Message: Charter Schools Summit-webinar

Charter Schools Summit-webinar
FromMorse, StacyDate  Monday, October 2, 2017 3:07 PM
To
Wieberg, Jackie
Cc
SubjectCharter Schools Summit-webinar

Jackie-

Here is a first draft of email to presenters.  Please let me know what to add or it can come from you and Chris.  Whatever is easiest and will get the best reception.  Thank you for all your help!

Stacy

 

Presenters-

 

Thank you for your time and efforts  in making the charter summit a success.  Please review the survey feedback to see the compliments as well as questions that were not covered in presentations.

 

By October 31, we are asking that presenters record a webinar (either in your office or the webinar room) that will then create a link to be sent to attendees and posted on the DESE charter school web page.

 

Jackie Wieberg can assist with scheduling a webinar room, and if you need assistance when you are ready to record Jackie can assist you (uploading your presentation, audio set up, etc.) at that time as well.

 

Thank you for Julie Boeckmann for formatting presentations for consistency. Please use the attached version of your presentation and make any updates needed based on the survey feedback.

 

 

 

Stacy E. Morse

Director of Educational Support Services

Phone: 573.522.3651

Email: Stacy.Morse@dese.mo.gov

 

 

 


Food and Nutrition Services Updates   
 
Karen Wooton, Coordinator

Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE)

Food and Nutrition Services (FNS) 

1




Current Programs

2

1/1/97

2




Administrative Reviews (ARs)

3



Administrative Reviews

4



Administrative Reviews

5

1/1/97

3




Administrative Reviews 

6

1/1/97

4




Administrative Reviews

7

1/1/97

5




Procurement Reviews

8



Direct Certification (DC)

9



Direct Certification

10



Verification

11



CEP – Eligibility Criteria

12



Definition: Identified Student

KEEP SOURCE DOCUMENTATION

13



CEP Documentation

14



Paid Lunch Equity (PLE)

15



Revenue - Nonprogram Foods

 

16



Civil Rights Training and Tracking

17



Local Wellness Policy

 

18



Unpaid Meal Charge Policy

19



Charge Policies

20



Delinquent Debt vs Bad Debt

 

21



 Smart Snacks 

22



 Fundraiser Exemptions in Missouri

23



Professional Standards

24



Donated Foods Program

25



Questions or anything else you would like to talk about?

26

6




Food and Nutrition Services

27

The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, national origin, age, or disability in its programs and activities. Inquiries related to Department programs and to the location of services, activities, and facilities that are accessible by persons with disabilities may be directed to the Jefferson State Office Building, Office of the General Counsel, Coordinator – Civil Rights Compliance (Title VI/Title IX/504/ADA/Age Act), 6th Floor, 205 Jefferson Street, P.O. Box 480, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0480; telephone number 573-526-4757 or TTY 800-735-2966; email civilrights@dese.mo.gov.

Email: foodandnutritionservices@dese.mo.gov

Phone: 573-751-3526

Web address: http://dese.mo.gov/financial-admin-services/food-nutrition-services

      Type comments here.

7

1/6/2011





  
 
Charter School  
Budgeting, Calendar Requirements, and Upcoming Coding Changes

Missouri Department 
of Elementary and Secondary Education

September 2017

Presented by:

Tammy Lehmen~ Director, School Finance

and

Debra Clink ~ Manager, School Transportation

      Type comments here.

1

1/6/2011




Topics

2



State Adequacy Target

3



SAT and Threshold Recalculations

*The SAT will remain at an adjusted level through the calculation process until such time that there is funding available to increase the SAT to the calculated level provided above.

4



SAT and Threshold Recalculations

*The SAT will remain at an adjusted level through the calculation process until such time that there is funding available to increase the SAT to the calculated level provided above.

5



SAT and Threshold Recalculations

The SAT was calculated at $6,375 but per 163.011 RSMo, “should a recalculation result in an increase in the state adequacy target amount, fifty percent of that increase shall be included in the state adequacy target amount in the year of recalculation, and fifty percent of that increase shall be included in the state adequacy target amount in the subsequent year.”

6



Estimating ADA

7



Estimated Regular Term ADA

8

2




  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Estimating ADA Reminders

9

NameTitle
Tammy Lehmen

Tammy.Lehmen@dese.mo.gov

Director, School Finance

Contact for districts in counties 048, 055-079, 347-347 & Kansas City Charter Schools

Debra Clink

Debra.Clink@dese.mo.gov

Student Transportation Manager

Contact for districts in counties 080-115 & St. Louis Charter Schools

3




Basic Formula Payment

10



Total ADA

11



Weighted ADA

12

 Regular Term ADA
+Summer School ADA
=Total ADA
  
+Free and Reduced Lunch Weighting
+IEP Weighting
+LEP Weighting
=Total WADA


2017-18 WADA Calculation

13

1. Estimated ADA947
2. Summer School ADA43.3535
3. Total ADA (Line 1 + 2)990.3535
4. FRL weighting3.47
5. IEP weighting0
6. LEP weighting0
7. Total WADA (Line 3 + 4 + 5+ 6) 993.8235


Example – FRL Weighting

The example provided is specifically for FRL, this same calculation can be followed for IEP and LEP weighting by using the threshold percentage and weighting components that apply to IEP and LEP.

14

Total ADA (1+2)100
Free & Reduced Lunch (FRL) count50
Threshold Percentage36.12%
Threshold Amount (Total ADA times Threshold Percentage)36.12
Count to be weighted (FRL count minus Threshold Amount) 13.88
FRL Weighting (Count to be Weighted times .25) 3.47




Basic Formula Payment

15

 Estimated WADA
xAmount per WADA
-Charter school sponsor withholding
=Net to Charter
  
xTotal amount due at current time in the year
  (Ex: September payment is 3/12th of annual amount
-Amount paid during the previous months
=Payment amount due for month


Monthly Formula Payment

16



Classroom Trust Fund

17



Classroom Trust Fund (CTF)

18



Classroom Trust Fund

19



Classroom Trust Fund

2015-16

June 2015-16 CTF was $389.1363 per 2014-15 ADA

2016-17

June 2016-17 CTF was $404.9466 per 2015-16 ADA

Budgeting for 2017-18

Appropriation $351,663,349

Estimate of the 2016-17 ADA is 850,000

Estimate of $413 per 2016-17 ADA

The state will only distribute funds that are actually collected into the Classroom Trust Fund

20



Prop C

21



Proposition C

A $.01 state-wide general sales tax for education with a corresponding property tax reduction for school districts/charter schools. Prop C sales tax revenue is collected locally, transmitted to the state and then passed on to school districts/charter schools based on an amount per prior year Weighted Average Daily Attendance (WADA) amount.

22



Proposition C

2015-16

June 2015-16 Proposition C - $947.63 per 2015-16 WADA

2016-17

June 2016-17 Proposition C - $979.04 per 2015-16 WADA

Budgeting for 2017-18

Appropriation is $901,600,000

Estimate of the 2016-17 WADA is 912,000

Estimate of $988 per 2016-17 WADA

The state can only distribute what is appropriated for Proposition C.

23



Prior Year Correction

24



Prior Year Correction

25



Prior Year Correction

26



Prior Year Correction

27



Prior Year Correction

28



Monthly Formula Payment

September FY 2018 Basic Formula Apportionment =$ 3,730,470
.25 of the September Apportionment= $ 932,617
Amount paid to school July through August 

 (taken from August transmittal sheet)

 ($613,015)
September FY 2018 Payment = $ 319,602
FY 2017 Prior Year Correction (if applicable) +/-  $31,836
September Payment=$ 287,766

29



School Calendar Options

30



School Calendar Options

31



School Calendar Options

32



School Calendar Options

33



Standard Day Length

34



Standard Day Length

35



Weather Make-Up Requirements

36



Weather Make-Up Requirements

37



Weather Make-Up Requirements

38



Weather Make-Up Requirements

39



Weather Make-Up Requirements

40



Calendar FAQ’s

41



Calendar FAQ’s

42



Calendar FAQ’s

43



Calendar FAQ’s

44



Upcoming Accounting Structure Changes

45

Why is standardized account-code structure important?

5




Upcoming Accounting Structure Changes

46



Upcoming Accounting Structure Changes

Fund Code – 3 Digits – Only 1 Digit Collected on the ASBR

47

The last digit(s) may be used to indicate fiscal year. Federal obligation takes place in 2017-18 school year but paid in 2018-19 school year requires separate tracking.

