Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/1330462/description-tags-scrpt
Timestamp: 2018-07-18 21:16:59
Document Index: 85125978

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 3', 'art 3', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 2', '§6111', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art) 18', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 2']

description: tags: scrpt | Adequate Yearly Progress | Elementary And Secondary Education Act
Uploaded by anon-28604
South Carolina Department of Education June 12, 2006 through June 16, 2006 Scope of Review: A team from the U.S.
Department of Education’s (ED) Student Achievement and School Accountability Programs (SASA) office monitored the South Carolina Department of Education (SCDE) the week of June 12, 2006 through June 16, 2006. This was a comprehensive review of SCDE’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). A representative 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 representative is 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 Indicators. In conducting this comprehensive review, the ED team carried out a number of major activities. In reviewing the Part A program, the ED 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 State Education Agency (SEA). During the onsite week, the ED team visited two LEAs –Greenville School District (GSD) and Richland One School District (RSD) – and interviewed administrative staff, four school leadership teams in the LEAs that have been identified for improvement, and conducted two parent meetings. The ED team then interviewed SCDE personnel to confirm data collected in each of the three monitoring indicator areas. 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 Pickens and Allendale Counties. 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, technical assistance provided to the SA, the State’s oversight and monitoring plan and activities, SA subgrant plans and evaluations for the Department of Corrections; Juvenile Justice; John De
La Howe School (Subpart 1); and GSD and RSD (Subpart 2). The ED team interviewed administrative, program and teaching staff. The ED team also interviewed the SCDE Title I, Part D State coordinator to confirm information obtained at the State Agency site 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 GSD and RSD; Lexington 2 (non-subgrantee). The ED team visited sites, interviewed administrative, and program staff. The ED team also interviewed the SCDE McKinney-Vento State coordinator to confirm information obtained at the local site and discuss administration of the program. Previous Audit Findings: None. Previous Monitoring Findings: ED last reviewed Title I, Part A programs in South Carolina in April 2003. 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 South Carolina.
Overarching Requirement – SEA Monitoring A State’s ability to fully and effectively implement the requirements of NCLB is directly related to the extent to which it is able to regularly monitor its LEAs and provide quality technical assistance based on identified needs. This principle applies across all Federal programs under NCLB. Federal law does not specify the particular method or frequency with which States must monitor their grantees, and States have a great deal of flexibility in designing their monitoring systems. Whatever process is used, it is expected that States have mechanisms in place sufficient to ensure that States are able to collect and review critical implementation data with the frequency and intensity required to ensure effective (and fully compliant) programs under NCLB. Such a process should promote quality instruction and lead to achievement of the proficient or advanced level on State standards by all students. Status: Met requirement
Summary of Title I, Part A Monitoring Indicators Monitoring Area 1, Title I, Part A: Accountability Description The SEA has approved academic content standards for all required subjects or an approved timeline for developing them. The SEA has approved academic achievement standards 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 assessments in required subject areas and grades or an approved timeline to create them. Assessments should be used for purposes for which 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 identified in its accountability workbook. The SEA has published an annual report card as required and an annual report to the Secretary. The SEA has ensured that LEAs have published annual report cards as required. The SEA indicates how funds received under Grants for 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 identifying and assessing the academic achievement of limited English proficient students.
