Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/1330484/description-tags-nmltrandrpt
Timestamp: 2018-07-16 17:09:19
Document Index: 15725914

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

description: tags: nmltrandrpt | Adequate Yearly Progress | Elementary And Secondary Education Act
Uploaded by anon-285345
Honorable Veronica C.
Garcia Secretary of Education New Mexico Public Department of Education Education Building 300 Don Gaspar Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501-2786 Dear Secretary Garcia: During the week of December 13-16, 2004, a team from the U. S. Department of Education’s (ED) Student Achievement and School Accountability Programs (SASA) reviewed the New Mexico Public Education Department’s (PED) administration of the following programs authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB): Title I, Part A; Title I, Part B, Subpart 3; and Title I, Part D. Also reviewed was Title X, Part C, Subtitle B, of the NCLB (also known as the McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Assistance Improvements Act of 2001). Enclosed is a report based upon this review. Because of the increased emphasis that the ESEA, reauthorized as NCLB, places on accountability for all students, and a focus on States’ responsibilities to work with districts and schools to improve instruction and boost student achievement, ED is committed to working closely with States to define their responsibilities. SASA’s monitoring process is aligned to the changes brought about by the NCLB. Monitoring for the Title I, Part A, Even Start, Neglected or Delinquent, and Homeless Education programs is conducted in three broad areas - accountability, instructional support, and compliance with fiduciary responsibilities. Prior to, during, and following the onsite monitoring review, the SASA team conducted a number of activities (described in the attached report) to verify compliance with the critical monitoring indicators in each of the three broad areas. The enclosed report contains a listing of the critical monitoring elements in each of the areas for the four programs monitored, a description of the scope of the monitoring review, and the findings and recommendations that the team cited as a result of the review. Beginning with the 2003-2004 monitoring cycle, every State that participates in an onsite monitoring review will have a condition placed on it’s Title I Part A grant award specifying that the State must submit (and receive approval of) documentation that all compliance issues identified in the monitoring report have been corrected. Following an onsite review, a monitoring report will be issued by ED within 30 business days of the team’s return. The State Education Agency (SEA) then has 30 business days to respond to all of the compliance issues identified in that report. ED staff will review the SEA’s response for sufficiency and will determine which areas are acceptable, and which will
Page 2 – Honorable Victoria C. Garcia require further documentation of implementation. ED will allow 30 additional business days for receipt of this further documentation. ED recognizes that some corrective actions may require longer than the prescribed 30 days, and in these instances, ED will work with the SEA to determine a reasonable timeline. In all cases, however, evidence of implementation of actions designed to correct all compliance issues identified in the monitoring report must be submitted and approved by ED prior to removing the condition on the State’s grant award. The SASA team would like to thank Sam Ornelas and his staff for their hard work and the assistance they provided prior to and during the review in gathering materials and providing access to information in a timely manner. The team was impressed with the efforts of your State’s staff to implement the many requirements of the Title I programs of the ESEA. We look forward to working further with your staff members on any follow-up activities, and in assisting them to improve the delivery of Title I services in New Mexico. Sincerely, Jacquelyn C. Jackson, Ed.D. Director Student Achievement and School Accountability Programs Enclosure cc: Sam Ornelas State Even Start Coordinator
New Mexico Public Education Department December 13-16, 2004 Scope of Review: The Student Achievement and School Accountability Programs team from the United States Department of Education (ED) monitored the New Mexico Public Education Department (PED) the week of December 13-16, 2004. This was a comprehensive review of PED’s administration of the following programs authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB): Title I, Part A; Title I, Part B, Subpart 3; and Title I, Part D. Also reviewed was Title X, Part C, Subtitle B, of the NCLB (also known as the McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Assistance Improvements Act of 2001). Part A 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 SEA. During the onsite week, the ED team visited two LEAs – Gadsden and Albuquerque-- and interviewed administrative staff, interviewed principals and staff from 12 schools in the LEAs that have been identified for improvement, and conducted two parent meeting (s). The team then interviewed PED personnel to confirm data collected in each of the three monitoring indicator areas. Part B 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 local projects in Bernalillo and Gadsden. During the onsite review, the ED team visited these local projects. During the visit, the ED team had the opportunity to observe all four required components of a family literacy program and interviewed administrative and instructional staff. The ED team also interviewed the New Mexico Even Start State Coordinator to confirm information obtained at the local sites and to discuss State administration issues. Part D 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 Albuquerque and Santa Fe Public Schools, as well as programs run by the New Mexico Department of Corrections, the Department of Health, and Children, Youth and Families. The ED team interviewed administrative, program and teaching staff. The ED team also interviewed the Title I, Part D New Mexico State
coordinator to confirm information obtained at the local sites and discuss administration of the program. Homeless Education Programs 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 Albuquerque and Santa Fe Public Schools. The ED team visited these sites and interviewed administrative and program staff. The ED team also interviewed the New Mexico 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, Part B (Even Start), Part D (Neglected/Delinquent) and the Education for Homeless Children and Youth programs in New Mexico in May of 2002. As a result of that review, ED cited compliance issues for Part A programs in the areas of accountability, schoolwide programs, supplement not supplant and maintenance of time and effort records. PED subsequently provided documentation to ED sufficient to address these compliance issues. No compliance issues were found under Part B, Part D or the Homeless Education programs.
