Docstoc

Template Statement of Qualifications State of California

Document Sample
Template Statement of Qualifications State of California Powered By Docstoc
					Summary of Title I Monitoring, Part A, FYs 2004 and 2005
See the key at the bottom for an explanation of the chart and its abbreviations.



Indicator          Indicator Description
 Number                                                        Alabama
                                                           April 18-22, 2005
                                                                  F=17
                                                                  R=4
                                                                  C=0
Indicator 1.1
     F=0
    R=0       SEA has approved academic content
    C=1       standards for all required subjects or
                                                                  MR
              an approved timeline for developing
                              them.


Indicator 1.2
     F=2
    R=7
    C=0




                  The SEA has approved academic
                achievement standards and alternate
                 academic achievement standards in                MR
                required subject areas and grades or
                 an approved timeline to create them.
Indicator 1.3
     F=9
    R=11
    C=1

    and

Indicator 1.4 The SEA has approved assessments
(see note in       and alternate assessments in
  next cell)  required subject areas and grades or
     F=9       an approved timeline to create them.
    R=5
    C=0         (Note: Beginning with Washington,
                 monitored in November 2004, ED
               established a new indicator (1.4), as       F**: Data Quality (4)
                 follows: "Assessments should be           State had a number of data quality
                 used for purposes for which such          problems in 2003-04 assessments.
               assessments are valid and reliable,         These have been corrected but state
                  and be consistent with relevant,         must submit data to ED to verify that
                nationally recognized professional         the problem has been solved.
                and technical standards. Adequate
                yearly progress shall be defined by
                    the State in a manner that is
              statistically valid and reliable." In this
               table, monitoring findings related to
               this indicator are listed under 1.3 in
                     this row and marked with **.
Indicator 1.4
    F=30
    R=8
    C=2




                                                      F: Disaggregation of Data (4)
                    The SEA has implemented all       Participation rates for the LEP
                 required components as identified in subgroup were not included in the
                     its accountability workbook.     2003-04 assessment data because
                                                      state did not have enrollment figures
                (Note: Beginning with Washington, in for this subgroup. A new data system
                  November 2004, this indicator was should produce this data, but state
                          renumbered as 1.5.)         must submit the data to ED to verify
                                                      that the problem has been solved.




Indicator 1.5
    F=24
    R=11
    C=0

                The SEA has published an annual         F: Reporting All NCLB Data
                report card and ensured that LEAs       Elements - Teacher Qualifications
                have published annual report cards      (19)
                            as required.                State report card did not include all
                                                        required items, including AYP status
                 (Note: Beginning with Washington, of individual districts and schools
                  monitored in November 2004, this and percentage of classes not taught
                 indicator was broken into separate by highly qualified teachers
                indicators for state report cards (1.6) disaggregated by high- and low-
                     and LEA report cards (1.7).        poverty quartiles.

                For the purpose of this spreadsheet ,      F: Reporting All NCLB Data
                  for all monitoring reports, failure to   Elements - Teacher Qualifications
                include all required elements in state     (19)
                 and local report cards, respectively,     District report cards did not include
                  were counted as separate findings.       required data on teacher quality.
Indicator 1.6 SEA indicates how funds received
     F=0      under Grants for State Assessments
    R=2       and related activities (§6111) will be
    C=0       or have been used to meet the 2005-
                  06 and 2007-08 assessment
                                                             MR
                     requirements of NCLB.

                (Note: Beginning with Washington in
                  November 204, this indicator was
                         renumbered 1.8.)
Indicator 1.7
     F=3
    R=3         SEA ensures that LEAs meet all the
    C=1          requirements for identifying and
                     assessing the academic
                  achievement of limited English
                        proficient students.                 MR

                (Note: Beginning with Washington in
                 November 2004, this indicator was
                         renumbered 1.9.)




Indicator                Description
 Number                                                    Alabama
                                                       April 18-22, 2005
Indicator 2.1
    F=32
    R=11
    C=2




                 The SEA designs and implements
                policies and procedures that ensure
                  the hiring and retention of highly
                            qualified staff.
                                                       F: 'Non-Highly-Qualified" Notification
                                                       (4)
                 (Note: Starting with Nebraska (April,
                                                       State does not require its LEAs to
                2004), the state system for hiring and
                                                       notify parents if the parents’ child is
                   retaining highly qualified teachers
                                                       taught four or more consecutive
                was no longer monitored under Title I
                                                       weeks by a teacher who is not highly
                  Part A; this requirement is instead
                                                       qualified.
                      monitored under Title II. This
                     indicator now relates solely to
                  paraprofessional qualifications and
                          parental notification.)




Indicator 2.2
    F=13
    R=10
    C=7


                 The SEA provides, or provides for,
                 technical assistance for LEAs and                       MR
                        schools as required.
Indicator 2.3
     F=4      The SEA establishes a Committee of
    R=4          Practitioners and involves the  R: Committee Composition (3)
    C=0         committee in decision making as  State should develop a clear written
                             required.           process for selecting members of the
                                                 Committee of Practitioners, a job
                (Note: Beginning with Nevada in  description and information about the
                October 2004, this indicator was term of membership.
                          listed as 3.6.)

Indicator 2.4
    F=24
    R=15
    C=3




                The SEA ensures that the LEA and
                schools meet parental involvement   F: Parental Involvement Policy (13)
                         requirements.              District distributes district parental
                                                    involvement plan to principals but
                (Note: Beginning with Washington,   principals merely file the plan and do
                 monitored in November 2004, this   not distribute it to parents.
                  indicator was renumbered 2.3.)
Indicator 2.5
    F=21
    R=15
    C=2




                 The SEA ensures that schools and
                LEAs are identified for improvement,
                corrective action, or restructuring as
                   required and that subsequent,
                      required steps are taken.                            MR

                (Note: Beginning with Washington,
                 monitored in November 2004, this
                  indicator was renumbered 2.4.)




Indicator 2.6
    F=18
    R=13
    C=1


                                                         F: Notification Missing Elements (10)
                                                         School improvement notification
                                                         letters to parents did not contain all
                                                         required elements.
                The SEA ensures that requirements
                  for public school choice are met.
                                                         R: Evaluate and Increase Low
                                                         Participation Rates (4)
                (Note: Beginning with Washington,
                                                         When district choice and SES
                 monitored in November 2004, this
                                                         participation rates are low, the state
                  indicator was renumbered 2.5.)
                                                         should analyze why and establish
                                                         procedures to improve them.
Indicator 2.7
    F=16
    R=17
    C=3




                   The SEA fulfills the statutory
                 requirements for the provision of
                supplemental educational services
                                                      F: Notification Missing Elements (7)
                         (SES) are met.
                                                      LEA notifications of SES options
                                                      were missing required elements.
                (Note: Beginning with Washington,
                 monitored in November 2004, this
                  indicator was renumbered 2.6.)




Indicator 2.8
    F=15
    R=13
    C=1




                 The SEA ensures that LEAs and
                   schools develop schoolwide
                                                      R: Combine Plans (6)
                  programs that use the flexibility
                                                      State should develop a single
                provided to them by law to improve
                                                      template/review list that contains all
                 the academic achievement of all
                                                      the elements of a Title I school
                      students in the school.
                                                      improvement, Title I schoolwide and
                                                      state data-driven school
                (Note: Beginning with Washington,
                                                      improvement plan.
                 monitored in November 2004, this
                  indicator was renumbered 2.7.)
Indicator 2.9
     F=3
    R=3
    C=0           The SEA ensures that LEAs and
                   schools develop and maintain
                targeted assistance (TAS) programs
                 that meet all required components.
                                                                           MR
                 (Note: Beginning with Washington,
                  monitored in November 2004, this
                   indicator was renumbered 2.8.)




Indicator                  Description
 Number                                                                 Alabama
                                                                    April 18-22, 2005
Indicator 3.1
     F=4
    R=5
    C=6




                The SEA ensures that its component
                     LEAs are audited annually, if
                   required, and that all corrective                       MR
                actions required through this process
                        are fully implemented.




Indicator 3.2
    F=11
    R=1
    C=0
                     The SEA complies with the
                     allocation, reallocation, and
                    carryover provisions of Title I.
                                                           (LEA-level findings were erroneously
                (Note: In general, findings relating to
                                                                   listed here; see 3.9)
                  state-level accounting are listed
                here; findings related to district-level
                accounting are generally listed under
                              3.7 or 3.9.)
Indicator 3.3
     F=1
    R=2
                   The SEA complies with the
    C=0
                maintenance of effort provisions of                    MR
                             Title I.



Indicator 3.4
    F=21
    R=2
    C=0




                                                      F: State Monitoring (10)
                                                      State reviews comparability
                                                      documentation every three years
                                                      instead of every two years as
                 The SEA ensures that the LEA
                                                      required.
                 complies with the comparability
                      provisions of Title I.
                                                      F: Determining Comparability (7)
                                                      One LEA used a sample of Title I
                                                      schools for determining
                                                      comparability rather than all schools.
Indicator 3.5
    F=53
    R=8                                                    F: Selection of Students (2)
    C=3                                                    An LEA selected private school
                                                           students to participate in Title I
                                                           based solely on a single academic
                                                           criterion and did not determine
                                                           whether the children met the other
                                                           required criterion of residing in a
                                                           participating public school
                                                           attendance area.

                                                       F: Equitable Services for Parents,
                                                       Teachers (11)
                                                       The state should ensure that districts
                                                       provide equitable services for
                The SEA ensures that LEAs provide
                                                       teachers and families of private
                 Title I services to eligible children
                                                       school children.
                    attending non-public schools.
                                                           F: Equitable Services for Students (7)
                                                           State application template for LEAs
                                                           did not ensure that LEAs set aside
                                                           funds for services to private school
                                                           children whenever they reserve
                                                           funds for district-wide instructional
                                                           services.

                                                           F: Assess Program Effectiveness (8)
                                                           Academic assessment results should
                                                           be used to improve the Title I
                                                           program.



Indicator 3.6   The SEA has a system for ensuring
     F=1            and maximizing the quality,
    R=0          objectivity, utility, and integrity of
    C=3          information disseminated by the
                  agency. This indicator was last
                    monitored in Washington in
                          November 2004.
                                                                       not monitored
                    (Note: Beginning with Nevada,
                      monitored in October 2004,
                 evaluation of the state's Committee
                of Practitioners was conducted under
                this indicator number. Prior to that, it
                       was monitored under 2.3.)
Indicator 3.7
    F=22
    R=4
    C=2




                 The SEA has an accounting system
                for administrative funds that includes
                       (1) state administration, (2)
                  reallocation, and (3) reservation of
                     funds for school improvement.       F: Incorrect Allocations
                                                         State must ensure that Title I schools
                 (Note: Although the wording for this identified for corrective action or
                   indicator might seem to address       restructuring receive at least 85
                 state-level accounting, ED monitors percent of their previous year’s
                   generally reserve this indicator to   allocation.
                report district-level findings. Instead,
                   state-level accounting issues are
                  generally reported under indicator
                                   3.2.)




Indicator 3.8
     F=4
    R=0
                The SEA has a system for ensuring
    C=0
                   fair and prompt resolution of                          MR
                            complaints.
Indicator 3.9
    F=12
    R=6                                               F: Ineligible School
    C=0                                               A district continued to provide
                                                      services for several years to a school
                                                      that was no longer eligible.

                                                      R: Grandfathering and Skipping
                                                      The state should consider requiring
                                                      districts to identify Title I schools that
                                                      have been “grandfathered” as well as
                  The SEA ensures that the LEA
                                                      schools that have been “skipped” in
                   complies with the rank order
                                                      the district consolidated application.
                 procedures for the eligible school
                        attendance area.
                                                      (Note: Above items were originally
                                                      reported under 3.2.)

                                                      F: Allocate Same or More Funds to
                                                      Higher-Poverty Schools (7)
                                                      An LEA allocated a higher per-pupil
                                                      amount to a lower-ranked school.




Indicator 3.10
     F=9
     R=8
     C=2




                 The SEA conducts monitoring of its
                  subgrantees sufficient to ensure
                                                                         MR
                   compliance with Title I program
                           requirements.
Indicator 3.11
     F=4
     R=3
     C=4




                 The LEA complies with the provision
                 for submitting an annual plan to the    MR
                                 SEA.




Indicator 3.12   The SEA ensures that Title I funds
     F=2            are used only to supplement or
     R=1         increase non-federal sources used
     C=0           for the education of participating
                  children and not to supplant funds
                       from non-federal sources.
                                                         MR
                 (Note: Prior to Nevada, monitored in
                    October 2004, supplement not
                  supplant constituted indicator 3.13.
                 Administrative costs -- now covered
                  by indicator 3.7 -- were covered by
                            indicator 3.12.)
Indicator 3.13 The SEA ensures that equipment
     F=15       and real property are procured at a
     R=0        cost that is recognized as ordinary
     C=0      and the equipment and real property
               is necessary for the performance of
                         the federal award.
                                                         MR
                 (Note: Indicator 3.13, as relating to
                   procurement, was first used in
                 Nevada, in October 2004, and was
                  used consistently beginning with
                      Texas in January 2005.)
Other Fiscal
Management
   Issues
    F=11
    R=0
    C=0




                Special focus on fiscal compliance
                                                                  not monitored
                by Office of Chief Financial Officer




               Under each state is the date of the visit, and the total number of findings (F), recommendations (R) and commendations (C)
   States
               Under each indicator is the total number of findings (F), recommendations (R) and commendations (C) from all available sta
 Indicators

 Frequency
               If a specific finding, recommendation, or commendation for an indicator is found in more than one state, the total number of
   Colors      Findings are listed in red, recommendations in black, and commendations in green.
               MR=Met Requirements
  Abbrev-      F=Finding
  iations      R=Recommendation
               C=Commendation
Notes
* Michigan also had a "General Finding"; because of
incomplete data to show which schools in Mich. received
Title I funds, the state did not have an adequate system
in place to monitor Title I implementation.
A, FYs 2004 and 2005
iations.




                Arizona           California         Colorado
           April 25-29, 2005   Sept. 20-24, 2004   Jan. 24-27, 2005
                  F=17               F=14                F=20
                  R=2                 R=9                R=5
                  C=0                 C=2                C=0




                 MR                  MR                  MR




                 MR                  MR                  MR
                                        F: Out-of-Level Testing
                                        The state allows out-of-level
                                        assessments for disabled students in
                                        grades 5 and higher. Similarly,
                                        modified assessments are also
                                        permitted. The scores generated are
                                        counted as non-proficient, but the
                                        state must inform districts that these
                                        impermissible tests will not fulfill the
                                        participation requirement.
F**Data Quality (4), Accountability
                                        R: Provide Translation
Determinations - Migrant and                                                       R: Incomplete Reporting of
                                        Instead of delegating the task to
Disadvantaged Students                                                             Accommodations
                                        districts, which may not have the
Lack of definitions for data elements                                              The design of the state test booklet
                                        capacity to perform it, the state
and data quality procedures threaten                                               allows only a limited range of student
                                        should translate test instructions and
reliability of accountability                                                      test accommodations to be reported.
                                        problematic items into the state's
determinations. Lack of reporting for                                              It should be redesigned to allow the
                                        three major non-English languages.
migrant and economically                                                           reporting of the full range of
disadvantaged students. Lack of                                                    allowable accommodations.
                                        C: Assessments of High Technical
state monitoring on these issues.
                                        Quality
                                        The state has used standards of high
                                        technical quality in developing its
                                        standards-based assessments. Each
                                        year, the state replaces assessment
                                        items, repeats analyses, and
                                        generates a new technical manual.
                                        Under a separate commendation, the
                                        state uses high standards in
                                        development of its language
                                        proficiency test.
                                                                                    F: Students Incorrectly Identified as
                                          F: Identification of Schools in
                                                                                    Participants (4)
                                          Improvement
                                                                                    The state counts limited English
                                          The state applies an extra criterion to
                                                                                    proficient students as participants
                                          make determinations for district
                                                                                    even if they do not attempt to take
                                          improvement: A district that does not
                                                                                    the test. The state simply enters the
                                          achieve AYP for two consecutive
                                                                                    demographic information on the
                                          years will not be identified as
                                                                                    answer sheet and marks it "deferred
                                          needing improvement unless it does
                                                                                    due to language." The practice of
                                          not meet a threshold for
F: Accountability Determinations -                                                  counting students as participants in
                                          economically disadvantaged
LEP and Students with Non-                                                          assessment by providing a test
                                          students. Although a state may
Standard Accommodations (6)                                                         booklet for them is not permitted.
                                          include other academic indicators in
State allows district AYP appeals for
                                          determining AYP, those indicators
LEP students who have received                                                      F: Accountability Determinations (6) -
                                          may not reduce or change the
less than three years of language                                                    Limited English Proficient Students
                                          districts that would be subject to
services and students tested with                                                   Based on a state law, the
                                          improvement.
non-standard accommodations,                                                        performance of many limited English
thereby removing these students                                                     proficient students has not been
                                          F: Identification of Improvement
entirely from accountability                                                        incorporated into the NCLB adequate
                                          Status in Targeted Assistance
determinations.                                                                     yearly progress decisions for
                                          Schools
                                                                                    Colorado districts and schools. This
                                          The state was only analyzing
                                                                                    practice has been implemented for
                                          economically disadvantaged
                                                                                    several years despite ED guidance,
                                          students to make a school
                                                                                    so further enforcement action may
                                          improvement determination for
                                                                                    be warranted.
                                          Targeted Assistance Schools; the
                                          state must make the determination
                                                                            F: Timely Determinations (5)
                                          based on disaggregated assessment
                                                                            The state did not make timely AYP
                                          results for all subgroups.
                                                                            determinations.




