Are Title 1 Funds Being Misused and Abused in DPS?

Title 1 funds aim to bridge the gap between low-income students and other students. The U.S. Department of Education provides supplemental funding to local school districts to meet the needs of at-risk and low income students. Most educators, parents and community members have heard the term Title 1 School. Being able to answer what is a title 1 school as established by the U.S. Department of Education, however, is more difficult. Title 1 is the nation’s oldest and largest federally funded program, according to the U.S. Department of Education. Annually, it provides over $7 billion to school systems across the country for students at risk of failure and living at or near poverty.

Originally, the idea of Title 1 was enacted in 1965 under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. This policy committed to closing the achievement gap between low-income students and other student. The policy was rewritten in 1994 to improve fundamental goals of helping at-risk students. With the implementation of No Child Left Behind, schools must make adequate yearly progress on state testing and focus on best teaching practices in order to continue receiving funds. According to the U.S. Department of Education the purpose of Title 1 funding, “is to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high quality education and reach, at minimum, proficiency on challenging state academic achievement standards and state academic assessments.”

The basic principles of Title 1 state that schools with large concentrations of low-income students will receive supplemental funds to assist in meeting student’s educational goals. Low-income students are determined by the number of students enrolled in the free and reduced lunch program. For an entire school to qualify for Title 1 funds, at least 40% of students must enroll in the free and reduced lunch program. How to use Title 1 funds rests with each school. Title 1 funds can be used to improve curriculum, instructional activities, counseling, parental involvement, increase staff and program improvement. The funding should assist schools in meeting the educational goals of low-income students. According to the U.S. Department of Education, Title 1 funds typically support supplemental instruction in reading and math. Annually, this program reaches over six million students, primarily in the elementary grades. Now the intent of the law is to use funds to acquire "highly qualified staff"(professionals, i.e. teachers, psychologists, social workers, etc.). Although the final draft of the law permits the use of funds for other staff, the primary focus remains on "highly qualified staff". Schools intending on hiring non-professional staff with Title 1 funds should request clearance from the district Title 1 office. The state further prohibits the expenditure of Title I funds in school level clerical, administrative or school safety personnel.

The types of students that might be served by Title 1 funds include migrant students, students with limited English proficiency, homeless students, students with disabilities, neglected students, delinquent students, at-risk students or any student in need. Students can be classified as at-risk for numerous reasons. A few reasons they might be classified as at-risk students include: high number of absences, single-parent home, low academic performance or low-income family. Title 1 funds must be used to promote:
1. High academic/achievement for all children;
2. A greater focus on teaching and learning;
3. Flexibility to stimulate local initiatives coupled with responsibility for student performance;
4. Improved linkages among schools, parents and communities.
In general, funds cannot be used to purchase/lease/rent or improve facilities or provide routine transportation costs for the transport of students to and from school or supplant funds the school is already entitled to from other sources.

So with all of that said, why is it that Detroit Public Schools used Title 1 Funds to pay for Summer School Academies that weren’t really educating our youth to succeed. In fact on the eve of when classes start in DPS, there has been no record of how the summer school academies improved the reading and math scores of students as well as created better parents within DPS. Title 1 funds assist schools in meeting the educational needs of students living near or at poverty levels. This series examines student motivation, creative lesson plans, difficulties teachers face with at-risk students and proper implementation and documentation. But Detroit Public Schools have not released any information to the public besides how the money was spent in terms of how the summer school academies actually helped students in DPS meet educational goals.

Title 1 Programs (Part A of PL 107-334 of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001), provide funds to districts in order to assist schools with the highest levels of economically disadvantaged youngsters to:
1. improve in student achievement for all participating children,
2. improve staff development and
3. improve parental and community involvement.
In accordance with federal law, funds are allocated directly to schools to work toward these three goals. In this district, all schools falling above 56% of their K-12 membership eligible for a free or reduced price meal receive funds. Funds are allocated on a per qualifying child (child with free or reduced price meal status) basis. Federal law requires that a district not use Title 1 funds to offset expenses to a Title 1 school that would normally be paid by other sources if Title 1 funds were not available.

