OMB.wd.3
CONSOLIDATED STATE PERFORMANCE REPORT: PART I
For reporting on
School Year 2009-10
Part I Due December 17, 2010
5pm EST
The Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR) is the required annual reporting tool for each State, the Bureau of Indian Education, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico as authorized under Section 9303i of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended. The CSPR consists of two parts. Part I of the CSPR collects data related to the five ESEA goals established in the approved June 2002 Consolidated State Application, information required for the Annual State Report to the Secretary, as describe in section 1111(h)(4) of ESEA, and data required under Homeless Collection and the Migrant Child Count. Part II of the CSPR collects information related to state activities and outcomes of specific ESEA programs needed for the programs’ GPRA indicators or other assessment and reporting requirement.
Paperwork Burden Statement
According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless such collection displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 1810-0614. The obligation to respond is to retain a benefit. The time required to complete this information collection for Part I and Part II combined is estimated to average 34.34 hours per response, including the time to review instructions, search existing data resources, gather the data needed, and complete and review the information collection. If you have any comments concerning the accuracy of the time estimate(s) or suggestions for improving this form, please write to: U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C. 20202-4537.
Table of Contents
Page
CONSOLIDATED STATE PERFORMANCE REPORT: PART I 1
1.1 STANDARDS AND ASSESSMENT DEVELOPMENT 1
1.1.1 Academic Content Standards 1
1.1.2 Assessments in Mathematics and Reading/Language Arts 1
1.1.3 Grants for State Assessments and Related Activities 2
1.2 PARTICIPATI ON IN STATE ASSESSMENTS 3
1.2.1 Participation of All Students in Mathematics Assessment 3
1.2.2 Participation of students with disabilities in mathematics assessment 4
1.2.3 Participation of All Students in the Reading/Language Arts Assessment 5
1.2.4 Participation of Students with Disabilities in Reading/Language Arts Assessment 5
1.2.5 Participation of All Students in the Science Assessment 5
1.2.6 Participation of Students with Disabilities in Science Assessment 5
1.3 STUDENT ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 6
1.3.1 Student Academic Achievement in Mathematics 6
1.3.2 Student Academic Achievement in Reading/Language Arts 7
1.3.3 Student Academic Achievement in Science 7
1.4 SCHOOL AND DISTRICT ACCOUNTABILITY 8
1.4.1 All Schools and Districts Accountability 7
1.4.2 Title I School Accountability 8
1.4.3 Accountability of Districts That Received Title I Funds 8
1.4.4 Title I Schools Identified for Improvement 8
1.4.4.1 List of Title I Schools Identified for Improvement 8
1.4.4.4 Restructuring – Year 2 11
1.4.5 Districts That Received Title I Funds Identified for Improvement 12
1.4.5.1 List of Districts That Received Title I Funds and Were Identified for Improvement 12
1.4.5.2 Actions Taken for Districts That Received Title I Funds Identified for Improvement 15
1.4.7 APPEAL OF AYP AND IDENTIFICATION DETERMINATIONS 16
1.4.8 SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT STATUS 19
1.4.8.1 sTUDENT PROFICIENCY FOR SCHOOS RECIVING ASSISTANCE THROUGH SECTIONS 1003(a) and 1003(g) FUNDS 19
1.4.8.2 School Improvement Status and School Improvement Assistance 19
1.4.8.3 EFFECTIVE school IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES 22
1.4.8.4 Sharing of Effective Strategies 22
1.4.8.5 uSE OF SECTIONS 1003 (A) and (g) school improvement funds 26
1.4.8.6 actions taken for title i schools identified for improvement supported by funds other than those of sections 1003 (a) and 1003 (g) 28
1.4.9 Public School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services 24
LEAs Unable to Provide Public School Choice 25
1.5.1 Core Academic Classes Taught by Teachers Who Are Highly Qualified 26
1.5.2 Reasons Core Academic Classes Are Taught by Teachers Who Are Not Highly Qualified 30
1.5.3 Poverty Quartiles and Metrics Used 31
1.6 TITLE III AND LANGUAGE INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS 33
1.6.1 Language Instruction Educational Programs 34
1.6.2 Student Demographic Data 35
1.6.2.1 Number of ALL LEP Students in the State 35
1.6.2.3 Most Commonly Spoken Languages in the State 35
1.6.3 Student Performance Data 36
1.6.3.1.1 ALL LEP Participation in State Annual English Language Proficiency Assessment 36
1.6.3.1.2 ALL LEP Student English Language Proficiency Results 36
1.6.3.2.1 Title III LEP Participation in English Language Proficiency 37
1.6.4 Title III Subgrantees 42
1.6.4.1 Title III Subgrantee Performance 42
1.6.4.2 State Accountability 44
1.6.4.3 Termination of Title III Language Instruction Educational Programs 44
1.6.5 Education Programs and Activities for Immigrant Students 44
1.6.6 Teacher Information and Professional Development 45
1.6.6.1 Teacher Information 45
1.6.7 State Subgrant Activities 47
1.6.7.1 State Subgrant Process 47
1.6.7.2 Steps To Shorten the Distribution of Title III Funds to Subgrantees 48
1.7 PERSISTENTLY DANGEROUS SCHOOLS 49
1.8 GRADUATION RATES AND DROPOUT RATES 49
1.9 EDUCATION FOR HOMELESS CHILDREN AND YOUTHS PROGRAM 51
1.9.1 All LEAs (with and without McKinney-Vento subgrants) 51
1.9.1.1 Homeless Children and Youths 52
1.9.1.2 Primary Nighttime Residence of Homeless Children and Youths 52
1.9.2 LEAs with McKinney-Vento Subgrants 53
1.9.2.1 Homeless Children and Youths Served by McKinney-Vento Subgrants 53
1.9.2.2 Subpopulations of Homeless Students Served 53
1.9.2.3 Educational Support Services Provided by Subgrantees 54
1.9.2.4 Barriers to the Education of Homeless Children and Youths 55
1.9.2.5 Academic Progress of Homeless Students 55
1.10.1 Category 1 Child Count 57
1.10.1.1 Category 1 Child Count Increases/Decreases 58
1.10.2 Category 2 Child Count 58
1.10.2.1 Category 2 Child Count Increases/Decreases 59
1.10.3 Child Count Calculation and Validation Procedures 60
1.10.3.1 Student Information System 60
1.10.3.2 Data Collection and Management Procedures 60
This section requests descriptions of the State’s implementation of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended (ESEA) academic content standards, academic achievement standards and assessments to meet the requirements of Section 1111(b)(1) of ESEA.
In the space below, provide a description and timeline of any actions the State has taken or is planning to take to make revisions to or change the State's academic content standards in mathematics, reading/language arts or science. Responses should focus on actions taken or planned since the State’s content standards were approved through ED’s peer review process for State assessment systems. Indicate specifically in what school year your State expects the changes to be implemented.
If the State has not made or is not planning to make revisions or changes, respond “No revisions or changes to content standards taken or planned.”
The response is limited to 4,000 characters.
|
In the space below, provide a description and timeline of any actions the State has taken or is planning to take to make revisions to or change the State's assessments and/or academic achievement standards in mathematics, reading/language arts and/or science required under Section 1111(b)(3) of ESEA. Responses should focus on actions taken or planned since the State’s assessment system was approved through ED’s peer review process. Responses also should indicate specifically in what school year your State expects the changes to be implemented.
As applicable, include any assessment (e.g., alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards, alternate assessments based on modified achievement standards, native language assessments, or others) implemented to meet the assessment requirements under Section 1111(b)(3) of ESEA as well as alternate achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities and modified academic achievement standards for certain students with disabilities implemented to meet the requirements of Section 1111(b)(3) of ESEA.
If the State has not made or is not planning to make revisions or changes, respond “No revisions or changes to assessments and/or academic achievement standards taken or planned.”
The response is limited to 8,000 characters.
|
1.1.3 Grants for State Assessments and Related Activities
1.1.3.1 Percentages of Funds Used for Standards and Assessment Development and Other Purposes
For funds your State had available under ESEA section 6111 (Grants for State Assessments and Related Activities) during the 2009-10 school year, estimate what percentage of the funds your State used for the following (round to the nearest ten percent).
Purpose |
Percentage (rounded to the nearest ten percent) |
To pay the costs of the development of the State assessments and standards required by section 1111(b) |
________% |
To administer assessments required by section 1111(b) or to carry out other activities described in section 6111 and other activities related to ensuring that the State’s schools and local educational agencies are held accountable for results |
________% |
1.1.3.2 Uses of Funds for Purposes Other than Standards and Assessment Development
For funds your State had available under ESEA section 6111 (Grants for State Assessments and Related Activities) during the 2009-10 school year that were
used for purposes other than the costs of the development of the State assessments and standards required by section 1111(b), for what purposes did your State use the funds? (Enter “yes” for all that apply that apply and “no” for all that do not apply).
