Tag Archives: Family Literacy

Schoolwide Programs

Schoolwide programs address the educational needs of children living in impoverished communities with comprehensive strategies for improving the whole school so every student achieves high levels of academic proficiency. Schoolwide programs have great latitude to determine how to organize their operations and allocate the multiple funding sources available to them. They do not have to identify particular children as eligible for services or separately track Federal dollars. Instead, schoolwide programs can use all allocated funds to increase the amount and quality of learning time.

For additional information about schoolwide programs see:

Archived Information

Title I Achievement-Focused Monitoring

Office of School Turnaround Staff Biography

You are here: OESE Home > Programs/Initiatives > OST


<!–

Picture of Jason, Office of School Turnaround–>

OST Leadership

Scott Sargrad

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy,
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education

This position serves as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and School Turnaround in the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. It leads the Office of School Turnaround, which administers the $4.5 billion School Improvement Grants program and coordinates the Department’s school turnaround efforts.


<!–

Carlas McCauley

Group Leader

Carlas serves as the Group Leader at the U.S. Department of Education in the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE). Carlas is tasked with directing and providing oversight of the administration of the School Improvement Grants program in the Office of School Turnaround. Since 2007, he has helped to administer approximately $5 billion toward improving schools.

Before joining the U.S. Department of Education, Carlas was a Project Director for the National Association of State Boards of Education, where he worked with state policy makers in an effort to transform secondary education through policy development.

Carlas holds a Masters and Doctorate of Education from the Rossier School of Education at University of Southern California located in Los Angeles, California. He is also a graduate of Saint Louis University located in St. Louis, Missouri.


–>

OST Staff

<!–

Michael Lamb

Michael serves as Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights in the U.S. Department of Education, where he helped develop the Office for Civil Rights’ new strategic plan and technical assistance strategy. He is currently detailed to the Office of School Turnaround, working on the office’s technical assistance and internal capacity initiatives, and is state contact to six states on their turnaround work. Prior to the Department, Michael worked as an organizer on the Presidential campaign of Barack Obama, first in Iowa and then in Virginia. Before that, he spent three years teaching middle school in the Harold Ickes Homes on Chicago’s South Side. There, he became committed to school turnaround efforts after his students dramatically increased their proficiency in reading and writing on state tests. He graduated from Duke University with a major in public policy, and did graduate work in education policy at the University of Illinois-Chicago.

–>

Kimberly Light

Kimberly is a senior program officer and team lead in the Office of School Turnaround, where she is responsible for a state monitoring team and the technical assistance working group. She previously served as team lead for health, mental health, environmental health, and physical education programs in the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, and led a variety of grant programs and projects related to school health and safety, including grants to integrate schools and mental health systems, a recognition program to identify effective models on college campuses, and a regional centers program that provided training and technical assistance to states and school districts. She also taught English in Japan and worked as a counselor for several community-based organizations serving disabled youth and adults. Kim has a BS in Rehabilitation Education from Penn State University and a MA in Human Resource Development from George Mason University, and lives in Virginia with her husband and teenage son.

<!–


Chuencee Boston

Chuenee is a program officer and team lead in the Office of School Turnaround, where she is responsible for a state monitoring team and the peer-to-peer convenings. She has supported districts and states in the development and implementation of their educator evaluation systems as a program officer for the Teacher Incentive Fund Program. Prior to joining the Department, she worked for the Comprehensive Centers as a technical assistance provider for multiple states. She also worked for the Senate committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. She has extensive experience in research and policy development and implementation related to teacher quality, early childhood, school improvement, special education. She holds a BA in Public Policy from Duke University and a MA in Education Policy from George Washington University.

–>


Molly Scotch Budman

Molly serves as a program officer in the Office of School Turnaround, where she serves as state contact and works on internal capacity and monitoring/grantmaking initiatives. Molly previously served as a reading specialist in Stamford, Connecticut, at a school that received a School Improvement Grant. She also taught high school English in Manchester, New Hampshire. As an undergraduate at Vanderbilt University, Molly majored in secondary education and English and developed an interest in transforming high school students into passionate readers, thinkers, and writers. She also holds a master’s degree as a reading specialist from Teachers College at Columbia University. She is delighted to be working with the OST team!

