Balance Sheet

3 Responses to “OSEP’s Responsible Request”

1. Marilyn Arons says:

   July 31, 2009 at 3:35 pm

   On behalf of our Center, we support the additional data requirements for early intervention. New Jersey has never submitted a state plan that complied with the current requirements, and there are many disturbing aspects to the state’s continuing failure to provide a statewide system of E I. These additional requirements may help in pushing the state toward better provision of services to our young children, 0-2.
   Marilyn Arons, Director
   Melody Arons Center
2. IDEA Money Watch says:

   April 9, 2010 at 9:30 am

   On October 27, 2009, the Education Dept. issued the following notice allowing an increase in the cap on administrative funds that States may retain from the FY 2009 federal appropriation in order to comply with additional data collection requirements.

   “““““““““““““““““““““`

   [Federal Register: October 27, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 206)]
   [Notices]
   [Page 55215-55220]
   From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
   [DOCID:fr27oc09-49]

   [[Page 55215]]

   =======================================================================
   ———————————————————————–

   DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

   [Docket ID ED-2009-OESE-0011]
   RIN 1810-AB05

   American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA); Title I,
   Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as
   Amended (ESEA); Part B, Section 611 of the Individuals With
   Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

   AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education; Office of Special
   Education and Rehabilitative Services, U.S. Department of Education.

   ACTION: Final notice of adjustments to Title I, Part A and IDEA,
   section 611 statutory caps on State administration for Federal fiscal
   year (FY) 2009.

   ———————————————————————–

   SUMMARY: The U.S. Secretary of Education (Secretary) adjusts the
   statutory caps on State administration under Title I, Part A of the
   Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (Title I,
   Part A), and Part B, section 611 of the Individuals with Disabilities
   Education Act (IDEA, section 611) with respect to data collection
   requirements pertaining to these two programs under the American
   Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), Public Law 111-5. The
   adjustments allow a State educational agency (SEA) to reserve
   additional State administrative funds from its FY 2009 allocations
   under Title I, Part A and IDEA, section 611 to help defray the costs of
   data collections that are specifically related to ARRA funding for
   these programs (including, for Title I, Part A, data collection related
   to waivers). An SEA may use administrative funds from its regular Title
   I, Part A and IDEA, section 611 appropriations; the additional
   administrative funds allowed by the adjustments in this notice; or a
   combination of these funds to meet the costs of ARRA-related data
   collection requirements for the Title I, Part A and IDEA, section 611
   programs, respectively. For costs associated with ARRA data collections
   unrelated to Title I, Part A or IDEA, section 611, an SEA may use the
   State’s Government Services grant under the State Fiscal Stabilization
   Fund (SFSF or Stabilization) program or funds allowable for that
   purpose under other ARRA programs.

   DATES: The adjustments are effective November 27, 2009.

   FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
   For Title I, Part A: Dr. Zollie Stevenson, Jr., U.S. Department of
   Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, 400 Maryland
   Avenue, SW., room 3W320, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 260-
   0826 or by e-mail: Zollie.Stevenson@ed.gov.
   For IDEA, section 611: Dr. Andrew J. Pepin, U.S. Department of
   Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, 400
   Maryland Avenue, SW., Potomac Center Plaza, room 5106, Washington, DC
   20202. Telephone: (202) 245-7605 or by e-mail: Andrew.Pepin@ed.gov.
   If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the
   Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

   SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
   Purpose of Programs: The ARRA provides billions of dollars in new
   funding for education in order to “jump start” school reform efforts
   and serve special populations while also saving and creating jobs and
   stimulating the economy. In particular, the ARRA provides $10 billion
   in new funding under Title I, Part A and $11.3 billion in new funding
   under IDEA, section 611. Title I, Part A provides assistance through
   SEAs to local educational agencies (LEAs) and schools with high
   concentrations of students from families that live in poverty to
   strengthen teaching and learning for students at risk of failing to
   meet State academic achievement standards and to close the achievement
   gap. Section 611 of IDEA provides funds through SEAs to LEAs to help
   them ensure that children with disabilities, from ages three through
   21, have access to a free appropriate public education to meet each
   child’s unique needs and prepare each child for further education,
   employment, and independent living.
   Program Authority: Division A, Title XV, section 1552 of the
   American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-5; 20
   U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (Title I, Part A); 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (IDEA,
   section 611).