Purpose |
Used for Purpose (yes/no) |
Administering assessments required by section 1111(b) |
|
Developing challenging State academic content and student academic achievement standards and aligned assessments in academic subjects for which standards and assessments are not required by section 1111(b). |
|
Developing or improving assessments of English language proficiency necessary to comply with section 1111(b)(7) |
|
Ensuring the continued validity and reliability of State assessments, and/or refining State assessments to ensure their continued alignment with the State’s academic content standards and to improve the alignment of curricula and instructional materials |
|
Developing multiple measures to increase the reliability and validity of State assessment systems |
|
Strengthening the capacity of local educational agencies and schools to provide all students the opportunity to increase educational achievement, including carrying out professional development activities aligned with State student academic achievement standards and assessments |
|
Expanding the range of accommodations available to students with limited English proficiency and students with disabilities to improve the rates of inclusion of such students, including professional development activities aligned with State academic achievement standards and assessments |
|
Improving the dissemination of information on student achievement and school performance to parents and the community, including the development of information and reporting systems designed to identify best educational practices based on scientifically based research or to assist in linking records of student achievement, length of enrollment, and graduation over time |
|
Other |
|
This section collects data on the participation of students in the State assessments.
In the table below, provide the number of students enrolled during the State’s testing window formathematics assessments required under Section 1111(b)(3) of ESEA (regardless of whether the students were present for a full academic year) and the number of students who participated in the mathematics assessment in accordance with ESEA. The percentage of students who were tested for mathematics will be calculated automatically.
The student group “children with disabilities (IDEA)” includes children who participated in the regular assessments with or without accommodations and alternate assessments. Do not include former students with disabilities (IDEA). Do not include students only covered under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
The student group “limited English proficient (LEP) students” includes recently arrived students who have attended schools in the United States for fewer than 12 months. Do not include former LEP students.
Student Group |
# Students Enrolled |
# Students Participating |
Percentage of Students Participating |
All students |
|
|
(Auto calculated) |
American Indian or Alaska Native |
|
|
(Auto calculated) |
Asian or Pacific Islander |
|
|
(Auto calculated) |
Black, non-Hispanic |
|
|
(Auto calculated) |
Hispanic |
|
|
(Auto calculated) |
White, non-Hispanic |
|
|
(Auto calculated) |
Children with disabilities (IDEA) |
|
|
(Auto calculated) |
Limited English proficient (LEP) students |
|
|
(Auto calculated) |
Economically disadvantaged students |
|
|
(Auto calculated) |
Migratory students |
|
|
(Auto calculated) |
Male |
|
|
(Auto calculated) |
Female |
|
|
(Auto calculated) |
1.2.2 Participation of Students with Disabilities in Mathematics Assessment
In the table below, provide the number of children with disabilities (IDEA) participating during the State’s testing window in mathematics assessments required under Section 1111(b)(3) of ESEA (regardless of whether the children were present for a full academic year) by the type of assessment. The percentage of children with disabilities (IDEA) who participated in the mathematics assessment for each assessment option will be calculated automatically. The total number of children with disabilities (IDEA) participating will also be calculated automatically.
The data provided below should include mathematics participation data from all students with disabilities as defined under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Do not include former students with disabilities (IDEA). Do not include students only covered under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
Type of Assessment |
# Children with Disabilities (IDEA) Participating |
Percentage of Children with Disabilities (IDEA) Participating, Who Took the Specified Assessment |
Regular Assessment without Accommodations |
|
(Auto calculated) |
Regular Assessment with Accommodations |
|
(Auto calculated) |
Alternate Assessment Based on Grade-Level Achievement Standards |
|
(Auto calculated) |
Alternate Assessment Based on Modified Achievement Standards |
|
(Auto calculated) |
Alternate Assessment Based on Alternate Achievement Standards |
|
(Auto calculated) |
Total |
(Auto calculated) |
|
This section is similar to 1.2.1 and collects data on the State’s reading/language arts assessment.
This section is similar to 1.2.2 and collects data on the State’s reading/language arts assessment.
The data provided should include reading/language arts participation data from all students with disabilities as defined under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Do not include former students with disabilities (IDEA). Do not include students only covered under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
This section is similar to 1.2.1 and collects data on the State’s science assessment.
This section is similar to 1.2.2 and collects data on the State’s science assessment. The data provided should include science participation results from all students with disabilities as defined under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Do not include former students with disabilities (IDEA). Do not include students only covered under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
This section collects data on student academic achievement on the State assessments.
In the format of the table below, provide the number of students who received a valid score on the State assessment(s) in mathematics implemented to meet the requirements of Section 1111(b)(3) of ESEA (regardless of whether the students were present for a full academic year) and for whom a proficiency level was assigned, and the number of these students who scored at or above proficient, in grades 3 through 8 and high school. The percentage of students who scored at or above proficient is calculated automatically.
The student group “children with disabilities (IDEA)” includes children who participated, and for whom a proficiency level was assigned in the regular assessments with or without accommodations and alternate assessments. Do not include former students with disabilities (IDEA). The student group “limited English proficient (LEP) students” does include recently arrived students who have attended schools in the United States for fewer than 12 months. Do not include former LEP students.
Grade (insert grade #) |
# Students Who received a valid score and for Whom a Proficiency Level Was Assigned |
# Students Scoring at or Above Proficient |
Percentage of Students Scoring at or Above Proficient |
All students |
|
|
(Auto calculated) |
American Indian or Alaska Native |
|
|
(Auto calculated) |
Asian or Pacific Islander |
|
|
(Auto calculated) |
Black, non-Hispanic |
|
|
(Auto calculated) |
Hispanic |
|
|
(Auto calculated) |
White, non-Hispanic |
|
|
(Auto calculated) |
Children with disabilities (IDEA) |
|
|
(Auto calculated) |
Limited English proficient (LEP) students |
|
|
(Auto calculated) |
Economically disadvantaged students |
|
|
(Auto calculated) |
Migratory students |
|
|
(Auto calculated) |
Male |
|
|
(Auto calculated) |
Female |
|
|
(Auto calculated) |
This section is similar to 1.3.1. The only difference is that this section collects data on the State’s reading/language arts assessment, and the difference noted in the paragraph below.
The student group “limited English proficient (LEP) students” does not include
recently arrived students who have attended schools in the United States for fewer than 12 months unless a state chooses to include these students. Do not include former LEP students.
This section is similar to 1.3.1. The only difference is that this section collects data on the State’s science assessment administered at least one in each of the following grade spans 3 through 5, 6 through 9, and 10 through 12.
Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students include recently arrived students who have attended schools in the United States for fewer than 12 months. Do not include former LEP students.
1.4 SCHOOL AND DISTRICT ACCOUNTABILITY
This section collects data on the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) status of schools and districts.
In the table below, provide the total number of public elementary and secondary schools and districts in the State, including charters, and the total number of those schools and districts that made AYP based on data for the SY 2009-102009-10. The percentage that made AYP will be calculated automatically.
Entity |
Total # |
Total # that Made AYP in SY 2009-10 |
Percentage that Made AYP in SY 2009-10 |
Schools [1.4.1.1.x.] |
[1.] |
[2.] |
(Auto calculated) (Auto calculated) |
Districts [1.4.1.2.x.] |
[1.] |
[2.] |
(Auto calculated) (Auto calculated) |
In
the table below, provide the total number of public Title I schools
by type and the total number of those schools that made AYP based on
data for the
SY 2009-10. Include only public Title I schools.
Do not
include Title I programs operated by local educational agencies in
private schools. The percentage that made AYP will be calculated
automatically.
Title I School [1.4.2.1.x.] |
# Title I Schools |
# Title I Schools that Made AYP in SY 2009-10 |
Percentage of Title I Schools that Made AYP in SY 2009-10 |
All Title I schools |
[1.1.] |
[1.2.] |
(Auto calculated) |
Schoolwide (SWP) Title I schools |
[2.1.] |
[2.2.] |
(Auto calculated) |
Targeted assistance (TAS) Title I schools |
[3.1.] |
[3.2.] |
(Auto calculated) |
In the table
below, provide the total number of districts that received Title I
funds and the total number of those districts that made AYP based on
data for
SY 20092009-10. The percentage that made AYP will be
calculated automatically.
|
# Districts That Received Title I Funds in SY 2009-10 |
# Districts That Received Title I Funds and Made AYP in SY 2009-10 |
Percentage of Districts That Received Title I Funds and Made AYP in SY 2009-10 |
|
[1.] |
[2.] |
(Auto calculated) |
In the following table, provide a list of Title I schools identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring under Section 1116 for the SY 2010-11 based on the data from SY 2009-10. For each school listed, please provide the following:
District Name
District NCES ID Code
School Name
School NCES ID Code
Whether the school met the proficiency target in reading/language arts as outlined in the State’s Accountability Plan
Whether the school met the participation rate target for the reading/language arts assessment
Whether the school met the proficiency target in mathematics as outlined in the State’s Accountability Plan
Whether the school met the participation rate target for the mathematics assessment
Whether the school met the other academic indicator for elementary/middle schools (if applicable) as outlined in the State’s Accountability Plan
Whether the school met the graduation rate for high schools (if applicable) as outlined in the State’s Accountability Plan
Improvement status for SY 2010-11(Use one of the following improvement status designations: School Improvement – Year 1, School Improvement – Year 2, Corrective Action, Restructuring Year 1 (planning), or Restructuring Year 2 (implementing)1
Whether (yes or no) the school is or is not a Title I school (This column must be completed by States that choose to list all schools in improvement. Column is optional for States that list only Title I schools.)
Whether (yes or no) the school was provided assistance through Section 1003(a).
