Federal Programs Updates Mississippi Association of School - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Federal Programs Updates

Mississippi Association of School Administrators April 14, 2014

1

Agenda

• Updates on OFP Activities
• Title I, Part A allocation and reallocation
• Overview of ESEA Flexibility and the single

accountability model

• Program Evaluation
• Community Eligibility Provision
• Schoolwide Flexibility
• Upcoming Events

Federal Programs Activities

• OFP Highlights: Bi-weekly communication tool
• Using SharePoint to track documentation
• Pre-Kindergarten (PK)
• RFPs Available:

– Migrant: Due May 20, 2014, before 3:30 pm – Homeless: Due June 2, 2014, before 3:30 pm

• Private Schools Affirmation Form

– Completed and signed by April 30, 2014

• Serving schools above 75% poverty

Teacher Ratio Reminder

• When considering federally funded classroom teachers, first ensure

all state requirements have been met: MS Code §37-151-77 and Mississippi Public School Accountability Standards:

– 22 to 1 in kindergarten (27 to 1 with full-time assistant teacher) – 27 to 1 in classrooms serving grades 1 through 4 – 30 to 1 in self-contained classes serving grades 5-8 – 33 to 1 in departmentalized academic core classes serving grades 5-12 – 150 to 1 at any time during the school year by an individual teacher in academic core subjects

• Review net membership by school, grade, and classroom using the

Month 1 MSIS attendance (ADA) report to ensure the teacher- student ratios meet the state standards before placing federally funded positions. Review more often if needed.

• Use OFP Calculator.

Title I, Part A - Allocations

• Four part allocation prepared by USDE

– Section 1124 (Basic) – Section 1124A (Concentration) – Section 1125 (Targeted) – Section 1125A (EFIG)

• MDE adds the 3 agricultural high schools

5

Title I, Part A - Reallocation

• NCLB Section 1126(c) REALLOCATION - If a State

educational agency determines that the amount

• f a grant a local educational agency would

receive under sections 1124 (Basic), 1124A (Concentration), 1125 (Targeted), and 1125A (EFIG) is more than such local educational agency will use, the State educational agency shall make the excess amount available to other local educational agencies in the State that need additional funds in accordance with criteria established by the State educational agency.

6

Title I, Part A - Reallocation

• MS State Board of Education at the MDE

approved a “Policy for Reallocation of Title I, Part A Funds”

• Funds eligible for reallocation

– Funds relinquished by LEAs – Funds returned for not meeting MOE – Funds returned for not meeting Carryover – Funds in excess for any other reason

7

Title I, Part A - Reallocation

• LEAs Eligible to receive reallocated funds

– Must have met Carryover – Must have met Comparability – Must have met MOE

• Reallocation is based on need

– % of children 5 to 17 from families below poverty level based on Census data – # of schools in Title I School Improvement

8

ESEA Flexibility Amendment: Changes

• All changes are to align accountability with the A-F

single model from state statute.

• References to QDI replaced with Proficiency or Growth,

as appropriate.

• Criteria for Priority, Focus, and Reward schools have

been aligned to business rules.

– QDI-Low (a federal measure for identifying gaps) replaced with growth of the low 25%. – 5-year graduation rate removed from graduation measures.

• Reference numbers for Accreditation Standards

removed.

9

Reading Proficiency Targets (2011 baseline)

70 85 100 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2011 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 2017 '18 '19 '20 '21 '22 2023 Reading Proficiency Index

Asian (baseline 85) White (baseline 80) All Students (baseline 70) Native American (baseline 69) Hispanic (baseline 68) Economically Disadvantaged (baseline 62) Black (baseline 60) Limited English Proficient (baseline 58) Students with IEPs (baseline 39)

Timeline for Extension and Amendment

• December 2013: MDE posted survey regarding

extension/amendment to seek stakeholder input.

• November 2013 through January 2014: MDE discussed

extension at multiple regional meetings.

• January 17, 2014: SBE approved business rules for single

accountability model.

• February 6, 2014: MDE posted draft of amendment and

emailed notice requesting public input via survey.

• February 21, 2014: SBE approved submission of

amendment.

• March 7, 2014: First feedback from ED
• April 18, 2014: Request SBE approval of changes impacted

by ED feedback

11

Performance-Based Budgeting

…aims to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of public expenditures by linking the funding of public sector organizations to the results they deliver, making systematic use

• f performance information.

A new way of thinking…

FROM:

• What are you doing?
• What activities do you

deliver?