Now state appointed Emergency Financial Manager Robert Bobb went after Title 1 funding for what he called an emergency student achievement summer school academies but in no way since the money has been spent has there been any updates on what students learned in DPS as well as what parents and teachers also obtained. In fact Robert Bobb’s quote unquote Emergency Student Achievement Summer School Academies, a comprehensive Title I program which was suppose to dramatically expand the scope and availability of educational opportunities for students in Detroit Public Schools to ensure that its students receive instruction and programs for academic success. These academies which represented the most expansive summer program that has ever been offered at Detroit Public Schools (DPS) in terms of scope, curriculum, and programming was designed as targeted responses to the specific challenges facing the school system as demonstrated by the student achievement data. According to test results on the Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) issued in the fall of 2008, DPS students in grades three through nine performed at the following levels:

In Reading, 40.3 percent of students performed at below basic or failing levels;
In Writing, 56.9 percent of students performed at below basic or failing levels;
In English Language Arts, 44.1 percent of students performed at below basic or
failing levels;
In Mathematics, 41.1 percent of students performed at below basic or failing
levels;
In Science, 45.6 percent of students tested performed at below basic or failing
levels; and
In Social Studies, 55.2 percent of students tested performed at below basic or
failing levels.

So in response to the compelling data, DPS developed a package of Title I eligible programs for Title I eligible students that included the following: offerings for students in all grades, extended hours and extended weeks of instruction, special programs for those transitioning to 9th grade, classes for students that require extra credits in order to stay on track to graduate, extra tutoring at the end of the school day, and ACT preparation classes. The program was suppose to provide eligible students with programming and academic instruction from 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., enrichment activities from 2:00 to 5:00, as well as optional tutoring for eligible students during the enrichment period or thereafter. The program was suppose to serve approximately 41,000 students as compared to 28,800 served last summer. Bobb intended to urge the entire community to get behind this program so that the district could have 100 percent participation among eligible students who are not achieving at grade level in Reading, Math, English Language Arts, or Science.

In addition, the plan was suppose to expand parent involvement opportunities through the Parent University, increase professional development for principals and assistant principals, and provide training and technical assistance for five schools undergoing school restructuring. However what wasn’t given out to the public was how students could get involved in the summer school academies or what type of academic plans would be implemented to improve reading, math, English, language arts and science as well as social students since students are not achieving in those areas. In fact DPS didn’t release any information as to how teachers who didn’t teach during summer school could obtain some professional learning skills. Also there was no information given to some laid principals and assistant principals as well as those not working summer school on how they could participate in professional development training. In fact the Parent University and the scope of it was not made public knowledge and the reality is who lead the university and what lessons or materials were provided to parents.

Nonetheless, DPS used Title 1 funds to provide these resources by alleging that the entire district was title 1 so he used funds to help those students not meeting requirements for passing the MEAP but there was no information sent out to thousands of parents and students as to how students could enroll and there was no information sent out as to what lessons were actually being taught that were different than the regular school year. Plus there was no list of which schools were actually having summer school so many were under construction all summer with funds from the federal stimulus package passed in February. Still the district did release descriptions and costs for each of the initiatives included within the plan as presented below.

Emergencv Student Achievement Summer School Academies
The Emergency Student Achievement Summer School Academies comprised a series of Title I-eligible initiatives totaling $52,194,084 which was aimed at enhancing the academic programs and provide unprecedented opportunities at DPS this summer for our students, parents, and school staff.

Program for Students $ 40,878,094
This summer program provides structured intervention at all grade levels for Title I eligible students by providing supplemental instruction to assist students in acquiring the skills needed to be successful at the next grade level. This program was designed to be the most comprehensive summer program ever provided to Detroit Public Schools students. The following expanded summer program provided academic interventions at all grade levels and ensure that every student that was falling behind has the opportunity to catch up and succeed. The expanded summer program includes the following:

1. Summer Learning Academy (SLA) will provide academic intervention for students in Grades 3, 5 and 8 who do not meet the Districts Promotion criteria with a focus on Reading, Math and Science. Students with performances levels of 3 or 4 on the MEAP are the target population. This program was augmented by the building level Summer Learning Communities programs, which are available to Grades l,2,4, 6 and 7
Cost-- $20,198,238.