Whether (yes or no) the school was provided assistance through Section 1003 (g).
|
Reading/Language Arts |
Mathematics |
Other Academic Indicator |
|
|||||||||
District Name |
NCES/CCD ID Code |
School Name |
NCES/CCD ID Code |
Proficiency Target Met (Yes/No) |
Participation Rate Target Met (Yes/No) |
Proficiency Target Met (Yes/No) |
Participation Rate Target Met (Yes/No) |
Academic Indicator Met (Yes/No) (elementary/ middle schools) |
Graduation Rate Met (Yes/No) (high school) |
School Improvement Status for SY 2009-10 |
Title I School (Yes/No) |
Provided assistance by LEA through 1003(a) (Yes/No) |
Provided assistance by LEA through 1003(g) (Yes/No) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In
the table below, for schools in corrective action, provide the number
of schools for which the listed corrective actions under ESEA
were implemented in
SY 2009-10 (based on SY 2008-09 assessments
under Section 1111 of
ESEA).
Corrective Action |
# of Title I Schools in Corrective Action in Which the Corrective Action was Implemented in SY 2009-10 |
Required implementation of a new research-based curriculum or instructional program |
|
Extension of the school year or school day |
|
Replacement of staff members, not including the principal, who were relevant to the school’s low performance |
|
Significant decrease in management authority at the school level |
|
Replacement of the principal |
|
Restructuring the internal organization of the school |
|
Appointment of an outside expert to advise the school |
|
In the table below, for schools in restructuring – year 2 (implementation year), provide the number of schools for which the listed restructuring actions under ESEA were implemented in SY 2009-10 (based on SY 2008-09 assessments under Section 1111 of ESEA).
Restructuring Action |
# of Title I Schools in Restructuring in Which Restructuring Action Is Being Implemented |
Replacement of all or most of the school staff (which may include the principal) |
|
Reopening the school as a public charter school |
|
Entering into a contract with a private entity to operate the school |
|
Take over of the school by the State |
|
Other major restructuring of the school governance |
|
In the space below, list specifically the “other major restructuring of the school governance” action(s) that were implemented.
This response is limited to 8,000 characters.
|
In the following table, please provide a list of districts that received Title I funds and were identified for improvement or corrective action under Section 1116 for the SY 2010-11 based on the data from SY 2009-10. For each district on the list, provide the following:
District name
District NCES ID code
Whether the district met the proficiency target in reading/language arts as outlined in the State’s Accountability Plan
Whether the district met the participation rate target for the reading/language arts assessment
Whether the district met the proficiency target in mathematics as outlined in the State’s Accountability Plan
Whether the school met the participation rate target for the mathematics assessment
Whether the district met the other academic indicator for elementary/middle schools (if applicable) as outlined in the State’s Accountability Plan
Whether the district met the graduation rate for high schools (if applicable) as outlined in the State’s Accountability Plan
Improvement status for SY 2010-11 (Use one of the following improvement status designations: Improvement or Corrective Action2)
Whether
the district is a district that received Title I funds. Indicate
“Yes” if the district received Title I funds and “No”
if the district did not receive
Title I funds (This
column must
be completed
by States that choose to list all districts or all districts in
improvement.
This column is optional for States that list
only
districts in improvement that receive Title I funds.)
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
Reading/Language Arts |
Mathematics |
Other Academic Indicator |
|
|
|||
District Name |
NCES/CCD ID Code |
Proficiency Target Met (Yes/No) |
Participation Rate Target Met (Yes/No) |
Proficiency Target Met (Yes/No) |
Participation Rate Target Met (Yes/No) |
Academic Indicator Met (Yes/No) (elementary/ middle schools) |
Graduation Rate Met (Yes/No) (high school) |
District Improvement Status for SY 2009-10 |
District Receiving Title I Funds (Yes/No) |
|
|
[3.1.1.] |
[3.1.2.] |
|
[3.2.1.] |
[3.2.2.] |
[3.3.1.] |
[3.3.2.] |
[4.] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the space below, briefly describe the measures being taken to address the achievement problems of districts identified for improvement or corrective action. Include a discussion of the technical assistance provided by the State (e.g., the number of districts served, the nature and duration of assistance provided, etc.).
The response is limited to 8,000 characters.
|
In
the table below, for districts in corrective action, provide the
number of districts in corrective action in which the listed
corrective actions under ESEA
were implemented in SY 2009-10 (based on SY 2008-09 assessments under
Section 1111 of
ESEA).
Corrective Action |
#
of Districts receiving |
Implemented a new curriculum based on State standards |
|
Authorized students to transfer from district schools to higher performing schools in a neighboring district |
|
Deferred programmatic funds or reduced administrative funds |
|
Replaced district personnel who are relevant to the failure to make AYP |
|
Removed one or more schools from the jurisdiction of the district |
|
Appointed a receiver or trustee to administer the affairs of the district |
|
Restructured the district |
|
Abolished the district (list the number or districts abolished between the end of SY 2008-09 and beginning of SY 2009-10 as a corrective action) |
|
In the table below, provide the number of districts and schools that appealed their AYP designations based on SY 2009-10 data and the results of those appeals.
|
# Appealed Their AYP Designations |
# Appeals Resulted in a Change in the AYP Designation |
Districts |
|
|
Schools |
|
|
Date (MM/DD/YY) that processing appeals based on SY 2009-10 data were complete |
|
1.4.8 School Improvement Status
In the section below, "Schools in Improvement” refers to Title I schools identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring under Section 1116 of ESEA for SY 2009-10.
Note: With the exception of 1.4.8.5.3, in section 1.4.8 references to 1003(g) refers to FY 2008 and/or FY 2007 1003(g) funds that may have been used to assist schools during SY 2009-10.
1.4.8.1 Student Proficiency for Schools Receiving Assistance
Through Sections 1003(a) and 1003(g) Funds
The table below pertains only to schools that received assistance through Sections 1003(a) and/or 1003(g) funds during SY 2009-10.
Note: In section 1.4.8 references to 1003(g) mean FY 2008 and/or FY 2007 1003(g) funds that may have been used to assist schools during SY 2009-10.
Instructions for States that during SY 2009-10 administered assessments required under section 1116 of ESEA after fall 2009 (i.e., non fall-testing states):
In the SY 2009-10 column, provide the total number and percentage of students in schools receiving School Improvement funds in SY 2009-10 who were:
Proficient in mathematics as measured by your State’s assessments required under Section 1111(b)(3) of ESEA that were administered in SY 2009-10.
Proficient in reading/language arts as measured by your State’s assessments required under Section 1111(b)(3) of ESEA in SY 2009-10.
In SY 2008-09 column, provide the requested data for the same schools whose student proficiency data are reported for SY 2009-10.
States that in SY 2009-10 administered assessments required under section 1116 of ESEA during fall 2009 (i.e., fall-testing states):
In the SY 2009-10 column, provide the total number and percentage of students in schools receiving School Improvement funds in SY 2009-10 who were:
Proficient in mathematics as measured by your State’s assessments required under Section 1111(b)(3) of ESEA that were administered in fall 2010.
Proficient in reading/language arts as measured by your State’s assessments required under Section 1111(b)(3) of ESEA that were administered in fall 2010.
In the SY 2008-09 column, provide the requested data for the same schools whose student proficiency data are reported in the SY 2009-10 column.
Category |
SY 2009-10 |
SY 2008-09 |
Total
number of students who completed the mathematics
assessment and for whom proficiency level was assigned and were
enrolled in
schools that received assistance through Section 1003(a) and/or
1003(g) funds in |
|
|
Total number of students who were proficient or above in mathematics in schools that received assistance through Section 1003(a) and/or 1003(g) funds in SY 2009-10 |
|
|
Percentage of students who were proficient or above in mathematics in schools that received assistance through Section 1003(a) and/or 1003(g) funds in SY 2009-10 |
(Auto-calc) |
(Auto-calc) |
Total number of students who completed the reading/language arts assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned and were enrolled in schools that received assistance through Section 1003(a) and/or 1003(g) funds in SY 2009-10 |
|
|
Total number of students who were proficient or above in reading/language arts in schools that received assistance through Section 1003(a) and/or 1003(g) funds in SY 2008-09. |
|
|
Percentage of students who were proficient or above in reading/language arts in schools that received assistance through Section 1003(a) and/or 1003(g) funds in SY 2009-10 |
(Auto-calc) |
(Auto-calc) |
|
|
|
1.4.8.2 School Improvement Status and School Improvement Assistance
In the table below, indicate the number of schools receiving assistance through Section 1003(a) and/or 1003(g) funds during SY 2009-10 that:
Made adequate yearly progress;
Exited improvement status;
Did not make adequate yearly progress.
Note: For fall-testing States, responses for this item would be based on assessments administered in fall 2010. For all other States, the responses would be based on assessments administered during SY 2009-10.
Category |
# of Schools |
Number
of schools receiving assistance through Section 1003(a) and/or
1003(g) funds during SY 2009-10 that made
adequate yearly progress based
on testing in |
|
Number
of schools receiving assistance through Section 1003(a) and/or
1003(g) funds during SY 2009-10 that exited
improvement status based
on testing in |
|
Number of schools receiving assistance through Section 1003(a) and/or 1003(g) funds during SY 2009-10 that did not make adequate yearly progress based on testing in SY 2009-10 |
|
1.4.8.3 Effective School Improvement Strategies
In the table below, indicate the effective school improvement strategies used that were supported through Section 1003(a) and/or 1003(g) funds.
For fall-testing States, responses for this item would be based on assessments administered in fall 2010. For all other States, the responses would be based on assessments administered during SY 2009-10.
