Title I, Part A

Title I, Part A

Marlene PadernachtCREC Curriculum Council

October 24, 2013

Topics ESEA Historical Perspective

Understanding Title I Allocations

Title I Programs

Parent Involvement and Notification

Verification of Compliance

Private School Equitable Services

Supplement not Supplant

Comparability and Monitoring

ESEA Historical Perspective 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education

Act (ESEA) President Lyndon B. Johnson’s “ War on

Poverty,” vision of a “Great Society”

Marked the federal government’s first substantial direct involvement in elementary and secondary education

Federal funds were to offset the effects of poverty

ESEA Historical Perspective 1970’s – Rules added to increase fiscal control and

accountability. Schools separated Title I programs from regular instruction in order to establish a clear audit trail.

1981 – Education Consolidation and Improvement Act pared regulations, loosened fiscal rules and restrictions on selection of schools and state monitoring requirements. Eliminated parental-involvement mandates and renamed the program Chapter 1 (focus on basic skills).

1983 – National Commission on Excellence in Education issued A Nation at Risk decrying America’s mediocre educational performance. President Reagan did not support an increased federal role in education and limited the report’s impact at the federal level.

ESEA Historical Perspective 1988 – Hawkins-Stafford Elementary and Secondary School

Improvement amendments restored some of the parental involvement and administrative rules, targeted more funds on the neediest areas and added program-improvement provisions mandating state intervention in failing local programs. Linked the Chapter 1 program with the regular school program and encouraged a greater focus on “higher-order” thinking skills.

1994 – Improving America’s Schools Act renamed the program Title I. Established the principle that Title I students will be taught to the same high standards as other children. Integrated Title I into state accountability systems. Title I schools and students would be judged according to the same state standards and assessments that apply to other children.

ESEA Historical Perspective

2001 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Mandatory national achievement deadline

Minimum qualifications for teachers in all public schools – new requirements for paraprofessionals

Stronger accountability for results

Timely information for parents

Options for parents - SES and NCLB public school choice

ESEA Historical Perspective

2012 ESEA Flexibility Waiver New indicators

New targets

Waived SES and NCLB Public School Choice

Still in place - Not waived Highly qualified teacher requirements Parent involvement requirements Private school equitable services

Understanding Title I Allocations Congressional appropriations - $14 billion

Connecticut’s 2013-14 state allocation - $107 million

U.S. Census poverty estimates - statistical estimates of school-age children from families living in poverty - used in formula to distribute Title I funds to states - updated annually.

No correlation to free/reduced lunch data

National “poverty pie” - each state gets a share


Poverty estimates based on statistical model that incorporates data from:

Census Bureau’s American Community Survey Administrative records from federal income tax

returns Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Most recent decennial Census Update to population estimates Data on Supplemental Security Income recipients Economic data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis


Non-Census counts used in formula

Children living in local institutions for neglected or delinquent children

Children living in foster care

Children from families living above the poverty line receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

State per-pupil expenditures


Increases or decreases in poverty in states results in changes to the relative distribution of Title I funds.

Changes in district poverty (U.S. Census poverty estimates) affect district allocations.


Redistricting or school reconfigurations have no impact on district Title I allocations

Statutory district hold-harmless provisions apply

Limits the reduction of a district’s allocation compared to the previous year

85, 90 or 95 percent hold-harmless thresholds


Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) Branch at the Census Bureau

For information about the data sources and the methodology used to prepare these data please see the frequently asked questions fact sheet prepared by the Census Bureau available at:

http://www.census.gov/did/www/saipe/about/faq.html


District Title I Allocation: Four separate grants

Basic Grants - 10 “formula” children, number of those children exceeds 2 percent of the district’s total population of children ages 5-17

Concentration Grants - number of children in Basic Grant formula exceeds 6,500 children or 15 percent of the total population of children ages 5-17


Targeted Grants - at least 10 “formula” children and equals or exceeds 5 percent of district’s total population of children ages 5-17.

Education Finance Incentive Grants - an effort factor that measures a state’s effort to provide financial support for education compared to its relative wealth as measured by its per capita income, and an equity factor that measures the degree to which education expenditures vary among school districts within a state.

