SAN DIEGO CITY SCHOOLS - San Diego Unified School District



SAN DIEGO CITY SCHOOLS

Administrative Operational Support

Finance Division

TITLE I ELIGIBILITY RANKING AND PARTICIPATION PLAN, 2002-2003

May 28, 2002

Introductory Statement

This report presents the school eligibility rankings and recommendations for participation in the 2002-2003 Title I program.

Background

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) is reauthorized approximately every five years. The last reauthorization, the Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA) was passed in 1994, and the latest reauthorization, No Child Left Behind (NCLB), was signed by President Bush on January 8, 2002, for implementation on July 1, 2002.

Much of the former legislation was retained in NCLB, including (1) all “children in poverty” generate funds to a district, and (2) the manner in which the district ranks its schools according to poverty criteria to determine the schools that will receive Title I funding. Attachment 2 demonstrates the ranking of schools, the proposed funding levels, and other factors affecting funding decisions.

The requirement to identify schools for program improvement (“school improvement” is the term used in federal legislation) remains in the new legislation, and it has been increased to include steps districts must take when schools fall into program improvement (PI). These new requirements are discussed in Section F.2 later in this report.

Parent involvement continues to be a requirement in No Child Left Behind, including the requirement for district and school parent involvement policies. A one-percent reserve for parent involvement continues to be included in the new law, with the modification that 95 percent of the funds must be allocated to the schools. This change has been incorporated into the ranking report in Attachment 2.

Consultation with parents continues in the new law, as well, and the district has provided numerous trainings to School Site Council chairpersons and their principals, Parent University, and the District Advisory Council (DAC) for Compensatory Education. DAC trainings and discussions were conducted at both the regular DAC meetings and specially

scheduled sessions on Friday evening and Saturday morning in recent months. These consultation sessions covered topics such as provisions of the new law, expenditure requirement, and other topics they requested.

While NCLB reauthorized the law, a review of U. S. Department of Education regulations has yet to be completed. District staff continues to review NCLB and current regulations to determine appropriate uses of Title I funding.

A. District Funding

The district has received a tentative Title I entitlement amount from the California Department of Education (CDE) of approximately $44.3 million, a considerable increase over 2001-2002. A significant portion of this increase is consumed by the required reservations for Program Improvement schools’ activities that are discussed in Section F.2. The increase also allows the district to increase the per-pupil funding level at Title I schools and to fund additional schools, as allowed by the new law. And it means a corresponding increase in the one-percent reserve for parent involvement that will be allocated to the sites.

B. School Poverty Ranking

Federal criteria for ranking schools to determine their eligibility for Title I funding remains the same as in prior years. The selection of schools is determined annually by ranking all school attendance areas according to economic factors. The district uses the percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price meals at each school to determine the school’s economic status.

The district’s poverty level held steady this year after dropping from a high of 65.2 percent in 1997-98. The districtwide average is 61.6 percent in the current year, compared to 61.7 percent last year. The individual grade span averages showed little change, as well: elementary grade span average currently is 66.7 percent, compared to 66.9 percent in 2001-2002; middle level schools average 60.05 percent this year, up from 59.0 percent the prior year; senior high schools average 51.9 percent currently, the same as last year. No new Provision 2 schools (consistently very high poverty) were added this year by Food Services, so the current 25 schools retain their Provision 2 status in 2002-2003.

The district ranks schools in three grade spans, elementary, middle, and senior high, and determines an average poverty level for each grade span. Although the district is

required to serve all schools ranked at 75 percent poverty or higher, additional schools are eligible to be served if they rank at or above their grade span poverty average.

For a number of years the district has used a special provision of the federal law that allows Title I funds to be used at schools ranking below their respective grade-span poverty averages. Districts may use this provision if sufficient funding exists to provide reasonable promise of success in improving student achievement. The increase in Title I funding for 2002-2003 encourages the district to continue to use this provision, along with a provision of the new law that allows additional flexibility. This provision is discussed below in Section E, under Schoolwide Programs Status.

C. Tiered Funding

For a number of years the district has used a tiered method of funding schools eligible for Title I by focusing a higher per-pupil level of funding on schools with higher percent poverty in an attempt to ensure success in improving student achievement among its most needy students. It is proposed that a tiered funding method continue to be used with Title I schools. Recently, the per-pupil funding amounts ranged between $250 at schools with the highest poverty levels to $100 per pupil at schools with lower poverty levels. The increased funding amount that was shared with staff by the CDE will enable the district to increase schools’ per-pupil funding. It is proposed that we continue with three tiers and that every school receive a greater amount of Title I funds than it did in 2001-2002.

