Title I Funding Formula: How it Works and What - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 121
About This Presentation
Title:

Title I Funding Formula: How it Works and What

Description:

Title I Funding Formula: How it Works and What s Ahead Steven Spillan, Esq. sspillan_at_bruman.com Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC *Unlike Basic Grants and all of the other ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:207
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 122
Provided by: StevenS82
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Title I Funding Formula: How it Works and What


1
Title I Funding Formula How it Works and Whats
Ahead
  • Steven Spillan, Esq.
  • sspillan_at_bruman.com
  • Brustein Manasevit, PLLC

2
Title I Purpose
  • To ensure that all children have a fair, equal,
    and significant opportunity to obtain a
    high-quality education and reach, at a minimum,
    proficiency on challenging State academic
    achievement standards and state academic
    assessments.

3
Title I Purpose
  • Meeting the educational needs of low-achieving
    children in our Nation's highest-poverty schools,
    limited English proficient children, migratory
    children, children with disabilities, Indian
    children, neglected or delinquent children, and
    young children in need of reading assistance

4
Title I Purpose
  • Closing the achievement gap between high- and
    low-performing children, especially the
    achievement gaps between minority and nonminority
    students, and between disadvantaged children and
    their more advantaged peers

5
Title I Purpose
  • Distributing and targeting resources sufficiently
    to make a difference to local educational
    agencies and schools where needs are greatest

6
Title I Funding
  • Funds are distributed to school districts
    according to a set of four separate formulas
  • Basic Grant
  • Concentration Grant
  • Targeted Assistance Grant
  • Education Finance Incentive Grant

7
Title I Funding
  • Although Title I, Part A funds flow through the
    SEA to LEAs, ED calculates the amounts at the LEA
    level for Basic, Concentrated, Targeted
    Attendance Grants.
  • EFIG calculated for each state overall.
  • Suballocated to LEAs via different formula.

8
Title I Funding
  • Many factors go into Title I formulas poverty,
    population, eligibility thresholds, hold harmless
    provisions, etc
  • Primary Population Factor for Title I-A funds
    School-Age Children in Poor Families

9
Title I Funding
  • 1 of Title I, Part A grants reserved for
    Outlying Areas.

10
Title I Funding
  • Arkansas Title I Allocation
  • FY 2011 - 156,379,574
  • FY 2012 - 152,850,371
  • FY 2013?
  • Likely to go down again due to decrease in
    national poverty share (according to Census data)
  • Despite increase in poverty rate above 20,
    national share decreased in last Census.

11
Title I Basic Grant
  • Original Title I-A formula, authorized and
    implemented each year since FY1966
  • Proportion declined from 86 in FY 2001 to 45 in
    FY 2012
  • All post FY 2001 Increases have been for Targeted
    and EFIG.
  • Largest portion of Title I funds allocated
  • Largest number of LEAs participating
  • Due to low LEA eligibility threshold

12
Title I Basic Grant
  • Allocates funding to school districts based on
    the number of poor children they serve. (compared
    to national total)
  • Also considers
  • Expenditure Factors
  • Hold Harmless Level
  • Minimum State Grant
  • Ratable Reduction
  • Further SEA Adjustments

13
Title I Basic Grants
  • Poverty Population Factor Children aged 5-17
  • In poor families (based on updated 2010 Census
    data),
  • In institutions for neglected or delinquent
    children or in foster homes
  • In families receiving Temporary Assistance for
    Needy Families (TANF) payments above the poverty
    income level for a family of four

14
Title I Basic Grants
  • Eligibility Threshold the number of children
    counted in the population factor must constitute
    10 or more such children and more than 2 of the
    total school-age population.
  • Expenditure Factor State average per pupil
    expenditure for public K-12 education, subject to
    a minimum of 80 and a maximum of 120 of the
    national average, further multiplied by 0.40.
  • The expenditure factor is the same for all LEAs
    in the same state.

15
Title I Basic Grants
  • Hold Harmless If sufficient funds are
    appropriated, each LEA is to receive a minimum of
    85, 90, or 95 of its previous year grant.
  • 85 if the LEAs school-age child poverty rate is
    less than 15,
  • 90 if the school-age child poverty rate is
    between 15 and 30
  • 95 if the school-age child poverty rate is
    greater than 30.

16
Title I Basic Grants
  • Minimum State Grant each state is to receive a
    minimum of
  • Up to 0.25 of total (if equal to or less than FY
    2001 level)
  • Up to 0.35 of total (if more than FY 2001)

17
Title I Basic Grants
  • A state may not, as a result of the state minimum
    provision, receive more than the average of
  • 0.25 of the total FY2001 amount for state grants
    plus 0.35 of any amount above the FY2001 level,
  • and
  • 150 of the national average grant per formula
    child, multiplied by the number of formula
    children in the state.

