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
1,594,263,251.58
9,705,736,748.42
14%

At 2 p.m. Eastern time today, OMB Watch will release a beta version of a new database on FedSpending.org that gives the public improved access to and searchability of Recovery Act recipient report data. The database allows users to search more than 160,000 reports from recipients of almost $159 billion in Recovery Act contracts, grants, and loans awarded between Feb. 17 and Sept. 30.

FedSpending.org is OMB Watch’s federal spending tracking website and was launched in October 2006 following passage of a law co-sponsored by Barack Obama and Tom Coburn that mandated a searchable website of government spending; its underlying software serves as the basis for the federal government’s website, USAspending.gov. It allows users to search through trillions of dollars’ worth of federal spending dating back to FY 2000.

OMB Watch obtained the Recovery Act recipient reports through Recovery.gov, a website required by the Recovery Act and maintained by the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board. FedSpending.org’s Recovery Act data tab gives users flexibility to search, either individually or in aggregate, for prime recipients, sub-recipients, ZIP codes, congressional districts, federal awarding agencies, award amounts, and much more through a variety of means, including an Advanced Search function. Additionally, any search results can be downloaded from the site.

We created the Recovery Act data tab to expand the options people have for searching, sorting, and analyzing Recovery Act data. We believe the mapping features on Recovery.gov are great, but there are lots of other ways to interact with this data. We hope our website serves as a springboard for further changes at Recovery.gov.

Because the Recovery Act database on FedSpending.org is being released as a beta version, it may contain technical glitches despite our best efforts. That’s where you come in – if you have technical difficulties or notice any other bugs, please contact us using the FedSpending.org feedback form. Please note that we did not alter the underlying data in any way, so any errors contained within the data are not our own.

The database is available at http://www.fedspending.org/rcv.

The extra $11.3 billion in Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) stimulus dollars will provide local districts with unprecedented opportunities to improve instructional quality and integrate new technologies, say school leaders.

Not only does the near doubling of IDEA funding in the 2009-10 school year offer additional flexibility in offering coordinated early intervening services (CEIS) and meeting “maintenance-of-effort” requirements, but the new resources can help districts integrate research-based strategies and break down educational silos.

At a July forum on Capital Hill, Judy Wurtzel, the U.S. Department of Education’s (ED’s) assistant secretary for planning, evaluation and policy development, called the IDEA stimulus money an “unheard-of opportunity” in building long-term capacity.

At the same time, however, the one-time nature of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding and the intricacies of the law’s civil rights’ mandates require that district leaders tread carefully in spending the new money. In addition, the slow
distribution of stimulus funding by the states to local education agencies (LEAs) and some confusion about basic requirements such as reporting continue to pose challenges.

CEIS Opportunity

Although ED released IDEA stimulus guidance in April, Wurtzel admitted it was “very general.” Over the next couple of months, ED intends to release more detailed guidance on uses of the new funding that will stress CEIS and push for linkages with Title I that
create cross-program efforts that “really get at the early ages around literacy,” she said.

IDEA’s CEIS provision enables districts to use up to 15 percent of their total Part B grant to fund educational and behavioral evaluations and supports — typically through a model referred to as “Response to Intervention” — as well as professional development in scientifically based academic and behavioral interventions. The money also can augment activities authorized under No Child Left Behind (NCLB), provided the funding supplements, and not supplants, NCLB funding.

CEIS funds target students who currently are not identified as needing special education services, but need additional academic and behavioral supports to excel in the general education environment. Students officially designated as in need of special education may not receive CEIS services, except for problems not grounded in the disability that led to their designation as in need of special education.

Specifically, ED’s ARRA guidance suggests that districts may use CEIS dollars to provide behavioral interventions to nondisabled students who have exhibited disciplinary difficulties. Further, the document says the funding could be used to help reading and math specialists assist nondisabled students who haven’t reached grade-level proficiency in those areas, or fund tutoring for nondisabled students struggling on state tests.

CEIS professional development activities typically involve all personnel charged with providing additional academic and behavioral supports to general education students. Personnel working solely with students with disabilities or students who don’t need additional support may participate as long as their participation does not boost the cost of the professional development or decrease its effectiveness.

Chance for New Technology

Technology is frequently cited as another area in which the extra ARRA money can have a impact without the need to hire personnel who cannot be sustained once the ARRA funds run out.

Candace Cortellia, the executive director of the Virginia-based Advocacy Institute, identified technology as a “significant need,” including the purchases of hardware and software as well as training for teachers, assistive technology professionals, students and parents. “Some of these expenditures can be quite costly, so the ARRA funds provide a perfect opportunity to really ratchet up technology,” she explained in an e-mail.

The list of potential technology purchases is almost endless. The guidance recommends the use of IDEA stimulus dollars for “state-of-the art assistive technology devices and … training in their use to enhance access to the general curriculum for students with disabilities.” Districts also may want to explore data-collection systems that track individual student data as a means of differentiating instruction.