6




Upcoming Accounting Structure Changes

Function Code – 4 Digits – 4 Collected on the ASBR

Object Code – 4 Digits - 4 Collected on the ASBR

48



Upcoming Accounting Structure Changes

Location Code – 4 Digits - 4 Collected on the ASBR

49



Upcoming Accounting Structure Changes

A list of Revenue, Function, and Object Codes Required to have expenditures reported at a building level can be found at:

https://dese.mo.gov/financial-admin-services/school-finance/fy-2019-accounting-changes

50



Upcoming Accounting Structure Changes

Source of Funds – 1 Digit - 1 Collected on the ASBR

51



Upcoming Accounting Structure Changes

Project Code – 5 Digits -5 Collected on the ASBR

  

52



Upcoming Accounting Structure Changes

Project Code – 5 Digits -5 Collected on the ASBR

  

53

Range of Codes Reserved for DESE AssignmentRange of Codes Open for District/Charter School Use for Other Purposes
 00001-09999
 10000-19999*
 20000-29999*
30000-39999 
40000-49999 
 50000-59999
 60000-69999*
 70000-79999
 80000-89999*
 90000-99999

*If a district chooses to use a project code in this range it is encouraged to follow the structure shown in the Missouri Financial Accounting Manual to eliminate major changes if DESE must assign a Project Code in this range at a future date.



Upcoming Accounting Structure Changes

List of Project Codes can be found at:

https://dese.mo.gov/financial-admin-services/school-finance/fy-2019-accounting-changes

  

54



Upcoming Accounting Structure Changes

For more information on these upcoming changes please see the School Finance Website.

  

55



Importance of Proper Coding

56



Importance of Proper Coding

57



Upcoming Timeline

58



Contact Information

School Finance 573-751-0357

59

NameTitle
David Tramel

David.Tramel @dese.mo.gov

Coordinator, Financial and Administrative Services       
Tammy Lehmen

Tammy.Lehmen@dese.mo.gov

Director, School Finance

Contact for districts in counties 048 & Kansas City Charters,

055-079 & 347-347

Debra Clink

Debra.Clink@dese.mo.gov

Student Transportation Manager  

Contact for districts in counties 080-115 & St Louis Charters

Taylor Richter

Taylor.Richter@dese.mo.gov

School Finance Consultant  

Contact for districts in counties 001-047 & 049-054


A Brief Overview of Federal Programs

Missouri Department 
of Elementary and Secondary Education

September 28, 2017

      Type comments here.

1

1/6/2011




Overview of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)/ Federal Programs 
 
Gain an understanding of Federal Programs to make local decisions 

2

Take-Away for Today

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act was signed into law in 1965 it has been reauthorized under several different names with the most recent reauthorization happening on December 10th 2015 when President Obama signed into act the Every Student Succeeds Act replacing the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

2




Purpose of ESEA 
 

3

3




What’s Involved?

4

These are the programs that are funded through ESSA under our Federal Programs Section. Our Extended Learning Section has 21st Century School Funding under Title IV, it is a separate competitive grant that is funded outside of our consolidated application.

1/6/2011

4




Requirements

5

Supplement, Not Supplant

Federal funds are supplemental funds for LEAs to use to provide additional support for students and teachers.

First 2 can be rebutted if the LEA can demonstrate it would not have provided the services with nonfederal funds if the federal funds were not available the LEA can not rebut the 3rd bullet.

A good question to ask yourself is;

What would happen in the absence of these federal funds, would I still have this program? How has program/staff been funded before? If yes to either of these you probably want to stay away from funding it with federal funds.

5




Title I.A Funding

6

Title I funds can only support Title I identified students or teachers serving Title I identified students. IF you have targeted buildings in your district meaning the building does not have a schoolwide plan it is very important to remember Title I funds may only be used for Title I students. If your building or buildings have schoolwide plans ALL students would be Title I eligible students therefor able to participate in programs and activities funded with Title I funds.

LEAs could provide–

Reasonable and necessary expenditures – 

****Fiscal year runs July 1 – June 30 – Typically our ESEA Consolidated budget applications opens in early to mid May. Because of the changes from NCLB to ESSA our budget Application has been very delayed. – Before you can begin obligating funds from any of the federal funds you have to have substantial approval date- you may want to go back to your district and make sure that your budget has been submitted so that you are not obligating funds if you don’t have a substantial approval date.

Obligations for staff occur the first day they begin working, so if you have 12 month employees it is important to have a July 1 substantial approval date.

6




Service to Students

7

During this transition year from NCLB to ESSA the US Department of Education has allowed states to use an assurance from LEAs in lieu of plans. As an agency we have decided to use this flexibility and only collect an assurance that LEAs will follow the law and requirements of each funding source. This provision all states that once the SEA has an approved consolidated state plan we must offer LEAs a consolidated LEA plan. So while you did not have the requirement of submitting all the separate plans for 2017-2018 we will have 1 consolidated plan for the 18-19 school year. 

7




Program Possibilities

8

8




Targeted Assistance Program 

9

In Title I you can have 2 types of programs either Targeted or Schoolwide let’s talk about targeted first.

Have to remember with Title I you are looking at each building in your district for eligibility so in your district you could have targeted schools as well as schoolwide schools. In a targeted school you must identify students as being most in need. To do this you have to use a multiple criteria,

Criteria must be

9




Schoolwide Program

10

Building must

10




Academically Challenged

11

Homeless defined – 

(2) The term `homeless children and youths’— 

    1. means individuals who lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence (within the meaning of section 103(a)(1)); and 

(B) includes— 

    1. children and youths who are sharing the housing of other persons due to loss of housing, economic hardship, or a similar reason; are living in motels, hotels, trailer parks, or camping grounds due to the lack of alternative adequate accommodations; are living in emergency or transitional shelters; are abandoned in hospitals; or are awaiting foster care placement;  

(ii) children and youths who have a primary nighttime residence that is a public or private place not designed for or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings (within the meaning of section 103(a)(2)(C)); 

(iii) children and youths who are living in cars, parks, public spaces, abandoned buildings, substandard housing, bus or train stations, or similar settings; and 

(iv) migratory children (as such term is defined in section 1309 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965) who qualify as homeless for the purposes of this subtitle because the children are living in circumstances described in clauses (i) through (iii). 

Donna Cash is our Homeless Coordinator her contact information is donna.cash@dese.mo.gov or 573/522-8763

LEA’s are required to provide equitable services to the nonpublic students in their district. Under Title I.A, services follow the student, so if you have resident student who attends a nonpublic school, even outside of your district boundaries, because the student resides within the district boundaries you are required to offer equitable services. Under Title I.C, Title II.A, Title III, and Title IV you are required to provide services to the Nonpublic school building that sits within your district boundaries. If you have nonpublic schools or children who attend nonpublic schools I would encourage you to contact Lisa Burks in our office about the registration process of the nonpublic schools and your Federal Programs Supervisor about consultation with the nonpublic school.

As you go into your new districts on the 1st I would encourage you to check with your Federal Programs Coordinator in your district to make sure consultation with nonpublic has occurred and that the public private design has been filled out and the consultation forms have been signed. If those things haven’t happened you will want to make sure that happens sooner rather than later. The ESSA law requires that timely and meaningful consultation with the nonpublic school officials occurs BEFORE decisions are made about how the federal funds are spent.

ESSA also required State Agencies to have an Ombudsman to ensure equitable services are taking place. The ombudsman was put in place for nonpublic schools and public school as a resource and guidance on equitable services. Our Missouri Ombudsman is Theresa Villmer her contact information is theresa.villmer@dese.mo.gov and 573-526-4365

11




Dates to Remember

12

The link to the full calendar is at the bottom of the slide

12




http://dese.mo.gov/quality-schools/area-supervisors-instruction

13

State Supervisors

573-751-4104

13




Federal Programs 
573-751-3468

14

Supervisor RegionsTelephone
Christina Wales Region A573-751-9124
 
Becci TaylorRegion B 573-522-6182
 
Janet McLelland Region C 573-751-6762
  
Cheryl Pickett Region D 573-751-4888
 
Kyle Heislen Region E 573-526-2582
 
Kelly KempkerRegion F

 

573-751-5386
Kathleen SchwartzeRegion G573-751-4192
 
Chris HoeckerRegion H 573-522-5811
Julie BockRegion I573-522-6268
  
Donna Cash Charter Schools573-522-8763
 

14




Questions? 

