Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE)
State Educational Agency (SEA)
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 State Educational Agency (SEA) is addressing fiscal and cross-program requirements. Some questions are intended to provide context for the review of other responses and supporting documentation. In subsequent on-site or desk reviews, the SEA will be asked to verify previously submitted information to ensure accuracy as well as to update documentation and evidence, as appropriate.
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. Filenames 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.
Following the completion of the review and supporting document sections, please complete the self-evaluation section. The self-evaluation section collects the SEA’s rating of performance and progress on grant administration of applicable federal programs. For each of the review sections respondents will assign a rating of Commendation (high quality), Met Requirements (satisfactory quality), Met Requirements with Recommendation (meet requirements, but with quality concerns), or Action Required (significant quality concerns requiring timely corrective action). The SEA should use information provided in the review sections to inform each section rating. As part of the review process the OESE will also rate the SEA’s performance and progress on grant administration, by section, and include the rating in a final report.
Please complete all sections before you submit your survey!
A. Long-Term Goals and Measurements of Interim Progress 5
B. Indicators and Annual Meaningful Differentiation 7
C. Identification of Schools 13
D. Support for School and LEA Improvement 18
E. Optional Public School Transfer 23
F. 1003(a) School Improvement 26
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 ICDocketMgr@ed.gov and reference the OMB Control Number 1810-New.
ESEA
Description: A State shall establish ambitious long-term goals for, at a minimum, improved academic achievement, high school graduation rates, and increases in the percentage of English learners making progress in achieving English language proficiency, which is defined by the State and measured by the State’s statewide English language proficiency assessments, within a State-determined timeline. For each long-term goal, a State shall also establish measurements of interim progress toward meeting the goal. A State shall set academic achievement and graduation rate long-term goals and measurements of interim progress for all students and separately for each subgroup of students in the State. The SEA shall also set the progress in achieving the English language proficiency long-term goal only for the English learner subgroup. Each long-term goal shall incorporate the same multi-year length of time for each subgroup of students to which it applies. For purposes of its State accountability system, a State must include economically disadvantaged students; students from each major racial and ethnic group; children with disabilities; and English learners.
Recommended SEA Participants: Federal programs, data, or accountability leads; Title I and Title III Director(s)
Subtopic |
Questions |
SEA Response |
Evidence Provided |
Long-term goals |
Did your State meet its most-recent measurements of interim progress, or, as applicable, long-term goals for academic achievement, graduation rate, and progress in achieving English language proficiency for all students and each subgroup?
|
Yes/No (Circle One) |
Suggested Documentation:
A1: Link to portion of the State report card that includes information related to meeting established long-term goals and measurements of interim progress
|
Additional Documentation |
For all subtopics, provide any additional documentation that would serve as evidence for the questions asked. |
|
Suggested Documentation: A2: Other documentation that would serve as evidence for the questions asked
|
On-site/Desk Review Questions
Subtopic |
Question |
SEA Response |
Additional Questions (Please add rows as needed.) |
|
|
ESEA
§1111(c)(4)(E)
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. Students must be included consistent with the partial attendance requirements in section 1111(c)(4)(F). A State must establish a system of annual, meaningful differentiation of all public schools in the State based on all indicators in the State’s accountability system for all students and for each subgroup of students. Each academic indicator (academic achievement; “other academic” indicator for Elementary and Secondary schools that are not high schools; progress in achieving English language proficiency; and graduation rate for high schools) must receive substantial weight individually and, in the aggregate. Additionally, each academic indicator must receive much greater weight than the school quality or student success indicator(s), in the aggregate. The system must include the differentiation of any school in which any subgroup of students is consistently underperforming, as determined by the State, based on all indicators. Students must be included consistent with the partial attendance requirements in section 1111(c)(4)(F).
