2015-16 Title III Desk Monitoring Oregon Department of Education Office of Education Equity – Title III.

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.
(Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act) and
PACTS Online Tools Adriana Golumbeanu, Loretta Brown and Randall Richardson Office of Federal Programs.
Coordinating Equitable Services for Private Schools Christine T. Miller Red Clay Consolidated School District December 7, 2010 DSU – Martin Luther King.
ESEA Title III AMAOs Ensuring Academic Success for English Learners Dr. Shereen Tabrizi, Manager Special Populations Unit Maria Silva, EL Consultant Office.
Title I LEA and Peer Review Process of School Improvement Plans Kokomo Center Schools Kokomo, IN.
The Monitoring Process
1 Alternative Language Services (ALS) November 10, 2008.
Do Now: Matching Game  Match the numbers from Column A to the clues in Column B to learn fun facts about Title IIA Massachusetts Department of Elementary.
Special Education Accountability Reviews Let’s put the pieces together March 25, 2015.
On Site Review Process Office of Field Services.
Designing and Implementing An Effective Schoolwide Program
NH Department of Education NH Department of Education Developing the School Improvement Plan April 15, 2011 Referencing requirements for Schools in Need.
Michael Toole Southwest Plains Regional Service Center.
Title I Technical Assistance Training Federal and State Programs.
Rowland Unified School District Program Specialist/ LD Meeting September 10, 2012.
Continual Improvement Process Oregon Department of Education April, 2012.
Subrecipient Monitoring FY15 of Education Oklahoma State Department of Education Office of Federal Programs Federal Programs Office of Titles I, II, III,
Questions and Responses: New Joint Title III Guidance U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Justice Jointly Released: January 7, 2015 Office.
Oregon Department of Education September 24,
Fall 2012 LEP Coordinator Meeting Helga Fasciano Section Chief, K-12 Programs Federal Update.
Successful Program Implementation: Meeting Compliance Statutes Virginia Department of Education Office of Program Administration and Accountability Title.
Charter School 2015 Annual Finance Seminar Grant Management Office of Grants Fiscal September 11, 2015.
» September 3, 2015 » December 3, 2015 » February 4, 2016.
1 DRAFT Monitoring/Evaluation Overview September 20, 2010 Title III Director’s Fall Meeting.
NCLB Federal Funding Planning Meeting Private Non Profit Schools LEA Date.
Monitoring and Evaluating SES Provider Programs
Title III, Part A: Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient (LEP) and Immigrant Students  The purpose of Title III, Part A is to help ensure.
Brette Kaplan, Esq. Erin Auerbach, Esq. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC Spring Forum 2013
Statewide Monitoring Tool Approved Effective July 1, 2015 Early Learning Coalition of Orange County 1.
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.
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.
1 Title IA Online Coordinator Training Parent Involvement
New Title I Designee Training September 17,
ELL AMAO and Grad Rate Data ELL Outcome Improvement Group Oregon Department of Education July 21, 2015.
1 Title IA Coordinator Training Preparing for Title IA Monitoring
ESEA FOR LEAs Cycle 1 Monitoring Arizona Department of Education Revised October 2015.
Federal Program Monitoring Overview and Organization.
ESEA FOR LEAs Cycle 6 Monitoring Arizona Department of Education Revised October 2015.
Priority & Focus School Title I, Part A, Set-Asides and Choice/Transfer Option Requirements Under ESEA Waiver District Coordinators/Administrators Priority.
On Site Review Process. 2 Overview of On Site Review Materials and Process.
Presented By WVDE Title I Staff June 10, Fiscal Issues Maintain an updated inventory list, including the following information: description of.
Kim Miller Oregon Department of Education AMAO Calculations for /9/2016Oregon Department of Education1.
Earning IPDP Points Annual Review of Responsibilities and Procedures.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction 2011–2012 Federal Program Monitoring English Learner Accountability.
Moving Title IA School Plans into Indistar ESEA Odyssey Summer 2015 Presented by Melinda Bessner Oregon Department of Education.
Subrecipient Monitoring FY14 Oklahoma State Department of Education Federal Programs Office of Titles I, II, III, VI and X.
Title III: 101 Jacqueline A. Iribarren Ph.D. Title III, ESL & Bilingual Ed. Consultant October 20, 2011.
Welcome! The webinar will begin at 3:30 p.m.. Title III Program Monitoring Tier I, Tier II, & Tier III and BAAS Documentation February 6, 2014 North Carolina.
NH Department of Education Developing the School Improvement Plan Required by NH RSA 193-H and Federal Public Law for Schools in Need of Improvement.
Virginia Department of Education November 5, 2015.
ESOL END-OF-YEAR PROCEDURES & REQUIREMENTS Hall County School District April 2015 Dr. Cindy Tu, ESOL Coordinator.
ELL – ACCESS for ELLs PIMS Data Collection School Year.
March 23, SPECIAL EDUCATION ACCOUNTABILITY REVIEWS.
English Learner Subgroup Self-Assessment (ELSSA) and the Title III Year 4 Plan Montague Charter Academy for the Arts and Sciences Prepared and Presented.
Title III of the No Child Left Behind Act
Kim Miller Oregon Department of Education
The Role a Charter School Plays in its Charter Authorizer’s Submission of the Consolidated Federal Programs Application Joey Willett, Unit of Federal Programs.
Title III AMAO Improvement Plan Webinar
FY19 Federal Grant Monitoring: Titles I, II, IV
ESL/Title III Consultants
Statewide Title III Consortium:
Preparing for Federal Program Monitoring Title I, Part D, Subpart 1
2011–2012 Federal Program Monitoring
Presentation transcript:

