type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b" California\xe2\x80\x99s Inclusion of Migrant and\n Limited English Proficient Students in the\n Statewide Assessment and Accountability System\n\n\n\n\n FINAL AUDIT REPORT\n\n\n\n\n ED-OIG/A09F0003\n October 2005\n\n\nOur mission is to promote the U.S Department of Education\nefficiency, effectiveness, and Office of Inspector General\nintegrity of the Department's Sacramento, California\nprograms and operations.\n\x0c NOTICE\n\nStatements that managerial practices need improvements, as well as\nother conclusions and recommendations in this report, represent the\nopinions of the Office of Inspector General. Determinations of\ncorrective action to be taken will be made by the appropriate\nDepartment of Education officials.\n\nIn accordance with Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7 552),\nreports issued by the Office of Inspector General are available to\nmembers of the press and general public to the extent information\ncontained therein is not subject to exemptions in the Act.\n\x0c UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION\n OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n 501 I STREET, SUITE 9-200\n SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814\n\n PHONE (916) 930-2399 \xe2\x80\xa2 FAX (916) 930-2390\n\n\n October 25, 2005\n\n\nJack T. O\xe2\x80\x99Connell\nState Superintendent of Public Instruction\nCalifornia Department of Education\n1430 N Street\nSacramento, California 95814\n\nDear Superintendent O\xe2\x80\x99Connell:\n\nEnclosed is our final audit report, Control Number ED-OIG/A09F0003, entitled California\xe2\x80\x99s\nInclusion of Migrant and Limited English Proficient Students in the Statewide Assessment and\nAccountability System. This report incorporates the comments you provided in response to the\ndraft report. If you have any additional comments or information that you believe may have a\nbearing on the resolution of this audit, you should send them directly to the following Education\nDepartment official, who will consider them before taking final Departmental action on this\naudit:\n\n Henry Johnson, Assistant Secretary\n Office of Elementary and Secondary Education\n U.S. Department of Education\n 400 Maryland Avenue, SW\n Washington, DC 20202\n\nIt is the policy of the U. S. Department of Education to expedite the resolution of audits by\ninitiating timely action on the findings and recommendations contained therein. Therefore,\nreceipt of your comments within 30 days would be appreciated.\n\nIn accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7 552), reports issued by the\nOffice of Inspector General are available to members of the press and general public to the extent\ninformation contained therein is not subject to exemptions in the Act.\n\n Sincerely,\n\n\n /s/\n Gloria Pilotti\n Regional Inspector General for Audit\n\n\nEnclosure\n\n Our mission is to promote the efficiency, effectiveness, and integrity of the Department\xe2\x80\x99s programs and operations.\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A09F0003\n\n\n\n TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n\n Page\n\nEXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................1\n\nBACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................3\n\nAUDIT RESULTS .........................................................................................................................6\n\n FINDING NO. 1 \xe2\x80\x93 CDE Needs to Take Additional Steps to Ensure\n LEP Students Are Provided Reasonable\n Accommodations on Assessments..................................................6\n\n FINDING NO. 2 \xe2\x80\x93 CDE Needs to take Additional Steps to Ensure\n Eligible Students Have Access to Public School\n Choice in Accordance with Applicable Laws and\n Regulations ....................................................................................10\n\n FINDING NO. 3 \xe2\x80\x93 CDE Could Enhance Procedures to Ensure All\n Migrant and LEP Students Are Being Assessed ........................15\n\n FINDING NO. 4 \xe2\x80\x93 CDE Should Disaggregate CAHSEE Summary\n Reports by Students\xe2\x80\x99 Migrant Status..........................................18\n\n FINDING NO. 5 \xe2\x80\x93 LEAs Could Enhance the Use of Assessment\n Results to Improve Migrant Students\xe2\x80\x99 Academic\n Achievement ..................................................................................19\n\nOBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY ..................................................................21\n\nENCLOSURE \xe2\x80\x93 CDE Comments on the Draft Report............................................................23\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A09F0003 Page 1 of 30\n\n\n\n EXECUTIVE SUMMARY\n\n\nThe purpose of the audit was to review California\xe2\x80\x99s inclusion of migrant and limited English\nproficient (LEP) students in the statewide assessment and accountability system. Our specific\naudit objectives were to determine whether the California Department of Education (CDE) and\nselected local educational agencies (LEAs) within the State had sufficient controls to ensure\n(1) migrant and LEP students were being assessed; (2) assessment results were disaggregated by\nstudents\xe2\x80\x99 migrant and LEP status; (3) assessment reports enabled educators to understand and\nuse the reported information to address the specific academic needs of migrant and LEP students;\nand (4) migrant and LEP students, who were enrolled in Title I schools identified for\nimprovement, gained the same access to public school choice and supplemental educational\nservices (SES) as other eligible students.\n\nWe found that CDE and the selected LEAs had various internal controls in place to ensure that\nmigrant and LEP students were included in the statewide assessment and accountability system.\nControls were in place to ensure migrant and LEP students were assessed, their status was\nproperly coded for assessment purposes, disaggregated assessment results were available,\neducators were provided assessment data and guidance on using the results to address the\nacademic needs of individual migrant and LEP students, and migrant and LEP students gained\nthe same access to choice and SES as other eligible students. We concluded that the controls\nwere generally effective, but found that\xe2\x80\x94\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 While assessment procedures addressed the use of LEP accommodations, the three\n selected LEAs did not monitor test administrators to ensure appropriate use of LEP\n accommodations, test administration documents lacked clarity, and CDE did not report\n data on LEP accommodations.