Welcome…to the Bilingual/EL Directors’ & Categorical Programs Directors’ Joint Meeting

1. Welcome…to theBilingual/EL Directors’ & Categorical Programs Directors’ Joint Meeting Please help yourself to lunch. New Directors’ Q & A Session 11:30 am – 12:00 noon General Session 12:00 – 3:00 pm

2. Welcome…to theBilingual/EL Directors’ & Categorical Programs Directors’ Joint Meeting Please help yourself to refreshments. New Directors’ Q & A Session 8:30 – 9:00 am General Session 9:00 am – 12:00 noon

3. “So, What Do You Think?” Scenario USDE Policy Letter: Title I and ELs March 14, 1997

4. CDE Posed the Following Question to USDE… • In a Targeted Assistance School (TAS), may LEP students be identified as eligible for Title I services based solely on their limited English proficiency? So, What Do You Think Was USDE’s Response?

5. And USDE’s Response Was… • An LEA must establish multiple, educationally related, objective criteria to determine which students are eligible to participate in Title I services. • Schools may supplement the criteria…and then select those who are failing. or most at risk of failing, to meet achievement standards

6. USDE’s Response (cont.) • LEPs may be identified on the basis of criteria administered only in English—if those same criteria are also being used to identify non-LEP children. • The obvious consequence: LEP students would likely be identified for Title I services based solely on their limited proficiency in English.

7. USDE’s Response (cont.) • But…because a school will likely not have sufficient resources to provides services to all eligible students, the school must make some informed choices concerning which children to serve. • Example: Using data on a LEP student’s performance in his native language, it may be that student is less in need than a non-LEP student who is also failing to meet State standards. • These are difficult choices because they result in some children being selected before other children who may also have significant needs.

8. USDE’s Response (cont.) • Keep in mind, LEP students are entitled by law to services to address their limited proficiency in English. Thus, a TAS may not use Title I funds to provide the level of services necessary to meet Federal, State, or local law requirements. • Title I funds may be used to coordinate and supplement these services as well as to provide additional direct services to LEP students.

9. Federal Program Monitoring2012-2013 FPM Update Categorical Programs Unit/Multilingual Academic Support Unit Joint Directors’ Meeting January 2013

10. Federal Program Monitoring (FPM) On-siteMonitoring for 2012-2013 What are 3 positive outcomes as a result of your FPM on-site monitoring? Of the programs reviewed on-site for your district, which areas of non-compliance did you find most troublesome? If none (Congratulations!), to what do you attribute such accomplishment? Describe how your district will resolve two of the non- compliant items. Would you change anything in how your district prepared for this review? Why or why not? What would you like CDE to know about how the on-siteFPM process was received in your district? What Tips for On-siteFPM Success can you share?

11. Sharing District: Los Nietos SD Mary McNeil 1. What are 3 positive outcomes as a result of your FPM on-site monitoring? • Improved systems between the Business Office and Instructional Services to better implement categorical programs. • District and site staff were very proud of the results of the review. This affirmed the need to continue to implement these compliance items on a regular basis to better serve our students. • The consultant hired to help develop systems between the Business and Instructional offices also brought creative ways to use categorical funds that were then approved by the review team, i.e. Core vs. Supplemental Materials.

12. Sharing District: Los Nietos SD 2. Of the programs reviewed on-sitefor your district, which areas of non-compliance did you find most troublesome? If none (Congratulations!), to what do you attribute such accomplishment? Uniform Complaint Procedures … • I had worked with CDE for two weeks on the required elements in the new UCP Board Policies and Administrative Regulations that were required after July 1, 2012. • I revised our BP and ARs, and then asked the reviewer to go over them before a board meeting was held to approve them. • Mid-review, a different reviewer read the BP and ARs and had different ideas on the necessary language for both. She gave us findings in II UCP-1 and II UCP-2.

13. Sharing District: Los Nietos SD Uniform Complaint Procedures …continued • I had kept all of the emails from the first reviewer and I did not want to accept the UCP-2 finding since I had worked extensively with CDE on the wording. Because I had the emails as back-up we did not receive a finding in UCP-2. • In UCP-1 I had left out the phrase “harassment, intimidation and bullying” in two places in the revised policy which had been approved by the first reviewer. • To resolve this I added in the two phrases and had the Board approve a “revised” policy. • In October, CDE, CSBA and our legal counsel had advised against our adding the language on “student fees” in the UCP BP and ARs that is now required after January 1, 2013.

