Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/1330449/description-tags-varpt
Timestamp: 2018-09-20 07:51:20
Document Index: 479425159

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

description: tags: varpt | Elementary And Secondary Education Act | Adequate Yearly Progress
Uploaded by anon-588797
Virginia Department of Education September 12-16, 2005 Scope of Review: A team from the U. S.
Department of Education’s (ED) Student Achievement and School Accountability Programs (SASA) office monitored the Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) the week of September 12-16, 2005. This was a comprehensive review of VDOE’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 NCLB (also known as the McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Assistance Improvements Act of 2001). Two representatives of ED’s Office of the Chief Financial Officer’s (OCFO) Internal Control Evaluation Group participated with SASA staff in the review of selected fiduciary elements of the onsite Title I monitoring review. The Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 requires ED to conduct a risk assessment of the Title I program to determine if program funds are being delivered and administered in a manner that complies with the congressional appropriation. The OCFO representatives are working with SASA staff in a cooperative effort on selected Title I monitoring reviews to carry out the required assessment. Findings related to this portion of the review are presented under the Title I, Part A Fiduciary Indicator #3.13. In conducting this comprehensive review, the SASA team carried out a number of major activities. In reviewing the Part A program, the SASA team conducted an analysis of State assessments and State Accountability System Plans, 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 requirements required of the SEA. During the onsite week, the SASA team visited four school districts for Title I, Part A: Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS); Alexandria City Public Schools (ACPS); Norfolk Public Schools (NPS) and Richmond City Public Schools (RCPS). Interviews were held with public school officials and administrative staff at the four LEAs. In addition, the SASA team visited twelve schools in the LEAs that have been identified for improvement, and conducted four parent meetings. The team then interviewed VDOE personnel to confirm data collected in each of the three monitoring indicator areas. The team conducted conference calls to two additional LEAs (Lynchburg and Henry Counties) upon its return to Washington DC, to confirm information gathered on site in the LEAs and in VDOE. 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 two local projects located in NPS and RCPS. During the onsite review, the ED team visited these local projects and interviewed administrative and instructional staff. The ED team also interviewed the 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 APS, FCPS, RCPS, the Virginia Department of Corrections (DOC) and State Operated Programs for Youth. The ED team interviewed administrative, program and teaching staff. The ED team also interviewed the Title I, Part B State coordinator to confirm information obtained at the local sites and discuss administration of the program. In its review of the Education for Homeless Children and Youth program (Title X, Part C, Subpart 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 ACPS, APS, FCPS, and RCPS. The ED team visited these sites and interviewed administrative and program staff. The ED team also interviewed the Virginia McKinney-Vento State coordinator to confirm information obtained at the local site and discuss administration of the program. Previous Audit Findings: None to report. Previous Monitoring Findings: ED last reviewed Title I, Part A programs in Virginia in May of 1998 as part of a Federal integrated review initiative. There were no compliance findings identified as a result of that review. ED has not previously conducted a comprehensive review of the Even Start, Neglected/Delinquent or Education for Homeless Children and Youth programs in Virginia.
Title I, Part A Monitoring Summary of Critical Monitoring Indicators
The SEA has approved academic content standards for Met requirements all required subjects or an approved timeline for developing them. The SEA has approved academic achievement standards Met requirements and alternate academic achievement standards in required subject areas and grades or an approved timeline to create them. The SEA has approved assessments and alternate Recommendation assessments in required subject areas and grades or an approved timeline to create them. Assessments should be used for purposes for which Met requirements such assessments are valid and reliable, and be consistent with relevant, nationally recognized professional and technical standards. The SEA has implemented all required components as Recommendation identified in its accountability workbook. The SEA has published an annual report card as Met requirements required and an Annual Report to the Secretary. The SEA has ensured that LEAs have published annual Findings report cards as required. The SEA indicates how funds received under Grants for Met requirements State 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 Recommendation identifying and assessing the academic achievement of limited English proficient students.
