Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/1330627/description-tags-txrpt
Timestamp: 2018-06-19 11:42:59
Document Index: 677883241

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

description: tags: txrpt | Elementary And Secondary Education Act | Adequate Yearly Progress
Uploaded by anon-509248
Texas Education Agency January 10-14, 2005 Scope of Review: A team from the U.S.
Department of Education’s (ED) Student Achievement and School Accountability Programs monitored the Texas Education Agency (TEA) the week of January 10-14, 2005. This was a comprehensive review of TEA’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 LEAs and schools, and reviewed compliance with fiscal and administrative oversight requirements required of the SEA. During the onsite week, the ED team visited four local educational agencies (LEAs) – San Antonio Independent School District (SAISD), Austin Independent School District (AISD), Dallas Independent School District (DISD) and the Brownsville Independent School District (BISD) and interviewed administrative staff, interviewed principals and teachers from 22 schools in the LEAs that have been identified for improvement, and conducted parent meetings in each of the LEAs. The team then interviewed TEA personnel to confirm data collected in each of the three monitoring indicator areas. The team conducted conference calls to two additional LEAs (Amarillo Independent School District and El Paso Independent School District) upon its return to Washington DC, to confirm information gathered onsite in the LEAs and in TEA. In its review of the Title I, Part B, Subpart 3 Even Start program, the ED team examined the State’s request for proposals, State Even Start guidance, State indicators of program quality, and the most recent applications and local evaluations for two local projects located in DISD and in Taylor Independent School District. During the onsite review, the ED team visited these local projects and interviewed administrative and instructional staff. The ED team also interviewed the Even Start State Coordinator to confirm information obtained at the local sites and to discuss State administration issues. In its review of the Title I, Part D program, the ED team examined the State’s application for funding, procedures and guidance for State agency (SA) applications under Subpart 1 and LEA applications under Subpart 2, technical assistance provided to SAs and LEAs, the State’s oversight and monitoring plan and activities, SA and LEA subgrant plans and local evaluations. The ED team interviewed administrative, program and teaching staff. The ED team also interviewed the Title I, Part D State coordinator to confirm information obtained at the local sites and discuss administration of the program.
In its review of the Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program, (Title X, Part C, Subpart B), the ED team examined the State’s procedures and guidance for the identification, enrollment and retention of homeless students, technical assistance provided to LEAs with and without subgrants, the State’s McKinney-Vento application, and LEA applications for subgrants and local evaluations. The ED team also interviewed the TEA’s McKinney-Vento State coordinator to confirm information obtained at the local site and discuss administration of the program. Previous Audit Findings: None to report. Previous Monitoring Findings: ED last reviewed Title I, Part A programs in Texas in May of 2000 as part of a Federal integrated review initiative. There were no compliance findings identified as a result of that review. ED has not previously conducted a comprehensive review of the Even Start, Neglected/Delinquent or Education for Homeless Children and Youth programs in Texas.
Findings Met requirements Finding Met requirements
10 N/A 11
Monitoring Area 2, Title I, Part A: Instructional Support Description Status The SEA designs and implements procedures that ensure the hiring and retention of qualified paraprofessionals and ensure that parents are informed of educator credentials as required. The SEA has established a statewide system of support that provides, or provides for, technical assistance to LEAs and schools as required. The SEA ensures that the LEA and schools meet parental involvement requirements. The SEA ensures that schools and LEAs identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring have met the requirements of being so identified. The SEA ensures that requirements for public school choice are met. The SEA ensures that requirements for the provision of 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.
Findings Recommendation Met Requirements Recommendation Finding Finding Recommendation
Met Requirements Recommendation Met Requirements Recommendation Finding Recommendation
Monitoring Area 3, Title I, Part A: Fiduciary Responsibilities Description Status The SEA ensures that its LEAs are audited annually in accordance with the Single Audit Act, and that all corrective actions required through this process are fully implemented. The SEA complies with the allocation, reallocation, and carryover provisions of Title I. The SEA complies with the maintenance of effort provisions of Title I. The SEA ensures that LEAs comply with the comparability provisions of Title I. The SEA ensures that LEAs provide Title I services to eligible children attending private schools. The SEA establishes a Committee of Practitioners (COP) and involves the committee in decision making as required. The SEA has an accounting system in place that enables it to account for reservation of funds for school improvement, State administration, the State academic achievement awards program. The SEA has a system for ensuring fair and prompt resolution of complaints. The SEA ensures that the LEA complies with the rank order procedures for the eligible school attendance area. The SEA conducts monitoring of its subgrantees sufficient to ensure compliance with Title I program requirements. The SEA ensures that its LEAs comply with the provision for submitting an annual application to the SEA and revising LEA plans as necessary to reflect substantial changes in the direction of their program. The SEA ensures that Title I funds are used only to supplement or increase non-Federal sources used for the education of participating children and not to supplant funds from non-Federal sources. The SEA ensures that equipment and real property are procured at a cost that are recognized as ordinary and the equipment and real property is necessary for the performance of the Federal award.
Met requirements Met requirements Finding Findings
N/A N/A 17 17
N/A 20 21
Title I, Part A Monitoring Area: Accountability Indicator 1.2 - The State has approved academic achievement standards and alternate achievement standards in required subject areas and grades or an approved timeline to create them. Finding: There are currently no alternate achievement standards associated with the State Developed Alternate Assessment (SDAA) or the Locally Developed Alternate Assessment (LDAA). The SDAA is an assessment that measures the academic progress of students receiving special education services who are enrolled in grades 3-8 for whom the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS), even with allowable accommodations, is not an appropriate measure of student progress. The TEA administers the SDAA to students with disabilities (SWD) who are performing below grade level or on grade level but in need of accommodation(s) that would invalidate the standards based test (TAKS). SDAA permits the selection of an appropriate assessment by instructional level to match the instruction the student has received regardless of enrolled grade. Admission, Review and Dismissal (ARD) committees make assessment decisions for students receiving special education using the student’s individual educational program and other information to answer six major questions to determine the appropriate assessment (ARD Reference Manual, p18 – 20). The ARD committee is then responsible for determining the expected achievement level. There are three achievement levels within each instructional level: beginning (minimal knowledge and skills), developing (adequate knowledge and skills), or proficient (strong knowledge and skills). The ARD committee determines the growth goal considered to be satisfactory for each individual special education student rather than using a single predetermined passing score. In addition, the Locally Developed Alternate Assessment (LDAA) is an assessment administered to students with disabilities (SWD) who the ARD committee exempts from the TAKS and/or the SDAA. Testing data provided by the state indicated that approximately 9% of the students tested for reading took either the SDAA or the LDAA, and 8% for mathematics. Citation: Section 1111(b)(3)(C)(ix)(I) and (II) of the ESEA requires that assessments shall provide for the participation in such assessments of all students and reasonable adaptations and accommodations for students with disabilities (as defined under section 602(3) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)) as necessary to measure the academic content and the State’s students academic achievement standards. Section 200.1(d) of the Title I Regulations as codified by 34 CFR Part 200 (2004) requires that for students under section 602(3) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 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.
