Download
1 / 64
640 likes | 777 Views
NCLB Director’s Meeting: Allocation Methodologies and Calculations September 11, 2007 Session #1 – 10:45 – 12:00 Salon A. PURPOSE. Primary purpose of today’s session is to review the allocation process related to the NCLB Consolidated Programs.
E N D
NCLB Director’s Meeting:Allocation Methodologies and CalculationsSeptember 11, 2007Session #1 – 10:45 – 12:00Salon A
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.
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
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
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.
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)
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)
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.
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.
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.
Allocation Process: Title I-A • The process used by the U.S. Census Bureau is proprietary and not shared with the States. • The counts are based on the school district boundaries. • The only appeal to their process is to question the school boundaries that have been defined for such district.
Allocation Process: Title I-A • The USDOE also determines the eligibility for each of the four provisions under Title I, Part A. • Basic • Concentration • Targeted • Education Finance Incentive • The USDOE also applies the first Hold-Harmless provision to the LEA allocations prior to providing the allocations to the State.
Allocation Process: Title I-A • These are the starting numbers from USDOE that are adjusted for state administrative costs, statewide entities (CSDB & CSI), and for required set asides. • The list must be sorted by district code. USDOE list is sorted by alpha.
Allocation Process: Title I-ABasic • USDOE allocates Basic Grant funds to LEAs through a statutory formula based primarily on the number of children, ages 5 through 17, from low-income families, which the Census Bureau updates annually, and on each State’s per-pupil expenditure for education. • In order to receive a Basic Grant, an LEA must have at least 10 formula children and the number of those children must exceed 2% of the LEA’s total population ages 5 through 17.
Allocation Process: Title I-AConcentration • USDOE allocates Concentration Grant funds to LEAs in which the number of children counted for Basic Grant formula purposes exceeds 6,500 children or 15% of the total population ages 5 through 17.
Allocation Process: Title I-ATargeted • The Targeted Grants formula uses the same data elements as Basic and Concentration Grants. USDOE adjusts the number of formula children to give greater weight to those LEAs that have higher numbers or percentages of formula children. • In order to receive a Targeted Grant, the number of formula children in an LEA counted for Basic Grant allocation purposes must be at least 10 and equal or exceed 5% of the LEA’s total population ages 5 through 17.
Allocation Process: Title I-AEducation Finance Incentive • The Education Finance Incentive Grant (EFIG) formula distributes funds to States based on (1) an effort factor that measures a State’s effort to provide financial support for education compared to its relative wealth as measured by its per capita income, and (2) an equity factor that measures the degree to which education expenditures vary among school districts within a State. • USDOE allocates funds among LEAs within a State using a weighted formula that operates similarly to that established under the Targeted Grants formula.
Allocation Process: Title I-AEducation Finance Incentive • This provision of Title I, Part A has seen some changes at CDE in the last couple of years. • The Equity Factor provision impacted Denver Public Schools last year. • Based on the variation calculation determined by the USDOE, the variation between DPS and the state-wide average for per-pupil expenditures narrowed and DPS received less funding because of this provision.
Allocation Process: Title I-AHold-harmless provision • If the LEA is eligible for the Basic Grant portion, the statute requires that the LEA receive at least 85, 90, or 95 percent of the amount it was allocated in the preceding year, based on its eligibility in the current year. • The percentage guarantee varies according to the percentage of formula children in each LEA. • 95% - Poverty % is greater than 30% • 90% - Poverty % is between 15% and 30% • 85% - Poverty % is less than 15%.
Allocation Process: Title I-A • The Hold-Harmless provision is based on Eligibility. • If the district is no longer eligible for a provision under Title I, Part A, that provision no longer applies to that district. • For FY2007-08, many districts are no longer eligible for the Concentration funding portion. • The Concentration funding is the only portion that has a four year hold-harmless provision, the rest are year to year.
Allocation Process: Title I-A • The two State-Wide LEAs, the Charter School Institute (CSI) and the Colorado School of Deaf and Blind (CSDB) must be provided allocations. • Because the State-Wide LEAs do not have school district boundaries, the student counts from each district must be adjusted to provide the allocation to CSI and CSDB. • Student counts based on October 2006 counts, or if new charter school, based on estimates. • Converted to poverty count estimates.
