Region 10 Federal Program Directors Meeting November 10, 2015 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Region 10 Federal Program Director’s Meeting

November 10, 2015

Welcome

Today’s Presenters

• Amber Lasseigne, Assistant Director Region 10
• Myra Scrabeck, Title III/Title I Part C/BE/ESL Program Coordinator
• Natosha Scott, Program Coordinator
• Becky Book, Title I Consultant
• Nerissa Erickson, Title I Consultant
• Laura Griffin, PNP Consultant
• Lauren McKinney, Parent Involvement and Dropout Consultant
• David Ray, Homeless Education Consultant

PBMAS

State Accountability

• Federal Groups
• District Level Report

Staging in TEASE ISAM

• TAA letter 10-23-15
• Accountability

Submission Chart Staged districts follow TAIS process

Performance-Based Monitoring Assessment System

PBMAS Guidance Documents

www.tea.texas.gov/pmi

• PMBAS Manual
• Intervention Guidance for each program area
• Link to Texas Accountability Intervention System guides
• Link to TAIS Targeted Improvement Plan

TEASE ISAM:

• Staging Information
• TEA contacts
• Submission Requirements

PBMAS Contacts at Region 10

Myra Scrabeck: BE/ESL myra.scrabeck@region10.org Travis Waddell: CTE travis.waddell@region10.org Jasmine John: NCLB jasmine.john@region10.org Anna Griffiths: Special Education anna.griffiths@region10.org Lorna Bonner: Data Validation lorna.bonner@region10.org

Title III Accountability: AMAOs

Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives Three Objectives:

• Progress
• Attainment
• State Assessments and Graduation Rate:

○ Performance and Participation for Reading/Math at Federal Standards ○ LEP Graduation Rate

Timelines?

• TEA’s proposal for AMAOs standards for 2013-14 and 2014-15

still under consideration at USDE

• No indication of when and if those will be finally approved
• As soon as final decisions are made, TEA will notify districts.
• In the meantime, districts can look at Federal Safeguards data

for ELLs to determine if intervention is needed.

AMAOs Professional Development

TEA has developed online modules and guides:

• Title III Overview and Purpose
• Title III Accountability Overview
• Considerations for Intervention Planning

Note: Region 10 will distribute the guides and schedule any necessary training sessions as soon as we receive further information regarding the AMAOs release and release of the

• nline training modules.

AMAOs and AMOs

AMAOs: Annual Measurable ACHIEVEMENT Objectives

• Specific to Title III
• 3 Objectives

AMOs: Annual Measurable Objectives: Federal System Safeguards

• Federal System Safeguards released mid-October: 83% standard
• 2015 Accountability Manual, Chapter 8 for detailed information
• TEA email to Superintendents 10/13/2015 noting posting on TEASE
• 2015 data will be used to determine the 2 lowest performing

racial/ethnic groups for 2016 Index 3.

USDE Resources for ELLs

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/ellresources.html :

• Dear Colleague Letter (Joint Guidance DOJ and OCR)
• English Learner Toolkit
• Spanish Resources
• Parent Resources

http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/focus/supporting-undocumented-youth.pdf

Resource Guide for Supporting Undocumented Youth

Parent and Community Engagement

Consultant: Lauren A. McKinney

www.Region10.org/Dropout www.Region10.org/ParentInvolvement Lauren.McKinney@region10.org (972) 348 - 1748

@R10_Comm_Parent

www.Region10.org/ParentInvolvement

Statewide Parental Involvement Conference

DATE: December 10 - 12, 2015 HOTEL: Sheraton Arlington Hotel, Ph: (817) 261-8200 (888) 950-5062 CONFERENCE SITE: http://www. implanners.com/parents www.Region10.org/ParentInvolvement

WHAT: Region 10 Education Service Center Parent Involvement Quarterly Newsletter WHEN: ➔ November 15, 2015 ➔ February 15, 2016 ➔ May 15, 2016 www.Region10.org/ParentInvolvement

The Parental Involvement Connection

WHAT: Title 1 Statewide School Support Initiative and Family and Community Engagement Newsletter MORE INFORMATION: www.esc16.net www.Region10.org/ParentInvolvement

