leigh manasevit, esq. [email protected] brustein & manasevit,pllc 1

136
OAASFEP COLUMBUS, OH APRIL 2014 TITLE I REQUIREMENTS REMAINING IN THE LAND OF THE WAIVER Leigh Manasevit, Esq. [email protected] Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC www.bruman.com 1

Upload: tyshawn-lacer

Post on 31-Mar-2015

229 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

OAASFEPCOLUMBUS, OH

APRIL 2014

TITLE I REQUIREMENTS REMAINING IN THE LAND

OF THE WAIVERLeigh Manasevit, [email protected] Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC www.bruman.com

1

Page 2: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

TITLE I, PART A TOPICS

General Program Requirements Ranking and Serving Parental Involvement Set-asides Maintenance of Effort Comparability Supplement Not Supplant SES / Choice Equitable Services Reauthorization????

2

W

W

Page 3: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

TITLE I BASICS

Title I, Part A is a State-administered program ED grants funds to States based on

statutory formulas State grants funds to LEAs based on

statutory formula LEA allocates funds to schools based on

ranking and serving

3

Page 4: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

TITLE I BASICS (CONT.)

4

Allocations are based on poverty levels

Service is based on academic need

Page 5: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

PROGRAM DESIGN

Two models of Title I, Part A program:1. Targeted Assistance2. Schoolwide

5

Page 6: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

TARGETED ASSISTANCE: FOCUS ON IDENTIFIED STUDENTS

Must identify “Title I students” and provide with supplemental services

Must ensure Title I $ solely used to benefit identified students

For schools ineligible or choose not to operate schoolwide

Default rule

6

Page 7: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

WHO IS A TITLE I STUDENT?

Students identified as failing or at risk of failing State standards: NOT based on poverty!

7

Page 8: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

ELIGIBLE TITLE I STUDENTS

Students eligibility is based on: Multiple Educationally related Objective criteria Developed by LEA

If preschool- grade 2, judgment of teacher, interviews with parents, and other developmentally appropriate means.

8

Page 9: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

AUTOMATICALLY ELIGIBLE

If student in the previous 2 years received services in Head Start Even Start Early Reading First Or Migrant Part C

If the student is currently eligible under Neglect or Delinquent or Homeless

Migrant (not receiving Part C services), IDEA and LEP students are eligible on the same basis as any other student

9

9999

Page 10: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

COMPONENTS OF TARGETED ASSISTANCE SCHOOL (TAS)

1. Use Title I funds to help participating students meet State standards

2. Incorporate Title I plans into existing comprehensive school plans

3. Use effective methods and instructional strategies based on scientifically-based research (SBR)

Extended learning time Accelerated, high-quality curriculum Minimize removing from classroom during

regular hours

10

Page 11: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

COMPONENTS OF TAS (CONT.)

4. Coordinate with regular ed program5. Highly qualified teachers6. Professional development7. Parental involvement8. Coordinate other Federal, State, and

local services and programs

11

Page 12: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

RECORDKEEPING

Records must be maintained that document that Part A funds are spent on activities and services for only Title I, Part A participating students.

12

Page 13: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

SCHOOLWIDE PROGRAMS

Combine Federal, State, and local programs (sometimes funds) to upgrade the entire educational program

However, in Most States the SEA must approve consolidation!

All students in schoolwide schools may be served by Title I employees Pre-requisite: 40% poverty

TAS by default, unless this threshold is met

13

Page 14: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

SWP FOCUS: ALL STUDENTS

Enabling all students to meet State standards Not required to provide supplemental services to

identified children Does not have to:

Demonstrate Federal funds are used only for specific target populations

14

Page 15: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

SCHOOL LEVEL REQUIREMENTS WAIVED

Exempted from most statutory and regulatory requirements applying at school level

Not required to ID particular children or provide supplemental services

Intent and purposes must be met

15

Page 16: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

COMMON MONITORING FINDING

SWP Plan missing elements

16

Page 17: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

SWP PLAN

17

3 Elements:1) Describe how school

implements mandatory SWP components

2) Description of how school will use resources to implement

3) List of federal, state, and local programs consolidated

Page 18: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

COMPONENTS OF SWP

One year planning period1. Needs assessment2. Schoolwide reform strategies that:

a. Increase the amount & quality of learning time (extended year, before- and after-school)

b. Address needs of all, but particularly low-achieving

18

Page 19: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

COMPONENTS OF SWP (CONT.)

