R-1. What are program evaluation requirements For Subpart 1 And 2 Programs?

Each SA or LEA that conducts a program for children and youth who are neglected, delinquent, or at-risk under Subparts 1 and 2 must evaluate the program, disaggregating data on participation by gender, race, ethnicity, and age, not less than once every 3 years to determine the program’s effect on the ability of participants to maintain and improve educational achievement; accrue school credits that meet State requirements for grade promotion and secondary school graduation; make the transition to a regular program or other education program operated by an LEA ; complete secondary school (or secondary school equivalency requirements); and obtain employment after leaving the correctional facility or institution for neglected or delinquent children and youth and, as appropriate, participate in postsecondary education and job training. In conducting each evaluation, an SA or LEA shall use multiple and appropriate measures of student progress.

Each SA and LEA must:

• Submit evaluation results to the SEA and ED.
• Use the results of evaluations to plan and improve subsequent programs for participating children and youth.

Part D programs should be designed with the expectation that children and youth will have the opportunity to meet the same challenging State academic content and academic achievement standards that all children in the State are expected to meet. To the extent feasible, evaluations should be tied to the standards and assessment system that the State or school district has developed for all children.

R-2. In assessing the effect of Title I, Part D State and local programs for children and youth who are N or D or at-risk, must SEAs and LEA s use the same State or local assessment system developed for all children?

The SA or LEA must determine which tests are the most appropriate assessments of its N or D students’ progress. For example, tests designed to be administered as pre- and post-tests at the time a youth enters a facility and then, again, when he or she leaves, may be more appropriate measures of progress than annual State assessments. If it is determined that the State assessments are not available or would not provide accurate information about the progress of children in institutions, the SA or LEA may select other assessments (as well as any additional indicators to measure the progress of these programs) that are more appropriate and reflect the progress of those children toward meeting the State’s standards.

R-3. Are the same criteria for adequate yearly progress (AYP) that the SEA has defined in its State Accountability Plan applied to SA and LEA programs for children and youth who are neglected, delinquent, or at-risk when evaluating these programs?

In many cases, State definitions of AYP may not provide an appropriate indication of progress for programs that serve children and youth in institutions for children who are N or D. Because of high turnover and limited length of stay of children and youth in many of these institutions, SAs and LEA s may not be able to use the same measures as are applied to children who attend school in a more traditional setting. Frequently, most students in these institutions who receive instruction for different lengths of stay are not available during the time period in which the assessments are given, and it is therefore very difficult to measure progress over time. In addition, many of the students do not reside in an institution for a full academic year, and the AYP provisions of Title I of ESEA are based on assessment results for students who are in the schools of an LEA for at least one full academic year. However, programs serving the population of children and youth who are neglected, delinquent or at-risk must develop State-approved criteria by which the effects of these programs on participants will be evaluated.