WHAT: Opportunities for Parents to learn strategies, tips, tools, and engage in discussions about ways to meet the needs of our child(ren). WHEN: Held monthly around the region. TARGET POPULATION: Parents and Community Members www.Region10.org/ParentInvolvement

WHAT: Opportunities for Parents to learn strategies, tips, tools, and engage in discussions about ways to meet the needs of our child(ren). PPH also affords educators the opportunity to learn ways to assist the parents that we serve. WHEN: Held monthly via webinar. TARGET POPULATION: Parents and Community Members

WHAT: Professional Development Opportunities for Educators. WHEN: ➔ Monthly ➔ Fall and Spring Calendars are posted on the website. ➔ Registration is open! www.Region10.org/ParentInvolvement

House Bill 1842

➔ Three Primary Components for Campuses Engaged in the School Improvement Process: ➔ Turnaround Plan ➔ Parent and Community Engagement ➔ Closure or Board of Managers

House Bill 1842: Parent and Community Engagement

➔ “….increases the requirements for parent and community member engagement in the development of your targeted improvement plan”. ➔ According to the bill campuses in school improvement must conduct a public meeting to gather input from these stakeholders on what to include in their Targeted Improvement Plan. ➔ It was recommended by the School Improvement Team at the Region 10 Education Service Center, that campuses begin this practice this school year in preparation for when it becomes a full requirement beginning with the 2016-2017 school year.

Parent and Community Engagement

Consultant: Lauren A. McKinney

www.Region10.org/Dropout www.Region10.org/ParentInvolvement Lauren.McKinney@region10.org (972) 348 - 1748

@R10_Comm_Parent

ESEA Waiver Update

School Improvement

Turnaround Low Performing

Priority Interventions (2014)

• Assign a District Coordinator for School Improvement

(DCSI)

• Reasons for identification and intervention are to be

included in TARGETED IMPROVEMENT PLAN

• Attend ALL required TAIS Trainings (TEA/TCDSS &

ESC) to target deficiencies and close achievement gap

• Evaluate current campus staff.
• Work collaboratively with local Education Service

Center (ESC) & TEA/TCDSS for support and guidance

Focus Interventions (2014)

• Reasons for identification and intervention are to be

included in CAMPUS IMPROVEMENT PLAN

• Address at least 1 INSTRUCTIONAL

INTERVENTION to target deficiencies and close achievement gap

• Work collaboratively with local Education Service

Center (ESC) for support and guidance

How were performance gaps calculated to identify Focus schools?

Where you find the data.

Subjects Evaluated

Student groups evaluated

All Student Group Economically Disadvantaged Hispanic African American White Special Education ELL

Minimum Student Group Size

25

What you need to know?

% met standard All Students Group- Reading % met standard of Student Groups that meet minimum size- Reading % met standard All Students Group- Math % met standard of Student Groups that meet minimum size- Math

For the All Students group and each group that meets minimum size you find the difference between the target of 75 and actual percent meeting standard.

Example 63% of all students group met standard in Reading

75 63 12

Repeat for each group with Reading and Math

All Students African American Hispanic White Spec Ed Eco Dis Reading 63 38 58 76 56 63 Math 48 25 45 75 32 40

Let’s try an example:

Texas School

All Students African American Hispanic White Spec Ed Eco Dis Reading # 120 30 50 40 30 100 Reading Target 75 75 75 75 75 75 Scores 63 38 58 76 56 63 Distance to Target Math # 125 33 50 42 31 100 Math Target 75 75 75 75 75 75 Scores 48 25 45 75 32 40 Distance to Target

12 meet minimum size

Count number of groups in Reading and Math that meet Minimum Size

All Students African American Hispanic White Spec Ed Eco Dis Reading Target 75 75 75 75 75 75 Scores 63 38 58 76 56 63 Distance to Target Math Target 75 75 75 75 75 75 Scores 48 25 45 75 32 40 Distance to Target

Target is 75

All Students African American Hispanic White Spec Ed Eco Dis Reading Target 75 75 75 75 75 75 Scores 63 38 58 76 56 63 Distance to Target 12 37 17 19 12 Math Target 75 75 75 75 75 75 Scores 48 25 45 75 32 40 Distance to Target 27 50 30 43 35

