Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/1330604/description-tags-msrpt
Timestamp: 2018-06-21 02:48:33
Document Index: 573595794

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 3', 'art 3', 'art 1', 'art 2', '§1120', '§1120', '§1120', '§1114', '§1115', '§1116', '§200', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3', '§80', '§80', '§80', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'arts 1', 'art 2', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 2']

description: tags: msrpt | Elementary And Secondary Education Act | Adequate Yearly Progress
Uploaded by anon-539487
Mississippi Department of Education September 11-15, 2006 Scope of Review: A team from the U.S.
Department of Education’s (ED) Student Achievement and School Accountability Programs (SASA) office monitored the Mississippi Department of Education (MDE) the week of September 11-15, 2006. This was a comprehensive review of the MDE’s administration of the following programs authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB): Title I, Part A; Title I, Part B, Subpart 3; and Title I, Part D. Also reviewed was Title X, Part C, Subtitle B of NCLB (also known as the McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Assistance Improvements Act of 2001). In conducting this comprehensive review, the ED team carried out a number of major activities. In reviewing the Part A program, the ED team conducted an analysis of State assessments and State Accountability System Plans, reviewed the effectiveness of the instructional improvement and instructional support measures established by the State to benefit local educational agencies (LEAs) and schools, and reviewed compliance with fiscal and administrative oversight requirements required of the State educational agency (SEA). During the on-site week, the ED team visited two LEAs – the Jackson Public Schools (JPS) and the Canton Public Schools (CPS). In the two LEAs that were visited, the ED team interviewed administrative staff, five school leadership teams, and conducted two parent meetings. The ED team then interviewed the MDE personnel to confirm information collected in each of the three monitoring indicator areas. The ED team conducted post-visit conference calls with two additional LEAs, the Lowndes Public Schools (LPS) and the Natchez-Adams Public Schools (NAPS). 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 the Petal and Operation Shoestring projects. During the on-site review, the ED team visited the Petal and Operation Shoestring 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) and LEA applications under Subpart 1 and Subpart 2, technical assistance provided to the SA and LEAs, the State’s oversight and monitoring plan and activities, subgrant plans and evaluations for the Department of Corrections - Walnut Grove Youth Correctional Facility; Department of Human Services; Hinds County Juvenile Facility; and the Henley-Young Juvenile Facility. The ED team interviewed administrative, program, and teaching staff. The ED team also interviewed the MDE 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 the JPS and the Yazoo County Schools (YCS). The ED team visited sites serving homeless students and interviewed administrative and program staff. The ED team also interviewed the MDE McKinney-Vento State coordinator to confirm information obtained at the local site and discuss administration of the program. Previous Audit Findings: In an audit report dated April 21, 2006, the Office of the State Auditor noted the following findings for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2005 for Title I, Part A: 1) documentation of approval for waivers of the 15 percent carryover limit was not available for 58.3 percent of the waivers reviewed, and 2) lack of control over the quality of the data regarding adequate yearly progress (AYP) determinations Previous Monitoring Findings: ED last conducted an on-site review of Federal Title I programs in Mississippi in April of 2003. There were two compliance findings identified in the Title I, Part A program – funding to eligible school attendance areas and content of school improvement plans. The MDE subsequently provided documentation to sufficiently address the two findings.
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 they 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. Finding: The MDE’s procedures for monitoring its LEAs were insufficient to ensure that LEAs were operating in compliance with all ESEA requirements related to the Title I programs reviewed by ED. Prior to the on-site review, the ED team reviewed copies of the most recent monitoring reports for JPS and CPS. JPS, the LEA with the largest allocation of Title I funds in Mississippi, was last monitored in April of 2002. There were exceptions that were to be resolved “immediately,” but JPS has not subsequently been monitored since that time so the MDE cannot determine whether these exceptions have been resolved. There were also concerns identified that were to be designated as exceptions if not resolved prior to the next visit, including the absence of documentation that the required annual Title I parent meeting was held, the absence of school-parent compacts, services at a private school that didn’t match the budget narrative for that private school, etc. Since JPS has not been visited since April of 2002, it cannot be determined whether these concerns have been resolved. The April 2004 visit to CPS identified one Title I issue, selection of students to participate in the program for eligible private school students. The ED team identified areas in JPS and the CPS where the MDE did not ensure compliance with the requirements of Title I programs reviewed, so the ED team concluded that the MDE’s current procedures for monitoring its grantees are insufficient to ensure compliance with Title I requirements. Readers should refer also to findings for indicators in Neglected or Delinquent (Indicator 3.2), and McKinney-Vento Homeless Education (Indicator 3.4) for additional monitoring findings for these programs. Citation: Section 80.40 of the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) requires grantees to monitor grant and subgrant activities to ensure compliance with applicable Federal requirements.
Section 9304(a) of the ESEA requires that the SEA must ensure that (1) programs authorized under the ESEA are administered in accordance with all applicable statutes, regulations, program plans, and applications; and (2) the State will use fiscal control and funds accounting procedures that will ensure the proper disbursement of and accounting for Federal funds. Section 722(g)(2) of the ESEA states that State plans for the education of homeless children and youth require the State to ensure that LEAs will comply with the requirements of the McKinney-Vento statute. Section 1414(a)(1)(C)(i) of the ESEA contains assurances that programs assisted under Title I, Part D will be carried out in accordance with the State plan submitted by the SEA. Further action required: The MDE must ensure that it has an effective method to monitor compliance with all requirements of Title I, Part A; Even Start; Neglected or Delinquent and the McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Programs, including procedures to identify and correct issues of noncompliance. The MDE can utilize its on-site monitoring procedures, LEA application review and approval process or some other mechanism for this purpose. The MDE must submit to ED its plan for monitoring compliance with the requirements in the Title I, Part A; Even Start; Neglected or Delinquent; and the McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Programs, including steps it will take to ensure that monitoring staff thoroughly understand the requirements being monitored and the criteria for determining compliance in each area. As a part of this process, the MDE should review its monitoring review forms to ensure that all critical components are addressed, including those related to school improvement plans, notices, and activities.
Title I, Part A Monitoring Summary of Monitoring Indicators Title I, Part A Monitoring Area: Accountability Monitoring Area 1, Title I, Part A: Accountability Description The SEA has approved academic content standards for all required subjects or an approved timeline for developing them. The SEA has approved academic achievement standards and alternate academic achievement standards in required subject areas and grades or an approved timeline to create them. The SEA has approved assessments and alternate assessments in required subject areas and grades or an approved timeline to create them. Assessments should be used for purposes for which such assessments are valid and reliable, and be consistent with relevant, nationally recognized professional and technical standards. The SEA has implemented all required components as identified in its accountability workbook. The SEA has published an annual report card as required and an Annual Report to the Secretary. The SEA has ensured that LEAs have published annual report cards as required. The SEA indicates how funds received under Grants for State Assessments and related activities (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 identifying and assessing the academic achievement of limited English proficient students.
Findings Recommendation Met Requirements Finding Met Requirements
6 N/A 9 N/A
Title I, Part A Monitoring Area: Standards, Assessment and 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: According to the documents “Mississippi Guidelines for Testing Students with Disabilities” dated September 9, 2005 and “Using Peer Grade to Determine Whether a Grade 56 or 58 Special Education Student is Eligible for Testing” dated February 16, 2005, students with significant cognitive disabilities (SCD) in a non-graded setting who are seven to thirteen years of age on September 1 are eligible for testing. Code 56 is for the elementary special education self-contained classrooms and code 58 is for the high school self-contained special education classrooms. This policy excludes all significantly cognitive disabled students in self-contained classrooms in the high school grade span from testing. Further, Mississippi does not have an alternate assessment for the students with significant cognitive disabilities at the high school grade span. Citation: Section 1111(b)(3)(C)(ix) of the ESEA requires that such assessments shall provide for the participation in such assessments of all students. Section 200.6(a)(2)(i) of the Title I regulations requires the State’s academic assessment system to provide for one or more alternate assessments for a child with a disability as defined under section 602(3) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) whom the child’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) team determines cannot participate in all or part of the State assessments even with appropriate accommodations. Further action required: The MDE must develop an alternate assessment in reading and math for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. According to the June 30, 2006, assessment letter sent to Superintendent Hank M. Bounds, because of the disruption caused by Hurricane Katrina, Mississippi was given an additional year to complete its standards and assessment system. In accordance with the requirements of the June 30, 2006 letter, the MDE must submit a plan and detailed timeline that outlines the steps it will take to complete its system. Moreover, ED reserves its option to take further administrative actions, including the withholding of funds. If ED decides to take such actions, it will notify the MDE of those actions in a separate document. Indicator 1.5 - The SEA has implemented all required components as identified it its accountability workbook. Finding (1): According to the documents “Mississippi Guidelines for Testing Students with Disabilities” dated September 9, 2005 and “Using Peer Grade to Determine Whether a Grade 56 or 58 Special Education Student is Eligible for Testing” dated February 16, 2005, students with significant cognitive disabilities (SCD) in a non-graded setting who are seven to thirteen years of age on September 1 are eligible for testing. Code 56 is for the elementary special education self-contained classrooms and code 58 is for the high school self-contained special education classrooms. This policy excludes all significantly
cognitive disabled students in self-contained classrooms in the high school grade span from testing and being counted as enrolled for calculating participation rates for the subgroup of all students and students with disabilities. Citation: Section 200.20(c)(1)(i) of the Title I regulations requires that a school or LEA makes adequate yearly progress (AYP) if not less than 95 percent of the students enrolled in each group take the State assessments. Section 200.20(c)(2) of the Title I regulations stipulates that the requirement in paragraph (c)(1) does not authorize a State, LEA, or school to systematically exclude five percent of the students in any group. Further action required: The MDE must identify all high school students who are designated as ineligible for testing at the high school level and therefore not counted in the enrollment figures for calculating participation rates. These students must be included in the calculation for participation rates for the all students and the students with disabilities subgroups. For the 2006-2007 school year, the MDE must calculate AYP participation rates to include all high school students with disabilities who were excluded or exempted from testing. Finding (2): The “Guidelines for English Language Learners” states that the MDE has not established exit criteria from language instruction educational programs for the State’s English language learners (ELL). LEAs are allowed to develop their own exit criteria for ELL students. The determination as to when a student has attained English proficiency and is no longer a limited English proficient (LEP) student must be consistent with the definition included in the State’s accountability plan so that the definition of formerly LEP is clear and can be used in AYP calculations. Citation: Section 200.20(2)(i) and (ii) of the Title I Regulations requires that in determining AYP for the subgroup of limited English proficient students, a State may include, for a period of up to two years, the scores of students who were limited English proficient but who no longer meet the State's definition of limited English proficiency. Further action required: The MDE must develop statewide exit criteria for LEP students and disseminate these criteria to all LEAs. The MDE must provide ED with the statewide exit criteria for LEP students and a dissemination plan. Finding (3): The MDE’s “Guidelines for English Language Learners” is incorrect in defining allowed exemption of LEP students from testing and AYP purposes. The guidelines state that the MDE excludes the test scores of ELL students whose progress in proficiency reports indicate that they have been receiving language instruction educational services for one year or less. The regulation allows this exclusion only for newly arrived students defined as living one year or less in the United States. Citation: Section 200.6(b)(1)(i)(4) of the Title I Regulations requires the State to assess LEP students in a valid and reliable manner that includes recently arrived LEP students. A State may exempt a recently arrived LEP student from one administration of the State’s reading/language arts assessment.