18
Title I Basic Grants
  • Ratable Reduction After maximum grants are
    calculated, if appropriations are insufficient,
    these amounts are reduced by the same percentage
    for all LEAs, subject to LEA hold harmless and
    state minimum provisions, until they equal the
    aggregate level of appropriations.

19
Title I Basic Grants
  • After ED calculation, SEAs may make additional
    adjustments
  • 4 reservation of state total allocations to be
    used for school improvement grants
  • 1 reservation or 400,000, whichever is greater,
    for state administration
  • Optional reservation of up to 5 of any statewide
    increase in total Part A grants over the previous
    year for academic achievement awards

20
Title I Basic Grants
  • SEA Adjustments (cont)
  • Adjustment of LEA grants to provide funds to
    eligible charter schools or to account for recent
    LEA boundary changes
  • Optional use by states of alternative methods to
    reallocate all of the grants as calculated by ED
    among the states small LEAs (defined as those
    serving an area with a total population of 20,000
    or fewer persons).

21
Title I Formula Key
  • PF Population factor
  • EF Expenditure factor
  • L_HH LEA hold harmless level
  • S_MIN State minimum
  • APP Appropriation
  • S_MIN_ADJ State minimum adjustment
  • L_HH_ADJ LEA hold harmless adjustment
  • OTR_ADJ Other possible adjustments by the SEA
  • SCH_IMP_ADJ Reservation by SEA for school
    improvement grants
  • S_ADMIN_ADJ Reservation by SEA for state
    administration
  • AWD_ADJ Possible reservation by SEA for
    achievement awards

22
Title I Formula Key (cont)
  • S Sum (for all eligible LEAs in the nation)
  • ALL State total allocation
  • EFF Effort factor
  • EQ Equity factor
  • S_ALL State total allocation

23
Title I Basic Grants Formula
  • Step 1
  • Preliminary Grant 1 PF EF or L_HH, whichever
    is greater
  • The population factor is multiplied by the
    expenditure factor for each eligible LEA.
  • If this less than the LEAs hold harmless level,
    the latter amount is used.

24
Title I Basic Grants Formula
  • Step 2
  • Preliminary Grant 2 ( Preliminary Grant 1 / S
    Preliminary Grant 1 ) APP or L_HH, whichever is
    greater
  • The amount for each LEA in Step 1 is divided by
    the total of these amounts for all eligible LEAs
    in the nation, then multiplied by the available
    appropriation.

25
Title I Basic Grants Formula
  • Step 3
  • Preliminary Grant 3 (Preliminary Grant 2
    S_MIN_ADJ L_HH_ADJ) or L_HH, whichever is
    greater
  • The amount for each LEA in Step 2 is adjusted
    through application of the state minimum grant
    provision and by a factor to account for the
    aggregate costs of raising affected LEAs to their
    hold harmless level, given a fixed total
    appropriation level.

26
Title I Basic Grants Formula
  • Step 4
  • Final Grant Preliminary Grant 3 SCH_IMP_ADJ
    S_ADMIN_ADJ AWD_ADJ OTR_ADJ
  • Further adjusted for the school improvement and
    state administration reservations, possible state
    reservations for achievement awards, and other
    possible adjustments.

27
Title I Concentration Grants
  • Similar to Basic Formula, with one major
    exception
  • Much higher LEA eligibility threshold
  • Also differences regarding
  • LEA hold harmless
  • State minimum grant provisions
  • Relatively small amount of Title I (from 14 in
    FY 2001 to 9 in FY 2012)
  • Approximately 48 of LEAs participating

28
Title I Concentration Grants
  • Poverty Population Factor Children aged 5-17
  • In poor families,
  • In institutions for neglected or delinquent
    children or in foster homes
  • In families receiving Temporary Assistance for
    Needy Families (TANF) payments above the poverty
    income level for a family of four
  • Same as Basic

29
Title I Concentration Grants
  • Eligibility Threshold the number
  • of children counted in the population factor must
    exceed either 6,500 such children or 15 of the
    total school-age population.
  • Expenditure Factor State average per pupil
    expenditure for public K-12 education, subject to
    a minimum of 80 and a maximum of 120 of the
    national average, further multiplied by 0.40.
    (same as Basic)
  • The expenditure factor is the same for all LEAs
    in the same state.