Monitoring Area 2, Title I, Part A: Instructional Support Description Status The SEA designs and implements procedures that ensure the hiring and retention of qualified paraprofessionals and ensures that parents are informed of educator credentials as required. The SEA has established a statewide system of support that provides, or provides for, technical assistance to LEAs and schools as required. The SEA ensures that the LEA and schools meet parental involvement requirements. The SEA ensures that schools and LEAs identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring have met the requirements of being so identified. The SEA ensures that requirements for public school choice are met. The SEA ensures that 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 LEA targeted assistance programs meet all requirements. Finding
Findings Finding Met requirements Recommendation
Monitoring Area 3, Title I, Part A: Fiduciary Responsibilities Description Status The SEA ensures that its LEAs are audited annually in accordance with the Single Audit Act, 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 establishes a Committee of Practitioners (COP) and involves the committee in decision making as required. The SEA has an accounting system in place that enables it to account for reservation of funds for school improvement, State administration, the State academic achievement awards program. 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 SEA ensures that its LEAs comply with the provision for submitting an annual application to the SEA and revising LEA plans as necessary to reflect substantial changes in the direction of their program. 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. The SEA ensures that equipment and real property are procured at a cost that is recognized as ordinary and the equipment and real property are necessary for the performance of the Federal award. Title I, Part A Met requirements
Finding Recommendation Met requirements Met requirements Met requirements Met requirements
Indicator 3. 8 Indicator 3.9 Indicator 3.10
Monitoring Area: Accountability Indicator 1.3 - The SEA has approved assessments and alternate assessments in required subject areas and grades or an approved timeline to create them. Recommendation: Prior to submitting evidence to ED for peer review, it is recommended that for each assessment VDOE thoroughly address and document such elements as: (1) alignment to content standards; (2) coherent information across tests and grade levels; (3) State Board approval of academic achievement standards; and (4) technical qualities (e.g., reliability, validity, fairness). It is also recommended that Virginia document that the results from the Virginia Grade Level Assessment Program are comparable in meaning to results from the regular assessments for the same grade levels. Finally, it is recommended that VDOE’s submission for peer review include evidence that demonstrates the comparability of results from online and paper/pencil tests. Indicator 1.5 - The SEA has implemented all required components as identified in its accountability workbook. Recommendation: The Virginia educational information management system (EIMS) is being fully developed and implemented and VDOE’s assessment auditing process is being revised and reinstated. It is recommended that VDOE use the EIMS and the auditing process to augment current monitoring procedures for the inclusion of limited English proficient (LEP) and students with disabilities (SWD) in statewide assessments and also verify LEP and SWD participation rates. Indicator 1.7 - The SEA has ensured that LEAs have published annual report cards as required. Finding (1): The LEA report card does not include the following required information: the number and percent of schools identified for school improvement by name and how long the schools have been so identified. Citation: Section 1111(h)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the ESEA requires that the LEA include in its annual report card the number and percent of schools identified for school improvement by name and how long the schools have been so identified. Further action required: In responding to this report, the VDOE must submit to ED a template of its LEA report card that includes all information required by Section 1111(h)(2) of the ESEA. Further, when the LEA report card for the spring 2006 assessments is completed, the VDOE must submit the completed report card to ED.
Finding (2): Within the LEA, individual school reports do not include the following required information: whether the school has been identified for school improvement. Although adequate yearly progress (AYP) results are part of the individual school reports, school improvement status is not included for schools that have not met AYP for two or more consecutive years. Citation: Section 1116 (a)(1)(C) of the ESEA requires that the LEA publicize and disseminate the results of the local annual review to parents, teachers, principals, and the community. Further action required: In responding to this report, the VDOE must submit to ED a template of its individual school report that includes all information required by Section 1116 (a)(1)(C) of the ESEA. Further, when the individual school reports for the spring 2006 assessments are completed, the VDOE must submit a completed individual school report to ED. Indicator 1.9 - The SEA ensures that LEAs meet all requirements for identifying and assessing the academic achievement of limited English proficient students. Recommendation: - As VDOE expands its options for measuring the English language proficiency of LEP students, it is recommended that the comparability of the various assessments be sufficiently established to aggregate the results at the state level.