2. Transition Academy will target 8th grade students with MEAP Performance Levels of 3 or 4, who are passing to the 9th grade and are in need of academic support
Cost-- $3,096,408.

3. Credit Recovery classes will be conducted for students who have taken and failed required classes. This summer program also will provide students with tutorial services to improve performance levels
Cost-- $4,868,761.

4. The 9th Grade Academy will be provided for students who have acquired the 45 hours necessary to become a freshman and need to acquire the knowledge and skills to successfully function at the loth Grade level. This program will also serve students who are at risk of dropping out of school through targeted retention efforts
Cost-- $4,112,047.

5. Technology for Carnegie Program will provide laptop carts containing 30 Dell wireless units to support the implementation of Carnegie Cognitive Tutor Algebra 1 program at 20 high schools
Cost- $820,595.

6. Community Use. Costs will include staff assignments based on extended hours for engineering and housekeeping services needed to support summer programs
Cost--- $665,485.

7. ACT Prep. This program is an intensive test preparation which includes a thorough review of all content on the ACT test for 11th and 12th graders. The program reinforces study skills, management skills and provides practice skills in a test like format
Cost-- $3,557,811.

8. Supplemental Educational Services (SES) Summer Program. Free tutoring services will be expanded beyond the standard school year. A summer SES initiative will allow for up to 1,875 SES-eligible students to receive tutoring services through July 27,2009
Cost-- $3,558,750.

Programs for Parents (Parent Involvement) $2,458,698
The following programs will be offered to parents of Title I eligible students:
1. Parent University will offer six training sessions for parents to enable them to support their child's learning of the core academic content through workshops and academic field trips
Cost-- $2,146,787.

2. Kindergarten Kaleidoscope Program will provide training and Ready for Kindergarten kits to parents of pre-schoolers transitioning to kindergarten to educate them on effective strategies to prepare their children to enter kindergarten.
Cost-- $311,911.

Programs for School Staff (Professional Development) $ 2,259,396
The following programs will be offered to support professional development for Title I eligible staff:
1. Role of Instructional Leader series will provide training on ways to implement improvements throughout the Title I schools
Cost--$233,769.

2. Differentiated Instruction Summer Academy training will provide training in all core curriculum areas
Cost--$465,000.

3. Research To Results training will be provided for teachers in High Priority Schools. Training will provide strategies to increase student achievement in Literacy, Math, Science and Social Studies
Cost--$164,918.

4. Technology for Administrators training will provide professional development on applications related to improving student achievement and effective use in classrooms.
Cost--$301,000.

5. Teachers As Leaders series will provide training to teachers at summer school sites on the administrative role and responsibilities and how it all works together with effective instruction
Cost--$447,084.

6. Counselors Creating Climate and Clusters of Support to Increase Student Achievement workshop series will provide training for counselors in areas such as transcript interpretation, data-driven planning, developing a mentoring relationship with students and programming for success
Cost-- $499,68 1.

7. Continuous Improvement series will provide training on the alignment of expectations grade-to-grade and expecting both high standards and high success rates at the same time
Cost--$43,225.

8. Professional Development series for principals and assistant principals will focus on the delivery of high quality instruction and strategies for having comprehensive, clear and accurate student outcome data to drive decision making
Cost--$88,244.

9. Participatory Learning Ages

6: Workshop series emphasizing direct instruction, hands-on experiences with people, objects, events and ideas for language and numeracy readiness
Cost--$16,475.

Activities for Restructured Schools $ 1,070,150
In an effort to change the culture and community of schools designated for Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Restructuring, a complete week of training that is well planned and structured is necessary. Summer professional development sessions will assist restructured schools with transitioning activities and schoolwide plan revisions for academic success. All staff will be submerged into professional development that will move their thinking and planning strengths to a new level. The training will include researched based strategies that will increase student achievement. The school climate issue will be addressed by training school staff, students and parents in the Restorative Practices methodology and training to assist in the building of culture and community in restructured schools.

Increased Preschool Supplement $5,527,746
The increased preschool supplement will provide services to an increased number of eligible Title I students. Students served are those identified as having the most need using educationally-related criteria such as teacher-developed tests and recommendations.

