Title I the pastthe presentthe future

1
Title Ithe pastthe presentthe future

• Lee Ann Kwiatkowski
• Director of Title I

2
the past 1965
President Johnson signs the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 on April 11, 1965
3
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act ESEA

• It authorized a number of programs but Title I
  was the largest.
• Goal To provide greater educational
  opportunities for disadvantaged children

4
Title I in 1965

• Went directly to local school districts
• States assumed the role of enforcers
• LEAs made decisions about curriculum and
  instruction
• Title I parents had very little influence

5
the past

• Turning Point
• 1969 Report published by the NAACP, Legal Defense
  Fund and the Washington Research Project
• Effects
• More targeted funding
• Increased oversight
• Systematic evaluation
• New ways for parents to participate
• Move into a new era..the 70s

6
The past. The 70s

• Parent sign-off on Title I programs
• The Birth of Bilingual Education

7
(No Transcript)
8
The past.The 80s

• U.S. Department of Education established at a
  cabinet level agency
• Title I was renamed Chapter 1.

9
1980s
10
the past1990s

• ESEA was reauthorized with the passage of
  Improving Americas Schools Act of 1994 (IASA)
• Chapter I was renamed Title I again
• Congress passed the Goals 2000 Education
  America Act of 1994

11
1990s
12
Title I today2000s

• 2001 No Child Left Behind Act
• Introduced as the reauthorization to IASA
• Average scores for White, Black and Hispanic
  children highest ever
• The gap reduction between white and minority
  students was between 1 and 3 percentage points
• Students from low-income families showed an
  increase in both reading and math scores
• -- 2005 National State Report Cards in
  Reading and Math

13
2000s
14
Federal Monitoring Visit

• Student Achievement and Student Accountability
  (SASA)
• September 24-28, 2007
• IPS and Hammond (full review)
• Gary, Monroe, Muncie (targeted Choice/SES
  monitoring)
• IPS and Crawfordville (Even Start)
• IPS, Pike Township and Martinsville (Homeless)
• Kokomo, MSD Wabash, DOC and Soldiers and
  Sailors Childrens Home (Neglected and
  Delinquent)

15
Concernsbased on exit conference

• Instructional Support
• Parental Involvement
• Lack of consistency in plans and policies
• Needs to bring template to life
• Parent friendly language
• This is an area that Indiana need to improve upon

16
Concernsbased on exit conference continued

• Schoolwide Programs
• Goals and strategies for whole school reform
• Supplanting
• District initiatives
• Example resource rooms, parent liaisons,
• common assessment tools

17
Concernsbased on exit conference continued

• SES
• Lack of consistency with achievement goals
• Lack of consistency with progress reports
• Use of space
• Gyms or cafeterias
• Must be fair and equitable
• 30 hour requirement

18
Concernsbased on exit conference continued

• School Improvement Notification
• Amount of time districts allowed for Choice/SES
• IDOE finding dates of mailing notification
• Corrective Action for 2008
• Deadline dates to have notifications to our
  office
• Deadline dates for mailings

19
Concernsbased on exit conference continued

• Mandatory Set-Asides
• 5 HQ
• Equitable share to non-public schools
• 1 Parental Involvement
• 95 must be used directly at the school level
• Must be able to show documentation for the amount
  given to schools and spent at school level
• Page 9 of our application will include a new
  column for the parental involvement set-aside

20
Concernsbased on exit conference continued

• Comparability
• Do not include federally funded personnel or
  preschool teachers in this calculation
• Major Issue
• Must be included in our Cycle documentation

21
Concernsbased on exit conference continued

• Non-public Schools
• Hiring of paraprofessional
• Computer lab (not instruction)
• LEA must maintain control
• Time sheets must be signed by LEA
• Stamping materials
• Evaluating the program
• Example 90 of students will reach ___level
  based on ____. (determined during consultation)

22
Concernsbased on exit conference continued

• TAS and Non-public programs
• Identifying students
• Title I teachers cannot test all the students
• Teachers should use assessments that are being
  used with all students
• Information should be given to the Title I
  teacher
• Should be done in the spring

23
Concernsbased on exit conference continued

• TAS
• Cannot order assessments for identification
  purposes
• DIBELS
• Palm pilots

24
Concernsbased on exit conference continued

• Homeless set-aside
• Collaboration between Title I Program
  Administrator and Homeless liaisons
• Indiana is not using a formula to determine
  set-aside
• Example- PPE 1,000 for poverty students on page
  9 of application
• Homeless set-aside 1000 x number of homeless
  students

25
Concernsbased on exit conference continued

• Homeless, ND, Even Start
• Additional Monitoring

26
Highlights

• Accountability
• Title I Monitoring
• Title I Application
• Title I Expenditure Monitoring System
• SES Evaluation
• SES website
• Materials and Resources
• Hard work and commitment of staff

