November 7, 2103 ESEA Office Hours

 Office Updates  Post Award Revision (PAR)  Title I Program Requirements and Implications for use of Titles II and III  READ Act Q&A  Supplemental Education Services (SES) in  Streamlined Strategy-based budget file for Districts using specified Method of Serving Schools Agenda 2

 Cheryl Miller  Stacy Goodman  Release of AMAOs  Comparability  Networking meeting: Montrose, November 20  Register here:  Discussion topics will be generated by registered attendees Updates 3

 Requests for plan changes that require pre-approval prior to the opening of the PAR site should be sent via to the appropriate Program Consultant  The Program Consultant will review the request for changes and reply via  Please save the response as verification of approval of your requested changes  Ensure that this change is included in your PAR request when the submission window opens in December Post Award Revision: Pre-Approval of Plan changes 4

Purpose of Post-Award Revision System  To obtain CDE approval for any revisions to consolidated application plan and/or Strategy- based budget that require prior approval  Note: Not all program changes require prior approval! If prior program approval is not needed, you do not need to submit a revision request 5

Revision Timeframes Application Revision Windows  Proposed: December 2, 2013 – December 20, 2013  Timeline depends on Allocations release and PAR readiness  Second Window TBD – January/February 2013 Revision Request Guidelines  Only one revision request and corresponding Strategy-based budget may be submitted in each window!  Revisions for all Strategy Category tabs must be included in the request – no separate requests for individual Strategy Category tabs 2

Changes that do not require prior approval  Submit a Strategy-based budget revision only if your district’s final allocations have changed.  Minor program adjustments that do not alter the overall scope or goals of the approved application 7

Budget implications when prior program approval is needed  All changes to program implementation that require prior approval must be reflected in a revised Strategy-based budget  In addition to these program changes, the Strategy-based budget should reflect final allocations and carryover amounts  Submit the revised Strategy-based budget to Grants Fiscal at: 8

 Expand our thinking from the consolidated application as an event (submitted in June) to a year-long process  Designed to demonstrate that the application is really a cyclical process already. Current work is an attempt to formalize and identify the connections. Consolidated Application Process 9

 Only Title I Schoolwide programs are required to have a specific program plan. While Targeted programs would be encouraged to have a plan, it is not required in statute.  For , documentation that Title I schools have met the requirements of a Schoolwide program is needed.  UIP is an improvement plan; Title I Schoolwide plans are statutory requirements and tied to funding  The comprehensive needs assessment for SW programs must directly tie to use of funds Title I Program Requirements 10

 For , Title I Schoolwide schools with a plan type of assignment of Priority Improvement or Turnaround will submit the Title I requirements for review  Title I Schoolwide requirements from schools are due May 15 th, 2014, and will be reviewed by ESEA staff in May and June  SW requirements will be uploaded into the Title I Instrument in Tracker and may be submitted via one of two methods:  Title I SW Template uploaded as a Word (or PDF) document into Tracker  Title I Instrument in Tracker Title I Program Requirements 11

 Title II should be targeted for extra support to schools with plans types of Priority Improvement or Turnaround, including Title I schools.  All Title I programs must provide high quality, ongoing, job- embedded professional learning opportunities for teachers, principals, paraprofessionals and other staff, as appropriate.  should align with areas in which students are not meeting academic standards  based on the needs of students and staff  should focus on actionable strategies that educators can utilize throughout the year that will improve the instructional practices [1114(b)(1)(D); 1115(c)(1)(F)] Leveraging Title II in Title I Programs 12

 Leveraging Title II to support the Professional Learning element of the Title I plan enables more Title I funds to be used to support direct instructional activities to students.  Title I and Title II can be leveraged together to support:  Instructional Coaches  Mentors  PLCs Leveraging Title II in Title I Programs 13

 Title III can support PD for teachers, so that they use data to inform strategies and instruction with ELs.  For Title I targeted assistance programs, ensure that students most at-risk are receiving both academic and language support where needed.  For Title I schoolwide programs, ensure that students are receiving both academic and language support as needed. Identify students most at risk to receive timely, additional services.  Professional Development is explicitly designed to help ALL teachers and school personnel better address the needs of ELs (Title II can be leveraged here as well) Leveraging Title III in Title I Programs 14

Ensure social and academic English are addressed in your programs Ensure that critical language development is addressed in your programs Provide opportunities for Title I and Title III (ESL/Bilingual) teachers to work together and plan Provide a wide range of parent activities that enable ALL parents to actively engage with their student’s educational experience and culture. Leveraging Title III in Title I Programs 15