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 CDE did not provide assessment and accountability data to the three selected LEAs in a\n timely manner, and the LEAs did not provide all the required information when\n informing parents about public school choice.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Even though CDE and the LEAs had various controls in place to ensure migrant and LEP\n students were assessed, CDE did not include subgroup enrollment data in assessment\n reports and did not use an independent source to check the reasonableness of test\n enrollment data for migrant students.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 While disaggregated assessment results by students\xe2\x80\x99 migrant and LEP status were made\n available, CDE did not produce summary reports that disaggregated the high school exit\n exam results for the migrant subgroup as it did for the LEP subgroup.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Although the schools we visited used a variety of analytical tools and reports to examine\n an array of assessment and student demographic data to improve student academic\n achievement, particularly for LEP students, the schools did not use the data effectively\n for migrants as a subgroup.\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A09F0003 Page 2 of 30\n\nWe recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education instruct\nCDE to take additional steps to ensure LEP students are provided reasonable accommodations on\nassessments. We further recommend that the Assistant Secretary, in collaboration with the\nAssistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement, require CDE to take additional\nsteps to ensure eligible students have access to public school choice in accordance with\napplicable laws and regulations. We also recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Elementary\nand Secondary Education encourage CDE to consider enhancing procedures to ensure migrant\nand LEP students are being assessed by reporting subgroup enrollment data and using an\nindependent source to check test enrollment data for migrant students, require CDE to\ndisaggregate the high school exit exam results for the migrant subgroup, and encourage CDE to\nprovide additional guidance to LEAs to enhance the use of assessment results to improve migrant\nstudents\xe2\x80\x99 academic achievement.\n\nCDE did not explicitly express concurrence with our findings in its comments to the draft report,\nbut it did describe the corrective actions taken or planned to address our recommendations. The\ncorrective actions did not fully address two of our recommendations. CDE\xe2\x80\x99s comments on the\ndraft report are summarized at the end of each finding and included in their entirety as an\nENCLOSURE.\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A09F0003 Page 3 of 30\n\n\n\n BACKGROUND\n\n\nTitle I, Part A, of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the\nNo Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), provides funds to states to establish or improve\nprograms that help disadvantaged children and youth and to ensure that all students have the\nopportunity to reach proficiency on challenging state academic standards and assessments. The\nNCLB strengthens Title I requirements for state assessments, accountability systems, and\nsupport for school improvement. While collectively referred to as the \xe2\x80\x9caccountability system,\xe2\x80\x9d\nthat system is comprised of statewide assessment and accountability systems.\n\n The statewide assessment system must include annual student academic assessments that\n are aligned with state academic standards and measure students\xe2\x80\x99 proficiency in at least\n reading-language arts and mathematics. Additionally, the assessments must provide for\n the participation of all students.\n\n The statewide accountability system must ensure that all LEAs and public elementary and\n secondary schools make adequate yearly progress (AYP), based primarily on their\n performance on the academic assessments.\n\nLEAs must identify for school improvement any Title I elementary or secondary school that fails\nto make AYP for two consecutive years, and offer all students in those schools the option to\ntransfer to another public school that is not in improvement (public school choice). If a Title I\nschool fails to make AYP after a year in improvement status, the LEA must continue to offer\npublic school choice to all enrolled students, as well as make SES available to low-income\nstudents. LEAs must continue to offer public school choice and SES until the school exits\nimprovement status by making AYP for two consecutive years.\n\nFor school year 2003-2004, California\xe2\x80\x99s statewide assessment system was comprised of the\nStandardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) program and the California High School Exit\nExamination (CAHSEE). All students in grades 2-11 were to be assessed through the STAR\nprogram, which had the following four components\xe2\x80\x94\n\n California Standards Tests (STAR-CSTs) \xe2\x80\x93 Administered to all students in grades 2-11 to\n assess students\xe2\x80\x99 achievement of the State's academic content standards.\n California Achievement Tests, 6th Edition Survey (STAR-CAT-6) \xe2\x80\x93 Administered to all\n students in grades 2-11 to compare each student\xe2\x80\x99s score to the scores of a national sample\n of students tested in the same grade at the same time of the school year.\n Spanish Assessment of Basic Education, 2nd Edition (STAR-SABE/2) \xe2\x80\x93 Administered to\n Spanish-speaking English learners in grades 2-11, who have been in California public\n schools for less than 12 months, to test basic skills in Spanish reading, language, and\n mathematics.\n California Alternate Performance Assessment (STAR-CAPA) \xe2\x80\x93 Administered to students\n in grades 2-11 with significant cognitive disabilities who are unable to take the CSTs and\n CAT-6 tests even with accommodations or modifications.\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A09F0003 Page 4 of 30\n\nLike the STAR-CSTs, the CAHSEE was aligned with State academic content standards, but is\nonly administered to high schoolers beginning in the 10th grade. Passing the exam is a\ngraduation requirement for the class of 2006 and beyond.