<!–


Phavy Cunningham

Phavy is a program officer within the Office of School Turnaround, where she serves as a state contact and contributes to several workgroups focused on the capacity building and sustainability of national school turnaround efforts. Prior to joining the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, she served as a program specialist in the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services of the U.S. Department of Education. She is a native of Pennsylvania where she earned her Bachelors in Politics and International Relations from Ursinus College, located in Collegeville. Phavy holds a Master of Education in Counseling and Development from George Mason University in Fairfax, VA. She has also completed post- graduate studies in Educational Leadership at The George Washington University. Phavy has worked for Fairfax County Public Schools, VA as an elementary special education teacher in a Title I school, as an admissions/school counselor for FCPS high school Career and Technical Education academies, and as a transition counselor for Northern Virginia Community College in partnership with FCPS where she assisted at-risk and first-generation students with the high school-to-college transition process. She enjoys traveling and has studied Art History in Florence, Italy, Santiago, Spain, and has most recently visited Cape Town, Durban, and Johannesburg, South Africa where she examined the educational system and a number of higher education institutions in post-apartheid South Africa. Phavy is dedicated to improving the American education system and is happy to be a part of the OST team.

–>
<!–


Laticia Melton

Laticia is a program assistant in the Office of School Turnaround, where she works on internal capacity initiatives. Prior to joining OST, Laticia served as the assistant to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and School Turnaround. In that role, she scheduled meetings and travel and helped prepare documents for the Deputy Assistant Secretary’s speaking engagements. Previously, Laticia served as program assistant in the Student Achievement and School Accountability (SASA) office at the Department. She also worked as a legal instrument examiner at the United States Patent and Trademark Office, where she was responsible for reviewing patent and trademark documents. Laticia is excited to be working in OST and use her organizational and database skills to contribute to the team!

–>


Janine Rudder

As a program officer with the Office of School Turnaround, Janine assists state educational agencies with their turnaround efforts and works on technical assistance and monitoring initiatives. She has also supported districts and states in the development and implementation of their educator evaluation systems as a program officer for the Teacher Incentive Fund Program. As a Master Educator with the District of Columbia Public Schools, Janine assessed the quality of classroom teachers’ instruction using the district’s Teaching and Learning Framework and provided tailored professional development to teachers based on their needs.  She also volunteered with the Ministry of Education in Belize, where she conducted professional development workshops for educators.  Prior to that, Janine taught middle school students with mild to moderate learning challenges in Oakland, California. She holds a Master’s Degree in Sociology and Education from Teacher’s College, Columbia University.


Christopher Tate

Christopher is on detail with the Office of School Turnaround from Federal Student Aid (FSA) at the U.S. Department of Education. While at FSA, Christopher managed projects related to implementing policy through the products students and schools use in applying for and processing student aid. Prior to joining the Department, Christopher co-developed a nonprofit that advocates for children in the court system because of parental abuse and neglect and spent several years working in and with the federal TRIO programs. Having been a TRIO student himself, he recognizes the valuable impact access to a quality education and advocacy can have for low-income students. Christopher holds a B.A. in Business Development and Leadership from Westminster College where he graduated with honors and served as the first openly gay president of the student body. He also holds a master’s degree from Brandeis University in Sustainable International Development where he received a fellowship to further his studies because of his interest in, and commitment to, addressing the effects of poverty in the United States through education and advocacy.


