School Improvement & District Effectiveness Monitoring for Title I Education Program Specialists

1. New Directors Academy: Part V- The Basics of a Title I On-site Cross-functional Monitoring, Flexible Learning Program (FLP) Monitoring and Physical Inventory Visit March 2-4 2015 GCEL Conference

2. Presenter Evelyn Maddox School Improvement – Federal Programs Title I Education Program Specialist Georgia Department of Education

3. SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT & DISTRICT EFFECTIVENESS

4. Agenda • Purpose of Monitoring • District Selection Process • Risk Assessment - High Risk Designations • Results-Based Monitoring • Flexible Learning Program Monitoring

5. Agenda • Inventory Monitoring • Monitoring Preparations • Response to Monitoring Findings • Question and answers

6. Purpose of Monitoring

7. Purpose of Monitoring • Federal regulations and administrative procedures require that the state educational agency (SEA) monitor the implementation of program requirements and the expenditure of federal funds. • Monitoring of federal programs is conducted to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education.

8. Purpose of Monitoring • Monitoring emphasizes accountability for using federal resources wisely. • Monitoring ensures compliance with federal regulations and statutes. • It serves as a vehicle for the Georgia Department of Education (Department) to help LEAs achieve high quality implementation of educational programs.

9. Eight Major Components of Monitoring • Program requirements • Monitoring of expenditures • Single audit (A-133) • On-site monitoring • FLP performance based monitoring • Inventory monitoring • Self-monitoring • Desktop monitoring

10. Types of Monitoring • Program Requirements – LEAs must submit for approval an annual comprehensive LEA improvement plan (CLIP) through the consolidated application process. Title I education program specialists review each CLIP to ensure that the plan contains allowable activities for use and budgeting ofTitle I, Part A monies. It is approved, the LEA submits a budget.

11. Types of Monitoring • Monitoring of Expenditures - LEAs must submit for approval an annual budget through the consolidated application process. Budgets are reviewed to ensure that expenditures are appropriate for program specific federal guidelines and OMB circulars guidelines before approving LEA budgets. Funds are tracked by reviewing draw downs.

12. Types of Monitoring • Single Audit – An audit is a formal or official examination of records and accounts with the intention to verify that proper accounts have been utilized, federal procedures have been followed, and source documentation has been maintained.

13. Types of Monitoring • On-site Monitoring – An SEA on-site cross-functional monitoring team visits an LEA to review the criteria included in the LEA Monitoring Form. LEAs are monitored, at least, on a three to four year cycle. Approximately one-third/one-fourth of the LEAs are monitored, on-site, each year.

14. Types of Monitoring • Flexible Learning Program (FLP) On-site Observations and Interviews • Georgia's ESEA Flexibility Waiver identifies schools in Georgia as Priority, Focus, and Title I Alert Schools, where applicable.

15. Types of Monitoring • Flexible Learning Program (FLP) On-site Observations and Interviews • Observations and interviews will be conducted by a Title I, Part A education program specialist. • The FLP on-site observation may also include monitoring of class size reduction implementation and compliance with time and effort requirements.

16. Types of Monitoring • Inventory • A physical inventory will be conducted by the area specialist to verify federally purchased equipment. • Section 80.32 (d)(3) EDGAR A physical inventory of equipment must be taken and the results reconciled with the equipment records at least once every two years. Any differences between quantities determined by the physical inspection and those shown in the accounting records must be investigated to determine the causes of the difference.

17. Types of Monitoring • Self-Monitoring – The self-monitoring process is an outgrowth of the on-site monitoring process. It is designed to allow LEAs to provide support and guidance to district staff in order to maintain ongoing high standards for compliance and program delivery.

18. Types of Monitoring • Desktop Monitoring – LEAs are monitored via desktop monitoring in one way: • Title I, Part A and FLP Budgets Once a Title I education program specialist has approved an LEA’s budget those budgets are reviewed by the Title I, Part A program manager and Title programs director.  

19. District Selection Process

20. District Selection Process • LEAs are monitored on a four-year cycle. Approximately one- fourth of the LEAs are monitored each year. • As part of the process in determining which LEAs are to be monitored, the Federal Programs Division conducts a risk assessment using a combination of elements defined by the Department.

21. District Selection Process • An LEA’s risk-assessment rating is determined by using both its risk rating, based on the High-Risk Intervention Elements developed by the Title Programs Division, and a rating from the Department Financial Review Department. • During the fall of each year, the Department Title Programs Division completes a risk assessment to determine if an LEA falls into the high-risk category.

22. District Selection Process • The state educational agency (SEA) has the responsibility of monitoring high-risk LEAs. The Department Title Programs Division defines high-risk as: • LEAs showing evidence of serious or chronic compliance problems. • LEAs with financial monitoring/audit findings. • LEAs with a high number of complaints from parents and other stakeholders about program implementation.

23. District Selection Process • Other elements that may cause an LEA to be determined as high-risk include: • LEAs receiving a Title I allocation in the top 25 percent of LEAs receiving the greater portion of Title I funding in any given fiscal year. • LEAs having new management personnel not familiar with program implementation and federal guidelines, for example, a new superintendent, Title I Director, or finance officer. • LEAs having directors/coordinators not attending Department technical assistance training sessions.