F: Failure to Issue; Reporting All
NCLB Data Elements - Teacher
Qualifications (19)                                                                 F:Reporting All NCLB Data
State failed to issue report for 2004-                                              Elements (19)
                                          R: Consolidate Information (2)
04. State and district report cards did                                             In reporting assessment results at
                                          All required information was
not include all required data,                                                      the school level, data are not
                                          available, but was not found in the
including achievement of migrant                                                    disaggregated by all of the required
                                          same place. The state should make
students and the number and                                                         areas, and the performance
                                          this information easy to access, both
percent of schools in improvement                                                   comparisons between the school,
                                          online and in hard copies.
and the percentage of classes taught                                                district and state are not included on
by teachers who are not highly                                                      the school-level report cards.
qualified, disaggregated by high and
low poverty schools.
                                                             R: Redirect Funds to Priority Areas
                                                             State should redirect its grant funds,
                                                             which are being used to support the
      MR                              MR
                                                             basic state assessment program, to
                                                             deficient areas, such as assessment
                                                             of limited English proficient students.


                    F: Specify Exit Criteria
                                                             F: Failure to Administer Language
                    State must amend its accountability
                                                             Assessment (2)
                    workbook to reflect actual practice,
                                                             Students identified by the home
                    i.e. the use of a local indicator and
                                                             language survey as limited English
                    parental approval as exit criteria for
                                                             proficient in some school districts
                    LEP students.
                                                             and schools have been excused
      MR
                                                             from taking English language
                    C: Translated Tests and Reports
                                                             proficiency assessments until such
                    State has made a strong effort to
                                                             time as they become proficient in
                    reach out to non-English-speaking
                                                             English if a parent refuses to allow
                    families, has translated reports, and
                                                             the child to receive Title III program
                    is working on a Spanish-language
                                                             services.
                    assessment.




     Arizona                      California                              Colorado
April 25-29, 2005             Sept. 20-24, 2004                        Jan. 24-27, 2005
     F: Paraprofessional Qualification (3)
                                              F: Paraprofessional Qualification (3)
     The state has not provided districts
                                              State did not have sufficient means
     with guidance and technical
                                              of tracking the qualifications of its
     assistance for, or collected
                                              paraprofessionals.
     information on, paraprofessional
     qualification. The state estimates
                                              F: Paraprofessional Qualification (3)
     only 36 percent of paraprofessionals
                                              An LEA did not have a means of
     are qualified, and must provide a
                                              ensuring that its principals hired only
     plan for ensuring that all
                                              qualified paraprofessionals for Title I
     paraprofessionals meet
                                              positions.
     requirements by the statutory
     deadline.
                                              F: 'Right to Know' Notification (11)
                                              LEAs did not inform parents of their
MR   F: 'Non-Highly Qualified' Notification
                                              right to know the qualifications of
     (4)
                                              their children’s teachers and
     The state must ensure that parents
                                              paraprofessionals.
     are notified if their children are
     taught for four weeks or more by a
                                              F: 'Non-Highly Qualified' Notification
     teacher who is not highly qualified.
                                              (4)
                                              The state did not issue guidance
     R: Uniform Paraprofessional
                                              telling LEAs that they must notify
     Assessment Standards (2)
                                              parents when children have been
     The state should provide guidelines
                                              taught for four or more consecutive
     to districts to help determine what
                                              weeks by a teacher who is not highly
     constitutes a "formal local
                                              qualified. Hence, LEAs were not
     assessment" of paraprofessionals'
                                              performing this function.
     knowledge and ability.




     R: Communicate with Districts (3)
     Although a statewide system of
     support is in place, districts are
MR                                                              MR
     unaware the system exists; the state
     should communicate the services
     available to districts.
MR                    MR                                     MR




                                             F: Parental Involvement Policy (13)
                                             and School-Parent Compacts (9)
                                             Some schools had not developed
                                             and distributed written parental
                                             involvement policies and school-
                                             parent compacts.

                                             R: Parental Communication (x)
     F: Parental Input (2)
                                             Some parents were not aware of the
     Schools should actively involve
                                             meaning of AYP, school choice or
MR   parents in developing school-level
                                             supplemental services. State should
     written parental involvement policies
                                             annually inform LEAs they must
     and school-parent compacts.
                                             ensure their schools hold the
                                             required annual meeting for Title I
                                             parents to communicate and explain
                                             parents' options. State should also
                                             give technical assistance to LEAs
                                             and schools to help them evaluate
                                             the effectiveness of their parental
                                             involvement programs.
                                                                                F: Plans Missing Required
                                                                                Components (10)
                                                                                LEAs must ensure that schools in
                                       F: State Oversight
                                                                                improvement develop an
                                       The state has notified LEAs of
                                                                                improvement plan that contains all
                                       schools and LEAs in improvement,
                                                                                required components and involves
                                       but must ensure the LEAs notify
                                                                                parents, teachers and
                                       schools and inform schools of
                                                                                representatives of the school's
                                       required activities such as parental
                                                                                community.
                 MR                    notification.
                                                                                R: Timely Parental Notification
                                       R: Deficient Parental Notification (2)
                                                                                Because LEAs distrusted the
                                       The state should provide LEAs with
                                                                                accuracy of state-supplied AYP data,
                                       additional information on what
                                                                                they delayed informing parents about
                                       parental notification letters should
                                                                                public school choice until the second
                                       include.
                                                                                semester. The state should ensure
                                                                                LEAs implement parental options in
                                                                                a timely manner.




                                                                                F: Timely Choice Notification (6)
                                                                                Some LEAs notified parents of the
                                                                                availability of public school choice
                                                                                after the start of the school year,
                                         F: Timely Choice Notification (6)      while some LEAs failed to send
F: Notification Missing Elements (10) The state must ensure that LEAs           notices at all.
District notifications of choice options immediately notify schools in
were missing required elements.          improvement and parents of their       F: Notification Missing Elements (10)
                                         school choice options.                 School choice notifications did not
                                                                                explain why the school was identified
                                                                                for improvement or how the school
                                                                                compared with others in the district
                                                                                and state.
                                        F: SES Implementation (3)
                                        One LEA imposes additional
                                        requirements on state-approved
                                        providers, and does not offer SES
                                        services to grades K-2. The state      F: Monitoring System (2)
                                        must make sure that districts          The state should create a system for
F: Notification Missing Elements (7)
                                        understand SES requirements.           monitoring the success of SES
LEA notifications of SES options
                                                                               providers and for removal of
were missing required elements.
                                        R: Monitoring System (3)               providers from the state-approved
                                        The state should clarify and           list, if necessary.
                                        strengthen its process for
                                        determining the effectiveness of
                                        providers, including the role of LEA
                                        feedback.




F: Plans Missing Elements (16)
Schoolwide plans were missing
required components.

R: Combine Plans (6)
                                                                               F: Update Schoolwide Program
The state should incorporate into its
                                                                               Plans (2), Plans Missing Elements
guidance, templates for school and      F: Plans Missing Elements (16)
                                                                               (16), Combine Plans (6)
district improvement to guide the       Schoolwide plans were missing
                                                                               The state must ensure that
development of a single school plan.    required components, including
                                                                               schoolwide programs are updated on
                                        strategies to attract qualified
                                                                               an annual basis and include all
R: Staff Awareness (6), Update          teachers, plans for pre-school
                                                                               required elements, either as a
Schoolwide Program Plans (3)            transition, and coordination of
                                                                               separate plan or as part of a plan
Principals and instructional staff      federal, state and local programs.
                                                                               integrating state, local and school
should be trained to understand
                                                                               improvement plans.
schoolwide plans. State should
ensure schoolwide programs that
have operated for a significant
amount of time to ensure they are
periodically updated.
                                        F: Multiple, Objective Criteria (3)
                                        The state should clarify for districts
                                        that multiple, objective criteria must
                 MR                                                                               MR
                                        be used to determine who will be
                                        served in targeted assistance
                                        programs.




               Arizona                                California                              Colorado
          April 25-29, 2005                       Sept. 20-24, 2004                        Jan. 24-27, 2005




                 MR                                       MR                                      MR




                                                                                 F: Reallocation Policy (4)
F: State Set-Asides (2)
                                                                                 The state must develop a
State improperly calculated state-
                                                                                 reallocation policy to return excess
level set-asides. These set-asides
                                                                                 funds to schools.
must be reserved before, rather than
                                        (LEA-level findings were erroneously
after, making allocations to LEAs.
                                                listed here; see 3.7)        R: Prompt Allocation
(Originally reported under 3.7)
                                                                             The state should reduce the time
                                                                             between the initial allocation of funds
(LEA-level findings were erroneously
                                                                             to LEAs and when the funds are
listed here, and vice versa; see 3.7)
                                                                             actually made available.
                                           R: Notify LEAs
                                           The state should complete its MOE
F: Calculation
                                           calculations early enough to allow
State failed to properly calculate                                                                  MR
                                           districts time to request an MOE
maintenance of effort for its districts.
                                           exemption from ED, and plan for
                                           funding reductions.




                                           F: Annual Determination (7) and
                                           State Monitoring (10)
                                           Districts are not completing
                                                                                   F: State Monitoring (10)
                                           comparability calculations, and the
                                                                                   Although the state requires LEAs to
                                           state is not monitoring districts at
                  MR                                                               implement comparability properly, it
                                           least once every two years. The state
                                                                                   does not monitor LEA comparability
                                           relies on A-133 audits to determine
                                                                                   documentation or reports.
                                           compliance, despite an earlier
                                           comparability finding by the ED
                                           team.
F: Equitable Services for Students (4)
The state should ensure that LEAs
provide equitable services for private
school students from district-level set-
asides.

F: Equitable Services for Parents,         F: Assess Program Effectiveness (8)
Teachers (11)                              Districts must assess not only
The state should ensure that LEAs          individual participants, but also the
provide equitable services for             effectiveness of the Title I private
                                                                                   MR
teachers and families of private           school program itself. The state
school children from district-level set-   must show how assessment results
asides.                                    will be used to improve services to
                                           private school children.
F: Non-Comparable Data
LEAs have not used the same or
comparable poverty date to count
public and private school students
for the purpose of calculating
allocations.




            not monitored                                   MR                     MR
F: Ensure Reservations (8)
State did not ensure that districts
                                        R: Monitor District
reserved funds for correct categories
                                        One district has exceeded the 15
and amounts before distributing
                                        percent carryover limit for two
funds to school attendance areas.
                                        consecutive years. The state should
                                        monitor this district's budget and
F: Professional Development School
                                        ensure any excess funds are
Reservations (8)
                                        reallocated according to state policy.
tate failed to ensure that all schools                                            F: Ensure Reservations (8)
identified for improvement reserved                                               LEAs did not reserve funds for
                                        R: Reduce Excessive District-Level
10 percent of funds for professional                                              correct categories and amounts from
                                        Set-Asides
development.                                                                      their allocations before distributing
                                        The state should advise the district
(Note: Preceding two findings was                                                 funds to school attendance areas.
                                        with consistent excess carryover
originally listed under indicator 3.2.)
                                        funds to reduce its district-level set-
                                        asides and consider raising its per-
F: Professional Development District
                                        pupil allocation amounts to schools.
Reservations (8)
State failed to ensure that all LEAs
                                        (Note: These two recommendations
identified for improvement reserved
                                        were originally reported under 3.2.)
10 percent of funds for professional
development.




                                                                                  F: Statewide Complaint Process (2)
                                                                                  The state does not have a complaint
                  MR                                      MR
                                                                                  policy or procedures in place for Title
                                                                                  I issues.
MR   MR                    MR




          F: Inadequate Monitoring (8)
          State must monitor all fiscal
          requirements annually before
          awarding funds, as part of its
MR   MR   consolidated application review
          process. It must set up a
          comprehensive system for
          monitoring programmatic
          requirements.
F: District Applications Missing
Elements (4)
Required reservations and equitable
                                          MR              MR
service calculations were not
included in the state's district
application form.




                MR                        MR              MR




                MR                    not monitored   not monitored
                           not monitored                         not monitored                          not monitored




                                                                                                                        Key
 findings (F), recommendations (R) and commendations (C) from all three monitoring areas.

mendations (R) and commendations (C) from all available state data for that indicator.


ndicator is found in more than one state, the total number of occurrences will appear in parentheses.
mendations in green.
Connecticut                     Florida                         Idaho
Dec. 8-11, 2003             May 24-27, 2005                March 14-18, 2005
      F=6                        F=32                            F=20
      R=5                        R=22                            R=7
      C=5                        C=0
                                                                 C=0



     MR                            MR                             MR




                  F: Update Workbook
                  State has not implemented a
                  planned change in scale scores.
                  State must remove reference to this
                  change from its accountability
                  workbook.

                  R: Document Alternate Achievement
                  Standards (2)
                  State should document and validate
                  its standard-setting procedures for
                  alternate achievement standards
                  before its scheduled peer review.
                  Currently, there is no evidence of
                  alignment with academic standards.
     MR                                                           MR
                  R: Science Assessment and
                  Standards (2)
                  State has fully implemented the state
                  science assessments but has not yet
                  established science standards. It is
                  recommended that state finish
                  developing standards before the
                  peer review in spring 2006.

                  R: Establish Grade-Specific
                  Achievement Standards
                  State should prepare grade-specific
                  achievement information for each
                  subject and describe competencies
                  before the peer review in spring 2006.
     R: Alternative Assessments for LEP
     Students
     ED recommends that the state
     standardize the alternative
     assessment procedure for LEP
     students, apply the same technical
     quality standards as if it were an
     alternate to the normal state test,
     and use it only for students with the
                                              R: Test Security (3) and Data
     lowest levels of English proficiency
                                              Quality (2)
     as a second criterion for eligibility, as
                                              State is advised that the following
     well as less than one year of
                                              issues may arise in peer review: test
     language services.
                                              security; validity of LEP scores
                                              because accommodations are
     R: Quality of Alternate Assessments
                                              actually based on accommodations
     for Children with Disabilties
                                              provided to students with disabilities;
     State is urged to document the
MR                                            lack of documentation for standard-
     technical quality requirements for
                                              setting.
     alternate assessments for children
     with disabilities; current assessment
                                              R**: Appeal Process
     lacks sufficient standardization in
                                              State has developed an excellent
     administration and scoring to pass
                                              online appeal process, but ED
     peer review. (See also, similar
                                              recommends providing additional
     finding for standards under 1.2.)
                                              documentation, including examples,
                                              to further enhance process.
     R**: Test Security (3)
     For test monitoring, state should
     establish a priority list of “high risk”
     schools and districts based on a
     history of testing irregularities or a
     position of high stakes, i.e. risk of
     restructuring. State should also
     expand monitoring as resources
     allow.
     F: Students Incorrectly Counted as
     Participants (4)
     State does not calculate separate
     participation rates for the
     mathematics and reading
     assessments as required by
     regulations. State counts student as
                                              F: Incorrect Data Definition:
     participating if he or she sits for
                                              Students who leave high school and
     either test, and reports same figure
                                              receive GEDs within a certain
     for both subjects.
                                              window are improperly excluded from
                                              the count of drop-outs.
     R: Reclassify Within-District
     "Entities" As Programs
                                              R: Update Workbook
     State should reclassify entities with
                                              State’s originally planned system for
     fewer than 10 students as
                                              tracking students to generate
MR   “programs” rather than schools and
                                              required data has been de-funded.
     assign their scores to a school.
                                              State should amend its
     Otherwise, a “small school” AYP
                                              accountability workbook as a
     process must be established for
                                              replacement system is identified.
     determining accountability of such
     entities.
                                              Note: See 2.6 and 2.7 for additional
                                              findings.
     R: Special High Schools' Graduation
     Rate
     Special high schools that do not
     graduate students should be
     assigned the district graduation rate,
     rather than their own graduation rate.
     Otherwise, such high schools will
     always miss the state's standard for
     graduation rate.




     R: Consolidate Information (2)
     State should ensure that all report
                                            F: Reporting All NCLB Data
     card elements are available in the
                                            Elements (19)
     same document, rather than in
                                            State’s LEA report card template
     different locations or documents.
                                            does not include all required data,
MR                                          including the number and percent of
     R: Issue District Report Card
                                            schools in improvement and the
     District information is included in
                                            percentage of students not tested,
     each school’s report card but there is
                                            disaggregated by subgroup and
     not separate district report card. A
                                            subject.
     separate district report card should
     be generated.
     MR                             MR                             MR




                  R: Implement Test
                  State should submit a status report
     MR           in summer 2006 on the planned                    MR
                  statewide adoption of a single test for
                  determining LEP status.




Connecticut                     Florida                          Idaho
Dec. 8-11, 2003             May 24-27, 2005                 March 14-18, 2005
                                        F: 'Right to Know' Notification (12)
                                        State must ensure distrcts directly
F: 'Right to Know' Notification (12)
                                        (i.e. through mail) provide parents
Despite a state memorandum, not all
                                        with notification they may request the
parents were notified of their right to
                                        qualifications of teachers and
request information on teachers'
                                        paraprofessionals. Some LEAs are
qualifications.
                                        only using newsletters and the
                                        Internet. State must review LEA
F: Principal Attestation (3)
                                        letters to ensure they mention
The state must provide ED with
                                        paraprofessionals.
documentation in which principals
attest that each school is in
                                        R: Uniform Paraprofessional
compliance with requirements for
                                        Assessment Standards (2)
highly qualified staff.                                                          F: 'Right to Know' Notification (12)
                                        If state has a policy allowing
                                                                                 LEAs did not inform parents of their
                                        development and use of local
F: Poor and Minority Students (2)                                                right to know the qualifications of
                                        paraprofessional assessments, the
The state has not developed a plan                                               their children’s teachers and
                                        policy should be available in writing
describing how it will ensure that                                               paraprofessionals.
                                        and clearly understood by LEAs.
poor and minority children are not
taught at higher rates than other
                                        R: Paraprofessional Qualification (4),
children by inexperienced,
                                        State Monitoring (2)
unqualified, or out-of-field teachers.
                                        Because a high percentage of
                                        paraprofessionals statewide do not
C: Teacher Database
                                        meet NCLB qualification
The state has developed an effective
                                        requirements, state should help
and comprehensive database that
                                        LEAs find ways to aid
permits the state to track the
                                        paraprofessionals. Also, the state
credentials and placements of all
                                        should collect information biweekly
teachers in the state.
                                        or monthly to gauge local progress
                                        on this issue.




