Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/1330623/description-tags-wvrpt
Timestamp: 2018-06-21 02:53:19
Document Index: 221194744

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

description: tags: wvrpt | Elementary And Secondary Education Act | Adequate Yearly Progress
Uploaded by anon-480141
West Virginia Department of Education April 3 – 7, 2006 Scope of Review: A team from the U.S.
Department of Education’s (ED) Student Achievement and School Accountability (SASA) Programs office monitored the West Virginia Department of Education (WVDE) the week of April 3 –7, 2006. This was a comprehensive review of the WVDE’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 SEA. During the onsite week, the ED team visited three LEAs in improvement – Wood County Schools (WCS), Cabal County Schools (CCS), and Kanawha County Schools (KCS) and interviewed administrative staff, interviewed staff from 12 schools in LEAs including schools that have been identified for improvement, and conducted three parent meetings. The ED team then interviewed the WVDE personnel to confirm data collected in each of the three monitoring indicator areas. The ED team conducted conference calls to two additional LEAs—Mineral County and Mercer County upon its return to Washington DC, to confirm information gathered onsite in LEAs and in the WVDE. 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 Lincoln County Even Start and Jackson County Even Start located in Lincoln County and Jackson County. 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 applications, technical assistance provided to the SA, the State’s oversight and monitoring plan and activities, SA subgrant plans and evaluations for the Office of Institutional Education Programs (Subpart 1) and CCS (Subpart 2). The ED team interviewed administrative, program and teaching staff. The ED team also interviewed the WVDE 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 CCS, WCS and KCS. The ED team visited sites and interviewed administrative and program staff in WCS and KCS. The ED team also interviewed the WVDOE’s McKinney-Vento State coordinator to confirm information obtained at the local site and discuss administration of the program. Previous Audit Findings: The last audit received for West Virginia (WV) was for the period ending June 30, 2003 which included three findings: two concerning subrecipient monitoring and one addressing the WVDE’s lack of procedures for carryover. The Program Determination Letter was issued March 31, 2005. ED accepted the corrective actions identified by the auditee and no further action was required. Previous Monitoring Findings: ED last reviewed Title I programs in WV in January of 2002. There are currently no outstanding compliance issues as a result of that review.
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. See Indicator 3.5 (Title I, Part A,) on page 11 and 3.2 (Title I, Part D) on page 22 of this report.
Monitoring Area 1, Title I, Part A: Accountability Description
The SEA has approved academic content standards for Met Requirements all required subjects or an approved timeline for developing them. The SEA has approved academic achievement standards Met Requirements and alternate academic achievement standards in required subject areas and grades or an approved timeline to create them. The SEA has approved assessments and alternate Met Requirements assessments in required subject areas and grades or an approved timeline to create them. Assessments should be used for purposes for which Met Requirements such assessments are valid and reliable, and be consistent with relevant, nationally recognized professional and technical standards. The SEA has implemented all required components as Met Requirements identified in its accountability workbook. The SEA has published an annual report card as Finding required and an Annual Report to the Secretary. The SEA has ensured that LEAs have published annual Finding report cards as required. Recommendation The SEA indicates how funds received under Grants for Met Requirements State Assessments and related activities (Section 6111) will be or have been used to meet the 2005-06 and 2007-08 assessment requirements of NCLB. The SEA ensures that LEAs meet all requirements for Met Requirements identifying and assessing the academic achievement of limited English proficient students.
