U.S. Department of Education American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Overview. March 30 th, 2010

U.S. Department of Education American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Overview March 30th, 2010 Moving America’s Education System Forward PRESI...
Author: Junior Snow
0 downloads 0 Views 2MB Size
U.S. Department of Education American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Overview March 30th, 2010

Moving America’s Education System Forward PRESIDENT OBAMA’S GOAL Highest Proportion of College Graduates by 2020

What we need to do:  Improve student achievement  Narrow achievement gaps  Increase graduation and college

enrollment rates  Increase college attainment

Cradle to Career Approach Early Learning (Birth-Grade 3) Goal: All arrive ready to learn and remain on track.

Elementary (Grades K-5) Goal: All prepared with foundational skills to tackle advanced subjects.

Secondary (Grades 6-12) Goal: All graduate timely prepared for at least one year of post-secondary studies.

PostSecondary Goal: All have opportunities for success in the 21st century economy.

ARRA Grants: $100 Billion TQP $100 M

Data Systems $250 M Teacher Incentive $300 M

Title I $10 B

Ed Tech $650 M TitleFund $650 Innovation M

IDEA $12.2 B

School Improvement $3.5 B Race to the Top $4.35 B State Fiscal Stabilization $48.6 B Early Learning (Birth-Grade 3)

Elementary (Grades K-5)

Secondary (Grades 6-12)

PostSecondary

Substantial Impact to Date  ~$73 Billion Awarded

Save and Create Jobs

 +300,000 Educator Jobs Supported  Over $34 Billion in State Education Shortfalls Filled

Drive Education Reform

 41 Race To The Top Applicants  Significant State Legislative Reforms  Substantial Investments in • Professional Development • Classroom Technology

ARRA Education Grant Status As of March 19, 2010

Name State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Student Financial Assistance IDEA Title I Race to the Top School Improvement Grants Ed Tech Vocational Rehab Statewide Data Systems Teacher Incentive Fund Independent Living Impact Aid Teacher Quality Partnerships Homeless Youth Investing in Innovation Student Aid Administration

Total

Cumulative Obligated

Cumulative Outlays

Outlay Rate

40,021,468,622 8,939,217,920 12,199,989,362 9,986,156,835 578,200 197,694,193 647,401,810 538,890,230 53,515,656 96,069,083 39,790,961 167,823 69,965,000 0 50,880,601

22,835,286,541 8,880,332,198 3,024,688,359 2,537,783,734 377,337 553,293 65,396,628 96,657,602 6,625,838 7,742,946 39,662,448 108,488 15,808,931 0 20,516,900

57% 99% 25% 25% N/A N/A 10% 18% N/A N/A 8% 100% N/A 23% N/A 40%

72,841,786,295

37,531,541,243

52%

ED ARRA Funding as of 3/19/10

Obligations & Outlays

100.0 90.0

Appropriation

80.0

$$ Billions

70.0 60.0

Obligations

50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0

Outlays

ARRA Competitive Program Application Timelines Winter 2009-2010 RTT Phase I

Spring 2010

Summer 2010

RTT Phase II

School Improvement Grants SEAs & LEAs Investing in Innovation (i3) Teacher Incentive Fund

ARRA Spending Timelines 2010

Fall 2011

SFSF ARRA Title I & IDEA Ed Tech

2012

Winter 2013

Fall 2014

2015

9/30/11

School Improvement Grants

12/31/13 if a waiver granted

Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems Race to the Top

within 3 years of award within 4 years of the award

Teacher Incentive Fund Investing in Innovation Fund

within 5 years of the award

ARRA Reform Priorities Existing Formula Grants  IDEA ($12.2 b)  Title I ($10 b)

Existing Competitive Grants

    

SIG Ed Tech TIF SLDS TQP

($3.5 b) ($650 m) ($300 m) ($250 m) ($100 m)