Indicator 2.1 – The SEA designs and implements policies and procedures that ensure the hiring and retention of qualified paraprofessionals and ensure that parents are informed of educator credentials as required. Finding: In one district, Parents’ Right to Know notices were printed in school newsletters but not provided directly to parents. Citation: The Parents’ Right to Know provisions under section 1111(h)(6)(A) of the ESEA state that at the start of each school year, an LEA that receives Title I, Part A funds must notify parents of each student attending a Title I school that they may request and the LEA will provide, in a timely manner, information regarding the professional qualifications of their children’s classroom teachers and, if applicable, the services provided by their paraprofessionals, as well as the paraprofessionals’ qualifications. Further action required: The VDOE must advise all its LEAs that the Parents’ Right to Know notices must be mailed directly to parents and provide ED a copy of such correspondence or guidance. Further, the VDOE must incorporate into its monitoring process the review of the content of LEA and school Parents’ Right to Know letters to ensure that they contain the required information and submit to ED a copy of the indicators that the VDOE will use to monitor this requirement. Indicator 2.2 – The SEA has established a statewide system of support and improvement that provides, or provides for, technical assistance to LEAs and schools as required. Finding: Although the VDOE has moved forward in the development of its statewide system of support, State and local staffs were not able to clearly articulate the components of the system (school support teams, cadre of distinguished teachers and principals, and use of other assistance providers) and how the components were integrated to address the needs of Title I schools at different stages of improvement. In certain cases, LEA and school staffs were not aware of the services provided by VDOE to support low-performing Title I schools. A variety of staff in the LEAs visited indicated that they do not rely on or look to the State for the kinds of technical assistance that the support system is designed to provide, but instead move forward on their own to initiate assistance to their schools. Citation: Section 1117(a) of the ESEA requires each State to establish a statewide system of support and improvement for LEAs and schools that receive Title I, Part A funds. Each statewide system of support must include approaches including creating and employing school support teams to assist schools, designating and using distinguished teachers and principals, and other approaches such as providing assistance through
institutions of higher education. As its first priority, a State must use its system of support to help LEAs with schools in corrective action and schools in LEAs that have failed to carry out their responsibilities to provide technical assistance and support. Section 1117(a)(5) of the ESEA requires that the composition of each support team include individuals who are knowledgeable about scientifically based research and its potential for improving teaching and learning and about successful schoolwide projects, school reform, and improving educational opportunities for low-achieving students. Further action required: VDOE must develop and disseminate guidelines to LEAs, schools, parents, and other groups that explain the structure and services available through the statewide system of support and improvement. At a minimum, the guidelines must describe the components of the system, include information about the composition of school support teams and the cadre of distinguished teachers and principals, and discuss how school support teams and cadre members are assigned or available to schools. The guidance must include information on how the system of support is addressing each of the statutory priorities. Indicator 2.3 – The SEA ensures that the LEAs and schools meet parental involvement requirements. Finding (1): Although the State Board of Education has established guidelines that address the specific requirements for parental involvement under NCLB, the VDOE has not ensured that its LEAs have complied with all parental involvement policy requirements. LEA officials in the Henry County Public Schools were unable to articulate the requirements for written parental involvement policies at the district and school levels. The written parental involvement policy submitted by Henry County to ED does not include any of the required components. Further, district staff indicated that each Title I school uses the district’s policy as the school’s parental involvement policy. If this is the case, the Title I schools do not have written parental involvement policies that include the required components. Citation: Section 1118(a) and (h) of the ESEA requires the SEA to review the LEAs’ parental involvement policies and practices to determine if they meet the Title I parental involvement requirements. Section 1118(a) of the ESEA requires each LEA that receives Title I, Part A funds to develop a written parental involvement policy that establishes the LEA’s expectations for parental involvement. The policy must be developed jointly with, and agreed upon with, the parents of children participating in Title I, Part A programs and distributed to parents of all children participating in Title I, Part A programs. Section 1118 (b) and (c) of the ESEA requires that each school served under Title I jointly develop with and distribute to parents of participating children a written parental involvement policy agreed on by the parents that describes the requirements of section 1118(c) through (f) of the ESEA. Further action required: The VDOE must ensure that all LEAs receiving Title I funds have written district parental involvement policies developed with parents of participating