Finding Met requirements Met requirements Met requirements
5 N/A 5 N/A
Title I, Part A Monitoring Area: Accountability Indicator 1.5. – The SEA has implemented all required components as identified in its accountability workbook. Finding: The SCDE based the 2005-2006 adequate yearly progress (AYP) identification for LEAs on a process that differed from those in the approved Accountability Workbook. For each LEA, the SCDE calculated the LEA’s AYP rating by counting the number of schools that did not make AYP. If the majority of schools in a district did not make AYP, the district did not make AYP. According to the SCDE’s approved Accountability Workbook, the SCDE is required to aggregate the student data from the schools by subgroup and grade span in the LEA to determine district AYP. Citation: Section 1111(b)(2)(A) of the ESEA requires that each State plan shall demonstrate that the State has developed and is implementing a single statewide accountability system that will be effective in ensuring that all local educational agencies, public elementary schools, and public secondary schools make adequate yearly progress. Section 1116(c)(3) requires that a State identify a school district for improvement if it fails to make AYP, as defined in section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA, for two consecutive years. Further action required: The SCDE must recalculate LEA improvement for the 2005-06 school year using the approved procedure and compare that list of LEAs with the list of LEAs that were published as needing improvement. The SCDE must identify LEAs for the 2006-07 school year based on the approved procedures in the SCDE’s Accountability Workbook as described in element 4.1. The SCDE must submit to ED the list of LEAs identified for improvement for the 2006-07 school year and a description of the procedures used. Moreover, ED reserves its option to take further administrative actions, including the withholding of funds. If ED decides to take such actions, it will notify the SCDE of those actions in a separate document. Indicator 1.7 – The SEA has ensured that LEAs have published annual report cards as required. Finding: The SCDE’s LEA report cards are missing the required element that information on how students served by the LEA achieved on the statewide academic achievement assessment compared to students in the State as a whole. Citation: Section 1111(h)(2)(B)(i)(II) of the ESEA requires that the LEA report card include information that shows how students served by the local educational agency achieved on the statewide assessment compared to students in the State as a whole. Further action required: The SCDE must submit to ED a template of the LEA report card that includes the missing information. When LEA report cards for the spring 2006 assessments are finalized, the State must submit a sample of the completed LEA report card to ED.
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 ensure 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 supplementary 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. Met requirements
Findings Met requirements
Met requirements Met requirements Met requirements Recommendation
Monitoring Area: Instructional Support Indicator 2.3 – The SEA ensures that the LEAs and schools meet parental involvement requirements. Finding (1): The SCDE has not ensured that its LEAs meet parental notification requirements. Although RSD had notified parents regarding public school choice options through the mail, it had not used broader means such as newspapers, posters and the Internet, as required. Citation: Section 200.36(c)(2) of the Title I regulations requires LEAs or schools to provide information to parents through broader means of dissemination, such as the Internet, the media, and public agencies serving the student population and their families. Further action required: The SCDE must provide ED with evidence that it has provided guidance and has developed a process for ensuring that its LEAs communicate with parents directly through such means as regular mail, but also through broader means of dissemination such as the Internet, the media, and public agencies serving the student population and their families. The SCDE must provide ED with a detailed description of how and when the SCDE informed its LEAs of this requirement. This documentation may include letters to LEAs, agendas for technical assistance meetings, etc. Finding (2): The SCDE has not ensured that its LEAs incorporate all required information that must be included when notifying parents and the community that a school has been identified for improvement. RSD did not notify parents about how they can become involved in addressing the academic issues that caused their child’s school to be identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring. Citation: Section 1116(b)(6)(A)–(F) of the ESEA requires LEAs to promptly provide to a parent or parents (in a uniform and understandable format and, to the extent practicable, in a language the parents can understand) of each student enrolled in an elementary or secondary school identified for school improvement – 1. An explanation of what the identification means; 2. The reasons for the identification; 3. An explanation of what the school is doing to address the problems identified; 4. An explanation of what the school district is doing to help the school address the achievement problem; 5. An explanation of how the parents can become involved in addressing the academic issues that caused the school to be identified for improvement; and 6. An explanation of the parents’ options to transfer their child to another school or to receive supplemental educational services. Further action required: The SCDE must provide ED with evidence that it has provided guidance and has developed a process for ensuring that its LEAs incorporate all required information that must be included when notifying parents and the community that a school has
been identified for improvement. The SCDE must provide ED with a detailed description of how and when the SCDE informed its LEAs of this requirement. This documentation may include letters to LEAs, agendas for technical assistance meetings, etc. In addition, the SCDE must provide ED with evidence that RSD has complied with this provision for school year 2006 – 2007. Finding (3): The SCDE has not ensured that parental involvement policies for all Title I schools contain all required components. Parental involvement policies from several RSD schools did not contain descriptions of how the schools will carry out the parental involvement requirements in Section 1118(c)-(f) of the ESEA. Citation: Section 1118(b) of the ESEA requires that each Title I school develop a parental involvement policy that describes how it will carry out requirements of subsections (c)-(f). Further action required: The SCDE must ensure that all Title I schools have written parental involvement policies that contain all required components. The SCDE must provide ED with copies of the parental involvement policies developed consistent with section 1118(b) of the ESEA for the following RSD schools: WA Perry Middle School, Hyatt Park Elementary School, and Burton-Pack Elementary School. 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 school. Recommendation: In cases 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) of the ESEA and the school improvement plan requirements under section 1116(b)(3)(A) of the ESEA. To the extent it has not already done so, the SCDE is encouraged to incorporate into its school improvement framework specific information to guide the development of a single school plan for a school that is operating a schoolwide program and also identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring to ensure that all statutory and regulatory requirements of both plans are met.
