Monterey County Office of Education Report

Monterey County Office of Education Management Review Regarding the Alisal Union School District Migrant Education Program July 29, 2011 Joel D. Montero Chief Executive Officer Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM July 29, 2011 Nancy Kotowski, Ed.D., Superintendent Monterey County Office of Education 901 Blanco Circle Salinas, CA 93901 Dear Superintendent Kotowski: In September 2010, the Monterey County Office of Education and appointed Alisal Union state trustee entered into an agreemement with the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT) for a review of the Alisal Union School District. Specifically, the agreement stated that FCMAT would perform the following: 1. The Monterey County Office of Education and the state trustee of the Alisal Union School District request the team to conduct a management assistance review of the Alisal School District. The review of the Alisal Union School District will include but not be limited to the following: 2. Conduct a review of the migrant education program expenditures from 2005-06 fiscal year to 2009-2010 to ensure funds were allocated and expended as required by state regulations. 3. Determine if claims were accurate, were for allowable expenses under program guide- lines and determine if funds were used to support programs other than migrant educa- tion. 4. Determine incidents of fraud, misappropriation of funds or if other illegal practices occurred that merit further examination. This report provides FCMAT’s findings and recommendations. We appreciate the opportunity to serve the Monterey County Office of Education and the Alisal Union School District and extend our thanks to all the staff for their assistance during fieldwork. Sincerely, Joel D. Montero Chief Executive Officer FCMAT Joel D. Montero, Chief Executive Officer . . 1300 17th Street - CITY CENTRE, Bakersfield, CA 93 . 301-4533 Telephone 661-6 . 36-4611 Fax 661-63 . 6-4647 422 Petaluma Blvd North, Suite. C, Petaluma, CA 94952 Telephone: 707-775-2850 Fax: 707-775-2854 www.fcmat.org Administrative Agent: Christine L. Frazier - Office of Kern County Superintendent of Schools i TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents About FCMAT ........................................................................................iii Introduction ............................................................................................1 Background .............................................................................................3 Executive Summary ..............................................................................5 Findings and Recommendations .....................................................7 Review of Expenditures ...............................................................................7 Funds Use and Accuracy of Claims .........................................................15 Internal Controls and Oversight Responsibilities .............................21 Road Map for the Future ...........................................................................23 Appendices ............................................................................................41 Monterey county oFFice oF education ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM iii ABOUT FCMAT About FCMAT FCMAT’s primary mission is to assist California’s local K-14 educational agencies to identify, prevent, and resolve financial and data management challenges. FCMAT provides fiscal and data management assistance, professional development training, product development and other related school business and data services. FCMAT’s fiscal and management assistance services are used not just to help avert fiscal crisis, but to promote sound financial practices and efficient operations. FCMAT’s data management services are used to help local educational agencies (LEAs) meet state reporting responsibilities, improve data quality, and share information. FCMAT may be requested to provide fiscal crisis or management assistance by a school district, charter school, community college, county office of education, the state Superintendent of Public Instruction, or the Legislature. When a request or assignment is received, FCMAT assembles a study team that works closely with the local education agency to define the scope of work, conduct on-site fieldwork and provide a written report with findings and recommendations to help resolve issues, overcome challenges and plan for the future. Studies by Fiscal Year 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11* 10/11** *Projected **Actual Monterey county oFFice oF education seidutS fo rebmuN FCMAT also develops and provides numerous publications, software tools, workshops and professional development opportunities to help local educational agencies operate more effec- tively and fulfill their fiscal oversight and data management responsibilities. The California School Information Services (CSIS) arm of FCMAT assists the California Department of Education with the implementation of the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS) and also maintains DataGate, the FCMAT/CSIS software LEAs use for CSIS services. FCMAT was created by Assembly Bill 1200 in 1992 to assist LEAs to meet and sustain their financial obligations. Assembly Bill 107 in 1997 charged FCMAT with responsi- bility for CSIS and its statewide data management work. Assembly Bill 1115 in 1999 codified CSIS’ mission. AB 1200 is also a statewide plan for county office of education and school districts to work together locally to improve fiscal procedures and accountability standards. Assembly Bill 2756 (2004) provides specific responsibilities to FCMAT with regard to districts that have received emergency state loans. iv ABOUT FCMAT In January 2006, SB 430 (charter schools) and AB 1366 (community colleges) became law and expanded FCMAT’s services to those types of LEAs. Since 1992, FCMAT has been engaged to perform nearly 850 reviews for LEAs, including school districts, county offices of education, charter schools and community colleges. The Kern County Superintendent of Schools is the administrative agent for FCMAT. The team is led by Joel D. Montero, Chief Executive Officer, with funding derived through appropriations in the state budget and a modest fee schedule for charges to requesting agencies. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 1 INTRODUCTION Introduction Background The Alisal Union School District is located in city of Salinas, in Monterey County and serves approximately 7,400 K-6 grade students. The student population has a high percentage of English-language learners: 66% as compared to the county average of 39.7%, and a high ratio of students that qualify for free and reduced lunch; 84.3% as compared to the county average of 64.3%. The district operates eleven K-6 schools and partners with one charter school. Alisal Union employs more than 400 certificated and 250 classified staff members. In September 2010, the Monterey County Superintendent of Schools and appointed Alisal Union State Trustee entered into a study agreement with the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance (FCMAT) regarding the Alisal Union School District. The agreement requests that FCMAT perform the following: 1. The Monterey County Superintendent of Schools and the State Trustee of the Alisal Union School District request the team to conduct a management assistance review of the Alisal School District. The review of the Alisal Union School District will include but not be limited to the following: 2. Conduct a review of the migrant education program expenditures from 2005-06 fiscal year to 2009-2010 to ensure funds were allocated and expended as required by state regulations. 3. Determine if claims were accurate, were for allowable expenses under program guidelines and determine if funds were used to support programs other than migrant education. 4. Determine incidents of fraud, misappropriation of funds or if other illegal practices occurred that merit further examination. Study Team The study team was composed of the following members: Mary Barlow Margaret Rosales FCMAT Deputy Administrative Officer FCMAT Consultant Bakersfield, CA Kingsburg, CA John Von Flue Richard A. Crawford FCMAT Fiscal Intervention Specialist FCMAT Consultant Bakersfield, CA Atascadero, CA Leonel Martínez FCMAT Public Information Specialist Bakersfield, CA Monterey county oFFice oF education 2 INTRODUCTION Study Guidelines In June 2010, the district, county office and Region XVI determined that the migrant program operation should be temporarily transferred from Alisal Union to Region XVI until the district has an opportunity to rebuild capacity and systems for effective program operation. In addition, the Alisal Union state trustee and the Monterey County Superintendent of Schools decided to request that FCMAT conduct a comprehensive review of program expenditures for a period from 2005-06 to 2009-10 to ensure all expenditures were allowable and consistent with program goals. On February 22-24 and March 8 and 9, 2011, FCMAT conducted fieldwork and examined documents related to the district’s migrant education program. FCMAT conducted interviews of current and former administration and staff at the Alisal Union School District, Monterey County Superintendent of Schools, and the offices of Migrant Region XVI. Documents requested and reviewed from the district included district service agreements (DSAs), DSA amendments, DSA revisions, annual audit reports, migrant claim submissions and support documentation, general ledger transactions for the district, and other claim related reports, board meeting minutes and agendas, correspondence, personnel contracts, and other related materials. Documents requested and reviewed from Migrant Region XVI included correspondence with Alisal Union and final approved payment documents for every claim submitted. During the FCMAT orientation with the county office and district, it was determined that both parties also desired that the report provide a “road map” detailing best practices that should be implemented for optimal program effectiveness and that the report should identify any areas for improvement at the district, county, and regional level. This report is divided into four sections. Sections one through three address specific scope points, and section four provides a set of recommendations based on best practices to facilitate a timely and smooth transition of migrant program operations from the region to the district. Although FCMAT does not recommend a time line for the transition of services, the necessary systems, staffing, and capacity should be developed before transition. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Executive Summary Ineffective governance and continuous changes in leadership at the board and administrative level in the Alisal Union School District were instrumental in the loss of controls and partial implementation of programs, causing migrant funds to go unused. The turnover was endemic throughout the district with few leadership positions being held for more than two years. The table below illustrates the administrative leadership change at Alisal Union by division in the period under review. Change in Leadership June 2005 through July 2010 Position 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Vacant from July 07 - December Coordinator of Migrant Education X X X X 2007 Assistant Superintendent Educational Services Director II- Ed. Services X X Vacant from 9-30-07 until 6-2-08 X X Assistant Superintendent Assessment & Accountability Deputy Superintendent Business Services Vacant from 6-30-07 until 3-4- X X Assistant Superintendent Of Business 08 Assistant Superintendent Human Resources Vacant Vacant X X Vacant Director II,III Human Resources X X Director MOTS (Maintenance, Operation X X X X and Transportation Services) Superintendent X X X X indicates a change in personnel Poor decisions in the management and allocation of resources resulted in an inefficient and inef- fective migrant program. The Alisal Union migrant program operated in isolation from other district divisions. Little oversight and coordination of services was provided, and the business office did not provide consistent review of claims to verify that all expenditures were allowable. The former superin- tendent did not act on recommendations to fill vacant certificated positions in the department. The migrant program and educational service division did not coordinate educational services or professional development between migrant and other federal and general education programs, resulting in less than optimal use of migrant program services. These persistent issues were identi- fied by Region XVI and records indicate that the region communicated with administration to address the program failures. Background In March 2010, the district was found to be persistently low-performing. On March 11, 2010 the state board of education moved to apply corrective action 3 under Education Code Section 52055.57 and on March 30, 2010, appointed Nancy Kotowski, superintendent of the Monterey County Superintendent of Schools, as the interim state trustee. Superintendent Kotowski served until May 24, 2010 when Carmella S. Franco began her trustee assignment. Pursuant to Monterey county oFFice oF education 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Education Code Section 52055.57 (c )(3), the state trustee agrees to act as the state board trustee for the district and perform the functions in EC Section 52055.57 (c ) (3) with full authority. Under this option, all authority is removed from the school board and it becomes advisory. Immediately before and during this period, the five-member school board experienced turnover, and by March 2010 only three members remained. Despite knowledge that the state board of education would be appointing a trustee, the board held a special board meeting Saturday March 13, 2010 with one closed session item listed: “public employee discipline/dismissal/release (pursuant to Government Code Section 54957).” Interviews with staff and community indicated that during this special closed session meeting, the remaining three board members interviewed three candidates for the superintendent position. At the March 26, 2010 special board meeting, the board acted to accept the resignation of the superintendent and both parties entered into an agreement for consultative services from March 26, 2010 through January 31, 2011. At the same meeting, the board appointed an interim superintendent with a three-year-and-nine-month contract. In March 2010, the Region XVI director met with the outgoing superintendent, assistant super- intendent of business and migrant program director regarding ongoing and continued concerns about program operations. In late April and May 2010, the region again brought its concerns to the district and met with the interim superintendent about the migrant program operation. In June 2010, the Region XVI director, county superintendent of schools and chief business official met with the Alisal Union interim superintendent and the state administrator to discuss persis- tent and pervasive problems with the migrant program operation. In June 2010, the district, county office and Region XVI determined that the migrant program operation should be temporarily transferred from Alisal Union to Region XVI until the district has an opportunity to rebuild capacity and systems for effective program operation. Funds Use and Accuracy of Claims One of the purposes of the report is to determine if sufficient documentation exists to further investigate the findings, or if there is evidence of criminal activity that should be reported to the local district attorney’s office. Fraud can encompass an array of irregularities and illegal acts characterized by intentional deception and misrepresentation of material facts. The principal mechanisms for the deterrence of fraud or illegal practices are strong internal controls. Effective internal controls include processes that will provide reasonable assurance that a district’s opera- tions are effective and efficient; that the financial information produced is reliable; and that the district is operating in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. The internal control structure includes the policies and procedures used by district staff, accounting and information systems, the work environment and the professionalism of employees. Education Code Section 42638 (b) states the following: If the county superintendent determines that there is evidence that fraud or misappro- priation of funds has occurred, the county Superintendent shall notify the governing board of the school district, the State Controller, the Superintendent of Public Instruction, and the local district attorney. FCMAT found no issues of fraud, misappropriation of funds, or illegal practices that indicate the need for further examination of the Alisal Union School District. District financial audits from 2005-06 through 2009-10 identified no audit findings related to the migrant program representing reportable conditions, material weaknesses, or instances of noncompliance related to financial statements. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FCMAT identified issues with claims submitted by the district under the period of review, including a potential unallowable claim for additional administration expense, charges for equipment other than what was used for the migrant program, incorrectly recorded year-to-date expenditures as compared to the district’s general ledger, and large adjustments in end-of-the-year materials and supplies expenses. FCMAT found that the region adjusted expenses and purchases to be in alignment with the District Service Agreement (DSA); however, the district claims indi- cate an incomplete implementation of planned services and a lack of understanding regarding allowable administrative expenses. The 2005-06 and 2006-2007 final region claim payments with revisions were not available for FCMAT review. However for all other years in the review period, Migrant Region XVI requested and the district provided explanation for identified issues, and the region reimbursement was adjusted accordingly. In addition FCMAT found common issues across the study years 2005-2010 regarding approval of and retention of documents for service agreements, service agreement amendments, and the allocation of unused funds. Items of significance to the migrant funding process are identified by fiscal year within the report. Program funds were unexpended for several fiscal years: fiscal year 2005-2006 $15,607; 2006-2007 $244; 07-08 $104,805; 2008-2009 $181,899 of the regular program, and $43,685 of the supplemental program funds. Oversight Responsibilities An analysis of the available student achievement data indicates that district migrant students did not adequately meet state performance targets. Interviews and data indicate that efforts by the migrant staff during the review period of 2005-06 through 2009-2010 were fragmented, with insufficient effort to affect migrant student achievement. The number of certificated instructional staff members employed for migrant services was inadequate. The migrant program focused on meeting student needs other than improving academic outcomes. The majority of program funding was dedicated to administrative and classified program staff. Regular instructional school services were not provided as intended and summer/intercession services provided opportuni- ties for very limited numbers of eligible migrant students. Region XVI consistently brought its concerns to the attention of school district administration as early as 2006. Both the region and district have adequate personnel and positions to provide the appropriate oversight and internal controls to the migrant program. In addition, basic internal controls exist at both the district and region level. If the recommendations in this report are implemented by the district and the region continues to strengthen their oversight practices, they should be able to reasonably identify and prevent potential issues of fraud or misappropriation of funds. Proper internal controls include soft controls such as board and management tone, performance evaluations, training programs, and maintaining established policies, procedures and standards of conduct. These types of internal controls extend to the way management assigns authority and responsibility and organizes and develops the district’s personnel. A continuous change in district governance erodes the district’s knowledge and experience and ultimately can weaken internal controls. Under the direction of the state trustee, board members have committed to an extensive compre- hensive ethics and governance training schedule. Alisal Union’s vacant senior management posi- tions are filled, and the district is striving for long-term leadership. Similar to other state inter- ventions, implementing a change of this magnitude requires a significant commitment of time. Issues related to change in leadership, governance and lack of migrant program implementation are being addressed by the state administrator. The corrective action plan outlines goals that Monterey county oFFice oF education 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY address many of the findings in this report and that are consistent with FCMAT recommenda- tions. However a successful implementation of the corrective action plan will require consistent leadership, effective governance, and knowledgeable administration. FCMAT found that despite staff and leadership turnover, the district migrant education program is highly valued by the parents in the community and district staff for its contributions to parent involvement, supplemental program services and resources. There is a strong desire by the region, county and district to see the migrant program succeed. The community recognizes that the migrant program operation has been temporarily transferred to the Migrant Region XVI at the Monterey County Superintendent of Schools and has been satisfied with the services delivered under regional operation. Parents and the district staff want to be assured that all appropriate and required migrant services are provided in the district. The region, county and district all desire to return the migrant program operation to the district in a timely manner when the capacity and systems are developed in the district. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 7 REVIEW OF EXPENDITURES Findings and Recommendations Review of Expenditures The California Department of Education (CDE) Migrant Education Program Fiscal Handbook provides information and guidelines for the use of migrant education funds and explains admin- istrative responsibilities, federal authority, resources, and cash management. FCMAT used the policy and guidelines obtained from the handbook to evaluate the district’s fiscal compliance. Appropriate controls of migrant expenditures involve the entire migrant funding process including the development of the district service agreement (DSA), the amendments and revi- sions to the agreement, and the appropriate retention of documentation. As the administrative agency, Migrant Region XVI has the responsibility to ensure that all migrant education program (MEP) costs are separate, distinct, and directly correlated with the student’s migrant status; the MEP complies with federal and state laws and regulations, and local policies; and that migrant programs meet the unique educational needs of migrant students in consultation with parents of migrant children or organizations representing those parents or both. FCMAT requested an extensive list of documents from the district and region for review, but many records provided were unorganized and incomplete. Electronic folders containing scanned documents from multiple claim periods were incomplete. The DSA and claim forms provided sometimes were not in their final version, and support documentation was not organized along with each DSA or claim. Interviews with staff members at the district and the region indicated that migrant records for the period of this study were originally maintained by the district, but moved to the region when the region took over the program for 2010-11. In addition to the turnover in leadership, this change resulted in a district lack of ownership of the records and their shortcomings. In this report FCMAT refers to amendment, revision and District Service Agreement (DSA). The District Service Agreement (DSA) application and amendment/revision process requires communication between the district and the region, and approval of the district superintendent, and the operating agency (migrant region) and the certification by the District Parent Advisory Council President or designee that the PAC was actively involved in the planning, development, and review of the application. A DSA specifies a detailed migrant education service plan and a corresponding budget allocated by object line. An amendment is submitted if the region or the district needs to change the total budget amount of the approved agreement. A revision is submitted if the district needs to redistribute the budget within the approved agreement amount with no change to the total. Both the amendment and revision process require an approval process similar to the DSA application process with approval required by the district superinten- dent, and the migrant region, and certification by the DSA president. FCMAT found common issues across the study years of 2005-06 to 2009-10 regarding approval of and retention of documents for service agreements, service agreement amendments, and the alloca- tion of unused funds. Items of significance to the migrant funding process are identified by fiscal year: Monterey county oFFice oF education 8 REVIEW OF EXPENDITURES Migrant Service Agreement 2005/06 Regular Budget Claim Difference GL Original Amend #1 Amend #2 Final Amount Not dated. Date 6/2/2005 ? ? 5/12/2006 9/21/2006 No signature page. 1000 $ 269,883 $ 225,232 $ 208,487 $ 225,232 $ 1 99,060 $ 26,172 $ 1 99,060 2000 $ 439,922 $ 429,161 $ 389,386 $ 429,161 $ 3 88,634 $ 40,527 $ 3 88,634 3000 $ 262,585 $ 262,712 $ 242,672 $ 262,712 $ 2 34,775 $ 27,937 $ 2 34,775 4000 $ 3 ,080 $ 65,700 $ 154,402 $ 65,700 $ 158,567 $ ( 92,867) $ 1 58,567 Not dated. No signature page. 5000 $ 4 ,600 $ 22,469 $ 10,327 $ 22,469 $ 8,630 $ 13,839 $ 8 ,630 indirect $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 980,070 $ 1,005,274 $ 1,005,274 $ 1,005,274 $ 9 89,666 $ 15,608 $ 9 89,666 (Fax date 8/7/06) unused amount (rounded) Migrant fiscal year 2005-06 • The original DSA for 2005-06 was appropriately signed by the district assistant superintendent of educational services, the Parent Advisory Committee (PAC) president, and the migrant region director. The agreement dated June 2-3, 2006 identifies a total approved budget of $980,070 for the migrant program. • The DSA Amendment #1 provided to FCMAT did not have a signature page. FCMAT could not verify when and by whom this DSA amendment was approved if at all. However, the new budget line amounts in the amendment were transferred to the subsequent district reimbursement claim forms and utilized as approved. • DSA Amendment #2 was also missing the signature page. FCMAT could not verify the approval process was followed for this amendment but, similar to amendment #1, the new amounts were transferred to the claim forms. • The final DSA amendment dated May 12, 2006 and signed by appropriate representatives from the district and the migrant region budgeted $1,005,274 to the Alisal Union migrant program. • Final claim for the 2005-06 fiscal year was for June 2006 and was dated September 18, 2006. The approved budget column matched the final DSA budget, and the final claim totaled $989,666, leaving $15,607 of the budgeted funds unexpended. FCMAT found no further documentation of these unexpended funds indicating whether the funds were returned to the region or reallocated to the district in another program or period. • Region final claim revisions were not provided and the region payment records for the 2005-06 fiscal year were incomplete as the record provided show payments only through May 18, 2006. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 9 REVIEW OF EXPENDITURES 2006/07 Regular Budget Total ClaimDifference Original Amend #1 Amend #2 Final Amount Date 5/26/2006 10/12/2006 ? 6/5/2007 ? 1000 $ 260,566 $ 227,149 $ - $ 237,154 $ 240,124 $ (2,970) 2000 $ 327,500 $ 295,741 $ - $ 286,735 $ 307,478 $ ( 20,743) Signed by Alisal only. 3000 $ 192,122 $ 230,082 $ - $ 228,952 $ 216,617 $ 12,335 Claim not dated. 4000 $ 6 ,000 $ 27,746 $ - $ 3 4,942 $ 2 6,580 $ 8 ,362 5000 $ 15,000 $ 20,473 $ - $ 1 3,405 $ 1 0,144 $ 3 ,261 indirect $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 801,188 $ 801,191 $ - $ 801,188 $ 800,944 $ 244 Four additional revision documents received: 2 unmarked, 1 marked " From (Region XVI budget analyst) What (director of fiscal services) gave me", 1 marked "What (program coordinator) turned in" 2006/07 Supplemental No dates or signatures on any of them. Budget Total ClaimDifference Total budget equals $801,188 on all. Original Amend #1 Amend #2 Final Amount Date 8/30/2006 4/23/2007 n/a 9/10/2007 10/19/2007 Amendment totals $801,188 1000 $ 129,426 $ 108,350 $ - $ 110,641 $ 110,641 $ 0 2000 $ 17,500 $ 35,090 $ - $ 4 0,119 $ 4 2,273 $ (2,154) "no change from 3000 $ 25,729 $ 27,375 $ - $ 2 9,067 $ 3 0,115 $ (1,048) original" 4000 $ 11,952 $ 13,792 $ - $ 1 3,095 $ 1 4,621 $ (1,526) Not signed by region. 5000 $ 13,000 $ 13,000 $ - $ 4,686 $ (42) $ 4 ,728 indirect $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 197,607 $ 197,607 $ - $ 197,607 $ 197,607 $ - rounded Combined GL 1000 $ 350,765 $ 350,765 2000 $ 349,751 $ 347,596 3000 $ 246,732 $ 245,685 4000 $ 41,201 $ 3 7,859 5000 $ 10,103 $ 1 1,454 indirect $ 2 9,572 $ 998,551 $ 1 ,022,931 Migrant fiscal year 2006-07 - Regular program • DSA Amendment #1 indicates no change from the original agreement with a total budget of $801,188. However, budget line items on the amendment amount to $801,191. This may be due to rounding. • Four additional amendment documents were provided to FCMAT from Region XVI without signature pages indicating date, revision number, or providing approval signatures. Two of the amendments were unmarked, and two were noted as to the originator. FCMAT is not certain whether these amendments were properly approved based on the information provided. Total agreement budget identified on all four amendments was $801,188, the same amount as the original agreement. • The final DSA budget dated June 5, 2007 totaled $801,188 and contained all the necessary approval signatures. • Final claim for the year (June 2007) was not dated and was not signed by the region representatives. The claim for the fiscal year totaled $800,944 and left $244 unspent in the agreement. Again, there is no further tracking of the unexpended funds. Unexpended funds were absorbed by the Region. Migrant fiscal year 2006-07 - Supplemental • The supplemental application budget was dated August 30, 2006 and totaled $197,607. The signature page contained all appropriate signatures. • DSA Revision #1 dated April 23, 2007 contained all approvals on the signature page as well and maintained the $197,607 budget amount. Monterey county oFFice oF education 10 REVIEW OF EXPENDITURES • Final DSA amendment dated September 10, 2007 was signed by representation from the district and the PAC and did not change the total budget. The signature page does not contain a signature indicating that the region reviewed and approved the final DSA. • The final claim dated October 19, 2007 indicates that the entire budget was expended. The final claim is signed by district representatives but not migrant region representatives. • The final region claim revisions and payment records were inconclusive as they show reimbursements for the 2006-07 fiscal year through October 10, 2007 and would not include the October 19, 2007 final claim. Migrant Service Agreement 2007/08 Regular & Summer Budget Total Claim Difference Original Amend #1 Amend #2 Final Amount Date 7/16/2007 2/5/08 6/6/2008 8/1/08 9/12/2008 1000 $ 303,754 $ 330,274 $ 292,783 $ 319,476 $ 246,876 $ 72,600 2000 $ 376,439 $ 399,472 $ 366,737 $ 389,879 $ 356,749 $ 33,130 3000 $ 287,988 $ 294,978 $ 287,989 $ 287,989 $ 276,862 $ 11,127 4000 $ 3 ,792 $ 22,672 $ 98,687 $ 57,979 $ 1 4,976 $ 43,003 5000 $ 8 ,900 $ 23,000 $ 24,200 $ 15,073 $ 7,304 $ 7 ,769 indirect $ - $ 32,433 $ 32,433 $ 32,433 $ 2 7,354 $ 5 ,079 $ 980,873 $ 1,102,829 $ 1,102,829 $ 1,102,829 $ 930,121 $ 172,708 Supplemental unused amount Application Migrant fiscal year 2007-08 • The DSA Amendment #1 dated February 5, 2008 changed the total budget from $980,873 to $1,102,829 and contained signatures from the district, region, and PAC as required. • Amendment #2 and final amendment dated June 6, 2008 and August 1, 2008 respectively did not change the budgeted total. Both amendments were signed by district representatives and the PAC designee. The migrant region signed to review and approve amendment #2 but not the final amendment. • The final claim dated November 20, 2008 for $998,023 left $104,805 migrant funds unused. The unexpended funds were not identified as being transferred or redistributed. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 11 REVIEW OF EXPENDITURES Migrant Service Agreement 2008/09 Regular Budget Total Claim Difference Original Amend #1 Final Amount Date 5/1/2008 5/11/2009 06/09 10/09 Dated by Parent Advisory 1000 $ 143,961 $ 294,117 $ 245,057 $ 164,774 $ 80,283 Committee only 2000 $ 333,883 $ 301,448 $ 380,589 $ 311,744 $ 68,845 3000 $ 252,004 $ 276,110 $ 191,032 $ 214,073 $ ( 23,041) 4000 $ 8,136 $ 4 6,269 $ 7 1,656 $ 51,718 $ 19,938 5000 $ - $ 2 4,675 $ 3 3,722 $ 17,631 $ 16,091 indirect $ 2 2,361 $ 3 3,190 $ 5 3,753 $ 33,969 $ 19,784 $ 760,345 $ 975,809 $ 975,809 $ 793,910 $ 181,899 unused amount 2008/09 Summer Budget Total Claim Difference Original Amend #1 Final Amount Date 5/1/2008 5/11/2009 06/09 10/09 Dated by Parent Advisory Committee 1000 $ 119,838 $ 66,057 $ 6 3,980 $ 38,150 $ 25,830 only 2000 $ 3 9,413 $ 3 5,365 $ 3 5,365 $ 28,869 $ 6 ,496 3000 $ 2 7,454 $ 2 7,191 $ 2 3,935 $ 12,730 $ 11,205 4000 $ 9 1,546 $ 1,000 $ 2,058 $ 6 ,331 $ (4,273) 5000 $ 2 4,830 $ 4,000 $ 2,558 $ - $ 2 ,558 indirect $ 9,183 $ - $ 5,717 $ 3 ,848 $ 1 ,869 $ 312,264 $ 133,613 $ 133,613 $ 89,928 $ 43,685 unused amount Combined GL 1000 $ 202,924 $ 145,018 2000 $ 340,614 $ 341,228 3000 $ 226,804 $ 217,172 4000 $ 5 8,049 $ 6 6,957 5000 $ 1 7,631 $ 1 3,907 indirect $ 3 7,817 $ 3 0,032 $ 883,839 $ 814,314 Migrant fiscal year 2008-09 • The original DSA was dated May 1, 2008 and budgeted $1,072,609. The agreement was signed by the district, the region representative, and the PAC designee as required. • October 10, 2008 correspondence from the region to the district identified a list of concerns/areas of clarification needed for the DSA. Included in this communication was a concern about clearly defining how funds will be allocated to direct services without supplanting. • DSA amendment #1 dated May 11, 2009 increased the budget amount to $1,109,422. • The final amendment dated in July 2009 identified the total budget for regular and summer programs as $1,109,423. • The final regular program claim for 2008-09 was dated October 2009 and totaled $793,910 for the year, leaving $181,899 of the regular program migrant funds unused. • The final summer program claim for 2008-09 was dated October 2009 and totaled $89,928 for the year, and $43,685 of the summer program funds were unused. Monterey county oFFice oF education 12 REVIEW OF EXPENDITURES Migrant Service Agreement 2009/10 Regular Amend #3 reflected Budget Total Claim Difference on final claim Original Amend #1 Amend #2 Amend #3 Final Amount Date ? ? 6/24/2010 ? ? ? 1000 $ 398,289 $ 388,289 $ 1 ,075,089 $ 260,710 $ 870,230 $ 260,710 $ 609,520 2000 $ 270,914 $ 293,378 $ 7 41 $ 291,753 $ 7 41 $ 291,753 $ ( 291,012) No region approval date 3000 $ 300,387 $ 312,604 $ 197,374 $ 3 0,745 $ 197,374 $ ( 166,629) 4000 $ 3 9,063 $ 5 2,718 $ 7 4,554 $ - $ 7 3,458 $ (73,458) 5000 $ 2 0,600 $ 2 8,100 $ 4 5,839 $ - $ 4 6,935 $ (46,935) indirect $ 5 2,247 $ 4 7,355 $ 4 7,381 $ 3 0,719 $ - $ 3 0,719 $ (30,719) $ 1 ,081,500 $ 1 ,122,444 $ 1 ,123,211 $ 900,949 $ 901,716 $ 900,948 $ 7 68 No signed cover sheet 2009/10 Summer Budget Total Claim Difference Original Amend #1 Amend #2 Amend #3 Final Amount DSA marked "Final" Date ? ? ? n/a ? ? Not dated. 1000 $ 6 6,057 $ 155,441 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2000 $ 3 5,365 $ 4 2,365 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 3000 $ 1 8,856 $ 2 2,285 $ - $ - $ - $ (288) $ 2 88 4000 $ 9,335 $ 2 9,335 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $221,495 to region 5000 $ 4,000 $ 1 1,000 $ 7 41 $ - $ 7 41 $ 1,028 $ (287) indirect $ 5,973 $ 5,973 $ 26 $ - $ 26 $ 26 $ ( 0) $ 139,586 $ 266,399 $ 7 67 $ - $ 7 67 $ 7 66 $ 1 Not dated. District signature only. Combined GL No Region signature. 1000 $ 260,710 $ 341,088 2000 $ 291,753 $ 353,610 Return program to 3000 $ 197,086 $ 248,916 region. 4000 $ 7 3,458 $ 105,858 5000 $ 4 7,963 $ 5 2,825 indirect $ 3 0,745 $ 4 1,055 $ 901,715 $ 1 ,143,352 Migrant fiscal year 2009-10 • The original DSA budget for the regular migrant program was $1,081,500. No signature page with signatures and dates of approval was provided to FCMAT. • The DSA amendment #1 changed the budget to $1,122,444. Again, no signature page was provided to support the amendment. • DSA amendment #2 dated June 24, 2010 and appropriately signed by the district, district advisory council, and region changed the budget to $1,123,211. • DSA amendment #3 reduced the agreement to $900,949 by moving $221,495 from the district’s agreement to the region. No signature page was provided. • The final DSA signed but not dated changed the migrant budget to $901,716. The final claim for the 2009-10 year totaled expenditures for the year at $900,948, and left $768 unused. Recommendations Migrant Region XVI should: 1. Ensure proper allocation of funds to ensure all DSA goals are met. 2. Ensure the budgeted funds are reallocated only as identified through the amendment and revision process. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 13 REVIEW OF EXPENDITURES 3. Develop written procedures and criteria for amending or revising service agreements including criteria, process, and time lines for reallocating funds. 4. Continue to reimburse funds only as approved through the application, amendment, and/or revision process. 5. Continue to maintain fiscal procedures conforming to CDE requirements. 6. Support districts in the implementation and completion of DSA activities and in providing services to migrant students through full utilization of allocated resources. 7. Ensure DSAs are included on forms provided or approved by the CDE, are provided to the CDE, and contain the following: • Salary and benefit schedules • Job descriptions • Copies of contracts • Other pertinent documents identifying services and budgeted costs • Required signatures 8. Maintain copies of the service agreement and any amendments or revisions on file at minimum for the required retention period of five years. The district should: 1. Follow procedures and guidelines provided by the CDE and Migrant Region XVI. 2. Develop DSAs to address the effects of the students’ migratory lifestyle on learning and address other needs that are necessary for facilitating migrant student’s effective participation in school. 3. Ensure the DSA is developed with input and review from the migrant parents. 4. Fully implement the DSA committed programs. 5. Timely amend or revise the DSA as necessary to reflect changes in programs and/or costs. 6. Ensure that all DSA amendments and revisions are properly approved and communicated to the region. 7. Ensure proper documentation and records supporting the DSA and the DSA approval process are maintained. 8. Ensure the region allocates funds in accordance with the DSA and latest approved amendment/revision and communicate any discrepancies. Monterey county oFFice oF education 14 REVIEW OF EXPENDITURES Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 15 FUNDS USE AND ACCURACY OF CLAIMS Funds Use and Accuracy of Claims FCMAT reviewed records including district financial audits, migrant claims, claim support documents, and general ledger transactions to verify the appropriate tracking and reporting of revenues and expenditures. District financial audits from 2005-06 through 2009-10 identified no audit findings related to the migrant program representing reportable conditions, material weaknesses, or instances of noncompliance related to financial statements. FCMAT found that the district consistently submitted reimbursement claim checklists with its monthly claims. The checklists contained a listing of assurances and documentation required to support claims and were signed by authorized district personnel. By signing the checklist, the district affirmed that all documentation required to support the claim was provided and that the expenditures were appropriate and allowable for the migrant program. However, FCMAT found that the district submitted at least one claim for a potential unallowable administrative expense, and this claim was adjusted by the region prior to payment. FCMAT found that the region did not consistently review this checklist upon receipt to verify all documentation was received as indicated by the district checklist or that the checklist was signed by a district representative. The region practice has been to subsequently follow up with a district if documentation is needed to support a claim. Best practice suggests that the region review the claim upon submission using a checklist to verify a properly submitted claim. Claims improperly submitted or submitted without necessary documentation should be immediately identified and the documentation requested or the claim rejected. 