children. The VDOE must provide ED with copies of the parental involvement policies developed consistent with the content and process requirements in section 1118(a) and (b) of the ESEA, for Henry County Public Schools and for each of its Title I schools. Finding (2): The VDOE has not conducted an annual review to determine if each LEA is carrying out its responsibilities with respect to parental involvement. Citation: Section 1116(c)(1)(A) of the ESEA and section §200.50(a)(ii) of the Title I regulations require the SEA to annually review the progress of each LEA that receives Title I funds in carrying out its responsibilities with respect to parental involvement. Further action required: The VDOE must provide ED with evidence that it will fully implement this requirement. At a minimum, this evidence must include a description of the process and a timeline the VDOE will use to meet this requirement. Indicator 2.4 – The SEA ensures that schools and LEAs identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring have met the requirements of being so identified. Finding: The VDOE has not ensured that the school improvement plans for the schools in need of improvement contain all of the required components. School plans reviewed by ED lacked some of the required components of the school improvement plan that must be written (or revised) when a school does not make AYP for two consecutive years and is identified for improvement under Section 1116. Citation: Section 1116(b)(3) of the ESEA requires that each school identified for improvement, no later than three months after being so identified, develop or revise a school plan, in consultation with parents, school staff, the LEA serving the school, and outside experts, for approval by the LEA. The plan shall 1) include strategies based on scientifically based research, 2) adopt policies and practices concerning the school’s core academic subjects that have the greatest likelihood of ensuring that all groups of students specified in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v) of the ESEA and enrolled in the school will meet the State academic assessment described in section 1111(b)(3) not later than 12 years after the end of the 2001-02 school year; 3) provide an assurance that the school will spend not less than ten percent of the funds made available to the school under section 1113 of the ESEA for each fiscal year that the school is in school improvement status for the purpose of providing to the school’s teachers and principal high-quality professional development; 4) specify how school improvement funds made available under section 1113 will be used to remove the school from school improvement status; 5) establish specific annual, measurable objectives for continuous and substantial progress by each group of students specified in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v) to ensure that all groups of students will meet the State academic assessment described in section 1111(b)(3); 6) describe how the school will provide written notice about the identification to parents of each student enrolled in such school, in a format and to the extent practicable, in a language that the parents can understand; 7) specify the responsibilities of the school, the LEA, and the SEA serving the school under the plan, including the technical assistance to be provided by the LEA,
and the LEAs responsibilities under section 1120A of the ESEA; 8) include strategies to promote effective parental involvement in the school; 9) incorporate, as appropriate, activities before school, after school, during the summer, and during any extension of the school year; and 10) incorporate a teacher mentoring program. Further action required: The VDOE must submit to ED a plan and timeline, including technical assistance, for working with LEAs on developing or revising school improvement plans that meet the statutory requirements. The VDOE must reissue guidance to all its LEAs regarding the school improvement plan requirements under section 1116 and request all LEAs with schools in improvement to review all school improvement plans to ensure they meet the required components. Further, the VDOE must submit to ED a copy of a school improvement plan for one school in each of the four LEAs visited (a total of 4 plans) as evidence that the VDOE has worked with LEAs to ensure that the school improvement plans for the schools in need of improvement contain all of the required components. 2.5 – The SEA ensures that requirements for public school choice are met. 2.6. – The SEA ensures that requirements for the provision of supplemental educational services (SES) are met. Finding (1): Although VDOE has issued explicit guidance to LEAs on the required components of notifications for public school choice and SES, the letters issued to parents by schools did not consistently include all of the required components. For example, the ACPS, and FCPS choice letters, while containing other required information, did not appear to include information on the academic achievement of the schools to which a child may transfer. Further, not all the letters in these two districts and in NPS contained information indicating how parents can be involved in addressing the academic issues that lead to the school being identified for improvement. Citation: Section 1116(b)(6) of the ESEA requires LEAs to promptly provide to parents an explanation of the identification of their child’s school that includes (1) how the school compares academically to other schools in the LEA and the State, (2) why the school has been identified, (3) what the school is doing to address the achievement problem, (4) what the LEA and SEA are doing to help the school to address the achievement problem, (5) how parents can be involved in addressing the achievement problem, and (6) parents’ options to transfer their child to another school, and, if applicable, obtain supplemental educational services (SES). Section 200.37 (b) of the Title I regulations requires that the explanation of the parent’s option to transfer must include, at a minimum, information on the academic achievement of the school or schools to which the child may transfer. Further Action Required: The VDOE must provide LEAs with additional written guidance on the requirements of the notices to parents of children attending schools identified for improvement. The guidance must include a checklist of requirements and a sample of a parent notification letter that LEAs and schools may use to develop their notification letters. The VDOE must provide a copy of that guidance to ED. In addition, the VDOE must incorporate into its monitoring process the review of the content of LEA
