Fall River School Committee to hear updated in-house special ed plan

June 1st, 2010

By Will Richmond

The Herald News

Posted May 31, 2010 @ 10:38 PM

FALL RIVER-Plans to create an in-district day school for special education middle school students are moving forward, with the School Committee expected to hear the proposal during June’s regular meeting.

Based on a proposal being crafted by Joyce Blackburn, executive director of special education and student services, and Lawrence Finnerty, hired by the district to serve as a project manager for the program, the school would serve 24 students in Grades 6 through 8 and be housed in the former Stone School on Globe Street.

Current plans have the school operational for the start of school in September, however, the plan first needs School Committee approval, which will be addressed at the June 14 meeting. If that group approves the plan it would then need to be vetted by the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.

As currently proposed, the school would be staffed by teachers from the school district. The therapeutic component would be provided through Walker Therapeutic, which in addition to running a kindergarten to Grade 8 school in Needham offers consultant services. Plans include phasing out Walker’s services over time.

Finnerty, who currently serves on the New Bedford School Committee and is a former administrator in that school department, said students will be provided with a rigorous educational component that will keep students “actively engaged in instruction” rather than just providing busy work. A full array of co-curricular classes such as art and physical education would be provided and students would also be exposed to computer classes and career exploration programs.

Finnerty went on to call the therapeutic component of the school as a “critical aspect of the program.”

“This will provide a safe and supportive environment that will allow the students to make social and academic progress,” Finnerty said.

He also said having a successful therapeutic piece is critical in getting students to buy into the program. Without it, Finnerty said, students will challenge authority.

Operating a program will come with cost that Blackburn and Finnerty have preliminarily pegged at $815,000. Of that cost, staffing, which includes five teachers and paraprofessionals, a nurse, secretary, custodian, behaviorists and clinicians, would account for the majority of the cost at $694,000.

The initial cost of the program is being covered through American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds. Regulations associated with the funding required the district to spend at least half of what was allocated to the city for investment purposes.

The cost of running the program could be offset through savings presented by educating students within the city rather than paying tuition to private institutions. Those savings are currently estimated at $432,344.

The new school would give the district the ability to continue in-district services for special education students through the middle school level. Similar services are currently offered at the elementary level through a program housed in the Boys and Girls Club.

Blackburn said the parents of prospective students have not yet been contacted as they were waiting until the plan had initial approved before moving forward, but that process may be accelerated to ensure the school can be filled.

The School Committee’s Alternative and Special Education subcommittee is expected to hear an updated version of the proposal during a meeting on June 9 at the Henry Lord Middle School.

E-mail Will Richmond at wrichmond@heraldnews.com.

IDEA Excerpts From: Investing Wisely and Quickly Use of ARRA Funds in America’s Great City Schools

May 26th, 2010

Boston

Boston Public Schools has established a set of priorities for both Title I and IDEA funding under ARRA to maximize the benefits of the stimulus funding and ensure the continuation and expansion of efforts that have made the district successful in raising urban students’ achievement levels.

A top priority for the district is restoring the positions of school-based staff. Existing budget deficits will require schools to lay off teachers, school support staff, and administrators. Title I ARRA funding will be used to restore approximately 100 positions back to schools. Another top priority is monitoring student progress for improved teaching and learning. Schools currently use a fractured system of tests that cannot provide useful information to teachers in a timely manner to improve instruction. The stimulus funding will help the district give teachers and schools the right tools to monitor student outcomes (achievement, behavior, attendance) for continuous improvement.

The district’s efforts to improve literacy instruction will be strengthened with the ARRA funding. Many Boston public schools lack the necessary tools to help all students become strong readers. Additional Title I funds provide an opportunity to give teachers the needed tools and training to improve the literacy outcomes for each of their students, with emphasis given to Commonwealth Priority Schools, those the state has identified as underperforming during a specific review period.

