NCLB Director s Meeting: Allocation Methodologies and Calculations September 11, 2007 Session 1 10:45 12:00 Salon A

1. NCLB Director’s Meeting:Allocation Methodologies and CalculationsSeptember 11, 2007Session #1 – 10:45 – 12:00Salon A

2. PURPOSE Primary purpose of today’s session is to review the allocation process related to the NCLB Consolidated Programs. Provide the final FY2007-08 NCLB allocation amounts.

3. Executive Summary – Title I-A Starting numbers provided by USDOE Determined based on US Census Bureau process (2004 data used for FY2007-08 allocations) Eligibility determined based on poverty percentages 25 districts were no longer eligible for the Concentration (15%) provision in FY2007-08 1 district dropped below the threshold (5%) for the Targeted/EFIG provisions in FY2007-08 First Hold-Harmless provision applied by USDOE Numbers adjusted for the two State-Wide LEAs 4% School Improvement Set Aside took an average of 8.7% from the winning districts for FY07-08. Douglas County was the biggest winner and therefore saw the greatest hit to its starting numbers from the Feds. The $1,373,223 starting number from the Feds for Douglas County was reduced to $798,461 available allocation to the district for FY2007-08, a 42% reduction. Douglas County was helped by the declining districts for FY2007-08. 4% School Improvement Set Aside took an average of 8.7% from the winning districts for FY07-08. Douglas County was the biggest winner and therefore saw the greatest hit to its starting numbers from the Feds. The $1,373,223 starting number from the Feds for Douglas County was reduced to $798,461 available allocation to the district for FY2007-08, a 42% reduction. Douglas County was helped by the declining districts for FY2007-08.

4. Executive Summary – Title I-A cont. Retest each district for eligibility (to date no impact) Compare the district’s current year allocation to its previous year final allocation Districts with increases over last year fund the 4% School Improvement set aside All districts share in funding the required set asides for State Admin. and School Achievement Award Final Hold-Harmless provision applied Net allocation amount provided to each district No Longer eligible for Target/EFIG funding in FY07-08: (1 district) 3085 Weld Eaton Re-2 No Longer eligible for Concentration funding in FY07-08: (25 districts) 0120 Arapahoe Englewood 1 0170 Arapahoe Deer Trail 26J 0190 Arapahoe Byers 32J 0490 Chaffee Buena Vista R-31 1000 El Paso Fountain 8 1030 El Paso Manitou Springs 14 1060 El Paso Peyton 23 Jt 1140 Fremont Canon City Re-1 1195 Garfield Garfield Re-2 1220 Garfield Garfield 16 1450 Kit Carson Arriba-Flagler C-20 1480 Kit Carson Stratton R-4 1600 Las Animas Hoehne Reorganized 3 1760 Las Animas Kim Reorganized 88 1860 Logan Buffalo Re-4 2000 Mesa Mesa County Valley 51 2395 Morgan Brush Re-2(J) 2570 Otero Swink 33 2700 Pueblo Pueblo County Rural 70 2830 San Miguel Telluride R-1 3060 Washington Lone Star 101 3140 Weld Weld County S/D Re-8 3145 Weld Ault-Highland Re-9 3146 Weld Briggsdale Re-10 3147 Weld Prairie Re-11 No Longer eligible for Target/EFIG funding in FY07-08: (1 district) 3085 Weld Eaton Re-2 No Longer eligible for Concentration funding in FY07-08: (25 districts) 0120 Arapahoe Englewood 1 0170 Arapahoe Deer Trail 26J 0190 Arapahoe Byers 32J 0490 Chaffee Buena Vista R-31 1000 El Paso Fountain 8 1030 El Paso Manitou Springs 14 1060 El Paso Peyton 23 Jt 1140 Fremont Canon City Re-1 1195 Garfield Garfield Re-2 1220 Garfield Garfield 16 1450 Kit Carson Arriba-Flagler C-20 1480 Kit Carson Stratton R-4 1600 Las Animas Hoehne Reorganized 3 1760 Las Animas Kim Reorganized 88 1860 Logan Buffalo Re-4 2000 Mesa Mesa County Valley 51 2395 Morgan Brush Re-2(J) 2570 Otero Swink 33 2700 Pueblo Pueblo County Rural 70 2830 San Miguel Telluride R-1 3060 Washington Lone Star 101 3140 Weld Weld County S/D Re-8 3145 Weld Ault-Highland Re-9 3146 Weld Briggsdale Re-10 3147 Weld Prairie Re-11

5. Executive Summary – Other Titles Title II-A: Based on FY2002 numbers, and balance provided based on poverty and student counts numbers Title II-D: Based on current year Title I-A Title III-A: Based on ELL student counts Title III SAI: Based on increase in immigrant counts as compared to the average of the prior two years.

