WASHINGTON UPDATE

CURRICULUM & RESEARCHDIRECTORS’ MEETING

JULY 13, 2012

WASHINGTON UPDATE

WHAT WE’LL COVER:• BUDGET AND APPROPRIATIONS• CENSUS AND TITLE I UPDATES• ESEA REAUTHORIZATION• NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND WAIVERS• DISTRICT RACE TO THE TOP

WASHINGTON UPDATE

BUDGET AND APPROPRIATIONS

Budget and Appropriations

Proposed Funding Increases for Federal FY 2013

Program FY 2012 Final

FY 2013 President’s Budget

(over FY 2012)

FY 2013 Senate Committee

(over FY 2012)

Title I +$73 million 0 +$100 million

Title II-A Teacher Quality +$1.6 million 0 0

Title III – ELLs -$1.4 million 0 0

IDEA Part B +$115 million 0 +$100 million

School Improvement Grants -$1 million 0 0

Race to the Top $550 million grant $850 million grant $549 million grant

Investing in Innovation $150 million grant $150 million grant $149 million grant

Sequestration

The Budget Control Act of 2011 increased the federal debt ceiling, but also required the creation of a bipartisan “Super Committee”

The Super Committee’s task was to agree to $1.2 trillion in federal budget savings for the next ten years

If the Committee failed to approve these savings, the Budget Control Act required across-the-board budget cuts in most defense and domestic programs beginning in January of 2013.

These across-the-board cuts are known as “sequestration”


Sequestration

Sequestration automatically cuts the budget by $110 billion per year, beginning in the middle of FY 2013 (January 2, 2013)

Half of the cuts ($55 billion) comes from Defense programs, and the other half from the rest of the budget

Limited number of critical safety net program are excluded from sequestration cuts, including Social Security, Medicare, Child Nutrition, and Medicaid


Sequestration

Current thinking is that action by Congress and the President, probably after the November elections, will try to avoid sequestration, as well as the expiration of current tax provisions

Lack of action could result in a potential 8 or 9% cut to federal education programs through sequestration, beginning in federal FY 2013 (the 2013-14 school year)

Additional issues for the FY 2012 funding for four education programs that were substantially advanced-funded into FY 2013:

Title I, Title II, IDEA, and Perkins


Sequestration

As a result of the advanced funding, FY 2012 allocations for the four programs may be subject to retroactive cuts in January 2013, in the middle of the upcoming 2012-13 school year


Program Total FY 2012Appropriation

Advance-Funded Portion of FY 2012 Percentage

Title I-A (Grants to LEAs) $14.5 billion $10.8 billion 74.7%

Title II-A (Teacher Quality) $2.5 billion $1.7 billion 68.2%

IDEA (Part B) $11.6 billion $9.3 billion 80.2%

Career/Tech (Perkins) $1.1 billion $791 million 70.4%

TOTAL $29.7 billion $22.6 billion 76.1%

Census and Title I Updates


Annually updated Census data is used to direct Title I funding Changes in the poverty count at the district level, as compared to

the change in the national poverty level, affects annual Title I increase or decrease in a district

2009 CensusChildren Living in Poverty

2010 CensusChildren Living in Poverty

Miami-Dade 90,563 95,369

Nation 9,909,134 10,846,338

% of Nation 0.91% 0.88%


The virtual freeze in total funding for Title I nationwide, combined with the increased number of children in poverty in other areas in the country, means Council districts are likely to lose Title I funding, even if their poverty increased

FY 2011Title I Grant (actual)

FY 2012Title I Grant (estimated)

Miami-Dade $129,282,400 $120,916,763

ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT (ESEA)

Reauthorization of ESEA

Action on Capitol Hill

Senate committee approved ESEA legislation in October of 2011, with all Democrats and three Republicans voting in support

House committee approved ESEA legislation in February of 2012 on a party line vote, with no Democratic support

Floor action on the reauthorization in either House or Senate is unlikely before the end of this year


Provisions in House and Senate Legislation

House Bills: Program Authorizations

Title I: Traditional Title I programs, and percentage set-asides for Migrant Education,

Neglected and Delinquent Education, English Language Acquisition, and Indian Education formula grants

Title II: Existing Title II-Part A, and new Part B (Teacher and Leader Flexible Grant)

Title III: Charter Schools, Magnet Schools, Parent Engagement, Local Academic Flexible Grant


Provisions in House and Senate LegislationSenate Bill: Program Authorizations

Title I • Part A – Grants to LEAs• SIG• National Assessment of

Educational Progress• State assessment grants

(Reserves up to 3% of Part A funds for National Activities)