\n\nTo make AYP, the State requires schools and LEAs to annually meet or exceed criteria in four\nareas\xe2\x80\x94test participation rate, percent proficient on annual measurable objectives for the\nstatewide assessments used for AYP, graduation rate, and Academic Performance Index (an\nadditional indicator to measure academic performance and growth). To determine the\nparticipation rate and percent proficient for AYP purposes, the State uses the following\nassessments in English-language arts and mathematics\xe2\x80\x94STAR-CSTs for grades 2 through 8 and\nSTAR-CAPA for grades 2 through 8 and 10, and CAHSEE for grade 10. CDE calculates AYP,\nidentifies Program Improvement (PI)1 schools and their improvement status, and makes the\nresults available to LEAs on the CDE website.\n\nStatewide, about 6.3 million students were enrolled in 9,206 public elementary and secondary\nschools within 1,040 LEAs in school year 2003-2004. About 0.2 million students (or 4 percent\nof total enrollment) were migrant and 1.6 million students (or 25 percent) were LEP. Based on\n2004 AYP, 1,601 of the 5,714 Title I schools (or 28 percent) were identified as newly or\ncontinuing in PI.2\n\nFor school year 2003-2004, CDE allocated about $1.2 billion in Title I funds to 958 LEAs. The\nallocation included about $46 million to the three LEAs we reviewed. As shown below, a\nsubstantial proportion of student enrollment in the three LEAs was comprised of migrant and\nLEP students.\n\n\n\n\n1\n California refers to schools in improvement as Program Improvement (PI) schools.\n2\n CDE Sources: October 2003 California Basic Educational Data System (total enrollment); California\xe2\x80\x99s\nConsolidated State Performance Report, Attachment B, dated April 15, 2005 (migrant enrollment);\nMarch 2004 Language Census (LEP enrollment); California\xe2\x80\x99s Consolidated State Performance Report:\nPart I . . . For Reporting on School Year 2003-2004, submitted to the U.S. Department of Education on\nJanuary 31, 2005 (school and LEA counts); Program Improvement Database, updated February 2005\nbased on final 2004 AYP (Title I and PI schools).\n\x0c Final Report\n ED-OIG/A09F0003 Page 5 of 30\n\n Enrollment (Percent of Total) and School Data, School Year 2003-2004\n Number of Students Number of Schools\nLEA a bc ac\n Total Migrant LEP Totald In Improvementa\nFresno Unified School District 81,408 8,037 25,319\n 102 51\n(Fresno USD) (100%) (10%) (31%)\n\nLodi Unified School District 29,178 1,688 8,347\n 47 9\n(Lodi USD) (100%) (6%) (29%)\n\nPajaro Valley Unified School 19,522 8,239 8,908\n 29 17\nDistrict (Pajaro Valley USD) (100%) (42%) (46%)\n\na\n See Footnote 2 above for source.\nb\n Source: March 2004 Migrant Student Information System\nc\n A student may be both migrant and LEP and, thus, included in both the migrant and LEP counts.\nd\n Source: California Basic Educational Data System, October 2003\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A09F0003 Page 6 of 30\n\n\n\n AUDIT RESULTS\n\n\nCDE and the selected LEAs had various controls in place to ensure that migrant and LEP\nstudents were included in the statewide assessment and accountability system. To ensure\nmigrant and LEP students were assessed, controls included procedures that\xe2\x80\x94\n\n Provided LEAs the option to use a pre-identification process for coding student\n demographic information on student answer documents;\n Required a student answer document for each student enrolled on the first day of testing;\n Checked for the quality of student demographic data upon receipt of assessment results at\n CDE from the contracted test publisher; and\n Required LEAs to ensure that student demographic data were accurate and complete.\n\nTo ensure that students\xe2\x80\x99 migrant and LEP status was properly coded for assessment purposes, the\nthree LEAs had procedures in place for respective program personnel to assure that the status\ninformation was correctly entered into the LEA student information system, and to use the\ninformation system as the basis for the students\xe2\x80\x99 assessment demographic data. We found that\nCDE made available to LEAs and on the Internet the STAR-CST and CAHSEE assessment\nresults disaggregated by students\xe2\x80\x99 migrant and LEP status, and provided guidance for LEAs and\nschools on reviewing the data and developing strategies for addressing identified instructional\nneeds of individual students and the school as a whole. We also found that CDE\xe2\x80\x99s and the\nselected LEAs\xe2\x80\x99 procedures for implementing public school choice and SES provided migrant and\nLEP students with the same access to choice and SES as other eligible students.\n\nWhile we found that the identified controls were generally effective, we concluded that:\n(1) CDE needs to take additional steps to ensure LEP students are provided reasonable\naccommodations on assessments; (2) CDE needs to take additional steps to ensure eligible\nstudents have access to public school choice in accordance with applicable laws and regulations;\n(3) CDE could enhance procedures to ensure all migrant and LEP students are being assessed;\n(4) CDE should disaggregate CAHSEE summary reports by students\xe2\x80\x99 migrant status; and\n(5) LEAs could enhance the use of assessment results to improve migrant students\xe2\x80\x99 academic\nachievement.\n\n\nFINDING NO. 1 \xe2\x80\x93 CDE Needs to Take Additional Steps to Ensure LEP Students\n Are Provided Reasonable Accommodations on Assessments\n\nSection 1111(b)(3)(C)(ix) of the ESEA requires States to include LEP students in its academic\nassessment system and to provide reasonable accommodations on assessments, including native\nlanguage assessments to the extent practicable. The U.S. Department of Education\xe2\x80\x99s\n(Department\xe2\x80\x99s) implementing regulations at 34 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7 200.6(b)(1) state\xe2\x80\x94\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A09F0003 Page 7 of 30\n\n [T]he State must assess limited English proficient students in a valid and reliable\n manner that includes\xe2\x80\x94\n (A) Reasonable accommodations; and\n (B) To the extent practicable, assessments in the language and form most\n likely to yield accurate and reliable information on what those students know and\n can do to determine the students\xe2\x80\x99 mastery of skills in subjects other than English\n until the students have achieved English language proficiency.