1 / 61

Leigh Manasevit Brustein & Manasevit 3105 South Street NW Washington, DC 20007 (202) 965-3652

USDE Recent Monitoring and Enforcement and Impact of New Title III Interpretations in Title I MASFPS Lansing, Michigan November, 2008. Leigh Manasevit Brustein & Manasevit 3105 South Street NW Washington, DC 20007 (202) 965-3652 www.bruman.com lmanasevit@bruman.com.

cid
Télécharger la présentation

Leigh Manasevit Brustein & Manasevit 3105 South Street NW Washington, DC 20007 (202) 965-3652

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. USDE Recent Monitoring and Enforcement and Impact of New Title III Interpretations in Title IMASFPSLansing, MichiganNovember, 2008 Leigh Manasevit Brustein & Manasevit 3105 South Street NW Washington, DC 20007 (202) 965-3652 www.bruman.com lmanasevit@bruman.com

  2. Oversight of Federal Programs:Who might come knocking? • USDE Program Office (SASA; OSEP) • Routine monitoring • Special focused monitoring • USDE Office of Inspector General (Audit; Investigative Unit) • State Education Agency (SEA) • Single Auditors

  3. Program Office Monitoring • State Administered Programs • Federal states • States districts

  4. SASA Monitoring Guide – 2008 Continues: Overarching Requirement: “SEA Sub-Recipient Monitoring” https://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/monitoring/monitorinindicators0708.pdf

  5. SASA Monitoring Guide – 2008(cont.) • Standards and Assessments Inclusion • SWD • LEP • Data Quality • LEA Report Cards • Paraprofessionals

  6. SASA Monitoring Guide – 2008(cont.) • Parental Involvement • Choice • SES • Schoolwide • Plan Components • Targeted Assistance • TAS Program Elements • Allocations

  7. SASA Monitoring Guide – 2008(cont.) • Ranking and Serving • Skipping Schools • Setasides • Equitable Services • Regular Supervision of Contractors • MOE • Comparability • Supplanting

  8. NEW FISCAL MONITORING!! • In the works? NOT SO MUCH. • Cross-Cutting • Conducted by OCFO (James Evans) • Planned start date?

  9. NEW: Title III joined with Title I monitoring • Title III moved • From Office of English Language Acquisition (OELA) • To Student Achievement and School Accountability (SASA) • “coordinated, consistent, and comprehensive system for administering” and monitoring

  10. Title III “Interpretations”Federal Register, October 17, 2008http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/PDFgate.cgi?WAISdocID=125433417020+0+2+0&WAISaction=retrieve 10 “Final Interpretations” Title III Interaction with Title ITitle III Supplanting Interpretationhttp://www.thompson.com/images/thompson/nclb/titleiii/title-iii-sns-oct-2-2008.pdf

  11. Title III “Interpretations”Federal Register, October 17, 2008 • Interpretation 1 • All LEP students served by Title III assessed for English proficiency annually in speaking, listening, reading, and writing No banking of proficient score in 1 domain

  12. Title III “Interpretations”Federal Register, October 17, 2008 • Interpretation 2 • Under AMAO 1 – Progress of group towards proficiency AMAO 2 – Increase in proficiency percentage Permits use of composite score across domains

  13. Title III “Interpretations”Federal Register, October 17, 2008 • Interpretation 3 • AMAO 1 Towards Proficiency • AMAO 2 Increase in Proficiency Percentage • AMAO 3 Title I AYP • All Title III served students included – AMAO I and AMAO 2 are not mutually exclusive

  14. Title III “Interpretations”Federal Register, October 17, 2008 • Interpretation 3 (cont.) • Two Exceptions • AMAO 1 may exclude if no participation in 2 ELP assessments • AMAO 3 may exclude Title I exclusions (Recently arrived)

  15. Title III “Interpretations”Federal Register, October 17, 2008 • Interpretation 4 • AMAO 1 two data points option • Caution does not apply to AMAO 2!

  16. Title III “Interpretations”Federal Register, October 17, 2008 • Interpretation 5 • AMAO 2 definition of proficiency for Title III may be different than for Title I to exit subgroup Result – may be proficient for Title I not for Title III

  17. Title III “Interpretations”Federal Register, October 17, 2008 • Interpretation 5 (cont.) Caution:If remaining in Title III must get services Caution: Does not affect residual inclusion issue Noteworthy: ED thinks this is a bad idea but responded to “overwhelming misunderstanding of and opposition… as well as concerns… [of] congressional staff…”

  18. Title III “Interpretations”Federal Register, October 17, 2008 • Interpretation 6 • State may use Title I minimum size for AMAOs and apply to LEAs as well Caution: Not cohorts of LEP students

  19. Title III “Interpretations”Federal Register, October 17, 2008 • Interpretation 7 • AMAO 3: Title I AYP Maybe measured only on Title IIIserved students (or total Title I LEP subgroup) Caution:Secretary’s “strong preference” to use the same criteria

  20. Title III “Interpretations”Federal Register, October 17, 2008 • Interpretation 8 • Cohorts for AMAOs – Option Must be based only on time in program Not Allowed: - Current Proficiency - Individual Ability - Time in U.S.

