U. S. Department of Education

Student Achievement and School Accountability Programs

Monitoring Plan for the Enhanced Assessment Grants Program

For Grants Funded with FY 2011 Funds

(February 2013)

Table of Contents

Introduction...... 3

Purpose of This Document...... 3

Background on the Enhanced Assessment Grants (EAG) Program ...... 3

Background on Program Monitoring...... 3

Components of Monitoring...... 3

Augmented Desk Monitoring Process...... 5

Monitoring Indicators...... 5

Monitoring Process...... 6

Monitoring Report...... 6

Project Response...... 6

U.S. Department of EducationFollow-up...... 6

Resources...... 6

Appendix: Part I Monitoring Indicators For Enhanced Assessment Grants: Program Specific Indicators And Part II Monitoring Indicators For General Edgar Requirements

Introduction
  1. Purpose of This Document

The purpose of this document is to describe in detail the purpose, rationale, and process used by the Student Achievement and School Accountability Programs (SASA) office in the U.S. Department of Education’s (ED) Office of Elementary and Secondary Education in monitoring the use of discretionary grant funds under the Enhanced Assessment Instruments Grant program, also called the Enhanced Assessment Grants (EAG) program.

  1. Background on the EAG Program

In view of the critical importance of State assessments, the EAG program provides discretionary grants to State educational agencies (SEAs) to help them enhance the quality of their assessment systems. These competitive awards, which are separate from the formula awards that all States receive from ED under section 6111 of the ESEA, are authorized by section 6112 of the ESEA. Since fiscal year (FY) 2002, nine cohorts of EAGs have been funded. More information on the EAG program and its grantees is available on the EAG program website at:

  1. Background on Program Monitoring

Monitoring is the regular and systematic examination of a grantee’s administration and implementation of a grant, a contract, or a cooperative agreement administered by ED. Monitoring the use of Federal funds has long been an essential function of ED. Monitoring formalizes the integral relationship between ED and the grantee. It emphasizes, first and foremost, accountability for using resources appropriately and wisely in the critical venture of educating and preparing our nation’s students. SASA has established a monitoring plan for each of its programs.

The purposes of monitoring the EAG program are: (1) to support the grantee in achieving program goals and objectives and ensure that project implementation conforms to the approved application; (2) ensure compliance with the requirements of the program’s authorizing statute (section 6112 of the ESEA) and other applicable statutes, with applicable regulations, such as the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR)[1], and any conditions placed on a grant; and (3) protect against waste, fraud, and abuse. The monitoring plan for the EAG program establishes procedures for achieving these purposes.

Through monitoring, ED gathers information about the grantee’s performance and needs. ED uses the information collected to design technical assistance initiatives and address weaknesses in project implementation. Thus, monitoring serves not only as a means for helping the grantee achieve compliant and high-quality implementation of educational programs, but also helps ED to be a better advisor and partner with the grantee in that effort.

Components of Monitoring

SASA staff will monitor the EAG to ensure that the project is being conducted in accordance with the approved application. The content of SASA’s monitoring is based on the specific statutory requirements in the ESEA for the EAG program as well as other applicable statutes and regulations, such as EDGAR provisions and OMB Cost Principles. Monitoring the grantee’s implementation means analyzing how the grantee has instituted the project design as described in the application to ensure compliance with the applicable statutes and regulations.

Monitoring of the EAG grantee includes four central components: (1) Performance Reporting, (2) Ongoing Desk Monitoring, (3) Quarterly Conference Calls, and (4) Augmented Desk Monitoring. The grantee is expected to submit performance reports and participate in ongoing monitoring, and participate in an augmented desk monitoring if selected. In addition, following the end of the project period, with the assistance of an expert panel, ED will review final products from the grant to evaluate the effectiveness of the EAG program under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA).

Performance Reporting. Grantees must submit two kinds of reports, annual performance reports and a final performance report.

