For reporting on
School Year 2013-14
Part II Due February 13, 2015
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 9303 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 described in section 1111(h)(4) of ESEA, and data required under McKinney-Vento Homeless Program. 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 requirements.
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 (expires 7/31/15). The time required to complete this information collection for Part I and Part II combined is estimated to average 30.84 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. If you have comments or concerns regarding the status of your individual submission of this form, write directly to: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20202.
Table of Contents
Page
2.1 IMPROVING BASIC PROGRAMS OPERATED BY LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES (TITLE I, PART A) 1
2.1.1 Student Achievement in Schools with Title I, Part A Programs 1
2.1.2 Title I, Part A Student Participation 3
2.1.3 Staff Information for Title I, Part A Targeted Assistance Programs (TAS) 6
2.1.4 Parental Involvement Reservation Under Title I, Part A
2.3 EDUCATION OF MIGRANT CHILDREN (TITLE I, PART C) 14
2.3.3 MEP
Participation Data 20
2.3.4 School Data
2.4.1 State Agency Title I, Part D Programs and Facilities – Subpart 1 33
2.4.2 LEA Title I, Part D Programs and Facilities – Subpart 2 40
2.9 RURAL EDUCATION ACHIEVEMENT PROGRAM (REAP) (TITLE VI, PART B, SUBPARTS 1 AND 2) 55
2.10.1 State Transferability of Funds 56
2.10.2 Local Educational Agency (LEA) Transferability of Funds 56
2.11.1 Regulatory Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate 51
2.12 List of School and Districts 51
2.12.1 List of Schools for ESEA Flexibility States 60
2.12.2 List of Schools for All Other States 61
2.12.3 List of Districts for ESEA Flexibility States 62
2.12.4 List of Districts for All Other States 63
This section collects data on Title I, Part A programs.
The following sections collect data on student academic achievement on the State’s assessments in schools that receive Title I, Part A funds and operate either Schoolwide programs or Targeted Assistance programs.
In the format of the table below, provide the number of students in SWP schools who completed the assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned, in grades 3 through 8 and high school, on the State’s mathematics assessments under Section 1111(b)(3) of ESEA. Also, provide the number of those students who scored at or above proficient. The percentage of students who scored at or above proficient is calculated automatically.
Grade |
# Students Who Completed the Assessment and for Whom a Proficiency Level Was Assigned |
# Students Scoring at or above Proficient |
Percentage at or above Proficient |
3 |
|
|
(Auto calculated) |
4 |
|
|
(Auto calculated) |
5 |
|
|
(Auto calculated) |
6 |
|
|
(Auto calculated) |
7 |
|
|
(Auto calculated) |
8 |
|
|
(Auto calculated) |
High School |
|
|
(Auto calculated) |
Total |
|
|
(Auto calculated) |
This section is similar to 2.1.1.1. The only difference is that this section collects data on performance on the State’s reading/language arts assessment in SWP.
In the table below, provide the number of all students in TAS who completed the assessment and for whom a proficiency level was assigned, in grades 3 through 8 and high school, on the State’s mathematics assessments under Section 1111(b)(3) of ESEA. Also, provide the number of those students who scored at or above proficient. The percentage of students who scored at or above proficient is calculated automatically.
Grade |
# Students Who Completed the Assessment and for Whom a Proficiency Level Was Assigned |
# Students Scoring at or above Proficient |
Percentage at or above Proficient |
3 |
|
|
(Auto calculated) |
4 |
|
|
(Auto calculated) |
5 |
|
|
(Auto calculated) |
6 |
|
|
(Auto calculated) |
7 |
|
|
(Auto calculated) |
8 |
|
|
(Auto calculated) |
High School |
|
|
(Auto calculated) |
Total |
|
|
(Auto calculated) |
This section is similar to 2.1.1.3. The only difference is that this section collects data on performance on the State’s reading/language arts assessment by all students in TAS.
The following sections collect data on students participating in Title I, Part A by various student characteristics.
In the table below, provide the number of public school students served by either Public Title I SWP or TAS programs at any time during the regular school year for each category listed. Count each student only once in each category even if the student participated during more than one term or in more than one school or district in the State. Count each student in as many of the categories that are applicable to the student. Include pre-kindergarten through grade 12. Do not include the following individuals: (1) adult participants of adult literacy programs funded by Title I, (2) private school students participating in Title I programs operated by local educational agencies, or (3) students served in Part A local neglected programs.
|
# Students Served |
Children with disabilities (IDEA) |
[1.] |
Limited English proficient students |
[2.] |
Students who are homeless |
[3.] |
Migratory students |
[4.] |
In the table below, provide the unduplicated number of public school students served by either Title I SWP or TAS at any time during the regular school year. Each student should be reported in only one racial/ethnic category. Include pre-kindergarten through grade 12. The total number of students served will be calculated automatically.
Do not include: (1) adult participants of adult literacy programs funded by Title I, (2) private school students participating in Title I programs operated by local educational agencies, or (3) students served in Part A local neglected programs.
Race/Ethnicity |
# Students Served |
American Indian or Alaska Native |
[1.] |
Asian |
[2.] |
Black or African American |
[3.] |
Hispanic or Latino |
[4.] |
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander |
|
White |
[5.] |
Two or more races |
|
Total |
(Auto calculated) |
In the table below, provide the unduplicated number of students participating in Title I, Part A programs by grade level and by type of program: Title I public targeted assistance programs (Public TAS), Title I schoolwide programs (Public SWP), private school students participating in Title I programs (private), and Part A local neglected programs (local neglected). The totals column by type of program will be automatically calculated.
Age /Grade |
Public TAS |
Public SWP |
Private |
Local Neglected |
Total |
Age 0-2 |
[1.1.] |
[1.2.] |
[1.3.] |
[1.4.] |
[1.5.]Auto Calc |
Age 3-5 (not Kindergarten) |
[2.1.] |
[2.2.] |
[2.3.] |
[2.4.] |
[2.5.]” |
K |
[3.1.] |
[3.2.] |
[3.3.] |
[3.4.] |
[3.5.]” |
1 |
[4.1.] |
[4.2.] |
[4.3.] |
[4.4.] |
[4.5.]” |
2 |
[5.1.] |
[5.2.] |
[5.3.] |
[5.4.] |
[5.5.]” |
3 |
[6.1.] |
[6.2.] |
[6.3.] |
[6.4.] |
[6.5.]” |
4 |
[7.1.] |
[7.2.] |
[7.3.] |
[7.4.] |
[7.5.]” |
5 |
[8.1.] |
[8.2.] |
[8.3.] |
[8.4.] |
[8.5.]” |
6 |
[9.1.] |
[9.2.] |
[9.3.] |
[9.4.] |
[9.5.]” |
7 |
[10.1.] |
[10.2.] |
[10.3.] |
[10.4.] |
[10.5.]” |
8 |
[11.1.] |
[11.2.] |
[11.3.] |
[11.4.] |
[11.5.]” |
9 |
[12.1.] |
[12.2.] |
[12.3.] |
[12.4.] |
[12.5.]” |
10 |
[13.1.] |
[13.2.] |
[13.3.] |
[13.4.] |
[13.5.]” |
11 |
[14.1.] |
[14.2.] |
[14.3.] |
[14.4.] |
[14.5.]” |
12 |
[15.1.] |
[15.2.] |
[15.3.] |
[15.4.] |
[15.5.]” |
Ungraded |
[16.1.] |
[16.2.] |
[16.3.] |
[16.4.] |
[16.5.]” |
TOTALS |
(Auto calculated) |
(Auto calculated) |
(Auto calculated) |
(Auto calculated) |
(Auto calculated) |
The following sections collect data about the participation of students in TAS.