Title III Desk Monitoring Oregon Department of Education Office of Education Equity – Title III

Agenda ▪ Overview of Monitoring Changes ▪ Monitoring Resources ▪ Submission Expectations ▪ Timeline ▪ Questions and Answers 2

Requirement to Monitor Districts ▪ Oregon Department of Education (ODE) is required to monitor districts as part of the State’s participation in Title III. ▪ ODE verifies compliance of: ▪ Title III – Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students ▪ Oregon Revised Statues (ORS) ▪ Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) ▪ The US Department of Education – Title III has set the requirement for monitoring every three (3) years. 3

Title III Monitoring Title III is required to monitor districts/consortia on a three-year schedule. There are currently 150 districts in Oregon with English language learners. To meet the expectation of monitoring every 3 years, approximately 50 districts a year must be monitored. Desk Monitoring will allow ODE to meet the frequency requirement for monitoring in a cost effective manner, while still providing resources for on-site technical assistance to districts. Beginning in , Title III began conducting fall and spring desk monitoring. Districts may also have an on-site visit based on criteria established in collaboration with stakeholders across Oregon. 4

Monitoring Resources ▪ ODE has revised the EL monitoring documents for ▪ These documents ensure that districts are meeting the required components of state and federal law. ▪ 5

Monitoring Rubric Reviews of English Language Development (ELD) programs in Oregon take different forms depending on the needs and challenges of the Local Education Agency (LEA). Outlined below is a description of how ODE supports districts in meeting the basic compliance requirements, under both state and federal law, while assisting districts to reach higher achievement for their English learner (EL) populations. ▪ Annual review: Budget Narrative, Title III Improvement Plans ▪ Biennium review: Local EL Plans and Local Evaluations ▪ Desk audit review: Every three years 6

Desk Monitoring – Meeting Outcomes ▪ If the program is meeting all required outcomes, and all monitoring documentation is compliant with state and federal requirements, then the ODE will require no further action from program. ▪ If the program is meeting all outcome requirements, but the monitoring documentation is not compliant with state and federal requirements, then ODE will request additional required information to review. Once the additional information is compliant, then ODE will require no further action from program. 7

Desk Monitoring – Not Meeting Outcomes ▪ If the program is not meeting outcome requirements, but documentation is compliant with state and federal requirements, ODE will provide focused assistance to the program in areas of ‘not meeting’, and provide support to assist districts in reaching a higher standard for ELs. ODE assistance may include support from peer districts, and/or a site visit may occur. ▪ If program is not meeting outcome requirements, and has not met outcome requirements (state and federal accountability measures) for four or more years, a site visit is mandatory. ▪ If the program has a school on the priority/focus school list, a site visit for the priority/focus school is mandatory. 8

Other Reasons for On-Site Visit ▪ If the program has a verified OCR complaint relating to services for ELs, a site visit is mandatory. 9

Desk Monitoring Schedule ▪ A spreadsheet of districts who will be monitored during the school year is posted. ▪ Districts selected for monitoring have not been monitored for three or more years. ▪ Districts having a focus/priority school, or having not met all rated AMAOs for four or more years, will have a follow-up on- site technical assistance visit. ▪

Title III Desk Monitoring Rubric ▪ The former on-site monitoring rubric has been revised into a Desk Monitoring Rubric. ▪ ▪ This tool has been created to assist districts with their Desk Monitoring submission, as well as to be used by reviewers to determine if the submission is compliant. 11

Random Sampling ▪ In the Desk Monitoring tool you will see the words “random sampling”, this means a representative sample of evidence in the district. ▪ Please provide a sample of documents in all languages used at all grade levels; however, the ODE does not need a certain percentage of documents for each building or district. ▪ Use your discretion to determine how many documents is sufficient to provide evidence of compliance with the question. 12