Recommended SEA Participants: Federal programs, data, or accountability leads; Title I and Title III Director(s), and Program Attorney(s)
Subtopics:
Academic Achievement Indicator
Recently-arrived English Learners
Other Academic Indicator
Graduation Rate Indicator
Progress in Achieving English Language Proficiency Indicator
School Quality or Student Success Indicator
Partial Attendance
Self-Assessment Questions
Subtopic |
Questions |
SEA Response |
Evidence Provided |
Academic Achievement Indicator |
Describe how the SEA calculates the academic achievement indicator for federal Title I accountability purposes. This should include a description of how the SEA includes all schools that meet the minimum n-size and measures the performance of at least 95 percent of all students and 95 percent of all students in each subgroup when calculating the academic achievement indicator. |
Enter brief response here and/or identify responsive documentation |
Suggested Documentation:
B1: SEA’s business rules for calculating the academic achievement indicator for federal Title I accountability purposes or samples of calculations for schools (both elementary/middle and high schools) for federal Title I accountability purposes. This should include information about:
|
Academic Achievement Indicator |
Does the State implement the 8th grade mathematics exception? |
Yes/No (Circle One) |
|
Academic Achievement Indicator |
If yes, how does the SEA calculate the academic achievement indicator for middle and high schools with regard to the 8th grade mathematics exception? |
Enter brief response here and/or identify responsive documentation |
|
Academic Achievement Indicator |
If applicable, describe how the SEA calculates student growth and uses the results in the academic achievement indicator for high schools. |
Enter brief response and/or identify responsive documentation |
Suggested Documentation:
B2: If applicable, documentation of the high school growth measure, including the assessments used to measure growth
|
Recently-arrived English learners |
Describe how the SEA includes recently-arrived ELs’ performance on reading/language arts and/or mathematics in academic achievement and/or student growth in its system of annual meaningful differentiation. |
Enter brief response here and/or identify responsive documentation |
|
Other Academic Indicator |
Describe how the SEA calculates its other academic indicator.
|
Enter brief response and/or identify responsive documentation |
Suggested Documentation:
B3: SEA’s business rules for calculating the academic achievement indicator or samples of calculations for schools (both elementary/middle and high schools). This should include information about:
|
Graduation Rate Indicator |
Describe how the SEA calculates the graduation rate indicator, including, if applicable, how the SEA combines the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate (ACGR) with any extended year graduation rates. |
Enter brief response and/or identify responsive documentation |
Suggested Documentation:
B4: SEA’s business rules for calculating each indicator or samples of calculations for schools. This should include information about:
|
Progress in Achieving English Language Proficiency Indicator |
Describe how the SEA calculates the progress in achieving English language proficiency indicator.
|
Enter brief response and/or identify responsive documentation |
Suggested Documentation:
B5: SEA’s business rules for calculating the progress in achieving English language proficiency indicator or samples of calculations for schools. This should include information about how the SEA includes all schools that meet the minimum n-size |
School Quality or Student Success Indicator |
Describe how the SEA calculates each school quality or student success indicator.
|
Enter brief response and/or identify responsive documentation for each indicator
|
Suggested Documentation:
B6: SEA’s business rules for calculating the school quality or student success indicators or samples of calculations for schools (both elementary/middle and high schools). This should include information about:
|
School Quality or Student Success Indicator |
Describe how each school quality or student success indicator allows for meaningful differentiation of school performance? |
Enter brief response and/or identify responsive documentation for each indicator
|
|
Partial Attendance |
Describe how the SEA implements the partial attendance requirement in section 1111(c)(4)(F), which requires an SEA to include, in each indicator except graduation rate, only a student who has attended a school for at least half of a school year. |
Enter brief response and/or identify responsive documentation for each indicator
|
Suggested Documentation:
B7: A definition, business rules, or a procedure for determining which students to include |
Annual Meaningful Differentiation |
Describe the State’s procedures for and results of implementing annual meaningful differentiation for all elementary and secondary schools in the most recent iteration. (The State’s response should demonstrate: that all public elementary and secondary schools are included in the system; that the academic indicators (i.e., the indicators other than the School Quality or Student Success indicator(s)) each have significant weight and, collectively, have greater weight than the School Quality or Student Success indicator(s); and the rating or school identification category for each school.)
|
Enter brief response here and/or identify responsive documentation |
Suggested Documentation:
B8: Business rules for annually meaningfully differentiating among all public schools in the State. This should include information that:
B9:The results of annual meaningful differentiation for all public elementary and secondary schools in the State including the rating for each school (if applicable) or school identification category
|
Annual Meaningful Differentiation |
If applicable, describe the State’s procedures for, and results of, the alternative methodology or methodologies for annual meaningful differentiation in cases where the school cannot be included using the regular accountability system.
|
Enter brief response here and/or identify responsive documentation |
Suggested Documentation:
B10: Business rules for implementing the State’s different methodology or methodologies for schools for which an accountability determination cannot be made (e.g., K-2 schools, small schools, schools without tested grades, charter schools, and schools for special populations) B11: List of schools that were included in the State’s system of annual meaningful differentiation using a “different methodology or methodologies.”
