Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE)
Local Educational Agency (LEA)
Performance Review Self-Assessment and Protocol
The Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) is committed to supporting States as they implement Federal grant programs. Part of this commitment includes a performance review process designed to not only address the OESE’s responsibilities for fiscal and programmatic oversight, but to also identify areas in which States need assistance and support to meet their goals and obligations.
The goals of the OESE performance review process are to conduct a State-centered, performance-focused review of select programs (Title I, Part A (Title I); Title II, Part A (Title II); Title III, Part A (Title III); School Improvement Grants (last allocated for FY 2016) (SIG), 1003(a); 1003A; and State Assessment Grant programs) through a single, streamlined process that results in improved and strengthened partnerships between the United States Department of Education (the Department) and States and encourages States to develop and effectively implement integrated and coherent consolidated State plans. To accomplish these goals, the OESE performance review process is organized by areas, which reflect the programmatic and fiscal requirements and priorities of OESE programs.
The OESE performance review addresses a State’s grant administration and fiscal management processes and is based on information provided through the review process, and other relevant qualitative and quantitative data. The primary goal of this review is to ensure that implementation of the programs listed above is consistent with the fiscal, administrative, and select program requirements contained in the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance: 2 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200), the Education Department General Administrative Requirements (EDGAR), and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).
The OESE performance review is comprised of a self-assessment and an on-site or desk review. The self-assessment and on-site or desk review protocols are organized by domains and sections that reflect fiscal and programmatic requirements of OESE programs (Title I, Part A; Title II, Part A; Title III, Part A; School Improvement Grants, 1003(a); 1003A; and State Assessment Grants). The OESE performance review addresses the administration of fiscal and programmatic components of select programs concurrently, covering three domains: (1) Financial Management and Cross-cutting Requirements, (2) Program-specific Fiscal Requirements, and (3) Programmatic Requirements. Under each domain there are a number of sections, which are outlined below. For each section there is a list of suggested participants, although because organizations may structure their program offices in different manners, participants may need to be adjusted accordingly.
For each section, please respond to questions aligned with the section description. The type of questions will vary slightly by section, but generally responses should describe how the Local Educational Agency (LEA) is addressing fiscal and cross-program requirements, with support from the State Educational Agency (SEA). Some questions are intended to provide context for the review of other responses and supporting documentation.
For each section in this review, please respond to every question. Answers should be entered in the appropriate text box provided. If your answer is contained in an attached document, please clearly reference the applicable document, providing the page number and other details, as needed.
Documentation submitted should follow a common naming convention aligned to the subtopic and section designation. File names must include the State initials, sub-section letter and number, and document name (e.g. AK.O1.SY16-17_TitleI_Allocations). After your document is uploaded, please include the filename when prompted for "Title". At that time, if needed, you may, at your discretion, include a brief, explanatory comment. If documentation applies to multiple sections, please specify relevant pages and/or create a table of contents.
For web-based documents, please consolidate links to the applicable web sites, with a brief description or explanation, into a document and upload the document into the online survey system with an appropriate filename.
Please complete all sections before you submit your survey!
A. ESEA Accountability System 4
B. Identification of Schools 7
C. Support for School and LEA Improvement 10
D. Optional Public School Transfer 15
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. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 200 hours per year, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave., S.W., Washington, DC 20202-3118 or email [email protected] and reference the OMB Control Number 1810-New.
ESEA
Description: An SEA must measure, on an annual basis, all required indicators for all students and each subgroup of students. For purposes of the academic achievement indicator, the SEA must ensure that at least 95 percent of all students and each subgroup of students are assessed annually on the State’s reading/language arts and mathematics assessments.
