Why guidance on the supplemental finds test? WWhat’s the confusion? HHow does this affect school turnaround? WWhy guidance now? WWhat are the things.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
A Principal’s Guide to Title I, Part A and LAP Requirements
Advertisements

Response to Intervention Funding Issues. The Question Is… Can RTI be an allowable part of a federally funded program? NOT Can federal funds pay for RTI?
Title I, Part A and Section 31a At Risk 101
Additional flexibility for districts Changes in time and effort reporting.
RtI and Title I in Wisconsin
ESEA Title I Supplement, Not Supplant, and American Reinvestment and Recover Act (ARRA) funds.
STRATEGIC PLAN Community Unit School District 300 7/29/
Council of Chief State School Officers  This webinar will be recorded and posted, along with the Toolkit, to the CCSSO website following today’s presentations.
Maintenance of Effort, Comparability, and Supplement/Supplant PAFPC March 2013.
Empowering Educators: Planning for Success Office of Student Programs.
Consolidated Application Budget Detail and Fiscal Issues.
Getting Organized for the Transition to the Common Core What You Need to Know.
Dr. Kathleen M. Smith Director, Office of School Improvement (804) (804) (Cell) Dr. Dorothea Shannon.
2008 Spring Planning Workshop for the School Year Office of School Improvement Field Services Unit.
Implementing RTI Using Title I, Title III, and CEIS Funds Key Issues for Decision-makers.
No Child Left Behind The Basics Of Title 1 Every Child - Now! Focus on the critical nature of doing what’s right and what’s needed – today - to help every.
1 Why is the Core important? To set high expectations – for all students – for educators To attend to the learning needs of students To break through the.
Webinar #1 The Webinar will begin shortly. Please make sure your phone is muted. (*6 to Mute, #6 to Unmute) 7/3/20151.
1 South Dakota Department of Education – Grants Management Rob Huffman – Administrator Mark Gageby – Special Education Fiscal Kim Fischer – Fiscal Monitoring.
Maintenance of Effort, Comparability, and Supplement/Supplant PAFPC March 2014.
1. 2 Why is the Core important? To set high expectations –for all students –for educators To attend to the learning needs of students To break through.
Maintenance of Effort, Comparability, and Supplement/Supplant PAFPC April 2013.
Partnering with Parents in using Federal Programs for Quality Education for all Students Parent Summit 02/21/2014 SAISD Federal Programs Dept. Barbara.
M AXIMIZING F LEXIBILITY IN THE A DMINISTRATION OF F EDERAL G RANTS July 17, 2013.
The Educational system Principles of Teaching Ag Ed.
Speed Bumps on the Fiduciary Road Title I Administrative Meeting Timonium Maryland April 14, 2010 Cvieta Jovanovich.
Title Grants Division Illinois State Board of Education 1 NCLB TITLE GRANT MANAGEMENT ISBE Illinois Association of Title I Directors Annual Fall Conference.
1 MERA May 17, 2011 Mike Radke, Director, Office of Field Services, Michigan Department of Education.
Federal Programs Fall Conference Title I and the ACIP Logan Searcy and Beth Joseph.
What Does Supplement, Not Supplant Mean?. 2 Fiscal Requirements Supplement, not Supplant –
Title I Schoolwide Ray Draghi and Rasha Hetata October 2014.
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.
Response to Intervention: Guidance for Federal Funds ESEA Directors InstituteESEA Directors Institute October 6-9, 2014October 6-9, 2014.
Title IA Planning, Fiscal, and Parental Involvement Workshops Maine Department of Education Kathryn Manning Jackie Godbout Rachelle Tome May 2006.
