region 11 federal program director’s meeting november 13, 2015 … · involvement connection...

Region 11 Federal Program

Director’s Meeting

November 13, 2015

Welcome

Today’s Presenters

● Renee Agent, Teaching and Learning Coordinator ● Gretchen Kroos, Title III Consultant ● Jim Phillips, School Improvement/Title I Consultant

Parent and Community Engagement

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/content.php?op=page&cmsid=1

The Parental Involvement Connection

WHAT: Title 1 Statewide School Support Initiative and Family and Community Engagement Newsletter MORE INFORMATION: http://www.esc16.net/preview.aspx?name=title1swi.3_newsletter

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 is recommended that campuses begin this practice this school year in preparation for when it becomes a full requirement beginning with the 2016-2017 school year.

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

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 give more money to Focus over Priority

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

Foster Care and Homeless Education

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- State of Texas

• Agreement for a Parental Child Safety Placement DFPS 2298

PEIMS Coding for Foster Care

Acceptable Preschool Documentation

TEA’s Summary

Available at www.region10.org/fostercare

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

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

PNP Updates

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. ● do not pay Participant Support Costs with federal funds without approval.

It is important that the needs of the PNPs are met, because the requirement of equitable services has not changed.

Title I, Part A Updates

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

February 2016 - resubmission for those LEAs who did not meet the validations

USDE SCHOOLWIDE FLEXIBILITY Letter from USDE July 2015

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.

NATIONAL TITLE I ASSOCIATION

2016 National Title I Conference www.TitleI.org

Frontiers of Opportunity January 28 - 31, 2016

Houston, TX

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

Capacity Building Initiative Title I, Part A and

Title I, Part D

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) (See Handout)

For more information on Capacity Building Please contact: Toni Garrett Program Coordinator, Region 10 ESC toni.garrett@region10.org 972-348-1488

Monitoring of State Allotments

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

(see Handout)

Reporting • A preliminary report will be issued to the LEA allowing for the

LEA to respond with any additional information or 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

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 adjustment for carryover…” ● NCLB Funding for Neglected/Delinquent Facilities - SC9000 ○ Due December 7, 2015

Procurements and Contracts ● LEAs

o Under $3000 - federal rules, suggested state policy o $3000 - $49,999 - federal rules require price or rate quotes from adequate

number of sources o $50,000 and above - state rules in FASRG o At $150, 000 and above, add federal cost or price analysis in addition to state

rules ● Charter Schools

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

● Nonprofits

o Federal requirements apply

Procurements and Contracts ● Sole Source

o Very few approved o Must also meet FASRG rules for sole source before

approval o 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

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

Procurements and Contracts ● Disposition of Equipment/Supplies

o Grants that end - TTIPS, etc. o Purchased with federal funds when no longer needed for

that purpose o Original Purchase Price Over $5000 unless district policy is

lower ■ Equipment - by individual ■ Supplies - by aggregate

o Current Fair Market Value ■ below $5000 - CHECK BOX ■ only list if current fair market value is over $5000 ● Subscriptions/Contracts = (see Handout) http://tea.texas.gov/Finance_and_Grants/Grants/Administering_a_Grant/Request_for_Prior_Approval,Disclosure,_and_Justification_Forms/

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/

PBMAS Performance-Based

Monitoring Assessment

System

State Accountability ● Federal Groups ● District Level Report Staging in TEASE ISAM ● TAA letter 10-23-15 ● Accountability Submission Chart Staged districts follow TAIS process

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

Gretchen Kroos: BE/ESL gkroos@esc11.net

Susan Patterson: CTE spatterson@esc11.net

Jim Phillips: NCLB jphillips@esc11.net

Pam Humphrey: Special Education phumphrey@esc11.net

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

Thank You! Renee Agent: ragent@esc11.net

Gretchen Kroos: gkroos@esc11.net

Jim Phillips: jphillips@esc11.net