Forms in Multiple Languages When asked for copies of forms (for example: parent notification letters), please provide copies of each language used by the district and an English version. Blank templates do not provide sufficient evidence that the district has provided communication to parents in a language they can understand. Blank templates only provide evidence that the district has the capacity to communicate to parents. 13

Rubric by the Numbers ▪ Question 1 ▪ Local Service Plan: Please send the district’s most recent local service plan and copy of approval letter. ▪ Question 2 ▪ Home Language Survey: Please provide a copy of all available home language surveys – all languages.  Fall Desk Monitoring – random sample of completed home language surveys for school year.  Spring Desk Monitoring – random sample of completed home language surveys for school year. 14

Rubric by the Numbers (cont.) ▪ Question 3 ▪ Provide a random sample of the assessment used to identify ELs. ▪ Fall Desk Monitoring – Random sample that documents the assessment was completed in the school year. ▪ Spring Desk Monitoring – Random sample that documents the assessment was completed the school year. ▪ It is important that your documentation include: ▪ The date the student enrolled; ▪ The date the student was assessed; and ▪ The date the parent was notified to ensure that the district completed the identification within the legal timeline. ▪ Do not include the actual test – this would be a test impropriety – report from test is acceptable. 15

Rubric by the Numbers (cont.) ▪ Question 4 ▪ Include a sample of signed parent notification letters for both newly identified and continuing ELs. ▪ Fall Desk Monitoring – Random sample of parent notification letters for the school year. ▪ Spring Desk Monitoring – random sample of parent notification letters for the school year ▪ Please make sure that the random sample demonstrates communication in a language the parent can understand, if appropriate. 16

Rubric by the Numbers (cont.) ▪ Question 5 ▪ Please include a sample of parent waiver letters, if appropriate. ▪ Waiver forms may be prior to the school year. ▪ If the district does not have any parent waivers, a statement to that fact will suffice. 17

Rubric by the Numbers (cont.) ▪ Question 6 ▪ Include a brief description of parent activities held by schools or district level. ▪ Include a random sampling documenting parent activities. If appropriate, include copies in languages that parents can understand. ▪ Fall Desk Monitoring – Random sample for the school year. ▪ Spring Desk Monitoring – Random sample for the school year. ▪ Question 7 ▪ Explain briefly the district’s plan for the annual ELPA 21 assessment for ELs. 18

Rubric by the Numbers (cont.) ▪ Question 8 ▪ Provide the most recent district EL Local Plan Evaluation or Title III Improvement plan. ▪ Important – please make sure to include evidence of monitoring the progress of ELs acquiring English and core content knowledge. ▪ Question 9 ▪ The documentation is the same as in question 8; however, question 9 is focused on the progress academically of monitored EL students. ▪ Important – please make sure to include evidence of monitoring the progress of monitored ELs acquiring English and core content knowledge. 19

Rubric by the Numbers (cont.) ▪ Question 10 ▪ Provide an explanation of the district monitoring procedure. ▪ Include a random sample of monitoring documentation. ▪ Fall Desk Monitoring – random sample of completed monitoring forms for the school year. ▪ Spring Desk Monitoring – random sample of completed monitoring forms for the school year. ▪ If the district does not have any students in monitoring status, please include a note stating this. 20

Rubric by the Numbers (cont.) ▪ Question 11 ▪ Provide a description of the services available to students (TAG, SPED, Title I, etc.). ▪ Provide a description of elective classes available to ELs. ▪ Include random sampling of documents that provide evidence of meaningful access to elective classes and programs. ▪ Evidence could include: building schedules, student schedules, and master schedules. ▪ Question 12 ▪ Provide a description of the access to the district’s instructional program for ELs. ▪ Include random sampling of documents that provide evidence of meaningful access to classes and programs (core content). ▪ Evidence could include: building schedules, student schedules, and master schedules. 21

Rubric by the Numbers (cont.) ▪ Questions 11 and 12 may include the same evidence; however, the document for each question is reviewed with a different lens. ▪ You may opt to put the documentation for 11 and 12 together in one folder. ▪ ODE will review the evidence provided with the requirements for each question. 22

Rubric by the Numbers (cont.) ▪ Question 13 ▪ Include a description of the program of service that leads to a diploma. ▪ Include random sampling of evidence that documents this program of service. ▪ The best evidence is student transcripts. ▪ Question 14 ▪ Provide job description or similar job requirements information that ensures the instructional staff of ELs is fluent in English. Question 14 focuses in on the language abilities of staff instructing ELs as required by Title III federal law. 23