|
Additional Documentation |
For all subtopics, provide any additional documentation that would serve as evidence for the questions asked. |
|
Suggested Documentation: B12: Other documentation that would serve as evidence for the questions asked
|
On-site/Desk Review Questions
Subtopic |
Question |
SEA Response |
Additional Questions: (Please add rows, as needed.) |
|
|
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, 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 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 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 SEA Participants: Federal programs, data, school improvement and/or accountability leads; Title I and Title III Director(s)
Subtopics:
Comprehensive Support and Improvement Schools (Lowest Performing)
Comprehensive Support and Improvement Schools (Low Graduation Rates)
Comprehensive Support and Improvement Schools (Receiving Additional Targeted Support Not Exiting Such Status)
Targeted Support and Improvement Schools (One or More Consistently Underperforming Subgroups)
Targeted Support and Improvement Schools (Additional Targeted Support)
Self-Assessment Questions
Subtopic |
Questions |
SEA Response |
Evidence Provided |
Comprehensive Support and Improvement Schools (Lowest Performing) |
What are the State’s procedures for identifying at least the lowest-performing five percent of Title I schools for Comprehensive support and improvement? |
Enter brief response here |
Suggested Documentation:
C1: Business rules for identifying schools for Comprehensive Support and Improvement C2: A list of the schools identified for Comprehensive Support and Improvement (Lowest Performing) |
Comprehensive Support and Improvement Schools (Lowest Performing) |
How many total Title I schools are in the State for the most recent school year when Comprehensive Support and Improvement (Lowest Performing) Schools were identified?
|
Insert number |
|
Comprehensive Support and Improvement Schools (Lowest Performing) |
When did the State most recently notify all LEAs with Comprehensive Support and Improvement (Lowest Performing) Schools? |
Insert month and year |
Suggested Documentation:
C3: Sample notifications to LEAs of schools identified for Comprehensive Support and Improvement (Lowest Performing)
|
Comprehensive Support and Improvement Schools (Lowest Performing) |
When will the State next notify all LEAs with schools identified as Title I schools that require Comprehensive Support and Improvement (Lowest Performing)? |
Enter brief response here and/or identify responsive documentation |
|
Comprehensive Support and Improvement Schools (Lowest Performing) |
Describe how the State includes all Title I schools in the identification of schools for Comprehensive support and improvement (Lowest Performing). |
Enter brief response here and/or identify responsive documentation |
|
Comprehensive Support and Improvement Schools (Low Graduation Rates) |
What are the State’s procedures for identifying all high schools based on graduation rates of less than 67 percent for Comprehensive support and improvement?
|
|
Suggested Documentation:
C4: List of all high schools (Title I and non-Title I) in the State with identification status rank ordered by graduation rate. |
Comprehensive Support and Improvement Schools (Low Graduation Rates) |
When did the State most recently notify all LEAs with high schools identified for Comprehensive support and improvement based on graduation rates of less than 67 percent? |
Insert month and year |
Suggested Documentation:
C5: Business rules for identifying schools for Comprehensive Support and Improvement (Low Graduation Rates)
|
Comprehensive Support and Improvement Schools (Low Graduation Rates) |
When will the State next notify all LEAs with high schools identified for Comprehensive support and improvement based on low graduation rates? |
Insert month and year |
|
Comprehensive Support and Improvement Schools (Receiving Additional Targeted Support Not Exiting Such Status) |
What are the State’s procedures for identifying for Comprehensive support and improvement those schools receiving additional Targeted support that have not exited such status? |
Enter brief response here and/or identify responsive documentation |
Suggested Documentation:
C6: Business rules for identifying for Comprehensive support and improvement those schools identified for additional Targeted support that have not exited such status |
Comprehensive Support and Improvement Schools (Receiving Additional Targeted Support Not Exiting Such Status) |
When did the State most recently notify all LEAs with schools identified for Comprehensive support and improvement based on not exiting Targeted support and improvement status in the most recent school year? |
Insert month and year |
Suggested Documentation:
C7: Business rules for identifying schools for Comprehensive Support and Improvement (Receiving Additional Targeted Support Not Exiting Such Status)
|
Comprehensive Support and Improvement Schools (Receiving Additional Targeted Support Not Exiting Such Status) |
When will the State next notify all LEAs with schools identified for Comprehensive Support and Improvement based on not exiting Targeted support and improvement status? |
Insert month and year |
|
Targeted Support and Improvement Schools (Consistently Underperforming Subgroups) |
What are the State’s procedures for annually identifying schools with one or more consistently underperforming subgroups for Targeted support and improvement status? |
Enter brief response here and/or identify responsive documentation
|
Suggested Documentation:
C8:Business rules for identifying schools for Targeted Support and Improvement (Consistently Underperforming) C9: List of schools identified for Targeted support with one or more consistently underperforming subgroup |
Targeted Support and Improvement Schools (Consistently Underperforming Subgroups) |
When did the State most recently notify LEAs with schools that have one or more consistently underperforming subgroups that require Targeted support and improvement? |
Insert month and year |
Suggested Documentation:
C10: Sample notifications to LEAs of schools identified for Targeted support and improvement based on having consistently underperforming subgroups |
Targeted Support and Improvement Schools (Additional Targeted Support) |
What are the State’s procedures to identify schools for additional Targeted support and improvement? |
Enter brief response here and/or identify responsive documentation |
Suggested Documentation:
C11: Business rules for identifying schools for Comprehensive Support and Improvement (Additional Targeted Support) C12: List of the schools identified for additional Targeted support in the most recent year C13: Sample notifications to LEAs of schools identified for additional Targeted support and improvement |
Targeted Support and Improvement Schools (Additional Targeted Support) |
When did the State most recently notify LEAs that have additional Targeted support schools? |