   Background

   Section 1552 of the ARRA authorizes the Secretary, after following
   the notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
   Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 500), to “reasonably adjust applicable limits
   on administrative expenditures for Federal awards to help [States]
   defray the costs of data collection requirements initiated pursuant to
   [the ARRA].” The Title I, Part A and IDEA, section 611 programs, which
   received significant funding increases through the ARRA, have caps on
   the amount of funds for State administration that an SEA may reserve
   from its allocations for these programs.
   Specifically, section 1004(b) of the ESEA restricts the amount of
   funds an SEA may reserve for State administration from its Title I,
   Part A allocation to no more than one percent of the amount the SEA
   would receive under Title I, Part A, if $14 billion were appropriated
   for Parts A, C, and D of Title I (with any SEA whose amount under
   section 1004(b) would be less than $400,000 permitted to reserve up to
   $400,000). The total amount appropriated in FY 2009 exceeds $14
   billion, triggering this cap. Similarly, section 611(e)(1) of IDEA
   restricts the amount of funds an SEA may reserve for administration of
   the IDEA, Part B program to not more than the maximum amount the SEA
   was eligible to reserve for FY 2004 or $800,000 (adjusted annually for
   inflation), whichever is greater. (The Secretary is not adjusting the
   cap on State administration contained in section 619(e) of IDEA because
   the Department has concluded that the ARRA appropriation for section
   619 results in a sufficient increase in the amount an SEA may reserve
   for State administration under that program.)
   The ARRA imposes a number of specific data collection and reporting
   requirements on an SEA that substantially increase its data burden in
   administering Title I, Part A and IDEA, section 611. Specifically, the
   ARRA data collection requirements affecting Title I, Part A include,
   but are not limited to, the following:
   Each LEA that receives Title I, Part A ARRA funds must
   provide to its SEA, by December 1, 2009, a school-by-school listing of
   per-pupil education expenditures from State and local sources during
   school year 2008-2009. The SEA, in turn, must submit this information
   to the Department by March 31, 2010. This is a new data collection, as
   many SEAs do not currently collect this school-level information from
   their LEAs.
   Under section 1512 of the ARRA, an SEA must report, on a
   quarterly basis, specific information regarding its obligation and use
   of Title I, Part A ARRA funds.
   Under 2 CFR 176.210, an SEA and its LEAs must track Title
   I, Part A ARRA funds separately from their regular FY 2009 allocations,
   which will necessitate increased management and collection of data.
   An SEA will likely assume increased administrative
   responsibilities in a number of other areas related to ARRA data
   collection activities, including the following:
   [cir] Providing guidance to LEAs regarding ARRA data quality, and

   monitoring the quality of the ARRA data that LEAs must provide.
   [cir] Monitoring and auditing LEAs’ use of Title I, Part A ARRA
   funds.
   [cir] Submitting requests for waivers of Title I, Part A
   requirements related to ARRA funds.
   [cir] Collecting data to address the criteria involving Title I,
   Part A for “Race to the Top” submissions and other activities.
   [cir] Supporting data collection activities affecting Title I, Part
   A ARRA funds and ARRA School Improvement Grants under section 1003(g)
   of the ESEA.
   [cir] Addressing additional data collection requirements that could
   affect Title I, Part A ARRA funds.
   Similarly, the ARRA data collection requirements affecting the
   programs funded through section 611 of IDEA include, but are not
   limited to, the following:
   Under section 1512 of the ARRA, an SEA must report, on a
   quarterly basis, specific information regarding its obligation and use
   of IDEA, section 611 ARRA funds.
   Under 2 CFR 176.210, an SEA and its LEAs must track IDEA,
   section 611 ARRA funds separately from their regular FY 2009
   allocations, which will necessitate increased management and collection
   of data.
   An SEA will likely assume increased administrative
   responsibilities in a number of other areas related to ARRA data
   collection activities, including the following:
   [cir] Providing guidance to LEAs regarding ARRA data quality and
   monitoring the quality of the ARRA data that LEAs must provide.
   [cir] Monitoring and auditing LEAs’ use of IDEA, section 611 ARRA
   funds.
   [cir] Addressing additional data collection requirements that could
   affect the programs funded under IDEA, section 611.
   We do not believe that Congress could have contemplated these
   additional data-related requirements that an SEA must implement under
   Title I, Part A and IDEA, section 611 when initially establishing the
   administrative caps for both programs. Accordingly, to provide States
   with some assistance in defraying the costs of meeting these additional
   requirements related to data collection under the ARRA, on August 17,
   2009, we published a notice of proposed adjustments (NPA) to statutory
   caps on State administration in the Federal Register (74 FR 41402).
   There is one significant clarification between the NPA and this final
   notice, which we explain in the Analysis of Comments and Changes
   section.
   Analysis of Comments and Changes: In response to our invitation in
   the NPA, 18 parties submitted comments. An analysis of the comments and
   of changes since publication of the NPA follows. Generally, we do not
   address technical and other minor changes.
   Comment: Many commenters supported the proposed adjustments to the
   statutory caps on State administration under Title I, Part A and IDEA,
   section 611 with respect to the funds available under the ARRA. These
   commenters acknowledged that the ARRA data collection requirements
   impose increased costs at the State level and, therefore, expressed
   appreciation for the option to reserve additional State administrative
   funds from their FY 2009 allocations under Title I, Part A and IDEA,
   section 611 to help defray the costs of these new requirements. Some
   commenters suggested that the adjustments to the caps will assist SEAs
   in ensuring that LEAs use their Title I, Part A and IDEA, section 611
   funds in an appropriate manner.
   A few of the commenters who supported the proposed adjustments
   expressed concern that some SEAs will be unable to take advantage of
   these adjustments because they have already allocated ARRA funds to
   their LEAs. Those commenters were concerned that reserving funds at
   this point in time would require SEAs to recalculate LEA allocations,
   which, in turn, would cause LEAS to make extensive budget adjustments.
   Discussion: The Secretary appreciates the support expressed by the
   commenters. In the course of considering these comments, we realized
   that the NPA inadvertently restricted an SEA’s ability to take the
   increased administrative funds from its regular FY 2009 allocations.
   Although the amount of the increase in the administrative caps is based
   on the funds available through the ARRA, an SEA may reserve the
   increase in administrative funds from its Title I, Part A and IDEA,
   section 611 ARRA funds, its regular FY 2009 appropriations under those
   programs, or a combination of both. The “Final Adjustments” section
   below includes new language explicitly permitting an SEA to reserve the
   additional funds from its regular FY 2009 allocations and/or its ARRA
   allocations for Title I, Part A and IDEA, section 611. It also
   specifies that an SEA may exercise the options in 34 CFR 200.100(d)
   with respect to consideration of the applicable hold-harmless
   provisions under Title I, Part A. By clarifying these points, we intend
   to provide an SEA with additional flexibility in reserving State
   administrative funds that are the subject of this notice without unduly
   affecting its LEAs.
   For example, with respect to Title I, Part A, at the same time an
   SEA reduces its LEAs’ FY 2009 allocations to reserve additional State
   administrative funds, the SEA may have unused FY 2009 funds reserved
   under section 1003(a) or FY 2008 carryover funds that it can allocate
   to its LEAs under section 1126(c) of the ESEA. Likewise, under 34 CFR
   300.705(c), if an SEA determines that an LEA is adequately providing a
   free appropriate public education (FAPE) with State and local funds to
   all children with disabilities residing in the area served by the LEA,
   the SEA may reallocate any portion of IDEA, section 611 funds to LEAs
   not adequately providing special education and related services to all
   children with disabilities or retain those IDEA funds that are not
   needed by that LEA if the SEA has not reserved the maximum amount for
   State-level activities, which in this year includes the adjustment to
   the administrative cap. An SEA also may retain IDEA funds that have not
   been obligated by an eligible LEA that is not serving any children with
   disabilities, up to the maximum amount for State-level activities,
   which in this year includes the adjustment to the administrative cap.
   Changes: We have added language immediately prior to Table 1 and
   Table 2 in the adjustments, and revised the Note following Tables 1 and
   2 to clarify that an SEA may reserve administrative funds, up to the
   caps as adjusted by this notice, from its funds for Title I, Part A and
   IDEA, section 611 available through the ARRA, the regular FY 2009
   appropriations for those programs, or a combination of both. We also
   have included language before Table 1 noting that an SEA may exercise
   the options in 34 CFR 200.100(d) with respect to consideration of the
   applicable hold-harmless provisions.
   Comment: A few commenters expressed concern that allowing an SEA to
   reserve additional funds for State administrative costs would decrease
   the amount of funds available to LEAs for programs for disadvantaged
   children, low-performing schools, and students with disabilities.
   Discussion: With the enactment of the ARRA, Congress appropriated
   an additional $10 billion in Title I, Part A funds and an additional
   $11.3 billion in IDEA, section 611 funds for FY 2009. The ARRA imposed
   a number of specific data collection and reporting requirements on SEAs
   that significantly increase SEAs’ data burden in administering Title I,
   Part A and IDEA,