All Students African American Hispanic White Spec Ed Eco Dis Reading Target 75 75 75 75 75 75 Scores 63 38 58 76 56 63 Distance to Target 12 37 17 19 12 Math Target 75 75 75 75 75 75 Scores 48 25 45 75 32 40 Distance to Target 27 50 30 43 35

ADD 282

282 12 23.5

23.5 is the average gap between student performance groups and the 75% federal target

Where Are We Headed

ESEA Waiver Update

• USDE has not accepted the 2015 waiver

submission

• Texas is considered a “High Risk” state along

with North Dakota

• Cannot agree upon methodology
• Proceed as if waiver will stand

83 %

83 %

Priority School Requirements

• Engage in the Texas Accountability Intervention System (TAIS)

continuous improvement process in alignment with the ESEA turnaround principles and Critical Success Factors (CSFs);

• Prepare and implement a 2015-2016 Targeted Improvement

Plan;

• Assign a Campus Intervention Team (CIT) by designating a:
• District Coordinator of School Improvement

(DCSI), and

• Professional Service Provider (PSP);

Priority School Requirements Cont.

• Assign a Campus Intervention Team (CIT) by designating a:
• District Coordinator of School Improvement

(DCSI), and

• Professional Service Provider (PSP);
• Utilize the Intervention and Stage Activity Manager (ISAM)

system for CIT team member identifications and submissions;

• Identify members of the Campus Leadership Team (CLT); To

The Administrator Addressed August 14, 2015 Page 2

Priority School Requirements Cont.

• Address all seven CSFs in the Targeted Improvement Plan;
• Attend TAIS Trainings; DCSI and principal are required

participants; and

• DCSI and principal attend the Advancing Improvement in

Education (AIE) conference

Priority Progress

• Priority schools having improved in performance to the point

they no longer meet the original criteria for priority school identification are classified as priority progress schools.

• Priority progress schools will continue to follow all required

interventions, but are not required to submit the campus’ midyear progress reports of their targeted improvement plan.

• Priority progress schools are only required to submit an initial

Targeted Improvement Plan and End-of-Year reporting on the implementation of the plan, unless selected by TEA for a random mid-year submission.

Priority

• Priority schools still meeting the criteria for

priority school identification listed above using 2014 data remain identified as priority schools.

• Priority schools will participate in all required

interventions and complete all submissions in the 2015-2016 school year.

Focus School Requirements

• Include instructional intervention(s) in the school’s 2015-2016

campus improvement plan as required by Texas Education Code and provide designated Education Service Center (ESC) with access to the improvement plan;

• Designate a district and campus contact for focus school

support and interventions;

Focus School Requirements Cont.

• Work with the local ESC to:
• Select, implement and include targeted instructional interventions designed to

close achievement gaps;

• learn specific focus school project requirements;
• complete and submit all region-specific project activity documentation;
• assess progress on reasons for identification as a focus school;

Focus School Requirements Cont.

• NEW! Participate in at least one initial consultation with the

local ESC contact and one additional services/event hosted by the ESC that are listed as a part of the ESC’s contractual Focus School Support activity plan; and

• NEW! Provide campus and district contact information to the

local regional ESC.

Focus Progressing

• Focus schools having improved in performance to

the point they would no longer meet the original criteria for focus school identification are classified as focus progress schools.

• Will engage in the TAIS continuous improvement

process and communications with their ESC

Focus Progressing Cont.

• NOT required to participate in consultation or

two focus school support services/events with their ESC.

BUT

Focus

• Focus schools still meeting the criteria for

focus school identification as listed above using 2014 data remain identified as focus schools and shall participate in all required interventions.