30
Title I Concentration Grants
  • If sufficient funds are appropriated, each LEA is
    to receive a minimum of 85, 90, or 95 of its
    previous year grant.
  • 85 if the LEAs school-age child poverty rate is
    less than 15,
  • 90 if the school-age child poverty rate is
    between 15 and 30
  • 95 if the school-age child poverty rate is
    greater than 30.
  • Same as Basic

31
Title I Concentration Grants
  • Minimum State Grant each state is to receive a
    minimum of
  • Up to 0.25 of total (if equal to or less than FY
    2001 level)
  • Up to 0.35 of total (if more than FY 2001)

32
Title I Concentration Grants
  • A state may not, as a result of the state minimum
    provision, receive more than the average of
  • 0.25 of the total FY2001 amount for state grants
    plus 0.35 of any amount above the FY2001 level,
    and
  • The greater of150 of the national average grant
    per formula child, multiplied by the number of
    formula children in the state or 340,000

33
Title I Concentration Grants
  • Ratable Reduction After maximum grants are
    calculated, if appropriations are insufficient,
    these amounts are reduced by the same percentage
    for all LEAs, subject to LEA hold harmless and
    state minimum provisions, until they equal the
    aggregate level of appropriations.

34
Title I Concentration Grants
  • After ED calculation, SEAs may make additional
    adjustments
  • 4 reservation of state total allocations to be
    used for school improvement grants
  • 1 reservation or 400,000, whichever is greater,
    for state administration
  • Optional reservation of up to 5 of any statewide
    increase in total Part A grants over the previous
    year for academic achievement awards

35
Title I Concentration Grants
  • SEA Adjustments (cont)
  • Adjustment of LEA grants to provide funds to
    eligible charter schools or to account for recent
    LEA boundary changes
  • Optional use by states of alternative methods to
    reallocate all of the grants as calculated by ED
    among the states small LEAs (defined as those
    serving an area with a total population of 20,000
    or fewer persons).

36
Title I Concentration Grants
  • SEA Adjustments (cont)
  • Where the total number of children counted in the
    population factor for the state is less than
    0.25 of the national total (as of the date of
    enactment of the NCLB), SEAs may allocate
    Concentration Grants among all LEAs with a number
    or percentage of children counted in the
    population factor that is greater than the state
    average for that year.

37
Title I Concentration Grants
  • Step 1
  • Preliminary Grant 1 PF EF or L_HH, whichever
    is greater
  • The population factor is multiplied by the
    expenditure factor for each eligible LEA.
  • If this is less than the LEAs hold harmless
    level, the latter amount is used.

38
Title I Concentration Grants
  • Step 2
  • Preliminary Grant 2 ( Preliminary Grant 1 / S
    Preliminary Grant 1 ) APP or L_HH, whichever is
    greater
  • The amount for each LEA in Step 1 is divided by
    the total of these amounts for all eligible LEAs
    in the nation, then multiplied by the available
    appropriation.

39
Title I Concentration Grants
  • Step 3
  • Preliminary Grant 3 (Preliminary Grant 2
    S_MIN_ADJ L_HH_ADJ) or L_HH, whichever is
    greater
  • The amount for each LEA in Step 2 is adjusted
    through application of the state minimum grant
    provision and by a factor to account for the
    aggregate costs of raising affected LEAs to their
    hold harmless level, given a fixed total
    appropriation level.

40
Title I Concentration Grants
  • Step 4
  • Final Grant Preliminary Grant 3 SCH_IMP_ADJ
    S_ADMIN_ADJ AWD_ADJ OTR_ADJ
  • Further adjusted for the school improvement and
    state administration reservations, possible state
    reservations for achievement awards, and other
    possible adjustments.

41
Title I Concentration Grants
  • For states where the number of children counted
    in the population factor constituted less than
    0.25 of the national total as of the date of
    enactment of the NCLB, the state total is to be
    allocated on the basis of the population factor
    among LEAs that receive grants.
  • LEA Grant PF / S PF ALL or L_HH, whichever is
    greater

42
Title I Targeted Grants
  • 22 of Title I in FY 2012
  • 83 of LEAs participating
  • Similar Formula to Basic
  • Significant differences related to how children
    in the population factor are counted

43
Title I Targeted Grants
  • Poor and other children counted in the formula
    are assigned weights on the basis of each LEAs
    school-age child poverty rate and number of
    school-age children in poor families.
  • LEAs receive higher grants per child counted in
    the formula, the higher their poverty rate and/or
    number.