\n\nThe Department\xe2\x80\x99s Standards and Assessments Non-Regulatory Guidance, dated March 10, 2003,\nclarifies that accommodations for LEP students may include native language assessments, extra\ntime, small group administration, flexible scheduling, simplified instructions, allowing the use of\ndictionaries, and providing instructions in the native language.\n\nCDE administers the STAR-CST and CAHSEE assessments in English only and has not offered\nnative-language assessments that are aligned with State academic standards. According to the\nCDE Student Assessment Division Director, State policy has been to test all students in English\nand the State Legislature only recently permitted CDE to begin developing a native language\nassessment. CDE has been administering the STAR-SABE/2 to Spanish-speaking LEP students\nwho have been enrolled within the State for less than a year, but that assessment is not aligned\nwith State academic standards and is only used to test basic skills in Spanish reading, language,\nand mathematics. Also, while the STAR-SABE/2 is a component of the STAR assessment\nprogram, that test is not used for AYP purposes.\n\nConsistent with the Department\xe2\x80\x99s guidance, CDE assessment procedures allow LEP students\nfour types of accommodations\xe2\x80\x94flexible setting, flexible schedule, translated directions, and\nglossaries. Using these accommodations, LEP students may be tested in a separate room, be\ngiven a break before going onto the next test section, have the test administrator translate any\ndirections that are read aloud to the students in their primary language, and use English-primary\nlanguage glossaries or word lists regularly used in the classroom for mathematics or science. If\nan LEP student used any of the above accommodations, test administrators were instructed to\nmark \xe2\x80\x9cEL used accommodations\xe2\x80\x9d in the Accommodations and Modifications section of the\nstudent answer document after the test was completed.3 LEP students are allowed to use the\naccommodations during testing only if the accommodation is regularly used in the classroom.\nCDE provided STAR and CAHSEE administration guidance for LEAs and test administrators\nthat addressed the LEP accommodation procedures. LEA test coordinators received training\nfrom CDE and, in turn, were to distribute the guidance and train school test-site coordinators\nwho then trained the school\xe2\x80\x99s test administrators.\n\nWhile assessment procedures addressed the use of LEP accommodations, we found that CDE\nand the three selected LEAs did not have sufficient controls in place to ensure adherence to the\nprocedures.\n\n\n\n\n3\n In California, EL is an English learner or LEP student.\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A09F0003 Page 8 of 30\n\nLEAs Did Not Monitor for Appropriate\nUse of LEP Accommodations\n\nTest administrators at the three LEAs received written instructions and training on appropriate\nLEP accommodations and the procedures for marking the student answer document. However,\nthe LEAs we visited did not have procedures to determine whether test administrators had\nprovided LEP students with appropriate accommodations or marked the student answer\ndocument, when applicable. There was no documentation of what accommodations, if any,\nindividual LEP students used on a daily basis. Additionally, LEA test coordinators and school\ntest coordinators did not review the completed student answer documents to assure that test\nadministrators had offered appropriate accommodations or marked the answer document, when\napplicable.\n\nAssessment Directions and Student\nAnswer Document Lacked Clarity\n\nThe written directions for test administration and the student answer document for the 2003-2004\nassessments did not clearly distinguish accommodations applicable to LEP students versus\nstudents eligible under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (students with disabilities)\nor covered under \xc2\xa7 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (section 504 students).4 As a result,\ntest administrators may have misunderstood the directions, or overlooked and failed to mark the\nstudent answer document when a student used an LEP accommodation for testing.\n\nCDE\xe2\x80\x99s Directions for Administration addressed procedures for marking the student answer\ndocuments when an LEP student used a test accommodation. However, accommodations\nspecific to LEP students were addressed in the midst of several pages of directions devoted to the\nother special versions, accommodations, modifications, and testing variations. Similarly, the\nstudent answer document, onto which the test administrator was to indicate whether a student\nused \xe2\x80\x9cspecial versions, accommodations, or modifications,\xe2\x80\x9d embedded the LEP accommodations\namong the more numerous accommodations applicable only to students with disabilities, section\n504 students, or both. Among the multiple accommodations and modifications listed on the\nanswer document, the \xe2\x80\x9cEL used accommodations\xe2\x80\x9d option was listed as the third of 8 types of\naccommodation on the STAR answer document, and the third of 11 accommodations listed on\nthe CAHSEE answer document.\n\nThe Student Assessment Division Director stated that CDE adopted a new variation matrix for\nthe 2005-2006 assessments. The matrix identifies the types of accommodations and\nmodifications that may be used by LEP and other students for each State assessment, such as\nSTAR and CAHSEE. To reflect the new matrix, test administration instructions will be revised\nand the student answer document will more comprehensively collect data on variations,\naccommodations, and modifications for both LEP students and students with special needs. The\ndocuments will more clearly distinguish the LEP accommodations from the ones for students\nwith disabilities and section 504 students.\n\n\n\n\n4\n Section 504 students are persons with a qualified handicap under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A09F0003 Page 9 of 30\n\nCDE Did Not Report Data on LEP Accommodations\n\nWhen reporting and making STAR and CAHSEE assessment data available to LEAs and\nschools, CDE did not provide data on those students who used an LEP accommodation during\ntesting. CDE had the data available since it collected student demographic data, including the\nuse of LEP accommodations, from the student answer documents. Such data would provide\nvisibility regarding the use of LEP accommodations and a basis for LEAs to monitor for\nappropriate use and marking of the student answer document.