Insert month and year |
|
Targeted Support and Improvement Schools (Additional Targeted Support) |
When will the State next notify LEAs with schools that require additional Targeted support and improvement? |
Insert month and year |
|
Targeted Support and Improvement Schools (Consistently Underperforming and Additional Targeted Support) |
Describe how the State includes all schools in determining which schools require Targeted support and improvement (based on consistently underperforming subgroups and additional Targeted support). |
Enter brief response here and/or identify responsive documentation |
|
Additional Documentation |
For all subtopics, provide any additional documentation that would serve as evidence for the questions asked. |
|
Suggested Documentation: C14: Other documentation that would serve as evidence for the questions asked
|
On-site/Desk Review Questions
Subtopic |
Question |
SEA Response |
Additional Questions: (Please add rows, as needed.) |
|
|
ESEA
§1003(b)-(f)
§1111(d)(1)-(2)
Description: Upon receiving notification from the State, an LEA shall, for each school identified by the State and in partnership with stakeholders, develop and implement a Comprehensive support and improvement plan. Comprehensive support and improvement plans must be informed by all applicable indicators, be based on school-level needs assessments, incorporate evidence-based interventions, identify resource inequities, and include strategies to address those identified resource inequities. Comprehensive support and improvement plans must be approved by the school, LEA, and SEA. 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. An SEA shall ensure LEAs serving Targeted support and improvement schools 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, an LEA shall 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. 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 SEA Participants: Title I, Title II, and Title III Director(s), and School Improvement Team
Subtopics:
Comprehensive Support and Improvement Plans
Targeted Support and Improvement Plans
Evidence-based Interventions
Exit Criteria
More Rigorous State-determined Actions
Continued Support for School and LEA Improvement
Technical Assistance
Resource Allocation Review
Self-Assessment Questions
Subtopic |
Questions |
SEA Response |
Evidence Provided |
Comprehensive Support and Improvement |
Briefly describe the SEA’s process for reviewing and approving every Comprehensive support and improvement plan. This includes ensuring that each plan:
|
Enter brief response here and/or identify responsive documentation |
Suggested Documentation:
D1: Sample Comprehensive support and improvement plan D2: Process and timeline for the review and approval of Comprehensive support and improvement plans D3: Guidance to LEAs for the development of Comprehensive support and improvement plans
|
Comprehensive Support and Improvement |
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:
D4: SEA monitoring protocol for monitoring LEA responsibilities with respect to Comprehensive support and improvement and Targeted support and improvement schools:
D5: SEA timeline for monitoring LEA responsibilities with respect to Comprehensive support and improvement and Targeted support and improvement schools D6: Sample monitoring reports |
Targeted Support and Improvement Plans |
Describe how the SEA ensures LEAs: 1. Review and approve Targeted support and improvement plans; 2. monitor implementation of Targeted support and improvement plans; 3. Take additional action 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:
D7:Guidance to LEAs; Training materials; SEA monitoring protocols for use with LEAs |
Evidence-based Interventions |
Identify examples of evidence-based interventions currently in use in schools receiving comprehensive or Targeted support. |
Enter brief response here and/or identify responsive documentation |
Suggested Documentation:
D8: Examples of evidence-based interventions in use in Comprehensive support and improvement or Targeted support and improvement schools and list of alternative evidence-based State-determined strategies, if applicable |
Exit Criteria
|
What are the State’s procedures for determining whether a school identified for Comprehensive support has met exit criteria? This should include evidence that the schools that exit made continued progress in student academic achievement and school success. |
Enter brief response here and/or identify responsive documentation |
Suggested Documentation:
D9: Business rules for determining whether a school identified for comprehensive support has met exit criteria D10: Data showing the progress schools that exited have made
|
More Rigorous State-determined Actions |
What more rigorous State-determined actions has the SEA required for schools identified for Comprehensive support and improvement that fail to meet statewide exit criteria after a State-determined number of years? |
Enter brief response here and/or identify responsive documentation |
Suggested Documentation:
D11: List of schools that have failed to meet statewide exit criteria after a State-determined number of years D12: More rigorous actions taken for those schools |
Continued Support for School and LEA Improvement |
For which LEAs has the SEA determined that there are a significant number or percentage of schools identified for Comprehensive or Targeted support and improvement? |
Enter brief response here and/or identify responsive documentation |
Suggested Documentation:
D13: A list of LEAs that that have a significant number or percentage of schools identified for Comprehensive or Targeted support and improvement for the most recent/current school year |
Technical Assistance |
Describe the technical assistance the SEA provides to LEAs serving a significant number of schools implementing Comprehensive or Targeted support and improvement plans (i.e., those LEAs identified above). |
Enter brief response here and/or identify responsive documentation |
Suggested Documentation:
D14: A list of LEAs that that have a significant number or percentage of schools identified for Comprehensive or Targeted support and improvement for the most recent/current school year |
Resource Allocation Review
|
Describe how the SEA periodically reviews resource allocation to support school improvement in each LEA serving a significant number or percentage of schools identified for Comprehensive or Targeted support and improvement (i.e., those LEAs identified above). |
Enter brief response here and/or identify responsive documentation |
Suggested Documentation:
D15: Protocol or procedures for periodically reviewing resource allocation for LEAs serving a significant number or percentage of schools identified for Comprehensive or Targeted support and improvement |
Additional Documentation |
For all subtopics, provide any additional documentation that would serve as evidence for the questions asked. |
|
Suggested Documentation: D16: Other documentation that would serve as evidence for the questions asked.