44
Title I Targeted Grants
  • Poverty Population Factor Children aged 5-17
  • In poor families,
  • In institutions for neglected or delinquent
    children or in foster homes
  • In families receiving Temporary Assistance for
    Needy Families (TANF) payments above the poverty
    income level for a family of four

45
Title I Targeted Grants
46
Title I Targeted Grants
  • Weights are applied in a stepwise manner
  • Which number is higher (count vs. percentage) is
    the one actually used to calculate the grant

47
Title I Targeted Grants
  • Example Assume an LEA has 2,000 population
    factor children, the total school-age population
    is 10,000, and therefore the population factor
    percentage is 20.
  • First find the Number Weights, then the
    Percentage Weights, and use the larger of the two
    numbers.

48
Title I Targeted Grants
  • Numbers Scale
  • Step 1 691 1.0 691
  • Step 2 (2,000 - 691) 1,309 1.5 1,963.5
  • An LEA with a total number of population factor
    children falling within the second step of the
    numbers scale, the number of population factor
    children above 691 is weighted at 1.5.
  • The weighted population factor counts from Steps
    1 and 2 are combined (691 1,963.5)
  • Total (Numbers Scale) 2,654.5

49
Title I Targeted Grants
  • Percentage Scale
  • Step 1 15.58 10,000 1,558 1.0 1,558
  • Step 2 (20 - 15.58) 4.42 10,000 442
    1.75 773.5
  • An LEA with a population factor percentage
    falling within the second step of the percentage
    scale, the number of population factor children
    above 15.58 of the LEAs total school-age
    population is weighted at 1.75.
  • Total (Percentage Scale) 2,331.5 (Step 1 Step
    2)

50
Title I Targeted Grants
  • Numbers Scale Weight 2,654.5
  • Percentage Scale Weight 2,331.5
  • Since the numbers scale weighted count exceeds
    the percentage scale weighted count, the numbers
    scale count would be used as the population
    factor for this LEA in the calculation of
    Targeted Grants.

51
Title I Targeted Grants
  • Eligibility Threshold The number of children
    counted in the population factor (no weights)
    must constitute 10 or more such children and 5
    or more of the total school-age population.
  • Expenditure Factor State average per pupil
    expenditure for public K-12 education, subject to
    a minimum of 80 and a maximum of 120 of the
    national average, further multiplied by 0.40.
    (same as Basic)
  • The expenditure factor is the same for all LEAs
    in the same state.

52
Title I Targeted Grants
  • Hold Harmless If sufficient funds are
    appropriated, each LEA is to receive a minimum of
    85, 90, or 95 of its previous year grant.
  • 85 if the LEAs school-age child poverty rate is
    less than 15,
  • 90 if the school-age child poverty rate is
    between 15 and 30
  • 95 if the school-age child poverty rate is
    greater than 30.

53
Title I Targeted Grants
  • Minimum State Grant Each state is to receive a
    minimum of up to 0.35 of all Targeted Grant
    appropriations.

54
Title I Targeted Grants
  • A state may not, as a result of the state minimum
    provision, receive more than the average of
  • 0.35 of total state grants, and
  • 150 of the national average grant per formula
    child, multiplied by the number of formula
    children in the state. (population factor child
    counts are not weighted.)

55
Title I Targeted Grants
  • Ratable Reduction After maximum grants are
    calculated, if appropriations are insufficient,
    these amounts are reduced by the same percentage
    for all LEAs, subject to LEA hold harmless and
    state minimum provisions, until they equal the
    aggregate level of appropriations.

56
Title I Targeted Grants
  • After ED calculation, SEAs may make additional
    adjustments
  • 4 reservation of state total allocations to be
    used for school improvement grants
  • 1 reservation or 400,000, whichever is greater,
    for state administration
  • Optional reservation of up to 5 of any statewide
    increase in total Part A grants over the previous
    year for academic achievement awards

57
Title I Targeted Grants
  • SEA Adjustments (cont)
  • Adjustment of LEA grants to provide funds to
    eligible charter schools or to account for recent
    LEA boundary changes
  • Optional use by states of alternative methods to
    reallocate all of the grants as calculated by ED
    among the states small LEAs (defined as those
    serving an area with a total population of 20,000
    or fewer persons).

58
Title I Targeted Grants Formula
  • Step 1
  • Preliminary Grant 1 PF EF or L_HH, whichever
    is greater
  • The population factor (weighted) is multiplied by
    the expenditure factor for each eligible LEA.
  • If this is less than the LEAs hold harmless
    level, the latter amount is used.

59
Title I Targeted Grants
  • Step 2
  • Preliminary Grant 2 ( Preliminary Grant 1 / S
    Preliminary Grant 1 ) APP or L_HH, whichever is
    greater
  • The amount for each LEA in Step 1 is divided by
    the total of these amounts for all eligible LEAs
    in the nation, then multiplied by the available
    appropriation.

