State Schools Chief Tom Torlakson Disappointed By Federal Decision
Limiting Local Control over Programs to Help Low-Income Students
SACRAMENTO—A U.S. Department of Education decision denying California a waiver that has been given to 43 states and eight large districts in California reduces the access of academically struggling students to high-quality programs and prevents districts from designing programs that best suit their students’ needs, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson said today.
"California has led the way in giving districts the opportunity to make their own decisions about how best to use state and local resources to meet their local needs," he said. "Unfortunately, this decision goes in the other direction and retains policies that significantly limit local control and decision-making, and reduce student access to high-quality extended-day instruction."
California requested a four-year waiver of the provisions of Section 1116 (e) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) regarding supplemental educational services. Some districts are required to provide these services using 20 percent of Title I federal funds, which are allocated based on the number of students eligible for free or reduced-priced lunches.
The code section set up a system that largely relies on private providers to assist students away from school. During three school years, California schools spent about $507 million on this program with little evidence to show improved academic performance by students who participated.
California sought to allow those districts to decide how best to provide instruction outside the regular school day. Under the proposal by both the California Department of Education and the State Board of Education, the instruction would be developed and administered by districts, which would rely on highly qualified teachers to design and monitor the programs. In addition, districts would be more likely to offer the assistance on a school site, making it more convenient for parents and giving teachers continuous feedback about student progress. Districts also would be free to continue to use private providers.
"We strongly believe decisions about how and where to provide services to students are best made at the local level," said Torlakson. "Districts are in the best position to design extended-day intervention strategies to provide assistance to low-income students who are struggling academically in subjects such as English language arts, mathematics, and science."
Currently, the U.S. Congress is considering two separate pieces of legislation that would reauthorize the ESEA. Torlakson noted that neither bill retains the current requirement of setting aside 20 percent of Title I funds for supplemental educational services. Consequently, under both bills districts would have more say than they do now over spending decisions and programs involving low-income students who are struggling academically.
"California has led the way in giving districts the opportunity to make their own decisions about how best to use state and local resources to meet their local needs," he said. "Unfortunately, this decision goes in the other direction and retains policies that significantly limit local control and decision-making, and reduce student access to high-quality extended-day instruction."
California requested a four-year waiver of the provisions of Section 1116 (e) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) regarding supplemental educational services. Some districts are required to provide these services using 20 percent of Title I federal funds, which are allocated based on the number of students eligible for free or reduced-priced lunches.
The code section set up a system that largely relies on private providers to assist students away from school. During three school years, California schools spent about $507 million on this program with little evidence to show improved academic performance by students who participated.
California sought to allow those districts to decide how best to provide instruction outside the regular school day. Under the proposal by both the California Department of Education and the State Board of Education, the instruction would be developed and administered by districts, which would rely on highly qualified teachers to design and monitor the programs. In addition, districts would be more likely to offer the assistance on a school site, making it more convenient for parents and giving teachers continuous feedback about student progress. Districts also would be free to continue to use private providers.
"We strongly believe decisions about how and where to provide services to students are best made at the local level," said Torlakson. "Districts are in the best position to design extended-day intervention strategies to provide assistance to low-income students who are struggling academically in subjects such as English language arts, mathematics, and science."
Currently, the U.S. Congress is considering two separate pieces of legislation that would reauthorize the ESEA. Torlakson noted that neither bill retains the current requirement of setting aside 20 percent of Title I funds for supplemental educational services. Consequently, under both bills districts would have more say than they do now over spending decisions and programs involving low-income students who are struggling academically.
# # # #
Tom Torlakson — State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Communications Division, Room 5206, 916-319-0818, Fax 916-319-0100
Communications Division, Room 5206, 916-319-0818, Fax 916-319-0100
Big Education Ape: SES IS A MESS: State’s ESEA waiver request related to tutoring requirement denied | EdSource http://bit.ly/1L714f6
California Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program
The Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, administered by the California Dept of Education, provides schools with funding to offer students a free fresh fruit or vegetable snack during the school day.
The Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP) is a reimbursement grant program that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) administers at the federal level. At the state level, the California Department of Education (CDE) Nutrition Services Division (NSD) administers the FFVP and selects schools to receive a year-long grant (July–June) to implement the program. The purpose of this federal assistance program is to provide an additional free fresh fruit or vegetable snack to students during the school day as a supplement to (and not part of) the School Breakfast Program (SBP) and National School Lunch Program (NSLP), and to teach students about good nutrition. The FFVP also encourages grantees to develop partnerships at the state and local level for support in implementing and operating the program.
The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Farm Bill) amended the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act by adding Section 19, the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program. Section 19 authorized the program nationwide to 50 states (as well as the District of Columbia and the territories of Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands) and provided significant funding increases, beginning with $40 million in Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2009 and growing to $150 million by 2012. After FFY 2012, annual changes are made in accordance with the Consumer Price Index.
Contact Us
For questions regarding the content of this Web page, please contact the FFVP team by phone at 800-952-5609 or by e-mail atFFVP@cde.ca.gov.Background
Program History
The FFVP began as the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program, authorized by Congress under the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-171) in a limited number of states and schools. The purpose of the pilot was to identify best practices for increasing fresh fruit and vegetable consumption among students and to determine feasibility and student interest.The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Farm Bill) amended the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act by adding Section 19, the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program. Section 19 authorized the program nationwide to 50 states (as well as the District of Columbia and the territories of Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands) and provided significant funding increases, beginning with $40 million in Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2009 and growing to $150 million by 2012. After FFY 2012, annual changes are made in accordance with the Consumer Price Index.
Program Goals
The goal of the FFVP is to improve healthier school environments by providing healthier food choices, and to:- Expand the fruits and vegetables children experience
- Increase children’s fruit and vegetable consumption
- Make a difference in children’s diets to affect their present and future health
Program Funding
California first participated in the FFVP in July 2008 with 24 pilot schools and the program continues to grow each year:- Received $12.2 million in SY 2015–16 and funded 371 school sites
- Received $11.98 million in SY 2014–15 and funded 367 school sites
- Received $11.3 million in SY 2013–14 and funded 367 school sites
- Received $11.2 million in SY 2012–13 and funded 342 school sites
- Received $10.8 million in SY 2011–12 and funded 315 school sites
- Received $7.6 million in SY 2010–11 and funded 209 school sites
- Received $5 million in SY 2009–10 and funded 144 school sites
- Received an additional $2.5 million in October 2008 and funded an additional 107 schools during School Year (SY) 2008–09
- Received $184,101 in July 2008 and funded 24 pilot schools
Questions: Nutrition Services Division | 800-952-5609
