Federal Program Monitoring and Support Division

Charlotte Hughes, DirectorDonna Brown, Section Chief

Federal Program Monitoring and Support Division

• $437,000,000 in federal funds• 2 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 Lowest-Achieving (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

•Estimated FY10 – $ 37,000,000•Available through September 2014 with a waiver•31 LEAs•45 persistently lowest-achieving schools

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 ModelsTURNAROUND RESTART TRANSFORMATION CLOSURE

Replace Principal

Rehire up to 50% of staff

Extended learning time

Ensure use of data

Provide job-embedded PD

Research-based instructional programs and standards that are vertically aligned

CMO or EMO hired to run the school

Replace Principal

New teacher evaluation system

Extended learning time

Ensure use of data

Provide job-embedded PD

Research-based instructional programs and standards that are vertically aligned

LEA closes school

Students enrolled in higher performing school

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 early-college high schools, or dual enrollment classes; and• Teacher attendance rate.

NCDPI Resources

•Application materials•SIGnificant Points newsletter•http://www.ncpublicschools.org/program-monitoring/