Further action required: The TEA must develop a documented and validated standardssetting process and base proficiency decisions on the standards-setting results rather than the recommendations of ARD committees. NOTE: The SDAA and the LDAA must be peer reviewed for alignment to standards and technical quality. The TEA has submitted these documents for the February 2005 assessment peer review cycle. Indicator 1.3. - The State has approved assessments and alternate assessments in required subject areas and grades or has an approved timeline to create them. Finding 1: In 2004, the TEA did not administer a state developed alternate assessment at the high school level. The Locally Developed Alternate Assessment (LDAA) was administered to some high schools students with disabilities. Citation: Section 1111(b)(3)(C)(ix)(I) and (II) of the ESEA requires that assessments shall provide for the participation in such assessments of all students and reasonable adaptations and accommodations for students with disabilities (as defined under section 602(3) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)) as necessary to measure the academic content and the State’s students academic achievement standards. Further action required: The TEA must administer a state developed alternate assessment at the high school level. In Spring 2005, the TEA plans to administer the SDAA-II in grade 10. TEA must provide evidence that the SDAA-II was actually administered at the grade 10 level. Finding 2: From discussion with staff in the districts visited, the ED team determined that no guidelines for assessing students with the most significant cognitive disabilities have been established or communicated to districts/schools consistent with Federal requirements. The TEA administers the SDAA to SWDs who are performing below grade level. In addition, the LDAA is also an assessment administered to SWDs who are exempted from the TAKS and the SDAA by the ARD committee. There are currently no alternate achievement standards associated with the LDAA. Testing data provided by the TEA indicated that approximately 9% of the students tested for reading and 8% of the students tested in mathematics took either the SDAA or the LDAA. Citation: Section 1111(b)(3)(C)(ix)(I) and (II) of the ESEA requires the participation of all students in such assessments and reasonable adaptations and accommodations for SWDs (as defined under section 602(3) of the IDEA) necessary to measure the academic content and the State’s students academic achievement standards. Section 200.6(a)(iii) of the Title 1 Regulations requires that if a State permits the use of alternate assessments that yield results based on alternate academic achievement standards, the State must—
•establish and ensure implementation of clear and appropriate guidelines for Individualized Educational Program (IEP) teams to apply in determining when a child’s significant cognitive disability justifies assess based on alternate academic achievement standards; and •ensure that parents of those students are informed that their child’s achievement will be based on alternate achievement standards. Further action required: The TEA must provide guidelines and training to districts for assessing students with the most significant cognitive disabilities and define the conditions for students assigned to this category. The TEA must provide the guidelines and a definition for the students with the most significant disabilities to ED. Indicator 1.4 - Assessments should be used for purposes for which such assessments are valid and reliable, and be consistent with relevant, nationally recognized professional and technical standards. Adequate yearly progress shall be defined by the State in a manner that is statistically valid and reliable. Finding 1: Through interviews with Dallas and Brownsville personnel, ED learned that the TEA had communicated to districts that they should appeal the 1% cap for the SWD taking the assessment. Further, The 2004 Adequate Yearly Progress Guide (September 2004) indicates “If the district or any campus missed AYP for reading or mathematics due to test results counted as ‘not proficient’ under the 1% cap for students who met ARD expectations, or baseline SDAA testers for SDAA expectations had not been established, the SDAA and/or LDAA results may be appealed.” TEA was approved by ED to administer alternate assessments aligned to alternate achievement standards to students with significant cognitive disabilities and to count up to 1% of the SWD taking those tests as proficient if their performance was evaluated as proficient on those tests. Despite the limitations listed above for the inclusion of students with the most significant disabilities in assessments based on alternate achievement standards (Indicator 1.3), ED learned that all four districts that were visited submitted appeals to the 1% cap which is the ceiling associated with the performance score for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. Telephone calls to additional districts not visited also indicated that several appeals had been submitted. Both the Austin and Dallas Independent School Districts provided ED with AYP Appeal Summary charts for their schools. Citation: Section 1116(b)(2)(B) If the principal of a school proposed for school improvement believes, or a majority of the parents of the students enrolled in such school believe, that the proposed identification is in error for statistical or other substantive reasons, the principal may provide supporting evidence to the educational agency, which shall consider that evidence before making a final determination. Section 200.13(c)(3)(i) of the Title 1 Regulations as codified by 34 CFR Part 200 (2004) states that a State may grant an exception to an LEA permitting it to exceed the 1.0 percent cap only if the State evaluates the LEA’s request using the following conditions:
•the LEA documents that the incidence of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities exceeds 1.0 percent of all students in the grades assessed; •the LEA explains why the incidence of such students exceeds 1.0 percent of all students in the combined grades assessed, such as school, community, or health programs in the LEA that have drawn large numbers of families of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, or such a small overall students population that it would take only a very few students with such disabilities to exceed the 1.0 cap. Further action required: The TEA must discontinue the practice of using the appeals process to include the results of students with disabilities beyond the 1% cap from impacting school and district AYP decisions. The TEA must provide ED with the justification for, number and results of all appeals pertaining to the 1% cap for the 2004 State results. Results for SWD appeals must be automatically counted as not proficient (regardless of actual performance) and included in the participation calculations for AYP purposes. In addition, the TEA must compute the percentage of students with disabilities (SWD) statewide who were counted as proficient based on the administration of the SDAA or the LDAA. NOTE: In response to a request from ED on-site monitors for additional information pertaining to appeals on the 1% cap, the TEA forwarded additional information in early March which indicated that of the 1,316 appeals granted for campuses, 1061 appeals (81%) were granted based on the 1% cap. Finding 2: Through interviews with Dallas and Brownsville personnel, ED learned that the TEA had communicated to districts that they should appeal the participation and performance results for AYP for the LEP students that took the released mathematics TAKS. The TEA provided districts with the 2004 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Guide that instructs that the results of LEP-exempt students who have been in U.S. schools longer than one year and tested in mathematics are counted as not proficient (regardless of actual performance) and included in the performance calculations. However, districts that were visited submitted appeals pertaining to LEP mathematics. Both the Austin and Dallas Independent School Districts provided ED with AYP Appeal Summary charts for their schools. In Austin, one-third of the appeals from schools pertained to “LEP Math TAKS Release”, which was the reason given for a perceived error that resulted in the school not making AYP. Citation: Section 1116(b)(2)(B) If the principal of a school proposed for school improvement believes, or a majority of the parents of the students enrolled in such school believe, that the proposed identification is in error for statistical or other substantive reasons, the principal may provide supporting evidence to the educational agency, which shall consider that evidence before making a final determination. Further Action Required: The TEA must discontinue the practice of using the appeals process to remove LEP students from mathematics performance for AYP decisions at the school, district, and state levels when they are not new immigrant students. Given the number of appeals associated with the LEP mathematics test, the TEA must provide ED
