1. 2013-14 ALLOCATION OF FUNDS Presented By: Kelly Gallatin Federal Funds Manager

2. Status of PA Funds for DFP (projected by USDE, as of 3/7/13) —includes Formula & Sequestration Percent of Reduction from 2012-13 Levels for Major Programs: – Title I, Grants to LEAs (-7.35%) – Title II, Improving Teacher Quality (-4.2%) – Title III, English Learner Education (-3.2%) – School Improvement Grant (-10.1%) PDE

3. Terminology The following terms are often confused but have three distinct applications: Census Poor (or Poverty Level) Percent of Free and Reduced Lunch (vs. Census Poor) Formula Percent (USDE basis for Title I eligibility and allocation of funds to SDs) PDE

4. Title I-A, Census Poor Census Poor – The number of children age 5-17 from families below the poverty level on the basis of the most recent satisfactory data (each person or family is assigned one out of 48 possible poverty thresholds). USDE

5. Census Info About census poverty: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/ About school district info: http://www.census.gov/did/www/saipe/ About poverty data sources: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about /datasources/ http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about /datasources/ USDE

6. How are Census Poor and Free & Reduced Lunch applied with regard to Title I funds? Census poor is part of the formula used by USDE in the calculation of Title I allocations by school district. Free & Reduced Lunch is a local measure—used to make schools eligible for Title I within the school district. Free & Reduced Lunch is not used as a factor in USDE allocations.

7. How Different is Census Poor from Free & Reduced Lunch? Students whose family income is up to 135% of the poverty level are eligible for Free lunch Students whose family income is up to 185% of the poverty level are eligible for Reduced lunch

8. How Different is Census Poor from Free & Reduced Lunch? Census Poor % is generally MUCH Lower School District NameCensus FRL Big Pine SD 25.74% 60.74% Smallville Area SD 23.84% 71.68% Valley Junction SD 11.07% 29.40%

9. Formula Percent Counts Used in Formula Percent Calculation (Updated Annually) Census Poor TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) Foster Neglected Age 5-17 Population Total Count of Formula Children/Age 5-17 population = Percent of Formula Children USDE

10. Title I-A Allocations by School District from USDE Eligibility based on percent of formula children School Districts may receive funds from one, three or four funding streams within the total available Title I allocation: Basic Grant Concentration Grant Targeted Grants EFIG (Education Finance Incentive Grant) USDE

11. Title I-A Allocations Eligibility – Basic Grants 10 Formula Children; AND 2% Formula Children (Census, TANF, Foster & Neglected) – Concentration Grants 15% Formula Children OR 6500 Formula Children

12. Title I-A Allocations Eligibility (Cont’d) – Targeted Grants 10 Formula Children; AND 5% Formula Children – Education Finance Incentive Grant (EFIG) 10 Formula Children; AND 5% Formula Children USDE

13. HOLD-HARMLESS GUARANTEE (at USDE Level) All 4 formulas provide for a variable hold- harmless guarantee for each LEA of 85%, 90%, and 95% of their previous year’s allocation The hold-harmless percentage depends on the percent of formula children for each LEA For Basic, Targeted, and EFIG, an LEA must meet the eligibility criteria in order for hold- harmless protection to apply For Concentration Grants, the hold-harmless provision applies to an LEA for four years even if it no longer meets the 15% eligibility criteria USDE

14. Title I Allocations from PDE USDE Calculates LEA (Prelim or Final) PDE Adjusts for Charter Schools – Total Enrollment from sending LEAs – Calculate Formula Children 4% School Improvement Set Aside 1% Administration Set Aside Achievement Awards (5% of PA gain) PDE

15. Title I Allocations from PDE Hold Harmless Applied at These Levels – 95% for 30% or More Formula Children – 90% for >=15% but <30% Formula Children – 85% for less than 15% Formula Children PDE

16. HOLD-HARMLESS GUARANTEE (at PDE Level) Variable hold-harmless guarantee for each LEA of 85%, 90%, or 95% based on the Total of their previous year’s state-determined allocation The hold-harmless percentage depends on the percent of formula children for each LEA PDE method helps lessen the degree of severity of abrupt losses in Targeted and EFIG funds in a single year that are not held- harmless at the USDE level PDE

17. Improving Teacher Quality Title II, Part A Formula Formula Factors – Hold Harmless (based on 2001-02 Title II-A & CSRI allocations) – Census Poor – 5-17 Population – Nonpublic Share PDE

18. Improving Teacher Quality Title II, Part A Formula Hold Harmless – 2001-02 Amount (or estimate for LEAs established after 2001-02) – LEAs AND IUs – Ratable Reduction if Insufficient Funds – Remaining Funds Allocated to LEAs PDE

19. Improving Teacher Quality Title II, Part A Formula Distribution of Remaining Funds 80% of Funds – Census Poor – % of the Whole 20% of Funds – 5-17 population – % of the Whole PDE

20. Title II, Part A Nonpublic Intermediate Units Receive $$$ for Nonpublic Programs HH at 2001-02 Amount May Be Eligible for Additional $$$ From Public School Districts – Based on $ Spent on Professional Development – E-grants Calculates Additional Funds—If Any PDE

21. QUESTIONS