Further action required: The MDE must amend its guidelines for ELLs to reflect the new regulation dated September 13, 2006 for exceptions for newly arrived LEP students. The MDE must provide ED with the statewide guidelines and a dissemination plan. Finding (4): According to the document “Mississippi Guidelines for Testing Students with Disabilities” dated September 9, 2005, students with significant cognitive disabilities (SCD) are allowed to take the Mississippi Curriculum Test (MCT) reading, language arts, and mathematics assessment that is best aligned to instruction using the necessary allowable accommodations. For AYP purposes, these students are considered tested for participation calculations and if the student scores proficient or advanced that proficient score may be included in AYP calculations (subject to the 1 percent cap at the district level). This policy is in conflict with the regulations for the inclusion of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities dated December 9, 2003. Out-of-level tests (instruction-level tests) may be administered only if alternate achievement standards have been set using an accepted standard-setting methodology and aligned with the target content standards. Citation: Section 200.1(d) of the Title I regulations requires for students under section 602(3) of the IDEA with the most significant cognitive disabilities who take an alternate assessment, a State may, through a documented and validated standards-setting process, define alternate academic achievement standards provided those standards – (1) are aligned with the State’s academic content standards. Further action required: Since the State has not done a documented and validated standard-setting process for the instructional level tests, if the MDE chooses to continue the use of the out-of-level assessments, these students may not be considered tested for AYP purposes. The MDE must change their policy regarding testing students with disabilities at instructional level. These policy changes must be submitted to ED. For the 2006-07 school years, any student with disabilities must take the regular assessment or the alternate assessment. Instructional level assessments must be terminated. Finding (5): The MDE does not calculate AYP for the Mississippi School for the Deaf and the School for the Blind. All schools and LEAs must have AYP determinations. Citation: Section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA requires that each State plan shall demonstrate that the State has developed and is implementing a single, statewide State accountability system that will be effective in ensuring that all local educational agencies, public elementary schools, and public secondary schools made adequate yearly progress. Further action required: The MDE must calculate AYP for 2006 for the Mississippi School for Deaf and the School for the Blind. These AYP determinations must be submitted to ED. Recommendation: Mississippi has a portfolio assessment for reading/language arts and mathematics for high school students. This is considered a grade-level assessment that takes the place of the Subject Area Testing Program (SATP). For AYP purposes, that test
must be comparable to the SATP. Since less than fifty students take this test each year and most of these students are retesters, the MDE may want to consider other alternatives for the few students who are not retesters for AYP purposes. Indicator 1.7 – The SEA has ensured that the LEAs have published annual report cards as required. Finding: Even though the MDE provides all the required information for the LEA report cards, the LEA report cards in the JPS and CPS had elements missing. Citation: Section 1111(h)(2)(B) of the ESEA requires that the SEA shall ensure that each LEA collects appropriate data and includes in the local educational agency’s annual report the required information. Further action required: The MDE must develop a monitoring procedure to ensure that information in the LEA report cards is complete. This monitoring plan must be submitted to ED.
Monitoring Area 2, Title I, Part A: Instructional Support Description Status The SEA designs and implements procedures that ensure the hiring and retention of qualified paraprofessionals and ensure that parents are informed of educator credentials as required. The SEA has established a statewide system of support that provides, or provides for, technical assistance to LEAs and schools as required. The SEA ensures that the LEA and schools meet parental notice requirements and 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
Met Requirements Recommendation Findings Recommendation Finding Recommendation
Title I, Part A Monitoring Area: Instructional Support Indicator 2.2 – The SEA has established a statewide system of support that provides, or provides for, technical assistance to LEAs and schools as required. Finding: The MDE has not established a statewide system of support that meets the requirements of section 1117 of the ESEA. A review of the MDE’s evidence of its statewide system of support indicated there is no organized structure for delivering technical assistance to schools and districts in need of improvement. Interviews with LEA and school staffs consistently found that districts and schools in improvement status received very little direct support and consultant services from the MDE; however, the MDE provided broad-based assistance through statewide and regional meetings related to general Title I compliance requirements, including school improvement requirements, and the MDE’s requirements for completing the LEA and school improvement plans. Citation: Section 1117(a) of the ESEA requires each State to establish a “statewide system of intensive and sustained support and improvement” for LEAs and schools receiving Title I funds to increase the opportunity for all students to meet the State's academic content and achievement standards. The system of support must be centered around a network of school support teams, distinguished educators, and other technical assistance such as institutions of higher education, regional comprehensive centers, or private providers of scientifically based technical assistance. The priorities of this system of support are first to serve schools subject to corrective action; second provide support and assistance to other LEAs with schools identified as in need of improvement; and third provide support and assistance to other LEAs and schools participating in Title I that need support and assistance. Section 1117(a)(5)(A) of the ESEA requires that support teams include individuals who are knowledgeable about scientifically based research and its potential for improving teaching and learning and about successful schoolwide projects, school reform, and improving educational opportunities for low-achieving students. Section 1117(a)(5)(B) lists the tasks that each school support team must perform. Further action required: The MDE must provide ED with a detailed plan and timeline for how it will organize and have in place no later than July 1, 2007 the statewide system of intensive and sustained support and improvement. At a minimum, this plan must include the following descriptions: 1) How the MDE will organize all three elements of the system of support (i.e., school support teams, distinguished educators, and other types of assistance, including any technical assistance from the MDE staff and/or assistance from regional centers); The roles and responsibilities of each element consistent with the requirements of section 1117(a); How the MDE will use funds it reserves under sections 1003(a) and 1004(a) of the ESEA to establish and carry out the system of school support;
How the MDE will coordinate the functions and activities of the school support system across the various program offices within the MDE, and how the MDE will oversee its implementation, evaluation, and refinement; and How LEAs and schools will know about, and have access to, the system.
Indicator 2.3 – The SEA ensures that the LEAs and schools meet parental notice and parental involvement requirements. Finding (1): Schools in JPS and CPS notified parents in early September regarding AYP status, public school choice, and Supplemental Education Services SES options, nearly five weeks after the start of the school year. Staff in JPS noted that the preliminary accountability information was embargoed until final information became available. These practices are contrary to the timeline in MDE’s approved accountability workbook, which notes that the MDE sends preliminary accountability reports to districts on July 28, and that districts must notify parents immediately concerning APY status, and choice and SES options for Title I schools identified for improvement, corrective action, and restructuring. Citation: Section 1116(a)(2) of the ESEA requires SEAs to ensure that the results of State academic assessments are available to LEAs before the beginning of the school year (that is, before the start of the school year that follows the school year in which the assessments were administered). The ESEA also requires LEAs to offer choice to eligible students prior to the beginning of the school year. Further action required: The MDE must revise and disseminate guidance to its LEAs and schools regarding the LEAs’ responsibility to use the preliminary accountability reports issued in July to notify parents prior to the beginning of the school year concerning AYP status, choice options, and SES options. This guidance must explicitly state that an LEA may not embargo this information until final accountability reports have been released. The MDE must submit a copy of this guidance to ED. Finding (2): Notification letters to parents reviewed by the ED team did not consistently include all of the required components. For example, choice letters for schools in JPS did not include one or more of the following required components: identification of schools to which a student may transfer; information on the academic achievement of those schools or a comparison to the student’s current school; a statement that transportation would be provided; and a description of how parents can be involved in addressing the academic issues that led to the school being identified for improvement. Further, certain notification letters discouraged parents from transferring their children to another school by using such terminology as “your child will forfeit his rights to participate in the education program of the school” or “forfeit athletic activities for a full year as noted under Mississippi High School Athletic Association policy.” Citation: Section 1116(b)(6) of the ESEA requires LEAs to promptly provide to parents an explanation of the identification of their child’s school that includes (1) how the school
compares academically to other schools in the LEA and the State, (2) why the school has been identified, (3) what the school is doing to address the achievement problem, (4) what the LEA and SEA are doing to help the school to address the achievement problem, (5) how parents can be involved in addressing the achievement problem, and (6) parents’ options to transfer their child to another school, and, if applicable, obtain supplemental educational services (SES). Section 200.37(b)(ii) of the Title I regulations requires that the explanation of the parents’ option to transfer must include, at a minimum, information on the academic achievement of the school or schools to which the child may transfer. Further action required: The MDE must provide LEAs, and direct LEAs to provide to principals, additional written guidance on the requirements of the notices to parents of children attending schools identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring. The guidance must include a checklist of requirements and a sample of a parent notification letter that the LEA and/or principals may use to develop their notification letters. The sample school choice letter must include the required components under Section 1116(b)(6) of the ESEA, including an explanation of the status, the identification of the schools to which a child may transfer, and information on the academic achievement of the school or schools to which the child may transfer. The MDE must provide a copy of this guidance and sample letter to ED. Indicator 2.4 – The SEA ensures that schools and LEAs identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring have met the requirements of being so identified. Finding (1): The MDE has not ensured that schools in improvement develop school improvement plans that include all required components. The MDE requires Title I schools to use a State-defined template to develop school improvement plans and to submit these plans to the MDE for review and approval in order to receive Title I school improvement funds under section 1003(a) of the ESEA. The plans for JPS and CPS approved by the MDE did not consistently contain all the required components and often lacked clear direction, goals, objectives, and strategies to address the specific issues that led to the school being identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring. The MDE could not provide the criteria it used to review and approve school improvement plans. Additionally, JPS and CPS could not provide evidence that they conducted a peer review of the plans prior to submitting them to the MDE. Citation: Section 1116(b)(3) of the ESEA requires that each school identified for improvement, no later than three months after being so identified, develop or revise a school plan, in consultation with parents, school staff, the LEA serving the school, and outside experts, for approval by the LEA. The plan shall:
Include strategies based on scientifically based research, Adopt policies and practices concerning the school’s core academic subjects that have the greatest likelihood of ensuring that all groups of students specified in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v) of the ESEA and enrolled in the school
will meet the State academic assessment described in section 1111(b)(3) not later than 12 years after the end of the 2001-02 school year; Provide an assurance that the school will spend not less than ten percent of the funds made available to the school under section 1113 of the ESEA for each fiscal year that the school is in school improvement status for the purpose of providing to the school’s teachers and principal high-quality professional development; Specify how the professional development funds specified in the previous bullet will be used to remove the school from school improvement status; Establish specific annual, measurable objectives for continuous and substantial progress by each group of students specified in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v) to ensure that all groups of students will meet the State academic assessment described in section 1111(b)(3); Describe how the school will provide written notice about the identification to parents of each student enrolled in such school, in a format and, to the extent practicable, in a language that the parents can understand; Specify the responsibilities of the school, the LEA, and the SEA serving the school under the plan, including the technical assistance to be provided by the LEA, and the LEA’s responsibilities under section 1120A of the ESEA; Include strategies to promote effective parental involvement in the school; Incorporate, as appropriate, activities before school, after school, during the summer, and during any extension of the school year; and Incorporate a teacher-mentoring program.