with the justification for, number and results for participation and performance for all appeals pertaining to the 2004 administration of the Mathematics public release test to LEP students. NOTE: In response to a request from ED on-site monitors for additional information pertaining to the appeals on LEP participation, the TEA forwarded additional information in early March which indicated that of the 1316 appeals granted for campuses, 98 appeals (7%) were granted based on LEP mathematics participation only. Sixty-seven appeals (5%) were granted that were a combination of LEP mathematics participation and the 1% cap. In order to grant the appeal, the superintendent must have certified that local documentation is available to indicate that the Language Proficiency Assessment Committee (LPAC) appropriately exempted students from the TAKS mathematics test following state exemption guidelines. Finding 3: For 2004, LEP students exempt from the TAKS mathematics test were administered a released version of the TAKS mathematics test. Their results were automatically counted as not proficient (regardless of actual performance) and included in the participation calculations for AYP purposes only. The TEA implements an alternate assessment process for recent immigrants who are limited English proficient (LEP) exempt from the TAKS Mathematics Test enrolled in grades 3-8 and 10, the grades used in the calculation of AYP. This alternate assessment process is referred to as linguistically accommodated testing (LAT). Citation: Section 1111(b)(3)(C)(ix)(III) of the ESEA requires assessment that provide for the inclusion of limited English proficient students, who shall be assessed in a valid and reliable manner and provided reasonable accommodations on assessments administered to such students including, to the extent practicable, assessments in the language and form most likely to yield accurate data on what such students know and can do in academic content areas, until such students have achieved English language proficiency. Section 1111 (b)(3)(C)(iii) of the ESEA requires that the State assessments be used for purposes for which such assessments are valid and reliable and be consistent with relevant, nationally recognized professional and technical standards. Further action required: TEA must discontinue the practice of administering a released test for assessment reporting and accountability purposes. In addition, TEA must report to ED the number and percent of LEP students that took the LAT in mathematics and the results for this group of students. For the 2005 testing program, TEA plans to administer one form of the regular 2005 TAKS using linguistic accommodations to replace the released version of the mathematics TAKS. Indicator 1.5 – The SEA has implemented all required components as identified in its accountability workbook. Finding 1: The TEA did not release 2004 AYP results for schools and districts to the public prior to the next school year. During the time of the visit, the TEA was in the process of reviewing appeals in preparation for the February release.
Citation: Section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA requires that the SEA implement all required components as identified in its accountability workbook. The Texas workbook indicates that LEAs and campuses will be notified of their AYP status as early as possible following receipt of assessment results each year. Section 1116(b)(1)(B) requires a local educational agency to identify schools for improvement before the beginning of the school year following such failure to make adequate yearly progress. Further action required: The TEA must provide decisions about AYP in time for LEAs to implement the required provisions before the beginning of the next academic year. Note: TEA has been informed that USDE intends to withhold four percent of Texas’ Title I, Part A administrative funds for fiscal year (FY) 2004 ($444,282) due to the late notification of schools’ AYP results. The Department is discussing this issue with TEA in separate conversations. Finding 2: The ED team learned that TEA used a phase-in process for its proficiency (Met the Standard) standard. To arrive at the desired proficiency standard by 2005, TEA set its 2003 proficiency level at two standard errors of measurement (SEM) below the 2005 level, and its 2004 proficiency level at one SEM below the 2005 level. Corresponding cut scores were established through the item mapping process as outlined in the Texas Accountability Workbook, Section 1.3. The State Board of Education (SBOE) set the achievement standards for student achievement and the phase-in process in November 2002. What is omitted from section 1.3 of the workbook is the SBOE’s approval of a standard setting “phase in” plan which set cut scores at a certain number of standard errors below the standard performance target for each tested grade and content area. This omission resulted in a discrepancy between procedures used to determine accountability status and those described in the approved accountability workbook. Citation: Section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA requires that the SEA implement all required components as identified in its accountability workbook. Further action required: The TEA must modify its accountability workbook to reflect the phasing in of the proficiency requirements (Meets the Standard) for 2003 and 2004. In addition, ED is requesting data that shows the number of schools that made AYP versus the number that would not have made AYP if the error of measurement had not been applied to the Meets the Standard proficiency level for 2003 and 2004. 1.7- The SEA has ensured that LEAs have published annual report cards with all required information Finding: LEA report cards do not include the percentage of highly qualified teachers disaggregated by high/low poverty schools or the number and percent of students tested (disaggregated).
Citation: Section 1111(h)(1) (C)(viii) and Section 1111(h)(2) of the ESEA requires that the SEA and the LEA include in its annual State report card the professional qualifications of teachers in the State, the percentage of such teachers teaching with emergency or provisional credentials, and percentage of classes in the State not taught by highly qualified teachers, in the aggregate and disaggregated by high poverty compared to low poverty schools which means schools in the top quartile of poverty and the bottom quartile of poverty in the State. Further action required: In responding to this report, the TEA must submit to ED a template of the State and LEA report cards that includes the information cited above. Further, when the State and LEA report cards for the spring 2005 assessments are completed, the TEA must submit the completed report cards to ED.
