Comparability Reporting through CDE’s Online Data System 2015-2016.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
NCLB Title I Comparability Paul Williams Principal Consultant ISBE September 2011.
Advertisements

Education Jobs Act 2012 Supplemental Funding Colorado Department of Education.
1 Title I Comparability Requirement Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction.
1 TITLE I COMPARABILITY – Determinations & Reporting Thomas Chin October 5, 2010.
BUDGET/ENROLLM ENT GROVELAND'S MISSION IS TO CREATE A SUPPORTIVE COMMUNITY THAT HONORS, INSPIRES AND CHALLENGES EVERY CHILD, EVERY DAY. Groveland.
AB 86: Adult Education K-12 Adult Education Expenditure Reporting Survey for Fiscal Year
Budget Planning Fiscal year December 10 th, 2003.
1 Oregon Department of Education (ODE) State School Fund Ways & Means Education Sub-Committee March 24, 2003 Pat Burk, Deputy Superintendent Brian Reeder,
Maintenance of Effort, Comparability, and Supplement/Supplant PAFPC April 2011.
Demonstrating Comparability School Year October 2014October 2014.
Submitting Claims in the ESEA Application Title I Parts A, C, D Title II Part A Title III Part A.
9/10/2015 What’s New? Edline at Valley View!! Joyce Potempa Technology Department presentation to Building Support Staff February 2, 2010 Institute Day.
Special Education Proportionate Set-Aside Requirements October 2014.
Title I, Part A Fiscal Requirements for Comparability FY Oklahoma State Department of Education Office of Title I, IIA, VI, & X December 2012.
Tell your story using numbers and words Susan Andre, Title I Coordinator East Baton Rouge Parish School System.
Shrewsbury Public Schools Fiscal Year 2013 Administrative Budget Recommendation March 14, 2012.
Tell your story using numbers and words Susan Andre, Title I Coordinator East Baton Rouge Parish School System.
What Does Supplement, Not Supplant Mean?. 2 Fiscal Requirements Supplement, not Supplant –
TITLE I COMPARABILITY Determinations & Reporting Title I Technical Assistance Session School Improvement Grant Programs October 6, 2011.
The Use of Educational Resources in Wyoming Preliminary Report to the Wyoming Legislature’s Joint Interim Education Committee June 18, 2007 (Revised January.
TITLE I, PART A ESEA ROLLOUT SPRING 2013 Version Title I, Part A Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction.
DIVISION OF PROGRAM MANAGEMENT. EXCESS COSTS Excess Cost Requirement –Prevents usage of Part B funds to pay for all costs directly attributable to the.
SES Training on Screens 11, 12, and Part of 8. By Steve Crew September 12, 2007.
Budget and Legislative Update Alexis Schauss Director of School Business.
Budget Overview March 27, K – 3 Elementary Maintains small class sizes (19-22 students per class) Maintains current level of teaching assistants.
QEIA Monitoring Regular Application Schools April 29, 2010 California County Superintendents Educational Services Association QEIA Northern and.
Field Analyst Support Team (FAST) School Finance Division
Special Education Proportionate Set-Aside Requirements
F-203X INPUT GUIDE Capital region esd 113.
Budget Overview State Budget Overview M & O Levy Review
Excess Costs IDEA-B Requirement
Impact Aid Training September 25, 2017.
Where Does the Money Go? Programs Expenses Developmental Debt Service
Final Report.
Federal Programs Title I Fiscal Year.
Budget Proposal
Budgeting Basics And Fiscal Principles
Excess Costs IDEA-B Requirement
Duxbury Public Schools Fiscal Year 2017 Operating Budget
ARRA Reporting and Applications
Changes in time and effort reporting
Title I A Comparability Report
Understanding Supplement Not Supplant Under ESSA, IDEA, and Perkins
( Annual Financial Report) Updated
Budget Overview Review of Last Years Budget
Campus ESSA Grant Packet Training
Title I, Part A Supplement not Supplant (SNS) Under ESSA
Supplement, Not Supplant Demonstration Under Title I, Part A
Resource Allocation and District Action Reports: RADAR
SPECIAL EDUCATION DECEMBER COUNT REPORT WEBINAR
The Role a Charter School Plays in its Charter Authorizer’s Submission of the Consolidated Federal Programs Application Joey Willett, Unit of Federal Programs.
Student October Collection
CTAERN/DOE System Level Counselor Coordinator Profile Entry Initiative
ESSA Title Programs Spoke: Decision Points
Harlingen CISD Budget Preparation Notes
Title I Interchange Data, Program Evaluation and Reporting (DPER) Office Unit of Federal Programs May 2016.
ESEA Programs | December 2018
Universal Review: Fiscal Requirements
CTE Administrative Internship Program January 18, 2008
Independent School District No. 720 Shakopee, Minnesota
CTAERN/DOE System Level Counselor Coordinator Profile Entry Initiative
Harlingen CISD Budget Preparation Notes
Consolidated Application Post-Award Revision System (PAR)
FY2019 Budget Update Good Morning/Afternoon! Today we begin the process of planning our school’s budget for FY19. I know we are all here for the same reason.
Determining Comparability
Rising 9th Grade Registration Procedures
April 25th Town Hall Purpose
F-203X INPUT GUIDE Capital region esd 113.
REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT #16 PROSPECT / BEACON FALLS
Maintenance of Effort, Comparability & Supplement, Not Supplant
Presentation transcript:

Comparability Reporting through CDE’s Online Data System 2015-2016

Comparable Local State Non-Title I School Title I School 2 Title I

Not Comparable local Title I state Title I Non-Title I School 3

No Child Left Behind Districts may get Title IA funds only if services paid with state and local funds in Title I schools are “comparable” to those in non-Title I schools in the same grade span (EMH). Title IA funds intended for extra resources to poorly performing students from low-income neighborhoods—above and beyond that provided through state and local funding. If Title IA money spent on the basics, students won’t receive extra resources the law intended them to have. 4

Don’t have to do Comparability if: LEA does not take Title IA $$$. LEA takes Title IA $$$ but has: only 1 school per grade span (EMH); OR 2+ schools in grade span but any Title I schools have 100 students or fewer. Only Title I schools with >100 students must be comparable. 5

Must do Comparability if: Have 1+ Title I schools with >100 students in grade span with 2+ schools. May need to do Comparability in more than one EMH. Calculations differ if, within grade span: All schools Title I. Some schools Title I and some not. 6

Online System Uses Teacher FTE Method Recommended by U.S. Dept. of Ed. Districts must go through this system before trying any alternative methods Unless . . . District consolidates funds If consolidated, can go to per pupil allocation method 7

FTE excluded: FTE included: Paraprofessionals, administrators, librarians, instructional coaches Other federally funded FTE not paid with Title I funds. FTE included: Classroom teachers paid from state and local funds (in full or part): Reading, Math, Science, PE, Art, etc. SPED and ELL FTE paid with state/local (not federal) funds 8

If ALL schools in grade span Title I, each must be comparable to the average of grade span student-teacher ratio If not all schools in grade span Title I, each Title I school must be comparable to the average non-Title I student-teacher ratio 9

If ALL schools Title I, system calculates overall student-teacher (state & local funded) ratio in grade span Student-teacher ratio higher than 10% above grade span ratio (Not Comparable) School appears under-served compared to others in grade span; too many students per state/locally funded FTE -24 -23 -22 -21 -20 -19 -18 -17 -16 -15 -14 -13 -12 -11 -10 - 9 - 8 - 7 - 6 - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 110% x 18=19.8 within 10% of grade span ratio (Comparable) Average = 18 90% x 18=16.2 Student-teacher ratio lower than 10% below grade span ratio (Not Comparable) School appears over-served compared to others in grade span; too few students per state/locally funded FTE For each Title I school, the system reports if students per state/locally-funded teacher is within 10% of grade span ratio. 10

If SOME schools Title I, system calculates student-teacher ratio for non-Title I schools based on state/local funding. Student-teacher ratio higher than 10% above grade span ratio (Not Comparable) School appears under-served compared to others in grade span; too many students per state/locally funded FTE -24 -23 -22 -21 -20 -19 -18 -17 -16 -15 -14 -13 -12 -11 -10 - 9 - 8 - 7 - 6 - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 110% x 18=19.8 Average = 18 For each Title I school, the system reports if number of students per state/locally-funded FTE exceeds non-Title I school ratio by more than 10%. 11