  • Annual Performance Reports. A grantee receiving a multi-year award must submit annual performance reports that provide the most current performance and financial expenditure information, as specified by the Secretary in 34 CFR 75.590, 75.720, 80.40, and 80.41. Information including the following will be requested for the annual performance report:
  • Document of the degree to which the grantee has met the goals and objectivesoutlined in its application;
  • Documentation to address the interim performance measures for the program, specifically: (1) the forums through which the grantee plans to make available to SEA staff in non-participating States and to assessment researchers information on findings resulting from the Enhanced Assessment Grants, and (2) a list of proposed final products the grantee intends to produce under the grant;
  • Documentation of how the grantee is addressing applicable regulatory absolute priorities for the grant;
  • Documentation of how the grantee is meeting program requirements for the grant;
  • Budget expenditures (for Federal grant funds and non-Federal funds);
  • Information on indirect costs and program income, if applicable;
  • Human subjects research certification; and
  • A completed Federal Financial Report (Standard Form 425).

Grantees will report using a program specific performance reporting form, which ED will provide to grantees. The Federal Financial Report (Standard Form 425) formis available at:www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html. Annual performance reports will be due to ED by August 15 each year of the grant until the final year. ED staff will contact the grantee during the year each report is due with more information on and instructions for the annual performance report.

  • Final Performance Report. Within 90 days after the end of the project period, the grantee also must submit a final performance report. ED staff will contact the grantee during the final year of the grant with more information on and instructions for the final performance report. Information such as the following will be requested for the final performance report:
  • The number and names of States that participate in State’s EAG project;
  • Documentation of the degree to which the goals and objectives outlined in the application have been met ;
  • Descriptions of all significant research under the grant regarding assessment systems, assessments, related methodologies, and products or tools;
  • A list of all final products produced as part of the grant;
  • A list of all final products, publications, and presentations (as described below) produced as part of your grant. For each item in this list, provide enough information that individuals unfamiliar with your project will understand the context.
  • For products submitted, indicate the purpose of the product, the audience for its use and any other contextual information needed to understand the product.
  • For presentations, include the name of the presentation; the name of the conference or meeting, the date and its location; and presenters.
  • For papers, include a full citation for published papers and list the names of publications to which any other papers have been submitted.
  • Budget expenditures (for Federal grant funds and non-Federal funds); and
  • Information on indirect costs and program income, if applicable.

Grantees will report using a program specific performance reporting form, which ED will provide to grantees. The Federal Financial Report (Standard Form 425) formis available at:www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html. Final performance reports will be due to ED no later than 90 days after the end of the project period.

On-going Desk Monitoring. ED staff will conduct on-going monitoring of each grantee’s implementation of its grant. This monitoring will involves periodic informal conversations with the grantee, document reviews, tracking grantee drawdowns of funds, and checking grantee compliance with applicable requirements.

Quarterly Conference Calls. ED staff will contact the grantee on a regular basis, at least quarterly, to discuss progress on performance measures, including activities under the grant, and other aspects of grant administration.

Augmented Desk Monitoring. For selected grants, ED will conduct more in-depth monitoring, using the monitoring indicators outlined in the appendices of this document to assess grantee performance and compliance with requirements. Even though not all EAG grantees will be selected for augmented desk monitoring, all EAG grantees are expected to implement their grants according to the requirements outlined in the monitoring indicators and to maintain records that document such compliance. The final sections of this document describe the procedures followed for this augmented desk monitoring.

Final Products Review with Expert Panel. With the final performance report, the grantee will submit the products developed under the grant. The grantee also will document both the States that participated in each grant and its dissemination activities. In addition to monitoring the implementation of EAGs, ED conducts an expert panel review of the final products of grants awarded under this program. ED uses the results of the expert panel review to rate ED’s success in addressing the four performance measures ED has developed for evaluating the effectiveness of the Enhanced Assessment Grants program under GPRA:

  • The number of States that participate in Enhanced Assessment Grants projects funded by this competition
  • The percentage of grantees that at least twice during the period of their grants make available to State educational agency staff in non-participating States and to assessment researchers information on findings resulting from the EAGs through presentations at national conferences, publications in refereed journals, or other products disseminated to the assessment community
  • For each grant cycle and as determined by an expert panel, the percentage of EAGs that yield significant research, methodologies, products, or tools regarding assessment systems or assessments
  • For each grant cycle and as determined by an expert panel, the percentage of EAGs that yield significant research, methodologies, products, or tools specifically regarding accommodations and alternate assessments for students with disabilities and limited English proficient students.