24. District Selection Process • High-risk does not necessarily mean that an LEA is not performing the requirements of the program, federal regulations, or administrative procedures. • It does mean that an LEA may be at a higher risk of having program elements that could cause an LEA not to perform the activities associated with the federal rules, regulations, and administrative procedures in a manner that keeps the LEA in compliance.

25. Risk Assessment High Risk Designation

26. Risk Assessment High Risk Designations • The Title Programs Division uses High-Risk Intervention Elements to determine each LEA’s score. • Those LEAs with a score between 0 to 18 points would be determined to be a low risk. • Those LEAs with a score greater than 19 to 100 points would be determined to be a medium risk.

27. Risk Assessment High Risk Designations • Those LEAs with a score greater than 101 points would be determined to be a high risk. • The goal for an LEA would be to have a low-risk rating score. • Intervention Risk Assessment Strategies have been determined for each risk rating group.

28. High Risk Intervention And Point Values

29. High-Risk Intervention Elements

30. High-Risk Intervention Elements

31. High-Risk Intervention Elements

32. High-Risk Intervention Elements

33. High-Risk Intervention Elements

34. High-Risk Intervention Elements

35. High-Risk Intervention Elements

36. Risk Assessment High Risk Designations • Financial Review risk ratings are determined by the Department‘s Financial Review Department and are submitted to the Title Programs Division. • Final calculations are based on a combination of the federal programs risk rating and the Financial Review risk rating. • The Title Programs total risk score counts one-third of the total scores, with the Financial Review rating score counting two-thirds.

37. Risk Assessment High Risk Designations • Those LEAs with a final risk score between 1 and 18 points are considered to be low risk. LEAs with a final risk score between 19 and 100 points are at medium risk. LEAs with a final risk score greater than 101 are at high risk.

38. Risk Assessment High Risk Designations • LEAs receiving points in the following categories are automatically monitored, regardless of the LEA’s final risk score: -LEAs with one or more fiscal irregularities within the past 24 months, resulting in a return of funds -LEAs with more than five cross-functional monitoring findings in the previous year -LEAs with current fiscal-year program complaints -LEAs with a budget that does not match the expenditure report

39. Risk Assessment High Risk Designations • LEAs receiving points in the following categories are automatically monitored, regardless of the LEA’s final risk score: (continued) -LEAs with Title I funds returned within past two years due to less than 85-percent expenditure of Title I funds in the required time allotment

40. Risk Assessment High Risk Designations • Once an LEA’s risk is assessed, education program specialists must monitor the LEA based on the risk strategies listed below: - High Risk - Medium Risk - Low Risk

41. Risk Assessment High Risk Designations High Risk The LEA will be monitored each year by the Federal Programs Division cross-functional monitoring team. In addition, the LEA will receive an on-site technical assistant visit from an appropriate Education Program Specialist or RT3 staff member.

42. Risk Assessment High Risk Designations Medium Risk The LEA will be monitored once every three/four years by the Federal Programs Division cross-functional monitoring team. In the interim two years, the LEA must conduct a self- assessment in collaboration with the Education Program Specialist during an on-site technical visit. The LEA must complete the Federal Programs Division Self-Assessment Monitoring Checklist and submit the results to the Department.

43. Risk Assessment High Risk Designations Low Risk The LEA will be monitored once every three/four years by the Federal Programs Division cross-functional monitoring teams. In the interim two years, the LEA must conduct a self- assessment. The LEA must complete the Federal Programs Division Self-Assessment Monitoring Checklist and submit the results to the Department.

44. Results-Based Monitoring

45. Results-Based Monitoring • Results based monitoring begins in January and continue throughMay. • Team leads will lead the interview with the LEA Title I director/coordinator, superintendent and other appropriate Title I staff.

46. Results-Based Monitoring • Selected Department monitoring team members will meet with the Title I director/coordinator, superintendent and other appropriate Title I staff to review the Title I instructional program and achievement data. • Department monitors will interview LEA regarding the process that the district utilized to design its Title I instruction program based on achievement data.

47. Results-Based Monitoring • A set of prescribed interview questions will be asked and responses will be recorded by the Department monitors. • Interviews will take approximately one hour. • The compliance portion of the monitoring will continue.

48. Results-Based Monitoring • Once the compliance monitoring has been completed, Department monitors will interview a preselected Title I school in the LEA. • Title I school interviews will be conducted with the principal, the Title I teacher, and other appropriate school staff . • Interviews will take approximately one hour.

49. Results-Based Monitoring • Examples of interview questions: • How is achievement data used to design and implement the Title I instructional program? • How are strengths/weaknesses of the Title I instructional program strategies for implementation addressed? • How does the Instructional program meet the intent of Title I, Part A?

50. Results-Based Monitoring • Examples of interview questions: • How are scientifically research based best practices for instruction and parental involvement implemented? • What support does the LEA provide to Priority, Focus, and Title I Alert Schools? • What professional learning related to instruction is provided? - What is the evaluation processes?