parent notification letters to ensure that they contain the required information and submit to ED a copy of the indicators that the VDOE will use to monitor this requirement. Finding (2): While the VDOE did ensure that parent notification letters on choice were provided as soon as possible at the beginning of the school year, it has not ensured that the letters consistently contain all the required information. Citation: Section 1116(b)(6) of the ESEA requires LEAs to promptly provide to parents an explanation of the identification of their child’s school that includes (1) how the school compares academically to other schools in the LEA and the State, (2) why the school has been identified, (3) what the school is doing to address the achievement problem, (4) what the LEA and SEA are doing to help the school to address the achievement problem, (5) how parents can be involved in addressing the achievement problem, and (6) parents’ options to transfer their child to another school, and, if applicable, obtain supplemental educational services (SES). Section 200.37(b)(4) of the regulations requires that the explanation of a parent’s option to transfer, including the provision of transportation, must include, at a minimum, information on the academic achievement of the school or schools to which the child may transfer. Further Action Required: The VDOE must provide ED with a plan for how it will ensure that LEAs include all the required information in parental notification letters and evidence that the plan has been implemented. Indicator 2.7 – 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 schools. Recommendation (1): ED encourages VDOE to continue with its efforts to develop a seamless planning process that integrates into a single plan the requirements of the Title I school improvement plan, the schoolwide plan, and the State’s accountability plan. Doing so allows the school to concentrate its efforts on a single set of goals and strategies. Recommendation (2): ED encourages VDOE to provide guidance to LEAs that a school can maintain its schoolwide eligibility even if it drops below the initial poverty threshold in subsequent years. Section 200.25(b)(ii)(A) of the Title I regulations specify that for the initial year of the schoolwide program the school must meet the 40 percent poverty threshold. Discussions with officials for Henry County Public Schools indicated that a school operating a schoolwide program in 2004 – 2005 was required to change from a schoolwide program to a targeted assistance program in the 2005 – 2006 school year because the school no longer met the 40 percent poverty threshold. Further, the VDOE should make certain that all SEA Title I staff understand the statutory requirements for schoolwide programs. Recommendation (3): The VDOE should consider ways to assist LEAs and schools in improving the quality of schoolwide programs. In some cases, principals interviewed
were not able to articulate the purpose or the flexibility provided to a school operating a schoolwide program. Additionally, where a school is both a schoolwide program and a school identified for improvement, it is permissible and favorable for the school to create or revise a single plan as long as the single plan contains the schoolwide requirements under section 1114(b)(1) and the school improvement plan requirements under section 1116(b)(3)(A).
Title I, Part A Monitoring Area: Fiduciary Responsibilities Indicator 3.2 - The SEA complies with the allocation, reallocation, and carryover provisions of Title I. Finding: The VDOE has not ensured that its LEAs comply with the allocation provisions of Title I so that an LEA does not allocate more per poor child to a lower ranked poverty school than its does to a higher ranked school. In VDOE’s instructions to districts (LEAs) for submitting consolidated applications, the portion of the instructions concerning allocations to eligible Title I schools states that “…the 100 percent PPE (per pupil expenditures) can be increased or decreased to allow the appropriate amount of monies to be allocated to a school for its program.” The instructions then describe the process for calculating ‘Adjusted PPE.’ VDOE officials indicated that this process is designed to account for salary differentials evident from school to school. While an LEA may take salary differentials into account when distributing Title I resources, the adjustments for salary differentials would be taken from funds that the district reserves for administration. These resources from the administrative set-aside would then be distributed after the LEA has determined allocations (in accordance with section 1113 of the Title I statute and §§200.77 and 200.78 of the Title I regulations) to schools based on the amount that remains after the district has subtracted from its total Title I allocation funds it sets aside for district-wide activities. As a result of following the process for adjusting PPEs described in the VDOE’s application instructions, the ED team found in the four LEAs visited that each district allocated higher per pupil amounts to schools with lower poverty rates than to schools with higher poverty rates. When asked why it adjusted the PPEs determined for its Title I schools, FCPS explained that, in addition to accounting for the differences in pay for more experienced staff, it took funds from several higher ranked poverty schools to provide more resources to lower ranked schools that had greater need for Title I services. ACPS staff indicated that the district gave Title I funds that were initially allocated to some higher ranked schools to lower ranked schools identified for improvement in order for them to maintain their programs and to provide the required amount for professional development. NPS staff informed the ED team that its decision to adjust its PPEs for its schools was based on academic performance of the school, as well as differences in staff salaries. In all cases, these adjustments were made to the PPE allocations from the funds each LEA had available for distribution to their schools. Citation: Section 200.78(c) of the Title I regulations provides that, while a district is not required to allocate the same per-pupil amount to each participating school attendance area or school, it must allocate higher per-pupil amounts to areas or schools with higher concentrations of poverty than to schools with lower concentrations of poverty.