1003a Funds Application

• Shift to district based grant
• No 40% set aside (prior years for personnel)
• Must directly impact the Title I campus of need
• MUST be able to justify spending of funds

– Methodology has to make sense

• Can’t out give money to Focus over Priority

Be Specific and Be Strategic

REMEMBER

• Index 3 will have a federal impact
• 2016 there will be NEW Priority and Focus School List
• Remember the 2016 Federal target is 87%
• ESEA Waiver is still undecided
• ESC 10 is here to support you through

ALL of this

Foster Care and Homeless Education

David Ray, Region 10 ESC www.region10.org/mvh www.region10.org/fostercare 972.348.1786 David.Ray@Region10.org

Who is Foster Care

• Temporary Managing Conservatorship (TMC)
• Permanent Managing Conservatorship (PMC)
• Texas Department of Family and Protective Services

(TXDFPS)

Acceptable Documentation

• All Forms in the 2085 series:
• Foster Care/Residential Care – 2085 FC
• Kinship or other Non-Foster Caregiver – 2085 KO
• Verified Kinship Foster Caregiver – 2085 KF
• Legal Risk – 2085 LR
• Home and Community-based Services (HCS) – 2085 HCS
• Supervised Independent Living – 2085 SIL
• Designation of Education Decision-Maker – 2085 E
• DFPS Kinship Caregiver Agreement – 0695
• Court-order naming Texas DFPS as the TMC or PMC

Non-acceptable Documentation

• Placement Authorization forms from Child Placing Agencies
• Letters from Child Placing Agencies
• Documents from another state’s child welfare system
• Authorization Agreement for Nonparent Relative or Voluntary

Caregiver- The State of Texas

• Agreement for a Parental Child Safety Placement DFPS 2298

PEIMS Coding for Foster Care

PEIMS Code Description Documentation Student is not in the custody of the TXDFPS at anytime during the school year None 1 Student IS in the custody of the TXDFPS at anytime during the school year 2085 or court order 2 Student is 3 or 4 years old and was previously in the custody of the TXDFPS DFPS Letter

Acceptable Preschool Documentation

TEA’s Summary

Available at www.region10.org/fostercare

Close but No Cigar

THEO’s Summary of FC vs MV

• Located at www.region10.org/fostercare
• Located at www.region10.org/mvh
• Located at www.utdanacenter.org/theo

Who is Homeless

• Students Lacking a Fixed, Regular and Adequate Nighttime

Residence

• Includes:
• Sheltered
• Doubled-Up
• Unsheltered
• Hotel/Motel

Identification

• Evaluate the housing status of all students at a regular

interval

• Most LEAs use a Student Residency Questionnaire (SRQ)
• Follow-up with confusing or incomplete forms
• Campus delegation
• Policy and Procedure

School Selection

• Federal Law- Local Attendance Zone or School of Origin
• Texas Education Code- All LEAs are available
• Consider Services Available at the SoO vs. Other Schools

PEIMS Coding for Homelessness

PEIMS Code Description Documentation Student was not homeless at anytime during the school year None 1 Student was homeless at anytime during the school year, and began the homelessness as sheltered None 2 Student was homeless at anytime during the school year, and began the homelessness as doubled-up None 3 Student was homeless at anytime during the school year, and began the homelessness as unsheltered None 4 Student was homeless at anytime during the school year, and began the homelessness as hotel/motel None

Unaccompanied Youth

• Any homeless student who is not in the physical

custody of their parent or guardian would be considered unaccompanied

PEIMS Coding For Unaccompanied Youth

PEIMS Code Description Documentation 3 Homeless Student is in the physical custody of a parent of legal guardian for the entire school year None 4 Homeless student is not in the physical custody of a parent or legal guardian None

HoLis and FoLis

• All LEAs must designate a person to serve students in

homeless situations

• All LEAs must designate a person to serve students in foster

care situations

• HoLi Directory available on www.utdanacenter.org/theo
• FoLi Directory available on ASKTed

Comparisons of Services

Service Homeless Foster Care Nutrition Automatic Eligibility Automatic Eligibility Transportation Provided by the LEAs Provided by the Foster Parent Enrollment Immediate Enrollment Dependent on appropriate documentation from TXDFPS School Selection SoO or Local, Any LEA SoO or Local Attendance Zone At-Risk Yes Yes

Scenario

• James arrives at your school to enroll with a foster parent. The

foster parent produces a letter from the Methodist Fostering Council.