In the table below, provide the number of students receiving each of the listed instructional services through a TAS program funded by Title I, Part A. Students may be reported as receiving more than one instructional service. However, students should be reported only once for each instructional service regardless of the frequency with which they received the service.
|
# Students Served |
Mathematics |
[1.1.1.] |
Reading/language arts |
[1.2.1.] |
Science |
[1.3.1.] |
Social studies |
[1.4.1.] |
Vocational/career |
[1.5.1.] |
Other instructional services |
[1.6.1.] |
In the table below, provide the number of students receiving each of the listed support services through a TAS program funded by Title I, Part A. Students may be reported as receiving more than one support service. However, students should be reported only once for each support service regardless of the frequency with which they received the service.
|
# Students Served |
Health, dental, and eye care |
[2.1.1.] |
Supporting guidance/advocacy |
[2.2.1.] |
Other support services |
[2.3.1.] |
In the table below, provide the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) staff funded by a Title I, Part A TAS in each of the staff categories. For staff who work with both TAS and SWP, report only the FTE attributable to their TAS responsibilities.
For paraprofessionals only, provide the percentage of paraprofessionals who were qualified in accordance with Section 1119 (c) and (d) of ESEA.
See the FAQs following the table for additional information.
Staff Category |
Staff FTE |
Percentage Qualified |
Teachers |
|
|
Paraprofessionals1 |
|
|
Other paraprofessionals (translators, parental involvement, computer assistance)2 |
|
|
Clerical support staff |
|
|
Administrators (non-clerical) |
|
|
FAQs on staff information
a. What is a “paraprofessional?” An employee of an LEA who provides instructional support in a program supported with Title I, Part A funds. Instructional support includes the following activities:
(1) Providing one-on-one tutoring for eligible students, if the tutoring is scheduled at a time when a student would not otherwise receive instruction from a teacher;
(2) Providing assistance with classroom management, such as organizing instructional and other materials;
(3) Providing assistance in a computer laboratory;
(4) Conducting parental involvement activities;
(5) Providing support in a library or media center;
(6) Acting as a translator; or
(7) Providing instructional services to students.
b. What is an “other paraprofessional?” Paraprofessionals who do not provide instructional support, for example, paraprofessionals who are translators or who work with parental involvement or computer assistance.
c. Who is a qualified paraprofessional? A paraprofessional who has (1) completed 2 years of study at an institution of higher education; (2) obtained an associate’s (or higher) degree; or (3) met a rigorous standard of quality and been able to demonstrate, through a formal State or local academic assessment, knowledge of and the ability to assist in instructing reading, writing, and mathematics (or, as appropriate, reading readiness, writing readiness, and mathematics readiness) (Section 1119(c) and (d).) For more information on qualified paraprofessionals, please refer to the Title I paraprofessionals Guidance, available at: http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/paraguidance.doc
In the table below, provide the number of FTE paraprofessionals who served in SWP and the percentage of these paraprofessionals who were qualified in accordance with Section 1119 (c) and (d) of ESEA. Use the additional guidance found below the previous table.
|
Paraprofessionals FTE |
Percentage Qualified |
Paraprofessionals3 |
|
|
2.1.4 Parental Involvement Reservation Under Title I, Part A
In the table below provide information on the amount of Title I, Part A funds reserved by LEAs for parental involvement activities under Section 1118 (a)(3) of the ESEA. The percentage of LEAs FY 2013 Title I Part A allocations reserved for parental involvement will be automatically calculated from the data entered in Rows 2 and 3.
|
LEAs that Received a Federal Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 (School Year 2013-14) Title I, Part A Allocation of $500,000 or less |
LEAs that Received a Federal fiscal year (FY) 2013 (School Year 2013-14) Title I, Part A Allocation of more than $500,000 |
Number of LEAs* |
|
|
Sum of the amount reserved by LEAs for parental Involvement |
|
|
Sum of LEAs’ FY 2013 Title I, Part A allocations |
|
|
Percentage of LEA’s FY 2013 Title I, Part A allocations reserved for parental involvement |
Auto calculated (Row 2 / Row 3) |
Auto calculated (Row 2 / Row 3) |
*The sum of Column 2 and Column 3 should equal the number of LEAs that received an FY 2013 Title I, Part A allocation.
In the comment box below, provide examples of how LEAs in your State used their Title I Part A, set-aside for parental involvement during SY 2013-14.
|
This section collects data on the Migrant Education Program (Title I, Part C) for the performance period of September 1, 2013 through August 31, 2014. This section is composed of the following subsections:
Population data of eligible migrant children
Academic data of eligible migrant students
Participation data of migrant children served during the performance period
School data
Project data
Personnel data
Where the table collects data by age/grade, report children in the highest age/grade that they attained during the performance period. For example, a child who turns 3 during the performance period would only be reported in the “Age 3 through 5 (not Kindergarten)” row.
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 performance period of September 1, 2013 through August 31, 2014. This section also collects a report on the procedures used by States to produce true, reliable, 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 in the box below, which precedes Section 2.3.1.1 Category 1 Child Count.
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 children 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 in the previous performance period (September 1, 2012 – August 31, 2013), 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. Children who were enrolled in school for at least one day, but dropped out of school during the performance period should be counted in the highest age/grade level attained during the performance period.
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 space below, discuss any concerns about the accuracy of the reported child counts or the underlying eligibility determinations on which the counts are based and how and when these concerns will be resolved.
The response is limited to 8,000 characters.
|
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 performance period of September 1, 2013 through August 31, 2014. 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 performance period only once in the highest age/grade that he/she attained during the performance 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 |
Eligible Migrant Children |
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 the unduplicated statewide number of eligible migrant children from birth through age 2 who, within 3 years of making a qualifying move, resided in your State for one or more days during the performance period of September 1, 2013 through August 31, 2014.
Age/Grade |
Eligible Migrant Children |
Age birth through 2 |
|
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 performance period of September 1, 2013 through August 31, 2014. Count a child who moved from one age/grade level to another during the performance period only once in the highest age/grade that he/she attained during the performance 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).
Children who received only referred services (non-MEP funded).
Age/Grade |
Eligible Migrant Children Served by the MEP During the Summer/Intersession Term |
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 2 greater than 10 percent.
The response is limited to 8,000 characters.
|
In the table below, enter the unduplicated statewide number of eligible migrant children from age birth through 2 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 performance period of September 1, 2013 through August 31, 2014. 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.
Do not include:
Children who received only referred services (non-MEP funded).
Age/Grade |
Eligible Migrant Children Served by the MEP During the Summer/Intersession Term |
Age Birth through 2 |
|
The following questions request information on the State’s MEP child count calculation and validation procedures.
In the space below, respond to the following questions: What system did the State use to compile and generate the Category 1 child count for this performance period? Please check the box that applies.
NGS
MIS 2000
COEStar
MAPS
Other Student Information System. Please identify the system:
|
Was the Category 2 child count for this performance period generated using the same system? |
□Yes |
□ No |
If the State’s Category 2 count was generated using a different system than the Category 1 count please identify the specific system that generates the Category 2 count.
The response is limited to 8,000 characters.
|
In the space below, please describe the procedures and processes at the State level used to ensure all eligible children are accounted for in the performance period. In particular, describe how the State includes and counts only:
The unduplicated count of eligible migrant children, ages 3-21. Include children two years of age whose residency in the state has been verified after turning three.
Children who met the program eligibility criteria (e.g., were within 3 years of a qualifying move, had a qualifying activity)
Children who were resident in your State for at least 1 day during the performance period (September 1 through August 31)
Children who—in the case of Category 2—were served for one or more days in a MEP-funded project conducted during either the summer term or during intersession periods
Children once per age/grade level for each child count category
The response is limited to 8,000 characters.
|
How does the State ensure that the system that transmits migrant data to the Department accurately accounts for all the migrant children in every EDFacts data file (see the Office of Migrant Education’s CSPR Rating Instrument for the criteria needed to address this question)?
|
Does the State use data in the Migrant Student Information Exchange (MSIX) to verify the quality of migrant data? |
□Yes |
□ No |
If MSIX is utilized, please explain how.