Further action required: The MDE must submit to ED a plan for providing technical assistance to LEAs on developing or revising school improvement plans that meet the statutory requirements. The MDE must reissue guidance to all its LEAs regarding the school improvement plan requirements under section 1116 of the ESEA, including the requirement that improvement plans be peer reviewed, and request all LEAs with schools in improvement to review all of their school improvement plans to ensure they include the required components. The MDE must also provide ED with documentation of how and when it provided this guidance to its LEAs. This documentation may include letters to LEAs, agendas for technical assistance meetings, links to the MDE website, etc., that demonstrate that the MDE has provided proper guidance. Further, because the MDE requires schools identified for improvement to submit their plans to the SEA for approval, the MDE must submit to ED a description of its review process, including any rubrics and feedback tools it uses to review and approve such plans. Finding (2): The MDE has not ensured that LEAs identified for improvement have developed a district improvement plan that includes all required components. Although the MDE has provided guidance to districts on the LEA improvement plan requirements under NCLB, the district improvement plan for JPS did not contain all the required components and lacked clear direction, goals, objectives, and strategies to address the specific issues that led to the LEA being identified for improvement. The MDE could not provide the criteria it used to review and approve the LEA improvement plan.
Citation: Section 1116(c)(7)(A) of the ESEA requires each LEA identified for improvement, no later than three months after being so identified, to develop or revise an improvement plan, in consultation with parents, school staff, and others. The purpose of the LEA plan is to improve student achievement throughout the LEA. Specifically, the plan must:
Incorporate strategies grounded in scientifically based research that will strengthen instruction in core academic subjects; Identify actions that have the greatest likelihood of improving the achievement of participating children in meeting the State’s student achievement standards; Address the professional development needs of the instructional staff serving the LEA by committing to spend not less than ten percent of the funds received by the LEA under section 1113 of the ESEA for each fiscal year the LEA is identified for improvement for professional development; Include specific measurable achievement goals and targets for each of the student subgroups whose disaggregated results are included in the State’s definition of adequate yearly progress (AYP); Address the fundamental teaching and learning needs in schools in the LEA, especially the academic problems of low-achieving students, including a determination of why the LEA’s previous plan did not bring about increased student academic achievement; Incorporate, as appropriate, student learning activities before school, after school, during the summer, and during any extension of the school year; Specify the responsibilities of the SEA and the LEA under the plan, including specifying the technical assistance responsibilities of the SEA and the fiscal responsibilities of the LEA; and Include strategies to promote effective parental involvement in the schools served by the LEA.
Further action required: The MDE must submit to ED a plan for providing technical assistance to LEAs identified for improvement on developing or revising LEA improvement plans that meet the statutory requirements. The MDE must reissue guidance to all its LEAs regarding the LEA improvement plan requirements under section 1116 of the ESEA, including any required templates that an LEA would use to develop the plan. The MDE must also provide ED with a detailed description of how and when it provided this guidance to its LEAs. This documentation may include letters to LEAs, agendas for technical assistance meetings, links to the MDE website, etc., that demonstrate that the MDE has provided proper guidance. Further, because the MDE requires LEAs identified for improvement to submit their plans to the SEA for approval, the MDE must submit to ED a description of its review process, including any rubrics and feedback tools it will use to review and approve such plans.
Indicator 2.5 – The SEA ensures that requirements for public school choice are met. Recommendation: The MDE should conduct an analysis of public school choice rates and, when such rates are low, review implementation practices across the State to determine the cause and establish methods and procedures to increase these rates where applicable. Indicator 2.6 – The SEA ensures that requirements for the provision of supplemental educational services (SES) are met. Finding (1): The MDE did not ensure that funds set aside by LEAs for SES were used only to provide services to eligible students. In JPS and CPS, staff in schoolwide schools required to provide SES reported that they made SES available to all children and did not know that only low-income students were eligible for SES. A test of SES enrollment information for one schoolwide school in CPS revealed 21 students were ineligible for SES. Further, NAPS staff indicated that the sole SES provider enrolled and served ineligible students. Citation: Section 1116(e)(12)(A) of the ESEA stipulates that only low-income students, as determined by the LEA for purposes of allocating Title I funds, who are attending a school required to provide SES are eligible for those services. Further action required: The MDE must immediately notify all LEAs and schools required to provide SES about the eligibility requirements for SES. Further, the notification must (1) provide guidance to LEAs on processes for collecting and verifying SES participation data from schools and providers to ensure that only eligible students receive SES, and (2) require the LEAs to submit to the MDE a report detailing the steps they have taken to verify and ensure that only eligible students are receiving SES in the 2006-2007 school year. The MDE must submit a copy of this notice to ED. Within 60 days of receipt of this report, the MDE must determine how many ineligible students were provided SES in JPS, CPS, and NAPS in the 2005-2006 school year and submit a report of its findings to ED. The report should list each school, the number of students eligible for SES, the number of eligible students that received SES, and the number of ineligible (non-poor) students who received SES. ED will make a determination about whether additional actions are needed based on the information the MDE submits. Finding (2): Parents in CPS and NAPS were not given a comprehensive list of approved, applicable SES providers. CPS and NAPS officials indicated that both LEAs decided to limit the SES provider options to only those providers they felt could offer services meeting the students’ needs. As a result, parents were unable to select from the comprehensive list of approved, applicable SES providers.
Citation: Section 200.37(b)(5)(ii)(A) of the Title I regulations requires LEAs to provide parents the identity of all approved SES providers within the LEA or whose services are reasonably available in neighboring local educational agencies or through distance learning. Further action required: The MDE must update its SES guidance to explain all requirements in detail. Additionally, the MDE must develop and update its SES webpage to include sections for parents, providers, and LEAs. The webpage should include the approved provider list, with the service provided and area served for each provider, qualifications and evidence of effectiveness for each provider, information on the guidance for SES, a sample provider selection form, a sample vendor contract, and a sample SES letter. In addition, the SES webpage should be easily found and accessible on the MDE website. The MDE must provide to ED documentation that these actions have been completed. Recommendation: ED recommends that the MDE provide guidance and technical assistance to help LEAs create a learning plan template as an independent, yet integral, part of their agreement with providers. This would ensure that learning plans, although tailored to the needs of each student, are also consistent across providers and students in what they address. Further, developing a learning plan template would also ensure that unique goals are established for each student and that providers indicate the evaluation tools they will use to document student improvement. Information about SES and tools to help States and LEAs to implement the requirements, including examples of student learning plans and progress reports to parents and teachers, are available on ED’s website at http://www.ed.gov/admins/comm/suppsvcs/sesprograms/report_pg8.html. Indicator 2.7 – The SEA ensures that LEAs and schools develop schoolwide programs that use the flexibility provided to them by law to improve the academic achievement of all students in the schools. Finding: The schoolwide program plans for schools in JPS and CPS did not consistently contain all the required components and often lacked clear direction, goals, objectives, reform strategies, and evaluation mechanisms. Citation: Section 1114(b)(1)(A-J) of the ESEA requires a schoolwide program plan to include the following components: 1) a comprehensive needs assessment; 2) schoolwide reform strategies; 3) instruction by highly qualified teachers; 4) high-quality and ongoing professional development; 5) strategies to attract high-quality, highly qualified teachers to high-need schools; 6) strategies to increase parental involvement in accordance with section 1118; 7) plans for assisting preschool children in the transition from early childhood programs, such as Head Start, Even Start, Early Reading First, or a State-run preschool program to local elementary school programs; 8) measures to include teachers in the decisions regarding the use of academic assessments; 9) activities to ensure that students who experience difficulty mastering the proficient or advanced levels of
academic achievement standards are provided with effective, timely additional assistance; and 10) coordination and integration of Federal, State and local services and programs. Further action required: The MDE must provide LEAs and Title I schools operating schoolwide programs with additional written guidance on the requirements of schoolwide programs consistent with section 1114(b)(1)(A-J) of the ESEA and submit to ED a copy of the guidance. The guidance should clearly explain the purpose of schoolwide programs as an opportunity to focus Title I, Part A funds, as well as other Federal and non-Federal funds and resources, on leveraging overall improvements of teaching and learning in schools with the highest levels of poverty. Further, the guidance should include a rubric or review tool that LEAs and schools can use to review the schoolwide plan, and annual plan updates, to ensure that each required component is addressed in a coherent and comprehensive manner and that the plan provides direction for improving teaching and learning. Recommendation: In cases where a school is both a schoolwide program and a school identified for improvement, it is permissible and favorable for the school to create or revise a single plan as long the single plan contains the schoolwide requirements under section 1114(b)(1) and the school improvement plan requirements under section 1116(b)(3)(A). The MDE is encouraged to incorporate into its school improvement template specific information to guide the development of a single school plan for a school that is both a schoolwide program and a school identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring to ensure that all statutory and regulatory requirements for schoolwide programs and school improvement are met.