2002-2003

Poverty Tiers Per-Pupil Allocation

At or above 90% $340

60% to 89% $250

40% to 59% $180

D. Data Collection and Household Match

Data for this report were collected for students enrolled on September 28, 2001, the date used for the California Basic Education Data System (CBEDS) data collection. A “household match” process, approved by the Board of Education on July 25, 1995, considers all students eligible who reside in a household where one or more students has been certified eligible through Food Services certification for free or reduced-price meals. This “household match” procedure was conducted in late January 2002, and used data for students enrolled on the CBEDS date.

E. Schoolwide Program Status

Since the early years of Title I funding, schools with very high concentrations of poverty were recognized as needing the flexibility to provide Title I services to all their students, schoolwide. The concept was to spend staff time assisting more students, rather than completing more paperwork that is required when a school does not have the flexibility of being a Schoolwide Program (SWP). For many years, only those schools with poverty levels of 75 percent or higher were eligible to become SWPs.

In the reauthorization of 1994, the Improving America’s Schools Act lowered the minimum poverty level to 50 percent poverty for a school to qualify to become a SWP. NCLB lowered the minimum poverty level to 40 percent, and the other requirements for becoming a SWP are still in place--develop an application, conduct a comprehensive needs assessment, and obtain approval by the local board and the State Board of Education.

The district plans to use this flexibility, along with the provision to fund below the grade span poverty level described in Section B above. These provisions of the law will enable the district to fund all schools at or above the 40 percent poverty level. Attachment 2 reflects this proposed funding level at all three grade spans.

This flexibility means that more students who “earn” Title I funding for the schools (by submitting free/reduced price meal certifications) will receive Title I assistance when they experience difficulty in meeting state standards. This year is the first time the district examined achievement data along with poverty levels. In addition to poverty levels, Attachment 2 shows each school’s 2001 API Rank, the number of students scoring below “basic” in language arts on the California Standards Test in Spring 2001. Students who score below “proficient” are not performing at grade level, and those scoring below the “basic” level are performing at an even lower level.

Note: The results of the California Standards Tests are based on how well students achieve identified state-adopted standards. The State Board of Education approved five performance levels for reporting results of these tests, from highest performance to lowest—advanced, proficient, basic, below basic, and far below basic.

It should be remembered that the district does not use achievement data to determine a school’s eligibility for Title I funding. At the same time, it is worthy to note the numbers of students scoring “below basic” at three very different schools: Central, Edison, and Zamorano.

School Poverty API Rank #Below Basic

Central 99% 5 215

Edison 99% 1 214

Zamorano 50% 7 199

Required Reservations

1. Parent Involvement: One change was made in the new Title I law related to funding for parent involvement activities. While the one percent reservation continues from the former law, NCLB requires that 95 percent of these funds be allocated directly to the school sites. This requirement of the new law will mean an increase in funds available for parent activities at school sites and a decrease of centrally reserved parent involvement funds. At the same time, staff is concerned that schools currently have a considerable amount in their parent involvement accounts that have not been spent. The actual per-school amount of new Title I funds for parent involvement activities can be found beside the school’s allocation on Attachment 2. These allocations are based on $5.68 per “funded” student, i.e., for each student at the school who is eligible for free or reduced-price meals.

Existing parent involvement programs were partly funded by Title I in previous years, and that central reservation will no longer be available in 2002-2003. Staff is examining other ways to provide supplemental funding under the new law and will continue to seek support for those programs that have a high level of participation.

2. Program Improvement Schools: Accountability is a strong feature of NCLB. Although there is the need for California to align its accountability system with the federal requirements, there are a significant number of similarities so that districts in the state can continue implementing the state accountability system and incorporate changes as the state and federal offices of education reach agreements. Under either system, schools that do not make adequate yearly progress (AYP) for two years become Program Improvement (PI) schools. In California, schools that do not make AYP in two out of three years become PI schools; at the federal level, two consecutive years of not making AYP puts a school in Program Improvement status. The consequences to the district are a considerable increase in costs and a potentially detrimental affect on the composition of the student population at a low-performing school.