If you are a new Respondent Print and complete Respondent Form: http://www.cde.state.co.us/FedPrograms/ti/a_comp.asp Get Superintendent’s signature Fax(303-866-6637) or email to: morganstern_d@cde.state.co.us If you already are the respondent, login and password are still good unless you changed districts. Call if you lost or forgot yours (303-866-6209). 12

To access Online System: https://edx. cde. state. co 4-digit District number User Name and Password assigned to authorized Respondent 13

Title I schools at one EMH: Title I schools at 2 EMH: 14

click 15

Choose a school and click 16

Update Title I FTE, State and Locally-funded FTE and Student Enrollment fields and “Save Changes” 17

Once all school FTE and enrollment numbers have been updated, click 18

click 19

compared Average State- and locally-funded student/teacher ratio for non-Title I schools in grade span 10% above average State- and locally-funded student/teacher ratio for non-Title I schools 20

21

22

If FTE method attempted but does not “work.” 3 alternative methods Use alternative calculators found on CDE website at: http://www.cde.state.co.us/FedPrograms/ti/a_comp.asp 23

Alternative 1: Alternative 2: Using same FTE data, district conducts FTE analyses on the high and low enrollment schools separately. Alternative 2: Using same FTE data, district conducts FTE analyses on the high and low poverty schools separately. 24

Enter District name and number Use pull-down menu to choose grade span and basis for high/low band Enter high/low cut point Enter school numbers, names, enrollment and FTE information Student/teacher ratios for schools and grade span will calculate automatically, as well as lower and upper bases 25

26

27

Alternative 3: Based on state and local funds per-pupil for educational materials and resources If all schools Title I, calculates average per pupil allocation for grade span and determines whether per-pupil amount for each school falls within 10% (90% - 110%). If not all schools Title I, calculates average non-Title I school per pupil allocation and determines whether per-pupil amount for each Title I school falls at or above 90% of non-Title I average. 28

Included in Per-Pupil Allocation All educational and instructional resources purchased with state and local funds: Salaries and benefits for teachers, librarian, instructional coaches, paras and aides, principal, etc. Curriculum materials, educational software, manuals—hardware in certain circumstances. Field trip costs. 29

Not included in Per-Pupil Allocation Transportation and cafeteria costs. Resources/materials purchased with funds other than state/local. Office staff not directly involved in educational activities: secretaries, counselors, nurses, etc. After-school or extracurricular activities: sports, clubs, newspaper, etc. Operating costs: HVAC, electricity, building lease, etc. 30

Consolidated Districts can go directly to per-pupil calculations: New Information Consolidated Districts can go directly to per-pupil calculations: Classroom teacher FTE only All education resources & materials Can use online system if all schools in EMH are Title I If not all schools Title I, use per-pupil allocation alternative calculator. 31

Enter Title I dollars (no $ sign) and state/local dollars and Student Enrollment and “Save Changes” 32

33

New Information If LEA has 2 elementary schools (K-2 and 3-6), although both elementary span, do not have to be comparable. IF LEA has a K-4 and 5-8, K-4 and 5-6 don’t have to be comparable. But, if grades overlap, have to be comparable (K-4 and 3-6). 35

Which students count for enrollment? All students K-12—no PK or younger. Even if K students enrolled only half-time, they count as full student. Enrollment is a head count. 36

When does online system open and close? Online system open now. Goal is data submitted by December 18th or as soon as possible after that. If something needs to be adjusted to get comparable, you want to do that before the spring semester begins. 37

Which method should you use? Use FTE method first (unless Consolidated). If not all schools comparable, try alternative methods. Per-pupil method should be last option—requires more additional work. A school “comparable” by FTE method will not lose this status if district uses an alternative method for other school(s). 38

Must LEA submit documentation? Updated FTE and enrollment numbers will be compared to October Count and HR data submitted to CDE through other collections. Districts using per-pupil allocation method required to submit copies of budgets and expenditures. 39

Remember! Federal law prohibits using Title IA funds to supplant state and locally funded school programs and resources Questions? Data: Donna Morganstern (303-866-6209) morganstern_d@cde.state.co.us Program: Jeff Klein (303-866-6700) Klein_j@cde.state.co.us 40