Federal Program Monitoring Overview and Organization.

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.
PACTS Online Tools Adriana Golumbeanu, Loretta Brown and Randall Richardson Office of Federal Programs.
Title I Compliance Federal and State Programs. Goal of Title I To help ensure that all children have the opportunity to obtain a high-quality education.
Preparing for Compliance Monitoring Reviews Understanding CMS Protocols Used by Review Organizations January 14, 2009 Presented by: Margaret deHesse, RN,
Title I LEA and Peer Review Process of School Improvement Plans Kokomo Center Schools Kokomo, IN.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Jack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Co-op Directors September 22, 2010 Héctor Rico, Director.
ESEA Program Review Russ Sweet Preparing for ESEA Program Reviews of Titles I-A, II-A, VI-B (REAP), and X Summer 2014.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Title I, Part D—Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Uniform Complaint Procedures Monitoring Requirements Training.
Introduction & Background Laurene Christensen National Center on Educational Outcomes National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO)
Financial and Programmatic Monitoring ESEA/Act 807 ACSIP Arkansas Department of Education Division of Academic Accountability.
On Site Review Process Office of Field Services.
LEA Federal Program Monitoring/Review Presented by: Kelly Iorfida and Norma Hull Division of Federal Programs Department of Education.
Los Angeles County Office of Education Division for School Improvement School Site Council (SSC) Training September 9 th 2008 Anna Carrasco From presentation.
Working with Schoolsite Councils
Title I Technical Assistance Training Federal and State Programs.
Subrecipient Monitoring FY15 of Education Oklahoma State Department of Education Office of Federal Programs Federal Programs Office of Titles I, II, III,
Wetlands Reserve Program Case Study An Overview of the External Audit Process Helping People Help The Land.
Monitoring & Oversight Adult Education and Literacy (AEL) Programs Brenda B. Williams Project Manager Texas Workforce Commission Regulatory Integrity Division.
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.
Categorical Program Monitoring Los Angeles Unified School District.
TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Preparing.
1 DRAFT Monitoring/Evaluation Overview September 20, 2010 Title III Director’s Fall Meeting.
Program Evaluation NCLB. Training Objectives No Child Left Behind Program Series: Program Evaluation To provide consistency across the State regarding.
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.
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.
What to Expect When You Are Expecting Consolidated Monitoring: Every Step of the Way Office of Federal Programs Oklahoma State Department of Education.
New Title I Designee Training September 17,
1 Monitoring/Evaluation Program Overview December 3, 2008 Title III Director’s Meeting.
1 Title IA Coordinator Training Preparing for Title IA Monitoring
ESEA FOR LEAs Cycle 1 Monitoring Arizona Department of Education Revised October 2015.
Rowland Unified School District District Local Education Agency (LEA)Plan Update Principals Meeting November 16, 2015.
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.
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 English Learner Program Categorical Program Monitoring Bilingual.
Coachella Valley Unified School District How to Reduce FPM Findings Hidali Garcia, Director EL Services Dr. Renee Miletic, EL Testing TOSA Patricia Larios,
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Uniform Complaint Procedures (UCP) Training Categorical Programs.
Overview and Organization.  Overview of Federal Program Monitoring Background Preparing for FPM During FPM.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Title I, Part A Overview May 11, th Annual Juvenile.
District Validation Review (DVR) Nonpublic School Preparation Information Division of Special Education.
Federal Program Funding to Improve Student Outcomes
Title I Program Overview for SWP
Tiered Monitoring – ESEA Compliance
Categorical Program Monitoring (CPM) Review, An Ongoing Process
Title I Program Overview for SWP
Title I Program Overview for TAS
The Role a Charter School Plays in its Charter Authorizer’s Submission of the Consolidated Federal Programs Application Joey Willett, Unit of Federal Programs.
School Site Council (SSC) Training
Title I Annual Meeting Title I Program Overview for Schoolwide Program (SWP) Schools Federal and State Education Programs Branch.
Welcome to <School Name> School
The School Site Council
BCCHS Annual Title I Meeting A Single-School District LEA September 10, 2015 December 3, 2015.
Gateway High School-Alt.Ed Annual Title 1 Parent Workshop
Consolidated Application Review
Title I Program Overview for SWP
2011–2012 Federal Program Monitoring
Special Ed. Administrator’s Academy, September 24, 2013
Presentation transcript:

Federal Program Monitoring Overview and Organization

Objective Overview of Federal Program Monitoring Background Preparing for Review During the Review After the Reviewer

Compliance is a District and School Site Responsibility Accepting funds obligates districts and school sites to maintain legal compliance Oversight Agencies & Monitoring Processes: United States Department of Education (USDE) - State Monitoring Office of Inspector General (OIG) - Fraud & Abuse Single Audit - Required for Federal Funds California Department of Education (CDE) - FPM Process 3

Federal Program Monitoring 4 Background: Both state and federal laws require the California Department of Education (CDE) to monitor categorical programs operated by Local Education Agencies (LEAs). State oversight is accomplished by conducting on-site and/or on-line monitoring. Goal: Promote the achievement of statutory desired outcomes and verify compliance with program requirements. Categorical funds are used for authorized purposes. Statutory performance goals are achieved.

