Status of Virginias Implementation of No Child Left Behind Act of 2001

1
Status of Virginias Implementation of No Child
Left Behind Act of 2001
Presented to House Appropriations Committee

• Dr. Jo Lynne DeMary
• Superintendent of Public Instruction
• February 2, 2004

2
NCLB IMPLEMENTATIONIN VIRGINIA

• Overview of NCLB
• NCLB Goals
• Accountability Expectations
• NCLB Implementation Status
• What We Have Accomplished and Funding Summary
• What We Have to Do and Major Cost Areas
• Appendix A Key Responsibilities of the Local
  Educational Agency (LEA)
• Appendix B Key NCLB Fiscal Responsibilities of
  Local Educational Agencies
• Appendix C Funding Charts

3
NCLB Goals and Accountability Expectations
4
No Child Left Behind ActPERFORMANCE GOALS FOR
ALL STATES

• By 2013-2014, all students will reach high
  standards, at a minimum attaining proficiency
  or better in reading and mathematics.
• All limited English proficient students will
  become proficient in English and reach high
  academic standards, at a minimum attaining
  proficiency or better in reading/language arts
  and mathematics.
• By 2005-2006, all students will be taught by
  highly qualified teachers.
• All students will be educated in learning
  environments that are safe, drug free, and
  conducive to learning.
• All students will graduate from high school.

5
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR RESULTSFOUR FOCUS AREAS

• Student achievement based on statewide assessment
• Within 12 years, beginning with 2002-2003, all
  students in Virginia are to achieve proficiency
  in English (reading/ language arts) and
  mathematics.
• Sanctions and rewards for results
• Adequate yearly progress (AYP), as defined in the
  federal law, will be the measure by which all
  public schools, divisions, and the state will be
  evaluated to determine whether progress in
  reaching academic proficiency levels is being
  made.

6
FOCUS AREAS(CONTINUED)

• High-quality instructional personnel
• Virginia will require certain teachers and
  paraprofessionals, as required in NCLB, to meet
  the definition of highly qualified within
  required time frames.
• Parental knowledge and choice
• Parents will be kept informed through School
  Performance Report Cards parents of eligible
  students will be provided options for student
  transfers and/or supplemental educational
  services.

7
VIRGINIAS ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMKEY COMPONENTS
1995-PRESENT

• Standards of Learning, K-12, in all core academic
  content areas
• Assessment of students achievement of Standards
  of Learning
• Accountability for student achievement results in
  schools
• Support for schools in need of improvement
• High quality standards for instructional
  personnel through licensure regulations aligned
  with Standards of Learning program
• Annual School Report Card to inform parents and
  public

8
IMPLEMENTING NCLB WHAT WE HAVE ACCOMPLISHED
9
WHAT WE HAVE ACCOMPLISHEDFUNDING APPROVED

• May 2002, Board of Education (BOE) submitted
  initial consolidated application to the U.S.
  Education Department (USED) to secure funding
• FY 2002-2003 NCLB funding, excluding Reading
  First and Title VI, Part A
• 274.8 million (22 percent increase)
• 267.8 million allocated to school divisions
• 7.0 million formula-driven state set-aside
• FY 2003-2004 NCLB funding, excluding Reading
  First, the Virginia Teacher Quality Enhancement
  Grant, and Title VI, Part A
• 286.8 million (4 percent increase)
• 279.6 million allocated to school divisions
• 7.2 million formula-driven state set-aside

10

• 2003-2004
• Local Educational Agency NCLB Funding Charts

11
2003-2004 LEA DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS IN
CONSOLIDATED PLAN FOR NCLB

