**Draft Onsite Monitoring Instrument: State Level**

(Last revised May 4, 2006)

This monitoring guidance is intended to provide direction to program
officers of the Office of Migrant Education (OME) in conducting program
reviews of state and local migrant education programs. When monitoring,
program officers look at multiple dimensions of the program. These areas
of inquiry include the:

-   general context within which the program operates,

-   overall organizational structure and design of the program,

-   results achieved by the program,

-   basic program operations (especially compliance with program
    requirements), and

-   resolution of prior findings from audits or program monitoring.

  ------- --------------------- -- ------------ ------ ----------------------- ------- ------ ------------------------- ------- -------
                                                                                                                                

                                                       STATE CONTEXT                                                            

                                                                                                                                

                                                       OVERALL PROGRAM DESIGN                                                   

                                                                                                                                

                                                       PROGRAM RESULTS                                                          

                                                                                                                                

                                   PROGRAM                                                                                      
                                   OPERATIONS                                                                                   

                                                                                                                                

                                                                                                                                

          [a. children to be                           [b. provision of                       [c. fiscal                        
          served]{.smallcaps}                          services]{.smallcaps}                  management]{.smallcaps}           

                                                                                                                                

                                                                                                                                

                                                       PRIOR FINDINGS                                                           
  ------- --------------------- -- ------------ ------ ----------------------- ------- ------ ------------------------- ------- -------

This guidance contains information on monitoring topics within the five
areas of inquiry. Within each area, the issues of interest are divided
into topics, subtopics, and elements. The structure used is simply one
way that the information could be logically grouped. **This instrument
focuses [only]{.underline} on those topics and subtopics that have been
identified as priority areas to be covered during the current monitoring
cycle.**

Each topic is accompanied by key guiding questions, probes for
reviewers, information on the legal basis for the topic (if applicable),
and suggested monitoring procedures. A similar set of information is
provided for subtopics and elements as appropriate.

A list of the topics, subtopics, and elements that may be examined
during a program review is presented on page 3. Reviewers are not
expected to cover all of the topics and subcategories identified in this
list during an on-site review. Instead, reviewers are asked to conduct a
thorough examination of the issues that are considered critical to
"program integrity" and then consider other areas as need or time
permits during the on-site visit. In the list that follows, the program
integrity issues are asterisked ().

Reviewers are encouraged to familiarize themselves with the applicable
statute and regulations for each compliance requirement. Copies of the
relevant statutes, regulations, and policy guidance can be obtained via
the Internet or by contacting your Group Leader. Useful websites include
those provided below.

**[ED Sites]{.underline}**

-   U.S. Department of Education [http://www.ed.gov](http://www.ed.gov/)

-   Office of Elementary and Secondary Education

    <http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oese/index.html>

-   Office of Migrant Education
    <http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oese/ome/index.html>

-   ESEA Statute <http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html>

-   MEP Regulations (begins at 34 CFR 200.81)

    <http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/finrule/2002-4/120202a.pdf>

-   ED's National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)
    [http://nces.ed.gov](http://nces.ed.gov/)

-   Comprehensive Centers <http://www.ccnetwork.org/home.html>

-   ED's Educational Laboratories <http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/>

-   Education Resource Organizations Directory (EROD)

    <http://bcol02.ed.gov/Programs/EROD/org_list_by_territory.cfm>

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR)

    <http://www.ed.gov/policy/fund/reg/edgarReg/edgar.html>

    **[Federal Audit Information]{.underline}**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Circulars A-87 & A-122 <http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/>

-   Audit Compliance Supplement

    2003
    <http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a133_compliance/03/03toc.html>

    2004
    <http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a133_compliance/04/04toc.html>