• New Services: The new Title I law requires districts to reserve a maximum of 20 percent of its Title I funds to provide services to students at schools that become program improvement schools. The first year a school is in program improvement, the district is required under NCLB to offer transportation to every child requesting a transfer to a non-program improvement school in the district. If the school fails to make adequate yearly progress the following year, then the school is in corrective action, and the district must offer supplemental services to the school’s low-performing students.

These supplemental services are selected by the child’s parent(s) from a list of state-approved providers. The district will have the opportunity to become one of the state-approved service providers, but parents may select the supplementary service of their choice. If they do not select the district’s service, then the district must contract with the group or agency parents select to provide assistance to their child, at the district’s cost.

• Reservation amounts: The district must reserve five percent of its grant to provide transportation to those students who request it. An additional five percent must be reserved to provide the supplementary services, and ten percent must be reserved for additional transportation or supplementary services.

• Transportation: Existing transportation can be used to bus students from a PI school to another school selected by the district. Staff has researched possible obstacles and believe that a few new bus routes will be needed, in addition to the existing integration program routes. The additional cost is

projected to be considerably less than the maximum proposed under Title I law. The amount of $440,000, only a one-percent reservation, is shown under “Required Reservations,” “Program Improvement,” “Transportation,” on Attachment 1a.

• Supplementary Services: The California Department of Education has indicated it plans to have criteria developed for supplementary service providers developed during the summer. When a timeline is announced, the district will seek to receive approval as a supplementary service provider as a part of its extended day programs. Districts may put a cap on the amount of funds that they will spend on supplementary services, and the district plans to cap supplementary services at the 5 percent level, or $2.2 million, allowed by law. This amount appears under “Required Reservations,” “Program Improvement,” “Supplementary Services,” on Attachment 1a.

3. Highly Qualified Teachers: The new Title I law requires that teachers hired beginning with the first day of the 2002-2003 school year are “highly qualified,” and that existing teachers become “highly qualified” by school year 2005-2006, if they have not already attained this status. The definition of highly qualified is described in Section 1119 of Title I and requires a bachelor’s degree plus additional requirements, depending on the grade level(s) taught. Districts must reserve between five and ten percent of their Title I funds to provide programs that ensure that the number of highly qualified teachers increases each year, so that by 2005-2006 all teachers of core subjects are highly qualified. Additional funds in Title II are designated for professional development and may be used to assist with this project. The Title I reservation of $2.2 million, or approximately

5 percent for “highly qualified” teachers, can be found on Attachment 1a under “Required Reservations,” “Professional Development.”

F. Funding Proposals

1. State Compensatory Education (EIA-SCE) Funding: The increase in Title I funding for 2002-2003 gives the district an opportunity to provide support to English Learner students using an appropriate source of funding, State Compensatory Education, to replace funding that will not be available in 2002-2003 at the same level as previously. The district receives approximately $14.6 million in Economic Impact Aid (EIA) funds each year, with $11.2 million going to supplemental programs for English Learners and $3.4 million for Title I-like support for compensatory education program schools. Until now the district has never received a sufficiently large increase to enable this change to take place. The decision regarding the amount of EIA funds to allocate to EIA-LEP or EIA-SCE is completely a district-level decision.

Staff proposes this reallocation of EIA-SCE funds to EIA-LEP because of the reduction of English Language and Intensive Literacy Program (ELILP) grant for next year. Although $10 million in ELILP funds were received last year, only $5.8 million has been awarded for 2002-2003. The additional EIA-LEP funds will enable the district to serve the remainder of English Learner students in the extended day program.

The District Advisory Council (DAC) for Compensatory Education has expressed a concern that the redirection of EIA-SCE funds is for the purpose of eliminating the signature block for the DAC on the Consolidated Application cover page. While there will no longer be a requirement for the DAC to sign the Consolidated Application, there continues to be a need for parent consultation. District staff have consulted with the DAC regarding the use of Title I and SCE funds in 2002-2003 on numerous occasions, so it is the district’s intent to request the DAC’s signature on the Consolidated Application.

The 18 schools currently receiving EIA-SCE funds will receive Title I

funds instead. Programmatic requirements will be simpler than in the past because all schools will fall under NCLB. SCE funds now will be used to supplement other state funds in ELILP, so there is no issue related to “supplement, not supplant.”

