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 of 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) 100 100 Reading Proficiency Index 90 85 80 70 70 60 50 40 30 2011 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 2017 '18 '19 '20 '21 '22 2023 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 of performance information.
A new way of thinking… FROM: TO: • What are you doing? • So what? • What activities do you • What difference are you deliver? making? • Who participates? How • What results were many? achieved? • Who benefited? How? ACTIVITIES 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 • Describe the program the holistic examination of a context program including its • Identify stakeholders and environment, student their needs needs, procedures, and • Determine the evaluation outcomes using systematic purpose data collection and analysis • Identify intended uses procedures. Most evaluations also include • Create an evaluation plan recommendations for • Gather Data improving the program and • Analyze data strategies for ongoing • Make conclusions and evaluation and recommendations improvement. • 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 # of Identified students Identified Student = x 100 Total # of enrolled students with Percentage access to NSLP/SBP • 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
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
Recommend
More recommend