Monitoring Area: Accountability Indicator 1.6 – The SEA has published an annual report card as required. Finding: The WVDE’s State report card did not include all of the required information. Omitted were the following: 1. Comparison of the actual achievement levels of each group of students previously described to the State’s annual measurable objectives for each required assessment; 2. The most recent two-year trend in student achievement in each subject at each grade level required; and 3. Aggregate information on any other indicator used by the State to determine adequate yearly progress (AYP). Citation: Section 1111(h)(1)(C)(ii), (iv), and (v) of the ESEA requires that the State annual report card include: (ii) information that provides a comparison between the actual achievement levels of each group of students described in subsection (b)(2)(C)(v) and the State's annual measurable objectives for each such group of students on each of the academic assessments required under this part; (iv) the most recent two-year trend in student achievement in each subject area, and for each grade level, for which assessments under this section are required; and (v) aggregate information on any other indicators used by the State to determine the adequate yearly progress of students in achieving State academic achievement standards. Further action required: The WVDE must submit to ED a template of the State report card that includes the missing information. When the State report card for Spring 2006 is completed, the WVDE must submit it to ED. Indicator 1.7 – The SEA has ensured that LEAs have published annual report cards as required. Finding: LEA report cards and individual school reports did not include all required information. LEA and school reports did not include comparisons of actual achievement levels of each group of students and the State’s annual measurable objectives for each such group of students on each of the required academic assessments. LEA’s annual report card included the number and percent of schools identified for improvement, but did not include how long the schools have been so identified. The following school level information was available on the State web site, but not on print versions: 1. Information, in the aggregate, on student achievement at each proficiency level on the State academic assessments disaggregated by race, ethnicity, gender, disability status, and migrant status, English proficiency and status as economically disadvantaged (migrant and gender were omitted);
2. The percentage of students not tested, disaggregated by the same categories noted above by subject; and 3. The most recent 2-year trend in student achievement in each subject at each grade level required. Citation: Section 1111(h)(1)(C)(i-iv) and section 1111 (h)(2)(B)(I) of the ESEA require States to ensure that each local educational agency collects appropriate data and includes in the local educational agency's annual report the information described in paragraph (1)(C) as applied to the local educational agency and each school served by the local educational agency. Further action required: The WVDE must submit to ED a template of the LEA report card that includes the missing district and school level information. When the LEAs report card for Spring 2006 is completed, the WVDE must submit it to ED. Recommendation: The WVDE should improve the accessibility of data on its webbased report card, as it is difficult to locate information. This may require reorganization of the web site, simplified navigation strategies, and/or training of customers.
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 LEA and schools meet parental involvement requirements. The SEA ensures that schools and LEAs identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring have met the requirements of being so identified. The SEA ensures that requirements for public school choice are met. The SEA ensures that requirements for the provision of supplemental educational services (SES) are met. The SEA ensures that LEAs and schools develop schoolwide programs that use the flexibility provided to them by law to improve the academic achievement of all students in the school. The SEA ensures that LEA targeted assistance programs meet all requirements. Met Requirements
Recommendations Recommendations Met Requirements
Monitoring Area: Instructional Support Indicator 2.3 – The SEA ensures that LEAs and schools meet parental notice requirements and parental involvement requirements. Finding (1): Although the WVDE requires that all its LEAs use an LEA parental involvement policy template as a way to ensure that the LEA and school parental involvement policies addresses all the statutory requirements, not all LEAs have completed the process necessary to develop updated polices that meet all the statutory requirements. Specifically, WCS expects to have updated policies at the LEA and school levels by the beginning of the 2006-07 school years and CCS’ schools are in the process of updating school level policies to be in place for the 2006-2007 school year. Citation: Section 1118(a) and (b) of the ESEA requires