1 2015 NDTAC National Conference Recap and Debrief Looking Ahead: Preparing for the Future of Your State Title I, Part D Program May 19–21, 2015 Arlington,

1

2015 NDTAC National Conference Recap and DebriefLooking Ahead: Preparing for the Future of Your State Title I, Part D ProgramMay 19–21, 2015Arlington, VA

Lauren Amos, Liann Seiter and Katie Deal, NDTAC TA Liaisons

2

Agenda

• Conference Materials

• Conference Agenda

• Federal Monitoring

• Keynote Presentation

• Plenary I: Risk Management

• Plenary II: State Plans

• Federal Q&A

• Federal Panel

• ND Communities

• Closing

3

Conference Materials

• CONFERENCE MATERIALS: http://www.ndcommunities.org/2015-ndtac-national-conference

– 2015 NDTAC National Conference Program (PDF)

– Day 1: New Coordinators Meeting Presentation (PPTX)

– Day 1: Keynote Presentation (PPTX)

– Day 1: Keynote Handout: ADJC Total Youth by Year (PDF)

– Day 1: Keynote Handout: ADJC Recidivism Rates 2014 (PDF)

– Day 1: Pre-Conference Workshop Handout: OSHS Monitoring Indicators (PDF)

– Day 1: Pre-Conference Workshop Handout: Five Federal Guiding Principles (PDF)

– Day 2: Plenary I: Presentation (PPTX)

– Day 2: Plenary I: Breakout Session Handout (WORD)

– Day 2: Plenary II: Presentation (Deal) (PPTX)

– Day 2: Plenary II: Presentation (McLaughlin) (PPTX)

– Day 2: Plenary II: Breakout Session: Goals Worksheet (WORD)

– Day 2: Plenary II: Breakout Session: State Plan Template (WORD)

– Day 3: ND Communities: Compelling TA Requests

– Day 3: ND Communities: Thoughtful TTA Worksheet

4

Conference Agenda

5

PRECONFERENCE WORKSHOP

Federal Monitoring

2015 NDTAC NATIONAL CONFERENCETITLE I, PART D SEA MONITORING

Presented by:

John McLaughlin,

Federal Coordinator for the Title I, Part D Program

TIPD Staffing in Office of Safe and Healthy Students (OSHS) • Sharon Burton• Norris Dickard• David Esquith • Maureen Herman• Debra Little• John McLaughlin

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oese/oshs/index.html

May 2015 • 7

Monitoring Risk Assessments• Begun by OESE in FY ’11 for programs in TA initiative;

risk assessment method and monitoring plan required from FY ’12

• TIPD and EHCY assessments combined but then Title I, Part A, Title III or SIG “outweighed” these assessments

• Every year the data and methods vary but most stable elements are:--Multiple or recurring findings in last review

--Poor performance on reading and math assessments

--State Coordinator turnover within 2 years

--Large available balances 21 months into grant period

--Years since last program review

May 2015 8

Subgrantee Selection and Risk Assessment

• ED plans to use LEA subgrantee performance data to select Subpart 2 subgrantees for review

• GPRA measures and leading indicators are likely criteria• Award amount, presence of EHCY subgrant and proximity

to State capitol still remain top criteria• LEAs selected will be asked about their EDFacts data

which are aggregated to populate CSPR tables• Agency Child Count and GEPA data on grant funds spent

may be used.• ED has limited access to State agency-specific data;

SEAs may advise ED on subgrantee performance issues• CRDC and OSEP data may be referred to from FY ‘16

May 2015 9

ED Monitors States – not LEAs• ED gathers evidence from the local level to assess the

effectiveness and the impact of State policy on local practice.

• ED reviews the SEA’s activities with its grantees: guidance and technical assistance.

• ED reviews the effectiveness of SEA monitoring of State and local agency programs.

10May 2015

State Monitoring of Subgrantees• In addition to asking about SEA support for program

implementation, monitors also ask about SEA monitoring including:• The schedule, process, and protocol for State monitoring;• The results of the most recent State monitoring of the program; and• Any corrective actions and follow-up by the SEA for any

compliance issues identified.

11May 2015

Tips: Common Findings• State agency application requirements such as data for

MOE, names of transition coordinators for every facility, every description and assurance, all 8 IWP elements

• State agency institution eligibility to be served: RPI, ALOS, age range

• Use of TIPD to evaluate TIPD program value added• LEA-facility agreements and some required descriptions• Transition set-aside not clear from application, budget

and/or budget narrative• Timeliness of grant awards

12May 2015

Plans for FY 2016• NDTAC may develop extranet website to upload

monitoring documents; assist with desk monitoring• NDTAC may provide State workbooks with EDFacts LEA

level data and perhaps CRDC and OSEP data• NDTAC may help develop State plan templates (and

facilitate peer reviews of actual State plans)• States will be asked to set annual goals for GPRA

measures, leading indicators or other goals• Ad hoc group to discuss fiscal guidance and monitoring • Pilot interviews with parents and other stakeholders?