Wurtzel suggested that districts could create systems that placed standards-based individualized education programs (IEPs) online. “Using technology to increase efficiency,” she said was the benefit. “A short-term investment for a long-term gain.”

Cortellia and Patty Guard, ED’s deputy director of special education, also emphasized that many IDEA stimulus expenditures have the potential to benefit all students, whether through dropout-prevention programs or Title I schoolwide programs.

In Title I schoolwide programs, schools are allowed to blend all of their state, local and federal funds into a single pot. The Title I law says that schoolwide programs do not have to maintain separate accounting records showing which funds support which activities, meaning that the funding can go toward programs for all students, provided the civil rights mandates are met for disabled and limited English proficient (LEP) students.

Guard admitted that using ARRA IDEA funds in a schoolwide scenario was “complicated” because of the various requirements associated with each federal funding stream, but said “there are ways to use those funds that are consistent with the program requirements and still in a coordinated way to improve outcomes for all students.”

Local District Perspectives

School leaders at the congressional forum, which was jointly sponsored by the Mitsubishi Electric America Foundation and the Emily Hall Tremaine Foundation, offered specifics related to their districts’ plans for spending ARRA IDEA money.

In assessing the best course of action with the stimulus funding, Judith Higgins Moening, the executive special education director for the North East Independent School District in San Antonio, Texas, noted that her district convened a task force that included staff from the Title I, English language learners (ELLs), instructional technology and special education departments. The task force conducted a district-wide needs assessment that was completed by staff and parents at all of the district’s schools.

North East ISD identified a number of strategies to meet the district’s needs, including:

Using professional development in research-based instructional strategies, coteaching, Direct Instruction, positive behavioral supports (PBS), intervention methods and technology;
Supporting inclusive instruction;
Using CEIS dollars for tutoring, intervention specialists and materials in RTI programs;
Placing PBS-trained teams in each school with PBS training to be held annually;
Fostering collaboration between central office staff and school administrators to monitor school-level data and close the achievement gap; and
Collaborating across district-level departments of special education, curriculum development, ELLs and educational technology through regular meetings, presentations to principals and joint data review.
“We have already submitted our application to the state,” Higgins said, “and we are ready to start spending money as soon as Texas is ready to give it to us.”

Claire Crane, the principal of Robert L. Ford NASA Explorer Elementary School in Lynn, Mass., advocated the use of IDEA stimulus funding for thoughtful and wellplanned approaches to Universal Design for Learning (UDL) — an approach to educational planning and implementation that considers all learners from the outset, including special education, LEP and gifted students.

“By ‘thoughtful and well planned,’ I’m referring to approaches that are designed from the outset to meet the needs of diverse learners and the teachers who teach them,” she said.

To this extent, Crane specifically urged LEAs to consider applying UDL principles in Title I schoolwide programs and acquiring assistive technologies that can support learning for all students in the least restrictive environment. Any effort to apply UDL
principles should be accompanied by professional development related to UDL, particularly as it relates to the implementation of an inclusive curriculum.

Remaining Challenges

While the tendency might be to shrug off the challenges tied to the stimulus package’s extra IDEA funding, they are plenty and should be considered in spending decisions.

ED has warned districts against funding projects or programs that it would be forced terminate after the stimulus funding ends in two years. For example, districts seeking to avoid difficulties related to the so-called “funding cliff” should avoid boosting the levels of services outlined in a child’s IEP. Since school districts already are required to provide the services necessary to ensure a “free, appropriate public education,” or FAPE, it is hard to add ARRA services and then rescind them a year or two later without courting a lawsuit.

Although little IDEA money has been distributed yet by the states, districts must plan to vigilantly track and report on all expenditures. All ARRA programs must be tracked separately from the traditional appropriations, meaning that they have to be coded separately as well. The Office of Management and Budget has released specific details on reporting requirements.

Finally, Cortellia pointed out that the $11.3 billion in additional IDEA money really is not a lot when it’s broken down per student. Over the course of the two-year life of the funding, districts will receive only about $433 per student with disability per year.

“It will be a challenge for a lot of districts to show us interesting and good results with that amount of money,” she said.

Potential Investments With ARRA IDEA Funds

During a July 13 panel discussion in Washington, D.C., Judith Higgins Moening, the executive director of special education for the North East Independent School District in San Antonio, Texas, offered suggestions for areas that school leaders could target with the $11.3 billion in special education money they will receive under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, including:

Professional Development — Professional development should consist of research-based initiatives that are job-embedded with ongoing follow-up activities.
Technology — Technology can be used to differentiate learning and provide access to the curriculum. In addition, it should be tied to professional development.
Data-Management Systems — These systems can be used to track student achievement and make decisions regarding interventions.
Response to Intervention — The 15 percent of the total grant that can be set aside for coordinated early intervening services can pay for RTI. Funding may be used to purchase classroom materials and other resources, software, and trained interventionists.
Positive Behavior Supports — These interventions target students struggling with emotional and disciplinary issues at school.
Contract Facilitators, Trainers and/or Support Staff — These individuals can provide follow-up in classrooms with teachers to support implementation of new teaching behaviors

- Travis Hicks

For Further Information

Access ED’s ARRA IDEA guidance at www.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/guidance/idea-b.pdf.
Learn more about universal design for learning at www.udl4allstudents.com.

