001This presentation will discuss the title one part A requirement related to the schoolwide program plan stakeholders which has been selected for review as part of the program monitoring validation process being conducted by the federal program compliance division at the Texas Education Agency. This presentation is intended solely to provide general information and guidance to Texas LEAs, ESC's, nonprofit subgrantees, and participating private schools receiving equitable services. The content of this presentation reflects the Texas Education AY's current understanding of statute and applicable federal guidance. The content of this presentation is subject to change as a result of future guidance or other updates provided by federal agencies with regulatory oversight of these programs. This presentation does not constitute legal advice and entities are therefore advised to seek legal counsel regarding the information and guidance provided in this presentation before
002acting upon the ed provided. The Texas Education Agency does not permit third-party recording or the use of artificial intelligence summary services during its grants related trainings. Attendees of TEA's grant related trainings may not use AI services, language models, applications, interfaces, or assistance to attend, review, or record the trainings. TEA further prohibits any person or entity from using the information included in its grants related trainings to train AI technologies. Any attendees of TEA's grant related trainings who violate this prohibition may be removed from the trainings and may be barred from attending future grants related trainings. Documenting overall compliance for a program requirement may require several forms of documentation to be maintained locally and available upon request by TEA and/or an auditor. To ensure overall compliance with program requirements, LEAs should refer to the program guide and/or
003other program related resources that reference the multiple forms of documentation required to be maintained locally. The documentation requested for submission during the validation process may not include all forms of documentation that are required to be maintained locally. The agenda for today's presentation will include a discussion of the specific program requirement, acceptable documentation for the validation, past validation issues, a discussion of examples, and the resources that are available. The Title One Part A statute specifies that the schoolwide program plan must be developed with the involvement of parents and other members of the community to be served as well as individuals who will carry out the plan, including teachers, principals, other school leaders, paraprofessionals, administrators, including administrators of the Title One Part C and Title One Part D programs if the LEA has those programs. LEA administrators,
004tribes and tribal organizations if present in the community, and if appropriate, specialized instructional support personnel, technical assistance providers, school staff, students if the plan relates to a secondary school, and other individuals determined by the school. Please also note that the statutory language includes plural references which means that there would need to be more than one stakeholder involved for the groups referenced. During our review, we will particularly be looking for the following required groups of stakeholders. parents, other members of the community to be served, teachers, principles, other school leaders and pair professionals present in the school, administrators of the Title One Part C and Title One Part D programs, tribes and tribal organizations present in the community, and if the plan relates to a secondary school, students For item 1.1, the LEA must submit evidence of
005the required stakeholder involvement. Acceptable documentation may include the relevant pages of the campus improvement plan for the specified school year that includes a list of the stakeholders involved in the development of the plan and the group or role they represent. Please note that LEA employees may not fill the parent roles on the committee. Issues that may result in an improvement needed status include auditable documentation requested was not submitted. Documentation submitted does not include the individuals by name. Documentation submitted does not include the stakeholder roles for each individual listed. The documentation was not for the school year or the campus specified. The documentation required for the CIP items 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4 4 includes meeting agendas, meeting minutes or notes, and participant rosters or sign-in sheets for one meeting held during the campus planning process documenting
006the involvement of the required stakeholders in the development of the schoolwide program plan. Although it is highly unlikely that the CIP development process would take place in one meeting considering that the process should be comprehensive in nature, we are only requesting the documentation for one meeting. The documentation submitted should provide evidence that the CIP stakeholders listed in the documentation referenced in CIP item 1.1 were involved in the CIP development process. The standard documentation for a meeting includes a meeting agenda, meeting notes or minutes, and sign-in sheets or participant rosters that indicate attendance. These are the items that we will be examining as 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4. The meeting agenda from the campus planning process should provide evidence that the required stakeholders were involved in the development of the schoolwide program plan. The meeting notes or
007minutes should align with a list of stakeholders involved. They should also provide evidence that the required stakeholders were involved in the development of the schoolwide program plan. The participant roster or sign-in sheet showing the attendance should include the meeting title, the meeting date, the stakeholder names and roles of the stakeholders involved. Documentation for virtual meetings is acceptable given the increased use of virtual meeting environments. Participant rosters that include the meeting title, meeting date, and stakeholder names and roles would be acceptable substitutes for the more traditional sign-in sheets. This eliminates the need of participant signatures for virtual meetings. In general, to be acceptable as meeting documentation, an agenda should include the title of the meeting, the name of the campus or LEA as applicable, and the date and the time of the meeting. Best practice would