• Formula Distributed

12
UNSPENT FUNDS?DISPELLING THE MYTH

• A December 2003 report prepared by the United
  States Department of Education suggests that
  Virginia returned 186,045,093 or nearly 13
  percent of the federal funding the commonwealth
  received for K-12 education during federal fiscal
  years 2000-2002. This is simply not true.
• The report does not reflect the fact that states
  and school districts have 27 months to spend
  money awarded by the federal government. States
  also may delay drawing and spending federal money
  because Congress is often several months late in
  passing its budget.
• The report was created on December 19, almost two
  weeks before the deadline for states to draw
  funds authorized for federal FY 2001 (2001-2002
  school year). An analysis conducted by the
  Virginia Department of Education after the
  deadline showed that the commonwealth and its
  school divisions spent more than 99 percent of
  the total funds authorized for federal FY 2001
  (2001-2002 school year). This was the same
  percentage Virginia and its school divisions
  spent of funds authorized for federal FY 2000.
• Federal funds authorized for Virginia for federal
  fiscal year 2002 do not have to be obligated
  until September 30, 2004. The deadline for
  drawing these funds is January 3, 2005. To date,
  31 percent of the amount authorized during
  federal FY 2002 has been drawn. It is the
  expectation of the Virginia Department of
  Education that when access to these funds is cut
  off next January, at least 99 percent of the
  authorized total will have been put to work for
  the schools and students of the commonwealth.

13
UNSPENT FUNDS?DISPELLING THE MYTH (CONTINUED)

• The associated press reported on January 10,
  2004, that Virginia left unspent approximately
  3.5 million of the federal funds it was
  authorized during federal FY 2001 to provide
  educational services to students with
  disabilities and students educationally
  disadvantaged. The article, however, does not
  distinguish between funds left on the table by
  school divisions and funds left unspent by the
  Virginia Department of Education. At present,
  state education agencies do not have the ability
  to spend federal funds originally allocated to
  local education agencies.
• The total allocation for Virginia for federal FY
  2001 for special education, including
  pre-schools, was 163,319,523 of which 157.6
  million was earmarked for school divisions and
  5.7 million for the Department of Education.
  Virginia was authorized 150,319,961 of Title I,
  education for the disadvantaged, funds during
  federal FY 2001 to provide educational services
  to low-income children. Of this amount, 148.4
  million was earmarked for school divisions and
  1.9 million for the department.
• According to Virginia Department of Education
  records
• No special education or Title I money was
  returned or left unspent by the Department of
  Education.
• Virginias school divisions left unspent
• 1,804,918 of FY 2001 special education funds or
  approximately one percent of total allocated
• 929,914 of FY 2001 Title I funds or less than
  one percent allocated
• In summary, Virginias school divisions left
  unspent 2,734,832 of FY 2001 special education
  and Title I funds, which is less than one percent
  of the total amount authorized for Virginia
  during federal FY 2001.

14
WHAT WE HAVE ACCOMPLISHEDA YEAR IN REVIEW

• January 2003, BOE submitted to USED Consolidated
  State Application Accountability Workbook
  describing Virginias proposed plan for meeting
  NCLB requirements prescribed in the federal law,
  including
• Virginia's definition of Adequate Yearly Progress
  (AYP)
• Virginia's Adequate Yearly Progress starting
  points and intermediate targets
• Preliminary yearly objectives, increasing to 100
  percent in 2013-2014
• May 1, 2003, BOE submitted final plan for meeting
  NCLB accountability requirements and AYP related
  baseline data

15
WHAT WE HAVE ACCOMPLISHED A YEAR IN REVIEW
(CONTINUED)

• June 9, 2003, BOE submitted, under protest,
  amendments to state accountability plan related
  to 2002-2003 policies for testing, and the
  formula for determining Adequate Yearly Progress
  (AYP) for certain LEP students and students with
  disabilities
• June 10, 2003, USED approved Virginias
  accountability plan contingent upon clarification
  of formula used to calculate graduation rate
  conditions of approval were outlined in July 1,
  2003, USED letter to BOE
• July 23, 2003, BOE approved clarifying responses
  to USED conditional approval letter and baseline
  data and state targets on non-AYP related
  indicators due in a September 1, 2003, USED
  report
• August 20, 2003, BOE President Thomas Jackson
  issued letter agreeing to conditions in USED
  letter of approval letter requested temporary
  use of Science Standards of Learning test scores
  as other academic indicator for purposes of
  calculating safe harbor