2005-06 Claim Reconciliation: The district and the Migrant Region XVI were unable to locate the final monthly claims and payment support documents for 2005-06 as requested by FCMAT. As a result, FCMAT was unable to validate all monthly adjustments to claims made by the region. The region adjusted claims throughout the year to reflect a reduction in parent participation services claims. The region often corresponded through e-mail or phone calls rather than written correspondence with districts regarding adjustments. Although region-to-district correspondence regarding adjustments was not provided, the adjustments indicate the review of expenditure claims and the alignment to the DSA. The January 2006 claim was adjusted to increase reimbursement for supply and travel claims as allowed by the DSA. The January payroll report identifies two individuals as program administrators salaried at $8,154.17 and $8,050 for the month. The district general ledger reflects a reduction of $5,053.60 and the resulting January claim for administration was $11,150.57. FCMAT found no records identifying the specifics of the adjustment. The migrant region reimbursed the full amount of the claim, $11,150.57, to the district. A potential unallowable claim for additional administration expense is identified since the DSA allows for only one full-time administrator. The final claim includes the partial salary of one administrator and the full salary of a second administrator. The February 2006 claim submitted by the district included charges for equipment other than what was used for the migrant program. The region reimbursement was adjusted to reduce the claim to only migrant copiers. The March 2006 claim provided to FCMAT incorrectly recorded year-to-date expenditures as compared to the district’s general ledger and was not signed by the migrant region representatives. Monterey county oFFice oF education 16 FUNDS USE AND ACCURACY OF CLAIMS The June final claim was signed and dated in September 2006 by both district and region parties, and $15,607 was left unused for the migrant fiscal year. Migrant region XVI requested and the district provided explanation for large adjustments in end- of-the-year materials and supplies expenses. The records indicated large purchases at the end of the program fiscal year. Although these purchases may be legitimate and in alignment with the DSA, they may also indicate an incomplete implementation of planned services, the lack of timely adjust- ment of the DSA to reflect plan changes, and/or a “use it or lose it” expenditure action. End-of-the-year expenditures included the following for receipt of goods prior to July 1, 2006: PO 62698 dated June 12, 2006 for migrant reference materials for $10,000. PO 62699 dated June 13, 2006 for migrant education books for $20,000. PO 62501 dated May 4, 2006 for migrant education books for $5,000. In addition, several June 2006 orders totaling $50,000 for books were made. Communication from the migrant region on August 7, 2006 regarding the May 2006 claim discusses the need for support documentation regarding multifunded positions, identification of migrant students, and a journal entry of more than $44,000. The communication states that the region will not reimburse without the proper backup and expense justification. 2006-07 Claim Reconciliation: The district and the Migrant Region XVI were unable to locate the final monthly claims and payment support documents for 2006-07 as requested by FCMAT. As a result, FCMAT was unable to validate all monthly adjustments to claims made by the region. Claim reimbursements provided to FCMAT were from the district and are signed only by district administrators. Since they are not the final region approved copy, they do not reflect changes due to unallowed expenses or other adjustments. Therefore, FCMAT cannot identify the amount of oversight and correction to claims made by the region during this period. The June 2007 claim reflects changes to the “other classified” and supply line items that result in a small reduction in the reimbursement to the district. An explanation for these adjustments was not provided. 2007-08 Claim reconciliation: The district migrant program administrator changed midyear and following this change, the administrator salary increased significantly from $6,893.50 to $10,917 per month. On October 1, 2007, the superintendent retired and entered into a contract with the district as a consultant from October 1, 2007 through July 31, 2008. The contract spec- ified compensation at the rate of $10,917 per month and retention of all benefits. The contract stated that this individual “will act as a consultant and advisor to the District’s Superintendent and will provide assistance as requested by the Superintendent with respect to all aspects of the curriculum and instruction division…” It appears that the former superintendent was initially assigned to the vacant maintenance, operations, transportation and facilities (MOTF) director position from October 2007 through April 2008. The vacant MOTF position was filled, and in January 2008, his duties were transferred to migrant education. Claims were submitted to pay the former superintendent as the migrant coordinator from January 2008 through July 2008. It is unclear if the former superintendent provided full-time services as migrant coordinator during this period. Since the DSA indicates one full-time equivalent (FTE) migrant coordinator, the additional duties stated in the contract would have diminished the time this individual could allocate to the migrant program; however, the program continued to pay the full salary of the position with migrant funds. Region XVI identified this issue and requested information from the district. In November 2008, a letter was provided by the then Alisal Union superintendent Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 17 FUNDS USE AND ACCURACY OF CLAIMS verifying that the consultant was working on special assignment in the migrant coordinator position full-time from January 2008 through July 2008. In response to this letter, the region requested documentation for the consultant’s work with the migrant program. In addition, due to the increase in compensation for this role, the expenditures for administration were $5,000 over budget. The region processed July 2007 through October 2007 claims at the same time in late November and early December. It is unknown when they were filed since the district signed but did not date the document. Adjustments to these claims were made only to the indirect cost line. November 2007 through March 2008 claims were processed at the end of April 2008. Because of the absence of signatures from the district, FCMAT is unable to determine the date they were filed with the region. April 2008 and May 2008 claims were processed in June 2008. Amendments on the May claim indicates a disallowance for clerical/office staff expenditures because of expenditures in excess of the budgeted amount. The district submitted the June 2008 claim on August 1, 2008 and processed on August 13, 2008. The claim was adjusted to account for expenditure in child supervisors and certificated administra- tion line items. In addition, the claim was adjusted for office clerical staff without explanation. July 2008 and August 2008 claims were signed in September 2008 and the September 2008 final claim was submitted in November 2008. Accompanying this carryover claim submission was a memo from the Alisal Union migrant coordinator to the migrant region director explaining the expendi- tures in the certificated budget of $61,069 because of a shortage of available teachers and the excess expenditures in the certificated administration, classified support, clerical/office, and classified benefits budgets. The significant expenditures included $19,499 in classified support salaries because of the addition of a work week and $38,700 because of additional classified employee benefits incurred as the district was required to pay for benefits because of the additional hours. After additional review and inquisition by the region, an adjustment was made lowering the reimbursement by $9,238.83. Again, the supply purchases increased at the end of the year. Purchase orders established at the end of the year included: For receipt of goods prior to July 1, 2008: PO 82355 dated May 7, 2008 for materials and supplies for $6,500. PO 82362 dated May 7, 2008 for meeting supplies for $1,500. PO 82356 dated May 7, 2008 for materials and supplies for $3,200. PO 82361 dated May 7, 2008 for meeting supplies for $1,000. For expenditure prior to October 1, 2008: PO 90640 dated September 29, 2008 for migrant books for $13,860.19. PO 90641 dated September 29, 2008 for migrant books for $1,724.63. PO 90429 dated September 3, 2008 for material and supplies for $5,500. PO 90540 dated September 18, 2008 for materials and supplies for $3,000. PO 90665 dated September 30, 2008 for cameras and related supplies for $1,369.27. PO 90536 dated September 30, 2008 for computers and peripherals for $9,206.04. PO 90537 dated September 18, 2008 for computers and peripherals for $1,354.71. Monterey county oFFice oF education 18 FUNDS USE AND ACCURACY OF CLAIMS 2008-09 claim reconciliation: October through December 2008 claims were submitted and processed in February 2009. Adjustments were made by the region to address excess expenditures in the object 560000 line item. January and February 2009 claims were dated March 17, 2009 by the district and processed in May by the region. Adjustments to the claim due to flexibility limitations resulted in a decrease to the February claims reimbursement of $2,936.74. The March 2009 claim submitted in April was adjusted down because of further adjustments to the 560000 line item. The April 2009 claim submitted in May and processed by the region in June 2009 reflected budget changes due to a DSA amendment. A resulting adjustment to the total claimable in the 560000 line item increased the reimbursement by $3,267.45. May 2009 through September 2009 claims for both regular and summer programs were submitted and reimbursed timely with no adjustments to claim. Records indicate an increase in supply expenditures similar to those identified in prior years. Purchase orders established at the end of the year included: For receipt of goods prior to July 1, 2009: PO 92519 dated May 27, 2009 for books for $20,297.09. PO 92315 dated May 6, 2009 for supplies for $3,500. For expenditure prior to October 1, 2009: PO 100510 dated September 14, 2009 for supplies for $1,000. PO 100511 dated September 14, 2009 for supplies for $29,610. PO 100535 dated September 17, 2009 for storage unit for $6,728.36. 2009-10 Claim reconciliation: A Migrant Region XVI letter regarding late reimbursement claims states that claims are due the 25th of the following month and requests compliance as 60% of the districts in the region were submitting their claims late. Claims for October 2009 through June 2010 were submitted by the district on a timely basis, two to three weeks after the end of the month. The region made no adjustments to the amounts claimed by the district. Internal control weaknesses were identified at the district level on two occasions: 1. Purchase order 110159 to Art Council for Monterey County for $27,400. Services scheduled for June 14 – 25, 2010. The board approved the contract on June 28, 2010 after the services were provided. The Art Council invoice was dated June 30, 2010 and district issued a purchase order and payment on July 8, 2010. 2. Invoice for Palace Art & Office Supply on October 5, 2009 indicates that the district paid the invoice twice. Invoices indicate purchase order number 100533 dated October 8, 2009 was associated with the purchase; however, on the other invoice dated October 22, 2009 the purchase order number was changed to 100694. Records indicate that the district was subsequently credited for the over- payment. This issue occurred only at the district level and was not submitted to the migrant region for reimbursement. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 19 FUNDS USE AND ACCURACY OF CLAIMS Recommendations Migrant Region XVI should: 1. Establish a review process for migrant staff members to review all claim and support document submissions for thoroughness. A region checklist and signature similar to the one provided with the district submission would suffice. 2. Continue to maintain fiscal control and fund accounting procedures that will ensure proper disbursement of and accounting for funds. 3. Continue to return the amount of funds determined not to have been spent in accordance with law and purpose. 4. Continue to have policies and procedures for collecting money paid to districts for expenditures later determined to be unallowable. 5. Continue to monitor all expenditures and maintain a record of the review on file. 6. Continue to ensure all costs are reasonable and necessary for proper and efficient performance and administration. 7. Continue to ensure all reimbursement claims have the appropriate support documentation including the following • Payroll • Time accounting records for multi-funded personnel • Purchase orders • Invoices • Travel Claims • Communication invoices • Utility bills • Journal entry details and support • Other pertinent documents verifying expenses 8. Ensure the timely submission of claims. 9. Continue to ensure that the DSA is implemented and that planned program expenditures are appropriate and timely. 10. Continue to ensure reimbursements are made only for expenditures approved in the DSA or allowed by the flexibility provisions. 11. Provide written correspondence to districts for any claim adjustments rather than through e-mail or phone calls to ensure the region has documentation of the event. Monterey county oFFice oF education 20 FUNDS USE AND ACCURACY OF CLAIMS The district should: 1. Maintain orderly and accessible migrant documents and records. DSAs, amendments and revisions, support documents, and claims should contain all necessary signatures and dates of approval. The retention period for these documents should be no less than the required five years. 2. Ensure that all expenditures are used only as necessary and reasonable for proper and efficient performance and administration of migrant services. 3. Ensure that all migrant services and expenditures adhere to policy, regulations and procedures, and not prohibited under federal, state, or local law. 4. Ensure that migrant funds are not included in matching for other federal activity. 5. Ensure that migrant funds are not used to compensate staff members not directly providing migrant services. 6. Implement and charge indirect at the state indirect cost rate or as otherwise allowed by Region XVI. 7. Maintain internal controls to ensure that the services supplement district activities, support services to migrant students, and align with the DSA budget. 8. Maintain internal controls regarding the procurement process. These controls should include obtaining prior approval for purchases of service and supplies through the board approval and purchase requisition/purchase order process as designated by the district. 9. Ensure all reimbursement claims have the appropriate support documenta- tion including the following • Payroll • Time accounting records for multi-funded personnel • Purchase orders • Invoices • Travel Claims • Communication invoices • Utility bills • Journal entry details and support • Other pertinent documents verifying expenses Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 21 INTERNAL CONTROLS AND OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITIES Internal Controls and Oversight Responsibilities Education Code Section 42638 (b) states the following: If the county superintendent determines that there is evidence that fraud or misappro- priation of funds has occurred, the county Superintendent shall notify the governing board of the school district, the State Controller, the Superintendent of Public Instruction, and the local district attorney. Fraud can encompass an array of irregularities and illegal acts characterized by intentional deception and misrepresentation of material facts. The principal mechanisms for the deterrence of fraud or illegal practices are strong internal controls. Internal controls include the processes designed to provide reasonable assurance that the district’s operations are effective and efficient; the financial information produced is reliable, and that the district is operating in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. The internal control structure includes the policies and procedures used by the district staff, accounting and information systems, the work environment and the professionalism of employees while conducting district work. A material weakness is a deficiency in the internal control process where errors or fraud may occur. Because of the weakness, employees in the normal course of business may not detect the errors within a timely period. A material weakness also can be defined by a violation of existing laws or regulations. The following is a partial list of what would be considered ineffective internal controls: • Not separating functional responsibilities of authorization • Unrestricted access to assets or sensitive data (e.g. cash, fixed assets, personnel records) • Not recording transactions resulting in lack of accountability • Not reconciling assets with the appropriate records • Unauthorized transactions • Unimplemented controls due to unqualified personnel • Collusion among employees where little or no supervision exists FCMAT found no issues of fraud, misappropriation of funds, or illegal practices that indicate the need for further examination. Both the district and the region have adequate staff to provide appro- priate oversight to the migrant program. This report identifies best practices, that if implemented, will strengthen internal controls and program oversight. Appropriate positions exist, and basic internal controls are in place at both the district and region. If the additional controls identified in the FCMAT report are implemented, these should strengthen the structure and oversight. FCMAT did find issues related to expenditures and submittal of claims as identified previously in the report that call for the improvement of practices and migrant program planning and oversight. The issues most commonly resulted from lack of operational planning and oversight. While all the organization’s employees have some degree of responsibility for the district’s internal controls, the governing board, the superintendent and senior management are ultimately responsible. Migrant Region XVI identified the following staff involved in the region administration of the program: migrant director, migrant coordinator, migrant budget analyst, and county office senior accountant. The director is responsible for administration of the migrant program for the region. The director provides the final check on the DSAs and oversees the district’s general program Monterey county oFFice oF education 22 INTERNAL CONTROLS AND OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITIES compliance. The coordinator works closely with the district, providing assistance to program implementation and providing direction for appropriate migrant services. The budget analyst assists with developing the budget component of the DSA and all amendments and revisions. The budget analyst also reviews claims, ensuring that the proper documentation is received, the claims align with the DSA budgets, and that they reconcile with the district’s ledger. The county office senior accountant reviews the work of the budget analyst as it relates to claim and support documentation and prepares the payment transfer in accordance with the migrant agreement and district approved allocation. The district migrant staff changed frequently and significantly over the period of review. However, the key responsibilities for the migrant program were maintained, albeit by different individuals. The key responsibilities include program coordination, clerical support, fiscal oversight, and executive authority. As with all programs of the district, the board of trustees and the superintendent provide executive authority and are responsible for ensuring program oversight and compliance. The Alisal Union superintendent designated this authority to the assistant superintendent or director of educational services. The district migrant program coor- dinator reported directly to this authority and was responsible for leading the migrant program, developing the DSA, and overseeing the implementation of the services. District migrant clerical support assists with procurement of services and supplies, maintenance of records, and submittal of claims. District fiscal oversight maintains the controls for the procurement process, the district ledger, and the district records. The recommendations to the district, if implemented, should provide the needed structure and oversight to reasonably mitigate the potential for inappropriate use of funds. However, effective delivery of migrant services requires leadership and proper planning to ensure that the programs are fully implemented and funds are used as intended. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 23 ROAD MAP FOR THE FUTURE Road Map for the Future The purpose of this section is to provide a road map for establishing and maintaining a viable and significant Migrant Education Program in Alisal Union. Recommendations are based on best practices and FCMAT provides distinct recommendations for the region and district. The road map is based on the following source documents: • Title I, Part C Education of Migratory Children – No Child Left Behind • Region XVI – Teacher and Administrator Migrant Student Lists (Appendix B) • 2009-2010 Migrant Education Program - District Service Agreement Guidelines (Appendix C) • Categorical Program Monitoring (CPM) – Migrant Education Instrument (Appendix D) • General Assurances – CDE Categorical Program Legal Assurances 2010-2011 (Appendix E) The region, county office of and district want the program to be returned to district operation when the essential elements of operation are developed. It is critical to provide academic instruc- tion for each migrant student according to the migrant needs assessments and ILPs to ensure opportunity and equal educational access. FCMAT does not recommend a time line for transfer of the Alisal Union migrant program from Region XVI. However, the goal of this road map is to provide the essential elements of the infrastructure of a successful migrant program. A transition of a program of this size, and the development of the essential elements, will require significant planning, staff development, and communication. When appropriate steps have been completed to ensure a high quality program, all migrant program responsibilities should be returned to the district. District Service Agreement The district service agreements reviewed by FCMAT for 2005-2006 through 2009-2010 did not thoroughly address the migrant education program criteria. Goals that were defined were consistently not accomplished. The agreements provided to FCMAT were not properly signed by the district staff and/or in some cases the regional staff. Time lines for submission and approval were not adhered to. Because corrective action was not taken until the end of the regular school year, migrant students may not have received services for which they were eligible during that year. During interviews FCMAT received several positive reports from parents, the district and regional staff about the 2010 summer school program operated by the region. It is essential that Migrant Region XVI, in cooperation with migrant staff and parents from Alisal Union, develop the 2011-12 district migrant service agreement for Alisal Union that meets all criteria on the rubric approval form and all standards established by the CDE/Migrant, Indian, and International Education Office (MIIEO). Recommendations The district and Migrant Region XVI should: 1. Jointly develop the district migrant service agreement for 2011-12 with a plan to transition the program back to district operation. 2. Ensure parent and staff involvement in the development of the DSA. Monterey county oFFice oF education 24 ROAD MAP FOR THE FUTURE 3. Use the CDE/MIIEO standards to guide plan development. Signature Page-Funding Regular school (3060) and summer school (3061) indicate that funds allocated to the district migrant program are consistent with the per-pupil allocation throughout Region XVI and are based on the most recent count of eligible migrant students pre-K-6. Signature Page-Certification Signatures by the Alisal Union superintendent or designee, the 2011-12 migrant education region director, and the district parent advisory council (PAC) president certify that all applicable state and federal rules and regulations will be observed, the information contained in the applica- tion is correct and complete, and the assurances are accepted as the basic conditions in program operation. The signature of the PAC representative certifies that it has had active involvement in planning, developing, and reviewing the application (CDE Section 54444.4), and there are agendas and minutes of the PAC meetings where the DSA were discussed in detail. Recommendations The district and Migrant Region XVI should: 1. Ensure that parents are actively involved in plan development. 2. Survey parents to determine convenient locations, dates and times for parent meetings. 3. Provide childcare or other necessary support to ensure wide participation. District Program Descriptions Various measures were reported in the 2010-2011 DSA; however, interviews and document reviews provided little indication that during the review period of 2005-2010, data was systematically collected and reported to all migrant staff, teachers, and administrators where migrant students are enrolled. Student data should include California Standards Tests (CST) performance levels in English/language arts (ELA), math, and other subjects tested, English-language development (ELD), proficiency level in listening, speaking, reading, writing, and overall, and at high school grades 10-12, California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE tests) passed in ELA and math. District measures, particularly in ELA and math, should be regularly tracked and the results reported to all migrant staff, teachers, and administrators to determine the most appropriate academic inter- ventions. Specific health needs must be indicated for all teachers and administrators of migrant students to ensure that needs are addressed not just by the migrant staff but also the school and/ or district staff. The Alisal Union corrective action plan states on page 15 “Implement the on-line access reporting system (OARS) to provide a user-friendly and accessible data management system that tracks data over time” with an implementation goal of November 2010. This system can ideally track health needs in addition to academic progress and other demographics. Power School is used to track student attendance and demographics, and the corrective action plan identifies a time line and process to review and verify all demographic data in 2011. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 25 ROAD MAP FOR THE FUTURE Recommendations The district should: 1. Fully implement the Online Assessment Enrollment System (OARS) for 2011-12 as a comprehensive student data-management system for collecting and reporting state-level and district local measures of student performance. 2. Develop local assessments and load them in the OARS system. 3. Research the OARS system to determine if the system can track data related to student specific health and other need in addition to academic data. 4. Develop a process to regularly report and discuss migrant student results to all staff members, including regular education, migrant and administrators. The corrective action plan identifies a goal, the person responsible, and a time line to accomplish this task. However, full implementation will require the entire school district to participate in professional development, engage in discus- sions (professional learning communities), and establish the review of student data and making changes to instruction as a priority. Professional Development Plan The district migrant program historically operated autonomously from the core instructional programs. Greater coordination in professional development is required to integrate all migrant services with district services and ensure that each migrant student receives the highest degree of integration in district and migrant services. Coordination between the Curriculum and Instruction Division and the migrant program director and staff is critical to ensure that the migrant program implements the district curriculum. The corrective action plan also addresses professional development extensively and, if fully implemented, should provide the necessary elements to a successfully integrated migrant program. Recommendations The district should: 1. Develop regular planning and meetings of the director of curriculum and instruction and the director of migrant education. 2. Provide all school staff members with training on migrant education goals, services, and restrictions to improve understanding of the program and maxi- mize integration. Parent Education and Involvement Descriptions in the 2010-2011 DSA are thorough. Interviews with parent representative suggested participation is higher than in previous years; however, there is little evidence that migrant student parents participate in the school or district councils. Much greater efforts should be made to encourage the participation of migrant parents in parent involvement activities including the English Learner Advisory Committee (ELAC), District English Learner Advisory Committee (DELAC), School Site Council (SSC), and District Advisory Committee (DAC). Monterey county oFFice oF education 26 ROAD MAP FOR THE FUTURE The corrective action plan specifically addresses this issue and lists activities that the district will engage in to increase parent training and participation. Some of the strategies involve professional development for district and school site staff to improve parent participation and specific parental communication activities required of administrative and certificated staff. Recommendations The district should: 1. Ensure that parents have active engagement in plan development. 2. Survey parents to determine convenient locations, dates and times for parent meetings and provide childcare or other necessary support to ensure wide participation. 3. Encourage migrant parent involvement in ELAC, DELAC, and other district- and school-level committees. Student Demographic Profile Serious questions exist about the accuracy of the student demographic profiles; it is unclear that all eligible students have been recruited and identified for migrant services at all district schools. This may be because of the frequent turnover of migrant program directors and the resultant numerous problems identified with program implementation from 2005-2006 through 2009-2010. A review of student recruitment and identification procedures by the district and Migrant Region XVI would help ensure that all eligible migrant students are identified and that needs assessments have been completed. This would meet the DSA criteria for establishing goals for adequate improvements in migrant student academic achievement. Individualized Learning Plans (ILPs) will need to be completed for each student, particularly for the priority for services (PFS) students. Region XVI and Alisal Union should make every effort to ensure that all eligible migrant students are identified using appropriate identification and recruitment procedures. (See Statutory Requirements, Sections 1304(c)(7) and 1309(2) of Title I, Part C, pages 39-42 A6, What procedures exist to recruit migrant children effectively?) Recommendations The district and Migrant Region XVI should: 1. Review student recruitment and identification efforts and make adjustments to improve the identification of all eligible students. 2. Jointly complete needs assessments and ILPs for each students. 3. Communicate student needs and ILP to school staff to improve integration of services. The district should: 4. Create a forum for migrant education parents to access teachers. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 27 ROAD MAP FOR THE FUTURE Involvement in Application Development The parents interviewed expressed a high level of interest in the district migrant program and a strong desire to be involved in planning, developing, and reviewing the DSA. The 2009-10 DSA identified a large number of parties interested in application development; however, parents and officers of the PAC who attended the parent interviews indicated they had very little participation in DSA planning. Only the PAC president was aware of the available funding and how services were to be provided. For 2011-2012, district parents of migrant students should be invited to participate in DSA development and receive systematic training in the migrant program and the components of the DSA. For an effective migrant program Alisal Union should build the capacity of those affected, improve understanding of the program, and increase participation. Although the region provides migrant parents with training on migrant funding, DSA components, and program options, the district should reinforce this training through discussion of the district specific program funding, goals, and program options. Recommendation The district with the support of Migrant Region XVI should: 1. Provide migrant parents with training on migrant funding, DSA components, and program options. Parent Advisory Council–Membership Roster The parent advisory council members interviewed were positive about the program, concerned abou t their students’ opportunities, and wanted to be engaged and supportive of the program. However the y were not clear on their roles and responsibilities as PAC members .Before a transition of the migrant program from Region XVI to the district, council members will need the opportunity to participat e in a leadership retreat or conference where they should be trained in the roles and responsibilities o f the officers and nonofficer members of the PAC. A cross-section of the migrant community shoul d participate, including migrant parents, students, community members, teachers, administrators, and other school personnel. During training, PAC council members need to participate in the develo-p ment of new bylaws for the PAC meetings. These bylaws provide governance structure, define membe r roles and responsibilities, and define the rules of order to conduct effective meetings . Recommendations The district, with the support of Migrant Region XVI, should: 1. Increase membership and participation in the parent advisory council. 2. Provide training in parent roles and responsibilities. 3. Consider a retreat or conference and provide capacity building training for parent advisory council members. District Academic Assessment Data Summary The district’s student population is 93.5% Hispanic, with 2,123 identified as migrant students. Academic progress by the migrant population will directly affect higher student achievement outcomes at the school and district level. The summaries provided for 2010-2011 for migrant Monterey county oFFice oF education 28 ROAD MAP FOR THE FUTURE education program and priority for services students indicate that there is a critical need for improved coordination between the district migrant program and the Curriculum and Instruction Department to improve academic achievement. The roles and responsibilities of all migrant staff members, particularly the director, must be focused on supporting academic progress for every migrant student. The report section on instructional activities provides recom- mendations for the maximum utilization of migrant staff to improve academic achievement. The migrant program is of sufficient size to warrant a director-level position that is not assigned to other duties. In addition, the district will need to work toward providing longevity in the posi- tion so that planned programs can be implemented and improved. The region and district should develop a comprehensive plan for transitioning the program back to the school district. As part of that plan, the district will need to hire a director to assist with the development of the plan and build the capacity of the program and district staff. Recommendations The district should: 1. Hire a director of migrant education that is focused on planning for the transition back to district operation and implementation of the migrant education program. 2. Assign the director work with the region to develop the implementation plan, DSA, recruitment plan, and ILPs and needs assessments. 3. Assign the director to report progress at cabinet meetings and work directly with the assistant superintendent of educational services to coordinate migrant program goals and services with the corrective action plan goals and strategies. Data Analysis Summary Various data management measures were reported in the 2010-2011 DSA (WestEd data); however, interviews and document reviews provided little indication that data is systematically collected and reported to all migrant staff, teachers, and administrators where migrant students are enrolled. Student data should include CST performance levels in ELA, math, and other subjects tested, ELD proficiency level in listening, speaking, reading, writing, and overall, and at high school grades 10-12 CAHSEE tests passed in ELA and math. District measures, particularly in ELA and math, should be regularly tracked, and the results reported to all migrant staff, teachers, and administrators to determine the most appropriate academic interventions. Specific student health needs should be indicated for all teachers and administrators of migrant students to assure that student needs are addressed not just by migrant staff but also by school and/or district staff. (See NCLB Statutory Requirements: Title I, Part C, Sections 1304(b) and 1306(a) Regulatory Requirements: 34 CFR 200.83) Decisions on the allocation of resources should be based on data. All migrant staff, as well as district teachers, support staff, and administrators, should monitor and evaluate student outcomes and program effectiveness on an ongoing basis. Before transitioning the program and the 2011-12 fiscal year, the district should implement a comprehensive student data-management system for collecting and reporting state-level and Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 29 ROAD MAP FOR THE FUTURE district local measures of student performance for every migrant student. The corrective action plan lists the goals and strategies to accomplish this task. With the successful implementation of OARS and the review of demographic data in Power School, the district should be prepared to share the data with those affected. Recommendations The district should: 1. Review the Power School student information and data management systems to confirm that student data is captured and accessible for reporting require- ments. 2. Verify that all state and local level assessments are captured and reported through the OARS data management system. 3. Provide aggregate and disaggregated student data to school staff to support instructional practices. 4. Review student outcomes at a program, district and site level to determine adjustments that might be warranted in program delivery or school based services. State Measurable Outcomes The outcomes identified in the 2010-2011 DSA are complete and meet district and state criteria. However, the prior year(s) of achievement data should be evaluated to determine if migrant students achieve at the levels described in the DSA. An analysis of the available WestEd data indicates that district migrant students did not adequately meet state performance targets. The DSA should communicate the goals and strategies the migrant staff will use to promote student achievement and improve outcomes. Interviews and data indicate that efforts by the migrant staff during the review period of 2005-06 through 2009-2010 were fragmented, with insufficient effort to affect migrant student achievement. The following information from the NCLB Title I, Part C Non-Regulatory Guidance clari- fies purposes and goals of the measurable outcomes for district migrant students in and should be used as a reference. Performance Targets. The plan must specify the performance targets that the State has adopted for all migrant children for: (1) reading; (2) math; (3) high school graduation; (4) the number of school dropouts; (5) school readiness; and (6) any other performance target that the State has identified for migrant children. (See 34 CFR 200.83(a) (1).) Needs Assessment. The plan must include identification and an assessment of: (1) the unique educational needs of migrant children that result from the children’s migrant lifestyle; and (2) other needs of migrant students that must be met in order for them to participate effectively in school. (See 34 CFR 200.83(a) (2).) Measurable Program Outcomes. The plan must include the measurable outcomes that the MEP will produce through specific educational or educationally-related services. (See section 1306(a) (1) (D) of the statute.) Measurable outcomes allow the MEP to Monterey county oFFice oF education 30 ROAD MAP FOR THE FUTURE determine whether and to what degree the program has met the special educational needs of migrant children that were identified through the comprehensive needs assessment. The measurable outcomes should also help achieve the State’s performance targets. Service Delivery - The plan must describe the district’s strategies for achieving the performance targets and measurable objectives described above. The district’s service delivery strategy must address: (1) the unique educational needs of migrant children that result from the children’s migrant lifestyle, and (2) other needs of migrant students that must be met in order for them to participate effectively in school. (See 34 CFR 200.83(a) (3).) Evaluation - The plan must describe how the district will evaluate whether and to what degree the program is effective in relation to the performance targets and measurable outcomes. (See 34 CFR 200.83(a) (4).) Recommendations The district should: 1. Develop the 2011-2012 DSA following the guidelines provided. 