Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/1330579/description-tags-mnrpt
Timestamp: 2018-06-20 19:33:28
Document Index: 506537101

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 3', 'art 3', 'art 1', 'art 2', '§6111', 'art 200', '§200', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 1', 'art 1']

description: tags: mnrpt | Elementary And Secondary Education Act | No Child Left Behind Act
description: tags: mnrpt
Uploaded by anon-191076
Minnesota Department of Education August 9 - 13, 2004 Scope of Review: The U.S.
Department of Education’s (ED) Student Achievement and School Accountability (SASA) team monitored the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) the week of August 9 – 13, 2004. This was a comprehensive review of MDE’s administration of the following programs authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB): Title I, Part A; Title I, Part B, Subpart 3; and Title I, Part D. Also reviewed was Title X, Part C, Subtitle B, of the ESEA (also known as the McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Assistance Improvements Act of 2001). In conducting this comprehensive review, the ED team carried out a number of major activities. In its review of the Title I, Part A program, the ED team analyzed evidence of implementation of the State accountability system, reviewed the effectiveness of the instructional improvement and instructional support measures established by the State to benefit local educational agencies (LEAs) and schools, and reviewed compliance with fiscal and administrative oversight activities required of the State educational agency (SEA). During the onsite review, the ED team visited two LEAs – Minneapolis Public Schools (MPS) and St. Paul Public Schools (SPPS). In both school districts, the ED team interviewed administrative staff from schools that were identified for improvement and also private school officials. The ED team also conducted a meeting with parents in both school districts. Upon its return to Washington, DC, the ED team conducted conference calls with two additional LEAs (Duluth and Red Lake) to gather additional information on issues identified during the onsite review. In its review of the Title I, Part B, Subpart 3 Even Start program, the ED team examined the State’s request for proposals, State Even Start guidance, State indicators of program quality, and the most recent applications and local evaluations for three local projects located in St. Paul, Osseo, and Shakopee. During the onsite review, the ED team visited these three sites and interviewed administrative and instructional staff. The ED team also interviewed the Minnesota Even Start State Coordinator to confirm information obtained at the local sites and to discuss State administration issues. In its review of the Title I, Part D program, the ED team examined the State’s application for funding, procedures and guidance for State agency (SA) applications under Subpart 1 and LEA applications under Subpart 2, technical assistance provided to SAs and LEAs, the State’s oversight and monitoring plan and activities, SA and LEA subgrant plans and local evaluations for projects in Minneapolis, Hopkins Public Schools, as well as programs run by the State Department of Corrections. The ED team visited these sites and interviewed administrative, program and teaching staff. The ED team also interviewed the Title I, Part D Minnesota State coordinator to confirm information obtained at the local sites and discuss administration of the program. Upon its return to
Washington, DC, the ED team made conference calls to Willmar Public Schools to gather additional information on issues identified during the onsite review. In its review of the Education for Homeless Children and Youth program (Title X, Part C, Subtitle B), the ED team examined the State’s procedures and guidance for the identification, enrollment and retention of homeless students, technical assistance provided to LEAs with and without subgrants, the State’s McKinney-Vento application, and LEA applications for subgrants and local evaluations for projects in MPS and St. Louis Park (SLP). The ED team visited these sites and interviewed administrative and program staff, and parents. The ED team also interviewed the Minnesota McKinneyVento State coordinator to confirm information obtained at the local sites and discuss administration of the program. The ED team also made conference calls to Bemidji Public Schools to gather additional information on issues identified during the onsite review. Previous Audit Findings: None. Previous Monitoring Findings: ED last reviewed Title I, Part A programs in Minnesota in 1996 as part of a Federal integrated review initiative. There was one finding related to the criteria used to select children for participation in Title I targeted assistance schools. ED has not previously conducted a comprehensive review of the Even Start, Neglected/Delinquent Youth, or Education for Homeless Children and Youth programs in Minnesota.