2. Schools Funding: The total cost for funding the schools in 2002-2003 whose poverty levels are 40 percent or higher is $20,548,959, as seen on Attachment 1 under “Budget Distribution,” “School Allocations.” This same total is found on the last page of Attachment 2, the school ranking report, in the “Final Allocation” column, combined with the Parent Involvement allocation.

A total of 127 schools will receive Title I funding under this proposal, and it is expected that the 31 schools new to the program will begin immediately to

conduct a needs assessment and develop a schoolwide program plan for approval by the local and state boards of education.

The 71 existing Title I elementary schools, increased by 21 new schools means a total of 92 elementary schools, including one locally-funded charter school, will participate in the Title I program in 2002-2003.

The 12 current middle level schools will be joined by 6 new schools for a total of 18 middle level schools participating in Title I in 2002-2003.

Seventeen high schools will participate in Title I in 2002-2003, an increase of three schools over last year.

3. Blueprint Funding: Title I funding for Blueprint strategies will continue in 2002-

2003 at the level of $22.2 million. Sites are being asked to prioritize the Blueprint strategies they receive that will be supported by Title I funds. The 80 percent dedication of site funds to Blueprint strategies remains in effect in 2002-2003 and will total $14.6 million.

Instructional Implications

The instructional impact of the large increase in Title I funding means the district will be able to provide academic assistance to many more students not meeting state standards. The school allocations increased by nearly $8 million, and the required reservation for supplementary services for low performing students at Program Improvement schools is expected to produce additional increases in student achievement. The district also will direct $22.2 million of Title I funds to the Blueprint for intervention and retention strategies to further enhance student achievement.

Facilities Implications

There are no facilities implications associated with this report.

Budget Implications

The district expects to receive approximately $44.3 million in Title I funds in 2002-2003. This enhanced level of funding allows the district an opportunity to increase the funding at each school site, fund all eligible schools with the same funding source, redirect all of EIA funds to support English Learner students, and improve support for the district reform effort, the Blueprint for Student Success. These activities can be funded in addition to the reservations required under the new law for program improvement schools and highly qualified teachers.

Public Support and Engagement

Staff reviewed the new Title I law, the redirection of 95 percent of Parent Involvement funds to school sites, the proposed increased allocations to schools, required reservations, with the parents on many occasions, as stated above in Section F. These included meetings of SSC chairpersons and their principals, Parent University, DAC meetings, and DAC workshops in the evening and on the weekend. All parents have been receptive to district staff providing them this information in a timely manner and continue to request additional information as it is available. They are pleased that much of the increase in Title I funds will go to the schools, although they would like to have discretion over a larger percentage of the site allocation.

Policy Implications

The ranking and funding proposals in this report comply with existing board policies

B-6000, D-3000, and K-2000.

Recommendation

The superintendent recommends that the Board of Education:

1. Approve the ranking report detailed in Attachment 2 and described in the School Funding section of this report.

2. Approve participation in the Title I program of all schools with a minimum of 40 percent poverty for the 2002-2003 school year. This encompasses 93 elementary schools (including one locally-funded charter school), 18 middle level schools, and 17 high schools.

3. Approve the schools funding levels displayed on Attachment 1 and 2.

4. Approve setting aside a reserve of one percent of the Title I grant for parent involvement and allocating 95 percent of the reserve to school sites, as displayed in Attachment 2.

5. Direct staff to continue to research sources of funding to replace the current central reservation for parent programs that have strong support of parents. These funds may include site participation in programs that will provide services schools request, such as training, translation, or other services.

6. Approve setting aside a reserve of no more than 20 percent of the Title I grant to provide transportation and supplementary services at Program Improvement schools, as described in the Required Reservations section of this report.

7. Approve setting aside a reserve of $2.2 million, or approximately 5 percent, for programs to support “highly qualified” teachers.

8. Approve directing a central reserve of $22.2 million to Blueprint strategies.

9. Approve the allocation of all Economic Impact Aid funds to EIA-LEP to support supplementary services for English Learner students. These funds formerly were used for State Compensatory Education programs at 18 elementary schools that will be funded by Title I beginning in 2002-2003.

Report Prepared by Roxie Knupp and Kay McElrath

RFK:KM

Attachment 1: Projected Title I/SCE Funding for FY 2002-2003

Attachment 2: Title I/State Compensatory Education School Ranking and Funding

Levels, 2002-2003

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download