2. Base the strategies contained in the DSA on identified student needs and best practices to promote student achievement and improved outcomes. 3. Ensure the plan identifies the parties responsible for delivering the program or service identified. 4. Ensure the plan contains measurable goals and identifies the evaluation method and time line. Migrant Region XVI should: 5. Continue to support the district’s efforts to implement the recommendations outlined above. Instructional Activities During the period under review, (2005-2006 through 2009-2010), the implementation of migrant services fell far short of the descriptions of the instructional activities. The number of certificated instructional staff members employed for migrant services was inadequate partly because of the inability to hire and train staff to perform the required duties. The former administration indicated in correspondence to the region that it was difficult for the district to recruit well qualified staff with proper credentials. Several staff members indicated that many applications for highly quali- fied staff were received, interviews conducted, and candidates selected. The Human Resources Department submitted the proper forms, and the final approval by the superintendent did not occur. Through document review and interviews, FCMAT found that for two years of program operation, the superintendent did not hire or delayed the hiring of permanent certificated program staff. Substitute teachers that did not hold the desired credentials were hired to deliver program services in some years generally after the school year was well underway. At least once, instructional services were not delivered until late in the school year and during a summer program. The migrant program focused on meeting student needs other than improving academic outcomes. Most Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 31 ROAD MAP FOR THE FUTURE program funding was dedicated to classified program staff. Regular instructional school services were not provided as intended and summer/intercession services provided opportunities for very limited numbers of eligible Migrant students. Region XVI consistently brought its concerns to the attention of school district administration as early as 2006. For 2011-2012, Migrant Region XVI, in coordination with the Alisal Union interim human resources director and other district staff members, will need to hire and place adequate staff into positions identified in the DSA and provide critical curriculum and instruction training to serve the needs of all migrant students. The following categorical program monitoring (CPM) guidelines are a template for the implementation of a quality district migrant program and serve as a framework for Region XVI and the district staff. Desired Outcomes 2010-11 Categorical Program Monitoring (CPM) 1. Migrant children have full opportunities to meet state academic content standards. (20 United States Code (U.S.C.) 6391[4]) 2. Migrant children receive appropriate, coordinated, and efficient education and supportive services that address their special needs. (20 U.S.C. 6391[3]) 3. Interstate migrant children are not penalized by disparities of states’ curriculum and academic standards. (20 U.S.C. 6391[2]) 4. Migrant program plans help migrant children to overcome educational, cultural, language, social, and health problems and to do well in school. (20 U.S.C. 6391[5]) 5. Migrant children benefit from state and local systemic reforms. (20 U.S.C. 6391[6]) 6. The migrant program reduces disruptions to migrant children’s education and other problems resulting from repeated moves. (20 U.S.C. 6391[1]) VII-M 15. Teaching and Learning - The LEA provides migrant students with the full range of services available from appropriate local, state, and federal education programs. (20 U.S.C. 6394[b] [1] [A]) 15.1 The migrant region and LEA provide a comprehensive, supplementary program designed to meet the educational, health, and related needs of participating students, as described in the service agreement. (EC 54443.1[c]) 15.2 The migrant region and LEA give priority for service to migrant children who are failing to meet state academic content standards and whose education was interrupted during the regular school year. (20 U.S.C. 6394[d]) 15.3 The migrant region and LEA coordinate migrant education services with other state and federal programs. (20 U.S.C. 6396[a] [1][G]) 15.4 The migrant region and LEA provide a brief individual learning plan, listing services to be provided, to parents annually or on enrollment. (EC 54443.1[d]) 15.5 The migrant region and LEA maintain migrant student records for kindergarten through grade twelve students, or copies, in the student cumulative record. (20 U.S.C. 6394 [b] [3]) The following Title I statutes explicitly require Title I, Part A district (Local Educational Agency - LEA) staff to coordinate and integrate services for migrant children: Monterey county oFFice oF education 32 ROAD MAP FOR THE FUTURE • Section 1111(a) requires states to develop their state plans in consultation with local education agencies, and to coordinate this plan with all other programs authorized by the ESEA, including the MEP. • Section 1112(b)(4)(B) and (8) requires that an LEA’s Part A plan, which must be submitted to and approved by the State, include: o “a description of how the [LEA] will coordinate and integrate services under [Part A] with other educational services ... such as--services for ... migratory children served under Part C or who were formerly eligible for services under Part C in the two-year period preceding the date of the enactment of the [new statute]..;” and o “A description of how the [LEA] will ensure that migratory children and formerly migratory children who are eligible to receive services under this part are selected to receive such services on the same basis as other children who are selected to receive services under [Part A].” • Section 1114(b)(1)(B)(iv) requires that schoolwide programs more fully include “Schoolwide reform strategies that--address the needs of all children in the school, but particularly the needs of children who are members of the target population of any program that is included in the schoolwide program...” • Section 1115(c)(2) requires targeted assistance schools to assist participating children “by the coordination of resources provided under [Part A] with other resources to enable the children served to meet the state content standards and state student performance standards.” Furthermore, the counterpart to these requirements (found in Section 1306(a)(1)(F)) requires joint planning by local staff, including those funded by Part A, on how to identify and address the needs of migrant children. Migrant educators and parents are encouraged to work with Title I school and LEA staff to enable them to plan programs so that the special needs of migrant children and other highly mobile students are considered. Coordination with other Federally Funded Education Programs The ESEA encourages migrant educators to fully explore options for coordinating and inte- grating services provided under other federally funded programs, including those discussed earlier under “Links with Other Education Legislation.” In addition to coordination with Title I, Part A, the statute specifically requires joint planning among migrant programs, early childhood programs, and bilingual programs under Part A of Title VII (Section 1 306(a)(1)(F)). Example of Coordination Across Programs • Multifunding specialists in migrant, bilingual, and Title I, Part A programs; • Moving the administration of migrant, bilingual, and Title I, Part A programs to one central location; • Creating a central electronic database to track the effectiveness of multiple services provided to students; • Streamlining data collection by creating one consolidated form to record the various services provided to individual students; Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 33 ROAD MAP FOR THE FUTURE • Providing coordinated on-site training for principals and school staff in how to make effective and integrated use of migrant, Part A, and bilingual education services; • Coordinating the efforts of paraprofessionals and aides to prevent overstaffing and help such personnel make effective use of time and resources. Funding and Governance Funding requirements for Region XVI and the district fiscal staff, particularly internal control, are discussed in the previous section. FCMAT did not find evidence of fraud but raised several serious questions about expenditures during the years under review. Compliance with the CPM guidelines is critical to safeguard funding. III-M 8. The migrant region and LEA use migrant education funds only for allowable activities and equipment. (20 U.S.C. 6394[c][1][A]) III-M 9. For the Migrant Education Program, the LEA uses categorical funds only to supplement, and not supplant, state and local funds: Title I, Part C. (20 U.S.C. 6321[b], 6394[c][2]) III-M 10. The LEA properly assesses administrative charges for direct or indirect costs of federal funds for salaries and wages in proportion to an allowable quantity and duties of the employee. (California School Accounting Manual [CSAM]; OMB Circular A-87, At- tachment B, 8.h; OMB Circular A-133, ED Cross-Cutting Section, III.B.2) (20 U.S.C. 6825 [b]) 10.1 Each employee paid in part from a single cost objective and in part from other revenue, or an employee paid from multiple cost objectives, completes a Personnel Activity Report (PAR) each pay period, or an approved sampling method is used. Budget Revision Procedures There are many questions about the final budget revisions when funds were moved to summer school programs, particularly during the 2007-2008, 2008-2009, and 2009-2010 fiscal years. There was no indication that final revisions were taken to the district migrant PAC meetings for discussion and approval since agendas and minutes for those meetings were not provided. Beginning 2011-2012, DSA budgets and amendments/revisions along with modification to the instructional activities should be presented to the Migrant PAC prior to submission to the Region XVI. The DSA includes a signature line for the district advisory council president or designee to certify that the council has been actively involved in the planning development and review of the application. (20 U.S.C. 6394[c][3][A], [B]; California Education Code (EC) Section 54444.4[a]) specifies that: (a) The responsibilities of parent advisory councils at the district, regional, and state levels shall include, but are not limited to, all of the following: (1) The establishment of migrant education program goals, objectives, and priorities. (2) The review of annual needs and year-end assessment, as well as program activities, for each school, and a review of individualized educational plans. (3) Advice on the selection, development, and reassignment of migrant education program staff. Monterey county oFFice oF education 34 ROAD MAP FOR THE FUTURE (4) Active involvement in the planning and negotiation of program applications and service agreements required under Section 54444.1. (5) All other responsibilities required under state and federal laws or regulations. Recommendations The district and Migrant Region XVI should: 1. Review program budget in early spring to confirm that program expenditures are appropriately utilized and will be fully expended during the budget year. 2. Meet with PAC to plan, develop and review the DSA funding available to deliver summer services. 3. Obtain PAC president certification that the PAC planned, developed, and reviewed the application prior to submission to Region XVI. Coordination and Collaboration The district DSA for 2010-2011 clearly identifies the procedures for collecting the information required, the records exchange, strategies, and activities to increase articulation between sending and receiving schools. This is a strong baseline that can be used to develop this component 2011- 2012 of the DSA. Parent Involvement - Governance Alisal Migrant PAC bylaws are dated 1996. One of the essential goals of the PAC should be to develop and approve bylaws that comply with migrant parent involvement requirements. (See NCLB Title I, Part C Education of Migratory Children pages 81-85). The district should periodically review bylaws and determine if any revision is required or recommended as a result of new regulations. Additionally, this review provides continued members with a review and new members with an introduction of the purpose and governance structure of the PAC. Recommendation The district should: 1. Annually review bylaws to determine whether revision is required. NCLB Section 1118 Requirements on Parental Involvement Section 1304(c)(3)(a) requires a local operating agency to conduct parental involvement activities “in a manner that provides for the same parental involvement as is required for programs and projects under section 1118, unless extraordinary circumstances make such provision imprac- tical.” The statute also requires parental involvement activities to be conducted in a format and language understandable to parents. The parental involvement requirement in 1304(c)(3)(a) is stricter than in past years. Before, the local operating agency only had to carry out the MEP “in a manner consistent with” section 1118 “to the extent feasible.” The current language creates a higher standard for complying with Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 35 ROAD MAP FOR THE FUTURE parental involvement requirements. Absent extraordinary circumstances, the local operating agency must follow the requirements of section 1118 to comply with section 1304(c)(3)(a). In general, Section 1118 requires the region to provide the following: 1. A written parental involvement policy; 2. Policy involvement of parents in an organized, ongoing, and timely way in the implementation of the MEP; 3. Capacity building of parents and district MEP staff for strong parental involve- ment; and 4. Effective access to parental involvement activities. Parent Involvement - Training The parents who attended the parent meetings held by FCMAT expressed a need and interest in ongoing training. Based on parent responses, FCMAT recommends training in the following areas before or at the time the migrant program transitions back to the district: 1. The district should conduct a PAC officers’ workshop to provide training and build the capacity of officers for leadership roles. Training should be provided by staff with participation of qualified parents of the Alisal Union School District, Migrant Region XVI Regional Advisory Council (RAC) and Monterey County Superintendent of Schools. 2. PAC officers and members should receive training and guidance in the procedures required to conduct effective PAC meetings, including selection of PAC agenda items that are of interest to other parents, methods of communicating with parents about the calendar and importance of upcoming meetings, procedural guidelines for conducting PAC meetings, and management of the agenda to maintain order in the operations of PAC meetings. 3. PAC members should be given a thorough understanding of the local and state measurable objectives described in the Alisal Union DSA and the impact of those objectives on implementation within the classrooms or school site intervention programs. Communications to parents of migrant students are critical regarding regular school and summer/intervention programs in order to allow maximum participation by eligible students. 4. PAC members and parents of migrant students need to understand which migrant program services supplement the district core curriculum particularly in English language arts, including English-language development, and math. If bilingual classes are offered, parents need to understand how the primary language supports academic achievement and how and when transition occurs to an all English instructional program. 5. PAC members and parents should receive a list of migrant school site staff members who work at the school(s) their children attend as well as Region XVI staff that support their programs. Monterey county oFFice oF education 36 ROAD MAP FOR THE FUTURE Health Services The 2010-2011 DSA clearly identifies the local and state health services objectives. Vision and dental screenings and intervention services are clearly defined including the cooperation between the district and Alisal medical and counseling services. Staff Development The context for planning for staff development for the 2011-2012 Alisal Migrant program should center on the CPM requirements for the following three dimensions: • Section IV - Standards, Assessment, and Accountability • Section V - Staffing and Professional Development • Section VI - Opportunity and Equal Educational Access The staffing profile for the district migrant program 2010-2011 includes teachers, paraeducators and family service specialists for Sessions 1, 2, and 3 for ECE, K-12, out-of- school youth, and ungraded migrant student services. In order for each staff to fulfill his/her responsibilities after transition, the district and Region XVI should coordinate extensive staff development to ensure that each person is highly qualified to complete the duties assigned Recommendation The county office and Migrant Region XVI should: 1. Provide all migrant staff members with training on these elements before the beginning of each school year and continuing throughout the year. This should be accomplished before the migrant program returns to Alisal Union. Standards, Assessment, and Accountability Staff members are recruited, trained, assigned, and assisted to ensure the effectiveness of the program. IV-M 11. The migrant region and LEA measure migrant student progress against the desired outcomes of the migrant education program and state academic content standards. (20 U.S.C. 6396[a][1][D]) 11.1 The LEA completes an individual assessment of the educational and health needs of each migrant student within 30 days of enrollment. (EC 54443.1[a]) For new or inexperienced migrant staff, conducting current assessments of education and health needs within 30 days required extensive training before the beginning of the school year and as students enroll throughout the year. The district will need a clearly defined organizational chart to define responsibilities and methods of accountability to ensure that all documentation is completed and maintained for each migrant student, even if this requires additional duties to be assigned to the existing staff. Documentation, such as the Certificate of Eligibility (COE), Individualized Learning Plan (ILP), End of Eligibility (EOE), and other required record-keeping requires specific professional devel- opment for all assigned staff. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 37 ROAD MAP FOR THE FUTURE Recommendations The district should: 1. Develop an organizational chart that defines responsibilities. 2. Provide professional development regarding the collection and retention of migrant student records including confidentiality. 11.2 The LEA identifies and addresses the needs of migrant children in coordination with other categorical programs. (20 U.S.C. 6396[a][1][A]) Migrant programs are clearly supplemental and are to be coordinated with other categorical program services, particularly Title I, Part A, Title III, and State Compensatory Education. Recommendation The district should: 1. Provide site administrators, classroom teachers, paraeducators, and others staff development to understand their roles and responsibilities for migrant students. 