Recommended LEA Participants: Federal programs, data, or accountability leads; Title I, and Title III Director(s)
Subtopics:
Eighth grade Mathematics Exception
Recently-arrived English Learners
Other Academic Indicator
Graduation Rate Indicator
Progress in Achieving English Language Proficiency Indicator
School Quality or Student Success Indicator
Subtopic |
Questions |
LEA Response |
Evidence Provided |
ESEA Accountability System |
What information has the SEA provided to LEAs regarding the State’s ESEA accountability system including the indicators used in the system and how schools are identified for Comprehensive or Targeted support and improvement? |
Enter brief response here and/or identify responsive documentation |
Suggested Documentation:
A1: Memos, emails, documents, presentations to LEAs regarding the State’s ESEA accountability system, which could include business rules for school identification |
Eighth grade Mathematics Exception |
Does the State permit the LEA to allow 8th grade students who are enrolled in an advanced mathematics course to take the high school end-of-course test aligned with the course in which they are enrolled in lieu of taking the 8th grade mathematics test? |
Yes/No (Circle One) |
|
Eighth grade Mathematics Exception |
If yes, describe how the LEA implements this flexibility (e.g., what assessment(s) do students take in high school if they already took an advanced assessment in 8th grade)? |
Enter brief response here and identify responsive documentation
|
Suggested Documentation:
A2:Memo to LEAs on how to report assessment data for 8th grade students who were assessed using a high school assessment (both how to report the information in grade 8 and how to report the more advanced course and assessment the student takes in high school)
|
Eighth grade Mathematics Exception |
If yes, does the LEA provide all students the opportunity to be prepared for and to take advanced mathematics coursework in middle school |
Yes/No (Circle One) |
|
Recently arrived English learners |
Describe the instructions the SEA has provided to the LEA regarding how to identify and when to include recently arrived ELs in assessments. |
Enter brief response here and/or identify responsive documentation |
|
Indicators (generally) |
Is the calculation of the indicators for the accountability system managed entirely at the SEA level? |
Yes/No (Circle One) |
|
Academic Achievement Indicator |
If not managed entirely at the SEA level, what is the LEA’s responsibility regarding the academic achievement indicator, including participation rate and, if applicable, student growth? |
Enter brief response here and/or identify responsive documentation |
Suggested Documentation:
A3: SEA memo to LEAs on how to report data related to the academic achievement indicator; training for LEAs regarding the academic achievement indicator |
Other Academic Indicator |
If not managed entirely at the SEA level, what is the LEA’s responsibility regarding the other academic achievement indicator? |
Enter brief response here and/or identify responsive documentation |
Suggested Documentation:
A4: SEA memo to LEAs on how to report the other academic indicator; training for LEAs regarding the other academic indicator |
Graduation Rate Indicator |
If not managed entirely at the SEA level, what is the LEA’s responsibility regarding the graduation rate indicator? |
Enter brief response here and/or identify responsive documentation |
Suggested Documentation:
A5: SEA memo to LEAs on how to report the graduation rate indicator; training for LEAs regarding the graduation rate indicator
|
Progress in Achieving English Language Proficiency Indicator |
If not managed entirely at the SEA level, what is the LEA’s responsibility regarding the progress in achieving English language proficiency indicator? |
Enter brief response here and/or identify responsive documentation |
Suggested Documentation:
A6: SEA memo to LEAs on how to report the progress in achieving English language proficiency indicator; training for LEAs regarding the progress in achieving English language proficiency indicator
|
School Quality or Student Success Indicator |
What is the LEA’s responsibility regarding school quality or student success indicator(s)? |
Enter brief response here and/or identify responsive documentation |
Suggested Documentation:
A7: SEA memo to LEAs on how to report each school quality or student success indicator data (e.g., if the SEA uses a survey or a locally administered assessment, what is the LEA responsibility for providing relevant data?) |
Additional Documentation |
For all subtopics, provide any additional documentation that would serve as evidence for the questions asked. |
|
Suggested Documentation:
A8: Other documentation that would serve as evidence for the questions asked.