16
WHAT WE HAVE ACCOMPLISHEDA YEAR IN REVIEW
(CONTINUED)

• August 2003, DOE released AYP ratings for all
  Title I schools in improvement
• September 1, 2003, DOE submitted to USED non-AYP
  related baseline data and state targets
• September 10, 2003, DOE submitted to USED amended
  Consolidated State Application Accountability
  Workbook reflecting changes agreed to in
  President Jacksons August 20, 2003, letter to
  USED
• September 12, 2003, DOE released preliminary AYP
  ratings and report cards for all schools,
  divisions, and the state
• December 2003, DOE submitted to USED 2002-2003
  annual report that included assessment and AYP
  results.

17
WHAT WE HAVE TO DOANNUALLY TO MAKE AYP

• 95 participation of all students and all
  subgroups of students in statewide assessment
  program
• Student subgroups
• Limited English proficient (LEP) students
• Major racial/ethnic groups (Black, White,
  Hispanic)
• Students with disabilities
• Economically disadvantaged students
• AND
• Meet annual measurable objectives (AMO) for
  assessments (all students and all subgroups) AND
  meet or make progress in graduation/attendance
  (school-wide/division-wide rates)
• OR
• Meet safe harbor criteria if assessment AMO not
  achieved
• Reduce failure rates by at least 10 for each
  group safe harbor is exercised AND meet or make
  progress in graduation/attendance for each of the
  groups

18
AYP ANNUAL MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES
Reading/language arts (percent pass)
19
AYP ANNUAL MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES
Mathematics (percent pass)
20
HOLD DIVISIONS AND SCHOOLS ACCOUNTABLE FOR
RESULTS SANCTIONS AND REWARDS

• Sanctions will be imposed on all schools and
  divisions that do not make adequate yearly
  progress (AYP) for two consecutive years.
• Under NCLB, Title I schools that do not make AYP
  for two consecutive years are identified for
  school improvement with consequences prescribed
  in the federal law.
• 34 Title I schools (in 9 divisions) identified in
  Year One School Improvement status for 2002-2003
• 43 Title I schools (in 12 divisions) identified
  in school improvement for 2003-2004
• 20 Year 1 School Improvement status, offering
  public school choice
• 23 Year 2 School Improvement status, offering
  public school choice and supplemental educational
  services

21
IMPLEMENTING NCLB WHAT WE HAVE TO DO
22
WHAT WE HAVE TO DOEXPANSION OF VIRGINIAS
ASSESSMENT PROGRAM

• All students expected to participate in Standards
  of Learning testing program (95 participation
  required)
• Virginia will develop and administer additional
  tests
• New Standards of Learning tests to be developed
  in reading and mathematics for grades 4, 6, and 7
• Additional plain language forms of the
  Standards of Learning tests in mathematics for
  grades 3-8 will be developed for certain LEP
  students
• An English language proficiency test will be
  developed, in collaboration with other states,
  for LEP students
• Additional alternate assessments aligned to
  grade-level standards for certain children with
  disabilities
• Test development to follow Virginias standard
  process items to be field tested over the next
  few years

23
ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE CLASSROOMINCREASE POOL OF
HIGH-QUALITY INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL

• Virginia will require certain teachers and
  paraprofessionals, as required in NCLB, to meet
  the definition of highly qualified within
  required time frames. Section 1119
• The Board of Education must adopt policies that
  ensure Virginia teachers (beginning and
  experienced teachers) meet the federal definition
  for highly qualified.
• The Board of Education is in the process of
  examining and amending its Licensure Regulations
  for School Personnel to provide greater
  flexibility for teachers entering the profession.
• In February 2004, the board plans to adopt a
  policy that will help experienced teachers meet
  the federal definition of highly qualified.