3. Instruction by “highly qualified” teachers4. Professional development5. Strategies to attract high quality teachers6. Parental involvement7. Transition from pre-school8. Include teachers in assessment decisions9. Timely, effective additional assistance10. Coordination and integration

19

Page 20: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

NEEDS ASSESSMENT PROCESS

Needs Assessment – clearer focus in guidance – March 2006 has 5 step process:

1. Establishing SW planning team2. Clarifying the vision for reform3. Creating the school profile4. Identifying data sources5. Analyzing data

20

Page 21: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

EXCEPTIONS TO SCHOOLWIDE FLEXIBILITY

IDEA – all requirements Migrant – consult with parents; meet needs first;

document Indian – parent committee approval Health and safety Civil rights Parental involvement Private school students, teachers Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Comparability

21

Page 22: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

RANKING AND SERVING SCHOOLS UNDER SECTION 1113

22

Page 23: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

ELIGIBLE SCHOOL ATTENDANCE AREAS

Percentage of children from low-income families who reside in area . . . .

AT LEAST AS HIGH AS . . . . Percentage of children from low-income

families in LEA

LEA has flexibility to serve any school attendance area with at least 35% poverty – even if percentage is lower than average of LEA 23

Page 24: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

ELIGIBLE SCHOOL ATTENDANCE AREAS

Residency Model

OR

Enrollment Model

24

Page 25: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

5 POVERTY MEASURES:

1. Census data2. Free and Reduced Lunch Program

data3. TANF4. Medicaid eligibility5. Composite of above

25

Page 26: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

POVERTY MEASURES (CONT.)

Same measure for ID eligible areas Ranking areas Determining allocations for school (Choice priority) (SES eligibility)

Not for SWP eligibility

26

Page 27: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

RANKING AND SERVING

Exceeding 75% poverty Strictly by poverty Without regard to grade span

At or below 75% poverty May rank by grade span

Serve strictly in order of rank!

27

Page 28: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

ALLOCATION TO SCHOOLS

After set-asides Allocate to schools based on total # of

low income residing in area (including nonpublic)

Discretion on amount of PPA Higher PPAs must be in higher schools on

ranked list No regard to SWP or TAS

28

Page 29: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

EXCEPTION: RANK & SERVE

“Skip” school, if:1. Comparability met2. Receiving supplemental State/local

funds used in Title I-like program3. Supp. State/local funds meet or

exceed amount would be received under Title I

Still count and serve nonpublic in area

29

Page 30: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT

30

Page 31: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT OVERVIEW

Annual meeting Involvement in planning, review and

improvement of Title I programs Provide parents of timely information

about Title I programs Coordinate with other programs, parent

resource centers

31

Page 32: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

PARENTAL NOTIFICATIONS

Annual LEA report cards Parents “right to know” of teacher

qualifications Highly qualified teacher status Achievement levels on State academic

assessments School improvement status School Choice notice as a result of school

improvement status Supplemental educational services as a

result of school improvement status Schoolwide program authority 32

Page 33: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

PARENTAL NOTIFICATIONS (CONT.)

Easily understandable, in a uniform format, including alternate formats upon request, and to the extent practicable, in a language the parents can understand.

