California Department of Education Executive Office SBE-003 (REV. 09/2011) dsib-iad-may15item04 ITEM #13 CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION MAY 2015 AGENDA SUBJECT Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Section 9401 Waiver Request for Supplemental Educational Services. Action Information Public Hearing SUMMARY OF THE ISSUE(S) The State Board of Education (SBE) authorized the California Department of Education (CDE) to request a waiver of the provisions of Section 1116(e) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) for Supplemental Educational Services (SES) from the U.S. Department of Education (ED). The CDE is requesting a four-year waiver from the requirements relating to SES commencing in the 2015–16 school year. This waiver would allow local educational agencies (LEAs) that have Title I schools in Program Improvement (PI), to use funds currently set aside for SES to provide extended day intervention strategies for students who are academically deficient in the areas of mathematics, English-language arts (ELA), and/or science. Extended day intervention strategies would be administered by the LEA and approved by the CDE. These services would be offered to low income students attending a Title I school in PI Year 2 and beyond, the same population currently being served in SES programs. Extended day intervention strategies may be offered before school, after school, intersession, and/or during summer school. All instruction may be provided by a highly qualified teacher and/or tutor that is employed by the LEA that is administering the extended day intervention strategies. If granted the waiver to use funds previously set aside for SES on extended day intervention strategies, all LEAs will be required to reserve 20 percent of their Title I, Part A allocation. LEAs may continue to set aside an amount equivalent to 5 percent for choice-related transportation. Funds in the amount of 5 percent for choice-related transportation would come from the 20 percent set aside that is being used to allocate funds for extended day intervention strategies. RECOMMENDATION The CDE recommends the SBE approve the attached waiver request to the ED to waive the provisions of Section 1116(e) of the ESEA to allow LEAs that have Title I schools in PI to provide extended day intervention strategies to low income students who are 5/5/2015 12:21 AM dsib-iad-may15item04 Page 2 of 3 academically deficient in ELA, mathematics, and/or science using SES set aside funds. The CDE also recommends that the SBE give authority to the SBE President to make technical changes to the waiver before it is submitted to the ED, as deemed necessary. See Attachment 1. BRIEF HISTORY OF KEY ISSUES Title I, Part A of the ESEA requires that eligible students attending Title I schools that have not met adequate yearly progress achievement targets for three years be provided with opportunities and choices to ensure they receive the academic assistance they need. SES provides extra academic assistance to eligible students from low income families who are attending Title I schools that are in PI Year 2 and beyond. The goal of SES is to increase low income students’ academic achievement in mathematics, ELA, and/or science. During the 2011–12, 2012–13, and 2013–14 school years, LEAs have spent approximately $507,454,271 on SES with little evidence of improved academic achievement by students who participated in the program. The CDE has received complaints and concerns from LEAs, providers, parents/guardians, and employees of providers regarding inappropriate practices of SES providers that include falsifying enrollment, attendance, and invoice documents; students not receiving services; parents/guardians and teachers not receiving feedback on the academic progress of students; and questionable marketing practices. If a waiver of Section 1116(e) of the ESEA for SES is granted, and LEAs with Title I schools in PI Year 2 and beyond are allowed to use funds previously set aside for SES on extended day intervention strategies, the CDE would report to the ED the following information:  Number of low income eligible students who participated in extended day intervention strategies during the 2015–16, 2016–17, 2017–18, and 2018–19 school years.  Overall number of eligible students not meeting or nearly meeting performance standards in ELA and mathematics during the 2016–17, 2017–18, and 2018–19 school years.  Amount of funds expended by LEAs on extended day intervention strategies during the 2015–16, 2016–17, 2017–18, and 2018–19 school years. SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION DISCUSSION AND ACTION The ED has granted the SBE an ESEA, Section 9401 waiver of the Title 34, Code of Federal Regulations, sections 200.47(b)(1)(iv)(A) and (B) for the 2009–10, 2011–12, 2012–14, 2014–16, and 2016–18 school years. This waiver allows the CDE to continue to recommend and allow LEAs identified for PI to apply and serve as SBE-approved providers of SES. 5/5/2015 12:21 AM dsib-iad-may15item04 Page 3 of 3 FISCAL ANALYSIS (AS APPROPRIATE) There is no fiscal impact to the state. ATTACHMENT(S) Attachment 1: DRAFT June 1, 2015, joint letter from Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, California Department of Education, and Michael W. Kirst, President, California State Board of Education, to Deborah Delisle, Assistant Secretary, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, U.S. Department of Education, regarding Request for Waiver of Provisions of Section 1116(e) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Requirement for Supplemental Educational Services (6 Pages) 5/5/2015 12:21 AM dsib-iad-may15item04 Attachment 1 Page 1 of 6 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION TOM TORLAKSON, State Superintendent of Public Instruction 916-319-0800 1430 N Street Sacramento, CA 95814-5901 MICHAEL W. KIRST, President 916-319-0827 DRAFT June 1, 2015 Deborah Delisle, Assistant Secretary Office of Elementary and Secondary Education U.S. Department of Education 400 Maryland Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20202 Subject: Request for Waiver of Provisions of Section 1116(e) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Requirement for