• Simon arrives at your school to enroll with a foster parent. The

foster parent produces a form 2085 E.

• Claire arrives at school with her aunt. The aunt states that the

student has fled an abusive situation at home to live with the aunt.

• John’s uncle arrives to enroll him with TXDFPS form 2298.
• Dexter ran way from home last night and is living with friends. He

now wants to enroll in the school where his friends attend.

Questions?

• Ask ‘em!

PNP Updates

Laura Griffin Consultant/PNP & Title I Support laura.griffin@region10.org

Participant Support Costs

As defined by EDGAR, Participant Support Costs are “Direct costs for items such as stipends or subsistence allowances, and registration fees paid to or on behalf of participants or trainees (but not employees) in connection with conferences, or training projects.”

Approval of Participant Support Costs

Per EDGAR, Participant Support Costs are “allowable with the prior approval of the Federal Awarding Agency.” USDE has not yet established a process for obtaining approval, nor have they delegated that authority to TEA.

Approval of Participant Support Costs

• TEA requested the authority to approve Participant Support

Costs

• TEA created a “Request for Approval of Participant Support

Costs”

• TEA awaits further guidance from USDE.

Participant Support Costs

Options for LEAs to meet the requirement of equitable services include:

• provide services that do not fall under the Participant Support

definition

• pay Participant Support Costs out of local funds, request retroactive

approval later, and reimburse themselves once approval is granted. It is important that the needs of the PNPs are met, because the requirement of equitable services has not changed.

Request for Approval of Participant Support Costs

Final Amounts

Don’t forget to update your Equitable Services Worksheet to reflect these. PNP Cooperative members districts should email an updated copy of the ESW to Laura Griffin.

Title I, Part A Updates

Nerissa Erickson Consultant Title I/NCLB

Nerissa.Erickson@Region10.org www.Region10.org/TitleI

2015-2016 VALIDATIONS CAMPUS IMPROVEMENT PLANS

• Randomly Selected Campuses
• Validating most current Comprehensive Needs Assessment
• Validating required Ten Components of Schoolwide Program which are easily

identifiable within the contents of the Campus Improvement Plan

• Validation of the alignment of activities or strategies to support the identified

Schoolwide Component Date of notification to LEAs - November 2015 January 2016 - resubmission for those LEAs who did not meet the validations

INITIAL COMPLIANCE REVIEW (ICRs)

The Program Monitoring and Interventions Division (PMI) - statewide review processes for No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Promote program effectiveness, improve student performance, and monitor compliance for all students served through NCLB programs NCLB program - part of the Performance-Based Monitoring (PBM) system. PBM uses Performance-Based Monitoring Analysis System to assign required intervention activities based on (LEA’s) annual performance on individual indicators and patterns across all indicators. All LEAs staged for PBM interventions will engage in Texas Accountability Intervention System (TAIS). Locate LEA ICR Intervention Staging - TEASE/TEAL in NCLB Reports Initial Compliance Review Process - ICR Review Chart Initial Compliance Review - 2015-2016 ICR List

USDE SCHOOLWIDE FLEXIBILITY

Letter from USDE July 2015 – www.Region10.org/TitleI

ALLOWABLE COSTS GUIDANCE FROM TEA

Costs on a Schoolwide Program are generally allowable as long as the LEA assures that the following requirements are met. Activities and/or resources are:

• Identified in the Comprehensive Needs Assessments;
• Included in the Campus Improvement Plan;
• Reasonable;
• Necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of the Title I, Part A program;
• Allocable;
• The Campus Improvement Plan addresses how the activity/resource identified will be evaluated; and
• The needs of students at risk of not meeting State Standards are being met.

In addition, the LEA assures that the expenditure(s) meet all EDGAR requirements.

DEADLINE FOR MEETING TITLE I, PART A COMPARABILITY OF SERVICES

Applies to All LEAs

• All LEAs must document their compliance every year with the Title I, Part A comparability of services

requirement.

• All LEAs must complete and submit the Comparability Assurance Document (CAD). LEAs that do not meet

any of the criteria for exemption must also complete and submit the Comparability Computation Form (CCF).