33

Page 34: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT POLICIES

LEA parental involvement policy School parental involvement policy School/Parent compact

34

Page 35: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT

1% of LEA’s Title I allocation 95% of 1% to schools LEA may keep anything over 1% for

LEA-level parental involvement Private school portion based on entire

amount

35

Page 36: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

LEA SET-ASIDESMAINTENANCE OF

EFFORT, COMPARABILITY

AND SUPPLEMENT NOT

SUPPLANT

36

W

Page 37: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

LEA RESERVATIONS OF TITLE I FUNDS

20% Choice transportation & SES 5% Teacher & paraprofessional

qualifications???? 1% Parental involvement 10% Professional development (if LEA

identified)

37

W

W

W

Page 38: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

5% TEACHER AND PARAPROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS

WAS: Use at least 5%, unless lesser amount needed

NOW: Deadline of 2005-06 for all teacher and paraprofessionals to be qualified

No longer mandated (But, is it even allowable cost?)

38

W

Page 39: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

1% PARENT INVOLVEMENT

Reserve at least 1% 95% of 1% to schools If reserve >1%, still only need to

distribute 95% of first 1% to schools But ALL reserved subject to equitable

participation for private school students

39

Page 40: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

10% PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

If the LEA is identified for improvement.

May include any teachers that serve Title I students at some point during the day

“Title I funds cannot be used to pay for professional development of staff who do not serve any Title I students at some point during the school day.”

Ray Simon guidance letter (2004)

Question: Include teachers who do not serve any Title I students if there is no additional cost to the Title I program?

40

W

Page 41: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

LEA RESERVATIONS (CONT.)

No % specified Administration (public & private) Private school students Homeless

To serve students in non-Title I schools Neglected & Delinquent (N&D)

To serve students in N&D institutions or day facilities

Incentives to teachers in ID’d schools (< 5%) Professional development “Other authorized activities”

41

Page 42: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

IF NO % SPECIFIED

“Necessary and reasonable” amount Example: Administration

General Accountability Office found national average is around 10%

Example: Homeless Shelter counts Match McKinney Vento subgrant

42

Page 43: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

CALCULATING % SET ASIDES

Take off entire LEA grant Transferability:

Includes transferred amounts Carryover:

Does not include carry over (apply % only in first year available)

43

Page 44: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT

Most Directly Affected by Declining Budgets

44

Page 45: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

MOE

The combined fiscal effort per student or the aggregate expenditures of the LEA

From state and local funds

From preceding year must not be less than 90% of the second preceding year

45

Page 46: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

MOE: PRECEDING FISCAL YEAR

Need to compare final financial data Compare “immediately” PFY to

“second” PFY EX: To receive funds available July

2009, compare 2007-08 school year to 2006-07 school year

46

Page 47: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

MOE: FAILURE UNDER NCLB

47

SEA must reduce amount of allocation in the exact proportion by which LEA fails to maintain effort below 90%

Reduce all applicable NCLB programs, not just Title I

Page 48: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

Aggregate expenditures

Amount per student

SY 08 1,000,000 6,100SY 09 – must spend 90%

900,000 5,490

09 –Actual amount

850,000 5,200

Shortfall -50,000 -290Percent shortfall/ reduction

-5.6% -5.3%**

48

Page 49: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

MOE: WAIVER

USDE Secretary may waive if: Exceptional or uncontrollable

circumstances such as natural disasterOR Precipitous decline in financial resources of

the LEA

49

Page 50: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

ED WAIVERS

To State to Grant to LEAs

50

Page 51: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

COMPARABILITY How is this calculated and why does it

matter?

Legal Authority:Title I Statute: §1120A(c)

51

Page 52: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

GENERAL RULE- §1120A(C)

An LEA may receive Title I Part A funds only if it uses state and local funds to provide services in Title I schools that, taken as a whole, are at least comparable to the services provided in non-Title I schools.

If all are Title I schools, all must be “substantially comparable.”

52

Page 53: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

TIMING ISSUES

Guidance: Must be annual determination

YET, LEAs must maintain records that are updated at least “biennially” (1120A(c)(3)(B))

Review for current year and make adjustments for current year

53

Page 54: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

WRITTEN ASSURANCES

LEA must file with SEA written assurances of policies for equivalence: LEA-wide salary schedule Teachers, administrators, and other staff Curriculum materials and instructional

supplies Must keep records to document

implemented and “equivalence achieved”

54

Page 55: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

MAY ALSO MEET THROUGH. . .

