DOCKET NO. 058-R4-1094
VICTORIA INDEPENDENT §BEFORE THE STATE
SCHOOL DISTRICT§
§
V.§ COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY, DIVI-§
SION OF ACCELERATED§
INSTRUCTION§ STATE OF TEXAS
DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER
Statement of the Case
Petitioner Victoria Independent School District requested a hearing pursuant to 34 CFR §76.401 to contest Petitioner’s nonselection as a project site for the Comprehensive Educational Services of Homeless Children and Youth Grant, awarded under the McKinney Act.
A hearing was held on November 30, 1994 before Joan Howard Allen, the Administrative Law Judge appointed by the State Commissioner of Education. Petitioner appears through Dr. Gary W. Zeplin, Director of Federal Programs. Respondent is represented by Maggie H. Montelongo, Attorney at Law, Austin, Texas. Barbara Wand of the Division of Accelerated Instruction presented the agency’s response.
Findings of Fact
After due consideration of the evidence and matters officially noticed, in my capacity as State Commissioner of Education, I make the following Findings of Fact:
1.In January of 1994, Petitioner received the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Grant. The grant period is January 1994 through December 1994. Petitioner was allocated $64,000, which was used to fund a program called the Kidzconnection. This program serves 149 eligible children. Petitioner’s program has been commended by agency staff; however, the program has not been officially evaluated.
2.The McKinney grants are funded strictly through federal funds which can be used in the agency’s discretion.
3.McKinney Grant projects awarded for 1993 were granted second-year funding contingent upon continued funding by the federal government and successful completion of the first year of the project. Petitioner’s grant was a new project and was commenced in 1994; thus, it was not covered under this second-year funding program.
4.Between March, 1994 and May, 1994, all grant recipients, both the original grantees that had received the second-year extension and the four new grantees under the 1994 awards, including Petitioner, as well as new applicants, were informed that they must reapply for McKinney Grants. Petitioner applied for a two year grant under the same program, along with 21 other applicants. Petitioner was not awarded a two year grant. Hence, this appeal was filed.
5.Petitioner’s application for the two year grant was assessed through a standardized evaluation process. This process included a pool of qualified readers consisting of university personnel, employees of non-profit organizations, and agency staff. These individuals were provided the scoring requirements and training in the process. Each of the 22 applications were read and scored by four readers to ensure an objective evaluation. The applications contained the names of the applicants.
6.The selection criteria for the grant consisted of the following criteria, scored by the readers:
CategoriesPossible Points
A.Quality of Program Description
1.Evidence of need7
2.Likelihood of school campus/district participation3
3.Activities to provide tutoring and/or other direct9
educational services for homeless children and
youth
4.Activities to provide education and training about 4
the rights of and resources available to their
children to the parents/caretakers of homeless
children and youth
5.Activities to ensure that homeless children and4
youth are aware of district programs that may
address their needs
6.Activities to ensure that homeless children and 4
youth are able to regularly and safely get to
school
7.Activities to ensure that homeless children and5
youth have access to essential school supplies and
other extraordinary or emergency assistance deter-
mined by the Agency as essential to enable home-
less children and youth to attend school
8.Activities to ensure that physical and mental health5
needs of homeless children and youth are identified
and addressed
9.Activities to ensure that communication and 5
coordination exists between schools and other
agencies that provide services to homeless children
and youth
10.Activities to ensure that homeless children and 4
youth have prompt access to needed evaluation
services for special programs
11.Activities to ensure that educators and other school4
personnel are aware of and sensitive to the needs of
homeless children and youth and the rights of such
children and youth under the McKinney Act
12.Activities to ensure that homeless children and youth 6
are not isolated or stigmatized
13.Evidence of prior successful development of pro-5
grams for homeless students
14.Commitment to participate in Agency-sponsored 2
training activities
15.Quality of personnel and consultants committed to 3
the project
______
Total for Quality Program Description 70
B.Adequacy and appropriateness of
Financial Resources Dedicated to Project
1.Adequacy of resources for the accomplishment 5
of activities
2.Appropriateness of resources for the accomplish-5
ment of activities
______
Total for Adequacy and Appropriateness of 10
Financial Resources Dedicated to Project
C.Evaluation Design
1.Quality of documentation/evaluation for5
project activities
2.Inclusion of parents, teachers and shelter providers5
in summative evaluation design
3.Thoroughness of summative evaluation design5
______
Total for Evaluation Design 15
D. Overall Quality
1.Application is written according to instructions in 5
a clear and effective manner
______
Total for Overall Quality of Application5
TOTAL 100
Following the scoring by the independent readers, agency staff reviewed the applications,
taking into consideration the following:
1.programs in districts with high numbers of homeless, transient, highly mobile and economically disadvantaged students,
2.programs that are cost effective;
3.programs that are replicable;
4.programs that are diverse with respect to the size of the district; and
5.programs that are diverse with respect to geographic location in Texas.