The ratings that New Mexico has assigned to each of its local school districts – as required by IDEA federal regulations – are available here.

http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/index.html#apps

takes you to this information. Share with your local district leaders:

Implementing the Recovery Act
Secretary Arne Duncan Announces $44 Billion Now Available Under the Recovery Act
Press Release (April 1, 2009)

State Fiscal Stabilization Fund
Fact Sheet (Mar 7, 2009)
Letter MS Word (56K) | PDF (56K) (Apr 1, 2009)
Application MS Word (336K) | PDF (10.7M) (Apr 1, 2009)
Guidance MS Word (448K) | PDF (412K) (Apr 1, 2009)
Website
Title I, Part A Recovery Funds for Grants to Local Educational Agencies
Fact Sheet (Mar 7, 2009)
Guidance MS Word (473K) | PDF (208K) (Apr 1, 2009)
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part B
Fact Sheet (Apr 1, 2009)
Guidance MS Word (268K) | PDF (116K) (Apr 1, 2009)
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part C
Fact Sheet (Apr 1, 2009)
Guidance MS Word (204K) | PDF (76K) (Apr 1, 2009)
Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants
Fact Sheet (Apr 1, 2009)
Guidance MS Word (214K) | PDF (73K) (Apr 1, 2009)
Independent Living Services
Fact Sheet (Apr 1, 2009)
Guidance MS Word (195K) | PDF (65K) (Apr 1, 2009)
Slideshow Presentation on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Mar 24, 2009)
School Modernization
Budget Information, Including State Allocations
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009: Excerpts Related to Programs Administered by ED
Stabilization Fund MS Word (60K) | PDF (125K)
Other ED Programs MS Word (48K) | PDF (112K)

Notice on Civil Rights Obligations
Federal agencies must distribute Recovery Act funding in accordance with all nondiscrimination and equal opportunity statutes, regulations, and Executive Orders that apply to the distribution of funds under the Recovery Act. See full notice.
Questions
If you have any questions or concerns about the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, please e-mail them to: State.Fiscal.Fund@ed.gov.
If you have any questions or concerns about Title I, Part A Recovery Funds for Grants to Local Education Agencies, please e-mail them to: oese@ed.gov.
NOTE: If you are requesting information regarding the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), please write ARRA in the subject line of the e-mail.
If you have any questions or concerns about Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Recovery Funds for Services to Infants, Toddlers, Children and Youth with Disabilities, please e-mail them to: IDEARecoveryComments@ed.gov.

I think everyone saw the alerts last week.  The Senate Stimulus bill would have allowed SEAs/LEAs to use all IDEA funds to supplant state/local special-ed funds, thus allowing them to cut special-ed spending overall.  So, instead of an increase in special-ed funding, as the stimulus contemplated, there would be a decrease. The provision applied to all Part B and C funds (not just the extra stimulus money).  If it had passed , it would have changed a provision that’s been a fundamental part of the IDEA since 1975.  What this would have meant is that the school districts could use their entire Part B and C allocations (regular allocations plus stimulus money) to reduce the amount of money they have to spend on special education.  This would have meant real cuts, in the sense that districts could divert not only their stimulus funds, but then cut more money because of the Part B and C funds they would be receiving through the regular process.

What Happened in the Final Bill:  The very good news is that this provision was entirely eliminated from the final bill.  Thanks much to Congressman Miller, Congressman Obey and their staffs on the House side; Senator Kennedy, Senator Harkin and their staffs on the Senate side, and to the members of the Conference Committee and Appropriations Committee for working to protect the needs of children with disabilities.  We also thank the Disability Policy Collaboration (ARC/UCP), Easter Seals, National Center for Learning Disabilities, National Downs Syndrome Society, and the many disability organizations and individuals who worked on these issues over the last few weeks.  In particular, we thank the many COPAA members and other parents, family members, friends, advocates, attorneys, and others who rallied against the Senate provision in response to our alert.  We received many many letters which were delivered to the conferees, and we know many more calls and faxes were sent.  COPAA members and other child advocates put the alerts out through listservs and yahoo groups, on their webpages, and on Facebook and other social-networking pages.  I don’t think anyone you-tubed it, but we’ll get there <grin> Thanks to everyone who promoted the alerts and who worked on this issue!