    **MONITORING TOPICS BY AREA OF INQUIRY**

    **I. PROGRAM RESULTS**

    **Standards and Assessments**

    State Standards

    State Assessment

    Inclusion

    Accommodations

    Reporting

    **Evaluation & Improvement**

    Program Effectiveness

    Program Improvement

    **GPRA Indicators**

    **II. STATE CONTEXT**

    **Education Improvement Agenda**

    **III. OVERALL PROGRAM DESIGN**

    **Migrant Student Population**

    **Migrant Education Program Goals**

    **Organizational Structure & Staffing**

    SEA Level

    LEA Level (includes Local Education Agencies, Regional Offices,
    Intermediate Units)

    **IV. PROGRAM OPERATIONS**

    [A. Children to be Served]{.smallcaps}

    **Identification and Recruitment, Child Eligibility and State
    Childcount**

    Comprehensive recruitment

    Accuracy of COE documentation

    Quality control procedures

    Childcount

    [B. Provision of Services]{.smallcaps}

    **Plan/Application**

    Consolidated or State-Specific

    **Comprehensive Needs Assessment**

    **Service Delivery Plan and Services**

    Authorized Activities

    Priority for Services

    Services to School-age Children

    Regular-Term

    Schoolwide Programs

    Other Projects

    Summer-term

    Services to Preschool-age Children

    Services to Out-of-School Youth

    Other Services (advocacy, professional development, family literacy,
    use of technology, transition to postsecondary education &
    employment)

    Services to Private School Children

    **Coordination**

    Interstate/Intrastate Coordination

    Continuity of Instruction

    Transfer of Student Records

    Coordination Projects (Consortia, Hotline, Tech Grants)

    Coordination with other State and Federal Programs

    Coordination with Title I, Part A

    Coordination with Similar Programs (e.g., Bilingual, Special
    Education, State Grant Programs)

    Interagency Coordination

    **Parental Involvement**

    General Involvement

    Parent Advisory Councils

    [C. Fiscal Management]{.smallcaps}

    **State Administration**

    Subgrants

    Formula

    Local grant applications

    Program Monitoring

    Fiscal Management

    Prohibition against use of funds

    for general aid

    Comparability

    Supplement not supplant

    Tracking expenditures

    GEPA 427

    Reporting

    Performance Report

    Carryover Report

    **Use of Funds**

    State Administrative Funds

    Migrant Program Funds

    Unique Administrative

    Activities

    Allowable Expenses

    **Flexibility**

    ED-Flex (State determined)

    ESEA Waivers (ED determined)

    **V. PRIOR FINDINGS**

    **OME Monitoring Findings**

    **Single Audit Findings**

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **I. PROGRAM RESULTS**

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**TOPIC 1:** **State Assessment(s)**

Question: *Has the State developed and adopted a set of high-quality
yearly assessments, including assessments in at least mathematics and
reading/language arts, to be used in determining the yearly performance
of each local operating agency and school? (Section 200.2 - 200.8).*

Probes: What type of assessment system is the State using? What specific
test(s) are used? What grade levels and subjects are tested? (Section
200.5). When is the test administered?

Are migrant students scoring at the same level as other students on the
State's assessment system? What percentage of migrant students are
meeting or exceeding the proficient level on state assessments? How many
migrant students are moving to the proficient level, each year? If
migrant students are *not* scoring at the same level as other students,
what is the State doing to address this challenge?

How does the SEA coordinate testing or other assessments of migrant
children with the home-based State(s)?

How does the MEP use the State assessment data on migrant children when
making decisions?

**Subtopic 1.1: [Inclusion]{.smallcaps}**

Question: *Are all migrant students included in the state academic
assessment regardless of the amount of time that they have resided in
the State?*

Probes: What are the SEA's written procedures for including migrant
students in the state academic assessment (even if they aren't included
for accountability purposes)? (Section 200.6(c)).

What percentage of the total student population is tested? What number
and percentage of the migrant student population is tested?

Under what conditions are students exempted from taking the state
assessment and what are the criteria for their exclusion (e.g., students
who are limited English proficient, students who have resided in the
school district less than the full academic year)? How does the SEA
ensure that migrant students are not excluded improperly?