The response is limited to 8,000 characters.
|
Is student eligibility based on a personal interview (face-to-face or phone call) with a parent, guardian, or other responsible adult, or youth-as-worker?
|
□Yes |
□ No |
Does the SEA and/or regional offices train recruiters at least annually on eligibility requirements, including the basic eligibility definition, economic necessity, temporary vs. seasonal, processing, etc.? |
□Yes |
□ No |
Does the SEA have a formal process, beyond the recruiter’s determination, for reviewing and ensuring the accuracy of written eligibility information [e.g., COEs are reviewed and initialed by the recruiter’s supervisor and/or other reviewer(s)]? |
□Yes |
□ No |
Are incomplete or otherwise questionable COEs returned to the recruiter for correction, further explanation, documentation, and/or verification? |
□Yes |
□ No |
Does the SEA provide recruiters with written eligibility guidance (e.g., a handbook)? |
□Yes |
□ No |
Does the SEA review student attendance records at summer/inter-session projects to verify that the total unduplicated number of eligible migrant students served in the summer/intersession is reconciled with the Category 2 Count? |
□Yes |
□ No |
Does the SEA have both a local and state-level process for resolving eligibility questions? |
□Yes |
□ No |
Are written procedures provided to regular school year and summer/intersession personnel on how to collect and report pupil enrollment and withdrawal data? |
□Yes |
□ No |
Are records/data entry personnel provided training on how to review regular school year and summer/inter-session site records, input data, and run reports used for child count purposes? |
□Yes |
□ No |
In the space below, describe the results of any re-interview processes used by the SEA during the performance period to test the accuracy of the State’s MEP eligibility determinations.
Results |
# |
The number of eligibility determinations sampled. |
|
The number of eligibility determinations sampled for which a re-interview was completed. |
|
The number of eligibility determinations sampled for which a re-interview was completed and the child was found eligible. |
|
Describe any reasons for non-response in the re-interviewing process.
The response is limited to 8,000 characters.
|
Procedures |
|
|
What was the most recent year that the MEP conducted independent prospective re-interviews (i.e., interviewers were neither SEA or LEA staff members responsible for administering or operating the MEP, nor any other persons who worked on the initial eligibility determinations being tested)? |
□SY 2013-14 |
□ None |
Was the sampling of eligible children random? |
□Yes |
□ No |
Was the sampling statewide? |
□Yes |
□ No |
FAQ on independent prospective reinterviews:
What are independent prospective re-interviews? Independent prospective re-interviews allow confirmation of your State’s eligibility determinations and the accuracy of the numbers of migrant children in your State reports. Independent prospective interviews should be conducted at least once every three years by an independent interviewer, performed on the current year’s identified migrant children.
If the sampling was stratified by group/area please describe the procedures.
The response is limited to 8,000 characters.
|
Please describe the sampling replacement by the State.
The response is limited to 8,000 characters.
|
Obtaining Data From Families |
|
|
Check the applicable box to indicate how the re-interviews were conducted:
|
|
|
Was there a protocol for verifying all information used in making the original eligibility determination? |
□Yes |
□ No |
Were re-interviewers independent from the original interviewers? |
□Yes |
□ No |
If you did conduct independent re-interviews in this reporting period, describe how you ensured that the process was independent.
The response is limited to 8,000 characters.
|
In the space below, refer to the results of any re-interview processes used by the SEA, and if any of the migrant children were found ineligible, describe those corrective actions or improvements that will be made by the SEA to improve the accuracy of its MEP eligibility determinations.
The response is limited to 8,000 characters.
|
In the space below, please respond to the following question:
Does the state collect all the required data elements and data sections on the National Certificate of Eligibility (COE)? |
□Yes |
□ No |
Eligible Migrant Children
In the table below, provide the unduplicated number of eligible migrant children who have been classified as having “Priority for Services.” The total is calculated automatically.
Age/Grade |
Priority for Services During the Performance Period |
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) |
FAQ on priority for services:
Who is classified as having “priority for service?” Migratory children who are failing or most at risk of failing to meet the State’s challenging academic content standards and student academic achievement standards, and whose education has been interrupted during the regular school year.
In the table below, provide the unduplicated number of eligible migrant children who are also limited English proficient (LEP). The total is calculated automatically.
Age/Grade |
Limited English Proficient (LEP) During the Performance Period |
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 table below, provide the unduplicated number of eligible migrant children who are also children with disabilities (IDEA) under Part B or Part C of the IDEA. The total is calculated automatically.
Age/Grade |
Children with Disabilities (IDEA) During the Performance Period |
Age birth through 2 |
|
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 table below, provide the unduplicated number of eligible migrant children whose qualifying arrival date (QAD) occurred within 12 months from the last day of the performance period, August 31, 2014 (i.e., QAD during the performance period). The total is calculated automatically.
Age/Grade |
Qualifying Arrival Date During the Performance Period
|
Age birth through 2 |
|
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 table below, provide the unduplicated number of eligible migrant children whose qualifying arrival date occurred during the performance period’s regular school year (i.e., QAD during the 2013-14 regular school year). The total is calculated automatically.
Age/Grade |
Qualifying Arrival Date During the Regular School Year |
Age birth through 2 |
|
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) |
Age/Grade |
Referrals During the Performance Period |
Age birth through 2 |
|
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) |
The following questions collect data about the academic status of eligible migrant students.
In the table below, provide the unduplicated number of eligible migrant students who dropped out of school. The total is calculated automatically.
Grade |
Dropouts During the Performance Period |
7 |
|
8 |
|
9 |
|
10 |
|
11 |
|
12 |
|
Ungraded |
|
Total |
(Auto-calculated) |
FAQ on Dropouts:
How is “drop outs” defined? The term used for students, who, during the reporting period, were enrolled in a public school for at least one day, but who subsequently left school with no plans on returning to enroll in a school and continue toward a high school diploma. Students who dropped out-of-school prior to the 2011-12 reporting period should be classified NOT as “drop-outs” but as “out-of-school youth.”
In the table below, provide the total unduplicated number of eligible migrant students who obtained a High School Equivalency Diploma (HSED) by passing a high school equivalency test that your state accepts (e.g. GED, HiSET, TASC).
Obtained a HSED in your State During the Performance Period |
|
The following questions collect data about MEP services provided to eligible migrant children during the performance period.
Eligible migrant children who are served include:
Migrant children who were eligible for and received instructional or support services funded in whole or in part with MEP funds.
Children who continued to receive MEP-funded services during the term their eligibility ended.
Do not include:
Children who were served through a Title I Schoolwide Program (SWP) where MEP funds were consolidated with those of other programs.
Children who received only referred services (non-MEP funded).
Children who were served by a “referred” service only.
Children who were served for one additional school year after their eligibility ended, if comparable services were not available through other programs.
Children who were in secondary school after their eligibility ended, and served through credit accrual programs until graduation (e.g., children served under the continuation of services authority, Section (1304(e) (2-3).
FAQ on Services:
What are services? Services are a subset of all allowable activities that the MEP can provide through its programs and projects. “Services” are those educational or educationally related activities that: (1) directly benefit a migrant child; (2) address a need of a migrant child consistent with the SEA’s comprehensive needs assessment and service delivery plan; (3) are grounded in scientifically based research or, in the case of support services, are a generally accepted practice; and (4) are designed to enable the program to meet its measurable outcomes and contribute to the achievement of the State’s performance targets. Activities related to identification and recruitment activities, parental involvement, program evaluation, professional development, or administration of the program are examples of allowable activities that are not considered services. Other examples of an allowable activity that would not be considered a service would be the one-time act of providing instructional packets to a child or family, and handing out leaflets to migrant families on available reading programs as part of an effort to increase the reading skills of migrant children. Although these are allowable activities, they are not services because they do not meet all of the criteria above.