Title I Programs

Targeted Assistance Program

Schoolwide Program

Title I Targeted Assistance Program

Provide supplementary services to eligible children identified as having the greatest need for special assistance: failing, or most at risk of failing to meet state standards based on multiple, educationally related objective criteria preschool through second grade – developmentally appropriate

measures; teacher judgment, interviews with parents, etc.

Automatically eligible for services: any child who participated in Head Start, Title I preschool

services, neglected or delinquent children, homeless children

Title I Schoolwide Program

Comprehensive reform strategy designed to upgrade the entire educational program

Eligibility - 40% poverty threshold (waived for Focus and Turnaround schools)

Primary goal is to ensure that all students, particularly those who are low-achieving, demonstrate proficient and advanced levels of achievement on state academic achievement standards.

Parent Involvement Requirements

District Policy

School Policy (plan)

school-parent compact

Parent Involvement

District policy:

develop jointly with Title I parents

distribute to all Title I parents

evaluate annually, with parents, the content and effectiveness of the policy

Parent Involvement

School policy (plan): develop jointly with Title I parents distribute to all Title I parents

how parents will be involved in meaningful ways in making decisions about the Title I program and how parents will be involved in the school

hold annual meeting and regular meetings of Title I parents to discuss the Title I program and parents’ rights

update policy periodically to reflect changing concerns of parents

Parent Involvement

School policy (plan): school-parent compact*

outlines how parents, the entire school staff, and students will share the responsibility for improved student achievement, and

how the school and parents will build and develop a partnership to help children achieve the state’s high standards

*Department’s new model of a school-parent compact:

ctschoolparentcompact.org

Parent Notification Requirements

Title I Parents Right-to-Know Requirements: At the beginning of each school year, a district

shall notify the parents of each student attending a Title I school that the parents may request, and the district will provide the parents on request (and in a timely manner), information regarding the professional qualifications of the student’s classroom teachers, including, at a minimum, the following:

Parent Notification Requirements Whether the teacher has met state qualification and licensing

criteria for the grade levels and subject areas in which the teacher provides instruction;

Whether the teacher is teaching under emergency or other provisional status through which state qualification or licensing criteria have been waived;

The baccalaureate degree major of the teacher and any other graduate certification or degree held by the teacher, and the field of discipline of the certification or degree; and

Whether the child is provided services by paraprofessionals and, if so, their qualifications

Parent Notification Requirements

A Title I school shall provide to each individual parent timely notice that the parent’s child has been assigned, or has been taught for four or more consecutive weeks, by a teacher who is not highly qualified

Verification of Compliance

Each principal of a Title I school must attest annually in writing as to whether such school is in compliance with the teacher and paraprofessional requirements

Copies of the attestations must be maintained at each Title I school and at the main office of the school district


Supreme Court decisions

1985 Aquilar vs. Felton

1997 Agostino vs. Felton

Statutory public control of funds requirement - Section 1120(d) and Section 9501(d)(1)

Section 1120 - Participation of children enrolled in private schools


1985 Aguilar vs. Felton

Public school employees could no longer provide educational services in private schools

Neutral sites (mobile vans, portable units)

Public schools

Computer-assisted instruction

Private School Equitable Services 1997 Agostini v. Felton - Court overruled Aquilar

Title I instructional services can be provided in private schools

Totally separate from the private school’s educational program and under the sole control of the district. District is responsible for planning, designing and implementing the Title I program.