Additionally, the district has been working to improve performance in science and math, but some schools lack the necessary tools and teacher preparation to offer rigorous math and science instruction, particularly in the middle grades. Stimulus funding will enable the district to provide teachers the needed tools and training to improve math and science instruction. Existing budget deficits have also forced the district to lay off instructional coaches for English language arts, math, English language learners, and social studies. The district will utilize ARRA funding to restore as many instructional support positions as possible so that those professionals who currently work directly with teachers and administrators to support improvements in teaching and learning can continue their efforts.

Title I funding will also enable the district to redesign and create access to summer school programs for up to 1,600 students in grades 4 and 5. Currently, the district does not provide summer safety nets to fourth- and fifth-graders, and existing summer safety nets will have to be eliminated because of budget shortfalls. This challenge is exacerbated by the shortage of ongoing safety nets to keep high school students on track for graduation when they fall behind. The district also recognizes the need for greater family engagement in student learning to accelerate student performance and decrease persistent achievement gaps. The school system will devote significant amounts of ARRA funding to provide family and community outreach coordinators, fund a parent university, disseminate family engagement materials, and offer translation services for schools.

Boston Public Schools will be using a considerable amount of its State Fiscal Stabilization Funds to restore job positions and to hire teachers of English language learners (ELLs). Funds specifically will be used to support the district’s Acceleration Agenda (Boston’s strategic plan) to help ELLs close the achievement gap, increase professional development to enhance the instruction of ELL students, and expand teachers’ access to appropriate materials and assessments required for effective instruction of ELLs.

Similar to the priorities under Title I, the district will use IDEA ARRA funding to restore jobs, saving the jobs of about 35 school-based instructional and support staff members that had been slated for elimination due to existing budget deficits. The district will also focus on reducing the disproportionately high number of special education referrals. As it stands now, the district lacks systematic strategies and tools for reducing unnecessary special education referrals, particularly for male minority students. Additional IDEA funding makes it possible for the district to increase support to schools for implementing pre-referral academic and behavior interventions, with a specific focus on attendance and truancy issues.

The district will also work to increase inclusionary models and practices in schools, by providing schools with resources and staff to widen the opportunities for students with disabilities to receive instruction in general education settings. Stimulus funding under IDEA also will allow the district to assist schools that lack sufficient staff, materials, and training to fully support students with autism. IDEA funds will provide schools with additional resources and training to enhance in-classroom supports for students with autism.

For the full report Click Here.

Brian Lehrer Show – Feb 17, 2010

February 23rd, 2010

 

Listen to a discussion of how the education system has been using its allocation of stimulus dollars during the Brian Lehrer Show (WNYC Radio) taped February 17, 2010 – the first anniversary of the ARRA.  http://www.wnyc.org/flashplayer/player.html#/play/%2Fstream%2Fxspf%2F150233  

 (22 minutes)

 Candace Cortiella 

 Director 

The Advocacy Institute 

www.AdvocacyInstitute.org 

PH: 540.364.0051 

Candace@AdvocacyInstitute.org 

“Race To The Top” – South Shore Schools

January 19th, 2010
By Allison Manning
The Patriot Ledger
Posted Jan 18, 2010 @ 05:00 AM
QUINCY —

Ten South Shore school districts are missing out on getting federal grant money because district and union officials failed to reach consensus.

Three people – the superintendent, the school committee chairman and the leader of the teachers union – had to sign an agreement committing to work together on several initiatives. Some of those initiatives made teachers unions wary – tying evaluations to students’ test scores and merit pay, for example.

The funding is part of a competitive federal program called Race To The Top that makes $4.35 billion available to states. Massachusetts is eligible for up to $250 million, with half of that going to participating school districts.

The amount each district could receive is determined by a formula that takes into account Title I money.

Two hundred and fifty-six, or two-thirds, of all public school districts, vocational, regional and charter schools in the state submitted agreements prior to the deadline, which was Thursday. The ones that applied represent 72 percent of the state’s K-12 enrollment, and 86 percent of students living in poverty statewide.