Source of Funds
Detroit Public Schools has projected that Title I funds in the amount of $52,194,084 will be available to support this initiative based on current projections of available funds from the current fiscal year as well as the previous fiscal year, providing a unique opportunity to augment our Title I programs at a time when these services are truly needed. Because this program only serves those students who are eligible for Title I funds, an effort is also underway to seek private foundation support to ensure that the full range of programming is available to all Detroit Public School students. The following table provides a summary of the resources being allocated through this plan and the full plan is attached for your review.

Summary of Plan to Re-Allocate Title I Part A funds
Amount
Use of Title I funds $ 52,194,084

Source of Funds
Unspent 2008-2009 Title I Part A funds
Unallocated carryover from 2007-2008
Total, Source of Funds

Net Available Resources $0

Additional detail with respect to how these funds will be used is provided below:
Redirection of Unspent Funds $ 44,115,854
Spending of Title I Part A funds lags spending plans to a considerable extent. Detroit Public Schools is aggressively accelerating our grant spending. At this point, however, it would be impossible and in some cases irresponsible to fulfill the plans as outlined in the original Consolidated Application because goods or services for which we have planned would not be available in time to support our current students during the regular school year. The proposal by DPS was aimed to preserve the required set aside funding amounts for Professional Development and Parent Involvement. However, the proposal required the Michigan Department of Education (MDE) to approve the reallocation of funds from the amounts set aside for the Choice and Supplemental Educational Services programs to general purpose Title I Uses, which is hereby requested pursuant to guidance issued by the MDE on March 16,2009. Pursuant to that guidance, the Detroit Public Schools has acted to benchmark and monitor Title I funds set aside for SES. DPS has also engaged in several efforts to maximize parental participation in the program. The District notified parents of the opportunities for transferring to other public schools or receiving SES through a mass mailing prior to the beginning of the school year and also included notifications of Choice and SES options on the District's website.

Students and their parents were provided opportunities to transfer their children to another school or to obtain SES through the following initiatives: (a) Notices regarding Choice transfer were distributed 8/01/08; SES notifications were sent to parents by 9/03/08; (b) Methods used to notify parents included mailings, while hard copies of the letter was also available at school offices, the central office and SES fairs; (c) enrollment forms were made available and accessible at the SES Provider Fairs, the SES Office, and school offices; and (d) DPS allowed for open enrollment throughout the school year. DPS will continue to engage in these kind of outreach efforts as we extend the SES program into the summer to ensure that these services are available to as many students as possible. This year, 257 students exercised the Choice option to transfer and approximately 8,443 students are currently receiving SES.

Carryforward of Prior Year Award $ 8,078,230
In FY 2008, the Detroit Public Schools exceeded the allowable Title I carryover threshold by $16,363,554 putting these funds at risk. Working with the Michigan Department of Education, expenses in the amount of $8,285,324 have been identified and are under review as allowable obligations under the identified criteria. The approval of the request would ensure that the remaining un-obligated balance of $8,078,230 is available to support the students of Detroit Public Schools, ensuring that DPS students receive the benefit of all Title I, Part A funds, as Bobb communicated to the State in a letter dated March 31, 2009.

Therefore with the above information and even the information below. Robert Bobb and DPS might have misused and abused Title 1 funds to fund summer academies that didn’t improve the quality of education in DPS considering the district hasn’t talked about any of the programs or lesson plans as well as results of the summer school academies. One would think if the summer school academies were a success than the district would use that as a marketing tool to attract more students and parents to the district. That is just it, the district didn’t use the money properly and the results will be shown if they actually release the information on what was taught and the grades of the students in summer school academies as well as how many students actually attended. Still even if the district doesn’t release that information, when the MEAP scores are given next spring than many within DPS academic office will see just how ineffective the summer school academies were and why many people were paid for educating our youth but weren’t really educating them but were rather babysitting them. This is what we are dealing and why the money that was from Title 1 to educate a select few of students was misused and abused.

