Title III, Part A: 2015-2016 NCLB Compliance Report and Initial Compliance Review (ICR) Indicators C U R R I C U L U M D I V I S I O N 2 0 1 6 T E X A S E D U C A T I O N A G E N C Y
2016 by the Texas Education Agency Copyright tice. The Materials are copyrighted and trademarked as the property of Texas Education Agency (TEA) and may not be reproduced without the express written permission of TEA except under the following conditions: 1) Texas public school districts, charter schools, and education service centers may reproduce and use copies of the Materials and Related Materials for the districts' and schools' educational use without obtaining permission from TEA. 2) Residents of the state of Texas may reproduce and use copies of the Materials and Related Materials for individual personal use only, without obtaining written permission from TEA. 3) Any portion reproduced must be reproduced in its entirety and remain unedited, unaltered, and unchanged in any way. 4) monetary charge can be made for the reproduced materials or any document containing them; however, a reasonable charge to cover only the cost of reproduction and distribution may be charged. Private entities or persons located in Texas that are not Texas public school districts, charter schools, or education service centers, or any entity, whether public or private, educational or non-educational, located outside the state of Texas must obtain written approval from TEA and will be required to enter into a license agreement that may involve the payment of a licensing fee or a royalty. For information, contact the Office of Copyrights, Trademarks, License Agreements, and Royalties, Texas Education Agency, 1701 N. Congress Ave., Austin, Texas, 78701-1494; phone 512-463-9041, email: copyrights@tea.texas.gov.
Initial Compliance Review (ICR) Crosswalk The Initial Compliance Review (ICR) is the first step in the compliance monitoring process. The ICR is an automated review of program-specific data indicators used to evaluate LEA compliance with federal program requirements. The ICR Crosswalk includes the indicators for the ESEA programs. It is posted on the NCLB Compliance Reporting page and updated annually around late spring.
Initial Compliance Review (ICR) Crosswalk
ICR Crosswalk and Title III, Part A Indicators The ICR Crosswalk includes the 12 indicators for Title III that correspond with the Title III program implementation questions in the NCLB Consolidated Compliance Report. Indicator Number Data Source (what the requirement is and cites the statute that requires it) ESEA Program Consolidated Compliance Report (cites location of indicator in PR3002) Met Standard (refer to Guide to Answering Program Implementation Questions)
PR3002 Title III, Part A (Sample)
PR3002 Instructions
PR3002 Report Instructions
PR3002 Instructions (Part 11)
2015-2016 Guide to Answering Program Implementation Questions Guide to Answering Program Implementation Question in 2015-2016 Compliance Reports
Did the LEA determine that all teachers in Title III language instructional programs for LEP children are fluent in both English and any other language used for instruction, including having written and oral communication skills? Teacher Fluency- Title III, Part A LEP The LEA had a language instructional program that used English and any other language for instruction (bilingual program). The LEA did determine teachers were fluent in English and any other language used for instruction. The LEA did not determine teachers were fluent in English and any other language used for instruction. An LEA should only mark if it is not required to provide a bilingual program (as per state requirements) or if the LEA has a bilingual exception for the 2015-2016 school year. (ICR Indicator #45)
Did the LEA implement an effective means of outreach to parents of LEP/immigrant students to inform the parents of how they can be involved in the education of their children and be active participants in assisting their children to attain English proficiency, achieve at high levels in core academic subjects, and meet challenging State standards expected of all students? Parental Outreach-Title III, Part A LEP (te: Should even be supplemental to Title I, Part A) The LEA did implement an effective means of outreach to parents. The LEA did not implement an effective means of outreach to parents. It is highly unlikely that an LEA receiving Title III funds could justify a compliance status of. (ICR Indicator #46)
Did the LEA conduct a timely and meaningful consultation with participating private nonprofit (PNP) school officials regarding the development and implementation of the Title III, Part A, program? (Consultation should have occurred before completing NCLB application.) Timely and Meaningful Consultation with PNP Officials Regarding Title III, Part A LEP Program The LEA had participating private nonprofit schools with Title III, Part A-LEP program. The LEA did not have participating private nonprofit schools with Title III, Part A-LEP program. The LEA did have a timely and meaningful consultation with PNP. The LEA did not have a timely and meaningful consultation with PNP. (ICR Indicator #47)