**Subtopic 1.2: [Accommodations]{.smallcaps}**

Question: *What type of accommodations in the assessment process, if
any, has the SEA made for migrant children to ensure that they are not
left out of state assessments?*

Probes: Does the State offer any special accommodations for migrant
children (e.g., coordinating testing or other assessments of migrant
children with the home-based State(s), satellite-testing sites, offering
alternative testing dates)?

What accommodations does the SEA provide for English Language Learners?
(Section 200.6(b)).

**Subtopic 1.3: [Reports]{.smallcaps}**

Question: *Does the SEA currently disaggregate assessment data on
migrant children?*

Probes: Does the SEA disaggregate the state-assessment data for migrant
students for

the State? LEA? School? (Section 200.2(b)(10)).

If not, why not? (Section 200.7---the number of migrant students is
insufficient

to yield statistically reliable information, or disaggregated results
would reveal

personally identifiable information about an individual student). What
procedures has the State established to properly code state assessments
so that they may be disaggregated by migrant status? How are these
procedures communicated to schools, teachers, exam proctors, etc.?

How are the results reported? In particular, does the annual State
Report Card contain disaggregated data on the performance of migrant
students on the State assessment? (Section 1111(h)(1)(c). Do local
report cards contain such data (where there are enough students to yield
statistically reliable information and not to reveal personally
identifiable information on individual students)?

**TOPIC 2:** **EVALUATION & IMPROVEMENT**

**Subtopic 2.1: Program Effectiveness**

Question: *What progress has the MEP made in meeting the State's
measurable outcomes*

*and performance targets? (Section 1306(a)(1)(D) & 200.84)*

Probes: Over the last three years, to what degree is the State making
progress in attaining the measurable outcomes in the Comprehensive State
Plan for Service Delivery? Does the MEP show substantial annual progress
in attaining program goals and outcomes? How are results communicated to
local operating agencies, migrant parents, and other key stakeholders?

Question: *How does the SEA evaluate the effectiveness of the MEP by
measuring the*

*[implementation]{.underline} and [results]{.underline} achieved by the
program against the State's measurable outcomes and performance
measures? (Section 1306(a)(1)(D) & 200.84).*

Probes: What evaluation designs are used to evaluate the (1)
[implementation]{.underline} and (2) [results]{.underline} of

the MEP? How frequently is each type of evaluation conducted? Who
conducts the evaluation? What is the program measured against? (Section
1306(a)(1)(D) & 200.84---the State's measurable outcomes and performance
targets). How is the data collected, analyzed, and reported? (Section
200.84---evaluation must be written).

How does the SEA evaluate summer programs and/or support services?

How does the SEA examine the effectiveness of the program relative to
students who have priority for service? (Section 200.84).

To what degree were the measurable outcomes attained? If they were
attained, how likely is it that attainment of the measurable objectives
will help the State achieve the performance targets in its approved
consolidated State application (May 2003 submission)?

Which interventions have been the most successful? How is information on
successful strategies disseminated?

Does the SEA examine trends over time through the use of trend data?

**Subtopic 2.2** **Program Improvement**

Question: *How does the SEA use program evaluation data to continually
improve the program?* *How are the results of the evaluation used to
understand and improve instructional methods and student and school
performance?*

Probes: Who is involved in analyzing and responding to program
evaluation data?

How are the findings from the evaluation used to improve services to
migrant children? (Section 200.85) What is the most recent change that
was made as a result of an evaluation finding? How are program
improvement plans established and communicated?

When the SEA's evaluation identifies areas where improvement is needed,
to what degree does the SEA use scientifically-based research or data to
improve instructional practices and student and school performance?

What kind of follow-up does the SEA provide around the need for program
improvement or implementation of a program improvement plan?

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **II. STATE CONTEXT**

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**TOPIC 3:** **Education Improvement Agenda**

Question: *What is the educational context within which the MEP
operates?*

Probes: Does the State have a plan to guide systemic education
improvement? What are the key components of the State's improvement
agenda?