24
INFORM PARENTSANNUAL STATE, DIVISION, AND
SCHOOL REPORT CARDS

• Virginias annual School Performance Report Card
  will be expanded to include data on
• School Performance
• Student achievement disaggregated by subgroup
• Graduation rates
• Attendance
• Number and names of schools identified for school
  improvement
• Teacher Quality
• Percentage of classes not taught by highly
  qualified teachers
• Percentage of teachers with provisional
  credentials
• The Education Informational Management System
  (EIMS) will ensure Virginia complies with federal
  reporting requirements.

25
PROVIDE STATEWIDE SYSTEM OF SUPPORT FOR NCLB
IMPLEMENTATION

• Provide statewide system of technical assistance
  and support for teaching and learning
• Consult with the Governor in developing a plan to
  carry out the responsibilities of the State
  educational agency under sections 1116 and 1117,
  including implementing a statewide system of
  technical assistance and support for local
  educational agencies Section 1111(c)(3)
• Meet adequate yearly progress (AYP) measures at
  state, division, and school levels and support
  schools and divisions in improvement Sections
  1111(b), 1116, 1117
• Support local school divisions in recruiting and
  hiring highly qualified teachers and retaining
  them. Statutory and regulatory language require
  schools in improvement to implement high-quality
  teacher mentoring programs. Section 1116(b)
• Support school divisions in instituting other
  significant governance and staffing changes that
  will likely impact what is causing the school to
  remain in school improvement Section 1116(b).

26
MAJOR NCLB COST AREAS
27
SUMMARY OF MAJOR STATE RESPONSIBILITIES WITH
STATE FISCAL IMPACT ADDRESSED IN GOVERNORS
INTRODUCED BUDGET

• Assessments in grades 3-8 and for students with
  disabilities and limited English proficiency
  Section 1111(b) 10 million (Biennium)
  Continue current program/Web-based testing 6.3
  million/3.7 million
• Data collection, analysis, and reporting to
  parents, public, and USED Sections 1111, 1112,
  1119 4.4 million (Biennium)
• Statewide system of technical assistance and
  support for teaching and learning Sections
  1111(b) and (c)
• Support to school divisions in developing
  capacity to comply with NCLB law and meet
  adequate yearly progress (AYP) measures at state,
  division, and school levels Section 1111(b),
  1116, 1117 2.9 million (Biennium)
• Capacity and support to comply with school
  improvement sanctions Section 1116 1.3
  million (Biennium)
• Recruitment and retention of highly qualified
  teachers, including high-quality mentoring
  programs, especially in schools in improvement
  Sections 1116, 1119, 1112(c) 3.4 million
  (Biennium)
• Support for increasing graduation rate of all
  students on challenging academic standards
  Section 1111(b) and
• Increased opportunities for low-income students
  to take Advanced Placement (AP) courses and exams
  for college credit Section 1704 1 million
  (Biennium)

28
EDUCATION INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (EIMS)

• Additional funds are provided for an Education
  Information Management System (EIMS) to create a
  student level database, which is needed to meet
  the reporting requirements of the No Child Left
  Behind Act.
• The additional funds support four positions in
  the department to conduct the annual data
  collections and complete the states reporting
  requirements. Estimated cost is approximately
  385,000 annually.
• Funds also support a contract with Pearson
  Educational Measurement.
• The cost of this contract will average
  approximately 3.2 million annually. In fiscal
  year 2005, approximately 2.7 million of this
  annual cost will be paid from available funds
  from the No Child Left Behind grant for
  assessment and related activities.

29
CAPACITY AND SUPPORT TO COMPLY WITH SCHOOL
IMPROVEMENT SANCTIONS

• Objective is to create a cadre of specialists
  trained in the skills needed to specifically
  improve schools that are at-risk for a variety
  of reasons, especially consistently low achieving
  schools.
• This specialist would be given significant
  authority as specified in a contract between the
  specialist and the local school board.
• Turnaround specialists will be paid an additional
  amount by the state as a salary differential
  equal to 50 of the difference between the
  highest average principal salary and the lowest
  average principal salary among Virginia school
  divisions.
• Funding will be provided to develop a training
  course for specialists and for tuition, travel,
  and lodging associated with attending training
  and program coordination meetings.
• A contract will be issued for coordination and
  oversight of the program.
• Specialists will earn an additional year of VRS
  service credit for each year worked as a
  turnaround specialist (cost estimated on the
  basis of 5 of the average principal salary
  budgeted for FY 2003 - approximately 75,079).
• Funding is included to support ten specialists in
  FY 2005.
• Funding is included to support ten additional
  specialists in FY 2006 plus funding to continue
  the first 10 specialists for a total of 20
  specialists in FY 2006.
• Estimated cost is approximately 487,000 in FY
  2005 and 800,000 in FY 2006.