Column 1 |
Column 2 |
Column 3 |
Column 4 |
Column 5 |
Column 6 |
Column 7 |
Effective Strategy or Combination of Strategies Used
(See response options in “Column 1 Response Options Box” below.)
If your State’s response includes a “5” (other strategies), identify the specific strategy(s) in Column 2. |
Description of “Other Strategies”
This response is limited to 500 characters. |
Number of schools in which the strategy (strategies) was (were) used |
Number of schools that used the strategy (strategies) and exited improvement status based on testing after the schools received this assistance |
Number of schools that used the strategy (strategies), made AYP based on testing after the schools received this assistance, but did not exit improvement status |
Most common other Positive Outcome from the strategy (strategies) (See response options in “Column 6 Response Options Box” below) |
Description of “Other Positive Outcome” if Response for Column 6 is “D”
This response is limited to 500 characters. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Column 1 Response Options Box |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Column 6 Response Options Box |
A = Improvement by at least five percentage points in two or more AYP reporting cells
B = Increased teacher retention
C = Improved parental involvement
D = Other |
1.4.8.4 Sharing of Effective Strategies
In the space below, describe how your State shared the effective strategies identified in item 1.4.8.3 with its LEAs and schools. Please exclude newsletters and handouts in your description.
This response is limited to 8,000 characters.
|
1.4.8.5 Use of Sections 1003(a) and (g) School Improvement
Funds
1.4.8.5.1 Section 1003(a) State Reservations
In the space provided, enter the percentage of the FY 2009 (SY 2009-10) Title I, Part A allocation that the SEA reserved in accordance with Section 1003(a) of ESEA and §200.100(a) of ED’s regulations governing the reservation of funds for school improvement under Section 1003(a) of ESEA: _____%
1.4.8.5.2 Sections 1003(a) and 1003(g) Allocations to LEAs and
Schools
In the tables below, provide the requested information for FY 2009 (SY 2009-2010).
Name of LEA with One or More Schools Provided Assistance through Section 1003(a) Funds in SY 2009-10 |
NCES LEA ID |
Amount of LEA’s 1003(a) Allocation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name of LEA with One or More Schools Provided Assistance through Section 1003(g) Funds in SY 2009-10 |
NCES LEA ID |
Amount of LEA’s 1003(g) Allocation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the space below, describe actions (if any) taken by your State in SY 2009-10 that were supported by funds other than Sections 1003(a) and 1003(g) funds to address the achievement problems of schools identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring under Section 1116 of ESEA .
The response is limited to 8,000 characters.
|
This section collects data on public school choice and supplemental educational services.
This section collects data on public school choice. FAQs related to the public school choice provisions are at the end of this section.
In the table below, provide the number of students who were eligible for public school choice, the number of eligible students who applied to transfer, and the number who transferred under the provisions for public school choice under Section 1116 of ESEA.
The number of students who were eligible for public school choice should include:
(1) All students currently enrolled in a Title I school identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring.
(2) All students who transferred in the current school year under the public school choice provisions of Section 1116, and
(3) All students who previously transferred under the public school choice provisions of Section 1116 and are continuing to transfer for the current school year under Section 1116.
The number of students who applied to transfer should include:
(1) All students who applied to transfer in the current school year but did not or were unable to transfer.
(2) All students who transferred in the current school year under the public school choice provisions of Section 1116; and
(3) All students who previously transferred under the public school choice provisions of Section 1116 and are continuing to transfer for the current school year under Section 1116.
For any of the respective student counts, States should indicate in the Comment section if the count does not include any of the categories of students discussed above.
|
# Students |
Eligible for public school choice |
|
Applied to transfer |
|
Transferred to another school under the Title I public school choice provisions |
|
In the table below, provide the total dollar amount spent by LEAs on transportation for public school choice under Section 1116 of ESEA.
Dollars spent by LEAs on transportation for public school choice |
$ |
1.4.9.1.4 – Availability of Public School Choice Options
In the table below provide the number of LEAs in your State that are unable to provide public school choice to eligible students due to any of the following reasons:
All schools at a grade level in the LEA are in school improvement, corrective action, or restructuring.
LEA only has a single school at the grade level of the school at which students are eligible for public school choice.
LEA's schools are so remote from one another that choice is impracticable.
|
# LEAs |
LEAs Unable to Provide Public School Choice |
|
FAQs about public school choice:
a. How should States report data on Title I public school choice for those LEAs that have open enrollment and other school choice programs? For those LEAs that implement open enrollment or other school choice programs in addition to public school choice under Section 1116 of ESEA, the State may consider a student as having applied to transfer if the student meets the following:
Has a "home" or "neighborhood" school (to which the student would have been assigned, in the absence of a school choice program) that receives Title I funds and has been identified, under the statute, as in need of improvement, corrective action, or restructuring; and
Has elected to enroll, at some point since July 1, 2002 (the effective date of the Title I choice provisions), and after the home school has been identified as in need of improvement, in a school that has not been so identified and is attending that school; and
Is using district transportation services to attend such a school.3
In addition, the State may consider costs for transporting a student meeting the above conditions towards the funds spent by an LEA on transportation for public school choice if the student is using district transportation services to attend the non-identified school.4
b. How should States report on public school choice for those LEAs that are not able to offer public school choice? In the count of LEAs that are not able to offer public school choice (for any of the reasons specified in 1.4.9.1.4), States should include those LEAs that are unable to offer public school choice at one or more grade levels. For instance, if an LEA is able to provide public school choice to eligible students at the elementary level but not at the secondary level, the State should include the LEA in the count. States should also include LEAs that are not able to provide public school choice at all (i.e., at any grade level). States should provide the reason(s) why public school choice was not possible in these LEAs at the grade level(s) in the Comment section. In addition, States may also include in the Comment section a separate count just of LEAs that are not able to offer public school choice at any grade level.
For LEAs that are not able to offer public school choice at one or more grade levels, States should count as eligible for public school choice (in 1.4.9.1.2) all students who attend identified Title I schools regardless of whether the LEA is able to offer the students public school choice.
This section collects data on supplemental educational services.
1.4.9.2.2 Supplemental Educational Services – Students
In the table below, provide the number of students who were eligible for, who applied for, and who received supplemental educational services under Section 1116 of ESEA.
The number of students who received supplemental educational services should include all students who were enrolled with a provider and participated in some hours of services. States and LEAs have the discretion to determine the minimum number of hours of participation needed by a student to be considered as having received services.
|
# Students |
Eligible for supplemental educational services |
|
Applied for supplemental educational services |
|
Received supplemental educational services |
|
1.4.9.2.3 Funds Spent on Supplemental Educational Services
In the table below, provide the total dollar amount spent by LEAs on supplemental educational services under Section 1116 of ESEA.
Dollars spent by LEAs on supplemental educational services |
$ |
This section collects data on “highly qualified” teachers as the term is defined in Section 9101(23) of the ESEA.
In the table below, provide the number of core academic classes for the grade levels listed, the number of those core academic classes taught by teachers who are highly qualified, and the number taught by teachers who are not highly qualified. The percentage of core academic classes taught by teachers who are highly qualified and the percentage taught by teachers who are not highly qualified will be calculated automatically. Below the table are FAQs about these data.
[1.5.1.x.x.] |
Number of Core Academic Classes (Total) |
Number of Core Academic Classes Taught by Teachers Who Are Highly Qualified |
Percentage of Core Academic Classes Taught by Teachers Who Are Highly Qualified |
Number of Core Academic Classes Taught by Teachers Who Are NOT Highly Qualified |
Percentage of Core Academic Classes Taught by Teachers Who Are NOT Highly Qualified |
All classes |
|
|
(Auto calculated) |
|
(Auto calculated) |
All elementary classes |
|
|
(Auto calculated) |
|
(Auto calculated) |
All secondary classes |
|
|
(Auto calculated) |
|
(Auto calculated) |
Do the data in Table 1.5.1 above include classes taught by special education teachers who provide direct instruction core academic subjects?
Data table includes classes taught by special education teachers who provide direct instruction core academic subjects. |
Yes |
No |
|
|
If the answer above is no, please explain:
|
Does the State count elementary classes so that a full-day self-contained classroom equals one class, or does the State use a departmentalized approach where a classroom is counted multiple times, once for each subject taught?
The response is limited to 8,000 characters.
|
FAQs about highly qualified teachers and core academic subjects:
What are the core academic subjects? English, reading/language arts, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, and geography [Title IX, Section 9101(11)]. While the statute includes the arts in the core academic subjects, it does not specify which of the arts are core academic subjects; therefore, States must make this determination.
How is a teacher defined? An individual who provides instruction in the core academic areas to kindergarten, grades 1 through 12, or ungraded classes, or individuals who teach in an environment other than a classroom setting (and who maintain daily student attendance records) [from NCES, CCD, 2001-02].
How is a class defined? A class is a setting in which organized instruction of core academic course content is provided to one or more students (including cross-age groupings) for a given period of time. (A course may be offered to more than one class.) Instruction, provided by one or more teachers or other staff members, may be delivered in person or via a different medium. Classes that share space should be considered as separate classes if they function as separate units for more than 50% of the time [from NCES Non-fiscal Data Handbook for Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education, 2003].
Should 6th-, 7th-, and 8th-grade classes be reported in the elementary or the secondary category? States are responsible for determining whether the content taught at the middle school level meets the competency requirements for elementary or secondary instruction. Report classes in grade 6 through 8 consistent with how teachers have been classified to determine their highly qualified status, regardless of whether their schools are configured as elementary or middle schools.