Age/Grade |
Priority for Services During the Regular School Year |
Age 3 through 5 |
|
K |
|
1 |
|
2 |
|
3 |
|
4 |
|
5 |
|
6 |
|
7 |
|
8 |
|
9 |
|
10 |
|
11 |
|
12 |
|
Ungraded |
|
Out-of-school |
|
Total |
(Auto-calculated) |
Age/Grade |
Priority for Services During the Summer/Intersession Term |
Age 3 through 5 |
|
K |
|
1 |
|
2 |
|
3 |
|
4 |
|
5 |
|
6 |
|
7 |
|
8 |
|
9 |
|
10 |
|
11 |
|
12 |
|
Ungraded |
|
Out-of-school |
|
Total |
(Auto-calculated) |
Age/Grade |
Served During the Performance Period |
Age Birth through 2 |
|
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) |
Age/Grade |
Priority for Services During the Performance Period |
Age 3 through 5 |
|
K |
|
1 |
|
2 |
|
3 |
|
4 |
|
5 |
|
6 |
|
7 |
|
8 |
|
9 |
|
10 |
|
11 |
|
12 |
|
Ungraded |
|
Out-of-school |
|
Total |
(Auto-calculated) |
In the table below, provide the unduplicated number of eligible migrant children who received MEP-funded instructional or support services during the performance period under the continuation of services authority Section 1304(e) (2–3). Do not include children served under Section 1304(e) (1), which are children whose eligibility expired during the school term. The total is calculated automatically.
Age/Grade |
Continuation of Services During the Performance Period |
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 table below, provide the unduplicated number of eligible migrant children who received any type of MEP-funded instructional service during the performance period. Include children who received instructional services provided by either a teacher or a paraprofessional. Children should be reported only once regardless of the frequency with which they received a service intervention. The total is calculated automatically.
Age/Grade |
Instructional Service During the Performance Period |
Age birth through 2 |
|
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 table below, provide the number of eligible migrant children reported in the table above who received MEP-funded reading instruction, mathematics instruction, or high school credit accrual during the performance period. Include children who received such instructional services provided by a teacher only. Children may be reported as having received more than one type of instructional service in the table. However, children should be reported only once within each type of instructional service that they received regardless of the frequency with which they received the instructional service. The totals are calculated automatically.
Age/Grade |
Reading Instruction During the Performance Period |
Mathematics Instruction During the Performance Period |
High School Credit Accrual During the Performance Period |
Age birth through 2 |
|
|
|
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) |
(Auto-calculated) |
(Auto-calculated) |
Age/Grade |
Support Services During the Performance Period |
Breakout of Counseling Services During the Performance Period |
Age birth through 2 |
|
|
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) |
(Auto-calculated) |
The following questions are about the enrollment of eligible migrant children in schools during the regular school year.
In the table below, provide the number of public schools that enrolled eligible migrant children at any time during the regular school year. Schools include public schools that serve school age (e.g., grades K through 12) children. Also, provide the number of eligible migrant children who were enrolled in those schools. Since more than one school in a State may enroll the same migrant child at some time during the regular school year, the number of children may include duplicates.
|
# |
Number of schools that enrolled eligible migrant children |
|
Number of eligible migrant children enrolled in those schools |
|
In the table below, provide the number of schools where MEP funds were consolidated in an SWP. Also, provide the number of eligible migrant children who were enrolled in those schools at any time during the regular school year. Since more than one school in a State may enroll the same migrant child at some time during the regular school year, the number of children may include duplicates.
|
# |
|
Number of schools where MEP funds were consolidated in a schoolwide program |
|
|
Number of eligible migrant children enrolled in those schools |
|
|
The following questions collect data on MEP projects.
In the table below, provide the number of projects that are funded in whole or in part with MEP funds. A MEP project is the entity that receives MEP funds from the State or through an intermediate entity that receives the MEP funds from the State and provides services directly to the migrant child. Do not include projects where MEP funds were consolidated in SWP.
Also, provide the number of migrant children participating in the projects. Since children may participate in more than one project, the number of children may include duplicates.
Type of MEP Project |
Number of MEP Projects |
Number of Migrant Children Participating in the Projects |
Regular school year – school day only |
|
|
Regular school year – school day/extended day |
|
|
Summer/intersession only |
|
|
Year round |
|
|
FAQs on type of MEP project:
What is a project? A project is any entity that receives MEP funds and provides services directly to migrant children in accordance with the State Service Delivery Plan and State approved subgrant applications or contracts. A project’s services may be provided in one or more sites. Each project should be counted once, regardless of the number of sites in which it provides services.
What are Regular School Year – School Day Only projects? Projects where all MEP services are provided during the school day during the regular school year.
What are Regular School Year – School Day/Extended Day projects? Projects where some or all MEP services are provided during an extended day or week during the regular school year (e.g., some services are provided during the school day and some outside of the school day; e.g., all services are provided outside of the school day).
What are Summer/Intersession Only projects? Projects where all MEP services are provided during the summer/intersession term.
What are Year Round projects? Projects where all MEP services are provided during the regular school year and summer/intersession term.
The following questions collect data on MEP personnel data.
In the table below, provide the FTE amount of time the State director performs MEP duties (regardless of whether the director is funded by State, MEP, or other funds) during the performance period (e.g., September 1 through August 31).
State Director FTE |
|
FAQs on the MEP State director
How is the FTE calculated for the State director? Calculate the FTE using the number of days worked for the MEP. To do so, first define how many full-time days constitute one FTE for the State director in your State for the performance period. To calculate the FTE number, sum the total days the State director worked for the MEP during the performance period and divide this sum by the number of full-time days that constitute one FTE in the reporting period.
Who is the State director? The manager within the SEA who administers the MEP on a statewide basis.
In the table below, provide the headcount and FTE by job classification of the staff funded by the MEP. Do not include staff employed in SWP where MEP funds were combined with those of other programs.
Job Classification |
Regular School Year |
Summer/Intersession Term |
Performance Period |
||
|
Headcount |
FTE |
Headcount |
FTE |
Headcount |
Teachers |
|
|
|
|
|
Counselors |
|
|
|
|
|
Non-qualified paraprofessionals |
|
|
|
|
|
Qualified paraprofessionals |
|
|
|
|
|
Recruiters |
|
|
|
|
|
Records transfer staff |
|
|
|
|
|
Administrators |
|
|
|
|
|
Note: The Headcount value displayed represents the greatest whole number submitted in file specification N/X065 for the corresponding Job Classification. For example, an ESS submitted value of 9.8 will be represented in your CSPR as 9.
FAQs on MEP staff:
How is the FTE calculated? The FTE may be calculated using one of two methods:
1. To calculate the FTE, in each job category, sum the percentage of time that staff were funded by the MEP and enter the total FTE for that category.
2. Calculate the FTE using the number of days worked. To do so, first define how many full-time days constitute one FTE for each job classification in your State for each term. (For example, one regular-term FTE may equal 180 full-time (8 hour) work days; one summer term FTE may equal 30 full-time work days; or one intersession FTE may equal 45 full-time work days split between three 15-day non-contiguous blocks throughout the year.) To calculate the FTE number, sum the total days the individuals worked in a particular job classification for a term and divide this sum by the number of full-time days that constitute one FTE in that term.
Who is a teacher? A classroom instructor who is licensed and meets any other teaching requirements in the State.
Who is a counselor? A professional staff member who guides individuals, families, groups, and communities by assisting them in problem-solving, decision-making, discovering meaning, and articulating goals related to personal, educational, and career development.
Who is a paraprofessional? An individual who: (1) provides one-on-one tutoring if such tutoring is scheduled at a time when a student would not otherwise receive instruction from a teacher; (2) assists with classroom management, such as organizing instructional and other materials; (3) provides instructional assistance in a computer laboratory; (4) conducts parental involvement activities; (5) provides support in a library or media center; (6) acts as a translator; or (7) provides instructional support services under the direct supervision of a teacher (Title I, Section 1119(g)(2)). Because a paraprofessional provides instructional support, he/she should not be providing planned direct instruction or introducing to students new skills, concepts, or academic content. Individuals who work in food services, cafeteria or playground supervision, personal care services, non-instructional computer assistance, and similar positions are not considered paraprofessionals under Title I.