008be to also include the meeting location. Meeting notes or meeting minutes should include the meeting title, the LEA or campus name as applicable and the date and the time of the meeting. Best practice would be to include the meeting location and the names and roles of the stakeholders. The participant roster or sign-in sheet should include the meeting title, the LEA or campus name as applicable, the date and the time of the meeting, and the stakeholder names and roles. Best practice would be to include the location of the meeting. Please note that the Texas Education Code states that parents roles as stakeholders may not be filled by LEA employees. Issues with the meeting documentation that may result in an improvement needed status include auditable documentation requested was not submitted. The documentation submitted does not reference the
009schoolwide program plan development process. The documentation submitted does not align to the list of stakeholders referenced in the item 1.1 and documentation submitted is not related to the schoolwide program plan for the school year designated in the validation. When choosing which meeting documentation would best demonstrate the meaningful involvement of all the required stakeholders, the LEA should consider whether the meeting being documented is an actual working meeting where the plan is reviewed and revised or is it merely a distribution opportunity for a plan that has already been completed. So we've been validating this particular requirement for several years now and we have some of the same questions that arise every year about what exactly is meeting the intent and purpose of the statutory stakeholder consultation requirement. So the statute talks about timely and meaningful consultation and
010that eleas must consult with various stakeholders and that they shall develop a comprehensive plan with the involvement of certain stakeholders. So does just inviting the particular stakeholders to engage meet the intent and purpose of the stakeholder consultation requirements? No, just inviting them does not. The requirement is they actually have to engage in the consultation with those stakeholders. So just inviting them does not meet the intent and purpose. So what happens if a group of individuals are not able to engage or not able to attend the stakeholder meeting? Has the intent and purpose of this uh requirements been met? And no, just inviting them doesn't meet the requirement. Um so if the individuals are not able to attend the requirement has not been met. We know that getting all the stakeholders to the table can be
011a challenge. Um, and to assist with this process, we've come up with some guiding questions that may help LEAs assess their particular method for uh working on the stakeholder engagement to see if there are other things that uh they can do or other things that they can consider to improve the stakeholder engagement. So, one of the things would be will the stakeholders be involved in this process on an ongoing basis. So, is this something that you're asking stakeholders to uh to to commit to or is it just like a one-off um that can make a difference in uh the level of interest that uh you're able to get? Um are your processes tailored to solicit meaningful input? Are there outreach activities to gather stakeholder input and feedback? Do the planning activities include goal setting and
012the development of ideas or is it just a one-way communication for sharing information? Is the stakeholder engagement sustained with the stakeholders and giving them an opportunity to participate in discussions at the decision making, implementation and the evaluation stages? Are all the required stakeholders involved and in attendance at every step of the planning process? Does the process have enough time built in for meaningful discussions? Are the committee consultation activities part of a process rather than an event? Are there opportunities built into the process for stakeholders to share their feedback in a comfortable setting? Has the LEA considered the barriers to greater participation by stakeholders in planning meetings? And are the meetings scheduled at times that ensure maximum stakeholder attendance and engagement? When the LEA is compiling its evidence for consultation, the evidence of meaningful consultation with
013all of the required stakeholders should include a consultation process description in the campus improvement plan or the district improvement plan as applicable. The meetings should be documented with an agenda. Meeting minutes or notes where they have action items that are are specifically documented. So you could read the minutes or the meeting notes and have an understanding of what actually took place at the meeting, meeting materials that may have been used, sign-in sheets and participant rosters that include all the stakeholder roles for everyone who attended. And then if the LEA or campus uses a survey to help solicit input from certain stakeholder groups, we would want to see a copy of the survey instrument, an analysis of the survey results or responses and evidence that the survey results were used with fidelity to inform the decision-making
014process. Next, we will review the resources and support that are available to assist LEAs in completing the program monitoring validation process. In the category of overall process resources, ELEAs can access the PMV process handbook, instructions, training video, and training slides for tips on submitting documentation and a video on how to navigate the Smart Sheet work app system. These, as well as other programspecific resources, are available on the ESSA program monitoring validations web page. For each requirement included in the validations, there is a guidance document that describes the acceptable documentation as well as training slides in a training video that discuss previous findings. These resources are available to eleas to review prior to submitting documentation for selected PMV requirements. Please take advantage of these documents to ensure that the district is informed of the overall process
015for program monitoring validations and all program specific resources. Complimentary technical assistance and training are available from each regional education service center. ESC contacts for each regional center are located towards the bottom of the TEA Title One Part A web page. Questions related to the program monitoring validations for the Title One Part A program may be directed to Vivian Smurl at essport tea.ex.gov.