                                       F: Implement Support Plan (7)
                                       State has not developed and
                                       implemented a statewide system of
                                       support that meets NCLB
C: Professional Development            requirements.                             F: Implement Support Plan (7)
The state supports districts and                                                 State’s statewide system of support
schools with professional           F: Recognition System                        has not been fully implemented and
development and curricula, using    State has not established a process          LEAs are unaware of how to access
Regional Education Service Centers. to identify distinguished schools            it.
                                    based on the statutory criteria of
                                    making the greatest gains in closing
                                    the achievement gap or exceeding
                                    adequate yearly progress.
                                                                               F: Committee Composition (4)
                                        R: Level of Activity (2)               The state committee of practitioners
                                        Committee is practically inactive.     did not include pupil services
                 MR
                                        State should seek to encourage         personnel. (Under Even Start
                                        more active involvement.               monitoring, ED also noted the
                                                                               absence of parent representatives.)


                                        F: Parental Involvement Policy (13)
                                        and School-Parent Compacts (9)
                                        State has not ensured that all LEAs
                                        and schools have current parental
                                        involvement policies and that all
                                                                               F: Parental Involvement Policy (13)
                                        schools have a parent-school
                                                                               and School-Parent Compacts (9)
                                        compact.
                                                                               The state has not ensured that all
                                                                               LEAs and schools have current
                                        F: State Review (3)
                                                                               parental involvement policies and
                                        State has not conducted an annual
                                                                               that all schools have a written parent-
                                        review to determine the effectiveness
                                                                               school compact. Also, state has not
                                        of each LEA’s parental involvement
                                                                               ensured that LEAs and schools build
F: Parental Involvement Policy (13)     policy and practices.
                                                                               parents’ capacity to be involved in
and School-Parent Compacts (9)
                                                                               schools by supporting activities that
Some schools had not developed          R: Technical Assistance (2)
                                                                               parents request.
written parental involvement policies   State should seek ways to provide
and school-parent compacts.             ongoing technical assistance to
                                                                               R: Translation for LEP Parents (2)
                                        LEAs and schools on parental
                                                                               State should review written LEA
                                        involvement. Under separate
                                                                               communications to parents to ensure
                                        recommendation, state should
                                                                               they are parent-friendly and available
                                        consider targeting resources or
                                                                               in a language the parents can
                                        reconfiguring an existing position to
                                                                               understand.
                                        help LEAs and schools meet their
                                        parental involvement responsibilities.

                                        R: Coordinate State and Federal
                                        Plan
                                        State legislature has passed a law
                                        requiring development of a parental
                                        involvement plan; the state should
                                       F: Parental Notification (5)
                                       Many school improvement notices
                                       lacked required components. State
                                       must develop a template for LEAs
                                       and schools and provide guidance
                                       describing all the required
                                       components.
C: Assistance to Schools (2)
                                       F: Plans Missing Required
The state provides extensive
                                       Components (10)
assistance on school improvement
                                       The state’s on-line template for
plans. The state's Capacity Building                                                               MR
                                       school improvement plans does not
Model for School Improvement
                                       contain all of the ten required school
includes work sessions and training
                                       improvement plan requirements.
sessions for schools in improvement.
                                       R: Consult Other Models for
                                       Template
                                       To help it revise its on-line template,
                                       the state should review school
                                       improve- ment plan templates
                                       prepared by certain LEAs that
                                       include all required components.




                                       F: Choice Implementation
                                       State allows LEAs without capacity
                                       to offer choice to create “schools
                                       within schools” to meet the demand
                                       for choice. However, such schools         F: Timely Choice Notification (6)
                                       must be treated as genuinely distinct     AYP decisions were provided too
                                       schools, so the state must issue          late to allow LEAs to notify parents of
                MR
                                       separate report cards, calculate          school choice options. (Note: Finding
                                       eligibility and funding for federal and   was originally reported under 1.5, but
                                       state funds separately, calculate         is listed here for consistency.)
                                       adequate yearly progress separately,
                                       and otherwise treat each such school
                                       as an entiy separate from the school
                                       occupying the rest of the building.
                                      F: SES Implementation (3)
                                      ED team was unable to determine
                                      whether the state’s “State SES” and
                                      “District SES” options fully meet the
                                      requirements of the statute. ED team
R: Monitoring System (3)                                                     F: Timely SES Notification (3)
                                      made no determination pending
The state has not yet developed a                                            AYP decisions were provided too
                                      receipt of additional information.
system for monitoring the quality and                                        late to allow LEAs to notify parents of
effectiveness of SES providers, and                                          SES options. (Note: Finding was
                                      R: Timely Implementation
should fully develop a monitoring                                            originally reported under 1.5, but is
                                      State should work to ensure SES
process.                                                                     listed here for consistency.)
                                      providers start services in a timely
                                      manner. In two LEAs, providers did
                                      not complete fingerprinting until very
                                      late in the school year, thereby
                                      delaying services.




                                       F: Plans Missing Elements (16)
                                       Districts did not include all required
F: Plans Missing Elements (16)         elements in their schoolwide plans.
Schoolwide plans were missing          States should modify its template to
required elements, including           include all items.
schoolwide reform strategies to help
all students meet state standards,     R: Consult Other Models for
plans to assist preschoolers in the    Template (x)
transition to elementary school and    To help it revise its on-line template,
                                                                               F: State Barriers to Schoolwide
coordination of federal, state and     state should review schoolwide plan
                                                                               Programs
local services.                        templates prepared by certain LEAs
                                                                               State has imposed barriers to
                                       that include all required components.
                                                                               implementing schoolwide plans,
R: Incorporate Ten Components into
                                                                               such as requiring a planning process
Four Quadrants                         R: Staff Awareness (6)
                                                                               that could take two years.
The state should incorporate all ten   State should consider developing a
required schoolwide plan               training module for principals newly
components into one or more of four    assigned to schoolwide schools so
broad quadrants (Teaching and          they understand schoolwide plans.
Learning, Capacity Building,
Community Building, and Policy         R: Coordinate Plans
Management ).                          Schoolwide plans should be aligned
                                       with school improvement plans for
                                       the same academic year .
R: Staff Awareness
The state should ensure that district
officials and principals are aware of
the eight core components of                                                    F: Multiple, Objective Criteria (3)
targeted assistance programs.                                                   State has not ensured that LEAs
                                                                                select students for assistance in
R: Multiple Objective Criteria (2)                                              targeted assistance schools
                                                          MR
The state should ensure that                                                    according to statutory criteria.
principals of targeted assistance
programs are informed that children
in grades three and above must be
identified on the basis of multiple,
educationally related, objective
criteria.




            Connecticut                                Florida                                Idaho
           Dec. 8-11, 2003                         May 24-27, 2005                       March 14-18, 2005




                                        F: No Corrective Action Plan (2)
                                        State must timely implement
                 MR                                                                               MR
                                        corrective actions for findings in
                                        Single Audit Act reports.




                                        F: Documentations for Excess
                                        Carryover (2)
                                        State failed to require districts
                                        seeking waivers of the 15 percent
F: Reallocation Policy (4)              carryover limit to show that the
The state has no reallocation policy,   waivers is “reasonable and
and unused Title I funds at the LEA     necessary.” State also failed to
level are returned to ED after the 27   require LEAs to prepare a plan to                         MR
month grant period has ended. The       use the carryover and reduce it
state should develop a reallocation     below the statutory maximum. See
policy.                                 also, Indicator 3.5.

                                        (Note: Three other findings were
                                        improperly classified under this
                                        indicator. See indicator 3.9, below.)
MR                     MR                                     MR




     F: Determining Comparability (7)
     State failed to ensure that LEAs
     included “skipped” schools and
     charter schools in their comparability
     calculations.
                                              F: State Monitoring (10)
     F: Adjusting Resources (2)               Although the state requires annual
     Districts made necessary staff           submission of LEA comparability
MR   adjustments for schools that were        certifications, it only reviews the
     noncomparable, but state must            documentation every five years; the
     ensure that districts document the       statute requires review every two
     adjustments.                             years.

     F: State Monitoring (10)
     State has failed to review annual
     district comparability reports on a
     timely basis.
                                        F: Equitable Services for Students (7)
                                                                                  F: Selection of Students (2)
                                        In requesting waiver of 15 percent
                                                                                  LEAs were selecting private school
                                        carryover limit, districts must explain
                                                                                  children for services based solely on
                                        how an equitable portion of carryover
                                                                                  an academic criterion; they were not
                                        will be used for private school
                                                                                  aware that children must also reside
                                        children.
                                                                                  in a participating Title I public school
                                                                                  attendance area.
                                        F: Equitable Services for Parents,
                                        Teachers (11) - Under 2 separate
                                                                                  F: Equitable Services for Parents,
                                        findings, districts miscalculated, or
                                                                                  Teachers (11)
                                        failed to provide, equitable services
C: Teacher-Level Consultation                                                     LEA improperly calculated funds to
                                        for private school parents and
The Title I teacher who serves                                                    be used for equitable services for
                                        teachers from district set-asides.
private school children is                                                        Title I private school parents and
commended for consulting with                                                     teachers.
                                         F: Program Responsibility (10)
parents and classroom teachers on a
                                         One district essentially relinquished
frequent basis.                                                                   F: Program Responsibility (10)
                                         program responsibility and financial
                                                                                  LEA largely delegated
                                         control to the private school.
C: Form for Equitable Services                                                    implementation of the program to the
The state has a clear and concise                                                 private school.
                                         F: Program Responsibility (10)
form that allows districts to calculate
                                         Title I materials and supplies were
the portion of funds reserved off the                                             F: Assess Program Effectiveness (8)
                                         not adequately marked as public
top of Title I allocations for equitable                                          Academic assessment results should
                                         property, and were used by all
services.                                                                         be used to improve the Title I
                                         private school teachers rather than
                                                                                  program.
                                         just Title I staff.
                                                                            R: Late Services
                                        F: Assess Program Effectiveness (8)
                                                                            In one LEA, the private school
                                        Academic assessment results should
                                                                            program got off to a late start; LEA
                                        be used to improve the Title I
                                                                            should provide additional services for
                                        program.
                                                                            the rest of the year and carry over
                                                                            unspent funds to provide additional
                                        R: Timely Funding Determinations
                                                                            services next year.
                                        Adjustments to district program
                                        improvement funds are made later in




                  MR                                 not monitored                             not monitored
                                            F: Ensure Reservations (8)
                                            The state did not have a process to
                                            ensure LEAs made the required
                                            reservations.

                                           F: Abide by Rankings (2)
                                           Two LEAs created an impermissible
                                           special reserve for extra positions at
     F: Ensure Reservations (8),           certain schools. This resulted in
     Parental Involvement Funds (4)        lower-ranked schools receiving
     Some LEAs did not correctly           higher per-pupil allocations than
     determine the 1 percent set-aside for highly ranked schools.
MR   private schools, and one retained all
     the funds for a district parental     F: Parental Involvement Funds (4)
     involvement center rather than        State did not ensure LEAs allocated
     distributing 95 percent to schools as 95 percent of parental involvement
     required by law.                      set-aside to schools.

                                            R: Professional Development
                                            Since most teachers and
                                            paraprofessionals have become
                                            highly qualified, state should develop
                                            streamlined procedure for LEAs to
                                            request other use of 5 percent of
                                            funds reserved for this purpose.




MR                    MR                                     MR
     F: Allocate Same or More Funds to
     Higher-Poverty Schools (7)
     State has not ensured that districts
     comply with allocation provisions of
     Title I. A district allocated higher per-
     pupil amounts to a lower-poverty
     school than a higher- poverty school.

     F: Allocating Carryover Funds
     If a district allocates to schools funds
     carried over from the previous year,        F: Allocate Same or More Funds to
     it must follow normal allocation rules.     Higher-Poverty Schools (7)
     A district failed to do this. State must    In addition to the second finding
MR
     provide guidance on this issue.             under Indicator 3.7, above, an LEA
                                                 allocated a higher per-pupil amount
     F: Skipping (2)                             to lower-ranking schools.
     Although districts indicated in their
     applications that they “skipped”
     higher-poverty schools under the
     Title I provision permitting such
     action, state has not provided
     guidance to ensure the LEAs met all
     conditions for “skipping.”

     (Note: Above findings were originally
     reported under 3.2.)
                                                 F: Inadequate Monitoring (8)
                                                 State monitors all Title I
                                                 requirements at the LEA level on a
                                                 five-year cycle. State must monitor
                                                 all fiscal requirements annually
                                                 before awarding funds, as part of its
                                                 consolidated application review
     F: Inadequate Monitoring (8)                process. It must set up a
     State must monitor all fiscal               comprehensive system for
     requirements annually before                monitoring programmatic
     awarding funds, as part of its              requirements, as required, and
MR   consolidated application review             ensure usage of single audit
     process. It must set up a                   findings.
     comprehensive system for
     monitoring programmatic                     R: Supplemental Monitoring (2)
     requirements, as required.                  State should consider supplementing
                                                 its five-year onsite monitoring cycle
                                                 with some mechanism, such as LEA
                                                 self-evaluations or expanded annual
                                                 plan requirements, to identify
                                                 implementation issues in off-years.
                  MR                                        MR                    MR




R: Full-Day Kindergarten
A district-wide kindergarten set-aside
would fund 75 percent of the cost of
the program, although the state
already requires half-day                                   MR                    MR
kindergarten. The state should
ensure that the Title I set-aside is not
funding more than 50 percent of the
full-day kindergarten program.




                                           F: Deficient Inventory Controls (12)
                                           Three separate findings on
             not monitored                                                        MR
                                           inadequate physical inventory
                                           controls.
                 F: Inadequate Procurement Controls
                 State failed to ensure that LEAs
                 maintain adequate controls over
 not monitored   procurement. In one LEA, purchase    not monitored
                 orders were created and approved
                 after equipment and services were
                 ordered, received and invoiced.




Key
   Illinois            Indiana                Iowa
April 4-8, 2005   Nov. 29-Dec. 3, 2004   May 18-21, 2004
     F=40                F=12                 F=8
     R=13                 R=3                 R=5
      C=0                 C=0                 C=3




     MR                   MR                  MR




     MR                   MR                  MR
F: Participation Guidelines for
Alternate Assessments
The state must review its guidelines
for participation in alternate
assessments and train staff to
ensure that LEAs do not exceed the
1 percent cap of students that may
be counted as proficient.

R: Primary School Assessment
Accommodation
The state standards-based test
                                                 F: Incomplete Participation (5)
should provide reasonable
                                                 The state should clarify its guidance
accommodations for elementary and
                                                 on student participation to ensure
middle school LEP students.                 MR
                                                 that all students are being tested;
                                                 certain subgroups were not fully
R: High School Assessment
                                                 participating.
Accommodation
The high school standards-based
assessment allows no
accommodations for LEP students
and few accommodations for
students with disabilities.

R: Clarify LEP Exit Criteria
The state should clarify its criteria for
identifying LEP students and exiting
them from the program; LEAs are not
applying these criteria consistently.
F: Timely Determinations (5)            F: Disaggregation of Data (4)
Delays in data verification prevented   The state was not able to properly
the state from identifying schools in   disaggregate subgroup data -- or           C: Helpful Web Site (2)
improvement in a timely manner. The     make AYP determinations --                 Iowa's accountability website allows
state has developed procedures to       because it did not have total              states and districts to access data on
address the coding errors, but must     enrollment information for students        proficiency and participation on
describe its procedures and timeline.   with disabilities, students with limited   student assessments.
ED reserves the option to take          English proficiency, or economically
further administrative actions.         disadvantaged students.




F: Reporting All NCLB Data
Elements - Teacher Qualifications
                                                                                   F: Reporting All NCLB Data
(19)
                                                                                   Elements (19)
District report cards do not contain
                                                                                   LEA report cards are missing
the percentage of classes not taught                      MR
                                                                                   comparisons with other LEAs and
by highly qualified teachers, in the
                                                                                   the state on the "other academic
aggregate and disaggregated by
                                                                                   indicators" required for accountability.
high and low poverty schools. The
state must submit a revised template.
     MR                   MR                  MR




     MR                   MR                  MR




   Illinois            Indiana                Iowa
April 4-8, 2004   Nov. 29-Dec. 3, 2004   May 18-21, 2004
F: 'Right to Know' Notification (12)
The state must ensure that all LEAs'
annual notification letters indicate
that parents may request information
on whether their child is provided
services by a paraprofessional.

R: Paraprofessional Qualification (6)
                                         F: 'Right to Know' Notification (12)
Nearly 1,500 instructional
                                         The state should ensure that charter
paraprofessionals in Chicago have
                                         schools comply with parental
yet to meet qualification
                                         notification requirements, including
requirements. The state must                                                                         MR*
                                         notifying parents that they have the
provide LEAs with technical
                                         right to request information about the
assistance to identify methods and
                                         qualifications of their child's teachers
strategies to accelerate the process.
                                         and paraprofessionals.
R: 'Right to Know' Notification
The state should provide guidance to
and monitor LEAs regarding the
requirements of letters to parents,
including "right to know"
requirements. (Note: Originally listed
under 2.4.)




F: Implement Support Plan (7)
The state must show that its support     F: Actively Determine Need
                                                                                    C: Research Website
plan will be fully implemented by the    The state must develop a plan for
                                                                                    A state website offers reviews of
beginning of the 2005-06 school          actively identifying and assisting
                                                                                    research studies that focus on
year, and must clarify how regional      LEAs unable to carry out their
                                                                                    specific instructional strategies and
service offices will give priority to    responsibilities for schools in
                                                                                    programs, and encourages the use
schools in corrective action and         improvement, corrective action and
                                                                                    of scientifically based research.
designate and use distinguished          restructuring.
teachers.
                                                                         R: Committee Composition (3)
                                                                         The state's Committee of
                                                                         Practitioners has a roster of only five
                 MR                                  MR
                                                                         members, and should be expanded
                                                                         to be more representative of the
                                                                         entire state.