Title I, Part A Monitoring Summary of Critical Monitoring Elements Monitoring Area 1, Title I, Part A: Accountability Indicator Number 1.1 Critical Element 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. Adequate yearly progress shall be defined by the State in a manner that is statistically valid and reliable. The SEA has implemented all required components as identified in its accountability workbook. N.B. Report card requirements are addressed separately. The SEA has published an annual report card and 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. Status Met Requirements Page N/A Met Requirements N/A
Met Requirements N/A
Monitoring Area 2, Title I, Part A: Instructional Support Critical Element Status The SEA designs and implements procedures that ensure the hiring and retention of qualified paraprofessionals and ensure Finding that parents are informed of educator credentials as required. Recommendation The SEA has established a statewide system of support that Met provides, or provides for, technical assistance to LEAs and Requirements schools as required. The SEA ensures that the LEA and schools meet parental Recommendation involvement requirements. The SEA ensures that schools and LEAs identified for Recommendation improvement, corrective action, or restructuring have met the requirements of being so identified. The SEA ensures that requirements for public school choice Finding are met. The SEA ensures that requirements for the provision of Finding 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 Finding improve the academic achievement of all students in the school. The SEA ensures that LEA targeted assistance programs meet all requirements. Finding
Monitoring Area 3, Title I, Part A: Fiduciary responsibilities Indicator Number 3.1 Critical Element Status The SEA ensures that its component LEAs are audited Recommendation annually, if required, and that all corrective actions required through this process are fully implemented. The SEA complies with the allocation, reallocation, and Met Requirements carryover provisions of Title I. The SEA complies with the maintenance of effort Met Requirements provisions of Title I. The SEA ensures that LEAs comply with the comparability Met Requirements provisions of Title I. The SEA ensures that LEAs provide Title I services to Met Requirements eligible children attending private schools. The SEA establishes a Committee of Practitioners (COP) Met Requirements and involves the committee in decision making as required. The SEA has an accounting system for administrative Met Requirements funds that includes (1) State administration, (2) reallocation, and (3) reservation of funds for school improvement. The SEA has a system for ensuring fair and prompt Met Requirements resolution of complaints. The SEA ensures that the LEA complies with the rank Met Requirements order procedures for the eligible school attendance area. The SEA conducts monitoring of its subgrantees sufficient Findings to ensure compliance with Title I program requirements. The SEA ensures that its LEAs comply with the provision Met Requirements for submitting an annual plan to the SEA. The SEA ensures that Title I funds are used only to Met Requirements 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 Met Requirements procured at a cost that is recognized as ordinary and the equipment and real property are necessary for the performance of the Federal award. Page 15
N/A N/A 15 N/A N/A
Monitoring Area 1, Title I, Part A: Accountability Indicator 1.3—The SEA has approved assessments and alternate assessments in required subject areas and grades or has an approved timeline to create them. Finding: Inclusion of all students with disabilities in the regular assessment system or the alternate assessment that has alternate achievement standards was an issue. In both LEAs visited by the ED team, the participation rates for special education students were well below 95%. One was 90% and the other LEAs participation rate was 82%. The PED’s focused monitoring team also documented similar numbers of special education students that were unaccounted for in the assessments. LEAs cited data quality errors in coding the special education subgroup and incorrect enrollment counts as part of the explanation for the low participation rates in their LEAs. Citation: Section 1111(b)(3)(C)(ix)(I) and (II) of the ESEA require that assessments shall provide for the participation in such assessments of all students and reasonable adaptations and accommodations for students with disabilities (as defined under