Further action required: The VDOE must provide ED with evidence that it has revised the portion of its Consolidated Application that addresses allocating funds to eligible schools to ensure that instructions concerning the allocation of funds to eligible schools are consistent with the requirements outlined in section 1113 of the Title I statute and sections 200.77 and 200.78 of the Title I regulations. The VDOE must ensure that all its LEAs determine allocations to schools in accordance with all the requirements of the Title I statute and regulations, and submit evidence to ED of revised procedures and a timeline for implementation. Recommendation: VDOE should consider providing guidance to its LEAs to ensure that requirements pertaining to its carryovers are met. Staff from the FCPS indicated that carryover funds were used to pay for the salaries and benefits of all Title I funded staff at the central and school levels at the beginning of the school year. This may have resulted in higher per-pupil allocations to schools with lower concentrations of poverty than to schools with higher concentrations of poverty. When an LEA determines that it will use carryover funds for teachers’ salaries (or to support the instructional program in its schools) it should ensure that these funds are placed in higher poverty schools to ensure that all per pupil amounts are adjusted appropriately and rank order is not violated. Indicator 3.7 – The SEA has a system in place that enables it to account for: 1) the reservation of funds for school improvement activities; 2) funds reserved for State administration; 3) funds reserved for the State academic awards program, and 4) funds that become available for reallocation. Finding: The VDOE has not ensured that its LEAs met requirements for reservations from district Title I, Part A allocations for parental involvement. FCPS staff informed the ED team that they do reserve the required one percent for parental involvement activities and that 95 percent is allocated to schools as part of their allocation. There was no evidence that the 95 percent was earmarked for parental involvement activities at the individual school level. LEAs are required to carryover any unused parental involvement reservation into the following year and to use those carryover funds only for parental involvement activities; however, it was unclear whether any of the 95 percent funding reserved for parental involvement that was not used during the first 15 months was available to schools. Citation: Section 1118(a)(3)(A) of the ESEA requires that LEAs with a Title I, Part A allocation of greater than $500,000 are to reserve not less than one percent of their Title I, Part A allocation to carry out parental involvement activities. The LEA must set aside an amount for parental involvement of parents of private school children, based on the proportion of private school children from low-income families residing in Title I attendance areas. The LEA must then distribute to its public schools at least 95 percent of the remainder, leaving the balance of the reserved funds for parental involvement activities at the LEA level. Further action required: The VDOE must require that all LEAs having a Title I, Part A allocation of greater than $500,000 distribute 95 percent of the one percent
required for parental involvement to public schools. The VDOE must ensure that its LEAs calculate the required 1 percent and the 95 percent reservation as a part of the budget determination process and must provide technical assistance to its LEAs to ensure that these calculations are done correctly. The VDOE must provide evidence that allocations for parental involvement activities were provided to schools, or document that the funds were allocated to the schools, and that each individual school agreed to give back its individual allocation to fund a districtwide activity. The VDOE must provide ED with a detailed description of how and when the VDOE informed its LEAs of this requirement. This documentation may include such evidence as letters to LEAs and agendas for technical assistance meetings. Indicator 3.13 – The SEA ensures that equipment and real property are procured at a cost that is recognized as ordinary and the equipment and real property are necessary for the performance of the Federal award. Finding (1): The VDOE did not ensure that NPS and RCPS maintained adequate controls to account for recording, location, custody, and security of equipment purchased with Title I funds. The ED team was unable to locate two of the eight items of equipment selected for inspection at the NPS’s Campostella Elementary School, a computer: ID# 00233711, and a Zenith television, ID#00234659. Also, a VCR/DVD player did not have an inventory tag. At the NPS district office, one laser jet printer, ID#0234301, was not at the location indicated on the inventory control sheet. Thus, the ED team was unable to see the printer. Staff indicated that the printer was at another location, but no supporting documentation to identify the location or the transfer of the equipment was provided. Additionally, the ED team was unable to locate two of six items of Title I equipment at the RCPS district office: a Compaq laptop computer, ID#713229, and a digital camera, ID#713869. No documentation was provided to indicate the location or transfer of these two items of equipment. Citation: Section 80.32(b) of the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) requires that “A State [LEA] use, manage and dispose of equipment acquired under a grant by the State in accordance with State laws and procedures.” Further action required: The VDOE must ensure that LEAs maintain a system to control equipment assets, including a property inventory list that is current, complete, and accurate. The VDOE must ensure that NPS and RCPS account for the missing items of equipment by providing ED with documentation confirming custody and location of the equipment. The VDOE must provide ED with a copy of policies and procedures communicated to NPS and RCPS addressing requirements for the maintenance of adequate controls to account for recording, inventory, custody, security, transfer, and disposal of equipment purchased with Title I funds. Finding (2): The VDOE did not ensure that NPS records indirect cost revenues on Title I funds in a timely manner. During the course of ED’s review of the indirect cost
calculations for the NPS, it was observed that the NPS was not performing monthly calculations for indirect cost revenues on Title I funds. The last calculation performed by NPS was for the month of October 2004 – November 2004. Citation: Section 76.702 of the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) requires that a State and a subgrantee use fiscal control and fund accounting procedures that ensure proper disbursement of and accounting for Federal funds. Further action required: The VDOE must ensure that NPS records the receipt of indirect cost revenue on Title I funds in a timely manner and provides ED with a copy of the information communicated to NPS on that subject. Indirect cost claims must be calculated in a manner that coincides with the appropriate direct cost expenditures.