Monitoring Area 3, Title I, Part A: Fiduciary Responsibilities Description The 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 sections 1126(c) and 1127 of the Title I statute. The SEA ensures that its LEAs comply with the provision for submitting an annual application to the SEA and revising LEA plans as necessary to reflect substantial changes in the direction of the program. The 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. • The SEA complies with the maintenance of effort (MOE) provisions of Title I. • The SEA ensures that its LEAs comply with the comparability provisions of Title I. • The SEA ensures that Title I funds are used only to supplement or increase non-Federal sources used for the education of participating children and do not supplant funds from non-Federal sources. The 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. The SEA ensures that its LEAs comply with requirements regarding services to eligible private school children, their teachers and families. The SEA complies with the requirement for implementing a system for ensuring prompt resolution of complaints. The 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 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 relevant standards, circulars, or legislative mandates.
Status Findings
Finding Findings Finding Finding Findings
24 24 28 28 29
Title I, Part A Monitoring Area: Fiduciary Responsibilities Indicator 3.1 -- Within State Allocations Reallocations, and Carryover. The 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 sections 1126(c) and 1127 of the Title I statute. Finding (1): The MDE staff interviewed failed to provide an explanation as to how Title I, Part A funds were allocated to LEAs during the 2005-2006 school year. The ED team was, therefore, unable to determine that 2005-2006 Title I funds were allocated in accordance with statutory requirements. Citation: Sections 200.70-200.75 of the Title I regulations address State requirements for determining allocations to the LEAs. These sections include requirements for allocations in general, LEA eligibility, procedures for adjusting allocations determined by the Secretary to account for eligible LEAs not on the Census list, applicable hold-harmless provisions, alternative method to distribute grants to LEAs with fewer than 20,000 total residents, and special procedures for allocation concentration grant funds in small States. Further action required: The MDE must provide written procedures to ED for determining LEA allocations in compliance with sections 200.70-200.75 of the Title I regulations. Additionally, the MDE must provide to ED a copy of the process it used to determine the allocations for the 2006-2007 school year. Finding (2): The MDE staff failed to comply with the process outlined in its Consolidated Application for distributing section 1003 School Improvement Funds. During the on-site interviews with JPS and CPS staff and the follow-up interviews with LPS and NAPS staff, LEA officials stated that each school received $70,000 for school improvement. During interviews, the MDE staff stated that the distribution of $70,000 to each school was not an accurate description of the process. The MDE staff submitted a spreadsheet to ED to document how these funds were distributed to the LEAs, but the MDE staff could not explain the process or provide documentation of any additional criteria for determining the allocation amounts (as stated in the Mississippi Consolidated Plan). The distribution spreadsheet showed some evidence of $70,000 distributions as well as the distribution of other amounts. The LEA officials from the NAPS stated that the $70,000 amounts were adjusted based on the amount available at the time the State reviewed the “drawdown” amounts (this action provided some explanation regarding the random amounts that were not multiples of $70,000).
The ED team reviewed the Mississippi Consolidated Plan, specifically the requirements for determining amounts under section 1003 of the ESEA. These requirements included the following procedures: (1) school improvement funds would be proportionate by student population; and (2) LEAs were required to submit a plan detailing the steps for improving student achievement in schools designated as needing improvement, in corrective action, or in need of restructuring. The MDE did not follow its own requirements for distribution of these funds because amounts seemed to be equally distributed among the schools ($70,000 with adjustments based on available funds at the MDE’s designated “drawdown” times) and LEAs were not required to submit plans as outlined in the Mississippi Consolidated Plan. The MDE staff could not explain the process for distributing these funds, provide documentation of criteria used to evaluate LEA plans for distribution, or provide documentation of LEA plans submitted, as required, for the distribution of these funds. Citation: Section 1003(a) of the ESEA addresses State reservations for school improvement and for carrying out the State’s responsibilities under sections 1116 and 1117. Section 1003(b) of the ESEA and the SEA’s statewide system of technical assistance and support for LEAs specifies the uses of these reserved funds. Section 1003(c) of the ESEA addresses the three priorities for allocating funds. Section 1003(d) states how unused funds are to be allocated to LEAs. Further action required: The MDE must document compliance with section 1003(a)-(d) of the ESEA in one of the following methods: (1) providing evidence of its guidance to LEAs and implementation of the requirements set forth for LEAs to receive section 1003 funds under the current Mississippi Consolidated Application; or (2) submitting an amendment to its current plan to ED and receiving official notification of the approval of the amendment (the MDE must show guidance and implementation of the approved amendment to the section 1003 funds). Additionally, the MDE must provide evidence to ED of its compliance with this section using one of the previously mentioned methods for the 2006-2007 school year. Indicator 3.3 – Within District Allocation Procedures. The LEA complies with the requirements in sections 1113, 1116, & 1118 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. Finding (1): The MDE has not ensured that its LEAs have correctly calculated equitable services for the families of private school participants. In addition to the required 1 percent reservation for parental involvement ($146,442.65), JPS had reserved approximately $750,000 more for parental involvement activities. JPS calculated equitable services for families of private school students on only the one percent rather than on the entire amount reserved for parental involvement activities.
Citation: Section 200.65(a)(1) of the Title I regulations requires LEAs to ensure that families of participating private school students participate on an equitable basis in parental involvement activities from Title I funds reserved by the LEA for parental involvement as required under section 1118 of the ESEA. The amount of funds available to provide equitable services from the applicable reserved funds must be in proportion to the number of children from low-income families residing in participating public school attendance areas. If an LEA reserves more than the required one percent of Title I, Part A funds for parental involvement activities, the requirement to allocate an equitable amount for the involvement of private school families applies to the entire amount set aside for this purpose. Further action required: The MDE must provide ED with evidence that it has provided guidance for ensuring that its LEAs serving private school students correctly calculate funds for equitable services for private school families. This documentation may include letters to LEAs and agendas for technical assistance meetings. The MDE must also submit to ED a description of the procedures that it will use to ensure that its LEAs have correctly calculated the amount of funding for equitable services to families of participating private school students. The MDE must also submit evidence to ED that, for the 2006-2007 school year, JPS has correctly calculated the amount of Title I funds that should be made available for services to families of participating children attending private school. Finding (2): The MDE has not ensured that its LEAs correctly calculate the maximum per-pupil funding amount for SES. CPS incorrectly calculated the maximum per-pupil funding cap using free and reduced lunch data rather than census data as required in the statute. Citation: Section 1116(e)(6) of the ESEA requires States to provide the per-pupil funding amount for SES using the amount of the agency’s allocation divided by the number of children from families below the poverty level using census data. Further Action Required: The MDE must ensure that its LEAs correctly calculate the maximum per-pupil amount for SES. The MDE must submit to ED evidence that it has provided guidance for ensuring that its LEAs correctly calculate the maximum per pupil amount for SES. This documentation may include letters to LEAs and agendas for technical assistance meetings. The MDE must submit to ED a description of the process that it will use to ensure that its LEAs are correctly calculating this amount. Additionally, the MDE must submit to ED a copy of the SES per-pupil funding amount calculations for its LEAs for the 2006-2007 school year.
Indicator 3.4 Fiscal Requirements: Maintenance of Effort, Comparability, and Supplement not Supplant---The SEA ensures that the LEA complies with--• The procedures for ensuring maintenance of effort (MOE) as outlined in §1120A(a) and 9021 of the ESEA. • The procedures for meeting the comparability requirement as outlined in §1120A(c) of the ESEA. • The procedures for ensuring that Federal funds are supplementing and not supplanting non-Federal sources used for the education of participating children as outlined in §1120A(a) of the ESEA, §1114(a)(2)(B) of the ESEA, §1115(b)(3) of the ESEA, and §1116 of the ESEA. Finding: The MDE has not monitored expenditures of LEAs to ensure that funds are used to supplement and not supplant State and local funds. Mississippi State regulations require elementary school students to have access to “student support services.” This “student support services” requirement may be satisfied through the use of a guidance counselor, social worker, nurse, psychologist, psychometrist, etc. CPS has two elementary schools. One elementary school has a district-funded counselor satisfying the requirements of the regulation. The second elementary school does not have access to this counselor. This school, instead, has a Title I-funded counselor. The “student support services” access required by the State regulations should be satisfied by State and/or local funds and not by Title I funds. Citation: Section 1120A(b) of the ESEA requires SEAs and LEAs to use Federal funds received to supplement the funds that would, in the absence of such Federal funds, be made available from non-Federal sources for the education of pupils participating in programs assisted under this part, and not to supplant such funds. Further action required: The MDE must use State and/or local funds to satisfy the requirements of this State regulation. Title I staff should only be used to supplement the position once the requirement is satisfied. CPS could satisfy the requirement by allowing the district-funded person to serve both elementary schools or pay for both positions out of State and/or local funds. The MDE must provide evidence to ED of the action it takes to correct this issue. Recommendation: ED recommends that the MDE require LEAs to satisfy the comparability requirements in a timely manner so that any appropriate modifications may be made with minimal disruption to the instructional program. Although this issue did not arise during the on-site visits, LPS and NAPS staff indicated that they were calculating comparability as late as December (2005) and turning in the reports to the State as late as January (2006). The timeliness of these submissions could cause disruption to the instructional programs if modifications are needed to ensure comparability.