section 602(3) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) necessary to measure the academic content and the State’s students academic achievement standards. Further Action Required: Within 30 days, the PED must investigate the reasons for low participation rates in this subgroup and document proposed processes to correct these inclusion issues. Also provide ED with documentation of instruction and training given LEAs to ensure the accuracy of these data. Finding: In a PED technical assistance manual entitled “Participation of Students with Disabilities in the New Mexico Statewide Assessment Program,” dated December 2003, we found “Language exemptions: Students who have limited English skills as determined by the local education agency’s language assessment instrument may be exempted from the Statewide testing program, provided all such exemptions are reported to PED.” According to “Assessment Guidance for English Language Learners (ELL),” dated spring 2004, ELL students who do not test proficient on an English proficiency assessment, who have not attended school in the U. S. for three consecutive years or more and are fluent in Spanish may take the Supera. ELL students who do not test proficient on an English proficiency assessment, have not attended school in the U. S. for three consecutive years or more and are not fluent in Spanish or speak a language other than Spanish may participate in the LEA Alternative Portfolio Assessment. Citation: Section IIII (b)(3)(C)(ix)(I) and (III) of the ESEA require that assessments shall provide for the participation in such assessments of all students and the inclusion of limited English proficient students, who shall be assessed in a valid and reliable manner and provided reasonable accommodations on assessments administered to such students including, to the extent practicable, assessments in the language and form most likely to
yield accurate data on what such students know and can do in academic content areas, until such students have achieved English language proficiency. Further Action Required: The PED has developed a new draft technical assistance manual dated October 2004 that removed the exemption policy for ELL students. Please notify ED when this new policy is disseminated to the LEAs. The PED is also developing new policy guidance that reflects the new assessments and inclusion policies for these assessments that will no longer allow assessment of ELL students with nonstandard-based assessments. Within 30 days, the SEA must submit these new policies to ED. Indicator 1.4 - 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. Adequate yearly progress shall be defined by the State in a manner that is statistically valid and reliable. Finding: Data quality is an overarching indicator problem for the PED. The PED recognizes that for the 2003-04 assessment and accountability data there were numerous data quality issues. Both LEAs that the ED team visited also indicated data quality issues. Coding for subgroups was not accurate. The number enrolled at the time of testing was not accurate because the time the enrollment was taken does not match the time tested. Counts for the full academic year are not accurate because currently the State cannot track continuous enrollment. In some cases, the number tested in the accountability reports was larger than the number tested in the assessment reports. In most cases, after identifying students who have been in the school or LEA for a full academic year, the numbers tested in the accountability reports should have been smaller. When the PED tried to correct these errors, this impacted the timely release of the school and LEA assessment and accountability reports. Citation: Section 1111(b)(3)(C)(iii) of the ESEA requires that the State assessments be used for purposes for which such assessments are valid and reliable and be consistent with relevant, nationally recognized professional and technical standards. Section 1111(b)(2)(C)(ii) requires that adequate yearly progress “be defined by the State in a manner that is statistically valid and reliable.” Further Action Required: Within 30 days, the PED must outline the strategies that will be implemented to correct these data errors for the spring 2005 administration of the assessment along with a timeline that will show that assessment and accountability reports will be published in a timely fashion. Also the PED must address its long-range plans for an individual student identification system to address data quality issues along with a timeline for its implementation.