Title I, Part A Monitoring Area: Instructional Support Indicator 2.1 – The SEA designs and implements procedures that ensure the hiring and retention of qualified paraprofessionals and ensure that parents are informed of educator credentials as required. Finding: The TEA has not ensured that LEAs receiving Title I funds have only hired qualified paraprofessionals for Title I positions since January 8, 2002. During follow-up telephone calls with the Amarillo Independent School District, LEA officials informed ED staff that paraprofessionals have been hired after the date of enactment of NCLB that do not meet the highly qualified paraprofessional requirements. These individuals are administered the Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE), then are observed using a locally developed paraprofessional assessment, the Paraprofessional Assessment of Knowledge and Skills. If they fail to meet the requirements of each, they are terminated within six weeks of being hired. Citation: Section 1119(c) of the ESEA requires that each LEA receiving Title I funds shall ensure that all paraprofessionals hired after the date of enactment of NCLB and working in a program supported with funds under this part shall have – completed at least 2 years of study at an institution of higher education; obtained an associate’s (or higher) degree; or met a rigorous standard of quality and can demonstrate knowledge of and the ability to assist in instruction. Further Action Required: The TEA must provide ED with documentation of the status of paraprofessionals in the Amarillo School District as well as a description of the procedures that the district has taken to ensure that principals do not hire paraprofessionals who do not meet the qualification requirements under NCLB. . Finding: Written guidance from DISD to area superintendents and principals indicated that paraprofessionals hired on or before January 8, 2002, need to meet the highly qualified requirements by May 2006. DISD indicated that although TEA had initially sent a letter indicating the May 2006 date, TEA sent a follow-up letter advising that the May 2006 was incorrect and that LEAs and Title I schools must meet the requirements by January 8, 2006. Interviews with public school principals and the charter school principal confirmed that they had been informed about the May 2006 date, but not about the January 8, 2006, requirement. DISD presented the ED reviewers with a draft copy of a letter that the district will send to area superintendents and principals advising them that paraprofessionals must meet paraprofessional requirements by January 8, 2006. Citation: Sections 1119(c) and (d) of the ESEA require that paraprofessionals hired on or before January 8, 2002, and working in a program supported with Title I funds meet the requirements for paraprofessionals by January 8, 2006.
Further Action Required: The TEA must ensure that DISD, and all LEAs, understand and comply with the qualification requirements for Title I paraprofessionals hired on or before January 8, 2002, and ensure that LEAs and schools meet these requirements by January 8, 2006. TEA must provide ED with documentation that it has sent guidance to LEAs regarding the qualification requirements for Title I paraprofessionals and the January 8, 2006, deadline. TEA must also send ED a copy of the final, signed letter that DISD officials sent to area superintendents and Title I school principals explaining that the schools must meet these requirements by January 8, 2006. Recommendation: LEAs currently report to the TEA on the progress of paraprofessionals meeting the qualification requirements under 1119(c) at the end of each school year. The ED team recommends that the TEA contact LEAs throughout the year to monitor and collect updated data regarding the number of paraprofessionals meeting the requirements. Maintaining current data will assist the TEA to make decisions that ensure all paraprofessionals who have not met the requirements do so by January 8, 2006. 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. Recommendation: The TEA largely relies upon external assistance providers to assist schools in need of improvement. The School Improvement Resource Center, the Region 16 Educational Service Center, and the Region 13 Educational Service Center (parental involvement) serve as providers. Although the work of these external technical assistance providers is extensive, there is a concern that they may not be able to provide a consistent and equitable range of services across districts (91 schools identified for Title I school improvement purposes) due to the staffing levels in each of the centers. The TEA should review the adequacy of staffing in its regional resource centers and their capacity to meet the technical assistance needs of schools in improvement. Indicator 2.3 - The SEA ensures that the LEA and schools meet parental involvement requirements. Finding: The TEA has not ensured that each Title I school has a written parental involvement policy. During the site visit to the BISD, it was noted that three principals were not familiar with the requirement that they have a school parental involvement policy. Citation: Section 1118 (b) of the ESEA requires that each school served under Title I develop jointly with, and distribute to parents a written parental involvement policy (agreed upon by the parents) that shall describe the means for carrying out the requirements of the subsections related to policy involvement and shared responsibilities for high student achievement. Parents shall be notified of the policy in an understandable and uniform format and, to the extent practicable, be provided in a language the parents
can understand. The policy shall be made available to the local community and updated periodically to meet the changing needs of parents and the school. Further Action Required: The TEA must ensure that its LEAs verify that each school receiving Title I funds has a current, written parental involvement policy that meets the requirements of Section 1118(b)(1). The TEA must provide ED with copies of the school-level parent involvement policies for the following schools in the Brownsville School District: Besteiro Middle School, Lopez High School, Pace High School, Rivera High School, and Lincoln Park School. Indicator 2.4 – The SEA ensures that schools and LEAs identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring have met the requirements of being so identified. Finding: The TEA did not ensure that LEAs had final AYP determinations before the beginning of the 2004-2005 school year. As a result, LEAs were unable to provide timely notification to parents regarding the AYP status of schools, and the related availability of choice. Citation: Section 1111 (b)(2)(10) of the ESEA requires each SEA to ensure that the results of the State assessment used to determine adequate yearly progress of the SEA, LEAs, and schools are promptly provided to LEAs, schools, and teachers in a manner that is clear and easy to understand, but not later than before the beginning of the next school year. Further action required: Same as Indicator 1.5. Recommendation: The TEA released preliminary assessment data to LEAs after the beginning of the current school year, and as a result, schools had a very short period of time to notify parents about the status of the school. The TEA should ensure that assessment data is released to LEA and school staff in order that they have adequate time to (1) review the assessment data and verify its accuracy, and (2) ensure that there is adequate time for staff to compose and disseminate notification letters to parents regarding the AYP status of the school, and the relative availability of choice and supplemental educational services. (It should be noted that districts and schools ensured that notification letters were disseminated to parents within 48 hours of receipt of the preliminary data from the TEA). Indicator 2.5 - The SEA ensures that requirements for public school choice are met. Recommendation: For the LEAs visited by the review team, notification letters were sent to parents regarding the school’s AYP status, and the availability of choice. The district provided a sample letter sent to schools that contained the required notification components. Letters sent to parents by the schools contained the required information as well. However, there was variability with respect to the comprehensiveness of the
content of the letters. ED recommends that the TEA closely monitor the content of parent notification letters to ensure comprehensiveness across districts and schools. Indicator 2.7 – The SEA ensures that LEAs and schools develop schoolwide programs that use the flexibility provided to them by law to improve the academic achievement of all students in the school. Finding: The TEA has not ensured that the 10 schoolwide components required for schoolwide programs are included in the overall school improvement plans in AISD, BISD, SAISD and DISD. Citation: Section 1114 (b)(1)(A-J) of the ESEA requires that a schoolwide program shall include the following components: comprehensive needs assessment; schoolwide reform strategies; instruction by highly qualified teachers; high-quality and ongoing professional development; strategies to attract high-quality highly qualified teachers to high-need schools; strategies to increase parental involvement; plans to assist preschool children in the transition from early childhood programs to local elementary programs; measures to include teachers in the decisions regarding the use of academic assessments; activities to ensure that students having difficulty mastering the proficient and advanced levels of academic achievement receive timely and additional assistance; and coordination and integration of Federal, State and local services and programs. Further Action Required: The TEA must provide to ED a plan outlining the steps it will take to ensure that all schoolwide schools have plans that address each of the 10 required components, either as part of the school’s improvement plan if a single planning process is being used (which ED encourages) or as a separate plan. In addition, the TEA must submit to ED the section of a revised plan that addresses the 10 required components from one school in each of the districts visited by the ED team. Recommendation: Principals of some of the schoolwide programs schools interviewed by the ED team were not familiar with the implementation guidelines for schoolwide programs, and were unable to articulate their knowledge of schoolwide program requirements. The TEA is encouraged to provide additional technical assistance and supporting documentation to staff in these schools to broaden their knowledge and management of schoolwide programs, particularly those schools that have been classified as such for a significant period of time.