• Who participates? How

many? ACTIVITIES TO:

• So what?
• What difference are you

making?

• What results were

achieved?

• Who benefited? How?

OUTCOMES

Examples of Performance-Based Budgeting

• 2013 SB 2851 - As of FY2014, 100% of public

universities appropriations based on performance;

• Educator Evaluation System;
• Competitive Grants – Priority points

Program Evaluation Involves

• Program evaluation involves

the holistic examination of a program including its environment, student needs, procedures, and

• utcomes using systematic

data collection and analysis

• procedures. Most

evaluations also include recommendations for improving the program and strategies for ongoing evaluation and improvement.

• Describe the program

context

• Identify stakeholders and

their needs

• Determine the evaluation

purpose

• Identify intended uses
• Create an evaluation plan
• Gather Data
• Analyze data
• Make conclusions and

recommendations

• Report results

Program Evaluation: What’s in this for you?

• Benefits of evaluating outcomes:

– Program/organizational improvement – Improved accountability – Better ability to describe what a program does – program description for stakeholders – Data for fund raising – Data for public relations – Input for policy decision making – Better planning – Satisfaction in knowing how you are doing

EDFacts

• EDFacts is a U. S. Department of Education

initiative to put performance data at the center of policy, management and budget decisions for all K-12 educational programs.

• EDFacts centralizes performance data supplied by

K-12 state education agencies (SEAs) with other data assets, such as financial grant information, within the Department to enable better analysis and use in policy development, planning and management.

Community Eligibility Provision

• Community Eligibility Provision - CEP permits

eligible schools to provide meal service to all students at no charge, regardless of economic

• status. Collaboration between Office of Child

Nutrition and Office of Federal Programs

• MDE CEP Information webpage:

http://www.mde.k12.ms.us/cep

Connections Between Title I and CEP

• Within-district allocations
• Within-State allocations
• Equitable services to eligible private school

students

• Accountability

20

CEP: New U.S. Department of Education (ED) Guidance

• Tool to help school districts participating in CEP

carryout Title I successfully.

• Updates letters issued by ED in 2011 and 2012.

– Clarifies options on within-district allocations and accountability – New section on equitable services.

• Based primary on questions from the field during

CEP phase-in.

• Available at:

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/13- 0381guidance.doc.

21

CEP Background

• Section 104(a) of the Healthy, Hunger-Free

Kids Act.

– Provides an alternative to household applications for free and reduced price meals. – Offers all students free meals in high poverty LEAs and schools.

• Proposed rule published in Federal Register on

November 4, 2013.

– http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-11- 04/pdf/2013-25922.pdf

22

CEP Definition: Identified Students

• Low income children who are certified for free

school meals without the use of a household application.

• Students certified based on documentation of

benefit receipt or categorical eligibility as described in 7 C.F.R. Part 245 (e.g. directly certified with SNAP, TANF, FDPIR, categorically eligible-migrant youth, homeless, etc.).

23

CEP Identified Student Percentage

• The identified student percentage may be

determined by:

– An individual participating school. – A group of participating schools in the LEA. – Entire LEA if all schools participate.

24

Identified Student = Percentage # of Identified students x 100 Total # of enrolled students with access to NSLP/SBP

CEP Identified Student Determinations

• Must be at least 40 percent for an individual

school, the group of schools, or entire LEA if all schools participate.

• Grouping schools: divide the total number of

identified students for all grouped schools by the total enrollment for all grouped schools to determine eligibility.

• Note: Not all schools in the group or in the LEA if

electing for the entire LEA have to meet the 40 percent threshold.

25

CEP: Within-district Allocations

• Title I ranking and serving procedures require

school-level poverty data.

• Choices of school-level poverty measures

include school lunch data as an option.

• CEP data are part of school lunch data.
• ED CEP guidance on within-district allocations

applies when a school district has a CEP school and uses school lunch data to rank and serve schools.

26

CEP: Within-district Allocations

• SCENARIOS WHERE SCHOOL DISTRICT HAS:
• CEP and non-CEP schools (Q18 in guidance).
• All CEP schools (Q19 in guidance).
• Grouped schools for CEP eligibility and

reimbursement purposes (Q21 in guidance).

27

CEP: Within-district Allocations

APPROACHES FOR CEP AND NON-CEP SCHOOLS (Q18)

• Using Multiplier for CEP schools

– For CEP schools multiply the number of students identified by direct certification in a school by the 1.6 multiplier and divide by the enrollment in the school. – For non-CEP schools use the direct certification plus household application count.