Summary of Title I, Part B, Subpart 3 (Even Start) Monitoring Indicators Monitoring Area 1, Title I, Part B, Subpart 3: Accountability Description 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 Met requirements Recommendation Met requirements
Page N/A 22 N/A
Monitoring Area 3, Title I Part B, Subpart 3: SEA Fiduciary responsibilities Indicator Description Status Number Indicator 3.1 The SEA complies with the allocation requirements for Met requirements State administration and technical assistance and award of subgrants. Indicator 3.2 The SEA ensures that subgrantees comply with statutory Met requirements and regulatory requirements on uses of funds and matching. Indicator 3.3 The SEA complies with the crosscutting maintenance of Met requirements effort provisions. Indicator 3.4 The SEA ensures timely and meaningful consultation with Met requirements 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. Indicator 3.5 The SEA has a system for ensuring fair and prompt Met requirements resolution of complaints and appropriate hearing procedures.
Title I, Part B, Subpart 3 (Even Start) Indicator 1.2 – The SEA requires applicants to submit applications for subgrants with the necessary documentation. Recommendation: The VDOE includes the “Lobbying Disclosure” form in its application (app., pp. 15-16). It is recommended that the VDOE also include the “Lobbying Certification” form. Recommendation: The application (p. 26) contains a definition for “eligible organization.” That definition applies only to the organizations with which the State must contract (in some instances) for technical assistance, and does not apply to the “eligible entity” that may apply for the subgrants. The State may want to remove this definition from the application, as it may cause applicants to think they must qualify as an “eligible organization” to apply in a partnership for a subgrant. The applicable definition that the State may want to consider including instead is the definition of “eligible entity” (section 1232(e)(1), ESEA). Indicator 2.19 - The local program shall, if applicable, promote the continuity of family literacy to ensure that individuals retain and improve their educational outcomes Recommendation: One Even Start site visited by the ED team conducts an exit conference when participants are leaving the program; however, they do not have a written procedure explaining the exit process or an exit survey to determine if family goals were met, which may determine the next steps for exiting families as they move toward economic self-sufficiency.
Title I, Part D Monitoring Summary of Critical Monitoring Indicators Neglected, Delinquent or At-Risk of Dropping-Out Program Description Status The SEA has implemented all required components as identified in its Title I, Part D (N/D) plan. The SEA ensures that State Agency (SA) plans for services to eligible N/D students meet all requirements. The SEA ensures that local educational agency (LEA) plans for services to eligible N/D students meet all requirements. The SEA ensures that institution wide programs developed by the SA under Subpart 1 use the flexibility provided to them by law to improve the academic achievement of all students in the school. The SEA ensures each State agency has reserved not less than 15 percent and not more than 30 percent of the 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 program requirements. Met Requirements Met Requirements Met Requirements Recommendation
Page NA NA 24
N/A Met Requirements
Title I, Part D-Neglected, Delinquent or At-Risk of Dropping-Out Program Monitoring Area: Accountability Indicator 1.3 - The SEA ensures that local educational agency (LEA) plans for services to eligible N/D students meet all requirements. Recommendation: All LEAs that apply for funds under Title I complete an online Standards of Learning (SOL) report. However, many LEAs do not complete the neglected or delinquent student identification cells. ED recommends that the VDOE provide technical assistance to all LEAs reporting on SOL through online reporting to complete appropriate cells identified for the neglected delinquent program. Indicator 3.1 - The SEA ensures each State agency has reserved not less than 15 percent and not more than 30 percent of the amount it receives under Subpart 1 for transition services. Finding: The ED team found that the Virginia Department of Corrections and the State Operated Programs ware not able to identify the required minimum of 15% reservation of funds or attribute activities to such funds for transition services and support. Citation: Section 1418 (a) of the ESEA states that each State Agency (SA) shall reserve not less than 15 percent and not more than 30 percent of the amount such Agency receives under this subpart for any fiscal year to support - (1) projects that facilitate the transition of children and youth from State-operated institutions to schools served by local educational agencies; or (2) the successful reentry of youth offenders, who are age 20 or younger and have received a secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent, into postsecondary education, or vocational and technical training programs, through strategies designed to expose the youth to, and prepare the youth for, postsecondary education, or vocational and technical training programs. Further action required: ED requires the VDOE to provide technical assistance to the SAs to assist them with attributing a reservation of funds to one or more of the activities appropriate as transition services stated in Section 1418(a). ED further requires that VDOE ensure that all SA budgets approved for funding under Subpart 1 will identify the reservation of funds for transition. Indicator 3.2 - The SEA conducts monitoring of its subgrantees sufficient to ensure compliance with Title I, Part D program requirements. Finding: The ED team found that the VDOE does not have a regular system, including a schedule and/or protocol, for desk or onsite compliance monitoring of Subpart 1 and Subpart 2 grantees.
