ESEA Title Programs Use of Funds: Consolidated School Wide Budget March 19, 2013 March 20, 2013
Results-based Monitoring for IDEA & ESEA Programs
-
Upload
anjolie-beard -
Category
Documents
-
view
27 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Results-based Monitoring for IDEA & ESEA Programs
Results-based Monitoringfor IDEA & ESEA Programs
Office of Consolidated Planning & MonitoringFall 2014
2
District Selection: Risk Analysis
District Selection: Risk Analysis
An annual risk analysis identifies which LEAs are perceived to be at-risk based on various indicators.
The risk analysis includes programmatic, fiscal administrative, and achievement components of both IDEA and ESEA.
The programmatic risk analysis is weighted differently for program monitoring and fiscal monitoring.
There is often considerable overlap between program and fiscal risk, so many LEAs will receive both program and fiscal monitoring.
Two LEAs, not identified through the risk analysis, are randomly selected for results-based and fiscal monitoring.
4
District Selection: Risk Analysis Indicators
Risk Analysis for Monitoring – Weights for indicator category totals
Indicator CategoryFiscal
MonitoringProgram
MonitoringFISCAL 40 15PERSONNEL 15 15MONITORING 15 15REPORTING 10 10COMPLAINTS 5 5STUDENT RESULTS 15 40
5
District Selection: Risk Analysis Indicators
FISCAL• Indicator 1: ESEA Title I Allocation > $500,000 {1 point} • Indicator 2: ESEA Title I Allocation > $1,500,000 {1 point}• Indicator 3: ESEA Title I Allocation > $5,000,000 {1 point}• Indicator 4: ESEA Discretionary Grants FY14 {1 point per}• Indicator 5: IDEA Part B Allocation > $500,000 {1 point}• Indicator 6: IDEA Part B Allocation > $1,500,000 {1 point}• Indicator 7: IDEA Part B Allocation > $3,000,000 {1 point}• Indicator 8: IDEA Preschool Allocation > $75,000 {1 point}• Indicator 9: IDEA Part B Discretionary Grants FY14 {1 point per}• Indicator 10: IDEA Preschool Discretionary Grants FY14 {1 point per}• Indicator 11: Title II-A Funds used for Class Size Reduction FY14 {1
point}
6
District Selection: Risk Analysis Indicators
FISCAL• Indicator 12: ESEA Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Non-compliance FY13
{1 point each}• Indicator 13: IDEA Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Non-compliance FY13
{1 point each}• Indicator 14: ESEA & IDEA & CTE Potential Dropdead Funds Left to
Draw > $0 FY13 (as of Aug. 1, 2014) {1 point each}• Indicator 15: Title I Potential Carryover = or > 15% FY14 (as of Aug.
1, 2014) {1 point}• Indicator 16: IDEA Part B Potential Excess Carryover = or > 50% FY14
(as of Aug. 1, 2014) {1 point per grant}• Indicator 17: IDEA Preschool Potential Excess Carryover = or > 50%
FY14 (as of Aug. 1, 2014) {1 point per grant}
• Indicator 18: Bookkeeper < 3 yrs exp w/ Federal Programs FY14 {1 point}
7
District Selection: Risk Analysis Indicators
PERSONNEL• Indicator 19: ESEA Director < 3 yrs exp FY14 {1 point}• Indicator 20: IDEA Director < 3 yrs exp FY14 {1 point}• Indicator 21: Director of Schools < 3 yrs exp FY14 (NOT USED for
FY14) {1 point}
MONITORING & AUDIT
• Indicator 22: ESEA Monitoring CAP 2013-14 {1 point per item}• Indicator 23: IDEA Monitoring CAP 2013-14 {1 point per item}• Indicator 24: Fiscal Monitoring CAP 2013-14 {1 point per item}• Indicator 25: CAP Items Not Addressed in Timely Manner for 2012-13
{1 point per item}• Indicator 26: TDOE Single Audit (A133) Findings 2013-14 {1 point per
item}• Indicator 27: US Ed Monitoring Findings 2013-14 {1 point per item}
8