28

Enrollment CEP Identified students NSLP Count Percent Economically Disadvantaged 600 350 560 (350 x 1.6) 93% (560/600)

CEP: Within-district Allocations

APPROACHES FOR CEP AND NON-CEP SCHOOLS (Q18)

• Direct Certification: Rank all schools (CEP and

non-CEP) solely on the basis of the percentage

• f students directly certified through SNAP (or

another direct certification measure available annually for all schools).

29

Enrollment Direct Certification (e.g. SNAP) Percent Economically Disadvantaged 750 500 67% (500/750)

CEP: Within-district Allocations

ALL CEP SCHOOLS (Q19)

• An LEA may have all CEP schools.
• If so, the LEA may rank its schools by the

percentage of directly certified students in each school, even though the multiplier is used to determine the USDA reimbursement amount.

30

CEP: Within-district Allocations

GROUPED SCHOOLS FOR CEP (Q21)

• An LEA may group schools to determine CEP

eligibility and reimbursement.

• An LEA with an enrollment of at least 1,000

students must rank schools individually to determine Title I eligibility and allocations.

31

CEP: Within-district Allocations

CIRCUMSTANCE THAT MAY OCCUR:

• Multiple schools with 100 percent poverty
• rate. (Q20 in guidance)
• More schools above school district-

established cutoff for serving. (Q22 in guidance)

• Timing of data for CEP and non-CEP schools.

(Q24 in guidance)

32

CEP: Within-district Allocations

MULTIPLE SCHOOLS AT 100 PERCENT POVERTY (Q20)

• Application of 1.6 multiplier may result in

more than one school with a 100 percent poverty rate.

• Among those schools an LEA may allocate a

greater per-pupil amount to the school with a higher direct certification percentage.

33

Within-district Allocations

CEP SCHOOLS ABOVE SCHOOL DISTRICT CUTOFF (Q22)

• Application of 1.6 multiplier may result in

more schools above LEA-established cutoff for allocating Title I funds.

• LEA options include:

– Raising cutoff. – Using another permitted poverty measure or composite of permitted measures.

34

Within-district Allocations

TIMING OF CEP AND NON-CEP DATA (Q24)

• LEA may collect household applications from non-CEP

schools at a different time than it identifies students in CEP schools (April 1).

• LEA options include:

– Use data from the same school year. – Access direct certification data for non-CEP school on April 1 to use with household applications. – For Title I only, access direct certification data for CEP schools at the same time as accessing this information and collecting household applications for non-CEP schools.

35

Schoolwide Planning Flexibility

• Ways to leverage Federal and non-Federal

funds efficiently and effectively

• Flexibility available in schoolwide programs

Schoolwide Planning: Keys Areas

• Develop standards and assessments for all

students

• Professional Development
• Consolidate funds in a schoolwide school to

turn around low-performing schools

• Use Title I funds on comprehensive reforms

designed to improve the overall school

• Focus Funds where the needs are greatest

Schoolwide Planning: Requirements

• Title I funds may NOT be used for activities for

non-Title I students.

• Federal funds must supplement and not

supplant non-Federal funds.

• Federal funds must support activities that are

necessary and reasonable to accomplish Federal program’s purpose.

Schoolwide Program Example

• Upgrade the curriculum
• Hire additional teachers
• Implement school safety programs
• Extend the school day or school year
• Train evaluators as part of a teacher and

leader evaluation system

Upcoming Events

• School Support Webinar #5: April 22, 2014

(Finalizing Action Plans)

• Priority, Focus, and Approaching Target Plans

Due: June 2, 2014

• LEA and Grantee Monitoring for the ELL,

Homeless Education, 21st CCLC, and Neglected/Delinquent Programs: May – July 2014

Upcoming Events

• FY15 CFPA Training: April 29-30, 2014,

Vicksburg Convention Center

• FY 2015 Consolidated Federal Program

Applications (CFPA) due June 30, 2014 (OFP welcomes CFPA early)

– FY 2015 Title I and Title II budgets set at Preliminary amounts

• School Effectiveness Review Process (SERP):

June–August, 2014

Questions

Office of Federal Programs 601-359-3499; http://www.mde.k12.ms.us/federal-programs

Marcus E. Cheeks, Director, Office of Federal Programs mcheeks@mde.k12.ms.us Staci Curry, Director, School Support scurry@mde.k12.ms.us Melanie Diggs, Director, Finance mdiggs@mde.k12.ms.us Adrienne Williams, Director, Program Development aawilliams@mde.k12.ms.us