On the South Shore, however, just five of 15 districts submitted agreements: Plymouth, Randolph, Marshfield, Rockland and Hanover. Of the five, Plymouth is poised to receive the most funding – at least $440,157 over four years.

For the entire article, see

http://www.patriotledger.com/archive/x1685417955/Many-South-Shore-school-districts-take-themselves-out-of-the-running-for-federal-grants

Race To The Top education funding

All South Shore districts were eligible for a cut of federal Race To The Top funding, but only five submitted completed agreements. The following chart shows the minimum expected award, over four years, for each.
Completed agreements:
Plymouth ($440,157)
Randolph ($314,892)
Marshfield ($181,648)
Rockland ($151,171)
Hanover ($29,711)
Incomplete agreements (no union signature):
Quincy ($1,073,089)
Weymouth ($427,695)
Braintree ($200,192)
Hull ($112,614)
Scituate ($34,491)
Cohasset ($15,788)
Did not apply:
Pembroke ($140,743)
Milton ($65,888)
Hingham ($49,806)
Norwell ($19,074)

Two-thirds of State Public School Districts Sign on for “Race to the Top”

January 17th, 2010
For Immediate Release
Friday, January 15, 2010
Contact: Heidi Guarino 781-338-3106 or JC Considine 781-338-3112

Two-thirds of State Public School Districts Sign on for “Race to the Top”

School committees, superintendents and unions all sign on to implement reforms

MALDEN – Two-thirds of the state’s public school districts and charter schools have signed a pledge to support the state’s pursuit of up to $250 million in Race to the Top funding, a new federal grant designed to transform public education nationwide.

 In all, 256 school districts and charter schools have signed on, representing 86 percent of the state’s low-income students and 72 percent of K-12 students statewide.

 ”This is a great day for Massachusetts to have the partnership of so many teachers, school committees and superintendents in our efforts to transform our public schools,” said Governor Deval Patrick. “We still have much work to do to ensure that our education system serves all students and provides them with the support and guidance they need to become successful.”

“Race to the Top” is a competitive $4.35 billion grant program launched by the Obama Administration to assist states in implementing aggressive education reform strategies to turn around low performing schools and support world-class teaching and learning. Approximately 40 states are expected to apply for the funding. According to the U.S. Department of Education, Massachusetts is eligible for approximately $250 million.

 Large, small, urban, suburban and rural districts from across the Commonwealth signed Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs), signaling their commitment to implement the initiatives outlined in the grant. Of the 256 that signed on, 147 are traditional school districts, 58 are charter schools, 31 are regional school districts and 20 are vocational schools.

 ”Race to the Top represents a bold opportunity for Massachusetts to push new Education Reform,” said Education Commissioner Mitchell Chester. “We are already seen as a national leader in education, but to remain on top, the state must take steps to develop our next generation of teachers and leaders, turn around our lowest performing schools, and close our achievement gaps. I applaud the dedication of superintendents, school committee members, and union representatives statewide who stepped forward and embraced our innovative and ambitious reform agenda.”

“Massachusetts is a national leader on education reform and these efforts represent the state launching the next chapter of success for students,” said Education Secretary Paul Reville. “The local investment demonstrated in the signed agreements of so many districts and others is vital to our efforts to transform our public education system. Meaningful and lasting education reform can only be accomplished with the support of educators and municipal leaders as equal partners, that is what we have strived for in our Race to the Top work and that is what we are together accomplishing.”

 State education leaders have worked cooperatively with stakeholders from across Massachusetts for the past several months to build grassroots support for the initiative and develop the state’s plan. Participants included the leadership of the Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents, Massachusetts Association of School Committees, the Massachusetts Teachers Association the American Federation of Teachers, and the Massachusetts Charter Public School Association as well as educators, business leaders, parents and others.