How should States count teachers (including specialists or resource teachers) in elementary classes? States that count self-contained classrooms as one class should, to avoid over-representation, also count subject-area specialists (e.g., mathematics or music teachers) or resource teachers as teaching one class. On the other hand, States using a departmentalized approach to instruction where a self-contained classroom is counted multiple times (once for each subject taught) should also count subject-area specialists or resource teachers as teaching multiple classes.
How should States count teachers in self-contained multiple-subject secondary classes? Each core academic subject taught for which students are receiving credit toward graduation should be counted in the numerator and the denominator. For example, if the same teacher teaches English, calculus, history, and science in a self-contained classroom, count these as four classes in the denominator. If the teacher is Highly Qualified to teach English and history, he/she would be counted as Highly Qualified in two of the four subjects in the numerator.
What is the reporting period? The reporting period is the school year. The count of classes must include all semesters, quarters, or terms of the school year. For example, if core academic classes are held in summer sessions, those classes should be included in the count of core academic classes. A state determines into which school year classes fall.
In the tables below, estimate the percentages for each of the reasons why teachers who are not highly qualified teach core academic classes. For example, if 900 elementary classes were taught by teachers who are not highly qualified, what percentage of those 900 classes falls into each of the categories listed below? If the three reasons provided at each grade level are not sufficient to explain why core academic classes at a particular grade level are taught by teachers who are not highly qualified, use the row labeled “other” and explain the additional reasons. The total of the reasons is calculated automatically for each grade level and must equal 100% at the elementary level and 100% at the secondary level.
Note: Use the numbers of core academic classes taught by teachers who are not highly qualified from 1.5.1 for both elementary school classes (1.5.2.1) and for secondary school classes (1.5.2.2) as your starting point.
1.5.2.1 Elementary School Classes
Percentage |
|
Elementary School Classes |
|
Elementary school classes taught by certified general education teachers who did not pass a subject-knowledge test or (if eligible) have not demonstrated subject-matter competency through HOUSSE |
[1.5.2.1.1.] |
Elementary school classes taught by certified special education teachers who did not pass a subject-knowledge test or have not demonstrated subject-matter competency through HOUSSE |
[1.5.2.2.1.] |
Elementary school classes taught by teachers who are not fully certified (and are not in an approved alternative route program) |
1.5.2.3.1.] |
Other (please explain in comment box below) |
[1.5.2.8.1.] |
Total |
((Auto calculated)) |
The response is limited to 8,000 characters.
|
1.5.2.2 Secondary School Classes
Percentage |
|
Secondary School Classes |
|
Secondary school classes taught by certified general education teachers who have not demonstrated subject-matter knowledge in those subjects (e.g., out-of-field teachers) |
[1.5.2.4.1.] |
Secondary school classes taught by certified special education teachers who have not demonstrated subject-matter competency in those subjects |
[1.5.2.5.1.] |
Secondary school classes taught by teachers who are not fully certified (and are not in an approved alternative route program) |
[1.5.2.6.1.] |
Other (please explain in comment box below) |
[1.5.2.7.1.] |
Total |
((Auto calculated)) |
The response is limited to 8,000 characters.
|
In the table below, provide the number of core academic classes for each of the school types listed and the number of those core academic classes taught by teachers who are highly qualified. The percentage of core academic classes taught by teachers who are highly qualified will be calculated automatically. The percentages used for high- and low-poverty schools and the poverty metric used to determine those percentages are reported in the second table. Below the tables are FAQs about these data.
NOTE: No source of classroom-level poverty data exists, so States may look at school-level data when figuring poverty quartiles. Because not all schools have traditional grade configurations, and because a school may not be counted as both an elementary and as a secondary school, States may include as elementary schools all schools that serve children in grades K through 5 (including K through 8 or K through 12 schools).
This means that for the purpose of establishing poverty quartiles, some classes in schools where both elementary and secondary classes are taught would be counted as classes in an elementary school rather than as classes in a secondary school in 1.5.3. This also means that such a 12th grade class would be in different category in 1.5.3 than it would be in 1.5.1.
School type [1.5.1.x.x.] |
Number of Core Academic Classes (Total) |
Number of Core Academic Classes Taught by Teachers Who Are Highly Qualified |
Percentage of Core Academic Classes Taught by Teachers Who Are Highly Qualified |
|
Elementary Schools |
||||
High-poverty elementary schools |
|
|
(Auto calculated) |
|
Low-poverty elementary schools |
|
|
(Auto calculated) |
|
Secondary Schools |
|
|||
High-poverty secondary schools |
|
|
(Auto calculated) |
|
Low-poverty Secondary schools |
|
|
(Auto calculated) |
|
In the table below, provide the poverty quartiles breaks used in determining high- and low-poverty schools and the poverty metric used to determine the poverty quartiles. Below the table are FAQs about the data collected in this table.
|
High-Poverty Schools |
Low-Poverty Schools |
Elementary schools |
More than _________% [1.1.] |
Less than __________% [1.2.] |
Poverty metric used |
[1.3.] |
|
Secondary schools |
More than _________% [2.1.] |
Less than __________% [2.2.] |
Poverty metric used |
[2.3.] |
|
FAQs on poverty quartiles and metrics used to determine poverty
What is a “high-poverty school”? Section 1111(h)(1)(C)(viii) defines “high-poverty” schools as schools in the top quartile of poverty in the State.
What is a “low-poverty school”? Section 1111(h)(1)(C)(viii) defines “low-poverty” schools as schools in the bottom quartile of poverty in the State.
How are the poverty quartiles determined? Separately rank order elementary and secondary schools from highest to lowest on your percentage poverty measure. Divide the list into four equal groups. Schools in the first (highest group) are high-poverty schools. Schools in the last group (lowest group) are the low-poverty schools. Generally, States use the percentage of students who qualify for the free or reduced-price lunch program for this calculation.
Since the poverty data are collected at the school and not classroom level, how do we classify schools as either elementary or secondary for this purpose? States may include as elementary schools all schools that serve children in grades K through 5 (including K through 8 or K through 12 schools) and would therefore include as secondary schools those that exclusively serve children in grades 6 and higher.
This section collects annual performance and accountability data on the implementation of Title III programs.
In the table below, place a check next to each type of language instruction educational program implemented in the State, as defined under Section 3301(8), as required by Sections 3121(a)(1), 3123(b)(1), and 3123(b)(2).
Table 1.6.1 Definitions:
Types of Programs = Types of programs described in the subgrantee’s local plan (as submitted to the State or as implemented) that is closest to the descriptions in http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/expert/glossary.html.
Other Language = Name of the language of instruction, other than English, used in the programs.
Check Types of Programs |
Type of Program |
Other Language |
|
|
|
|
Dual language |
|
|
Two-way immersion |
|
|
Transitional bilingual |
|
|
Developmental bilingual |
|
|
Heritage language |
|
|
Sheltered English instruction |
|
|
Structured English immersion |
|
|
Specially designed academic instruction delivered in English (SDAIE) |
|
|
Content-based ESL |
|
|
Pull-out ESL |
|
|
Other (explain in comment box below) |
|
The response is limited to 8,000 characters.
|
Include newly enrolled (recent arrivals to the U.S.) and continually enrolled LEP students, whether or not they receive services in a Title III language instruction educational program
Do
not
include Former LEP students (as defined in
Section
200.20(f)(2) of the Title I regulation) and monitored Former LEP
students (as defined under Section 3121(a)(4) of Title III) in the
ALL LEP student count in this table.
Number of ALL LEP students in the State |
|
In the table below, provide the unduplicated number of LEP students in the State who received services in Title III language instructional education programs.
|
# |
LEP students who received services in a Title III language instruction educational program in grades K through 12 for this reporting year. |
|
In the table below, provide the five most commonly spoken languages, other than English, in the State (for all LEP students, not just LEP students who received Title III services). The top five languages should be determined by the highest number of students speaking each of the languages listed.
Language |
# LEP Students |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Report additional languages with significant numbers of LEP students in the comment box below.
The response is limited to 8,000 characters.
|
This section collects data on LEP student English language proficiency, as required by Sections 1111(h)(4)(D) and 3121(a)(2).
In the table below, please provide the number of ALL LEP students tested and not tested on annual State English language proficiency assessment (as defined in 1.6.2.1).
|
# |
Number tested on State annual ELP assessment |
|
Number not tested on State annual ELP assessment |
|
Total |
(Auto-calculated) |
|
# |
Number attained proficiency on State annual ELP assessment |
|
Percent attained proficiency on State annual ELP assessment |
(Auto-calculated) |
In the table below, provide the number of Title III LEP students tested and not tested on annual State English language proficiency assessment.
|
# |
Number tested on State annual ELP assessment |
|
Number not tested on State annual ELP assessment |
|
Total |
(Auto-calculated) |
In the table below, provide the number of Title III students who took the State annual ELP assessment for the first time and whose progress cannot be determined and whose results were not included in the calculation for AMAO1. Report this number ONLY if the State did not include these students in establishing AMAO1/ making progress target and did not include them in the calculations for AMAO1/ making progress (# and % making progress).
|
# |
Number of Title III students who took the State annual ELP assessment for the first time whose progress cannot be determined and whose results were not included in the calculation for AMAO 1. |
|
This section collects information on Title III LEP students’ development of English and attainment of English proficiency.
Table 1.6.3.2.2 Definitions:
Annual Measureable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs) = State targets for the number and percent of students making progress and attaining proficiency.