\n\nBased on CDE assessment data, we found that only two percent of LEP students used\naccommodations on the 2003-2004 STAR and CAHSEE assessments statewide. For the three\nLEAs reviewed, the percentages ranged from less than 1 percent to about 5 percent of the LEP\nstudents tested LEA-wide. According to the data, LEP students did not use accommodations for\nthe STAR assessment in six of the nine schools visited, and in two of the three high schools for\nthe CAHSEE.\n\nWhen we first inquired about the use of LEP accommodations, representatives from five schools\nstated that LEP students were provided testing accommodations, such as translated directions,\nglossaries, and placement with their English language development teacher. When we later\nbrought the CDE data to their attention, the responding LEA and school administrators did not\nknow whether the data accurately reflected the number of students who should have or did use\nLEP accommodations. The test coordinator for one LEA stated that LEP accommodations may\nhave been offered, but the answer documents may not have been marked when LEP\naccommodations were used. Even though 70 percent of students tested in one school were LEP,\nthe new school principal confirmed that the school did not have any testing accommodations for\nthe 2003-2004 assessments and stated that queries of individual teachers would be needed to\ndetermine what accommodations were provided on a daily basis and should have been used for\ntesting. Another school principal did not know whether more than 3 percent of the LEP students,\nas indicated by the CDE data, should have used LEP testing accommodations.\n\nThe LEP population in California is substantial and LEP students comprise one of the subgroups\nthat must meet AYP in order for a school to meet AYP. The roughly 1.6 million LEP students\nenrolled statewide in school year 2003-2004 comprised about 25 percent of all enrolled students.\nWhile California\xe2\x80\x99s LEP students speak over 57 different primary languages, Spanish was the\nprimary language for 85 percent. In the three selected LEAs, the proportion of Spanish-speaking\nLEP students ranged from 57 percent to 99 percent. Additionally, the LEP subgroup did not\nmake AYP in all or nearly all the PI schools in the three LEAs.\n\nAt the time of our review, the State was in the initial process of developing a Spanish-language\nassessment aligned to content standards for reading and writing. Implementation of the native\nlanguage assessment is expected in 2007. We encourage CDE to make every effort to complete\nand administer native language assessments to the extent practicable, especially in the primary\nlanguages that comprise a significant portion of the LEP population. Without native language\nassessments or assurance that appropriate LEP accommodations are used, assessment results may\nnot accurately reflect LEP students\xe2\x80\x99 mastery of skills in subjects other than English.\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A09F0003 Page 10 of 30\n\nRecommendations\n\nWe recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education instruct\nCDE to\xe2\x80\x94\n\n1.1 Monitor LEAs\xe2\x80\x99 implementation of State testing accommodation policies more vigorously\n to ensure test administrators provide appropriate testing accommodations for LEP\n students and properly mark the student answer document, when applicable.\n\n1.2 Ensure that the test administration instructions and student answer documents for the\n 2005-2006 and future assessments clearly distinguish the LEP accommodations from the\n ones for students with disabilities and section 504 students.\n\n1.3 Consider including data on LEP students\xe2\x80\x99 use of accommodations in the assessment data\n made available to LEAs to ensure LEP students are provided reasonable\n accommodations.\n\nCDE Comments\n\nIn its comments, CDE reiterated information about the corrective action taken regarding testing\naccommodations for limited English proficient students. For the 2005-2006 test administration,\nCDE has included a separate section on the student answer document for test examiners to mark\ntesting variations used by LEP students. In the electronic data file provided to each district, CDE\nwill include all testing variations used by LEP students along with students\xe2\x80\x99 test scores and other\ndemographic data.\n\n\nFINDING NO. 2 \xe2\x80\x93 CDE Needs to take Additional Steps to Ensure Eligible Students\n Have Access to Public School Choice in Accordance with\n Applicable Laws and Regulations\n\nStates must ensure that academic assessment results are available to LEAs before the start of the\nnew school year so that LEAs can inform parents of public school choice options before the start\nof the school year. Section 1116(a)(2) of the ESEA states that\xe2\x80\x94\n\n [T]he State educational agency shall ensure that the results of State academic\n assessments administered in that school year are available to the local\n educational agency before the beginning of the next school year.\n\nFor schools identified for school improvement, the ESEA \xc2\xa71116(b)(1)(E) states\xe2\x80\x94\n\n [T]he local educational agency shall, not later than the first day of the school\n year following such identification, provide all students enrolled in the school\n with the option to transfer to another public school served by the local\n educational agency . . .\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A09F0003 Page 11 of 30\n\nWe found that CDE did not provide assessment and accountability data to the three selected\nLEAs in a timely manner, and the LEAs did not provide all the required information when\ninforming parents about public school choice.5\n\nCDE Assessment and Accountability\nData to LEAs Were Untimely\n\nCDE did not provide STAR-CST assessment data, determine AYP, and identify Title I schools\xe2\x80\x99\nPI status before the beginning of the school year for the three LEAs reviewed. CDE made\n2003-2004 assessment data available to all LEAs statewide on August 8, 2004; AYP results on\nAugust 31, 2004; and the list of schools\xe2\x80\x99 PI status on October 13, 2004. Additionally, CDE\nprovided guidance in mid-August 2004 on its methodology for calculating AYP and PI status,\nwhich would have enabled LEAs to perform their own pre-calculations once the assessment data\nbecame available.