|
On-site/Desk Review Questions
Subtopic |
Question |
SEA 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 SEA Participants: Title I, School Improvement Team, and Program Attorney(s)
Subtopics:
LEA Participation
Monitoring
Technical Assistance
Subtopic |
Questions |
SEA Response |
Evidence Provided |
LEA Participation |
Does State law allow students enrolled in a public school identified by the State for Comprehensive support and improvement the option to transfer to another public school served by the LEA? |
Yes/No (Circle One) |
Suggested Documentation:
E1: Relevant State law citation (prohibiting transfer or allowing the transfer) E2: Suggested Documentation: School transfer business rules E3: Suggested Documentation: School transfer policy and procedures manual
|
LEA Participation |
How many LEAs in the State provide students with the option to transfer in accordance with this ESEA provision? |
Enter brief response here |
Suggested Documentation:
E5: Guidance to LEAs on implementing the transfer option for public school choice
|
Additional Documentation |
For all subtopics, provide any additional documentation that would serve as evidence for the questions asked. |
|
Suggested Documentation:
E6: Public school choice transportation guidance E7: Other documentation that would serve as evidence for the questions asked |
Subtopic |
Question |
SEA Response |
Technical Assistance
|
Describe the guidance the SEA provides to LEAs on providing all students that are enrolled in a school identified by the State for Comprehensive support and improvement with the option to transfer to another public school served by the LEA? |
|
Additional Questions: (Please add rows, as needed.) |
|
|
ESEA
§1003
§1111(d)(1)-(2)
§8101(21)(B)
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 SEA Participants: Title I, School Improvement Team, and Program Attorney(s)
Subtopics:
1003 School Improvement
Self-Assessment Questions
Subtopic |
Questions |
SEA Response |
Evidence Provided |
1003(a) School Improvement |
Did the SEA award subgrants under section 1003 to LEAs in the preceding year to serve schools implementing Comprehensive support and improvement activities or Targeted support and improvement activities through a formula, competition, or a combination. |
Formula/Competitive/Combination (Circle One) |
Suggested Documentation:
F1: A list of schools or link to the State report card that lists all LEAs and schools that received funds under this section, including the amount of funds each school received and the types of strategies implemented in each school with such funds
|
1003(a) School Improvement |
Please provide the SEA’s application, application review process, and guidance to LEAs. |
Provide documentation or enter brief response here |
Suggested Documentation:
F2:
SEA’s process to review and approve applications F4: A Sample LEA 1003 application F5: SEA guidance to LEAs regarding the application process
|
1003(a) School Improvement |
Does the SEA take the geographic diversity of the State into account when allocating section 1003 subgrants to LEAs? |
Yes/No (Circle One) |
|
1003(a) School Improvement |
How does the SEA ensure that LEA subgrants are of sufficient size and duration to enable the effective implementation of selected strategies? |
Enter brief response here |
Suggested Documentation:
F6: A copy of SEA guidance or invitation for applications that describes possible award sizes
|
1003(a) School Improvement |
How does the SEA monitor and evaluate LEAs’ use of section 1003 funds? |
Enter brief response here |
Suggested Documentation:
F7: Monitoring schedule and protocol
|
1003(a) School Improvement |
How does the SEA’s method of allocating section 1003 subgrants give priority to LEAs that (1) serve high numbers, or a high percentage, of elementary schools and secondary schools implementing Comprehensive support and improvement and Targeted support and improvement plans, (2) demonstrate the greatest need for section 1003 funds, and (3) demonstrate the strongest commitment to using section 1003 funds to enable the lowest-performing schools to improve student achievement and student outcomes? |
Enter Brief Response Here |
Suggested Documentation:
F8: Documentation that demonstrates the SEA’s process for determining “strongest commitment” and “greatest need”
|
1003(a) School Improvement |
What percentage of funds reserved under ESEA section 1003(a) did the SEA allocate to LEA subgrants? |
Enter Brief Response Here |
|
1003(a) School Improvement |
Did the SEA, with the approval of individual LEAs, directly provide Comprehensive or Targeted support and improvement activities or arrange for activities through other entities (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) |