 To participate, districts were required to submit an MOU signed by the superintendent, school committee chair, and union leader. If the state is awarded the grant in April, participating districts will have 90 days to submit work plans detailing how they will use their funding to implement four required activities: (1) Improve teacher and principal effectiveness; (2) Ensure effective teachers and leaders in every classroom; (3) Turn around the lowest achieving schools (only for districts with Level 4 or 5 schools under the state’s new accountability system); and (4) Use data to improve instruction. Participating districts may also choose to implement two additional activities: Roll out a statewide P-12 teaching and learning system and increase college and career readiness.

 The state’s Race to the Top application focuses on four key initiatives:

        . Developing and retaining an effective, academically                        capable, diverse, and culturally competent educator workforce providing curricular and instructional resources that support teacher effectiveness and success for all students

     

  • Concentrating great instruction and supports for educators, students, and families in our lowest performing schools
  •  

  • Increasing our focus on college and career readiness for all students
  •  

“The high number of school districts who signed the Race to the Top Memorandum of Understanding is great news for education reform in Massachusetts,” said Tom Scott, executive director of the Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents “Teachers, superintendents and school committee leaders have demonstrated real leadership and a willingness to collaborate. A continuation of that spirit will provide meaningful long term benefits for our students.”

 ”MTA and our members are ready to develop new and better strategies to help close the achievement gaps for our most needy children,” said Anne Wass, president of the Massachusetts Teachers Association. “That we have done so well with so many of our students already puts us in an excellent position to tackle the most difficult of problems: the negative effects that poverty has on the ability of students to achieve at their fullest potential. Working together and given the tools and resources we need, we can find solutions.”

 Participating districts include Boston, Worcester, Springfield, Lawrence, Brockton, Salem, Pittsfield and Lowell. A complete list of participating districts is attached.

“I am confident that Massachusetts is among the best and most competitive Race to the Top applicants in the nation,” said Boston Superintendent Carol Johnson. “In signing the Memorandum of Understanding, our school committee, teachers union, and district agree that Boston can utilize these unprecedented resources to accelerate our goal of creating a world class system of schools for the children of our city.”

“The Pittsfield Public Schools are pleased to partner with the Massachusetts DESE in supporting the RTTT application,” said Pittsfield Superintendent Howard Eberwein. “Grants provided through RTTT will help to move the Commonwealth forward, and maintain it as a leader among states in supporting student achievement.”

 In addition to the 256 that submitted the required signatures, an additional 61 districts submitted incomplete MOUs. These communities were unable to gain the support of the superintendent, school committee and union, but submitted their MOUs to put their interest on the record.

 States that secure Race to the Top grants are expected to be designated as the preeminent states for future funding opportunities, including support through the reauthorization of the Elementary Education Act and from national foundations, such as the Gates Foundation, who have indicated that they will strongly consider investing in states that have won Race to the Top grants.

Race to the Top funding is meant to supplement, not supplant, other state and federal education funding. If Massachusetts is awarded funds, which could amount to $250 million, half of that amount the state receives would be passed on to participating districts using the Title I formula. The remaining 50 percent of funds may be used by the state, and some could go to districts in the form of competitive grants or funding for pilot initiatives.

See http://www.doe.mass.edu/news/news.aspx?id=5260

State By State Spending

January 4th, 2010

UPDATE FROM IDEA MONEY WATCH

According to the spending reports made available on the U.S. Department of Education Recovery Act web site (http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/reports.html), about 14% of the IDEA Part B Recovery Act funds have been obligated nation wide as of Dec. 25, 2009. Some states report zero funds obligated while a few states (HI, OK) report as much as 50% of funds have been obligated. All IDEA Recovery Act funds must be obligated by Sept. 30, 2011.

State-by-state spending appears below.