\n\nWe found that schools in the three LEAs began the 2004-2005 school year before the dates that\nCDE made the AYP results and PI status list available to the LEAs. Although Pajaro Valley\nUSD was on a traditional calendar, all its schools began on August 18, 2004. Fresno USD and\nLodi USD had non-traditional calendars with year-round schools, and many or nearly all schools\nwere in session during the month of July or in early August. When the assessment results\nbecame available, staff at two of the LEAs performed pre-calculations to determine AYP and PI\nstatus and the LEAs acted on the results for the schools continuing in PI. However, LEA\nofficials stated that the LEAs waited for CDE\xe2\x80\x99s official results before acting on schools newly\nidentified as PI. According to CDE officials, the LEAs waited because CDE requires LEAs that\nbegin to provide public school choice for newly identified PI schools to continue providing\nchoice-related transportation for the rest of the school year, even if CDE later determines that the\nschool was not identified as a PI school.\n\nCDE officials from the three divisions that administer the State\xe2\x80\x99s assessment and accountability\nsystem stated that CDE procedures for administering the STAR tests, processing and scoring the\nassessments, checking for data quality, calculating AYP, and determining PI status, did not\nenable the State to provide the assessment, AYP, and PI results any earlier. Factors that\nconstrain CDE\xe2\x80\x99s ability to adjust their assessment and reporting schedules include\xe2\x80\x94\n\n State-Mandated Testing Schedule. State regulations specify that the STAR test must be\n administered to each student during a testing window of 21 instructional days that\n includes 10 instructional days before and after completion of 85 percent of the school\xe2\x80\x99s or\n track\xe2\x80\x99s (for year-round schools) instructional calendar. According to the CDE officials,\n students are tested between February and August of the school year depending on the\n instructional calendar. The test publisher needs a minimum volume of assessments and\n cannot start scoring the assessments until about May. A quarter of the test items are\n refreshed each year, which essentially results in a new assessment for the test publisher to\n score.\n\n\n5\n As noted in the introductory paragraph of the AUDIT RESULTS section, we found that CDE and the\nselected LEAs\xe2\x80\x99 implementation of public school choice and SES provided migrant and LEP students with\nthe same access to choice and SES as other eligible students. We noted no problems with SES.\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A09F0003 Page 12 of 30\n\n Extensive Data Review Process. Once testing has been completed, time is needed to\n review and report the data. According to CDE officials, diligent effort is made to assure\n that the assessment and demographic data are correct before CDE calculates AYP and PI\n status because of the consequences for PI schools. CDE\xe2\x80\x99s Policy and Evaluation\n Division performs edit and reasonableness checks related to assessment demographic\n data. However, CDE has placed final responsibility on the LEA and school to ensure the\n accuracy of the data. LEAs have the opportunity to review the demographic data for the\n STAR, CAHSEE, and CAPA assessments and make corrections in correctable data fields\n through the test publisher.\n\n For the 2003-2004 assessment cycle, the timeline for posting and updating results for the\n STAR assessments, AYP, and PI status took about 6 months, as the table below\n illustrates.\n\n Timeline for Reporting Results for 2003-2004 STAR Assessments,\n 2004 AYP, and 2004-2005 PI Status Results\n August 8, 2004 First posting of 2003-2004 STAR assessment summary results\n\n August 31, 2004 First posting of 2004 Accountability Progress Reports, including AYP\n August 31 to\n Window for LEAs to submit AYP appeals to CDE\n September 15, 2004\n Second posting of STAR assessment results, including those LEAs\n September 15, 2004a\n whose data were not available for the first posting\n September 17 to Window for LEAs to submit edit corrections of their demographic\n November 5, 2004 data to the test publisher\n First update to 2004 AYP Report, based on the second posting of\n September 30, 2004\n STAR results\n October 13, 2004 First posting of Title I PI Status Report, including appeal status\n\n January 15, 2005 a Third posting of STAR assessment results\n Revised 2004 AYP Report, including data corrections and appeal\n January 27, 2005\n status\n February 14, 2005 Revised Title I PI Status Report\n a\n Approximate dates provided by CDE officials.\n\n\n\nTo improve on the above timeline, CDE officials stated that, when the process for a new test-\npublisher contract begins in July 2005, CDE will ask prospective bidders for ways to make raw\nassessment scores available sooner. Additionally, CDE will attempt to post the 2005 AYP\nresults by August 25, and release the initial PI results about two weeks later without the appeal\nstatus. While the timeline would improve by about a week, these efforts still would not be\ntimely for those LEAs with schools that start in July or earlier in August. CDE should continue\nto review its processes and procedures to better ensure that LEAs receive assessment, AYP, and\nPI results in a timely manner.\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A09F0003 Page 13 of 30\n\nEven though CDE was technically out of compliance with the statutory requirement to ensure\nthat the assessment results were available to LEAs before the beginning of the school year, the\naffected LEAs were still required to implement public school choice requirements but were not\nbound to do so before the start of school. In the event that an LEA does not receive student\nachievement results or the PI list from the State in time to offer choice before the beginning of\nthe school year, the Department\xe2\x80\x99s draft Public School Choice Non-Regulatory Guidance, dated\nFebruary 6, 2004, states that the LEA should make choices available as quickly as possible\nbefore the school year gets well underway. We found that the three LEAs reviewed adhered to\nthis guidance.