Student/ instructional staff ratios; Student/ instructional staff salary

ratios; Expenditures per pupil; or A resource allocation plan based on

student characteristics such as poverty, LEP, disability, etc. (i.e., by formula)

55

Page 56: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

WHO IS “INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF”?

Consistent between Title I and non-Title I

Teachers (art, music, phys ed), guidance counselors, speech therapists, librarians, social workers, psychologists

Paraprofessionals – up to SEA/ LEA Only if providing instructional support ED urges NO!

56

Page 57: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

57

Compare:Average of all non-Title I

schools toEach Title I school

Basis for evaluation: grade-span by grade-span or school by school

May divide to large and small schools

Page 58: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

EXCLUSIONS:

Federal Funds Private FundsLEA may exclude state/local funds

expended for: Language instruction for LEP students Excess costs of providing services to

students with disabilities Supplemental programs that meet the

intent and purposes of Title I Staff salary differentials for years of

employment

58

Page 59: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

SUPPLEMENT NOT SUPPLANT Surprisingly Not Greatly Affected by

Declining Budgets!

59

Page 60: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

SUPPLEMENT NOT SUPPLANT

Federal funds must be used to supplement and in no case supplant state and local resources

60

Page 61: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

“What would have happened in the absence of the federal funds??”

61

Page 62: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

AUDITORS’ TESTS FOR SUPPLANTING

OMB Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement

62

Page 63: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

AUDITORS PRESUME SUPPLANTING OCCURS IF FEDERAL FUNDS WERE USED TO PROVIDE SERVICES . . .

Required to be made available under other federal, state, or local laws

63

Page 64: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

AUDITORS PRESUME SUPPLANTING OCCURS IF FEDERALLY FUNDED SERVICES

WERE . . . .

Provided with non-federal funds in prior year

64

Page 65: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

AUDITORS PRESUME SUPPLANTING OCCURS IF . . .

Title I funds used to provide service to Title I students, and the same service is provided to non-Title I children using non-Title I funds.

65

Page 66: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

PRESUMPTION REBUTTED!

66

If SEA or LEA demonstrates it would not have provided services if the federal funds were not available

NO non-federal resources available this year!

Page 67: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

WHAT DOCUMENTATION NEEDED?

67

Fiscal or programmatic documentation to confirm that, in the absence of fed funds, would have eliminated staff or other services in question

State or local legislative action

Budget histories and information

Page 68: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

MUST SHOW:

Actual reduction in state or local funds

Decision to eliminate service/position was made without regard to availability of federal funds (including reason decision was made)

68

Page 69: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

REBUTTAL EXAMPLE

State supports a reading coach program 2009 -2010

State cuts the program from State budget 2010 -2011

LEA wants to support Title I reading coach program 2010 - 2011

69

Page 70: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

REBUTTAL EXAMPLE

LEA must documenta. State cut the programb. LEA does not have uncommitted funds

available in operating budget to pick upc. LEA would cut the program unless federal

funds picked it upd. The expense is allowable under Title I

70

Page 71: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

REBUTTAL EXAMPLE 2

LEA pays a reading coach 2009 - 2010 LEA revenue falls and wants to pay

coach with Title I

71

Page 72: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

REBUTTAL EXAMPLE

LEA must showa. Reduction in Local funds

• Budgets, etc.

b. Decision to cut based on loss of funds• Link salary to reduction

c. Absent Title I, LEA would have to cut position

d. Position is allowable under Title I

72

Page 73: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

FLEXIBILITY EXCEPTION: 1120A(D)

Exclusion of Funds:

SEA or LEA may exclude supplemental state or local funds used for program that meets intents and purposes of Title I Part A

EX: Exclude State Comp Ed funds

73

Page 74: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

HOW DOES SUPPLANTING APPLY IN A SCHOOLWIDE PROGRAM?