that each LEA and school served under Title I jointly develop with and distribute to parents of participating children a written parental involvement policy agreed on by the parents. Further action required: The WVDE must submit to ED a plan and timeline for how it will ensure that WCS and CCS have in place district and school parental involvement policies developed consistent with the content and process requirements in Section 1118(a) and (b). Finding (2): Although the WVDE has provided training on the required components of the parental notifications for school improvement status, public school choice and supplemental educational services (SES) and has a checklist of these requirements on its website, letters to parents did not consistently include all the required components. For example, even though the sample letters developed by the WVDE address each of the following components, WCS and CCS notices did not include information on SES providers and CCS choice offered only one transfer option at the middle school level, when it appears that another option may have been available. KCS notice did not let parents know where a sign-up form could be easily obtained without attending a meeting. Citation: Section 1116(b)(6) of the ESEA requires LEAs to promptly provide to parents an explanation of the identification of their child’s school that includes (1) how the school compares academically to other schools in the LEA and the State, (2) why the school has been identified, (3) what the school is doing to address the achievement problem, (4) what the LEA and SEA are doing to help the school to address the achievement problem, (5) how parents can be involved in addressing the achievement problem, and (6) parents’ options to transfer their child to another school, and, if applicable, obtain SES. Section 200.37 of the Title I regulations also lists the minimum information that the notice must contain regarding the choice and SES options. Further action required: The WVDE must send to its LEAs a written notice about the information on its website and the School Improvement Tool Kit regarding the requirements of the notices to parents attending schools identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring. Additionally, consistent with the requirements of
section 1118 of the ESEA to reduce barriers to parental participation in Title I activities, the notice must inform LEAs of the importance of making its SES enrollment form easily available for parents to access. For example, an LEA could post the form on its website and mail the form to parents, as well as leave copies of the form at the schools that have students eligible for supplemental educational services and at other district offices and sites where parents may go. The WVDE must submit a copy of this notice to ED. Recommendation: Interviews with parents at one site indicated that parents are not always clear about the purposes of the parental involvement policies and how that differs from the parent-school compacts. ED recommends that the WVDE provide additional assistance to its LEAs to help them increase parental understanding of the different purposes of these two documents. Indicator 2.5 – The SEA ensures that requirements for public school choice are met. Indicator 2. 6 – The SEA ensures that requirements for the provision of supplementary educational services (SES) are met. Recommendation (1): As part of its efforts to increase participation in choice and SES, the WVDE should conduct an analysis of district participation rates, determine the cause, and establish methods and procedures to increase such rates where applicable. Recommendation (2): The WVDE has developed a detailed timeline for LEAs implementing school choice and SES that has the notice for public school choice and SES being sent separately and possibly at two different times. ED encourages the WVDE to remind its LEAs that, whenever possible, they should inform parents of students that are eligible for both choice and SES of these options at the same time so parents are aware of both opportunities. Additionally, ED encourages the WVDE to provide technical assistance to its LEAs to determine if LEAs may be able to offer SES earlier in the school year. For example, it may be possible to offer SES earlier in the school year for students attending a school that was identified for year two of improvement and that has made AYP for one year, but still must offer SES until it has made AYP for a second year.
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 set-asides 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 non-Federal sources. SEA ensures that its LEAs comply with all the auditee responsibilities specified in Subpart C, section 300(a) through (f) of OMB Circular A-133. 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. Equipment and Real Property. The SEA’s and LEA’s controls over the procurement, recording, custody, use, and disposition of Title I equipment are implemented in accordance with the provisions of State policies and procedures, the No Child Left Behind Act (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.