New Grants

 SFSF ($48.6 b)  Race to the Top ($4.35 b)  Investing in ($650 m) Innovation

Raise standards and improve assessments Recruit, retain & support effective educators, and ensure equitable distribution Build robust data systems that track student progress and improve practice Turn Around low-performing schools

Thoughtful Approach

ARRA

Proposed FY 2011 Budget

• $100 Billion

• $7.5 Billion Increase

• Save Jobs

• Increased Discretionary Funding

• 4 Reform Assurances

• Program Consolidation

Legislation

SAFRA • ESEA Reauthorization • Workforce Investment Act • Childhood Nutrition Act Reauthorization • Education Sciences Reform Act

Proposed FY 2011 Budget Highlights  Effective Teachers/Leaders  Race to the Top  Well-rounded (e.g. STEM)  Turnarounds  Investing in Innovation (i3)  Charters/Choice

$3.86 billion $1.35 billion $1.1 billion $900 million $500 million $490 million

(includes $3 Billion increase in competitive Grants)

Core Areas for ESEA Reauthorization College- and Career-Ready Students

Great Teachers and Great Leaders

Meeting the Needs of Diverse Learners

A Complete Education

Successful, Safe and Healthy Students

Fostering Innovation and Excellence

Comprehensive and Aligned Reforms

Rigorous Standards & Assessments Great Teachers & Leaders Effective Use of Data Turning Around Low Performing Schools

College and Career Readiness Great Teachers & Leaders Meeting Diverse Learners Needs A Complete Education Successful, Safe & Healthy Students Fostering Innovation and Excellence

Effective Teaching & Learning

ARRA

Smart Uses of Funds Laying the Groundwork for Sustainable Reform Consolidation of Programs & Funding  Complementary Uses of ARRA dollars Professional Development  Planning for Turning Around Struggling Schools Temporary Teaching Coaches and Mentors Technology Infrastructure

State and District Coordination WHO APPLIES TO U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

BOTH

DISTRICT

Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems

95% of ARRA Grants Explicitly Require SEA – LEA Coordination

$250 million

Teacher Incentive Fund

Race to the Top

$200 million $4.35 billion

DISTRICT

WHO SPENDS

STATE

STATE

School Improvement Grants

SFSF Phase Two

$3.5 billion

Investing in Innovation

$100 million Teacher Incentive Fund

Ed Tech $650 million

Teacher Quality Part.

$11.5 billion

$200 million

$650 million

ARRA: Share Ideas & Combine Efforts Previous TIF Awards Ed Tech Funds

RTT Applications

Title I & IDEA ARRA Funds State Fiscal Stabilization Fund SLDS Applications

Teacher Quality Partnership

►Race to the Top Phase II ►School Improvement Grant ►Investing in Innovation Fund ►Teacher Incentive Fund

Summary 1. Strategy-Driven; Not Grant Driven 2. Maximize RTT Planning Teaching & Learning in the Classroom

College & Career Readiness 3. Use of Funds (Jobs) around each of the four reforms 4. Not Jobs OR Reform -- BOTH 5. Steal, Borrow – Cut & Paste 6. State applications for TIF 7. Title I ARRA – SIG 8. IDEA – SIG and model for teacher effectiveness 9. Long term System-wide Capacity Building 10. Reach out

“Take-Aways” 1. Substantial Impact – jobs & reform 2. Opportunities to Maximize a. Obligations b. Outlays c. Spending Timelines d. Best Practices 3. ARRA Alignment with Overall Agenda a. Four ARRA Reform Priorities Remain Central to FY 2011 budget and ESEA Reauthorization 4. Strategy a. Share ideas & complement planning across grants b. State/District Coordination

Investing in Innovation Fund (i3) [email protected]

Investing in Innovation (i3) Fund Summary Purpose

Funding Applicants

To provide competitive grants to applicants with a record of improving student achievement, attainment or retention in order to expand the implementation of, and investment in, innovative practices that are demonstrated to have an impact on: • Improving student achievement or student growth, closing achievement gaps, decreasing dropout rates, increasing high school graduation rates • Increasing college enrollment and completion rates $650 million to be obligated by September 30, 2010 Eligible applicants are: (1) Local educational agencies (LEAs) (2) Nonprofit organizations in partnership with (a) one or more LEAs or (b) a consortium of schools

Note: These slides are intended as guidance only. Please refer to the official notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria in the Federal Register.

