual Reporting Requirements (cont.)
(5) State progress in reducing inequities in the distribution of highly
qualified teachers, in implementing a State longitudinal data system, and
in developing and implementing valid and reliable assessments for
limited English proficient students and children with disabilities
(6) Tuition and fee increases for in-State students imposed by public
institutions of higher education in the State
(7) Extent to which public institutions of higher education maintained,
increased, or decreased enrollment of in-State students, including
students eligible for Pell Grants or other need-based financial
assistance; and
(8) Description of each modernization, renovation and repair project
funded, which shall include the amounts awarded and project costs.
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
120
ED Promises More Guidance
• More Accountability and Reporting
Guidance is Pending
• All Guidance Must be Approved by
OMB
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
121
Resources & Questions
• United States Department of Education:
www.ED.gov/recovery
• OMB Webinar training materials:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/Recovery/WebinarTrai
ningMaterials/
• www.FederalReporting.gov
• Brustein & Manasevit, www.bruman.com
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
122
SASA Program Monitoring
• SASA now administers Titles I and III
• Monitoring Schedule for 2009-10
– 28 States
• Title I monitoring - 14
• Title III monitoring - 10
• Monitoring both Titles I and III - 4
• Florida – Title I only – Nov. 16-20, 2009
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
123
SASA Program Monitoring
• Common Recent Findings
– Instructional paraprofessional not working under the direct supervision of
an HQT
– Failure to properly use 1% for Parental Involvement activities
– Incomplete/Inadequate Schoolwide Program Plans
– Failure to include private schools in Parental Involvement and
Professional Development activities (or otherwise provide them)
– Failure to monitor use of equipment and materials in private schools
– Failure to properly identify eligible private school students
– Failure to properly supervise use of contractors for equitable services
– Unallowable use of Title I funds for screening ELLs for core language
instruction educational programs
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
124
OIG Audit Developments
• New Audit Findings for Title I, Part A Audits:
– Use of P-Cards without documentation to demonstrate
allowability
– Use of P-Cards in violation of State and district policy, such
as restrictions on types of purchases (food, small supplies)
and threshold amount
– Failure to supervise use of P-Cards
– Costs Incurred without State approval (over a certain
threshold amount)
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
125
OIG Audit Developments
• ARRA allocated $14 million to ED’s OIG
• OIG ARRA Audits of Title I ARRA
– Two formats – (1) Procedures and Process-driven audit and
(2) Follow-up audit based on actual expenditures
• Unusual to receive audit before the end of the period
of availability (Sept. 30, 2011)
• What will be the consequences? Repayment?
• OIG has selected SEAs and generally 3 LEAs within
that jurisdiction (1 small, 1 medium, 1 large)
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
126
OIG Audit Developments
• SEA Procedures and Process - Audit Findings
– Lack of Verification of Expenses by the SEA – failure to monitor
expenditures reported (total expenditures to date only required)
– Insufficient Monitoring of fiscal areas, such as internal controls over
financial recordkeeping, procurement, reporting, inventory and payroll
– Lack of Monitoring of LEA Interest Earned on Federal Funds
– Lack of Progress in Establishing Process and Controls to Ensure
Compliance with ARRA Reporting Requirements
– Written Agreements with State agencies delegating authority did not
properly delineate roles (between Governor’s office, SEA, other state
agencies, and LEAs)
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
127
OIG Audit Developments
• What will the Auditors ask?
• Topics include:
– Cash Management
 Differentiation between ARRA and non-ARRA Title I/IDEA funds
 SEA/LEA accounting codes
 Expenditures – Central level only or at the School level?
 P-Cards for ARRA funds?
 Tracking obligations
 Who actually draws down the funds?
 Forward funding or Reimbursement method for Federal funds?
 Policies, Procedures, Organizational charts
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
128
OIG Audit Developments
• More Topics:
– Data Quality
 Data regarding Program Effectiveness?
 Who is responsible for inputting financial information and creating financial
reports?
 Security within the system (screen locks, log-ins, etc.)
 How are the jobs created and saved being measured?
– Monitoring
 Is there formal monitoring (fiscal and programmatic)?
 Risk assessments
 Who monitors payroll expenditures?
 Policies for monitoring expenditure of ARRA funds?
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
129
OIG Audit Developments
• More Topics:
– Use of Funds
 LEA application for SFSF funds
 Are there policies to monitor supplement not supplant violations?
 Who sets up the account codes for tracking ARRA funds?
 ARRA initiatives (SFSF, Title I, and IDEA)
– Contracting/Procurement
 Policies and Procedures (sole source and small purchases especially)
 Staff training
 Hard copy or electronic system for requisitions, invoices, etc.? How quickly
does the system function?
 Competitive bidding?
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
130
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. You should not take any action
based upon any information in this presentation
without first consulting legal counsel familiar with
your particular circumstances.
September 17, 2009
bruman.com
131
Brustein & Manasevit
2009 Fall Forum on Federal Education
Grants Management
“TRANSPARENCY AND CHANGE: BALANCING STIMULUS
FUNDS, ESEA REAUTHORIZATION AND FEDERAL
GRANTS MANAGEMENT”
DECEMBER 3 & 4, 2009
PLANET HOLLYWOOD RESORT
Las Vegas, Nevada
Cost of Workshop: $650
For more information please contact:
Brustein & Manasevit
1-800-914-8212
[email protected]
www.bruman.com