Gold Community Call (March 18, 2019)

Banner

Gold Community Call (March 18, 2019)

You are here

Call Date

Monday, March 18, 2019 - 3:00pm

Agenda

  1. Welcome and Introductions
  2. New Resources
  3. Seminal Topic Discussion: Subgrantee Monitoring

Notes

Welcome and Introductions

  • New Coordinator: Cherie Wasiel, AZ

Updates from NDTAC

  • New Resources: Improving math instruction; Pre-posttests
    • Links and information about the guides
  • National Conference
    • Registration is now open!
    • Conference Planning Committee – thank you to the planning committee, several members of which are on the phone. They represent the voice of this community and others. To the planning committee members on the call right now, any thoughts about the agenda or conference?

Karen Auble (OH) – on the conference planning committee calls, we echoed each other in terms of what we want to see at the conference and hoping the agenda will reflect shared interests. Thank you to NDTAC for considering the concerns of both new and seasoned coordinators.

Valerie Ashton-Thomas (MD) – agree with what Karen said. Honored to be a part of these meetings.

David Blumenthal (NDTAC) – as an aside, there is a spot held for each coordinator to bring a guest. Additional individuals who may wish to attend (e.g., other state employees, subgrantees) can be placed on a waiting list that will open once regular registration ends, allowing the coordinators to attend first. Contact Sara Trevino (strevino@air.org) for more information.

  • Conference keynote speaker, Peter Forbes
    • Peter will be the first state-level administrator as a conference keynote
  •     Topical Call in April on Use of Funds
    • Next call is on April 30 at 12 p.m. (ET)
    • Save the date invitation is coming soon
  • Presentation Opportunities
    • NDTAC is available to present at your state event; please contact David or complete a request form

Seminal Topics: Subgrantee Monitoring

Discussion Question:

What guidance do you provide to subgrantees to assist with counting youth in SUBPART 1 facilities with a high-school diploma (HSD) equivalent (e.g., GED, HiSET), but not to count youth with an HSD?

Karen DeCoster (MA) – would like some clarification on this question because both grant recipients and me have been unclear about this topic. When asking whether those youth with HSD may be counted if students are working toward a HS diploma, is it only if they are working toward an HSD, or is it if when facilities tabe(?)  these youth and they want to enroll them in extra instruction? Can you clarify?

David Blumenthal (NDTAC) – what does the community think? How have you addressed this?

Francine Stromberg (NJ) – we don’t typically come across this because most students with GED-equivalent want to get college courses or vocational courses, given they already have their credentials. Haven’t seen this.

Karen DeCoster (MA) – at times, some facilities have included students with HSD, then the question arose as to whether they could include those with a GED or HiSET. These students mostly receive WIOA funding, which allows enrollment in education program with that grant, even with college degree, as long as the student tests poorly.

Francine Stromberg (NJ) – Are they enrolled in school?

Karen DeCoster (MA) – difficult to answer with confidence. Instructions around the count that define enrollment in regular program of instruction having avail 15 hours of instruction with opportunity to enroll, but they cannot force the student to attend, just present with the opportunity. So, in some cases, a few facilities have what I consider a questionable count, but technically are in compliance. The data of the count are so far removed from the provision of services (one year behind), so it may not be the same youth getting the services that were counted in consideration of the grant.

David Blumenthal (NDTAC) – here is a link to nonregulatory guidance that may address some of these questions: https://neglected-delinquent.ed.gov/title-i-part-d-nonregulatory-guidance-state-agency-programs-part-d-subpart-1#sa_eligiblechildren.

Francine Stromberg (NJ) – the enrolled part is key in this.

David Blumenthal (NDTAC) – in this guidance, E2 talks about youth enrolled in the program. Also, there is some information about university/college programs in the guidance.

Valerie Ashton-Thomas (MD) – does not have examples to contribute, but recently received a question about requirements for youth under 21. The project director raised a question about when there is a disproportional amount of students that do not have an IET.