Indicator 3.5 - the 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. Finding: The MDE did not ensure that LEAs were provided with documented guidance for the preparation of corrective action plans addressing the auditor's findings and recommendations. The MDE did not ensure that LEAs resolved auditor’s findings and recommendations in a timely manner. At JPS, the auditors, in the 2003, 2004 and 2005 audit reports, cited the same findings. At CPS, corrective action steps addressing audit findings were not followed. Citation: Section 80.26(b)(3) of EDGAR requires that “State and local governments . . . that provide Federal awards to a subgrantee, 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.” In accordance with the requirement under Subpart D, Section_____.400(d)(2) of the Circular, a pass-through entity shall “Advise subrecipients of requirements imposed on them by Federal laws, regulations, and the provisions of contracts or grant agreements as well as any supplemental requirements imposed by the pass-through entity.” Further action required: The MDE must document and distribute to its LEAs written procedures defining the form and content for corrective action plans that address findings in audits and monitoring reviews. The guidance must address requirements for formulating, monitoring, and completing timely corrective action steps and establishing individual accountability for the completion of each step. At a minimum, the corrective action plan must include the specific corrective action(s) planned, the name of the contact person responsible for completion of each corrective action step, the anticipated completion date for each step, and a detailed follow-up plan to monitor compliance. The MDE must provide to ED a copy of the subject procedures and transmittal document to all LEAs. Indicator 3.6 - Service to Eligible Private School Children. The LEA complies with requirements in sections 1120 and 9306 of the Title I Statute, Section 443 of GEPA, and §200.62-200.67, 200.77 and 200.78 of the regulations with regard to services to eligible private school children, their teachers and their families. Finding (1): The MDE has not ensured that its LEAs maintain control and proper oversight of the Title I program for eligible private school children. The LEA staff at JPS had not observed or supervised its staff member at St. Richard’s and the LEA staff at CPS had not observed its staff member at Holy Child Jesus for the entire year. The JPS staff member working at St. Richard’s is being supervised by the private school principal. The teacher, hired by JPS to work at St. Richard’s Private School, did not begin serving
children until late October although the Title I program for public school children began in mid-August. Additionally, the MDE did not ensure that its LEAs maintain control of materials purchased with Title I funds. The Title I-funded materials were placed in a storage room where all private school teachers could have access to the materials. The Title I teacher could not identify any Title I materials from the non-Title I private school materials. The staff also could not identify any marks of identification for Title I materials. Citation: Section 1120(d)(1) of the ESEA requires that the LEA maintain control of the Title I funds, materials, equipment and property. In addition, section 80.32(d) of the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) requires that a control system be developed by recipients of Federal funds to ensure that there are adequate safeguards to prevent loss, damage, or theft of the property. Section 200.66 of the Title I regulations requires that all materials and equipment purchased with Title I funds must only be used to meet the educational needs of participating private school children. Further action required: The MDE must require all its LEAs serving private school children to maintain control of the Title I program including materials, equipment, and property purchased with Title I funds. LEAs are responsible for planning, designing and implementing the Title I program and cannot delegate their responsibilities to the private schools or their officials. Allowing public school employees to work an entire year without being supervised, beginning Title I services for the private school children approximately two and one-half months after Title I services begin for public school children, and allowing all private school staff to have access to and use Title I-funded materials showed a lack of control by the LEA in regards to its Title I program and materials at the private school. The MDE must require JPS, CPS, and any other LEAs to cease these practices immediately and provide evidence to ED of this action. The MDE must require its LEAs serving private school children to establish a control system (1) for properly tagging all property and equipment purchased with Title I funds and located at private school sites with the words “Property of (insert LEA name)” placed on labels that cannot be either erased or removed; and (2) for storing materials and equipment purchased with Title I funs to ensure that only Title I private school participants use these materials and equipment. Additionally, the MDE must provide evidence to ED of its monitoring instruments for LEA staff working at private schools, proper usage of Title I materials at private schools (for Title I students only), and proper identification designating Title I materials. Finding (2): The MDE failed to ensure that its LEAs employed teachers and paraprofessionals provided Title I services to participating private school children in accordance with Title I requirements. JPS provided instructional services to private school students through paraprofessionals who are employees of the district. JPS staff allowed private school officials to monitor and supervise the instructional services provided by the paraprofessionals. Because paraprofessionals employed by an LEA must
be under the direct supervision of a highly qualified public school teacher and the paraprofessionals must be in close and frequent physical proximity to that teacher, children served in participating private schools cannot be served entirely by paraprofessionals. Citation: Section 1119(g)(3)(A) of the ESEA and section 200.59 of the Title I regulations requires that a paraprofessional must work under the direct supervision of a highly qualified teacher and work in close and frequent physical proximity to that teacher. Section 1120(d)(2)(B) of the ESEA requires that an employee of the LEA providing services to participating private school children must be under the control and supervision the LEA. Further action required: The MDE must provide ED with evidence that it has provided guidance to JPS and its other LEAs serving private school children on the requirements related to maintaining control of the instructional services provided to participating private school children. The MDE must require JPS and any other LEA using paraprofessionals as the sole method for delivering instruction to participating private school children to cease this practice immediately. The MDE must provide ED with a detailed description of how and when it informed JPS and other LEAs using paraprofessionals as the sole method for delivering instruction to participating private school students that the LEA must cease its current method for delivering instructional services to participating private school children. Finding (3): The MDE failed to ensure that required affirmation forms were completed, signed, and forwarded to it as required by NCLB statute. CPS did not have any signed affirmation forms that show consultation occurred. CPS officials produced a meeting agenda to the ED team; however, the agenda was not signed and did not include the required elements. Citation: Section 1120(b)(4) of the ESEA and section 200.63(e) of the Title I regulations require each LEA to maintain written affirmations signed by each private school official with participants or an appropriate representative. The affirmations serve as documentation that the required consultation has occurred. The statute also requires the SEA to obtain signed copies of the signed affirmation forms. Further action required: The MDE must ensure that JPS and any other LEA serving private school children complete the required consultations, maintain the required affirmation forms, and provide these affirmation forms to the MDE as required by statute. The MDE must submit to ED copies of affirmation forms for the 2006-2007 school year that are signed by private school officials in CPS. Finding (4): The MDE failed to ensure that LEAs informed private school officials of their right to complain to the MDE if they thought that an LEA did not engage in consultation that was timely and meaningful or did not give due consideration to the views of the private school officials. The officials at St. Richards and Holy Child Jesus
were not aware that they had the right to file a complaint with the MDE as required by NCLB statute. Citation: Section 1120(b)(5) provides private school officials with the right to complain to the SEA if an LEA did not engage in consultation that was timely and meaningful or did not give due consideration to the views of the private school officials. Further action required: The MDE must inform its LEAs serving private school students that private school officials have the right to complain to the MDE if they think that consultation was not conducted meaningfully, or in a timely manner, or that the views of the private school officials were not considered. The MDE must submit to ED a copy of the notifications to LEAs and other evidence that private school officials were advised of their right to file complaints to the MDE against an LEA. Finding (5): The MDE has not ensured that its LEAs provide equitable services to its private school children. Eligible students in Greenville Christian School (GCS) were denied their equitable Title I services. Although the MDE was informed of this issue through e-mails, the MDE did not follow-up to ensure that equitable services were provided. As a result, eligible children at Greenville Christian School did not receive their equitable Title I services in school year 2005-2006. Citation: Section 1120(a) requires the LEA to provide equitable services to participating children in participating private schools on an equitable basis (after consultation with the participating private school officials). Further action required: The MDE must submit documentation to ED showing its efforts to resolve the private school issue in GPS. Specifically the MDE must: 1. Determine that GPS is providing Title I services for the 2006-2007 school year; 2. Determine that the services being provided meet Title l I requirements; 3. Determine the amount of funds generated by eligible private school children from the Greenville Christian School for school year 2005-2006; and 4. Require GPS to add those dollars generated in 2005-2006 to Greenville Christian School’s 2006-2007 allocation because GPS failed to provide equitable services in school year 2005-2006. The MDE must provide technical assistance and guidance to the Greenville Public Schools (GPS) and all other LEAs serving private school children regarding the requirements of equitable services to eligible private school children. The MDE must submit to ED copies of this guidance to GPS and other LEAs.
Indicator 3.7 - Complaint Procedures. The SEA has a system for ensuring fair and prompt resolution of complaints. Finding: The MDE did not ensure that complaint policies and procedures were available at the LEA level and no complaint procedures were in place at the SEA. The MDE was unable to provide a current complaint procedure or a policy that is in compliance with NCLB and that outlines a formal process for resolving complaints and standard protocols (for receiving, processing, and tracking the complaints to resolution). Citation: Section 9304(a)(3)(C) of the ESEA requires States to adopt written procedures for the receipt and resolution of complaints alleging violations of law in the administration of provisions. Section 299.10(a) of EDGAR further requires an SEA to adopt written procedures consistent with State law for (1) receiving and resolving any complaint from an organization or individual that the SEA or an agency or consortium of agencies is violating a Federal statute or regulation that applies to an applicable program listed in paragraph (b) of this section; (2) reviewing an appeal from a decision of an agency or consortium of agencies with respect to a complaint; and (3) conducting an independent on-site investigation of a complaint if the SEA determines that an on-site investigation is necessary. In addition, sections 1120(b)(5) and 1120(c)(2) of the ESEA require the SEA to have in place procedures for private school officials to complain if the LEA did not engage in consultation that was meaningful and timely, or did not give due consideration to the views of the private school officials. Further action required: The MDE must provide to all its LEAs a copy of the written procedures for the receipt and resolution of complaints, and provide ED with a copy of the description of how/when this information was disseminated. The MDE must consider any advice from the Committee of Practitioners (COP) in carrying out this responsibility under NCLB. The MDE must review its guidance to LEAs to ensure that LEAs incorporate the elements required by NCLB for formal complaint procedures into local complaint procedure policies and that the LEAs have issued appropriate guidance to the schools. The MDE must submit its final complaint policy or procedures to ED. Additionally, the MDE must submit documentation to ED of the issuance of guidance to the LEAs for developing such procedures. Indicator 3.8 - Committee of Practitioners. The SEA establishes a Committee of Practitioners and involves the committee in decision making as required. Finding: The MDE had not established a Committee of Practitioners (COP) to advise the State in carrying out its Title I responsibilities. This COP’s responsibilities include reviewing any proposed or final State Title I rule or regulation before its publication and developing and monitoring the implementation of the State’s plan.
