1 / 31

MERA May 17, 2011

MERA May 17, 2011. Mike Radke, Director, Office of Field Services, Michigan Department of Education. Evaluation Project Goals. Develop the MDE framework and tools to evaluate program impact on student achievement

judah-santana
Télécharger la présentation

MERA May 17, 2011

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MERAMay 17, 2011 Mike Radke, Director, Office of Field Services, Michigan Department of Education

  2. Evaluation Project Goals Develop the MDE framework and tools to evaluate program impact on student achievement Utilize the evaluation information to analyze and inform the improvement planning and implementation processes

  3. Evaluation Project Guiding Principles Must be practical enough to implement in any school Must be driven by formative and summative data Must be transparent and replicable Must inform planning and implementation Must empower effective decision making This is NOT research

  4. Program Strategy Activity Evaluate at what level of detail?

  5. How will the evaluation project accelerate student achievement? • Provide a framework • Provide tool(s) • Provide training • Inform decision making

  6. Percent ofARRAfunds drawn? • Title I Part A, ARRA drawdowns • Average all states = 67.2% • Michigan = 54.1% • Must be completely obligated by September 30, 2011 and completely drawn by November 30, 2011 • What can LEAs do to draw ARRA?

  7. Title I, Part A and Title II, Part D: Spend ARRA First • Draw down ARRA Carryover funds for approved ARRA program expenditures. • Draw ARRA funds to cover Regular approved program costs • In the same function code(s) and object code(s) as were approved in the ARRA budgets. • If impossible, ARRA Carryover funds can be used to cover Regular program costs in other approved function code(s) and object code(s).

  8. Title I, Part A and Title II, Part D: Spend ARRA First (con’t) • Regular Title I, Part A expenditures paid with ARRA funds must be recoded to ARRA Title I, Part A and reported as ARRA expenditures in the Final Expenditure Report, Financial Information Database, and ARRA Section 1512 quarterly reports. • An amendment will not be required to your LEA’s 2010-11 Consolidated Application to revise the Regular and ARRA budgets for Title I, Part A and Title I, Part D.

  9. Temptations Use grant funds to replace state & local funds = supplanting Cut corners: loss of internal controls Challenges: dramatically improve student achievement Balance the budget, and Use appropriate accounting procedures Tough Economic Times

  10. Quantitative Single Audit & Findings Time since last monitoring Size of grant(s) Findings from other monitoring Deficit or watch list Qualitative School improvement plan quality Leadership expertise Knowledge of the rules MDE using risk criteria to select LEAs for monitoring

  11. LEA characteristics Large, medium and small Urban, suburban and rural New PSAs, mature PSAs Monitoring type Program Fiscal On-site Desk Combination Consolidated Application Monitoring

  12. Fiscal Monitoring Findings • Fiscal internal control policies and procedures • Procurement • Contract management • Personnel timekeeping (PARs or Time & Effort certifications) • Supplanting • Unallowable costs or documentation problems • Equipment inventory

  13. Fiscal Monitoring Findings • Deficient documentation for transfers between accounts • Draws for federal programs occur prior to actual expenditures • Conflicts of interest or related party transactions • Final expenditure report deviations

  14. Program Findings: Planning • Comprehensive needs assessment, analysis of total and subgroup data or educational processes • School improvement plans: Schoolwide or Targeted Assistance • Planned supplementary services or programs not aligned with needs

  15. Program Monitoring Findings: Planning • Supplementary services or activities not research based • Stakeholder involvement in school improvement planning, implementation and evaluation • Evaluation of effectiveness for program reforms, strategies or activities

  16. Program Findings: Planning • No (little) school-level decision making in plan design, implementation or evaluation • Professional development plan not developed with stakeholder input or not aligned with needs • Inadequate program monitoring of implementation

  17. Core academic program not aligned to state standards, instruction or assessments Inadequate parent involvement district policy, school plan and compact Program grant management inadequate Program Monitoring Findings

  18. Required Actions • Develop & implement corrective action plan • Payback Federal programs with general funds • Contract for program expertise at district expense • Contract with CPA firm (at district expense) to establish amount to be paid back retrospectively

  19. Required Actions • Contract with CPA firm (at district expense) to verify allowability prior to draw down of federal funds • Carry over funds to subsequent year • Revise or amend application consistent with requirements • Require a single audit

  20. Required Actions • Implement internal controls to be eligible for funds • Develop and implement policies and desk procedures • Approved by MDE • Require training of staff annually • Consequences for failure to implement • Open criminal investigation • Federal High Risk status

  21. Region Three Pilot “Virtual”Consolidation

  22. WhatDoesConsolidationMean? • Schoolwide school treats the funds it is consolidating as a single “pool” of funds. • Funds from the contributing programs lose their identity. • The school uses funds from this consolidated schoolwide (SW) pool to support any activity of the SW program.

  23. What is the Purpose of Consolidation? The purpose of consolidating funds is to help a SW program school effectively design and implement a comprehensive plan to upgrade the entire educational program in the school based on the school’s needs identified through its comprehensive needs assessment [E-1].

  24. State Aid and local tax revenue State Section 31a Title I, Part A Title II, Part A Title II, Part D Title III Title VI Which funds can be consolidated in the pilot?

  25. Prerequisites to participation: High Quality • School level comprehensive needs assessment • School improvement plan meeting Schoolwide requirements • Define your basic program and demonstrate it is funded • Identify funds and amount of funds in consolidation

  26. SupplementnotSupplant Each school operating a SW program must receive all the state and local funds it would otherwise receive to operate its educational program in the absence of Title I, Part A or other [supplemental] education funds [E-2].

  27. Programmatic Record Keeping • Evidence that intent and purposes of programs were fulfilled. • Fulfill all required set aside

  28. Financial Accounting • “Virtual” pooling – maintain multiple grant numbers, function codes and cost objectives. • Two drawdown options: (1) Proportionate charging (2) Sequence charging • Functional category reporting must still be maintained

  29. QUESTIONS

  30. Contact Mike Radke Director, Office of Field Services 517-373-3921 radkem@michigan.gov

More Related