30
CAPACITY AND SUPPORT TO MAKE AYP AND COMPLY WITH
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT SANCTIONS (CONTINUED)

• Objective is to create a cadre of teachers that
  will provide leadership to schools at risk in a
  core subject area.
• Initiative will be piloted and targeted to middle
  schools at-risk in mathematics.
• Teachers will be highly trained and will be
  targeted to specific schools with identified
  needs.
• For purposes of developing a budget, middle
  schools at-risk in mathematics were evidenced by
  meeting one of three criteria using the following
  FY 2003 accreditation ratings
• 1. Accredited with Warning in mathematics
• 2. Provisionally Accredited Needs Improvement in
  mathematics
• 3. Accredited with Warning in another subject
  area but rated needs improvement in mathematics.
• Based on these criteria, 69 schools would have
  qualified using data from FY 2003. If approved,
  the number of eligible schools will have to be
  recalculated using the most recent data available
  at that time.
• Teachers will be paid an additional amount by the
  state as a salary differential equal to 50 of
  the difference between the highest average
  teacher salary and the lowest average teacher
  salary among Virginia school divisions.
• Teachers will earn an additional year of VRS
  service credit for each year worked in the
  Teacher Corps (cost estimated on the basis of 5
  of the average teacher salary budgeted for FY
  2003 - approximately 43,152).
• Funding will be provided to develop a training
  course for Corps teachers and for tuition,
  stipends, travel, and lodging.
• Funding will be provided to conduct meetings of
  Corps teachers to review strategies and exchange
  experiences.
• Estimated cost is approximately 1.5 million in
  FY 2005 and 1.4 million in FY 2006.

31
CAPACITY AND SUPPORT TO COMPLY WITH SCHOOL
IMPROVEMENT SANCTIONS OTHER NCLB SUPPORT

• Additional funds are provided to integrate
  technical assistance with the requirements of No
  Child Left Behind into the assistance currently
  provided to PASS schools. Approximately 275,000
  annually.
• Grants of 500 will be provided to each high
  school to assist guidance counselors with the
  development and dissemination of materials and
  other counseling activities. Approximately
  164,000 annually.
• Funds are provided for five additional positions
  in the Department of Education to provide
  technical assistance to school divisions and to
  support the implementation of these programs.
  Approximately 500,000 annually including
  salaries, fringe benefits, and support costs for
  training and travel.

32
RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION OF HIGHLY QUALIFIED
TEACHERS AND SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT SUPPORT

• Objective is to support beginning teachers in
  schools at-risk during their first years in the
  classroom to (1) encourage them to remain in the
  teaching profession and in the locality where
  they are teaching, and (2) assist them in moving
  beyond classroom management concerns and focus
  more quickly on teaching and learning.
• Assumptions
• Based on schools at-risk
• Funding for the state share of 1,928.98 will be
  provided for each teacher with no experience in
  an at-risk school
• Payments to school divisions will be adjusted for
  their composite index
• Eight criteria will be used to identify an
  at-risk school
• An at-risk school meets at least half of the
  criteria (4 of 8)
• Eight criteria are
• 1. accredited with warning
• 2. average daily attendance is 2.00 percentage
  points below the statewide average
• 3. percent of special education students exceeds
  150 of the statewide average
• 4. percent of limited English proficient students
  exceeds 150 of the statewide average
• 5. percent of the teachers with provisional
  licenses exceeds 150 of the statewide average
• 6. percent of the special education teachers with
  conditional licenses exceeds 150 of the
  statewide average
• 7. percent of inexperienced teachers hired to
  total teachers exceeds 150 of the statewide
  average
• 8. school has one or more inexperienced teachers
  in a critical shortage area
• Preliminary estimate of the cost based on FY 2003
  data is 1.7 million per year.
• The 1.0 million for the current Teacher Mentor
  Program will be distributed on the basis of the
  remaining number of new, inexperienced teachers.

