Transcript Document
CEP and Waivers
How New Initiatives Affect Federal Funding, Reporting, and
Accountability
Leigh Manasevit, Esq.
[email protected]
Julia Martin, Esq.
[email protected]
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Spring Forum 2015
CEP
The Community Eligibility Program
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
2
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
How CEP Interacts with ESEA
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
9
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
poverty
24
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
Waivers – the New Policy Drivers
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
27
WAIVER STATES
42 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico,
and California’s CORE districts
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
28
Waivers Pending
•Wyoming
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
29
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 2014
Revoked:
Washington, April 2014
Failed to include student
achievement in teacher and
principal evaluations
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
32
“High Risk” & Revoked Waivers
Oklahoma, August 2014
Repealed 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/secretaryletters/cssoltr8212014.html
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
36
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-9602ff4e361ac2dc&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/eseaflexibility/flex-renewal/flexguidrenewal2014.doc
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
39
Renewal Guidance (cont.)
Policy:
• New plans to identify and intervene in lowperforming 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
Common Core
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
42
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
Adopted Slight Changes, But No Repeal
•Florida (February 2014)
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
44
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 20162017
• 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
summer
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
45
Growing Pressure to Repeal
Louisiana
Gov. Bobby Jindal wants Common Core repealed
Jindal 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 suspension
Jindal 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 York
More 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 Jersey
Gov. 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, PLLC
47
Growing Pressure to Repeal
Montana
A 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
Utah
Gov. Gary Herbert had the state attorney general
review the standards’ connections to the federal
government – A.G. determined they were not illegally
adopted
Brustein & 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
Common Core
•ED Response – How did state react?
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
51
QUESTIONS?
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