2015 Leadership Conference “All In: Achieving Results Together”

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
April 2009 Copyright © 2008 Mississippi Department of Education Instructional Programs and Services Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS) April.
Advertisements

Implementing RTI Using Title I, Title III, and CEIS Funds Key Issues for Decision-makers.
Braiding Initiatives Steve Goodman, Michigan’s Integrated Behavior and Learning Initiative (MiBLSi) April 16, :00PM – 3:30PM
Leading with Wonder National Title I Conference February 2015 U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) Office of State.
Results-Driven Accountability OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS 1.
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIVERSE LEARNERS Susan Brody Hasazi Katharine S. Furney National Institute of Leadership, Disability, and Students Placed.
Designing and Implementing An Effective Schoolwide Program
1 “Changing Performance” Nashville, Tennessee February 2, National Title I Conference M aximizing the I mpact of S choolwide P rograms on I mproving.
Office of Special Education Fall Forum 2013 General Initiatives and the Role of Special Education.
FewSomeAll. Multi-Tiered System of Supports A Comprehensive Framework for Implementing the California Common Core State Standards Professional Learning.
1 MERA May 17, 2011 Mike Radke, Director, Office of Field Services, Michigan Department of Education.
Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS). 34 CFR § : An LEA may not use more than 15 percent of the amount the LEA receives under Part B of.
2015 ESEA Directors Institute
Karen Seay PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT 101 – Writing a compliant policy and compact We’re all in this together:  State Department of Education 
Overview of Title I Part A Farwell ISD. The Intent of Title I Part A The intent is to help all children to have the opportunity to obtain a high quality.
Title I Schoolwide Programs (SWP). Why Schoolwide? Flexibility Purpose : to provide schools with high percentages of at-risk children* the flexibility.
Virginia Department of Education Division Leadership Liaison Meeting January 7, 2013.
Federal Flexibility Initiative and Schoolwide Programs.
Overview of Title I Part A Prepared by: Title I Staff - Office of Superintendent of Instruction OSPI Dr. Bill Wadlington, Superintendent/Principal and.
Federal Flexibility Initiative and Schoolwide Programs.
Region Three Pilot “Virtual” Consolidation. Consolidation Legislation and Guidance Title I Schoolwide Fiscal Guidance issued February, 2008 [Section E]
Consolidation of Funds in Schoolwide Programs FY15 Oklahoma State Department of Education Office of Federal Programs.
1 RESPONSE TO INSTRUCTION ________________________________ RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION New Opportunities for Students and Reading Professionals.
1 Connecticut State Department of Education American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA): Bureau of Special Education Teleconference May 21, 2009.
Schoolwide Consolidation Consolidation Legislation and Guidance Title I Schoolwide Fiscal Guidance issued February, 2008 [Section E] Designing Schoolwide.
Title I Part A: Back to Basics ESEA Odyssey Fall 2010.
Presented By WVDE Title I Staff June 10, Fiscal Issues Maintain an updated inventory list, including the following information: description of.
SUPPLEMENT, NOT SUPPLANT SUPPLEMENT, NOT SUPPLANT TESTS District Level: Maintenance of Effort School Level: Comparability of Services Child Level: Educational.
What are the Differences Between Targeted and Schoolwide Title I Programs?
Federal Flexibility Initiative and Schoolwide Programs.
LEA Self-Assessment LEASA: Presentations:
OSEP-Funded TA and Data Centers David Guardino, Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education.
NYSED Policy Update Pat Geary Statewide RSE-TASC Meeting May 2013.
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs Building the Legacy: IDEA 2004 Highly Qualified Teachers (HQT)
1 Monitoring and Revising the Title I, Part A, Schoolwide Plan Virginia Department of Education Office of Program Administration and Accountability Title.
Partnering with Parents in using Federal Programs for Quality Education for all Students Federal Programs Department Parent Summit March 10, 2016.
School-wide Consolidation: LEA Panel
A Principal’s Guide to Title I, Part A and LAP Requirements
New Jersey Tiered System of Supports (NJTSS)
Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015: Highlights and
Title I Annual Parent Meeting
CEEDAR Center Cross-State Convening
Private School Consultation
Private School Consultation
Rorie Fitzpatrick & Dona Meinders, WestEd
Thanks for coming. Introduce 21st Century and team.
Title III of the No Child Left Behind Act
Department of Exceptional Student Education
Overview: Every Student Succeeds Act and the Tile I, Part A Program
Zelphine Smith-Dixon, State Director of Special Education
2018 OSEP Project Directors’ Conference
G-CASE Fall Conference November 14, 2013 Savannah, Ga
The Role a Charter School Plays in its Charter Authorizer’s Submission of the Consolidated Federal Programs Application Joey Willett, Unit of Federal Programs.
Implementation Guide for Linking Adults to Opportunity
Constructing High Performing Schoolwide Programs
ANNUAL TITLE I MEETING NOBLE ACADEMY COLUMBUS.
The Alabama Continuous Improvement Plan ACIP
Transition Outcomes Project Report Out Meeting
AUDITS----SINGLE AUDIT CONCEPT, COMPLIANCE
Schoolwide Programs.
Response to Intervention in Illinois
Title I, Part A Virginia Department of Education
Title I and Wagner-Peyser Act Waiver Requirements and Request Process
Developing and Revising Schoolwide Plans
ESSA Schoolwide 2017.
Special Ed. Administrator’s Academy, September 24, 2013
Improving Student Outcomes Through Funding Flexibilities
Using Data to Build LEA Capacity to Improve Outcomes
Implementing, Sustaining and Scaling-Up High Quality Inclusive Preschool Policies and Practices: Application for Intensive TA September 10, 2019 Lise.
State Oversight Responsibility for Use of IDEA Funds for Children 3-5
Presentation transcript:

2015 Leadership Conference “All In: Achieving Results Together” Leveraging Federal Funds to Improve Outcomes for Students with Disabilities Lisa Pagano and Daniel Schreier U.S. Department of Education, OSEP and Teri Chapman Michigan Department of Education

Session Objectives Provide examples of how Federal funds can be leveraged to improve student outcomes Share an example of how an SEA analyzes and utilizes its IDEA State-level funds Discuss perceived barriers to blending and braiding funds Offer suggestions about how to work with auditors to ensure accountability for braided and blended funds

Blended Funding Blended funding: Financial assistance from individual funding streams to States, local governments, and other pass-through entities is merged by all stakeholders into one award and each individual award loses its award-specific identity

Example of Blending Funds LEAs that consolidate Title I, IDEA and Title III funds for schoolwide programs (see 34 CFR § 300.206)

Braided Funds Braided funding: Financial assistance from individual funding streams to States, local governments, and other pass-through entities is coordinated by all stakeholders so each individual award maintains its award-specific identity

Example of Braiding Funding An LEA has a multi tiered system of support (MTSS) where Federal program funds are used to serve each program’s subgroup of students. For example: 10% of the students participating in the MTSS are children with disabilities and the LEA uses 10% of its IDEA funds to serve those children. 15% of the students participating in the MTSS are English language learners and the LEA uses 15% of the Title III funds to serve those children.

Braided Funding Costs are assigned to the appropriate funding source Allocation means the process of assigning a cost, or a group of costs, to one or more cost objective(s), in reasonable proportion to the benefit provided or other equitable relationship. See 2 CFR § 200.4

Sequencing Funds Sequenced funding: Financial assistance from individual funding streams to States, local governments, and other pass-through entities is coordinated and sequentially used by all stakeholders while each individual award maintains its award-specific identity.