33
INCREASED OPPORTUNITIES FOR LOW-INCOME STUDENTS
TO TAKE ADVANCED PLACEMENT (AP) COURSES AND EXAMS
FOR COLLEGE CREDIT

• Objective is to increase opportunities for high
  school students, especially low-income students
  eligible for Advanced Placement (AP) exam fee
  reduction, to take AP courses and exams for
  college credit.
• Additional funding has been provided to expand
  access to Advance Placement (AP) courses through
  the use of technology and distance learning
  techniques to create a Virtual Advanced
  Placement School.
• The budget includes approximately 500,000
  annually to support teacher stipends, technology
  enhancements, tuition, and test administration.

34
For Appendices and additional information on
Virginias implementation of NCLB
Visit the Virginia Department of Education Web
site http//www.pen.k12.va.us
35
APPENDIX ANo Child Left Behind Act of 2001
Key Responsibilities of the Local Educational
Agency Under the Law
Virginia Department of Education
36
KEY AREAS OF LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY (LEA)
RESPONSIBILITIES

• Testing and Instructional Programs for Limited
  English Proficient (LEP) Students
• Division and School Accountability
• Choice, Supplemental Services, Corrective Action,
  Restructuring, and Alternative Governance
• Recruitment and Retention of Highly Qualified
  Teachers and Paraprofessionals
• Safe, Disciplined, and Drug-Free Schools
• Parental Involvement and Parent Notifications
• NCLB Fiscal Responsibilities

37
TESTING AND INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS FOR LIMITED
ENGLISH PROFICIENT (LEP) STUDENTS

• The school division must
• Select and annually administer English language
  proficiency (ELP) assessments to LEP students
  beginning 2002-2003.
• Increase the English language proficiency of
  limited English proficient children by providing
  high-quality language instruction educational
  programs that are based on scientifically-based
  research
• Provide high quality professional development to
  classroom teachers, principals, administrators,
  and other school or community-based personnel

38
LEA AND ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS (AYP)

• The local school division must
• Ensure schools have assessment and indicator data
• Notify schools making/not making AYP prior to the
  beginning of the school year and identify Title I
  schools in improvement
• Publicize and disseminate AYP determinations to
  school community
• Review efforts of schools to improve student
  achievement
• Section 1116(a)

39
TITLE I SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES

• The local school division must
• Identify for school improvement Title I schools
  not making adequate yearly progress (AYP) for two
  consecutive years in the same subject and notify
  schools of their status prior to the beginning of
  the school year
• Provide public school choice, supplemental
  educational services, corrective action,
  restructuring, and alternative governance at
  designated intervals in the school improvement
  process
• Provide technical assistance in the areas of data
  analysis, professional development, use of funds,
  selecting instructional methods, and use of
  scientifically-based research
• Section 1116(b)

40
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT SANCTIONS

• Public School Choice
• for Title I Schools in First-Year School
  Improvement
• The local school division must
• Offer the public school choice option no later
  than the first day of the school year following
  school improvement identification
• Give priority to the lowest performing students
  in the highest poverty schools to transfer to
  another public school not in school improvement
  served by the LEA
• Allow transfer students to remain at receiver
  school until highest grade is completed
• Section 1116(b)

41
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT SANCTIONS(CONTINUED)