Just look at what it was spent on and tell me how many students, parents, teachers and administrators actually benefitted as well as what actual professional development, student learning programs, and parental development materials were provided that will benefit the educational process. These are the questions that need to be asked considering that $52 million plus dollars was used to pay for quote unquote emergency summer school academies and only 11,000 more students than last year were involved in this year’s summer academies. It just doesn’t’ add up and it makes no sense as to how students were chosen to participate outside of not meeting MEAP standards. How was a student’s attendance factored into these decisions as well as GPA and were there any summer school attendance policies as well as how many attendance agents worked summer school to make sure students were in class and in school and not in the hallways or on the streets when they were suppose to be in school. These are the issues that bother me and why I believe that Title 1 funds were misused and abused by DPS yet again and the federal government will be back to Michigan but this time, DPS and the State will be in trouble.

2008-09 Title I Spending Plan Amendments-Summary
Source of Funds
Amount
Unspent 2008-2009 Title I Part A funds
$44,115,854
Unallocated carryover from 2007-2008
8,078,230
Total, Source of Funds
$52,194,084


Use of Funds
$52,194,084
Summer Program

Summer Learning Academy

Transition Academy
20, 198,238
9th Grade Success Academy
3,096,408
Credit Summer School (Credit Recovery)
4,112,047
Technology (Carnegie) to Support Program
4,868,761
Community Use
820,595
Subtotal, Summer Program
665,484

3,557,811
Parent Involvement
3,558,750
Parent Unversity
$40,878,094
Early Childhood Transition

Subtotal, Parent Involvement


2,146,787
Professional Development
311,911
Your Role as Instructional Leader
$2,458,698
Differentiated Instruction Academy

Research to Results

Technology for Administrators
233,769
Teachers as Leaders
465,000
Climates of Support Program
164,918
Continuous Improvement
301,000
Professional Development Series
447,084
Subtotal, Professional Development
499,681

43,225
ACT Preparation Program
88,244

16,475
Supplemental Educational Services
$ 2,259,396


Increased Preschool Supplement
5,527,746


Activities for (5) Reconstituted Schools
1,070,150


Total, Use of Funds
$52,194,084


Net Available Resources
$0


Source:
DPS Summer School Academies
http://www.detroit.k12.mi.us/admin/finance/manager/docs/2009.04.16_Emergency_Student_Achievement_Summer_School_Academies_Letter.pdf.

Reference:
Title I — Improving The Academic Achievement Of The Disadvantaged

SEC. 101. IMPROVING THE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF THE DISADVANTAGED.
Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.) is amended to read as follows:
TITLE I--IMPROVING THE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF THE DISADVANTAGED

SEC. 1001. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE.
The purpose of this title is to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging State academic achievement standards and state academic assessments. This purpose can be accomplished by —

(1) ensuring that high-quality academic assessments, accountability systems, teacher preparation and training, curriculum, and instructional materials are aligned with challenging State academic standards so that students, teachers, parents, and administrators can measure progress against common expectations for student academic achievement;

(2) meeting the educational needs of low-achieving children in our Nation's highest-poverty schools, limited English proficient children, migratory children, children with disabilities, Indian children, neglected or delinquent children, and young children in need of reading assistance;

(3) closing the achievement gap between high- and low-performing children, especially the achievement gaps between minority and nonminority students, and between disadvantaged children and their more advantaged peers;

(4) holding schools, local educational agencies, and States accountable for improving the academic achievement of all students, and identifying and turning around low-performing schools that have failed to provide a high-quality education to their students, while providing alternatives to students in such schools to enable the students to receive a high-quality education;

(5) distributing and targeting resources sufficiently to make a difference to local educational agencies and schools where needs are greatest;

(6) improving and strengthening accountability, teaching, and learning by using State assessment systems designed to ensure that students are meeting challenging State academic achievement and content standards and increasing achievement overall, but especially for the disadvantaged;

(7) providing greater decisionmaking authority and flexibility to schools and teachers in exchange for greater responsibility for student performance;

(8) providing children an enriched and accelerated educational program, including the use of schoolwide programs or additional services that increase the amount and quality of instructional time;

(9) promoting schoolwide reform and ensuring the access of children to effective, scientifically based instructional strategies and challenging academic content;

(10) significantly elevating the quality of instruction by providing staff in participating schools with substantial opportunities for professional development;

(11) coordinating services under all parts of this title with each other, with other educational services, and, to the extent feasible, with other agencies providing services to youth, children, and families; and

(12) affording parents substantial and meaningful opportunities to participate in the education of their children.