Example of Sequenced Funding Transitions for children with disabilities IDEA Part C to IDEA Part B IDEA Part B to adult services supported by funds from other State and Federal sources, including vocational rehabilitation

Why Leveraging Funds is Important Maximizes the impact of available funding Avoids duplication Promotes better planning of how available funding sources can be used to improve results for all students, including students with disabilities

Allowable Costs for All Federal Funds Please keep in mind that the cost charged to Federal awards must be – 1) Reasonable 2) Necessary 3) Allocable See 2 CFR §§ 200.403-.405

Examples of Existing Flexibilities

Encouraging Blending Funds (e) Other Provisions to Support Teaching and Learning – Each State plan shall contain assurances that – (9) the State educational agency will encourage schools to consolidate funds from other Federal, State, and local sources for schoolwide reform in schoolwide programs under section 1114; (10) the State educational agency will modify or eliminate State fiscal and accounting barriers so that schools can easily consolidate funds from other Federal, State, and local sources for schoolwide programs under section 1114; ESEA, Section 1111(c)(9) and (10)

Schoolwide Programs “…a comprehensive reform strategy designed to upgrade the entire educational program in a Title I school; its primary goal is to ensure that all students, particularly those who are low achieving, demonstrate proficient and advanced levels of achievement on State academic achievement standards.” Designing Schoolwide Programs Non-Regulatory Guidance, pg. 2, March 2006, http://www2.ed.gov/admins/ lead/account/swp.html

IDEA Funds in Schoolwide Programs Blending Title I and IDEA funds in a schoolwide program has been permissible since the IDEA’s reauthorization in 1997 Blending is permissible as long as students with disabilities, included in such schoolwide programs: receive services in accordance with a properly developed IEP; and are afforded all of the rights and services guaranteed to children with disabilities under the IDEA See 34 CFR § 300.206(c)

Calculating and Consolidating IDEA Part B Funds for Schoolwide Programs Determine the amount of funds the LEA received for IDEA section 611 (ages 3-21) and IDEA section 619 (ages 3-5) programs Calculate a per capita dollar amount Divide the total of IDEA grants by the number of children with disabilities ages 3-21 in the LEA’s jurisdiction Multiply the per capita amount by the number of children with disabilities who will participate in the schoolwide program

Calculating and Consolidating IDEA Part B Funds for Schoolwide Programs Example (1) Section 611 award (3-21) $915,951 (2) Section 619 award (3-5) $30,784 (3) Total Part B grant funds $946,735 (4) Number of CWD in LEA (3-21) 502 (5) Per capita amount (line 3 divided by line 4) $1,885.92 (6) Number of CWD to participate in the schoolwide program 52 (7) Amount of IDEA Part B funds that can be used for the schoolwide program (multiply line 5 by line 6) $98,068

Compliance Supplement 2015: Schoolwide Programs Explains to auditors the flexibility A schoolwide program school that consolidates Federal, State, and local funds in a consolidated schoolwide pool may use those funds for any activity in the school. (Consolidating funds in a schoolwide program means that a school treats the funds like they are a single “pool” of funds—i.e., the funds lose their individual identity and the school has one flexible pool of funds.) However, the school still must ensure that funds from the schoolwide pool are used to address the specific educational needs of the school identified by the needs assessment and articulated in the schoolwide plan. The school is not required to maintain separate records that identify by program the specific activities supported by those funds. Also, the school is not required to meet most of the statutory and regulatory requirements of the Federal programs included in the consolidation as long as it meets the intent and purposes of those programs. Excerpt: U.S. Department of Education, A-133 Compliance Supplement Cross-Cutting Section, 2. Schoolwide Programs, Compliance Requirements, p. 4-84.000-31

Compliance Supplement 2015 New Focus for Auditors - SEA Determine whether the SEA has taken steps to (1) notify its LEAs of the authority to consolidate federal, state, and local funds in schoolwide programs; and (2) remove fiscal and accounting barriers preventing such consolidation of funds.