Sara Waly

Sara is a program officer in the Office of School Turnaround, where she serves as a state contact and also works on technical assistance and internal capacity initiatives.  Prior to joining the Department, Sara served in state government on policy development and implementation related to teacher and principal preparation, licensure, recruitment and retention, and evaluation.  Previously, Sara taught 6th grade writing in Gary, Indiana, 7/8 grade reading, writing and social studies at a bilingual charter school in Phoenix, Arizona, and served as a special education teacher’s aide in Germantown, Wisconsin.  As an undergraduate at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Sara majored in international studies and journalism and studied abroad in Quito, Ecuador.  She holds a Master in Teaching from Dominican University and a Master of Public Policy in Education from Vanderbilt University.  She is thrilled to be working with the OST team to support states in implementing their ambitious plans to transform their lowest-performing schools.


Christine Weeter

Christina is a program officer in the Office of School Turnaround where she serves as a state contact and works on technical assistance and internal capacity initiatives. She also supports the School Turnaround AmeriCorps, School Turnaround Learning Community, and Peer to Peer initiatives. She previously worked on discretionary grants for high schools with a special interest in dropout prevention and recovery, rural education, and wrap-around supports to prepare students to graduate high school with clear pathways to college and career. Prior to joining the Department, Christina worked in the non-government sector on education policy and finance, program evaluation, professional development curriculum, and provided direct service to youth with severe emotional and behavior disorders, many of whom had experienced abuse and neglect. A Kentucky native, Christina has also worked, studied, and volunteered in seven different countries in Latin America, Europe, and the Caribbean, and enjoys volunteering with Atlas Corps and its cadre of international Fellows. Christina earned a M.Ed. in Education Administration and a M.S.W. with a focus on program planning, evaluation, policy, and community organizing from Boston University. She earned her B.A. in psychology with a minor in Spanish from the University of Kentucky.

<!–


Michael E. Wells, Ph.D.,

Michael is a senior program officer and Team Lead at the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of School Turnaround. He coordinates monitoring and support for the western states and Puerto Rico and leads the Office’s monitoring and grantmaking initiatives. Michael has worked in the fields of psychology and public education for over 30 years. He has had a private practice in psychotherapy, taught at the university level, and has administered school safety and student services programs at the local and federal level, as well as establishing and directing the operation of public alternative school programs. Michael received his undergraduate degree and doctorate in counseling and educational development from the University of North Carolina and his master’s degree in psychology from Western Michigan University. He is licensed as a psychologist and a professional counselor. He and wife Dianne have five sons and six grandchildren.

–>


David Yi

David serves as a program officer and the internal capacity workgroup leader at the Office of School Turnaround. Prior to joining the Department, David was an elementary and middle school ESL teacher in Washington, DC where he also served as middle school staff coordinator. In college, he volunteered as a language tutor to foreign exchange students and also worked as a campus recruiter for Teach For America. An avid traveler, David has studied in Madrid, Spain and worked in Sydney, Australia for the Australian Minister for Defense. Originally from Louisville, Kentucky, David has a BA in Political Science and a BS in Social Studies Education from Boston University and a MA in Teaching English for Speakers of Other Languages from American University.

Office of School Turnaround-Focused Monitoring

Date: February 23, 2012

The Honorable Denise Juneau
Superintendent of Public Instruction
Montana Office of Public Instruction
PO Box 202501
Helena, MT 59620 – 2501

Dear Superintendent Juneau:

During the week on September 13-15, 2011, a team from the U.S. Department of Education (ED) reviewed the Montana Office of Public Instruction’s (OPI) administration of Title I, section 1003(g) (School Improvement Grant (SIG)) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) as amended. As part of its review, the ED team interviewed staff at the State educational agency (SEA) and two local education agencies (LEAs). The ED team also conducted site visits to two schools implementing the SIG intervention models, where they visited classes and interviewed school leadership, teachers, parents, and students. Enclosed you will find the monitoring report based upon this review.

In February 2011, ED began its first year of monitoring of the SIG program. The primary purpose of monitoring is to ensure that the SEA carries out the SIG program consistent with the final requirements. Additionally, ED is using its monitoring reviews to observe how LEAs and schools are implementing the selected intervention models and identify areas where technical assistance may be needed and to support effective program implementation.