• The CAD and CCF, along with instructions for completing and submitting them, are now available on the

Title I, Part A Comparability of Services Requirement page of the TEA website. Recorded webinar on Comparability posted on www.Region10.org/TitleI The deadline for submitting required 2015-2016 school year documents is November 12, 2015.

NATIONAL TITLE I ASSOCIATION

2016 National Title I Conference www.TitleI.org Frontiers of Opportunity January 28 - 31, 2016 Houston, TX

2015 NATIONAL BLUE RIBBON HONORS

Country Place ES - CFB High Performing High Progress National Blue Ribbon School for 2015 Kent ES - CFB High Performing High Progress National Blue Ribbon School for 2015 Trinidad Garza Early College HS - Dallas High Performing National Blue Ribbon School for 2015 Harry Stone Montessori Academy - Dallas High Performing High Progress National Blue Ribbon School 2015 Kimberlin Academy for Excellence - Garland High Performing National Blue Ribbon School 2015

STATUS OF NCLB HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHER REQUIREMENTS LEGAL MANDATE (NCLB Section 1119)

Campus Reporting of Highly Qualified Teacher Compliance Report as of September 16, 2015 Due Date November 18, 2015 LEA Public Reporting of Progress in Meeting Highly Qualified Teacher Requirements Due Date December 16, 2015 Principal’s Attestation of Highly Qualified Teacher Requirements Due Date December 16, 2015

To view documents and guidelines applicable to highly qualified requirements, please visit http://tea.texas. gov/About_TEA/Laws_and_Rules/NCLB_and_ESEA/Highly_Qualified_Teachers/Highly_Qualified_Teachers

SCHOOL SUPPORT TEAM TRAINING: PUBLIC LAW 107–110—JAN. 8, 2002 115 STAT. 1499

Why would our LEA/campus need School Support Team Training?

• Campuses transitioning to Title I
• Campuses transitioning from Targeted Assistance to Title I
• New principals/administrators who need an overview of the requirements of operating a compliant Title I campus
• Administrators who need a “refresher”
• Campuses in need of improvement and determining needs

Day One

• Functions and Charges of a SST Team
• Conduct Data Analysis and Document Comprehensive Needs Assessment

Day Two

• Incorporation and Alignment of the Ten Schoolwide Components
• Required Documentation of the Campus Improvement Plan
• Parental Involvement Policy Compliance
• School/Parent Compact and Public Law
• Annual Title I Meeting and Required Dissemination of Information
• Required Documentation Methods for Compliance and Validation
• Program Evaluation Compliance

UPCOMING TRAININGS AND WEBINAR LINKS

For registration, www.Region10.org/TitleI To access complete list, click Upcoming Trainings and Webinars

ACCESSING FEDERAL FRIDAY WEBINARS

TITLE I, PART A CONTACT INFORMATION

Nerissa Erickson, M.A.Ed., M.Ed. Consultant Title I/NCLB Nerissa.Erickson@Region10.org 972-348-1358 www.Region10.org/TitleI Becky Book Consultant Title I/NCLB Becky.Book@Region10.org 972-348-1434 www.Region10.org/TitleI

Capacity Building Initiative

Title I, Part A and Title I, Part D

We’ve reorganized!

http://www.region10.org/capacitybuilding Look at the top of the page for new Reward School Profile Form - due Nov. 30 Look on the left side bar - Capacity Building Links

• Best Practice Resources Aligned with CSFs
• Reward School Profiles 2013-2014
• Reward School Videos (NEW)
• NCLB Publications (Revised)
• Title I, Part D (NEW)

For more information on Capacity Building

Please contact:

Toni Garrett

Program Coordinator, Region 10 ESC toni.garrett@region10.org 972-348-1488

Title I, Part D

Title I, Part D Resources

Go to http://www.region10.org/capacitybuilding Look in the left sidebar and click on Title I, Part D

• Statute and Guidance
• Resources

○ TEA Letter on 2016-2017 Annual Survey ○ Links to TEA and USDE ○ Helpful tools on specific topics for Title I, Part D success