Citation: Section 1903(b) of the ESEA requires that each SEA that receives Title I funds shall create a State COP to advise the State in carrying out its responsibilities. The duties of each committee shall include a review, before publication, of any proposed or final State rule or regulation related to Title I. Section 1111(c)(11) of the ESEA also requires the State to involve the COP in developing the State Title I, Part A plan and monitoring its implementation. Further action required: The MDE must complete the process for the full development of a COP that is in compliance with sections 1903(b) and 1111(c)(11). The MDE must submit documentation to ED that the process has been completed, provide a copy of the COP’s membership upon completion, and provide a copy of the first meeting agenda. 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 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 MDE did not ensure that it or two of its LEAs, JPS and CPS accurately recorded equipment and supplies purchased with Title I funds. During inspection of Title I equipment, it was noted that ten laptops and two projectors in an equipment closet belonging to Title I were not tagged or listed in any equipment records. Citation: Section 80.32(b) of the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) requires that “A State [LEA] . . . use, manage and dispose of equipment acquired under a grant by the State in accordance with State laws and procedures.” Concurrently, section 443(a) of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA) and section 76.730 of EDGAR require that an SEA or LEA keep records that fully disclose the amount and disposition of Title I, Part A funds and any other records that would facilitate an audit or program monitoring. Further action required: The MDE must implement a corrective action plan to ensure that LEAs maintain adequate controls to account for the procurement, location, custody, security, transfer, and disposition of equipment and supplies purchased with Title I funds. At a minimum, the corrective action plan must include the specific corrective action(s) planned, the name of the contact person responsible for completion of each corrective action step, the anticipated completion date for each step, and a detailed follow-up plan to monitor compliance. The MDE must provide ED with a copy of the corrective action plan. Finding (2): The MDE did not ensure that the MDE maintained an adequate equipment checkout system to account for equipment used off-site. The review found that a State form to record off-site use of equipment was not consistently accurate in respect to the dates the equipment was returned. The original form used for checkout was not updated when equipment was returned. Of the 12 checkout forms inspected, ten (83 percent of
total inspected) did not have the return notifications to indicate the equipment had been returned. 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.” Concurrently, section 443(a) of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA) and section 76.730 of EDGAR require that an SEA or LEA keep records that fully disclose the amount and disposition of Title I, Part A funds and any other records that would facilitate an audit or program monitoring. Further action required: The MDE must establish and distribute a policy requiring the MDE and its LEAs to implement and maintain adequate controls to account for the procurement, location, custody, and security of equipment purchased with Title I funds. The controls must ensure that accountability for equipment purchased with Title I funds that is removed from its recorded location for off-site use is established by a documented check out process. The MDE must provide ED with a copy of a corrective action plan to address this requirement and a plan to monitor compliance. At a minimum, the corrective action plan must include the specific corrective action(s) planned, the name of the contact person responsible for completion of each corrective action step, the anticipated completion date for each step, and a detailed follow-up plan to monitor compliance. In addition, the MDE must provide a copy of the subject procedures and transmittal document to all LEAs to ED. Finding (3): The MDE did not ensure that it or its LEAs maintained a comprehensive, accurate, and current record of equipment and supplies purchased with Title I funds. At the MDE, incorrect serial numbers were listed for one of the equipment items inspected (8 percent of the test sample). An accurate record of equipment was not provided. One laptop (tag number 0021759) stolen May 2004 was still listed in the equipment and supplies record at the MDE. At CPS, out of a test sample of 31 items, one equipment item or 3 percent (a Sony digital camera purchased on 6/14/06) did not have a tag number. 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.” Concurrently, section 443(a) of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA) and section 76.730 of EDGAR require that an SEA or LEA keep records that fully disclose the amount and disposition of Title I, Part A funds and any other records that would facilitate an audit or program monitoring. Further action required: The MDE must develop a corrective action plan to establish and implement a policy for the MDE and its LEAs to procure, record, and maintain custody of equipment and supplies purchased with Title I funds. The corrective action plan must include a plan for the MDE to provide guidance to the LEAs, inclusive of non-public schools, for implementing the policy. At a minimum, the corrective action plan must include the specific corrective action(s) planned, the name of the contact person responsible for completion of each corrective action step, the anticipated completion date
for each step, and a detailed follow-up plan to monitor compliance. The MDE must provide ED with a copy of the corrective action plan. Finding (4): The MDE did not ensure its LEAs maintained adequate internal controls to account for procurement, location, custody, and security of equipment and supplies purchased with Title I resources. During equipment inspection at the Holy Child Jesus School in Canton, it was observed that all the equipment listed as being in a mobile (trailer) unit had been moved over two years before. The equipment list at the Holy Child Jesus School was incomplete. Old equipment replaced with new equipment was still on the list. New equipment purchased with Title I funds was not on the equipment list. 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.” Concurrently, section 443(a) of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA) and section 76.730 of EDGAR require that an SEA or LEA keep records that fully disclose the amount and disposition of Title I, Part A funds and any other records that would facilitate an audit or program monitoring. Further action required: The MDE must develop a corrective action plan to establish and implement a policy for the MDE and its LEAs addressing the procurement, recording, custody, periodic physical inventory and disposition of equipment and supplies purchased with Title I funds. The corrective action plan must include a plan for the MDE to provide guidance to its LEAs, inclusive of non-public schools, for implementing the policy. At a minimum, the corrective action plan must include the specific corrective action(s) planned, the name of the contact person responsible for completion of each corrective action step, the anticipated completion date for each step, and a detailed follow-up plan to monitor compliance. The MDE must provide ED with a copy of the corrective action plan. Finding (5): The MDE did not ensure that LEAs maintained a system to conduct accurate physical inventories of equipment purchased with Title I funds. The MDE and its LEAs do not conduct regular physical inventories of equipment to reconcile with the equipment recorded in the property record system. 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.” Concurrently, section 443(a) of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA) and section 76.730 of EDGAR require that an SEA or LEA keep records that fully disclose the amount and disposition of Title I, Part A funds and any other records that would facilitate an audit or program monitoring. Further action required: The MDE must implement a corrective action plan to ensure that the MDE and its LEAs conduct accurate physical inventories of equipment purchased with Title I funds. The plan must include a policy requiring districts and schools to conduct periodic physical inventories of equipment at all locations and to perform a reconciliation of the physical inventory to the record of equipment. At a minimum, the
corrective action plan must include the specific corrective action(s) planned, the name of the contact person responsible for completion of each corrective action step, the anticipated completion date for each step, and a detailed follow-up plan to monitor compliance. The MDE must provide ED with a copy of the corrective action plan. Indicator 3.10 - The SEA and LEAs comply with requirements regarding procurement of goods and services and the disbursement of Title I funds in accordance with State policies and procedures, NCLB, the Improper Payments Information Act, and any other relevant standards, circulars, or legislative mandates. Finding (1): The MDE did not ensure that the payments processing office at the MDE maintained a list and sample signatures of individuals at each school and the MDE with approval authority in the procurement and cash disbursement process. Citation: Section 80.36(a) of EDGAR states that “When procuring property and services under a grant, a State [LEA] will follow the same policies and procedures it uses for procurements from its non-Federal funds.” Further action required: The MDE must develop a corrective action plan to ensure the MDE payments processing office implements adequate controls to verify the authenticity of approvals at all levels supporting the procurement and cash disbursement process. At a minimum, the corrective action plan must include the specific corrective action(s) planned, the name of the contact person responsible for completion of each corrective action step, the anticipated completion date for each step, and a detailed follow-up plan to monitor compliance. The MDE must provide ED with a copy of the corrective action plan. Finding (2): The MDE did not ensure that the MDE and its LEAs approved only vendor invoices for payment that provided specific details of products and services rendered. At JPS, for the test month of June 2006, the review examined 40 transactions from a universe of 2,024 transactions, a 2 percent sample. From the review of 40 transactions, 12 exceptions were noted where payment was made for invoices that did not provide details of services rendered. This represents a 30y percent exception rate. Citation: Section 80.36(a) of EDGAR states that “When procuring property and services under a grant, a State [LEA] will follow the same policies and procedures it uses for procurements from its non-Federal funds.” Further action required: The MDE must provide ED with documentation that it has distributed procurement policy guidance to the MDE and its LEAs addressing the need for sufficient descriptions of goods or services provided to be included in all vendor invoices. At a minimum, the vendor invoice for professional services must include an adequate description of the services performed, dates and location of service, and, if applicable, number of students served. The information provided should be consistent
with the description of deliverables specified in contracts and purchase orders. The MDE must provide ED with a copy of the corrective action plan addressing this requirement inclusive of a follow-up plan to monitor compliance. Other Fiduciary Issues LEA Payrolls Finding: The MDE did not ensure that the LEAs maintain adequate controls over Title I funds used to pay salaries and related benefits for Title I personnel. At JPS, expenses for salary and benefits of non-Title I staff were charged to Title I. Of the 56 payroll disbursements (20 percent of the universe) tested by comparing salary and benefits to the payroll records, one disbursement (or about 2 percent) for $339.00, check number 1283091 was for a non-Title I salary. Citation: Section 80.20(a) of EDGAR requires that “A State [LEA] . . . expand [sic] and account for grant funds in accordance with State laws and procedures for expending and accounting for its own funds.” Section 80.40(a) states that “Grantees must monitor grant and subgrant supported activities to assure compliance with applicable Federal requirements . . .” Further action required: The MDE must ensure that individuals paid with Title I funds at JPS, as well as other LEAs, are performing Title I duties chargeable to the program. The MDE must provide ED a copy of the transmittal document informing the LEAs of this requirement. This documentation may include letters to LEAs and agendas for technical assistance meetings. The MDE must also implement corrective action to ensure that individuals paid with Title I funds are on the agency’s list of personnel and performing Title I duties, either part time or full time. Steps for achieving this action must be included in a corrective action plan, which at a minimum, includes the specific corrective action(s) planned, the name of the contact person responsible for completion of each corrective action step, the anticipated completion date for each step, and a detailed follow-up plan to monitor compliance. The MDE must provide ED with a copy of the corrective action plan. In addition to the plan, the MDE must provide ED with documentation showing that the Title I program was reimbursed for the misappropriated salary expense incurred at JPS. Drawdown and Distribution of Title I Funds Finding: The MDE did not ensure the LEAs applied for Title I funds in a timely manner or that LEAs that exceeded the carryover limitation of 15 percent requested carryover waivers in a timely manner. Of the 31 LEAs that exceeded the 15 percent carryover limitation, 6 schools (or 20 percent) were not eligible for carryover waiver. This practice resulted in a carryover substantially in excess of the 15 percent limitation.
Citation: Public Law 107-110-January 8, 2002, SEC.1127 (a) Limitation on Carryover “…not more than 15 percent of the funds allocated to a local educational agency for any fiscal year under this subpart (but not including funds received through any reallocation under this subpart) may remain available for obligation by such agency for one additional fiscal year.” Further action required: The MDE must ensure and direct all LEAs under the MDE to adhere to the carryover laws and regulations. The MDE must provide ED a copy of the transmittal document informing the LEAs of this requirement. This documentation may include letters to LEAs and agendas for technical assistance meetings. The MDE must also implement corrective action to ensure that LEAs do not exceed the carryover limitations. Steps for achieving this action must be included in a corrective action plan, which, at a minimum, includes the specific corrective action(s) planned, the name of the contact person responsible for completion of each corrective action step, the anticipated completion date for each step, and a detailed follow-up plan to monitor compliance. The MDE must provide ED with a copy of the corrective action plan.