What is the degree of State control versus local control within the
State, particularly in relation to the State's improvement efforts?

How do federal programs/funds fit into the State's improvement effort?

What level of support exists for the State's improvement effort (among
SEA staff, LEA personnel, the public)?

Is the State's educational improvement agenda working?

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **III. OVERALL PROGRAM DESIGN**

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**TOPIC 4:** **Migrant Student Population**

Question: *What are the demographic characteristics of the eligible
migrant families and children that currently reside in the State?*

Probes: Approximately how many migrant families and children live in the
state?

Which parts of the state do they live in? What type of work do they do?
How are the employment and housing conditions?

How would you describe the migrant child population in terms of health,
education, and welfare?

**TOPIC 5:** **Migrant Education Program Goal**

Question: *What are the SEA's migrant education program goals?*

Question: *What are the SEA's measurable outcomes for the MEP? (Section*

*1306(a)(1)(D)).*

Probes: How did the SEA develop the measurable outcomes? Are they
aligned with

the State's performance targets as found in the May 2003 Consolidated
State

Application submission? Are they sufficiently rigorous to contribute to
the attainment of the State's performance targets?

Have they changed over time? How? Why?

**TOPIC 6:** **Organizational Structure & Staffing**

Question: *How is the MEP organized and staffed for program
administration and operation?*

Probes: [State Level]{.underline}---Review the SEA organization chart.

How is the MEP positioned within the SEA?

Who are the key MEP personnel? What MEP functions do they perform?

Are any MEP functions performed in other units within the SEA? Which
ones?

Do programs other than the MEP fund any staff members? If so, what
programs fund them? What percentage of their time is spent in the MEP?

Are all MEP staff positions filled? If not, why not?

To what degree are MEP staff included on important committees within the

SEA?

[Local Operating Agency Level]{.underline}

How many local operating agencies are there in the State? How many have
migrant projects?

Are there any intermediate levels between the SEA and the local
operating agency (e.g., regional offices, service centers, intermediate
units, fiscal agents)? If so, how are they funded, what functions do
they perform, and what is the reporting relationship?

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **IV. PROGRAM OPERATIONS**

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

A. CHILDREN TO BE SERVED

**TOPIC 7:** **Identification and Recruitment, Child Eligibility and
State Childcount**

**Subtopic 7.1: Comprehensive recruitment**

Question*: How do the SEA and its operating agencies identify and
recruit eligible migrant children?*

Probes: How does the SEA conduct statewide recruitment activities? Does
the State have a statewide recruitment plan? If so, how was it
developed?

Does the SEA employ a statewide recruitment coordinator? Who generally
has the primary responsibility for field-based ID&R activities at the
local/regional level? How many local/regional recruiters are employed
across the State? How many are employed year-round versus summer-only?
Do most recruiters spend all of their time recruiting or do they recruit
part-time in conjunction with other MEP responsibilities? What other
types of job responsibilities do project recruiters usually have?

Does the SEA have a recruitment manual? If so, ask to review it.

What are the primary methods used by local MEP recruiters to identify
and recruit migrant students? How much effort is made to identify and
recruit previously unidentified migrant students?

Does the SEA survey non-project areas? When was the last survey
conducted?

What agencies and data sources does the SEA coordinate with to determine
where migrant families reside? What activities are coordinated? Do other
organizations conduct recruitment activities for the State?

What are the most common qualifying activities? What are the best times
of the year to recruit? Where do most migrant families move from/to?

Is the number of identified migrant students increasing or decreasing?
Why?

**Subtopic 7.2: Accuracy of COE documentation**

Question: *How is child eligibility determined and documented?*

Procedure: [Review COE Form]{.underline}\--Review the physical *COE
form* to ensure that it collects all required information (including
determining whether the qualifying work is a principal means of
livelihood for the family).