Title I, Part A Monitoring Area: Fiduciary Responsibilities Indicator 3.4 - The SEA ensures that the LEA complies with the comparability provisions of Title I. Finding: The TEA has not ensured that districts have complied with the comparability requirement of Title I. The TEA issued a directive to its districts outlining instructions for determining whether Title I schools receive State and local resources that are comparable to those received by non-Title I schools; however the data used is over one and a half years old. (For example, the LEAs were informed by TEA in August of 2004 of the results of their comparability calculations for the 2002-2003 school year.) TEA administrative staff explained to the ED team that the disparity in time is due to the fact that this is the earliest that the PEIMS can produce comparability data. Citation: Section 1120A(c) of the ESEA states that an LEA may receive Title I, Part A funds only if State and local funds are used in participating Title I schools to provide services that, taken as a whole, are at least comparable to services in non-Title I schools. Further action required: As a requirement for receiving Title I, Part A funds, school districts must ensure that their Title I schools are comparable with their non-Title I schools each year. The TEA must develop procedures for ensuring that its districts perform the necessary annual calculations to determine that services provided with State and local funds in Title I schools are comparable to non-Title I schools using current year data. The TEA must provide ED with these revised procedures, and any correspondence to LEAs, as well as current year comparability calculations for the four districts visited during the onsite review. Indicator 3.5 - The SEA ensures that LEAs provide Title I services to eligible children attending private schools. Finding: The TEA has not ensured that districts provide services to eligible children attending private schools. Neither BISD nor DISD maintain control of the Title I program for eligible private school students either directly or through a contract with a third party. In both LEAs, private school officials designed the Title I, Part A programs based on the private school officials' assessment of needs of the private school children. Then private school officials request materials, supplies, and services delivery models including reading mobile units. In both LEAs, the private school teachers use the Title I materials to provide services to private school children using the materials paid with Title I funds; there are no teachers employed by the LEA or the third party contractor providing Title I services at any private school site. In addition, neither LEA determined during consultation with the private school officials what standards and assessments the LEA would use to measure the annual progress of the Title I program in relationship to the participants' achievement in their regular classrooms.
Citation: Section 1120(d)(1) of the ESEA requires that the LEA maintain control of the Title I funds and the LEA must administer the Title I funds, materials and equipment and property. In addition, Section 1120(d)(2) of the ESEA requires that the Title I services be provided by an employee of the LEA or by an employee through a contract by the LEA. The statute also requires that the employee shall be independent of the private school and of any religious organization. With regard to measuring the progress of the Title I program, Section 1120(b)(1)(B) of the ESEA and Section 200.63 (b)(5) of the Title I Regulations require that an LEA consult with appropriate officials from private schools during the design and development of the LEA’s program for eligible private school children on issues such as how the LEA will assess the academic services provided to eligible private school children and how the LEA will use the results of that assessment to improve Title I services. Further action required: The TEA must require that BISD, DISD and any other LEA serving private school children to maintain control of the Title I program for the eligible private school children. LEAs are responsible for designing and implementing the Title I program and can not delegate their responsibilities to the private schools or their officials. The TEA must also require BISD, DISD, and any other LEA serving private school children to have either employees of the LEA or employees of a third party under contract with the LEA as the providers of Title I services. Simply providing the private school with instructional materials and supplies is NOT an option available to LEAs because it is neither a proper Title I program implemented by the LEA nor meets the equitable requirements. The TEA must require all LEAs using this practice to cease that practice immediately. In addition the TEA must require their LEAs to consult with the appropriate private school officials during the design, implementation, and assessment of the Title I program. This consultation must include meetings and must occur before the LEA makes any decision that affects the opportunities for private school children to participate. The TEA must ensure that each LEA serving private school children consult with private school officials and determine what standards and assessments will be used by that LEA to measure annual progress of the Title I programs for private school children. The TEA must provide ED with a new description of the Title I programs for private school children in BISD and DISD, who are providing these services, where the services are being provided, evidence that consultation has been and continues to take place, and what standards, assessment tools, and annual progress determination have been made for school year 2005-06. Finding: The TEA has not provided guidance to its districts regarding criteria for approval and monitoring of third party providers. Specifically, a third party under contract with DISD provides Title I services to eligible private school children. DISD officials perceived that they were obligated to hire the third party (or otherwise jeopardize the provision of such services to eligible students) and the contract was general in nature and does include how the contract will be monitored by DISD to ensure compliance with
the Title I requirements. In addition, the contract did not specify the criteria under which DISD could refuse a contract. Further, the TEA offered no technical assistance to the DISD officials concerning their obligation to determine, after consultation with the private school officials, what the program delivery model will be and that the DISD is not obligated to automatically select contractors recommended by private school officials. Citation: Section 80.40(a) of the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) states that grantees are responsible for managing the day-to-day operations of grant and subgrant supported activities. Grantees must monitor grant and subgrant supported activities to assure compliance with applicable Federal requirements and that performance goals are being achieved. Grantee monitoring must cover each program, function or activity. LEAs must also maintain control of the Title I program as required under Section 1120(d) of the ESEA. Further action required: The TEA must require each LEA contracting with a third party to have procedures that include criteria for accepting or rejecting contracts and monitoring approved contracts as require by EDGAR. The TEA must provide ED with documentation that the TEA has provided this guidance. Indicator 3.7 - The SEA has a system in place that enables it to account for: 1) the reservation of funds for school improvement activities; 2) funds reserved for State administration; 3) funds reserved for the State academic awards program, and 4) funds that become available for reallocation. Finding: The TEA did not monitor its districts to ensure that required funds were appropriately reserved from district Title I allocation and per pupil allocations were calculated correctly. The ED team observed in AISD that the district reserved funds from its Title I, Part A allocation to provide funding for additional teaching and teaching assistant positions at several Title I schools. This special reservation was in addition to the reservations authorized in the Title I Statute and in §200.77 of the Title I Regulations. The LEA then distributed the funds from this special reservation directly to individual Title I schools without regard to their poverty rankings. As a result, the distribution of this special reserve distorted the amount per poor child that the district allocated to each school causing lower ranked schools to receive more funding per poor child than a higher ranked school. Citation: Section 200.77 of the Title I Regulations lists the activities for which an LEA is either required or authorized to reserve funds. The purpose of the special reserve was not among the list of those activities required or authorized in that section. Section 200.78(c) of the Title I Regulations provides that while an LEA is not required to allocate the same per-pupil amount to each participating school attendance area or school provided, it must allocate higher per-pupil amounts to areas or schools with higher concentrations of poverty than to areas or schools with lower concentrations of poverty. The district allocated higher per-pupil amounts to lower ranked schools than it did to higher ranked schools because of the distribution of this special reserve.