74

Page 75: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

SUPPLEMENT NOT SUPPLANT

Statute 1114(a)(2)(B): Title I must supplement the amount of funds that would, in the absence of Title I, be made available from non-federal sources. E-18 in schoolwide guidance

The actual service need not be supplemental.

75

Page 76: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

SNS:

Guidance: School must receive all the state and local funds it would otherwise need to operate in the absence of Federal funds

Includes routine operating expenses such as building maintenance and repairs, landscaping and custodial services

76

Page 77: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

SCHOOL CHOICE AND SUPPLEMENT EDUCATION

SERVICES (SES)

77

W

Page 78: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT

School Year (Failing to Make AYP)

Status

1 “Warning Year”

2 School Improvement (“Year 1”) (school choice)

3 School Improvement (“Year 2”) (choice and SES)

4 Corrective Action (“Year 3”)

5 Restructuring – Planning year (“Year 4”)

6 Restructuring – Implementation (“Year 5”)

7+ ?

78

W

Page 79: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

TO EXIT SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT

Make AYP for 1 year . . . . “on hold” in same status

Make AYP for 2 consecutive years . . . exit school improvement

May also exit by becoming “new” school, depending on State policy

79

W

Page 80: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT NOTICE REQUIREMENTS

An explanation of what the identification means; How the school their child attends compares to other

elementary and secondary schools served by the LEA and the SEA;

The reason(s) for the school being identified for improvement;

An explanation of how parents can become involved in addressing the academic issues that led to identification; and,

An explanation of the parents’ option to transfer their child to another school in the LEA that has not been identified for improvement. (See School Choice Notification Requirements)

80

W

Page 81: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

SI YEAR 1: SCHOOL CHOICE

81

W

Page 82: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

PUBLIC SCHOOL CHOICE

82

Another public school in LEA not identified for school improvement and not “persistently dangerous”

W

Page 83: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

SCHOOL CHOICE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS Must be in an understandable and

uniform format and, to the extent practicable, in a language that parents can understand [Section 1116(b)(6); 34 C.F.R. §200.36(b)].

The notification should use simple, plain language and avoid legal or professional educational terms that may be confusing or intimidating to parents.

83

W

Page 84: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

SCHOOL CHOICE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS (CONT.)

At a minimum, the notification must: 1. Inform parents that their child is

eligible to attend another public school and may receive transportation to the school (explaining priority);

2. Identify each public school, which may include charter schools, that parents may select; and

3. Include information on the academic achievement of the schools that parents may select.

84

W

Page 85: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

SCHOOL CHOICE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS (CONT.)

The notice may include: Additional information on the schools to

which an eligible student may transfer, such as a description of any special academic programs or facilities, Must be presented in an unbiased manner

Additionally, an LEA should describe the procedures and timelines that parents must follow in selecting a school for their child.

85

W

Page 86: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

SCHOOL CHOICE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS (CONT.)

How Notify Parents? Must provide information to parents

both:1. Directly, - regular mail, e-mail, etc.; and 2. By broader means - Internet, the media,

and public agencies serving the student population and their families.

An LEA must also prominently display on its Web site, in a timely manner - a list of available schools for the current school year to which eligible students may transfer. 86

W

Page 87: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

TIMING ISSUES

87

Not later than 14 days before the start of the school year (October 2008 Title I regulations)

SEA must provide timely info to LEAs

W

Page 88: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

NEED NOT OFFER CHOICE IF. . . .

1. All schools in LEA identified2. Single school LEA3. Schools are “so remote from one

another that choice is impracticable”

88

W

Page 89: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

REQUIRED TO WORK WITH ANOTHER LEA?

LEA must, to the extent practicable, enter into cooperative agreements with other LEAs in the area

Bottom line: not required

89

W

Page 90: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

WHEN AND HOW DO YOU PRIORITIZE?

