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