 Thoughts on the Bill:  Below are my initial thoughts on the bill, as I was asked by a member to provide them.  This is not a complete analysis, even though it looks long (because its hard to reduce this into 2 sentences and make it understandable).  The final stimulus bill emerged yesterday (Friday) and it will take some time for a lot of people to look at it and determine how it works and interacts with the IDEA.  So, please do not read this as a final analysis, or even a semi-final one.

 Bill Provides Major Increase in Special Education Funding.  Overall, the bill will provide a major increase in special education funding, including$12.2 billion total for IDEA.  This includes $11.2 billion for IDEA Part B, $400 million for IDEA preschool funding, and $500 million for Part C.  This is in addition to the regular Part B and Part C allocations. 

 IDEA has long been woefully underfunded and we have all seen the effects of this, with children who are not identified for special education, or when identified, receive inadequate services and assistance.  While there are many school districts that strive to provide good special education programs, it is important to ensure that all children with disabilities receive appropriate educations that prepare them for adult living. 

 As we have all seen in our communities, many families are experiencing severe economic stress, losing jobs, working reduced hours, facing cuts in their businesses and in their retirement funds.  These include parents of children with disabilities who now face constraints in the services they can provide for their children.  Children with disabilities are a very vulnerable population, and even before the current recession, many lived in families facing financial stress.  Even before the recession, approximately 2/3 of children with disabilities lived in families earning under $50,000 a year; approximately 35%, in families earning under $25,000 a year.  Children with disabilities need appropriate educations and services to be able to achieve and work towards maximum independence.  It is thus important that the stimulus bill provides these additional IDEA funds to meet the needs of children with disabilities.   Just as adults with disabilities are vulnerable populations who need additional funding, children with disabilities are, too.  It is important, IMHO, that Congress delineated these funds for IDEA-not simply additional block funding to school districts or even block funding for school district job creation/preservation only.  I think Congress recognized that families of children with disabilities are facing job losses and severe economic burdens and it acted to protect those children and their needs in this additional IDEA funding, including providing appropriate educational and related services, equipment, assistive technology, training for teachers, access to nurses, etc.

You should begin working with other advocates in your community and state to give input on how these funds will be spent.  Find out the process your state and school district will use to award and spend the funds, and how you can have input.  While some states have complained that getting money for 2 years for special-education is useless, one questions this claim.  Assistive technology, equipment, training in reading and other methodologies for teachers are all important things that will have an impact for a long time.  The same is obviously true for providing appropriate services; districts must provide FAPE. Moreover, you want to watch for the impact of layoffs on special education.  What about requirements for providing highly-qualified special education teachers? Are appropriate staff providing services, and are those services appropriate?  Are children being shifted from 1:1 and 1:2 therapy to large, group therapy?  Ask what your state will do to make public how the additional IDEA and School Stabilization funds are spent.  What will be the accountability mechanisms in place?  Be part of the process and have an impact. 

 Two Sources of Funding to School Districts:  In the stimulus bill, school districts will get 2 different kinds of money: additional IDEA funds for 2009-10 and then stabilization funds.  The increase in IDEA funding is a substantial increase.  Stabilization funds can be used for a broad variety of purposes, including special education and the school modernization you heard so much about in the press.  (Separately, there are also additional funds for Title I and other educational purposes.)

Under the Stabilization Funds portion of the bill (a separate title called State Fiscal Stabilization Funds), the Secretary of Education will get limited waiver authority to count the stabilization funds as non-federal funds when calculating maintenance of effort.  This waiver authority is intended to be very narrow. What this means is that if a school district spends its stabilization funds on special education, and the Secy of Ed gives a waiver, the district can count those stabilization funds as if they were the school district’s own money and cut its own contribution to special education by a similar amount.   Again, this waiver authority only applies to the stabilization funds and requires approval by the Secretary of Education.  It does not apply to the Part B or C funding the school district receives every year or to the additional IDEA funds in the stimulus bill.  This is a strong improvement from the language in the Senate bill, which would have allowed waivers to be granted for all IDEA funding and would have thus allowed greater cuts in school district and state special-education spending. 

But there may be an impact on maintenance of effort requirements under the IDEA.  The stimulus bill has $11.3 million in Part B funds for FY 2009 and 2010.  It is possible these funds could be awarded in a lump sum to the states, which then will allocate them to school districts.  Under Section 613 of the IDEA, when a school district’s allocation of Part B funds is greater than in the past fiscal year, the school district may reduce its spending by 50 percent of the amount of that increase.  The additional IDEA funds in the Stimulus Bill may affect this.

Reporting Provisions:  The final law also includes a list of reporting requirements in the State Stabilization portion of the bill, including how the state stabilization funds were used, the state’s progress in hiring highly-qualified teachers, and its progress in developing valid and reliable assessments for limited English proficient students and children with disabilities.

Modernization/ADA Compliance.  State Stabilization funds can be used for school modernization.  Find out what your school district will do to ensure that school buildings are made ADA-compliant, and how to prioritize this goal.  Identify schools that need improvements to be ADA-compliant and advocate with your school board; help them understand why this is so crucial.