SEA complies with—  The procedures for adjusting ED-determined allocations outlined in sections 200.70 – 200.75 of the regulations.  The procedures for reserving funds for school improvement, State administration, and (where applicable) the State Academic Achievement Awards program.  The reallocation and carryover provisions in section 1126(c) and 1127 of Title I statute. 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 the program. SEA ensures that all its LEAs comply with the requirements in section 1113 of the Title I Statute and sections 200.77 and 200.78 of the regulations with regard to (1) Reserving funds for the various setasides either required or allowed under the statute, and (2) Allocating funds to eligible school attendance areas or schools in rank order of poverty based on the number of children from low-income families who reside in an eligible attendance area. SEA complies with the maintenance of effort (MOE) provisions of Title I.  SEA ensures that its LEAs comply with the comparability provisions of Title I.  SEA ensures that Title I funds are used only to supplement or increase non-Federal sources used for the education of participating children and do not supplant funds from nonFederal sources. SEA ensures that its LEAs comply with all the auditee responsibilities specified in Subpart C, section 300(a) through (f) of OMB Circular A133. SEA ensures that its LEAs comply with requirements regarding services to eligible private school children, their teachers and families. SEA complies with the requirement for implementing a system for ensuring prompt resolution of complaints. SEA complies with the requirement to establish a Committee of Practitioners and involves the committee in decision-making as required.  Met requirements
Finding Met requirements Met Requirements
Equipment and Real Property. The SEA and LEA must establish and implement controls over the procurement, recording, custody, use, and disposition of Title I equipment in accordance with the provisions of State policies and procedures, the NCLB, the Improper Payments Information Act, standards of internal control, and any other relevant standards, circulars, or legislative mandates. SEA and LEAs comply with requirements regarding procurement of goods and services and the disbursement of Title I funds in accordance with State policies and procedures, NCLB, the Improper Payments Information Act, and any other relative standards, circulars, or legislative mandates.
Monitoring Area: Fiduciary Responsibilities Indicator 3.4 - Maintenance of Effort, Comparability, Supplement not Supplant Finding: The SCDE has not monitored expenditures of LEAs to ensure that funds are used to supplement and not supplant State and local funds. RSD used a Title I-funded Early Childhood Assistance Team (ECAT), a screening team (Title I nurse, Title I social worker, Title I psychologist), as its initial screening source for the Child Development Center (Pre-K program) rather than using its district support staff (district nurse, district social worker, district psychologist) to conduct the initial screening. Because the Child Development Center is a district-run program and extended by Title I funds, the district-funded nurses, social workers, and psychologists should conduct initial screenings. Citation: Section 1120(b)(1) of the ESEA requires State Educational Agencies (SEAs) and LEAs to use Federal funds received to supplement the funds that would, in the absence of such Federal funds, be made available from non-Federal sources for the education of pupils participating in programs assisted under this part, and not to supplant such funds. Further action required: The SCDE must use its district support staff (nurse, psychologist, and social worker) as the initial screening team for this district-funded initiative extended by Title I funds. Title I staff should only be used to supplement the district funded screening team and not to replace them. The SCDE must submit policies and procedures that will be used for the benefit of Title I-funded early childhood assistance team employees in State and/or district-run programs. Indicator 3.6 – The SEA ensures that its LEAs comply with the requirements regarding services to eligible private school children, their teachers and families.