   section 611. Congress could not have contemplated these additional ARRA
   requirements when initially establishing the administrative caps for
   Title I, Part A and IDEA, section 611 because it established the caps
   well before the ARRA’s enactment. Therefore, we believe it is
   appropriate to adjust the caps to defray the costs of implementing the
   data collection requirements associated with the ARRA.
   We do not believe the cap adjustments will substantially affect
   direct services for students under Title I, Part A or IDEA, section
   611. In FY 2009, States received their regular fiscal year awards
   allocated under those programs. In addition to these regular amounts,
   the ARRA provided billions of dollars in new funding for the Title I,
   Part A and IDEA, section 611 programs. Of the additional $10 billion in
   Title I, Part A funds available through the ARRA, the maximum
   additional amount an SEA may reserve is 0.5 percent of the State’s FY
   2009 Title I, Part A ARRA allocation, or $1,000,000, whichever is less.
   Similarly, of the additional $11.3 billion in IDEA, section 611 funds
   available through the ARRA, the maximum additional amount an SEA may
   reserve is 0.1 percent of the State’s FY 2009 IDEA, section 611
   allocation, or $500,000, whichever is less. If all SEAs reserved the
   maximum amounts of additional administrative funds under Title I, Part
   A and IDEA, section 611 funds allowed by this notice, the increase
   would amount to less than 0.2 percent of the combined ARRA Title I,
   Part A and IDEA, section 611 funding. Although we understand the
   commenters’ concerns about reserving additional funds for State
   administration at the expense of LEAs, we believe the additional amount
   of funds that an SEA may reserve is necessary to assist the SEA in
   meeting its ARRA data reporting requirements. Moreover, LEAs also will
   benefit from an SEA’s use of these funds through, for example, the
   SEA’s ability to implement waivers with respect to its LEAs or assist
   its LEAs in evaluating the effectiveness of their programs funded
   through the ARRA.
   Changes: None.
   Comment: Some commenters argued that the proposed adjustments did
   not provide enough additional resources to an SEA, given the SEA’s
   additional responsibilities under the ARRA, as well as reporting
   requirements for other Department ARRA programs.
   Discussion: The Secretary’s intent in adjusting the State
   administrative caps for Title I, Part A and IDEA, section 611 is to
   provide SEAs with a reasonable amount of additional administrative
   resources to help defray the costs of ARRA-related data collections
   under those programs without substantially affecting LEA services to
   students. We note that an SEA may not use the additional administrative
   funds it may reserve under Title I, Part A and IDEA, section 611
   pursuant to this notice, no matter how large that amount might be, to
   comply with data collection requirements under other ARRA programs.
   Rather, the SEA may use funds available for administration under those
   other programs or its Government Services funds under the SFSF program
   to cover increased administrative costs.
   Changes: None.
   Comment: One commenter asked that the Secretary also consider
   adjusting Federal caps on administrative expenses at the LEA level in
   light of ARRA funding.
   Discussion: Even with the SEA administrative cap adjustments,
   almost all LEAs will have considerably more Title I, Part A and IDEA,
   section 611 resources in FY 2009 compared to previous years due to the
   additional $10 billion in Title I, Part A ARRA funds and $11.3 billion
   in IDEA, section 611 funds. In addition, while LEAs also are subject to
   new data collection requirements under the ARRA with respect to Title
   I, Part A and IDEA, section 611, there is no Federal cap on
   administration at the LEA level for either program.
   Changes: None.
   Comment: One commenter asked if the Department had information on
   whether States planned to use the Government Services grant under the
   SFSF program to meet ARRA’s reporting requirements.
   Discussion: States were not required to indicate in their initial
   applications for SFSF funds how they intended to spend Government
   Services funds, although a State has the option of providing that
   information to the Department. Seven States, however, indicated in
   their SFSF applications that they would use Government Services funds
   to pay for activities related to reporting or administering the SFSF.
   In addition, a State may amend its application to revise how it will
   spend its Government Services funds. The Department does not have any
   information indicating that States are using their SFSF funds to free
   up other State funds that could then be used to pay for reporting and
   administrative activities.
   Changes: None.
   Comment: A commenter asked how an adjustment to the administrative
   caps for Title I, Part A and IDEA, section 611 would relate to funding
   that a State is permitted to recover through its State-wide Cost
   Allocation Plan (SWCAP).
   Discussion: A State’s SWCAP has no effect on the amount of Title I,
   Part A and IDEA, section 611 funds an SEA may reserve for
   administration. A modification to a State’s SWCAP approved by the
   Federal Government might affect the amount of Title I, Part A and IDEA,
   section 611 administrative funds an SEA may use for indirect costs in
   relation to other administrative expenses but not the overall amount of
   Title I, Part A funds and IDEA, section 611 funds the SEA may reserve
   for administration.
   Changes: None.
   Comment: One commenter asked how the Department established the
   proposed adjustments to the State administrative caps and what criteria
   the Department used when calculating the funding levels.
   Discussion: The final adjusted caps are based on the additional
   reporting requirements that the ARRA prescribes for SEAs with respect
   to the Title I, Part A and IDEA, section 611 programs. The adjusted
   caps recognize that both programs currently have administrative caps
   that do not take into account these new requirements.
   As we explained in the NPA, the adjustments include: (1) A floor to
   the amount that may be reserved that enables an SEA, on average, to add
   at least the equivalent of one additional full-time-equivalent (FTE)
   employee for each program; and (2) a ceiling that, although limiting
   the amount that may be reserved, enables an SEA, on average, to add the
   equivalent of ten FTEs for Title I, Part A and five FTEs for IDEA,
   section 611. This approach parallels the manner in which an SEA may
   reserve funds for administration under Title I, Part A and IDEA,
   section 611 (i.e., in both statutes the amount an SEA may reserve for
   administration is based on the amount the SEA has received under each
   program with a minimum and maximum factored in). We also reached these
   specific adjustment figures following consultations with staff in
   several SEAs, our own experience with data collections, a review of the
   ARRA data collection requirements, and consideration of the amounts an
   SEA may currently reserve for administration under both programs.
   Changes: None.
   Comment: Several commenters asked why the amount of the Title I,
   Part A adjustment differed from the amount for IDEA, section 611.
   Discussion: The adjustments for Title I, Part A are higher than
   those for IDEA, section 611 because Title I, Part A has more ARRA
   reporting requirements. For