F: Parental Involvement Policy (13)
                                    F: Parental Involvement Policy (13)
and School-Parent Compacts (9)
                                    Various LEAs and schools had not
The state must ensure that school
                                    developed, updated or reviewed their
principals immediately develop and
                                    parental involvement policies, and
distribute written parental
                                    some policies did not fulfill
involvement policies and school-
                                    requirements. The state must ensure
parent compacts if such policies and                                      R: Improving Student Achievement
                                    that LEAs and schools develop
compacts are not in place.                                                (5)
                                    written policies and involve parents
                                                                          LEAs should more strongly
                                    in the development of their policies.
R: Parental Communication Samples                                         emphasize parental involvement at
The state should consider                                                 the school level.
                                    F: Annual Meeting
developing and posting on its web
                                    The state must ensure that all LEAs,
site letters that meet requirements
                                    including charter schools, conduct an
for districts to use when preparing
                                    annual meeting for Title I parents
letters.
                                    and ask parents to participate in the
                                    schoolwide planning process.
(See also, indicator 2.1.)
                                          F: Deficient Parental Notification (5)
                                          Letters to parents were missing
F: Timely Assessment Data (3)
                                          required information, including the
Delays in test data verification meant                                             F: Plans Missing Required
                                          reason schools/districts were
that LEAs were not officially notified                                             Components (10)
                                          identified for improvement, full
of schools' AYP status until                                                       School improvement plans lacked
                                          information on choice and
December, which meant they were                                                    required components, including
                                          transportation services, and the
not able to take appropriate                                                       specific measurable objectives for
                                          possibility of parental involvement.
corrective action and some schools                                                 progress for each subgroup, clear
did not provide choice until the next                                              delineation of district responsibilities,
                                          F: Plans Missing Required
school year.                                                                       strategies to promote parental
                                          Components (10)
                                                                                   involvement and an explanation of
                                          School improvement plans were
F: Timely Parental Notification                                                    teacher mentoring activities.
                                          missing requirement components.
The state did not notify parents about
LEAs in improvement in a timely                                                    R: Combine Plans (7)
                                          R: Combine Plans (7)
manner, and must provide ED with a                                                 The state should consolidate and
                                          ED encourages schools to create a
timeline for notifying parents, a listing                                          streamline planning and allow LEAs
                                          single consolidated plan that meets
of districts in improvement, and                                                   to author a single, strong plan.
                                          state, schoolwide program and
samples of letters.
                                          school improvement plan
                                          requirements.




F: Timely Choice Notification (6)
The delay in identifying schools in
improvement has delayed schools
for a full school year in planning for
and providing choice options. The
state must ensure schools are not
waiting a year to provide transfer                                                 F: Notification Missing Elements (10)
opportunities; ED reserves the option                                              In one district, school choice was not
to take administrative actions.                                                    offered to all students, but was
                                                                                   confined only to low-achieving low-
                                                           MR
F: Notification Missing Elements (10)                                              income students; all parents of
The parental notices did not include                                               children who attend a school in
all required information.                                                          improvement must be notified of the
                                                                                   choice option.
R: Collect Student Participation Data
To increase low participation rates,
the state should collect information
at regular intervals not only of the
schools offering choice but also the
number of students participating.
F: Timely SES Notification (3)
The delay in identifying schools in
improvement has delayed schools
for a full school year in planning for
and providing SES. The state must
ensure schools are not waiting a
year to provide these services; ED
reserves the option to take           F: Notification Missing Elements (7)
administrative actions.               Although one LEA informed parents
                                      in writing about an informational
F: Notification Missing Elements (7) meeting, the notice did not include all
The parental notices did not include the required information about
all required information.             available providers, so parents not
                                      attending the meeting were not fully
R: Collect Student Participation Data informed.
To increase low participation rates,
                                                                               MR
the state should collect information  R: Timely SES Notification (4)
at regular intervals not only of the  Because information about SES
schools offering SES but also the     services may impact parents'
number of students participating.     decision on whether or not to keep
                                      their child at a school, LEAs should
R: Determine SES Provider             inform parents about the availability
When Chicago stops offering SES, it of SES at the same time as they
should give parents the opportunity   discuss options for school choice.
to choose another provider.

R: Increase SES Providers (4)
LEAs are having trouble attracting
SES providers; the state should
conduct an analysis and determine
how to increase provider
participation.




R: Combine Plans (6)
The state should incorporate into its
guidance, templates and rubric for
school and district improvement          F: Plans Missing Elements (16),
information to guide the development     Combine Plans (6)
of a single schoolwide and school        Schoolwide plans were missing
improvement plan.                        required elements. The state must
                                         offer guidance on composing           MR
R: Update Schoolwide Program             required plans. ED notes that
Plans (3)                                schools in improvement and
The state should provide additional      schoolwide program schools may
assistance and support to                create a consolidated plan.
schoolwide programs that have
operated for a significant amount of
time to ensure the plans are updated.
                MR                                MR                                     MR




             Illinois                          Indiana                                  Iowa
          April 4-8, 2005               Nov. 29-Dec. 3, 2004                      May 18-21, 2004




                                                                       R: Finding Follow-up (3)
                                                                       The state should ensure that audit
                                                                       findings and questioned costs are
                                                                       resolved in a timely and appropriate
                MR                                MR
                                                                       manner. Procedures for resolving
                                                                       and tracking audit findings should
                                                                       also be included in the state's Title I
                                                                       reference manual.




F: Documentations for Excess
Carryover (2)
The state must require LEAs to
                                    State information is still being
provide a description of why they                                                        MR
                                               reviewed
exceeded the 15 percent carryover
limit and indicate how excess
carryover will be reduced.
                 MR                     MR   MR




F: Determining Comparability (7)
The state must revise its guidance to
districts to ensure that charter
schools are included in comparability
calculations.

F: Adjusting Resources (2)              MR   MR
The state has not ensured that non-
comparable schools received the
necessary resources to make them
comparable. The state has allocated
funds to hire staff to make schools
comparable, but must follow up.
F: Assess Program Effectiveness (8)
Academic assessment results should
be used to improve the Title I program.

F: Third-Party Contracts (4)
Districts must have signed agreements
with third-party providers that provide
detailed descriptions of Title I services.

F: Reimbursing 3rd-Party Providers (2)
Provider invoices must be detailed, and
must distinguish instructional and
administrative expenditures.            F: Determination of Per Poor Child          F: Determination of Per Poor Child
                                             Allocations (2)                        Allocations (2)
F: Program Responsibility (10)
                                             One district calculated a lower per-   Some districts have not identified the
Districts must control Title I funds.
                                             child amount for private school        amount allocated per poor child; this
                                             students than for public school        figure helps determine how much is
F: Administrative Costs (3)
                                             students. Districts must reserve       needed to provide equitable services
Administrative costs must be charged
to the administrative reservation.           equitable funds in order to provide    to students attending private
                                             equitable services.                    schools. (See also, indicator 3.9)
F: Property and Equipment
Equipment must be properly tagged
with labels that cannot be removed.

F: Equitable Services for Parents,
Teachers
Districts improperly calculated funds to
be used for equitable services for Title I
private school families.

R: Extensive Consultation
Consultation could be strengthened.




              not monitored                                   MR                                     MR
F: Professional Development District
Reservations (8)
LEAs in improvement must reserve
the required 10 percent set aside for
professional development.
                                        F: Ensure Reservations (8),
                                                                              F: Ensure Reservations (8)
F: Professional Development School      Professional Development District
                                                                              The state should ensure that LEAs
Reservations (8)                        Reservations (4)
                                                                              correctly reserve funds for activities
LEAs must ensure that schools in        LEAs did not reserve appropriate
                                                                              like transportation, SES, professional
improvement reserve the required 10     funds for homeless students,
                                                                              development, and services for
percent set aside for professional      professional development for
                                                                              homeless and neglected children.
development.                            districts in improvement, equitable
                                                                              (Note: This item was originally
                                        private school services or local
                                                                              reported under indicator 3.9.)
F: Direct Allocation of School          neglected programs.
Improvement Funds
State allocates almost all
improvement funds to regional
service providers; this money must
go directly to districts.




F: Disseminate Complaint
Procedures                                                                    F: Develop Written Procedures
The state must ensure that it                                                 The state must develop written
                                                         MR
disseminates its recently approved                                            procedures for the receipt and
complaint procedures to districts and                                         resolution of complaints.
the public.
                                              F: Ranking by Poor Children
                                              Attendance
                                              Districts allocated resources based
                                              on teacher assignments rather than
                                              on the number of poor children;
MR                     MR
                                              schools must be ranked by the
                                              number of poor children. (Note: See
                                              also, indicator 3.5.)




     F: Inadequate Monitoring (8)
     The state does not systematically
     monitor LEAs.
                                              R: Onsite Monitoring (4)
                                              The state should develop and
MR   R: Onsite Monitoring (4)
                                              implement a timely and systematic
     In addition to a review of local plans
                                              process for monitoring its grantees.
     and single audits, ED recommends
     that the SEA conduct onsite
     monitoring.
                                             C: Useful Guide (2)
F: District Applications Missing             The state offers detailed guidance for
Elements (4)                                 submitting district plans including a
Required reservations and equitable     MR   summary of Title I allocation trends
service calculations were not                and issues, a summary of Title I
included in e-grant applications.            changes, state contact officials, and
                                             federal and state resource sites.




                  MR                    MR                    MR




F: Deficient Inventory Controls (12)
Three separate findings relating to
deficient controls for physical
inventory.

F: Capitalization Threshold             MR               not monitored
One district exceeded the
capitalization threshold for
equipment by $20,000; levels may
not exceed $5,000 for each article of
Title I equipment.
F: Maintain Documentation
Districts should maintain records
identifying the source and application
of Title I funds.

F: Competitive Bidding Process
Competitive bidding must be used
and documented in all districts.

F: Third Party Contracts (2)
All disbursements for fund payments
must be supported by a contract that
clearly specifies deliverables.

F: Descriptive Invoices (2)
Invoices may not be approved unless
they contain details about products      not monitored   not monitored
and services provided.

F: Documentation for Disbursements
The state must ensure that districts
maintain documentation to support
the disbursement of Title I funds.

F: Control over Disbursements
The state had inappropriately
charged some expenses to Title I
without adequate documentation.

F: Salary Expense (2)
The state must document quarterly
reviews and demonstrate that salary
expenses are properly allocated.
               Maine                        Maryland         Massachusetts
            May 4-7, 2004                March 14-18, 2005   March 22-25, 2004
                F=13                           F=10                 F=6
                R=6                            R=3                 R=5
                C=4                            C=0                 C=3




                 MR                            MR                  MR




R: Finalize Assessment Strategy
The state should commit to an
assessment strategy that aligns itself
with either local or statewide
                                               MR                  MR
assessments, and should reset
measurable objectives and
intermediate goals when the system
is completed.
R: Finalize Assessment Strategy
The state should commit to an
assessment strategy that aligns itself
with either local or statewide           MR
                                                MR
assessments, and should reset            MR**
measurable objectives and
intermediate goals when the system
is completed.
F: Timely Results (2)
The state should ensure that:
contractor and accountability            F: Students Incorrectly Counted as
deadlines correspond; quality control    Participants (4)                          F: Academic Indicators
procedures are in effect at local        The state uses a synthetic                The state's AYP calculations do not
levels; and LEAs receive                 participation rate -- counting students   consistently include an "other
assessment results before the            as participants by providing them a       indicator" as required. The state
beginning of the school year.            test booklet -- to make AYP               must amend its AYP calculations to
                                         decisions. Students must actually         include another indicator for all
F: Disaggregation of Data (4)            attempt to take one of the state          schools.
The state should use a consistent        assessments.
definition of 'economically
disadvantaged.'




                                         F: Disaggregate Data
R: Reporting All NCLB Data
                                         In reporting assessment results at
Elements (3)
                                         the school level, data are not
Five elements in the state report card
                                         disaggregated by all the required
and two elements in local report
                                         areas. In state, district and school
cards were not available for review at
                                         report cards, the state must report                        MR
the time of the monitoring visit; the
                                         the number and percentage of
state should ensure that all
                                         students not taking their state
corrections are in place on the online
                                         assessments at each grade level
school profiles 30 days before the
                                         disaggregated by each of the
start of the school year.
                                         required accountability subgroups.
R: Develop Data Management
System
The state should develop a data
                                           MR                  MR
management system and train
educators on the use of assessment
data.




                MR                         MR                  MR




              Maine                     Maryland         Massachusetts
           May 4-7, 2004             March 14-18, 2005   March 22-25, 2004
                                                                             F: Principal Attestation (3)
                                                                             Principals must sign attestations
                                                                             regarding the qualifications of
                                                                             teachers.

                                                                             F: Teacher Hiring
                                                                             The state must document that
                                                                             teachers hired to work in Title I
                                                                             schools since Jan. 8, 2002, [sic] are
                                                                             highly qualified.

                                                                             F: Uniform Paraprofessional
                                                                             Assessment Standards (4)
                                       R: Paraprofessional Qualification (4) The state permits districts to
F: 'Right to Know' Notification (12)
                                       A significant number of               determine whether or not
The state must ensure that districts
                                       paraprofessionals have yet to meet    paraprofessionals have met a
issue letters to parents informing
                                       paraprofessional requirements. The rigorous standard of quality, but has
them of their right to request the
                                       state should provide technical        not ensured consistency of
qualifications of their children's'
                                       assistance to districts to identify   application across the state.
teachers. (Originally reported under
                                       strategies to increase the number of
indicator 2.4)
                                       qualified paraprofessionals.          R: Clarify Recertification Deadline
                                                                             The state should clarify that federal
                                                                             and state recertification requirements
                                                                             differ, and that teachers should be
                                                                             recertified by the end of the 2005-06
                                                                             school year.

                                                                             R: Poor and Minority Students
                                                                             The state should use its existing
                                                                             ability to track teachers to ensure
                                                                             that poor and minority children are
                                                                             not taught at higher rates than other
                                                                             children by inexperienced,
                                                                             unqualified, or out-of-field teachers.
F: School Support Teams (2)
The state should create and employ
school support teams to assist LEAs
and schools. The state must also
prioritize schools according to need
                                                                             C: School Improvement (2)
and assign appropriate teams to        F: Implement Support Plan (7)
                                                                             The State has a statewide system of
schools.                               Although the state has developed a
                                                                             support that focuses on school
                                       plan for a statewide system of
                                                                             improvement. The state conducts
R: Special Population Needs            support, the plan is not fully
                                                                             professional development activities
The state should consider ways to      implemented.
                                                                             and supports highest-need districts.
provide technical assistance to help
staff meet the academic needs of
LEP and special education students
who fail to reach state proficiency
levels.
                 MR                                      MR                                    MR




F: Parental Involvement Policy (13),
School-Parent Compacts (9)
The state has not ensured that LEAs
regularly evaluate and update parent
involvement policies; some policies
and school-parent compacts have
not been reviewed and revised in ten F: Parental Involvement Policy (13)       R: Improving Student Achievement
years. These policies must be            While parental involvement is being   (5)
evaluated annually.                      carried out, the state must ensure    The state should ensure meaningful
                                         that districts have written school    and effective parental involvement
C: Translation, High Participation (3) parental involvement policies           activities, emphasizing educating
One LEA translates materials into        developed with parents of             parents in how to better help their
eight different languages for parents, participating children.                 children succeed in school.
and provides translators fluent in 30
different languages. Student-led and
student-involved conferencing
attracts a high percentage of
parental participation in both districts
visited.
                                                                               F: Plans Missing Required
                                                                               Components (10), Combine Plans
                                                                               (2)
F: Plans Missing Required             F: Deficient Parental Notification (5)
                                                                               School improvement plans lacked
Components (10)                       Although the state has given LEAs
                                                                               required components, including a
One school's improvement plan did     guidance on parental notification
                                                                               plan for implementing a teacher
not include strategies to promote     requirements, letters are missing
                                                                               mentoring program and identification
effective parental involvement. The   information, including the reason for
                                                                               of specific responsibilities at school,
state should provide a revised plan   identification and information on the
                                                                               district, and state level. If a school is
that contains this required           academic achievement of schools to
                                                                               both a schoolwide program school
component.                            which children may transfer.
                                                                               and a school in improvement, it can
                                                                               create a single plan only if that plan
                                                                               fulfills requirements of both programs.




                 MR                                    MR                                        MR
F: SES Implementation (3)
The state does not have an
approved list of SES providers and                                             C: Effective SES Implementation
LEAs did not offer SES to eligible                                             The state has worked with, and
                                                        MR
students in 2003-04. The state                                                 solicited feedback from, parents,
should provide evidence that it has                                            providers, and districts.
selected providers and enabled
parents to access SES services.




                                      F: Plans Missing Elements (16)           F: Plans Missing Elements (16),
                                      School improvement plans were            Combine Plans (6)
                                      missing required components,             Schoolwide plans were missing
                                      including strategies to attract highly   required elements, including a
                                      qualified teachers and pre-school        comprehensive needs assessment
F: Update Schoolwide Program          transition. School plans must            that includes an assessment of all
Plans (2), Combine Plans (6)          address schoolwide and                   components required for the school
The state acknowledged that it has    improvement components as                plan, strategies for attracting high
not provided guidance to districts on appropriate, either as a separate        quality teachers and for assisting
the development and/or revision of    plan or as part of a comprehensive       preschoolers in the transition to
schoolwide plans for many years. ED integrated plan.                           elementary school, effective timely
notes that schools in improvement                                              assistance for students with difficulty
and schoolwide program schools        R: Staff Awareness (6)                   mastering standards, and a provision
may create a consolidated plan.       Staff in schoolwide program schools      for routinely monitoring the students'
                                      do not fully understand the              progress. If a school is both a
                                      comprehensive nature of how              schoolwide program school and a
                                      schoolwide programs should               school in improvement, it can create
                                      operate. The state should provide        a single plan only if that plan fulfills
                                      additional information and training.     requirements of both programs.
                  MR                                        MR                                         MR




                Maine                                   Maryland                               Massachusetts
            May 4-7, 2004                           March 14-18, 2005                          March 22-25, 2004


                                                                                     R: Fiscal Accountability
                                                                                     The state should place more
                                                                                     emphasis on fiscal issues during its
                                                                                     coordinated program review to
                                                                                     enhance fiscal accountability,
R: Finding Follow-up (3)                                                             facilitate more effective decision-
The state should consider reviewing                                                  making about resources, and ensure
and following up on district audit                                                   that fiscal resources are aligned with
findings when performing on-site                            MR                       policies and programs addressing
monitoring, to ensure that districts                                                 student needs.
have implemented corrective action
plans.                                                                               C: Timely, Effective Audit
                                                                                     Procedures (2)
                                                                                     The state has worked through state-
                                                                                     level audit issues and audit
                                                                                     resolutions, and has timely, efficient,
                                                                                     effective audit procedures.