[Review Eligibility Determinations for Migrant Children who are
Currently Receiving Services]{.underline}---Review 100 COEs for migrant
children who are currently receiving services for face validity,
accuracy, completeness, logic of responses, thorough explanation of
qualifying employment, adequacy of comments and overall agreement with
the eligibility determination. If the reviewer finds a significant
number of defects, the reviewer may wish to examine a larger sample of
COEs.

**[Verify]{.underline}** **[the Eligibility of]{.underline}** **[Migrant
Children Currently]{.underline}** **[Receiving Services through
Re-interviews]{.underline}---Randomly select 3-5** **COEs** **from the
pool of COEs that were examined and** **re-interview those families to
verify** **each migrant child's** **eligibility for the MEP.** Ask the
parents of the children selected in the sample to discuss the family's
migrant experience.

[Review Eligibility Guidance]{.underline}---Review the State
identification and recruitment manual, State-developed policy guidance
(if any), staff training materials, etc.

**Subtopic 7.3:** **Quality control procedures**

Question: *What quality control procedures does the SEA have in place to
ensure the accuracy of the eligibility determinations?*

Probes: Describe the State's quality control system. OME recommends that
a State's quality control system include the following components (check
all that apply):

\_\_\_Using a standard COE

\_\_\_Making eligibility determinations on the basis of a personal
interview with a parent, guardian or other responsible adult

\_\_\_A regular and comprehensive training program for recruiters

\_\_\_A formal process for reviewing and ensuring the accuracy of
written eligibility information (e.g., peer and/or supervisory review of
all COE forms)

Who reviews COEs? What does the reviewer check? If the State reviews a
sample of COEs, how is the sample drawn? What training do reviewers
receive?

\_\_\_A process for ensuring the quality of interviewers' eligibility
decisions (e.g., re-interviewing a sample of migrant families)

\_\_\_A local and state-level process for resolving eligibility
questions

**[Does the SEA have a process for regularly re-interviewing migrant
families to ensure the correctness of the eligibility
determination?]{.underline}** **\[[Review the design of the sample,
re-interview protocols, persons who conduct the re-interviews, and the
results for the current and previous years.]{.underline}\]**

Has the State calculated a defect rate? How? What types of defects
appeared with the most frequency? How did the SEA follow up?

Does the SEA have procedures in place to address problems/defects that
surface during the review and improve the ID&R process based on
findings?

Has the State updated its student record database (and reports) to
correct data and counts as a result of its quality control procedures?

**Subtopic 7.4** **Childcount**

Question: *How does the SEA generate and ensure the accuracy of the two
unduplicated counts of migrant children it is required to submit to ED
for allocation purposes?*

Procedure: Review the SEA's childcount procedures to ensure that they
conform to the childcount explanation approved by OME.

B. PROVISION OF SERVICES

**TOPIC 8:** **Comprehensive** **Needs Assessment**

Question: *How do the SEA and its local operating agencies identify and
assess the (1) unique needs of migrant children that result from their
migratory lifestyle, and (2) other needs that must be met for migrant
children to participate effectively in school? (Section 200.83).*

Probes: How does the SEA conduct its comprehensive needs assessment? Has
the SEA formed a needs assessment committee? What instruments or tools,
if any, are used?

Does the needs assessment identify the grade levels/instructional areas
on which the program will focus? Select children with the greatest need
for special assistance? Use the results of written or oral tests?
Identify children whose needs are being met by other programs? Assess
resources (e.g., personnel, instructional materials)?

Does the SEA have a written comprehensive needs assessment report? If
so, ask to review it if it was not reviewed prior to the onsite visit,.

How frequently is the needs assessment conducted?

How does the state identify the needs of students who have a priority
for service?

How does the SEA use needs assessment data to determine student and
program needs and service delivery strategies? How do the SEA and local
operating agencies use the results of the needs assessment to determine
what services to provide?

How did the results of the needs assessment affect this year\'s program?
How are the results of the needs assessment conveyed to local operating
agencies?