  21. Title III “Interpretations”Federal Register, October 17, 2008 • Interpretation 9 • States’ discretion to determine AMAO measurements for consortia

  22. Title III “Interpretations”Federal Register, October 17, 2008 • Interpretation 10 • States must oversee and assure all subgrantees comply with all three AMAOs

  23. Title III Supplanting Interpretation • Title III funds unallowable for • Title I language proficiency assessment • Core language instruction programs • Title III Non-Supplant includes other Federal Funds

  24. Office of Inspector General Keeping everyone busy. . .

  25. Audits over last 18 months . . . • Columbus OH – $2.3 million • Time and effort records in schoolwide • San Diego CA - $1.9 million • Charging early retirement to fed without prior approval

  26. Elizabeth NJ – • Unsupported salary and non-salary expenses - $822,796 • Unallowable costs - $618,392 • Supplanting - $505,737 • Insufficient internal controls

  27. Chicago, IL – at least $16.8 million • Ohio • Arizona • Comparability

  28. Pending audit: • Urban district • DRAFT audit report • Lack of time and effort records • $39.1 million

  29. OIG Work Plan 2008 • New Programs, Programs Nearing Reauthorization • IDEA • Adult Education and Family Literacy • Grant/Contract Awards, Performance and Monitoring • Continuing Problems with • Oversight and Monitoring • Corrective Action • Fraud Prevention • Contract and Procurement

  30. OIG Work Plan 2008 (cont.) • Planned Reviews of SEA/LEA Procurement Practices • Data Integrity

  31. NEW: Congressional Scrutiny!! Announced May 2008

  32. Congressional Inquiry • Republican demand for answers • OIG and GAO must “undertake a thorough analysis of what safeguards are in place to protect taxpayer dollars and whether those safeguards are effective.”

  33. OIG/ GAO must ask: What processes are in place to ensure monitoring: • Federal oversight of states and districts • State oversight of districts • District oversight of schools • Program AND fiscal requirements!

  34. Do grantees correct current year and recurring findings identified through monitoring? • Do these findings inform future monitoring plans?

  35. Emerging Compliance Issues Maintenance of Effort Comparability Supplanting in Schoolwides

  36. Title I Fiscal Guidance (February 08) • www.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/ fiscalguid.doc • Maintenance of Effort (MOE) • Comparability • Supplement not Supplant • Carryover • Consolidating Funds in Schoolwide • Grantbacks

  37. Maintenance of Effort

  38. MOE: The NCLB Rule • The combined fiscal effort per student or the aggregate expenditures of the LEA • from state and local funds • from preceding year must not be less than 90% of the second preceding year.

  39. MOE: Preceding Fiscal Year • Need to compare final financial data • Compare “immediately” PFY to “second” PFY • EX: To receive FY2005 funds (available July 2005), compare FY2004 (2004-05) to FY2003 (2003-04)

  40. MOE: Failure under NCLB • SEA must reduce amount of allocation in the exact proportion by which LEA fails to maintain effort below 90%. • Reduce all applicable NCLB programs, not just Title I

  41. MOE: Waiver • USDE Secretary may waive if: • Exceptional or uncontrollable circumstances such as natural disaster OR • Precipitous decline in financial resources of the LEA

  42. Comparability

  43. General Rule- §1120A(c) • An LEA may receive Title I Part A funds only if it uses state and local funds to provide services in Title I schools that, taken as a whole, are at least comparable to the services provided in non-Title I schools. • Reasonable variance is ok (10%)

  44. If all are Title I schools, all must be “substantially comparable.” • Reasonable variance ok (>10%)

  45. Timing Issues • Guidance: Must be annual determination • YET, LEAs must maintain records that are updated at least “biennially” (1120A(c)(3)(B)) • Review for current year and make adjustments for current year

  46. Written Assurances • LEA must file with SEA written assurances of policies for equivalence: • LEA-wide salary schedule • Teachers, administrators, and other staff • Curriculum materials and instructional supplies • Must keep records to document implemented and “equivalence achieved”

  47. Demonstrate “equivalence achieved” through: • Student/ instructional staff ratios; • Student/ instructional staff salary ratios; • Expenditures per pupil; or • A resource allocation plan based on student characteristics such as poverty, LEP, disability, etc. (i.e., by formula) • Need only meet under 1 approach

  48. How to measure?? Compare: • Average of all non-Title I schools to • Each Title I school

  49. For example: Using student/ instructional staff ratios • Average of all non-Title I schools = 10:1 • Title I schools: • Lincoln: 10:1 • Washington: 9:1 • Madison: 11:1 • Jefferson: 12:1

More Related