• Public School Choice
• for Title I Schools in First-Year School
  Improvement
• The local school division must
• Provide transportation
• Reserve an amount equal to 20 percent of Title I,
  Part A allocation for public school choice and
  supplemental educational services--5 public
  school choice 5 supplemental educational
  services 10 either, as needed
• Communicate to parents the public school choice
  option
• Establish cooperative agreements, if possible,
  with other school divisions if there are no
  viable transfer options for students within the
  division
• (If the school is no longer identified for School
  Improvement, it is no longer obligated to provide
  public school choice.)
• Section 1116(b)

42
ADDITIONAL SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT SANCTIONS

• for Title I Schools in First-Year School
  Improvement
• The local school division must ensure that the
  school develops a school plan that
• Covers a two-year period and be implemented
  expeditiously
• Describes the use of a ten percent Title I
  set-aside for high-quality professional
  development
• Involves parents, school/division staff, and
  outside experts
• Incorporates scientifically-based strategies that
  may include a comprehensive school reform model
• Includes technical assistance to be provided by
  the division
• Section 1116(b)

43
ADDITIONAL SANCTIONS(CONTINUED)

• for Title I Schools in First-Year School
  Improvement
• The local school division must ensure that the
  school develop a school plan that must
• Adopt policies and practices concerning the
  schools core academic subjects that have the
  greatest likelihood of raising student
  achievement
• Establish annual measurable objectives to ensure
  that each subgroup will reach 100 percent
  proficiency
• Provide effective parent involvement/communication
  
• Incorporate, as appropriate, extended day/year
  instruction
• Incorporate a teacher mentoring program
• Receive a review by the LEA within 45 days
• Section 1116(b)

44
ADDITIONAL SANCTIONS (CONTINUED)

• Supplemental Educational Services
• for Title I Schools in Second-Year School
  Improvement
• The local school division must offer supplemental
  educational services to eligible (low-income)
  students.
• The local school division must
• Develop a fair and equitable student selection
  process
• Include tutoring, remediation, and academic
  services that take place outside of the school
  day
• Use provider list approved by the Board of
  Education
• Send annual notice to parents regarding available
  services and providers
• Section 1116(b)

45
ADDITIONAL SANCTIONS (CONTINUED)

• Supplemental Educational Services
• for Title I Schools in Second-Year School
  Improvement
• The local school division must
• Provide assistance to help parents select
  provider, if requested
• Reserve an amount equal to 20 percent of Title I,
  Part A allocation for public school choice and
  supplemental educational services--5 public
  school choice 5 supplemental educational
  services 10 either, as needed
• Enter into a service agreement, upon parent
  selection, according to agreement components in
  the law
• The local school division must
• Continue to offer public school choice
• Ensure the revision of the school plan
• Section 1116(b)

46
ADDITIONAL SANCTIONS (CONTINUED)

• Corrective Action
• for Title I Schools in Third-Year School
  Improvement
• The local school division must select at least
  one
• Replace school staff relevant to the failure
• Institute and implement a new curriculum
• Significantly decrease management authority in
  the school
• Appoint outside experts to advise the school
• Extend school year or school day
• Restructure internal organization of the school
• The local school division must
• Continue to offer public school choice and
  supplemental educational services
• Ensure the revision of the school plan
• Section 1116(b)

47
ADDITIONAL SANCTIONS (CONTINUED)

• Restructuring and Alternative Governance
• for Title I Schools in Fourth-Year School
  Improvement
• The local school division must
• Continue to offer public school choice
• Continue to provide supplemental educational
  services
• Continue selected corrective actions
• Prepare a plan, and make necessary arrangements
  to carry out alternative governance
• Section 1116(b)

48
ADDITIONAL SANCTIONS (CONTINUED)

• Restructuring and Alternative Governance
• for Title I Schools in Fifth-Year School
  Improvement
• The local school division must implement
  alternative governance by selecting one of the
  following
• Reopen the school as a charter school
• Replace all or most of school staff relevant to
  failure to make adequate yearly progress
• Contract with outside entity to operate school
• Institute other significant governance and
  staffing changes that will likely impact what is
  causing the school to remain in school
  improvement
• Section 1116(b)