Summary of Title I, Part B, Subpart 3 (Even Start) Monitoring Indicators
Indicator Number 1.1 1.2 1.3 Monitoring Area 1, Title I, Part B, Subpart 3: Accountability Description Status The SEA complies with the subgrant award requirements. The SEA requires applicants to submit applications for subgrants with the necessary documentation. In making non-competitive continuation awards, the SEA reviews the progress of each subgrantee in meeting the objectives of the program and evaluates the program based on the indicators of program quality, and refuses to award subgrant funds to an eligible entity if the agency finds that the entity has not sufficiently improved the performance of the program. The SEA develops, based on the best available research and evaluation data, indicators of program quality for Even Start programs, and uses the indicators to monitor, evaluate, and improve projects within the State. The SEA ensures compliance with Even Start program requirements. The SEA ensures that projects provide for an independent local evaluation of the program that is used for program improvement. Findings Finding Met Requirements Recommendation Page 36 36 37
Title I, Part B, Subpart 3 (Even Start) Monitoring Area: Accountability Indicator 1.1 - The SEA complies with the subgrant award requirements. Finding (1): The MDE has not established a COP as required by statute. (Refer to finding for Title I, Part A for Indicator 3.8 on page 28) Citation: Section 1903(b) of the ESEA generally requires SEAs to use one overall COP to advise the State in carrying out its responsibilities under Title I, including its responsibilities for administration of the Even Start program (Title I, Part B, Subpart 3). SEAs may choose to use a subgroup of its members who are familiar with the particular subject matter of a program, such as family literacy, to review rules and regulations or policies related to that program and advise the overall COP in that area. Further action required: The MDE must establish an operational COP for Even Start that contains the appropriate membership as describe in section 1903(b) of the ESEA and submit a membership list to ED. Finding (2): The MDE did not require applicants to re-compete in an open competition at the end of their fourth year, using the standards in sections 1237 and 1238 of the ESEA. Citation: Section 1238(b)(1) of the ESEA generally states that subgrants under this subpart may be awarded for a period not to exceed four years. Further, section 1238(b)(5) of the ESE generally states that: (A) an eligible entity that has previously received a subgrant under this subpart may re-apply under this subpart for additional subgrants, and (B) the Federal share of any subgrant renewed under subparagraph (A) shall be limited in accordance with section 1234(b) of the ESEA. Further action required: The MDE must submit to ED evidence that in the future it will require grantees to compete in an open competition at least once every four years. Indicator 1.2 - The SEA requires applicants to submit applications for subgrants with the necessary documentation. Finding: The application used by the MDE to make new awards does not include the required elements under section 1237 of the ESEA for an application for a new award. Citation: Section 1237 of the ESEA states that to be eligible to receive a subgrant under this subpart, an eligible entity shall submit an application to the SEA in such form and containing or accompanied by such information as the SEA shall require and shall include the required documentation and a plan of operation described in section 1237(b) and (c) of the ESEA.
Further action required: The MDE must submit documentation that it requires applicants to include the required elements under section 1237 of the ESEA for an application for a new award. Indicator 1.3 - In making non-competitive continuation awards, the SEA reviews the progress of each subgrantee in meeting the objectives of the program and evaluates the program based on the indicators of program quality, and refuses to award subgrant funds to an eligible entity if the agency finds that the entity has not sufficiently improved the performance of the program. Recommendation: The MDE does not have procedures in place to discontinue projects that have not made sufficient progress nor does the MDE have procedures in place to discontinue projects that are not in compliance with Even Start program requirements; although, MDE asserts that it has not needed to discontinue any of its grantees. ED recommends that MDE develop procedures to discontinue projects that: • Have not made sufficient progress and • Are not in compliance with Even Start program requirements. Indicator 1.4 – The SEA develops, based on the best available research and evaluation data, indicators of program quality for Even Start programs, and uses the Indicators to monitor, evaluate, and improve projects within the State. The SEA ensures compliance with Even Start program requirements. Finding: The MDE has not informed grantees about the early childhood education measurements used by ED for the purpose of complying with the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). Citation: Section 80.40 of EDGAR requires States to submit annual performance reports to ED that contain performance data needed to report on ED’s GPRA measures. Further action required: The MDE must submit documentation to ED that demonstrates that it has informed grantees about the early childhood education measurements used by ED for the purpose of complying with GPRA.
Monitoring Area 2, Title I, Part B, Subpart 3: Instructional Support
Indicator Number 2.1 Description The SEA uses funds to provide technical assistance to local projects to improve the quality of Even Start family literacy services or comply with State indicators of program quality. Each program assisted shall include the identification and recruitment of families most in need, and serve those families. Each program shall include screening and preparation of parents and enable those parents and children to participate fully in the activities and services provided. SEA ensures that all families receiving services participate in all four core instructional progrms. Each program shall be designed to accommodate the participants’ work schedule and other responsibilities, including the provision of support services, when those services are unavailable from other sources. Each program shall include high-quality, intensive instructional programs that promote adult literacy and empower parents to support the educational growth of their children, and in preparation of children for success in regular school programs. Individuals providing academic instruction, whose salaries are paid in whole or part with Even Start funds, meet the statutory requirements for Even Start staff qualifications. By December 21, 2004, the person responsible for administration of family literacy services, if that person’s salary is paid in whole or part with Even Start funds, has received training in the operation of a family literacy program. By December 21, 2004, paraprofessionals who provide support for academic instruction, whose salaries are paid in whole or part with Even Start funds, have a secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent. The local programs shall include special training of staff, including child-care workers, to develop the necessary skills to work with parents and young children. The local programs shall provide and monitor integrated instructional services to participating parents and children through the home-based portion of the instructional program. The local programs shall operate on a year-round basis, including the provisions of some program services, including instructional and enrichment services, during the summer months. The local program shall be coordinated with other relevant programs under the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act, the Individuals with Disabilities Act, and Title I of the Workforce Investment Act of 1988 and the Head Start program, volunteer literacy programs, and other relevant programs. The local programs shall use instructional programs based on scientifically based reading research for children and adults, and reading-readiness activities for preschool children based on scientifically based reading research. The local program shall encourage participating families to attend regularly and to remain in the program a sufficient time to meet their program goals. The local program shall, if applicable, promote the continuity of family literacy to ensure that individuals retain and improve their educational outcomes. Status Page
Met Requirements Met Requirements Met Requirements Met Requirements Met Requirements Finding
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 39
Met Requirements Met Requirements Finding Finding Met Requirements
N/A N/A 39 40 N/A
Monitoring Area: Instructional Support 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: The two sites visited do not offer enough hours of early childhood education for infants and toddlers. The site in Petal offers 2 hours per month of early childhood education through its home-based instruction component (aalthough, this may be considered interactive literacy activities rather than direct instruction). The site in Jackson offers 9 hours per month of early childhood education. The Federal recommendation is 60 hours per month of early childhood education for infants and toddlers. Citation: Section 1235(4) of the ESEA states that each project must provide high-quality, intensive instructional programs that promote adult literacy and empower parents to support the educational growth of their children, developmentally appropriate early childhood services, and preparation of children for success in regular school programs. Each of the four core components is considered an instructional program. Further action required: The MDE must inform and provide technical assistance to local projects regarding the Federal minimum suggestions for hours of intensity for each core area of Even Start. In addition, the MDE must submit a copy of the written guidance regarding the above topic to ED. Indicator 2.11: The local programs shall provide and monitor integrated instructional services to participating parents and children through the home-based portion of the instructional program. Finding: The site in Petal allows home-based instruction to take place at the home or at the center; however, home-based instruction conducted at the center should only be used when conducting the visit at the home is an option rejected by the parents. Citation: Section 1235(7) of the ESEA states that each program assisted under this subpart shall provide and monitor integrated instructional services to participating parents and children through home-based programs. Further action required: The MDE must submit to ED evidence of the technical assistance provided to projects regarding home-based instruction being conducted at the participating families’ homes unless the parents reject that option.
Indicator 2.12: 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. Finding: The two sites visited did not offer year-round educational services. The site in Petal did not offer services during the entire summer and the site in Jackson did not offer services for six consecutive weeks during the summer. Citation: Section 1235(8) of the ESEA states that projects shall operate on a year-round basis, including the provision of some program services, such as instructional and enrichment services, during the summer months. Further action required: The MDE must require all projects to offer year-round services. The MDE must inform and provide evidence that all projects are aware of and adhere to the Federal recommended minimum of no longer than a four-week lapse of services provided during the summer months. Indicator 2.14: The local programs shall use instructional programs based on scientifically based reading research for children and adults, and reading-readiness activities for preschool children based on scientifically based reading research. Finding: The environment of the preschool classrooms in Jackson was not literacy and print rich (e.g., the letters of the alphabet displayed at the children’s eye level, ample display of children’s work, and a comfortable area for children to read). The project did not use any environmental rating scale or any other tool to guide classroom environment. Citation: Section 1235(10) and (12) of the ESEA states that each program assisted under this subpart shall use instructional programs based on scientifically based reading research for children and adults, to the extent that research is available and include reading-readiness activities for preschool children based on scientifically based reading research, to the extent available, to ensure that children enter school ready to learn to read. Further action required: The MDE must provide technical assistance to projects and send to ED a copy of the written guidance, training agenda and/or training minutes to local projects regarding identifying and implementing practices that promote language development and early reading skills in the early childhood education component, including professional development conducted to ensure that early childhood environments are print-rich.
Monitoring Area 3, Title I Part B, Subpart 3: SEA Fiduciary Responsibilities Indicator Description 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 Finding and regulatory requirements on uses of funds and matching. 3.3 The SEA complies with the cross-cutting maintenance of Met Requirements effort provisions. 3.4 The SEA ensures timely and meaningful consultation with Finding 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.