11 N/A N/A N/A 11
Monitoring Area: Fiduciary Responsibilities Indicator 3.5 – 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 set-asides 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 lowincome families who reside in an eligible attendance area. Finding: The WVDE did not establish and implement, and did not ensure that its LEAs established and implemented, procedures for the preparation of corrective action plans and the timely completion of corrective actions to address audit findings. The WVDE did not ensure that corrective action plans were formulated to address the findings cited in the 2004 and 2005 audits. Citation: Section 80.26(b)(3) of the Education Department General Administration Regulations (EDGAR) requires that “State and local governments . . . that provide Federal awards to a sub grantee, which expends $300,000 or more (or other amount as specified by OMB) in Federal awards in a fiscal year, . . . Ensure that appropriate corrective action is taken within six months after receipt of the audit report in instances of noncompliance with Federal laws and regulations.” OMB Circular A-133, Subpart D, Section ____.400(d)(5) requires a pass-through entity to “. . . ensure that the subrecipient takes appropriate and timely corrective action.” Further action required: The WVDE must document, and distribute to the LEAs, written procedures defining the form and content for corrective action plans that address findings in audits and monitoring reviews, and requirements for formulating, monitoring, and completing timely corrective action steps. Indicator 3.9 – Equipment and Real Property. The SEA’s and LEA’s controls over the procurement, recording, custody, use, and disposition of Title I equipment are implemented in accordance with the provisions of State policies and procedures, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), the Improper Payments Information Act, standards of internal control, and any other relevant standards, circulars, or legislative mandates. Finding (1): The WVDE did not maintain effective policies and procedures for tracking the location of equipment purchased with Title I funds. The WVDE did not ensure that WCS, CCS, and KCS maintain effective policies and procedures for tracking the location of Title I equipment. More specifically: • • At the WVDE, the list of equipment purchased with Title I funds was not complete, since the list included only items purchased through December 4, 2005. Equipment purchased after that date was not recorded. At the WVDE, the Title I director kept a separate list of newly purchased equipment; yet those items could not be found in the main database
maintained by the finance department. Thus, the two lists could not be reconciled. During the inspection of selected equipment at the WVDE, an item listed as a laptop was found to be a computer monitor. Two notebook computers and a Work Surface Unit selected for inspection could not be found. At WCS and CCS, the equipment inventory lists did not identify the date that the equipment was purchased. At CCS and KCS, the equipment lists were not complete. For most of the items on the two lists, the following details were not included: tag numbers, cost, acquisition dates, serial numbers, equipment condition or location.
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 General Education Provisions Act (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 WVDE must implement and maintain adequate controls to account for the procurement, location, custody, and security of equipment purchased with Title I funds. The WVDE must provide ED a copy of the transmittal document informing the LEAs of this requirement. This documentation may include copies of letters to LEAs and agendas for technical assistance meetings. Also, the WVDE must provide ED with a copy of a corrective action plan to address this requirement inclusive of a follow-up plan to monitor compliance by LEAs. The corrective action must include development of a procedure that ensures equipment lists are complete and that, for each item of equipment, the cost, date of purchase and condition are shown. Finding (2): The WVDE did not have an effective process to maintain custody and control of equipment used off-site. Also, the WVDE did not ensure that WCS and CCS implement an effective process to maintain custody, control and disposal of equipment. During testing, the following was noted: • • At CCS, a digital handy cam selected for physical inventory could not be located at the Central office. WCS did not ensure that equipment disposal policies were being followed. Schools were instructed to exclude from their recorded equipment inventory items that could not be found and were old or unusable. Schools did not have adequate systems to reconcile their physical inventories to inventory records at the LEA. Neither WCS nor CCS provided the ED team with the documentation supporting any physical inventories taken. At CCS, equipment used off-site was not recorded on a sign-out system. CCS did not have a log-out procedure for equipment that would ensure an effective tracking system for equipment used off-site.
