AYP and NCLB: Information and Discussion [e-mail] [e-mail]

1
AYP and NCLB Information and
Discussionjolynn.berge_at_k12.wa.us
gayle.pauley_at_k12.wa.us

• Washington Educational Research Association
  WERA
• March 28, 2008

2
WA State Accountability Workbook Amendments
requested (Feb. 2008)

• Exempt Limited English Proficient (LEP) students
  who are new to the United States from taking any
  test given entirely in English for one year, and
  not count the results of LEP students in their
  first three years in the state program or until
  they reach English proficiency status, whichever
  comes first.

3
Requested Amendments - continued

• Identify a school or district for improvement
  when the same subgroup, in the same subject, does
  not make AYP for two consecutive years.

4
Requested Amendments - continued

• Consistent N size of 40 - across all groups
• the five major racial/ethnic groups, students
  with disabilities, ELL, and low-income students).
  
• Through the 200607 assessment cycle the N size
  for the students with disabilities group and the
  limited English proficient group has been 40.
• With a standard N size we may be eligible to
  apply the 17 proxy in lieu of a 2 alternative
  assessment to the 2008 assessment results.

5
Grant Administration Changes for 2008-2009
6
Background - District Requests

• Districts are unable to access their federal
  formula funds until grants are approved, which
  sometimes results in districts front-funding
  grants for many months.
• Find a way to move the timelines up and enable
  districts to access funds earlier.
• Some Districts dont have staff available during
  the summer to work on grant applications.
• Again, move up the timeline for when
  applications are available.

7
Federal Hurdles

• Federal regulations (34 CFR 76.708) required for
  federal formula grants, state that funds may not
  be obligated (incur costs) until the later of
  July 1 or the date that the application was
  submitted in substantially approvable form to the
  State.
• Federal regulations also require final approval
  of the application before payment can be made.

8
Federal Formula Programs

• The following federal programs are impacted
• Title I, Part A
• Title II, Part A
• Title II, Part D (E2T2)
• Title III
• Title IV, Safe and Drug Free
• Migrant
• Perkins/CTE
• Special Education

9
Proposed Solutions

• Districts will be given a longer window for
  accessing federal grant applications.
• The grant application process will be moved up so
  that districts could receive substantially
  approvable status as early as July 1.

10
Proposed Solutions

• Preliminary allocations for federal formula
  grants will be determined by May 1st. These will
  be PRELIMINARY and not the final amounts.
• Grant applications will be available around May
  1st.

11
REQUIRED DISCLOSURE

• Preliminary awards are for planning
• purposes, and would not be a guarantee
• of the grant award.

12
Substantially Approvable

• State determines what substantially approvable
  means.
• What is this likely to mean?
• All assurances have been signed.
• A budget has been completed with either the
  preliminary or final allocation, whichever is
  available.
• Other application components for which the
  district has the necessary information submitted.
• Many applications would likely still need more
  work, thats ok and to be expected.

13
Early Application

• Federal requirements
• Submitted for substantially approvable status
  before costs can be incurred.
• Final approval of the application before
  reimbursed.

14
Early Application

• June 2, 2008 Deadline for preliminary
  application submittal for districts who wanted to
  start incurring costs for their grant money as of
  July 1st and want to find out prior to July 1 if
  their application was substantially approvable.
• June 30, 2008 Last day to send in application
  to have July 1 be the start date. OSPI would let
  districts know within 30 days of submittal
  whether their application is substantially
  approvable or not.

15
Early Application

• July 1, 2008 Districts who submitted a
  preliminary grant application before July 1 AND
  received substantially approvable status could
  start incurring costs.
• September 2008 Districts with July 1 start
  dates could claim and receive reimbursement for
  all costs incurred, provided that the application
  has final approval.

16
Regular Application

• Summer 2008 - Districts can submit grant
  application after final allocations are posted.
  Allowable grant expenditures can be incurred when
  the application was submitted in substantially
  approvable form.

17
Early Application
PROS CONS
Application is available earlier, when more staff is in the district. Districts would have to complete a preliminary budget and later in the fall a budget revision (if the preliminary and final amounts were different) to include the final allocation amount.
District can receive grant payments as early as September. Reimbursement is dependant on final application approval. What are other options? How do other states do this?
Grant budgets would align more closely with timing of districts budget process.
18
Regular Application
PROS CONS
No additional paperwork. Allowable grant expenditures do not start until application is submitted in substantially approvable form, so if districts wait to submit until October, September expenditures would not be eligible for reimbursement.
OSPI would notify districts within 30 calendar days of submittal of substantially approvable status. Reimbursement is dependant on final application approval.

19
Reauthorization Predictions??
20
Outlook

• According to House Education and Labor Committee
  staff, the Democratic staffers are huddling on
  their strategy and reviewing the 3,000 comments
  (and growing) they have received.  They have not
  met with Republican staff on the matter to date
  but will do so before Chairman Miller introduces
  the bill and attempts to move it through the
  House before the close of the month.  I am not
  sure what the trends are yet, said one staffer,
  other than everyone seems to hate it.

21
Reauthorization Likely to see

• Emerging consensus to grant states discretion to
  design their accountability models to allow for a
  growth/improvement model and multiple measures of
  performance.
• Emerging consensus that focus needs to be on high
  schools.

22
Reauthorization Likely to see

• More flexibility for LEP students.
• More flexibility for appropriately testing
  students with disabilities.
• Targeted interventions for schools and student
  populations with the most needs.

23
Reauthorization Likely to see

• Increased flexibility for HQT requirements for
  multiple subject teachers in rural districts and
  teachers who instruct students with disabilities.

