Understanding & Complying with the Idaho Migrant Education Program Mary Lou Wells & Merced Flores Idaho Title I Conference April 2013.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Title I, Part A and Section 31a At Risk 101
Advertisements

Migrant Education Comprehensive Needs Assessment
Title I, Part A Targeted Assistance 101 Field Services Unit Office of School Improvement.
System Safeguards and Campus Improvement
CONSOLIDATED PROGRAM REVIEW COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR TITLE I, PART C, MIGRANT EDUCATION PROGRAM MEP STATE CONFERENCE AUGUST 2013.
Uses and Budgeting of Title I, II, III and VI Funds January 13, 2010 Bambi Perrigin and Edmund Moore.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Title I, Part D—Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children.
Implementing RTI Using Title I, Title III, and CEIS Funds Key Issues for Decision-makers.
1 Title I Services For Children Enrolled In Private Schools Molly Little Associate Director, Instructional Services and Federal Programs North Clackamas.
Robin Robbins NYS Director of Parent Involvement Parent Involveme nt Vs. PAC March 2009 Consortium.
1 Title IA Coordinator Online Training Targeted Assistance Schools
Goal: Objectives: Required ActivityPersonnelResourcesTimelineEvaluation c. 1. When, in your school year calendar, the Title I Migrant Coordinator will.
Title I, Part A Fiscal Requirements for Comparability FY Oklahoma State Department of Education Office of Title I, IIA, VI, & X December 2012.
Louisiana’s Title I Part C Migrant Education Program
Targeted Assistance Programs: Requirements and Implementation Spring Title I Statewide Conference May 15, 2014.
Module 4 Evaluating Services to Binational Migrant Students Designing an Implementation and Outcome Evaluation of State and Local Binational Services 1.
Overview of the Washington State Migrant Education Program MSDR Office 810-B East Custer Avenue Sunnyside, WA
Module 4 Evaluating Services to Binational Migrant Students Designing an Implementation and Outcome Evaluation of State and Local Binational Services 1.
What Does Supplement, Not Supplant Mean?. 2 Fiscal Requirements Supplement, not Supplant –
MSDR Office 810-B East Custer Avenue Sunnyside, WA
Title I Schoolwide Ray Draghi and Rasha Hetata October 2014.
Overview of Title I Part A Farwell ISD. The Intent of Title I Part A The intent is to help all children to have the opportunity to obtain a high quality.
DRAFT Title I Annual Parent Meeting Elliott Point September 15, 2015 Janet Norris.
F EDERAL E DUCATION P ROGRAMS, E LEMENTARY & S ECONDARY E DUCATION August 1, 2013.
Comprehensive Educator Effectiveness: New Guidance and Models Presentation for the Special Education Advisory Committee Virginia Department of Education.
Comprehensive Educator Effectiveness: New Guidance and Models Presentation for the Virginia Association of School Superintendents Annual Conference Patty.
ESEA APPLICATION TRAINING 2013 Equitable Participation Rules for Title I Private School Students Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction 1.
Overview of the Washington State Migrant Education Program MSDR Office 810-B East Custer Avenue Sunnyside, WA
Title IA Planning, Fiscal, and Parental Involvement Workshops Maine Department of Education Kathryn Manning Jackie Godbout Rachelle Tome May 2006.
NCLB Federal Funding Planning Meeting Private Non Profit Schools LEA Date.
Overview of Title I Part A Prepared by: Title I Staff - Office of Superintendent of Instruction OSPI Dr. Bill Wadlington, Superintendent/Principal and.
Program Compliance Session VI.  Review what is compliance monitoring.  How monitoring occurs in Washington State.  Review monitoring components and.
July 18, Glover Marietta, Georgia 1.  Federally funded program which provides resources to schools, based on the poverty percent at that school.
NDTAC Jeopardy True or False?. $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500.
1 Title IA Coordinator Online Training Targeted Assistance Schools
ESEA FOR LEAs Cycle 6 Monitoring Arizona Department of Education Revised October 2015.
WELCOME Title I School-wide Open House EWING PUBLIC SCHOOLS
ESEA FOR LEAs Cycle 3 Monitoring Arizona Department of Education Revised October 2015.
1 46th Annual PAFPC Conference May 5, 2015 MARIA GARCIA Schoolwide Program Manager DIVISION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS Title I Schoolwide Programs.
TARGETED ASSISTANCE SCHOOLS 2010 Title I Administrative Meeting Maryland State Department of Education Julia B. Keleher, Ed. D, PMP April 13, 2010.
SUPPLEMENT, NOT SUPPLANT SUPPLEMENT, NOT SUPPLANT TESTS District Level: Maintenance of Effort School Level: Comparability of Services Child Level: Educational.
No Child Left Behind Application 1 Title I, Part A Part 1.
Title I, Part C Education of Migratory Children Equitable Services to Private Schools: Program Specifics.
What are the Differences Between Targeted and Schoolwide Title I Programs?
Copyright © Texas Education Agency Private Nonprofit School Participation.
BUILDING BLOCKS TO EVALUATE MEASURABLE PROGRAM OUTCOMES AKA: PROGRAM MONITORING.
Migrant Student Information Exchange (MSIX) State Data Quality Grants Presented by the Office of Migrant Education, US Department of Education April 20.
Department of Exceptional Student Education The School District of Palm Beach County.
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs Building the Legacy: IDEA 2004 Highly Qualified Teachers (HQT)
Migrant Program Overview Districts are responsible for providing the same services to migrant students as those provided to any other student. Districts.
A Principal’s Guide to Title I, Part A and LAP Requirements
BUILDING BLOCKS TO EVALUATE MEASURABLE PROGRAM OUTCOMES
Title I Services For Children Enrolled In Private Schools Molly Little Associate Director, Instructional Services and Federal Programs North Clackamas.
U.S. Department of Education Office of Migrant Education
Louisiana's Title I, Part C, Migrant Education Program (MEP)
Data Collection and Reporting
Regular Term Instruction
Title III Fiscal Requirements and ESSA changes
Title III of the No Child Left Behind Act
What is a PAC November, 2010.
Department of Exceptional Student Education
Presented by Sarah Martinez and Patricia Meyertholen June 2, 2016
GCEL Conference February 2016
Sarah Martinez Patricia Meyertholen June 23, 2016
The Role a Charter School Plays in its Charter Authorizer’s Submission of the Consolidated Federal Programs Application Joey Willett, Unit of Federal Programs.
Background and Overview of the MEP
Migrant Program Overview
Continuation of Services November 2, 2017
Life as A Title I, Part C Coordinator August 20, 2019
Module 9: Coordination New Directors’ Orientation Tutorial.
Presentation transcript:

Understanding & Complying with the Idaho Migrant Education Program Mary Lou Wells & Merced Flores Idaho Title I Conference April 2013

Goals and Objectives Goal: The participant will understand the background and requirements of the Idaho Title I Part C Migrant Education Program. Objectives: At the end of the session, the participant will be able to: 1.Describe the purpose of the Migrant Education Program (MEP) and 1.Understand and apply the requirements for Priority for Services, Continuation of Services Provision, Comprehensive Needs Assessment, Service Delivery Plan, Fiscal Requirements, and Supplant vs. Supplement.

Idaho MEP Demographics

Priority for Services Priority for MEP-funded services to migratory children who are: A. failing, or most at risk of failing, to meet the State’s challenging State academic content standards and challenging State student academic achievement standards, B. AND whose education has been interrupted during the regular school year. Elementary & Secondary Education Act Section 1304(d)

Priority for Services

Continuation of Services Provision The “continuation of services” provision found in Section 1304(e) of the statute provides that: (1) a child who ceases to be a migratory child during a school term shall be eligible for services until the end of such term ; (2)a child who is no longer a migratory child may continue to receive services for one additional school year, but only if comparable services are not available through other programs ; and (3) secondary school students who were eligible for services in secondary school may continue to be served through credit accrual programs until graduation. COS is a permissive authority, not a requirement. Under 1304(e)(2) and (3), only students who received services at any time during their 36 month eligibility period may continue to receive services (not necessarily the same service).

Migrant Student Records Exchange State Education Agencies are required to promote interstate and intrastate coordination by (consistent with procedures the Secretary may require) providing for educational continuity through the timely transfer of pertinent school records (including health information) when children move from one school to another, whether or not the move occurs during the regular school year. Elementary & Secondary Education Act Section 1304(b)(3)

Migrant Student Records Exchange Idaho Migrant Student Information System (MSIS) Migrant Student Information Exchange (MSIX)

Migrant Parent Advisory Council (PAC) State Education Agencies (SEAs) and Local Operating Agencies (LOAs) are required to establish and consult with Parent Advisory Councils (PACs) in planning, operating, and evaluating Migrant Education Programs (MEPs) Elementary & Secondary Education Act Section 1304(c)(3)

Migrant Parent Advisory Council (PAC) State PAC meets 2-3 times a year Current State PAC consists of 9 members from Twin Falls School District, Aberdeen SD, Middleton SD, Jerome SD, and Blackfoot SD. Agendas and minutes from each meeting can be found at: ePAC.htm ePAC.htm