   example, the ARRA requires the Department to collect from SEAs by March
   31, 2010, a report of school-by-school expenditures of State and local
   funds for LEAs receiving Title I, Part A funds. Because this is a new
   data collection for many SEAs, which do not currently collect this
   school-level information from their LEAs, we believe SEAs will have
   additional responsibilities to provide guidance to LEAs and monitor the
   quality of these data. Similarly, we believe SEAs need additional
   administrative resources to take on new responsibilities related to the
   large increase in school improvement funds available through the ARRA.
   Changes: None.
   Comment: One commenter asked whether, in establishing the adjusted
   caps, the Department analyzed individual State capacity to meet the
   ARRA reporting requirements and whether it surveyed SEAs and LEAs about
   their data systems’ capacity to provide the required information to the
   Federal government.
   Discussion: The Department did not conduct a formal analysis or
   survey. However, as indicated earlier, we did discuss the idea of
   adjusting the caps on State administration under Title I, Part A and
   IDEA, section 611 with representatives of SEAs in a variety of
   settings, including conference calls, informal telephone calls,
   professional conferences, and meetings of State directors of Title I
   and IDEA. Through these conversations, we heard about the challenges
   SEAs face with meeting the new data collection requirements within the
   existing administrative caps.
   The Secretary did not consult directly with LEAs on this matter.
   LEAs, unlike SEAs, are not subject to an administrative cap under Title
   I, Part A or IDEA, section 611. We note that, because of the ARRA,
   almost all LEAs, even with this one-time adjustment to State
   administrative caps, have received unprecedented amounts of Title I,
   Part A and IDEA, 611 funds.
   Changes: None.
   Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department was imposing
   additional burden on SEAs by inviting them to request waivers of
   certain ARRA-related Title I requirements. Another commenter asked the
   Department to reduce the burden on SEAs and LEAs of reporting Title I,
   Part A school-by-school State and local expenditures.
   Discussion: We wish to make clear that no SEA is required to
   request a waiver of any Title I, Part A requirement. The Secretary
   believes, however, that waivers with respect to certain Title I, Part A
   ARRA-related provisions and to the maintenance of effort requirements
   that SEAs may request could be particularly helpful to LEAs.
   (Information on these waivers is available at http://www.ed.gov/
   programs/titleiparta/title-i-waiver.doc.) Rather than processing
   thousands of LEA requests and risking significantly delaying approval
   of those requests, the Secretary invited SEAs to apply on behalf of
   their LEAs. Although this approach benefits both SEAs and LEAs, it does
   entail some additional administrative costs for SEAs, which is why we
   are permitting an SEA that requests and receives waivers of Title I,
   Part A ARRA-related requirements or maintenance of effort to reserve
   more State administrative funds.
   With respect to easing the burden of reporting school-by-school
   expenditures of State and local funds, we note that this report is
   expressly required by the ARRA. In devising the data collection
   instrument for this report, we have been mindful of the burden this
   requirement could create and have proposed, for public comment, data
   items that we believe LEAs already must collect for other reporting
   purposes.
   Changes: None.
   Comment: One commenter asked whether burden estimates related to
   ARRA data collection requirements are available.
   Discussion: Concerning ARRA-related burden hours for collections
   initiated by the Department with respect to Title I, Part A, see the
   following links:
   http://edicsweb.ed.gov/browse/browsecoll.cfm?pkg_serial_
   num=4119; and
   http://edicsweb.ed.gov/browse/browsecoll.cfm?pkg_serial_
   num=4002.
   For information on quarterly reporting burden hours required by
   section 1512 of the ARRA, see the following link:
   http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/E9-24320.htm.
   Changes: None.
   Final Adjustments:
   Title I, Part A:
   Notwithstanding section 1004(b) of the ESEA and 34 CFR
   200.100(b)(3), the Secretary adjusts the administrative cap under Title
   I, Part A to:
   1. Provide administrative funds to support ARRA data collection,
   excluding data collection for obtaining and implementing Title I, Part
   A waivers related to the ARRA and maintenance of effort. The Secretary
   adjusts the statutory cap on State administration under section 1004(b)
   of the ESEA to permit an SEA to reserve, from its FY 2009 Title I, Part
   A allocation, an amount equal to or less than the figure shown for the
   State in Column 2 in Table 1 to help defray the costs associated with
   Title I, Part A ARRA data collection. The amount shown in Column 2 for
   each State is equal to 0.3 percent of the portion of the State’s FY
   2009 Title I, Part A allocation attributable to the ARRA, or $600,000,
   whichever is less.\1\ A State’s amount in Column 2 is $100,000 if 0.3
   percent of the State’s Title I, Part A ARRA allocation is less than
   $100,000.
   —————————————————————————