         

Candace Cortiella

www.IDEAmoneywatch.com

A Project of

The Advocacy Institute

     Federal Outlay  Obligated Still Available Percent
Obligated
AK Alaska                      32,956,419.00                    525,835.74                     32,430,583.26 2%
AL Alabama                    181,864,783.00               21,664,164.46                   160,200,618.54 12%
AR Arkansas                    112,177,929.00               22,844,473.28                     89,333,455.72 20%
AS American Samoa                           230,169.00 0.00  230,169.00 0%
AZ Arizona                    178,476,064.00               15,803,148.61                   162,672,915.39 9%
CA California                 1,226,944,052.00             260,651,742.00                   966,292,310.00 21%
CO Colorado                    148,730,571.00                 4,863,334.00                   143,867,237.00 3%
CT Connecticut                    132,971,468.00               25,775,659.00                   107,195,809.00 19%
DC District of Columbia                      16,441,924.00  0.00                     16,441,924.00 0%
DE Delaware                      32,700,531.00                 3,532,681.96                     29,167,849.04 11%
FL Florida                    627,262,665.00             139,995,026.36                   487,267,638.64 22%
GA Georgia                    313,758,336.00               27,211,908.43                   286,546,427.57 9%
GU Guam                           510,352.00        14,237.02    496,114.98 3%
HI Hawaii                      39,925,269.00               19,962,635.00                     19,962,634.00 50%
IA Iowa                    122,095,134.00               48,838,070.00                     73,257,064.00 40%
ID Idaho                      53,247,375.00                 4,414,508.67                     48,832,866.33 8%
IL Illinois                    506,479,753.00               75,668,102.00                   430,811,651.00 15%
IN Indiana                    253,534,865.00             100,346,017.00                   153,188,848.00 40%
KS Kansas                    106,871,769.00                 5,258,886.00                   101,612,883.00 5%
KY Kentucky                    157,569,975.00               24,435,478.00                   133,134,497.00 16%
LA Louisiana                    188,749,525.00               18,518,575.00                   170,230,950.00 10%
MA Massachusetts                    280,551,559.00               33,991,801.25                   246,559,757.75 12%
MD Maryland                    200,241,802.00               14,958,775.13                   185,283,026.87 7%
ME Maine                      53,163,974.00               12,002,856.00                     41,161,118.00 23%
MI Michigan                    400,607,836.00               18,962,176.13                   381,645,659.87 5%
MN Minnesota                    189,839,228.00                 9,781,910.49                   180,057,317.51 5%
MO Missouri                    227,175,274.00               24,414,930.91                   202,760,343.09 11%
MP Northern Mariana Islands                           174,906.00        1,386.00      173,520.00 1%
MS Mississippi                    117,836,482.00                 2,829,739.15                   115,006,742.85 2%
MT Montana                      36,708,056.00                 5,564,052.00                     31,144,004.00 15%
NC North Carolina                    314,410,039.00               74,026,807.32                   240,383,231.68 24%
ND North Dakota                      26,552,439.00                 3,822,876.75                     22,729,562.25 14%
NE Nebraska                      74,676,976.00                 2,906,222.00                     71,770,754.00 4%
NH New Hampshire                      47,461,265.00                 3,433,899.67                     44,027,365.33 7%
NJ New Jersey                    360,691,433.00                 4,848,367.01                   355,843,065.99 1%
NM New Mexico                      91,147,493.00                 7,500,268.72                     83,647,224.28 8%
NV Nevada                      67,119,396.00               13,192,419.20                     53,926,976.80 20%
NY New York                    759,193,324.00               42,118,905.00                   717,074,419.00 6%
OH Ohio                    437,736,052.00               72,831,437.36                   364,904,614.64 17%
OK Oklahoma                    147,924,906.00               74,610,158.21                     73,314,747.79 50%
OR Oregon                    128,979,436.00               15,370,068.37                   113,609,367.63 12%
PA Pennsylvania                    427,178,222.00               97,578,738.43                   329,599,483.57 23%
PR Puerto Rico                    109,098,472.00  0.00                   109,098,472.00 0%
RI Rhode Island                      43,734,211.00                 2,088,800.00                     41,645,411.00 5%
SC South Carolina                    173,239,745.00               11,082,734.86                   162,157,010.14 6%
SD South Dakota                      31,630,863.00                 2,300,063.00                     29,330,800.00 7%
TN Tennessee                    229,613,418.00               36,103,764.70                   193,509,653.30 16%
TX Texas                    945,636,328.00             119,846,845.02                   825,789,482.98 13%
UT Utah                    105,540,856.00                 4,038,829.00                   101,502,027.00 4%
VA Virginia                    281,415,033.00               12,267,604.37                   269,147,428.63 4%
VI Virgin Islands                           324,371.00 0.00     324,371.00 0%
VT Vermont                      25,601,621.00                 3,436,051.79                     22,165,569.21 13%
WA Washington                    221,357,461.00               14,948,429.70                   206,409,031.30 7%
WI Wisconsin                    208,200,108.00               19,029,325.84                   189,170,782.16 9%
WV West Virginia                      75,951,991.00               14,048,525.67                     61,903,465.33 18%
WY Wyoming                      25,786,496.00 0.00                     25,786,496.00 0%
Total                 11,300,000,000.00          1,594,263