Indicator 1.5—The SEA has implemented all required components as identified in its accountability workbook. Finding: The PED did not make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) determination for districts in 2003-04. In the approved New Mexico Accountability Workbook, the State clearly states in element 1.1 how the PED will make accountability decisions for all public schools and school districts. In the September 10, 2002, monitoring report submitted by ED to the PED, the State was cited for not having a process for annually reviewing the AYP of each local educational agency receiving Title I funds. The PED has made AYP determination for districts for 2004-05. 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), for two consecutive years. Further Action Required: The PED must submit to ED, within 30 days, accountability reports based on the spring 2004 assessments for all the LEAs in New Mexico showing their accountability status for the 2004-05 school year. The PED must describe its corrective procedures for identifying any LEAs for improvement (see following item) and submit the procedures as an amendment to the New Mexico accountability workbook. Finding: Charter Schools are not included in LEA accountability calculations. At present, New Mexico’s charter schools are authorized only by the district and are treated as part of the district, rather than a separate LEA. For the allocation and distribution of Title I funds, charter schools are ranked within the LEA in the same manner as other schools. Further, the LEA is regarded as fiscal agent for the charter school and all Federal funds are distributed through the authorizing LEA. Citation: Section 200.20 (e)(1) of the Title I regulations requires that calculation of district AYP be based on all students enrolled for a full academic year, including those enrolled in charter schools within the district. Further Action Required: In the preparation of LEA accountability reports (see previous item) New Mexico must demonstrate that LEA accountability status is based on all students within a district, including students enrolled in charter schools. Finding: The participation rates for the economically disadvantaged students were not included in the calculation of AYP because the State did not have the enrollment figures for this subgroup.
Citation: Section 1111(b)(2)(I)(ii) of the ESEA requires that for a school to make adequate yearly progress, not less than 95 percent of each group of students who are enrolled in the school are required to take the assessments. Further Action Required: Within 30 days, the PED must submit to ED enrollment figures for the free and reduced lunch subgroup for each public school in New Mexico. Indicator 1.6—The SEA has published an annual State report card as required and ensured that LEAs have published annual report cards. Finding: The New Mexico State report card and the LEA reports are missing the following information:  The professional qualifications of teachers in the State, including the percentage of such teachers teaching with emergency or provisional credentials, and the percentage of classes not taught by highly qualified teachers, in the aggregate and disaggregated by high-poverty compared to low-poverty schools.
Citation: Section 1111(h) (1) and (2) of the ESEA require that the State and LEA report cards include the professional qualifications of teachers in the State, the percentage of such teachers teaching with emergency or provisional credentials, and the percentage of classes in the State not taught by highly qualified teachers, in the aggregate and disaggregated by high-poverty compared to low-poverty schools which, for the purpose of this clause, means schools in the top quartile of poverty and the bottom quartile of poverty in the State. Further Action Required: In responding to this report, the PED must submit to ED within 30 days a template of the State and LEA report cards that includes the missing information. When the State and LEA report cards for the spring 2004 assessments are completed, the PED must submit the completed report cards to ED.
Monitoring Area 2, Title I, Part A: Instructional Support Indicator 2.1 - The SEA designs and implements procedures that ensure the hiring and retention of qualified paraprofessionals and ensure that parents are informed of educator credentials as required. Finding: The PED is unable to identify the number of eligible educational assistants (paraprofessionals) who meet the highly qualified requirements of NCLB, by school and district. Citation: Section 1119 (d) of the ESEA requires each LEA to ensure that all paraprofessionals hired before the date of enactment of the NCLB Act of 2001, and working in a program supported with Title I funds, shall not later than four years after the date of enactment meet the highly qualified paraprofessional requirements. In order to meet this requirement, it is necessary for the SEA to have in place a mechanism to identify and track the progress of paraprofessionals toward meeting the highly qualified requirements. Further Action Required: The PED must incorporate as part of its accountability and data system (ADS) a mechanism to identify the highly qualified status of each Title I paraprofessional, by school and district. An up-to-date list of such paraprofessional, by district and school, must be provided to ED upon completion. PED must provide guidance and technical assistance to LEAs regarding development, scoring, and other issues of technical quality for its paraprofessional portfolio assessment. Indicator 2.3 - The SEA ensures that the LEA and schools meet parental involvement requirements. Recommendation: The PED should provide guidance to each LEA regarding the content of all written communications to parents (to include “parent-right-to-know” requirements), AYP status of the school, choice and supplemental educational services, all applicable requirements under 1118 and monitor the content of such communications on a regular basis. 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. Recommendation: The Educational Plan for Student Success (EPSS) is the PEDdeveloped template for school improvement plans, and its components are primarily student-focused. The plan should be revised to reflect school and staff-focused goals that enable staff to improve student achievement throughout the school.