 How to Find the Bill:

The final bill is posted in several places.  The Stimulus bill’s formal name is the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).

One place the bill is posted the House Appropriations Committee website, http://appropriations.house.gov/

The provisions relating to special education, IDEA, and the Stabilization fund are in the Document marked Bill Text, Division A:

http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/Recovery_Bill_Div_A.pdf

The Education section begins on page 168 of the PDF (it says p.22 at the top but that’s just the page of the section its in), and then the section relation to State Stabilization Funds and waiver begins on page 425 of the PDF, the Title named State Fiscal Stabilization Funds.

Thanks again to everyone who worked to protect funding for children with disabilities in the stimulus bill!!  And we’re all looking forward to seeing everyone at the COPAA conference in March.

Jessica Butler, Co-Chair, Congressional Affairs

Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Inc.  (COPAA)

a national voice for special education rights and advocacy

www.copaa.org

© Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Inc. (COPAA) (2009)

March 29, 2009

>> SAVE THE DATE:

IDEAmoneywatch.com will conduct a Webinar on April 16, 2009, from 3-4:30 PM EDT. The presentation will feature Kathleen Boundy, Esq. and Paul Weckstein, Esq., Co-Directors of the Center for Law and Education (www.cleweb.org).  Kathy and Paul have generously agreed to provide us with an overview of permission use of IDEA Recovery Act funds as well as critical information on IDEA provisions pertaining to these funds. While this event will be offered for a small charge to interested parties, The Advocacy Institute will provide it FREE to those who have volunteered to serve as state watchdogs.

>> UPDATES ON RECOVERY ACT FUNDS:

The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) at the U.S. Department of Education (USED) held a meeting on Friday, March 27^th for members of the Education Task Force of the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD). The meeting featured presentations by Patty Guard, Acting Director of OSEP; Larry Wexler, Director of OSEP’s Research to Practice Division; Ruth Ryder, Director of OSEP’s Monitoring and State Improvement Planning Division; and Suzanne Sheridan, USED Counsel.

Much of what was presented followed the guidance released earlier this month, available at http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/factsheet/idea.html.

OSEP announced that further guidance and a Fact Sheet on use of IDEA Recovery Act funds will be released on Tuesday, March 31, 2009. We will alert you as soon as these new documents become available.

Acting Director Guard emphasized that the IDEA Recovery Act funds are a one-time investment, and that it is very clear that this level of federal funding will not continue. States and, more importantly, LEAs, must use IDEA Recovery funds to create capacity for improvement that can be sustained without continued federal funds at this level. Further, that Recovery Act funds must be directed at activities that will “close the achievement gap.”

Larry Wexler provided an expanded list of use of IDEA Recovery Funds that USED would consider appropriate. Among the uses are:

PART B:

-         professional development (training for a program such as PBIS which can continue after training stops)

-         training for regular classroom teachers to support students with disabilities

-         Develop data systems to track children moving from Part C to Part B (tracking individual children over time, e.g., do they leave then return to IDEA services?)

-         AT devices for students

-         Training for teachers on using AT

-         Training on dispute resolution

-         Purchasing Web-based IEP software (aligned w/ state academic content standards)

-         Conducting extended school days/year enrichment programs

PART C:

-         training for early intervention service providers

-         improve programs for involving families

REPORTING:

The OSEP team emphasized the expanded accountability requirements regarding use of all funds that states and LEAs receive via the Recovery Act. To comply, OSEP has assigned different account numbers for the IDEA Recovery Act funds to ensure that funds are separate from the regular FY2009 Federal funds that will also be arriving in states and LEAs. The Recovery Act requires quarterly reporting on the use of funds. The first report will be due on July 10, 2009. THESE REPORTS WILL PROVIDE IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR THE IDEAMONEYWATCH PROJECT.

I think everyone saw the alerts last week.  The Senate Stimulus bill would have allowed SEAs/LEAs to use all IDEA funds to supplant state/local special-ed funds, thus allowing them to cut special-ed spending overall.  So, instead of an increase in special-ed funding, as the stimulus contemplated, there would be a decrease. The provision applied to all Part B and C funds (not just the extra stimulus money).  If it had passed , it would have changed a provision that’s been a fundamental part of the IDEA since 1975.  What this would have meant is that the school districts could use their entire Part B and C allocations (regular allocations plus stimulus money) to reduce the amount of money they have to spend on special education.  This would have meant real cuts, in the sense that districts could divert not only their stimulus funds, but then cut more money because of the Part B and C funds they would be receiving through the regular process.