Augmented Desk Monitoring Process

A.Monitoring Indicators

In its augmented desk monitoring, ED uses clear and consistent criteria “monitoring indicators,” to determine the degree of implementation of grantee programs and activities. Monitoring indicators identify for the grantees and for ED staff the critical components of accountability by providing standards against which a grantee’s compliance and performance can be measured during monitoring. For example, the EAG monitoring indicators describe what is being monitored and provide the criteria for judging the quality of implementation (“acceptable evidence”). Monitoring indicators for the EAG program include requirements applicable to discretionary grant programs in general as well as monitoring indicators specific to the EAG program. The complete texts of monitoring indicators for the EAG program are contained in the appendix to this document.

B.Monitoring Process

For each grant award cycle, a sample of grantees will be selected for augmented desk monitoring. SASA staff will consider grantee performance in several areas to classify grantees in one of two categories, either targeted for augmented desk monitoring or not targeted for augmented desk monitoring. Areas staff will consider in making these classifications include: grantee progress in implementing the project as proposed, including timeliness; information provided in grantees’ performance reports as well as the timeliness and completeness of reports; grantee compliance with applicable requirements; conditions placed on the grant award; and concerns and findings from ongoing desk monitoring as well as grantee responsiveness in addressing them. Grantees that have performance issues will be classified as targeted for augmented desk monitoring. Approximately one-third to one-half of the grants from each award cycle will be targeted for augmented desk monitoring. The selection of EAG grantees for augmented desk monitoring will occur approximately one year after the awards are made.

Grantees selected for augmented desk monitoring will receive a letter regarding their selection. This letter will ask grantees selected for such monitoring to submit available evidence that documents how they are addressing the monitoring indicators outlined in the appendices to this document. The program specific monitoring indicators are listed in Appendix A, and monitoring indicators for general EDGAR requirements are listed in Appendix B. SASA staff will review this evidence and then conduct interviews with project staff via a conference call approximately one month after the evidence is submitted.

C.Monitoring Report

SASA staff will provide a report on the augmented desk monitoring to the grant’s project director within 45 days of the conclusion of the conference call interview. The report may contain commendations, recommendations, and findings and required actions that together provide an analysis of the implementation of the approved EAG grant application.

D.Project Response and SASA Follow-up

Upon receipt of the draft report, the project director will have 10 business days to ask questions or make simple edits. Upon receipt of the final report, the project director will have 30 business days to respond to any required actions. Once the project’s response is received by SASA, the monitor determines whether the response indicates that the project has taken steps to ensure full compliance in the identified areas. SASA’s director then will send a letter to the project director approving or disapproving its proposed actions. If the project’s response is disapproved, SASA staff will work with the grantee to ensure that areas of non-compliance are addressed.

As needed, SASA staff will follow-up on issues identified in augmented desk monitoring during the remainder of the project period. This follow-up may include providing additional technical assistance to the grantee and more frequent communication and monitoring of the grantee by ED staff. It also may involve placing conditions on grants and other actions, as appropriate, if compliance issues remain unresolved or performance problems persist.

Resources

All grantees must administer their grants to achieve the scope and objectives of the project outlined in the application and so that they comply with all other applicable requirements, whether or not they are selected for augmented desk monitoring. The following list provides several resources that are available to support grantees in effectively administering grants:

  • Enhanced Assessment Grant (EAG) program website:
  • Resources page of the EAG program website:
  • EDGAR: The following EDGAR requirements apply to the EAGs: 34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 80, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99 as well as the Debarment and Suspension regulations in 2 CFR part 3485.
  • OMB Circulars: See Resources page of the EAG website
  • Online Grantee Training for ED Discretionary Grants:
  • Grantmaking at ED, a non-technical summary of ED's discretionary grant process and the laws and regulations that govern it:
  • Online training for G5 system, ED’s electronic system for grants management and payments:
  • ED Recovery Act Technical Assistance Web Conferences (technical assistance on a range of topics related to administering discretionary and formula grants): See Resources page of the SASA at:www2.ed.gov/programs/eag/resources.html.
  • Frequently Asked Questions on the Race to the Top Assessment Program and Intellectual Property Rights – (includes technical assistance on intellectual property rights related to discretionary grants): See:www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-assessment/ip-faqs.pdf

1

Appendix

Part 1: Program Specific Monitoring Indicators for Enhanced Assessment Grants Program