49
SANCTIONS FOR NON-TITLE I SCHOOLS

• School divisions that have non-Title I schools
  that do not make AYP for two consecutive years in
  the same area must ensure that schools
• Analyze relevant data
• Develop or revise the school improvement plan (to
  be approved by the LEA) to include
  strategies/uses of resources that address the
  area(s) of need, consistent with guidelines
  determined by the local school division
• School divisions that have non-Title I schools
  that do not make AYP for subsequent consecutive
  years in the same area must ensure that schools
• Continue to analyze data and revise the school
  plan
• Take additional corrective actions specified by
  the local school division
• Section 1111(b)

50
LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY (LEA) IMPROVEMENT

• The SEA must identify for LEA improvement
  divisions not making AYP for two consecutive
  years in the same subject.
• The LEA identified in improvement status, must
• Develop or revise within three months a
  divisionwide plan in consultation with parents,
  school staff, and others
• Implement plan expeditiously or not later than
  the beginning of the first school year following
  identification
• Exit LEA Improvement after two consecutive years
  of making adequate yearly progress
• Meet additional state-imposed sanctions if
  division continues its failure to make AYP
• Section 1116(c)

51
RECRUITMENT AND RETENTIONHIGHLY QUALIFIED
TEACHERS AND PARAPROFESSIONALS

• Local school divisions and the state must develop
  plans to ensure that all teachers of core
  academic subjects are highly qualified by the end
  of the 2005-2006 school year.
• Local school divisions must report annually to
  the Virginia Department of Education data on the
  percentages of teachers and paraprofessionals
  that meet the federal definition of highly
  qualified.
• Section 1119

52
SCHOOL SAFETY

• Unsafe Schools Choice Option
• The local school division must allow students who
  attend a persistently dangerous public school
  or who become victims of a violent criminal
  offense on school grounds to transfer to a
  safe public school.
• Gun Free Requirements
• The local school division must
• Have in place a policy to expel any student (for
  365 days) who brings a firearm to school or
  possesses a firearm on school property beginning
  with the 2003-2004 school year
• Refer these students to the criminal justice
  system

53
TITLE I PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT

• Local school divisions receiving Title I funds
  must
• Develop a jointly agreed upon written policy
  which establishes the divisions expectations for
  parental involvement
• Ensure that each participating school develop a
  written policy that describes the means for
  carrying out the divisions policy
• Convene annual meeting
• Conduct annual evaluation of parental involvement
  policy
• Communicate a policy for promoting parental
  involvement in program implementation, school
  review, and development of improvement plan.
• Section 1111

54
APPENDIX BKey NCLB Fiscal Responsibilities of
Local Educational Agencies

• Supplement, Not Supplant
• Comparability of Services
• Maintenance of Effort
• Transferability

55
KEY FISCAL LEA RESPONSIBILITIES

• Section 1120A, Fiscal requirements maintain
• certain legislative requirements
• Supplement, Not Supplant, Non-Federal Funds
• Section 1120A(b)
• States and school divisions must use federal
  funds received under this part only to
  supplement funds that would in the absence of
  such federal funds be made available from
  non-federal sources for education and not
  supplant such funds.

56
KEY FISCAL LEA RESPONSIBILITIES(CONTINUED)

• Comparability of Services Section 1120A(c)
• States and school divisions receiving federal
  funds under this part of the Act shall have at
  least comparable services to those programs not
  receiving federal funds.
• Maintenance of Effort Section 9521
• States and school divisions receiving federal
  funds under this part of the Act shall maintain
  at least 90 percent of the combined fiscal effort
  per student, or the aggregate expenditures of the
  agency, for two preceding years.

57
KEY FISCAL LEA RESPONSIBILITIES(CONTINUED)

• Transferability Section 6123
• New provision allows states and school
  divisions receiving federal funds under this part
  of the Act to transfer up to 50 percent of
  non-administrative funds among certain federal
  programs (30 percent if a division in the future
  is in Title I LEA Improvement).

58
APPENDIX CNCLB FUNDING CHARTS

• State Summary
• Local School Division Summary

59
(No Transcript)