**TOPIC 9: Comprehensive State Plan for Service Delivery and Provision
of Services**

**Subtopic 9.1:** **Comprehensive State Plan for Service Delivery**

Question: *Does the SEA's Comprehensive State Plan for Service Delivery
describe the strategies*

*that the SEA will pursue on a statewide basis to achieve the State's
measurable outcomes and contribute to the attainment of the State's
performance targets? (Section 200.83).*

Probes: Who was involved in the development of the Comprehensive State
Plan for Service

Delivery? Was the plan developed in consultation with the State parent
advisory council (or with parents for SEAs that don't operate programs
that are a full year duration)?

(Section 200.83(b)).

Does the plan include the following required components:

\_\_\_(1) the [performance targets]{.underline} that the State has
adopted for all children in reading achievement, math achievement, high
school graduation, number of school dropouts, school readiness (where
adopted by the SEA), and any other performance target that the State has
identified,

\_\_\_ (2) a [needs]{.underline} [assessment]{.underline} that
identifies and assesses the unique needs of migratory children that
result from the children's migratory lifestyle and other needs that must
be met for migratory children to participate effectively in school,

\_\_\_ (3) the State's [measurable outcomes]{.underline},

\_\_\_ (4) the statewide [service delivery]{.underline} strategies, and

\_\_\_ (5) the [evaluation]{.underline} of the effectiveness of the
implementation and results of the program in relation to the performance
targets and measurable outcomes? (Section 200.83, 1306(a)(1)(D)).

What else, if anything, is included in the Comprehensive State Plan for
Service Delivery.

If not reviewed prior to the onsite visit, ask to review the
Comprehensive State Plan for Service Delivery.

Are the performance targets, needs assessment results, measurable
program outcomes, service delivery strategies, and evaluation design all
aligned? How were the service delivery strategies selected? What is the
scientific research base? Are the strategies being implemented as
intended in the plan?

Has the plan changed over time? How? Based on what data?

**Subtopic 9.2:** **Priority for services**

Requirement: Recipients of MEP funds must "...give priority to migratory
children who are failing, or most at risk of failing, to meet the
State's challenging State content standards and State student
performance standards, and whose education has been interrupted during
the regular school year." (Title I, Part C, ESEA §1304(d); 20 USC
6394(d).) [Both]{.underline} of these conditions must exist
simultaneously for a migrant child to have "priority for services."

Question: *How do the SEA and its operating agencies ensure that migrant
children who (1) are failing, or at risk of failing, to meet the State's
standards [AND]{.underline} (2) have an educational interruption during
the regular school year are given priority for MEP services?*

Probes: For the purpose of determining "priority for services," how has
the SEA

[defined]{.underline} "at risk of failing to meet the State's standards"
AND "an educational interruption during the regular school year?" If the
SEA has not established a statewide definition, determine how it ensures
that LOAs are in compliance with this requirement. (Section 1304(d)).

Has the SEA developed and issued [guidance and/or
instruction]{.underline} on how to determine (i.e., identify) which
migrant children have priority for services?

How has the SEA [communicated]{.underline} (1) the "priority for
services" requirement, and, if applicable, (2) its guidance to local
projects? (Section 1304(d) and 80.40(a) of EDGAR).

How have local project staff [implemented]{.underline} this requirement
(if applicable, following the guidance or instruction that they received
from the SEA)? (Sections 1304(d) and 80.40(a) of EDGAR).

How has the SEA [monitored]{.underline} local projects' compliance with
the "priority for services" requirement (e.g., ensured that students who
are identified as having a statutory "priority for services" are
actually the first to receive services)? For example, what information,
if any, does the SEA require LOAs to provide on this topic as part of
the local application process? How does the SEA examine compliance with
the priority for services requirement as part of its monitoring and how
are the results of the monitoring used? What number and percentage of
MEP projects are monitored on this topic each year? (Section 80.40(a) of
EDGAR).

For purposes of the [performance report]{.underline}, what procedures
has the SEA established to compile an accurate, unduplicated count of
students identified by local projects as having "priority for services"?
(Section 1303(a) and (e)).