24
Perkins Voc Ed (Perkins IV)

• Reauthorized August 12, 2006

25
Perkins IV Requirements

• States are required to submit plans for approval.
• Main result is Perkins NCLB
• Goal of more valid and reliable accountability
  system for career and technical education.

26
Perkins IV NCLB

• Law now requires core indicators of performance.
• Baseline goals are outlined in plan, and states
  and/or districts and schools who do not meet
  targets must develop a corrective action plan.
• 2007-2008 is the transition year.

27
Core Indicators of Performance

1. Academic Attainment Reading
2. Academic Attainment Math
3. Technical Skill Attainment
4. Secondary School Completion
5. Student Graduation Rates
6. Secondary Placement
7. Nontraditional Participation
8. Nontraditional Completion

28
Core Indicators of Performance

• Districts may choose to accept the state
  performance targets or work with the state to
  negotiate levels more applicable to their
  specific circumstances (Districts baseline plus
  3).
• Guidance from ED to clarify this requirement has
  not been issued.

29
Whos Performance is Being Measured?

• CTE (Career and Technical Education) Participant
  A student who has enrolled in one or more
  credits in any CTE program area.
• CTE Concentrator A student who has enrolled in
  3 or more credits in a single CTE program area.
• CTE Completer A student who has completed a CTE
  instructional program.

30
Academic Attainment Reading and Math

• Number of CTE concentrators who passed the WASL,
  and were included in AYP calculations and who, in
  the reporting year left secondary education.

31
Technical Skill Attainment

• Number of CTE concentrators who passed technical
  skill assessments during the reporting year.

32
Secondary School Completion

• Number of CTE concentrators who earned a regular
  diploma, GED, or other State recognized
  equivalent during the reporting year.

33
Student Graduation Rate

• Number of CTE concentrators who, in the reporting
  year, were included as graduated in the States
  graduation rate calculation for AYP.

34
Secondary Placement

• Number of CTE concentrators who left secondary
  education and were placed in post secondary
  education or advanced training, joined the
  military or were employed in the second quarter
  following the program year in which they left
  secondary education.

35
Nontraditional Participation

• Number of CTE participants from underrepresented
  gender groups who participated in program that
  leads to employment in nontraditional fields
  during the reporting year.

36
Nontraditional Completion

• Number of CTE concentrators from underrepresented
  gender groups who completed a program that leads
  to employment in nontraditional fields during the
  reporting year.

37
What are the immediate impacts?

• State report is due December 31, 2007, which
  reports on the 2006-2007 school year.
• Only WASL and grad rate performance indicators
  are required to be reported this year.
• OSPI will compile all other data elements from
  currently submitted reports.

38
Impacts for 2008 Reporting

• Must be accessible to public via the internet,
  aka Perkins report card (December 2008).

39
Federal Funding OutlookFY 2008-2009 FundingFY
2009-2010 Presidents Budget
40
FY08-09 Funding for State Formula Programs -
Increased Funding
Program School Year 2007-2008 School Year 2008-2009 Increase
Title I 182 M 188 M 6 M
School Improvement 1.8 M 7.0 M 5.2 M
Title II, Improving Teacher Quality 47.4 M 48.0 M 587K
Title III, Language Acquisition 12.8 M 13.4 M 607K
IDEA, Part B 207.5 M 210.4 M 2.8 M
21st Century 13 M 14.8 M 1.8 M
41
FY08-09 Funding for State Formula Programs -
Decreased Funding
Program School Year 2007-2008 School Year 2008-2009 Decrease
Reading First 16.1 M 5.9 M (10.2) M
Even Start 1 M 818K (182) K
Migrant 15.5 M 15.3 M (226) K
Education Technology 3.7 M 3.5 M (226) K
Safe and Drug Free 5.6 M 4.7 M (858) K
Perkins 23 M 21.6 M (1.4) M
42
FY08-09 Funding for State Formula Programs
Eliminated Programs

• Title V, Innovative ED (1.975) Million

43
Presidents Federal FY09 Budget (State/Local
FY09-10)
Key Programs FFY2007 FFY2008 Presidents Requested FFY2009 2009 vs. 2008
Title I 12.83 B 13.9 B 14.3 B 403 M
IDEA 10.78 B 10.95 B 11.3 B 337 M
State Assessments 407 M 408 M 408 M 0
School Improvement 125 M 491.3 M 491.3 M 0
Title II, Teacher Quality 2.88 B 2.93B 2.83B (100) M
44
Presidents Federal FY09 Budget (State/Local
FY09-10)
Key Programs FFY2007 FFY2008 Presidents Requested FFY2009 2009 vs. 2008
Education Technology 272.2 M 267.5 M 0 (267.5) M
Reading First 1.029 B 393 M 1 B 607 M
Perkins (Career-Tech) 1.181 B 1.160 B 0 (1.160) B
Even Start 82.28 M 66.45 M 0 (66.45) M
Migrant Ed 386.5 M 379.8 M 399.8 M 20 M
45
Presidents Federal FY09 Budget (State/Local
FY09-10)
Key Programs FFY2007 FFY2008 Presidents Requested FFY2009 2009 vs. 2008
Impact Aid 1.091 B 1.105 B 1.105 B 0
21st Century Learning Centers 981 M 1,081 M 800 M (281) M
Title III, Language Acquisition 620.5 M 649.9 M 677.6 M 27 M
Safe and Drug Free 346.5 M 294.8 M 100 M (195) M
46
Presidents Federal FY09 BudgetOther Notable
Items

• 300 M for Pell Grants to Kids
• A new scholarship program that would allow
  low-income students attending schools in
  restructuring or that have high dropout rates to
  transfer to local private schools or
  out-of-district public schools.
• 2.6 B increase for traditional Pell Grants
• Would raise the maximum award to 4,800 and
  increase the number of recipients 33.

47
Questions??