Monitoring indicator / Acceptable documented evidence / Acceptable interview evidence
EAG 1.1: Grantee implements its approved application, enhances the quality of assessment instruments and systems used by states for measuring the achievement of all students.
ESEA Section 6112(a); EDGAR 75.700 /
  • Documentation of progress on project activities consistent with approved application.
  • Documentation of research products from activities under the grant, and/or documentation of progress toward completing such products.
  • Documentation that products from activities under the grant will yield significant research, methodologies, products, or tools regarding assessment systems or assessments; and/or regarding accommodations and alternate assessments for students with disabilities and limited English proficient students.
/
  • Staff explains how activities under the grant, based on what was committed to in the approved application, will yield significant research, methodologies, products, or tools regarding assessment systems or assessments; and/or regarding accommodations and alternate assessments for students with disabilities and limited English proficient students.

Monitoring indicator / Acceptable documented evidence / Acceptable interview evidence
EAG 1.2: Grantee collaborates with institutions of higher education, other research institutions, or other organizations to improve the quality, validity, and reliability of State academic assessments beyond the statutory requirements.
ESEA Section 6112(a)(1), EDGAR 75.128 /
  • Contracts with other collaborating entities.
  • Minutes from management meetings, records of communications with members of the grant consortium, and/or documentation outlining the roles of all participants in grant activities.
  • If applicable, binding agreement between all SEA members of the consortium that (1) details the activities that each member of the consortium plans to perform; and (2) binds each member of the consortium to every statement and assurance made by the applicant in its application.
/
  • Staff explains the roles of all participants and their involvement in grant activities.

Monitoring indicator / Acceptable documented evidence / Acceptable interview evidence
EAG 1.3: Grantee completes major project activities consistent with original timeline and within the contract period.
ESEA Section 6112(a), EDGAR 75.700, 80.40 /
  • Documentation of progress consistent with goals, timelines, benchmarks and outcome measures in application.
/
  • Staff explains progress to date as well as any timeline adjustments needed, the reason such adjustments are needed and the impact on final results.

Monitoring indicator / Acceptable documented evidence / Acceptable interview evidence
EAG 1.4: Project activities continue to conform to the regulatory absolute priority for this award (if applicable), Notice Inviting Applications for EAG-ELP (77 FR 25457).
ESEA Section 6112, , EDGAR 75.700 /
  • Documentation of how the grantee is addressing the criteria from the regulatory absolute priority for the grant. (Note: This monitoring indicator applies to grants made under the EAG-ELP competition; it does not apply to grants made under the EAG-Accessibility competition)
/
  • Staff explains how the grantee is addressing the regulatory absolute priority.

Monitoring indicator / Acceptable documented evidence / Acceptable interview evidence
EAG 1.5: Grantee complies with the program requirement(s) of the grant as set in the applicable Notice Inviting Applications (77 FR 25457 or 77 FR 25463) for the grant.
ESEA Section 6112 /
  • Documentation of how the grantee is addressing each program requirement(s).
/
  • Staff explains how the grantee is addressing the regulatory requirements.

Monitoring indicator / Acceptable documented evidence / Acceptable interview evidence
EAG 1.6: Grantee includes dissemination activities as integral component of the project.
ESEA Section 6112(a) /
  • Plan for utilizing and disseminating findings within the grant consortium and to SEAs beyond the consortium.
  • Documentation of actions taken by grantee to make information on findings resulting from the EAG available to SEA staff in non-participating States and to assessment researchers (e.g., through presentations at national conferences, publications in refereed journals, or other products disseminated to the assessment community).
  • Evidence that dissemination activities are targeted to appropriate audiences and include clearly stated descriptions of work in progress or final products.
/
  • Staff describes how findings will be used and disseminated by members of the grant consortium.
  • Staff describes how findings will be used by state educational agencies beyond the grant consortium.
  • Staff describes issues of ownership among members of the consortium, including any copyrights anticipated under the grant.

Monitoring indicator / Acceptable documented evidence / Acceptable interview evidence
EAG 1.7: Grantee submits a complete annual report describing its activities and the result of those activities under the grant by the due date established by ED.
ESEA Section 6112(c); EDGAR 75.590; 75.720; 80.40; 80.41 /
  • Completed annual report with all required components submitted by due date, including documentation to address the interim performance measures for the program.
/
  • Staff demonstrates that it understands the format and timeline for submitting an annual performance reports to ED.

Part 2: Monitoring Indicators for General EDGAR Requirements