Who is a qualified paraprofessional? A qualified paraprofessional must have a secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent and have (1) completed 2 years of study at an institution of higher education; (2) obtained an associate’s (or higher) degree; or (3) met a rigorous standard of quality and be able to demonstrate, through a formal State or local academic assessment, knowledge of and the ability to assist in instructing reading, writing, and mathematics (or, as appropriate, reading readiness, writing readiness, and mathematics readiness) (Section 1119(c) and (d) of ESEA).
Who is a recruiter? A staff person responsible for identifying and recruiting children as eligible for the MEP and documenting their eligibility on the Certificate of Eligibility.
Who is a record transfer staffer? An individual who is responsible for entering, retrieving, or sending student records from or to another school or student records system.
Who is an administrator? A professional staff member, including the project director or regional director. The SEA MEP Director should not be included.
This section collects data on programs and facilities that serve students who are neglected, delinquent, or at risk under Title I, Part D, and characteristics about and services provided to these students.
Throughout this section:
Report data for the program year of July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014.
Count programs/facilities based on how the program was classified to ED for funding purposes.
Do not include programs funded solely through Title I, Part A.
Use the definitions listed below:
Adult Corrections: An adult correctional institution is a facility in which persons, including persons 21 or under, are confined as a result of conviction for a criminal offense.
At-Risk Programs: Programs operated (through LEAs) that target students who are at risk of academic failure, have a drug or alcohol problem, are pregnant or parenting, have been in contact with the juvenile justice system in the past, are at least 1 year behind the expected age/grade level, have limited English proficiency, are gang members, have dropped out of school in the past, or have a high absenteeism rate at school.
Juvenile Corrections: An institution for delinquent children and youth is a public or private residential facility other than a foster home that is operated for the care of children and youth who have been adjudicated delinquent or in need of supervision. Include any programs serving adjudicated youth (including non-secure facilities and group homes) in this category.
Juvenile Detention Facilities: Detention facilities are shorter-term institutions that provide care to children who require secure custody pending court adjudication, court disposition, or execution of a court order, or care to children after commitment.
Neglected Programs: An institution for neglected children and youth is a public or private residential facility, other than a foster home, that is operated primarily for the care of children who have been committed to the institution or voluntarily placed under applicable State law due to abandonment, neglect, or death of their parents or guardians.
Other: Any other programs, not defined above, which receive Title I, Part D funds and serve non-adjudicated children and youth.
The following questions collect data on Title I, Part D, Subpart 1 programs and facilities.
In the table below, provide the number of State agency Title I, Part D, Subpart 1 programs and facilities that serve neglected and delinquent students and the average length of stay by program/facility type, for these students. Report only programs and facilities that received Title I, Part D, Subpart 1 funding during the reporting year. Count a facility once if it offers only one type of program. If a facility offers more than one type of program (i.e., it is a multipurpose facility), then count each of the separate programs. The total number of programs/facilities will be automatically calculated. Below the table is a FAQ about the data collected in this table.
State Program/Facility Type |
# Programs/Facilities |
Average Length of Stay in Days |
Neglected programs |
[1.1.] |
[1.2.] |
Juvenile detention |
[3.1.] |
[3.2.] |
Juvenile corrections |
[4.1.] |
[4.2.] |
Adult corrections |
[5.1.] |
[5.2.] |
Other |
[7.1.] |
[7.2.] |
Total |
(Auto calculated) |
//////////////////////////////////////////////////// |
FAQ on Programs and Facilities - Subpart I:
How is average length of stay calculated? The average length of stay should be weighted by number of students and should include the number of days, per visit, for each student enrolled during the reporting year, regardless of entry or exit date. Multiple visits for students who entered more than once during the reporting year can be included. The average length of stay in days should not exceed 365.
In the table below, provide the number of State agency Title I, Part D, Subpart 1 programs/facilities that reported data on neglected and delinquent students.
The total row will be automatically calculated.
[2.4.1.1.x.x.] |
# Reporting Data |
Neglected programs |
|
Juvenile detention |
|
Juvenile corrections |
|
Adult corrections |
|
Other |
|
Total |
((Auto calculated)) |
In the tables below, provide the number of neglected and delinquent students served in State agency Title I, Part D, Subpart 1 programs and facilities. Report only students who received Title I, Part D, Subpart 1 services during the reporting year. In the first table, provide in row 1 the unduplicated number of students served by each program, and in row 2, the total number of students in row 1 who are long-term. In the subsequent tables provide the number of students served by disability (IDEA) and limited English proficiency (LEP), by race/ethnicity, by sex, and by age. The total number of students by race/ethnicity, by sex and by age will be automatically calculated.
# of Students Served |
Neglected Programs |
Juvenile Detention |
Juvenile Corrections |
Adult Corrections |
Other Programs |
Total Unduplicated Students Served |
[1.1.] |
[1.2.] |
[1.3.] |
[1.4.] |
[1.5.] |
Total Long Term Students Served |
|
|
|
|
|
Provide the number of students served by special populations
Student Subgroups |
Neglected Programs |
Juvenile Detention |
Juvenile Corrections |
Adult Corrections |
Other Programs |
Students with disabilities (IDEA) |
|
|
|
|
|
LEP Students |
|
|
|
|
|
Provide the number of students served by race/ethnicity.
Race/Ethnicity |
Neglected Programs |
Juvenile Detention |
Juvenile Corrections |
Adult Corrections |
Other Programs |
American Indian or Alaska Native |
[1.1.] |
[1.2.] |
[1.3.] |
[1.4.] |
[1.5.] |
Asian |
[2.1.] |
[2.2.] |
[2.3.] |
[2.4.] |
[2.5.] |
Black or African American |
[3.1.] |
[3.2.] |
[3.3.] |
[3.4.] |
[3.5.] |
Hispanic or Latino |
[4.1.] |
[4.2.] |
[4.3.] |
[4.4.] |
[4.5.] |
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander |
|
|
|
|
|
White |
[5.1.] |
[5.2.] |
[5.3.] |
[5.4.] |
[5.5.] |
Two or more races |
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
(Auto calculated) |
(Auto calculated) |
(Auto calculated) |
(Auto calculated) |
(Auto calculated) |
Provide the number of students served by gender.
Sex |
Neglected Programs |
Juvenile Detention |
Juvenile Corrections |
Adult Corrections |
Other Programs |
Male |
[1.1.] |
[1.2.] |
[1.3.] |
[1.4.] |
[1.5.] |
Female |
[2.1.] |
[2.2.] |
[2.3.] |
[2.4.] |
[2.5.] |
Total |
(Auto calculated) |
(Auto calculated) |
(Auto calculated) |
(Auto calculated) |
(Auto calculated) |
Provide the number of students served by age.
Age |
Neglected Programs |
Juvenile Detention |
Juvenile Corrections |
Adult Corrections |
Other Programs |
3 through 5 |
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
(Auto calculated) |
(Auto calculated) |
(Auto calculated) |
(Auto calculated) |
(Auto calculated) |
If the total number of students differs by demographics, please explain in comment box below.
This response is limited to 8,000 characters.
|
What is an unduplicated count? An unduplicated count is one that counts students only once, even if they were admitted to a facility or program multiple times within the reporting year.
FAQ on long-term:
What is long-term? Long-term refers to students who were enrolled for at least 90 consecutive calendar days from July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014.
In the first row of the table below indicate whether programs/facilities receiving Subpart 1 funds within the State are able to track student outcomes after leaving the program or facility by entering Yes or No. If not, provide more information in the comment field. In the second row, provide the unduplicated count of students receiving transition services that specifically target planning for further schooling and/or employment.
|
Neglected Programs |
Juvenile Detention |
Juvenile Corrections |
Adult Corrections |
Other Programs |
Are facilities in your state able to collect data on student outcomes after exit? |
|
|
|
|
|
Number of students receiving transition services that address further schooling and/or employment.. |
|
|
|
|
|
This response is limited to 4,000 characters.
|
In the table below, for each program type, first provide the unduplicated number of students who attained academic and vocational outcomes while enrolled in the State agency program/facility and next provide the unduplicated number of students who attained academic and vocational outcomes within 90 calendar days after exiting. If a student attained an outcome once in the program/facility and once during the 90 day transition period, that student may be counted once in each column separately.