Programs or Instruments 1.Adult Education and Family Literacy Act 2.Before and After School Programs Office (BASP) (NCLB Title IV, Part B [21stCCLC]; [ASSETs]; & [ASES]) 3.Career Technical Education (CTE) 4.Child Development (CD) 5.Compensatory Education (CE) (NCLB Title I, Pt. A) 6.Education Equity (EE) 7.English Learner (EL) (including NCLB Title III) 8.Fiscal Monitoring (FM) 9.Homeless Education (HE) (NCLB Title X, Pt. C) 10.Improving Teacher Quality (ITQ) (NCLB Title II, Pt.A) 11.Migrant Education (ME) (NCLB Title I, Pt. C) 12.Neglected or Delinquent (NorD) (NCLB Title I, Pt. D) 13.Physical Education (PE) 14.Uniform Complaint Procedures (UCP) 5

6 LAUSD FPM Model CYCLE C On-site review District wide (20 Schools) Optional self- review and/or work on resolving outstanding issues On-line review District wide (20 Schools) Optional self- review and/or work on resolving outstanding issues As Needed: Follow-up reviews on-site

Selection Risk Factors 1. Academic 2010–13 trend in API Growth 2. Fiscal High per pupil allocation and carryover percentage Single Audit Findings 3.Data Reporting 4.Random Selection 7

The Monitoring Team Uses: Program Instruments Program Instruments Contain the legal requirements pertaining to a specific program Used to determine whether an LEA is meeting legal requirements 8

Items reviewed at the school site level CE 1: LEA Parent Involvement Policy CE 2: School Parent Involvement Policy CE 7: School Site Council Composition CE 8: SSC Approves SPSA CE 9: Parent Communication CE 18: Supplement not Supplant CE 19: Time Accounting CE 20: Equipment Inventory CE 25: Posting of SARC CE 27: SPSA Evaluation CE 28: Highly Qualified Teachers CE 29: Paraprofessionals Meet Qualifications CE 30: Professional Development 8 others reviewed at the central level, 2 not applicable in LAUSD, and 10 Waived by the CORE Waiver

CE Items and evidence for review What exactly will CDE review at my site if my school is chosen? What can I do to get organized? 10

Compensatory Education (CE) Program Checklist CE Item Describes the evidence you will need to provide for each CE Item. Organization: Folders in both electronic and hard copy format

Electronic organization Create a main Compensatory Education folder on your desktop, my documents, or other accessible location. Within the folder, label a folder for each program item number.

Binders

You’ve been chosen! CDE will notify LEAs as early as March or April of Central Office will notify programs, local districts, and school sites through an interoffice correspondence. Submission of documents will be prior to the end of the school year.* documents will be collected at designated due dates prior to the start of the review.

Site Visit Review of documents submitted prior to the visit Site Entrance Meeting Introductions Brief School Comments Schedule and Logistics Interviews of Program Staff Interview School Site Council Members and English Learner Advisory Committee Observation of Instructional Setting Review Student Confidential Records Debriefing

The Interview Activity Remain at your table Open envelope and have one person be the interviewer and have the others be the interviewees Be prepared to share Think compliance: Necessary, Allowable, Allocable, Reasonable Your answer may result in paying back funds, canceling programs, triggering other audits, follow-up review, all of the above, and other legal ramifications

Notification of Findings and Resolution Prior to the Notification of Findings, CDE allows schools to address issues that are found to “have concerns” On the last day of the review, CDE issues a written Notification of Findings Timeline: Findings must be resolved within 45 calendar days after the date of the Notification of Findings If the finding cannot be resolved within 45 days, a Resolution Agreement may be requested that may provide up to an additional 180 calendar days. 17

Maintaining Compliant Programs FPM shouldn’t be an event; it is an on-going process Implement systems that will allow you to maintain the required evidence Systems become a form of on-going professional development and assure continuity 18

Questions? 19