The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, national origin, age, or disability in its programs and activities. Inquiries related to Department programs and to the location of services, activities, and facilities that are accessible by persons with disabilities may be directed to the Jefferson State Office Building, Office of the General Counsel, Coordinator – Civil Rights Compliance (Title VI/Title IX/504/ADA/Age Act), 6th Floor, 205 Jefferson Street, P.O. Box 480, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0480; telephone number 573-526-4757 or TTY 800-735-2966; fax number 573-522-4883; email civilrights@dese.mo.gov.

15



Data Collection

Office of Data System Management

Amber Castleman

Melissa Bardwell

September 28, 2017

1




        Agenda

2



MOSIS is a student-level record system that contains a randomly generated state identification number for every student receiving service in the public schools.

MOSIS ID Overview

3



        Data Collection Overview

4



        MOSIS Data Collection System

5

CYCLECOLLECTIONDUE
AugustStudent Enrollment and AttendanceAugust 15
OctoberStudent CoreOctober 15
Educator Core
Educator School
Course Assignment
Student Assignment
DecemberStudent CoreDecember 15
FebruaryStudent CoreFebruary 15
Graduate Follow-Up
AprilStudent CoreApril 30
JuneStudent CoreJune 30
Student Enrollment and Attendance
Student Discipline Incident
Summer Course Assignment
Summer Student Assignment
Student Course Completion
Referrals
Career Technical Student Organization (CTSO)
ASVAB
End of Course Exceptions
Throughout YearAssessment ID CleanupTBD
Assessment Precode
Direct Certification


        MOSIS Data Collection System

6

CD ScreenScreen & Cycle (bolded screens populated by MOSIS)
Screen 02  District Data (August, October Cycle)
Screen 02A Charter Board Members (August Cycle)
Screen 03  District Contact Personnel (August Cycle)
Screen 03A Non LEA Charter Contact (August Cycle)
Screen 04  District Directory (August Cycle)
Screen 06 District Tax Data (August Cycle)
Screen 08  Attendance Center (August, February, June Cycles)
Screen 09  Discipline Incidents (June Cycle)
Screen 10 School Calendar (August, June Cycles)
Screen 11  Special Education Placement Counts by Age (December Cycle)
Screen 12  Special Education Exiter Counts by Age (June Cycle)
Screen 13  Secondary Headcount (June Cycle)
Screen 14/14A/14B Attendance (June Cycle)
Screen 15  Home School/Free and Reduced Lunch (October, February Cycle)
Screen 16  Enrollment, Membership and Summer School (August, October, February Cycles)
Screen 17  Physical Fitness Assessment (June Cycle)
Screen 18 Educator Data (October Cycle)
Screen 18A Educator Evaluation (June Cycle)
Screen 20  Course and Assignment Data (October Cycle)
Screen 21  Educator Vacancy (October Cycle)
Screen 22  Sending School Courses and Enrollment (October Cycle)
Screen 24  Summer School Courses and Enrollment (June Cycle)
Screen 24A Summer School Application (June Cycle)
Screen 25 Gifted Education (August Cycle)
Screen 26  Career Education Follow-up (February Cycle)
Screen 27  Career Education Follow-up Sending School (February Cycle)
Screen 29  Post Secondary Adult Follow-up (February Cycle)
Screen 35/35A December 31 Fund Balance/Non LEA Charter Dec 31 Balance (February Cycle)

1/6/2011

2




Resources

7

3




Resources

8

4




Timelines

http://dese.mo.gov/data-system-management/core-datamosis/timelines

 

9



Timelines

https://apps.dese.mo.gov/DataAcquisitionCalendar/Data_Cal.aspx

 

10



August Cycle - MOSIS

11

5




August Cycle - MOSIS

12

Screen 02 – District Data

      Top Portion – Used for School Directory

      Bottom Portion - Complete the Support Staff FTE

Screen 02A – Charter Board Members/Non LEA Charters

Screen 03 – District Contact Personnel

      Used for communicating to districts

Screen 03A – District Contact Personnel Non LEA Charters

      Non LEA charter reports LEA Administrator on Line 1

Screen 04 – District Directory

      Report on Line 1 the LEA Administrator

Screen 08 – Attendance Center

Screen 10/10a – School Calendar

      Report Planned Calendar

Screen 16 – Summer School Enrollment, Membership

      Populated by Student Enrollment Attendance

Screen 25 – Gifted Education

6




October Cycle - MOSIS

13

  least one of the ten prior school days

7




October Cycle – Core Data

14

Screen 02 – District Data

Screen 15 – Home School/Free and Reduced Lunch

Screen 16 – Enrollment, Membership, Summer School

Screen 18 – Educator Data

Screen 20 – Course and Assignment Data

Screen 21 – Educator Vacancy

Screen 22 – Sending School Courses and Enrollment

8




Core Data Screens

 

15



Core Data Screens

 

16



Core Data Screens

 

17



Requesting MOSIS/Core Data Access

  
http://dese.mo.gov/sites/default/files/dac_forms/MO5002377.pdf

18



19

Requesting MOSIS/Core Data Access



Accessing Data Collection



21



22



The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, national origin, age, or disability in its programs and activities. Inquiries related to Department programs and to the location of services, activities, and facilities that are accessible by persons with disabilities may be directed to the Jefferson State Office Building, Office of the General Counsel, Coordinator – Civil Rights Compliance (Title VI/Title IX/504/ADA/Age Act), 6th Floor, 205 Jefferson Street, P.O. Box 480, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0480; telephone number 573-526-4757 or TTY 800-735-2966; fax number 573-522-4883; email civilrights@dese.mo.gov.

Email: coredata-mosis@dese.mo.gov | 573-526-5287

Accountability Data - 573-526-4886

Special Education - 573-751-7848

Career Education -573-751-3524

Federal Programs - 573-751-2643

Contact Information

23

23

9



Improvement and Innovation

Missouri Department 
of Elementary and Secondary Education

How ESSA and MSIP Work Together to Help Create Improved Learning

      Type comments here.

1




Begin with “Why?”

Successful students equal a better Missouri.

All means all

Each means each

2



Educational Policy Alignment

Federal

State

Local

3



Proper Perspective

Improvement Drivers

Improvement and Innovation

Improvement and Innovation

Improvement and InnovationPolicy Drivers

Improvement and Innovation

Improvement and Innovation

Improvement and Innovation

MSIP

ESSA

CSIP

Improvement and Innovation

Improvement and Innovation

Improvement and Innovation

MSIP

ESSA

CSIP

4



State vs Federal Perspective

MSIP

ESSA

5

1/6/2011

2




School Improvement in Missouri

6

1/6/2011

3




ESSA Plan Contents

7



Another Perspective

ESSA Funding

(millions)

Improvement and Innovation

Improvement and Innovation

Improvement and Innovation

Improvement and Innovation

Improvement and Innovation

Improvement and Innovation

Improvement and Innovation

Improvement and Innovation

Improvement and Innovation

Improvement and InnovationSales

Improvement and Innovation

Improvement and Innovation

Improvement and Innovation

Improvement and Innovation

Improvement and Innovation

Improvement and Innovation

Improvement and Innovation

Improvement and Innovation

Improvement and Innovation

Improvement and Innovation

Improving Basic Programs

Assessment

Migratory Students

Neglected and Delinquent

Excellent Educators

English Learners

Student Support

21st Century

Rural and Low Income Schools

Homeless

Improvement and Innovation

Improvement and Innovation

Improvement and Innovation

Improvement and Innovation

Improvement and Innovation

Improvement and Innovation

Improvement and Innovation

Improvement and Innovation

Improvement and Innovation

Improvement and Innovation

Improving Basic Programs

Assessment

Migratory Students

Neglected and Delinquent

Excellent Educators

English Learners

Student Support

21st Century

Rural and Low Income Schools

Homeless

8

Watching federal budget process

      Title II > Endangered Excellent Educators

      Title IV > Endangered

Sig funding > School Improvement (7%, not taking optional 3%)

Optional > Leadership development, supported by field

All that we can goes to you

4




ESSA School Identification

Comprehensive

Targeted

9

9



ESSA Identification Method

K-8High SchoolRanked MetricWeight
Academic Achievement
    • English Language Arts
    • Mathematics
Combined 3 yr MPI40% / 50%
Student Growth
    • English Language Arts
    • Mathematics
Graduation RateGrowth NCE / Rate30% / 37.5%
English Language ProficiencyAEP Index20% / -
AttendancePercent >= 90%10% / 12.5%

10



ESSA: Title I.A, 1003(a)

11



MSIP 6

12

MSIP 6 is an iteration that began in 1990.