|
Subtopic |
Question |
LEA Response |
8th grade math exception |
If the SEA permits this exception, describe how the LEA provides all students the opportunity to be prepared for and to take advanced mathematics coursework in middle school. How does the SEA support your efforts? |
|
ESEA
Description: An SEA shall identify schools for Comprehensive or Targeted support and improvement. With respect to schools identified for Comprehensive Support and Improvement, identification shall occur at least once every three years and must result in the identification of a subset of schools that receive Comprehensive Support and Improvement, as required by the statute. The schools identified for Comprehensive Support and Improvement must include: 1) not less than the lowest-performing 5 percent of schools receiving Title I, Part A funds, 2) all high schools with a graduation rate below 67 percent, and 3) schools that receive Title I, Part A funds that were previously identified for additional Targeted support and improvement and have not exited such status after a State-determined number of years. In addition, an SEA must annually identify schools requiring Targeted support and improvement based on having one or more consistently underperforming subgroups of students, as determined by the State. Finally, an SEA must identify all schools requiring additional Targeted support and improvement based on having one or more subgroups performing as poorly as the all students group in the lowest-performing 5 percent of schools receiving Title I, Part A funds, and the frequency of identification of which is determined by the SEA. An SEA may also identify, in its discretion, additional statewide categories of schools.
Recommended LEA Participants: Title I, , and Program Attorney(s)
Subtopics:
Comprehensive Support and Improvement (Lowest Performing)
Comprehensive Support and Improvement Schools (Low Graduation Rates)
Comprehensive Support and Improvement Schools (Receiving Additional Targeted Support and Improvement Not Exiting Such Status)
Targeted Support and Improvement Schools (One or More Consistently Underperforming Subgroups)
Targeted Support and Improvement Schools (Additional Targeted Support and Improvement)
Subtopic |
Questions |
LEA Response |
Evidence Provided |
Comprehensive Support and Improvement Schools (Lowest Performing) |
When did the SEA most recently notify the LEA of schools identified as the lowest-performing five percent of Title I schools for Comprehensive Support and Improvement? |
Insert Month and Year |
Suggested documentation:
B1: The most recent notification from the SEA identifying schools for Comprehensive Support and Improvement |
Comprehensive Support and Improvement Schools (Low Graduation Rates) |
When did the State most recently notify the LEA of high schools identified for Comprehensive Support and Improvement based on graduation rates less than 67 percent? |
Insert Month and Year
|
Suggested documentation:
B2: Suggested documentation: Memo from the SEA on the process for identifying schools for Comprehensive Support and Improvement (low graduation rates)
B3: The most recent notification from the SEA identifying schools for Comprehensive Support and Improvement |
Comprehensive Support and Improvement Schools (Receiving Additional Targeted Support and Improvement Not Exiting Such Status) |
When did the SEA most recently notify the LEA of any schools identified for Comprehensive Support and Improvement (receiving additional Targeted support and improvement not exiting such status) from the most recent State identification? |
Insert Month and Year
|
Suggested documentation:
B5: The most recent notification from the SEA identifying schools for Comprehensive Support and Improvement for receiving additional Targeted support and improvement and not exiting such status) B6: LEA’s list of schools identified as Comprehensive Support and Improvement (receiving additional Targeted support and improvement not exiting such status) |
Targeted Support and Improvement Schools (Consistently Underperforming Subgroups) |
When did the SEA most recently notify LEAs of schools with one or more consistently underperforming subgroups that require Targeted support and improvement? |
Insert Month and Year
|
Suggested documentation:
B7: Memo from the SEA on the process for identifying schools for Targeted support and improvement due to one or more consistently underperforming subgroups. B8: The most recent notification from the SEA identifying schools for Targeted support and improvement based on having consistently underperforming subgroups |
Targeted Support and Improvement Schools (Additional Targeted Support and Improvement) |
When did the State most recently notify LEAs with schools that require additional Targeted support and improvement? |
Insert Month and Year |
Suggested documentation:
B9: Memo from the SEA on the process for identifying schools for additional Targeted support and improvement B10: The most recent notification from the SEA identifying schools for additional Targeted support and improvement |
Additional Documentation |
For all subtopics, provide any additional documentation that would serve as evidence for the questions asked. |
|
|
Subtopic |
Question |
LEA Response |
Additional Questions (Please add rows as needed.) |