Supplemental Educational Services Dear Assistant Secretary Delisle: On behalf of all local educational agencies (LEAs) in California, the California State Board of Education (SBE) and the California Department of Education (CDE) are requesting a four-year waiver of the provisions of Section 1116(e) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) requirement for Supplemental Educational Services (SES) commencing in the 2015–16 school year. SES funds are utilized for additional academic instruction that is provided outside of the regular school day and designed to increase the academic achievement of students attending Title I schools in Program Improvement (PI) Year 2 and beyond. LEAs that have Title I schools in PI Year 2 or beyond must spend an amount equal to 20 percent of their total Title I, Part A allocation on SES, choice-related transportation, or a combination of both (Title 34, Code of Federal Regulations [34 CFR] 200.48[a][2]). During the 2011–12, 2012–13, and 2013–14 school years, California school districts expended approximately $507,454,271 on SES with little evidence of improved academic achievement by students who participated in the program. This issue is not unique to California—a study by Heinrich, Meyer, and Whitten (2010) found no 5/5/2015 12:21 AM dsib-iad-may15item04 Attachment 1 Page 2 of 6 significant changes in student achievement after receiving SES in Milwaukee public schools.1 The CDE has received complaints and concerns from LEAs, providers, parents/ guardians, and employees of providers regarding inappropropriate practices of SES providers that include falsifying enrollment, attendance, and invoice documents; students not receiving services; parents/guardians and teachers not receiving feedback on the academic progress of students; and questionable marketing practices. In addition, the U.S. Department of Education’s (ED) Office of Inspector General identified numerous cases of fraud and corruption among SES providers in an audit published in October of 2013.2 The CDE has a rigorous oversight and audit program and has worked extremely hard to terminate SES providers when they are found in violation of any SES law or regulation, and LEAs have done the same at the local level. However, the time and effort investigating a complaint and actually terminating an SES provider can take months. In the meantime, LEAs must choose between ceasing to offer SES services or continuing with a provider, which has been shown to be problematic, especially when there may not be a large supply of SES providers in their area. Heinrich and Burch (2012) reported that “district staff who are responsible for the administration of SES contend that their hands are tied in monitoring providers.” 3 According to federal guidance, an LEA may not ask a state-approved provider to meet additional requirements. And even when an LEA wishes to terminate an unsatisfactory provider, its ability to do so can be strictly limited when that provider is state-approved. Given these issues, SES offered by non-LEA providers remain extremely costly for school districts. Research by Heinrich and Burch (2012) noted that extremely high perpupil provider costs, especially for online programs, limited the hours of service that LEAs are able to provide to a number below what has been shown to be statistically significant in improving student academic achievement. Under the current requirements, the state educational agency (SEA) and LEAs do not have the authority to control curriculum design or hourly service rates. No correlation has been reported to show that higher fee services outperform lower cost provider services. The SBE Waiver Request 1 2 3 Heinrich, C.J., Meyer, R.H., and Whitten, G. 2010. “Supplemental Education Services under No Child Left Behind: Who Signs Up, and What Do They Gain?” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 32 (June): 273-298. http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/auditreports/fy2013/x42n0001.pdf Heinrich, C.J. & Burch, P. 2012. “The Implementation and Effectiveness of Supplemental Educational Services: A Review and Recommendations for Program Improvement.” American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research for Public Policy Research. 5/5/2015 12:21 AM dsib-iad-may15item04 Attachment 1 Page 3 of 6 I. Provisions to be waived The SBE and the CDE are requesting a waiver of the requirement of Section 1116(e) of the ESEA that LEAs set aside an amount equal to 20 percent of their Title I funding to provide SES that has proven costly, ineffective, and problematic. Instead, the SBE is proposing a system by which LEAs would be required to set aside an amount up to 20 percent of their Title I funds on extended day intervention strategies administered by the LEA and approved by the CDE. Under this waiver request, LEAs will continue to send a letter notifying parents/ guardians about a school’s status in PI and may continue to offer school choice. LEAs will continue to set aside an amount equivalent to 5 percent of Title I funds for choicerelated transportation (as in 34 CFR 200.48[a][2][iii][A]). This waiver will only allow LEAs with Title I schools in PI Year 2 and beyond the ability to use funds currently set aside for SES on extended day intervention strategies administered by an LEA and approved by the CDE. The 5 percent set aside for choice-related transportation may come from the 20 percent set aside that is being used to allocate funds for extended day intervention strategies. II. Improving student academic achievement Extended day intervention strategies administered by an LEA would ensure that low income students who are academically deficient in the areas of English-language arts (ELA), mathematics, and/or science enrolled in a Title I school in PI Year 2 and beyond are provided the academic assistance they need and deserve. By having extended day invention strategies offered on-site, more students would access academic assistance and teachers would receive immediate feedback on the academic progress of students receiving such services. This continuous feedback—and the improved quality of instruction—will allow our schools to increase student achievement and improve academic performance. III. Improving quality of instruction