1 / 23

Economic Recovery & Reinvestment Act Review - Three Funding Pots for Schools

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and America’s Public Schools AASA Advocacy Conference April 22, 2009 Bruce Hunter Associate Executive Director, Advocacy and Policy. Economic Recovery & Reinvestment Act Review - Three Funding Pots for Schools.

oya
Download Presentation

Economic Recovery & Reinvestment Act Review - Three Funding Pots for Schools

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and America’s Public SchoolsAASA Advocacy ConferenceApril 22, 2009 Bruce HunterAssociate Executive Director, Advocacy and Policy

  2. Economic Recovery & Reinvestment ActReview -Three Funding Pots for Schools • Funds flowing through established federal formulas, Title I, IDEA, Title II, McKinney Vento Homeless Act, Impact Aid • Funds flowing through the State Stabilization Fund, controlled by the governors and existing state funding formulas -one exception is $5 billion for competitive grant in school improvement through the Secretary of Education’s ‘Race to the Top’ funds • Tax Credit bonds for new construction and Qualified Zone Academy bonds for renovation and modernization

  3. $44 Billion Available in April • Available April 1 • IDEA Parts B and C - $6.1 billion (50%) • Title I Part A - $ 5 billion (50%) • Vocational Rehabilitation - $270 million (50%) • Available April 10th • Homeless Education - $70 million (100%) • Impact Aid - $100 million (100%) • $40 million by formula - $60 million competitive grants • Available now, delivered upon receipt of application • State Stabilization - $32.5 Billion (67% based on approvable application)

  4. $49 Billion More Available Later in 2009 • State Fiscal Stabilization Fund - $16.1 billion (33%) • IDEA Parts B & C - $6.1 billion – (50%) • Title I Part A - $5 billion – (50%) • Title I School Improvement - $3 billion – (100%) • Title II Part D Technology - $650 million (100%) • Vocational Rehabilitation – $270 million – (50%) • State Wide Data Systems - $250 million – (100%) • Teacher Incentive Fund - $200 million – (100%) • Teacher Quality Enhancement - $100 million – (100%)

  5. Buy Your Business Office a Drink • All of the funds must be tracked separately • US DOE made new account codes available • www.recovery.gov is supposed to eventually list the amounts and uses for all ARRA fund dollars.

  6. Core SFSF Assurances • Making improvements in teacher effectiveness and ensuring that all schools have highly qualified teachers; • Making progress toward college and career-ready standards and rigorous assessments that will improve both teaching and learning; • Improving achievement in low-performing schools, by providing intensive support and effective interventions in schools that need them the most; • Gathering information to improve student learning, teacher performance, and college and career-readiness through enhanced data systems that track progress.

  7. Distribution of State Fiscal Stabilization Funds: Problems Emerge • Governor supplants education funds by the SFSF amount • Governor directs education funds to other purposes, non-educational • Governor makes school districts fill in application even though the state doesn’t have to apply • Governor withholds funds from this fiscal year • Governor stretches the funds over the next two school years rather than leaving that decision to school districts

  8. Evaluating ARRA Metrics • Making improvements in teacher effectiveness and ensuring that all schools have highly qualified teachers. • Number and percentage of teachers in the highest and lowest poverty schools that are highly qualified; • Number and percentage of teachers and principals rated at each level of performance in each district’s teacher evaluation system; • Number and percentage of district teacher evaluation systems that require evidence of student achievement outcomes.

  9. Evaluating ARRA Metrics • Making progress toward college and career-ready standards and rigorous assessments that will improve both teaching and learning. • Most recent math and reading NAEP scores • Steps to improve assessments • Valid reliable measures for ELLs and students with disabilities test in math and English Language Arts; • Percentage of ELLs and students with disabilities tested in math and ELA; and • Number and percentage of students who graduate and complete one year of college.

  10. Evaluating ARRA Metrics • Establishing robust data systems that track progress provide better information for educators and the public to address the needs of individual students and improve teacher performance. • Establish statewide data system that contains elements of the data systems outlined in the America Competes Act; and • All teachers in math and ELA in tested grades receive timely data to inform instruction and estimates of the impact of individual teachers on student achievement.