ARRA Funds Went To Texas Districts That Don’t Exist

December 7th, 2009

Federal stimulus Web site says $14.7 million in aid went to Texas Congressional districts that don’t exist

By Lee Ann O’Neal | Wednesday, November 18th, 2009 ShareThis

Texas is big.

But it isn’t quite this big.

The federal Web site tracking stimulus money shows aid dollars going to Texas’ 91st Congressional District, as well as five others that don’t exist and a curious district by the number 00. All told, the site recovery.gov lists $14.7 million going to districts that don’t exist.

Problem is, Texas only has 32 Congressional districts. A good number, for sure, but nowhere near 91.

The feds’ curious numbering of districts was uncovered yesterday by New Mexico Watchdog and expanded upon by the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity.

The feds listed tax dollars going to 440 Congressional districts that don’t exist, according to a Franklin Center analysis of data at recovery.gov. Their full listing of “phantom districts” can be found here.

(Texas Watchdog is not affiliated with New Mexico Watchdog, but has provided journalism training to both New Mexico Watchdog and the Franklin Center.)

Federal officials tell ABC News that the mistakes can be attributed to human error.

“Some recipients clearly don’t know what congressional district they live in,” a federal official told ABC.

A plausible explanation.

But here’s hoping some dutiful federal official is keeping a closer eye on the dollar-sign numbers than he was the district numbers.

http://tinyurl.com/yzrucvl

Posted in Texas IDEA Money Watch | No Comments »

Misuse of Stabilization Funds: MA Warned in “Alert Memo”from OIG

November 2nd, 2009

The Office of the Inspector General of the USDE has issued an “alert memo” that expresses concern about states using stabilization money to reduce state spending on education.  Three states were in the spotlight–Connecticut, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania.  And not in a good way.

The full memo from the Office of the Inspector General may be downloaded here:

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/auditreports/AlertMemorandums/l03j0011.pdf

From the memo (bold added):

Some States’ budget proposals would . . . replace the State funds with their SFSF allocation to free up State resources for non-education budget items. . . Although this reduction may be allowable under the law, it may adversely impact the achievement of the education reforms of the SFSF program. . .

Letter from US Education Secretary Arne Duncan – Oct 21, 2009

October 23rd, 2009

On October 21, 2009  US Education Secretary Arne Duncan released a Letter to Chief State School Officers and State Directors of Special Education urging states to maintain high standards and not compromise the section 616 determination process under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act  in view of the large increase in IDEA Part B federal funds that LEAs are receiving as a result of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).

 

The letter is below and available online at: http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/secletter/091021.html www.IDEAmoneywatch.com http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/guidance/idea-b-reform.pdf <

http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/guidance/idea-b-reform.pdf> ).