Further action required: The TEA must ensure that LEAs do not allocate additional funds to schools that would have the effect of providing higher per-pupil amounts to schools with lower concentrations of poverty. The TEA must submit a plan and documentation that it has ensured that this instance is corrected and is not a problem in other districts in the State. Further, the TEA must ensure that AISD’s 2005-2006 allocations have been determined in accordance with all NCLB requirements, and must submit a copy to ED. Indicator 3.9 - The SEA ensures that the LEA complies with the rank order procedures for the eligible school attendance area. Finding: The TEA has not ensured that districts allocate higher per-pupil amounts to areas or schools with higher concentrations of poverty than to areas or schools with lower concentrations of poverty. The ED team found that BISD gave higher allocation amounts to lower-ranked schools. Their schools ranked from 76% to 100% poverty. Although BISD did list their schools in rank order and initially gave all schools the same per pupil amount, the district was told by their board to reallocate additional amounts to elementary schools. The majority of the elementary schools ranked lower than higher-poverty secondary schools. Citation: Section 1113 (a)(4)(A)(B) of the ESEA states that if funds remain after serving all eligible school attendance areas under paragraph (3), a local educational agency shall — (A) annually rank such agency’s remaining eligible school attendance areas from highest to lowest either by grade span or for the entire local educational agency according to the percentage of children from lowincome families; and (B) serve such eligible school attendance areas in rank order either within each grade span grouping or within the local educational agency as a whole. Section 200.77(c) of the Title I Regulations further requires that an LEA allocate higher per-pupil amounts to areas or schools with higher concentrations of poverty than to areas or schools with lower concentrations of poverty. Further action required: The TEA must ensure that BISD’s 2005-2006 allocations to its eligible school buildings are determined in accordance with NCLB requirements, and submit them to ED for review. The TEA must also ensure in its monitoring process that its districts do not allocate higher per pupil amounts to lower-ranked eligible school buildings. Indicator 3.10 - The SEA conducts monitoring of its subgrantees sufficient to ensure compliance with Title I program requirements.
Finding: The TEA did not monitor its LEAs sufficiently to ensure LEA compliance with Title I requirements. The ED team was informed that none of the four districts visited during the onsite review have been monitored directly by the TEA for many Title I requirements in several years. Both district officials and the TEA informed the ED team that TEA relies on the single audit process to verify compliance with the Title I requirements related to fiscal issues, including ranking, allocations and determinations of per-pupil amounts and set-asides. If a finding is identified in an audit report, an appropriate corrective action is developed and implemented. TEA informed the ED team that they receive audit reports from one to two years after the close of each school year; however, this time frame would not allow for any adjustments to per pupil allocations and reallocations to be made during any current fiscal year. Citation: Section 80.40(a) of EDGAR states that grantees are responsible for managing the day-to-day operations of grant and subgrant supported activities. Grantees must monitor grant and subgrant supported activities to assure compliance with applicable Federal requirements and that performance goals are being achieved. Grantee monitoring must cover each program, function or activity. Further Action Required: The TEA must submit a plan and a schedule for monitoring Title I’s fiscal requirements that will enable instances of noncompliance to be identified and corrected during any current school year. Indicator 3.11 - The SEA ensures that its LEAs comply with the provision for submitting an annual plan to the SEA. Finding: The Consolidated Application for Federal Funding for school year 2004-2005 submitted by the districts visited did not contain all 17 elements required for State approval as prescribed in NCLB. The TEA and each of the four districts visited informed the ED team that each of the elements were addressed in other documents on file at the district level (primarily in campus and district improvement plans); however, these documents were not reviewed by the TEA nor were they used expressly to satisfy Title I, Part A requirements. The consolidated application was submitted to ED as further evidence that these requirements were met through the LEA plan, however, the consolidated application is a document that is separate from the plan that the State is required to approve prior to allocating Title I, Part A funds to its districts. Citation: Section 1112(a)(1)(2) of the ESEA states, “A local educational agency may receive a subgrant under this part for any fiscal year only if such agency has on file with the State educational agency a plan approved by the State educational agency, that is coordinated with other programs under this Act…” and “The plan may be submitted as part of a consolidated application under section 9305.” Further action required: The TEA must ensure that it has on file, for each district that receives a Title I, Part A allocation, a plan that includes all elements of Section 1112(b) of the ESEA. In addition, the TEA must provide ED with a description of the methods that
it will use to approve these plans before it awards a Title I allocation to an LEA and to monitor these plans for program effectiveness.
