Audits of State Compensatory Education

Report
Audits of State Compensatory
Education
Thomas D. Canby, Jr.
Director of Research and Technology
TASBO
1
Objectives
•
•
•
•
Timeline for audit
Factors trigger an audit
TEA requirements for an audit
Best practices
2
Challenge – more students!
61% ISDs increasing enrollment from SY 2008-2009 to 2012-2013
3
Challenge - percent students at risk
4
Challenge – changing demographics!
Trends for Total Students, Econ Disadv, and LEP
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,311,502 4,383,871
4,239,911
4,146,653
4,651,516 4,728,204
4,505,572 4,576,933
4,994,813 5,075,840
4,912,385
4,824,778
929,187 Students
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,093,511
2,201,534 2,277,901
2,394,001
2,503,755 2,540,888 2,572,093
2,681,474
2,848,067 2,909,554
3,008,464 3,058,894
Econ Disadv
965,383 Econ Disadv
LEP
Students
2,000,000
1,000,000
600,922
630,148
660,308
684,007
711,237
731,304
774,719
799,801
815,998
830,795
837,536
864,682
263,760 LEP
0
2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013
TEA AEIS for membership 2001-2001 to 2010-2012
5
Timeline
• District Improvement Plan, Campus Improvement Plans,
Instructional Plan (charter schools) and Local Evaluations
– February 2014 – last date for resubmitting midyear data for school
year 2012-13
– July 2014 – 150 days after PEIMS resubmission; due date for electronic
reports for CIP and DIP for school year 2012-13
– September 2014 – 60 days after electronic reporting deadline for CIP
and DIP; preliminary notification of Agreed-Upon Procedures (AUP)
requirement (the Audit of SCE for SY 2012-2013)
– October 2014 – 30 days after preliminary notification; deadline for
appeal of AUP requirement
– December 2014 – final notification of Agreed-Upon Procedures (AUP)
requirement
– April 2015 – due date for Agreed-Upon Procedures (AUP) report (the
Audit of SCE for SY 2012-2013)
6
Risk Factors
• Critical Factors - 6 items
• Other Factors – 5 items
• 9.4 SCE Module Exhibit 7
7
Critical Risk Factors
1 Was School FIRST rating above substandard
achievement? (This indicator shall apply to
charter schools beginning with the 2010-2011
school year)
8
Critical Risk Factors
2 Were actual expenditures reported in PEIMS in
the General Fund for state compensatory
education-related costs equal to or greater than
52% of the state compensatory education
allotment, based upon a three-year average of the
LEA’s allotments and actual expenditures? For the
2012-2013 and previous school years, this analysis
is based on direct costs equal to or greater than
52% (or applicable percentage for year) of the state
compensatory education allotment.
9
Critical Risk Factors
3 Did the school district’s or charter school’s
academic rating exceed Academically
Unacceptable for the most recent school year
that an academic rating was assigned?
10
Critical Risk Factors
4 Was the Annual Financial and Compliance
Report (and the Agreed-Upon Procedures
Report for State Compensatory Education, if
applicable) filed within 30 days after the due
date?
11
Critical Risk Factors
5 Did more than 5 at risk students drop out
annually over a three-year period OR did 1% or
more of the at risk population drop out annually
over a three-year period AND did the three-year
trend in the dropout rate of at risk students
evidence an overall increase in the dropout
rate?
12
Critical Risk Factors
6 Did the three-year trend for the at risk
population not evidence an overall decrease in
TAKS performance?
13
An Audit is Required….
• If one or more critical indicators in Exhibit 7
(indicators one through six) are answered
“no”
14
Other Risk Indicators
7 Was the percent of students at risk of
dropping out of school less than the threshold
value (count of at risk students in the school
district or charter school /total students in the
school district or charter school)? 59%
15
Other Risk Indicators
8 Was the percent of low income students less
than the threshold value? 80%
16
Other Risk Indicators
9 Was the overall student teacher ratio lower
than the threshold value? 16.3:1
17
Other Risk Indicators
10 Was the percent of attendance greater than
the threshold value? 94.5%
18
Other Risk Indicators
11 Was the percent of limited English proficient
students less than the threshold value? 33%
19
An Audit is Required….
• If indicator seven is answered yes and district
passed on critical indicators - no audit
required
• If indicator seven is answered “no” and one or
none of the indicators eight through 11 are
answered “yes” - audit is required
20
An Audit is Required….