Finding: The SCDE has not ensured that LEAs that are serving eligible private school children through contracts with a third-party are providing Title I services in accordance with all Title I requirements. GSD, in consultation with its participating private school, used a third-party provider with its private schools without a third-party contract, purchase order, or invoice. The absence of a contract could generate an issue involving a request for bid violation of State requirement if the contract is over a specific amount. The absence of a purchase order could generate an issue involving a lack of funding budgeted to draw down invoices. The absence of an invoice could generate an issue involving the absence of detailed information. Citation: Section 9306(a)(5) of the ESEA requires an LEA when submitting a consolidated application to use fiscal control and fund accounting procedures that will ensure proper disbursement of, and accounting for, Federal funds paid to the LEA. Section 80.36(b)(2) of the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) requires that grantees must follow the same policies and procedures it uses for procurements from its non-Federal funds ensuring that every purchase order or other contract includes any clauses required by Federal statutes and executive orders and their implementing regulations. Additionally, grantees and subgrantees will use their own procurement procedures reflective of applicable State and local laws and regulations if the procurements conform to applicable Federal law and the standards identified in this section. Grantees and subgrantees are also required to maintain a system that ensures that contractors perform in accordance with the terms of the contracts. Section 443 of the General Education Provisions Act requires each recipient of Federal funds such as an LEA to keep records which fully disclose the amount and disposition of the funds, the total costs of the activity for which the funds are used … and such other records as will facilitate an effective financial or programmatic audit. Further action required: The SCDE must ensure that each LEA uses a contract for any thirdparty provider of services. In the future, SCDE must require that any LEA serving eligible private school children through contracts with a third-party ensure that the third-party is providing Title I services to eligible private school children in accordance with all Title I requirements. In order to exercise proper oversight in awarding these contracts, the SCDE must require all third-party providers to provide technical descriptions of the Title I services they will provide in detail sufficient to enable the LEA to determine that the Title I statutory and regulatory requirements will be met as required by section 9306 of the ESEA. The SCDE must provide evidence regarding its methods of monitoring private school consultation and third-party contracts as required by law. Indicator 3.9 – Equipment and Real Property. The SEA’s and LEAs’ controls over the procurement, recording, custody, use and disposition of Title I equipment are in accordance with the provisions of State policies and procedures, the NCLB, the Improper Payments Information Act, standards of internal control, and any other relevant standards, circulars, or legislative mandates.
Finding (1): The SCDE did not ensure that GSD maintained property tags on Title I equipment, utilizing tag numbers. Of seven items located and tested at GSD, all seven items or 100 percent of the items located at GSD did not have a label or property tag affixed to the equipment item that displayed a tag number. Property tags affixed to the equipment items displayed serial numbers rather than tag numbers. Citation: Section 80.32(b) of 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 SCDE must ensure that GSD implements and maintains adequate controls to account for the procurement, location, custody, and security of equipment purchased with Title I funds. The controls must ensure that GSD uses either bar codes or an alternative means of identifying equipment. The SCDE must provide to ED a copy of a corrective action plan to address this requirement inclusive of a follow-up plan to monitor compliance. Finding (2): The SCDE did not ensure that GSD and RSD maintained a current and accurate record of equipment purchased with Title I funds. Of 18 items tested at GSD, seven laptop computers or 39 percent of the test universe had been transferred to schools, one audiometer or 6 percent of the test universe had been transferred to a high school, and a file server and a copier (11 percent of the test universe) had been disposed of. Although GSD was able to provide signed equipment transfer forms to verify the items were transferred from the district office to another location, the transfers were not noted on the district’s inventory record of Title I equipment. Of the 22 items of equipment tested at RSD, one item (a computer) or 5 percent of the universe could not be located at the district office. Also, at RSD, the property system was not current and did not provide for location of equipment. Of the 403 items of Title I equipment recorded in the property system, 233 of the items, or 58 percent, were acquired during the period 1985-1999. During the interview with the ED team, LEA staff acknowledged that any of these items that have been disposed of should have been removed from the record. Citation: Section 80.32(b) of 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 SCDE must establish and distribute a policy requiring LEAs to document the transfer of equipment purchased with Title I funds on a timely basis and to record transfers in the property system. The SCDE must provide ED with a copy of a corrective action plan to address this requirement inclusive of a follow-up plan to monitor compliance with LEAs. The corrective action must include a procedure that ensures the equipment records in the property systems are complete and up to date and that, for each item of equipment, the cost, date of purchase and condition are shown. Finding (3): The SCDE did not ensure that RSD performed a reconciliation of the physical inventory to the equipment assets recorded in the property system. The review found that the RSD had made no adjustment in its fixed asset records to account for the item of missing equipment noted in finding one above. No documentation was provided to confirm when any adjustments resulting from physical inventories had been made.