F: Reallocation Policy (4)
The state must formalize its current
process for reallocating funds.

F: Incorrect Allocation of School
Improvement Funds                         F: Reallocation Policy (4)
Without district approval, the state is   The state must develop a written
reserving more than 5 percent of          reallocation policy or procedure that
                                                                                                       MR
school improvement funds to fund          describes criteria that will be used for
technical assistance. The state must      the reallocation of excess Title I, Part
show how it plans to comply with the      A funds.
requirement that it allocate not less
than 95 percent of school
improvement funds to its districts.
(Note: Originally reported under
indicator 3.7.)
                 MR                      MR   MR




F: Annual Determination (7)
Two districts did not determine
comparability among Title I and non-
Title I schools for the current school
year; the state must ensure that         MR   MR
LEAs make this determination to
ensure services in Title I schools are
comparable to those in non-Title I
schools.
                                       F: Assess Program Effectiveness (8)
                                       Districts must assess not only
                                       individual participants, but also the
                                       effectiveness of the Title I private
                                       school program itself. The state
                                       must show how assessment results
                                       will be used to improve services to
F: Equitable Services for Students (7) private school children.
The state must ensure that districts
provide equitable services for private F: Third-Party Contracts (4)
school children from Title I           The state must require any third
instructional set-asides.              party providers to provide technical
                                       descriptions of service provided so
F: Equitable Services for Parents,     that districts may ensure services
Teachers (11)                          meet Title I requirements.
The state should ensure that districts
provide equitable services for         F: Reimbursing Third-Party              MR
teachers and families of private       Providers (2)
school children from their set-asides. Districts must exercise proper
                                       oversight over third party invoices.
C: Active Involvement                  Requests for expenditure
The state plays an active role in      reimbursement must be supported
working with district and private      by detailed descriptions and
school officials on consultation,      documentation, and expenses must
collecting data, determining           be separated by instructional and
allocations, and developing forms.     administrative costs.

                                      R: Third-Party Contracts
                                      Districts should include in all third
                                      party provider contracts clauses that
                                      may be used to monitor the
                                      effectiveness and compliance of the
                                      provider's services.




                 MR                               not monitored                MR
C: Transportation for Homeless
Students
One district uses state and local
resources to provide transportation
for homeless children; this
sometimes involves transporting
students who live great distances     MR   MR
from their home school attendance
areas. (Note: This was originally
reported under indicator 3.12, then
relating to administrative costs.)

(Note: See also, indicator 3.2.)




                  MR                  MR   MR
                                               R: Charter School Allocation Grants
                                               The state should clarify charter
                                               school requirements for Title I grants.
                  MR                      MR
                                               The current guide mentions that
                                               charter schools are eligible, but
                                               provides no extra information.




C: Thorough Monitoring
The state monitors all of its 190
                                          MR                     MR
districts on a four-year cycle, despite
a Title I staff of just two people.
               MR               MR       MR




(Note: See Commendation under
                                MR       MR
indicator 3.7.)




          not monitored         MR   not monitored
not monitored   not monitored   not monitored
                    Monitoring Area 1: Accountability
                                                                                                States
  Michigan*                   Minnesota                               Missouri
June 7-10, 2004            August 9-13, 2004                       Dec. 8-11, 2003
     F=13                       F=12                                    F=16
     R=3                         R=2                                    R=12
     C=1                         C=2                                     C=4


                                  MR
                    (Note: Meets approved timeline
     MR            requirements, but state must still                     MR
                  obtain approval of final submissions
                                to ED.)




                                  MR
                                                         R: Definition of Alternate Standards
                    (Note: Meets approved timeline
                                                         Missouri does not have alternate
     MR            requirements, but state must still
                                                         achievement standards. The state
                  obtain approval of final submissions
                                                         should implement these by 2005-06.
                                to ED.)
                                            F: Incomplete Participation (5)
                                            Not every child is required to be
                                            assessed in math and
                     MR
                                            communication arts. The state
       (Note: Meets approved timeline
                                            should provide a timeline for
MR    requirements, but state must still
                                            developing alternate assessments in
     obtain approval of final submissions
                                            these fields.
                   to ED.)
                                            (see also, 1.4, below)
F: Accountability Determinations (6) -
 Student with Disabilities
The state must ensure that all
schools providing special education            F: Timely Results (2)
services receive annual                        The state should provide ED with the
accountability determinations. Test            outcome of negotiations with test
results of students receiving special          publishers to have assessment
education in private schools are sent          results delivered in August.
to the public school responsible for           (originally reported in 1.3)
placement.
                                               F: Alternate Test Results not
F: Special Education Results                   Included in AYP
Test results of students with                  The state should provide ED with an
                                          MR
disabilities must appear in state and          assurance that AYP calculations
district AYP reports, and must be              include all students.
used in accountability determinations.
                                               F: Disaggregation of Data (4)
(See also, 2.5.)                               The state has not disaggregated the
                                               graduation rate for LEP and
R: Timely Results (3)                          economically disadvantaged
The state should continue adjusting            students. The state should verify that
the testing date for high schools so           the data has been disaggregated so
that the process of scoring, appeals,          that safe harbor can be determined.
and issuing final accountability
reports can be completed before the
start of the next school year.




F: Reporting All NCLB Data
Elements (19)
The state-level report card is missing
required data; if data is not included,
a notation should explain the
absence. In addition, the state
should not rely solely on the Internet
for dissemination.                        MR                    MR

F: Reporting All NCLB Data
Elements (19)
The state has not monitored district-
level report cards; samples of local
reports were missing required
components.
     MR                        MR                     MR




     MR                        MR                     MR




                  Monitoring Area 2: Instructional Support
                                                                   States
  Michigan*                Minnesota               Missouri
June 7-10, 2004          August 9-13, 2004       Dec. 8-11, 2003
                                                                                F: 'Right to Know' Notification (12)
                                                                                Parents were not notified of their
                                                                                right to request information regarding
                                                                                teachers' professional qualifications.

                                                                                F: Principle Attestation (3)
                                       F: 'Non-Highly Qualified' Notification
                                                                                No evidence was found of required
                                       (4)
                                                                                principal attestations. Each LEA
                                       The state must ensure that districts
                                                                                must explain the attestation
F: Uniform Paraprofessional            notify parents when children have
                                                                                requirement to principals and see
Assessment Standards (4)               been taught for four or more
                                                                                that documents are created and
The state has established a policy for consecutive weeks by a teacher who
                                                                                distributed.
LEAs to evaluate paraprofessionals is not highly qualified.
through local portfolio assessment
                                                                                F: Poor and Minority Students (2)
committees, but must demonstrate       F: Uniform Paraprofessional
                                                                                The state has not developed a plan
that it has created consistent and     Assessment Standards (4)
                                                                                describing how it will ensure that
specific standards, and must ensure While districts are allowed to
                                                                                poor and minority children are not
uniform application of this process    evaluate paraprofessionals through
                                                                                taught at higher rates than other
throughout the state.                  portfolios, the state must develop
                                                                                children by inexperienced,
                                       consistent criteria and provide
                                                                                unqualified, or out-of-field teachers.
                                       guidance for evaluating portfolios
                                       throughout the state.
                                                                                R: Teacher Qualification and
                                                                                Certification
                                                                                The state should provide district and
                                                                                school staff with information about
                                                                                highly qualified teachers and
                                                                                HOUSSE requirements.




                                       F: School Support Teams (2)
                                       The state must ensure that its school
                                       support teams meet statutory             R: Scientifically-Based Research
                                       requirements and provide the             The state should provide guidance
F: Statewide Assistance                assistance required by law. The state    regarding the use of SBR for
The state provides general guidance must also prioritize schools and            selecting materials and programs.
to districts and focused assistance to districts based on their needs.
districts in corrective action and                                              C: Technical Assistance Centers
restructuring, but must establish a    R: Recognition System                    The state has established a network
statewide system of support.           While the state recognizes               of regional technical assistance
                                       distinguished educators and schools,     centers, with nine full-time staff to
                                       it should develop consistent             provide ongoing support.
                                       statewide criteria for identifying and
                                       rewarding accomplishments.
                                      F: Committee Composition (4)
                                      The state must ensure that its
                 MR                                                                           MR
                                      Committee of Practitioners includes
                                      parents.




                                                                              R: Family Literacy (3)
                                                                              The state should encourage schools
                                                                              to use Title I funds to offer family
                                                                              literacy programs for parents who do
                                                                              not have a secondary school diploma
                                                                              or who have low levels of literacy.
C: Translation, High Participation (3)
                                       C: Translation, High Participation (3) School plans did not address this
Districts have developed parental
                                       The state has supported multiple       topic.
communications in multiple
                                       media and print material translations
languages, created services to
                                       to involve parents. Districts make     R: School-Level Activities
homeless families and provided
                                       efforts to encourage attendance for    A large LEA has an active district
multiple opportunities for parents to
                                       school meetings, to translate          parental involvement program that
volunteer at their child's school.
                                       materials and to adapt to special      conducts most activities. More
Parents interviewed were
                                       population needs.                      activities should be centered on
enthusiastic about their involvement.
                                                                              schools.

                                                                             R: Translation for LEP Parents (2)
                                                                             The state should ensure that
                                                                             information is translated or otherwise
                                                                             made available to LEP parents.
                                                                               F: Plans Missing Required
                                                                               Components (10)
                                                                               The school improvement plans
                                      F: Plans Missing Required                lacked required components,
                                      Components (10), Combine Plans           including parental involvement
                                      (2)                                      strategies, written notice of
                                      School improvement plans were            identification, technical assistance in
                                      missing the required components. If      data and budget analysis and
                                      the state chooses to create a single     choosing effective instructional
F: Timely Assessment Data (3)         consolidated plan that meets             strategies, and identification of
Delays in verification of test data   requirements of both schoolwide          specific responsibilities at school,
kept LEAs from identifying schools in programs and schools in                  district, and state level.
improvement and from offering         improvement, it will have met the
choice and SES. The state must        requirements of this finding.            F: Peer Review
ensure AYP determinations and                                                  Districts do not use peer review to
parental notifications are made in a  F: Deficient Parental Notification (5)   approve required school
timely manner.                        Parental notification must include       improvement plans.
                                      why schools were identified for
                                      improvement, how schools                 R: Combine Plans (7)
                                      compared to other schools in the         The state should allow schools to
                                      district, what is being done to remedy   create planning documents that
                                      the problem, and choice                  serve more than one purpose.
                                      requirements.                            Rather than have multiple plans, the
                                                                               state should allow schools to author
                                                                               a single, strong annual plan.




                                                                               F: Multiple School Choice Options
                                                                               LEAs must offer parents a choice of
                                                                               more than one school to which they
                                     F: Timely Choice Notification (6)         may transfer their child if the school
                                     Within its existing choice system,        their child attends is identified for
R: Timely Choice Notification and
                                     state prioritizes students in schools     improvement, corrective action, or
Implementation
                                     deemed in need of improvement.            restructuring.
The state should work more closely
                                     However, LEAs must stipulate that
with districts to ensure that choice
                                     choice is offered because a school        R: Clarification of Capacity
requirements are implemented within
                                     is in improvement, and must provide       Contstraints
timelines.
                                     the option of choice before the           The choice notification letter should
                                     beginning of the school year.             be revised to clarify that lack of
                                                                               capacity may affect parents' choice
                                                                               decisions, but does not prohibit them
                                                                               from exercising their rights to choice.
                                       R: Guidance and Monitoring System
                                       (3)
                                       The state should offer SES
                                       guidance, including examples of
                                       progress reports and provider
R: Timely SES Notification (4)
                                       contracts, and should monitor
The state must ensure that districts                                            R: Timely SES Notification (4)
                                       providers not meeting participant
notify parents of SES availability and                                          The letter notifying parents of SES
                                       needs.
provide information about providers;                                            services was late. The state has
there should be sufficient time to                                              assigned a staff person to administer
                                       C: Timely and Informative Notification
allow parents to select a provider                                              SES, and should continue these
                                       Districts went beyond requirements
before the start of the next school                                             efforts.
                                       to inform parents of services, provide
year.
                                       them information on providers, and
                                       help them select and access
                                       services. The state has also
                                       informed potential providers of their
                                       opportunity to apply.




                                                                            F: Plans Missing Elements (16)
                                                                            Schoolwide plans were missing
                                                                            required elements, including
                                                                            complete comprehensive needs
                                                                            assessments, specific strategies for
                                       F: Plans Missing Elements (16),      schoolwide reform and attracting
F: Plans Missing Elements (16),
                                       Combine Plans (6)                    high-quality teachers, inclusion of
Combine Plans (6)
                                       Schoolwide plans did not contain all teachers in assessment decisions
School improvement plans in
                                       the required elements. ED noted that and useful provisions for
schoolwide schools did not
                                       schoolwide programs in               professional development activities
incorporate the 10 required
                                       improvement may create combined      and coordination of federal, state,
components. ED notes that
                                       schoolwide and school improvement and local services.
schoolwide plans may be combined
                                       plans. This would also satisfy
with school improvement plans.
                                       Indicator 2.5.                       R: Consolidate Funds (2)
                                                                            The state should review its budget
                                                                            template for Title I schoolwide
                                                                            programs so that Title I funds are not
                                                                            segregated, but integrated with other
                                                                            resources.
     MR                             MR                              MR




                  Monitoring Area 3: SEA Fiduciary Responsibilities
                                                                                          States
  Michigan*                     Minnesota                       Missouri
June 7-10, 2004               August 9-13, 2004              Dec. 8-11, 2003




                                                  F: Charter Schools
                                                  The state must ensure that all
                                                  charter schools are included in LEA
                                                  single audits.

                                                  C: Timely, Effective Audit
     MR                             MR
                                                  Procedures (2)
                                                  The state's system of receiving and
                                                  reviewing audits ensures timeliness,
                                                  accuracy and effective resolution.
                                                  Monitoring is coordinated with the
                                                  State Board of Accountancy.




                                                  F: Reallocation Policy (4)
                                                  The state must develop a
                                                  reallocation policy that ensures that
                                                  excess carryover funds are targeted
     MR                             MR
                                                  to schools in need.

                                                  (Note: See indicator 3.9 for within-
                                                  LEA allocation issues.)
                                             R: MOE Waivers
                                             Some districts are fiscally stressed.
                                             ED may waive the maintenance of
                                             effort requirement for districts not
                 MR                     MR
                                             meeting the 90 percent expenditure
                                             requirement in the event of a natural
                                             disaster or precipitous decline in the
                                             financial resources of the district.




                                             F: Determining Comparability (7)
                                             Current state instructions direct
                                             districts to calculate comparability
                                             using "average pupils enrolled" for
F: Annual Determination (7) and              non-Title I schools and actual
State Monitoring (10)                        enrollment for Title I schools. The
The state should ensure that all             state should revise comparability
districts perform the annual                 reports so that actual enrollment
comparability calculations. The state   MR   figures are used for both Title I and
must submit a plan to ED that shows          non-Title I schools.
how it will ensure comparability
compliance at least once every two           R: Equating Paraprofessionals and
years.                                       Teachers (x)
                                             The state should ensure that
                                             paraprofessionals are not
                                             "equivalent" to teachers for
                                             comparability purposes.
F: Program Responsibility (10),
Funding                                   F: Extensive Consultation (3)
In one district: a third party under      Private schools were not involved
contract with the Catholic schools        before the district made decisions
provided private school Title I           affecting the participation of Title I
services; administrative costs were       students. The state must ensure that
                                                                                    Not reviewed- onsite LEA reviewed
charged to instructional funds; some      meaningful consultation takes place.
                                                                                     operates programs on a by-pass
private school participants were not
                                                                                                 contract.
residents of the district; and            F: Third-Party Contracts (4)
materials purchased with Title I funds    The state must develop and
were not properly labeled or              distribute to districts guidance for
inventoried. The state must require       approving and monitoring third-party
districts to maintain control of and      contracts.
administer Title I funds.




F: Identification of Title I Schools
The state does not have basic data                                                 C: Useful Website (3), Participation
for all districts indicating which                                                 in PBDMI
schools receive Title I funds. The                                                 The state has extensively
state cannot rely only on data                                                     participated in the Performance
                                                           MR
generated by another state agency,                                                 Based Initiative Data Management
and must determine how it will obtain                                              Initiative, and the state's web site
and verify, on an annual basis, the                                                provides comprehensive useful
names of all Title I schools. (Note:                                               information.
See also, general finding in footnote.)
                                              C: Computerized Finance Checks
                                              The state's computerized finance
MR                    MR                      edit checks quickly verify accuracy of
                                              LEA submissions and provide
                                              immediate feedback.




     F: Statewide Complaint Process (2)
     The state had no process for
     resolving complaints, while one
     district had no process and another
MR                                                             MR
     used a process not based on state
     guidance. State must submit plan for
     receiving, investigating and resolving
     all complaints.
                                                                                  F: Allocate Same or More Funds to
                                                                                  Higher-Poverty Schools (7)
                                                                                  The state must ensure that per-pupil
                                                                                  allocations to lower poverty-ranked
                                                                                  schools do not exceed allocations to
F: School Omitted
                                                                                  higher ranked schools.
One district did not include a school
that provides services to
                                                                                  F: Skipping (2)
approximately 160 special education
                                                                                  Alternative schools were skipped to
students in the rank order, and as a                        MR
                                                                                  serve lower-ranked schools. A
result that school did not receive Title
                                                                                  district may only skip an eligible area
I services. The state must ensure
                                                                                  or school, if the skipped schools
that districts comply with rank order
                                                                                  receive supplemental funds from
procedures.
                                                                                  other sources.

                                                                                  (Note: The two findings above were
                                                                                  originally reported under indicator
                                                                                  3.2.)