\n\nLEA Public School Choice Letters Did\nNot Contain All Required Information\n\nSection 1116(b)(6) of the ESEA requires LEAs to provide notice to parents when a school has\nbeen identified for improvement and addresses the types of information that must be included in\nthe notice, including an explanation of the parents\xe2\x80\x99 option to transfer their child to another public\nschool. The implementing regulations at 34 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7 200.37(b)(4) further define what\ninformation must be included in the explanation related to public school choice\xe2\x80\x94\n\n (ii) The explanation of the parents\xe2\x80\x99 option to transfer must include, at a minimum,\n information on the academic achievement of the school or schools to which the\n child may transfer.\n\nThe Department\xe2\x80\x99s draft Public School Choice Non-Regulatory Guidance further clarifies that the\nnotification should\xe2\x80\x94\n\n 1. Inform parents that their child is eligible to attend another public school due to\n the identification of the current school as in need of improvement;\n 2. Identify each public school, which may include charter schools, that the parent\n can select;\n 3. Include information on the academic achievement of the schools that the\n parent may select.\n\nIn all three LEAs visited, students in PI schools could transfer to two or more other public\nschools and the parental notification letters about public school choice addressed the school\xe2\x80\x99s PI\nstatus and student eligibility to transfer. However, the letters did not identify at least two public\nschool options that parents could select, achievement data for those school options, or both.\nAccording to LEA officials, the LEAs were not aware of the information requirements, did not\nwant to tailor the letter by students\xe2\x80\x99 residence area, or did not want to overload parents with too\nmuch information in the letter. In the last case, the parental notification letter in one LEA\noffered parent information meetings at which more detailed information was provided on the\nschool choice options. Based on meeting sign-in sheets, we found that few parents attended the\nmeetings and, according to the Title I program director, those parents who attended were more\ninterested in hearing about supplemental educational services. We also found that CDE guidance\nto LEAs on parental notification letters did not address the content requirements, except to\nprovide an electronic link to the Public School Choice Non-Regulatory Guidance on the\nDepartment\xe2\x80\x99s website. While CDE provided a template for LEAs to use in notifying parents\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A09F0003 Page 14 of 30\n\nwhen the LEA was identified for improvement, it did not provide a template for when a school\nwithin the LEA was identified as a new or continuing PI school.\n\nThus, parents in the three LEAs reviewed did not receive all the required information for making\nan informed decision about public school choice. Based on LEA data, we determined that less\nthan one percent of eligible students transferred to another public school at the beginning of\nschool year 2004-2005. Officials at two LEAs attributed the low transfer rate to parents\xe2\x80\x99 desire\nto keep their students in their home schools. However, incomplete notice letters could also have\ncontributed to parental decisions. To address concerns about the amount of information in the\nletters, CDE could advise LEAs to consider sending a brief letter with the required details\nappearing as an attachment.\n\nCDE\xe2\x80\x99s compliance monitoring procedures, which were revised for the 2004-2005 school year,\nincluded a step to review the LEA\xe2\x80\x99s notification to parents about the transfer option. However,\nthe monitoring guide did not include the statutory reference that addresses parental notifications\nand did not specifically instruct reviewers to confirm that the letters contained the required\ninformation.\n\nRecommendations\n\nWe recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education, in\ncollaboration with the Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement, require CDE\nto\xe2\x80\x94\n\n2.1 Continue to refine its assessment and accountability processes and procedures to ensure\n that LEAs will receive assessment, AYP, and PI results before the beginning of the\n school year, including July and August starts, so that parents of eligible students can be\n informed of public school choice options in a timely manner.\n\n2.2 Provide written guidance to LEAs describing the information that must be included in\n parental notification letters about public school choice, including the identification of at\n least two school options, where applicable, and the schools\xe2\x80\x99 academic achievement\n information.\n\n2.3 Enhance its monitoring procedures by incorporating (1) the reference to the applicable\n statutory provision on parental notifications and (2) specific instructions for reviewers to\n confirm that LEA parental notification letters regarding public school choice contain the\n required information.\n\nCDE Comments\n\nRecommendation 2.1. CDE stated that substantial changes in the law and policies governing the\nSTAR program and CAHSEE would be needed to provide for the early delivery of test results to\nLEAs for AYP and PI purposes. The August 31 date shown in the timeline in the table (page 12)\nwas the date CDE had provided to, and was approved by, the Department for the release of all\nelements of the AYP determination. CDE reiterated that LEAs are responsible for identifying\nschools for PI immediately after the release of the AYP data. CDE also stated that this year\xe2\x80\x99s list\nof PI schools was released to LEAs 30 days earlier than the previous year.\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A09F0003 Page 15 of 30\n\n\nRecommendation 2.2. CDE stated that detailed instructions and sample parent notification\nletters addressing all components required in the ESEA \xc2\xa7 1116(b)(6) have been posted to its\nwebsite. CDE stated that the sample letters provide contact information for parents interested in\nschool choice and inform them that interested parents will receive information about the schools\navailable to transfer and the schools\xe2\x80\x99 academic achievement.\n\nRecommendation 2.3. CDE plans to provide training to inform LEAs about the required\ncomponents for the public school choice parental notification letters, and has included a\ncompliance item in the 2005-06 Categorical Monitoring Program Monitoring Document that\nrequires reviewers to ensure that the LEA parent notification letter incorporates those\ncomponents.