Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Programs And Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District outlines nine summer programs, clarifies Title I spending and parent‑liaison distribution
Summary
Clayton County officials detailed nine summer programs (SLA has 2,100+ enrolled; sites and registration windows announced) and gave a Title I briefing: 2026 allocation $28.36M, required set‑asides, 158 Title I‑funded positions and monitoring requirements; board members pressed on parent‑liaison coverage and carryover rules.
Clayton County Public Schools on May 26 presented plans for summer learning and a detailed Title I briefing to the Board of Education.
Erikica Johnson summarized summer offerings: nine programs serving preK–12 focused on academics, STEM and fine arts. The Summer Learning Academy (SLA) — the largest program — had over 2,100 students enrolled and will operate at five elementary sites (Anderson, Brown, Haney, Kilpatrick, Oliver) and one middle‑school site at Jonesboro. SLA is 15 days, six hours per day; some other camps vary from one week to multiple weeks depending on program type. Johnson announced on‑site registration this Friday (9–11 a.m. and 1–3 p.m.) and first‑day registration Monday, June 1 (10 a.m.–1 p.m.). She said summer interns will be hired at $15/hour.
On Title I funding, Miss Thompson told the board the district’s Title I allocation for the 2025–26 year increased to approximately $28.36 million (an increase of about $1.1M from the prior year). She outlined required set‑asides (McKinney‑Vento homeless liaison, foster care transportation support, neglected and delinquent programs), described allowable uses—supplemental instruction, parent and family engagement, professional development—and noted about 158 Title I‑funded positions districtwide (including roughly 82 instructional coaches and 54 parent liaisons).
Board members asked whether parent‑liaison positions are active during summer programs; Johnson replied there are no parent liaisons embedded in summer sites but virtual open houses and site facilitator communications are planned. Members pressed why some schools lost parent‑liaison positions; the district explained allocations are based on October FTE counts and poverty measures, and schools make staffing decisions within the constraints of their CIP and allocated Title I funding. Thompson emphasized monitoring and documentation requirements and said the district aims to spend about 80% per grant year to preserve a legally allowed carryover.
Why it matters: Summer programming affects thousands of students’ learning time and childcare planning; Title I funding and staff distributions affect school‑level services for high‑need students. Board members signaled continued interest in ensuring equitable distribution of parent engagement staff and clearer local reporting to track how Title I funds are allocated by school.
Ending: The district will continue outreach for summer registration and will provide additional board training and documentation on Title I allocations and carryover rules.