F: Inadequate Monitoring (8)
The state relies on single audits          F: Inadequate Monitoring (8)
rather than annually monitoring its        The state uses the state auditor and
LEAs. The state must show how it           desk review, but has no monitoring
plans to implement a monitoring            procedures or instruments in place.                      MR
process that ensures LEA                   The state must submit a monitoring
compliance prior to award of funds         schedule and develop a compliance
and carry out comprehensive                plan.
compliance monitoring.
    MR              MR              MR




    MR              MR              MR




not monitored   not monitored   not monitored
not monitored   not monitored   not monitored
   States
  Montana           Nebraska             Nevada
May 24-27, 2004   April 19-22, 2004   Oct. 25-28, 2004
     F=4                 F=4                F=3
     R=9                 R=6                R=4
     C=2                 C=1                C=0




     MR                 MR                  MR




     MR                 MR                  MR
MR   MR   MR
F: Timely Determinations (5)
The state did not make timely AYP
determinations. ED has allowed
some flexibility because the state is
required to apply a more labor-
intensive and time consuming
process due to its large number of
small schools. The state might
consider implementing an earlier
testing window, accelerating reviews
                                                          MR                   MR
for small schools, improving quality
control procedures, and/or
streamlining the appeals process.

R: Quality Control
Quality control was the cause for
many AYP appeals. The state should
review the assessment contractor's
quality control report and correct the
most common lapses.




R: Reporting All NCLB Data
Elements (3)                             F: Reporting all NCLB Data
While the state provides all required    Elements - Teacher Qualifications
data on its website, local community     (19)
annual report included only some of      The state should ensure that local
                                                                               MR
the required elements. The state         report cards include the number of
should advise LEAs that the data on      students not tested, the graduation
the website can be included in           rate of all required subgroups, and
community reports, which can then        highly qualified teacher data.
serve as district/school report cards.
         MR                 MR                  MR




         MR                 MR                  MR




t
       States
      Montana           Nebraska             Nevada
    May 24-27, 2004   April 19-22, 2004   Oct. 25-28, 2004
                  MR*                      Not monitored*   MR




R: Internet Support
The state should make better use of
technology through its website by
filling the Title I section with
templates or examples for LEAs; and
by sharing information from the
                                                MR          MR
federal Title I listserve with its LEAs.

C: Team Approach
The state assigns technical
assistance staff as single points of
contact for LEAs.
                                          F: Committee Composition (4)
                                          The composition of the Committee of
                                          Practitioners does not meet statutory
                                          requirements; almost half are state
                  MR                      staff, only one third are district      MR
                                          representatives, and there are no
                                          parent representatives. The
                                          committee should better reflect
                                          practitioner and parent perspectives.




F: Parental Input (2) and State
Review (3)
School plans reviewed were missing
required elements, such as evidence
that: the school involves parents in
joint development, review and             F: School-Parent Compacts (9)
revisions of district or school plans;    One school did not have a written
the district involves parents on use of   school-parent compact; the state
funds reserved for parental               must see that one is created.
involvement; parents read and
acknowledge the components of the         R: Improving Student Achievement
                                                                                  MR
school-parent compact; and the state      (5)
reviews district parental involvement     State guidance should more strongly
policies.                                 emphasize school-level involvement
                                          that engages parents and strategies
R: Improving Student Achievement          most likely to positively impact
(5)                                       student achievement.
The state should clarify for districts
and schools that the primary purpose
of parental involvement is to improve
academic achievement and school
performance.
R: Deficient Parental Notification (2)
Parental notification should explicitly
state the reasons why the school
was identified for improvement and
the actions taken as a result. One
school sent notices to parents that
were unclear about why it was
offering choice and supplemental
educational services.
                                       R: Combine Plans (6)
                                       The state should use the federal
R: Five Year Plans, Combine Plans
                                       school improvement process to align                         MR
(4)
                                       the current state school improvement
The state should ensure that the five-
                                       plan with other existing plans.
year plans of districts and schools in
improvement contain all Title I
requirements for school improvement
plans, including specific reasons why
schools have been identified for
improvement and steps being taken
to address these issues. Five-year
plans should consolidate multiple
school-reform planning efforts.




                                                                                   F: Notification Missing Elements (10)
                                                                                   Although the state provided guidance
                                                                                   listing all the required elements of
                                                                                   notification, some districts' notices
                                          R: Clarify Relationship of Choice and
                                                                                   did not include all required
                                          SES
                                                                                   information.
                                          Choice notification letters should
                  MR                      clearly state that parents' first option
                                                                                   R: Evaluate and Increase Low
                                          is school choice, and that
                                                                                   Participation Rates (4)
                                          supplemental educational services
                                                                                   Nevada should conduct an analysis
                                          are the second option.
                                                                                   of its low participation rates for
                                                                                   choice and SES, determine the
                                                                                   cause and establish methods to
                                                                                   increase rates where possible.
                                                                                  F: Notification Missing Elements (7)
                                                                                  Although the state provided guidance
                                                                                  listing all the required elements of
                                        R: Increase SES Providers (4)             notification, it must ensure that
R: Increase SES Providers (4)
                                        The state should increase the             districts include the information in
The state should increase the pool of
                                        number and availability of SES            notices.
available SES providers and assist
                                        providers; currently, there are only
those qualified schools and districts
                                        four approved providers, and none         R: Evaluate and Increase Low
that are not in improvement to
                                        are willing to provide service to those   Participation Rates (2)
become SES providers in order to
                                        districts that are required to offer      Nevada should conduct an analysis
broaden the options for parents.
                                        SES.                                      of its low participation rates for
                                                                                  choice and SES, determine the
                                                                                  cause and establish methods to
                                                                                  increase rates where possible.




                                      F: Plans Missing Elements (16)
                                      Schoolwide plans were missing
R: Combine Plans (6)                  required elements, including
The five-year school planning         strategies for attracting highly
process has consolidated other        qualified teachers and for helping
reform planning efforts in the state. preschoolers transition to elementary
Several of the ten required           school, measures for including                              MR
components were located in            teachers in academic assessment
documents ancillary to the five year  decisions, effective and timely
plans, and should be included in one assistance for students with difficulty
'core' document.                      mastering standards, and
                                      coordination of federal, state, and
                                      local services.
                           MR                                    MR                            MR




ilities
                        States
                        Montana                              Nebraska                       Nevada
                    May 24-27, 2004                      April 19-22, 2004               Oct. 25-28, 2004




          C: Audit Follow-ups
                                               C: Auditor Training
          The state annually tracks audit
                                               The state trains all auditors annually,
          findings and follows up with each                                                    MR
                                               resulting in a stronger connection
          district to verify that corrective
                                               between audit and monitoring data.
          actions have been implemented.




                           MR                                    MR                            MR
                 MR                     MR   MR




F: Annual Determination (7)
In one district, comparability
calculations had not been               MR   MR
completed; all districts must conduct
these calculations regularly.
                                                                                       F: Program Responsibility (10)
                                                                                       The state must ensure that districts
                                                                                       design Title I programs that meet the
F: Program Responsibility (10)                                                         needs of private school participants,
In one LEA, the Title I private school                                                 and that the districts do not delegate
program was implemented by a                                                           this responsibility to private schools.
private school teacher. LEAs may           R: Equitable Services for Students
not delegate the responsibility for        Private school officials should be          R: Early Consultation
implementing the program to private        informed that reading instruction is        Consultation with private schools
schools or their officials. In addition,   not the only Title I instructional option   must begin early enough in the
LEAs must consult with private             available to their students.                school year to allow districts to take
school officials and determine what                                                    critical actions -- such as collection
challenging content and student                                                        of poverty data, design and
achievement standards will apply.                                                      implementation of the Title I
                                                                                       program, hiring teachers, etc. --
                                                                                       before submitting Title I applications
                                                                                       for state approval.




                   MR                                        MR                                          MR
MR   MR   MR




MR   MR   MR
                                                                                 R: Do Not Rank Alternate Schools
                                                                                 Districts should not include
                                                                                 "alternate" schools in their ranking
                                                                                 ordering (or in calculating districtwide
                 MR                                      MR
                                                                                 poverty averages) in cases where
                                                                                 the students attending those schools
                                                                                 are counted in another school
                                                                                 attendance area.




                                        R: Augmentation of Monitoring
R: Onsite Monitoring (4)
                                        The state should revise its
The state has no established
                                        monitoring procedures to include
process to conduct onsite LEA
                                        information on: evaluation of parental
monitoring, although it has
                                        involvement programs, schoolwide                           MR
developed procedures for desk
                                        plans and equitable private school
reviews. The state should establish a
                                        services; school budget support of
mechanism for monitoring LEAs
                                        school improvement needs; and
onsite.
                                        districts' fiscal requirements.
    MR              MR          MR




    MR              MR          MR




not monitored   not monitored   MR
not monitored   not monitored   not monitored
 New Jersey         New Mexico        North Carolina
Feb. 23-26, 2004   Dec. 13-16, 2004   June 13-17, 2005
      F=4                F=12               F=21
      R=8                R=3                R=7
      C=5                C=0                C=0




      MR                 MR                 MR




      MR                 MR                 MR
     F: Incomplete Participation (5)
     Districts had very low participation by
     students with disabilities. Districts
     cite data quality and enrollment
     errors.
                                               R**: Test Security (3)
     F: Incomplete Participation (5)           A district had a serious, unreported
     LEP students were inappropriately         testing irregularity. State should
MR
     exempted from state assessments or        disseminate procedures to LEAs and
     assessed with non-standards-based         schools on investigating such testing
     assessments.                              irregularities.

     F**: Data Quality (4)
     There were pervasive data quality
     problems in the state assessment
     system.
                                        F: Timely Determinations (5)
                                        State made AYP decisions for 2004-
                                        05 assessment results, but failed to
                                        make AYP decisions for the previous
                                        year. State must make decisions
                                        based on spring 2004 assessment
                                        data and provide corrective
                                                                                 F: Students Incorrectly Counted as
                                        procedures for making school
                                                                                 Participants (4)
                                        improvement identifications based
                                                                                 Students taking out-of-level tests
                                        on that data (see also the next
                                                                                 were counted as participants in state
                                        finding).
                                                                                 assessments even though they did
                                                                                 not meet the criteria for such tests.
                                        F: Accountability Determinations (6) -
                 MR                      Charter Schools
                                                                               F: Accountability Determinations (6),
                                        AYP determinations for LEAs do not
                                                                               District AYP Excludes Other
                                        include all students in the LEA, i.e.
                                                                               Academic Indicator
                                        charter schools within the LEAs were
                                                                               State does not include the “other
                                        excluded.
                                                                               academic indicator” (attendance) for
                                                                               elementary and middle schools in
                                        F: Accountability Determinations (6) -
                                                                               determining AYP at the district level.
                                         Economically Disadvantaged
                                        Students
                                        AYP determinations do not include
                                        test participation in the economically
                                        disadvantaged subgroup because
                                        state has no way to track such
                                        students.




                                        F: Reporting All NCLB Data
                                                                                 F: Reporting All NCLB Data
                                        Elements - Teacher Qualifications
                                                                                 Elements (19)
R: Reporting all NCLB Data              (19)
                                                                                 State and local report cards do not
Elements (3)                            State and district report cards were
                                                                                 include all required data.
Teacher quality data is provided but    missing information on the
not disaggregated, and no district-     professional qualifications of
                                                                                 R: Format Report Card Better
level data appear to be available.      teachers and on the percentage of
                                                                                 Place various pieces of AYP
The state should ensure visibility of   classes not taught by highly qualified
                                                                                 information near each other on the
all required components.                teachers in the aggregate, and
                                                                                 report card and clearly reference
                                        disaggregated by high-poverty vs.
                                                                                 performance targets and AYP criteria.
                                        low-poverty schools.
      MR                 MR                 MR




      MR                 MR                 MR




 New Jersey         New Mexico         North Carolina
Feb. 23-26, 2004   Dec. 13-16, 2004   June 13-17, 2005
                                                                         F: 'Right to Know' Notification (12)
                                                                         The state must ensure that districts
                                     F: State Monitoring                 notify parents they have the right to
                                     State was unable to report the      request information about the
                MR                   number of qualified                 professional qualifications of their
                                     paraprofessionals by district and   children's teachers and
                                     school.                             paraprofessionals. (Note: This
                                                                         finding was originally listed under
                                                                         indicator 2.4.)




                                                                         F: Support Plan Incorrectly
                                                                         Implemented
                                                                         Statewide system of support is not
                                                                         adequately focused on schools in
R: School Improvement                                                    improvement or corrective action and
The state is encouraged to provide                                       assistance is not necessarily tailored
                                                      MR
technical assistance especially to                                       to the particular needs of schools.
schools in improvement.
                                                                         R: Communicate wth Districts (3)
                                                                         State should provide full orientation
                                                                         to its LEAs on the statewide system
                                                                         of support.
                 MR                                    MR                                 MR




R: Improving Student Achievement
(5)
The state should clarify that the
primary purpose of parental
involvement activities is to improve
student achievement and school
performance.                           R: Parental Communication
                                       State should provide guidance on all
                                                                              MR (except see indicator 2.1)
R: Family Literacy (3)                 district parental communications and
The state should encourage schools     monitor them on a regular basis.
to use Title I funds to offer family
literacy programs for parents who do
not have a secondary school diploma
or who have low levels of literacy.
School plans did not address this
topic.
F: Plans Missing Required
Components (10)
The school improvement plans
lacked required components,
including evidence of revision by
other than school staff, explanation                                           F: Deficient Parental Notification (5)
of specific district and state                                                 A charter school district's parental
                                         R: Plan Focus
responsibilities, measurable goals for                                         notification letter was missing
                                         The goals in the state template for
subgroups, and an explanation of the                                           required elements.
                                         improvement plans are mainly
incorporation of teacher mentoring
                                         student-focused. It should also
into high-quality professional                                                 R: Monitoring Charter Schools
                                         include school- and staff-focused
development.                                                                   The state's monitoring process for
                                         goals to improve achievement
                                                                               parental notification letters should be
                                         throughout the school.
R: Combine Plans (7)                                                           expanded to include charter school
The state should allow schools to                                              districts.
consolidate and streamline planning
processes. The schools should be
allowed to author a single, strong,
annual plan that "drives the work" of
the school.




                                         F: Timely Choice Notification (6)
                                         State did not provide AYP
                 MR                      information in time to allow timely                     MR
                                         parental notification for choice in
                                         summer 2004.
     F: Timely SES Notification (3)
     State did not provide AYP
MR   information in time to allow timely                    MR
     parental notification for SES in
     summer 2004.




                                           F: Plans Missing Elements (16)
                                           Schoolwide plans were missing
                                           required elements.
     F: Plans Missing Elements (16)
MR   State template for schoolwide plans
                                           R: Develop Templates
     was missing required elements.
                                           State should develop or encourage
                                           development of templates for district
                                           schoolwide plans.
                                         F: Plans Missing Elements
                                         State template for targeted
             Not Available                                                                         MR
                                         assistance programs was missing
                                         required elements.




            New Jersey                              New Mexico                             North Carolina
            Feb. 23-26, 2004                       Dec. 13-16, 2004                       June 13-17, 2005
R: Schoolwide Programs
Fiscal responsibilities for schoolwide
programs should be clearly
identified, especially for Abbott
districts.
                                                                                F: Failure to Provide Document
C: Useful Website                                                               State did not ensure that a district
The state has placed a "Title I Audit"                                          provided ED with an auditor’s
section on its website. The list of      R: Finding Follow-up (3)               management letter relative to the
"Common Audit Findings" provides a       State should ensure timely follow-up   2004 financial statement audit report.
useful resource and checklist. Also,     and resolution of Single Audit
state officials work with CPA firms to   findings.                              F: No Corrective Action Plan (2)
ensure timely audits.                                                           State did not ensure that a district
                                                                                prepared a corrective action plan to
C: Technical Assistance                                                         respond to Single Audit findings.
Staff members who conduct audits
also provide technical assistance,
including dissemination of audit lists
and reports which include findings
and corrective actions.




F: Abbott Districts                                                             F: State Set-Asides (2)
Abbott districts were directed to                                               State reserved more than 1 percent
either operate schoolwide programs                                              of funds for state administration.
or seek a waiver to combine federal,                                            (Note: This finding was originally
                                                          MR
state and local funds. ED says there                                            listed under indicator 3.7.)
is no specific waiver authority to
allow combination of funds outside of                                           (See indicator 3.7 for district-level
schoolwide program.                                                             findings originally reported here.)
                MR                   MR                    MR




                                          R: Equating Paraprofessionals and
F: Annual Determination (7) and           Teachers (2), Guidance
State Monitoring (10)                     State should discontinue practice of
The state should ensure that LEAs         equating paraprofessionals with
conduct comparability calculations        teachers and using itinerant teachers
                                     MR
annually, and, at least every two         who are charged to central office to
years, should verify that all LEAs        meet comparability. Procedures for
have conducted comparability              meeting comparability should be
calculations.                             included in the state's policy for
                                          comparability.
F: Make Reservations First (x)
LEAs must make their statutorily
required district-level reservations of                   R: Outreach
funds "off-the-top" of their total            MR          State should improve outreach to
grants before determining per-pupil                       private schools.
allocations for public and private
school students.




C: Useful Website (3)
The state's computerized Title I State
Performance Report enhances the           not monitored              not monitored
timeliness, accuracy, and utility of
program information.
          F: Ensure Reservations (8)
          State did not ensure that LEAs
          reserved funds for correct categories
          and amounts before distributing
          funds to school attendance areas.

          F: Professional Development
          Reservations (8)
          State failed to ensure that all LEAs
          identified for improvement reserved
MR   MR
          10 percent of funds for professional
          development.

          (Note: These two findings were
          originally listed under indicator 3.2.)

          R: Include Charter Schools
          State should include charter school
          districts in its federal fund tracking
          system.




MR                          MR
                 MR                                   MR                    MR




                                      F: Inadequate Monitoring (8)
R: Audit Alignment                    State does not have a
The state should align its multiple   comprehensive monitoring system.
                                                                            MR
systems of monitoring to promote      State must ensure districts are
program integration and efficiency.   monitored so problems can be
                                      corrected in the same program year.
R: Streamline Requirements and
Approval Process
The state should streamline required
content and approval procedures;
district officials described application
process as cumbersome, confusing,
and time-consuming.

C: Useful Guide (2)                        MR                    MR
Fiscal Year 2004 Reference Manual
is helpful for preparing consolidated
applications.