Summary of Title I, Part A Monitoring Indicators
Monitoring Area 1, Title I, Part A: Accountability Indicator Number 1.1 Critical element Status The SEA has approved academic content standards for all Met requirements* required subjects or an approved timeline for developing them. The SEA has approved academic achievement standards and Met requirements* alternate academic achievement standards in required subject areas and grades or an approved timeline to create them. The SEA has approved assessments and alternate assessments Met requirements* in required subject areas and grades or an approved timeline to create them. The SEA has implemented all required components as Met requirements identified in its accountability workbook. N.B. Report card requirements are addressed separately (1.5). The SEA has published an annual report card and ensured Met requirements that LEAs have published annual report cards as required. The SEA indicates how funds received under Grants for State Met requirements Assessments and related activities (§6111) will be or have been used to meet the 2005-06 and 2007-08 assessment requirements of NCLB. The SEA ensures that LEAs meet all requirements for Met requirements identifying and assessing the academic achievement of limited English proficient students. * Minnesota meets the approved timeline requirements for this area. However, approval of the State’s evidence submission for this area is pending ED receipt and review of additional information requested of Minnesota, and then final approval by the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE). Page N/A
Monitoring Area 2, Title I, Part A: Instructional Support Indicator Number 2.1 Critical element The SEA designs and implements policies and procedures that ensure the hiring and retention of qualified paraprofessionals. The SEA provides or provides for technical assistance for LEAs and schools as required. The SEA establishes a Committee of Practitioners and involves the committee in decision-making as required. The SEA ensures that the LEA and schools meet parental involvement requirements. The SEA ensures that schools and LEAs are identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring as required and that subsequent, required steps are taken. The SEA ensures that requirements for public school choice are met. The SEA ensures that the statutory requirements for the provision of supplemental educational services (SES) are met. The SEA ensures that LEAs and schools develop schoolwide programs that use the flexibility provided to them by law to improve the academic achievement of all students in the school. The SEA ensures that LEAs and schools develop and maintain targeted assistance programs that meet all required components. Status Findings Page 6
2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5
Finding Recommendation Finding Commendation Findings
Finding Recommendation Commendation Finding
Monitoring Area 3, Title I, Part A: Fiduciary responsibilities Indicator Number 3.1 Critical element The SEA ensures that its component LEAs are audited annually, if required, and that all corrective actions required through this process are fully implemented. The SEA complies with the allocation, reallocation, and carryover provisions of Title I. The SEA complies with the maintenance of effort provisions of Title I. The SEA ensures that LEAs comply with the comparability provisions of Title I. The SEA ensures that LEAs provide Title I services to eligible children attending private schools. The SEA has a system for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information disseminated by the agency. The SEA has an accounting system for administrative funds that includes (1) State administration, (2) reallocation, and (3) reservation of funds for school improvement. The SEA has a system for ensuring fair and prompt resolution of complaints. The SEA ensures that the LEA complies with the rank order procedures for the eligible school attendance area. The SEA conducts monitoring of its subgrantees sufficient to ensure compliance with Title I program requirements. The LEA complies with the provision for submitting an annual plan to the SEA. The SEA and LEA comply with requirements regarding the reservation of administrative funds. The SEA ensures that Title I funds are used only to supplement or increase non-Federal sources used for the education of participating children and not to supplant funds from non-Federal sources. Status Met Requirements Page N/A
3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6
Met Requirements Met Requirements Met Requirements Findings Met Requirements
N/A N/A N/A 11 N/A
3. 8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13
Finding Met Requirements Finding Met Requirements Met Requirements Met Requirements
12 N/A 12 N/A N/A N/A
Title I, Part A Monitoring Area 1: Accountability Please see above chart. Title I, Part A Monitoring Area 2: Instructional Support Indicator 2.1 – The SEA designs and implements procedures that ensure the hiring and retention of qualified paraprofessionals and ensure that parents are informed of educator credentials as required. Finding (1): MDE has established standards for paraprofessionals to meet requirements which include demonstrating, through a formal State or local assessment, their content area knowledge in reading, writing, and math as well as their ability to assist in the instruction of those subjects. MDE allows LEAs to certify that paraprofessionals have met required core competencies by validating portfolios created by the paraprofessionals. However, MDE has not developed consistent evaluation criteria and provided LEAs with adequate guidance or guidelines for implementing this option. Doing so will ensure that LEAs have consistent criteria for evaluating portfolios throughout the State. Citation: Section 1119(c) requires instructional support paraprofessionals hired after January 8, 2002 to have completed at least two years of study at an institution of higher education; obtained an associate’s degree or higher; or met a rigorous standard of quality, and can demonstrate – through a formal State or local academic assessment – knowledge of, and the ability to assist in instructing, as appropriate – reading/language arts, writing, and mathematics; or reading readiness, writing readiness, and mathematics readiness. Further Action Required: MDE has permitted each superintendent or designee to validate the portfolios of paraprofessionals as a way for them to demonstrate, through a formal local academic assessment, their competencies. As a result, MDE must demonstrate to ED that it has created consistent standards and criteria for LEAs making this judgment to ensure uniform application of this process throughout the State. Finding (2): MDE has not ensured that MPS and the SPPS notify parents when a teacher who does not meet the highly qualified standard has taught their children for four or more consecutive weeks. Citation: Section 1111(h)(6)(B)(ii) requires LEAs that receive funds under this part to notify parents when their child has been assigned, or has been taught for four or more consecutive weeks by a teacher who is not highly qualified. Further Action Required: MDE must ensure that LEAs have informed parents in a timely manner when their children have been taught for four or more consecutive weeks by a teacher who is not highly qualified. MDE must provide to ED an explanation of the