|
|
ESEA
§1003(b)-(f)
§1111(d)(1)-(2)
§1111(d)(3)(A)
Description: Upon receiving notification from the State, each LEA must, for each school identified by the State and in partnership with stakeholders, develop and implement a Comprehensive Support and Improvement Plan. Upon approval and implementation, a Comprehensive Support and Improvement Plan must be monitored and periodically reviewed by the SEA. The SEA shall notify an LEA of any school served by the LEA that is identified for Targeted support and improvement, and the LEA shall notify such identified schools. LEAs serving Targeted support and improvement schools must oversee such schools in developing and implementing Targeted support and improvement plans. Targeted support and improvement plans must be developed in partnership with stakeholders, and approved by the LEA. Targeted support and improvement plans shall be informed by all applicable indicators, incorporate evidence-based interventions, and shall result in additional action following unsuccessful implementation after a number of years determined by the LEA. If a school is identified for additional Targeted support and improvement, an LEA must ensure that the school’s Targeted support and improvement plan also identifies resource inequities to be addressed through Targeted support and improvement plan implementation. Upon approval and implementation, a Targeted support and improvement plan (including a Targeted support and improvement plan for a school identified for additional Targeted support) must be monitored by the LEA. An SEA must establish statewide exit criteria for schools identified for Comprehensive Support and Improvement, which, if not satisfied within a State-determined number of years (not to exceed four years), must result in more rigorous State-determined action. An SEA must also establish statewide exit criteria for schools that receive additional Targeted support and improvement. Periodically, an SEA must review resource allocation to support school improvement in each LEA serving a significant number or a significant percentage of schools identified for Comprehensive or Targeted support and improvement and must provide technical assistance to each LEA serving a significant number of schools identified for Comprehensive or Targeted support and improvement.
Recommended LEA Participants: Title I, Title II, and Title III Program Director(s)
Subtopics:
Comprehensive Support and Improvement Plans
Targeted Support and Improvement Plans
Technical Assistance
Exit Criteria
More Rigorous State-determined Actions
Continued Support for School and LEA Improvement
Technical Assistance
Resource Allocation Review
Self-Assessment Questions
Subtopic |
Questions |
LEA Response |
Evidence Provided |
Comprehensive Support and Improvement Plans |
Describe the LEA’s process for developing and approving plans for Comprehensive Support and Improvement schools This includes ensuring that each plan:
|
Enter brief response here and/or identify responsive documentation |
Suggested Documentation:
C1: Memo, training materials, PowerPoint for schools from the LEA on the process for developing a school improvement plan. C2: For a selected school,
|
Comprehensive Support and Improvement and Targeted Support and Improvement Plans |
Does the LEA have any Comprehensive Support and Improvement or Targeted support and improvement schools that predominately serve students who are significantly off track to meet graduation requirements or students who returned to education after exiting secondary school without receiving a high school diploma? |
Yes/No (Circle One) |
|
Comprehensive Support and Improvement Plans |
If yes, does the SEA permit LEAs to implement differentiated improvement activities for Comprehensive Support and Improvement-low grad rate schools that predominately serve students who are significantly off track to meet graduation requirements or students who returned to education after exiting secondary school without receiving a high school diploma? |
Yes/No (Circle One) |
|
Comprehensive Support and Improvement Plans |
Describe how the SEA monitors and periodically reviews the implementation of Comprehensive Support and Improvement Plans. |
Enter brief response here and/or identify responsive documentation |
Suggested Documentation:
C3: SEA monitoring protocol for monitoring LEA responsibilities with respect to Comprehensive Support and Improvement and Targeted Support and Improvement Schools monitoring schedule, and sample reports |
Targeted Support and Improvement Plans |
Describe the SEA oversees and provides support for the LEA in your process for reviewing and approving Targeted support and improvement plans, including that each plan:
|
Enter brief response here and/or identify responsive documentation |
Suggested Documentation:
C4: Memo, training materials, PowerPoint for schools from the LEA on the process for developing a school improvement plan. C5: For a selected school,
|
Targeted Support and Improvement Plans |
Describe how does the SEA provides oversight and support for the LEA’s review and approval process ensure that schools identified for additional Targeted support and improvement identify resource inequities in their Targeted support and improvement plans. |