Rubric by the Numbers (cont.) ▪ Question 15 ▪ Provide evidence of teacher certification, license, and/or endorsement for staff instructing ELs. Question 15 focuses on the certification of teachers in accordance with Oregon weighted funding requirements. NOTE: Question 14 and 15 may have the similar evidence; however, question 14 addresses the federal requirements for Title III, and question 15 addresses OAR requirements. ODE will review the evidence with the lens of the requirement. 24

Rubric by the Numbers (cont.) ▪ Question 16 ▪ Provide a description of the district’s timely and meaningful consultation with private schools. ▪ Include discussions on identifying ELs and Recent Arrivers. ▪ Include documentation of the consultation. ▪ If the district does not have any private schools within the district boundaries, a statement to that fact will suffice. 25

Rubric by the Numbers (cont.) ▪ Question 17 ▪ Provide description of job requirements for instructional assistants and the work assignment. ▪ Question 18 ▪ Provide a description of the district complaint process. ▪ Include documentation, if available, in a language parents can understand. ▪ Question 19 ▪ Provide a description of how the district annually disseminates the complaint information. ▪ Evidence could include student handbooks, links to district web sites, etc. 26

Rubric by the Numbers (cont.) ▪ Question 20 ▪ Provide a random sampling of parent notification letters sent to parents in a language the parent can understand when the district has not met the AMAO targets. ▪ Fall Desk Monitoring – Random sample for completed parent notification letters for the AMAO report ▪ Spring Desk Monitoring - Random sample of completed parent notification letters for the AMAO report. ▪ If the district met AMAOs, please include a statement to that fact. 27

Rubric by the Numbers (cont.) ▪ Question 21 ▪ Provide a description of the procedures used by the district to ensure the data submitted to the LEP collection is accurate. NOTE: ODE staff will compare the district LEP Collection from school year to the district EL Plan to ensure compliance. ▪ Question 22 ▪ Provide a description of the procedures used by the district to ensure the data submitted to the Recent Arrivers collection is accurate. ▪ Evidence could include enrollment forms assisting the district in identifying recent arrivers. 28

Rubric by the Numbers (cont.) ▪ Question 1 – Fiscal ▪ This question is completed by subgrantees. Districts with a Title III grant and consortium leads. ▪ Member districts in a consortium do not respond to this question - a statement to the fact will suffice. 29

Fiscal Evidence ▪ Evidence for this question must include: ▪ CIP Budget Narrative for previous school year. ▪ Copies of position descriptions for staff funded by Title III. ▪ Time in effort logs for staff funded by Title III and other funding. ▪ Copies of contracts paid for by Title III funds. ▪ Explanation on when final payment is made on the contract. ▪ Explanation on how the subgrantee determines the deliverables for each contract. ▪ Purchase orders and payments for items funded by Title III funds. ▪ Description of subgrantees inventory procedures for items purchased with Title III funds. 30

Desk Monitoring Submission ▪ Please consider one of the following options for submitting Desk Monitoring documentation: ▪ ODE Secure file transfer (preferred method) ▪ ▪ Files can be zipped and sent in as a group. ▪ USB Drive – ▪ Create a folder for each question and save the appropriate evidence in the folder. ▪ CD ▪ Create a folder for each question and save the appropriate evidence in the folder. Send all monitoring documents to Leslie Casebeer 31

Considerations ▪ Some documents may include personally identifiable information for students. ▪ Consider having a password for the USB and send the password to ODE staff separately. ▪ Consider marking out the student name and referring to the student by SSID only. ▪ ODE staff have PC computers ▪ Please make sure that your CD/USB works with PC computers (Macs do not play nice.) 32

Timeline ▪ Fall Desk Monitoring submissions are due October 15, ▪ Spring Desk Monitoring submissions are due March 12, ▪ ODE staff will review documents and send a formal notice of the review to the district superintendent. ▪ If the formal notice requires the district to provide additional information, the district will have 30 calendar days from their receipt of the letter, based on the return receipt. ▪ All districts with a focus/priority school will have an on-site technical assistance visit. 33

Timeline (cont.) ▪ All districts being rated as being in Title III Four-Year Improvement Status will have an on-site technical assistance visit. ▪ These visits will be scheduled directly with the district after the review of documents is complete. 34

Where Can I Find More Information? ▪ Title III web page ▪ ▪ Title III Monitoring web page ▪ ▪ Title III Program Guide web page ▪

Who Can I Contact for Assistance? ▪ Kim Miller ▪ ▪ Rudyane Rivera-Lindstrom ▪ ▪ Taffy Carlisle ▪ ▪ Leslie Casebeer ▪ 36