District Selection: Risk Analysis Indicators
REPORTING DEADLINES• Indicator 28: Missed Deadline ePlan Con. Funding App & Projected
Budget FY15 {1 point}• Indicator 29: Missed Deadline ePlan Final Budget FY14 {1 point}• Indicator 30: Missed Deadline Comparability Title I and/or Not
Compliant 2013-14 {1 point}
• Indicator 31: Missed Deadline Final Expenditure Report (NOT USED for FY14) {1 point}
• Indicator 32: Missed Deadline IDEA Dec. 1 Census Counts 2013-14 {1 point}
• Indicator 33: Missed Deadline IDEA EOY Statewide Frequency 2013-14
{1 point}• Indicator 34: Missed Deadline IDEA SSEER Report (NOT USED for
FY14) {1 point}
• Indicator 35: Missed Deadline IDEA Excess Cost Report (NOT USED for FY14) {1 point}
9
District Selection: Risk Analysis Indicators
COMPLAINTS & HEARINGS• Indicator 36: ESEA Complaints 2013-14 {1 point per}• Indicator 37: IDEA Complaints 2013-14 {1 point per}• Indicator 38: IDEA Due Process Hearings 2013-14 {1 point per}
STUDENT RESULTS• Indicator 39: LEA In Need of Improvement (INI) 2013-14 {1 point}• Indicator 40: LEA In Need of Subgroup Improvement (INSI) 2013-14
{1 point}• Indicator 41: LEA Exemplary 2013-14 {credit 1 point}• Indicator 42: LEA Reward Schools 2014 {credit 1 point per}• Indicator 43: LEA Priority Schools 2015 {1 point per}• Indicator 44: LEA Focus Schools 2015 {1 point per}• Indicator 45: LEA 3-8 Math All Students % Below Basic is > State %
2013-14 • {1 point}• Indicator 46: LEA 3-8 Reading All Students % Below Basic is > State %
2013-14 {1 point}
10
District Selection: Risk Analysis Indicators
STUDENT RESULTS• Indicator 47: LEA Algebra I All Students % Below Basic is > State %
2013-14 {1 point}
• Indicator 48: LEA English II All Students % Below Basic is > State % 2013-14 {1 point}
• Indicator 49: LEA 3-8 Math Students w Disabilities % Below Basic is > State % 2013-14 {1 point}
• Indicator 50: LEA 3-8 Reading Students w Disabilities % Below Basic is > State % 2013-14 {1 point}
• Indicator 51: LEA Algebra I Students w Disabilities % Below Basic is > State % 2013-14 {1 point}
• Indicator 52: LEA English II Students w Disabilities % Below Basic is > State % 2013-14 {1 point}
• Indicator 53: LEA has Suspension Rates > State Rate 2013-14 (NOT USED for FY14) {1 point per subgroup}
11
District Selection: Risk Analysis Indicators
STUDENT RESULTS• Indicator 54: LEA has Students w Disabilities Grad Rate < State Rate
2011-12 {1 point per subgroup}
• Indicator 55: LEA IDEA Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) (% SWD in GenEd Setting = or > 80% of Day) 2013-14 {1 point}
• Indicator 56: LEA IDEA Disproportionate Representation of SWD by race/ethnicity 2012-13 {1 point}
ADDITIONAL RISK CONCERNS• Indicator 57: CPM Office - TDOE Concerns of Additional Risk {5
points}• Indicator 58: IDEA Program - TDOE Concerns of Additional Risk {5
points}• Indicator 59: Fiscal - TDOE Concerns of Additional Risk {5 points}
2014-15 IDEA & ESEA Results-based & Joint Fiscal MonitoringTDOE Consolidated Planning & Monitoring
ASD
CampbellDavidson DeKalb
Fayette Hamilton
Hawkins
Knox
Johnson
Lake
Lauderdale
Monroe
Montgomery
Murfreesboro
Roane
Shelby
SullivanSumnerTSB
Wayne
* *
* *
* ** * * *
* * * *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* **
* *
* * *
*
** Murfreesboro monitoring will be delayed one year.
**
13
Monitoring Preparation
14
Sample Agenda
15
Sample Agenda
16
Sample Agenda
17
Required Documents – Results-based
Full list on ePlan in the LEA Document Library under the 2015 folder for “Results-based Monitoring for IDEA & ESEA Program Documents”.