infrastructure that is in place that ensures that LEAs are aware when a teacher is assigned to any class for which s/he is not highly qualified for four or more consecutive weeks. In addition, MDE must provide a copy of the letter sent to parents from both the MPS and the SPPS informing them that their child’s teacher does not meet the highly qualified standard for the subject being taught. Indicator 2.2 – The SEA provides or provides for technical assistance to LEAs and schools as required. Finding: MDE’s statewide system of support and improvement for LEAs and schools employs school support teams to assist schools identified for improvement. However, the composition of these teams and their assigned work do not meet statutory requirements. Citation: Section 1117(a) requires States to establish a statewide system of intensive and sustained support and improvement for LEAs and schools receiving funds under this part to include school support teams that are assigned to and work in schools in the State, prioritized by the State according to their degree of need, as stipulated in section 1117(a)(2). The statute also stipulates the composition of the school support teams in section 1117(a)(5) as well as the functions of the teams. Further Action Required: For the 2004-2005 school year, MDE must create school support teams as required by the law; must prioritize schools and LEAs based on their needs; and must ensure that each school support team provides the types of assistance outlined in the above-mentioned section. ED requires documentation of the school support teams, their school assignments, the prioritized list and an explanation of the list, and the teams’ planned activities for the year. Recommendation: ED saw evidence that MDE recognizes and makes appropriate use of distinguished or accomplished educators in the State. Through the State’s star system, MDE is also able to publicly acknowledge the success of individual schools. The ED team recommends that the MDE develop and publicize consistent criteria for identifying distinguished educators and for recognizing and rewarding distinguished schools. Guidelines for doing so may be found in section 1117(b). Indicator 2.3 – The SEA establishes a Committee of Practitioners and involves the committee in decision making as required. Finding: MDE has not included parents in its membership of the Committee of Practitioners. Citation: Section 1903(b)(2) stipulates that each Committee of Practitioners shall include parents.
Further Action Required: MDE must expand the membership of its Committee of Practitioners to include parents and submit a revised list that includes all required members. Indicator 2.4 – The SEA ensures that the LEA and schools meet parental involvement requirements. Commendation: MDE, as evidenced through MPS and SPPS, has supported the use of multiple media, (print, radio address, public forums), to inform parents, including parents of English language learners (ELL), and involve them in the education of their children. In addition, both districts translate print material into multiple languages, make significant efforts to help parents attend school meetings, and display sensitivity to the needs of specific populations within their districts. Indicator 2.5 – The SEA ensures that schools and LEAs are identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring as required and that subsequent, required steps are taken. Finding (1): MDE has not ensured that the school improvement plans for the schools in need of improvement contain all of the required components, as evidenced by the improvement plans reviewed in MPS and SPPS. Citation: Section 1116(b)(3) requires each school identified for school improvement to develop or revise a school plan. The school plan must include at least the ten components described in this section. Further Action Required: ED recognizes that in Minnesota schools may be required to meet local, State, and federal requirements with the contents of their school plans. From ED’s perspective, in cases where a school is both a schoolwide program and a school identified for improvement under the ESEA, it is permissible and advisable for the school to create a single plan as long as all requirements of both are met; doing so allows the school to concentrate its efforts on a single set of goals and strategies. ED also advises the MDE to provide guidance to LEAs regarding how schools may create and use one plan that meets the requirements of the LEA, the SEA, and the ESEA. Regardless of the format that the SEA chooses to provide or recommend to the LEAs, the SEA must provide guidance on writing school improvement plans that meet the statutory requirements. ED requests a copy of the guidance offered by MDE on composing the required plans as well as one copy of a revised plan from both MPS and SPPS. MDE will meet the requirements for this finding as well as the finding in 2.8 (below) if it chooses to complete this action with one consolidated plan. Finding (2): MDE provided guidance to its LEAs regarding the need to provide information to parents of students attending schools identified as in need of improvement. However, MDE did not ensure that eligible parents in SPPS and MPS were provided all of the required information about schools that were identified as in need of improvement, including why the schools were so identified, how they compared to other schools in the
district, and what is being done to remedy the problems. In addition, LEAs are required to inform eligible parents of their option to transfer their child from schools based on the schools’ identification as in need of improvement. Citation: Section 1116(b)(6) requires LEAs to promptly provide to parents an explanation of the identification of their schools that includes how each school compares to other schools in the LEA and the State academically; why the school has been identified; how the school is addressing the problem and what the LEA and SEA are doing to help the school; how parents can be involved in addressing the problem; and an explanation of the parents’ options to transfer their child to another school and, if applicable, obtain supplemental educational services. Further Action Required: MDE must ensure that all of its LEAs provide notice to eligible parents of the identification of their schools for improvement, in accordance with statutory requirements. MDE must provide to ED evidence of additional guidance to LEAs on this topic as well as copies of the notification letters sent to parents in MPS, SPPS and Red Lake SD. Indicator 2.6 – The SEA ensures that requirements for public school choice are met. Finding: School districts in Minnesota give students in schools identified for improvement priority under