Enter brief response here and/or identify responsive documentation |
Suggested Documentation:
C6: Guidance from the SEA and/or LEA on the process for conducting a review of resource inequities. C7: Template for review of resource inequities C8: Sample results of review of resource inequities
|
Targeted Support and Improvement Plans |
Describe how the SEA provides oversight of the LEA’s monitoring of implementation of Targeted support and improvement plans. |
Enter brief response here and/or identify responsive documentation |
Suggested Documentation:
C9: Monitoring protocols, monitoring schedule, sample monitoring report(s) |
Targeted Support and Improvement Plans |
Describe how the SEA provides oversight and support to ensure the LEA takes additional action in a school following unsuccessful implementation of a Targeted support and improvement plan after a number of years determined by the LEA. |
Enter brief response here and/or identify responsive documentation |
Suggested Documentation:
C10: LEAs procedures for determining unsuccessful implementation of a Targeted support and improvement plan by a school after a number of years determined by the LEA C11: list of schools in the LEA in which implementation of a Targeted support and improvement plan by a school after a number of years was unsuccessful |
Evidence-based interventions |
What technical assistance or supports does the SEA provide the LEA to support identification of appropriate evidence-based interventions? |
Enter brief response here and/or identify responsive documentation |
Suggested documentation
C12: Training or resources regarding evidence-based interventions |
Evidence-based interventions |
Identify examples of evidence-based interventions that are being implemented in schools implementing Comprehensive or Targeted support and improvement plans and the evidence level associated with intervention (strong, moderate, promising, or demonstrates a rationale for effectiveness). |
Enter brief response here and/or identify responsive documentation |
Suggested documentation:
C13: A sample Comprehensive or Targeted support and improvement plan with evidence-based interventions highlighted; a list of evidence-based interventions being used across the LEA |
Exit Criteria |
Which schools identified for Comprehensive Support and Improvement in your LEA met statewide exit criteria within the given timeframe? |
Enter brief response here and/or identify responsive documentation |
Suggested documentation:
C14: Documentation showing schools that satisfied Statewide exit criteria |
Exit Criteria |
Which schools identified for additional Targeted support and improvement in your LEA met statewide exit criteria within the given timeframe? |
Enter brief response here and/or identify responsive documentation |
|
Exit Criteria |
Which schools identified for additional Targeted support and improvement (consistently underperforming) in your LEA met statewide exit criteria within the given timeframe? |
Enter brief response here and/or identify responsive documentation |
|
More Rigorous State-determined Actions |
If applicable, if any school(s) identified for Comprehensive Support and Improvement in the LEA did not meet statewide exit criteria, what more rigorous State-determined actions has the SEA required for such schools? |
Enter brief response here and/or identify responsive documentation |
|
Continued Support for School and LEA Improvement |
Does the LEA have a significant number, as defined by the State, of schools identified for Comprehensive or Targeted support and improvement? |
Yes/No (Circle one) |
|
Resource Allocation Review
|
If the LEA has a significant number of schools identified for Comprehensive or Targeted support and improvement, what efforts has the SEA made to review resource allocation within the LEA? |
Enter brief response here and/or identify responsive documentation |
|
Technical Assistance
|
What technical assistance has the LEA received from the SEA to support schools identified for Comprehensive Support and Improvement and Targeted support and improvement? |
Enter brief response here and/or identify responsive documentation |
C15: Examples of technical assistance provided by the State |
Additional Documentation |
For all subtopics, provide any additional documentation that would serve as evidence for the questions asked. |
|
Suggested Documentation:
C16: Other documentation that would serve as evidence for the questions asked.
|
Additional Documentation |
For all subtopics, provide any additional documentation that would serve as evidence for the questions asked. |
|
|
Subtopic |
Question |
LEA Response |
Additional Questions (Please add rows as needed.) |
|
|
ESEA
Description: An LEA may provide all students that are enrolled in a school identified by the State for Comprehensive Support and Improvement in accordance with ESEA section 1111(c)(4)(D)(i) with the option to transfer to another public school served by the LEA, unless prohibited by State law. The LEA must permit the student who transfers to another school to remain in that school until the student has completed the highest grade at that school. In providing students the option to transfer to another public school, the LEA must give priority to the lowest-achieving students from low-income families.