11.3 The LEA identifies and addresses the needs of migrant children through measurable program goals and outcomes. (20 U.S.C. 6394[b][1][D]) The migrant program goals in the DSA are specific; however, all administrators, teachers, and paraeducators who work with migrant students must be informed of the goals and ways to accomplish those goals. This will require additional and coordinated staff development by both Region XVI and district staff. Recommendations The district should: 1. Review LEA, schoolwide, and corrective action plans to ensure that each address specific migrant population needs and incorporates migrant program activities in a coordinated and supplemental manner. 2. Communicate these plans with all personnel responsible for implementation so that they thoroughly understand their role in program service delivery. 11.4 The LEA and migrant region use academic assessment results and other pertinent migrant student data to improve the academic achievement of students. (20 U.S.C. 6311[b] [10]) A comprehensive student data management system will provide administrators and teachers with the most current academic assessment results for migrant students; however if the student assessment data system is too complicated or not regularly accessed, the data will not result in improved instruction. Monterey county oFFice oF education 38 ROAD MAP FOR THE FUTURE Recommendation The district, county office and Migrant Region XVI should: 1. Evaluate the quality of the current student data management system and, if it is adequate, ensure through professional development that all migrant students educa- tors are informed about the academic and health needs and respond appropriately. 11.5 The LEA and migrant region evaluates and determines the effectiveness of its programs and projects in providing migratory children with the opportunity to meet the same chal- lenging state content and performance standards. (20 U.S.C. 6394[c] and 34 CFR 200.42[a]) FCMAT found that during the review period 2005-2006 through 2009-2010, there were failures in leadership and staff accountability for providing migratory children with the opportunities to meet performance standards. The district and Region XVI should conduct a thorough evaluation of the current program’s effectiveness. This evaluation will provide a framework for planning and implementing a transition of the migrant program back to district operation. All professional devel- opment components should be addressed to ensure migrant students receive all required services. Recommendation The district, Migrant Region XVI and county office should: 1. Conduct a thorough evaluation to determine the current effectiveness of district programs and projects and make changes based on the evaluation. The migrant program goals should be coordinated with the corrective action plan and LEA plan to align services and programs for migrant students. Staffing and Professional Development Staff members are recruited, trained, assigned, and assisted to ensure the effectiveness of the program. V-M 12. The migrant region and LEA provide professional development programs and support for teachers and other program staff members. (20 U.S.C. 6394[c][6][B]); EC 54444.4[b][3], [c][5]) 12.1 Migrant program summer school staff members are properly credentialed and have cultural training and understanding of the special needs of migrant children. (EC 54444.3[a][4])The district has had significant barriers in recruiting and hiring highly qualified migrant certificated staff. Alisal Union should work with the county office and Region XVI to recruit screen, and select qualified staff. Recommendations The district should: 1. Establish systems in the district Human Resources Department to streamline the hiring process. 2. Seek assistance from the county office and Region XVI to recruit and hire new program staff. 3. Seek board approval before employing new staff members. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 39 ROAD MAP FOR THE FUTURE Opportunity and Equal Educational Access Participants have equitable access to all programs provided by the LEA as required by law. VI-M 13. The migrant region and LEA provide migrant children with the opportunity to meet state academic content and achievement standards. (20 U.S.C. 6396[a][1][C]) 13.1 The migrant region and LEA provide services required by state and federal laws or regulations. (EC 54444.4[b][1]) FCMAT reviewed district DSAs 2005-2006 through 2009-2010 as part of the study and the 2010-2011 DSA, PAC agendas and minutes, and Region XVI documents and records. FCMAT determined that migrant children have not been consistently provided with the opportunity to meet state academic content and achievement standards. If the migrant program is returned to the district, it is critical for academic instruction to be provided for each migrant student according to the migrant needs assessments and IILPs to ensure opportunity and equal educational access. The DSA for 2011- 2012 and thereafter should specify how every element of “Opportunity and Equal Educational Access” is to be provided for district migrant students. Recommendations The district should: 1. Ensure the governing board reviews and approves the elements, which should be monitored throughout the regular and summer/intersession programs. 2. Assign the district director to provide periodic reports to the board. The governing board should also receive a detailed report at the end of the school year regarding migrant services and how the plans were implemented in the district. 13.2 The LEA provides to migrant program schools general fund services comparable to those provided to other schools. (20 U.S.C. 6321[c]) 13.3 The migrant region and LEA provide educational continuity for migrant students through the timely transfer of educational and health records. (20 U.S.C. 6391; 34 CFR 200.41[c]) The 2011-2012 district DSA defines appropriate procedures for the timely transfer of educa- tional and health records. No additional action is recommended; however the processes must be evaluated for compliance on an ongoing basis. Monterey county oFFice oF education 40 ROAD MAP FOR THE FUTURE Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 41 APPENDICES Appendices A. Study Agreement B. Region XVI Teacher and Administrator Migrant Student Lists C. 2009-10 Migrant Education Program - District Services Agreement Guidelines D. Categorical Program Monitoring (CPM) - Migrant Education Instrument E. General Assurances - CDE Categorical Program Legal Assurances 2010-11 Monterey county oFFice oF education 42 APPENDICES Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 43 APPENDICES Monterey county oFFice oF education 44 APPENDICES Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 45 APPENDICES Monterey county oFFice oF education 46 APPENDICES Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM Attachment 1 Migrant Education Program Region XVI – Teacher and Administrator Student Lists Migrant Students 2011-2012 Teacher:_____________________ Grade:____ School:________________________________ District:_____________________ Consortium: ____________________Date: _____________ CST CST CELDT CELDT CELDT CELDT CELDT CAHSEE CAHSEE Health ELA Math Passed Passed Needs Y/N Y/N Last Name First Name PFS Prof Prof Listen Speak Read Writing Overall ELA Math Descriptions Lvl Lvl 2009-10 DISTRICT SERVICES AGREEMENT RUBRIC/APPROVAL FORM Region: ______________________District: ____________________________________________________________ Reviewer’s Name:_________________________________________________________________________________ Title: ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Telephone ____________________________ Email Address:_____________________________________________ Approval Status First Review Date Second Review Date Third Review Date Yes No Certification: I certify that I am the person authorized to review and approve the services agreement document for the district listed above. I have thoroughly reviewed the District Service Agreement (DSA) and have determined that the document meets the standard in accordance with the rubric provided by the CDE/MIIEO. Signature: ____________________________________________________________ Date: ______________________ Note: This form, completed and signed, must be submitted with the corresponding DSA. 0 2009-10 DISTRICT SERVICES AGREEMENT RUBRIC Signature Page Instructions: This page must include the signatures of the district superintendent or designee; regional director; Parent Advisory Council (PAC) president, or executive board officer or designated vice president, or other executive officer. In absence of officers, a majority of PAC members (50 percent + 1) members shall vote a designated signatory member. In such cases, documentation of the vote must be provided along with the application. Applications without all of the required signatures will not be approved. □ □ Meets Standard Does Not Meet Standard Criteria: Criteria: The Signature Page contains all the following required The Signature Page is missing one or more of the following information: pieces of required information: 1. Superintendent or designee signature 1. Superintendent or designee signature 2. Regional Director or designee signature 2. Regional Director or designee signature 3. Parent Advisory Council Representative signature 3. Parent Advisory Council signature Reviewer’s Comments Section I: Stakeholders Involved in Application Development Instructions: Enter the names and corresponding information for the individuals/stakeholders, including parents, involved in the planning, development, and review of the DSA. □ □ Meets Standard Does Not Meet Standard Criteria: Criteria: The stakeholders involved in development of the DSA and The stakeholders involved in development of the DSA are the required information are included. not included and/or does not contain all of the required information. Reviewer’s Comments 1 2009-10 DISTRICT SERVICES AGREEMENT RUBRIC Section II: District Program Description Instructions: Provide a two page narrative description of the district’s overall instructional and support program for all students. In your description, include the following: 1) A summary of the districts local measures of student performance other than state-level assessments; 2) A summary of the district’s reading and language arts and mathematics curriculum; 3) How the district addresses the linguistic and academic needs of English learners and migrant students; 4) Specific strategies, programs and services designed to address the unique academic needs of migrant students through district and other non-migrant categorical funds; 5) The district’s professional development plan and/or activities designed to improve teaching for English learners and migrant students; 6) A summary of support services provided for all students and any unique services to address health and social well- being for migrant and other disadvantaged students; 7) A description of the district’s parent education and parent involvement component and any other relevant information that provides a complete snapshot of the district. Some, if not all, the information can be found in the local education agency plan. □ □ Meets Standard Does Not Meet Standard Criteria: Criteria: The District Program Description includes at least six of the The District Program Description: applicable program elements and is described with 1. Is missing two or more major program elements sufficient detail. and/or, 2. Is not clear and/or complete. Reviewer’s Comments 2 2009-10 DISTRICT SERVICES AGREEMENT RUBRIC Section III: Demographic Profile Instructions: This data is to be pre-printed by WestEd for the 2007-2008 reporting period. □ □ Meets Standard Does Not Meet Standard Criteria: Criteria: The Demographic Profile is included and contains all of the The Demographic Profile is not included or does not contain required information. all of the required information. Reviewer’s Comments Section IV: Staffing Profile Instructions: Check if position is a regular or a summer intersession term. If the position is year-round, check both columns. In the job classification column list each job classification separately. In the Head Count column, identify the total number of full-time (FT) and part-time (PT) persons working in each job classification. The total number of positions per classification should reflect the numbers listed in your budget. Identify the percent funded by Migrant Education or other program(s). If other programs funds were used, identify the funding source (i.e. Title I - Part A). For multi-funded positions identify your record-keeping documentation. In the appendices include a copy of the job description for each job classification listed. □ □ Meets Standard Does Not Meet Standard Criteria: Criteria: The Staffing Profile contains all of the required information The Staffing Profile is missing one or more required pieces in each applicable column. of information in the applicable columns. Reviewer’s Comments 3 2009-10 DISTRICT SERVICES AGREEMENT RUBRIC Section V: District Academic State Assessment Data Summary Instructions: Insert data summaries (District Academic State Assessment Data Summary for Migrant Education Program students, District Academic State assessment Data Summary for Priority for Services (PFS) students, PFS and California Standard Tests Comparison data for Migrant and Non-Migrant students), prepared by WestEd and downloadable thought the Migrant Student Information Network (MSIN). If available also include any data summaries discussed or referenced in Section VI – Data Analysis Summary. □ □ Meets Standard Does Not Meet Standard Criteria: Criteria: The State Assessment Data Summary is included and The State Assessment Data Summary is not included contains all of the required information. and/or does contain all of the required information. Reviewer’s Comments 4 2009-10 DISTRICT SERVICES AGREEMENT RUBRIC Section VI: Data Analysis Summary – Part 1 Student Data Analysis Instructions: Based on a summary of the reported results and analysis of state assessments (CST’s, CELDT and CAHSEE) and other available academic, preschool, health and socio-economic data, describe your district student population and address the following specific questions for each target group or need area: 1) What are the numbers of students tested v. students enrolled? If large discrepancies, why? 2) What are the major student achievement trends for priority for services and all students, including high school graduation? 3) What are the achievement gaps when compared with non-migrants students? Use as many pages as necessary to provide a comprehensive analysis. □ □ Meets Standard Does Not Meet Standard Criteria: Criteria: The Student Data Analysis thoroughly describes the district The Student Data Analysis includes a limited description of student population by using state assessment data and the district student population and/or one or more of the other data. Each of the four questions for the target groups four questions for the target groups or need area is not or need area is answered thoroughly. answered thoroughly and/or complete, or is missing. Reviewer’s Comments 5 2009-10 DISTRICT SERVICES AGREEMENT RUBRIC Section VI: Data Analysis Summary – Part 2 Data Management Instructions: Describe the processes, tools and activities utilized by the District to manage student and other data to plan and develop programs, make decisions regarding resources and to monitor and evaluate student outcomes and program effectiveness. □ □ Meets Standard Does Not Meet Standard Criteria: Criteria: The Data Analysis Summary thoroughly describes each of The Data Analysis Summary omits one or more of the the following activities: following activities and/or is not clear and/or complete: 1. District collection of student performance data 1. District collection of student performance data 2. District process to utilize these data to plan and 2. District process to utilize these data to plan and design the program, design the program, 3. District process to utilize these data to allocate 3. District process to utilize these data to allocate human and material resources, human and material resources, 4. District process to utilize these data to monitor 4. District process to utilize these data to monitor student progress, and student progress, and 5. District process to utilize these data to evaluate 5. District process to utilize these data to evaluate program effectiveness. program effectiveness. Reviewer’s Comments 6 2009-10 DISTRICT SERVICES AGREEMENT RUBRIC Section VI: Data Analysis Summary – Part 2 (cont.) Priority for Services Instructions: Identify how the district will target priority for services students. Identify other migrant students and/or priorities to be targeted and why. If your district is only addressing one or two of the performance targets, explain why and how the other performance targets will be addressed through the core program and other categorical funds. Use as many pages as necessary to provide a comprehensive analysis. □ □ Meets Standard Does Not Meet Standard Criteria: Criteria: The Data Analysis Summary includes a description with all The Data Analysis Summary is missing one or more of the of the following: following: 1. How the district will target priority for service students. 1. How the district will target priority for service students. 2. How the district identifies other migrant students to be 2. How the district identifies other migrant students to be served and why. served and why. 3. If applicable, explains how the district addresses those 3. If applicable, explains how the district addresses those performance targets not addressed through Migrant performance targets not addressed through Migrant Education resources. Education resources. Reviewer’s Comments 7 2009-10 DISTRICT SERVICES AGREEMENT RUBRIC Section VIII: Instructional and Support Activities – Regular Year Program - Part 1 Measurable Objectives Instructions: Check the Area of Focus and complete a separate page for each one if applicable. Complete the information requested for each column. In the Measurable Objective section on this page list the major measurable objective(s) that are aligned with and support the state performance targets in Section VI. □ □ Meets Standard Does Not Meet Standard Criteria: Criteria: The objectives address all of the following: The objectives are missing one or more of the following: 1. Alignment with a state performance target.* 1. Alignment with a state performance target.* 2. Alignment with identified needs in the data analysis 2. Alignment with identified needs in the data analysis section. section 3. Focus on student outcomes. 3. Focus on student outcomes. 4. Are measurable. 4. Are measurable. 5. Identify a timeline. 5. Identify a timeline. * For Transition to the Workplace, the measurable objective * For Transition to the Workplace, the measurable objective is aligned with specific needs of students and/or out of is aligned with specific needs of students and/or out of school youth. school youth. Reviewer’s Comments 8 2009-10 DISTRICT SERVICES AGREEMENT RUBRIC Section VIII: Instructional and Support Activities – Regular Year Program – Part 1 Major Activities and Interventions Instructions: Check the Area of Focus and complete a separate page for each one if applicable. Complete the information requested for each column. The major interventions and activities should be aligned with the data analysis described in the previous section and must support the accomplishments of the stated objective(s). The Other Participants column under target population refers to out-of-school youth, parents, teachers, and other staff. □ □ Meets Standard Does Not Meet Standard Criteria: Criteria: This section addresses all of the following: This section is missing one or more of the following: 1. Explicitly support accomplishment of the stated 1. Explicitly support accomplishment of the stated objective(s) and preferably are evidenced based objective(s) and preferably are evidenced based and/or and/or demonstrate promising practice. demonstrate promising practice. 2. Staffing. 1. Staffing. 3. Target population and numbers to be served. 2. Target population and numbers to be served. 4. Timeline. 3. Timeline. 5. Cost are included and reflected in the budget. 4. Cost are included and reflected in the budget. Reviewer’s Comments 9 2009-10 DISTRICT SERVICES AGREEMENT RUBRIC Section VIII: Instructional and Support Activities – Summer Program – Part 2 Measurable Objectives Instructions: Check the Area of Focus and complete a separate page for each one if applicable. Complete the information requested for each column. In the Measurable Objective section on this page list the major measurable objective(s) that are aligned with and support the state performance targets in Section VI. □ □ Meets Standard Does Not Meet Standard Criteria: Criteria: The objectives address all of the following: The objectives are missing one or more of the following: 1. Alignment with a state performance target. 1. Alignment with a state performance target. 2. Alignment with identified needs in the data analysis 2. Alignment with identified needs in the data analysis section. section. 