Many states use only ESEA for improvement

Resource only to broad to performance and back

MASA – Effective Schools research

DESE strategic plan

Engaged in Standard and Indicator writing

1/6/2011

5




Emergent Themes - MSIP 6

13

I’d like to share a bit about the recommendations in general

Don’t get hung up on measurement

6




DRAFT

Performance measures - MSIP 6

14

Continue to wrestle with EL issue – be specific

7




Success-Ready Graduates - MSIP 6

Follow-up

Education

Employment

Military

High

Coursework

Assessments

Certificates / Credentials

Authentic Experiences

Middle

Numeracy (7th)

Attendance

Elementary

Literacy (3rd)

Attendance

Entrance

Ready for Kindergarten

15



DRAFT

Process Measures - MSIP 6

16



DRAFT

Process Measures - MSIP 6

17



DRAFT

Process Measures - MSIP 6

18



DRAFT

Process Measures - MSIP 6

19



School Improvement

20



Timeline for MSIP 6, ESSA

21



Jocelyn.Strand@dese.mo.gov

Kevin.Freeman@dese.mo.gov

Questions?

22


The Office of Educator Quality

Missouri Department 
of Elementary and Secondary Education

September 2017

Charter School

Administrative Summit

             ESSA   

Educator Support

Welcome and Introductions

1




ESSA: Supporting Excellent Educators

Educator Equity- §299.18(c): SEA’s determine, consistent with section 1111(g)(1)(B) of the Act, whether low-income and minority students enrolled in schools that receive funds under Title I, Part A of the Act are taught at disproportionate rates by ineffective, out-of-field, or inexperienced teachers:

 

Ineffective Teacher”- replaces term: “Unqualified Teacher” 

Out-of-Field Teacher”- Teaching Outside Certification Area

Inexperienced Teacher”- First Year Teacher

2



ESSA: Supporting Excellent Educators

In adherence to the guidelines of section 1111(g)(1)(B) of the Act, LEA’s may:

3



4

These seven areas, which have are known as the 7 Essential Principles of Effective Evaluation, are key ingredients of an evaluation system that can determine and grow a teacher’s effectiveness.

Evaluation systems not only aligned to these principles, but committed to them, are systems able to meet the requirements of the new education law. More importantly, they are systems that are very good for the students of your district.

This year marks the end of several years of implementation. Districts across the state have been aligning their local evaluation process to these principles. The final phase of implementation happens this year when student growth is included in the summative evaluation process.

2




Why is Educator Evaluation Important?

5

The single most important influence on student learning is the quality of the teacher.

Charlotte Danielson

-Importance of teacher evaluation…supporting quote…

Said another way:

The most direct and influential way to improve the learning of students is to improve the quality of teaching.

3




The greatest challenge that most students experience is the level of competence of the teacher.

John Hattie

Why is Educator Evaluation Important?

6

-Importance of teacher evaluation…supporting quote…

Said another way:

Most students are challenged less by the complexity of content and the learning process than they are the competence of their teacher.

4




The effect of “increases in teacher quality” swamps the impact of any other educational investment, such as reductions in class size.

Goldhaber, 2009 

Why is Educator Evaluation Important?

7

-Importance of teacher evaluation…supporting quote…

Said another way:

Of all the things that you can invest in to improve student learning, absolutely none of them has comes close to what happens when you improve the quality of the teacher delivering the content.

5




Having a high-quality teacher throughout elementary school can substantially offset or even eliminate the disadvantage of low socio-economic background.

Rivkin, Hanushek and Kain, 2002

Why is Educator Evaluation Important?

8

-Importance of teacher evaluation…supporting quote…

Said another way:

If we are serious about addressing the inequity of education issues in our state, then the most profound strategy is to ensure all students have access to an excellent teacher.

6




Why?  
What value do each of the seven principles have in ensuring learning for each and every student?

    1. Measures educator performance against research-based proven practices
    2. Differentiated levels of performance
    3. Probationary period
    4. Measures of growth in student learning
    5. Meaningful and descriptive feedback
    6. Training for evaluators
    7. Results and data informs decisions regarding personnel, employment, and policy

9

Ask for 6 volunteers to give their opinion of how each of the first seven principles will increase student learning. This can show the level of understanding of how each of these impact learning.

7




MAB

DESE Resources – Missouri Teacher Standards - Model Educator Evaluation System

8




Supporting Missouri’s Beginning Teachers

11

https://dese.mo.gov/educator-quality/educator-development/professional-learning-guidelines-student-success

9




  
Seven Essential Principles of Effective Educator Evaluation

      1. Measures educator performance against research-based proven practices
      2. Differentiated levels of performance
      3. Probationary period
      4. Measures of growth in student learning
      5. Meaningful and descriptive feedback
      6. Training for evaluators
      7. Results and data informs decisions regarding personnel, employment, and policy

12

BB

ESSA 2017 -State Board EES expectation remains

areas of waiver

    1. College and Career Ready – MLS
    2. MISP 5
    3. Educator Evaluation System

10




Principle # 3  
Probationary Period

    1. Complies with the Missouri statute indicating the first five years are probationary
    2. Includes two years of required mentoring
    3. Aligns mentoring support to the state mentor standards
    4. Includes confidential, non-evaluative support
    5. Focuses on important practices particularly significant for new practitioners, with appropriate pacing

13

BB

Screen 18 A – Indicators

A strong induction process will need to be in place to ensure Principle 3.

11




A Focus on Growth…

14

The most valuable evaluation model will not only meet state legislative requirements, it must produce gains in student learning. Next-generation models emphasize teacher growth and development.   

As teachers' classroom instructional practice improves, districts should see a corresponding improvement, measurable and consistent, in student achievement.

Robert Marzano

-Supporting quote

The new era of teacher evaluation, one consistent with ESSA, is a system to not only accurately determines teacher effectiveness, but includes mechanisms to growth and enhance it.

12




Principals are key to student learning

-- How Leadership Influences Student Learning,

Kenneth Leithwood, et al,

University of Minnesota,

University of Toronto, 2004

15

13




  
 
 
Competence and Persistence

16

“While highly effective principals create significant changes each year, it takes an average of five years to put a mobilizing vision in place, improve teaching staff, and fully implement policies and practices that positively impact the school’s performance.” (Churn: The High Cost of Principal Turnover, 2014)



How important is an effective principal to student success?

17



  
 
 
Reality

18



How does Missouri stack up?

19



  
Reasons for Leaving 

20



Principals are critical 
to improving struggling schools

“…there are virtually no documented instances of troubled schools being turned around without intervention by a powerful leader. Many other factors may contribute to such turnarounds, but leadership is the catalyst.”

-- How Leadership Influences Student Learning,

Kenneth Leithwood, et al,

University of Minnesota,

University of Toronto, 2004

21

14




  
Retaining Effective Principals  

22





  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Emerging Level Learning Experiences

24



25



Developing Level Learning Experiences

26



Finally -

We can, whenever and wherever we choose, successfully teach all children whose schooling is of interest to us. We already know more than we need to do that. Whether or not we do it must finally depend on how we feel about the fact that we haven’t so far.

                        Ron Edmonds, 1979

27


  
Charter School Administrative Summit  
ESSA Finance
 
 
Presented by Pat Kaiser  

Missouri Department of Elementary 
and Secondary Education

September 2017

1




Allocation Criteria – Title I and II.A

ESEA statute requires the use of census data in computing allocations.

Because Census poverty data is not available for charter school LEAs, DESE must derive a Census poverty and population count.

DESE uses the number of children ages 5 through 17

Based on these derived data, DESE determine the number of Census poverty and population children who transfer to Charter LEAs.

2

In 20 minutes, I will provide you with new ESSA allocation formulas on charter LEAs and what to expect in the future.

DESEs source of data:

MOSIS/Core Data screen 15 - free/reduced/paid lunch: “Federal Programs Headcount of children ages 5-17 (as of the prior October 1) whose eligibility has been documented. Include PK students only if they meet the appropriate age span”

CEP buildings – total age 5-17 * identified student percent (ISP)

Allocations are computed by using the count poverty children age 5 through 17.

The eligible population for services are children not older than age 21 who are entitled to a free public education through grade 12.

2




New/Expanding Charter LEAs

Consistent with 34 CFR 76.787, “significant expansion of enrollment means a substantial increase in the number of students attending a charter school due to a significant event that is unlikely to occur on a regular basis, such as the addition of one or more grades or educational programs in major curriculum areas. The term also includes any other expansion of enrollment that the SEA determines to be significant.”