WIIN Star File Cabinet Feature Purpose: Provide a repository for evidence of implementation of SIG required elements as well as school improvement achievements.
Overview of Title I Part A Prepared by: Title I Staff - Office of Superintendent of Instruction OSPI Dr. Bill Wadlington, Superintendent/Principal and.
Fiscal Considerations Spring 2006 NCLB Regional Workshops.
Region Three Pilot “Virtual” Consolidation. Consolidation Legislation and Guidance Title I Schoolwide Fiscal Guidance issued February, 2008 [Section E]
Title II, Part A Improving Teacher and Principal Quality.
Annual Title I Meeting School Name. Why are we here? The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 requires that each Title I School hold an Annual Meeting.
NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Recognition that Education is the key to a better economy.
Maintenance of Effort Federal Cross-Cutting & Special Education MoE Daniel Lunghofer Supervisor, School District/ESD Accounting.
Schoolwide Programs – New Guidance Karen Seay, Director Federal Policy and ESEA Research Division New Directors’ Training September 17-18, 2015
Schoolwide Consolidation Consolidation Legislation and Guidance Title I Schoolwide Fiscal Guidance issued February, 2008 [Section E] Designing Schoolwide.
Schoolwide Funding Flexibility – Extended Training Karen J.M. Seay, Director Federal Policy and ESEA Research Data September 21, 2015.
Title I Part A: Back to Basics ESEA Odyssey Fall 2010.
School-Wide Plans Presented by: Marlon Cousin, Title I Coordinator East Baton Rouge Parish School System Cheryl Landry, Title I Coordinator Lafourche.
WELCOME Title I School-wide Open House EWING PUBLIC SCHOOLS
1 46th Annual PAFPC Conference May 5, 2015 MARIA GARCIA Schoolwide Program Manager DIVISION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS Title I Schoolwide Programs.
SUPPLEMENT, NOT SUPPLANT SUPPLEMENT, NOT SUPPLANT TESTS District Level: Maintenance of Effort School Level: Comparability of Services Child Level: Educational.
South Hunterdon Regional School District Consolidated Monitoring Report (CMR) Presentation to the SHRSD Board of Education on October 26, 2015 Audit from.
1.  Understand ESEA and the purpose of Title I, Part A Programs and Services  Understand how to communicate and plan with private schools  Understand.
Maximizing Multiple Funding Sources Belinda Rinker, Senior Policy Analyst Office of Head Start Developing a recipe for high.
The Day in the Life of OFPSI staff By: Dr. Shawnrell Blackwell Director of Federal Programs & School Improvement (OFPSI) Petersburg City Public Schools.
RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION (RTI) MASFPS LANSING, MICHIGAN NOVEMBER, 2008 Leigh Manasevit Brustein & Manasevit 3105 South Street NW Washington, DC (202)
©2015, Region One Education Service Center Curriculum Advisory Council Meeting March 26, 2015 EDGAR Uniform Grants Guidance Office of School Improvement,
Maintenance of Effort, Comparability, and Supplement/Supplant PAFPC May Ken Krawchuk
Sub-recipient Monitoring and Contractor Determination
A Principal’s Guide to Title I, Part A and LAP Requirements
New Fiscal Rules for Funding Flexibility with Title I, Part A
Title I Annual Meeting September 20, 2011
Department of Exceptional Student Education
Changes in time and effort reporting
Title I, Part A Supplement not Supplant (SNS) Under ESSA
Otis J. Brock, III Elementary School
TIIA and IVA in the FY19 ESSA Consolidated Grant Application
Constructing High Performing Schoolwide Programs
Otis J. Brock, III Elementary School
ANNUAL TITLE I MEETING NOBLE ACADEMY COLUMBUS.
AUDITS----SINGLE AUDIT CONCEPT, COMPLIANCE
Presentation transcript:

Why guidance on the supplemental finds test? WWhat’s the confusion? HHow does this affect school turnaround? WWhy guidance now? WWhat are the things to think about in developing state-specific guidance? WWhat are the next steps for your state?

Why this guidance?  The schoolwide program model is a powerful school improvement tool, but is rarely implemented to its full potential because of confusion over “supplement not supplant”  Federal law sets a different test for schoolwide program schools, but it is rarely applied  Implementing this different test could radically change how schools and districts spend Title I finds, and how states oversee spending, so state, district and school staff will need guidance and support

Taking a step back, what could schoolwide look like? Depending on its needs, a schoolwide programs school could spend Title I to:  Implement a stronger curriculum  Implement an early warning system  Extend the school day or school year  Reorganize class schedules to increase teacher planning time  Revamp the school’s discipline process  Hire additional teachers  Reorganized classes to promote personalized learning  Implement career academies  Implement school safety programs  And so much more......

Why doesn’t schoolwide look that way now? Title I funds are supposed to supplement state and local efforts  Three presumptions of supplanting:  Mandated by state/local law  Paid for with state/local funds in prior year  Same services paid for with the Title I for Title I students and state/local funds for non-Title I students Historically, compliance has been reviewed programmatically, by defining the programs and services school districts will deliver with the state and local funds Under the approach, Title I funds are typically limited to separate add-on services

What is different in schoolwide?  The Title I statue takes a different approach in schoolwides in an effort to drive comprehensive reforms and approaches in high-poverty schools Instead of making sure Title I delivers “extra” programs and services..... We look at the amount of state and local money a schoolwide school receives to make sure its all the money it would get if it did not also receive federal funds  The goal is to make sure Title I schools, in the aggregate, get extra money – they then have flexibility in how they spend their money

What does this look like in practice? Example 1:  A school district conducts a technology audit, which shows Title I schools have computer labs, but non- Title 1 schools do not  The district reduces state/local allocations to Title I schools in order to redirect state/local money to non- Title I schools so they can by computer labs

Example 1 (cont) Result  The school district violates the supplemental funds test because Title I schools are deprived of state and local funds because they receive Title 1

What does this look like in practice? Example 2:  A school district meets the supplemental funds test  State and local resources have declined, forcing school leaders to make tough decisions about what to keep and what to cut  Most schools decide not to cut teaching positions  Title I schools use Title I funds to retain teacher FTEs, while non-Title I schools do so with state/local funds

Example 2 (cont) Result  This scenario does not violate the supplemental funds test (but is likely to get scrutinized)  The supplemental funds test looks at the overall level of resources going into a school, and not for supplementary services  Here, the Title 1 Schools have extra resources non-Title I schools do not have  The non-Title1 schools had to cut other costs in order to retain the teacher FTEs with state and local funds, cuts Title 1 schools did not have to make. Title 1 Schools should be getting something extra with the extra dollars they have flowing into the school

So what is the control to ensure Title 1 funds are spent responsibly?  All costs changed to Title 1 in a schoolwide program must be:  Consistent with the school’s needs  Reasonably designed to improve student outcomes  Necessary and reasonable

What does this look like in practice? A school district conducts a technology audit to prepare for new computer-based assessments aligned to common core. The audit reveals a Title 1 school’s newly purchased computers do not meet test security requirements –While a Title 1 school could, in theory, use Title 1 to prepare for new state assessments, in this case upgrading new computers may not be a necessary or reasonable use of funds

Teeing up the next steps Getting schools to schoolwide status: –This guidance deals only with the supplemental funds test and how that affects the use of funds in a schoolwide –It does not address other schoolwide requirements such as conducting a comprehensive needs assessment, or completing a schoolwide plan –Many states already have guidance on these issues If so, will this be incorporated into the existing guidance, or will it be a standalone document? If not, will the state develop such guidance?

Next steps (cont.) Use of funds: –ED guidance supports a broad range of activities that could be supported with Title 1 in a schoolwide program –Does the state want to provide state-specific guidance on use of funds? Are there specific kinds of costs the state wants to promote? Are there specific kinds of costs the state does not want to see?

Next Steps (cont.) Burden reduction opportunities: –Use of funds in a schoolwide is driven by a school’s needs assessment and plan –Do schools already go through a needs assessment and planning process that can satisfy schoolwide requirements? –SIG related process? –State developed process? –Accreditation process? –Chartering process? –District developed process?

Next Steps (cont.)  State Oversight: –What do these changes mean for how the state will oversee school-level planning and spending? –What’s the best way to balance oversight responsibilities, burden and effective administration Increased oversight at the front end (using the application process)? Using existing process to help monitor fed rules (reimbursement, financial reports, etc.)? Revamp back–end monitoring?

Next Steps (cont.)  Supplemental funds test:  What might this test look like in your state?  What concerns might people have over this guidance?  What would be the best way to address those concerns?