Identification & Recruitment of Eligible Migrant Children and Youth The State Education Agency (SEA) is responsible for the proper and timely identification of all eligible migrant children residing in the State. Children are eligible to receive MEP services if they meet the definition of “migratory child” and if the basis for their eligibility is properly recorded on a certificate of eligibility (COE). Elementary & Secondary Education Act Sections 1304(c)(7) and 1309(2) & 34 CFR

Service Delivery Plan In order to administer and manage the MEP on a statewide basis, the State Educational Agency (SEA) must develop a comprehensive State plan for service delivery 34 CFR provides the minimum components of such a plan; requires that the plan be developed in consultation with the State PAC; and requires that local operating agencies comply with the plan. Elementary & Secondary Education Act Section 1306(a) and 34 CFR

Service Delivery Plan (cont.) Measurable program outcomes, or MPOs, are those objectives that the Migrant Education Program (MEP) will produce to meet the unique needs of migrant children that the State Education Agency (SEA) identified through the comprehensive needs assessment. Meeting these needs will help migratory children achieve the State's performance targets, also identified in the statewide needs assessment. Elementary & Secondary Education Act Section 1306(a)(1)(D) and (a)(3)

Fiscal Management: Use of Funds State Education Agencies (SEAs) or Local Operating Agencies (LOAs) are required to use MEP funds for programs and projects designed to meet the special educational needs of migrant children, and more specifically those needs that are not addressed by services available from other Federal or non-Federal programs. All expenditures under the MEP are subject to the fiscal requirements found in 34 CFR Part 80 and in OMB Cost Circular A-87. Elementary & Secondary Education Act Sections 1301, 1302, and 1306(b)

Fiscal Management: Supplement, Not Supplant Categorical funds could be used to pay for staff development and, State Education Agencies (SEAs) must ensure that MEP funds are used to “supplement, not supplant” services provided with non-Federal funds. Migrant Education Program (MEP) funds must be used to address the needs of migratory children that are not addressed by services available from other Federal or non-Federal programs, except that migratory children who are eligible to receive services under Title I, Part A may receive those services through funds provided under that part. Another, that would be supplanting Elementary & Secondary Education Act Sections 1120A(b), 1304(c)(2), 1306(b)(2)

The Hierarchy of Supplementing Supplement 2 Supplement Core – General Operations & Required Program Elements Unrestricted General Fund (Examples: Regular classroom teachers, Core ELD Program, and Core textbooks) General Supplemental Resource Title I and Title III (Examples: Intervention, supplemental materials, counselors, staff development, supplemental ELD) Super Targeted Migrant Education

Putting Our Knowledge to the Test For each of the scenarios presented consider the following: 1.Can migrant education funding be used this way? 2.What if any additional information is needed to answer question 1? 3.If the answer to question 1 is “no,” what could be done to change it to “yes”?

Is it (1) supplanting and/or (2) allowable to use Migrant Education funds for: 1.Resource teacher 2.Instructional aid 3.Academic coach 4.Substitute for teacher release time 5.Music instruments 6.Nurse 7.Copy machine 8.Computer 9.Instructional materials 10.Library books

Supplement or Supplant? Consider this Scenario: A school is planning a summer intervention program open to all low performing students. Among the 200 students that will be invited to participate are 50 migratory children. Task: Develop at least one example of how MEP funding can be used in a supplemental manner Develop at least one example where MEP funding would be judged to be supplanting other funding

Supplement or Supplant? Consider this Scenario: After reviewing its latest benchmark assessments, a school determines it needs to offer test preparation academies on Saturdays in February and March to help low-performing students. There is concern that migrant education eligible pupils will lack transportation. Task: Develop at least one example of how MEP funding can be used in a supplemental manner to pay for the cost of transportation Develop at least one example where MEP funding would be judged to be supplanting other funding if used to pay for the cost of transportation

A Team Effort Evaluating whether a particular use of MEP funding is supplanting or supplemental often requires the benefit of multiple minds. MEP staff know what the desired action involves and what’s in the existing State Service Delivery Plan Site administration and staff know who needs assistance Educational Services/Curriculum & Instruction know what’s in place (e.g., core) MEP Coordinator and Business Managers working together to understand funding available and processes for appropriate use and coding

Closing Thoughts U.S. Department of Education guidance is a great resource www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/fiscalguid.doc

Contact Information Mary Lou Wells Migrant Education Program Coordinator Idaho State Department of Education (208) Merced Flores MEP Consultant Loma Linda Consultants