Outcomes |
Neglected Programs |
Neglected Programs |
Juvenile Detention |
Juvenile Detention |
Juvenile Corrections |
Juvenile Corrections |
Adult Corrections |
Adult Corrections |
Other Programs |
Other Programs |
# of Students Who |
In fac. |
90 days after exit |
In fac. |
90 days after exit |
In fac. |
90 days after exit |
In fac. |
90 days after exit |
In fac. |
90 days after exit |
Enrolled in their local district school |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earned high school course credits |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Enrolled in a GED program |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earned a GED |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obtained high school diploma |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accepted and/or enrolled into post-secondary education |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Enrolled in job training courses/programs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obtained employment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following questions collect data on the academic performance of neglected and delinquent students served by Title I, Part D, Subpart 1 in reading and mathematics.
In the tables below, provide the unduplicated number of long-term students served by Title I, Part D, Subpart 1, who participated in reading testing. In the first table, report the number of students who tested below grade level upon entry based on their pre-test. A post-test is not required to answer this item. Then, indicate the number of students who completed both a pre-test and a post-test. In the second table, report only students who participated in both pre-and post-testing. Students should be reported in only one of the four change categories in the second table below.
Report only information on a student’s most recent testing data. Students who were pre-tested prior to July 1, 2013, may be included if their post-test was administered during the reporting year. Students who were post-tested after the reporting year ended should be counted in the following year. Below the tables is an FAQ about the data collected in these tables.
Performance Data (Based on most recent testing data) |
Neglected Programs |
Juvenile Detention |
Juvenile Corrections |
Adult Corrections |
Other Programs |
Long-term students who tested below grade level upon entry |
[1.2.1.] |
[1.2.2.] |
|
[1.2.3.] |
[1.2.4.] |
Long-term students who have complete pre- and post-test results (data) |
[1.3.1.] |
[1.3.2.] |
|
[1.3.3.] |
[1.3.4.] |
Of the students reported in the second row above, indicate the number who showed:
Performance Data (Based on most recent pre/post-test data) |
Neglected Programs |
Juvenile Detention |
Juvenile Corrections |
Adult Corrections |
Other Programs |
Negative grade level change from the pre- to post-test exams |
[1.4.1.] |
[1.4.2.] |
|
[1.4.3.] |
[1.4.4.] |
No change in grade level from the pre- to post-test exams |
[1.5.1.] |
[1.5.2.] |
|
[1.5.3.] |
[1.5.4.] |
Improvement up to one full grade level from the pre- to post-test exams |
[1.7.1.] |
[1.7.2.] |
|
[1.7.3.] |
[1.7.4.] |
Improvement of more than one full grade level from the pre- to post-test exams |
[1.8.1.] |
[1.8.2.] |
|
[1.8.3.] |
[1.8.4.]
|
FAQ on long-term students:
What is long-term? Long-term refers to students who were enrolled for at least 90 consecutive calendar days from July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014.
This section is similar to 2.4.1.6.1. The only difference is that this section collects data on mathematics performance.
The following questions collect data on Title I, Part D, Subpart 2 programs and facilities.
In the table below, provide the number of LEA Title I, Part D, Subpart 2 programs and facilities that serve neglected and delinquent students and the yearly average length of stay by program/facility type for these students. Report only the programs and facilities that received Title I, Part D, Subpart 2 funding during the reporting year. Count a facility once if it offers only one type of program. If a facility offers more than one type of program (i.e., it is a multipurpose facility), then count each of the separate programs. The total number of programs/ facilities will be automatically calculated. Below the table is an FAQ about the data collected in this table.
[2.4.1.1.x.x.]
LEA Program/Facility Type |
# Programs/Facilities |
Average Length of Stay (# days) |
At-risk programs |
[1.1.] |
[1.2.] |
Neglected programs |
[3.1.] |
[3.2.] |
Juvenile detention |
[4.1.] |
[4.2.] |
Juvenile corrections |
[5.1.] |
[5.2.] |
Other |
[7.1.] |
[7.2.] |
Total |
(Auto calculated) |
|
FAQ on average length of stay:
How is average length of stay calculated? The average length of stay should be weighted by number of students and should include the number of days, per visit for each student enrolled during the reporting year, regardless of entry or exit date. Multiple visits for students who entered more than once during the reporting year can be included. The average length of stay in days should not exceed 365.
In the table below, provide the number of LEA Title I, Part D, Subpart 2 programs and facilities that reported data on neglected and delinquent students.
The total row will be automatically calculated.
LEA Program/Facility Type |
# Reporting Data |
At-risk programs |
|
Neglected programs |
|
Juvenile detention |
|
Juvenile corrections |
|
Other |
|
Total |
(Auto calculated) |
2.4.2.2 Students Served – Subpart 2
In the tables below, provide the number of neglected and delinquent students served in LEA Title I, Part D, Subpart 2 programs and facilities. Report only students who received Title I, Part D, Subpart 2 services during the reporting year. In the first table, provide in row 1 the unduplicated number of students served by each program, and in row 2, the total number of students in row 1 who are long-term. In the subsequent tables, provide the number of students served by disability (IDEA), and limited English proficiency (LEP), by race/ethnicity, by sex, and by age. The total number of students by race/ethnicity, by sex, and by age will be automatically calculated.
# of Students Served |
At-Risk Programs |
Neglected Programs |
Juvenile Detention |
Juvenile Corrections |
Other Programs |
Total Unduplicated Students Served |
[1.1.] |
[1.2.] |
[1.3.] |
[1.4.] |
[1.5.] |
Total Long Term Students Served |
|
|
|
|
|
Provide the number of students served by special populations.
Student Subgroups |
At-Risk Programs |
Neglected Programs |
Juvenile Detention |
Juvenile Corrections |
Other Programs |
Students with disabilities (IDEA) |
|
|
|
|
|
LEP Students |
|
|
|
|
|
Provide the number of students served by race/ethnicity.
Race/Ethnicity |
At-Risk Programs |
Neglected Programs |
Juvenile Detention |
Juvenile Corrections |
Other Programs |
American Indian or Alaska Native |
|
[1.1.] |
[1.2.] |
[1.3.] |
[1.5.] |
Asian |
|
[2.1.] |
[2.2.] |
[2.3.] |
[2.5.] |
Black or African American |
|
[3.1.] |
[3.2.] |
[3.3.] |
[3.5.] |
Hispanic or Latino |
|
[4.1.] |
[4.2.] |
[4.3.] |
[4.5.] |
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander |
|
|
|
|
|
White |
|
[5.1.] |
[5.2.] |
[5.3.] |
[5.5.] |
Two or more races |
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
(Auto calculated) |
(Auto calculated) |
(Auto calculated) |
(Auto calculated) |
(Auto calculated) |
Provide the number of students served by sex.
Sex |
At-Risk Programs |
Neglected Programs |
Juvenile Detention |
Juvenile Corrections |
Other Programs |
Male |
[1.1.] |
[1.2.] |
[1.3.] |
[1.4.] |
[1.5.] |
Female |
[2.1.] |
[2.2.] |
[2.3.] |
[2.4.] |
[2.5.] |
Total |
(Auto calculated) |
(Auto calculated) |
(Auto calculated) |
(Auto calculated) |
(Auto calculated) |
Provide the number of students served by age.
Age |
At-Risk Programs |
Neglected Programs |
Juvenile Detention |
Juvenile Corrections |
Other Programs |
3-5 |
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
(Auto calculated) |
(Auto calculated) |
(Auto calculated) |
(Auto calculated) |
(Auto calculated) |
If the total number of students differs by demographics, please explain. The response is limited to 8,000 characters.