In line with these aims, the enclosed monitoring report is organized into three sections. The Summary and Observations section describes the SIG implementation occurring in the schools and districts visited, initial indicators of success, and outstanding challenges relating to implementation. The Technical Assistance Recommendations section contains strategies and resources for addressing technical assistance needs identified during ED’s visit. Finally the Monitoring Findings section identifies any compliance issues within the six indicator areas reviewed and corrective actions that the SEA is required to take.

With regards to the Technical Assistance Recommendations provided, we encourage you to employ these strategies to further support the effective implementation of the SIG program. ED staff will continue to follow up with your staff to see how OPI is working to address these issues and make use of this technical assistance.

Please be aware that the observations reports, issues identified, and findings made in the enclosed report are based on written documentation or information provided to ED by the SEA, LEA, or school staff during interviews. They also reflect the status of compliance in Montana at the time and location of ED’s onsite review. The OPI may receive further communication from ED that will require it to address noncompliance occurring prior or subsequent to the onsite visit.

The ED team would like to thank the OPI staff responsible for the SIG program for the assistance provided prior to and during the review in gathering materials and providing access to information in a timely manner

We look forward to working further with your staff to address the issues contained in this report and to improve the quality of the SIG program in Montana.

Sincerely

Carlas L. McCauley, Ed.D.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education/
Office of School Turnaround
400 Maryland Ave, SW, 3W222
Washington, DC 20202
(202) 260-0824

cc:
BJ Granbery, Division Administrator and Title I Director
Mandy Smoker-Broaddus, SIG School Transformation Director

Office of School Turnaroudn-Focused Monitoring

Background

Monitoring the implementation of Federal programs and the use of Federal program funds is an essential function of the U.S. Department of Education (ED). The SIG program, authorized under section 1003(g) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, as amended, provides grants to SEAs that States use to make competitive sub-grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) that demonstrate the greatest need for the funds and the strongest commitment to use the funds to provide adequate resources in order to raise substantially the achievement of students in their lowest-performing schools. Under the final requirements published in the Federal Register in October 2010, SIG funds are to be focused on each State‟s “Tier I,” “Tier II,” and “Tier III” schools.


MONITORING INDICATORS

ED uses monitoring indicators to determine the fidelity of implementation of Federal programs and activities administered by SEAs. The SIG monitoring procedures and protocols concentrate on the following indicator areas: application process, technical assistance, monitoring process, fiscal responsibilities, data collection, and implementation.

2013-2014

Monitoring Plan for School Improvement Grants (SIG) October 1, 2013 to September 30, 2014.

[download files] PDF (511K)


FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2011

Nevada (February 14-18, 2011)
Letter
[download files] PDF (541K) |
[download files] MS Word (41K) Report

Pennsylvania (February 28- March 4, 2011)
Letter
[download files] PDF (454K) |
[download files] MS Word (64K) Report

California (March 7-9, 2011)
[download files] MS Word (74K) Report

Indiana (March 14-18, 2011)
[download files] MS Word (84K) Report

Maine (March 21-25, 2011)
Letter
[download files] PDF (341K) |
[download files] MS Word (61K) Report

Michigan (April 4-8, 2011)
Letter
[download files] PDF (441K) |
[download files] MS Word (51K) Report

Mississppi (May 2-6, 2011)
Letter
[download files] PDF (300K)
[download files] PDF (159K) Report |
[download files] MS Word (123K) Report

Minnesota (May 2-6, 2011)
Letter [download files] HTML|
[download files] PDF (360K)
[download files] PDF (120K) Report |
[download files] MS Word (90K) Report

Nebraska (May 9-13, 2011)
Letter
[download files] PDF (349K)
[download files] PDF (75K) Report |
[download files] MS Word (111K) Report

South Dakota (May 16-20, 2011)
Letter
[download files] PDF (501K)
[download files] PDF (75K) Report |
[download files] MS Word (120K) Report

Tennessee (September 12 – 16, 2011)
<!–Letter
[download files] PDF (431K)
–> Report |
[download files] MS Word (120K) Report