Suggested Documentation:
F9: Process for requesting approval of LEAs and documentation of approval by individual LEAs F10: If the SEA uses an outside entity, documentation of the process to identify and approve such entities
|
1003(a) School Improvement |
How did the SEA use section 1003 funds not allocated to LEAs (e.g., administrative activities such as monitoring, grant competition, SEA personnel salaries for administering section 1003)? |
Enter brief response here |
|
1003(a) School Improvement |
What was the length of the section 1003 subgrants awarded to LEAs? Did the grant period include a planning year? |
Enter brief response here |
|
1003(a) School Improvement |
If a Comprehensive or Targeted support and improvement school pays for an intervention or improvement activity or strategy (i.e., evidence-based intervention) with 1003(a) funds, describe how the SEA ensures the intervention is based on strong, moderate, or promising evidence of a statistically significant effect on improving student outcomes or other relevant outcomes? |
Enter brief response here |
|
Additional Documentation |
For all subtopics, provide any additional documentation that would serve as evidence for the questions asked. |
|
Suggested Documentation:
F11: Other documentation that would serve as evidence for the questions asked |
On-site/Desk Review Questions
Subtopic |
Question |
SEA Response |
1003(a) School Improvement |
If the SEA provides services directly or through another entity, how does the SEA ensure external providers have demonstrated success in implementing the evidence-based intervention that they will implement in CSI and TSI school? |
|
1003(a) School Improvement |
What is the SEA’s process for compiling a list of SEA-approved vendors? |
|
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: An SEA is required to have appropriate procedures in place to ensure that the data reported to the public and the U.S. Department of Education are high quality (i.e., timely, complete, accurate, valid, and reliable).
Recommended SEA Participants: Chief Information Officer/Director of Information Management (or designated representative), Assessment Director, EDFacts Coordinator, Title I (including §1003), Title II, and Title III Program Directors
Subtopics:
Technical Assistance
Internal Controls for Data
Review Process
U.S. Department of Education Feedback Process
Subtopic |
Questions |
SEA Response |
Evidence Provided |
Technical Assistance |
Does the SEA have a process to share information with LEAs to ensure they understand reporting requirements? |
Yes/No (Circle One) |
Suggested Documentation:
G1: Guidance/instructions provided to LEAs listing reporting requirements and timelines (e.g. FAQs, Statewide communication to LEAs, official calendar for reporting)
|
Technical Assistance |
Does the SEA have a process to provide training to LEAs to ensure they understand reporting requirements? |
Yes/No (Circle One) |
Suggested Documentation:
G2: Sample LEA training materials pertaining to data reporting requirements |
Internal Controls for Data |
Does the SEA have a system of internal controls to ensure high-quality data? |
Yes/No (Circle One) |
Suggested Documentation:
G3: SEA business rules for identifying systemic or systematic data quality issues
|
Internal Controls for Data |
Does the SEA require management certification for data by appropriate LEA officials? |
Yes/No (Circle One) |
Suggested Documentation:
G4: Sample LEA management certification form or certification language
|
Internal Controls for Data |
Does the SEA monitor LEAs to ensure that they have processes in place so that reported data are of high quality? |
Yes/No (Circle One) |
Suggested Documentation:
G5: Evidence of LEA monitoring related to LEA data management (e.g., monitoring protocols that include data quality questions, evidence of follow up activities related to data quality Single Audit findings)
|
Review Process |
Does the SEA have a process to annually inventory all data elements that it is required to report against to ensure that it is meeting all reporting requirements? |
Yes/No (Circle One) |
Suggested Documentation:
G6: SEA data dictionary that is used to conduct an inventory of all required data elements
|
Review Process |
Are SEA data systems and data processing procedures, including data validation processes, designed to meet reporting timelines? |
Yes/No (Circle One) |
Suggested Documentation:
G7: State documents listing steps and deadlines for data reporting requirements (e.g., internal data reporting calendars that are aligned to Federal reporting timelines)
|
Review Process |