Did the LEA meet the statutory 2% limitation on administrative costs related to the implementation of the Title III, Part A LEP Program? Administrative Costs-Title III, Part A LEP The LEA had administrative costs. The LEA did not have administrative costs. The LEA met and adhered to the 2% statutory limitation. The LEA did not adhere to the 2% statutory limitation. (ICR Indicator #48)
When calculating administrative costs for the Title III, Part A LEP program, did the LEA include all appropriate administrative costs, including both indirect costs and direct costs such as administrative salaries? Administrative Costs (include direct and indirect costs)- Title III, Part A LEP The LEA had administrative costs. The LEA did not have administrative costs. The LEA did include both direct and indirect costs. The LEA did not include both direct and indirect costs. (ICR Indicator #49)
Did the LEA require third-party contractor(s) associated with the Title III, Part A LEP program to break out administrative costs, which were included in the 2% limit? Third-Party Contracts Title III, Part A LEP The LEA had third-party contracts. The LEA did not have third-party contracts. The LEA did require contractor to break out administrative costs. The LEA did not require contractor to break out administrative costs. (ICR Indicator #50)
Did all Title III, Part A LEP who were split-funded with other funds maintain appropriate time and effort records? Time and Effort Records for Split-Funded Staff with Title III, Part A LEP Funds The LEA had Title III LEP split-funded staff. The LEA did not have Title III LEP split-funded staff. The LEA did maintain appropriate time & effort records. The LEA did not maintain appropriate time & effort records. (ICR Indicator #51)
Did the LEA maintain control of Title III, Part A-LEP program funds being used to provide equitable services to private school ELL students and their teachers? Equitable Services to Private School ELL Students and their Teachers with Title III, Part A LEP Program Funds The LEA had participating private nonprofit schools with Title III, Part A-LEP program. The LEA did not have participating private nonprofit schools with Title III, Part A-LEP program. The LEA did maintain LEP program funds being used to provide equitable services to PNP schools. The LEA did not maintain LEP program funds being used to provide equitable services to PNP schools. (ICR Indicator #52)
When calculating administrative costs for the Title III, Part A Immigrant program, did the LEA include all appropriate administrative costs, including both indirect costs and direct costs such as administrative salaries? Administrative Costs (include direct and indirect costs)- Title III, Part A Immigrant The LEA had administrative costs. The LEA did not have administrative costs. The LEA did include both direct and indirect costs. The LEA did not include both direct and indirect costs. (ICR Indicator #54)
Did all Title III, Part A Immigrant staff who were split-funded with other funds maintain appropriate time and effort records? Time and Effort Records for Split-Funded Staff with Title III, Part A Immigrant Funds The LEA had Title III split-funded staff. The LEA did not have Title III split-funded staff. The LEA did maintain appropriate time & effort records. The LEA did not maintain appropriate time & effort records. (ICR Indicator #56)
Did the LEA maintain control of Title III, Part A Immigrant program funds being used to provide equitable services to private school immigrant students and their teachers? Equitable Services to Private School (PNP) ELL Students and their Teachers with Title III, Part A Immigrant Program Funds The LEA had participating PNP schools with Title III, Part A-Immigrant program. The LEA did not have participating PNP schools with Title III, Part A- Immigrant program. The LEA did maintain Immigrant program funds being used to provide equitable services to PNP schools. The LEA did not maintain Immigrant program funds being used to provide equitable services to PNP schools. (ICR Indicator #57)
Did the LEA s Title III, Part A Immigrant-funded programs provide enhanced instructional opportunities for immigrant children and youth? Enhanced Instructional Opportunities for Private School (PNP) Immigrant students with Title III, Part A Immigrant-funded Programs The LEA had participating PNP schools with Title III, Part A- Immigrant programs. The LEA s Immigrantfunded programs did provide enhanced instructional opportunities for PNP immigrant students. The LEA s Immigrantfunded programs did not provide enhanced instructional opportunities for PNP immigrant students. The LEA did not have participating PNP schools with Title III, Part A- Immigrant programs. (ICR Indicator #58)