Citation: Section 80.32(b) of 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 SCDE must develop a corrective action plan to establish and distribute written procedures to LEAs defining a requirement to conduct periodic physical inventories of equipment at all locations and to perform a reconciliation of the physical inventory to the record of equipment. The plan must include a requirement to record adjusting entries to account for the reconciling differences. The SCDE must provide ED with a copy of the corrective action plan addressing this requirement inclusive of a follow-up plan to monitor compliance by LEAs. Finding (4): The SCDE did not maintain an accurate record of equipment purchased with Title I funds. The ED team found that of the 20 items of equipment tested, one item or 5 percent of the universe was purchased with Title III (OELA) funds. Citation: Section 80.32(b) of 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 SCDE must implement and maintain a process to maintain adequate controls to account for the procurement, location, custody, and security of equipment purchased with Title I funds. The controls must ensure that accountability for equipment purchased with Title I funds does not include equipment items purchased with other Federal program funds. The SCDE must provide to ED a copy of a corrective action plan to address this requirement inclusive of documented procedures and assignment of accountability. Finding (5): The SCDE did not consistently use transfer forms when transferring equipment from one location to another. The review found that a desk had been transferred from one room to another within the district office without utilizing a transfer form. Citation: Section 80.32(b) of 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.” Section 443 of the GEPA requires each recipient of Federal funds, such as an LEA, to keep records, which fully disclose the amount and disposition of the funds, the total costs of the activity for which the funds are used . . . and such other records as will facilitate an effective financial or programmatic audit. Further action required: The SCDE must establish and distribute a policy requiring the SEA and the LEAs to document the transfer of equipment purchased with Title I funds on a timely basis and record transfers in the property system. The SCDE must provide ED with a copy of a corrective action plan to address this requirement and a plan to monitor compliance as well as a copy of the subject procedures. Indicator 3.10 – The SEA and LEAs comply with requirements regarding procurement of goods and services and the disbursement of Title I funds in accordance with State policies and procedures, NCLB, the Improper Payments Information Act, and any other relevant standards, circulars, or legislative mandates.