Does the SEA data quality review process incorporate rules that address timeliness, completeness, accuracy, validity, and reliability? |
Yes/No (Circle One) |
Suggested Documentation:
G8: SEA SOPs or related documents for reviewing data submitted by LEAs and schools and Evidence of how the State defines high quality data |
U.S. Department of Education Feedback Process |
Does the SEA have procedures in place to address data quality feedback from the Department? |
Yes/No (Circle One) |
|
Additional Documentation |
For all subtopics, provide any additional documentation that would serve as evidence for the questions asked. |
|
Suggested Documentation:
G9: Other documentation that would serve as evidence for the questions asked
|
Subtopic |
Question |
SEA Response |
Technical Assistance |
Describe the SEA’s process to share information with LEAs to ensure they understand reporting requirements and submit data that are of high quality (i.e., timely, complete, accurate, valid, and reliable). |
|
Technical Assistance |
If the SEA provides training to LEAs to ensure they understand reporting requirements and submit data that are of high quality (i.e., timely, complete, accurate, valid, and reliable), please describe. |
|
Internal Controls for Data |
Describe how the business rules within the SEA data system ensure that the data reported are of high-quality. |
|
Internal Controls for Data |
Describe the management certification process that results in LEAs ensuring 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). |
NOTE: This question may not be needed if the SEA provides a sufficient response and documentation in response to the self-assessment. |
Internal Controls for Data |
How does the SEA monitor LEAs to ensure they have processes in place that result in accurate and complete LEA and school level data(e.g., periodic monitoring, review of LEA business rules, audits of submitted data). |
NOTE: This question may not be needed if the SEA provides a sufficient response and documentation in response to the self-assessment. |
Internal Controls for Data |
Using adjusted cohort graduation rates as an example, describe the SEA’s business rules, LEA certification process, and monitoring process. |
|
Review Process |
How does the SEA ensure that it collects all required federal program data (e.g., performance data, accountability data, program participation data) from LEAs in accordance with established timelines? |
|
Review Process |
During the data review process, how does the SEA provide support to LEAs to resolve data quality issues that it identifies through its data quality process? |
|
Review Process |
What measures does the SEA take to resolve problems with LEAs that repeatedly submit data that are late, incomplete, or inaccurate? |
|
U.S. Department of Education Feedback Process |
Describe the SEA process for ensuring appropriate documentation (e.g., data notes or system comments) along with reported data elements to note data limitations, define terms, and ensure data are used appropriately. |
|
U.S. Department of Education Feedback Process |
What process does the SEA use to address data quality feedback received from the U.S. Department of Education on its data submissions? |
|
U.S. Department of Education Feedback Process |
If the data quality feedback is related to program content, how does the SEA engage content experts (e.g., State agency colleagues and LEA staff), in the process of addressing feedback? |
|
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 SEA Participants: Chief Information Officer /Director of Information Management (or designated representative), Assessment Director, EDFacts Coordinator, Title I (including §1003), Title II, and Title III Program Directors
Subtopics:
Process for Timely Reporting
Cross Tabulation
Data Publication
Subtopic |
Questions |
SEA Response |
Evidence Provided |
Process for Timely Reporting |
Which entity has responsibility for disseminating LEA report cards? |
SEA publishes and hosts LEA Report Cards/LEA publishes and hosts LEA Report Cards/Other (write in) (Circle One) |
|
Process for Timely Reporting |
When does the SEA annually publish the State report card and, if applicable, LEA report cards? |
Enter brief response here |
|
Process for Timely Reporting |
What is the website address where the State report card and LEA report cards (if applicable) are made publicly available? |
Enter brief response here |
Suggested Documentation:
H1: Website addresses or hyperlinks to the most recent State report card and three (3) LEA report cards created and published to meet federal requirements. Note: website addresses and hyperlinks should link to all required report card elements.