90

Lowest achieving students from low income families

ONLY re: implementation (paid transport; first choice)

ALL students enrolled in school must be offered choice

W

Page 91: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

SCHOOL CHOICE - CAPACITY

No Lack of Capacity! LEAs cannot assert lack of capacity to deny

students opportunity to transfer Health or safety violations? May be considered in determining which

school available to accept transfers Cannot use such factors to deny transfer to

any school

91

W

Page 92: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

EXAMPLES IN GUIDANCE

Reconfiguring space not currently used for instruction

Portable classrooms Satellite divisions of receiving school in

neighboring buildings New, distinct school, with separate

faculty, within physical site of identified school

New charter schools 92

W

Page 93: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

SI YEAR 2:

SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATIONAL SERVICES

93

W

Page 94: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATIONAL SERVICES (“SES”)

94

Eligible enrolled students receive tutoring or other extra educational services from an SEA-approved and parent-selected provider

W

Page 95: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

TIMING ISSUES

95

At beginning of SY following assessments

May establish deadline for parents Give sufficient time

(not 2 weeks)

W

Page 96: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

WHO IS “ELIGIBLE”?

Low income student Among eligible, prioritize lowest

achieving – Academic measure

Do not assume limited resources before notifying parents – Notify all eligible families Only after getting parent response, consider

priority

96

W

Page 97: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

WHO MAY BE A PROVIDER?

Any for-profit or nonprofit entities (including religiously-affiliated) meeting State criteria

LEA Not ID for improvement (unless

waived) Individual

97

W

Page 98: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

WHO MAY BE A PROVIDER? (CONT.)

98

Distance learning providers

Faith Based Organizations (FBOs) not required to give up religious character Need not remove religious

icons Cannot discriminate

against recipients

W

Page 99: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

SES NOTICE REQUIREMENTS

Comprehensive, easy-to-understand information about SES

– Distinct from other parent notices!

An LEA’s SES notice to parents must:  Explain how parents can obtain SES for

their child; Identify each approved SES provider within

the LEA or in its general geographic location;

Describe briefly the services, qualifications and evidence of effectiveness for each provider;

99

W

Page 100: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

SES NOTICE REQUIREMENTS (CONT.)

An LEA’s SES notice to parents must:  Indicate providers that are able to serve

students with disabilities or LEP students.  Include an explanation of the benefits of

receiving SES.

Additionally, LEA should describe the procedures and timelines that parents must follow to select a provider, when and how the LEA will notify parents about enrollment dates and start dates; and whom to contact in the LEA for more information.

100

W

Page 101: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

SES NOTICE REQUIREMENTS (CONT.)

An LEA’s notice to parents must: If an LEA anticipates that it will not

have sufficient funds to serve all eligible students, it should also include in the notice information on how it will set priorities in order to determine which eligible students receive services.

LEAs may provide additional information in the notice to parents, as appropriate.

101

W

Page 102: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

ROLE OF LEA IN STATE MONITORING

LEAs: Assist SEA in collecting information NOT in evaluating effectiveness of provider Conflict of interest if LEA is provider

Guidance - “Consider not involving such LEAs in the monitoring process at all”

102

W

Page 103: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

STATE MONITORING OF LEAS

“Should be part of regular Title I monitoring”

Also, “consider other tools” to monitor throughout year LEA submit to SEA:

Parental notification letters Updates during year on # of eligible

students, # signed up, # attending, amount of $ spent

103

W

Page 104: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

IF LEA FAILS TO IMPLEMENT SES. . .

Peer-to-peer oversight and TA by more effective LEA

Corrective action GEPA Enforcement:

1) Withhold approval of application; 2) Suspend payments; 3) Withhold payments; 4) Order repayment of misspent funds

104

W

Page 105: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

LEA RESPONSIBILITIES

Notify parents annually Help choose, if requested Impose priority if necessary Enter into agreement w/ providers Assist SEA in identifying potential

providers Protect privacy of students

105

W

Page 106: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

LEAS CANNOT:

Establish own provider list Set program design criteria

ONLY – “administrative or operational rules” that are imposed on all contractors

Ex. - Background checks, liability insurance

106

W

Page 107: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

FUNDS FOR CHOICE TRANSPORTATION AND SES

Amount equal to 20% of LEA allocation (Unless lesser amount needed)

To pay choice transportation To satisfy all requests for SES services Both

107

W

Page 108: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

FUNDS FOR CHOICE TRANSPORTATION AND SES (CONT.)