C: Use of Excel
The state provides Title I budget
forms in Excel format, and pages
have built-in formulas and subtotals.




                                                F: Single Audit Testing
                                                State failed to ensure single auditors
                  MR                       MR
                                                tested supplement not supplant as
                                                part of Single Audits.




                                                F: Deficient Inventory Controls (12)
                                                Four separate findings relating to
                                                deficient inventory controls in
                                                selected districts.
             not monitored                 MR
                                                F: Diversion to Another Program
                                                Title I Part A funds were used to
                                                purchase equipment for the Migrant
                                                Program.
                                F: Third Party Contracts (2)
                                All disbursements for fund payments
                                must be supported by a contract that
                                clearly specifies deliverables.

                                F: Descriptive Invoices (2)
                                Invoices may not be approved unless
not monitored   not monitored
                                they contain details about products
                                and services provided.

                                F: Salary Expense (2)
                                Personnel expenses to Title I must
                                be supported by appropriate
                                documentation.
 North Dakota          Ohio                    Pennsylvania
May 16-20, 2005   June 22-25, 2004             Feb. 7-10, 2005
     F=4                F=1                         F=23
     R=4                R=2                         R=16
     C=0                C=1                          C=0




      MR                MR                            MR




                                     R: Document Alternative
                                     Achievement Standards (2)
                                     Although the state's website
                                     suggests that the alternate
                                     assessment is based on alternate
                                     achievement standards, the state
                                     must provide ED with documentation
                                     of the process used to establish
      MR                MR           those standards.

                                     R: Science Assessment and
                                     Standards (2)
                                     The state should provide information
                                     to ED regarding the development of
                                     science standards and assessment,
                                     including an appropriate alternate
                                     assessment.
                                           F: Publish Alternate Assessment
                                           Results
                                           The state must provide evidence that
                                           alternate assessment results are
                                           published in the same manner as
                                           regular test results.

                                           R: Complete Assessments
                                           The state should ensure that
                                           assessments measure the depth and
                                           breadth of state content standards.

                                           F**: Data Quality (4)
                                           Data quality issues threaten the
F**: Disaggregation of Results             reliability of accountability reports
Although state sets 10 as the              and decisions for subgroups. The
minimum for disaggregation, some           state must provide districts with clear
                                      MR
reports list as few as one student,        definitions of data elements required
which may reveal personally                for AYP calculations.
identifiable information.
                                           F**: Participation Rate Calculations
                                           The state must provide ED with a
                                           description of how participation rate
                                           is currently calculated.

                                           R**: Data Correction Timeline
                                           Last year, districts had problems
                                           making data corrections because of
                                           issues with the contractor's website.
                                           The state should ensure that
                                           contractor limitations do not prevent
                                           districts from reviewing and
                                           correcting data prior to AYP
                                           determinations.
                                                                              F: Incomplete Accountability
                                                                              Workbook (2)
                                                                              Discrepancies exist between the
                                                                              procedures currently used to
                                                                              determine accountability status and
                                                                              those described in the workbook; the
                                          C: Helpful Web Site (2)             state must amend its workbook to
R: Timely Results (3)                     The state has developed an online   accurately reflect the procedures it
To enable timely reporting of AYP         system that aligns standards,       currently uses for applying awards
results, which are based on fall tests,   assessments and instruction, and    and sanctions.
the state should consider using the       allows educators and the general
previous year's graduation and            public to examine learning          F: Assess Students in Special
attendance rates.                         standards, test items and           Facilities
                                          recommended lesson plans.           Students placed in special facilities
                                                                              or incarcerated must have their
                                                                              academic achievement assessed.
                                                                              The state must also correct
                                                                              documents that permit categorical
                                                                              exemption of students in particular
                                                                              circumstances.




                                                                              F: Reporting All NCLB Data
                                                                              Elements - Teacher Qualifications
                                                                              (19)
                                                                              The LEA report card template does
                                                                              not include the percentage of
                                                                              classes not taught by highly qualified
                                                                              teachers disaggregated by high and
                                                                              low poverty schools.
F: Reporting All NCLB Data
                                                                              F: Monitor Data Accuracy
Elements - Teacher Qualifications
                                                                              In order to monitor the accuracy of
(19)
                                                                              data in LEA report cards, the state
Under two separate findings, state
                                                                              must establish procedures to ensure
and local report cards did not include                    MR
                                                                              data accuracy, and conduct annual
all required data, specifically,
                                                                              verification for at least a sample of
information on LEAs and schools in
                                                                              report cards.
improvement and data on teacher
qualifications.
                                                                              R: Web Site Not Enough
                                                                              Some LEAs rely entirely on their
                                                                              Web site as a means of
                                                                              disseminating report card data. The
                                                                              state should encourage LESs to
                                                                              explore alternatives for presenting
                                                                              information, including public
                                                                              meetings, community activities, or
                                                                              fliers.
                 MR                                     MR                          MR




                                       R: Reexamine Accommodations
                                       The state should ensure that its
                                       accommodations for SWD and LEP
F: Failing to Administer Language
                                       students, such as read-aloud
Assessment (2)
                                       assistance, dictionaries and scribes,
An LEA failed to administer an                                                      MR
                                       are not used inappropriately. The
annual assessment to measure the
                                       state should compare scores of
English proficiency of LEP students.
                                       accommodated and non-
                                       accommodated students to detect
                                       possible bias.




          North Dakota                                 Ohio                    Pennsylvania
         May 16-20, 2005                         June 22-25, 2004              Feb. 7-10, 2005
           F: 'Right to Know' Notification (12)
           The state must ensure that LEAs
           notify parents that they have a right
           to request information about the
           professional qualifications of their
           children's paraprofessionals, as well
           as their teachers.
MR   MR*
           R: Paraprofessional Qualification (4)
           A high number of paraprofessionals
           have yet to meet qualification
           requirements; it is critical that the
           state provide technical support and
           identify methods and strategies to
           increase the number of qualified
           paraprofessionals.




           F: Implement Support Plan (7)
           The state must provide evidence that
           its support plan has been
           implemented.

           R: Communicate with Districts (3)
MR   MR
           The state should strengthen its
           guidance to districts and schools to
           clarify where staff may seek
           technical assistance and school
           support, and the role of state staff in
           providing assistance.
                                              F: Committee Composition (4)
                                              State staff members were not able to
                                              provide names of COP members
                  MR                     MR   who represented the required
                                              membership categories. There was
                                              only one representative of private
                                              school children.




F: Parental Involvement Policy (13),
School-Parent Compacts (9)
One LEA's parental involvement
policy was extremely out of date and
school parental involvement policies
and school-parent compacts lacked             F: Parental Involvement Policy (13)
required components.                          LEAs and schools must develop
                                              parental involvement policies in
                                         MR
R: Family Literacy (3)                        collaboration with parents, consistent
The state should do more to                   with content and process
encourage LEAs and schools to use             requirements.
Title I funds to offer family literacy
services if they determine that a
substantial number of students have
parents with low literacy and without
a secondary school diploma.
R: Provide Specialized Assistance
Since almost all the schools in
                                                                               R: Provide Specific Improvement
improvement in the state have high
                                                                               Guidance
populations of native Americans, the
                                                                               The state has developed guidelines
state should consider seeking
                                                        MR                     and templates, but should include in
specialized assistance to remove
                                                                               its written guidance specific
barriers to achievement by such
                                                                               components for improvement plans
students.
                                                                               as well as for schoolwide plans.
(See also, 2.7.)




                                                                               F: Notification Missing Elements (10)
                                                                               Letters issued to parents do not
                                                                               consistently include all required
                                                                               elements. The state must provide
                                                                               additional guidance, including a
                                                                               checklist and a sample notification
                                                                               letter.

                                       R: Written Translations                 R: Evaluate and Increase Low
                                       The state should place additional       Participation Rates (4)
                                       emphasis on the importance of           The state should conduct an analysis
                                       providing timely school choice          of choice participation rates and,
                   MR                  information to all parents, to the      when rates are low, review district
                                       extent possible, in a language they     implementation practices to
                                       can understand. The state could also    determine the cause and increase
                                       establish a policy of translating all   participation where possible.
                                       written communications.
                                                                               R: Calculate Assessment Data
                                                                               ED understands that new
                                                                               assessment results may be delayed,
                                                                               but encourages the state to complete
                                                                               the necessary statistical work on
                                                                               these assessments as efficiently as
                                                                               possible.
                                              R: Timely SES Notification (4)
                                              Districts must make SES available
                                              throughout the school year and notify
                                              parents of SES availability as early
                                              as possible. The state should also
                                              investigate district participation rates
                                              to increase low participation.

R: Increase SES Providers (4)                 R: Clarify Services Offered
Although the state has made a good            Parents and principals indicated that
effort to recruit SES providers, there        they were often confused about SES
are only 12 providers in the state.           providers and tutoring services
State should involve stakeholders to          offered by the state. The state should
                                         MR
consider ways to increase the                 include in its sample parental
number of providers, including                notification letter specific information
distance learning on-line                     clarifying the difference between
opportunities. (Originally reported           SES tutoring services and other state
under 2.5.)                                   tutoring services.

                                              F: Use Census Data
                                              Instead of using census poverty
                                              data, one district calculated the
                                              maximum SES per-child amount
                                              using free or reduced lunch figures.
                                              (Finding was originally reported
                                              under 3.7.)




                                              R: Update Schoolwide Program
                                              Plans (3), Combine Plans (6)
                                              The state should provide assistance
                                              to ensure schools operating
                                              schoolwide programs for a long time
                  MR                     MR   update their plans, and is
                                              encouraged to provide specific
                                              information to guide the development
                                              of a single, consolidated plan for
                                              schoolwide programs for schools in
                                              improvement.
      MR                MR                MR




 North Dakota          Ohio          Pennsylvania
May 16-20, 2005   June 22-25, 2004   Feb. 7-10, 2005




      MR                MR                MR




      MR                MR                MR
MR   MR                     MR




          F: Determining Comparability (7)
          One LEA calculated comparability by
          comparing student/instructional staff
          ratios in each Title I school above the
          district-wide average with all Title I
          schools below the district-wide
          average as though they were non-
          Title I schools. State must ensure
          that all Title I schools demonstrate
          they are comparable, and must
          require LEAs to perform calculations
          early enough in the school year to
          adjust funds. Auditors failed to catch
MR   MR   the problem.

          F: State Monitoring (10)
          State does not review LEA
          comparability reports every two
          years. It relies on outdated single
          audits (only affecting LEAs with over
          $500,000 in federal expenditures)
          and a three-year monitoring cycle.
          State must ensure that LEAs
          calculate comparability every year as
          a condition of receiving Title I funds.
          (Note: This finding was originally
          reported under 3.10.)
                                                       F: Program Responsibility (10)
                                                       The state allocates private school
                                                       funds to an "intermediate unit" rather
                                                       than to the LEA The LEA must
                                                       receive Title I funds, and provide
                                                       services itself or contract directly with
                                                       a third party provider.

                                                     F: Equitable Services for Parents,
                                                     Teachers (11), and Students (7)
                                                     The state must ensure that LEAs
                                                     calculate the required equitable
                                                     services reservations for parental
                                                     involvement, professional
                F: Extensive Consultation (3)
                                                     development and district-wide
                The state must ensure that extensive
    MR                                               instructional services as part of the
                consultation occurs consistently
                                                     budget determination process.
                throughout the state.
                                                       F: Assess Program Effectiveness (8)
                                                       LEAs must consult with private
                                                       school officials to determine how the
                                                       results of Title I assessments will be
                                                       used to improve services.

                                                       F: Administrative Costs (3)
                                                       LEAs serving private school children
                                                       may not charge administrative costs
                                                       such as telephone and utilities to
                                                       instructional funds generated by
                                                       private school students in low-
                                                       income families.




not monitored                    MR                                 not monitored
          F: Professional Development
          Reservations (8)
          State did not ensure that LEAs in
          improvement reserved from their
          allocations the required 10 percent
          for professional development.
MR   MR
          F: Ensure Reservations (7)
          State e-grant procedures require
          districts to indicate appropriate
          reservations, but some districts did
          not make reservations correctly.

          (see also, 2.6)




MR   MR                     MR
          R: Free and Reduced-Price Lunch
          Count
          One LEA uses outdated TANF data
          to rank order its schools because
          there were many schools where all
          students receive free and reduced
          lunches. If the state does not wish to
          use lunch data, it should use more
MR   MR   up-to-date sampling factors than it
          currently employs with TANF.

          R: Waiver Submission
          If an LEA plans to continue to fund
          schools out of rank order under an
          Ed-Flex waiver, it should request
          another waiver for the following
          school year.




          F Incorrect Ed-Flex Waiver
          (tentative): The state gave a district
          an ED-Flex waiver to use interest on
          its grant to operate a summer
MR   MR   program. Issue is under separate
          review by ED.

          (Note: See indicator 3.4 for a finding
          on comparability.)
                     F: District Applications Missing
                     Elements (4)
                     The state should modify its e-grant
                     application format to ensure that
                     districts are reserving funds, that
                     equitable service calculations are
                     well documented, and that schools
MR       MR
                     are not improperly skipped.

                     R: List Schools in Rank Order
                     Listing schools in rank order by
                     percent of poverty on the e-grant
                     application would improve the review
                     process.




MR       MR                           MR




MR   not monitored                    MR
not monitored   not monitored   not monitored
           Rhode Island                          South Dakota                             Texas
          Feb. 23-27, 2004                      March 22-25, 2004                    Jan. 10-14, 2005
                F=7                                    F=4                                 F=21
                R=5                                   R=9                                  R=5
                C=7                                   C=4                                  C=0
C: Standards Alignment
The state does a "fine job" with the
standards, assessments, and
accountability procedures, and
                                                       MR                                  MR
districts are aligning curricula with
grade level expectations even before
those expectations have been
released.




                                                                           F: Determine Single Passing Test
                                                                           Score on Alternate Assessments
                                                                           Proficiency on alternate
                                           Timeline waiver peer review     assessments is currently determined
                 MR
                                        scheduled for completion May 2004. by a committee; the state must
                                                                           establish a single pre-determined
                                                                           passing score and base proficiency
                                                                           decisions on them.
                                         F: Incomplete Participation (5)
                                         State did not administer a state-
                                         developed alternate assessment at
                                         the high school level.

                                         F: Clarify "Most Significant Cognitive
                                         Disabilities"
                                         Sate must provide guidelines to
                                         LEAs for assessing students with the
                                         most significant cognitive disabilities
                                         and define the conditions for
                                         students assigned to this category.

                                        F**: 1 Percent Cap Appeals
                                        State must not use the appeals
                                        process to avoid having the results of
        Timeline waiver peer review     students with disabilities above the 1
MR
     scheduled for completion May 2004. percent cap from impacting
                                        school/LEA AYP decisions.

                                         F**: LEP Performance Appeals
                                         State must stop using the appeals
                                         process to remove LEP students'
                                         results for AYP decisions when those
                                         students are not new immigrants.

                                         F**: LEP Alternate Assessment
                                         State must administer its
                                         "linguistically accommodated testing"
                                         alternate assessment for LEP
                                         students who are exempt from the
                                         regular state math test rather than an
                                         already-released version of a
                                         standards-based test.
                                                                               F: Timely Determinations (5)
                                                                               The state must release decisions
                                                                               about AYP in time for districts to
R: Timely Results (3)                                                          implement required provisions before
The state should continue to move                                              the beginning of the academic year.
back the date that assessment                                                  ED withheld 4 percent of Texas's
results are provided to districts and                                          Title I, Part A administrative funds for
schools so that the appeals process                                            FY 2004 due to late notification.
                                                         MR
can be finalized by the beginning of
the school year. This will be                                                  F: Incomplete Accountability
considered an area of non-                                                     Workbook (2)
compliance if not corrected before                                             Texas's accountability workbook
the 2004-05 school year.                                                       must be updated to include a plan to
                                                                               phase in proficiency requirements.

                                                                               (See also, 2.5.)




                                                                               F: Reporting All NCLB Data
                                                                               Elements- Teacher Qualifications
R: Obligation to Rescore                                                       (19)
                                        R: District-Level Report Card Review
The state should build into future                                             District report cards do not include
                                        The state should review district-level
assessment contracts the obligation                                            information on the percentage of
                                        report cards before they are
of the contractor to rescore                                                   highly qualified teachers
                                        disseminated.
assessment data when errors occur.                                             disaggregated by high/low poverty
                                                                               schools or the number and percent
                                                                               of students tested.
      MR                 MR                  MR




      MR                 MR                  MR




Rhode Island        South Dakota           Texas
Feb. 23-27, 2004   March 22-25, 2004   Jan. 10-14, 2005
                                                                              F: Paraprofessional Hiring
                                                                              The state has not ensured that
                                                                              districts receiving Title I funds have
                                                                              only hired qualified
                                                                              paraprofessionals for positions since
                                                                              January 2002. Newly hired
                                                                              paraprofessionals take a test and
                                                                              then are observed using a local
                                                                              assessment; if they fail either, they
F: 'Right to Know' Notification (12)
                                                                              are terminated. Paraprofessionals
Parents were not notified of their
                                                                              must be already qualified when they
right to request information on
                                                                              are hired.
teachers' qualifications.
                                                                              F: Clarify Deadline for Schools
C: Districts, Union Offer Assistance                     MR
                                                                              The state originally sent out a letter
Districts have worked with unions to
                                                                              indicating that the highly qualified
assist teachers and
                                                                              teacher deadline was May of 2006.
paraprofessionals, and nearly all
                                                                              The state must make all schools
paraprofessionals have met highly
                                                                              aware that the deadline is January 8,
qualified requirements.
                                                                              2006.

                                                                              R: State Monitoring (2)
                                                                              The state should contact districts
                                                                              throughout the year regarding the
                                                                              number of paraprofessionals
                                                                              meeting qualifications. Currently,
                                                                              districts report to the state at the end
                                                                              of each school year.