Indicator 2.5 - The SEA ensures that requirements for public school choice are met. Finding: The LEA was unable to provide timely notification to parents regarding the AYP status of the school, and the related availability of choice. Citation: Section 1111 (b)(2) (10) of No Child Left Behind requires each SEA to ensure that the results of the State assessment used to determine adequate yearly progress of the SEA, LEAs, and schools be promptly provided to LEAs, schools and teachers in a manner that is clear and easy to understand, but not later than before the beginning of the next school year. Further Action Required: (Same as 1.4) Within 30 days, the PED must outline the strategies that will be implemented to correct these data errors for the spring 2005 administration of the assessment along with a timeline that will show that assessment and accountability reports will be published in a timely fashion. Also the PED must address its long-range plans for an individual student identification system to address data quality issues along with a timeline for its implementation. Indicator 2.6 - The SEA ensures that requirements for the provision of supplemental educational services (SES) are met. Finding: The LEA was unable to provide timely notification to parents regarding the AYP status of the school, and the related availability of supplemental educational services. Citation: Section 1111 (b)(2) (10) of the ESEA requires each SEA to ensure that the results of the State assessment used to determine adequate yearly progress of the SEA, LEAs, and schools be promptly provided to LEAs, schools and teachers in a manner that is clear and easy to understand, but not later than before the beginning of the next school year. Further Action Required: Same as 1.4 and 2.5 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. Finding: The Educational Plan for Student Success (EPSS) does not contain the ten required schoolwide program components.
Citation: Section 1114 (b)(2)(A)(i) of the ESEA requires that an eligible school that desires to operate a schoolwide program shall develop a comprehensive plan for reforming the total instructional program in the school that meets four standards, one of which is a description of how the school will implement the ten schoolwide program components. The EPSS did not specifically contain these components: strategies to attract highly qualified teachers, and plans to assist preschool children in the transition from early childhood programs to local elementary programs. Further action required: The PED must revise its EPSS to reflect inclusion of the required schoolwide program components and submit to ED once revised. Indicator 2.8 - The SEA ensures that LEA targeted assistance programs meet all requirements. Finding: The Educational Plan for Student Success (EPSS) does not contain the eight required targeted assistance program components. Citation: Section 1115 (c)(1) of the ESEA requires each targeted assistance program to incorporate eight components. The EPSS did not specifically contain these components: planning for identified students that is incorporated into existing school planning (which may include services that assist preschool children in the transition to local elementary programs), and coordination with and support of the regular program. Further action required: The PED must revise its EPSS to reflect inclusion of the required targeted assistance program components. The revised EPSS template must be submitted to ED once revised.
Monitoring Area 3, Title I Part A: Fiduciary responsibilities Indicator 3.1 - The SEA ensures that its component LEAs are audited annually, and that all corrective actions required through this process are fully implemented. Recommendation: PED administrative officials informed the ED team that it is aware that some LEA audits have been resolved beyond mandated timelines; however, a recent change in personnel has resulted in improved communication between the SEA and the State Auditor’s office. The ED team recommends that the PED establish a mechanism for sharing audit findings and corrective actions required through the audit process between the two offices that will result in improved timeliness of LEA responses to audits and more effective and timely corrective actions. Indicator 3.10 - The SEA conducts monitoring of its subgrantees sufficient to ensure compliance with Title I program requirements. Finding: The PED has not established a comprehensive process for monitoring LEAs for the requirements of NCLB. Although administrative officials indicated that they are developing protocols and schedules for monitoring, at the time of the onsite review, this process had not yet been implemented. Citation: Section 80.40(a) of the Education Department General Administrative Regulations states that grantees are responsible for managing the day-to-day operations of grant and subgrant supported activities. Grantees must monitor grant and subgrant supported activities to assure compliance with applicable Federal requirements and that performance goals are being achieved. Grantee monitoring must cover each program, function or activity. Further Action Required: The PED must submit a plan and a schedule for monitoring all Title I, Part A requirements that will enable instances of noncompliance to be identified and corrected during any current school year.