Montana (September 13 – 15, 2011)
Letter
[download files] HTML

[download files] PDF (84K) Report |
[download files] MS Word (105K) Report

<!–

Montana (May 16-20, 2011)
Letter
[download files] PDF (501K)
[download files] PDF (75K) Report |
[download files] MS Word (120K) Report–>


FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2012

Florida (October 3-7, 2011)
Letter
[download files] PDF (401K)
Report |
[download files] PDF (120K)

Iowa (October 31- November 3, 2011)
Letter
[download files] PDF (501K)
Report |
[download files] MS Word (120K)

Hawaii (December 5-9, 2011)
Letter
[download files] PDF (557K)
Report |
[download files] PDF (199K) | [download files] MS Word (120K)

Texas (December 5-9, 2011)
Letter
[download files] PDF (204K)
Report |
[download files] PDF (289K) | [download files] MS Word (143K)

Illinois (December 12-16, 2011)
Letter
[download files] PDF (453K)
Report |
[download files] PDF (253K)

Georgia (January 9-12, 2012)
Letter
[download files] PDF (138K)
Report |
[download files] PDF (100K)

New York (February 13-15, 2012)
Letter/Report

Key Documents

Introduction

The Office of School Support and Accountability (SSA) is committed to supporting States as they implement Federal grant programs. This page provides documents for key SSA activities – including information about:

  • ESEA consolidated State plans and amendments to each State’s plan
  • Waivers requested by States of ESEA requirements
  • Department peer review of State assessment systems
  • SSA performance reports regarding State implementation of ESEA programs.

The documents are provided below in a sortable, searchable table or by selecting a State from the map.

ESEA Consolidated State Plans

To received funds under the ESEA, a State must have an approved consolidated State plan under section 8302 of the ESSA. The purpose of the consolidated State plan is to provide parents with quality, transparent information about how the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, will be implemented in their State. Once approved, a State may request to amend its plan as it makes changes to improve its implementation of ESEA programs. More information about consolidated State plans can be found here.

Performance Review

As part of our responsibility for fiscal and programmatic oversight and identify areas in which States need assistance and support to meet their goals and obligations, SSA periodically assesses the extent to which State educational agencies (SEAs) provide leadership and guidance for local educational agencies (LEAs) and schools in implementing policies and procedures that comply with the provisions of our ESEA programs. SSA established a process for conducting these performance review, using the following protocols:

SEA Self-Assessment and Protocol

Assessment

The Department conducts a peer review of the technical quality of State assessment systems to determine it meets the statutory and regulatory requirements under Title I of the ESEA. Assessment peer review is the process through which a State demonstrates the technical soundness of its assessment system. Following each peer review, the Department provides formal feedback to the State along with the peer notes. More information about the Department’s work on standards and assessment systems can be found here.

State by State Information

Office of School Support and Accountability

Title I Achievement-Focused Monitoring

 

OSS Monitoring

 

Choose a State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Michigan Hawaii Alaska West Virginia Delaware District of Columbia Maryland Maryland New York New Hampshire Maine Hawaii New Jersey Massachusetts Massachusetts Rhode Island Rhode Island Connecticut Connecticut New Hampshire Vermont Vermont Pennyslvania New Jersey Delaware Virginia North Carolina South Carolina Florida Louisiana Georgia Mississippi Alabama Kentucky Ohio Minnesota Wisconsin Indiana Tennessee Illinois Missouri Iowa Arkansas Texas Oklahoma Kansas Nebraska South Dakota Montana Wyoming Colorado New Mexico Utah Arizona California Idaho Oregon Washington North Dakota Nevada

 

Monitoring Reports by Cycle

 

Reports may include monitoring results of the following programs authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB): Title I, Part A; Title I, Part B, Subpart 3; Title I, Part D; Title X, Part C, Subtitle B, of the ESEA (also known as the McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Assistance Improvements Act of 2001)and Title III.