Finding (1): The SCDE did not ensure that vendor invoices presented to support disbursements at the SEA and the RSD had notations indicating date of receipt or approval signature. From a universe of 18 transactions selected for test at the RSD, four of the invoices, or 18 percent of the sample, did not include notations. From a universe of 27 transactions selected for testing at the SCDE, none of the invoices included notations. At the SCDE, Accounts Payable receives the invoice and reviews it to ensure that the items on the invoice match the purchase order. Then a voucher is generated. The Fiscal Manager in accounts payable reviews the voucher and invoice for accuracy and approves them for payment by signing the voucher. The process does not include a procedure for entering a date of receipt or approval signature on the invoice from the organization that ordered and received the goods and services. Citation: When procuring property and services under a grant, Section 80.36(a) of EDGAR requires that “. . . a State [LEA] . . . follow the same policies and procedures it uses for procurement from its non-Federal funds.” This Section also requires that “The State [LEA] . . . ensure that every purchase order or other contract includes any clauses required by Federal statutes and executive orders and their implementing regulations.” Further action required: The SCDE must implement a corrective action plan to ensure the SCDE and RSD adhere to the procurement procedures requiring the review and approval of vendor invoices by individuals with appropriate delegations of authority. ED considers the practice by the Fiscal Manager in Accounts Payable of reviewing and approving vendor invoices for payment without a signature (or initials) and date on the invoice by a person with approval authority from the organization that ordered and received the goods and services, indicating that the invoice has been entered into the State’s computer system, constitutes a control weakness. The SCDE must provide a copy of the corrective action plan to ED to address this requirement and a plan to monitor compliance as well as a copy of the subject procedure. Finding (2): The SCDE did not ensure that vendor invoices presented a clear description of services provided. Of 27 disbursement transactions tested at SCDE, one transaction or 3.7 percent of the test universe had an invoice as supporting documentation that did not state in detail the services provided for the billing period. Citation: Section 80.36(a) of EDGAR states that “When procuring property and services under a grant, a State [LEA] will follow the same policies and procedures it uses for procurements from its non-Federal funds.” Further action required: The SCDE must provide ED with documentation that it has distributed procurement policy guidance to its staff, addressing the need for sufficient descriptions of goods or services provided to be included on all vendor invoices and a plan to monitor compliance. At a minimum, the vendor invoice for professional services must include an adequate description of the services performed, dates and location of service, and, if applicable, number of students served. The information provided should be consistent with the description of deliverables specified in contracts and purchase orders.
Summary of Title I, Part B, Subpart 3 (Even Start) Monitoring Indicators Monitoring Area 1: Accountability Description 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, and 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. The SEA develops, based on the best available research and evaluation data, indicators of program quality for Even Start programs, and uses the Indicators to monitor, evaluate, and improve projects within the State. The SEA ensures 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.
Status Finding Recommendations Met requirements Finding
Page 19 N/A 19
Monitoring Area 2: Program Support Description The SEA uses funds to provide technical assistance to local projects to improve the quality of Even Start family literacy services or comply with State indicators of program quality. Each program assisted shall include the identification and recruitment of families most in need, and serve those families. Each program shall include screening and preparation of parents and enable those parents and children to participate fully in the activities and services provided. SEA ensures that all families receiving services participate in all four 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. Individuals providing academic instruction, whose salaries are paid in whole or part with Even Start funds, meet the statutory requirements for Even Start staff qualifications. By December 21, 2004, the person responsible for administration of family literacy services, if that person’s salary is paid in whole or part with Even Start funds, has received training in the operation of a family literacy program. By December 21, 2004, paraprofessionals who provide support for academic instruction, whose salaries are paid in whole or part with Even Start funds, 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.
Monitoring Area 2: Program Support Description The local programs shall provide and monitor integrated instructional services to participating parents and children through the home-based portion of the instructional program. 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, and reading-readiness activities for preschool children based on scientifically based reading research. 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 program shall, if applicable, promote the continuity of family literacy to ensure that individuals retain and improve their educational outcomes.
Monitoring Area 3: SEA Fiduciary Responsibilities Description 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 and appropriate hearing procedures.
Title I, Part B, Subpart 3 (Even Start) 18
Monitoring Area 1: Accountability Indicator 1.1 - The SEA complies with the subgrant award requirements. Finding: The SCDE’s request for proposals (RFP) does not clearly distinguish between participant eligibility (based on Adult Education and Family Literacy Act, or those attending secondary school, or those within the State’s compulsory school attendance age range) and participants who are considered to be the most in need. . Citation: Section 1237 of the ESEA states that to be eligible to receive a subgrant under this subpart, an eligible entity shall submit an application to the State educational agency in such form and containing or accompanied by such information as the State educational agency shall require. Further action required: The SCDE must revise the RFP to specifically define eligibility as stated in section 1236(a) and in section 1231(1), the purpose of Even Start. The RFP must also clarify what constitutes participants who are most in need – Section 1235(1). Recommendation (1): Although there are no current Even Start Projects in South Carolina that are in their seventh or later year of operation, the RFP should clarify that projects can apply for a new subgrant after eight years. The RFP should also state the required local match for these situations. Recommendation (2): The RFP states that families generally may continue to participate “until all family members become ineligible for participation.” However, when the ineligibility is due to the youngest participating child reaching the age of 8, the family may continue to participate for two more years or until the parent becomes ineligible due to educational advancement, whichever occurs first. The RFP should clarify the different causes and results of a family’s ineligibility. Indicator 1.3 - 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. Finding: The process used by the SCDE for making continuation awards did not define when a project would be considered to have made insufficient progress on the performance indicators and to have not sufficiently improved the performance of the program. Citation: Section 1238(b)(3) and (4) of the ESEA states that, in awarding funds to continue a program, the SEA shall review the progress of the entity in meeting the objectives of the program and evaluate the program based on the State’s indicators of program quality and may refuse to award subgrant funds to an eligible entity if the entity has not sufficiently improved the performance of the program.