Summary of Title I, Part B, Subpart 3 (Even Start) Monitoring Indicators Monitoring Area 1, Title I, Part B, Subpart 3: Accountability Critical Element Status The SEA complies with the subgrant award requirements. The SEA requires applicants to submit applications for subgrants with the necessary documentation. In making non-competitive continuation awards, the SEA reviews the progress of each subgrantee in meeting the objectives of the program and evaluates the program based on the Indicators of Program Quality. The SEA refuses to award subgrant funds to an eligible entity if the agency finds that the entity has not sufficiently improved the performance of the program, as evaluated, based on the Indicators of Program Quality. The SEA develops, based on the best available research and evaluation data, Indicators of Program Quality for Even Start programs. The SEA uses the Indicators of Program Quality to monitor, evaluate, and improve local programs within the State. The SEA conducts monitoring of its subgrantees sufficient to ensure compliance with Even Start program requirements. The SEA ensures that projects provide for an independent local evaluation of the program that is used for program improvement. Met Requirements Met Requirements Met Requirements
Page N/A N/A N/A
Monitoring Area 2, Title I, Part B, Subpart 3: Instructional Support Critical Element Status The SEA uses funds to provide technical assistance to local programs to improve the quality of Even Start family literacy services. Each program assisted shall include the identification and recruitment of families most in need. Each program shall include screening and preparation of parents and enable those parents and children to participate fully in the activities and services provided. Families are participating in all core instructional services. Each program shall be designed to accommodate the participants’ work schedule and other responsibilities, including the provision of support services, when those services are unavailable from other sources. Each program shall include high-quality, intensive instructional programs that promote adult literacy and empower parents to support the educational growth of their children, and in preparation of children for success in regular school programs. All instructional staff of the program hired after enactment of the LIFT Act (December 21, 2000), whose salaries are paid in whole or in part with Even Start funds, meet the Even Start staff qualification requirements. By December 21, 2004, a majority of the individuals providing academic instruction shall have obtained an associate’s, bachelors, or graduate degree in a field related to early childhood education, elementary school or secondary school education, or adult education. By December 21, 2004, if applicable, a majority of the individuals providing academic instruction shall meet the qualifications established by the State for early childhood education, elementary or secondary education, or adult education provided as part of an Even Start program or another family literacy program. By December 21, 2004, the person responsible for administration of family literacy services has received training in the operation of a family literacy program. By December 21, 2004, paraprofessionals who provide support for academic instruction have a secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent. The local programs shall include special training of staff, Met Requirements
Met Requirements 17
Monitoring Area 2, Title I, Part B, Subpart 3: Instructional Support Critical Element Status including child-care workers, to develop the necessary skills to work with parents and young children. The local programs shall provide and monitor integrated instructional services to participating parents and children through home-based programs. The local programs shall operate on a year-round basis, including the provisions of some program services, including instructional and enrichment services, during the summer months. The local program shall be coordinated with other relevant programs under the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act, the Individuals with Disabilities Act, and Title I of the Workforce Investment Act of 1988, and the Head Start program, volunteer literacy programs, and other relevant programs. The local programs shall use instructional programs based on scientifically based reading research for children and adults. The local program shall encourage participating families to attend regularly and to remain in the program a sufficient time to meet their program goals. The local programs shall use reading-readiness activities for preschool children based on scientifically based reading research. The local program shall, if applicable, promote the continuity of family literacy to ensure that individuals retain and improve their educational outcomes.
Monitoring Area 3, Title I Part B, Subpart 3: SEA Fiduciary responsibilities Indicator Critical Element Status Number 3.1 The SEA complies with the allocation requirements for Met Requirements State administration and technical assistance and award of subgrants. 3.2 The SEA ensures that subgrantees comply with statutory Met Requirements and regulatory requirements on uses of funds and matching. 3.3 The SEA complies with the crosscutting maintenance of Met Requirements effort provisions. 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. 3.5 The SEA has a system for ensuring fair and prompt Met Requirements resolution of complaints and appropriate hearing procedures.