|
Cross Tabulation |
How and where does the SEA provide cross-tabulated data for select elements, as required by §1111(g)(2)(N)? |
Enter brief response here |
Suggested Documentation:
H2: Link to website where the required cross-tabulated State-level information can be found. |
Data Publication |
Is the report card available on a single webpage of the SEA’s website? |
Yes/No (Circle One) |
|
Data Publication |
In what languages is the report card available? |
Enter brief response here |
|
Data Publication |
Was the report card developed in consultation with parents? |
Yes/No (Circle One) |
Suggested Documentation:
H3: Description of the process used to establish the SEA report card. |
Data Publication |
What methods are used to ensure that information included on State and LEA report cards is collected and disseminated in a way that protects the individual privacy? |
Suppression with complementary suppression/Blurring /Other (write-in) (Check all the apply)
|
Suggested Documentation:
H4: A description of the methodology used to prevent improper disclosure of personally identifiable information (PII) from information related to the State and LEA report cards H5: Policies or procedures used to safeguard the privacy of individuals with respect to information collected and publish on the State and LEA report cards
|
Data Publication |
Does the SEA report card include all required data? |
Yes/No (Circle One) |
|
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) |
|
Data Publication |
In calculating the adjusted cohort graduation rate for federal reporting and accountability purposes, does the state only include regular high school diplomas awarded to the preponderance of students and that are aligned to state-standards and more advanced diplomas? |
Yes/No (Circle One) |
|
Data Publication |
Does the state calculate and report a graduation rate for all high schools from which students are expected to receive a regular high school diploma or, as applicable, State-defined alternate diploma? |
|
|
Data Publication |
On what date is per-pupil expenditure information added to report cards and for which fiscal year does the most recently published report card cover (e.g., March, most recently covering FY 2018)? |
Enter brief response here |
|
Data Publication |
How many different high school diplomas does your State offer? In your response describe the differences between each diploma. |
Enter brief response here |
|
Data Publication |
Does the State offer multiple pathways to attain a regular high school diploma? |
Yes/No (circle one) |
Suggested Documentation:
H6: State policy or regulations describing any pathways that are permitted. |
Data Publication |
What is the SEA’s definition of a regular high school diploma for purposes of calculating the ACGR? |
Enter brief response and/or identify responsive documentation |
Suggested Documentation:
H7: Chart or public document identifying diploma types (including pathways, if applicable) and requirements for each
|
Data Publication |
If the SEA offers a State-defined alternate diploma for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, what are the requirements for such a diploma?
|
Enter brief response and/or identify responsive documentation |
Suggested Documentation:
H8: State requirements for alternate diploma H9: Guidance to LEAs on the alternate diploma, including student eligibility
Note: If the State has a State-defined alternate diploma, please share the relevant information with OSEP.
|
Data Publication |
If the SEA offers a State-defined alternate diploma for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, how does the SEA include the State-defined alternate diploma in its ACGR calculations? |
|
Suggested Documentation:
H10: Business rules for adjusting the graduation cohort to include students who receive the State’s alternate diploma
|
Additional Documentation |
For all subtopics, provide any additional documentation that would serve as evidence for the questions asked. |
|
Suggested Documentation:
H11: Other documentation that would serve as evidence for the questions asked
|
Subtopic |
Question |
SEA Response |
Data Publication |
How did the SEA gather input from parents and other stakeholders when creating the format, presentation, and publication location of State and LEA report cards? |
|
Data Publication |
How does the SEA continue to gather input from parents and other stakeholders on an on-going basis? |
|
Data Publication |
Of the diploma types offered by the State, which are included in calculating the adjusted cohort graduation rate? |
|
Data Publication |
If the State offers multiple pathways, describe each pathway to a regular high school diploma? |
|
Data Publication |
Are students with disabilities on Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) expected to meet the same requirements for graduation as all other students? Please describe any exceptions or differences in graduation rate requirements for students on IEPs. |
|
Data Publication |
Describe how the State would account for the graduation outcome of a student who transferred to an alternative school or other special schools that do not award regular or, as applicable, State defined alternative diplomas, and did not transfer back to their original school prior to their expected graduation timeline. |
|
Data Publication |
Supplemental Questions: (For any element missing from the SEA and LEA report card) Why was the SEA unable to report this element(s)? How does the SEA plan to remedy the issue during the current reporting cycle and how will the SEA mitigate against this occurring in the future? |
|
Additional Questions: (Please add rows, as needed.) |
|
|
The self-evaluation section collects the SEA’s rating of performance and progress on grant administration of applicable federal programs. For each section, please rate your SEA’s performance and progress on grant administration. The SEA should use information provided in the review sections to inform the ratings in the SEA Self-Evaluation. Ratings are based on a four-point scale, for which “met requirements with commendation” represents high quality implementation where the grantee is exceeding expectations; “met requirements” indicates that work is of an acceptable quality and the grantee is meeting expectations; “met requirements with recommendations” indicates there are quality implementation concerns and some improvements could be made to ensure the grantee continues to meet expectations; and “action required” indicates there are significant compliance or quality concerns that require urgent attention by the SEA and will be revisited until the SEA has remedied the issue.
Domain: Section |
SEA Self-Evaluation |
Financial Management and Cross-Cutting Requirements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Program Fiscal Requirements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Programmatic Requirements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| File Type | application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document |
| File Title | OSS_PerfRev_SEA_Protocol |
| Author | Molly Budman |
| File Modified | 0000-00-00 |
| File Created | 2021-01-20 |