Public employees are accountable only to their public school supervisor

Cannot engage in team teaching or other cooperative instructional activities with private school personnel

Materials and equipment used for Title I services must be properly identified as district property purchased with Title I funds


Eligible private school children:

Must live in a Title I public school attendance area

Have the greatest educational need (those who are failing, or most at risk of failing to meet high academic achievement standards)

Poverty is not a criterion

Funds may only be used to improve the academic achievement of eligible students who are selected for participation


Provision of Title I services: Public school teacher (must meet highly

qualified NCLB teacher requirements)

Public school paraprofessional (must meet highly qualified NCLB paraprofessional requirements and work in close proximity and under direct supervision of a highly qualified public school teacher – a program staffed entirely by paraprofessionals is not allowable)

Private School Equitable Services Employees of third party contractor (do not have

to meet highly qualified NCLB requirements)

Private school teacher (must meet the highly qualified NCLB requirements and be independent of the private school in the provision of Title I services – be employed by public school district for Title I purposes outside of the time employed by private school and must be under the direct supervision of the district)


Public control of funds: The control of funds provided under this part,

and title to materials, equipment, and property purchased with such funds, shall be in a public agency, and a public agency shall administer such funds, materials, equipment, and property. No Title I funds may be paid to a private school.

Private school officials may not order or purchase materials and supplies and be reimbursed by school districts.


Title I funds are to be used to supplement, not supplant non-federal funds

Intended to ensure that services provided with Title I funds are in addition to, and do not replace or supplant, services that students would otherwise receive

Supplement not Supplant Presumption of supplanting:

An LEA used Title I funds to provide services that the LEA was required to make available under federal, state or local law

An LEA used Title I funds to provide services that the LEA provided with state or local funds in the prior year

An LEA used Title I funds to provide services for participating children that the LEA provided with non-federal funds for non-participating children


Presumption of supplanting is rebuttable if the LEA can demonstrate that it would not have provided the services in question with state and local funds had the Title I funds not been available.


To rebut presumption show:

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

State or local legislative action

Budget histories and information

Fact and case specific

Supplement not SupplantLEA may exclude state and local funds expended for carrying out a program that meets the intent and purposes of Title I, Part A –A program meets the intent and purposes of Title I, Part A if the program either-

Is implemented in a school in which the percentage of children from low-income families is at least 40 percent (“schoolwide like” programs);

Is designed to promote schoolwide reform and upgrade the entire educational operation of the school to support students in their achievement toward meeting the state’s challenging academic achievement standards that all students are expected to meet;

Is designed to meet the educational needs of all students in the school, particularly the needs of children who are failing, or most at risk of failing, to meet the state's challenging student academic achievement standards; and

Uses the state's system of assessment under 34 CFR 200.2 to review the effectiveness of the program.

Supplement not Supplant Or (“targeted assistance like” programs) –

Serves only students who are failing, or most at risk of failing, to meet the state's challenging student academic achievement standards;

Provides supplementary services designed to meet the special

educational needs of students who are participating in the program to support their achievement toward meeting the state’s student academic achievement standards; and

Uses the state’s system of assessment under 34 CFR 200.2 to review the effectiveness of the program

Coming Soon

Comparability

Monitoring

Title I Comparability Districts with Title I and non-Title I schools:

Use state and local funds in Title I schools to provide services that, taken as a whole, are at least comparable to services in non-Title I schools

Districts with all Title I schools: Use state and local funds to provide services that are

substantially comparable in each Title I school

Title I Comparability

Title I schools must be comparable each year

Districts must demonstrate compliance once every two years

Written assurance

Calculations: students/instructional staff ratios or per pupil expenditures

Maintain documentation

Monitoring

Focus Parent Involvement Equitable Private School Services

Three levels Self Assessment Desk Review Onsite Visit

And….Title II, Part ATeacher and Principal Training and Recruiting Fund

100 percent transferability option

Programmatically “transfer” Title II grant funds for allowable activities under:

Title I, Part A - Improving Basic Programs Title II, Part D - Enhancing Education Through Technology Title IV, Part A - Safe & Drug-Free Schools Title V, Part A - Innovative Programs

Title I Resources

Marlene Padernacht

860-713-6568, [email protected]

Parent Involvement:

Judy Carson

860-807-2122, [email protected]

CT State Department of Education Title I Web Site:

http://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/cedar/nclb/title1/index.htm

Supplement not Supplant section, federal Title I Fiscal Non-Regulatory Guidance, February 2008.

http://www.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/fiscalguid.pdf

Title I, Part A

Documents

Transcript of Title I, Part A