Summary of Title I, Part B, Subpart 3 (Even Start) Monitoring Indicators Monitoring Area 1, Title I, Part B, Subpart 3: Accountability Critical Element Status The SEA complies with the subgrant award requirements. The SEA requires applicants to submit applications for subgrants with the necessary documentation. In making non-competitive continuation awards, the SEA reviews the progress of each subgrantee in meeting the objectives of the program and evaluates the program based on the Indicators of Program Quality. The SEA refuses to award subgrant funds to an eligible entity if the agency finds that the entity has not sufficiently improved the performance of the program, as evaluated based on the Indicators of Program Quality. The SEA develops, based on the best available research and evaluation data, Indicators of Program Quality for Even Start programs. The SEA uses the Indicators of Program Quality to monitor, evaluate, and improve local programs within the State. The SEA conducts monitoring of its subgrantees sufficient to ensure compliance with Even Start program requirements. The SEA ensures that projects provide for an independent local evaluation of the program that is used for program improvement. Finding Met requirements Finding
Page 27 N/A 27
Monitoring Area 2, Title I, Part B, Subpart 3: Instructional Support Critical Element Status The SEA uses funds to provide technical assistance to local programs to improve the quality of Even Start family literacy services. Each program assisted shall include the identification and recruitment of families most in need. Each program shall include screening and preparation of parents and enable those parents and children to participate fully in the activities and services provided. Families are participating in all core instructional services. Each program shall be designed to accommodate the participants’ work schedule and other responsibilities, including the provision of support services, when those services are unavailable from other sources. Each program shall include high-quality, intensive instructional programs that promote adult literacy and empower parents to support the educational growth of their children, and in preparation of children for success in regular school programs. All instructional staff of the program hired after enactment of the LIFT Act (December 21, 2000), whose salaries are paid in whole or in part with Even Start funds, meet the Even Start staff qualification requirements. By December 21, 2004, a majority of the individuals providing academic instruction shall have obtained an associate’s, bachelors, or graduate degree in a field related to early childhood education, elementary school or secondary school education, or adult education. By December 21, 2004, if applicable, a majority of the individuals providing academic instruction shall meet the qualifications established by the State for early childhood education, elementary or secondary education, or adult education provided as part of an Even Start program or another family literacy program. Met requirements
Monitoring Area 2, Title I, Part B, Subpart 3: Instructional Support Critical Element Status By December 21, 2004, the person responsible for administration of family literacy services has received training in the operation of a family literacy program. By December 21, 2004, paraprofessionals who provide support for academic instruction have a secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent. The local programs shall include special training of staff, including child-care workers, to develop the necessary skills to work with parents and young children. The local programs shall provide and monitor integrated instructional services to participating parents and children through home-based programs. The local programs shall operate on a year-round basis, including the provisions of some program services, including instructional and enrichment services, during the summer months. The local program shall be coordinated with other relevant programs under the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act, the Individuals with Disabilities Act, and Title I of the Workforce Investment Act of 1988, and the Head Start program, volunteer literacy programs, and other relevant programs. The local programs shall use instructional programs based on scientifically based reading research for children and adults. The local program shall encourage participating families to attend regularly and to remain in the program a sufficient time to meet their program goals. The local programs shall use reading-readiness activities for preschool children based on scientifically based reading research. The local program shall, if applicable, promote the continuity of family literacy to ensure that individuals retain and improve their educational outcomes.
Met requirements Met requirements Recommendation Met Requirements
Monitoring Area 3, Title I Part B, Subpart 3: SEA Fiduciary responsibilities Indicator Critical Element Status Number Critical element The SEA complies with the allocation requirements for Met requirements 3.1 State administration and technical assistance and award of subgrants. Critical element The SEA ensures that subgrantees comply with statutory Met requirements 3.2 and regulatory requirements on uses of funds and matching. Critical element The SEA complies with the crosscutting maintenance of Met requirements 3.3 effort provisions. Critical element The SEA ensures timely and meaningful consultation with 3.4 private school officials on how to provide Even Start Met requirements 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. Critical element The SEA has a system for ensuring fair and prompt Met requirements 3.5 resolution of complaints and appropriate hearing procedures.
Title I, Part B, Subpart 3 (Even Start) 1.1 The SEA complies with the subgrant award requirements.
Finding: When making subawards, the TEA does not give priority for subgrants to applications that target families located in high-need areas. Citation: Section 1238(a)(2)(a) of the ESEA requires that the SEA give priority for subgrants to applications that target services primarily to families located in an area that has a high percentage or a large number of children and families who are in need of services as indicated by high levels of poverty, illiteracy, unemployment, limited English proficiency, or other need-related indicators, such as a high percentage of children to be served by the program who reside in a school attendance area served by a by a local educational agency eligible for participation in programs under part A, a high number or percentage of parents who have been victims of domestic violence, or a high number or percentage of parents who are receiving assistance under a State program funded under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act. Further action required: When making subawards, the TEA must develop a procedure for giving priority for subgrants to applications that target families located in high-need areas and submit this procedure to ED. Indicator - 1.3 - In making non-competitive continuation awards, the SEA reviews the progress of each subgrantee in meeting the objectives of the program and evaluates the program based on the Indicators of Program Quality. Finding: While the TEA requires that projects report on their progress in meeting their objectives and evaluate each project based on the indicators of program quality when making continuation awards, the TEA has not defined a standard for sufficient progress. Citation: Section 1238(b)(3) of the ESEA requires that when awarding subgrant funds to continue a program after the first year, the SEA shall review the progress of each eligible entity in meeting the objectives of the program and shall evaluate the program based on the indicators of program quality developed by the State under Section 1240. Further action required: The TEA must develop a standard for sufficient progress against the indicators of program quality for use when making continuation awards and submit this standard to ED.
1.7 - The SEA conducts monitoring of its subgrantees sufficient to ensure compliance with Even Start program requirements. Recommendation: While the TEA collects data from projects on a quarterly basis for desk monitoring, the TEA does not have an established cycle of onsite program monitoring. Onsite monitoring would allow the State to confirm the information collected during desk monitoring and give the State the opportunity to observe implementation and collect data on program quality. It is recommended that the TEA establish a schedule for conducting onsite monitoring at least for those programs identified as having difficulty through the desk monitoring process. Indicator 2.4 - Families are participating in all core instructional services. Recommendation: Both of the programs visited worked to ensure that parents and children are enrolled in appropriate activities in each of the four core instructional areas and could provide sufficient documentation regarding participation. However, neither program had an attendance policy or a standard for determining when a family would be removed from the program due to incomplete participation. It is recommended that the TEA provide technical assistance to all local programs so that they can develop such a standard. Indicator 2.8 - By December 21, 2004, a majority of the individuals providing academic instruction shall have obtained an associate’s, bachelors, or graduate degree in a filed related to early childhood education, elementary school or secondary school education, or adult education. Recommendation: Both projects visited stated that their goal was to enhance children’s oral language development. This is generally supported in the preschool classroom through rich and extended discourse with children embedded throughout the instructional day. Both projects, however, severely limited opportunity for rich and extended discourse with a qualified teacher. These projects used one teacher to provide instruction in multiple classrooms operating simultaneously, thereby lessening children’s access to the teacher. This arrangement left children for the majority of the day in the care of paraprofessionals, who are not likely to have the necessary skills and knowledge to support oral language development. It is recommended that the TEA provide technical assistance to projects regarding the importance of children’s access to a highly qualified teacher in order to support the development of young children’s language skills. Additionally, while the parent educators at both projects met the qualifications outlined in the legislation, it is recommended that the TEA include the complete requirements for parent educators in the application. The application states that parent educators are required to have an AA, but it does not appear to require that they have an AA "in a field related to early childhood education, elementary school or secondary school education, or adult education;” and it is not clear whether or not there are additional State qualifications that are required that they also would have to meet. (See Section 1235(5)(B).) These