Recommended LEA Participants: Title I, School Improvement Team, and Program Attorney(s)
Subtopics:
LEA Participation
Monitoring
Technical Assistance
Subtopic |
Questions |
LEA Response |
Evidence Provided |
LEA Participation |
Does the LEA provide students enrolled in a school identified by the SEA for Comprehensive Support and Improvement the option to transfer to another public school served by the LEA? |
Yes/No (Circle One) |
Suggested Documentation:
D1: Public school choice policy and procedures manual (if applicable). |
LEA Participation |
Does the LEA have a policy regarding transportation for students who use the option to transfer to another public school? |
Yes/No (Circle One) |
Suggested Documentation:
D2: School transfer transportation policy (if applicable). |
Additional Documentation |
For all subtopics, provide any additional documentation that would serve as evidence for the questions asked. |
|
Suggested Documentation:
D3: Other documentation that would serve as evidence for the questions asked. |
|
Subtopic |
Question |
LEA Response |
|
LEA Participation |
Describe the process for a student transferring from a school identified by the SEA for Comprehensive Support and Improvement to another public school served by the LEA. |
|
|
Technical Assistance |
What technical assistance has the SEA provided (or made available) to the LEA regarding students who use the option to transfer to another public school served by the LEA? |
|
Additional Questions (Please add rows as needed.) |
|
|
|
ESEA
§1003(a)-(f)
§1111(d)(1)-(2)
§8101(21)(B)
NOTE: This section is only relevant if the LEA has schools identified for Comprehensive Support and Improvement or Targeted support and improvement. If not, this section can be skipped.
Description: An SEA shall allocate and oversee the administration of 1003(a) school improvement subgrants, so that LEAs and schools can effectively develop and implement Comprehensive Support and Improvement and Targeted support and improvement plans. The SEA must also conduct a rigorous review of 1003(a) subgrant applications to ensure that LEAs include all required elements. An SEA shall also ensure that ‘‘evidence-based’’ interventions, improvement activities, or strategies paid for with section 1003(a) funds are based on strong, moderate, or promising evidence of a statistically significant effect on improving student outcomes or other relevant outcomes.
Recommended LEA Participants: Title I, School Improvement Team), and Program Attorney(s)
Subtopics:
1003(a) School Improvement
Self-Assessment Questions
Subtopic |
Questions |
LEA Response |
Evidence Provided |
1003(a) School Improvement |
Does the SEA provide LEAs with information regarding the process for making 1003(a) subgrants to LEAs to serve schools implementing Comprehensive Support and Improvement activities or Targeted support and improvement activities? |
Yes/No (Circle One) |
Suggested Documentation:
E1: Guidance from the SEA on the process for making 1003(a) subgrants. |
1003(a) School Improvement |
Did the LEA apply for 1003(a) funds in the preceding year? If the LEA applied in the preceding year, did it receive 1003(a) funds? |
Yes/No (Circle One)
|
Suggested Documentation:
E2: A copy of the LEA’s most recent completed 1003(a) application that it submitted to the SEA.
|
1003(a) School Improvement |
Is the 1003(a) subgrant that the SEA awarded to the LEA of sufficient size to enable the LEA to effectively implement selected strategies? |
Yes/No (Circle One) |
|
1003(a) School Improvement |
Did the SEA directly provide school improvement activities with section 1003 funds to the LEA or identified schools (e.g., school support teams, educational service agencies, or nonprofit or for-profit external providers with expertise in using evidence-based strategies to improve student achievement, instruction, and schools)? |
Yes/No (Circle One) |
|
1003(a) School Improvement |
If so, did the LEA provide approval for SEA activity support? |
Yes/No (Circle One) |
|
1003(a) School Improvement |
Describe how the SEA monitored and evaluated the LEA’s use of 1003(a) funds? |
Enter brief response here |
|
1003(a) School Improvement |
If an LEA pays for an intervention or improvement activity or strategy (i.e., evidence-based intervention) with 1003(a) funds, is the intervention based on strong, moderate, or promising evidence of a statistically significant effect on improving student outcomes or other relevant outcomes? |
Yes/No (Circle One) |
|
Additional Documentation |
For all subtopics, provide any additional documentation that would serve as evidence for the questions asked. |
Enter list of documents response here |
Suggested Documentation:
E3: Other documentation that would serve as evidence for the questions asked. |
On-site/Desk Review Questions
|
Subtopic |
Question |
LEA Response |
|
1003(a) School Improvement |
Describe what the SEA did to reduce barriers and provide operational flexibility for schools implementing Comprehensive Support and Improvement and Targeted support and improvement activities? |
|
Additional Questions: (Please add rows, as needed.) |
|
|
|
ESEA
EDGAR
Government Accountability Office’s “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” (GAO Green Book)
Uniform Guidance
OMB Circular A–133 Compliance Supplement: Department of Education Cross-cutting Section
Final Audit Report: ED-OIG/A06O0001
Description: A State educational agency (SEA) is required to have appropriate procedures in place to ensure that the data reported to the public and reported to the U.S. Department of Education are high quality (i.e., timely, complete, accurate, valid, and reliable).