14. Sharing District: Los Nietos SD 3. Describe how your district will resolve two of the Non-compliant items.

15. Sharing District: Los Nietos SD 4.Would you change anything in how your district prepared for this review? Why or why not? • Yes. I would be more astute to the reviewers with whom I am working to avoid have the “boss” come in mid-review and change everything that had already been put in place in a district. I had no knowledge that the reviewer with whom I had worked for weeks was not actually authorized to provide a final review of UCP. Now I ask so that I am working with the person in authority.

16. Sharing District: 5.What would you like CDE to know about how the on-siteFPM process was received in your district? • The review was very well received in our district. While the reviewers could not give any commendations, the reviewers were very positive and pointed out the significant changes in the district from the prior review. • The lead reviewer was significant in supporting changes within the district for both the 2008 and 2012 review. He worked with me to implement small steps and ultimately systemic programs that were better for our students. • The discussion between the review team and me on possible findings made the review a collaborative situation that was fair.

17. Sharing District: 6.What Tips for On-siteFPM Success can you share? • Annual implementation of compliance items so that systems are in place so that programs only need tweaking for the review. • Develop a relationship with the team (especially the lead) before the review week so that the conversation is collaborative and transparent.

18. Federal Program Monitoring (FPM) On-siteMonitoring for 2012-2013 What are 3 positive outcomes as a result of your FPM on-sitemonitoring? Of the programs reviewed on-site for your district, which areas of non-compliance did you find most troublesome? If none (Congratulations!), to what do you attribute such accomplishment? Describe how your district will resolve two of the non- compliant items. Would you change anything in how your district prepared for this review? Why or why not? What would you like CDE to know about how the on-siteFPM process was received in your district? What Tips for On-siteFPM Success can you share?

19. 1. What are 3 positive outcomes as a result of your FPM on-site monitoring? Tracy Rohlfing Sharing District: LACOE Division of Student Programs • Validation that what we are doing is in compliance. • We were able to identify areas which needed change. • The staffs and administrators of the schools involved pulled together to make the visit a positive one.

20. Sharing District: LACOE Division of Student Programs Celinna Pinelo 1. What are 3 positive outcomes as a result of your FPM on-site monitoring? • It solidified correct policies and practices currently in place with regards to serving our EL Population. • It clarified questions and concerns with how to delivery programming for English Learners within Federal guidelines • It helped to set focus and goals to improve our EL program

21. Sharing District: LACOE Division of Student Programs 2. Of the programs reviewed on-sitefor your district, which areas of non-compliance did you find most troublesome? If none (Congratulations!), to what do you attribute such accomplishment? • Career Technical Education was troublesome because there is no current nexus for the program. • Uniform Complaints which I anticipated to be the easiest to address was cited due to new legislation. The timing was off. • For EL, the most troublesome non-compliance item was ELAC.

22. Sharing District: LACOE Division of Student Programs 3. Describe how your district will resolve two of the Non-compliant items.

23. Sharing District: LACOE Division of Student Programs 3. Describe how your district will resolve two of the Non-compliant items.

24. Sharing District: LACOE Division of Student Programs 3. Describe how your district will resolve two of the Non-compliant items.

25. Sharing District: LACOE Division of Student Programs 4.Would you change anything in how your district prepared for this review? Why or why not? • I would only load the documents from this year. (Our visit was in November of 2012) or verify early on with the Chair what they want. • At the planning meeting we attended in August, the representatives there told us to work for the past two years. Most of our auditors did not want all of those documents and we had to take some off the system. • EL • Yes! I would do a mock on-site review.

26. Sharing District: LACOE Division of Student Programs 5.What would you like CDE to know about how the on-siteFPM process was received in your district? • Overall the process was a success and LACOE felt supported by the Team. We approached the entire FPM as a way to discover any holes in our system and through the process we are able to fix these. • I would like them to know that both at the district level and site level we appreciated the constructive feedback on how we can improve our EL program.

27. Sharing District: LACOE Division of Student Programs 6.What Tips for On-siteFPM Success can you share? • Work from a team perspective. • Begin early. • Build a relationship with the auditors. • Discuss possible resolutions with them during the visit and obtain feedback. • Begin early.  • Familiarize your staff with the FPM instrument early on • Hold monthly meetings to tighten up your programs • Do a mock on site review. • Be honest, don’t try to make it up! If its not happening, its not happening.