   \1\ The U.S. Department of Education’s budget page [available at
   http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/statetables/
   10stbyprogram.pdf] shows the amount each State received in Title I,
   Part A ARRA funds.
   —————————————————————————

   2. Provide administrative funds to support ARRA data collection,
   including data collection for obtaining and implementing Title I, Part
   A waivers related to the ARRA and maintenance of effort. The Secretary
   adjusts the Title I, Part A administrative cap to allow an SEA that
   requests and receives a waiver under Section C (Waivers related to
   Title I, Part A ARRA Funds) or Section E (Waivers of Maintenance of
   Effort for LEAs) of the Department’s Non-Regulatory Guidance on Title
   I, Part A Waivers \2\ (Title I, Part A Waiver Guidance) to reserve a
   larger amount of additional administrative funds than it would
   otherwise be permitted to reserve. Specifically, in this case, the
   Secretary permits an SEA to reserve, from its FY 2009 Title I, Part A
   allocation, an amount equal to or less than the figure shown for the
   State in Column 3 in Table 1. These funds can help defray the costs
   associated with Title I, Part A ARRA data collection, including
   additional data collection costs that an SEA may have already incurred
   or will incur in processing requests from its LEAs that wish to benefit
   from waivers the SEA has received or may request.
   —————————————————————————