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 General Education Provisions Act (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 WVDE must implement and maintain adequate controls to account for the procurement, location, custody, and security of equipment purchased with Title I funds. The WVDE must provide ED with a copy of the communication to the LEAs addressing this requirement. This documentation may include copies of letters to LEAs and agendas for technical assistance meetings. Also, the WVDE must provide ED with a copy of a corrective action plan to address this requirement. The plan must provide for equipment log-out procedures that will ensure an effective tracking system for all equipment used off site. Finding (3): At the WVDE, three items of equipment selected for inspection did not have property tags. At WCS, none of the items of equipment selected for inspection had property tags. At KCS, a laptop selected for inspection had an incorrect serial number recorded. 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 WVDE must provide ED with a copy of a corrective action plan to address this requirement inclusive of a follow-up plan to monitor compliance. The plan must include a procedure to ensure that all Title I equipment is properly labeled. Finding (4): The WVDE did not follow, and did not ensure that CCS followed, its policy addressing the purchase and disposal of equipment. At the WVDE, three items selected for inspection were obsolete, damaged or retired. At CCS, equipment was acquired before it was actually needed. It was observed that two laptops purchased a long time ago were not needed and had never been used. 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 WVDE must ensure that all LEAs implement and maintain adequate controls to account for the procurement, location, custody, and security of equipment purchased with Title I funds. The WVDE must provide ED with a copy of the communication to LEAs addressing this requirement. This documentation may include copies of letters to LEAs and agendas for technical assistance meetings. Also, the WVDE must provide ED with a copy of a corrective action plan to address this
requirement inclusive of a follow-up plan to monitor compliance. The corrective action must include a procedure for updating the equipment record at CCS. Additionally, the corrective action must include procedures for the purchase of equipment covering the use of purchase orders and the appropriate justification for each purchase. Finding (5): The WVDE did not follow, and did not ensure that KCS followed, its policy addressing equipment capitalization thresholds. At KCS, the fixed asset capitalization threshold was $100,000. This amount exceeds the WVDE’s policy that stipulates a capitalization threshold of $5,000. 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 WVDE must provide ED with a copy of a corrective action plan to address this requirement inclusive of a follow-up plan to monitor compliance. The plan must include a procedure to ensure that all equipment purchased with Title I funds is properly capitalized in accordance with the WVDE’s capitalization policy. Indicator 3.10 – 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. Finding (1): The WVDE did not ensure that LEAs maintain adequate internal controls over the disbursement of Title I funds. At CCS, contractor invoices with no description of services provided, no identification of location of service, and no description of number of students served were approved and paid. Specifically, the following payments were made for invoices that did not indicate the description of services provided and had no description of the number of students served: • • • • Invoice dated 1/04/2006, $2,817, from Cammack Children’s Center paid on 01/09/2006. Invoice dated 1/26/2006, $22,600, from Pressley Ridge and paid on 02/01/2006. Invoice dated 12/01/2005 for $2,817 from Cammack Children’s Center paid on 02/07/2006. Invoice dated 01/30/2006 for $6,475 and paid on 02/09/2006.
Citation: When procuring property and services under a grant, Section 80.36(a) of EDGAR requires that “. . . a State [SEA] . . . follow the same policies and procedures it uses for procurement from its non-Federal funds.” This Section also requires that “The State [SEA] . . . 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 WVDE must provide ED with documentation showing that it has distributed procurement policy guidance to its staff and the LEAs. The guidance 14
must address the need for sufficient descriptions of goods or services on all vendor invoices. At a minimum, the vendor invoice for professional services must include a detailed description of the services performed, dates and location of service and, if applicable, number of students served. The information provided on the invoices must be consistent with the description of deliverables specified in contracts and purchase orders. Other Fiduciary Issues – SEA and LEA Recommendation (1): The WVDE should encourage its staff and LEA staff to request the State per diem rates for hotels during official travel. Recommendation (2): The WVDE should encourage its staff and LEA staff to request a waiver of State taxes on official work-purchases whenever possible.
Monitoring Area 2: Instructional Support Indicator 2.5 – Local programs provide a flexible schedule and support services for participants. Finding: One of the projects visited was not providing support services such as transportation, which is needed to encourage participation and retention. Citation: Section 1235(3) of the ESEA requires that each program 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 and are necessary for participation in program activities. Further action required: The WVDE must ensure that, if possible, projects offer support services such as transportation, if needed, to enable families to participate fully in Even Start services. The WVDE must provide ED with a copy of any guidance provided to local projects regarding this issue. Indicator 2.12 – All local programs shall operate on a year round basis including the provision of some program services, instructional and enrichment, during the summer months. Finding: All projects provide some additional services after the end of the regular school year, but in some cases they only offer services for an additional two or three weeks. Neither project visited is offering instructional and enrichment services on a year round basis. Citation: Section 1235(8) of the ESEA requires that each program assisted operate on a year-round basis, including the provision of some program services, including instructional and enrichment services, during the summer months. Further action required: The WVDE must ensure that all local Even Start projects offer program services, both instructional and enrichment, during a substantial portion of the summer months. The WVDE must provide ED with a copy of any guidance provided to local projects regarding this issue.