3

In addition to the enrollment and poverty data from the prior October MOSIS submission, new and expanding charter LEAs have the opportunity to submit projected poverty and enrollment counts for the upcoming school year.

Regulations state the significant expansion of enrollment means a substantial increase in the number of students attending a charter school due to a significant event that is unlikely to occur on a regular basis. States have unfettered discretion in determining any expansion of enrollment to be significant.

3




Significant Expansion defined

For ESEA programs, DESE defines a significant expansion of enrollment as an additional grade level or an increase in school enrollment of 25 or more students.

4

4




Allocation Process –  
New/Expanding Charter Schools

5

Use of projected data ensures that each newly opened or significantly expanded charter school LEA receives an allocation that reflects its current student count even though allocations may be calculated before the identity and characteristics of the students enrolling in the charter school LEA are fully determined.

5




ESSA Title I Allocation

NCLB

ESSA

6

When comparing allocations, NCLB has total of 5% off the top vs ESSA’s total of 8% off the top.

92% of the Title I allocation is available to eligible LEAs based on the formula.

To support school improvement activities, 7% reservation nearly equals the 1003(a) and 1003(g) SIG grants under NCLB.

Under ESSA, eliminated SIG as a separate funding source.

7% reservation in FY17 impacted all LEAs. Beginning with 2018-2019 grant year, DESE may not reduce the amount of Title I.A funds any LEA received the prior year. This might limit how much DESE can reserve under 1003.

6




Title I Hold Harmless Amounts

Percentage of LEA formula children ages 5 to 17, as a percentage of its total population of children ages 5 to 17, and variable hold-harmless percentage  

7

Title I has a hold harmless provision. An LEA can generally expect that its Title I.A allocation will be at least the hold-harmless guarantee percent of 85 (less than 15 poverty percent), 90 (15-29 poverty percent), 95 (30 or more poverty percent) of the prior year’s amount.

Because of the 7% for all LEAs in 2017-2018, some LEAs received a minimum of 78, 83, or 88% of the prior year’s funding.

The 2018-19 allocation will be based on the 85, 90 or 95%

The hold harmless amounts are based on the districts level of poverty. Again, depending on availability of funds, the greater the poverty, the less degree of cut applies.

Hold harmless prevents an LEA from drastic cuts. 

7




ESSA Requirement Sec 4306(c)

Special Hold-Harmless Provisions for Newly Opened and Significantly Expanded Charter School LEAs

For purposes of implementing the 85, 90, or 95 hold-harmless percentage protections under Title I, an SEA must calculate a hold-harmless base for the prior year that reflects the new or significantly expanded enrollment of the charter school LEA.

8

The Title I hold harmless provision was in place under NCLB. Now it is in ESSA law.

The ESEA now specifically requires an SEA to generate a hold harmless base for a newly opened or significantly expanded charter school LEA that reflects its new or expanded enrollment.

This provision is necessary to give effect to ESEA section 4306(a) that requires an SEA to take measures to ensure that every charter school LEA that newly opens or significantly expands its enrollment receives the Federal funding for which the charter school LEA is eligible, notwithstanding the fact that the identity and characteristics of the students enrolling in the charter school LEA are not fully and completely determined until the charter school LEA actually opens or significantly expands.

Because newly opened and significantly expanded charter school LEAs are treated differently under section 4306(a) from other LEAs, including other charter school LEAs, it is important to ensure that the operation of the hold-harmless protections in ESEA sections 1122(c) and 1125A(f)(3) do not unduly negate increases in Title I allocations based on the increased student population in the charter school LEAs. Accordingly, an SEA must generate a “prior year” base amount for each newly opened and significantly expanded charter school LEA in order to apply the 85, 90, or 95 hold-harmless percentage described above. With respect to newly opened charter school LEAs, this means creating a hold-harmless base where none exists. With respect to a significantly expanded charter school LEA, which is defined consistent with 34 CFR 76.7873, this means adjusting the prior year’s hold-harmless base to create a new base that reflects the increase in the formula count for the current year.

This process will ensure that a newly opened charter school LEA is not disadvantaged by the fact that it had no Title I allocation in the prior year against which to apply the hold-harmless percentage or that an expanding LEA will not loose the increase due to Title I School Improvement reservations.

8




Title II Allocations to States

Changes to State allocations may fluctuate:

9

Just as allocations are distributed to LEAs by formula, the allocations are distributed to States.

Under NCLB, the amount of each State’s allocation above the hold harmless was weighted at 35 percent based on the State’s population of children ages 5-17 and 65 percent on the population of children ages 5-17 from families in poverty.

The weights that ED uses to calculate FY 2017 allocations was the same as under NCLB.

Beginning in FY 2018, weights will shift by 5 percent until FY 2020 and beyond, when the amount of each State’s allocation above the hold harmless will be weighted at 20 percent based on the State’s population of children ages 5-17 and 80 percent on the population of children ages 5-17 from families in poverty.

These weights are relative to the numbers of such children in all States.

Basically, States will gradually shift from the hold harmless base to 20% census population and 80% census poverty. LEAs did not have the gradual shift.

9




Title II.A Allocation Formula

Hold Harmless = 100% of

2001-2002 Title II Eisenhower funds + 2001-2002 Class Size Reduction funds.

 

Additional funds over the hold harmless are distributed as follows:

Hold Harmless is eliminated. LEA funding changes.

Funds are distributed as follows:

NCLB

ESSA

10

Under NCLB, funding under this program had very little variance since the majority of funding had a hold harmless rate based on Title II and Class Size Reduction funding levels prior to NCLB in 2001.

Once the HH amount was reserved, the remaining funds were distributed on census population and census poverty. In 2016-2017, HH was 93%!

ESSA changed the formula by eliminating the hold harmless. LEAs generate Title II.A funds based on their number of 5-17 year olds (20%) and their number of low-income 5-17 year olds (80%).

Eisenhower PD program = half of the funds were allocated based on each LEA’s share of public and private enrollment; the other half were allocated on the basis of funds received in the previous FY under Title I.

Class Size Reduction = funds were distributed to LEAs based on the number of children in poverty (80%) and school enrollment (20%).

10




Title II.A Impact

NCLB in 2016-17 

ESSA in 2017-18

11

Charter LEAs are located in Kansas City and St. Louis and derive census poverty and population from those regions.

Although MO distributed 10% less to LEAs from 2016-17 to 2017-18, the impact was great for the KC and St. Louis regions.

Remember, under NCLB, 93% of the Title II.A funds to LEAs was at a hold harmless rate. Elimination of the hold harmless under ESSA had a great impact on KC and St. Louis. Each received about 63% of prior year levels.

11




Pat Kaiser 
573-751-8643

Jennifer Frank

573-751-2641

ESEA/essa Finance

federalfinancial@dese.mo.gov

CONTACT INFORMATION

12

12



Missouri Assessment Program  
2017

Missouri Department of Elementary 
and Secondary Education

September 2017

Charter School Administrative Summit

1




2



AssessmentAuthorizationTiming Guidelines*
GLA ELA and Mathematics (grades 3-8)Required by ESSA90-250 min
GLA Science (grades 5 and 8)Required by ESSA90-150 min
EOC Algebra I, Biology, English IIRequired by ESSA180-220 min
EOC American GovernmentRequired by MSIP 560-80 min
EOC Algebra II, American History, English I, Geometry, Personal Finance, Physical ScienceOptional180-220 min

Required Assessments

*Estimated time necessary to complete a single assessment. Missouri assessments are not timed.

 Maximum time on testing occurs in grade 8 and represents less than .9% of total instructional time.

3

ACT is gone for now.

In compliance with federal requirements (ESSA) for accountability and state accountability (MSIP), these are the components of the Missouri Assessment Program.

Note that for students who take Algebra I in middle school, Algebra II (or less commonly Geometry) is required for high school accountability. 

2




Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017Percent Proficient and Advanced 2016

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Grade 3

Grade 4

Grade 5

Grade 6

Grade 7*

Grade 8*

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017Percent Proficient and Advanced 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Grade 3

Grade 4

Grade 5

Grade 6

Grade 7*

Grade 8*

Percent Proficient and Advanced 2016

Percent Proficient and Advanced 2017

Grade 3

Grade 4

Grade 5

Grade 6

Grade 7*

Grade 8*

*7th and 8th grade students who

took the Algebra I End-of-Course

assessment are not included in

these totals.