Types of Awards Available Under i3 i3 Development Estimated Funding Up to $5MM/award Available Evidence Required

Scaling Required

Reasonable - research findings or hypotheses, including related research or theories in education and other sectors

Validation

Scale-up

Up to $30MM/award

Up to $50MM/award

Moderate – either high internal validity and medium external validity, or vice versa

Strong – both high internal validity and high external validity

Able to further develop and Able to be scaled to the scale regional or state level

Able to be scaled to the national, regional, or state level

Note: These slides are intended as guidance only. Please refer to the official notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria in the Federal Register.

i3 Priorities

Improve Achievement for High-Need Students

Required for all applications 2 3

Teacher and Principal Effectiveness

Early Learning (0 or 1 point)

Enhanced Data Systems

College Access and Success (0 or 1 point)

College- and Careerready Standards and Assessments

Serving Students with Disabilities and Limited English Proficient Students (0 or 1 point)

Improving Achievement in Persistently Lowperforming Schools

Serving Students in Rural LEAs (0, 1, or 2 points)

Must address one Absolute Priority

May address one or more Competitive Preference

Note: These slides are intended as guidance only. Please refer to the official notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria in the Federal Register.

Eligibility Requirements: LEA Eligible Applicant: LEA MUST,TO TORECEIVE RECEIVEAAGRANT, GRANT MUST

• Address needs of high-need students MUST • Address one absolute priority MUST • Demonstrate that it: (a) closed achievement gaps or improved achievement for all groups of students, and (b) achieved significant improvement in other areas Establish partnerships with private sector Secure commitment for required private sector match Meet the evidence requirement for the type of grant for which it has applied Note: These slides are intended as guidance only. Please refer to the official notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria in the Federal Register.

Eligibility Requirements: Non-Profit with LEA/Consortium Eligible Applicant: Non-profits, in partnership with LEAs or a consortium of schools TO RECEIVE A GRANT, MUST

MUST • Address needs of high-need students MUST

• Address one absolute priority • Demonstrate that the non-profit organization has a record of improving student achievement, attainment, or retention Secure commitment for required private sector match Meet the evidence requirement for the type of grant for which they have applied Note: These slides are intended as guidance only. Please refer to the official notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria in the Federal Register.

Evaluation Requirements All i3 Grantees MUST MUST •Conduct an independent program MUST evaluation •Cooperate with technical assistance provided by the Department and its contractor •Share broadly the results of any evaluation (and data sets for Validation and Scale-up) Note: These slides are intended as guidance only. Please refer to the official notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria in the Federal Register.

i3 Selection Criteria and Points Selection Criteria

A. Need for the Project and Quality of the Project Design

Development Validation

Scale-Up

25

20

15

10*

15

20

25

20

15

15*

15

15

E. Strategy and Capacity to Bring to Scale or to Further Develop and Bring to Scale

5

10

15

F. Sustainability

10

10

10

G. Quality of the Management Plan and Personnel

10

10

10

100

100

100

B. Strength of Research, Significance of Effect and Magnitude of Effect C. Experience of the Eligible Applicant D. Quality of the Project Evaluation

Total Points

* Development grants will be judged in two tiers: all eligible applications will be scored on Criteria A, C, E, F, and G and the competitive preference priorities; then high-scoring applications will be scored on Criteria B and D by a different panel of reviewers. Note: These slides are intended as guidance only. Please refer to the official notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria in the Federal Register. The criteria may apply differently to different levels of grants.