If no SES, then 20% on choice If no choice, then 20% on SES If both, then minimum of 5% for choice,

5% for supp services, and 10% for either

108

W

Page 109: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

ADMINISTRATION/SES TRANSPORTATION

109

20% cannot include administration (for choice or SES) or SES transportation

Allowable Title I, but not in 20%

W

Page 110: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

“AMOUNT EQUAL TO 20%”

May use Title I, A funds; School improvement Section

1003(a) funds; or State, local, or private funds.

110

W

Page 111: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

NEW REGULATIONS - TO SPEND LESS THAN 20%, LEA MUST:

Partner, to extent practicable, with outside groups (CBO, FBO, etc);

Ensure Parents have “genuine opportunity” to sign up;

Send timely, accurate notice to parents;

Ensure SES sign-up forms given directly to all eligible students/ parents;

111

W

Page 112: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

NEW REGULATIONS - TO SPEND LESS THAN 20%, LEA MUST:

Ensure SES sign-up forms made widely available through broad dissemination (Internet, other media, public agencies);

Provide (at a minimum) two enrollment windows at separate points in school year of sufficient length; and

Ensure SES providers are given access to school facilities, using a fair, open and objective process, on same basis as others.

112

W

Page 113: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

IF FULL 20% NOT NEEDED (RESERVED MORE THAN NECESSARY)

Reallocate to Title I If took school allocations, then

reallocated to those schools Subject to equitable participation of

private school students

113

W

Page 114: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

WHAT IF LEA SPENDS LESS THAN 20%, BUT FULL AMOUNT WAS NEEDED?

“Out of compliance” and “subject to enforcement sanctions”

If SEA finds LEA did not meet all criteria, then LEA must in the subsequent year: Spend amount equal to the remainder of

20% in the subsequent year on choice/ SES, in addition to new 20%, OR

Meet all criteria and obtain permission from the SEA before spending less than full 20% in subsequent year.

114

W

Page 115: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

EQUITABLE SERVICES FOR PRIVATE SCHOOL STUDENTS

115

115115115115

Page 116: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

SERVICES ARE EQUITABLE WHEN THE LEA:

Spends an equal amount of funds to serve similar public and private school students

Provides services and benefits that are equitable in comparison to the services and benefits provided to public school students

Addresses the specific needs and educational programs on public and private school students on a comparable basis

Provides, in the aggregate, approximately the same amount of services

Provides equal opportunities to participate Provides services that meet private school’s specific

needs

116

116116116116

Page 117: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

CONSULTATION

LEA must provide “timely and meaningful” consultation

Timely Before the LEA makes any decisions

Meaningful Genuine opportunity for parties to express

their views Views seriously considered

117

117117117117

Page 118: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

CONSULTATION (CONT.) Consultation must include:

1. How the LEA will identify the needs of eligible private school children

2. What services the LEA will offer 3. How and when the LEA will make decisions about

the delivery of services4. How, where, and by whom the LEA will provide

services 5. How the LEA will assess the services and use the

results of that assessment to improve Title I services

6. The size and scope of the equitable services 7. The method or the sources of poverty data used 8. The services the LEA will provide to teachers and

families of participating private school children.

MUST Document Consultation was timely and meaningful!

118

118118118118

Page 119: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

CONSULTATION MUST INCLUDE: (CONT.)Discussion about use of 3rd Party Providers Must consider private school officials’ views – but

LEA decides whether it will use 3rd Party Providers. If LEA says no, LEA must provide written analysis of

why officials’ opinion rejected Must be a written record if private schools want to

appeal to SEA about LEA decision

119

Page 120: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

CONSULTATION: WRITTEN AFFIRMATION LEAs must obtain written affirmation

from private school officials stating timely and meaningful consultation occurred.