60
Title I Targeted Grants
  • Step 3
  • Preliminary Grant 3 (Preliminary Grant 2
    S_MIN_ADJ L_HH_ADJ) or L_HH, whichever is
    greater
  • The amount for each LEA in Step 2 is adjusted
    through application of the state minimum grant
    provision and by a factor to account for the
    aggregate costs of raising affected LEAs to their
    hold harmless level, given a fixed total
    appropriation level.

61
Title I Targeted Grants
  • Step 4
  • Final Grant Preliminary Grant 3 SCH_IMP_ADJ
    S_ADMIN_ADJ AWD_ADJ OTR_ADJ
  • Further adjusted for the school improvement and
    state administration reservations, possible state
    reservations for achievement awards, and other
    possible adjustments.

62
Title I EFIG
  • 22 of Title I in FY 2008
  • 83 of LEAs participating
  • In several ways significantly different from the
    other Title I-A allocation formulas.
  • The first stage in the process of calculating
    grants is based on data for states as a whole,
    not LEAs.

63
Title I EFIG
  • Formula includes not only a population factor and
    an expenditure factor, but also two unique
    factors
  • Effort factor, based on average per pupil
    expenditure for public K-12 education compared to
    personal income per capita for each state
    compared to the nation as a whole
  • Equity factor, based on variations in average per
    pupil expenditure among the LEAs in each state.

64
Title I EFIG
  • While population factor child counts are not
    weighted when calculating state total grants,
    they are weighted in the separate process of
    suballocating state total grants among LEAs.
  • Intra-state allocation process is based on the
    same number and percentage scales as used for
    Targeted Grants, but the weights attached to each
    point varies based on the states equity factor.

65
Title I EFIG
  • Expenditure factor is modified through
    application of slightly more narrow floor and
    ceiling constraints for EFIG Grants.

66
Title I EFIG
  • State total EFIG Grants are based on each states
    share of population factor multiplied by an
    expenditure factor, an effort factor, and an
    equity factor, adjusted by a state minimum
  • Each LEAs share of the state total is based on
    comparative weighted population factor count for
    the LEA, adjusted by an LEA hold harmless level

67
Title I EFIG
  • Poverty Population Factor In the first-stage
    calculation of state total EFIG Grants, same as
    Basic Grants
  • Estimated number of children aged 5-17
  • In poor families
  • In institutions for neglected or delinquent
    children or in foster homes
  • In families receiving TANF payments above the
    poverty income level for a family of four.

68
Title I EFIG
  • Poverty Population Factor In second-stage
    suballocation among LEAs, weights are applied to
    these child counts before they are actually used
    in the formula
  • Same as Targeted Grants with respect to the
    number and percentage scales used, but weights
    attached to each point on the number and
    percentage scales differs, depending on the
    states equity factor

69
Title I EFIG
70
Title I EFIG
  • Effort Factor Ratio of average per pupil
    expenditure (APPE) to personal income per capita
    (PCI) for each state divided by the ratio of APPE
    to PCI for the nation
  • Resulting index number is greater than 1.0 for
    states where the ratio of expenditures per pupil
    for public education to personal income per
    capita is greater than national average

71
Title I EFIG
  • Equity Factor based upon a measure of the
    average disparity in average per pupil
    expenditure among the LEAs of a state called the
    coefficient of variation (CV).
  • An extra weight (1.4 vs. 1.0) is applied to
    estimated counts of children from poor families.

72
Title I EFIG
  • Equity Factor (cont) Typical state equity
    factors range from 0.0 - .25
  • Most states in .10 - .20 range
  • Equity factor is subtracted from 1.30 to
    determine a multiplier to be used in calculating
    state grants
  • The lower a states expenditure disparities among
    its LEAs, the lower is its CV and equity factor,
    the higher is its multiplier and its grant under
    the EFIG formula.

73
Title I EFIG
  • Eligibility Threshold The number of children
    counted in the population factor (no weights)
    must constitute 10 or more such children and 5
    or more of the total school-age population
  • Expenditure Factor State average per pupil
    expenditure for public education, subject to a
    minimum of 85 and a maximum of 115 of average,
    further multiplied by 0.40

74
Title I EFIG
  • Hold Harmless If sufficient funds are
    appropriated, each LEA is to receive a minimum of
    85, 90, or 95 of its previous year grant.
  • 85 if the LEAs school-age child poverty rate is
    less than 15,
  • 90 if the school-age child poverty rate is
    between 15 and 30
  • 95 if the school-age child poverty rate is
    greater than 30.

