Transcript OAASFEP Fall Coordinators Conference Columbus, OH October

WHAT TITLE I
REQUIREMENTS REMAIN IN
THE LAND OF THE WAIVER
INITIATIVE?
Leigh M. Manasevit, Esq.
Fall Forum 2012
www.bruman.com
[email protected]
1
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Waiver Resources
•Statute – NCLB Section 9401
•Guidance –
•Title I, Part A – July 2009
•Maintenance of Effort – See
program statutes
Brustein & Manasevit,
PLLC
2
NCLB – What can be waived?
•Allocation or distribution of funds to SEAs,
LEAs or other recipients of ESEA $
•Comparability
•Supplement not supplant
•Equitable services to private school students
•Parent involvement
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
The Secretary may grant a waiver of any ESEA
statutory or regulatory provision EXCEPT:
3
NCLB – What can be waived?
•Civil rights
•Maintenance of Effort
•Charter School requirements
•Use of funds for religion
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
The Secretary may grant a waiver of any
ESEA statutory or regulatory provision
EXCEPT:
4
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
June 28, 2011 Congressional Research
Service (CRS) Report on Secretary of
Education’s Waiver Authority
1. ED has the authority to waive
accountability provisions of Title I, Part A
2. It is unclear if Secretary can condition a
waiver on other action(s) not required by
law
5
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
ED
Announcement
on Waivers
6
•ED makes the announcement
•September 23, 2011 Letter to Chiefs
•NCLB became a barrier to reform:
opportunity to request flexibility
•State
•LEA
•Schools
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/s
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Waivers
7
• Flexibility in exchange for rigorous
and comprehensive state plans
• Improve educational outcomes
• Close achievement gaps
• Increase equity
• Improve instruction
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Letter
8
• 10 provisions subject to waiver
1. 2013-2014 timeline –
develop new ambitious AMO’s
1. School improvement consequences: LEA not required
to take currently required improvement actions in
Title I Schools
2. LEA improvement identification: not required to
identify for improvement LEA that fails 2 consecutive
years
3. Rural LEAs
• Small Rural School Achievement or Rural and Low
Income program
• Flexibility regardless of AYP status
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
“ESEA Flexibility”
September 23, 2011
9
5. Schoolwide
Operate as schoolwide regardless of 40% poverty
threshold if
• SEA identified as a priority or focus school with
interventions consistent with turnaround
principles
6. 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
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Waivers
10
8. HQT improvement plans
• LEA that does not meet HQT no longer must
develop an improvement plan
• Flexibility in use of Title I and 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
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Waivers
11
9. Transferability
• Up to 100%, same programs
10.SIG
• 1003g awards for any priority
school
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Waivers
12
•Optional #11
•21st Century Community Learning
Centers support expanded learning
time during school day
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Waivers
13
New Waiver #12
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
• No AYP determination
for LEAs or Schools
14
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
New Waiver #13
•LEA may serve Title I
eligible priority high
school with graduation
rate under 60% without
regard for rank and
serve???
15
New Waiver Not Numbered
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
• 11-12 assessment use 10-11 AMOs
• For waiver intent
16
1. College and Career Ready Standards –
Develop and Implement:
• Reading/Language Arts
• Math
• Aligned assessments measuring growth
• ELP assessment aligned to #1
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
“In Exchange for…”
Must meet 4 principles
17
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
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
“In Exchange for…”
18
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
• School Performance over time
• New AMOs (ambitious)
• State LEAs
• Schools
• Subgroups
• Incentives recognitions
• Dramatic systemic changes in lowest
performing schools
19
3. Effective Instruction/Leadership
• Commit to develop/adopt pilot and
implement
• Teacher/principal evaluation
systems
• Student Growth = “Significant
Factor”
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
“In Exchange for…”
20
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
4. Reduce duplication
“In Exchange for…”
and unnecessary
burden
21
1. Colorado
2. Florida
3. Georgia
4. Indiana
5. Kentucky
6. Massachusetts
7. Minnesota
8. New Jersey
9. Oklahoma
10.Tennessee
11.New Mexico
Granted
Granted
Granted
Granted
Granted
Granted
Granted
Granted
Granted
Granted
Denied
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Waivers Granted – Round 1
Granted
22
Round 2
Arkansas
Arizona
Connecticut
Delaware
Iowa
Idaho
Illinois
Kansas
Louisiana
Maryland
Michigan
Missouri
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mississippi
North Carolina
Nevada
New York
Ohio
Oregon
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
• Washington
• Wisconsin
• Washington, DC
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
/WITHDREW
23
Round 3 - Applied
•Alabama
•Alaska
•Hawaii
•Maine
•New Hampshire
•North Dakota
•Puerto Rico
•West Virginia
•Bureau of Indian Education
24
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
(45 State Approved or Requested)
• 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 funds
http://www.americanprogress.org/wpcontent/uploads/issues/2012/07/pdf/nochildwaivers_intro.p
df
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Center for American Progress
Report on Waivers- July 12, 2012
25
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-08-30/pdf/2012-21471.pdf
•Monitoring Protocol (Part 1 of 3)
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
•ED to Monitor Waivers SY 12-13
•Supplement Title I Monitoring
•Solicited Comment on Oversight
http://www.ed.gov/esea/flexibility
26
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
•Waivers, Vouchers, A
President Romney?