                                        R: Curriculum Alignment
C: "Intensive Sustained Support"        The state should provide technical
Intensive and sustained support         assistance and professional
                                                                              R: Determine Adequacy and
validates the school improvement        development in at least the core
                                                                              Capacity of Support Centers
process in all schools. R.I. takes      content areas to ensure curriculum
                                                                              The state largely relies upon external
school improvement "very seriously."    alignment.
                                                                              assistance providers to assists
 Parents, teachers, and
                                                                              schools in improvement, and should
administrators clearly understood the   C: School Improvement (2)
                                                                              review the adequacy and capacity of
contents of their school plans, the     The state provides teacher training
                                                                              staffing in regional resource centers
process for revising those plans, and   and technical assistance consistently
                                                                              to meet technical assistance needs.
how their work flows from those         and throughout the state, with a
plans.                                  special emphasis on schools in
                                        improvement.
                                       R: Committee Composition (3),
                                       Level of Activity (2)
                                       The state should include a parent
                                       representative who is not a district
                  MR                   employee or school board member                         MR
                                       on the Committee of Practitioners,
                                       and should consider involving
                                       members via e-mail, 'conference
                                       calls,' surveys, etc.




F: Parental Involvement Policy (13)
The state should ensure that LEAs
develop parental involvement
policies.

F: School-Parent Compacts (9)
The state must ensure that LEAs                                               F: Parental Involvement Policy (13)
direct all principals to immediately                                          The state and districts must ensure
develop and disseminate school-                         MR                    that schools receiving Title I funds
parent compacts.                                                              have current, compliant, written
                                                                              parental involvement policies.
R: Parent Groups
In one LEA, not every school had its
own parent group. Parents from all
schools should have equal
opportunities to become involved in
their children's' education.
                                                                                 F: Timely Assessment Data (3)
                                                                                 The state did not ensure that LEAs
                                                                                 had final school AYP determinations
                                                                                 before the beginning of the school
C: Assistance to Schools (2)                                                     year. As a result, LEAs were unable
The state has a process for             R: Alignment Training                    to provide timely notification to
supporting schools that have not        All schools should immediately           parents.
made AYP, and a more intense            receive training in curriculum
process for schools in improvement.     alignment in at least the core content R: Timely Assessment Information
Schools in improvement are              areas.                                 The state should release
assigned school support teams.                                                 assessment data to LEAs and
                                                                               schools so they have time to review
                                                                               the data and verify its accuracy and
                                                                               compose and disseminate parental
                                                                               notification letters.




R: Parental Understanding
Parents did not appear to have a        R: Clarify Transportation
clear understanding of NCLB choice      Requirement
provisions. The state should consider   Because the state has open
                                                                                 R: Notification Missing Elements
different means for helping their       enrollment, there is little use of
                                                                                 Although schools sent letters, the
public and parents understand.          choice. However, transportation is
                                                                                 comprehensiveness of content
                                        the parent's responsibility. The state
                                                                                 varied; the state should monitor
C: Inter-District Transfers             must ensure that parents are advised
                                                                                 content.
Districts that lacked options for       that if they elect the NCLB choice
offering choice sought alternative      option, the cost belongs to the
methods, such as offering inter-        school, not the parents.
district transfers.
C: Students Most at Risk
One district has used its SES funding
                                         F: Monitoring System (2)
to improve services to students most
                                         The state should ensure that
at-risk of not meeting the state's
                                         administrative procedures include
content and assessment standards.
                                         provisions for monitoring the success                    MR
The SES project does not compete
                                         of SES providers and for removal of
with current out-of-time programs,
                                         providers from the state-approved
and includes district-funded
                                         list, if necessary.
transportation to and from providers'
sites.




                                                                                 F: Plans Missing Elements (16)
                                         R: Consolidate Funds (2)                Schoolwide program plans did not
                                         The state should allow schools to       include the ten required components;
F: Plans Missing Elements (16)           consolidate funds into a single         The state should consider integrating
Schoolwide plans were missing            schoolwide account.                     the components into a single
required elements, including                                                     consolidated plan.
strategies to help preschool children    C: Combine Plans
transition to elementary school and      Schools in improvement operate          R: Staff Awareness (6)
strategies to attract highly-qualified   under one coordinated plan that         In one district, most principals
teachers to high-need schools.           incorporates requirements of both       interviewed were unfamiliar with the
                                         schoolwide and school improvement       components of schoolwide program
                                         plans.                                  planning; the state should provide
                                                                                 assistance and support.
                   R: Multiple Objective Criteria (2)
                   The state should ensure that schools
                   are using multiple objective
      MR                                                          MR
                   measures to identify eligible children
                   in TAS, and should ensure reduction
                   of pullout services.




Rhode Island                  South Dakota                      Texas
Feb. 23-27, 2004            March 22-25, 2004               Jan. 10-14, 2005




      MR                            MR                            MR




      MR                            MR                            MR
MR   MR                    MR




          F: Determining Comparability (7)
          The state must ensure that districts
MR   MR
          calculate comparability using up-to-
          date data.
F: Assess Program Effectiveness (8)
The state should ensure that LEAs
are aware of what constitutes annual
progress, and that LEA officials can                                             F: Program Responsibility (10)
                                       F: Program Responsibility (10)
describe how private school children                                             Two districts used Title I funds only
                                       The state must ensure that districts
will be assessed and how the results                                             to purchase materials for private
                                       design Title I programs that meet the
will improve the program.                                                        school teachers. Districts did not
                                       needs of its private school
                                                                                 employ any teachers or third party
                                       participants, and that the districts do
F: Equitable Services for Parents,                                               providers for private schools.
                                       not delegate this responsibility to
Teachers (11)                                                                    Districts must maintain control of
                                       private schools.
The state should ensure that LEAs                                                private school Title I programs.
provide equitable services for
                                       F: Extensive Consultation (3)
teachers and families of private                                                 F: Third-Party Contracts (4)
                                       Districts must consult extensively on
school children.                                                                 The state must provide guidance to
                                       requirements with private school
                                                                                 districts so districts can develop
                                       officials to determine the needs of
F: Equitable Services for Students (7)                                           procedures for accepting or rejecting
                                       private school children, and offer
The state should ensure that all                                                 contracts and monitoring approved
                                       opportunity for discussion.
LEAs reserve an equitable portion of                                             contracts.
their district-wide instructional set-
asides for services to private school
students.




                                        C: Useful Website (3)
                                        The state has a computer program
                                        that ensures accurate and timely
                 MR                     data, and the state's website offers                 not monitored
                                        an online tutorial, data definitions,
                                        and dates for required student and
                                        district data submissions.
MR   MR   (see 3.9)




MR   MR     MR
                                                                                 F: Allocate Same or More Funds to
                                                                                 Higher-Poverty Schools (7)
                                                                                 One district created an impermissible
                                                                                 special reserve for extra positions at
                                                                                 certain schools. This resulted in
                                                                                 lower-ranked schools receiving
                                                                                 higher per-pupil allocations than
                                                                                 highly ranked schools.

                 MR                                       MR                     (This finding was originally reported
                                                                                 under 3.7)

                                                                                 F: Allocate Same or More Funds to
                                                                                 Higher-Poverty Schools (7)
                                                                                 The state has not ensured that
                                                                                 districts allocate higher poor-pupil
                                                                                 amounts to areas or schools with
                                                                                 higher concentrations of poverty.




R: Onsite Monitoring (4)
The state should begin monitoring
districts onsite to gather a more                                                F: Inadequate Monitoring (8)
                                         R: Supplement Monitoring (2)
complete picture of districts'                                                   The state relies on the single audit
                                         The state should supplement its five-
implementation of Title I.                                                       instead of directly monitoring
                                         year onsite monitoring cycle with a
                                                                                 districts. The state must monitor
                                         mechanism to identify potential
C: NCLB Clinics                                                                  fiscal requirements so that instances
                                         compliance issues in intervening
The state hosts "clinics" on topical                                             of noncompliance can be corrected
                                         years.
areas of NCLB, and staff provides                                                during the current school year.
feedback to districts on areas of non-
compliance.
                R: Align Budget Proposals to Needs
                Districts should compare proposed
                                                       F: District Applications Missing
                school budgets against their needs
                                                       Elements (4)
                assessments and goals set forth in
                                                       The state did not require LEA
                schoolwide plans.
                                                       consolidated applications to contain
                                                       all 17 required elements under Title I.
    MR          C: Streamlined Requirement and
                                                       The state must ensure that it has on
                Approval Process
                                                       file a full-fledged plan with all
                The state has developed a statewide
                                                       elements for each Title I LEA, and
                system of plan application and
                                                       that LEAs have their plans approved
                approval that includes technical
                                                       before receiving allocations.
                assistance and ensures no
                interruption of programs and services.




                F: Supplanting
                One district is supplanting Title I
                funds. It is using state and local
    MR          funds to provide the "Reading                            MR
                Recovery" program in the non-Title I
                schools and Title I funds to provide
                the same program in Title I schools.




not monitored               not monitored                                MR
not monitored   not monitored   not monitored
    Virginia         Washington        Wisconsin
Sept. 12-16, 2005   Nov. 15-19, 2004   May 2-6, 2005
      F=15                F=4              F=12
       R=7                R=4              R=1
       C=0                C=0              C=0




      MR                  MR                MR




      MR                  MR                MR
                                          R**: Data Quality (2)
R: Assessment Quality Issues              The state should provide more
Prior to submitting its tests to ED for   specific guidance to districts and
peer review, the state should             schools on strategies to maintain
                                                                               MR
thoroughly address certain issues,        data quality for assessment and
including alignment, reliability and      accountability purposes, and on
validity.                                 strategies to monitor test
                                          administration.
R: Assessment Monitoring
The state should use its new
information management system and
                                                          MR                                      MR
assessment auditing process to help
monitor inclusion of SWD and LEP
students in state assessments.




F: Reporting All NCLB Data
Elements (19)
The state's LEA report card template
                                        F: Reporting All NCLB Data
does not include the number and                                                   F: Reporting All NCLB Data
                                        Elements - Teacher Qualifications
percent of schools identified for                                                 Elements - Teacher Qualifications
                                        (19)
school improvement by name and                                                    (19):
                                        Report cards at the state, district and
how long the schools have been so                                                 One LEA report card did not include
                                        school level were missing
identified.                                                                       the percentage of highly qualified
                                        information on the percentage of
                                                                                  teachers disaggregated by high- and
                                        classes not taught by highly qualified
F: Reporting All NCLB Data                                                        low-poverty schools or the number
                                        teachers in the aggregate, and
Elements (19)                                                                     and percent of students tested
                                        disaggregated by high-poverty vs.
Within the LEA, individual school                                                 (disaggregated).
                                        low-poverty schools.
reports do not include whether the
school has been identified for school
improvement.
                 MR                           MR               MR




R: Ensure Comparabilty of
Language Assessments
As the state expands its options for
measuring the English language
proficiency of LEP students, it is            MR               MR
recommended that the comparability
of the various assessments be
sufficiently established to aggregate
the results at the state level.




                                         Washington        Wisconsin
                                        Nov. 15-19, 2004   May 2-6, 2005
                                                        F: Uniform Paraprofessional
                                                        Assessment Standards (4)
                                                        State permits districts to determine
                                                        paraprofessional qualifications with a
F: 'Right to Know' Notification (12)
                                                        locally developed assessment, but it
In one LEA, Parents’ Right to Know
                                                        has not ensured such assessments
notices were printed in school              MR
                                                        adequately measure
newsletters but not provided directly
                                                        paraprofessional knowledge nor has
to parents.
                                                        it ensured that districts have a
                                                        scoring rubric or standards for
                                                        successful performance on principal
                                                        evaluations or required coursework.




F: Implement Support Plan (7)
Althought the state has moved
ahead with the development of its
statewide system of support, neither
                                                        F: Implement Support Plan (7)
state nor local staff could clearly
                                                        State is piloting its statewide system
explain the components of the           not monitored
                                                        of support, but has not yet
system and how they were
                                                        implemented it.
integrated. LEAs did not access the
state system but moved ahead on
their own to assist their schools in
improvement.
                  MR                    MR   MR




F: Parental Involvement Policy (14)
School and district parental
involvement policies lacked required
components and, in one district,
schools did not develop their own
parental involvement policy but
simply adopted the district's plan.     MR   MR

F: State Review (3)
State has failed to annually review
districts to ensure they are carrying
out their parental involvement
responsibilities.
F: Plans Missing Required
Components (10)
                                                 (see 2.6 and 2.7)              MR
School improvement plans lacked
some required components.




                                      F: Notification Missing Elements (10)
                                      The state must provide districts with
                                      guidance and technical assistance to
F: Notification Missing Elements (10)
                                      ensure that all information is
Under two closely related findings,
                                      included in letters to parents and
ED detemined that parental
                                      communities indicating that a school
notification letters lacked essential
                                      has been identified for improvement.
elements, such as information on
                                                                                MR
achievement of schools available for
                                      R: Evaluate and Increase Low
transfer and information on how
                                      Participation Rates (4)
parents can help address issues that
                                      The state should determine what
led to a school's identification for
                                      factors are inhibiting participation in
improvement.
                                      choice and SES and establish
                                      methods and procedures to increase
                                      participation rates.
                                         F: Notification Missing Elements (7)
                                         The state must provide districts with
                                         guidance and technical assistance to
                                         ensure that all information is
                                         included in letters to parents and
F: Notification Missing Elements (7)     communities indicating that a school
Under two findings that overlap with     has been identified for improvement.
those in 2.6, LEA notifications of                                                 MR
SES options were missing required        R: Evaluate and Increase Low
elements.                                Participation Rates (2)
                                         The state should determine what
                                         factors are inhibiting participation in
                                         choice and SES and establish
                                         methods and procedures to increase
                                         participation rates.




R: Combine Plans (6)
The state is encouraged to continue
developing a process to seamlessly
integrate the Title I schoolwide plan,
school improvement plan and the
state's accountability plan.

R: State Guidance
ED encourages the state to provide       R: Staff Awareness (6)
guidance to LEAs that a school can       In one district, most principals
maintain its schoolwide eligibility      interviewed were unfamiliar with
even if it drops below the initial       components of schoolwide program          MR
poverty threshold in subsequent          planning; the state should provide
years.                                   assistance and support for
                                         schoolwide planning to district staff.
R: Staff Awareness (6)
The state should consider ways to
help LEAs and schools improve
schoolwide programs. In some
cases, principals interviewed were
not able to articulate the purpose or
the flexibility provided to a school
operating a schoolwide program.
                                                           F: Multiple Objective Criteria (3)
                                                           A targeted assistance program
                                                           incorrectly serves all students rather
                MR                            MR           than students selected according to
                                                           standard Title I criteria.




                                         Washington                     Wisconsin
                                        Nov. 15-19, 2004               May 2-6, 2005




                MR                            MR                             MR




(See indicator 3.9 for district-level
                                              MR                             MR
 findings originally reported here.)
MR                    MR                                    MR




                                            F: Annual Determination (7) and
     F: Annual Determination (7) and        State Monitoring (10)
     State Monitoring (10)                  The state has no current procedures
     The state's monitoring system does     in place for LEAs to follow and no
     not ensure LEAs conduct annual         biennial reports have been submitted
     comparability calculations. It         to document that LEAs have
MR   depends on single audits and its       completed the required comparability
     monitoring system for this. However,   calculations.
     single audits only cover LEAs with
     $500,000 or more in federal            F: Determining Comparability (7)
     expenditures and on-site monitoring    The state must ensure that LEAs
     is only conducted every four years.    include charter schools in their
                                            comparability calculations.
                     F: Make Reservations First (2)
                     LEAs must make their required
                     district-level reservations of funds
                     before determining per-pupil
                     allocations for public and private
                     school students.

                     F: Administrative Costs (3)
                     Administrative costs of third-party
                     providers must be charged to the
                     administrative reservation.

                     F: Equitable Services for Parents,
                     Teachers (11) and Students (7)
                     The state must ensure that districts
                     provide equitable services for private
                     school students and their teachers
    MR          MR
                     and families from district-level
                     reservations.

                     F: Equitable Services for Parents,
                     Teachers (11)
                     The state improperly transferred
                     funds reserved for professional
                     development and parental
                     involvement to instruc- tional
                     services at the request of private
                     schools. If the funds are unneeded
                     for the purposes of the set-asides,
                     they revert to the LEA.

                     R: Teacher-Level Consultation
                     The ED team recommends that
                     consultation between the Title I




not monitored   MR               not monitored
                                            F: Professional Development
                                            Reservations (8)
F: Parental Involvement Funds (4)
                                            LEAs did not ensure that schools in
Although LEAs awarded schools the
                                            improvement reserved from their
required 95 percent of the parental
                                            allocations the required 10 percent
involvement set-aside as part of the
                                            for professional development.
schools' allocations, there was no     MR
evidence that these funds were
                                            F: Parental Involvement Funds (4)
programmed for parental
                                            An LEA did not reserve parental
involvement activities at the school
                                            involvement funds "off-the-top" of its
level.
                                            allocation and did not allocate 95
                                            percent of the set-aside to schools.




                 MR                    MR                     MR
F: Allocate Same or More Funds to
Higher-Poverty Schools (7)
The state permitted LEAs to award
higher per-pupil amounts (PPAs) to
lower-poverty schools than to higher-
poverty schools. First, LEAs covered
staff salary differentials by simply
increasing the PPA for relevant
schools, without regard to ranking;
such adjustments must come from
the LEA administrative reserve.
Second, the LEAs gave higher PPAs
to schools in improvement, without      MR   MR
regard to ranking. (This finding was
originally reported under 3.2.)

R: Allocating Carryover Funds
The state should provide guidance
on use of carryover. An LEA used
carryover funds to pay all Title I
salaries and benefits at the start of
the year, potentially giving some
lower-poverty schools higher per-
pupil amounts than higher-poverty
schools.




                  MR                    MR   MR
                 MR                          MR          MR




                 MR                          MR          MR




F: Deficient Inventory Controls (12)
In two separate findings, ED
determinated that the state did not
ensure that LEAs maintained proper
inventory controls for Title I
equipment.
                                         not monitored   MR
F: Indirect Costs
The state did not ensure that indirect
costs were calculated the same
month as direct costs with which they
were associated.
not monitored   not monitored   not monitored

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Description: Template Statement of Qualifications State of California document sample