Compliance Supplement 2015 New Focus for Auditors - LEA Determine whether (1) the schools operating schoolwide programs were eligible to do so, (2) the schoolwide programs included the core elements and components, (3) funds included in the schoolwide program were used to address specific educational needs that the school identified in the needs assessment and that were articulated in the schoolwide plan, and (4) the annual evaluation of the results achieved by the schoolwide program and revision of the schoolwide plan based on that evaluation were completed.

Discussion #1 The Department has issued guidance multiple times on blending funds for schoolwide programs, but we understand that few LEAs blend IDEA and Title I funds. What are the barriers? What else could the Department do to assist with use of this flexibility?

Coordinated Early Intervening Services Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS) is a set of coordinated services for students in kindergarten through grade 12 (with a particular emphasis on students in K-3) who are not currently identified as needing special education or related services, but who need additional academic and behavioral support to succeed in a general education environment. IDEA Section 613(f); 34 CFR § 300.226(a)

Leveraging Resources: CEIS FFY 2009/ SY 2009-10 FFY 2010/ SY 2010-111 FFY 2011/ SY 2011-122 # of LEAs/ESAs required to reserve funds for CEIS due to significant disproportionality 405 (2.7%) 356 (2.4%) 345 # of LEAs/ESAs that voluntarily reserved funds for CEIS 1,597 (10.7%) 1,337 (9.1%) 1,270 (8.5%) # of children who received CEIS during reporting period 1,124,9531 1,258,7631 1,008,488 # of children who received CEIS any time in past two school years and received special education and related services in reporting period 132,3511 178,8321 149,778 1 Data reflect an approximation due to some counts being suppressed for privacy protections in the public release data file. Data files may be found at: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/osepidea/618-data/state-level-data-files/index.html#bmoeceis

Leveraging State-level Funds for SSIP Implementation As States move to the planning and implementation phases of the SSIP, they will need to think creatively about how to use State-level funds and braid them with other funding sources. The Analysis of State Infrastructure section of the SSIP requires States to describe the – “capacity of its current infrastructure to support improvement and build capacity in LEAs to implement, scale up, and sustain the use of evidence-based practices to improve results for children with disabilities.” See SPP/APR Indicator B-17

IDEA 611 and IDEA 619 State-level Activities IDEA 611 and 619 State-level activities funds can both be used for direct services for ages 3-21 and 3-5, respectively. Other uses of funds must be in accordance 34 CFR § 300.704(b)(4) for 611 funds and 34 CFR § 300.814 for 619 funds.

Other State-level Activities Voluntary: “States may reserve a portion of their allocations” § 300.704(b)(1) Approximately 10% of each State’s IDEA allocation is available for Other State-level Activities This amount exceeds $1 billion available on a yearly basis

IDEA 611 other State-level Activities State-level activities funds can be braided with other Federal/State funds for: Assistance in meeting personnel shortages Capacity building activities and improving the delivery of services Alternative programming for children who have been expelled from school

Other State-level Activities Technical assistance Personnel preparation and professional development and training Positive behavioral interventions and supports Technology in the classroom

Other State-level Activities OSEP Letter to DeTemple For example, if school building leadership team activities are being supported and 10% of the children in the school building are children with disabilities, then 10% of the cost of the building leadership activities could be funded using funds available under 34 CFR § 300.704(b)(1). “…allocating some of the funds available under 34 CFR § 300.704(b)(1) in a proportional manner would be permissible, along with other Federal and State funds, to the costs of technical assistance and capacity building activities.”

Other State-level Activities OSEP Letter to Batson “… [the] State’s use of Part B IDEA State set-aside funds to fully fund its PBS initiative, which provides professional development, training and technical assistance on positive behavioral interventions to general educators, administrators and support staff, as well as to staff who provide special education and related services to children with disabilities, is permissible.”