Monitoring of State Allotments

Becky Book Consultant, Title I/NCLB becky.book@region10.org 972-348-1434

Supplemental State Allotments

The new monitoring program is specifically designed to focus on ensuring LEA compliance and accountability. The allotments that will be reviewed are:

• Special Education
• State Compensatory Education
• Bilingual Education
• Career and Technology Education
• Gifted and Talented Education
• High School Education

Risk Assessment & Analysis

Risk Assessment Process for the monitoring program is based on:

• Three consecutive years of financial data reported in Foundation School Program

(FSP) and Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS)

• Analysis of special allotment spending and reporting requirements
• Findings and Issues identified within:

○ Audit Follow-up and Financial Management Compliance Reviews ○ Legislative Budget Board (LBB) Management and Performance Reviews ○ Student Attendance Compliance Reviews ○ Annual Financial and Compliance Reports (AFR) ○ CPA Working Papers Reviews

Expenditure Requirements

Supplemental state allotment expenditure requirements are:

• Special Education = 52%
• State Compensatory Education = 52%
• Bilingual Education = 52%
• Career and Technology Education = 58%
• Gifted and Talented Education = 55%
• High School Education = 100%

Monitoring Program

Reviews data from two reports:

• TEA Special Allotment Variance Report (currently in development)
• PEIMS EDIT PLUS + Reports Data Review

○ The title is “Actual Allocated Expenditures by Program and Object code within Function - General Fund” - PRF1D003

Most Common Findings

1. Transactions that are missing source financial supporting documentation 2. Unallowable costs charged to the program 3. Coding errors in PEIMS 4. Booking errors in the general ledger 5. Underutilization of supplemental state allotments 6. Providing program services to ineligible students 7. Under budgeting for supplemental state allotments Specific Examples

Reporting

• A preliminary report will be issued to the LEA allowing

for the LEA to respond with any additional information

• r explanation related to the non-compliance findings.
• Recommendations and/or corrective action plans will

be provided to the LEA to address non-compliance issues.

IMPACT of Non-Compliance

• Corrective actions and TEA monitoring
• Reduced supplemental state allotment funding from

TEA for future years

• Recoupment of questioned cost by the TEA
• Follow-up Audits

EDGAR Updates

Becky Book Consultant, Title I/NCLB becky.book@region10.org 972-348-1434

Grant Application Changes

• Carryover, Reallocations, and Final Amounts
• Penny Refunds Due
• Purpose of Amendment - Justification

○ clear and concise ○ DO NOT include budget amounts and calculations ○ If after TEA adjustments, simply “re-budgeting after TEA adjustments for carryover…”

• NCLB Funding for Neglected/Delinquent Facilities - SC9000

○ Due December 7, 2015

Procurements and Contracts

• LEAs

○ Under $3000 - federal rules, suggested state policy ○ $3000 - $49,999 - federal rules require price or rate quotes from adequate number of sources ○ $50,000 and above - state rules in FASRG ○ At $150, 000 and above, add federal cost or price analysis in addition to state rules

• Charter Schools

○ Generally, because FASRG does not apply to charter schools unless specified in individual charter, the federal requirements apply

• Nonprofits

○ Federal requirements apply

Procurements and Contracts

• Sole Source

○ Very few approved ○ Must also meet FASRG rules for sole source before approval ○ LEA must document reasons for sole source ■ Sole source letter ■ Statement reflecting sufficient number of vendors has been contacted ■ Reasons only one vendor exists

• Prior Approval and Justification Forms

○ Educational Field Trips ○ Out-of-State Travel ○ Participant Support Costs

Procurements and Contracts

• Disposition of Equipment/Supplies

○ Grants that end - TTIPS, etc. ○ Purchased with federal funds when no longer needed for that purpose ○ Original Purchase Price Over $5000 unless district policy is lower

■ Equipment - by individual ■ Supplies - by aggregate

○ Current Fair Market Value

■ below $5000 - CHECK BOX ■

• nly list if current fair market value is over $5000
• Subscriptions/Contracts = Handout

http://tea.texas.gov/Finance_and_Grants/Grants/Administering_a_Grant/Request_for_Prior_Approval, _Disclosure,_and_Justification_Forms/

Two-year Grace Period

• Only the implementation of the procurement policies

and procedures

• Must still identify in local policy which standards the
• rganization is following
• Pros and Cons

Federal Awardee Performance Integrity and Information System (FAPPIIS)

• Expands the integrity and review and reporting requirements to cover

federal grants and cooperative agreements. It use to apply only to contractors.