Grade-Level Mathematics

Proficient and Advanced

4

3




Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017Percent Proficient and Advanced 2016

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Grade 3

Grade 4

Grade 5

Grade 6

Grade 7

Grade 8

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017Percent Proficient and Advanced 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Grade 3

Grade 4

Grade 5

Grade 6

Grade 7

Grade 8

Percent Proficient and Advanced 2016

Percent Proficient and Advanced 2017

Grade 3

Grade 4

Grade 5

Grade 6

Grade 7

Grade 8

5

Grade-Level English Language Arts

Proficient and Advanced

4




Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017Percent Proficient and Advanced 2015

47.5

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Grade 5

Grade 8

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017Percent Proficient and Advanced 2016

42.7

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Grade 5

Grade 8

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017Percent Proficient and Advanced 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Grade 5

Grade 8

Percent Proficient and Advanced 2015

Percent Proficient and Advanced 2016

Percent Proficient and Advanced 2017

Grade 5

Grade 8

6

Grade-Level Science

Proficient and Advanced

5




Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 20172015

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Biology

Government*

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 20172016

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Biology

Government*

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 20172017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Biology

Government*

2015

2016

2017

Biology

Government*

*MSIP Requirement Only

7

End-of-Course Required Assessments

Proficient and Advanced

6




Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 20172015

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Algebra II

American History

English I

Geometry

Physical Science

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 20172016

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Algebra II

American History

English I

Geometry

Physical Science

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 20172017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Algebra II

American History

English I

Geometry

Physical Science

2015

2016

2017

Algebra II

American History

English I

Geometry

Physical Science

8

End-of-Course Optional Assessments

Proficient and Advanced

20,053

7,113

13,163

8,045

2,951

2017

Students

Tested

7




Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 20172015

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

English

Mathematics

Reading

Science

Composite

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017Column1

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

English

Mathematics

Reading

Science

Composite

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 20172016

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

English

Mathematics

Reading

Science

Composite

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 20172017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

Missouri Assessment Program 2017

English

Mathematics

Reading

Science

Composite

2015

Column1

2016

2017

English

Mathematics

Reading

Science

Composite

9

ACT® Composite Scores

Missouri Graduates

8




Next Steps in State Assessment

10

9




11

Mathematics and English Language Arts

Next Steps in State Assessment

10




Next Steps in State Assessment

12

Science

11




Next Steps in State Assessment

Social Studies

Personal Finance

ACT®

13

12




Items of Note

14

Grade-Level

Blueprints, tools and accommodations

October 16 Training, test setup, user guide, test management available in eDIRECT
November 13Practice tests available
April 2-

May 25

Summative 2018 test window

13




Items of Note

15

EOC

Blueprints, tools and accommodations

October 2-January 19Fall 2017 test window
October 9Nextera training for DTCs available
October 2Practice tests available
February 18-May 25 Spring 2018 test window

14




Questions

16

      573-751-3545 - Assessment

      573-522-4003 - Standards, Curriculum, Instruction

assessment@dese.mo.gov

curriculum@dese.mo.gov

15



Charter Schools and Special Education: Everything You Need to Know for Compliance

Presentation for 
DESE Charter School Summit

September 28, 2017

Hi, and welcome to the Special Education Compliance portion of this workshop. I am Betty McKinzie, Assistant Director, and this is Cheryl Stock, Compliance Supervisor, assigned to work with the charter schools. In addition, our team also includes Susan Borgmeyer from the Kansas City Regional Professional Development Center and Jeanne Rothermel from the St. Louis Regional Professional Development Center. Both Susan and Jeanne are available to provide technical assistance to charter schools in their respective regions of the state.

 Our presentation today will focus on the important issues for Charter Schools and their special education programs. It is important for charter schools to remember that you are responsible for providing a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) by following both state and federal laws related to special education for any student with a disability or suspected of having a disability enrolled in your charter school.

1




The IDEA

2

Individuals with Disabilities

Education Act (IDEA) Federal Regulations

 

Missouri State Plan Standards and

for Special Education Indicators Manual 

 

Local Compliance Plans

 and

Assurance Statements

Anyone involved with students with disabilities MUST be familiar with the provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or IDEA. This is the federal law that governs special education. The Federal Regulations provide guidance on implementing IDEA. The Missouri State Plan for Special Education is based on the IDEA and documents how Missouri will stay in compliance with the requirements of the IDEA. This document is revised and updated any time changes are made in IDEA, Federal Regulations or OSEP (US Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs) guidance. The most recent revisions became effective in February, 2017. All public agencies responsible for providing services to students with disabilities are required to develop a Local Compliance Plan for Special Education that aligns with IDEA and the Missouri State Plan for Special Education. In addition, each school year, the school board of every public agency responsible for providing services to students with disabilities must have an assurance statement indicating that they will comply with the state and federal laws in regards to students with disabilities. Please note that currently this assurance statement is included with your ePeGs budget and when you "open” your budget, your district automatically makes these assurances.

2




3

Policies Related to Special Education

As a Charter School, there are several board approved policies that must be addressed related to students with disabilities.

The first is the Board approved Local Compliance Plan for Special Education. As a reminder, because the State Plan was revised in February, 2017, every LEA in MO (including Charter Schools) will have to revise their Local Compliance Plan. All Charter Schools MUST update their local compliance plans if they have not already done so.

The second is a board policy for Independent Education Evaluations (IEE). While this is not required, it is recommended that a policy is in place to guide the LEA in handling such requests.

The third is a board policy for Extended School Year (ESY). Again, while this is not required, it is recommended that a policy be in place to guide decisions regarding ESY services for students with disabilities.

The fourth is a board policy for use of seclusion and restraint. This IS a required Missouri policy and affects both students with and without disabilities.

The fifth is a board policy that IF your school decides to use RTI for eligibility determination. 

You can find more information about each of these types of policies on the DESE website or get additional information by contacting Special Education Compliance at (573)751-0699.

3




4

Key Elements for Compliance

1. Sponsor provides resources to support special education compliance.

2. Relationship with Compliance Supervisor and RPDC Compliance Consultants.

3. Having special education staff and administrators trained in the special education process.

We found six keys for compliance for charter schools to be successful with special education.

The first key to compliance is ensuring the charter sponsor provide resources to support special education compliance. With anything, if you have the resources to do your job you will be more successful.

The second key element is your relationship with your Compliance Supervisor and your RPDC Compliance Consultants. Your RPDC Compliance Consultants are available to provide trainings and technical assistance. Your Compliance Supervisor can assist you with monitoring questions or any other compliance question you may have. Do not be afraid to call. We are here to help.

The third key to compliance is making sure you have special education staff and administrators who are trained in the special education process. Knowledge equals success.

4




5

Key Elements for Compliance Success Continued…

4. Having procedures and practices in place to implement the special education process at the charter school.

5. Collaboration between administration and special education staff.

6. Ongoing training and networking with other charter schools and public agency special education administrators (LASE, MO-CASE, CEC conferences, MCPSA, Special Education Network Meetings, RPDC trainings etc.).

The fourth key to compliance is having procedures and practices in place to implement the special education process at the Charter School. It is important to train staff on these as they help ensure compliance.

Collaboration between administrators and special education staff is the fifth key. Communication in both directions (administrator to staff/staff to administrator) is important.

Finally, ongoing training and networking with other Charter School and public school special education administrators such as LASE, MO-CASE, CEC conferences, Special Education Network Meetings, etc. is the sixth key to successful compliance. This helps staff stay current on special education issues and hot topics.

5




6

Special Education Compliance Tiered Monitoring

2017-18 School Year

Cohort 1 = Self Assessment Year

Cohort 2 = Maintain/Retrain Year

Cohort 3 = Corrective Action Plan (CAP)

 

Special Education Compliance Tiered Monitoring is part of the federally required cyclical monitoring process of every school district in Missouri. Cyclical monitoring is conducted every three years using a cohort model for grouping of districts. Each LEA is assigned to a cohort.

Please take a few seconds to locate this list-and make note of the cohort to which your LEA belongs.

The first year of the monitoring cycle is the Self-Assessment Year. The second year of the monitoring cycle is the Corrective Action Plan Year. And the third and final year of the monitoring cycle is the Maintain and Retrain Year.

This school year (2017-2018), Cohort 3 just received their Special Education Program Review Report Letter that details your compliance status. You are moving this school year into the Corrective Action Plan Year, if any indicators were found “OUT” of compliance.

Cohort 1 is participating in the Self-Assessment Year of the process, and Cohort 2 is participating in the Maintain and Retrain Year of the process.