• Part B – Pathways to College (high school reform)

• Part C –Migrant Programs• Part D – Neglected and

Delinquent Programs

Title II• Part A –Teachers/Leaders• Part A – Principal

Recruitment• Part B – Teacher Pathways• Part C – Teacher Incentive

Fund• Part D – Achievement

through Technology

Title III – English Learners

Title IV• Part A - Literacy Instruction• Part B –STEM Instruction• Part C – Successful, Safe and

Healthy Students

Title IV (continued)• Part C – Access to a Well-

Rounded Education• Part D – 21st Century Centers• Part E – Promise

Neighborhoods• Part F – Parent and Family

Info & Resource Centers• Part G – Ready to Learn TV• Part H – Programs of

National Significance

Title V• Part A -- Race to the Top• Part B -- Investing in

Innovation

Title V (continued)• Part C -- Magnet Schools• Part D -- Charter Schools• Part E - Voluntary Public

School Choice

Title VI• Part B - Rural Schools

Title VII• Part B – Indian, Native

Hawaiian, Alaskan Native Education

Title VIIII - Impact Aid


Provisions in House and Senate LegislationElements of State Accountability System

House

• Annually measure the academic achievement of all public schools students (may include growth measures). No AYP (section 1116 for school improvement is repealed).

• Annually evaluate and identify the academic performance of each public school (not just Title I), based on academic achievement and overall performance and achievement gaps of traditional NCLB subgroups, including English learners (unless insufficient statistically or personally identifiable)

• Implement school improvement system for low-performing schools with interventions• Prohibits the Secretary to establish any criteria on any aspect of the State accountability

system• Failure to meet requirements will result in withholding of State administration funds• No SES/Choice (no 20% set-aside of Title I)


Title I Formula

Four formula grants comprise the total Title I funding: Basic, Concentration, Targeted, and Education Finance Incentive Grants

Targeted and Education Finance grants use weighted calculations – applied to numbers or percentages of poverty

A House ESEA amendment would have phased out the weighting of numbers of poverty, and use only percentages

Actual FY 2011

Title I Allocation

Difference from 2011

in FY 2012


in FY 2013


in FY 2014


in FY 2015

Miami-Dade $129,282,400 -$418,400 -$2,350,900 -$5,187,600 -$9,300,800


Provisions in House and Senate LegislationElements of State Accountability System

Senate

• Measure and report the academic achievement of all public schools and LEAs, and the graduation rates for high schools. No AYP.

• Requires continuous improvement for school, students and subgroups• Identifies schools and LEAs in need of intervention and support• Provides for improvement, interventions and supports for all schools identified as low-

performing or with low-performing subgroups, not otherwise identified as Achievement Gap (bottom 5% of state) or Persistently Lowest-Achieving Schools (bottom 5% of state)

• Transition to new state-designed accountability system to be determined by the Secretary

• No SES/Choice (no 20% set-aside of Title I)


Provisions in House and Senate LegislationSection 1116 Interventions

Senate

Required Reform Strategies (i.e. the models) for the bottom 5% lowest-achieving schools: - Transformational Strategy (including principal replacement) - Strategic Staffing Strategy (including principal replacement and a leadership team) - Turnaround Strategy (including principal replacement and at least 35% of staff) - Whole School Reform Strategy (designed by a developer with evidenced-based performance) - Restart Strategy - Closure Strategy - State-designed Reform Strategies


Provisions in House and Senate LegislationEnglish Language Learners

House SenateEnglish Language Acquisition

Major changes• Authorized as a 4.4% reservation from the

Title I appropriation• New reporting requirements• No Annual Measurable Achievement

Objectives (AMAOs)

Language and Academic Content Instruction for English Learners and Immigrant Students

Major changes• Clarifies that both increasing percentages

and numbers of immigrant children must be used in awarding these funds

• Requires Title III school level activities to be built into the regular school level plan or a separate Title III school activity plan

• New evaluation requirements – no AMAOs

No Child Left Behind Waivers


ROUND ONE

• Eleven states submitted applications in November 2011 for waivers from key provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in exchange for implementing certain reforms

• Waiver applications were approved by the Administration in early February 2012

• Round One States: Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Tennessee


ROUND TWO• Twenty-six states and District of Columbia formally submitted waiver

requests in February 2012

• States approved to date: Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin

• Ten states plus the District of Columbia are pending

• Fourteen states have not requested waivers and may apply by September 6, 2012.