Further action required: The SCDE must provide ED with a copy of the written guidance it has developed regarding insufficient progress on the performance indicators and the procedures the SCDE will follow if an entity is determined to not have sufficiently improved the performance of the program. Title I, Part B, Subpart 3 (Even Start) Monitoring Area 2: Program Support Indicator 2.2 - Each program assisted shall include the identification and recruitment of eligible families most in need, and serve those families. Recommendation: Although they appeared to be serving families most in need of Even Start, neither the Pickens County nor the Allendale County Project made a clear distinction between families who were eligible for Even Start and those who were determined to be most in need. It is recommended that the SCDE provide technical assistance and guidance to all projects to ensure that they understand these two requirements and that all projects are serving only eligible families who are most in need of Even Start services. Indicator 2.6 – Each program shall include high-quality, intensive instructional programs that promote adult literacy and empower parents to support the educational growth of their children, developmentally appropriate early childhood educational services and preparation of children for success in regular school programs. Recommendation: Although there are changes planned for next year, the number of hours currently offered in parenting education at the Allendale Project is below the Federal recommendation for intensity, which is 20 hours a month. It is recommended that the SCDE provide technical assistance and review all projects to ensure that they are providing, at least, the recommended minimum number of hours for each component. Indicator 2.7 – Individuals providing academic instruction, whose salaries are paid in whole or in part with Even Start funds, meet the statutory requirements for Even Start staff qualifications. Finding: In Pickens County (a third year Even Start project), one lead teacher in an early childhood classroom did not meet the Federal requirement of at least an associate’s degree in a qualifying field. Also many early childhood teachers did not meet the State qualifications of a bachelor’s degree for early childhood teachers as required by Even Start. (All adult and parenting education staff have met the State requirement of a bachelor’s degree.) Citation: Section 1235(5)(B) of the ESEA provides that “all new personnel hired to provide academic instruction (1) 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; and (ii) if applicable, meet qualifications established by the State for early childhood education, elementary school or secondary school education, or adult education provided as part of an Even Start program or another family literacy program.” Further action required: The SCDE must provide to ED documentation that Even Start instructional staff meet both the federal and State requirements for early childhood teachers. Indicator 2.14 - The local programs shall use instructional programs based on scientifically based reading research for children and adults, and reading-readiness activities for preschool children based on scientifically based reading research. Finding: At the Pickens site, one teacher stated that her instructional program and classroom activities were “based on the assessment”; however, there was not strong evidence in the classroom of the use and understanding of scientifically based reading research curriculum and practices. Observations and discussions at the State and local levels indicate that there is adequate childcare being provided for children 3 and under, but there was little evidence of the provision of high-quality early childhood education services. Citation: Section 1235 (10) and (12) of the ESEA states that each program assisted under this subpart shall use instructional programs based on scientifically based reading research for children and adults, to the extent that research is available and include reading-readiness activities for preschool children based on scientifically based reading research, to the extent available, to ensure that children enter school ready to learn to read. Further action required: The SCDE must provide technical assistance to the local projects regarding the identification and implementation of early childhood education curricula and practices based on scientifically based reading research.