the State’s public school choice system. However, school districts have not informed parents that they may opt for public school choice as a result of a school’s identification for improvement. Additionally, in MPS and SPPS, parents were not notified of the school’s identification for improvement, until after the beginning of the school year. It is not sufficient for LEAs to rely upon the current State system of school choice to address this requirement. Parents must be informed, before the beginning of the school year, that they may opt for school choice because of a school’s identification for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring. Citation: Section 1116(b)(E) requires LEAs to provide all students in schools identified for improvement with the opportunity to transfer to another public school not later than the first day of the school year following the identification. Further Action Required: ED requires that MDE provide evidence that parents of eligible students from MPS, SPPS, and Red Lake SD were notified of their school choice options, as required, by submitting a copy of one letter sent to parents in each of these districts. ED also requires that MDE provide an explanation of how they plan to meet this requirement of notifying parents of their options for school choice in a timely manner in future years. Indicator 2.7 – The SEA ensures that requirements for the provision of supplementary educational services (SES) are met. Recommendations: The Red Lake SD was not able to provide supplemental educational services (SES) to its eligible students during the 2003-2004 school year. While MDE
appears to have made significant efforts to remedy this situation, ED encourages the State to continue looking for ways to provide SES in rural school districts, especially as the need grows. During the site visit, the ED team heard several reports from school officials that indicated the lack of a connection between the SES and the students’ regular academic program as well as some concern over the quality of the SES. ED recommends that MDE continue to work on its plans for monitoring and, if appropriate, withdrawing SES providers in order to have a system of services that will truly meet the needs of the participating students within their participating school districts. ED encourages MDE to provide LEAs with additional guidance on implementing SES, including examples of student progress reports and district-provider contracts, which would help the State monitor its providers in addition to making sure that students receive appropriate services. Commendation: Although ED has made recommendations on improving the implementation of SES in specific areas, ED would also like to commend the MDE, as evidenced through MPS and SPPS, for its efforts to ensure that SES operate as required and intended. The LEAs went beyond the requirements of the law to inform parents of the services, provide them information on the providers, and help them to select and access the services. Additionally, the State has made significant efforts to reach out to potential providers and inform them of the opportunities to apply to the State. Indicator 2.8 – The SEA ensures that LEAs and schools develop schoolwide programs that use the flexibility provided to them by law to improve the academic achievement of all students in the school. Finding: MDE has not ensured that schoolwide plans contain all of the required components, as evidenced in MPS and SPPS. Citation: Section 1114(b) and Title I regulations (34 CFR Part 200 §200.28) require that schools implementing schoolwide programs have a schoolwide plan that includes specific components. Further Action Required: In cases where a school is both a schoolwide program and a school identified for improvement, it is permissible for the school to create or revise a single plan as long as all requirements of both plans are met. If a single plan us used, then MDE staff must ensure that the statutory and regulatory components of schoolwide program plans as well as those of school improvement plans are included with any additional local or State requirements. ED requires a copy of the guidance offered by MDE to LEAs and a copy of a revised plan from both MPS and SPPS. Meeting this requirement with a combined plan will also satisfy the requirements for further action from the finding under 2.5.
Title I, Part A Monitoring Area 3: Fiduciary 3.5—The SEA ensures that LEAs provide Title I services to eligible children attending private schools. Finding: Timely and meaningful consultation. Interviews were held with private school officials in MPS and SPPS. Based on the review of minutes and conversations with private school officials, the ED team found that meaningful consultation was not taking place in either district. In SPPS, the district coordinator for private schools gave information to private school officials regarding Title I services and ensured that district staff were meeting the needs of eligible students. However, in neither district were private school officials involved in any of the activities prior to the district making decisions that affected the opportunity of eligible private school children to participate in Title I programs. Citation: Sec. 1120(b), ESEA—To ensure timely and meaningful consultation, a district shall consult with appropriate private school officials during the design and development of its programs. Such consultation shall include meetings of the agency and private school officials and shall occur before the district makes any decision that affects the opportunities of eligible private school children to participate in programs under this part. Such meetings shall continue throughout the implementation and assessment of services provided under this section. Further Action Required: MDE must ensure that its districts will have timely and meaningful consultations with private school officials prior to making any decisions that may impact the ability of private school students to participate. Finding: Third-party providers. MDE did not ensure that policies and procedures were in place regarding the approval and monitoring of contracts including those with potential third-party providers. Citations: Sec. 1120(b)(1)(G)-(H), ESEA and Sec. 200.64(3)-(4), 34 CFR – The LEA may provide services to eligible private school children either directly or through arrangements with another LEA or through a contract with a potential third-party provider. If the LEA contracts with a third-party provider: a) the provider must be independent of the private school and of any religious organization; and b) the contract must be under the control and supervision of the LEA. If the LEA disagrees with the views of the private school officials on the provision of services through a contract, the LEA will provide in writing to the private school officials an analysis of the reasons why the LEA has chosen not to use a contractor. After timely and meaningful consultation, the LEA must make the final decisions with respect to the services it will provide to eligible private school children.