3. Focus on student outcomes. 3. Focus on student outcomes. 4. Are measurable. 4. Are measurable. 5. Identify a timeline. 5. Identify a timeline. Reviewer’s Comments 10 2009-10 DISTRICT SERVICES AGREEMENT RUBRIC Section VIII: Instructional and Support Activities – Summer Program – Part 2 Major Activities and Interventions Instructions: Check the Area of Focus and complete a separate page for each one if applicable. Complete the information requested for each column. The major interventions and activities should be aligned with the data analysis described in the previous section and must support the accomplishments of the stated objective(s). The Other Participants column under target population refers to out-of-school youth, parents, teachers, and other staff. □ □ Meets Standard Does Not Meet Standard Criteria: Criteria: This section addresses all of the following: This section is missing one or more of the following: 1. Explicitly support accomplishment of the stated 1. Explicitly support accomplishment of the stated objective(s) and preferably are evidenced based objective(s) and preferably are evidenced based and/or and/or demonstrate promising practice. demonstrate promising practice. 2. Staffing. 2. Staffing. 3. Target population and numbers to be served. 3. Target population and numbers to be served. 4. Timeline. 4. Timeline. 5. Costs are included and reflected in the budget. 5. Cost are included and reflected in the budget. * For Transition to the Workplace, the measurable objective * For Transition to the Workplace, the measurable objective is aligned with specific needs of students and/or out of is aligned with specific needs of students and/or out of school youth. school youth. Reviewer’s Comments 11 2009-10 DISTRICT SERVICES AGREEMENT RUBRIC Section IX: Funding and Governance Instructions: Identify the procedural, monitoring, and/or technical assistance activities conducted by the District to ensure compliance with program and fiscal requirements, including but not limited to the use of supplemental funds; sub-grant funding formula to districts; budget amendments and revisions; procurement procedures; allowable expenditures; redistribution of funds; and the timely expenditure and reporting of funds. □ □ Meets Standard Does Not Meet Standard Criteria: Criteria: This section describes the following procedures and This section is missing one or more of the following monitoring activities to ensure compliance in: procedures and monitoring activities to ensure compliance: 1. Use of supplemental funds 1. Use of supplemental funds 2. Budget amendments and revisions 2. Budget amendments and revisions 3. Procurement Procedures ( Purchase orders/ 3. Procurement Procedures ( Purchase Records of expenditures) Orders/Records of expenditures) 4. Allowable expenditures 4. Allowable expenditures 5. Timely expenditure and reporting of funds. 5. Timely expenditure and reporting of funds Reviewer’s Comments 12 2009-10 DISTRICT SERVICES AGREEMENT RUBRIC Section X: Coordination and Collaboration Instructions: Describe how the district collaborates and coordinates with educational and other agencies to maximize and not replicate or supplant available services to migrant children and families. Describe how Migrant Education Program (MEP) staff articulates with the regular instructional program to ensure that MEP supplemental services complement and support the districts core curriculum. Describe the coordination and joint planning between MEP and district staff to ensure alignment between the DSA and Local Education Agency (LEA) Plan. The region/LEA must take into account the availability of other funds that a local operating agency may leverage to provide services to migrant children. The LEA may examine the funding levels of programs that the local operating agency conducts and that are available to migrant children, or evaluate the availability of other Federal, State, or local funds by collecting data on per-pupil expenditures. Alternatively, a LEA may consider this factor by collecting data on the programs and/or services that are available and offered to migrant children in a local operating agency. □ □ Meets Standard Does Not Meet Standard Criteria: Criteria: This section clearly describes: This section includes a limited description and is missing 1. How the district collaborates with educational and one more of the following: other agencies to maximize and not replicate or 1. How the district collaborates with educational and supplant available services to migrant children other agencies to maximize and not replicate or 2. How Migrant Education Program (MEP) staff supplant available services to migrant children articulates with the regular instructional program to 2. How Migrant Education Program (MEP) staff ensure that MEP supplemental services complement articulates with the regular instructional program to and support the districts core curriculum. ensure that MEP supplemental services complement 3. The coordination and joint planning between MEP and support the districts core curriculum. and district staff has to ensure alignment between 3. Information on the coordination and joint planning the DSA and Local Education Agency (LEA) Plan. between MEP and district staff has to ensure alignment between the DSA and Local Education Agency (LEA) Plan. Reviewer’s Comments 13 2009-10 DISTRICT SERVICES AGREEMENT RUBRIC Section XI: Parent Involvement Instructions: Describe how the district will comply with statutory requirements for parental involvement including but not limited to: 1) Establishing migrant education program goals, objectives, and priorities. 2) Reviewing annual needs assessments and program activities. 3) Advising on the selection, development, and reassignment of migrant education program staff. 4) Being actively involved in the planning and negotiating of program applications and service agreements. □ □ Meets Standard Does Not Meet Standard Criteria: Criteria: This section includes a description of how it will address all This section omits one or more of the statutory the following statutory requirements: requirements: 1. Establishing migrant education program goals, 1. Establishing migrant education program goals, objectives, and priorities. objectives, and priorities. 2. Reviewing annual needs assessments and program 2. Reviewing annual needs assessments and activities. program activities. 3. Advising on the selection, development, and 3. Advising on the selection, development, and reassignment of migrant education program staff. reassignment of migrant education program staff. 4. Being actively involved in the planning and 4. Being actively involved in the planning and negotiating of program applications and service negotiating of program applications and service agreements agreements Reviewer’s Comments 14 2009-10 DISTRICT SERVICES AGREEMENT RUBRIC Section XII: Parent Advisory Council – Membership Roster Instructions: List the date of the last general election for membership in the District Migrant Parent Advisory Council. At least two thirds (2/3) of the members of the Parent Advisory Council shall be parents of migrant children. (Education Code 54444.2[a][1]). An updated copy of your roster must be submitted to the CDE after all subsequent elections. □ □ Meets Standard Does Not Meet Standard Criteria: Criteria: The Application includes all of the following: The Application includes is missing one or more of the 1. Date of last general election. following: 2. At least two thirds of the members of the Parent 1. Date of last general election. Advisory Council are migrant parents. 2. At least two thirds of the members of the Parent 3. All applicable columns are completed. Advisory Council are migrant parents. 3. All applicable columns are completed. Reviewer’s Comments Section XIII: Identification and Recruitment – Part 1 Instructions: Include all activities for each program component that support the district’s effort to meet this performance target. If the district does not conduct any activities to meet this performance target, please write “N/A” and leave blank. □ □ Meets Standard Does Not Meet Standard Criteria: Criteria: This section includes the information required in each This section is missing one or more pieces of information column for each of the following components: required in each column for each of the following 1. Community Based Recruitment components: 2. School Based Recruitment 1. Community Based Recruitment 2. School Based Recruitment Reviewer’s Comments 15 2009-10 DISTRICT SERVICES AGREEMENT RUBRIC Section XIII: Identification and Recruitment – Part 2 Instructions: Include all activities for each program component that support the district’s effort to meet this performance target. If the district does not conduct any activities to meet this performance target, please write “N/A” and leave blank. □ □ Meets Standard Does Not Meet Standard Criteria: Criteria: This section includes the information required in each column This section is missing one or more pieces of information for each of the following components: required in each column for each of the following 1. Training of all Staff Involved components: 2. Formal Process for Resolving Eligibility Questions 1. Training of all Staff Involved 3. Process for Verifying COEs and BIPs 2. Formal Process for Resolving Eligibility Questions 4. Process to Validate Eligibility Determinations 3. Process for Verifying COEs and BIPs 5. Annual Verification 4. Process to Validate Eligibility Determinations 6. Process for Implementing Corrective Action 5. Annual Verification 6. Process for Implementing Corrective Action Reviewer’s Comments Section XV: Assurances Instructions: The Superintendent or Designee shall read, sign, and attach the assurances to the district service agreement. □ □ Meets Standard Does Not Meet Standard Criteria: Criteria: 1. The section includes the signed assurances by the 1. The section does not include the signed assurances by Superintendent or Designee. the Superintendent or Designee. Reviewer’s Comments 16 Revised 11/30/2010 California Department of Education Migrant Education (ME) Instrument (Elementary and Secondary Education Act [ESEA], Title I, Part C) for 2010-11 Categorical Program Monitoring (CPM) Desired Outcomes 1. Migrant children have full opportunities to meet state academic content standards. (20 United States Code (U.S.C.) 6391[4]) 2. Migrant children receive appropriate, coordinated, and efficient education and supportive services that address their special needs. (20 U.S.C. 6391[3]) 3. Interstate migrant children are not penalized by disparities of states' curriculum and academic standards. (20 U.S.C. 6391[2]) 4. Migrant program plans help migrant children to overcome educational, cultural, language, social, and health problems and to do well in school. (20 U.S.C. 6391[5]) 5. Migrant children benefit from state and local systemic reforms. (20 U.S.C. 6391[6]) 6. The migrant program reduces disruptions to migrant children’s education and other problems resulting from repeated moves. (20 U.S.C. 6391[1]) Program Dimensions Each categorical program is reviewed using the following interrelated eight dimensions: I. Involvement. Parents, staff, students, and community members participate in developing, implementing, and evaluating core and categorical programs. II. Governance and Administration. Policies, plans, and administration of categorical programs meet statutory requirements. III. Funding. Allocation and use of funds meet statutory requirements for allowable expenditures. IV. Standards, Assessment, and Accountability. Categorical programs meet state standards, are based on the assessed needs of program participants, and achieve the intended outcomes of the categorical program. V. Staffing and Professional Development. Staff members are recruited, trained, assigned, and assisted to ensure the effectiveness of the program. VI. Opportunity and Equal Educational Access. Participants have equitable access to all programs provided by the local educational agency (LEA), as required by law. VII. Teaching and Learning. Participants receive core and categorical program services that meet their assessed needs. VIII. Identification, Recruitment, and Quality Control Systems. The Region and LEA have established and implemented a system for the proper identification and recruitment of eligible migratory children and a system of quality controls. Note: Because the methodology of the California Department of Education monitoring team includes sampling, the monitoring process cannot produce an all-inclusive assessment of items in this instrument. The LEA is responsible for operating its categorical programs in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. Categorical Program Monitoring Migrant Education—1 Revised 11/30/2010 California Department of Education Involvement I Parents, staff, students, and community members participate in developing, implementing, and evaluating core and categorical programs. I-M 1. District and regional parent advisory councils (PACs) fulfill their responsibilities to: (a) Establish migrant education program goals, objectives, and priorities. (b) Review annual needs assessments, program activities for each school, and individualized educational plans. (c) Advise on the selection, development, and reassignment of migrant education program staff. (d) Be actively involved in the planning and negotiation of program applications and service agreements. (20 U.S.C. 6394[c][3][A], [B]; California Education Code (EC) Section 54444.4[a]) 1.1 Members of the advisory council were elected by parents of migrant students at a general meeting to which all parents of pupils enrolled in the migrant program were invited. (EC 54444.2.[a][1]) 1.2 The composition of the migrant parent council is determined by the parents of children enrolled in the migrant program. (EC 54444.2[a][1]) 1.3 At least two-thirds of the migrant program parent council consists of parents of migrant children. (EC 54444.2[a][1]) 1.4 The LEA trains parent councils to carry out their responsibilities. (EC 54444.2[a][4], 54444.4[a][4]) 1.5 The Regional Application and District Service Agreement is presented to parents in a format and language understandable to them. (20 U.S.C. 6394 [c] [3] [B]) Evidence Reviewed Document Interview Observation  LEA policies  PAC members  PAC meeting  PAC bylaws  Program administrators  Other: __________  Minutes of PAC meetings  Other LEA staff involved with PACs  Notices of meetings,  bulletins, and Others: __________ correspondence  Other: _____________ Findings: Conclusion  Meets requirements  Does not meet requirements  Not reviewed I-M 2. For Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) programs, the LEA consulted with appropriate private school officials during the development of the program concerning: (a) Identification of students’ needs (20 U.S.C. 6320[b][1][A], 7881[c][1][A]) (b) What services will be offered (20 U.S.C. 6320[b][1][B], 7881[c][1][B]) Categorical Program Monitoring Migrant Education—2 Revised 11/30/2010 California Department of Education (c) Service delivery options, including services through a contract with a third-party provider (20 U.S.C. 6320[b][1][C][G], 7881[c][1][C]) (d) Assessment and improvement of services (20 U.S.C. 6320[b][1][D], 7881[c][1][D]) (e) The size and scope of services and the proportion of funds allocated (20 U.S.C. 6320[b][1][E], 7881[c][1][E]) (f) Program delivery options (20 U.S.C. 6320[b][3], 7881[c][4]) (g) Reasons for not using a contractor preferred by private school officials (20 U.S.C. 6320[b][1][H], 7881[c][2]) (h) The method and sources of data to determine the number of low-income private school students from eligible attendance areas (20 U.S.C. 6320[b][1][F]) (i) The right to complain to the California Department of Education concerning Title I, Part A, programs (20 U.S.C. 6320[b][5][A]) (j) Services for students eligible to participate in the migrant education program (20 U.S.C. 7881[b][1][B]) Evidence Reviewed Document Interview Observation  Records of private school  Private school staff  Meetings affirmation  Others: ________________  Other:  Meeting agendas, minutes _________________  Consolidated Application  LEA Plan  LEA fiscal records  LEA policies  Dated notice to private schools of ESEA eligibility  Other: _________________ Findings: Conclusion  Meets requirements  Does not meet requirements  Not reviewed Governance and Administration II Policies, plans, and administration of categorical programs meet statutory requirements. II-M 3. The migrant region provides: (a) Technical assistance to LEAs according to the service agreement (b) Interagency coordination that improves services to migrant students (c) Direct services required by the service agreement (EC 54444.4[c]) Evidence Reviewed Categorical Program Monitoring Migrant Education—3 Revised 11/30/2010 California Department of Education Documents  Agency application  Migrant education and Title I, Part A, evaluation reports  Service agreement  Record of educational and health assessments  LEA Plan of migrant students  Single Plan for Student Achievement  Other: ________________ Findings: Conclusion:  Meets requirements  Does not meet requirements  Not reviewed II-M 4. The district provides: (a) Services in compliance with state and federal law (b) Information to parents (c) Support to instructional staff (EC 54444.4 [b]) Evidence Reviewed Documents  Agency application  Migrant education and Title I, Part A, evaluation reports  Service agreement  Record of educational and health assessments  LEA Plan of migrant students  Single Plan for Student Achievement  Other: ________________ Findings: Conclusion:  Meets requirements  Does not meet requirements  Not reviewed II-M 5. For all programs funded through the Consolidated Application and operated at the school, the school site council (SSC) annually develops, reviews, updates, and approves the Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA), including proposed expenditures. The SPSA consolidates all plans required by these programs and contains (EC 64001[f],[g],[h]): (a) Analysis of academic performance data to determine student needs (b) School goals to meet the indentified academic needs of students (c) Activities to reach school goals that improve the academic performance of students (d) Expenditures of funds allocated to the school through the Consolidated Application (e) The means of annually evaluating the progress of programs toward accomplishing the goals, including determining whether the needs of all children have been met by the strategies used, particularly the needs of low-achieving students and those at risk of not meeting state academic content standards. (20 U.S.C. 6314[b][1][2], 6315[c][2], EC 64001[f]) Categorical Program Monitoring Migrant Education—4 Revised 11/30/2010 California Department of Education 5.1 The local governing board reviews and approves the SPSA annually and whenever there are material changes to the plan (e.g., the school is designated as Program Improvement). (EC 64001[g]) 5.2 The SPSA is consistent with the LEA Plan. (EC 64001[h]) Evidence Reviewed Document Interview  Single Plan for Student Achievement  Teachers  Evaluation results  Parents  Minutes/agendas of SSC approving  Students allocations, proposed expenditures and centralized services  School site council  Other: ________________  Advisory committee  Others: ________________ Findings: Conclusion  Meets requirements  Does not meet requirements  Not reviewed II-M 6. An LEA operating ESEA programs implements and monitors the approved LEA plan. (20 U.S.C. 6312[b][1][A][i], [ii], [iii]) Evidence Reviewed Document Interview  LEA Plan  Staff  Single Plan for Student Achievement  Parents  Evaluation results  Students  Other: ________________  School site council  Advisory committee  Others: ________________ Findings: Conclusion  Meets requirements  Does not meet requirements  Not reviewed II–M 7. For all categorical programs, the LEA maintains an inventory record for each piece of equipment, with an acquisition cost of $500 or more per unit, that is purchased with state and/or federal funds. The record describes the acquisition by: (a) Type (b) Model (c) Serial number Categorical Program Monitoring Migrant Education—5 Revised 11/30/2010 California Department of Education (d) Funding source (e) Acquisition date (f) Cost (g) Location (h) Current condition (i) Transfer, replacement, or disposition of obsolete or unusable equipment (EC 35168; 5 CCR 3946; 34 CFR 80.32[d][I]) 7.1 The school district has conducted a physical check of the inventory of equipment within the past two years and has reconciled the result with inventory records. (34 CFR 80.32[d][2]) Evidence Reviewed Document Interview Observation  Inventory records  Staff  Equipment location  Evidence of physical check  Others: ________________  Other: ________________ of inventory  SPSA  Other: ________________ Findings: Conclusion  Meets