Recommended LEA Participants: Chief Information Officer /Director of Information Management (or designated representative), Assessment Director, Title I (including §1003 ) , Title II, Title III Program Directors
Subtopics:
Technical Assistance
Internal Controls for Data
Review Process
U.S. Department of Education Feedback Process
Subtopic |
Questions |
LEA Response |
Evidence Provided |
Technical Assistance |
In the past year did the SEA share information with the LEA related to data expectations (e.g., reporting requirements, data quality procedures)? |
Yes/No (Circle One) |
Suggested Documentation:
F1: The SEA notice, most recently made available, detailing data reporting requirements and training opportunities. |
Technical Assistance |
In the past year did the SEA provide training to the LEA related to data expectations (e.g., reporting requirements, data quality procedures)? |
Yes/No (Circle One) |
|
Technical Assistance |
In the past year, did the LEA have a process to build the capacity of staff responsible for data management? |
Yes/No (Circle One) |
|
Internal Controls for Data |
Does the LEA have a system of internal controls to ensure high quality data? |
Yes/No (Circle One) |
|
Internal Controls for Data |
Does the LEA require management certification (or verification, sign-off, or related) by appropriate school officials for data submitted to meet ESEA requirements? |
Yes/No (Circle One) |
Suggested Documentation:
F2: Sample LEA management certification form. |
Internal Controls for Data |
Does the LEA monitor schools to ensure reported data is accurate and complete? |
Yes/No (Circle One) |
|
Review Process |
Does the LEA have procedures in place for reviewing LEA and school level data? |
Yes/No (Circle One) |
|
Review Process |
Does the LEA data quality review process incorporate rules that address timeliness, completeness, accuracy, validity, and reliability? |
Yes/No (Circle One) |
|
Additional Documentation |
For all subtopics, provide any additional documentation that would serve as evidence for the questions asked. |
|
Suggested Documentation:
F3: Other documentation that would serve as evidence for the questions asked. |
Subtopic |
Questions |
LEA Response |
Technical Assistance |
Describe the information and training the LEA received from the SEA related to data expectations (e.g., reporting requirements, data quality procedures) in the past year. |
|
Technical Assistance |
What is the LEA’s process for building the capacity of staff responsible for data management? |
|
Internal Controls for Data |
How does the LEA design its data quality checks, including automated business rules and manual data quality rules, to ensure that it is identifying problems in the data (e.g., setting appropriate thresholds)? |
|
Internal Controls for Data |
Describe how the LEA ensures that the data reported from schools to the LEA are of high-quality (e.g., data entry checklist, job aids, business rules, SOPs). |
|
Internal Controls for Data |
Describe the management certification (or verification, sign-off, or related) process the LEA requires of schools to ensure that reported data are accurate and complete (e.g., review process for determining data are ready for certification, how responsibility for the certification is assigned, consequences for certifying inaccurate data). |
|
Internal Controls for Data |
How does the LEA monitor schools to ensure they have processes in place so that reported data are accurate and complete (e.g., periodic monitoring, review of school business rules, audits of submitted data)? |
|
Review Process |
What has the SEA communicated to the LEA about their procedures for reviewing LEA and school level data? |
|
Additional Questions: (Please add rows, as needed.) |
|
|
ESEA
Title I Regulations
Description: An SEA and its LEAs are required to prepare and annually disseminate report cards that include all required elements to the public in a timely manner. In preparing and disseminating report cards, an SEA and its LEAs must also follow student subgroup disaggregation reporting requirements. For reference, those student subgroups identified using the following abbreviations.