Local waivers for districts in non-participating states are still up in the air


PRINCIPLES FOR WAIVER APPLICATIONS:Principle 1: College and Career-Ready Expectations for All Students, including adopting higher standards and high-quality assessments to measure growthPrinciple 2: Differentiated Recognition, Accountability and Support, including (a) a differentiated accountability and support system; (b) ambitious annual measurable objectives (to replace AYP targets); (c)Priority (state bottom 5%), Focus (state bottom 10% with greatest gaps), and Reward Schools; (d) incentives and supports for other Title I schools and (e) capacity building

Principle 3: Supporting Effective Instruction and Leadership, including adopting and implementing teacher and principal evaluation and support systems (state frameworks)

District Race to the Top

District Race to the Top (D-RTTT)

DISTRICT RACE TO THE TOP GRANT COMPETITION:

IN GENERAL —

• $400 million available for approximately 20 D-RTTT grants

• Designed to incentivize comprehensive reform and innovation in elementary and secondary education

• Focused on enabling students to graduate college and career-ready through implementation of personalized student-focused approaches to differentiated instruction, using collaborative, data-based strategies, and 21st century tools to deliver instruction and supports



ELIGIBILITY —

• School districts or consortia of school districts

• Application may cover all schools or a portion of schools (e.g. lowest-performing, feeder patterns, early grades, or secondary math)

• Minimum of 2500 students and at least 40 percent FRPL low-income eligibility

• Districts may participate in only one RTTT-D application (separately or in a consortium)



ELIGIBILITY (continued)—

• Commitment to implement a teacher, principal, superintendent and school board evaluation system no later than school year 2014-15

• Demonstrate to robust data system that at minimum has a teacher-student match and the ability to match student level P-12 and higher education data

• Requires the signatures of the LEA’s superintendent, school board, and local union/association president



OTHER REQUIREMENTS—

• Five day opportunity for state comment and LEA response • Five day opportunity for Mayor, City or Town Administrator comment

and LEA response • MOU required for consortia application • Districts with discipline or expulsion over-representation will be

required to conduct a district assessment and develop a remedial plan.

• Individual school plans must be developed within 100 days of the grant award.



ABSOLUTE PRIORITY -- PERSONALIZED LEARNING ENVIRONMENT(S)

• Address how you will create student-centered learning environments, including the use of a personalized learning plan, using the four core educational reform areas of state Race to the Top:• College and Career Ready standards and assessments• Data systems• Effective teachers and principals• Supporting struggling schools



COMPETITIVE PREFERENCE PRIORITY

• Extent to which public and private resources are integrated to augment the schools’ core resources by providing additional student and family supports, including partnerships with public and private organization such as public health, after-school, social services, businesses, civic groups, CBOs, early learning programs and post-secondary institutions to support the personalized learning plan under the Absolute Priority



APPLICATION CATEGORIES

• School Districts in Race to the Top States• Rural LEAs in Race to the Top States• School Districts in non-Race to the Top States• Rural LEAs in non-Race to the Top States



RANGE OF GRANT AWARDS

• 2,500-5,000 students: $15-$20 million• 5,001-9,999 students: $17-$22 million• 10,000+ students: $20-$25 million

Up to an additional $2 million may be requested for addressing a specific area or population under the Personalized Learning Environment priority, and provides a clear, discrete, and innovative solution that is replicable in other schools.



SELECTION CRITERIA —

• Vision: Advancing excellence and equity through personalized student and educator support, and overall and subgroup achievement goals

• District Capacity and Success Factors: Demonstrating Reform Conditions through a 4-year track record of improved student outcomes and gap closing, use of at least one of the “four reform models”, and stakeholder engagement and support; as well as a High Quality Implementation Plan



SELECTION CRITERIA (continued) —

Preparing Students for College and Careers: Supporting each student’s learning needs and maintaining a CCR trajectory

Learning: Equipping students for goal setting, teamwork, critical thinking and problem-solving

Teaching: Empowering educators through professional teams and communities, access to data and resources, as well as training necessary to support students’ personalized learning plans




• Policy and Infrastructure: ensuring every student, educator, parent and other stakeholders have access to the support and resources needed to implement personalized learning

• Performance Measurement: Demonstrating access to effective educators (by subgroup of students), maintaining a CCR trajectory, catch-up measures, weekly use of personalized learning plans, graduation rates, working condition surveys and student surveys




• Transition Plan and Continuous Improvement: Status analysis, timelines, targets, and deliverables

• Budget and Sustainability: Plan for use of all funds related to the RTTT-D project, and plan for sustaining activities over post-grant period of at least three years

ANY QUESTIONS?

WASHINGTON UPDATE

Documents

Transcript of WASHINGTON UPDATE