Comments: |
What is an unduplicated count? An unduplicated count is one that counts students only once, even if they were admitted to a facility or program multiple times within the reporting year.
What is long-term? Long-term refers to students who were enrolled for at least 90 consecutive calendar days from July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014.
In the first row of the table below indicate whether programs/facilities receiving Subpart 2 funds within the State are able to track student outcomes after leaving the program or facility by entering Yes or No. If not, provide more information in the comment field. In the second row, provide the unduplicated count of students receiving transition services that specifically target planning for further schooling and/or employment.
Transition Services |
At-Risk Programs |
Neglected Programs |
Juvenile Detention |
Juvenile Corrections |
Other Programs |
Are facilities in your state able to collect data on student outcomes after exit? |
|
|
|
|
|
Number of students receiving transition services that address further schooling and/or employment. |
|
|
|
|
|
This response is limited to 4,000 characters.
|
In the table below, for each program type, first provide the unduplicated number of students who attained academic and vocational outcomes while enrolled in the LEA program/facility and next provide the unduplicated number of students who attained academic and vocational outcomes within 90 calendar days after exiting. If a student attained an outcome once in the program/facility and once during the 90 day transition period, that student may be counted once in each column separately.
Outcomes |
At-Risk Programs |
At-Risk Programs |
Neglected Programs |
Neglected Programs |
Juvenile Detention |
Juvenile Detention |
Juvenile Corrections |
Juvenile Corrections |
Other Programs |
Other Programs |
# of Students Who |
In fac. |
90 days after exit |
In fac. |
90 days after exit |
In fac. |
90 days after exit |
In fac. |
90 days after exit |
In fac. |
90 days after exit |
Enrolled in their local district school |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earned high school course credits |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Enrolled in a GED program |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earned a GED |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obtained high school diploma |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accepted and/or enrolled into post-secondary education |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Enrolled in job training courses/programs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obtained employment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following questions collect data on the academic performance of neglected and delinquent students served by Title I, Part D, Subpart 2 in reading and mathematics.
In the tables below, provide the unduplicated number of long-term students served by Title I, Part D, Subpart 2, who participated in reading testing. In the first table, report the number of students who tested below grade level upon entry based on their pre-test. A post-test is not required to answer this item. Then, indicate the number of students who completed both a pre-test and a post-test. In the second table, report only students who participated in both pre-and post-testing. Students should be reported in only one of the four change categories in the second table below. Reporting pre- and posttest data for at-risk students in the tables below is optional.
Report only information on a student’s most recent testing data. Students who were pre-tested prior to July 1, 2013, may be included if their post-test was administered during the reporting year. Students who were post-tested after the reporting year ended should be counted in the following year. Below the tables is an FAQ about the data collected in these tables.
Performance Data (Based on most recent testing data) |
At-Risk Programs |
Neglected Programs |
Juvenile Detention |
Juvenile Corrections |
Other Programs |
Long-term students who tested below grade level upon entry |
|
[1.2.2.] |
[1.2.3.] |
|
[1.2.4.] |
Long-term students who have complete pre and post test results (data). |
|
[1.3.2.] |
[1.3.3.] |
|
[1.3.4.] |
Of the students reported in the second row above, indicate the number who showed:
Performance Data (Based on most recent pre/post-test data) |
At-Risk Programs |
Neglected Programs |
Juvenile Detention Facilities |
Juvenile Corrections Facilities |
Other Programs |
Negative grade level change from the pre- to post-test exams |
|
[1.4.2.] |
[1.4.3.] |
|
[1.4.4.] |
No change in grade level from the pre- to post-test exams |
|
[1.5.2.] |
[1.5.3.] |
|
[1.5.4.] |
Improvement up to one full grade level from the pre- to post-test exams |
|
[1.7.2.] |
[1.7.3.] |
|
[1.7.4.] |
Improvement of more than one full grade level from the pre- to post-test exams |
|
[1.8.2.] |
[1.8.3.] |
|
[1.8.4.]
|
FAQ on long-term:
What is long-term? Long-term refers to students who were enrolled for at least 90 consecutive calendar days from July 1, 2013, through June 30, 2014.
Is reporting pre-posttest data for at-risk programs required? No, reporting pre-posttest data for at-risk students is no longer required, but States have the option to continue to collect and report it within the CSPR.
This section is similar to 2.4.2.6.1. The only difference is that this section collects data on mathematics performance.
This section collects data on the Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP) Title VI, Part B, Subparts 1 and 2.
In the table below, provide the number of eligible LEAs that used RLIS funds for each of the listed purposes.
Purpose |
# LEAs |
|
Teacher recruitment and retention, including the use of signing bonuses and other financial incentives |
[1.] |
|
Teacher professional development, including programs that train teachers to utilize technology to improve teaching and to train special needs teachers |
[2.] |
|
Educational technology, including software and hardware as described in Title II, Part D |
[3.] |
|
Parental involvement activities |
[4.] |
|
Activities authorized under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program (Title IV, Part A) |
[5.] |
|
Activities authorized under Title I, Part A |
[6.] |
|
Activities authorized under Title III (Language instruction for LEP and immigrant students) |
[7.] |
|
2.9.2.1 Goals and Objectives
In the space below, describe the progress the State has made in meeting the goals and objectives for the Rural Low-Income Schools (RLIS) Program as described in its June 2002 Consolidated State application. Provide quantitative data where available.
The response is limited to 8,000 characters.
[2.9.2.2.] |
Did the State transfer funds under the State Transferability authority of Section 6123(a) during SY 2013-14? |
YES |
NO |
Yes |
No |
|
# |
LEAs that notified the State that they were transferring funds under the LEA Transferability authority of Section 6123(b). |
|
2.10.2.1 LEA Funds Transfers
In the table below, provide the total number of LEAs that transferred funds from an eligible program to another eligible program.
Program
|
# LEAs Transferring Funds FROM Eligible Program |
# LEAs Transferring Funds TO Eligible Program |
Improving Teacher Quality State Grants (Section 2121) |
[1.1.] |
[1.2.] |
Educational Technology State Grants (Section 2412(a)(2)(A)) |
[2.1.] |
[2.2.] |
Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities (Section 4112(b)(1)) |
[3.1.] |
[3.2.] |
State Grants for Innovative Programs (Section 5112(a)) |
[4.1.] |
[4.2.] |
Title I, Part A, Improving Basic Programs Operated by LEAs |
|
[5.2.] |
In the table below provide the total amount of FY 2013 appropriated funds transferred from and to each eligible program.
Program
|
Total Amount of Funds Transferred FROM Eligible Program |
Total Amount of Funds Transferred TO Eligible Program |
Improving Teacher Quality State Grants (Section 2121) |
[1.1.] |
[1.2.] |
Educational Technology State Grants (Section 2412(a)(2)(A)) |
[2.1.] |
[2.2.] |
Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities (Section 4112(b)(1)) |
[3.1.] |
[3.2.] |
State Grants for Innovative Programs (Section 5112(a)) |
[4.1.] |
[4.2.] |
Title I, Part A, Improving Basic Programs Operated by LEAs |
|
|
Total |
Auto calculated |
Auto calculated |
The Department plans to obtain information on the use of funds under both the State and LEA Transferability Authority through evaluation studies.
This section collects graduation 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 current school year (SY 2013-14). Below the table are FAQs about the data collected in this table.
Note: States are not required to report these data by the racial/ethnic groups shown in the table below; instead, they are required to report these data by the major racial and ethnic groups that are identified in their Accountability Workbooks. The charts below display racial/ethnic data that have been mapped from the major racial and ethnic groups identified in their workbooks to the racial/ethnic groups shown.