Education Technology Grant

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act Title II, Part D, Subpart 4)

Jenelle Leonard Director of School Support & Technology Program U.S. Department of Education

Education Technology

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Title II, Part D, Subpart 4)

Type of Grant:

Formula -- $650 Million

Grantee:

States make formula and competitive subgrants to eligible school districts.

Purpose:

To ensure that every student is technologically literate by the end of eighth grade. To support innovative uses of technology resources and systems integrated with curriculum, professional development and instruction.

Status:

The guidance has been published and funds have been obligated to the 50 states, Puerto Rico and DC. States are in the process of administering subgrant awards.

Ed Tech Allocation = Proportional to Title I, Part A Allocation

Districts Submit Educational Technology Plans to the State (must include 25% set aside for professional development) Distribution Option

5% Set-Aside For Technical Assistance to High-Need Schools and Public-Private Partnerships

Distribution Mandate

50% formula allocation to LEAs

50% competitive allocations to eligible local entities

Note: if State chooses to uses 5% for TA set-aside, these amounts would be calculated based on the remaining 95%.

Education Grants Ed TechTechnology Allocation = Use of Funds – Making the Connections

Proportional to Title I, Part A Allocation

Overall Use: Acquire, adapt, expand, implement, repair, and maintain existing and new applications of technology to support education reforms and improve student achievement Other Uses:

•Accessibility to technology (Title I and IDEA) •Applications of technology to increase student academic achievement (Title I and IDEA) •Proven and effective courses and curricula (Title I and IDEA) •Parental involvement efforts (Title I and IDEA) •Teacher/s as technology leaders who will assist other teachers (IDEA) •Connectivity linkages, resources, and services (Title I) •Management/analysis of data to inform teaching and school improvement efforts (Title I and IDEA) •Performance measurement systems (Title I and IDEA) •Professional development (Title I and IDEA)

School Improvement Grant (i3) Carlas McCauley Education Specialist, School Improvement Fund, U.S. Department of Education

School Improvement Grants (SIG)  $3.5 billion to improve low-achieving schools

nationally

 $3 billion appropriated through (ARRA)  $546 million appropriate through the Consolidated

Appropriations Act, 2009

 Authorized under section 1003(g) of the Elementary

and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA)

GUIDING PRINCIPLES  Students who attend these schools deserve

better options and can’t afford to wait

 Not quantity, but quality  Need to build capacity and supports at all

levels

 Not a one-year activity

WHICH SCHOOLS ARE ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE SIG FUNDS?

Persistently Lowest-Achieving Schools: Tier I schools

Any Title I school in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that is: • Among the lowest-achieving 5% of these schools in the state or one of the five lowest-achieving

such schools (whichever number of schools is greater); or • A high school that has had a graduation rate as defined in 34 C.F.R. § 200.19(b) that is below 60 percent over a number of years. Tier II schools

Any secondary school that is eligible for, but does not receive, Title I, Part A funds that

is:

• Among the lowest-achieving 5% of secondary schools or the five lowest-achieving secondary

schools in the State; or • A high school that has had a graduation rate as defined in 34 C.F.R. § 200.19(b) that is below 60 percent over a number of years.

Other Schools: Tier III Schools • Any Title I school in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that is not a Tier I school.

WHICH LEAS ARE ELIGIBLE TO APPLY FOR SIG FUNDS?  Receives Title I, Part A funds AND  Has one or more schools that are eligible to

receive SIG funds

FOUR SIG SCHOOL INTERVENTION MODELS

Turnaround

Restart

Closure

Transformation

Turnaround Model Overview Teachers and Leaders

Instructional and Support Strategies

• Replace principal

• Select and implement instructional model based on student needs

• Use locally adopted “turnaround” competencies to review and select staff for school (rehire no more than 50% of existing staff) • Recruit, place, and retain staff

• Provide jobembedded PD designed to build capacity and support staff • Use of data to inform and differentiate instruction

Time and Support

Governance

• Provide increased learning time • Staff and students

• New governance structure

• Social-emotional and communityoriented services and supports

• Grant operating flexibility to school leader

Restart Model Overview LEA converts a school or closes and reopens a school under a charter school operator, a charter management organization (CMO), or an education management organization (EMO) that has been selected through a rigorous review process.  Must enroll, within the grades it serves, any former student who

wishes to attend the school.