6. Executive Summary – Other Titles cont. Title IV-A: 60% based on prior year Title I-A allocation and 40% based on enrollments for public and private students Title V-A: Based on State Plan; 83% per capita, 16% low income, 1% sparsity Title VI-B (Rural and Low Income): Based on size of district or population density, and a USDOE determined locale code FINAL, except missing official notification on Title VI-B (Rural and Low-income)

7. Covered Programs NCLB Consolidated Programs Title I-A (Improving Basic Programs) Title II-A (Teacher and Principal Training) Title II-D (Enhancing Technology) Title III-A (Language Instruction Limited English) Title III SAI (Set Aside for Immigrant Students) Title IV-A (Safe and Drug-Free Schools) Title V-A (Innovative Programs) Title VI-B (Rural and Low Income)

8. Allocation Process: Title I-A Basic, Concentration, Targeted, and Education Finance Incentive funds are allocated by the federal government using U.S. Census Bureau data. 2004 Census Data used for FY2007-08 allocations. For the preliminary numbers, the Neg, Foster, and TANF numbers are all based on the previous year and have been adjusted with the Final allocation file received from USDOE. With the final numbers for Neglected, TANF, and Foster Home counts, a district on the bubble could lose eligibility for a funding provision. Did not happen in FY2007-08, except 0520 Cheyenne – Cheyenne County Re-5 dropped below 15% with final numbers. 3 districts are just above the 5% threshold for the Targeted/EFIG funding provision: 1600 Las Animas Hoehne Reorganized 3 5.2473% 5.3797% 1110 El Paso Falcon 49 5.1076% 5.0956% 2770 Routt Steamboat Springs Re-2 5.3068% 5.3069% Or just below the 5% threshold: 2600 Park Platte Canyon 1 4.5634% 4.6626% 2570 Otero Swink 33 4.7243% 4.7244% 3085 Weld Eaton RE-2 4.8267% 4.8268% With the final numbers for Neglected, TANF, and Foster Home counts, a district on the bubble could lose eligibility for a funding provision. Did not happen in FY2007-08, except 0520 Cheyenne – Cheyenne County Re-5 dropped below 15% with final numbers. 3 districts are just above the 5% threshold for the Targeted/EFIG funding provision: 1600 Las Animas Hoehne Reorganized 3 5.2473% 5.3797% 1110 El Paso Falcon 49 5.1076% 5.0956% 2770 Routt Steamboat Springs Re-2 5.3068% 5.3069% Or just below the 5% threshold: 2600 Park Platte Canyon 1 4.5634% 4.6626% 2570 Otero Swink 33 4.7243% 4.7244% 3085 Weld Eaton RE-2 4.8267% 4.8268%

9. Allocation Process: Title I-A Neglected funds are allocated to LEAs where neglected institutions are located for prevention or intervention programs for children and youth who are delinquent or at risk of dropping out of school. The Neglected funds ARE INCLUDED in the allocations for Title I-A The funding for the Delinquent institutions is a separate process and ARE NOT INCLUDED in the allocations for Title I-A. The Neglected portion is a required set aside amount for the districts that have received a Neglected allocation from CDE. The Neglected portion is a required set aside amount for the districts that have received a Neglected allocation from CDE.

10. Allocation Process: Title I-A The poverty counts are based on the U.S. definition of poverty. That definition is harder to meet than the Free/Reduced Lunch count numbers used for the Child Nutrition program. The Total Formula count is divided by the 5-17 age population to determine the percentage formula amounts. The 5-17 age population is also determined by the U.S. Census Bureau. The allocation provided to the district from CDE is based on the US Census Bureau poverty numbers. The allocations the district provides to its schools may be based on the Free/Reduced Lunch count numbers.The allocation provided to the district from CDE is based on the US Census Bureau poverty numbers. The allocations the district provides to its schools may be based on the Free/Reduced Lunch count numbers.

11. Allocation Process: Title I-A