6




7

http://dese.mo.gov/communications/webinar/transfer-process-students-disabilities

One common area that Charter Schools frequently find challenging involves the Transfer Process. Although not all of the students coming to your Charter Schools will be transfer students, many will be. DESE has developed a webinar on the Transfer Process which is available on our website. In addition, model forms are available on the Special Education Compliance page of our website to guide staff through both “in-state” and “out-of-state” transfers of students with disabilities.

It is important for you to remember that enrollment cannot be denied to students with IEPs because of the fact that they are disabled or because you are awaiting IEP and/or evaluation paperwork. Special Education and related services must begin on day one of enrollment.

7




8

Contracting for Evaluations and Services

The final challenging area for charter schools involves contracting for evaluation and special education services including related services such as OT, PT, and Speech/Language.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with contracting for these types of services; however, the problem is when the Charter School assumes that the contractor understands special education compliance. This is because the Charter School has the responsibility to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE)-Not the contractor.

8




9

Contracting for Evaluations

Contractor MUST:

We noted that many charter schools contract with an outside agency or company for your special education evaluations. How many of you contract for evaluations?

The first challenge is meeting the evaluation timelines in accordance with the special education standards and indicators. The second challenge is ensuring the eligibility determination is based on meeting the specific criteria for each categorical disability as stated in the Standards and Indicators manual.

9




10

Remember when Contracting…

…...NOT the contractor.

When choosing a contractor, it is very important that the contractor be able to accomplish their requirements. Remember-it is not the outside agency that is monitored by the Office of Special Education Compliance. It is your Charter School. Therefore, if something is omitted from the process, it is your Charter School that will be found out of compliance

10




11

Questions…

Any questions if there is time.

11




12

Office of Special Education - Compliance

Betty McKinzie    Cheryl Stock

Assistant Director   Supervisor 

573-751-2332    573-751-0727

Betty.Mckinzie@dese.mo.gov  Cheryl.Stock@dese.mo.gov

Regional Professional Development Center (RPDC)

Susan Borgmeyer   Jeanne Rothermel

Compliance Consultant (KC)  Compliance Consultant

(Kansas City)    (St. Louis)

816-235-5957     314-692-1239

borgmeyersk@umkc.edu   jrothermel@edplus.org

Thank you for participating!

Thank you for attending the Charter School Summit on Special Education Compliance. If you have any questions, please contact any of us at any time. We would be happy to help! Our contact information is up on the screen and we have business cards available.

12




Contact Us

13

The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, national origin, age, or disability in its programs and activities. Inquiries related to Department programs and to the location of services, activities, and facilities that are accessible by persons with disabilities may be directed to the Jefferson State Office Building, Office of the General Counsel, Coordinator – Civil Rights Compliance (Title VI/Title IX/504/ADA/Age Act), 6th Floor, 205 Jefferson Street, P.O. Box 480, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0480; telephone number 573-526-4757 or TTY 800-735-2966; email civilrights@dese.mo.gov.

