1 / 24

Committee of Practitioners Title III

Committee of Practitioners Title III . March 30, 2012 Robert Crawford Mami Itamochi. Agenda. TransAct Usage Data & Renewal Title III Consortium Model Title III P rogram Checklist . TransACT Background.

omar
Download Presentation

Committee of Practitioners Title III

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. Committee of Practitioners Title III March 30, 2012 Robert Crawford Mami Itamochi

  2. Agenda • TransAct Usage Data & Renewal • Title III Consortium Model • Title III Program Checklist

  3. TransACT Background • Parent Notification of ESEA Title I, Section 1118(f) and Title III, Part C, Section 3302 • 2010 WVDE Subscription - TransACTGenEd Parent Notifications - TransACT NCLB Parent Notifications - TransACT State Masters Special Programs • Legally Reviewed

  4. Audience Participation • How are you currently using TransACT to support the work of Federal Programs? • How might your county utilize TransAct in the future? • What might be some effective ways to increase statewide usage?

  5. Consortia SEC. 3114. Within-State Allocation (b) LIMITATION. – A State educational agency shall not award a subgrant from an allocation made under subsection (a) if the amount of such subgrant would be less than $10,000.

  6. Consortia – Current Structure • The current consortia model utilizes a RESA approach to allocating subgrants. Essentially the RESA is a fiscal agency to transfer funds to LEA’s. • No accountability is established at the RESA level for monitoring or strategic planning. • The alignment of LEA’s in the current consortia model does not correspond directly with the established WV geographical grouping of district in RESA’s. • Currently RESA 4 and RESA 6 are functioning as a fiscal agency

  7. Consortia Model • Virginia • http://www.doe.virginia.gov/federal_programs/esea/applications/title3/title3_part-a_consortium_agreemt.xls • California • http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/el/t3/lepconsortia.asp

  8. Proposal for Restructure • Subgrant allocation is allotted to a regional educational center that services multiple LEA’s (RESA). • Fiscal agent for the grant and issues subgrants to the individual LEA’s that do not meet the $10,000 minimum. • RESA retains a portion of federal allocation from each LEA • Meaningful professional development • Additional technical assistance

  9. Audience Participation • What do you see as the positives of the restructured model? • What challenges might exist? • What suggestions do you have regarding the proposal?

  10. Risk Factor • Technical Assistance Tool • Self-monitoring • Other States • Illinois • Oregon • North Carolina

  11. Risk Factor Sheet

  12. Audience Participation • What do you see as the benefit of this self-assessment checklist and how might it be used? • What challenges might this document create? • What additional questions or factors should be considered or addressed in this document or the process?

  13. Any Questions? Robert Crawford rcrawford@access.k12.wv.us Mami Itamochi mitamochi@access.k12.wv.us Phone 304-558-0200

More Related