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