   \2\ The guidance provides comprehensive information on how to
   request a waiver of specific statutory and regulatory provisions of
   Title I, Part A and is available at [http://www.ed.gov/programs/
   titleiparta/title-i-waiver.doc].
   —————————————————————————

   The amount shown in Column 3 for each State is equal to 0.5 percent
   of the portion of the State’s FY 2009 Title I, Part A allocation
   attributable to the ARRA, or $1,000,000, whichever is less. A State’s
   amount in Column 3 is $200,000 if 0.5 percent of the State’s Title I,
   Part A ARRA allocation is less than $200,000.
   The amount in Column 2 or 3 that each SEA may reserve is in
   addition to the amount the SEA is able to reserve for State
   administration under section 1004(b) of the ESEA.

   Note: An SEA may only reserve additional funds for
   administration up to the amount shown in Column 3 if it has received
   a

   [[Page 55219]]

   waiver from the Department under Section C or E of the Title I, Part
   A Waiver Guidance. An SEA that has not received such a waiver may
   only reserve additional funds for administration up to the amount
   shown in Column 2. (In other words, an SEA may reserve either the
   amount in Column 2 or the amount in Column 3, as appropriate.)

   An SEA may reserve these additional funds from its regular FY 2009
   Title I, Part A allocation, its Title I, Part A ARRA allocation, or a
   combination of the two allocations provided that the total amount
   reserved does not exceed the figure listed in Column 2 or Column 3 for
   each State. An SEA may only reserve these additional funds from the
   allocations of LEAs receiving Title I, Part A ARRA funds. In reserving
   these additional funds, an SEA may exercise the options in 34 CFR
   200.100(d) with respect to consideration of the applicable hold-
   harmless provisions.

   Table 1–Title I, Part A
   ————————————————————————
   Column 2 Column 3
   (Administrative (Administrative
   funds for ARRA funds for ARRA
   Column 1 data collection data collection
   excluding data including data
   collection for collection for
   waivers)* waivers)*
   ————————————————————————
   Alabama…………………………. $488,908 $814,846
   Alaska………………………….. 100,000 200,000
   Arizona…………………………. 585,262 975,437
   Arkansas………………………… 333,276 555,461
   California………………………. 600,000 1,000,000
   Colorado………………………… 333,408 555,680
   Connecticut……………………… 212,143 353,571
   Delaware………………………… 100,000 200,000
   District of Columbia……………… 112,807 200,000
   Florida…………………………. 600,000 1,000,000
   Georgia…………………………. 600,000 1,000,000
   Hawaii………………………….. 100,000 200,000
   Idaho…………………………… 104,867 200,000
   Illinois………………………… 600,000 1,000,000
   Indiana…………………………. 506,031 843,385
   Iowa……………………………. 154,491 257,485
   Kansas………………………….. 212,604 354,340
   Kentucky………………………… 466,044 776,739
   Louisiana……………………….. 531,470 885,784
   Maine…………………………… 111,553 200,000
   Maryland………………………… 407,875 679,792
   Massachusetts……………………. 491,041 818,401
   Michigan………………………… 600,000 1,000,000
   Minnesota……………………….. 284,133 473,555
   Mississippi……………………… 398,665 664,442
   Missouri………………………… 443,185 738,642
   Montana…………………………. 103,950 200,000
   Nebraska………………………… 143,427 239,045
   Nevada………………………….. 210,378 350,631
   New Hampshire……………………. 100,000 200,000
   New Jersey………………………. 548,914 914,856
   New Mexico………………………. 242,410 404,017
   New York………………………… 600,000 1,000,000
   North Carolina…………………… 600,000 1,000,000
   North Dakota…………………….. 100,000 200,000
   Ohio……………………………. 600,000 1,000,000
   Oklahoma………………………… 328,328 547,213
   Oregon………………………….. 281,207 468,678
   Pennsylvania…………………….. 600,000 1,000,000
   Puerto Rico……………………… 600,000 1,000,000
   Rhode Island…………………….. 107,503 200,000
   South Carolina…………………… 428,517 714,195
   South Dakota…………………….. 103,950 200,000
   Tennessee……………………….. 582,225 970,374
   Texas…………………………… 600,000 1,000,000
   Utah……………………………. 148,609 247,681
   Vermont…………………………. 100,000 200,000
   Virginia………………………… 496,056 826,760
   Washington………………………. 405,369 675,615
   West Virginia……………………. 182,944 304,906
   Wisconsin……………………….. 443,188 738,647
   Wyoming…………………………. 100,000 200,000
   ————————————————————————
   For the purposes of this table, “waivers” refer to waivers described
   in Section C or E of the Title I, Part A Waiver Guidance that have
   been obtained by an SEA from the Department.