•Martin West, K-12
Advisor - Not Favored
27
BASIC
ESEA TITLE I, PART A
REQUIREMENTS NOT
SUBJECT TO WAIVER
28
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
General Program Requirements
Ranking and Serving
Parental Involvement
Set-asides
Maintenance of Effort
Comparability
Supplement Not Supplant
SES/Choice
Equitable Services
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Title I, Part A Topics
29
• 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
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Title I Basics
30
• Allocations are based on
poverty levels
• Service is based on
academic need
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Title I Basics (cont.)
31
• Two models of Title I, Part A program:
1. Targeted Assistance
2. Schoolwide
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Program Design
32
Targeted Assistance:
Focus on Identified Students
• Ensure Title I $ solely used to benefit
identified students
• For schools ineligible or choose not to
operate schoolwide
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
• Identify “Title I students” and provide
with supplemental services
33
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Who is a Title I student?
• Students identified
as failing or at risk
of failing State
standards: NOT
based on poverty!
34
• Students 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.
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Eligible Title I students
35
• 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
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Automatically Eligible
36
• Records must be
maintained that
document that Part A
funds are spent on
activities and services
for only Title I, Part A
participating students.
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Recordkeeping
37
• 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
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Schoolwide Programs
38
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Ranking and Serving Schools under
Section 1113
39
• 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
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Eligible School Attendance Areas
40
Eligible School Attendance Areas
OR
• Enrollment Model
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
• Residency Model
41
Ranking and Serving
• At or below 75% poverty
• May rank by grade span
Serve strictly in order of rank!
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
• Exceeding 75% poverty
• Strictly by poverty
• Without regard to grade span
42
•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
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Allocation to Schools
43
• “Skip” school, if:
1. Comparability met
2. Receiving supplemental State/local
funds used in Title I-like program
3. Supp. State/local funds meet or exceed
amount would be received under
Title I
• Still count and serve nonpublic in area
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Exception: Rank & Serve
44
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Parental Involvement
45
• 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
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Parental Involvement Overview
46
• 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
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Parental Notifications
47
• LEA parental involvement policy
• School parental involvement policy
• School/Parent compact
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Parental Involvement Policies
48
• 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
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Parental Involvement
49
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Other LEA Set-Asides;
Maintenance of Effort,
Comparability and
Supplement Not
50
Supplant
• 20% Choice transportation & SES
• 5% Teacher & paraprofessional
qualifications????
• 1% Parental involvement
• 10% Professional development (if LEA
identified)
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
LEA Reservations of Title I Funds
51
• 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
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
1% Parent Involvement
52
10% Professional Development
• “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?
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
• If the LEA is identified for improvement.
• May include any teachers that serve Title I
students at some point during the day
53
LEA Reservations (cont.)
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
• 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%)
54
Professional development
“Other authorized activities”
• “Necessary and reasonable” amount
• Example: Administration
• Government Accountability Office
found national average is around 10%
• Example: Homeless
• Shelter counts
• Match McKinney Vento subgrant
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
If No % Specified
55
Maintenance of Effort
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
• Most Directly Affected by
Declining Budgets
56
MOE
• From state and local funds
• From preceding year must not be less than
90% of the second preceding year
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
• The combined fiscal effort per student or
the aggregate expenditures of the LEA
57
• 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
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
MOE: Preceding Fiscal Year
58
MOE: Failure under NCLB
•Reduce all applicable NCLB programs, not
just Title I
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
•SEA must reduce amount of allocation in
the exact proportion by which LEA fails to
maintain effort below 90%
59
• USDE Secretary may waive if:
• Exceptional or uncontrollable
circumstances such as natural
disaster
OR
• Precipitous decline in financial
resources of the LEA
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
MOE: Waiver
60
•To State to Grant to
LEAs
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
ED Waivers
61
Comparability
Legal Authority:
Title I Statute: §1120A(c)
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
•How is this calculated and why does it
matter?
62
• 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.”
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
General Rule- §1120A(c)
63
Timing Issues
• 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
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
• Guidance: Must be annual determination
64
Supplement Not Supplant
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
•Surprisingly Not Greatly
Affected by Declining Budgets!
65
•Federal funds must be used to
supplement and in no case
supplant state and local
resources
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Supplement not Supplant
66
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
“What would have
happened in the absence
of the federal funds??”
67
Auditors’ Tests for
Supplanting
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
•OMB Circular A-133
Compliance Supplement
68
Auditors presume supplanting occurs if
federal funds were used to provide
services . . .
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
• Required to be made available under
other federal, state, or local laws
• Paid for with non-federal funds in prior
year
• Some service to non-Title I students 69
with state/local funds
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
School Choice and
Supplement Educational
Services (SES)
70
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Equitable Services for
Private School Students
71
• 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
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Consultation
72
 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 services
4. 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 services
6. 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!
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Consultation (cont.)
73
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 decision
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Consultation must include:
(cont.)
74
• 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
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Consultation: Written Affirmation
75
General Formula:
• Based on number of:
1. Private school students
2. From low-income families
3. Who reside in Title I-participating
public school attendance areas
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Deriving Instructional Allocation
76
• Off the top for districtwide instruction
• Off the top for parental involvement
• Off the top for professional
development
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Private school students also must get
equitable share of some set-asides:
77
• 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 costs
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Administrative Costs
78
• Services may be on-site at private school,
with safeguards
• Guidance: Need not remove religious
objects from room
• Must be safeguards in place to ensure
NOT promoting religion.
• Neutral, secular and non-ideological
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Agostini: Safeguards
79
QUESTIONS???
80
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
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.
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Disclaimer
81