Signed by officials from each school with participating children, or representative

Send to SEA and maintain in LEA’s files

Example in Guidance

120

Page 121: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

DERIVING INSTRUCTIONAL ALLOCATION

General Formula: Based on number of:

1. Private school students 2. From low-income families3. Who reside in Title I-participating public

school attendance areas

121

121121121121

Page 122: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

CALCULATING ALLOCATION FOR INSTRUCTION:

1. Rank public school areas: highest to lowest

2. Identify participating areas3. Calculate PPA for each area4. Calculate allocation amount for each

area must including nonpublic low-income #

5. Reserve nonpublic amount PPA x # of nonpublic low-income in each

area

122

122122122122

Page 123: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

PRIVATE SCHOOL STUDENTS ALSO MUST GET EQUITABLE SHARE OF SOME SET-ASIDES:

Off the top for districtwide instruction Off top for parental involvement Off top for professional development

123

123123123123

Page 124: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

HOW DO YOU GENERATE POVERTY DATA ON PRIVATE SCHOOL STUDENTS?

5 options:1. Data from same source2. Survey, with extrapolation3. Comparable data from different

source4. Proportionality5. Correlated measure

124

124124124124

Page 125: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

POVERTY DATA (CONT.)

Proportionality Applying low-income % of each public

school attendance area to number of private school children who reside in that area

Correlated measure Determining the proportional relationship

betw/ two sources and applying that ratio to known source or private school students.

125

125125125125

Page 126: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

POVERTY DATA: GUIDANCE

Preferred method: Same source (FRPL) BUT – Legis and regs say equally available

May used >1 method Use comparable income levels No duplication

126

126126126126

Page 127: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

DISTRIBUTING THE FUNDS

Two options:1) Pooling: pool the funds to use for students with greatest educational need anywhere in LEA; or

2) School-by-School: funds follow child to private school for educationally needy child in that school

127

127127127127

Page 128: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS

Off the top!! Before public and private school allocations

are calculated LEA administrative costs for public and private school program

Third party contractors (private companies) administrative costs

128

128128128128

Page 129: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

PROVISION OF SERVICES

Directly by LEA, or through private company, or another LEA

Responsibility of LEA where student resides

LEA controls finances Benefit of students, not private school

129

Page 130: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

EXAMPLES OF TYPES OF SERVICES

Instruction provided by LEA employees or third-party contractors

Extended-day services Family literacy Counseling Computer-assisted instruction Home tutoring Take home-computers

130

Page 131: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

TIMING OF SERVICES

Guidance: Must begin at same time as public

program If not, LEA should provide additional

services during the remainder of the year and carry over any unspent funds

131

Page 132: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

AGOSTINI: SAFEGUARDS

Services may be on-site at private school, with safeguards

Guidance: need not remove religious objects from room Must be safeguards in place to ensure NOT

promoting religion. Neutral, secular and non-ideological

132

Page 133: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

SECT 1119 STAFF QUALIFICATIONS

Do NOT apply to: private school teachers or

paraprofessionals third party contractor teachers or paras

DOES apply to: LEA teachers teaching private school

students LEA paraprofessionals Private School teachers hired by LEA for

Title I program.133

Page 134: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

For private school teachers of participants

Not for LEA teachers of participants Consult over appropriate services Private school officials cannot arrange,

then submit invoice to LEA

134

Page 135: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

QUESTIONS?

135

Page 136: Leigh Manasevit, Esq. lmanasevit@bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit,PLLC  1

THE FIRM DISCLAIMER!

This presentation is intended solely to provide general information and does

not constitute legal advice. Attendance at the presentation or later review of these printed materials does

not create an attorney-client relationship with Brustein & Manasevit. You should not take any action based

upon any information in this presentation without first consulting

legal counsel familiar with your particular circumstances.

136