   IDEA, Section 611

   Notwithstanding section 611(c)(1) of IDEA and 34 CFR 300.704(a),
   the Secretary adjusts the statutory cap on State administration to
   permit an SEA to reserve, from its FY 2009 IDEA, section 611
   allocation, an amount equal to or less than the figure shown for such
   State in Column 2 in Table 2 to help defray the costs associated with
   ARRA data collection under IDEA, section 611. The amount for each State
   shown in Column 2 is equal to 0.1 percent of the portion of the State’s
   FY 2009 IDEA, section 611 allocation attributable to the ARRA, or
   500,000, whichever is less.\3\ A State’s amount in Column 2 is 100,000
   if 0.1 percent of the State’s IDEA, section 611 ARRA allocation is less
   than $100,000. The amount each SEA may reserve is in addition to the
   amount the SEA is able to reserve for State administration under
   section 611(e)(1) of the IDEA.
   —————————————————————————

   \3\ The U.S. Department of Education’s budget page [available at
   http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/statetables/
   10stbyprogram.pdf] shows the amount each State received in IDEA,
   section 611 ARRA funds.
   —————————————————————————

   An SEA may reserve these additional funds from its regular FY 2009
   IDEA, section 611 allocation, its IDEA, section 611 ARRA allocation, or
   a combination of the two allocations provided that the total amount
   reserved does not exceed the figure listed in Column 2 for each State.
   An SEA may only adjust the allocations of LEAs receiving IDEA, section
   611 ARRA funds in order to reserve the additional amount.

   Table 2–IDEA, Section 611
   ————————————————————————
   Column 1 Column 2
   ————————————————————————
   Alabama……………………………………………. $181,865
   Alaska…………………………………………….. 100,000
   Arizona……………………………………………. 178,476
   Arkansas…………………………………………… 112,178
   California…………………………………………. 500,000
   Colorado…………………………………………… 148,731
   Connecticut………………………………………… 132,971
   Delaware…………………………………………… 100,000
   District of Columbia………………………………… 100,000
   Florida……………………………………………. 500,000
   Georgia……………………………………………. 313,758
   Hawaii…………………………………………….. 100,000
   Idaho……………………………………………… 100,000
   Illinois…………………………………………… 500,000
   Indiana……………………………………………. 253,535
   Iowa………………………………………………. 122,095
   Kansas…………………………………………….. 106,872
   Kentucky…………………………………………… 157,570
   Louisiana………………………………………….. 188,750
   Maine……………………………………………… 100,000
   Maryland…………………………………………… 200,242
   Massachusetts………………………………………. 280,552
   Michigan…………………………………………… 400,608
   Minnesota………………………………………….. 189,839
   Mississippi………………………………………… 117,836
   Missouri…………………………………………… 227,175
   Montana……………………………………………. 100,000
   Nebraska…………………………………………… 100,000
   Nevada…………………………………………….. 100,000
   New Hampshire………………………………………. 100,000
   New Jersey…………………………………………. 360,691
   New Mexico…………………………………………. 100,000
   New York…………………………………………… 500,000
   North Carolina……………………………………… 314,410
   North Dakota……………………………………….. 100,000
   Ohio………………………………………………. 437,736
   Oklahoma…………………………………………… 147,925
   Oregon…………………………………………….. 128,979
   Pennsylvania……………………………………….. 427,178
   Puerto Rico………………………………………… 109,098
   Rhode Island……………………………………….. 100,000
   South Carolina……………………………………… 173,240
   South Dakota……………………………………….. 100,000
   Tennessee………………………………………….. 229,613
   Texas……………………………………………… 500,000
   Utah………………………………………………. 105,541
   Vermont……………………………………………. 100,000
   Virginia…………………………………………… 281,415
   Washington…………………………………………. 221,357
   West Virginia………………………………………. 100,000
   Wisconsin………………………………………….. 208,200
   Wyoming……………………………………………. 100,000
   ————————————————————————

   Note to Tables 1 and 2: The adjustments in this notice are
   based on funds available to each State under the ARRA. The
   adjustments in this notice to the amounts an SEA may reserve for
   administration under Title I, Part A and IDEA, section 611 do not
   apply to the reservation of funds for administration in any other
   fiscal year (i.e., Title I, Part A and IDEA, section 611 allocations
   for FY 2008, FY 2010, and subsequent years).

   Executive Order 12866

   Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether
   this

   [[Page 55220]]

   regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to the
   requirements of the Executive order and to review by OMB. Section 3(f)
   of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as
   an action likely to result in a rule that may (1) have an annual effect
   on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of
   the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
   health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments, or communities
   in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant”
   rule); (2) create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
   action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the
   budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or
   the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel
   legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President’s
   priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive order.
   Pursuant to the Executive order, the Secretary has determined that this
   regulatory action is significant under section 3(f)(4) of the Executive
   order.
   This notice has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order
   12866. Under the terms of the order, we have assessed the potential
   costs and benefits of this regulatory action and we have determined
   that the benefits of the adjustments justify the costs.
   We have determined, also, that this regulatory action does not
   unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the
   exercise of their governmental functions.
   Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities may obtain this
   document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print,
   audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the program contact
   person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
   Electronic Access to This Document: You may view this document, as
   well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal
   Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) on the
   Internet at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.
   To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available
   free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S.
   Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in
   the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.