75
Title I EFIG
  • Hold harmless is not taken into consideration in
    the initial calculation of state total grants.
  • It is possible that state total grants are
    insufficient to fully pay hold harmless amounts
    to all LEAs in the state.
  • In that case, each LEA gets a proportional share
    of its hold harmless amount.

76
Title I EFIG
  • Minimum State Grant Each state is to receive a
    minimum of up to 0.35 of all EFIG
    appropriations.

77
Title I EFIG
  • A state may not, as a result of the state minimum
    provision, receive more than the average of
  • 0.35 of total state grants, and
  • 150 of the national average grant per formula
    child, multiplied by the number of formula
    children in the state. (population factor child
    counts are not weighted.)

78
Title I EFIG
  • Ratable Reduction After maximum grants are
    calculated, if appropriations are insufficient,
    these amounts are reduced by the same percentage
    for all LEAs, subject to LEA hold harmless and
    state minimum provisions, until they equal the
    aggregate level of appropriations.

79
Title I EFIG
  • After ED calculation, SEAs may make additional
    adjustments
  • 4 reservation of state total allocations to be
    used for school improvement grants
  • 1 reservation or 400,000, whichever is greater,
    for state administration
  • Optional reservation of up to 5 of any statewide
    increase in total Part A grants over the previous
    year for academic achievement awards

80
Title I EFIG
  • SEA Adjustments (cont)
  • Adjustment of LEA grants to provide funds to
    eligible charter schools or to account for recent
    LEA boundary changes
  • Optional use by states of alternative methods to
    reallocate all of the grants as calculated by ED
    among the states small LEAs (defined as those
    serving an area with a total population of 20,000
    or fewer persons).

81
Title I EFIG Formula
  • Stage 1 Calculation of State Total EFIG
  • Step 1 Preliminary State Grant PF EF EFF
    (1.30 - EQ)
  • In Step 1, the population factor is multiplied by
    the expenditure factor, the effort factor, and
    1.30 minus the equity factor for each state.

82
Title I EFIG Formula
  • Stage 1 (cont)
  • Step 2 Final State Grant ( Preliminary State
    Grant / S Preliminary State Grant) APP
    S_MIN_ADJ or S_MIN, if greater
  • The amount for each state in Step 1 is divided by
    the total of these amounts for all eligible
    states in the nation, then multiplied by the
    available appropriation, adjusted through
    application of the state minimum grant provision.

83
Title I EFIG Formula
  • Stage 2 Calculation of LEA EFIG Allocations
  • Step 1 Preliminary LEA Grant 1 ( PF / S PF)
    S_ALL, or L_HH, whichever is greater
  • The population factor for each eligible LEA is
    divided by the total population factor for all
    eligible LEAs in the state.
  • If this is less than the LEAs hold harmless
    level, the latter amount is used.

84
Title I EFIG Formula
  • Stage 2 (cont)
  • Step 2 Preliminary LEA Grant 2 Preliminary LEA
    Grant 1 L_HH_ADJ or L_HH, whichever is greater
  • The amount for each LEA in Step 1 is adjusted
    through application of a factor to account for
    the aggregate costs of raising affected LEAs in
    the state to their hold harmless level, given a
    fixed total state allocation level.

85
Title I EFIG Formula
  • Stage 2 (cont)
  • Step 3 Final LEA Grant Preliminary LEA Grant 2
    SCH_IMP_ADJ S_ADMIN_ADJ AWD_ADJ OTR_ADJ
  • LEA grants as calculated in Step 2 are further
    adjusted for the school improvement and state
    administration reservations, possible state
    reservations for achievement awards, and other
    possible adjustments.

86
Title I Consolidation
  • Title IX of NCLB allows SEAs and LEAs record
    expenditures of consolidated admin without
    assigning allowable costs under each individual
    program.
  • Applies to every program under NCLB.

87
Title I Consolidation
  • SEAs may consolidate state admin from any NCLB
    program that authorizes use of admin.
  • SEA must demonstrate that the majority of its
    resources for admin are derived from nonfederal
    funds
  • SEA may adopt and use its own reasonable
    standards for determining this.
  • Can be consolidated with other ED programs, as
    designated by the Secretary

88
Title I Consolidation
  • LEAs may also consolidate admin funds under
    applicable NCLB programs.
  • Must have SEA approval
  • Can be consolidated with other ED programs, as
    designated by the Secretary
  • No federal cap on LEA admin, but SEAs are
    directed to establish limits on amount of funds
    that LEAs can consolidate

89
Title I Funding Whats Next?
  • Continuing Annual Budget Battles
  • Sequestration?
  • ESEA Reauthorization?

90
FY 2012 Budget
  • Completed almost three months late, against
    looming shutdown deadline
  • Cut ED funding by 233 million
  • All programs subject to .189 across-the-board
    cut
  • Some increases, including Title I
  • FY 12 14.52 billion (up 73 million)
  • Would have been 7 million higher if not for
    rescission.