What Happened in the Final Bill:  The very good news is that this provision was entirely eliminated from the final bill.  Thanks much to Congressman Miller, Congressman Obey and their staffs on the House side; Senator Kennedy, Senator Harkin and their staffs on the Senate side, and to the members of the Conference Committee and Appropriations Committee for working to protect the needs of children with disabilities.  We also thank the Disability Policy Collaboration (ARC/UCP), Easter Seals, National Center for Learning Disabilities, National Downs Syndrome Society, and the many disability organizations and individuals who worked on these issues over the last few weeks.  In particular, we thank the many COPAA members and other parents, family members, friends, advocates, attorneys, and others who rallied against the Senate provision in response to our alert.  We received many many letters which were delivered to the conferees, and we know many more calls and faxes were sent.  COPAA members and other child advocates put the alerts out through listservs and yahoo groups, on their webpages, and on Facebook and other social-networking pages.  I don’t think anyone you-tubed it, but we’ll get there <grin> Thanks to everyone who promoted the alerts and who worked on this issue!

 Thoughts on the Bill:  Below are my initial thoughts on the bill, as I was asked by a member to provide them.  This is not a complete analysis, even though it looks long (because its hard to reduce this into 2 sentences and make it understandable).  The final stimulus bill emerged yesterday (Friday) and it will take some time for a lot of people to look at it and determine how it works and interacts with the IDEA.  So, please do not read this as a final analysis, or even a semi-final one.

 Bill Provides Major Increase in Special Education Funding.  Overall, the bill will provide a major increase in special education funding, including$12.2 billion total for IDEA.  This includes $11.2 billion for IDEA Part B, $400 million for IDEA preschool funding, and $500 million for Part C.  This is in addition to the regular Part B and Part C allocations. 

 IDEA has long been woefully underfunded and we have all seen the effects of this, with children who are not identified for special education, or when identified, receive inadequate services and assistance.  While there are many school districts that strive to provide good special education programs, it is important to ensure that all children with disabilities receive appropriate educations that prepare them for adult living. 

 As we have all seen in our communities, many families are experiencing severe economic stress, losing jobs, working reduced hours, facing cuts in their businesses and in their retirement funds.  These include parents of children with disabilities who now face constraints in the services they can provide for their children.  Children with disabilities are a very vulnerable population, and even before the current recession, many lived in families facing financial stress.  Even before the recession, approximately 2/3 of children with disabilities lived in families earning under $50,000 a year; approximately 35%, in families earning under $25,000 a year.  Children with disabilities need appropriate educations and services to be able to achieve and work towards maximum independence.  It is thus important that the stimulus bill provides these additional IDEA funds to meet the needs of children with disabilities.   Just as adults with disabilities are vulnerable populations who need additional funding, children with disabilities are, too.  It is important, IMHO, that Congress delineated these funds for IDEA-not simply additional block funding to school districts or even block funding for school district job creation/preservation only.  I think Congress recognized that families of children with disabilities are facing job losses and severe economic burdens and it acted to protect those children and their needs in this additional IDEA funding, including providing appropriate educational and related services, equipment, assistive technology, training for teachers, access to nurses, etc.

You should begin working with other advocates in your community and state to give input on how these funds will be spent.  Find out the process your state and school district will use to award and spend the funds, and how you can have input.  While some states have complained that getting money for 2 years for special-education is useless, one questions this claim.  Assistive technology, equipment, training in reading and other methodologies for teachers are all important things that will have an impact for a long time.  The same is obviously true for providing appropriate services; districts must provide FAPE. Moreover, you want to watch for the impact of layoffs on special education.  What about requirements for providing highly-qualified special education teachers? Are appropriate staff providing services, and are those services appropriate?  Are children being shifted from 1:1 and 1:2 therapy to large, group therapy?  Ask what your state will do to make public how the additional IDEA and School Stabilization funds are spent.  What will be the accountability mechanisms in place?  Be part of the process and have an impact. 

 Two Sources of Funding to School Districts:  In the stimulus bill, school districts will get 2 different kinds of money: additional IDEA funds for 2009-10 and then stabilization funds.  The increase in IDEA funding is a substantial increase.  Stabilization funds can be used for a broad variety of purposes, including special education and the school modernization you heard so much about in the press.  (Separately, there are also additional funds for Title I and other educational purposes.)

Under the Stabilization Funds portion of the bill (a separate title called State Fiscal Stabilization Funds), the Secretary of Education will get limited waiver authority to count the stabilization funds as non-federal funds when calculating maintenance of effort.  This waiver authority is intended to be very narrow. What this means is that if a school district spends its stabilization funds on special education, and the Secy of Ed gives a waiver, the district can count those stabilization funds as if they were the school district’s own money and cut its own contribution to special education by a similar amount.   Again, this waiver authority only applies to the stabilization funds and requires approval by the Secretary of Education.  It does not apply to the Part B or C funding the school district receives every year or to the additional IDEA funds in the stimulus bill.  This is a strong improvement from the language in the Senate bill, which would have allowed waivers to be granted for all IDEA funding and would have thus allowed greater cuts in school district and state special-education spending. 

