ARRA funding overview

• Spend funds quickly to save and create jobs. ARRA funds will be distributed quickly to states, local educational agencies and other entities in order to avert layoffs, create and save jobs and improve student achievement. States and LEAs in turn are urged to move rapidly to develop plans for using funds, consistent with the law’s reporting and accountability requirements, and to promptly begin spending funds to help drive the nation’s economic recovery.
• Ensure transparency, reporting and accountability. To prevent fraud and abuse, support the most effective uses of ARRA funds, and accurately measure and track results, recipients must publicly report on how funds are used. Due to the unprecedented scope and importance of this investment, ARRA funds are subject to additional and more rigorous reporting requirements than normally apply to grant recipients.
• Invest one-time ARRA funds thoughtfully to minimize the “funding cliff.” ARRA represents a historic infusion of funds that is expected to be temporary. Depending on the program, these funds are available for only two to three years. These funds should be invested in ways that do not result in unsustainable continuing commitments after the funding expires.
• Improve student achievement through school improvement and reform. To close the achievement gap and help students from all backgrounds achieve high standards.

• Making progress toward rigorous college- and career-ready standards and high-quality assessments that are valid and reliable for all students, including English language learners and students with disabilities;
• Establishing pre-K-to college and career data systems that track progress and foster continuous improvement;
• Making improvements in teacher effectiveness and in the equitable distribution of qualified teachers for all students, particularly students who are most in need;
• Providing intensive support and effective interventions for the lowest-performing schools.

• Balance speed and stimulus with careful planning and effective reforms
• States should award funds to LEAs as quickly as is prudent and LEAs should use funds expeditiously but sensibly
• LEA obligation timelines:
  • SFSF - the Department strongly encourages governors to award or otherwise commit program funds as soon as possible after receipt of their grant awards. However, funds are available for obligation at the State and local levels until Sept. 30, 2011.
  • Title I - the Department encourages States to award Title I, Part A recovery funds to their LEAs as quickly as possible, consistent with prudent management, so that LEAs can begin using the funds. Similarly, an LEA should use its Title I, Part A recovery funds expeditiously but sensibly. Note that, in the absence of a waiver, an LEA must obligate at least 85 percent of its total FY 2009 Title I, Part A funds (including ARRA funds) by Sept. 30, 2010. Any remaining FY 2009 Title I, Part A funds will be available for obligation until Sept. 30, 2011.
  • Similarly, an LEA should use the IDEA recovery funds expeditiously. A State should make the Part B Grants to States and Preschool Grants recovery funds that it receives in March available to LEAs by the end of April 2009. Similarly, an LEA should use the IDEA recovery funds expeditiously. 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. States may begin obligating IDEA, Part B recovery funds immediately upon the effective date of the grant. All IDEA recovery funds must be obligated by Sept. 30, 2011.

• Maximize short-term investments with lasting results for:
  • students
  • teacher, school, and district capacity for improvement
• Minimize unsustainable ongoing commitments
• Integrate coherent improvement strategies that are aligned with the core reform goals

ARRA represents an historic infusion of funds that is expected to be temporary. Depending on the program, these funds are available for only two to three years. To the maximum extent possible, these funds should be invested in ways that do not result in unsustainable continuing commitments after the funding expires.

• This chart shows estimated amounts of funding for a high needs schools’ budgets. ARRA represents a potentially substantial supplement to FY 09 budgets through ARRA School Improvement Grants, ARRA IDEA, ARRA Title I, and ARRA Stabilization

Teacher effectiveness and ensuring that all schools have highly qualified teachers – A state would report on the extent to which all students have access to qualified and effective teachers and whether or not teachers are evaluated based on how well their students perform. More specifically, a state would report:

• the number and percent of teachers in the highest-poverty and lowest-poverty schools in the state who are highly qualified;
• the number and percent of teachers and principals rated at each performance level in each local educational agency’s (LEA’s) teacher evaluation system; and
• the number and percent of LEA teacher and principal evaluation systems that require evidence of student achievement outcomes.

Higher standards and rigorous assessments that will improve both teaching and learning – A state would report the extent to which public information is available regarding student performance compared to other states, the extent to which all students are fully included in state assessment and accountability systems and are provided high-quality assessments, and how many high school seniors continue on to pursue a college education or technical training. To this end, states would report: the most recent state reading and mathematics NAEP scores on 2009-10 State Report Cards;

• whether the state is taking steps to enhance the quality of state academic assessments, including whether the state is engaged in activities consistent with section 6112(a) of the ESEA to
  • work in collaboration or consortia with other states or organizations to improve the quality, validity, and reliability of state academic assessments;
  • measure student academic achievement using multiple measures of academic achievement from multiple sources;
  • chart student progress over time; and
  • evaluate student academic achievement using comprehensive instruments, such as performance and technology-based assessments;
• whether the state has developed and implemented valid and reliable assessments for students with disabilities and the percent of students with disabilities tested on state mathematics and English Language Arts (ELA) assessments;
• whether the state has developed and implemented valid and reliable assessment for English language learners and the percent of English language learners tested on state mathematics and ELA assessments;
• and the number and percentage of students by school who graduate high school and go on to complete at least one year’s worth of college credit (as applicable to a degree) within two years.

Intensive support, effective interventions, and improved achievement in schools that need it the most – A state would identify schools most in need of academic intervention, and report on the progress of those schools in implementing reforms to improve student academic achievement. More specifically, a state would report:

• The number of schools in restructuring status that have demonstrated substantial gains in student achievement, closed, or consolidated within last three years
• Of the schools in restructuring status, the number of schools in the bottom five percent that have demonstrated substantial gains in student achievement, closed or consolidated within the last three years
• The number and percent of schools in restructuring status that have made progress on state assessments in mathematics and ELA in last year; and whether the state allows charter schools and whether there is a cap restricting the number of such schools, the number of charter schools currently operating in the state, and the number of charter schools closed within the last three years for academic purposes.

Better information to educators and the public, to address the individual needs of students and improve teacher performance – A state would report on the extent to which it has implemented a system to provide greater clarity to parents about the quality of their child’s education. This system will enable educators to use real time information about the individual needs of students, move away from a one-size-fits-all approach to education, and improve their performance. In particular, a state would report:

• progress towards implementing a statewide data system which includes each of the 12 elements described in the America COMPETES Act, to track progress of individual students, from preschool through postsecondary education, and match students to individual teachers
• whether all teachers in mathematics and ELA in tested grades receive timely data on the performance of their students and estimates of individual teacher impact on student achievement, in a manner that informs instruction and includes appropriate benchmarks.