18
Required Documents – Fiscal
Full list on ePlan in the LEA Document Library under the 2015 folder for “Joint Fiscal Monitoring Document”.
19
20
21
Monitoring Process
22
Process Overview
Program & Fiscal Monitoring Team • Lead: CPM Regional Consultant • Assigned CPM Regional Consultant• Staff representing Special Education, other critical
subgroups and other areas (EL, non-public, etc.)• Lead: Fiscal Consultant• Assigned Fiscal Consultant• CPM Nashville staff when needed
Program Monitoring Only will include program staff
Fiscal Monitoring Only will include fiscal staff
23
Monitoring Process Overview
Step 1. TDOE identifies LEAs based on risk and notifies selected LEAs
Step 2. Data collection • TDOE gathers assessment and growth data on districts and
schools by proficiency levels, subjects and subgroups (SWD, ED, etc.)
• TDOE reviews LEA consolidated application and budget for ESEA and IDEA
• TDOE reviews LEA strategic plan• TDOE requests LEA upload specific items
Step 3. TDOE selects schools based upon school assessment results and other factors• At least two schools are selected for a two hour onsite visit• Additional sites such as a preschool, non-public school, or
program maybe also be selected
24
Monitoring Process Overview
Step 4. Phone call between TDOE and LEA to explain the process and clarify expectations• TDOE wants to see and hear about day-to-day procedures• LEA and School interviews• Note: Preparing boxes of information is not necessary• Agenda is negotiated with the LEA
Step 5. On-site visit approximately 3.5 days• Entrance meeting (approximately one hour) with the district
leadership and other relevant staff to review district strategic plan, initiatives, best practices, challenges, etc.
• Meetings with ESEA Director, IDEA Supervisor, Fiscal Director and staff
• School visit schedules• Time slots for TDOE to write comments and final report (at
least two)• Review and modify final report with ESEA, IDEA and Fiscal
Directors• Exit Conference with LEA leadership
25
Monitoring Process Overview
Step 6. Written Comments, Improvement Plan, Compliance Plan and LEA Letter• Prior to the exit conference, the results-based and fiscal
monitoring comments are drafted • The Improvement Plans and Compliance Action Plans are
finalized in the exit conference (suggestions from the LEA are incorporated into the final document)
• Letter indicating Closed or Incomplete status is sent to the LEA within two weeks
26
Monitoring Process Overview
Some documentation required for the visit is uploaded to ePlan.
Many documents are reviewed on-site but no copies of documentation are expected.
Process relies heavily on interviews with LEA staff and listening to their procedures and challenges within their districts.
School site visits are conducted by meeting with the principal and school leadership then walking through classrooms and parts of the building.
TDOE staff writes up all comments, improvement plans and compliance action plans while in the district.
An on-site exit conference reviews the completed written monitoring instrument with LEA leadership.
