leigh manasevit esq lmanasevit@bruman com brustein manasevit pllc www bruman com n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
OAASFeP Columbus, OH April 2014 Title I Requirements Remaining in the Land of the Waiver PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
OAASFeP Columbus, OH April 2014 Title I Requirements Remaining in the Land of the Waiver

OAASFeP Columbus, OH April 2014 Title I Requirements Remaining in the Land of the Waiver

60 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

OAASFeP Columbus, OH April 2014 Title I Requirements Remaining in the Land of the Waiver

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Leigh Manasevit, Esq. Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC OAASFePColumbus, OHApril 2014Title IRequirements Remaining in the Land of the Waiver

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

  3. 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 Title I Basics

  4. Allocations are based on poverty levels Service is based on academic need Title I Basics (cont.)

  5. Two models of Title I, Part A program: • Targeted Assistance • Schoolwide Program Design

  6. Must identify “Title I students” and provide with supplemental services • Must ensure Title I $ solely used to benefit identified students • For schools ineligible or choose not to operate schoolwide • Default rule Targeted Assistance: Focus on Identified Students

  7. Students identified as failing or at risk of failing State standards: NOT based on poverty! Who is a Title I student?

  8. 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. Eligible Title I students

  9. 9 9 9 9 • 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 • Neglect or Delinquent or Homeless • Migrant (not receiving Part C services), IDEA and LEP students are eligible on the same basis as any other student Automatically Eligible

  10. Use Title I funds to help participating students meet State standards • Incorporate Title I plans into existing comprehensive school plans • Use effective methods and instructional strategies based on scientifically-based research (SBR) • Extended learning time • Accelerated, high-quality curriculum • Minimize removing from classroom during regular hours Components of Targeted Assistance School (TAS)

  11. Coordinate with regular ed program • Highly qualified teachers • Professional development • Parental involvement • Coordinate other Federal, State, and local services and programs Components of TAS (cont.)

  12. Records must be maintained that document that Part A funds are spent on activities and services for only Title I, Part A participating students. Recordkeeping

  13. 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 Schoolwide Programs

  14. Enabling all students to meet State standards • Not required to provide supplemental services to identified children • Does not have to: • Demonstrate Federal funds are used only for specific target populations SWP Focus: All students

  15. Exempted from most statutory and regulatory requirements applying at school level • Not required to ID particular children or provide supplemental services • Intent and purposes must be met School Level Requirements Waived

  16. Common Monitoring Finding • SWP Plan missing elements

  17. 3 Elements: Describe how school implements mandatory SWP components Description of how school will use resources to implement List of federal, state, and local programs consolidated SWP Plan

  18. One year planning period 1. Needs assessment 2. Schoolwide reform strategies that: a. Increase the amount & quality of learning time (extended year, before- and after-school) b. Address needs of all, but particularly low-achieving Components of SWP

  19. 3.Instruction by “highly qualified” teachers 4.Professional development 5. Strategies to attract high quality teachers 6. Parental involvement 7. Transition from pre-school 8. Include teachers in assessment decisions 9. Timely, effective additional assistance 10. Coordination and integration Components of SWP (cont.)

  20. Needs Assessment – clearer focus in guidance – March 2006 has 5 step process: Establishing SW planning team Clarifying the vision for reform Creating the school profile Identifying data sources Analyzing data Needs Assessment Process

  21. IDEA – all requirements • Migrant – consult with parents; meet needs first; document • Indian – parent committee approval • Health and safety • Civil rights • Parental involvement • Private school students, teachers • Maintenance of Effort (MOE) • Comparability Exceptions to Schoolwide Flexibility

  22. Ranking and Serving Schools under Section 1113

  23. 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 Eligible School Attendance Areas

  24. Residency Model OR Enrollment Model Eligible School Attendance Areas

  25. Census data Free and Reduced Lunch Program data TANF Medicaid eligibility Composite of above 5 Poverty Measures:

  26. Same measure for • ID eligible areas • Ranking areas • Determining allocations for school • (Choice priority) • (SES eligibility) • Not for SWP eligibility Poverty Measures (cont.)

  27. 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! Ranking and Serving

  28. 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 Allocation to Schools

  29. “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 Exception: Rank & Serve

  30. Parental Involvement

  31. Annual meeting Involvement in planning, review and improvement of Title I programs Provide parents of timely information about Title I programs Coordinate with other programs, parent resource centers Parental Involvement Overview

  32. 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 Parental Notifications

  33. Easily understandable, in a uniform format, including alternate formats upon request, and to the extent practicable, in a language the parents can understand. Parental Notifications (Cont.)

  34. LEA parental involvement policy School parental involvement policy School/Parent compact Parental Involvement Policies

  35. 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 Parental Involvement

  36. W LEA Set-Asidesmaintenance of Effort, Comparability and Supplement Not Supplant

  37. 20% Choice transportation & SES 5% Teacher & paraprofessional qualifications???? 1% Parental involvement 10% Professional development (if LEA identified) LEA Reservations of Title I Funds W W W

  38. WAS: Use at least 5%, unless lesser amount needed • NOW: Deadline of 2005-06 for all teacher and paraprofessionals to be qualified • No longer mandated • (But, is it even allowable cost?) W 5% Teacher and Paraprofessional Qualifications

  39. Reserve at least 1% 95% of 1% to schools If reserve >1%, still only need to distribute 95% of first 1% to schools But ALL reserved subject to equitable participation for private school students 1% Parent Involvement

  40. If the LEA is identified for improvement. • May include any teachers that serve Title I students at some point during the day • “Title I funds cannot be used to pay for professional development of staff who do not serve any Title I students at some point during the school day.” • Ray Simon guidance letter (2004) • Question: Include teachers who do not serve any Title I students if there is no additional cost to the Title I program? W 10% Professional Development

  41. No % specified • Administration (public & private) • Private school students • Homeless • To serve students in non-Title I schools • Neglected & Delinquent (N&D) • To serve students in N&D institutions or day facilities • Incentives to teachers in ID’d schools (< 5%) • Professional development • “Other authorized activities” LEA Reservations (cont.)

  42. “Necessary and reasonable” amount • Example: Administration • General Accountability Office found national average is around 10% • Example: Homeless • Shelter counts • Match McKinney Vento subgrant If No % Specified

  43. Take off entire LEA grant • Transferability: • Includes transferred amounts • Carryover: • Does not include carry over (apply % only in first year available) Calculating % set asides

  44. Most Directly Affected by Declining Budgets Maintenance of Effort

  45. The combined fiscal effort per student or the aggregate expenditures of the LEA From state and local funds From preceding year must not be less than 90% of the second preceding year MOE

  46. Need to compare final financial data Compare “immediately” PFY to “second” PFY EX: To receive funds available July 2009, compare 2007-08 school year to 2006-07 school year MOE: Preceding Fiscal Year

  47. SEA must reduce amount of allocation in the exact proportion by which LEA fails to maintain effort below 90% Reduce all applicable NCLB programs, not just Title I MOE: Failure under NCLB

  48. USDE Secretary may waive if: • Exceptional or uncontrollable circumstances such as natural disaster OR • Precipitous decline in financial resources of the LEA MOE: Waiver

  49. To State to Grant to LEAs ED Waivers