SEC. 1002. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY GRANTS- For the purpose of carrying out part A, there are authorized to be appropriated —
(1) $13,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;
(2) $16,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
(3) $18,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
(4) $20,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
(5) $22,750,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and
(6) $25,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2007.

(b) READING FIRST-
(1) READING FIRST- For the purpose of carrying out subpart 1 of part B, there are authorized to be appropriated $900,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the 5 succeeding fiscal years.
(2) EARLY READING FIRST- For the purpose of carrying out subpart 2 of part B, there are authorized to be appropriated $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the 5 succeeding fiscal years.
(3) EVEN START- For the purpose of carrying out subpart 3 of part B, there are authorized to be appropriated $260,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the 5 succeeding fiscal years.
(4) IMPROVING LITERACY THROUGH SCHOOL LIBRARIES- For the purpose of carrying out subpart 4 of part B, there are authorized to be appropriated $250,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the 5 succeeding fiscal years.

(c) EDUCATION OF MIGRATORY CHILDREN- For the purpose of carrying out part C, there are authorized to be appropriated $410,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the 5 succeeding fiscal years.

(d) PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAMS FOR YOUTH WHO ARE NEGLECTED, DELINQUENT, OR AT RISK- For the purpose of carrying out part D, there are authorized to be appropriated $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the 5 succeeding fiscal years.

(e) FEDERAL ACTIVITIES-
(1) SECTIONS 1501 AND 1502- For the purpose of carrying out sections 1501 and 1502, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2002 and each of the 5 succeeding fiscal years.

(2) SECTION 1504-
(A) IN GENERAL- For the purpose of carrying out section 1504, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2002 and for each of the 5 succeeding fiscal years.

(B) SPECIAL RULE- Of the funds appropriated pursuant to subparagraph (A), not more than 30 percent may be used for teachers associated with students participating in the programs described in subsections (a)(1), (b)(1), and (c)(1).

(f) COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL REFORM- For the purpose of carrying out part F, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2002 and each of the 5 succeeding fiscal years.

(g) ADVANCED PLACEMENT- For the purposes of carrying out part G, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums for fiscal year 2002 and each 5 succeeding fiscal year.

(h) SCHOOL DROPOUT PREVENTION- For the purpose of carrying out part H, there are authorized to be appropriated $125,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the 5 succeeding fiscal years, of which —
(1) up to 10 percent shall be available to carry out subpart 1 of part H for each fiscal year; and

(2) the remainder shall be available to carry out subpart 2 of part H for each fiscal year.

(i) SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT- For the purpose of carrying out section 1003(g), there are authorized to be appropriated $500,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the 5 succeeding fiscal years.

SEC. 1003. SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT.
(a) STATE RESERVATIONS- Each State shall reserve 2 percent of the amount the State receives under subpart 2 of part A for fiscal years 2002 and 2003, and 4 percent of the amount received under such subpart for fiscal years 2004 through 2007, to carry out subsection (b) and to carry out the State's responsibilities under sections 1116 and 1117, including carrying out the State educational agency's statewide system of technical assistance and support for local educational agencies.

(b) USES- Of the amount reserved under subsection (a) for any fiscal year, the State educational agency —
(1) shall allocate not less than 95 percent of that amount directly to local educational agencies for schools identified for school improvement, corrective action, and restructuring, for activities under section 1116(b); or

(2) may, with the approval of the local educational agency, directly provide for these activities or arrange for their provision through other entities such as school support teams or educational service agencies.

(c) PRIORITY- The State educational agency, in allocating funds to local educational agencies under this section, shall give priority to local educational agencies that —
(1) serve the lowest-achieving schools;

(2) demonstrate the greatest need for such funds; and

(3) demonstrate the strongest commitment to ensuring that such funds are used to enable the lowest-achieving schools to meet the progress goals in school improvement plans under section 1116 (b)(3)(A)(v).