91
FY 2013 Budget
  • President proposing to level fund Title I.
  • House GOP Proposing 7 billion cut to ED.
  • Senate Proposing 1.4 billion increase for ED.
  • Neither Hour or Senate has releases detailed
    budget numbers.

92
FY 2013 Presidents Proposal
  • Overall, 2.5 increase in education spending
    (1.72 billion)
  • New Race to the Top proposals for college
    affordability and completion, improving
    matriculation and reducing remediation (1.55
    billion)
  • Legislative proposal would provide
  • 30 billion to modernize schools
  • 25 billion to help hire and retain teachers
  • 1 billion for career academies
  • Other programs frozen at FY 12 levels (no cuts)
  • Includes Title I, SIG, 21st CCLC, IDEA Part B

93
FY 2013 House GOP (Ryan Plan)
  • Lowers spending caps by 5 in FY 2013 by 19 in
    FY 2014
  • Huge cuts in almost all areas except defense
  • Education could lose 115 billion in the next
    decade
  • Restructuring of tax code, entitlements
  • Balances budget by 2040?

94
FY 2013 Now What?
  • House and Senate Appropriations Committees will
    draft spending bills
  • Most Likely
  • Election year politics
  • Another Continuing Resolution (CR) and long
    budget battle
  • Final action on sequestration and
  • budget will come during lame
  • duck session

95
FY 2013 Outlook
  • Budget and fiscal responsibility remain highly
    visible issues.
  • All GOP candidates were forced to create a
    platform for deficit reduction.
  • Balance between austerity and economic recovery
    will remain a hot issue for 2012 elections.

96
FY 2013 Other Concerns
  • Budget Control Act of 2011
  • Raised the debt ceiling temporarily
  • Reduced spending caps by 891 billion over the
    next ten years
  • Created Congressional debt Supercommittee
  • Supercommittee failed to find 1.2 trillion in
    savings by November 23, 2011, so

97
Sequestration
  • Automatic cuts take effect January 2, 2013
  • Cuts to some programs may take effect immediately
    (mid-year)
  • Cuts to education of up to 4.1 billion this
    coming year
  • Never really intended to happen?

98
Sequestration (cont)
  • Adjust total for interest to reflect lesser debt
    principal
  • 1.2 trillion to 984 billion
  • Divide by year from 2013 through 2021
  • Split between defense and non-defense spending
    (about 54.5 billion each)
  • Take exempt programs out of the equation

99
Sequestration (cont.)
  • Spread cuts equally among remaining programs in
    2013 (accomplished by reducing spending caps for
    2014 and beyond)
  • Estimates on final cuts range from 5.5 - 9.1

100
Sequestration (cont)
  • Whats exempt?
  • Some low income assistance programs (Social
    Security, Medicaid, TANF)
  • Veterans benefits
  • Pell grants, in first year
  • Whats not exempt?
  • Defense spending, among other items
  • ESEA Title I

101
Sequestration (cont)
102
Sequestration
  • Cuts will go into effect on January 2, 3013.
  • Exactly how cuts will apply is still unclear.
  • Will apply to all funds appropriated for FY 2013,
    as well as all unobligated funds for
    advance-funded programs appropriated in FY 2012
    but available for obligation as of October 1,
    2012.

103
Sequestration
  • Sequestration will likely affect funding for the
    five major education programs which receive FY
    2012 advance funding ESEA Title I and II, Impact
    Aid, IDEA Part B, and CTE State Grants.
  • But what if those funds are already obligated
    before January 2, 2013?
  • Any benefit to obligating early?
  • Unclear.

104
(No Transcript)
105
Avoiding Sequestration?
  • Must be rescinded by an act of Congress through
  • Regular- year appropriations legislation passed
    by House and Senate with specific rescission
    language
  • An alternate spending plan with rescission
    language or
  • Special legislation rescinding automatic cuts
  • All options must be approved by House, Senate,
    and President

106
Avoiding Sequestration
  • Originally meant to force Supercommittee to
    succeed.
  • President Obama and Speaker John Boehner (R-OH)
    have said that they will not allow Congress to
    circumvent this measure of accountability.
  • Growing pressure from advocates and industry
    especially the defense industry may force them
    to change their minds.