27
January 2008New Accounting Codes

• See handout

28
Title I E-grant

• Testing of e-grant in the early spring
• Self populated fields
• School names and numbers
• Poverty percentages
• Allocation and mandatory set-aside carryover

29
Additional School Improvement Grant 1003 (g)

• State must apply for the grant
• Title I will work with the Committee of
  Practitioners to determine how the money will
  flow to the districts
• 125 million appropriate in 07
• 2,253,964 for Indiana

30
Reporting Requirements

• Choice/SES expenditures

31
LEA Corrective Action

• Defer programmatic funds
• Institute and implement a new curriculum
• Replace corporation personnel who are relevant to
  the LEA for not making AYP
• Remove individual schools from the corps
  jurisdiction
• Appoint a receiver or trustee in place of the
  superintendent or school board
• Abolish or restructure the corporation

32
LEA Improvement

• November Beyond District Improvement
  Plansassistance in
• Measuring effectiveness of initiatives/programs
• Providing professional development concerning
  students with disabilities and students learning
  English as a new language
• March Workshopsassistance
• In examining student subgroup data
• In writing the district improvement plan

33
I-STEP testing

• Spring testing will begin 2008-2009 school year
• Fall test for previous year
• Spring- test for current year
• Notification must be sent prior to the start of
  the school year

34
Distinguished Schools

• Handley Elementary, LaPorte Community School
  Corporation
• High Performance
• Lakeside Elementary, Warren Township
• Closing the Achievement Gap

35
Distinguished Schools continued

• 25,000 grant award
• Recognized at the National Title I Conference in
  Nashville, Tennessee January 31- February 3,
  2008

36
Resources

• Fiscal handbook
• School Improvement checklist
• Special thanks to the Committee of Practitioners

37
Support from the State

• School Improvement grants
• School Support teams
• Schoolwide Planning
• Great Lakes East Comprehensive Center
• LEA Improvement
• TEAM leadership (.the near future)
• GOAL Establish knowledgeable groups within the
  schools that will lead others to improve student
  achievement

38
the future draft reauthorization paper

• George Miller
• Chairman House Education and Labor Committee
• Democrat from California
• Howard P Buck McKeon
• Senior Republican Member
• California

39
General statements regarding draft

• The nation must maintain its commitment to the
  goals of NCLB of closing the gap, and helping all
  children learn by holding states and schools
  accountable for academic progress
• Significant changes need to be made to the law

40
Features of the draft

• Accountability and Assessment- (current
  requirements)
• Participation of 95 of students
• Proficiency by 2013-2014
• Assessing students in reading and math and
  disaggregating the data by groups

41
Features of the draft continued

• Providing fairness and flexibility
• Growth models
• Model must be consistent with the goals of
  underlying law
• (Current model compares performance of students
  in a particular grade against performance of
  students in that same grade in the previous year)

42
Features of the draft continued

• School Improvement
• Two separate and distinct school improvement and
  assistance systems
• Priority Schools
• Miss AYP in one or two subgroups and need only
  minor interventions
• High Priority Schools
• Do not make AYP and have 50 of students not
  proficient in reading or math
• Schools that do not make AYP and have two or more
  subgroups in the school that have more than 50
  not proficient
• High schools that do not meet AYP and have a
  graduation rate at 60 or less

43
Features of the draft continued

• High Priority Schools
• 3 year plan
• High quality professional development
• Evidence based instructional programs
• Formative assessments and other data-based
  instructional decision-making
• Offer choice or SES to students

44
Features of the draft continued

• Priority Schools
• 3 year plan
• High quality professional development
• Evidence-based instructional programs
• Target interventions to subgroups not meeting
  proficiency

45
Features of the draft continued

• Create two separate and distinct redesign systems
• Priority Schools
• Institute significant revisions to their
  instructional and leadership programs and support
  services provided to the subgroups that were not
  proficient

46
Features of the draft continued

• High Priority Schools
• Close the school and reopen after a comprehensive
  design of its instructional program and the
  staffing of the school
• Close and reopen as a charter school
• Reconstitute the schools leadership and staff
  and significantly revise the instructional
  program in the subject area(s) not making AYP

47
Features of the draft continued

• Limit the number of High Priority Redesign
  Schools to 10 percent of eligible schools or 50
  schools, whichever is less
• Requires those Priority Redesign Schools that
  do not meet AYP after 2 years of implementing
  measures to be re-designated as High Priority
  Redesign Schools

48
Reauthorization

• When will it happen?

49
The future.
50
Contact information

• Lee Ann Kwiatkowski
• lkwiat_at_doe.state.in.us
• 317-232-0540