13



36.84% 7 63.16% 12 Q1 What position do you have at your charter school? Answered: 19 Skipped: 0 TOTAL 19 Sponsor Administrator 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Sponsor Administrator 1 / 8 Charter Summit Survey 2017 36.84% 7 63.16% 12 Q2 Given multiple changes in state and federal compliance rules, all sessions were held in one room. Do you prefer break-out sessions or whole group sessions? Answered: 19 Skipped: 0 TOTAL 19 Break-out sessions Whole group sessions 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Break-out sessions Whole group sessions 2 / 8 Charter Summit Survey 2017 Q3 What concerns do you have for charter schools? Answered: 17 Skipped: 2 # RESPONSES DATE 1 SLPS lawsuit in St. Louis. I want to know if state has a plan to make up the difference if SLPS gets what they want. 10/2/2017 11:29 AM 2 I would like to see that public people know more about charter public schools. It is good to help public to understand public school and charter public schools are the same for many aspects. 10/2/2017 8:49 AM 3 Keeping up with all the changes to reporting - especially with federal grants. 10/2/2017 7:05 AM 4 State funding 10/1/2017 7:08 PM 5 School funding formula and how it impacts charter schools. Managing the work of an LEA, while often operating as a single, independent school 9/30/2017 10:15 PM 6 Long term funding model 9/30/2017 9:21 AM 7 None 9/29/2017 9:40 PM 8 More requirements for changes. 9/29/2017 4:12 PM 9 Equity in funding for charter schools in Kansas City. The local tax issue will soon be a problem. Equity in buildings. It is a travesty that school buildings sold to charter schools are paid for twice by public funds. It would be mutually beneficial for charter schools and KCPS to collaborate on purchases (materials and supplies), transportation, food services, and insurance. It might be a revenue stream for KCPS if meals and buses were contracted with the charter schools. The lawsuit between SLPS and DESE. Pre-K funding in Kansas City. Funds from a proposed levy increase for Pre-K will go directly to KCPS (understandably) and will be distributed to pre-schools that KCPS approves. It's doubtful that many charter pre-schools will be selected. State Board of Education members and some DESE personnel do not understand the differences between districts and charter school LEAs. Many sponsors would be willing and able to provide an inservice to help board and staff members better understand similarities and differences between charter schools and non-charter districts. Board member training is offered, but not utilized as it should be. More monitoring is being done to inform board members how much training each member has had. It's impossible to make board members attend training unless there is remedial plan or probationary requirement. When Food Services Audits are placed on the DESE website (as required), the letter that indicates a school has corrected all findings is not added to the DESE website. It would be helpful if the letter could be placed on the website as well. 9/29/2017 3:07 PM 10 Facilities, equitable funding, relationships with the district. 9/29/2017 3:03 PM 11 Maintaining fair accountability in the face of uncertain evaluation factors.. 9/29/2017 2:16 PM 12 Achieving quality 9/29/2017 2:12 PM 13 Will we be represented when we need to be. 9/29/2017 2:06 PM 14 I am not sure that DESE employees really understand when there are different requirements for charter schools as compared to traditional public schools. When they have conferences, this is not apparent in the presentations. It is changing slowly. 9/29/2017 1:52 PM 15 Financial concerns because of local money that will start to decrease once the charter enrollment goes above the district's. 9/29/2017 1:42 PM 16 The lack of resources for Title I and Title II. 9/29/2017 1:28 PM 17 DeVos is very scary. Concerns include strengthening MCPSA and enrollment. 9/29/2017 1:27 PM 3 / 8 Charter Summit Survey 2017 Q4 What did you like most about the DESE Charter Summit? Answered: 18 Skipped: 1 # RESPONSES DATE 1 The speakers were timely, it wed very smooth. Also, appreciated for the lunch. 10/2/2017 11:29 AM 2 It is good to hear regulations and changes from DESE employees. 10/2/2017 8:49 AM 3 The update on assessment 10/2/2017 7:05 AM 4 Timing of presentations and info presented 10/1/2017 7:08 PM 5 Informative, efficient sessions 9/30/2017 10:15 PM 6 Networking with other Charters 9/30/2017 9:21 AM 7 Each presentation was a good synopsis of the main points needed in for topic covered. A lot of information was covered in an efficient manner. 9/30/2017 6:00 AM 8 The fact that Margie makes it important to show up and greet people. 9/29/2017 9:40 PM 9 The fact that were are separate but come together as a unit to learn and share items both positive and not so positive. 9/29/2017 4:12 PM 10 The whole group session. The consideration of the time limits. And, lunch. Thank you very much. There was virtually no down time. 9/29/2017 3:07 PM 11 all in one room 9/29/2017 3:03 PM 12 I liked that everyone was hearing the same information at once (admitting that not all info may be relevant for everyone).. And must add that lunch was great! 9/29/2017 2:16 PM 13 The presentation on Educator Quality by Jim Masters was excellent 9/29/2017 2:12 PM 14 Very informational 9/29/2017 2:06 PM 15 I know that it is difficult to do in one day, but I really did like everyone hearing the same information with one big meeting. 9/29/2017 1:52 PM 16 I liked the variety of information. All departments were represented so schools could get a face and a name together. 9/29/2017 1:42 PM 17 To meet other people and to be updated in what is new from DESE 9/29/2017 1:28 PM 18 Friendliness and welcoming attitude. Contact numbers provided for help throughout the year. Compassion for principals. 9/29/2017 1:27 PM 4 / 8 Charter Summit Survey 2017 Q5 What question was not answered for you? Answered: 17 Skipped: 2 # RESPONSES DATE 1 N/A. 10/2/2017 11:29 AM 2 They are all answered. 10/2/2017 8:49 AM 3 How the Algebra EOC scores will/won't affect APR and do's/don'ts of sharing that information publicly 10/2/2017 7:05 AM 4 none 10/1/2017 7:08 PM 5 Why the Science assessment results will not be shared, even if only internally. It seems like a waste of resources if schools are not also able to glean information from these tests. 9/30/2017 10:15 PM 6 Funding for future years 9/30/2017 9:21 AM 7 Still have some questions regarding MSIP 6, but I am assuming there are some aspects of this being finalize. I am sure we will receive more clarity of it when the process is completed. 9/30/2017 6:00 AM 8 None of my questions were answered. 9/29/2017 9:40 PM 9 none 9/29/2017 4:12 PM 10 What will be done to ensure charter schools and districts will not be harmed by the comparability issues with the 2017 Algebra I and English II EOCs? APRs affect whether or not charter schools will: be placed on probation, face possible closure in the future, trigger the implementation of a remedial plan, or fail to receive the high school readiness points (for K-8 schools). The dilemma appears to have a more negative impact on K-8 charters. No district K-8 will be placed on probation or face closure because of the quagmire. 9/29/2017 3:07 PM 11 it was a good conference 9/29/2017 3:03 PM 12 There were several questions that I would have liked to delve into deeper, though felt that this program format did not allow for the discussion. 9/29/2017 2:16 PM 13 I thought there would be some time spend on ADA for Pre-K (new 4% rule). the funding is great but there are no quality guidelines to with it. 9/29/2017 2:12 PM 14 none 9/29/2017 2:06 PM 15 I was fine with the presentations. 9/29/2017 1:52 PM 16 1.What will be the result, especially for K-8 schools, whose students took the EOC. How will this be fairly resolved? What assurances can be given that this won't happen again? (I realize that the department is probably more upset with this than the schools!) 2. The change in account numbers has business managers nervous. I realize this is being worked on with the software providers, but timelines are not clear. 9/29/2017 1:42 PM 17 N/A 9/29/2017 1:28 PM 5 / 8 Charter Summit Survey 2017 Q6 What would you like to see done differently at next year's DESE Charter Summit? Answered: 18 Skipped: 1 # RESPONSES DATE 1 Time to meet/interact with others school leaders for areas of cooperation and partnership. 10/2/2017 11:29 AM 2 I like the pace of the sessions. It was also nice to be at the same room. It would be good if ppt are shared with the participants who put check mark on the sign in sheet under a column marked share ppt. 10/2/2017 8:49 AM 3 A more specific piece about teacher certification and how the federal grant regulations apply to charter schools 10/2/2017 7:05 AM 4 Breakouts and more time to interact with other schools 10/1/2017 7:08 PM 5 Some differentiation could be valuable. For folks who are new to the summit, it was hard to keep up. However, I liked the format. 9/30/2017 10:15 PM 6 More breakout sessions 9/30/2017 9:21 AM 7 If we had a copy of the power point or notes of the major points as we were listening to each presentation, this would be helpful to "digest" all the information given. 9/30/2017 6:00 AM 8 Breakouts and for people speaking to understand charter schools and speak to our issues instead of delivering pro forma presentations. 9/29/2017 9:40 PM 9 unknown 9/29/2017 4:12 PM 10 I would like to have an opportunity to have DESE personnel listen to a panel of charter school sponsors to educate the DESE staff on the nuances that set charters apart from districts. I appreciated the information at the 2017 Summit. Most of the topics were redundant for sponsors and administrators who have worked in the charter school sector form more than 3-5 years. Topics of discussion could be requested from administrators, sponsors, and business managers (many were in attendance this year.) 9/29/2017 3:07 PM 11 the food was horrible. 9/29/2017 3:03 PM 12 Perfect lead-in. I would like to see a more interactive format that allows for charters to delve deeper into topics/issues specific to the sector while also allowing DESE staff to better understand the perspectives/needs of our schools. Much of the info that was presented is already available on the DESE site. 9/29/2017 2:16 PM 13 So much information in such a condensed period of time. rather have two days to be able to digest so much information. 9/29/2017 2:12 PM 14 Nothing 9/29/2017 2:06 PM 15 This year's format was fine. 9/29/2017 1:52 PM 16 I do like the breakout sessions because people generally feel free to ask questions. 9/29/2017 1:42 PM 17 fewer breaks 9/29/2017 1:30 PM 18 N/A 9/29/2017 1:28 PM 6 / 8 Charter Summit Survey 2017 Q7 What topic would you like more information about that was not covered by presenters or at the information tables? Answered: 15 Skipped: 4 # RESPONSES DATE 1 School safety was a topic last year but not this year. I think we always need updates and more guidance on that. 10/2/2017 11:29 AM 2 None. 10/2/2017 8:49 AM 3 same as #6 10/2/2017 7:05 AM 4 none 10/1/2017 7:08 PM 5 I'm not sure. I would have appreciated the PPTs ahead of time. Then I could have taken notes as we went. 9/30/2017 10:15 PM 6 NA 9/30/2017 9:21 AM 7 None that I can think of at this time. 9/30/2017 6:00 AM 8 Data. 9/29/2017 9:40 PM 9 During closures, how can DESE help charter schools protect the school's reserves? It would be helpful to create a system - during closures only - to distribute funds only by reimbursement for expenses the school incurs. The school/sponsor transition team would have a better way of tracking expenditures during the months the school is preparing to close. 9/29/2017 3:07 PM 10 good job 9/29/2017 3:03 PM 11 Most info still in question is yet under development. 9/29/2017 2:16 PM 12 Pre-K ADA 9/29/2017 2:12 PM 13 This year's presenters were fine. 9/29/2017 1:52 PM 14 Already shared this above. Thanks 9/29/2017 1:42 PM 15 Homeless Transportation. Transferred Students 9/29/2017 1:28 PM 7 / 8 Charter Summit Survey 2017 Q8 What is something great going on in your charter school? Answered: 14 Skipped: 5 # RESPONSES DATE 1 Strengthening high school programs. 10/2/2017 11:29 AM 2 This is college bound school and there are tons of stuff really going well in my charter schools. We also focus on STEAM and there are good number of achievements. 10/2/2017 8:49 AM 3 Hawthorn is starting its second year implementing a mentoring program for 8th grade girls in partnership with women who work at World Wide Technology. About 25 women from WWT supported our 8th graders last year in planning and executing 8th grad capstone leadership projects. From fundraising for a new salad bar to getting 4 new trees planted on our campus, our students were able to identify problems in the local and school communities and execute plans to address the problem. We are continuing the partnership this year. 10/2/2017 7:05 AM 4 Moving all the students into one building at KCIA 10/1/2017 7:08 PM 5 We have been working to develop our middle school program. Part of that design work has been an innovative, problem-based design class called Investigations. The students thrive during that class and are diving deep into content, while also having fun! 9/30/2017 10:15 PM 6 Expansion! 9/30/2017 9:21 AM 7 Growth 9/29/2017 4:12 PM 8 Schools are continuing to improve curriculum through a systematic, research-based action plan. Instruction and assessments are more tightly aligned with Missouri Learning Standards and Next Generation Science Standards. Special Education compliance issues are few. Food service audits will be monitored more closely. Reserves in all schools are well above the 3% threshhold. 9/29/2017 3:07 PM 9 high grad rate......winning sports teams. 9/29/2017 3:03 PM 10 Many, many things. A great lunch program for charter successes would be to allow some of these schools the time to present their programs. i.e. what is the "secret sauce" for University Academy to be so successful? 9/29/2017 2:16 PM 11 Kansas City Public Schools is the sponsor and LEA for the Kansas City Neighborhood Academy Charter School. KCPS is also the recipient of Missouri Preschool Program funding. KCPS placed two MPP classrooms in the KCNA charter. Those two classrooms were among the first KCPS Pre-K classrooms to achieve state accreditation . It was a great accomplishment for the district while at the same time creating a great pipeline of ready children for KCNA. 9/29/2017 2:12 PM 12 We're presently supporting schools in the development of new teachers. It was an area that administrators felt they needed help with. It has been evolving by working closely with mentors and administrators. 9/29/2017 1:42 PM 13 We have reorganized our schools in one school. Helping us to be more organized. 9/29/2017 1:28 PM 14 Our theme of growing together. 9/29/2017 1:27 PM 8 / 8 Charter Summit Survey 2017