 When you say READ should be the third dose of instruction, do you mean doses 1-3 are all occurring during the same time frame? So a student receives Doses 1, 2 and 3 all in the same day or over a period of several days?  In a Title I school, if Title I funds have been designated to support reading, then eligible students should receive Core instruction, then Title I intervention, and thirdly, support through READ. READ could essentially increase the intensity and length of intervention that Title I provides. Ex.: if Title I services are provided 3 times a week, then READ tutoring could be provided on the other 2. READ Act Questions 16

 How does READ interact with Title I in a Targeted Assistance program?  If Title I funds have been designated for reading supports, then the first dose is Core instruction; the second dose is Title I (most students with READ plans are Title I eligible), and READ provides something else (third dose), including additional intensity and/or extended time. READ Act Questions, Continued 17

 Title I is designed to work with students most at risk of not meeting standards, which is what student who need the intervention are. Do you see any issues with Title I regulations to have our Title I interventions work with approved READ tools that provide interventions to student who need them?  No, as long as all Title I eligible students are first receiving Title I services. READ Act Questions, Continued 18

 What is a good rule of thumb for use of READ funds in a Title I Schoolwide program?  The comprehensive needs assessment should guide the use of funds. Staff need to remember that if reading is identified as a need, then there must be strategies to support this in the Title I program plan. Also, READ students are those furthest behind, so a Title I school needs to determine what the additional READ interventions will be to ensure these students make sufficient accelerated growth. READ Act Questions, Continued 19

 CDE will set up a brief survey to solicit input on the Re-Think of SES for  This survey will contain guiding questions regarding the proposed changes to the administration and implementation of SES.  Key points for Consideration:  The primary goal of proposed SES modifications is to broaden the scope of SES programs, while maintaining the core principles of SES:  Parents of children enrolled in low performing schools should have options that include School Choice and immediate access to effective instruction.  Students at risk of not meeting the State’s academic standards enrolled in low performing Title I schools should have access to high quality extended learning time.  Evaluation of the impact of the programs offered must occur.. SES Re-Think (Initial Proposal) 20

 Currently, districts with PI/TA schools must set aside 15% of their Title I allocation for Public School Choice and SES. Districts would estimate the amount – not to exceed 15% - needed to meet demand based on prior history for both Choice and SES.  Strengthen the voice of parents in the design of the SES program  Maintain parent notification requirements to ensure awareness of the opportunity  Convene parents of eligible students to collaborate in the design of the SES program. (Eligible students are those at risk of not meeting academic standards).  Establish a reasonable enrollment window  Include at least one tutoring activity that is not operated by the district SES: Preserve Choices for Parents (Initial Proposal) 21

 Title I PI/TA schools must offer extended learning time to students at risk of not meeting state academic standards.  Extended learning time options: before school; after school; intersession; Jump Start; and summer school.  The state would not approve SES providers. Instead, this becomes the district’s responsibility.  Districts would submit their Choice and SES program plans prior to submission of their consolidated application.  What needs to be in these plans? SES: Broaden the Scope (Initial Proposal) 22

 Districts would still be required to offer parents a “non- district” option.  CDE would no longer maintain a list of approved providers  The focus of this instructional time is still to accelerate the reading, writing, math, and/or language development performance of struggling students.  Districts may choose to contract with a vendor, adopt or procure a program with a demonstrated record of effectiveness.  Options for rural districts that have limited or no access to onsite providers  Online providers, or  Partner with a BOCES or neighboring district SES: Broaden the Scope (Initial Proposal), cont. 23

 Evaluate the Impact of Services:  Districts would still be required to submit student level data to facilitate statewide evaluation  SES set aside funds may be used to cover any administrative costs associated with this requirement  CDE will create an interchange in the Data Pipeline using the data elements currently collected in the OMNI SES Tracker system  CDE will work with each district required to offer SES in to ensure an evaluation plan is part of the overall SES plan and meets the outlined criteria. SES Evaluation 24

 Preliminary conversations are occurring regarding the creation of a streamlined budget file for Districts that serve schools utilizing the method of either:  Total District Enrollment less than 1,000  One School Per Grade Span  Budgeting would be accomplished at the District level for all funds  Initial analysis shows that this budget would be appropriate for most district membership within BOCES  Further analysis is necessary to determine the impact, if any, on Non Public Schools, Charter Schools, and Facility Schools within these Districts Streamlined Strategy-based budget file 25