Further Action Required: MDE must develop and disseminate to LEAs guidance for approving and monitoring third-party providers and must ensure that it is adopted/adapted by its districts. 3.8—The SEA has a system for ensuring fair and prompt resolution of complaints. Finding: MDE has not provided guidance in the area of complaint procedures to its districts. MDE does not have procedures in place for resolving complaints for either public Title I programs or non-public Title I programs. MPS does not have procedures in place for resolving complaints for either public Title I programs or Title I non-public school programs. SPPS does have a formal complaint process for public Title I programs and Title I non-public school programs; however it was designed not as a result of MDE guidance. Citation: Sec. 1232c(a)(3), 20 U.S.C. and sec. 9503(a), ESEA—The Secretary may require a State to submit a monitoring plan to include how the State plans to investigate and resolve all complaints received by the State, or referred to the State by the Secretary, relating to the administration of such programs. The Secretary shall develop and implement written procedures for receiving, investigating, and resolving complaints from parents, teachers, or other individuals and organizations concerning violations of participation by private school children and teachers by a State agency, local agency, educational service agency, consortium of those agencies, or entity. The individual or organization shall submit the complaint to the State educational agency for a written resolution by the State educational agency within a reasonable period of time. Further Action Required: MDE must submit a plan describing the process it will use for receiving, investigating and resolving all complaints received by or referred to the agency to include a reasonable timeline for closing out the complaint. 3.10—The SEA conducts monitoring of its subgrantees that is sufficient to ensure compliance with Title I program requirements. Finding: Other than the use of the state auditor and desk review of district plans, there has been no monitoring of districts. There were no procedures in place for monitoring districts and there were no monitoring instruments used by MDE. As a result of having no procedures, districts were unaware of MDE’s policies and procedures for resolving compliance and audit issues. Citations: Section 80.40(a), EDGAR and 9304(a)(3)(A)-(3), ESEA—The State is responsible for the day-to-day operations of grant and subgrant supported activities. States must monitor grant and subgrant supported activities to assure compliance with Federal requirements. State monitoring must cover each program, function or activity. The State will adopt and use proper methods of administering each program, including the enforcement of any obligations imposed by law on agencies, institutions, organizations, and other recipients responsible for carrying out each program.
Further Action Required: MDE must submit a monitoring schedule for school year 2004-05 and develop a compliance monitoring plan meeting the requirements as described in 20 U.S.C., section 1232c—State Agency Monitoring and Enforcement which reads: (a) State plan In the case of any applicable program in which Federal funds are made available to local agencies in a State through or under the supervision of a State board or agency, the Secretary may require the State to submit a plan for monitoring compliance by local agencies with Federal requirements under such program and for enforcement by the State of such requirements. The Secretary may require such plan to provide— (1) for periodic visits by State personnel of programs administered by local agencies to determine whether such programs are being conducted in accordance with such requirements; (2) for periodic audits of expenditures under such programs by auditors of the State or other auditors not under the control, direction, or supervision of the local educational agency; and (3) that the State investigate and resolve all complaints received by the State, or referred to the State by the Secretary, relating to the administration of such programs. (b) State enforcement of Federal requirements In order to enforce the Federal requirements under any applicable program the State may— (1) withhold approval, in whole or in part, of the application of a local agency for funds under the program until the State is satisfied that such requirements will be met; except that the State shall not finally disapprove such an application unless the State provides the local agency an opportunity for a hearing before an impartial hearing officer and such officer determines that there has been a substantial failure by the local agency to comply with any of such requirements; (2) suspend payments to any local agency, in whole or in part, under the program if the State has reason to believe that the local agency has failed substantially to comply with any of such requirements, except that (A) the State shall not suspend such payments until fifteen days after the State provides the local agency an opportunity to show cause why such action should not be taken and (B) no such suspension shall continue in effect longer than sixty days unless the State within such period provides the notice for a hearing required under paragraph (3) of this subsection; (3) withhold payments, in whole or in part, under any such program if the State finds, after reasonable notice and opportunity for a hearing before an impartial hearing officer, that the local agency has failed substantially to comply with any of such requirements. (c) Withholding of payments Any withholding of payments under subsection (b)(3) of this subsection shall continue until the State is satisfied that there is no longer a failure to comply substantially with any of such requirements.