   Note: The official version of this document is the document
   published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the
   official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal
   Regulations is available on GPO Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/
   nara/index.html.

   Dated: October 22, 2009.
   Arne Duncan,
   Secretary of Education.
   [FR Doc. E9-25839 Filed 10-26-09; 8:45 am]

   BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
3. IDEA Money Watch says:

   April 9, 2010 at 9:36 am

   On March 19, 2010, the National Association of State Directors of Special Education submitted a letter to the Ass’t Secretary of OSERS at the U.S. Dept. of Education expressing opposition to the additional data collection requirements.

   The NASDSE letter is below and is also available at:
   http://nasdse.org/Portals/0/Documents/Gov%20Relations/CEIS_data_collection_3_10.pdf

   March 19, 2010
   Alexa Posny
   Assistant Secretary
   Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services
   550 12th Street, SW
   Washington, DC 20202

   RE: Notice of Proposed Information Collection Request: Report on IDEA Part B
   Maintenance of Effort Reduction and Coordinated Early Intervening Services

   Dear Dr. Posny:

   The National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the above-referenced proposed data collection that was published in the Federal Register on February 25, 2010.

   On behalf of our members – the state directors of special education in the states, the District of Columbia, the Department of Defense Education Agency, the Bureau of Indian Education, the U.S. federal territories and the Freely Associated States – we continue to be extremely concerned about this data collection that will require, by the Department’s own estimate, more than 1 million person hours and more than $20 million to implement. We believe that it could ultimately cost substantially more.

   NASDSE continues to believe that it is completely untenable that the federal government would place such a significant financial and personnel burden on states and local school districts at a time when the Department is well aware that both state and local education agencies throughout the country are having extreme budgetary crises. For example,
   •Kansas City, the nation’s 35th largest city, recently closed 26 of the city’s 61 public schools.
   •Fairfax County, Virginia, the nation’s 10th largest school system, is cutting more than $100 million from next year’s school budget.
   •At least six states – Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, New Jersey and Washington – have allotted all of their education stabilization money to schools for this school year and last year, leaving zero to spend on the school term beginning in the fall of 2010.
   •California is looking at cutting $1.9 billion out of its state aid to K-12 education.

   The Department’s supporting statement for OMB approval rejected our earlier arguments that this data collection was too costly and countered that states had funding available under the ARRA to undertake it. In fact, this justification flies in the face of the reality of the dire circumstances of virtually every state and school district across the country. In fact, the situation is worse than it was six months ago when NASDSE first wrote comments opposing this data collection last fall. The budget climate for states, including state departments of education and local school districts has worsened, not improved, in the past six months. School districts are continuing to lay off personnel. In the light of these budget cuts, does the Department of Education really want school districts and states to spend scarce dollars on collecting data rather than on providing services to children and youth with disabilities?

   The second rationale the Department gives for this data collection is that it is necessary to prevent waste, fraud and abuse in the spending of ARRA funds. NASDSE believes that the Department has put sufficient accounting mechanisms in place to track ARRA expenditures and that an additional data collection that costs $20 million will not provide you with new data that tracks down any fraud or abuse of the system.
   While the CEIS data may be of interest to the Department, that interest should be balanced with the cost expended to acquire it. A data collection that will that cost a minimum of $20 million and that will not help the Department of Education provide direct assistance to state and local education agencies to improve outcomes for students does not seem to be an equitable balance with the cost. The Department has urged states and local school districts to use their ARRA funds to ‘save and create jobs’ and ‘improve student achievement through school improvement and reform.’ Using their ARRA funds as the Department’s justification for this data collection will meet neither of these specific goals of the ARRA.

   This proposed data collection comes on the heels of six years of unprecedented changes to the data collection required by the state performance plan/annual performance reports (SPP/APR) indicators. OSEP has repeatedly changed the indicator requirements over the past six years, which has required the states and local school districts to retool their IT systems and retrain their staffs in order to collect quality data. This data collection cannot be viewed in a vacuum. It is one more data collection piled on top of data overload. It is the proverbial “straw that is breaking the camel’s back.” It is too costly, will not improve the quality of instruction, will not lead to improved outcomes for students, will drain personnel away from the classroom and instructional coaches away from helping school personnel.

   This data collection is misguided in light of the context of the constant changes to the SPP/APRs over the past six years and the dismal fiscal situation of the states and local school districts.
   For all of the above reasons, NASDSE urges the Department to abandon this data collection. We believe that the proposed data collection is cost-prohibitive and will not contribute in any way to improving outcomes for children. On that basis alone, it should not go forward.
   Please feel free to contact me at bill.east@nasdse.org or NASDSE’s Deputy Executive Director, Nancy Reder, at nancy.reder@nasdse.org if you have any questions regarding NASDSE’s comments.

   Sincerely,
   Bill East, Ed.D.
   Executive Director

   cc: Arne Duncan, Secretary, U.S. Department of Education
   Tony Miller, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Education
   Roberto Rodriguez, Domestic Policy Council
   Rep. George Miller, Chairman, House Education and Labor Committee
   Sen. Tom Harkin, Chairman, Senate HELP Committee