Karen DeCoster (MA) – this is not the current question under discussion, but a noticeable pattern is that these students find themselves in restricted housing, so they are ineligible for attending class, even within 30 days after release; yet facilities have been counting them.

Francine Stromberg (NJ) – for our students in restricted housing, there is school in restricted housing. Most of them don’t have a GED or HSD. They tend to be enrolled in programs the facility offers. It seems like they would have to be enrolled to be counted.

Karen DeCoster (MA) – when you do monitoring do you look for evidence of this?

Francine Stromberg (NJ) – yes, look at their list and quarterly see the numbers they provide. When monitoring, generally look at overall attendance and pick out students from that to check.

Karen DeCoster (MA) – does the facility do the verification?

Francine Stromberg (NJ) – yes, from the schools and it is tracked in a system that the whole correctional facility system uses (JJ system).

David Blumenthal (NDTAC) – this has been a helpful discussion with examples. Are there other examples or tools from the community that can help others regarding monitoring or other topics?

Francine Stromberg (NJ) – another specific question: do TIPD coordinators monitor the LEAs comprehensively or separately (i.e., just the TIPD part)?

James Dargati (CT)(?) – in CT, we do both; combined monitoring system of ESSA with state reform monitoring program.

Ada Daniels (WA) – are you asking about when we monitor TIPD programs? If so, yes, in WA we do consolidated program review and go out with the district, and when a facility is under TIPD, we monitor only the TIPD portion related to CSPR. If it is an educational service district, I go alone; if it is a school district, my entire department goes.

[From chat] Jamie Miller (PA): Pennsylvania has separate monitoring for Title I, Part D.  It is not part of the LEA monitoring.

David Blumenthal (NDTAC) – how many have a schedule for monitoring?

Valerie Ashton-Thomas (MD) – in MD, we conduct Part D separately, but the state department is in early stages of consolidating the application; the process is to be rolled out in phases starting in the next school year (currently application and monitoring tool separate). We conduct monitoring annually – I also try to visit a different facility each year. There are two applications and two monitoring tools for Subpart 1 and Subpart 2, respectively. But the protocol itself is similar across Subpart 1 and Subpart 2.

[chat] LaNetra Guess (TX): TX has separate desktop monitoring for Part D, Subparts 1 and 2. We are doing this for the first time in a LONG time. I will do program monitoring of a few LEAs receiving funds and our fiscal department will monitoring a few districts receiving funds. We have a consolidated application, but no onsite monitoring has taken place in years from which I  can locate. So desktop monitoring will be a first for the majority of our districts, staring in April.

Francine Stromberg (NJ) – been monitoring, then the next year following up on corrective actions. Is that what others are doing?

Karen DeCoster (MA) – in the past, we have not been monitoring Subpart 1 consistently. Now we are generating a report and issuing corrective action, including required follow-up dates. Would love to see what NJ is using, now or at the conference.

David Blumenthal (NDTAC) – if Francine is comfortable with it, NDTAC can send this to the community.

Closing & Adjourn

  • Save the Date: April “Office Hours”
    • Friday, April 26 at 2 p.m. – 3 p.m. (EDT)
    • Topic: identifying facilities and determining eligibility
    • NDTAC’s project director, Simon Gonsoulin, will join the Gold Community State Liaison, David Blumenthal, on the call
  • Other questions to pose to the community?

Karen DeCoster (MA): would love to hear from those with experience monitoring on how to impact quality of education through monitoring. How to get beyond compliance?  How to avoid sub-par quality teaching?

Francine Stromberg (NJ) – just had a quarterly meeting with state Subpart 1 and Subpart 2 agencies and this is a shared frustration. Responsibility lies with the facilities’ supervisors of education to maintain the level of quality of instruction. Also affected by unions with different rules/regulations than those of teachers.

Karen DeCoster (MA) – the directors often do not have an education background.

Francine Stromberg (NJ) – agreed. The quarterly meetings are a good way to discuss these issues and brainstorm ways to address the challenges (e.g., disseminating information to the facilities)

 

*Please contact your TA liaison for the recording and slides.