ALL = All students
MREG = Each major racial and ethnic group
CWD = Children with disabilities
ELL = English learners
ECD = Economically disadvantaged students
GEN = Gender
MIG = Migrant students
HOM = Homeless children and youth
FOS = Children in foster care
AFD = Students with a parent who is a member of the Armed Forces on active duty or on full-time National Guard duty
Recommended LEA Participants: Chief Information Officer /Director of Information Management (or designated representative), Assessment Director, Title I (including §1003), Title II, and Title III Program Directors
Subtopics:
Process for Timely Reporting
Data Publication
Subtopic |
Questions |
LEA Response |
Evidence Provided |
Process for Timely Reporting |
Which of the following ways does the LEA share responsibility with the SEA when disseminating LEA report cards? |
SEA publishing and hosting LEA Report Cards/LEA publishes and hosts LEA Report Cards/Other (write in) (Circle One) |
Suggested Documentation:
G1: Guidance/instructions most recently made available to LEAs listing reporting timelines (e.g. FAQs, statewide communication to LEAs, official calendar for reporting)
G2: LEA documents listing steps and deadlines for data reporting requirements (e.g., SOPs, LEA/school guidance documents). |
Process for Timely Reporting |
When does the LEA annually publish the LEA report card? |
Enter brief response here |
|
Data Publication |
Is the LEA report card accessible to the public on the website of the LEA? |
Yes/No (Circle One) |
Suggested Documentation:
G3:Public statement or announcement to parents and the public related to the most recently available LEA report card. |
Data Publication |
What is the website address where LEA report card is made publicly available? |
(Enter brief response here) |
|
Data Publication |
In what languages is the report card available? |
Enter brief response here |
|
Data Publication |
What methods are used to ensure that information included on LEA report cards is collected and disseminated in a way that protects individual privacy? |
Suppression with complementary suppression/Blurring /Other (write-in) (Check all the apply) |
|
Data Publication |
Does the LEA report card include all required data for the LEA and each school served by the LEA? |
Yes/No (Circle One) |
|
Graduation Rate Indicator |
Describe how the SEA communicates the definition of a regular high school diploma for purposes of calculating the ACGR to LEAs? |
Enter brief response here and/or identify responsive documentation |
Suggested Documentation:
G4: Guidance, memos, etc. with the SEA’s definition of a regular high school diploma for purposes of calculating the ACGR. G5: List of types of types of high school diplomas awarded to high school graduates in the LEA. |
Graduation Rate Indicator |
Does the LEA offer other types of high school diplomas? |
Enter brief response here and/or identify responsive documentation |
|
Graduation Rate Indicator |
Does the LEA offer an alternate diploma for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities? |
Enter brief response here and/or identify responsive documentation |
|
Graduation Rate Indicator |
If yes, what guidance has the SEA provided to LEAs regarding the inclusion of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities who receive an alternate diploma in the graduation rate calculation? |
Enter brief response here and/or identify responsive documentation |
Suggested Documentation:
G6: Memo to LEAs on how to include students with the most significant cognitive disabilities who receive an alternate diploma in the graduation rate calculation. |
Additional Documentation |
For all subtopics, provide any additional documentation that would serve as evidence for the questions asked. |
|
Suggested Documentation:
G7: Other documentation that would serve as evidence for the questions asked.
|
Subtopic |
Questions |
LEA Response |
Data Publication |
How does the LEA gather input from parents and other stakeholders on the format, presentation, and publication location of LEA report cards? |
|
Graduation Rate Indicator |
If the LEA offers multiple types of high school diplomas, please describe them and how they are reported to the SEA for purposes of calculating the adjusted cohort graduation rate (ACGR)? |
|
Data Publication |
Supplemental Questions: (For any element missing from the LEA report card)
Why was the LEA unable to report this element(s)? How does the LEA plan to remedy the issue during the current reporting cycle and how will the LEA mitigate against this occurring in the future? |
|
| File Type | application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document |
| File Title | LEA Self Assessment and Protocol |
| Author | John W. Keefer |
| File Modified | 0000-00-00 |
| File Created | 2021-01-20 |