These factors were considered in the awards process; they were not weighted or scored. In essence, agency staff reviewed the districts which had been rank-ordered by scores and ensured that these additional five factors were considered. Agency staff considered the number of students served in each program to maximize the impact of the grant dollars to be spent. However, these factor, while considered, did not modify the rank-ordering of the applications.
7.Respondent was limited geographically and sizewise by the applicants who applied for the grant. Many areas of the state were not represented by applicants; many smaller locales were also not represented in the applicant pool. To the extent possible, given the applicant pool and the independent scoring, Respondent’s awards achieved diversity.
8.The 1995 McKinney Act Grants were awarded to the following applicants:
ApplicantTotal Enrollment
Northside ISD53,960
Arlington ISD48,026
Dallas ISD 139,711
El Paso ISD64,251
Grand Prairie ISD17,061
Houston ISD 198,013
Region 10 ESC 471,120
Fort Worth ISD71,073
Austin ISD69,827
Brownsville ISD38,973
Region 13 ESC 209,049
San Antonio ISD59,863
The following applicants did not receive awards: Amarillo ISD, Lubbock ISD, Wichita Falls ISD, Richardson ISD, Tyler ISD, Del Valle ISD, Alamo Heights ISD, Victoria ISD, Kingsville ISD and Pharr-San Juan Alamo ISD.
9.Petitioner’s enrollment for the purposes of the 1995 selection process was 14,448 and Petitioner requested $107,641.00. Two districts had larger populations than Grand Prairies ISD and Victoria ISD and were not selected for an award.
10.Victoria ISD is located in a small metropolitan area. The independent school districts selected for the 1995 grants are located in large metropolitan areas, many located in the Dallas - Fort Worth metroplex.
11.Both Region 10 Educational Service Center and Region 13 Educational Service Center serve rural and small metropolitan regions. However, both areas are closely located near large metropolitan areas.
12.Tex. Educ. Code §16.001 provides:
It is the policy of the State of Texas that the provision of public education is a state responsibility and that a thorough and efficient system be provided and substantially financed through state revenue sources so that each student enrolled in the public school system shall have access to programs and services that are appropriate to his or her educational needs and that are substantially equal to those available to any similar student, not withstanding varying local economic factors.
13.The applicants’ needs assessment is an important opportunity for applicants to demonstrate unique needs that are not represented elsewhere in the application. Section 723 of the McKinney Act permits the state agency to consider as a part of its determination of need the number of homeless children and youth within the area served by the district. The agency considered this factor.
Discussion
Petitioner Victoria Independent School District presents three challenges to the agency’s failure to select it as a grant recipient. First, Petitioner contends that pursuant to page 2 of SAS 262R93, Petitioner was entitled as a matter right of an automatic renewal of the grant; second, that the failure to select Petitioner’s program violates Tex. Educ. Code §16.001 by denying equal access to educational benefits; and, third, that the agency failed to seek regional diversity in considering Victoria ISD’s application.
Petitioner’s first challenge, that it was entitled to an automatic second-year extension under SAS 262R93 is not supported by the evidence. As a new project, commenced in 1994, Petitioner was not entitled to the same consideration as the 1993 grantees. Further, all grantees were required to reapply for the 1995 grants. There was no second year extension.
The second contention is that the awards violated Tex. Educ. Code §16.001. This provision governs the expenditure of state funds. The McKinney Act Grants are strictly funded through discretionary federal funds. Section 16.001 does not apply to federal funds.
Third, Petitioner raises concerns that the awards failed to achieve diversity in geographic location of grantees and in the size of the successful districts. Given the applicant pool and the scoring by the raters, Respondent achieved diversity. Further, Respondent’s goal to serve a s many children as possible with the grant dollars is permissible under the McKinney Act. This selection criteria is not unlawful.
Petitioner’s able and well-organized presentation raises several issues that staff should be sensitive to. Although Petitioner is not entitled to prevail, Victoria ISD has presented factors and considerations that impact on the agency’s decision making process and the presentation has been of benefit to all.
Petitioner has not demonstrated a violation of the process or a failure to comply with the law. Petitioner’s appeal should be denied.
Conclusions of Law
After due consideration of the record, matters officially noticed, and the foregoing Findings of Fact, in my capacity as State Commissioner of Education, I make the following Conclusions of Law:
1.The Commissioner of Education has jurisdiction over the instant matter pursuant to 34 CFR §76.401.
2.Petitioner Victoria ISD was not entitled as a matter of right to a second-year renewal of its McKinney Act grant.
3.Tex. Educ. Code §16.001 is inapplicable to the disbursement of discretionary federal funds, including McKinney Act Grants.
4.The awarding of the McKinney Act Grants for the 1995 year, pursuant to the scoring by independent raters, took into consideration geographic and size diversity.
5.Petitioner’s appeal should be denied.
O R D E R
After due consideration of the record, matters officially noticed, and the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, in my capacity as State Commissioner of Education, it is hereby
ORDERED that Petitioner’s appeal be, and is hereby, DENIED.
SIGNED AND ISSUED this ______day of ______, 1994.
______
LIONEL R. MENO
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
#058-R4-1094-1-