13May 2015

Plans for FY 2017 and Beyond• All SEAs to be reviewed ideally once every five years and

selected by risk assessment• Risk assessments will be conducted annually (spring) to

guide selection of States (summer)• New monitoring plan and indicators to be issued in 2016

• Expanded performance management indicator (1.2)• Rename Indicator 2 “Program Support,” include stakeholder

recommendations?• Expanded fiscal desk monitoring (3.1 and 3.2)

• All document checklists and interview protocols to be released for monitoring self-assessment

14May 2015

15

KEYNOTE PRESENTATION

Reentry Demonstration Grantees

16

Keynote Presentation: Reentry Demonstration Grantees

• Heather Griller-Clark, NDTAC Expert Panelist; Principal Research Specialist, Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College; Principal Investigator, Project Rise, Arizona State University

• Sarup Mathur, Associate Professor, Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College; Principal Investigator, Project Rise, Arizona State University

• James Short, Project Manager, Project Rise, Arizona State University

• Leslie LaCroix, Transition Specialist, Project Rise, Arizona State University

PROJECT RISER E - E N T RY, I N T E RV E N T I O N & S U P P O RT F O R E N G A G E M E N T

A SEAMLESS TRANSITION MODEL FOR AT-RISK STUDENTS

ADJC

Project RISE

What it is:

Project RISE is a four year model demonstration project that partners Arizona State University and the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections.

Project RISE is funded through the United Stated Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs.

Project RISE is part of the MDCC (Model Demonstration Coordination Center) along with the University of Minnesota and the University of Oregon.

Project RISE

What it does:

Project RISE focuses on developing a model for successful reentry of youth with disabilities from the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections back into schools, employment, and community programs.

Individualized Goals To provide intensive educational and vocational programming that follows

Individualized Education Plan (IEP) and Individualized Transition Plan (ITP) goals. To develop a transition portfolio for youth with disabilities To provide individualized aftercare and community supports for youth with

disabilities.

Systemic Goals To establish a seamless transfer of educational records and services. To increase interagency linkages and communication To establish a youth tracking system.

Project RISE

Who it serves:

Project RISE is committed to providing comprehensive transition services and continued support to identified youth that meet the following criteria:

• “New Commits” to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections

• Youth with an active IEP (Individual Education Plan)

• Youth ages 8-18+

• Youth returning to Maricopa County

Project RISE

Project RISE strives to:

Decrease recidivism rates

Increase graduation rates (H.S. Diploma/GED)

Increase participation in post-secondary education and/or vocational training

Bridge the gap between all stakeholders and help streamline the transition process from secure care back into the community

Demonstrate that smaller caseloads with more comprehensive, individualized case management will yield better outcomes

Create a model that is sustainable and replicable

Project RISE

The Process:

Identify the client within the first week of arrival at the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections

Explain Project RISE to the identified client

Obtain parent/guardian permission to participate in Project RISE

Begin intensive case management that prepares the youth for transition

23

PLENARY I

Using the Federal Guiding Principles for Providing High-Quality Education in Juvenile Justice Secure Care Settings to Support Risk Management

24

Plenary I: Risk Management

• Edward Loughran, Executive Director, Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators

• Susan Lockwood, Director, Juvenile Justice Education, Indiana Department of Correction

• Jeannette E. Allen, Principal, Northern Virginia Juvenile Detention Center School

• Simon Gonsoulin, NDTAC Project Director

• Lauren Amos, NDTAC State Liaison

25

About the “Guiding Principles”

• Package, developed by ED and DOJ, outlines:

– Five guiding principles for providing high-quality education in juvenile justice secure care settings

– Core activities for consideration by agencies and facilities providing educational services

• Principles and core activities are not an exhaustive list, but are suggestions for:

– Creating environments conducive to the teaching and learning process

– Enhancing academic and social-emotional supports

– Promoting positive educational outcomes for all system-involved students

– Lessening the likelihood of youths reentering the justice system

26

“Guiding Principles”

1. A safe, healthy facility-wide climate that prioritizes education, provides the conditions for learning, and encourages the necessary behavioral and social support services that address the individual needs of all youths, including those with disabilities and English learners.

27

“Guiding Principles” (Continued)

2. Necessary funding to support educational opportunities for all youths within long-term secure care facilities, including those with disabilities and English learners, comparable to opportunities for peers who are not system-involved.

3. Recruitment, employment, and retention of qualified education staff with skills relevant in juvenile justice settings who can positively impact long-term student outcomes through demonstrated abilities to create and sustain effective teaching and learning environments.

28

“Guiding Principles” (Continued)

4. Rigorous and relevant curricula aligned with State academic and career and technical education standards that utilize instructional methods, tools, materials, and practices that promote college- and career-readiness.