  11. Evaluating ARRA Metrics • Improving achievement in the low-performing schools, by providing intensive support and interventions in schools that need the most assistance. • Number of schools in restructuring status that demonstrated substantial gains in achievement, closed or consolidated in the last three years; • Number of schools in the bottom 5% of those that demonstrated substantial gains in student achievement, closed or consolidated in the past three years. • Number and percentage of schools in restructuring that made progress in reading and math last year; and • Charter school caps, number operating number closed.

  12. LEA may overcome the supplanting presumption under the following conditions • The LEA can demonstrate that there was: • A reduction in the amount of non-Federal funds available to the LEA to pay for the activity previously supported by non-Federal funds or • A the LEA can demonstrate that its educational priorities with respect to its use of non-Federal funds have changed.

  13. LEA may overcome the supplanting presumption under the following conditions 2. The activity now paid with Title I, Part A funds is allowable under Title I, Part A and consistent with all Title I fiscal and programmatic requirements. This means, for instance, that a teacher formerly paid from non-Federal funds must be (1) engaged in activities that are allowable under Title I, Part A; (2) meeting the academic needs of Title I students identified through a school wide program school’s comprehensive needs assessment or providing supplemental services in a targeted assistance school; and (3) conducting activities consistent with the LEA’s application approved by the SEA.

  14. LEA may overcome the supplanting presumption under the following conditions 3. The LEA makes the decision to eliminate the activity without taking into consideration the availability of Title I, Part A funds, as documented by fiscal and programmatic records confirming that, in the absence of Title I, Part A funds, the LEA would have eliminated the activity.These records, for example, might document the reduction in non-Federal funds or explain what priorities changed to warrant a shift of non-Federal funds away from those priorities and the LEA’s reasons for choosing to eliminate non-Federal support for the priorities. Please note that such documentation must be contemporaneous with the LEA’s decision-making process; it is very difficult to rebut a presumption of supplanting after the fact.

  15. Children in Private Schools • The current regulations of spending money on private school children apply to the stimulus money. The equitable participation language applies to the Title I, IDEA, and Education Technology increases. • What does this mean for you? • Under IDEA: • The amount LEAS spend on the provision of services (including direct services to parentally placed private school children) shall be equal to a proportionate amount of Federal funds made available under this part. • The child find process will ensure equitable participation of parentally placed private school children with disabilities. • LEAs are responsible for identifying all children with disabilities in private schools in their district, even if those students do not reside in their district • Under Title I: (Section 1120) • LEAs shall provide those children enrolled in private elementary schools and secondary schools, on an equitable basis, special educational services or other benefits under this part that address their needs, and shall ensure that teachers and families of the children participate, on an equitable basis, in services and activities • Educational services and benefits for these private school children must be equitable to the services/benefits provided for public school children • Expenditures for these educational services/benefits shall be equal to the proportion of funds allocated to participating school attendance areas based on the number of children from low-income families who attend private schools

  16. IDEA Guidance Language for Sec. 613Requirements – AASA Disagrees • If an SEA determines that an LEA is not meeting the requirements of Part B, including meeting targets in the state’s performance plan, the SEA must prohibit that LEA from reducing its MOE under IDEA section 613(a)(2)(C). • An LEA must receive a determination under section 616 of “Meets Requirements” from the state in order to take advantage of this flexibility. Also, IDEA section 613(a)(2)(C)(iii) requires an SEA to prohibit an LEA from reducing its MOE if the SEA has taken responsibility for providing a FAPE in the LEA because the LEA is unable to establish and maintain programs of FAPE, or the SEA has taken action against the LEA under IDEA section 616. • Finally, an LEA that is required to use 15 percent of its IDEA Part B allocation on CEIS because the SEA identified the LEA as having significant disproportionality under 34 CFR §300.646, will not be able to reduce local MOE under IDEA section 613(a)(2)(C).

  17. Department of Education IDEA Criteria Annual LEA Compliance Review • Meets the requirements and purposes of IDEA • Needs assistance meeting the purposes of IDEA • Needs intervention to meet the requirements of IDEA • Needs substantial intervention to meet the requirements of IDEA

  18. Questions?Bruce Hunterbhunter@aasa.org For more information… US Department of Education ARRA Website www.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/index.html

More Related