Making Progress = Number and percent of Title III LEP students that met the definition of “Making Progress” as defined by the State and submitted to ED in the State Consolidated Application (CSA), or as amended.
Attained Proficiency = Number and percent of Title III LEP students that meet the State definition of “Attainment” of English language proficiency submitted to ED in the State Consolidated Application (CSA), or as amended.
Results = Number and percent of Title III LEP students that met the State definition of “Making Progress” and the number and percent that met the State definition of “Attainment” of English language proficiency.
In the table below, provide the State targets for the number and percent of students making progress and attaining English proficiency for this reporting period. Additionally, provide the results from the annual State English language proficiency assessment for Title III-served LEP students who participated in a Title III language instruction educational program in grades K through 12. If your State uses cohorts, provide us with the range of targets,( i.e., indicate the lowest target among the cohorts, e.g., 10% and the highest target among a cohort, e.g. 70%).
|
Results |
Targets |
||
# |
% |
# |
% |
|
Making progress |
|
(Auto calculated) |
|
|
Attained proficiency |
|
(Auto calculated) |
|
|
This section collects data on LEP students assessed in their native language (Section 1111(b)(6)) to be used for AYP determinations.
In the table below, check “yes” if the specified assessment is used for AYP purposes.
State offers the State reading/language arts content tests in the students’ native language(s). |
□Yes |
□ No |
State offers the State mathematics content tests in the students’ native language(s). |
□Yes |
□ No |
State offers the State science content tests in the students’ native language(s). |
□Yes |
□ No |
In the table below, report the language(s) in which native language assessments are given for ESEA accountability determinations for mathematics.
Language (s) |
|
|
|
|
|
In the table below, report the language(s) in which native language assessments are given for ESEA accountability determinations for reading/language arts.
Language (s) |
|
|
|
|
|
In the table below, report the language(s) in which native language assessments are given for ESEA accountability determinations for science.
Language (s) |
|
|
|
|
|
This section collects data on the performance of former LEP students as required by Sections 3121(a)(4) and 3123(b)(8).
In the table below, report the unduplicated count of monitored former LEP students during the two consecutive years of monitoring, which includes both MFLEP students in AYP grades and in non-AYP grades.
Monitored Former LEP (MFLEP) students include:
Students who have transitioned out of a language instruction educational program.
Students who are no longer receiving LEP services and who are being monitored for academic content achievement for 2 years after the transition.
Table 1.6.3.6.1 Definitions:
# Year One = Number of former LEP students in their first year of being monitored.
# Year Two = Number of former LEP students in their second year of being monitored.
Total = Number of monitored former LEP students in year one and year two. This is automatically calculated.
# Year One |
# Year Two |
Total |
|
|
(Auto calculated) |
In the table below, report the number of MFLEP students who took the annual mathematics assessment. Please provide data only for those students who transitioned out of language instruction educational programs and who no longer received services under Title III in this reporting year. These students include both students who are monitored former LEP students in their first year of monitoring, and those in their second year of monitoring.
Table 1.6.3.6.2 Definitions:
# Tested = State-aggregated number of MFLEP students who were tested in mathematics in all AYP grades.
# At or Above Proficient = State-aggregated number of MFLEP students who scored at or above proficient on the State annual mathematics assessment.
% Results = Automatically calculated based on number who scored at or above proficient divided by the number tested.
# Below proficient = State-aggregated number MFLEP students who did not score proficient on the State annual mathematics assessment. This will be automatically calculated.
# Tested |
# At or Above Proficient |
% Results |
# Below Proficient |
|
|
(Auto calculated) |
|
In the table below, report results for MFLEP students who took the annual reading/language arts assessment. Please provide data only for those students who transitioned out of language instruction educational programs and who no longer received services under Title III in this reporting year. These students include both students who are monitored former LEP students in their first year of monitoring, and those in their second year of monitoring.
Table 1.6.3.6.3 Definitions:
# Tested = State-aggregated number of MFLEP students who were tested in reading/language arts in all AYP grades.
# At or Above Proficient = State-aggregated number of MFLEP students who scored at or above proficient on the State annual reading/language arts assessment.
% Results = Automatically calculated based on number who scored at or above proficient divided by the total number tested.
# Below proficient = State-aggregated number MFLEP students who did not score proficient on the State annual reading/language arts assessment. This will be automatically calculated.
# Tested |
# At or Above Proficient |
% Results |
# Below Proficient |
|
|
(Auto calculated) |
|
In the table below, report results for monitored former LEP (MFLEP) students who took the annual science assessment. Please provide data only for those students who transitioned out of language instruction educational programs and who no longer received services under Title III in this reporting year. These students include both students who are monitored former LEP students in their first year of monitoring, and those in their second year of monitoring.
Table 1.6.3.6.4 Definitions:
# Tested = State-aggregated number of MFLEP students who were tested in science.
# At or Above Proficient = State-aggregated number of MFLEP students who scored at or above proficient on the State annual science assessment.
% Results = Automatically calculated based on number who scored at or above proficient divided by the total number tested.
# Below proficient = State-aggregated number MFLEP students who did not score proficient on the State annual science assessment. This will be automatically calculated.
# Tested |
# At or Above Proficient |
% Results |
# Below Proficient |
|
|
(Auto calculated) |
|
This section collects data on the performance of Title III subgrantees.
In the table below, report the number of Title III subgrantees meeting the criteria described in the table. Do not leave items blank. If there are zero subgrantees who met the condition described, put a zero in the number (#) column. Do not double count subgrantees by category.
Note: Do not include number of subgrants made under Section 3114(d)(1) from funds reserved for education programs and activities for immigrant children and youth. (Report Section 3114(d)(1) subgrants in 1.6.5.1 ONLY.)
|
# |
Total number of subgrantees for the year |
|
|
|
Number of subgrantees that met all three Title III AMAOs |
|
Number of subgrantees that met AMAO 1 |
|
Number of subgrantees that met AMAO 2 |
|
Number of subgrantees that met AMAO 3 |
|
|
|
Number of subgrantees that did not meet any Title III AMAOs |
|
|
|
Number of subgrantees that did not meet Title III AMAOs for two consecutive years (SYs 2008-09 and 2009-10) |
|
Number of subgrantees implementing an improvement plan in SY 2009-10 for not meeting Title III AMAOs for two consecutive years |
|
Number of subgrantees that have not met Title III AMAOs for four consecutive years (SYs 2006-2007, 2007-08, 2008-09and 2009-2010) |
|
Provide information on how the State counted consortia members in the total number of subgrantees and in each of the numbers in table 1.6.4.1.
The response is limited to 4,000 characters.
|
In the table below, indicate whether the State met all three Title III AMAOs.
Note: Meeting all three Title III AMAOs means meeting each State-set target for each objective: Making Progress, Attaining Proficiency, and Making AYP for the LEP subgroup. This section collects data that will be used to determine State AYP, as required under Section 6161.
State met all three Title III AMAOs |
□ Yes |
□ No |
Were any Title III language instruction educational programs or activities terminated for failure to reach program goals? |
□Yes |
□ No |
If yes, provide the number of language instruction educational programs or activities for immigrant children and youth terminated. |
|
|
This section collects data on education programs and activities for immigrant students.
Note: All immigrant students are not LEP students.
In the table below, report the unduplicated number of immigrant students enrolled in schools in the State and who participated in qualifying educational programs under Section 3114(d)(1).
Table 1.6.5.1 Definitions:
Immigrant Students Enrolled = Number of students who meet the definition of immigrant children and youth under Section 3301(6) and enrolled in the elementary or secondary schools in the State.
Students in 3114(d)(1) Program = Number of immigrant students who participated in programs for immigrant children and youth funded under Section 3114(d)(1), using the funds reserved for immigrant education programs/activities. This number should not include immigrant students who receive services in Title III language instructional educational programs under Sections 3114(a) and 3115(a).
3114(d)(1) Subgrants = Number of subgrants made in the State under Section 3114(d)(1), with funds reserved for immigrant education programs/activities. Do not include Title III Language Instruction Educational Program (LIEP) subgrants made under Sections 3114(a) and 3115(a) that serve immigrant students enrolled in them.
# Immigrant Students Enrolled |
# Students in 3114(d)(1) Program |
# of 3114(d)(1) Subgrants |
|
|
|
If State reports zero (0) students in programs or zero (0) subgrants, explain in comment box below.
The response is limited to 8,000 characters.
|
This section collects data on teachers in Title III language instruction education programs as required under Section 3123(b)(5).
This section collects information about teachers as required under Section 3123 (b)(5).
In the table below, report the number of teachers who are working in the Title III language instruction educational programs as defined under Section 3301(8) and reported in 1.6.1 (Types of language instruction educational programs) even if they are not paid with Title III funds.
Note: Section 3301(8) – The term ‘Language instruction educational program’ means an instruction course – (A) in which a limited English proficient child is placed for the purpose of developing and attaining English proficiency, while meeting challenging State academic content and student academic achievement standards, as required by Section 1111(b)(1); and (B) that may make instructional use of both English and a child’s native language to enable the child to develop and attain English proficiency and may include the participation of English proficient children if such course is designed to enable all participating children to become proficient in English as a second language.
|
# |
Number of all certified/licensed teachers currently working in Title III language instruction educational programs. |
|
Estimate number of additional certified/licensed teachers that will be needed for Title III language instruction educational programs in the next 5 years*. |
|
Explain in the comment box below if there is a zero for any item in the table above.