 Must take things into consideration such as an applicant’s team, track

record, instructional program, model’s theory of action, sustainability.

 SEA must review the process an LEA will use/has used to select the

partner.

School Closure Model Overview LEA closes a school and enrolls the students who attended that school in other schools in the LEA that are higher achieving.  These other schools should be within reasonable proximity to the

closed school and may include, but are not limited to, charter schools or new schools for which achievement data are not yet available.

 Office for Civil Rights Technical Assistance Module-- Struggling

Schools and School Closure Issues: An Overview of Civil Rights Considerations.

Transformation Model Overview Teachers and Leaders • Replace principal • Implement new evaluation system • Developed with staff • Uses student growth as a significant factor • Identify and reward staff who are increasing student outcomes; support and then remove those who are not • Implement strategies to recruit, place, and retain staff

Instructional and Support Strategies

Time and Support

Governance

• Instructional model based on student needs

• Provide increased learning time • Staff and students

• Provide jobembedded professional development designed to build capacity and support staff

• Provide sufficient operating flexibility to implement reform

• Provide ongoing mechanism for community and family engagement

• Use of data to inform and differentiate instruction

• Partner to provide social-emotional and communityoriented services and supports

• Ensure ongoing technical assistance

Tier I, II, and III Schools  In the Tier I and Tier II schools an LEA commits to serve with

SIG funds (i.e., funds under section 1003(g) of the ESEA), the LEA must use one of these four school intervention models.

 In the Tier III schools an LEA commits to serve with SIG funds or

in any Title I school in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that an LEA serves with school improvement funds under section 1003(a) of the ESEA, the LEA may use the funds to implement one of the four school intervention models or may use the funds to conduct other school improvement activities.

SEA ROLE 1)

Identify Tier I, II and III schools.

1)

Establish criteria related to the overall quality of an LEA’s application and to an LEA’s capacity to implement fully and effectively the required interventions. For example: a)

b)

SEA’s criteria must evaluate the extent to which an LEA analyzed the needs of each school, matched an intervention to those needs, and has the systemic support required to support implementation. If an LEA lacks the capacity to implement one of the four interventions in each of its Tier I and, at its discretion, Tier II schools, SEA will adjust the size of the LEA’s SIG grant accordingly.

2)

Monitor an LEA’s implementation of interventions in, and the progress of, its participating schools.

3)

Hold each Tier I, II, and III school accountable annually for meeting, or being on track to meet, the LEA’s student achievement goals.

LEA ROLE

An LEA is required to: 1. Serve each of its Tier I schools, unless the LEA demonstrates that it lacks sufficient capacity or sufficient funds. Serving Tier II schools may affect an LEA’s capacity to serve Tier I schools. 2.

Implement one of the four models in each Tier I and Tier II school the LEA commits, and has the capacity, to serve. a)

3.

Provide adequate resources to each Tier I and Tier II school it commits to serve in order to implement fully one of the four school intervention models. a) b) c)

4.

An LEA with nine or more Tier I and Tier II schools may not implement the transformation model in more than 50% of those schools.

An LEA’s proposed budget must cover the full period of availability of SIG funds, which is three years because ODE applied for a waiver to extend the period of availability . The budget for each Tier I and Tier II school an LEA commits to serve must be of sufficient size and scope to support full and effective implementation of the selected intervention. An LEA may request funding for LEA-level activities that will support the implementation of a school intervention model in Tier I and Tier II schools.