[Related "Priority for Services" Issues:]{.underline}

Is the MEP [needs assessment]{.underline} disaggregated to identify
those children who have priority for services and to identify their
special educational needs? (Sections 1304(d) and 1306(a)).

How has the SEA considered "priority for services" in determining the
amount of [subgrants]{.underline} to local projects? (Section
1304(b)(5)).

How has the SEA [evaluated]{.underline} the effectiveness of its program
for those students who have priority for services? (Sections 1304(c)(5)
and 34 CFR 200.84)).

Procedure: Review all documents and materials submitted by the SEA prior
to the review on priority

for services. Interview the SEA and LEAs to determine how priority for
services determinations are made (i.e., the criteria used to select
children to receive MEP services). Request a list of all of the migrant
children who have priority of services and select a sample of those
children. Review program records to determine if these children were
provided MEP services. \[Note: The reviewer should be aware that because
of the time of year in which the MEP program may operate (e.g. in the
summer), an SEA or LEA may not have any children who have priority for
services.\]

**TOPIC 10: Coordination**

**Subtopic 10.1:** **[Continuity of Instruction]{.smallcaps}**

Question: *How does the SEA promote continuity in the provision of
instruction and related support services for migrant children as they
move across school districts and States, including the transfer of
credits for high school students? (Section 1304(b)(3)).*

Probes: Where do the migrant students in this state move from/to?

How does the SEA help students meet the academic requirements in their
\"home\" school districts, including preparing for and taking required
competency exams, where applicable?

How do sending/receiving schools provide for continuity of instruction
for migrant children whose education has been interrupted during the
school year?

How does the SEA request and transmit student records both within the
State and with other States?

**C. FISCAL MANAGEMENT**

**TOPIC 11: State Administration**

**Subtopic 11.1:** **Subgrants---F[ormula]{.smallcaps}**

Question: *How does the SEA allocate its MEP funds to its local
operating agencies?*

*(Section 1304(b)(5)).*

Probes: What is the SEA's general approach to subgranting (e.g.,
formula, application driven, negotiation)?

What factors are included in the SEA's subgranting process? (check all
that apply---all are required)

\_\_\_(1) the numbers of migrant children;

\_\_\_(2) the educational and educationally-related needs of migrant
children;

\_\_\_(3) the statutory priority to first serve children who are
failing, or most at risk of failing to meet the State's challenging
State academic content standards, [and]{.underline} whose education has
been interrupted during the regular school year; and

\_\_\_(4) the availability of funds from other Federal, State, and local
programs.

What other factors, if any, does the SEA use to determine the amount of
subgrants?

How are these factors applied (e.g., what weight is given to each factor
in the funding formula)?

**Subtopic 11.2:** **Program monitoring**

Question: *How does the SEA monitor its subgrants? (Section 80.40(a)).*

Probes: What process does the SEA use to review LOAs (e.g., MEP-specific
reviews, cross-program reviews)? How frequently are LOAs monitored? Is
the monitoring on schedule? What does the SEA review? Does the SEA use a
comprehensive monitoring instrument that covers all major MEP compliance
issues? \[Review monitoring instrument.\] Does the SEA use the results
of A-133 audits when monitoring?

Do LOAs receive a written monitoring report that identifies review
findings? \[Review reports.\] What findings has the SEA identified
within the past year? How has each of these findings been resolved? How
does the SEA document that required or recommended actions have been
taken? \[Review documentation.\]

Have any MEP grantees been identified as high-risk through monitoring?
If so, what were the consequences of such identification? Has the SEA
identified any MEP requirements that LOAs are having difficulty
implementing? What? Why?

What technical assistance has the SEA provided to LOAs in the preceding
year?

**TOPIC 12: Use of Funds**

**Subtopic 12.1:** **Migrant Program Funds---U[nique Administrative
Activities]{.smallcaps}**

Question: *Are MEP-specific funds retained at the SEA level used only
for unique program administrative activities, as noted in §200.82 of the
regulations, or are these funds also used for the general administration
of the MEP?*

Probes: If MEP funds are retained at the SEA level for unique program
administrative activities, how much is retained?