The response is limited to 8,000 characters.
|
* This number should be the total additional teachers needed for the next 5 years, not the number needed for each year. Do not include the number of teachers currently working in Title III English language instruction educational programs.
In the tables below, provide information about the subgrantee professional development activities that meets the requirements of Section 3115(c)(2).
Table 1.6.6.2 Definitions:
Professional Development Topics: Subgrantee professional development topics required under Title III.
#Subgrantees = Number of subgrantees who conducted each type of professional development activity. A subgrantee may conduct more than one professional development activity. (Use the same method of counting subgrantees, including consortia, as in 1.6.1 and 1.6.4.1.)
Total Number of Participants = Number of teachers, administrators and other personnel who participated in each type of the professional development activities reported.
Total = Number of all participants in professional development (PD) activities.
Professional Development (PD) Topics |
# Subgrantees |
|
|
|
|
Instructional strategies for LEP students |
|
|
Understanding and implementation of assessment of LEP students |
|
|
Understanding and implementation of ELP standards and academic content standards for LEP students |
|
|
Alignment of the curriculum in language instruction educational programs to ELP standards |
|
|
Subject matter knowledge for teachers |
|
|
Other (Explain in comment box) |
|
|
PD Participant Information |
# Subgrantees |
# Participants |
PD provided to content classroom teachers |
|
|
PD provided to LEP classroom teachers |
|
|
PD provided to principals |
|
|
PD provided to administrators/other than principals |
|
|
PD provided to other school personnel/non-administrative |
|
|
PD provided to community-based organization personnel |
|
|
Total |
|
(Auto calculated) |
The response is limited to 8,000 characters.
This section collects data on State grant activities.
In the table below, report the time between when the State receives the Title III allocation from ED, normally on July 1 of each year for the upcoming school year, and the time when the State distributes these funds to subgrantees for the intended school year.
Table 1.6.7.1 Definitions:
Date State Received Allocation = Annual date the State receives the Title III allocation from U.S. Department of Education (ED).
Date Funds Available to Subgrantees = Annual date that Title III funds are available to approved subgrantees.
# of Days/$$ Distribution = Average number of days for States receiving Title III funds to make subgrants to subgrantees beginning from July 1 of each year, except under conditions where funds are being withheld.
Example: State received SY 2009-10 funds July 1, 2009, and then made these funds available to subgrantees on August 1, 2009, for SY 2009-10 programs. Then the “# of days/$$ Distribution” is 30 days.
Date State Received Allocation |
Date Funds Available to Subgrantees |
# of Days/$$ Distribution |
|
|
|
In the comment box below, describe how your State can shorten the process of distributing Title III funds to subgrantees.
The response is limited to 8,000 characters.
|
In the table below, provide the number of schools identified as persistently dangerous, as determined by the State, by the start of the school year. For further guidance on persistently dangerous schools, refer to Section B “Identifying Persistently Dangerous Schools” in the Unsafe School Choice Option Non-Regulatory Guidance, available at: http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/unsafeschoolchoice.pdf.
|
###### |
Persistently Dangerous Schools |
|
This section collects graduation and dropout rates.
In the table below, provide the graduation rates calculated using the methodology that was approved as part of the State’s accountability plan for the previous school year (SY 2008-09). Below the table are FAQs about the data collected in this table.
Student Group |
Graduation Rate |
All students |
|
American Indian or Alaska Native |
|
Asian or Pacific Islander |
|
Black, non-Hispanic |
|
Hispanic |
|
White, non-Hispanic |
|
Children with disabilities (IDEA) |
|
Limited English proficient |
|
Economically disadvantaged |
|
Migratory students |
|
Male |
|
Female |
|
FAQs on graduation rates:
What is the graduation rate? Section 200.19 of the Title I regulations issued under the No Child Left Behind Act on December 2, 2002, defines graduation rate to mean:
The percentage of students, measured from the beginning of high school, who graduate from public high school with a regular diploma (not including a GED or any other diploma not fully aligned with the State’s academic standards) in the standard number of years; or,
Another more accurate definition developed by the State and approved by the Secretary in the State plan that more accurately measures the rate of students who graduate from high school with a regular diploma; and
Avoids counting a dropout as a transfer.
What if the data collection system is not in place for the collection of graduate rates? For those States that are reporting transitional graduation rate data and are working to put into place data collection systems that will allow the State to calculate the graduation rate in accordance with Section 200.19 for all the required subgroups, please provide a detailed progress report on the status of those efforts.
The response is limited to 8,000 characters.
|
In the table below, provide the dropout rates calculated using the annual event school dropout rate for students leaving a school in a single year determined in accordance with the National Center for Education Statistic’s (NCES) Common Core of Data (CCD) for the previous school year (SY 2008-09). Below the table is a FAQ about the data collected in this table.
Student Group |
Dropout Rate |
All students |
|
American Indian or Alaska Native |
|
Asian or Pacific Islander |
|
Black, non-Hispanic |
|
Hispanic |
|
White, non-Hispanic |
|
Children with disabilities (IDEA) |
|
Limited English proficient |
|
Economically disadvantaged |
|
Migratory students |
|
Male |
|
Female |
|
FAQ on dropout rates:
What is a dropout? A dropout is an individual who: 1) was enrolled in school at some time during the previous school year; and 2) was not enrolled at the beginning of the current school year; and 3) has not graduated from high school or completed a State- or district-approved educational program; and 4) does not meet any of the following exclusionary conditions: a) transfer to another public school district, private school, or State- or district-approved educational program (including correctional or health facility programs); b) temporary absence due to suspension or school-excused illness; or c) death.
This section collects data on homeless children and youths and the McKinney-Vento grant program.
In the table below, provide the following information about the number of LEAs in the State who reported data on homeless children and youths and the McKinney-Vento program. The totals will be automatically calculated.
|
# |
# LEAs Reporting Data |
LEAs without subgrants |
|
|
LEAs with subgrants |
|
|
Total |
(Auto calculated) |
(Auto calculated) |
The following questions collect data on homeless children and youths in the State.
In the table below, provide the number of homeless children and youths by grade level enrolled in public school at any time during the regular school year. The totals will be automatically calculated:
Age/Grade |
# of Homeless Children/Youths Enrolled in Public School in LEAs Without Subgrants |
# of Homeless Children/Youths Enrolled in Public School in LEAs With Subgrants |
Age 3 through 5 (not Kindergarten) |
|
|
K |
|
|
1 |
|
|
2 |
|
|
3 |
|
|
4 |
|
|
5 |
|
|
6 |
|
|
7 |
|
|
8 |
|
|
9 |
|
|
10 |
|
|
11 |
|
|
12 |
|
|
Ungraded |
|
|
Total |
(Auto calculated) |
(Auto calculated) |
In the table below, provide the number of homeless children and youths by primary nighttime residence enrolled in public school at any time during the regular school year. The primary nighttime residence should be the student’s nighttime residence when he/she was identified as homeless. The totals will be automatically calculated.
|
# of Homeless Children/Youths - LEAs Without Subgrants |
# of Homeless Children/Youths - LEAs With Subgrants |
Shelters, transitional housing, awaiting foster care |
|
|
Doubled-up (e.g., living with another family) |
|
|
Unsheltered (e.g., cars, parks, campgrounds, temporary trailer, or abandoned buildings) |
|
|
Hotels/Motels |
|
|
Total |
(Auto calculated) |
(Auto calculated) |
The following sections collect data on LEAs with McKinney-Vento subgrants.
In the table below, provide the number of homeless children and youths by grade level who were served by McKinney-Vento subgrants during the regular school year. The total will be automatically calculated.
Age/Grade |
# Homeless Children/Youths Served by Subgrants |
Age 3 through 5 (not Kindergarten) |
|
K |
|
1 |
|
2 |
|
3 |
|
4 |
|
5 |
|
6 |
|
7 |
|
8 |
|
9 |
|
10 |
|
11 |
|
12 |
|
Ungraded |
|
Total |
(Auto calculated) |
In the table below, please provide the following information about the homeless students served during the regular school year.
|
# Homeless Students Served |
Unaccompanied youth |
|
Migratory children/youth |
|
Children with disabilities (IDEA) |
|
Limited English proficient students |
|
In the table below, provide the number of subgrantee programs that provided the following educational support services with McKinney-Vento funds.
|
# McKinney-Vento Subgrantees That Offer |
Tutoring or other instructional support |
|
Expedited evaluations |
|
Staff professional development and awareness |
|
Referrals for medical, dental, and other health services |
|
Transportation |
|
Early childhood programs |
|
Assistance with participation in school programs |
|
Before-, after-school, mentoring, summer programs |
|
Obtaining or transferring records necessary for enrollment |
|
Parent education related to rights and resources for children |
|
Coordination between schools and agencies |
|
Counseling |
|
Addressing needs related to domestic violence |
|
Clothing to meet a school requirement |
|
School supplies |
|
Referral to other programs and services |
|
Emergency assistance related to school attendance |
|
Other (optional – in comment box below) |
|
Other (optional – in comment box below) |
|
Other (optional – in comment box below) |
|
The response is limited to 8,000 characters.
In the table below, provide the number of subgrantees that reported the following barriers to the enrollment and success of homeless children and youths.
|
# Subgrantees Reporting |
Eligibility for homeless services |
|
School selection |
|
Transportation |
|
School records |
|
Immunizations |
|
Other medical records |
|
Other barriers – in comment box below |
|
The response is limited to 8,000 characters.
|
The following questions collect data on the academic achievement of homeless children and youths served by McKinney-Vento subgrants.