requirements  Does not meet requirements  Not reviewed Funding III Allocation and use of funds meet statutory requirements for allowable expenditures. III-M 8. The migrant region and LEA use migrant education funds only for allowable activities and equipment. (20 U.S.C. 6394[c][1][A]) Evidence Reviewed Document Observation  Agency application  Core program activities and services  Service agreement  Migrant program services  Time and funding records of multifunded staff  Other categorical program services  Records of expenditures for staff, materials,  Others: ________________ and equipment  Other: ________________ Findings: Categorical Program Monitoring Migrant Education—6 Revised 11/30/2010 California Department of Education Conclusion:  Meets requirements  Does not meet requirements  Not reviewed III-M 9. For the Migrant Education Program, the LEA uses categorical funds only to supplement, and not supplant, state and local funds: Title I, Part C. (20 U.S.C. 6321[b], 6394[c][2]) Evidence Reviewed Document Interview  Position duty statements  Administrators  Criteria and allocation formula (62002)  Others: ________________  Single Plan for Student Achievement  LEA fiscal records  LEA Plan Addendum  Other: ________________ Findings: Conclusion  Meets requirements  Does not meet requirements  Not reviewed III-M 10. The LEA properly assesses administrative charges for direct or indirect costs of federal funds for salaries and wages in proportion to an allowable quantity and duties of the employee. (California School Accounting Manual [CSAM]; OMB Circular A-87, Attachment B, 8.h; OMB Circular A-133, ED Cross-Cutting Section, III.B.2) (20 U.S.C. 6825 [b]) 10.1 Each employee paid in part from a single cost objective and in part from other revenue, or an employee paid from multiple cost objectives, completes a Personnel Activity Report (PAR) each pay period, or an approved sampling method is used. (CSAM; OMB Circular A-87, Attachment B, 8.h; OMB Circular A-133, ED Cross-Cutting Section, III.B.2) (EC 52853 [a][7]) Evidence Reviewed Document Interview  Semiannual certification  Staff  Position duty statements  Others: ________________  Time-accounting records  Personnel activity reports  Payroll records  Other: ________________ Findings: Conclusion  Meets requirements  Does not meet requirements  Not reviewed Categorical Program Monitoring Migrant Education—7 Revised 11/30/2010 California Department of Education Standards, Assessment, and Accountability IV Categorical programs meet state standards, are based on the assessed needs of program participants, and achieve the intended outcomes of the categorical program. IV-M 11. The migrant region and LEA measure migrant student progress against the desired outcomes of the migrant education program and state academic content standards. (20 U.S.C. 6396[a][1][D]) 11.1 The LEA completes an individual assessment of the educational and health needs of each migrant student within 30 days of enrollment. (EC 54443.1[a]) 11.2 The LEA identifies and addresses the needs of migrant children in coordination with other categorical programs. (20 U.S.C. 6396[a][1][A]) 11.3 The LEA identifies and addresses the needs of migrant children through measurable program goals and outcomes. (20 U.S.C. 6394[b][1][D]) 11.4 The LEA and migrant region use academic assessment results and other pertinent migrant student data to improve the academic achievement of students. (20 U.S.C. 6311[b][10]) 11.5 The LEA and migrant region evaluates and determines the effectiveness of its programs and projects in providing migratory children with the opportunity to meet the same challenging State content and performance standards. (20 U.S.C. 6394[c] and 34 CFR 200.42[a]) Evidence Reviewed Documents  LEA plan  Reports and other documentation on program effectiveness  Agency application  Migrant education and Title I, Part A, evaluation  Service agreement reports  Single Plan for Student Achievement  Record of educational and health assessments of migrant students  Other: _______________ Findings: Conclusion  Meets requirements  Does not meet requirements  Not reviewed Staffing and Professional Development V Staff members are recruited, trained, assigned, and assisted to ensure the effectiveness of the program. V-M 12. The migrant region and LEA provide professional development programs and support for teachers and other program staff members. (20 U.S.C. 6394[c][6][B]); EC 54444.4[b][3], [c][5]) 12.1 Migrant program summer school staff members are properly credentialed and have cultural training and understanding of the special needs of migrant children. (EC 54444.3[a][4]) Evidence Reviewed Document Interview Categorical Program Monitoring Migrant Education—8 Revised 11/30/2010 California Department of Education  Agency application  Program administrators  Service agreement  Teachers  Regional and district staff development  Paraprofessional staff members agendas and participation records  Others: ________________  Staff development plans and policies  Credentials of summer school staff  Other: _________________ Findings: Conclusion  Meets requirements  Does not meet requirements  Not reviewed Opportunity and Equal Educational Access VI Participants have equitable access to all programs provided by the LEA, as required by law. VI-M 13. The migrant region and LEA provide migrant children with the opportunity to meet state academic content and achievement standards. (20 U.S.C. 6396[a][1][C]) 13.1 The migrant region and LEA provide services required by state and federal laws or regulations. (EC 54444.4[b][1]) 13.2 The LEA provides to migrant program schools general fund services comparable to those provided to other schools. (20 U.S.C. 6321[c]) 13.3 The migrant region and LEA provide educational continuity for migrant students through the timely transfer of educational and health records. (20 U.S.C. 6391; 34 CFR 200.41[c]) Evidence Reviewed Document Interview Observation  Service agreement  Core program staff  Student record transfer system  Sampled student  Migrant program staff assessment records  Other: _____________  Receiving school personnel  Sampled student schedules  Regional, district, and  Sampled student cumulative school administrators records  Others:  Other: ________________ _________________ Findings: Conclusion  Meets requirements  Does not meet requirements  Not reviewed Categorical Program Monitoring Migrant Education—9 Revised 11/30/2010 California Department of Education VI-M 14. For participating private schools, the LEA provides equitable educational services and benefits to address the needs of eligible school students, their teachers, and their families. (20 U.S.C. 6320[a][1], 7881[a][1]) (a) Educational services are provided in a timely manner. (20 U.S.C. 6320[a][3], 7881[a][3]) (b) The LEA expends equal per-pupil amounts for educational services and other benefits for eligible private and public school students. (20 U.S.C. 6320[a][4], 7881[a][4]) (c) Educational services provided by the LEA are secular, neutral, and nonideological. (20 U.S.C. 6320[a][2], 7881[a][2]) (d) Teachers of Title I and Title III students in private schools participate on an equitable basis in professional development activities. (20 U.S.C. 6320[a][1], 7881[a][1]) Evidence Reviewed Document Interview Observation  LEA Plan  Private school officials  Private school instructional settings  ConApp, Part II reservations  Public school officials page  Other: _________________  LEA staff  Private school Title I program description  Teachers  Fiscal records  Parents  Third-party service provider  Others: ________________ contracts (if applicable)  Title I program evaluation report  Professional development  Parent involvement  Dated notice to private schools of ESEA eligibility  Other: _________________ Findings: Conclusion  Meets requirements  Does not meet requirements  Not reviewed Categorical Program Monitoring Migrant Education—10 Revised 11/30/2010 California Department of Education Teaching and Learning VII Participants receive core and categorical program services that meet their assessed needs. VII-M 15. The LEA provides migrant students with the full range of services available from appropriate local, state, and federal education programs. (20 U.S.C. 6394[b][1][A]) 15.1 The migrant region and LEA provide a comprehensive, supplementary program designed to meet the educational, health, and related needs of participating students, as described in the service agreement. (EC 54443.1[c]) 15.2 The migrant region and LEA give priority for service to migrant children who are failing to meet state academic content standards and whose education was interrupted during the regular school year. (20 U.S.C. 6394[d]) 15.3 The migrant region and LEA coordinate migrant education services with other state and federal programs. (20 U.S.C. 6396[a][1][G]) 15.4 The migrant region and LEA provide a brief individual learning plan, listing services to be provided, to parents annually or on enrollment. (EC 54443.1[d]) 15.5 The migrant region and LEA maintain migrant student records for kindergarten through grade twelve students, or copies, in the student cumulative record. (20 U.S.C. 6394 [b] [3]) Evidence Reviewed Document Interview Observation  Agency application  Regional administrators  Core and supplementary services provided to migrant  Service agreement  District administrators students  LEA plan  School administrators  Other: _________________  Single Plan for Student  Core program teachers Achievement  Parents  Migrant student enrollment records  Students  Class or course placement  Others: ________________ record  Selected student learning plans  Sampled student cumulative records  Other: ________________ Findings: Conclusion  Meets requirements  Does not meet requirements  Not reviewed Categorical Program Monitoring Migrant Education—11 Revised 11/30/2010 California Department of Education Identification and Recruitment and Quality Control Systems VIII Participants are eligible migratory children. VIII-M 16. The LEA has established and implemented a system of quality controls for the proper identification and recruitment of eligible migratory children. (34 CFR 200.89 [d] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]). 16.1 The migrant region and LEA provide comprehensive training to ensure that recruiters and all other staff involved in determining eligibility and in conducting quality control procedures know the requirements for accurately determining and documenting child eligibility under the MEP. (34 CFR 200.89 [d] [1]) 16.2 The migrant region and LEA have implemented a system that provides for the supervision and annual review and evaluation of the identification and recruitment practices of individual recruiters. (34 CFR 200.89 [d] [2]). 16.3 The migrant region and LEA have implemented a formal process for resolving eligibility questions raised by recruiters and their supervisors and for ensuring that this information is communicated to all local operating agencies. (34 CFR 200.89 [d] [3]). 16.4 The migrant region and LEA have implemented a process by which an examination by qualified individuals of each COE to verify that the written documentation is sufficient and that, based on the recorded data, the child is eligible for MEP services. (34 CFR 200.89 [d] [4]). 16.5 The migrant region and LEA have implemented a process to validate that the eligibility determinations were properly made, including conducting prospective re-interviewing. (34 CFR 200.89 [d] [5]). 16.6 The migrant region and LEA have implemented a documentation process that supports the implementation of this quality control system and of a record of actions taken to improve the system where periodic reviews and evaluations indicate the need to do so. (34 CFR 200.89 [d] [6]). 16.7 The migrant region and LEA have a process for implementing corrective action if the SEA finds COEs that do not sufficiently document a child’s eligibility for the MEP, or in response to internal audit findings, or monitoring. (34 CFR 200.89 [d] [7]). Evidence Reviewed Document Interview Observation  Regional application  Regional administrators  Implementation of quality control procedures  District Services Agreement  District administrators  COE verification process  Reports and other  School administrators documents related to  Process to validate eligibility Annual Staff Evaluation  Designated SEA Reviewer determinations  Comprehensive training  Regional I and R coordinator  Process for implementing records corrective actions  District/ school recruiters  Records related to  Other: _________________  Recruiters’ supervisor recruiters’ supervision and evaluation  Regional recruiters  COE verification records  Quality control specialist  Annual re-interviews  Data Entry Staff records and reports  Parents Categorical Program Monitoring Migrant Education—12 Revised 11/30/2010 California Department of Education  Annual Verification records  Others ________________  Quality control records  Corrective action records  Other:_________________ Findings: Conclusion  Meets requirements  Does not meet requirements  Not reviewed Categorical Program Monitoring Migrant Education—13 General Assurances – CDE Categorical Program Legal Assurances 2010-2011 1. Programs and services are and will be in compliance with Title VI and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the California Fair Employment Practices Act, Government Code §11135; and Chapter 4 (commencing with §30) of Division I of Title 5, California Code of Regulations (CCR). 2. Programs and services are and will be in compliance with Title IX (nondiscrimination on the basis of sex) of the Education Amendments of 1972. Each program or activity conducted by the LEA will be conducted in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 2, (commencing with §200), Prohibition of Discrimination on the Basis of Sex, of Part 1 of Division 1 of Title I of the Education Code, as well as all other applicable provisions of state law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex. 3. Programs and services are and will be in compliance with the affirmative action provisions of the Education Amendments of 1972. 4. Programs and services are and will be in compliance with the Age Discrimination Act of 1975. 5. Programs and services for individuals with disabilities are in compliance with the disability laws. (PL 105-17; 34 CFR 300, 303; and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973) 6. When federal funds are made available, they will be used to supplement the amount of state and local funds that would, in the absence of such federal funds, be made available for the uses specified in the state plan, and in no case supplant such state or local funds. (20 USC §6321(b)(1); PL 107-110 §1120A(b)(1)) 7. All state and federal statutes, regulations, program plans, and applications appropriate to each program under which federal or state funds are made available through this application will be met by the applicant agency in its administration of each program. 8. Schoolsite councils have developed and approved a Single Plan for Student Achievement for schools participating in programs funded through the consolidated application process, and any other school program they choose to include, and that school plans were developed with the review, certification, and advice of any applicable school advisory committees. (EC §64001) 9. The local educational agency (LEA) will use fiscal control and fund accounting procedures that will ensure proper disbursement for state and federal funds paid to that agency under each program. (CCR T5, §4202) 10. The LEA will make reports to the state agency or board and to the Secretary of Education as may reasonably be necessary to enable the state agency or board and the Secretary to perform their duties and will maintain such records and provide access to those records as the state agency or board or the Secretary deems necessary. Such records will include, but will not be limited to, records which fully disclose the amount and disposition by the recipient of those funds, the total cost of the activity for which the funds are used, the share of that cost provided from other sources, and such other records as will facilitate an effective audit. The recipient shall maintain such records for three years after the completion of the activities for which the funds are used. (34 CFR 76.722, 76.730, 76.731, 76.734, 76.760; 34 CFR 80.42) 11. The local governing board has adopted written procedures to ensure prompt response to complaints within 60 days, and has disseminated these procedures to students, employees, parents or guardians, district/school advisory committees, and interested parties. (CCR T5, §4600 et seq.) 12. The LEA declares that it neither uses nor will use federal funds for lobbying activities and hereby complies with the certification requirements of 34 CFR Part 82. (34 CFR Part 82) 13. The LEA has complied with the certification requirements under 34 CFR Part 85 regarding debarment, suspension and other requirements for a drug-free workplace. (34 CFR Part 85) 14. The LEA provides reasonable opportunity for public comment on the application and considers such comment. (20 USC §7846(a)(7); 20 USC, §1118(b)(4); PL 107-110, §1118(b)(4)). 15. The LEA will provide the certification on constitutionally protected prayer that is required by PL 107- 110, §9524 and 20 USC §7904. 16. The LEA administers all funds and property related to programs funded through the Consolidated Application. (20 USC §6320(d)(1); PL 107-110, §1120(d)(1)) 17. The LEA will adopt and use proper methods of administering each program including enforcement of any obligations imposed by law on agencies responsible for carrying out programs and correction of deficiencies in program operations identified through audits, monitoring or evaluation. (20 USC §7846 (a)(3)(B)) 18. The LEA will participate in the Standardized Testing and Reporting program. (20 USC §6316(a)(1)(A- D); PL 107-110, §1116(a)(1)(A-D); EC §60640, et seq.) 19. The LEA assures that classroom teachers who are being assisted by instructional assistants retain their responsibility for the instruction and supervision of the students in their charge. (EC §45344(a)) 20. The LEA governing board has adopted a policy on parent involvement that is consistent with the purposes and goals of EC Section 11502. These include all of the following: (a) to engage parents positively in their children's education by helping parents to develop skills to use at home that support their children's academic efforts at school and their children's development as responsible future members of our society; (b) to inform parents that they can directly affect the success of their children's learning, by providing parents with techniques and strategies that they may utilize to improve their children's academic success and to assist their children in learning at home; (c) to build consistent and effective communication between the home and the school so that parents may know when and how to assist their children in support of classroom learning activities; (d) to train teachers and administrators to communicate effectively with parents; and (e) to integrate parent involvement programs, including compliance with this chapter, into the school's master plan for academic accountability. (EC §§11502, 11504) 21. Results of an annual evaluation demonstrate that the LEA and each participating school are implementing Consolidated Programs that are not of low effectiveness, under criteria established by the local governing board. (CCR T5, §3942) 22. The program using consolidated programs funds does not isolate or segregate students on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status. (USC, Fourteenth Amendment; Calif. Constitution, art. 1, §7; Gov.C §§11135-11138; 42 USC §2000d; CCR T5, §3934) 23. Personnel, contracts, materials, supplies, and equipment purchased with Consolidated Program funds supplement the basic education program. (EC §§62002, 52034(I), 52035(e)(l), 54101; CCR T5, §§3944, 3946) 24. At least 85 percent of the funds for School Improvement Programs, Title I, Title VI and Economic Impact Aid (State Compensatory Education and programs for English learners) are spent for direct services to students. One hundred percent of Miller-Unruh apportionments are spent for the salary of specialist reading teachers. (EC §63001; CCR T5, §3944(a)(b)) 25. State and federal categorical funds will be allocated to continuation schools in the same manner as to comprehensive schools, to the maximum extent permitted by state and federal laws and regulations. (EC §48438) 26. Programs and services are and will be in compliance with Section 8355 of the California Government Code and the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988, and implemented at 34 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 84, Subpart F, for grantees, as defined at 34 CFR Part 84, Sections 84.105 and 84.110.