 

Monitoring Indicators

 

New 2013 – 2014

Monitoring Plan for Formula Grant Programs
October 1, 2014 to September 30, 2014

2011 – 2012

Monitoring Plan for Formula Grant Programs
October 1, 2011 to September 30, 2012


2010-2011

Monitoring Plan for School Improvement Grants (SIG)
October 1, 2011 to September 30, 2012.

–>


 

Monitoring Cycle Report

 

2003-2006


 

PURPOSE OF MONITORING

 

OSS monitoring assesses the extent to which States provide leadership and guidance for local educational agencies (LEAs) and schools in implementing policies and procedures that comply with the provisions of the Title I, Part A, Even Start, NorD, Homeless statutes and regulations, and Title III as authorized under the Education Department of General Administrative Regulations at 34 CFR 80.40.

Monitoring formalizes the integral relationship between ED and the States. It emphasizes, first and foremost, accountability for using resources wisely in the critical venture of educating and preparing our nation’s students. Using monitoring indicators clarifies for States, and for ED monitors, the critical components of this accountability and provides a performance standard against which State policies and procedures can be measured. As a result of monitoring, ED is able to gather accurate data about State and local needs and use that data to design technical assistance initiatives and national leadership activities.

<!–

The content of SASA’s monitoring is based on States’ obligation to provide guidance and
support to local educational agencies (LEAs), based on the requirements of the No Child Left
Behind Act (NCLB). Those requirements, found in the statute and the regulations, are framed by
the four keystone principles of NCLB: accountability, choice, parental involvement, and the use of scientifically based research or “what works.” Monitoring States’ implementation of SASA programs means taking a close look at how States have instituted policies, systems, and
procedures in order to ensure LEA and school compliance with the statute and regulations. The
requirements and principles are embedded in the three monitoring areas of standards, assessment
and accountability; instructional support; and, fiduciary responsibilities. The standards for
each of these areas are described for each program.

  1. Monitoring Indicators
    ED uses clear and consistent criteria to determine the degree of implementation of SEA programs and activities. Staff has developed indicators for each of the four programs monitored under this plan, in each of the three monitoring areas. The use of such criteria ensures a consistent application of these standards across monitoring teams and across States. The published indicators provide guidance for all States regarding the purpose and intended outcomes of monitoring by describing what is being monitored (the “critical element”) and providing the criteria for judging the quality of implementation (acceptable evidence).
  2. Monitoring Title I, Part A:
    Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies.
    “The purpose of this title is to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant
    opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on
    challenging State academic achievement standards and state academic assessments,” (Title I,
    Sec.1001). SASA teams look at each State’s implementation of the Title I, Part A provisions of the law,
    organized into the three areas of standards, assessment and accountability; instructional
    support; and, fiduciary responsibilities. SEAs have significant and far-reaching responsibilities to LEAs that have the intent of supporting the purpose of this title. Some of
    those major responsibilities include the assurance that assessments, accountability systems, curriculum, and instructional materials are aligned with each State’s academic standards; meeting the educational needs of low-achieving children, focusing on closing the achievement gap and targeting resources to those LEAs and schools with the greatest needs; providing parents with opportunities to be involved in meaningful ways in the education of their children; and, holding schools and LEAs accountable for improving the academic achievement of all students.
  3. Monitoring Title I, Part B, Subpart 3:
    William F. Goodling Even Start Family Literacy Programs Even Start offers promise for helping to break the intergenerational cycle of poverty and low literacy in the Nation. The program integrates early childhood education, adult literacy (adult basic and secondary-level education and/or instruction for English language learners), parenting education, and interactive parent and child literacy activities into a single, unified family literacy program. At a minimum, a successful Even Start project should: build on high-quality, community resources; employ qualified staff; carry out instructional activities grounded in scientifically based reading research; be able to document significant literacy achievement results (for adults and children) for the families served; and make sufficient program progress as defined by the State.
  4. Monitoring Title I, Part D:
    Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children and Youth who are Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk. “It is the purpose of this part to improve educational services for children and youth in local and State institutions for neglected or delinquent children and youth so that such children and youth have the opportunity to meet the same challenging State academic content standards and challenging State student academic achievement standards that all children in the State are expected to meet;” (Title I, Part D, Sec. 1401).
  5. Monitoring Title X, Part C:
    McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Assistance Act of 2001.
    “Each State educational agency shall ensure that each child of a homeless individual and each
    homeless youth has equal access to the same free, appropriate public education, including a
    public preschool education, as provided to other children and youths.” (Title X, Part C, Sec.
    721(1)). The McKinney-Vento program is designed to address the problems that homeless children and youth face in enrolling, attending, and succeeding in school. Homeless children and youth should have access to the educational and other services that they need to enable them to meet the same challenging State student academic achievement standards to which all students are held. In addition, they may not be separated from the mainstream school environment. States and districts are required to review and undertake steps to revise laws, regulations, practices, or policies that may act as barriers to the enrollment, attendance, or success in school of homeless children and youth.