What unique program functions do these funds support? (e.g., ID&R,
records transfer)

Which staff within the SEA, if any, are paid with program funds? For
what percentage of their time? What functions do they perform? (Section
200.82).

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **V. PRIOR FINDINGS**

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**TOPIC 13:** **GENERAL DISCLOSURE**

Question: ***Have any allegations of fraud, waste, abuse, or impropriety
been made within the last 3***

***years that would have a bearing on the SEA, region, or LOA\'s fitness
or ability to properly administer the MEP?***

**TOPIC 14:** **OME MONITORING FINDINGS**

Question: *What were the areas in which recommendations or corrective
actions were made*

*during the previous Federal review? Have all required or recommended
actions been completed? If not, why not? (Department of Education
Organization Act).*

**TOPIC 15:** **SINGLE AUDIT FINDINGS**

Question: *How is the SEA's administration of the MEP audited? How does
the SEA ensure that OMB's A-133 Single Audit requirements are met for
all LOAs that receive over \$500,000 per year in federal funds
(\$300,000 for fiscal years ending on or before December 31, 2003)? (34
CFR 80.26, OMB Circular A-133, paragraph 420(d))*

Probes: How often is the SEA's administration of the MEP audited? When
did the last audit occur? What was covered?

Are A-133 Single Audits conducted annually for LOAs that receive over
\$500,000 per year in federal funds (\$300,000 for fiscal years ending
on or before December 31, 2003)? In which LOAs has the MEP been selected
as a "major federal program" for audit purposes (only those programs
that are selected as a "major federal program" undergo a full fiscal and
programmatic audit)? Who conducts the audits? Does the SEA receive and
review all audit reports?

How does the SEA monitor LOAs that are not selected as a "major federal
program" for audit purposes to determine whether they have managed and
expended federal grant funds appropriately?

Question: *Does the SEA or any of its local operating agencies have
outstanding audit exceptions that affect the MEP? (34 CFR 80.26, OMB
Circular A-133, paragraph 420(d))*

Probes: What audit exceptions have been identified within the past three
years?

What procedures does the SEA follow to ensure that corrective action is
taken on audit findings (i.e., how does it follow-up on A-133 audit
reports?) Have any trends been observed? If so, what procedures has the
SEA put in place to ensure that similar problems do not occur in other
LOAs?

Have all outstanding audit findings been resolved? If not, why?

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **VII. OTHER TOPICS TO BE MONITORIED (as determined by Program
  Officer)**

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

-   **\_\_\_ STATE STANDARDS**

-   **\_\_\_ CONSOLIDATED APPLICATION (AMENDMENTS)**

-   **\_\_\_ AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES**

-   **\_\_\_ SERVICES TO SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN**

-   **\_\_\_ SERVICES TO PRE-SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN**

-   **\_\_\_ SERVICES TO OUT-OF-SCHOOL YOUTH**

-   **\_\_\_ OTHER SERVICES**

-   **\_\_\_ SERVICES TO PRIVATE SCHOOL CHILDREN**

-   **\_\_\_ TRANSFER OF MIGRANT STUDENT RECORDS**

-   **\_\_\_ COORDINATION OF PROJECTS**

-   **\_\_\_ COORDINATION WITH TITLE I, PART A**

-   **\_\_\_ COORDINATION WITH SIMILAR PROGRAMS**

-   **\_\_\_ INTERAGENCY COORDINATION**

-   **\_\_\_ PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT (GENERAL)**

-   **\_\_\_ PARENT ADVISORY COUNCILS**

-   **\_\_\_ LOCAL GRANT APPLICATIONS**

-   **\_\_\_ FISCAL MANAGEMENT**

-   **\_\_\_ REPORTING**

-   **\_\_\_ STATE ADMINISTRATIVE FUNDS**

-   **\_\_\_ FLEXIBILITY**