5. Formal processes and procedures—through statutes, memoranda of understanding, and practices—that ensure successful navigation across child-serving systems and smooth reentry into communities.

29

Using the “Guiding Principles” To Support Risk Management

The “Guiding Principles” offer a framework for SEAs to

self-assess risks to their Title I, Part D program—but what is

risk management?

30

What Is Risk Management?

• All SEAs, SAs, LEAs, facilities, and instructional programs have resources, systems, and processes in place that reflect their:

– Strategic and operational performance goals

– Fiscal requirements

– Legal obligations

• Anything that compromises or jeopardizes the ability of an SEA or its subgrantees to achieve these priorities is a risk.

31

What Is Risk Management?

• The process of methodically identifying and addressing these risks to accomplish the following:

– Improve the likelihood of positive program outcomes

– Achieve desired student outcomes

32

Red Flags

• Suggest that an instructional program:

– Is at risk of not achieving the five guiding principles

– May not be meeting the academic needs of students

– Is at risk of not meeting Federal, State, and/or local

• Policy requirements

• Teaching and learning standards

• Program performance targets

33

Example Red Flags

Guiding Principle Red Flag

1. A safe, healthy, facility-wide climate…

The facility uses excessive isolation/room confinement.

The facility is unsafe. There is high absenteeism of direct-care staff and

teachers due to "fear for safety." Special education students are spending

numerous days outside of the classroom due to behavior sanctions.

The 504, IEP, or ELL accommodations are not being provided in class or during testing. 

Behavioral plans and classroom routines are not followed or established.

34

Red Flags

Guiding Principle “Red Flag”

4. Rigorous and relevant curricula

Students are observed working out of “packets” in the classroom.

Course standards are not followed.

5. Formal processes and procedures that ensure successful transitions

There is limited evidence of parent/family involvement.

35

Breakout Sessions

• Reflect on the panel presentations, the OSHS monitoring indicators, and the Federal “Guiding Principles for Providing High-Quality Education in Juvenile Justice Secure Care Settings” to perform the following:

– Risk Identification: Identify potential risks to the Title I, Part D program in your State.

– Risk Analysis: Determine the positive and negative consequences associated with each identified risk.

– Risk Evaluation: Prioritize identified risks.

– Risk Treatment: Brainstorm ways in which the SEA could mitigate the prioritized risks and how might NDTAC assist you and your subgrantees.

36

BREAKOUT SESSIONS

Sample Risk Assessment

37

PLENARY II

Title I, Part D State Plans

38

Plenary II: State Plans

• John McLaughlin, OSHS

• Katie Deal, NDTAC State Liaison

• James Lovett, State TIPD Coordinator, Arizona

• Kathleen Sande, State TIPD Coordinator, Washington

• Stacy Wojdak-Goodman, State TIPD Coordinator, Colorado

39

Plenary II: State plans

• Background information

• Plan components and panel discussion

– Needs assessment

– Goals and objectives

– Performance measures

– Provisions and assurances

• Breakout session

– State plan template

– Goal-setting worksheet

40

Federal Q&A

41

Federal Q&A

• John McLaughlin, OSHS

• Elizabeth Fening, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)

• Mark Glander, NCES

42

Federal Q&A

Topic Question(s)

CSPR When will the attendance measure be added to the CSPR?

Will there be any changes to the CSPR for FY15-16?

Fiscal What indirect cost rate applies for SEA- LEA pass throughs?

Reorganization of Title I, Part D

Out of the reorganization of Title I, Part D at the Department of Education would there be a way to establish a clearinghouse of correctional education?

43

Federal Q&A

Topic Question(s)

Reauthorization The Interstate Compacts refer to a juvenile justice, child welfare and military related law that was passed by all 50 state legislators in the 1970s to address procedures for transferring youth custody across State lines. The law has not been updated since. Will the US Congress, through reauthorization, try to address gaps in the compact?

What is the department’s stance on reauthorization?

Will ED promote adding a supplement not supplant clause in reauthorization? Usually they ask us for comments.

44

Federal Q&A

Topic Question(s)

Competitive Grants

Will ED promote more competitive grants for Part D?

Can an LEA without a delinquent facility apply for competitive grant?

Use of Funds at LEA

What can you do if a facility declines to participate in the TIPD program? Can an LEA serve at-risk?

May TIPD serve refugees particularly unaccompanied minors?

Highly Qualified Teachers

Has ED talked about doing anything with requirement for highly qualified teachers in small institutions with one teacher (who cannot be highly qualified in all or multiple core academic subjects)?

45

Federal Panel

46

Federal Panel

• John McLaughlin, OSHS

• John Linton, Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education (OCTAE)

• Seth Galanter, Office for Civil Rights (OCR)

• Lisa Taylor, Office of Justice Programs (OJP) (U.S. Department of Justice)

• Curtis Kinnard, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP)

• Marion Crayton, OSEP

• Joaquin Tamayo, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE)

47

ND Communities

48

Closing