requirements are especially important given that the home visits are required to be instructional. Indicator 2.18 - The local programs shall use reading-readiness activities for preschool children based on scientifically based reading research. Recommendation: While there is sporadic evidence of local program use of reading readiness activities based on scientifically based reading research, local programs are not uniformly using reading readiness activities for preschool children based on scientifically based reading research. Each project must base its reading readiness activities for preschool children on scientifically based reading research (as defined in section 1208), to the extent available, to ensure children enter elementary school with the language, cognitive, and early reading skills necessary for reading success. Research shows that the most effective ways to reach this goal include: 1) creating classroom environments rich in age-appropriate print (from sources such as books, labeling, and posting the alphabet and children’s pre-writing work); 2) teachers who deliver intentional, contextualized, and explicit instruction that supports children’s age-appropriate development of oral language, phonological awareness, print awareness, and alphabet knowledge; 3) monitoring to determine which skills children are learning; and 4) intensive and ongoing professional development that includes mentoring and coaching in the classroom. Local programs observed did not appear to implement the above strategies consistently. Additionally, both projects visited stated that their goal was to enhance children’s oral language development. Generally, this is supported in the preschool classroom through the teacher’s rich and extended discourse with children embedded throughout the instructional day. Both projects, however, severely limited opportunity for rich and extended discourse with a qualified teacher. These projects used one teacher to provide instruction in multiple classrooms operating simultaneously, thereby lessening children’s access to the teacher. This arrangement left children for the majority of the day in the care of paraprofessionals, who are not likely to have the necessary skills and knowledge to support oral language development. It is recommended that the TEA develop a plan for providing technical assistance to existing local programs that will improve the degree to which locally-designed programs implement local programs that use reading readiness activities for preschool children based on scientifically based reading research. Additionally, it is recommended that the TEA develop a plan to ensure that any newly funded local programs include reading-readiness activities for preschool children based on scientifically based reading research.
Title I, Part D Monitoring Summary of Critical Monitoring Elements Neglected, Delinquent or At-Risk of Dropping-Out Program Critical Element Status The SEA has implemented all required components as identified in its Title I, Part D (N/D) plan. The SEA ensures that State Agency (SA) plans for services to eligible N/D students meet all requirements. The SEA ensures that Local Education Agency (LEA) plans for services to eligible N/D students meet all requirements. The SEA ensures that institutionwide programs developed by the SA under Subpart 1 use the flexibility provided to them by law to improve the academic achievement of all students in the school. The SEA ensures each State agency has reserved not less than 15 percent and not more than 30 percent of the amount it receives under Subpart 1 for transition services. The SEA conducts monitoring of its subgrantees sufficient to ensure compliance with Title I, Part D program requirements. Met requirements
TITLE I, PART D – Neglected, Delinquent or At-Risk of Dropping Out Program Indicator 3.2 - The SEA conducts monitoring of its subgrantees sufficient to ensure compliance with Title I, Part D program requirements. Finding: The ED team found that the TEA uses annual reports to review subgrant programs; however, it has not used a regular system, including a schedule and protocols, for desk or onsite monitoring for several years. Citation: Section 1414 of the SEA plan contains assurances that programs assisted under title I, Part D will be carried out in accordance with the State plan. Additionally, the SEA is required to ensure that the State agencies and local educational agencies receiving Part D subgrants comply with all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. Additionally, Section 1426 requires the SEA to hold LEAs accountable for demonstrating student progress in identified areas. Further Action Required: The TEA must develop a schedule and procedures to conduct compliance monitoring of SAs and LEAs with Title I, Part D subgrants and to submit these materials to ED.
McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Monitoring Summary of Critical Monitoring Elements McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Program Critical Element The SEA and implements procedures to address the identification, enrollment and retention of homeless students. SEA provides, or provides for, technical assistance for LEAs to insure 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.
Met requirements Recommendation Finding Met requirements Recommendations
McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Program Indicator 3.2 - The SEA ensures that the LEA complies with providing comparable Title I, Part A services to homeless students attending non-Title I schools. Recommendation: The ED team found that the TEA is unable to determine the percentage of funds reserved by LEAs under 1113(c)(3)(A) to serve homeless students. All consolidated application reservations are currently aggregated as one total. To assure that LEAs are meeting their responsibilities for serving homeless students not attending Title I schools, ED recommends that the TEA provide a means for LEAs to identify the percentage of funds reserved to serve homeless students. Indicator 3.3. The SEA has a system for ensuring the prompt resolution of disputes. Finding: The TEA has developed a dispute resolution process and has shared such information with LEAs. However, the ED team found that local liaison did not provide written notices to families, or unaccompanied youth of the placement decisions for which the liaison direct intervention was required. Citation: Section 722 (g)(3)(E) of the ESEA stipulates that if a dispute arises over school selection or enrollment in a school, the child or youth shall be immediately admitted to the school in which enrollment is sought, pending resolution of the dispute. Additionally, the parent or guardian of the child or youth shall be provided with a written explanation of the school's decision regarding school selection or enrollment, including the rights of the parent, guardian, or youth to appeal the decision. Further action required: ED requires the TEA to inform all LEAs about their responsibilities in both resolving enrollment disputes and providing written notifications of dispute results to parents, guardians and unaccompanied youth, regardless of the outcome of the dispute. Indicator 3.4. The SEA conducts monitoring of LEAs with and without subgrants, sufficient to ensure compliance with McKinney-Vento program requirements. Recommendations: The ED team found that the TEA conducts regular field monitoring visits to LEAs with subgrants, however has not conducted compliance monitoring for LEAs without subgrants. ED recommends that the TEA expand its onsite and desk monitoring efforts for school districts with and with out McKinney-Vento subgrants.
The ED team found that the TEA uses an electronic data collection system (PEIMS) to obtain required information from school districts. ED requires all States to annually submit the totals of homeless students in each state, as well as their primary nighttime residence. The primary nighttime residence is the key indicator for determining homelessness. Therefore, it is important for an SEA to know both the total of homeless students and their primary nighttime residence. ED recommends that the TEA add a field to their PEIMS in order to obtain the primary nighttime residence of identified homeless students.
Documents Similar To description: tags: txrpt
Zeidy Nicolle Aguilar
description: tags: 061201a
anon-30361
plan for success eng 7-8
description: tags: professional develop03
anon-38443
2017-2018 campus title i english website
Lakota School District 2009 - 2010 Report Card
componentsofasyllabus docx