2011–2012 Federal Program Monitoring

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Procedures for ESEA Consolidated Monitoring Effective July 1, 2011 – June 30, 2014 Monitoring For Results.
Advertisements

NCLB Consolidated Monitoring Integrated Approach to Title III Monitoring.
Site gathers supporting evidence Documents uploaded to state system by November 10 deadline Site visit 12/ /13 Findings provided within 45 days Site/District.
The Monitoring Process
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Jack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Co-op Directors September 22, 2010 Héctor Rico, Director.
Office of Federal and State Accountability September 11, 2012.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Ramiro Nava and Stacy Savoca Federal Program Monitoring Office.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Uniform Complaint Procedures Monitoring Requirements Training.
Bonnie McFarland Los Angeles County Office of Education Division for School Improvement Categorical Programs Unit.
On Site Review Process Office of Field Services.
Verification Visit by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) September 27-29, 2010.
Los Angeles County Office of Education Division for School Improvement School Site Council (SSC) Training September 9 th 2008 Anna Carrasco From presentation.
Subrecipient Monitoring FY15 of Education Oklahoma State Department of Education Office of Federal Programs Federal Programs Office of Titles I, II, III,
Carol Mehochko Administrator, ELL Services Ext ELAC Training and Review.
Monitoring & Oversight Adult Education and Literacy (AEL) Programs Brenda B. Williams Project Manager Texas Workforce Commission Regulatory Integrity Division.
IDEA EC Grant Application & Fiscal Accountability New Charter Leaders Institute June 16-17, 2015 Valencia W. Davis, Consultant IDEA, Part B Programs NCDPI.
Title III Desk Monitoring Oregon Department of Education Office of Education Equity – Title III.
Federal Program Monitoring A Survivor’s Guide Presented by Lois Shaffer Director of Curriculum and Instruction / Interim Director of Special Services June.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Jack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Patrick McMenamin, Administrator Categorical Program Monitoring.
Successful Program Implementation: Meeting Compliance Statutes Virginia Department of Education Office of Program Administration and Accountability Title.
Got audits?. CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION Audit Subcommittee Finance Committee Website address:
Title I, Part A Preparing for Federal Program Monitoring Chris McLaughlin Virginia Department of Education Office of Program Administration and Accountability.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction CAIS Overview for FPM Reviews and Title III Improvement Plans.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Jack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction November 30, 2010 Héctor Rico, Administrator Categorical.
Learning Objectives Conducting an On-Site Monitoring Review FPO calls the Grantee: “As you know, we’re a little more than nine months into your 24 month.
1 NCLB Title Program Monitoring NCLB Title Program Monitoring Regional Training SPRING 2006.
On Site Review Process Office of Field Services.
On Site Review Process Office of Field Services Last Revised 8/15/2011.
1 Division of Public Schools (PreK -12) Florida Department of Education Florida Education: The Next Generation DRAFT March 13, 2008 Version 1.0 Office.
Procedures for ESEA Consolidated Monitoring Effective July 1, 2011 – June 30, 2014 Monitoring For Results Reviewed & Revised with COP April 2011.
Title III Desk Monitoring Oregon Department of Education September 24,
Arizona Department of Education Office of English Language Acquisition Services.
Presented by: Jan Stanley, State Title I Director Office of Assessment and Accountability June 10, 2008 Monitoring For Results.
New Title I Designee Training September 17,
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Jack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction California English Language Development Test and Title III.
Federal Program Monitoring Overview and Organization.
On Site Review Process. 2 Overview of On Site Review Materials and Process.
Title I, Part A Preparing for Federal Program Monitoring Lynn Sodat Virginia Department of Education Office of Program Administration and Accountability.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction 2011–2012 Federal Program Monitoring English Learner Accountability.
TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Title.
Subrecipient Monitoring FY14 Oklahoma State Department of Education Federal Programs Office of Titles I, II, III, VI and X.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Jack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction California English Language Development Test (CELDT) Program.
Coachella Valley Unified School District How to Reduce FPM Findings Hidali Garcia, Director EL Services Dr. Renee Miletic, EL Testing TOSA Patricia Larios,
ESEA Title III Accountability System. JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction 22 Title III Requires States to: Define two annual measurable.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Categorical Program Monitoring and CALPADS Update Bilingual.
Adult Education and Literacy Monitoring FY17
Categorical Program Monitoring (CPM) Review, An Ongoing Process
Overview of SB 191 Ensuring Quality Instruction through Educator Effectiveness Colorado Department of Education Updated: June 2012.
IDEA EC Grant Application & Fiscal Accountability
English learner advisory committee (ELAC)
COMMITTEE TRAINING School Site Council
ESEA Consolidated Pre-Monitoring Meeting
A Multi-tiered Framework for Monitoring ESEA & IDEA Programs
USBE: Tracy Gooley and Tanya Semerad
Adult Education and Literacy Monitoring FY17
ESEA Consolidated Monitoring
Alternate Assessment Updates
EL Identification: Parent/Family Notification Requirement
English Learner Advisory Committee
EL Programs Budget Training LD South
CELDT MOVEMENT BY LEVELS
Instructional Services Division of Educational Services
LAUSD Consolidated Application Part II
Update on the TEA Sped corrective action plan
Instructional Services Division of Educational Services
Consolidated Application Review
Special Education District Validation Review (DVR) Team Member Training and School Preparation Information
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
What is Title I and How Can I be Involved?
Presentation transcript:

2011–2012 Federal Program Monitoring English Learner Accountability Institute Keric Ashley, Director Education Data Management Division December 5, 2011

Redesign Objectives Focus on LEAs and schools based on at-risk criteria (Academic and Fiscal) Increase the use of technology Design a system that will allow the CDE to meet its oversight responsibilities, while being responsive to LEAs needs and realities

2011–12 FPM Reviews June 2011 Selection of 120 LEAs including direct funded charters August 2011 Release common school sites and program names by LEA September 12-19, 2011 CAIS County Lead Training Regional LEA Trainings at County Offices of Education October 2011 On-site reviews begin January 2012 Online reviews begin

B LEAs are placed in the selection pool every other year under the FPM model. D 4

New in 2011–12 New Name Federal Program Monitoring New Web page http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/cr Our new name closely identifies the monitoring tasks which federal and state law requires CDE to perform. We will continue to monitor state programs such as physical education, educational equity, Economic Impact Aid-Limited English Proficient (commonly referred to as EIA-LEP), and Economic Impact Aid –State Compensatory Education (commonly referred to as EIA-SCE). We have also redesigned our CDE web page so that it is more logically structured and so it is easier to find, for example, where your LEA falls in the four year FPM review cycle. For those of you that have not visited our Web page, we highly recommend that you visit it to obtain vital information about the FPM process, in general, and your FPM, in particular. In the next several slides, will provide a brief overview of the new Web page. 5

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/cr/ 6 There are six sub-headers on this page. We will briefly review each one. 6

1 2 3 7

1 2 8 3

1 2 9

1 2 3 10

Program Instruments Contain the legal requirements pertaining to a specific program Used to review whether an LEA is meeting legal requirements LEAs can access program requirements on CAIS and upload documents for specific program instrument items to demonstrate that the LEA is operating programs that meet legal requirements Technical verses compliance assistance 11 11

Program Instruments Each cycle has a separate set of instruments Cycle B: Three sources of evidence Interviews Observations Documents Cycle D Documents only

Document Upload Deadlines Before the first day of the review: 30 calendar days Day before exit: 5 p.m. additional documents for Cycle B 9 a.m. additional documents for Cycle D LEAs not meeting upload deadlines risk having findings 13 13

Document Review Before the review: Program Reviewers will post comments in CAIS at least 15 calendar days LEA staff should be available to respond to CAIS comments from program reviewers

Cycle B Reviews On-site reviews Limited to one week Daily Schedule Provided by RTL Confirm 15 days prior to review Participants must adhere to the Daily Schedule at all sites 15 15

Cycle B Reviews Schedule Variations Early and late entrances Early exits Alternate sites Online only Entrance Meetings District Site 16 16

Cycle B Reviews Daily debrief Pre-exit meeting Exit Meeting

Cycle D Reviews Daily debriefing Preliminary findings Notification of Findings (NOF) posted in CAIS 18 18

Resolution of Findings Resolution Process Proposed Resolution of Findings form (PRF) - Option A: Finding Resolved - Option B: Resolution Agreement Request 19 19

Sample Notification of Findings 20

Most Frequent Non-compliant EL Findings 2010–11 Item Percentage of Reviews (Cycle A Only) EL 2 ELAC 63% EL 7 Single Plan for Student Achievement 49% EL 20 English Language Development 37% EL 10 General Fund Use 34% EL 5 Identification, Assessment, and Notification 32% EL 3 DELAC

Most Frequent Non-compliant EL Findings 2010–11 Item Percentage of Reviews (Cycle A Only) EL 21 Access to the Core 32% EL 11 Disbursement of EIA-LEP funds 25% EL 14 Reclassification EL 16 Professional Development 24% EL 13 Program Evaluation EL 9 Equipment Inventory 19%

Contacts Federal Program Monitoring Office 916-319-0935 fpmoffice@cde.ca.gov http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/cr/ CAIS Help Desk CAIShelp@cde.ca.gov 23