Establish three-year student achievement goals in reading/language arts and mathematics and hold each Tier I, II and III school accountable annually for meeting, or being on track to meet, those goals.

FUNDING AND PRIORITIES  SEA’s SIG grant award to an LEA must:  Include not less than $50,000 or more than $2,000,000 per year for each participating

school.  Provide sufficient SIG funds to meet, as closely as possible, the LEA’s budget request for each Tier I and Tier II school as well as for serving participating Tier III schools.  Include requested funds for LEA-level activities that support implementation of the school intervention models.  Apportion FY 2009 SIG funds so as to provide funding to LEAs over three years.  If SEA does not allocate SIG funds to serve each Tier I school in the State, it must

carry over 25% of its FY 2009 SIG funds, combine those funds with its FY 2010 SIG funds, and award those funds to eligible LEAs.

 If SEA does not have sufficient SIG funds to allow each LEA with a Tier I or Tier II

school to implement fully its selected intervention model, it may take into account the distribution of Tier I and Tier II schools among such LEAs in the State to ensure that Tier I and Tier II schools throughout the State can be served.

FUNDING AND PRIORITIES o SEA must give priority to LEAs that apply to serve Tier I or Tier II

schools.

o An LEA with one or more Tier I schools may not receive funds to

serve only its Tier III schools.

o SEA may not award funds to any LEA for Tier III schools unless

and until it has awarded funds to serve fully, for three years, all Tier I and Tier II schools across the State that its LEAs commit to serve.

o If SEA has provided a SIG grant to each LEA that requested funds

to serve a Tier I or Tier II school, it may award remaining SIG funds to LEAs that seek to serve Tier III schools, including LEAs that apply only to serve Tier III schools.

SEA

LEA

Eligible Schools

Identify list of eligible schools in the State (i.e., Tier I, II, and III)

Applies to serve all or subset of eligible schools in its district

Review Criteria

Develops, disseminates, and implements criteria it will use to review and evaluate LEA applications

4 models

Reviews and approves LEA’s capacity to implement proposed model in each eligible school

Applies to implement one of the four required models in eligible Tier I and Tier II schools. LEA selects model after an analysis of local data, resources, and capacity.

Prioritization

Must give priority to LEAs that apply to serve Tier I or Tier II schools

Must serve Tier I schools it has the capacity to serve. May not apply to serve any Tier III school if it has not served at least one of its Tier I or II schools

Budget

Reviews, adjusts, and approves LEA budget by school

Submits 3 year budget for each school it applies to serve ($50K-$2m per year)

Goals

Approves and monitors LEA’s achievement goals

Proposes achievement goals for each Tier I, II, and III school

WAIVERS

Through its SIG application, an SEA may request ED to grant a waiver of one or more of the following provisions:  Section 421(b) of the General Education Provisions Act to extend the period of

availability of SIG funds for the SEA and all of its LEAs to September 30, 2013.

 Section 1116(b)(12) of the ESEA to permit LEAs to allow their Tier I schools that

will implement a turnaround or restart model to “start over” in the school improvement timeline.

 Section 1114(a)(1) of the ESEA to permit LEAs to implement a schoolwide

program in a Tier I school that does not meet the 40 percent poverty eligibility threshold.

If an SEA does not request one or more of these waivers on behalf of its LEAs, an LEA may request a waiver.

SIG

TIMELINE Feb ’10

March-April ’10

May ’10

Fall ’10

• LEA application • SEA awards • Feb 22, 2010 • SIG schools process SEAs’ SIG grants to LEAs open/reopen applications due • LEAs begin to ED implementation • ED awards SIG grants to States

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION http://www.ed.gov/programs/sif/index.html  School Improvement Grant Guidance (FAQs)  Final Requirements  SEA Application  Fact sheets  State by State budget tables

Discussion

Suggest Documents