Discussion #2 What funds will your State use to implement its SSIP? (IDEA Part B, Part C, SPDG, etc., other Federal funds, State funds, etc.) How has your State involved its funding partners in planning initiatives and activities? How will the funds be allocated? Who will track the funding?

IDEA 611 and IDEA 619 State-level Activities OSEP plans to examine how States are using their IDEA Part B State-level activities funds in future monitoring.

Michigan’s Historical Practice known as: ‘Mandated Activities Projects (MAPs)’ Individual project work functioned autonomously Not designed to complement each other Projects were funded in 5-year cycles with ongoing renewal regardless of shift in MDE priorities Lacked continuity with MDE and OSE priorities Activities were not a mandate…misleading title Major focus for many: COMPLIANCE

Current Status Renamed: OSE IDEA Grant Funded Initiatives Project work is aligned with MDE/OSE identified priorities and resources are being leveraged differently “Project Find” no longer funded as a project “MI-TOP” and ‘RTSL’ (Secondary Transition) Contract for marketing and communication regarding Child Find activities for pre-school ages 3-5 In process of being redefined in light of the 2020 Federal Interagency Strategic Plan Established Build Up Michigan!

Moving Forward OSE IDEA Grant Funded Initiatives must: Be collaborative and responsive Combine evidence based practices in a tiered structure designed to strengthen and support district effort to improve student outcomes Have a sustainable implementation model which includes scalability, and an evaluation plan tied to improved student outcomes

Combined Federal funding: MiBLSi… Michigan’s Integrated Behavior and Learning Supports Initiative Combined Federal funding: State Personnel Development Grant (SPDG) MDE federal funds as an OSE IDEA Grant Funded Initiative School Climate Transformation Grant In collaboration with the MDE Coordinated School Health & Safety Programs Unit and the Office of Educational Innovation & Improvement Critical to the successful implementation of the State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP B-17)

Reframing Compliance Child Find Early Childhood Transition Disproportionate Representation Secondary Transition

Improving Student Results Preschool Outcomes Parent Involvement Educational Environments

Improving Student Results (Cont’d) Statewide Assessments Dropout Graduation Post-secondary Outcomes

State Systemic Improvement Plan

Conceptual Framework for Improving Results for Children

Audit Considerations Identify compliance “deal-breakers” upfront Know the applicable Compliance Supplement requirements Share resource and guidance documents with auditors Engage in cooperative audit resolution

Resources: Schoolwide Programs U.S. Department of Education Guidance ESEA, Section 1114 Schoolwide Programs U.S. Department of Education Notice Authorizing Schoolwide Programs to Consolidate Federal Education Funds and Exempting Them From Complying with Statutory or Regulatory Provisions of Those Programs (July 2, 2004)

Resources - CEIS Navigating Coordinated Early Intervening Services – White Paper, April 2015 (use Internet Explorer) Navigating Coordinated Early Intervening Services – Frequently Asked Questions, April 2015 (use Internet Explorer) OSEP Memo 08-09 OSEP Letter to Couillard Implementing RTI Using Title I, Title III, and CEIS Funds: Key Issues for Decision-Makers Enter “CEIS plans” in your browser to find examples of written LEA plans for using IDEA Part B funds for CEIS and SEA guidance documents

Resources: USDE Guidance OSEP Letter to Batson OSEP Letter to DeTemple OSEP Letter to Dale Examples of Leveraging ESEA and IDEA Funds to Support Digital Learning (November 19, 2014) Maximizing Flexibility in the Use of Federal Grants (September 13, 2013)

Resources: Blended and Braided Funds Blended and Braided Funds: A Guide for Policy Makers and Practitioners Making Better Decisions: Leveraging Resources in Challenging Financial Times

Resources: Audit Considerations Cooperative Audit Resolution OMB Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement 2015

Resources – Leveraging Funds Leveraging Federal Funds Focus Group Proceedings, September 2014 and OSEP/OESE Letter Accompanying Report