107
Avoiding Sequestration
  • A temporary fix (extending enactment date into
    Spring) is likely, unless leadership can broker a
    deal before the election.
  • Unclear if having sequestration on the table is
    helpful or hurtful to incumbents.
  • If nothing before election, lame duck action
    extremely likely.

108
ESEA Reauthorization
  • Near-universal unhappiness with current law
  • Pressure on both sides to reduce size/scope of
    federal footprint
  • Increasing sanctions for schools
  • In March 2011, Sec. Duncan said 82 of schools
    will be labeled failing this year.

109
ESEA Reauthorization
  • President Obamas Blueprint
  • Rebrands Title I as College and Career Ready
    Students
  • Maintains Title I formula grants to high-poverty
    school districts
  • Makes significant changes to better support
    states, districts, and schools in improving
    achievement for all groups of students

110
ESEA Reauthorization
  • Obama Blueprint
  • Focuses on flexibility on implementing turnaround
    strategies
  • Continues encouragement of competitive grants
  • Encourages increased resource equity at every
    level of the system.
  • Districts will be required to ensure that their
    high-poverty schools receive state and local
    funding levels comparable to those received by
    their low-poverty schools.

111
ESEA Reauthorization
  • Obama Blueprint
  • Flexibility in spending, accountability, reform
    strategies
  • No mention of altering funding formulas.

112
ESEA Reauthorization
  • Harkin Bill
  • Not a complete re-write builds on existing ESEA
    structure
  • More flexibility overall
  • No more AYP/100 proficiency target
  • State-based accountability
  • No substantive changes to funding formulas

113
ESEA Reauthorization
  • Harkin Bill
  • Some support, but also early opposition (not
    enough accountability, issues with teacher
    evaluation)
  • Groups opposed include ACLU, La Raza, NAACP, Ed
    Trust, Chamber of Commerce, Congressional
    Tri-Caucus

114
ESEA Reauthorization
  • Not a priority for Senate leadership
  • Lack of strong bipartisan support
  • Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) almost derailed markup
    with procedural objection
  • Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) only voted for it
    in Committee to keep it moving
  • Harkin says he wont move to place on Senate
    floor unless House passes their own bipartisan
    bill

115
ESEA Reauthorization
  • House GOP Bills
  • Setting New Priorities in Education Spending Act
    (H.R. 1891)
  • Eliminates/consolidates some federal education
    programs
  • Passed through Committee
  • Empowering Parents through Quality Charter
    Schools Act (H.R. 2218)
  • Promotes expansion and replication of successful
    charter models
  • Passed House with bipartisan support

116
ESEA Reauthorization
  • House GOP Bills
  • State and Local Funding Flexibility Act (H.R.
    2445)
  • Passed through Committee
  • Creates essentially unlimited transferability
  • Unlikely to become law
  • Groups in Opposition
  • Center for American Progress, Education Trust, La
    Raza, NEA, AFT, Special Ed Groups

117
ESEA Reauthorization
  • Failure to move legislation on both sides of the
    Capitol
  • Not a priority for leadership
  • Lack of strong bipartisan support
  • Encroachment of partisan politics in new issue
    areas including education
  • Weve never had education dragged into this
    vortex. Education has always been above it.  Now
    we find ourselves sitting in a partisan
    firefight. (Rep. George Miller (D-CA) at CCSSO,
    March 2012)

118
ESEA Reauthorization
  • Consensus in Washington that ESEA will not go
    through this year
  • Chances in 2013 depend on political make up of
    Congress and the White House.
  • If either party controls both branches, ESEA is
    likely
  • If divided, will depend on how many moderates
    remain in Congress.

119
  • Questions???

120
Brustein Manasevit, PLLC Fall Forum
  • Federal Education Grants Management Conference
  • November 29th-30th
  • Cosmopolitan Hotel
  • Clark County Nevada
  • Registration opens late Summer 2012
  • Please visit www.bruman.com for more details.

121
  • This presentation is intended solely to provide
    general information and does not constitute legal
    advice or a legal service.  This presentation
    does not create a client-lawyer relationship with
    Brustein Manasevit, PLLC and, therefore,
    carries none of the protections under the D.C.
    Rules of Professional Conduct.  Attendance at
    this presentation, a later review of any printed
    or electronic materials, or any follow-up
    questions or communications arising out of this
    presentation with any attorney at Brustein
    Manasevit, PLLC does not create an
    attorney-client relationship with Brustein
    Manasevit, PLLC.  You should not take any action
    based upon any information in this presentation
    without first consulting legal counsel familiar
    with your particular circumstances.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com