for students The quality of instruction would increase due to intervention strategies being facilitated and monitored by highly qualified teachers. In addition, curriculum being used would be aligned to the most recent California state standards approved by the SBE and/or the most recently adopted curriculum approved by the local governing board. The curriculum would coincide and compliment the curriculum being offered in a student’s classroom because the extended day intervention strategies would be administered by the same LEA. The SBE and the CDE believe this change would also benefit parents/guardians by eliminating transportation issues to and from an off-site SES provider because all intervention strategies would be offered at the student’s school. This means parents/guardians would not be responsible for arranging or providing transportation 5/5/2015 12:21 AM dsib-iad-may15item04 Attachment 1 Page 4 of 6 between a school site and an SES off-site location. Additionally, parents/guardians would not be forced to choose annually between providers that offer minimal information about the quality and long-term success of their programs. IV. Extended day intervention will serve the same students as the current SES system program Extended day intervention would be offered to low income eligible students who are low performing in the areas of ELA, mathematics, and/or science and are enrolled in a Title I school in PI Year 2 and beyond—the same population of students who would otherwise qualify for SES services under ESEA. V. Quality standards and achievement goals LEAs would be required to uphold the following standards in order to be approved by the CDE to offer extended day intervention strategies: 1. All intervention strategies will be administered by an LEA and may be offered before school, after school, intercession, and/or during summer school. 2. All activities would be monitored by a highly qualified teacher employed by the LEA that is administering the extended day interventions strategies. 3. All instruction provided during extended day intervention strategies may be offered by highly qualified teachers and/or tutors employed by the LEA that is administering the extended day intervention strategies. 4. All curriculum used during intervention strategies would be aligned to the most recent California state standards approved by the SBE and/or adopted by the local governing board. 5. LEAs must report all expenditures for extended day intervention strategies in the State’s Consolidated Application and Reporting System in order to ensure fiscal integrity and allowability of expenditures. 6. LEAs must meet or make meaningful progress toward meeting annual student achievement goals in ELA, mathematics, and/or science (see below). The annual achievement goals for extended day intervention strategies set forth by the CDE are as follows:  The number of students in an LEA who have not met or nearly met performance standards in ELA and mathematics will decline by 1 percentage point each year in all grade spans during the 2016–17, 2017–18, and 2018–19 school years. 5/5/2015 12:21 AM dsib-iad-may15item04 Attachment 1 Page 5 of 6 A waiver of the SES requirement will assist LEAs in securing improved student academic achievement by ensuring that extended day intervention strategies are of high quality, closely monitored, and cost-efficient. If a waiver of Section 1116(e) of the ESEA for SES is granted and LEAs with Title I schools in PI Year 2 and beyond are allowed to use funds previously set aside for SES on extended day intervention strategies, the CDE would report to the ED the following information:  Number of low income eligible students who participated in extended day intervention strategies during the 2015–16, 2016–17, 2017–18, and 2018–19 school years.  Overall number of eligible students not meeting or nearly meeting performance standards in ELA and mathematics during the 2016–17, 2017–18, and 2018–19 school years.  Amount of funds expended by LEA on extended day intervention strategies during the 2015–16, 2016–17, 2017–18, and 2018–19 school years. VI. Notice and opportunity to comment has been offered to California stakeholders Prior to submitting this waiver request, California provided all LEAs in the state with notice and a reasonable opportunity to comment on this request. California provided such notice by posting a public item on the May 2015 agenda for the SBE. Refer to Item X on the SBE Agenda for May 2015 Web page at http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/yr15/agenda201505.asp. The State received _ public comments regarding this issue. The SBE and the CDE believe this waiver would be beneficial for all participating students and would improve the academic performance of low income students throughout California. The CDE and LEAs are the best qualified to implement tutoring or other supplemental academic enrichment services that are of “high-quality, researchbased, and specifically designed to increase student academic achievement” (ESEA, Section 1116[e][12][C]). In addition, funds would be better utilized by allowing LEAs to administer extended day intervention strategies on campus and would reach more eligible students in need of academic assistance statewide. Allowing these programs to be administered by LEAs would increase fiscal and programmatic accountability and reduce overhead costs, leading to a more direct benefit to students. To date, there has been 43 states and eight large school districts representing over 1 million students in California that have been granted ESEA flexibility, with the majority not providing SES. This proves there is a demand to remove the requirement of SES 5/5/2015 12:21 AM dsib-iad-may15item04 Attachment 1 Page 6 of 6 and substitute other interventions that are more effective for districts, schools, and students. If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact Keric Ashley, Interim Deputy Superintendent, District, School, and Innovation Branch, by phone at 916-319-0637 or by e-mail at kashley@cde.ca.gov. Sincerely, Tom Torlakson State Superintendent of Public Instruction California Department of Education Michael W. Kirst President California State Board of Education TT/MK:ka 5/5/2015 12:21 AM