Title I, Part B, Subpart 3 (Even Start) Monitoring Area 3: SEA Fiduciary Responsibilities Indicator 3.1 – The SEA complies with the allocation requirements for State administration and technical assistance and award of subgrants. Finding: There was no evidence of separate accounting for the State level funds allotted and spent for administration and the State level funds allotted and spent for technical assistance to local projects. Citation: Section 1233(a) of the ESEA states that an SEA may use not more than a total of 6 percent of the grant funds for the costs of (1) administration, which amount shall not exceed half
of the total; (2) providing, through one or more subgrants or contracts, technical assistance for program improvement and replication; and (3) carrying out sections 1240 and 1234(c) Further action required: The SCDE must develop separate accounting records for the State level Even Start administrative and technical assistance funds. Documentation of such development and implementation must be submitted to ED along with a description of the activities, contracts, or subgrants to be provided with the technical assistance funds. Indicator 3.5 – The SEA has a system for ensuring fair and prompt resolution of complaints and appropriate hearing procedures. Recommendation: There is evidence that the SCDE follows appropriate Federal requirements for complaints and hearings; however, these procedures have not been formalized. The SCDE should develop and distribute written procedures for ensuring fair and prompt resolution of complaints and appropriate hearing procedures.
Summary of Title I, Part D 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 institutionwide 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
Title I, Part D 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 SCDE has not monitored Title I, Part D, Subpart 1 programs. Additionally, the SCDE provides guidance reviews to LEA Subpart 2 programs; however, there is no monitoring protocol, or schedule of LEA compliance monitoring to identify compliance issues or determine corrective actions based on a compliance review. Citation: Section 1414 of the ESEA requires 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 State agencies 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 SCDE must provide a plan to ED that indicates how it will (1) implement a monitoring process, including a monitoring protocol, that determines whether SAs and LEAs with Title I, Part D subgrants are complying with Part D requirements; and (2) schedule comprehensive monitoring visits to ensure that SAs and LEAs implement requirements.
Met requirements Met requirements Recommendation Finding Met requirements
McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Program 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. Recommendation: Homeless students are, by definition, eligible for Title I services and in many cases face barriers to obtaining a high-quality education that are unique to their homelessness. The ED team observed that local liaisons are often not included in the LEA decision-making process regarding the reservation of Title I funds for homeless students and do not know either the amount of funds or their intended uses. ED encourages all LEAs in South Carolina to work together with local liaisons to ensure that homeless students receive appropriate Title I support. Section 1112(a)(1) requires LEA plans submitted to the SEA and approved by the SEA, be coordinated with the McKinney-Vento program. Similarly, section 1112(b)(O)(1) requires that the LEA describe the services that will be provided to homeless students, including those provided from the Title I reservation of funds. ED recommends that SCDE review the process for review and approval of district consolidated applications that include Title I plans to ensure that districts are complying with the intent of the reservation for homeless students. SCDE may wish to provide additional guidance to LEAs in completing their applications by calling attention to these two statutory requirements. Indicator 3.3 - The SEA has a system for ensuring the prompt resolution of disputes. Finding: The South Carolina statute does not confer authority to the SEA to resolve disputes at the LEA level. While the SCDE has a written dispute resolution policy, it does not have an independent state-level dispute resolution review to oversee LEA decisions regarding homeless students. The SCDE takes on an advisory and consultant role to LEAs. However, this leaves parents with no other SCDE remedy and their next level of recourse, according to the SCDE dispute resolution policy, is to address their dispute with the Office of Civil Rights or in a court of law. Citation: Section 9304(a) of the ESEA requires that the SEA ensure that programs authorized under the ESEA are administered in accordance with all applicable statutes regulations, program plans, and applications. Further action required: ED requires that the SCDE review the State code and seek to make necessary revisions regarding dispute resolutions to allow the SCDE to provide oversight and state-level review of local dispute resolution decisions for families of homeless children and youth.
Documents Similar To description: tags: scrpt
description: tags: ga-aprtbl-2007b
anon-20348
TSP Grade Card 2010
anon-188892
Setting a Common Bar
description: tags: b-impactaid
anon-536898
description: tags: ma-aprtbl-2007b
anon-907973