Summary of Title I, Part B, Subpart 3 (Even Start) Monitoring Indicators Monitoring Area 1, Title I, Part B, Subpart 3: Accountability Critical Element Status The SEA complies with the subgrant award requirements. The SEA requires applicants to submit applications for subgrants with the necessary documentation. In making non-competitive continuation awards, the SEA reviews the progress of each subgrantee in meeting the objectives of the program and evaluates the program based on the Indicators of Program Quality. The SEA refuses to award subgrant funds to an eligible entity if the agency finds that the entity has not sufficiently improved the performance of the program, as evaluated, based on the Indicators of Program Quality. The SEA develops, based on the best available research and evaluation data, Indicators of Program Quality for Even Start programs. The SEA uses the Indicators of Program Quality to monitor, evaluate, and improve local programs within the State. The SEA conducts monitoring of its subgrantees sufficient to ensure compliance with Even Start program requirements. The SEA ensures that projects provide for an independent local evaluation of the program that is used for program improvement. Met requirements Finding Recommendation
Indicator Number 1.1 1.2 1.3
Page N/A 18 18
Recommendation Met requirements
Indicator Number 2.1
Monitoring Area 2, Title I, Part B, Subpart 3: Instructional Support Critical Element Status The SEA uses funds to provide technical assistance to local programs to improve the quality of Even Start family literacy services. Each program assisted shall include the identification and recruitment of families most in need. Each program shall include screening and preparation of parents and enable those parents and children to participate fully in the activities and services provided. Families are participating in all core instructional services. Each program shall be designed to accommodate the participants’ work schedule and other responsibilities, including the provision of support services, when those services are unavailable from other sources. Each program shall include high-quality, intensive instructional programs that promote adult literacy and empower parents to support the educational growth of their children, and in preparation of children for success in regular school programs. All instructional staff of the program hired after enactment of the LIFT Act (December 21, 2000), whose salaries are paid in whole or in part with Even Start funds, meet the Even Start staff qualification requirements. By December 21, 2004, a majority of the individuals providing academic instruction shall have obtained an associate’s, bachelor’s, or graduate degree in a field related to early childhood education, elementary school or secondary school education, or adult education. By December 21, 2004, if applicable, a majority of the individuals providing academic instruction shall meet the qualifications established by the State for early childhood education, elementary or secondary education, or adult education provided as part of an Even Start program or another family literacy program. By December 21, 2004, the person responsible for administration of family literacy services has received training in the operation of a family literacy program. Met requirements
Met requirements Finding
Indicator Number 2.11
Monitoring Area 2, Title I, Part B, Subpart 3: Instructional Support Critical Element Status By December 21, 2004, paraprofessionals who provide support for academic instruction have a secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent. The local programs shall include special training of staff, including child-care workers, to develop the necessary skills to work with parents and young children. The local programs shall provide and monitor integrated instructional services to participating parents and children through home-based programs. The local programs shall operate on a year-round basis, including the provisions of some program services, including instructional and enrichment services, during the summer months. The local program shall be coordinated with other relevant programs under the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act, the Individuals with Disabilities Act, and Title I of the Workforce Investment Act of 1988, and the Head Start program, volunteer literacy programs, and other relevant programs. The local programs shall use instructional programs based on scientifically based reading research for children and adults. The local program shall encourage participating families to attend regularly and to remain in the program a sufficient time to meet their program goals. The local programs shall use reading-readiness activities for preschool children based on scientifically based reading research. The local program shall, if applicable, promote the continuity of family literacy to ensure that individuals retain and improve their educational outcomes. Commendation
Indicator Number 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4
Monitoring Area 3, Title I Part B, Subpart 3: SEA Fiduciary responsibilities Critical Element Status The SEA complies with the allocation requirements for State administration and technical assistance and award of subgrants. The SEA ensures that subgrantees comply with statutory and regulatory requirements on uses of funds and matching. The SEA complies with the cross-cutting maintenance of effort provisions. The SEA ensures timely and meaningful consultation with private school officials on how to provide Even Start services and benefits to eligible elementary and secondary school students attending non-public schools and their teachers or other instructional personnel, and local programs provide an appropriate amount of those services and benefits through an eligible provider. The SEA has a system for ensuring fair and prompt resolution of complaints. Met requirements Met requirements Recommendation Finding
Page N/A N/A 21 21
Title I, Part B, Subpart 3 (Even Start) Monitoring Area 1: Accountability Indicator 1.2 – The SEA requires applicants to submit applications for subgrants with the necessary documentation. Finding: The program application and guide do not include all statutory requirements and therefore the SEA does not require the applicants to submit applications with the necessary documentation. Specifically, the application lacks the following information required by the Even Start statute:
Statement of the methods the applicant will use to ensure that it serves the most in need families; Statement of the methods that the applicant will use to provide services to individuals with special needs, including LEP; Statement of the methods that the applicant will use to encourage participants to remain in the program a sufficient time to meet the program's purposes; Description of how the program plan is integrated with the other programs under the ESEA; and A description of the population to be served.
Citation: Section 1237(c)(1) states that an application submitted to the SEA in request of an Even Start subgrant includes a plan of operation and continuous improvement for the program that includes the items listed above under “Finding”. Further action required: These omitted requirements must be integrated into the State’s application and guide. Additionally, several recommendations to correct statutory references in the application and guide have been made to the State Coordinator in a separate document and were also addressed with the Coordinator on site. Indicators 1.3, 1.4, and 1.6 – The SEA uses the Indicators of Program Quality to identify projects that are not making sufficient progress and refuses to award subgrant funds to these projects; the SEA uses the Indicators to monitor, evaluate, and improve local programs. Recommendation: MDE has established Indicators of Program Quality and is using these indicators to monitor projects and inform technical assistance. Local projects are also using the Indicators to guide local evaluations. However, while MDE is working on a clear definition of sufficient progress, it does not yet have one in place. MDE is encouraged to establish clear guidelines regarding the use of its Indicators of Program Quality and to share these guidelines with local projects.
