Federal Program
Monitoring and
Support Division
Charlotte Hughes, Director
Donna Brown, Section Chief
Federal Program
Monitoring and Support
Division
• $437,000,000
•2
in federal funds
sections
Federal Program Monitoring
– Support Services
–
• 23
full-time staff members
• 18-20 contract staff
• 19 programs
Federally-Funded
Programs
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Title I, Part A
Migrant Education Program
School Improvement Grants
Neglected and Delinquent Programs
21st Century Community Learning Centers
Rural Low-Income Schools
Small Rural Schools Achievement Program
McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Program
Safe and Drug Free Schools
Federal Requirements
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Title I LEA/School Improvement
Federal Teacher Loan Forgiveness Program
Comparability Reporting
Ed-Flex Authority
Supplemental Educational Services (SES)
Consolidated Federal Data Collection System (CFDC)
MSIX Initiative
Persistently Dangerous Schools
Profile and Performance Information Collection
System (PPICS)
Committee of Practitioners (COP)
State Requirements
• Textbook
Adoption
• Alternative Learning
Programs
• Discipline Data Collection
• Dropout Data Collection
• School Safety
Roles and
Responsibilities
Approve Applications for Entitlement
Funding
• Facilitate Competitive Grants
• Conduct Monitoring (Programs and Fiscal)
• Conduct Program Quality Reviews
• Provide Technical Assistance
• Process Data Collection and Reporting
• Support Agency-wide Initiatives (e.g.,
State-wide System of Support)
•
Title I, Part A
•
2010-11
–
–
–
–
$378,000,000
115 local education agencies and 47 charter
schools
1,297 schools served
1,256 operate schoolwide programs
School Improvement grants 1003(a)
• School Improvement Grants (SIG)
1003(g)
•
Background on SIG
Purpose:
• Raise student achievement in the
Nation’s persistently lowest-achieving
schools
Awards: $3.5 billion in FY 2009
Award Structure:
• Formula grants to States
• Competitive subgrants from States to
LEAs
Persistently LowestAchieving (PLA) Schools
Tier I Schools
–
–
Lowest 5% Title I Schools in School
Improvement based on proficiency scores or
Title I high schools with a graduation rate
below 60%
Tier II Schools
–
–
Lowest 5% Title I eligible, but not served
secondary schools based on proficiency
scores or
Title I eligible, but not served high schools
with a graduation rate below 60%
2010-11 SIG Schools
• 18
LEAs
• 24 SIG schools
• $63,367,811 allocated
• $980,000 to $6,000,000 per
school for three years
2011-12 SIG Schools
FY10 – $ 37,000,000
• Available through September
2014 with a waiver
• 31 LEAs
• 45 persistently lowest-achieving
schools
• Estimated
School Awards
• $50,000
to $2,000,000 per school
renewable for up to three years
• Funds may only be used for SIG
schools
• LEA must select 1 of 4 intervention
models
• LEA must demonstrate capacity to
fully implement SIG model(s)
SIG Intervention Models
TURNAROUND

Replace Principal

Rehire up to 50%
of staff
RESTART

CMO or EMO
hired to run the
school
TRANSFORMATION
CLOSURE

Replace Principal

LEA closes
school

New teacher
evaluation system

Students
enrolled in
higher
performing
school

Extended learning
time

Extended learning
time

Ensure use of data

Ensure use of data

Provide jobembedded PD

Provide jobembedded PD

Research-based
instructional
programs and
standards that are
vertically aligned

Research-based
instructional programs
and standards that are
vertically aligned
Capacity Reviews
• On-site
monitoring visits
– Capacity
to support
implementation plan
– Progress toward key
indicators
– Progress toward measurable
goals
Capacity Building
• Teacher
Leadership program
• Cambridge Education
• Assessment for Learning
– 24
teacher leaders identified
– 3-day training in December
– 20-25 LEA participants receive
sessions within LEAs
SIG Planning
• Conduct
needs assessment
• Communicate with key
stakeholders
• Collaborate with external
partners
LEA Application
Design and implement interventions
consistent with the final requirements;
• Recruit, screen, and select quality
external providers;
• Align other resources with the
interventions;
• Modify practices or policies to implement
the interventions fully and effectively; and
• Sustain the reforms after the funding
period ends.
•
Evaluation Criteria
• Analysis
of needs for each Tier I
and Tier II school
• Action steps to fully implement the
selected intervention
• Capacity for supporting
interventions models
• Budget with sufficient funds to
implement Tier I and Tier II
Reporting
Requirements
Intervention model the school used;
• Number of minutes within the school year;
• Average scale scores on State
assessments;
• Number and percentage of students
completing advanced coursework earlycollege high schools, or dual enrollment
classes; and
• Teacher attendance rate.
•
NCDPI Resources
• Application
materials
• SIGnificant Points
newsletter
• http://www.ncpublicschools.
org/program-monitoring/