• If the TEA identifies significant data quality issues relating
to staff, students or financial data submitted through the
Public Education Information Management System
• If the TEA identifies noncompliance during the course of
audit, investigative or monitoring activities of other state
and/or federal programs (e.g. Title I, Part A)
• If the most recent agreed-upon procedures engagement
submitted to the TEA disclosed significant deficiencies or
noncompliance (or if school district or charter school did
not submit an agreed-upon procedures report for any
subsequent school year in accordance with TEA
requirements to obtain a local audit or submitted the
report late)
21
An Audit is Required….
• If the school district did not submit district and
campus improvement plans or the charter school
did not submit instructional plans for the
previous school year, in accordance with this
section; or
• If the school district or charter school did not
submit a local evaluation of state compensatory
education strategies, activities and programs for
the previous school year, in accordance with this
section.
22
Electronic Reporting Requirements
• district improvement plans from school
districts,
• campus improvement plans from school
districts,
• instructional plans from charter schools, and
• local evaluations by school districts and
charter schools of state compensatory
education strategies, activities and programs
23
File Local Evaluation
• local evaluation of state compensatory
education strategies, activities and programs
is required for a school district or a charter
school that:
– had any low performing campuses or
– reported more than 59% at risk students for the
previous school year
24
What About Small Enrollment Entities?
• Exempt from risk assessment and audit if
– SCE allotment for prior fiscal year less than
$500,000
• Exemption from audit for small enrollment
entities applies unless TEA indicates otherwise
25
Areas Covered in Audit
•
•
•
•
•
•
Budget
SCE allotment
Expenditures
District and Campus Improvement Plans
Eligible Students
Reporting
26
Areas Covered in Audit
• Budget
– Budget managers have SCE allocations for PICs 24,
26, 28, 29 and/or 30
– SCE allocations align with supplemental resources
in CIP
– SCE allocations align with effective strategies
27
Areas Covered in Audit
• SCE allotment
– Allotment agrees with free/reduced priced meal
applications on file for best six month average
28
Areas Covered in Audit
• Expenditures
– Year over year change in expenditures for SCE
– Expenditures exceeded 52% of SCE allotment in
Foundation School Program Summary of Finances
– Expenditures align with supplemental resources in
CIP
29
Areas Covered in Audit
• District and Campus Improvement Plans
– Required components in Sections 11.251 – 11.253
Texas Education Code
•
•
•
•
Comprehensive needs assessment
Identified strategies
Supplemental financial resources
Supplemental staff resources
30
Areas Covered in Audit
• Eligible Students
– Identification of students under Section 29.081
TEC
– Identification of students at risk to classroom
teachers assigned to SCE strategies
31
Areas Covered in Audit
• Reporting of Expenditures and Student Records
– Correct use of program intent codes for expenditures
•
•
•
•
•
Expenditures
Teacher salaries
PIC 30
DAEP
AEP
– Correct use of at-risk indicators for students
• (Element ID E0919) and Title I, Part A code (Element ID
E0894) in student data reported in the “Student Data –
Enrollment” record (Record Type 110)
32
After Audit
• File audit with TEA
– Texas Education Agency Secure Environment
(TEASE) AUDIT account
• Access electronic library of DIPS, CIPs,
Evaluations and Audits
– http://tuna.tea.state.tx.us/audit/PDFviewer.asp
– Select fiscal year
– Select 6 digit county-district number
33
After TEA Review
• TEA will determine
– No action necessary
– Action necessary
•
•
•
•
•
Informal monitoring
Recommended training
Recommended assistance from outside consultants
Financial penalties
Accreditation actions
34
Best Practices
• Distribute and collect signed job descriptions for
staff for current position – keep current with
changes in funding and/or assignments (HR)
• Track and document expenditures related to
instructional settings for students at risk by
locally defined fields
• Evaluate effectiveness and cost of various
instructional settings
• Benchmark and compare characteristics and
performance to comparable districts and
campuses
35
Resources
• TEA State Compensatory Education Module of Financial
Accountability System Resource Guide
• Questions regarding the SCE Program, student identification Consult with your ESC State Comp. Ed. contact
• Questions regarding DIPs/CIPs – contact your ESC State Comp. Ed.
contact
• Questions regarding SCE audits or D/CIPs submission - contact the
Division of Financial Compliance at 512-463-9095
• Questions regarding Title I - Consult with your ESC Title I contact or
the NCLB Division at 512-463-9414
• TEA Best Practices Clearinghouse
• Check the Financial Compliance web site at:
• http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=3819
36
Questions ?
37
Presenter Contact Information
Tom Canby
Director of Research and Tech
TASBO
2538 S. Congress Ave.
Austin, Texas 78704
(512) 462 1711
[email protected]
38

similar documents