Monitoring Area: SEA Fiduciary Responsibilities 3.2 – The SEA ensures that subgrantees comply with requirements on uses of funds and matching. Finding: The Jackson site provides parent stipends for participation. Normally, projects may not pay parents to participate in the Even Start program, unless the stipends are for a particular support service purpose or cost reimbursement (e.g., transportation or child care) or are being used as rewards or incentives for accomplishments. Citation: Section 76.530 of EDGAR designates the general cost principles that apply to State-administered Even Start subgrants, which, for State and local governments, are incorporated in 34 CFR §80.22. The applicable cost principles are found in OMB Circular A-87. Under 34 CFR §80.37(a), the SEA may require a subgrantee that is a local government to follow State conflict of interest procedures. However, those procedures must conform to applicable Federal standards in 34 CFR §80.36(b). Further action required: The MDE must ensure, through technical assistance, monitoring, and training, that local projects are aware of and follow the correct cost provisions and principles, particularly the provisions in the applicable OMB cost principles for reward and/or incentives. The MDE must submit to ED an action plan for how it will ensure that such guidance will occur. The MDE must also provide evidence that the misuse of funds in the Jackson project visited has been rectified. 3.4 - The SEA ensures timely and meaningful consultation and provision of equitable services to private school children. Finding: The MDE and the two sites visited did not provide any evidence that they consulted with private school officials on how to provide Even Start services and benefits to eligible elementary and secondary school students attending non-public schools and their teachers or other instructional personnel, and that local programs provide an appropriate amount of those services and benefits through an eligible provider. Citation: Sections 9501-9506 of the ESEA require local Even Start projects to meaningfully consult, on a timely basis, with private school officials on how to provide Even Start services and benefits to eligible elementary and secondary school students attending non-public schools and their teachers or other instructional personnel, and to provide an appropriate amount of those services and benefits through an eligible provider. Further action required: The MDE must submit evidence to ED of how it will ensure that all Even Start projects are aware of such requirements, are given guidance on how to meet such requirements, and meaningfully consult with private school officials in order to provide Even Start services and benefits to eligible private school students and their teachers or other educational personnel on an equitable basis. The State should refer to the Even Start guidance document for assistance.
Summary of Title I, Part D Monitoring Indicators Neglected, Delinquent or At-Risk of Dropping-Out Program Description Status The SEA has implemented all required components as identified in its Title I, Part D (N/D) plan. The SEA ensures that State agency (SA) plans for services to eligible N/D students meet all requirements. The SEA ensures that local educational agency (LEA) plans for services to eligible N/D students meet all requirements. The SEA ensures that institutionwide programs developed by the SA under Subpart 1 use the flexibility provided to them by law to improve the academic achievement of all students in the school. The SEA ensures each State agency has reserved not less than 15 percent and not more than 30 percent of the amount it receives under Subpart 1 for transition services. The SEA conducts monitoring of its subgrantees sufficient to ensure compliance with Title I, Part D program requirements. Met Requirements Findings Recommendation Finding
Page N/A 44
Title I, Part D Neglected and Delinquent Indicator 1.2 The SEA ensures that State Agency (SA) plans for services to eligible N/D students meet all requirements. Finding (1): The MDE has used an LEA application form for SAs to apply for Subpart 1 funding. The activities listed in the application are not relevant to SAs and are not in compliance with statutory requirements. Citation: Section 1414(c) of the ESEA describes the 19 required elements for a SA application for funding under Subpart 1. LEA applications fall under 20 USC 6453 of the ESEA with a different set of requirements under Subpart 2. Further action required: The MDE must review and revise its application process for both SAs and LEAs to ensure that such applications meet the appropriate statutory requirements for each Subpart. The MDE must submit to ED a revised application form for both Subpart 1 and Subpart 2 to implement this change. The MDE must use such revised forms with the appropriate SAs and LEAs for the 2006-2007 school year. Finding (2): The MDE has not awarded funds for the 2006-2007 school year to the SAs and indicated that such awards may not be made until the end of October or early November. Additionally, 2006-2007 applications have not been approved by the MDE. As a formula program, funds have been available from ED to the MDE since July 1. SA programs for students in correctional facilities are in operation on July 1 and throughout the year. Citation: Section 1402 of the ESEA describes the allocation of funds under Part D to SEAs for the purpose of making subgrants to SAs under Subpart 1. Additionally, section 1412(a) of the ESEA states that SAs are eligible to receive a subgrant each fiscal year. Finally, Federal funds are made available to States on July 1 for the purpose of operating programs under ESEA. Further action required: The MDE must review its allocation process for subgrants to SAs in order to provide funding throughout the school year. The MDE must provide ED with a plan to demonstrate how it will provide SA applications and review such applications so that SAs may receive Subpart 1 funds in a timely manner. Recommendation: The ED team observed that the Hinds County Board of Supervisors, as fiscal agent for the Henley-Young Correctional Facility, reserves 20 percent for program administration and a line item for financial services charged at an additional $5,000. ED strongly recommends that the MDE review the budget of the Henley-Young Correctional Facility to determine if such costs for program administration are reasonable and necessary to operate the Part D program.
Indicator 1.3 - The SEA ensures that local educational agency (LEA) plans for services to eligible N/D students meet all requirements. Finding: The MDE has had difficulty with distinguishing programs under Part D for both Subpart 1 and Subpart 2. The Mississippi Department of Youth Services (MDYS) administers most services for delinquents in Mississippi, encompassing juvenile intake, diversion, probation, commitment and aftercare. Secure detention is administered at the local level. Youth court divisions of county courts exercise jurisdiction over delinquency proceedings. County and city governments, including county board and commissions, oversee local jurisdiction for juvenile offenders. Hinds County is a regional catchment area that includes the city of Jefferson. The MDE has listed and funded Hinds County as a SA under Subpart 1 even though all youth reside locally and are served for school purposes by the local school district. Additionally, the MDE has listed and funded the Henley-Young Correctional Facility as a SA under Subpart 1 even though all youth reside locally and are served for school purposes by the local school district. Additionally, funds for Henley-Young have gone to the Hinds County Board of Supervisors, which is neither an LEA nor SA and therefore not eligible for such funding. Under Subpart 1, an SEA must identify which programs are operated by the SEA or State agencies to be eligible for such funding. Under Subpart 2, LEAs apply for funds to serve locally operated correctional facilities. Citation: Section 200.9(c) of the Title I regulations provides a definition of local agency programs authorized under Title I, Part D, Subpart 2 of the ESEA. Locally operated correctional facility means: a facility in which persons are confined as a result of a criminal offense, including persons under 21 years of age. The term also includes a local public or private institution and community day school program or school not operated by the State that serves delinquent children and youth. SA applications fall under section 1414 of the ESEA and have a different set of eligibility requirements and funding from LEA applications under section 1422 of the ESEA. Further action required: The MDE must investigate how it has funded Part D programs, both Subparts 1 and 2, since the NCLB reauthorization of ESEA to determine if funding for Hinds County detention facility and the Henley-Young Correctional Facility have been appropriately allocated as SA programs and not LEA programs. The MDE must provide ED with a report justifying why such local programs should be considered SAs under Part D, or whether one or both should be reclassified as LEA Subpart 2 programs. If one or both programs are reclassified, the MDE must submit to ED a plan to rectify the funding discrepancy for such programs. Indicator 3.1 - The SEA ensures each State agency has reserved not less than 15 percent and not more than 30 percent of the amount it receives under Subpart 1 for transition services. Finding: The MDYS has reserved 10 percent of Subpart 1 funds for transition services while other SAs have not reserved any funds for such services.
Citation: Section 1418 (a) of the ESEA states that each State agency shall reserve not less than 15 percent and not more than 30 percent of the amount such agency receives under this subpart for any fiscal year to support - (1) projects that facilitate the transition of children and youth from State-operated institutions to schools served by local educational agencies; or (2) the successful reentry of youth offenders, who are age 20 or younger and have received a secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent, into postsecondary education, or vocational and technical training programs, through strategies designed to expose the youth to, and prepare the youth for, postsecondary education, or vocational and technical training programs. Further action required: ED requires the MDE to assist Part D programs with attributing a reservation of not less than 15 percent of funds to one or more of the activities appropriate as transition services stated in section 1418(a) of the ESEA. ED further requires that the MDE ensure that the SA budgets approved for funding under Subpart 1 will identify the required reservation of funds for transition. Indicator 3.2 - The SEA conducts monitoring of its subgrantees sufficient to ensure compliance with Title I, Part D program requirements. Finding: The ED team found that while the MDE has a record of monitoring State agencies under Subpart 1, the protocol does not adequately address the statutory requirements. The monitoring protocol is more suitable to LEA requirements under Subpart 2. Additionally, there was no record available of the MDE monitoring Subpart 2 programs. Citation: Section 1414 of the ESEA contains assurances that programs assisted under Title I, Part D will be carried out in accordance with the State plan. Additionally, the SEA is required to ensure that the SAs and LEAs 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 MDE must provide a plan to ED that indicates how it will (1) implement a monitoring process, including an appropriate monitoring protocol, that determines whether SAs and LEAs with Title I, Part D subgrants are complying with Part D requirements; and (2) schedule comprehensive monitoring visits to ensure that SAs and LEAs implement their respective requirements.
Summary of McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Program Monitoring Indicators McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Program Description The SEA implements procedures to address the identification, enrollment and retention of homeless students. The SEA provides, or provides for, technical assistance for LEAs to ensure appropriate implementation of the statute. The SEA ensures that LEA subgrant plans for services to eligible homeless students meet all requirements. The SEA ensures that the LEA complies with providing comparable Title I, Part A services to homeless students attending non-Title I schools. The SEA has a system for ensuring the prompt resolution of disputes. The SEA conducts monitoring of LEAs with and without subgrants, sufficient to ensure compliance with McKinney-Vento program requirements.
Status Met Requirements Met Requirements Met Requirements Met Requirements Met Requirements Finding
Monitoring Area: McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Program Indicator 3.4 - The SEA conducts monitoring of LEAs with and without subgrants, sufficient to ensure compliance with McKinney-Vento program requirements. Finding: The MDE’s Federal Programs Consolidated Review does not contain any questions for LEAs without McKinney-Vento subgrants to determine compliance with the statute. Citation: Section 722(g)(2) of the ESEA states that the State plan for the education of homeless children and youth requires the State to ensure that LEAs will comply with the requirements of the McKinney-Vento statute. Section 80.40 of EDGAR further requires that the State, as the grantee, is responsible for monitoring grant and subgrant-supported activities to assure compliance with applicable Federal requirements. Further action required: The MDE must provide a plan to ED that indicates how it will conduct monitoring to ensure that LEAs without subgrants implement McKinney-Vento program requirements. In addition, the MDE must review and revise any monitoring indicators through their Federal Programs Consolidated Reviews to address for State monitors evidence of compliance.
Documents Similar To description: tags: msrpt
Riverhead Central School District 2010-2011 School Report Card
anon-6495
measure- elmwood
api-257829203
artifact justification assessing student learning
idea pl108-446
description: tags: rV198-FIE-0413
anon-592618
15-16 Student Handbook AZVA HS