1 / 81

What Title I Requirements Remain in the Land of the Waiver Initiative?

What Title I Requirements Remain in the Land of the Waiver Initiative?. Leigh M. Manasevit, Esq. Fall Forum 2012 www.bruman.com lmanasevit@bruman.com. Waiver Resources. Statute – NCLB Section 9401 Guidance – Title I, Part A – July 2009 Maintenance of Effort – See program statutes.

engelbert-nathanial
Download Presentation

What Title I Requirements Remain in the Land of the Waiver Initiative?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC What Title I Requirements Remain in the Land of the Waiver Initiative? Leigh M. Manasevit, Esq. Fall Forum 2012 www.bruman.com lmanasevit@bruman.com

  2. Waiver Resources • Statute – NCLB Section 9401 • Guidance – • Title I, Part A – July 2009 • Maintenance of Effort – See program statutes Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

  3. NCLB – What can be waived? The Secretary may grant a waiver of any ESEA statutory or regulatory provision EXCEPT: • 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

  4. NCLB – What can be waived? The Secretary may grant a waiver of any ESEA statutory or regulatory provision EXCEPT: • Civil rights • Maintenance of Effort • Charter School requirements • Use of funds for religion Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

  5. June 28, 2011 Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report on Secretary of Education’s Waiver Authority • ED has the authority to waive accountability provisions of Title I, Part A • It is unclear if Secretary can condition a waiver on other action(s) not required by law Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

  6. ED Announcementon Waivers Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

  7. Waivers • 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/secletter/110923.html Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

  8. Letter • Flexibility in exchange for rigorous and comprehensive state plans • Improve educational outcomes • Close achievement gaps • Increase equity • Improve instruction Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

  9. “ESEA Flexibility” September 23, 2011 • 10 provisions subject to waiver • 2013-2014 timeline – develop new ambitious AMO’s • School improvement consequences: LEA not required to take currently required improvement actions in Title I Schools • LEA improvement identification: not required to identify for improvement LEA that fails 2 consecutive years • Rural LEAs • Small Rural School Achievement or Rural and Low Income program • Flexibility regardless of AYP status Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

  10. Waivers • Schoolwide Operate as schoolwide regardless of 40% poverty threshold if • SEA identified as a priority or focus school with interventions consistent with turnaround principles • School Improvement • 1003a funds to serve any priority or focus school if SEA determines school in need of support • Reward Schools • Rewards to any reward school if the SEA determines appropriate Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

  11. Waivers • 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

  12. Waivers • Transferability • Up to 100%, same programs • SIG • 1003g awards for any priority school Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

  13. Waivers • Optional #11 • 21st Century Community Learning Centers support expanded learning time during school day Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

  14. New Waiver #12 • No AYP determination for LEAs or Schools Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

  15. New Waiver #13 • LEA may serve Title I eligible priority high school with graduation rate under 60% without regard for rank and serve??? Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

  16. New Waiver Not Numbered • 11-12 assessment use 10-11 AMOs • For waiver intent Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

  17. “In Exchange for…”Must meet 4 principles • College and Career Ready Standards – Develop and Implement: • Reading/Language Arts • Math • Aligned assessments measuring growth • ELP assessment aligned to #1 Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

  18. “In Exchange for…” • 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

  19. School Performance over time • New AMOs (ambitious) • State LEAs • Schools • Subgroups • Incentives recognitions • Dramatic systemic changes in lowest performing schools Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

  20. “In Exchange for…” • Effective Instruction/Leadership • Commit to develop/adopt pilot and implement • Teacher/principal evaluation systems • Student Growth = “Significant Factor” Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

  21. “In Exchange for…” • Reduce duplication and unnecessary burden Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

  22. Waivers Granted – Round 1 • Colorado • Florida • Georgia • Indiana • Kentucky • Massachusetts • Minnesota • New Jersey • Oklahoma • Tennessee • New Mexico Granted Granted Granted Granted Granted Granted Granted Granted Granted Granted Denied Granted Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

  23. 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

  24. Round 3 - Applied • Alabama • Alaska • Hawaii • Maine • New Hampshire • North Dakota • Puerto Rico • West Virginia • Bureau of Indian Education (45 State Approved or Requested) Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

  25. Center for American ProgressReport on Waivers- July 12, 2012 • 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/wp-content/uploads/issues/2012/07/pdf/nochildwaivers_intro.pdf Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

  26. ED to Monitor Waivers SY 12-13 • Supplement Title I Monitoring • Solicited Comment on Oversight http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-08-30/pdf/2012-21471.pdf • Monitoring Protocol (Part 1 of 3) http://www.ed.gov/esea/flexibility Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

  27. Waivers, Vouchers, A President Romney? • Martin West, K-12 Advisor - Not Favored Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

  28. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC Basic ESEA Title I, Part A Requirements Not Subject to Waiver

  29. Title I, Part A Topics • General Program Requirements • Ranking and Serving • Parental Involvement • Set-asides • Maintenance of Effort • Comparability • Supplement Not Supplant • SES/Choice • Equitable Services W Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC W

  30. Title I Basics • 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

  31. Allocations are based on poverty levels Service is based on academic need Title I Basics (cont.) Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

  32. Program Design • Two models of Title I, Part A program: • Targeted Assistance • Schoolwide Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

  33. Targeted Assistance: Focus on Identified Students • Identify “Title I students” and provide with supplemental services • Ensure Title I $ solely used to benefit identified students • For schools ineligible or choose not to operate schoolwide Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

  34. Who is a Title I student? • Students identified as failing or at risk of failing State standards: NOT based on poverty! Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

  35. Eligible Title I students • 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

  36. Automatically Eligible • 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

  37. Recordkeeping • 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

  38. Schoolwide Programs • 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

  39. Ranking and Serving Schools under Section 1113 Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

  40. Eligible School Attendance Areas • 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 of LEA Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

  41. Eligible School Attendance Areas • Residency Model OR • Enrollment Model Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

  42. Ranking and Serving • Exceeding 75% poverty • Strictly by poverty • Without regard to grade span • At or below 75% poverty • May rank by grade span Serve strictly in order of rank! Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

  43. Allocation to Schools • 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

  44. Exception: Rank & Serve • “Skip” school, if: • Comparability met • Receiving supplemental State/local funds used in Title I-like program • Supp. State/local funds meet or exceed amount would be received under Title I • Still count and serve nonpublic in area Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

  45. Parental Involvement Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

  46. Parental Involvement Overview • 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

  47. Parental Notifications • 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

  48. Parental Involvement Policies • LEA parental involvement policy • School parental involvement policy • School/Parent compact Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

  49. Parental Involvement • 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

  50. Other LEA Set-Asides;Maintenance of Effort, Comparability and Supplement Not Supplant W Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

More Related