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 Met Requirements identified in its Title I, Part D (N/D) plan. The SEA ensures that State agency (SA) plans for Met Requirements services to eligible N/D students meet all requirements. The SEA ensures that local educational agency (LEA) Recommendation plans for services to eligible N/D students meet all requirements. The SEA ensures that institution wide programs Met Requirements 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 SA has reserved not less than 15 Met Requirements 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 Finding sufficient to ensure compliance with Title I, Part D program requirements.
Page N/A N/A 22
Title I, Part D Indicator 1.3 - The SEA ensures that Local Educational Agency (LEA) plans for services to eligible N/D students meet all requirements. Recommendation: The ED team observed that there are no activities or meetings planned for the Title I Part D Subpart 2 programs to ensure the implementation of the purposes and requirements of the Part D program, including the development of applications and plans. As indicated in the WVDE Consolidated State Application Plan for Part D Subpart 2, the WVDE ensures that programs will be coordinated, appropriately staffed, and that educational programs will assist students to meet high academic achievement standards. ED recommends that the WVDE annually provide technical assistance through e-mail, teleconference or face-to face meetings in order to ensure that services meet the expectations of the SEA. ED recommends that the WVDE consider using the services of ED’s national technical assistance center for such purposes. Indicator 3.2 - The SEA conducts monitoring of its subgrantees sufficient to ensure compliance with Title I, Part D program requirements. Finding: The ED team found that the WVDE has not conducted monitoring of the Title I, Part D Subparts 1 and 2 programs for the past several years. Recently, monitoring indicators have been developed for the Subpart 2 program with a tentative schedule for monitoring in 2006-2007. Citation: Section 1414 of the ESEA plan contains assurances that programs assisted under Title I, Part D will be carried out in accordance with the State plan. Additionally, the SEA is required to ensure that the 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 WVDE must provide a plan to ED that indicates how it will (1) implement a monitoring process that determines whether the Title I, Part D programs are complying with Part D requirements; and (2) carry out comprehensive monitoring to ensure that programs implement requirements.
McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Program Indicator 2.1 - The SEA implements procedures to address the identification, enrollment and retention of homeless students. Finding: In its interview with the ED team, CCS reported that they use Title I funds to pay for transportation costs of homeless students to and from the students’ school of origin. Citation: Section 722(g)(1)(J) of the ESEA mandates, as appropriate, transportation services must be provided to and from the school of origin. LEAs may not use funds under Title I, Part A to transport homeless students to or from their school of origin. The “no-supplanting” provisions in Title I section 1120(A) of ESEA prohibit funds from being used to support activities that the LEA would otherwise be required to provide. Further action required: ED requires the WVDE to review the CCS’s Title I expenditure as it may pertain to the provision of transportation of homeless children and youth to and from their school of origin. If the WVDE discovers that Title I funds have been used for transporting homeless students, it must notify the school district to rectify the situation immediately and assure that the district will no longer use Title I funds for this purpose. 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: The ED team observed that the WVDE requires an across the board minimum reservation of the same amount of funds for all LEAs under Title I, Part A. There is not an apparent process, criteria or framework LEAs may utilize to determine an appropriate reservation for serving homeless students to “ensure that LEAs reserve Title I, Part A funds to provide comparable Part A services for homeless students.” LEAs with subgrants appear to take into account the number of homeless students when making decisions regarding such reservations. However, an LEA, such as CCS, without a subgrant showed no evidence of a process to determine need, gaps in service, and targeting funds to address gaps based on such need, especially for students in non-Title I schools and shelters. Additionally, the liaison in CCS was not aware until very recently about the existence of such funds. ED recommends that the WVDE provide technical assistance and support to LEAs without McKinney-Vento subgrants to help them determine, based on number and needs of homeless students, an appropriate amount of funds to reserve, as well as appropriate uses of such funds.
Documents Similar To description: tags: wvrpt