Indicator 1.8 - The SEA ensures that projects provide for an independent local evaluation. Finding: All projects visited had an independent local evaluation, but none of them included an analysis of the evaluation data or provided recommendations for program improvement. Furthermore, the SEA’s evaluation of all local programs indicated as a weakness a lack of assessment for the largest age group served – infants and toddlers. Although the State Coordinator is working with projects and local evaluators to improve the quality and usefulness of the local evaluations, currently the evaluations do not meet the statutory requirement. Citation: Section 1235(15) requires that each program assisted provide for an independent evaluation of the program to be used for program improvement. Further action required: MDE must ensure that all Even Start local evaluations produce information that can be used for program improvement purposes. Particularly, evaluations should offer analysis of data and offer recommendations for program improvement. Title I, Part B, Subpart 3 (Even Start) Monitoring Area 2: Instructional Support Indicator 2.2 – Each project shall include the identification and recruitment of families most in need. Recommendation: MDE has provided technical assistance to its Even Start grantees regarding the identification and recruitment of families most in need. It has also provided a good tool for projects to use in weighing need-related factors. Some local project staff, however, were not clear about how to use the tool to select participants from among those families eligible for Even Start services. At one site, the project was serving limited English proficient parents who had already completed high school, and there were families with greater educational need on the waiting list. MDE should continue to provide technical assistance to its grantees to ensure that all project staff understand the process for identification and recruitment of families most in need. Indicator 2.5 – Local programs provide a flexible schedule and support services for participants. Finding: All projects visited operated on a similar schedule and did not provide flexible scheduling to accommodate participants’ work schedules. Also, projects were not providing support services such as transportation and childcare, which are needed to encourage participation and retention. Project staff at one site indicated that families would stay longer in the program and participate more if support services were offered and if some additional project services were offered during the afternoon or evening.
Citation: Section 1235(3) requires that each program assisted be designed to accommodate the participants’ work schedule and other responsibilities, including the provision of support services, when those services are unavailable from other sources necessary for participation in program activities. Further action required: MDE must ensure that local Even Start projects either offer services designed to accommodate participants’ work schedules or refer participants to such services offered by other providers in the community. MDE must also ensure that, if possible, projects offer support services such as transportation or childcare, if needed, to enable families to participate fully in Even Start services. Indicator 2.6 – Each program shall include high-quality, intensive instructional programs. Recommendation: All projects visited operated on a half-day schedule although several staff indicated that families would participate more if the project provided more services. Staff members at one project were full-time but still only served families in the morning. MDE should encourage projects to provide services for more hours so that families can participate more intensively. Indicators 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, and 2.11 – Staff have qualifications required by the Even Start statute. Commendation: The MDE has made considerable efforts to ensure that local staff are meeting statutory requirements for staff qualifications. Some or most instructional and support staff at the Even Start sites visited have qualifications that exceed the requirements in the legislation. High staff qualifications greatly contribute to the high quality of instructional services offered in the local projects. Indicator 2.14 – All local programs shall operate on a year-round basis including the provision of some program services, instructional and enrichment, during the summer months. Finding: All projects provide some additional services after the end of the regular school year, but in some cases they only offer services for an additional two or three weeks. Some projects are offering no services, neither instructional nor enrichment, during the months of July and August. Citation: Section 1235(8) requires that each program assisted operate on a year-round basis, including the provision of some program services, including instructional and enrichment services, during the summer months. Further action required: MDE must ensure that all local Even Start projects offer program services, both instructional and enrichment, during a substantial portion of the summer months.
Indicator 2.16 and 2.18 – The local programs shall use instructional programs and reading-readiness activities based on scientifically based research for children and adults. Recommendation: Staff at projects visited are aware of the importance of basing instruction on scientific research and are incorporating some appropriate strategies into their preschool programs. However, for the preschool component, some of the projects visited do not have a strong instructional program or curriculum in place that includes a focus on language and literacy that will give teachers support for systematic and comprehensive instruction in the skills and dispositions needed for school and reading readiness. MDE should provide technical assistance to local project staff in the selection of an early childhood instructional program based on scientific research that ensures staff have the instructional support needed to prepare children for formal reading instruction. Indicator 2.17 – Local programs shall encourage participating families to attend regularly and to remain in the program a sufficient time to meet their program goals. Commendation: The MDE has assisted local programs with ensuring consistent attendance and high retention of local participants. All local projects visited have implemented an effective attendance policy to encourage participating families to attend regularly. The retention rate of the local projects far exceeds the national average as reported in the Third National Even Start Evaluation. Title I, Part B, Subpart 3 (Even Start) Monitoring Area 3: Fiduciary Indicator 3.3 – The SEA must comply with the cross-cutting maintenance of effort provisions. Recommendation: All LEAs included in the Even Start partnerships in the projects visited were complying with the cross-cutting maintenance of effort (MOE) provisions. However, this is a new requirement for Even Start under the most recent reauthorization, and local Even Start staff were not aware that local projects are subject to these provisions. MDE should inform all local projects that the LEAs included in the Even Start partnerships are subject to the MOE provisions. This is especially important in LEAs that do not receive Title I, Part A funds but are partners in Even Start projects because the SEA is not monitoring such LEAs under Title I, Part A for MOE compliance. Indicator 3.4 – The SEA must ensure timely and meaningful consultation with private school officials. Finding: Staff in local Even Start projects were not aware of the need to have timely and meaningful consultation with private school officials regarding the participation of eligible families with school-age children in Even Start services, and the need to provide an appropriate amount of those services and benefits through an eligible provider.