27
Joint Fiscal Monitoring
28
Fiscal Monitoring
A number of federal grants will be monitored:• ESEA Formula Grants• IDEA Part B Formula Grants• IDEA Preschool (619) Formula Grants• First to the Top Grants• Title I School Improvement Grants• 21st Century Discretionary Grants
Random samples of transactions will be reviewed on-site
Number of transactions may expand if issues are identified during monitoring
29
Fiscal Monitoring
Joint Fiscal Monitoring Instrument
• Updated for this year – similar to last year’s instrument
• The instrument is located on ePlan in LEA Document Library in the 2015 Joint Fiscal Monitoring Documents folder
• To prepare for the visit, please review the monitoring instrument and monitoring documents list prior to on-site monitoring visit
30
Fiscal Monitoring
Joint Fiscal Monitoring Instrument• Budgets and Revisions• Travel• Procurement• Contracts• General Fiscal Requirements (including most recent A-133
audit)• Use of Funds (ESEA & IDEA)• Personnel• Title II A• Title III A, English Language Acquisition• ESEA Transferability
In addition, samples will be reviewed from School Improvement and 21st Century grants (if applicable)
31
Fiscal Monitoring
Required upload of documents
• Upload required documents by the specified date in the LEA notification email
• Fiscal consultants will review prior to visit– Ensure policies cover all requirements
Fiscal consultants will review during visit• Samples of documentation during visit to ensure that
the policies and procedures are being followed
32
Fiscal Monitoring
Final notes• Fiscal team will ask for various information on-site, which may
include:– Payroll records– General ledger– Travel reimbursements– Purchase documentation (e.g. requisition, bids, purchase
order, packing slip, invoice, check)– Inventories
Goal is to ensure that your system• is properly accounting for federal funds• has appropriate internal controls in place • is prepared for federal monitoring or audit
33
Joint Fiscal Monitoring
QUESTIONS?
34
Results-based Monitoring
35
Results-based Monitoring
Purpose: To monitor and support districts in the implementation of IDEA & ESEA programs that improve outcomes for students, while recognizing continuous improvement is necessary.
Shifting our focus from COMPLIANCE to PERFORMANCE
36
IDEA Monitoring Shift of Focus
IDEA compliance monitoring has produced 85-95% compliance in the areas of student records, parent notification, etc.
Student outcomes measured by academic achievement, graduation rate and dropout rate have not improved over time.
Focus is changing from strict compliance to student outcomes.
37
Continuous Improvement Cycle
CPM: Monitoring
Desired Outcomes
Streamlining process for districts Improve planning and monitoring
around targeted accountability goals Cycle of Continuous Improvement for
district improvement
First Steps
Consolidation of monitoring tools Creating and piloting a results-based
tool and monitoring process Training and additional support for
LEAs through CPM and Special Populations
To monitor and support districts in the implementation of IDEA & ESEA programs that improve outcomes for students, while recognizing continuous
improvement is necessary:Results based Monitoring Implemented 2014-15 School Year
39
Process Overview
Why a results-based monitoring tool? • Shifts focus from compliance to program effectiveness• Encourages collaborative conversations around district
programs• Provides a better understanding of successes and
challenges
How is the results-based monitoring tool organized?• Based on factors influencing student outcomes• Combines IDEA & ESEA monitoring items• Adds an Improvement Plan focusing on suggested
strategies to increase student outcomes • Includes a Compliance Action Plan
40
Major Sections of the Monitoring Tool
Quality Leadership
Effective Teachers
Instructional Practices
Climate and Culture
Parent and Community Involvement
Appendices
41
42
43
44
45
Pilot Survey Results
46
Participating LEA Demographics
Six districts and twelve schools volunteered for the monitoring pilot:
RuralStudent
Enrollment% Economically Disadvantaged
% Students w Disabilities
% Black / African American
% Hispanic / Latino % White
Yes 1,205 86.6% 14.9% 73.3% 5.0% 21.2%Yes 3,179 64.0% 13.8% 6.4% 2.8% 90.4%No 3,971 43.6% 13.3% 7.6% 1.5% 90.5%Yes 7,341 67.9% 17.2% 1.3% 2.9% 95.3%No 7,439 66.3% 15.6% 1.6% 2.1% 95.8%No 11,084 54.8% 14.6% 3.8% 10.2% 83.9%
47
Relevant Survey Results
48
FRAUD, WASTE or ABUSE
Citizens and agencies are encouraged to report fraud, waste or abuse in State and Local government.
NOTICE: This agency is a recipient of taxpayer funding. If you observe an agency director or employee engaging in any activity which you consider to be illegal, improper or wasteful, please call the state Comptroller’s toll-free
Hotline:
1-800-232-5454
Notifications can also be submitted electronically at:
http://www.comptroller.tn.gov/hotline