But there may be an impact on maintenance of effort requirements under the IDEA.  The stimulus bill has $11.3 million in Part B funds for FY 2009 and 2010.  It is possible these funds could be awarded in a lump sum to the states, which then will allocate them to school districts.  Under Section 613 of the IDEA, when a school district’s allocation of Part B funds is greater than in the past fiscal year, the school district may reduce its spending by 50 percent of the amount of that increase.  The additional IDEA funds in the Stimulus Bill may affect this.

Reporting Provisions:  The final law also includes a list of reporting requirements in the State Stabilization portion of the bill, including how the state stabilization funds were used, the state’s progress in hiring highly-qualified teachers, and its progress in developing valid and reliable assessments for limited English proficient students and children with disabilities.

Modernization/ADA Compliance.  State Stabilization funds can be used for school modernization.  Find out what your school district will do to ensure that school buildings are made ADA-compliant, and how to prioritize this goal.  Identify schools that need improvements to be ADA-compliant and advocate with your school board; help them understand why this is so crucial.

 How to Find the Bill:

The final bill is posted in several places.  The Stimulus bill’s formal name is the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).

One place the bill is posted the House Appropriations Committee website, http://appropriations.house.gov/

The provisions relating to special education, IDEA, and the Stabilization fund are in the Document marked Bill Text, Division A:

http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/Recovery_Bill_Div_A.pdf

The Education section begins on page 168 of the PDF (it says p.22 at the top but that’s just the page of the section its in), and then the section relation to State Stabilization Funds and waiver begins on page 425 of the PDF, the Title named State Fiscal Stabilization Funds.

Thanks again to everyone who worked to protect funding for children with disabilities in the stimulus bill!!  And we’re all looking forward to seeing everyone at the COPAA conference in March.

Jessica Butler, Co-Chair, Congressional Affairs

Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Inc.  (COPAA)

a national voice for special education rights and advocacy

www.copaa.org

© Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Inc. (COPAA) (2009)

Some of you have asked for a forwardable version of this email about the Stimulus.  It is provided below.  In all honesty, I am not a stimulus or IDEA funding expert and would never hold myself out as such.  This is intended as general guidance, not an authoritative analysis.  But you may forward the discussion below.  It also contains some additional information.

As you may know, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (stimulus bill) contains additional IDEA funds, state stabilization funds, and other funds for education.  The ARRA was passed in February.  In addition, this week, the President signed the Omnibus Appropriation Act for 2009, which provides the regular Part B funds for this year.  Together, they substantially increase the amount of IDEA Part B and Part C funding.  This may have an impact on the amount of money LEAs devote to special education from their own funds and those of the state, by lowering the effective Maintenance of Effort requirement.  The Department of Education issued guidance this week about the ARRA funds: http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/index.html

The 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act (federal budget)
Today, the President signed into law the  Omnibus Appropriations Act for 2009, H.R. 1105.  The Omnibus funds IDEA at $11.5 billion, approximately $500 million more than in 2008.  This money shall be allocated among the states according the Department of Education formulas.  You can read the Omnibus here: hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.111hr1105
and you can read the Appropriations Committee fact sheet here, which explains what it all means:
http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/LHEFY0902-23-09.pdf

The ARRA/Stimulus Guidance
In addition, in February, Congress passed the Stimulus bill (ARRA). As you may remember from earlier COPAA guidance, the ARRA contains three different kinds of money: additional IDEA funds; Title I funds; and State Fiscal Stabilization Funds.

IDEA Funds.  The stimulus makes available an additional $11.3 billion in Part B Grants to States, as well as additional Part B preschool and Part C funds.  This almost doubles the amount of funds available under the budget (Omnibus) through Part B.
 Preliminary state allocations of these funds are available here:
http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/statetables/recovery.html

The Department of Education has issued Guidance regarding the use of federal stimulus IDEA funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.  The documents may be found here:
http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/index.html
and the guidance for the additional IDEA stimulus funds may be found here:
http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/factsheet/idea.html

One issue that has arisen is how school districts can absorb and spend the additional IDEA funds.  Essentially, they argue that they can’t absorb this money quickly and it would be difficult to figure out things they can purchase/people they can hire if they have to let them go in 2 years when the money is gone. This seems to be an attempt to set up a future argument about IDEA spending, and its important to be aware of these claims.   The Department of Education points out several suggestions for how the money could be spent over these 2 years, including state of the art assistive technology devices and training; positive behavioral support training; transition coordination; intensive district-wide professional development for regular and special education teachers on evidence-based school-wide strategies in reading, math, writing and science, and positive behavioral supports; and others.  These are similar to points COPAA made in our initial Stimulus Guidance.

The Stimulus money is intended to cover 2 years (2009 & 2010), and the Department will allocate money twice, in March 2009 and October 2009.  The Department urges States to quickly make the money available to the LEAs.  The March allocation should be allocated by April.  An LEA should obligate the majority of these funds during school years 2008–09 and 2009–10 and the remainder during school year 2010–11.