28. Key Dates Current Year Reviews Cycle C: September 17, 2012, to March 1, 2013 Note: As of December 10, 37 reviews are complete. Cycle A: March 11 to June 28, 2013 2013–14 Reviews LEA Selection: February 15, 2013 Site Selection and Review Dates: May 10, 2013

29. On-site Daily Schedule • FPM template used by all Regional Team Leaders (RTL) • Information may be adjusted by the RTL in consultation with the LEA Review Coordinator • Provides overview of participating program details including early or late entrances, early exits by programs, and on-line reviews • School Site Council Interviews: • No students or administrators • Includes parents, community members, classified and certificated staff

30. 2012–13 Frequency of Non-Compliant Items by Program Item

31. 2012–13 Frequency of Non-Compliant Items by Program Item

32. New UCP Legislation • AB 9 “Seth’s Law” – Effective July 1, 2012 • Expands the “Safe Place to Learn” act • September 4, 2012 email included letter and sample documents to follow • Monitored under current FPM reviews • AB 1575 “Pupil Fees” – Effective January 1, 2013 • Reinforce the constitutional prohibition on the imposition of pupil fees and establish policies to ensure compliance with that prohibition. • Does not eliminate fundraising • Letter regarding implementation will be coming from CDE • LEAS have until March 1, 2013 for policy revisions • Must notify all groups again

33. 2012–13 Frequency of EL Non-Compliant Items

34. Review the EL items at your table and have a discussion on : What do you think are the main reasons this item is so often non-compliant? What do you do in your district to ensure compliance for this item? Be ready to share out 2 tips for success to stay compliant in one of the areas you discussed. Table Group Discussions 2012 – 2103 Frequent Non Compliant EL items

37. FPM Resources 2012– 2013 • CDE Website www.cde.ca.gov/ta/cr • Summary of prior year Non-Compliant Findings • Program Instruments • Compliance Checklists • District Level • School Level

38. Contact Information CDE: • Federal Program Monitoring Office 916-319-0935 fpmoffice@cde.ca.gov • CDE Compliance Monitoring Web page http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/cr/ • CDE CAIS Web page http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ca/index.asp • CPU Consultants: • Karen Ryback • Bonnie McFarland • Contract Consultant: Sandy Sidwell • 562-922-6354 • CPU@lacoe.edu 38 38

39. Title III: Supplement not Supplant

40. The 3 Supplanting Presumptions • The LEA used Federal funds to provide services that the LEA was required to make available under other Federal, State or local laws.

41. The 3 Supplanting Presumptions • The LEA used Federal funds to provide services that the LEA provided with non-Federal funds in the prior year.

42. The 3 Supplanting Presumptions • The LEA used Federal funds to provide services for participating children that the LEA provided with non-Federal funds for nonparticipating children.

43. What Are The Options? It is no secret that currently, in California, we are facing a case of misalignment between curriculum, instruction and assessment (CIA). The Looking to the Future SD desires to purchase materials aligned to the newly adopted ELD Standards. Looking to the Future SD has some Title III funds and the district is considering using those funds to purchase the new ELD materials. Is Looking to the Future SD safe from the jaws of FPM? What are their options?

44. Supplemental Programs for ELs? The Shinny Star HSD offers Credit Recovery for all students in grades 10-12 and CAHSEE Prep for students in 10th grade. Research identified summer school as a benefit for all students and particularly for ELs. What can Shinny Star USD offer to improve programs for ELs? How can the district fund the program to ensure that the program supplements instruction?

45. Sí Se Puede USD The Sí Se Puede USD has a Title I funded afterschool intervention program at each Title I funded site and ELs are currently participating in the program. The LACOE Title III visited the schools and suggested to consider strengthening the Intervention program for ELs. What option does Sí Se Puede USD have if the district wants to use Title III LEP funds?

46. What About This Contract? • We Care About Parents USD has a large population of Greek speaking families and you are proud to be their Categorical Director. Because of your resourcefulness you were able to locate an outstanding translator Greek/English and English/Greek. You were able to secure an agreement with the translator in the amount of $5,000 to translate all the Title III letters required by law. The funding source for the contract is Title III LEP. Since this translator is very efficient, this individual was able to complete translation of all letters in a short period of time charging only $2,000. Eager to keep the expertise in the community and to ensure that appropriate services are provided to parents in the district you decide to assign this individual the translation of the ELAC, DELAC, DAC and SSC elections letters and ballots. You realize that there will be other district and school letters to translate during the school year and you are considering extending the agreement up to an additional $5,000. Is it appropriate to extend the contract on the same terms?

49. Contact Information Magdalena Ruz Gonzalez Ruz-Gonzalez_Magda@lacoe.edu 562-922-6332 Silvina Rubinstein Rubinstein_Silvina@lacoe .edu 562-940-1888

50. Sacramento Report January 18, 2013