Citation: Section 1414 of the SEA plan contains assurances that programs assisted under Title I, Part D will be carried out in accordance with the State plan. Additionally, the SEA is required to ensure that the SAs and local educational agencies receiving Part D subgrants comply with all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. Further, section 1426 of the ESEA requires the SEA to hold LEAs accountable for demonstrating student progress in identified areas. Finally, section 9304(a) of the ESEA requires that the SEA ensure that programs authorized under the ESEA are administered with all applicable statutes, regulations, program plans and applications. Further action required: The VDOE must provide a plan to ED that indicates how it will (1) implement a monitoring process that determines whether SAs and LEAs with Title I, Part D subgrants are complying with Part D requirements, and (2) carry out comprehensive monitoring to ensure that SAs and LEAs implement requirements.
Summary of McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Program Monitoring Indicators McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Program Description The SEA implements procedures to address the identification, enrollment and retention of homeless students. The SEA provides, or provides for, technical assistance for LEAs to ensure appropriate implementation of the ESEA. The SEA ensures that LEA subgrant plans for services to eligible homeless students meet all requirements. The SEA ensures that the LEA complies with providing comparable Title I, Part A services to 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.
Finding Met Requirements Recommendation 27
27 Finding
Monitoring Area: Fiduciary Responsibilities 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. Finding: The ED team found that several LEAs in the State do not reserve funds for homeless students not attending Title I schools as required under section 1113(c)(3)(A). One third of LEAs that applied for and received McKinney-Vento subgrants did not identify the required reservation, even though this was a requirement for receiving a subgrant. Additionally, less than 20 percent of all LEAs identified a reservation for serving homeless students. VDOE does not enforce this requirement as part of the Title I application process for LEAs. Citation: Section 1113(3)(c)(A) of the ESEA requires LEAs to reserve funds to provide comparable services for homeless students not attending Title I schools. Educationally related support services may occur in shelters or other locations where homeless children reside. Further action required: ED requires that the VDOE submit evidence as to how it will inform school LEAs of this requirement and ensure compliance. Indicator 3.3 - The SEA has a system for ensuring the prompt resolution of disputes. Recommendation: ED staff observed that district liaisons do not uniformly record interventions when they assisted a parent or youth with school enrollment. VDOE needs to put a process in place to capture data on numbers of disputes resolved at the local level and if district liaisons maintain logs of contacts of interventions to have a child admitted to school. ED recommends that VDOE provide guidance to liaisons to make clear that when a parent or youth needs the intervention of a local liaison for enrollment purposes, they should log such contacts for review by the SEA. Indicator 3.4 - The SEA conducts monitoring of LEAs with and without subgrants sufficient to ensure compliance with McKinney-Vento program requirements. Finding: The ED team found that the VDOE does not conduct a compliance monitoring review of LEAs with and without subgrants sufficient to ensure compliance with the McKinney-Vento statute. Citation: Section 722(g)(2) of the ESEA State plans for the education of homeless children and youth requires the State to ensure that LEAs comply with the requirements of the McKinney-Vento ESEA. Section 80.40 of the EDGAR further requires that the State, as the grantee, is responsible for monitoring grant and subgrant-supported activities to assure compliance with applicable Federal requirements.
Further action required: The VDOE must provide a plan to ED that indicates how it will conduct compliance monitoring to ensure that all LEAs with and without subgrants implement McKinney-Vento statutory requirements.
Documents Similar To description: tags: varpt