Allocation Process: Title I-A • Once the State-Wide LEAs are adjusted for, the district’s poverty percentage must be reviewed to determine that the district is still eligible for the various Title I, Part A provisions. • To date, no school district has lost a funding provision because of the CSI and/or CSDB readjustments.
Allocation Process: Title I-A • The adjusted amounts are used in the next process for determining the Title I, Part A allocation for each district. • The current year adjusted allocation for each district is compared to the previous year final allocation for that district. • Prior year revised for any increases received due to funds being declined by other districts. • Districts with increases over last year, provide the funding for the 4% School Improvement required set aside amount.
Allocation Process: Title I-A • In applying the 4% School Improvement Set Aside, a “winning” district may not drop below its previous year adjusted allocation. • The portion that is below the district’s previous year adjusted allocation amount is funded by the other districts that are still greater than their previous year adjusted allocation amount. • It took three re-calculations and re-evaluations in FY2007-08 to maintain “winning” districts at or above their previous year adjusted allocation amounts.
Allocation Process: Title I-A • After the School Improvement Set Aside requirement is funded by the available districts • All districts share in the funding of the required State Administration Set Aside and the School Achievement Award Program Set Aside. • 1% of total allocation available for State Administration • Up to 5% of the amount that is greater than the previous year adjusted allocation amount is available for funding the School Achievement Award Program. Used $60,000 in FY2007-08.
Allocation Process: Title I-A • The final Hold Harmless provision is applied. • This provision is again based on the 85, 90, 95 percentages determined for each district. • The percentage is applied to the same base of funding that the district is eligible for in the current year. • If a district is no longer eligible for Concentration funding, that portion is subtracted from the prior year amount to determine the district’s new base.
Allocation Process: Title I-A • The districts that are below the appropriate percentage for that district receive funding from the other districts that are above their Hold Harmless percentage.
Allocation Process: Title I-A • The net allocation amount is provided to each district to be used for the Title I, Part A application and budget processes.
Allocation Process: Title I-A • Any questions on the Title I-A allocation calculations??
Allocation Process: Title II-A • LEAs first receive the amount that they received in FY2002 for the Eisenhower Professional Development and Class-Size Reduction programs. • The remaining amount that the state receives for distribution to LEAs, is allocated on the following basis: • 20% based on district student enrollment of 5-17 year olds and • 80% based upon 5-17 year olds in the district from families below the poverty line.
Allocation Process: Title II-D • The distribution amount to LEAs is split 50/50 between a formula portion and a competitive grant portion. • The formula portion of the grant is allocated to eligible LEAs on the basis of each LEA’s proportionate share of funds under Title I-A for the current year. • The formula portion is what is included in the NCLB consolidated application and budget process.
Allocation Process: Title III-A • Funds are allocated to SEAs based on the limited English proficient (LEP) count submitted to CDE for ELL students. • LEA funding eligibility is based on the number of LEP (ELL) students enrolled in the LEA. • Districts must qualify for a grant of more than $10,000 to apply for the funds on the NCLB consolidated application and budget.
Allocation Process: Title III-A • If an LEA’s allocation is less than $10,000, the LEA may form a consortium with other districts and/or BOCES to meet the $10,000 limitation. • The Title III – Consortium budget information is included in the NCLB consolidated budget file, no separate budget file.
Allocation Process: Title III – Set Aside Immigrant (SAI) • States are required to set aside a portion of their Title III grant to provide funding to school districts impacted by increased immigrant student enrollment and to help ensure that immigrant children and youth receive enhanced instructional opportunities to help them meet State academic and achievement standards.
Allocation Process: Title III SAI • To be eligible for the Title III Set aside immigrant funding for FY2007-08, LEAs must have experienced: • A significant increase in the percentage of immigrant children and youth enrolled in the district in comparing the October 2006 immigrant count with the average immigrant count reported to CDE in October 2005 and 2004.