Supplement, not Supplant.  Some school districts have asserted that they are going to use the money for general education, or that because they are receiving additional ARRA funds for special-education, they can divert what they would spend from their own funds on special-education to other programs.  This is largely wrong.  As we previously explained, the Senate Stimulus bill would have allowed SEAs/LEAs to use all IDEA funds to replace (supplant) state/local special ed funds. This would have allowed states and school districts to cut overall special-ed spending, and changed an IDEA requirement that has existed since 1975.  But the final stimulus bill did not include the Senate language.  As a result, IDEA funds may not be used to supplant state and local funds.

State Fiscal Stabilization Fund. But another part of the Stimulus bill establishes a State Fiscal Stabilization Fund totaling $53.6 billion.  Of this, $48.6 billion will be given to states under Department of Education formulas.  States are also required to use 81.8% of the money for early childhood and public elementary, secondary, and higher education.  The remaining 18.2% could be used for school modernization, renovation, public safety, and other government services.  There are additional provisions relating to when states can access the money that turn on whether layoffs will be prevented.  LEAs can use the funds for any purpose permitted under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, including to avoid having to lay off teachers and other employees.  This is important; given the increase in money, one should question a school district seeking to lay off special-education personnel, or patterns where children start losing services.  The ability to spend money on modernization should mean that school districts are able to make buildings ADA compliant. 
The Department of Education’s State Fiscal Stabilization Guidance is here:
http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/factsheet/stabilization-fund.html
 

Maintenance of Effort (MoE).  Maintenance of effort is the concept that either the State or LEA should not reduce its own spending on IDEA programs below the level of the previous year.  This is a very broad brush way of talking about it; it’s a complex concept and I do not pretend to know all of the details.  Under the IDEA, 612(a)(18), the Department of Education can waive MoE at the state level for a year if there are exceptional or uncontrollable circumstances.  MOE may not be waived at the LEA level. 

Under the ARRA, the Secretary of Education has limited waiver authority to count stabilization funds as non-federal funds when calculating MoE.  This waiver authority is intended to be very narrow. If a school district spends its stabilization funds on special education, the Secretary of Education can give a waiver so the district can count those stabilization funds as though the funds were the district’s money. The district may then cut its contribution to special education by a similar amount. 

Some of our members asked us about the effect of IDEA Section 613 and the impact of the increased stimulus funds on the LEA’s required maintenance of effort.  As the Department of Education explained in the guidance cited above, under IDEA Sec. 613(a)(2)(C), in any fiscal year in which an LEA receives an allocation of IDEA funds greater than the amount it received the year before, the LEA may reduce the level of state and local expenditures by up to 50 percent of the amount of that increase.  So, if a school district gets $100,000 more in IDEA funds in one year than it got in the last year, it can cut its own spending by 50% of that $100,000 ($50,000).  This provision was intended for the situation in which the federal portion of IDEA funding increases gradually each year, and thus state and local spending would decrease.  Under another part of 613, LEAs are prohibited from cutting their spending below the previous year’s spending, unless this provision applies.  This has the effect of enabling the LEA to lower its spending going forward.  The stimulus money causes the decrease and then the LEA’s obligation is to maintain at that level.  The LEA can, of course, increase its spending, which sets a new level.  This is laid out in the Department of Education guidance. 

The critical issue will be when the LEA receives its additional IDEA funding under the stimulus.  If it is all received in 2009, then the drop in LEA maintenance of effort will be larger. These are IDEA statutory formula and Congress could not change them in the ARRA.  (No one ever anticipated they would be used this way when they were written; they were designed for.) 
The entire subject has some critical details relating to excess cost issues, and I am not an expert on MoE or IDEA funding experts and I couldn’t become one if I tried. 

Title I.  The ARRA provides $10 billion in additional Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 Title I, Part A funds. These go to LEAs for schools that have high concentrations of students from families that live in poverty in order to help improve teaching and learning for students most at risk of failing to meet state academic achievement standards.  LEAs are urged t use their funds consistently with Title I as well as to create and save jobs and advance reforms.  Money should also be used for early childhood programs.  The ARRA guidance from the Department of Education lists several projects on which the money could be spent, including training highly-educated teachers; establishing intensive teacher training in a Title I school; strengthening early childhood education; creating opportunities for Title I programs for secondary students to use high-quality online courseware.  More information may be found in the Title I guidance from the Department of Education, http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/factsheet/title-i.html
Transparency.  You should get involved with your school district to help ensure that Stimulus and Omnibus spending is above board and transparent.  It does no good if the money is hidden from sight.  ARRA requires that recipients of funds made available under that act separately account for, and report on, how those funds are spent and the results of those expenditures.

Conclusion.  For more information, read the Department of Education guidance about the ARRA, as well as the other documents referenced above.  I wish I were an expert in these issues, but I’m not.  This is intended as general guidance for COPAAns (which may be shared outside of COPAA) and not as an authoritative discussion of the issues.
Thanks,
Jess