Citation: Section 9501 requires recipients of Federal funds to provide eligible schoolage children who are enrolled in private elementary and secondary schools, and their teachers or other educational personnel, educational services and benefits under those programs on an equitable basis. Eligible entities must provide the equitable services after timely and meaningful consultation with the appropriate private school officials. Further action required: The MDE must ensure that all local Even Start projects provide timely and meaningful consultation with private school officials regarding the participation of eligible families with school-age children in Even Start services, and provide an appropriate amount of those services.
Summary of Title I, Part D (Neglected/Delinquent Youth) Monitoring Indicators Monitoring Area 1, Title I, Part D: Accountability Critical Element
The SEA has implemented all required components as identified in its Title I, Part D (N/D) plan. Met Requirements The SEA ensures that State Agency (SA) plans for services to eligible N/D students meet all requirements. Met Requirements The SEA ensures that local education agency (LEA) plans for services to eligible N/D students meet all Met Requirements requirements. Monitoring Area 2, Title I, Part D: Instructional Support The SEA ensures that institution-wide programs developed by the SA under Subpart 1 use the flexibility Met Requirements provided to them by law to improve the academic achievement of all students in the school. Monitoring Area 3, Title I, Part D: Fiduciary The SEA ensures that each State agency has reserved not less than 15 percent and not more than 30 percent of the Met Requirements amount it receives under Subpart 1 for transition services. The SEA conducts monitoring of its subgrantees sufficient to ensure compliance with Title I, Part D Met Requirements program requirements.
Summary of Title X, Part C, Subtitle B (Homeless Education) Monitoring Indicators Monitoring Area 2, Title X, Part C, Subtitle B: Instructional Support Critical Element Status The SEA implements procedures to address the identification, enrollment and retention of homeless students. SEA provides, or provides for, technical assistance for LEAs to insure appropriate implementation of the statute.
Indicator Number* 2.1
Monitoring Area 3, Title X, Part C, Subtitle B: Fiduciary The SEA ensures that local education agency (LEA) subgrant plans for services to eligible homeless Met Requirements students meet all requirements. The SEA ensures that the LEA complies with providing comparable Title I, Part A services to Commendation homeless students attending non-Title I schools. The SEA has a system for ensuring the prompt resolution of disputes. The SEA conducts monitoring of LEAs with and without subgrants, sufficient to ensure compliance with McKinney-Vento program requirements. * No Indicator Number 1 Title X, Part C, Subtitle B (Homeless Education) Monitoring Area 3: Fiduciary Indicator 3.2 - The SEA ensures that the LEA complies with providing comparable Title I, Part A services to homeless students attending non-Title I schools. Commendation: All district-consolidated applications are required to specify the percent of funds used to serve homeless students under 1113(c)(3)(A). Since this is not a Federal requirement but rather a requirement used by the State to ensure comparable service, this is a commendable practice.
Documents Similar To description: tags: mnrpt
description: tags: fy05perfplan
anon-769219
description: tags: co
anon-819407
NCLB_2010_Campus_VISTA ACADEMY of Hickory Creek
description: tags: louisiana
anon-333693
description: tags: virginia
anon-230404
description: tags: kentucky
anon-53098
mitchell s policy analysis paper sw4710
api-318733585
description: tags: toolkit
anon-172190
Student Aid: preschoolguidance
Plan de Flexibilidad Aprobado (documento completo)
HOUSE HEARING, 112TH CONGRESS - THE BUDGET AND POLICY PROPOSALS OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Preschool Guidance
anon-194697
description: tags: illinois
anon-36792
ProjectManagement AuditGuide
AbdulGhaffarEshaqAlKhajah
NCLB_2010_Campus_VISTA ACADEMY of Garland
A Multiple Regression Analysis of Factors Concerning Superintende
Oteng Richard Selasie
HOUSE HEARING, 109TH CONGRESS - CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN AMERICA'S SCHOOLS: THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT
9 02notesweebly rtf
api-357208893
57475-305898-1-SP
Cristian Klopf
ifsp-outcomesflowchart
api-286077776
description: tags: schoolren
anon-498849
08-289bsacAALDEF
2a Frontsheet for in-Course Assessment Jan 2015(1)
H'asham Tariq
Using Red Teams
Farah Wani
Crawford No Child Left Behind Ed Week Commentary
Maciej Rożek
grou13 assignment6 evaluationreport 1
api-346486277