• Updates to the Uniform Guidance (EDGAR)
• FAPPIIS will migrate to www.SAM.gov effective January 1, 2016.
• 2 CFR 212 - Federal agency will determine whether applicant’s risk,

integrity or both makes the applicant not qualified for the federal award

• TEA doesn’t know impact yet
• See handout

EDGAR FAQs

• Make sure you have the latest version

http://tea.texas. gov/Finance_and_Grants/Grants/Administering_a_Grant/The_New_EDGAR/

TEA Monitoring Desk Audit

TEA Desk Monitoring

Best Practices and Requests from TEA

• Will send a letter to your Authorized Representative with Request 1
• Your LEA will have 10-14 days to respond
• See Request 1

○ Very detailed requests ○ PDF of APM; This as before EDGAR, written policies and procedures are not new ○ TEA expects this information to be easily accessible ○ Do you have Job Descriptions? ○ Budget Planning Documents? ○ Detailed GL ○ Internal Controls Questionnaire

TEA Desk Monitoring

The LEA recieved Request 2 in April Review Request 2

• Signed, dated Job Descriptions

○ Semi Annual Certification and/or PARs ○ Supplemental Pay Agreements ○ HQ Certifications

• Match the application, and the ER requests
• Travel information with all supporting documentation
• Training agenda, materials at training, sign in sheets

Information to Consider

This was a small, rural LEA They are considered “low-risk” This process took them from January to July In this instance no news, was good news Your LEA cannot “develop” an APM, or backup in 10 - 14 days A poor response to Request 1 may cause an “on-site” visit TEA caught very small details; a wrong pic code, a $90 pay dock

SSA Updates and Requests

14-15 Lesson’s Learned

• We need to be sure to follow TEA travel rules

○ Need to pay the whole trip with federal funds ○ Meal Per Diem is not allowed ○ Need detailed receipts ○ Cannot pay for tips ○ Cannot pay state tax; however we can reimburse out of state tax, city tax, city occupancy tax, resort tax ○ Hotel rate is per person, double up if you need room in your budget ○ The GSA Rates changed 10/1/2015

• Subscriptions need to be in the appropriate fiscal year

○ Work with Vendor’s to split invoices to the appropriate dates

• Cannot pay from a confirmation; need an invoice

14-15 Lesson’s Learned

• Title II is for HQ for Core teachers and Principal’s
• Must have passed the certification tests
• ZIP files do not make it through the Region 10 firewall
• Title III cannot reimburse for assessments, only benchmarks.

Assessments are required.

• Budget Management and amendments

Common Questions

What is supplanting?

• Providing services required under state or local law
• Providing services with federal funds that were provided last year with

state or local funds

• Providing the same services in federal and non-federal programs
• Supplement, Not Supplant Handbook

What’s the difference between extra duty and a stipend?

15-16 Updates and Changes

• We have a NOGA, it’s in your folder
• 15-16 Reimbursement Forms are on the website

○ New Check Boxes; be sure to review each form ○ These are our assurances

• You can email reimbursements to the main account

○ reimbursements@region10.org

• EDGAR implementation is now in full effect

○ This includes your roll forward ○ Region 10 needs a copy of your Federal Policies and Procedures Manual

15-16 Updates and Changes

• We need justification forms for out of state travel, field trips, and/or

capital outlay.

○ I will send notice out to LEA’s before submitting an amendment. ○ However, get them in as soon as you know you need them ○ If you don’t use the permission that is fine, not having permission will cause LEA’s trouble

• New Stipend and Extra Duty Addendum forms

○ We need this per EDGAR; it’s time and effort

• Send us updated contact information
• Title III Split between Penny and Karen

○ Karen is A--Inspired and Penny is I-Z

• Migrant is being handled by Jala

Questions, Comments, Concerns