Because of this increase, most LEAs will receive approximately twice the amount of IDEA, section 611 funds in FY 2009 that they received in FY 2008.  This unparalleled increase in funding has resulted in heightened interest in the possibility of taking advantage of the flexibility provided for in section 613 of the IDEA.    Under section 613(a)(2)(C), LEAs that have been determined by their State to be in “meets requirements” status under section 616 of the IDEA may reduce local spending on special education by an amount equal to up to 50 percent of the increase in their Part B allocation and use those funds to carry out activities authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA).  It has come to my attention that some States may be changing their determinations simply so that additional LEAs would qualify to reduce their maintenance of effort (MOE).  I am concerned about States lowering their standards for these determinations, particularly since it enables LEAs that have not met previously established performance targets to reduce spending on special education.

Under section 616 of the IDEA, States are required to make annual determinations about the performance of the LEAs using the categories of “meets requirements,” “needs assistance,” “needs intervention,” and “needs substantial intervention.”  Under section 616(f) (34 CFR §300.608(a)), if in making its annual determinations, a State education agency (SEA) determines that an LEA is not meeting the requirements of Part B, including meeting targets in the State’s performance plan, the SEA must prohibit that LEA from reducing its MOE under IDEA section 613(a)(2)(C) for any fiscal year.  

The Department currently requires SEAs, in making these annual LEA determinations, to use indicators that relate directly to LEA compliance with IDEA requirements, such as those addressing timely evaluations; disproportionate representation based on race and ethnicity in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification; early childhood and secondary school transitions; as well as whether the LEA provided valid, reliable, and timely data on all of the indicators, among other factors.  However, SEAs also have the option of using indicators related to LEA performance in other critical areas, such as graduation rates or performance on assessments, in determining which LEAs will achieve “meets requirements” status.  As part of its monitoring responsibilities, the Office of Special Education Programs has been reviewing how States make LEA determinations, and will continue to do so.

While I understand that many LEAs want the flexibility to reduce local, or State and local, special education funding to free up those funds for activities authorized under the ESEA, I urge States to maintain high standards and not compromise the section 616 determination process.  It is each State’s responsibility to ensure that this process is implemented in a rigorous manner, with a focus on improving results for students with disabilities and ensuring that appropriate special education and related services are provided.  I strongly advise States not to eliminate consideration of important performance indicators (such as graduation rates or performance on assessments) in making these determinations.  I believe that these performance indicators are valuable measures of the overall success of an agency’s efforts to provide high-quality special education services to children with disabilities.  Finally, I strongly encourage States to further the transparency of the determinations process by informing the public of the criteria used in making LEA determinations and the determination category of each LEA in the State by posting this information on the SEA’s Internet Web site.

Thank you for your continued interest in improving results for children with disabilities.

Sincerely,

                                                                                                                                                                / s /

Arne Duncan

 

Following The Money – GAO’s Bimonthly Review Of MA – Sept 23, 2009

October 12th, 2009

Updated Funding Information on Education Programs

  • Education has awarded Massachusetts about $726 million, or about 73 percent of its total SFSF allocation. As of September 4, 2009, the commonwealth has distributed $412 million to local educational agencies, helping the state restore aid to school districts.
  • Additionally, Education has awarded Massachusetts all of its Recovery Act funds under Title I, Part A, of ESEA, as amended—about $164 million. Based on information available as of September 4, 2009, the commonwealth has allocated $78 million to local educational agencies and about $2 million has been drawn down by local educational agencies (LEA). These funds are to be used to help improve teaching, learning, and academic achievement for students in families that live in poverty.
  • Education has also awarded Massachusetts all of its Recovery Act funds under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part B—about $291 million. Massachusetts has allocated $145 million to LEAs, which have drawn down almost $10 million as of September 4, 2009. These funds are to be used to support special education and related services for children, as well as youth with disabilities.

For the entire report, see http://www.gao.gov/recovery/bimonthly/ma/ma-september-09.php