In the table below, provide the number of homeless children and youths served who were tested on the State reading/language arts assessment and the number of those tested who scored at or above proficient. Provide data for grades 9 through 12 only for those grades tested for ESEA.
Grade |
# # Homeless Children/Youth Who Received a Valid Score and for Whom a Proficiency Level Was Assigned |
# # Homeless Children/Youth Scoring at or above Proficient |
3 |
|
|
4 |
|
|
5 |
|
|
6 |
|
|
7 |
|
|
8 |
|
|
High School |
|
|
Mathematics Assessment
This section is similar to 1.9.2.5.1. The only difference is that this section collects data on the State mathematics assessment.
This section collects the Title I, Part C, Migrant Education Program (MEP) child counts which States are required to provide and may be used to determine the annual State allocations under Title I, Part C. The child counts should reflect the reporting period of September 1, 2009 through August 31, 2010. This section also collects a report on the procedures used by States to produce true, accurate, and valid child counts.
To provide the child counts, each SEA should have sufficient procedures in place to ensure that it is counting only those children who are eligible for the MEP. Such procedures are important to protecting the integrity of the State's MEP because they permit the early discovery and correction of eligibility problems and thus help to ensure that only eligible migrant children are counted for funding purposes and are served. If an SEA has reservations about the accuracy of its child counts, it must inform the Department of its concerns and explain how and when it will resolve them under Section 1.10.3.4 Quality Control Processes.
Note: In submitting this information, the Authorizing State Official must certify that, to the best of his/her knowledge, the child counts and information contained in the report are true, reliable, and valid and that any false Statement provided is subject to fine or imprisonment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1001.
FAQs on Child Count:
How is “out-of-school” defined? Out-of-school means youth up through age 21 who are entitled to a free public education in the State but are not currently enrolled in a K-12 institution. This could include students who have dropped out of school, youth who are working on a GED outside of a K-12 institution, and youth who are “here-to-work” only. It does not include preschoolers, who are counted by age grouping.
How is “ungraded” defined? Ungraded means the children are served in an educational unit that has no separate grades. For example, some schools have primary grade groupings that are not traditionally graded, or ungraded groupings for children with learning disabilities. In some cases, ungraded students may also include special education children, transitional bilingual students, students working on a GED through a K-12 institution, or those in a correctional setting. (Students working on a GED outside of a K-12 institution are counted as out-of-school youth.)
In the table below, enter the unduplicated statewide number by age/grade of eligible migrant children age 3 through 21 who, within 3 years of making a qualifying move, resided in your State for one or more days during the reporting period of September 1, 2009through August 31, 2010. This figure includes all eligible migrant children who may or may not have participated in MEP services. Count a child who moved from one age/grade level to another during the reporting period only once in the highest age/grade that he/she attained during the reporting period. The unduplicated statewide total count is calculated automatically.
Do not include:
Children age birth through 2 years
Children served by the MEP (under the continuation of services authority) after their period of eligibility has expired when other services are not available to meet their needs
Previously eligible secondary-school children who are receiving credit accrual services (under the continuation of services authority).
Age/Grade |
12-Month Count of Eligible Migrant Children Who Can Be Counted for Funding Purposes |
Age 3 through 5 (not Kindergarten) |
|
K |
|
1 |
|
2 |
|
3 |
|
4 |
|
5 |
|
6 |
|
7 |
|
8 |
|
9 |
|
10 |
|
11 |
|
12 |
|
Ungraded |
|
Out-of-school |
|
Total |
(Auto-calculated) |
In the space below, explain any increases or decreases from last year in the number of students reported for Category 1 greater than 10 percent.
The response is limited to 8,000 characters.
|
In the table below, enter by age/grade the unduplicated statewide number of eligible migrant children age 3 through 21 who, within 3 years of making a qualifying move, were served for one or more days in a MEP-funded project conducted during either the summer term or during intersession periods that occurred within the reporting period of September 1, 2009 through August 31, 2010. Count a child who moved from one age/grade level to another during the reporting period only once in the highest age/grade that he/she attained during the reporting period. Count a child who moved to different schools within the State and who was served in both traditional summer and year-round school intersession programs only once. The unduplicated statewide total count is calculated automatically.
Do not include:
Children age birth through 2 years
Children served by the MEP (under the continuation of services authority) after their period of eligibility has expired when other services are not available to meet their needs
Previously eligible secondary-school children who are receiving credit accrual services (under the continuation of services authority).
Age/Grade |
Summer/Intersession Count of Eligible Migrant Children Who Are Participants and Who Can Be Counted for Funding Purposes |
Age 3 through 5 (no Kindergarten) |
|
K |
|
1 |
|
2 |
|
3 |
|
4 |
|
5 |
|
6 |
|
7 |
|
8 |
|
9 |
|
10 |
|
11 |
|
12 |
|
Ungraded |
|
Out-of-school |
|
Total |
(Auto-calculated) |
In the space below, explain any increases or decreases from last year in the number of students reported for Category 2 greater than 10 percent.
The response is limited to 8,000 characters.
|
The following question requests information on the State’s MEP child count calculation and validation procedures.
In the space below, respond to the following questions: What system(s) did your State use to compile and generate the Category 1 and Category 2 child count for this reporting period (e.g., NGS, MIS 2000, COEStar, manual system)? Were child counts for the last reporting period generated using the same system(s)? If the State’s Category 2 count was generated using a different system from the Category 1 count, please identify each system.
The response is limited to 8,000 characters.
|
In the space below, respond to the following questions: How was the child count data collected? What data were collected? What activities were conducted to collect the data? When were the data collected for use in the student information system? If the data for the State’s Category 2 count were collected and maintained differently from the Category 1 count, please describe each set of procedures.
The response is limited to 8,000 characters.
|
In the space below, describe how the child count data are inputted, updated, and then organized by the student information system for child count purposes at the State level.
The response is limited to 8,000 characters.
|
If the data for the State’s Category 2 count were collected and maintained differently from the Category 1 count, please describe each set of procedures.
The response is limited to 8,000 characters.
|
In the space below, respond to the following question: How was each child count calculated? Please describe the compilation process and edit functions that are built into your student information system(s) specifically to produce an accurate child count. In particular, describe how your system includes and counts only:
Children who were between age 3 through 21
Children who met the program eligibility criteria (e.g., were within 3 years of a last qualifying move, had a qualifying activity)
Children who were resident in your State for at least 1 day during the eligibility period (September 1 through August 31)
Children who—in the case of Category 2—received a MEP-funded service during the summer or intersession term
Children once per age/grade level for each child count category.
The response is limited to 8,000 characters.
|
If your State’s Category 2 count was generated using a different system from the Category 1 count, please describe each system separately.
The response is limited to 8,000 characters.
|
In the space below, respond to the following question: What steps are taken to ensure your State properly determines and verifies the eligibility of each child included in the child counts for the reporting period of September 1 through August 31 before that child’s data are included in the student information system(s)?
The response is limited to 8,000 characters.
|
In the space below, describe specifically the procedures used and the results of any re-interview processes used by the SEA during the reporting period to test the accuracy of the State’s MEP eligibility determinations. In this description, please include the number of eligibility determinations sampled, the number for which a test was completed, and the number found eligible.
The response is limited to 8,000 characters.
|
In the space below, respond to the following question: Throughout the year, what steps are taken by staff to check that child count data are inputted and updated accurately (and—for systems that merge data—consolidated accurately)?
The response is limited to 8,000 characters.
|
In the space below, respond to the following question: What final steps are taken by State staff to verify the child counts produced by your student information system(s) are accurate counts of children in Category 1 and Category 2 prior to their submission to ED?
The response is limited to 8,000 characters.
|
In the space below, describe those corrective actions or improvements that will be made by the SEA to improve the accuracy of its MEP eligibility determinations in light of the prospective re-interviewing results.
The response is limited to 8,000 characters.
|
In the space below, discuss any concerns about the accuracy of the reported child counts or the underlying eligibility determinations on which the counts are based.
The response is limited to 8,000 characters.
|
1The school improvement statuses are defined in LEA and School Improvement Non-Regulatory Guidance. This document may be found on the Department’s Web page at http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/schoolimprovementguid.doc.
2The district improvement statuses are defined in LEA and School Improvement Non-Regulatory Guidance. This document may be found on the Department’s Web page at http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/schoolimprovementguid.doc.
4 Adapted from Public School Choice Non-Regulatory Guidance, Available at: http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/schoolchoiceguid.doc
i SEC.9303. Consolidated Reporting – (a) In general: In order to simplify reporting requirements and reduce reporting burdens, the Secretary shall establish procedures and criteria under which a State educational agency, in consultation with the Governor of the State, may submit a consolidated State annual report. (b) Contents: The report shall contain information about the programs included in the report, including the performance of the State under those programs, and other matters as the Secretary determines are necessary, such as monitoring activities. (c) Replacement: The report shall replace separate individual annual reports for the programs included in the consolidated State annual report.
| File Type | application/msword |
| File Title | Consolidated State Performance Report: Part I for Reporting on School Year 2006-07 (MS Word) |
| Author | bobbi.stettner-eaton |
| Last Modified By | #Administrator |
| File Modified | 2010-09-16 |
| File Created | 2010-09-16 |