(d) UNUSED FUNDS- If, after consultation with local educational agencies in the State, the State educational agency determines that the amount of funds reserved to carry out subsection (b) is greater than the amount needed to provide the assistance described in that subsection, the State educational agency shall allocate the excess amount to local educational agencies in accordance with —
(1) the relative allocations the State educational agency made to those agencies for that fiscal year under subpart 2 of part A; or

(2) section 1126(c).

(e) SPECIAL RULE- Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the amount of funds reserved by the State educational agency under subsection (a) in any fiscal year shall not decrease the amount of funds each local educational agency receives under subpart 2 below the amount received by such local educational agency under such subpart for the preceding fiscal year.

(f) REPORTING- The State educational agency shall make publicly available a list of those schools that have received funds or services pursuant to subsection (b) and the percentage of students from each school from families with incomes below the poverty line.

(g) ASSISTANCE FOR LOCAL SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT-
(1) PROGRAM AUTHORIZED- The Secretary shall award grants to States to enable the States to provide subgrants to local educational agencies for the purpose of providing assistance for school improvement consistent with section 1116.

(2) STATE ALLOTMENTS- Such grants shall be allotted among States, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the outlying areas, in proportion to the funds received by the States, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the outlying areas, respectively, for the fiscal year under parts A, C, and D of this title. The Secretary shall expeditiously allot a portion of such funds to States for the purpose of assisting local educational agencies and schools that were in school improvement status on the date preceding the date of enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

(3) REALLOCATIONS- If a State does not receive funds under this subsection, the Secretary shall reallocate such funds to other States in the same proportion funds are allocated under paragraph (2).

(4) STATE APPLICATIONS- Each State educational agency that desires to receive funds under this subsection shall submit an application to the Secretary at such time, and containing such information, as the Secretary shall reasonably require, except that such requirement shall be waived if a State educational agency submitted such information as part of its State plan under this part. Each State application shall describe how the State educational agency will allocate such funds in order to assist the State educational agency and local educational agencies in complying with school improvement, corrective action, and restructuring requirements of section 1116.

(5) LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY GRANTS- A grant to a local educational agency under this subsection shall be —
(A) of sufficient size and scope to support the activities required under sections 1116 and 1117, but not less than $50,000 and not more than $500,000 for each participating school;

(B) integrated with other funds awarded by the State under this Act; and

(C) renewable for two additional 1-year periods if schools are meeting the goals in their school improvement plans developed under section 1116.

(6) PRIORITY- The State, in awarding such grants, shall give priority to local educational agencies with the lowest-achieving schools that demonstrate —
(A) the greatest need for such funds; and

(B) the strongest commitment to ensuring that such funds are used to provide adequate resources to enable the lowest-achieving schools to meet the goals under school and local educational agency improvement, corrective action, and restructuring plans under section 1116.

(7) ALLOCATION- A State educational agency that receives a grant under this subsection shall allocate at least 95 percent of the grant funds directly to local educational agencies for schools identified for school improvement, corrective action, or restructuring to carry out activities under section 1116(b), or may, with the approval of the local educational agency, directly provide for these activities or arrange for their provision through other entities such as school support teams or educational service agencies.

(8) ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS- A State educational agency that receives a grant award under this subsection may reserve not more than 5 percent of such grant funds for administration, evaluation, and technical assistance expenses.

(9) LOCAL AWARDS- Each local educational agency that applies for assistance under this subsection shall describe how it will provide the lowest-achieving schools the resources necessary to meet goals under school and local educational agency improvement, corrective action, and restructuring plans under section 1116.

SEC. 1004. STATE ADMINISTRATION.
(a) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in subsection (b), to carry out administrative duties assigned under parts A, C, and D of this title, each State may reserve the greater of —
(1) 1 percent of the amounts received under such parts; or

(2) $400,000 ($50,000 in the case of each outlying area).

(b) EXCEPTION- If the sum of the amounts appropriated for parts A, C, and D of this title is equal to or greater than $14,000,000,000, then the reservation described in subsection (a)(1) shall not exceed 1 percent of the amount the State would receive, if $14,000,000,000 were allocated among the States for parts A, C, and D of this title.