Summary of Title I, Part B, Subpart 3 (Even Start) Monitoring Indicators Indicator 1.7 - The SEA conducts monitoring of its subgrantees sufficient to ensure compliance with Even Start program requirements. Finding: The SEA has not developed a plan to ensure consistent monitoring of subgrantees. Citation: Section 1240 requires that States receiving Even Start funds monitor subgrantees. In addition, section 76.770 of the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) (34 CFR section 76.700) requires each State to have procedures to ensure compliance with applicable statutes and regulations. Further Action Required: The SEA must create and submit to ED a plan for monitoring subgrantees to ensure that all projects are complying with Even Start program requirements. Indicator 2.4 - Families are participating in all core instructional services. Finding: The SEA does not ensure that all families receiving services participate in all four core instructional activities. Citation: Section 1235(2) requires that parents and children participate fully in the activities and services provided by the Even Start program. Section 9101(20) defines family literacy services as those services provided to participants on a voluntary basis that are of sufficient intensity in terms of hours, and of sufficient duration, to make sustainable changes in a family, and that integrate interactive literacy activities between parents and their children, training for parents regarding how to be the primary teacher for their children and full partners in the education of their children, parent literacy training that leads to economic self-sufficiency, and an age-appropriate education to prepare children for success in school and life experiences. Further Action Required: The SEA must develop, submit to ED, and implement an action plan to ensure that all family members participate in all core instructional services in local Even Start projects. Additionally, as part of the monitoring plan required under Indicator 1.7, the SEA must include a method for monitoring the extent to which subgrantees are ensuring that all families receiving services participate in all four core instructional activities. 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, and in preparation of children for success in regular school programs.
Finding: Programs visited do not 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 preschool. Programs are not offering the recommended hours of service in each of the four core components and therefore, appear to lack intensity. Neither of the programs visited could describe how their preschool instructional program prepared children for the regular elementary school program. Finally, it is not clear that the Even Start program provides adults and children who are English language learners with the services necessary to expeditiously transition them to English language proficiency. Citation: Section 1235(4) requires that Even Start programs include high-quality, intensive instructional program that promotes adult literacy and empower parents to support the educational growth of their children, and in preparation of children for success in regular school programs. Further Action Required: The SEA must develop, submit to ED, and implement an action plan to ensure that local projects provide high quality and 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. The recommended minimum intensities for the four core components are: Adult Education - 60 hours per month Early Childhood Education (birth - 3) - 60 hours per month Early Childhood Education (3 - 4) - 65 hours per month Parenting Education and Interactive Literacy Activities between Parents and Children - 20 hours per month Additionally, the SEA must develop and submit to ED a plan to ensure that subgrantees align their preschool instructional programs with that of the local elementary school so that children participating in Even Start programs are more likely to be prepared for success in regular school programs. The SEA must develop and submit to ED a technical assistance plan to provide subgrantees with technical assistance to ensure that the goal of Even Start for English language learners is English language proficiency and that this goal is reflected in the instructional program for both children and adults. Indicator 2.18 - The local programs shall use reading-readiness activities for preschool children based on scientifically based reading research. Finding: Local programs are not using reading readiness activities for preschool children based on scientifically based reading research. Each project must base its reading readiness activities for preschool children on scientifically based reading research (as defined in section 1208), to the extent available, to ensure children enter elementary school with the language, cognitive, and early reading skills necessary for reading success. Research shows that the most effective ways to reach this goal include: 1) creating classroom environments rich in age-appropriate print (from sources such as
books, labeling, and posting the alphabet and children’s pre-writing work); 2) teachers who deliver intentional, contextualized, and explicit instruction that supports children’s age-appropriate development of oral language, phonological awareness, print awareness, and alphabet knowledge; 3) progress monitoring to determine which skills children are learning; and 4) intensive and ongoing professional development that includes mentoring and coaching in the classroom. Subgrantees observed did not appear to implement the above strategies adequately or consistently. Citation: Section 1235(12) requires that subgrantees 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 SEA must develop and submit to ED a plan for providing technical assistance to existing subgrantees that will improve the degree to which subgrantees implement local programs that use reading readiness activities for preschool children based on scientifically based reading research. Additionally, the SEA must develop and submit to ED a plan to ensure that any newly funded subgrantees include reading-readiness activities for preschool children based on scientifically based reading research.
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 Education 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 Neglected, Delinquent or At-Risk of Dropping-Out Program Indicator 3.2 - The SEA conducts monitoring of its subgrantees sufficient to ensure compliance with Title I, Part D program requirements. Finding: ED team found that the PED uses annual reports to review subgrant programs. However, they do not have a regular system, including a schedule and protocol, for desk or onsite monitoring. They have developed a draft guide but have not put this into practice. Citation: Section 1414 of the SEA plan contains assurances that that programs assisted under title I, Part D will be carried out in accordance with the State plan. Additionally, the PED is required to ensure that the State agencies and local educational agencies receiving Part D subgrants comply with all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. Additionally, Section 1426 requires the SEA to hold LEAs accountable for demonstrating student progress in identified areas. Further Action Required: The PED must develop a process and schedule to conduct compliance monitoring of SAs and LEAs with Title I, Part D subgrants and to submit such plan to ED.
McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Program Indicator 2.1 - The SEA implements procedures to address the identification, enrollment and retention of homeless students. Finding: ED staff found that PED has not reviewed the ongoing needs of homeless children and youth in the State including preschool age children and unaccompanied youth. Citation: Section 722(f)of the ESEA requires the Coordinator for the Education of Homeless Children and Youth program to gather reliable, valid, and comprehensive information on the nature and extent of the problems homeless children and youth have in gaining access to public preschool programs and to public elementary schools and secondary schools, the difficulties in identifying the special needs of such children and youth, any progress made by the State educational agency and local educational agencies in the State in addressing such problems and difficulties, and the success of the programs in allowing homeless children and youth to enroll in, attend, and succeed in, school. Section 722 (g) (1)(B) requires that State educational agencies (SEA) have procedures that the SEA will use to identify homeless children and youth in the State and to assess their special needs. Further Action Required: The PED must develop and implement procedures that will allow for at least an annual review to assess the educational needs of homeless students. Indicator 2.2 - SEA provides, or provides for, technical assistance for LEAs to ensure appropriate implementation of the statute. Finding: The ED team found that the PED has not developed procedures to provide technical assistance, support or collaboration for LEAs without subgrants. Citation: Section 722(f)(5)(C)(5) and (6) of the ESEA require the Coordinator for the Education of Homeless Children and Youth program - in order to improve the provision of comprehensive education and related services to homeless children and youth and their families - to coordinate and collaborate with LEA liaisons. Additionally, they must provide technical assistance to LEAs in coordination with liaisons to ensure LEAs comply with the requirements of the McKinney-Vento statute. Further Action Required: The PED must develop and implement procedures for coordination, collaboration and technical assistance for LEAs with and without subgrants. 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 the PED has not determined if LEAs comply with the reservation of funds requirement under Title I, Part A for homeless students not attending Title I schools. Additionally, in the LEAs visited by ED the district liaison was unsure if and how Part A funds are reserved to assist homeless students.. Citation: Homeless students are automatically eligible for Title I, Part A services. Section 1113(3)(c)(A) 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: The PED must develop and implement procedures providing information, guidance and technical assistance to LEAs for the purpose of informing them of the requirement of the reservation of Title I, Part A funds under section 1113(3)(c)(A). Indicator 3.3 - The SEA has a system for ensuring the prompt resolution of disputes. Finding: The ED team found that the PED uses a State dispute process that is not specific to the McKinney-Vento program. Additionally, the PED had no information on LEA involvement in dispute resolutions. LEAs interviewed had not received information from the PED on dispute resolution requirements. Citation: Section 722 (g) (3)(E) of the ESEA stipulates that if a dispute arises over school selection or enrollment in a school, the child or youth shall be immediately admitted to the school in which enrollment is sought, pending resolution of the dispute. Additionally, the parent or guardian of the child or youth shall be provided with a written explanation of the school's decision regarding school selection or enrollment, including the rights of the parent, guardian, or youth to appeal the decision. Further Action Required: The PED must inform all LEAs about their responsibilities in both resolving enrollment disputes and providing written notifications of dispute results to parents, guardians and unaccompanied youth, regardless of the outcome of the dispute. Indicator 3.4. - The SEA conducts monitoring of LEAs with and without subgrants, sufficient to ensure compliance with McKinney-Vento program requirements. Recommendation: The ED team found that the PED conducts only a small percentage of field monitoring visits to LEAs with subgrants. ED recommends that the PED develop an annual schedule and expand its onsite and desk monitoring efforts for districts with and without subgrants.
Documents Similar To description: tags: nmltrandrpt
description: tags: monitorinindicators0708
anon-920612
anon-823992
description: tags: title-i-participation-2004
anon-265423
anon-970184
anon-945969
description: tags: 20064001r
anon-918359
anon-556735
description: tags: nclbchecklist
anon-379623
Thompson, Ray School Board Presidents NFEASJ V30 N4 2013[1].pdf
annual title i pi survey
edu201-education timeline
api-262601087