Student Group |
Graduation Rate |
All students |
|
American Indian or Alaska Native |
|
Asian or Pacific Islander |
|
Asian |
|
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander |
|
Black or African American |
|
Hispanic or Latino |
|
White |
|
Two or more races |
|
Children with disabilities (IDEA) |
|
Limited English proficient (LEP) students |
|
Economically disadvantaged students |
|
FAQs on graduation rates:
What is the regulatory adjusted cohort graduation rate? For complete definitions and instructions, please refer to the non-regulatory guidance, which can be found here: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/hsgrguidance.pdf
The response is limited to 8,000 characters.
|
This section contains data on school statuses. States with approved ESEA Flexibility requests should follow the instructions in sections 2.12.1 and 2.12.3. All other states should follow the instructions in sections 2.12.2 and 2.12.4. These tables will be generated based on data submitted to EDFacts and included as part of each state’s certified report; states will no longer upload their lists separately. Data will be generated into separate reports for each question listed below.
2.12.1 List of Schools for ESEA Flexibility States
2.12.1.1 List of Reward Schools
Instructions for States that identified reward schools5 under ESEA flexibility for SY 2014-15: Provide the information listed in the bullets below for those schools.
District Name
District NCES ID Code
School Name
School NCES ID Code
Whether the school met the proficiency target in reading/language arts in accordance with the State’s approved ESEA flexibility request
Whether the school met the 95 percent participation rate target for the reading/language arts assessment
Whether the school met the proficiency target in mathematics in accordance with the State’s approved ESEA flexibility request
Whether the school met the 95 percent participation rate target for the mathematics assessment
Whether the school met the other academic indicator for elementary/middle schools (if applicable) in accordance with the State’s approved ESEA flexibility request
Whether the school met the graduation rate goal or target for high schools (if applicable) in accordance with the State’s approved ESEA flexibility request
If applicable, State-specific status in addition to reward (e.g., grade, star, or level)
Whether the school was identified as a high progress or high performing reward school
Whether (yes or no) the school is a Title I school (This information must be provided by all States.)
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).
2.12.1.2 List of Priority and Focus Schools
Instructions for States that identified priority and focus schools6 under ESEA flexibility for SY 2014-15: Provide the information listed in the bullets below for those schools.
District Name
District NCES ID Code
School Name
School NCES ID Code
Whether the school met the proficiency target in reading/language arts in accordance with the State’s approved ESEA flexibility request
Whether the school met the 95 percent participation rate target for the reading/language arts assessment
Whether the school met the proficiency target in mathematics in accordance with the State’s approved ESEA flexibility request
Whether the school met the 95 percent participation rate target for the mathematics assessment
Whether the school met the other academic indicator for elementary/middle schools (if applicable) in accordance with the State’s approved ESEA flexibility request
Whether the school met the graduation rate goal or target for high schools (if applicable) in accordance with the State’s approved ESEA flexibility request
Status for SY 2014-15 (Use one of the following status designations: priority or focus)
If applicable, State-specific status in addition to priority or focus (e.g., grade, star, or level)
Whether (yes or no) the school is a Title I school (This information must be provided by all States.)
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).
2.12.1.2 List of Other Identified Schools
Instructions for States that identified non- priority, focus, or reward schools7 with State-specific statuses under ESEA flexibility for SY 2014-15: Provide the information listed in the bullets below for those schools.
District Name
District NCES ID Code
School Name
School NCES ID Code
Whether the school met the proficiency target in reading/language arts in accordance with the State’s approved ESEA flexibility request
Whether the school met the 95 percent participation rate target for the reading/language arts assessment
Whether the school met the proficiency target in mathematics in accordance with the State’s approved ESEA flexibility request
Whether the school met the 95 percent participation rate target for the mathematics assessment
Whether the school met the other academic indicator for elementary/middle schools (if applicable) in accordance with the State’s approved ESEA flexibility request
Whether the school met the graduation rate goal or target for high schools (if applicable) in accordance with the State’s approved ESEA flexibility request
State-specific designation (e.g., grade, star, or level)
Whether (yes or no) the school is a Title I school (This information must be provided by all States.)
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).
2.12.2 List of Schools for All Other States
2.12.2.1 List of Schools Identified for Improvement
Instructions for States that identified schools for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring under ESEA section 1116 for SY 2014-15: Provide the information listed in the bullets below for those schools.
District Name
District NCES ID Code
School Name
School NCES ID Code
Whether the school met the proficiency target in reading/language arts in accordance with the State’s Accountability Plan
Whether the school met the 95 percent participation rate target for the reading/language arts assessment
Whether the school met the proficiency target in mathematics in accordance with the State’s Accountability Plan
Whether the school met the 95 percent participation rate target for the mathematics assessment
Whether the school met the other academic indicator for elementary/middle schools (if applicable) in accordance with the State’s Accountability Plan
Whether the school met the graduation rate target for high schools (if applicable) in accordance with the State’s Accountability Plan
Status for SY 2014-15 (Use one of the following status designations: School Improvement – Year 1, School Improvement – Year 2, Corrective Action, Restructuring Year 1 (planning), or Restructuring Year 2 (implementing)8
Whether (yes or no) the school is a Title I school (This information must be provided by all States.)
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).
2.12.3 List of Districts for ESEA Flexibility States
2.12.3.1 List of Identified Districts with State Specific Statuses
District name
District NCES ID code
Whether the district met the proficiency target in reading/language arts in accordance with the State’s approved ESEA flexibility request
Whether the district met the 95 percent participation rate target for the reading/language arts assessment
Whether the district met the proficiency target in mathematics in accordance with the State’s approved ESEA flexibility request
Whether the district met the 95 percent participation rate target for the mathematics assessment
Whether the district met the other academic indicator for elementary/middle schools (if applicable) in accordance with the State’s approved ESEA flexibility request
Whether the district met the graduation rate for high schools (if applicable) in accordance with the State’s approved ESEA flexibility request
State-specific status for SY 2014-15 (e.g., grade, star, or level)
Whether the district received Title I funds.
2.12.4 List of Districts for All Other States
2.12.4.1 List of Districts Identified for Improvement
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 district 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 2014-15 (Use one of the following improvement status designations: Improvement or Corrective Action)
Whether the district received Title I funds.
1 Consistent with ESEA, Title I, Section 1119(g)(2).
2 Consistent with ESEA, Title I, Section 1119(e).
3 Consistent with ESEA, Title I, Section 1119(g)(2).
4 The “Asian/Pacific Islander” row in the tables below represent either the value reported by the state to the Department of Education for the major racial and ethnic group "Asian/Pacific Islander" or an aggregation of values reported by the state for the major racial and ethnic groups "Asian" and "Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander or Pacific Islander" (and "Filipino" in the case of California). When the values reported in the Asian/Pacific Islander row represent the U. S. Department of Education aggregation of other values reported by the state, the detail for “Asian” and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander” are also included in the following rows. Disaggregated reporting for the adjusted cohort graduation rate data is done according to the provisions outlined within each state's Accountability Workbook. Accordingly, not every state uses major racial and ethnic groups which enable detail of Asian American/Pacific Islander (AAPI) populations.
5 The definition of reward schools is provided in the document titled, ESEA Flexibility. This document may be accessed on the Department’s Web page at http://www.ed.gov/esea/flexibility/documents/esea-flexibility.doc.
6 The definitions of priority and focus schools are provided in the document titled, ESEA Flexibility. This document may be accessed on the Department’s Web page at http://www.ed.gov/esea/flexibility/documents/esea-flexibility.doc.
7 The definitions of reward, priority, and focus schools are provided in the document titled, ESEA Flexibility. This document may be accessed on the Department’s Web page at http://www.ed.gov/esea/flexibility/documents/esea-flexibility.doc.
8The school improvement statuses are defined in LEA and School Improvement Non-Regulatory Guidance. This document may be accessed on the Department’s Web page at http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/schoolimprovementguid.doc.
9The 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.
| File Type | application/msword |
| File Title | Consolidated State Performance Report: Part II for Reporting on School Year 2006-07 (MS Word) |
| Author | abigail.potts |
| Last Modified By | Tomakie Washington |
| File Modified | 2013-09-10 |
| File Created | 2013-09-10 |