–>

 

Program Monitoring

 

For consolidated monitoring reports for the Title I, Part D/EHCY program from FY 2004 through FY 2013, please visit this webpage and click on the State.

 

<!–

The Monitoring ProcessT he desk monitoring and document review along with SASA’s on-site monitoring visits to States are the components of a continuous process of tracking State progress in implementing the statutes and
regulations for SASA’s programs.

The State contact conducts an ongoing desk monitoring of each state, routinely gathering and analyzing data and information relevant to each of the three monitoring areas within the four programs. This information is collected primarily through Web-based searches and document analysis.

Prior to the monitoring visit, SASA staff will request that the SEA submit specific documentation about four weeks prior to the scheduled on-site review. This information will assist SASA team members by providing background and context. A thorough analysis of relveant documents is crucial to conducting an effective and efficient monitoring review, document analysis helps team members identify important issues and questions before the visit, ensuring focused and productive interviews during the visit.

  1. Monitoring schedule
    • States are monitored on-site on a regular cycle, each cycle begins on October 1st and concludes September 30th with onsite visits occurring during all months except for July and August.
    • Monitoring outside of the scheduled cycle may be arranged as needed if a State evidences serious or chronic compliance problems.
  2. Monitoring team
    • Typically five to six SASA staff members participate in the monitoring site visit. One of the team members is designated as the team leader. Team members work together throughout the monitoring process, including planning, research, onsite review, debriefing, and report writing.
  3. Conducting the site visit
    • On-site monitoring typically lasts 4 to 5 days. During the site visit SASA staff review documentation that was not available prior to the trip and interview SEA and LEA staff, principals, teachers, parents, and other stakeholders. This multi-level interview strategy allows monitors to gather information from a variety of perspectives and better evaluate the impact of the State’s administration on the implementation of the four programs at the LEA and school level.

–>

 

An Overview of the Federal Monitoring Process for Title I, Part A Webcast

 

Federal Monitoring Process for Title I, Part A Webcast

Alaska Native Education

WHAT’S NEW

  • This fiscal year (FY) 2022, the Alaska Native Education (ANE) program awarded 28 new three-year grants totaling $35,312,956 million. These grants will support innovative projects that recognize and address the unique educational needs of Alaska Natives.
  • Please visit the ANE Awards page for abstracts and information on the funded projects.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The overall purpose of the Alaska Native Education program is to meet the unique education needs of Alaska Natives and to support supplemental education programs to benefit Alaska Natives. Grantees under the program use their funds for such activities as the development of curricula and education programs that address the education needs of Alaska Native students, and the development and operation of student enrichment programs in science and mathematics. Eligible activities also include professional development for educators, activities carried out through Even Start programs and Head Start programs, family literacy services, and dropout prevention programs.

TYPES OF PROJECTS

Allowable activities include, but are not limited to, the development of curricula and education programs that address the education needs of Alaska Native students deepen the cultural knowledge of Alaska Native students, and the development and operation of student enrichment programs in science and mathematics. Eligible activities also include professional development for educators, activities carried out through Even Start (#84.213) programs and Head Start programs, family literacy services, and dropout prevention programs.