\n\nOIG Response\n\nRecommendation 2.2. In addition to the above corrective action, CDE needs to ensure that the\nparent notification letters include information on the academic achievement of schools available\nfor transfer. The regulation at 34 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7 200.37(b)(4)(ii) states that information on the\nacademic achievement of the school or schools to which the child may transfer must be included\nin the notice. Providing contact information to obtain the information is not sufficient.\n\n\nFINDING NO. 3 \xe2\x80\x93 CDE Could Enhance Procedures to Ensure All Migrant and\n LEP Students Are Being Assessed\n\nThe ESEA \xc2\xa7 1111(b)(3)(ix) requires that all students be assessed under the statewide assessment\nsystem. Nearly all California students, including migrant and LEP students, were assessed in\nschool year 2003-2004, and both CDE and the LEAs reviewed had various controls in place to\nensure that migrant and LEP students were assessed. However, we identified two enhancements\nthat could better assure that all student subgroups, particularly for migrant students, are being\nassessed.\n\nCDE Did Not Include Subgroup\nEnrollment Data in Assessment Reports\n\nCDE assessment procedures require that a student answer document be completed for each\nstudent enrolled on the first day of testing, whether or not the student actually took the test. The\nstudent answer document contains student demographic information, including migrant and LEP\nstatus. However, the STAR-CST and CAHSEE assessment data and summary reports that CDE\nmade available to LEAs and on the Internet did not include subgroup data on the number of\nmigrant and LEP students enrolled on the first day of testing. As a result, neither CDE nor the\nLEAs and schools reviewed could use the data to determine test participation rates for the\nsubgroups. Because the enrollment data are already collected for each assessment, CDE could\nreadily summarize and provide the data to enable users to compare the resulting number of\nstudents that should have been tested against the number of students who were tested.\n\nBased on CDE assessment data, we found that the proportion of migrant and LEP students who\nwere assessed in school year 2003-2004 mirrored the proportion of all students assessed (over 95\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A09F0003 Page 16 of 30\n\npercent for STAR and about 90 percent for CAHSEE). Making available the subgroup\nenrollment data would enable the State, LEAs, and schools to more readily determine the extent\nthat different subgroups of students, including migrants and LEPs, are being assessed to ensure\ntheir inclusion in the statewide assessment system. Additionally, LEAs would have the test\nparticipation rate data needed to pre-calculate AYP, which could facilitate identifying schools\xe2\x80\x99\nimprovement status and meeting timing requirements for implementing public school choice.\n\nCDE Did Not Check the Reasonableness of\nTest Enrollment Data for Migrant Students\n\nCDE used an independent source to check the reasonableness of test enrollment data for the LEP\nsubgroup, but did not perform a similar check for the migrant subgroup. CDE requires LEAs to\nannually submit a Language Census to collect data about LEP students and services. Because\nthe Census date annually occurs on March 1 and roughly coincides with STAR and CAHSEE\ntesting dates, CDE can use the data to perform reasonableness checks of LEP students\xe2\x80\x99 test\nenrollment data for assessment purposes. Although CDE\xe2\x80\x99s Migrant Education Program (MEP)\nmaintained a statewide database on migrant students, CDE Policy and Evaluation Division and\nStandards and Assessment Division officials stated that they did not check the reasonableness of\ntest enrollment data for migrant students, except to compare the data to the prior year. Instead,\nCDE relied solely on LEAs to ensure the accuracy of the assessment demographic data.\n\nBased on our review at the three LEAs, we found that the MEP used STAR-CST data to\nprioritize migrant education services and maintained databases that LEAs could use as an\nindependent source to check test enrollment data for migrant students. We found that the LEAs\nhad controls in place to ensure students\xe2\x80\x99 migrant status was properly coded at the time\nassessments were administered. The LEAs had procedures for identifying migrant students and\nentering their status in the LEA student information system, which was the basis for coding\nstudent demographic data on student answer documents for test purposes. The procedures in two\nof the LEAs included restricting access to the migrant and LEP status fields in the student\ninformation system to ensure that unauthorized personnel did not change the data.6 The three\nLEAs also participated in a pre-identification process to reduce the number of student answer\ndocuments that had to be manually coded at the time of testing.7 Additionally, the cognizant\nMEP regional offices for the three LEAs maintained migrant student databases that provided an\nindependent source for checking the reasonableness of students\xe2\x80\x99 migrant status in the LEA\nstudent information system.8 In particular, we found that\xe2\x80\x94\n\n\n6\n The third LEA did not restrict access to migrant-related data fields in its student information system.\n7\n The pre-identification process entails LEA submission of student demographic data electronically to the\ntest publisher to create and provide bar-coded labels containing the student information to be affixed to\nthe student answer document. Pre-identification helps to reduce coding errors in the assessment\ndemographic data. CDE Standards and Assessment Division officials stated that most LEAs do not\nparticipate in pre-identification because of the associated costs, although the LEAs that do participate\ncover most of the students statewide.\n8\n CDE administers the MEP through 23 regional offices that each serves one or more LEAs. The regions\nperiodically report program data, including migrant enrollments, for inclusion in the statewide MEP\ndatabase.\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A09F0003 Page 17 of 30\n\n Fresno USD and Pajaro Valley USD frequently reconciled their student information\n system with their respective MEP region\xe2\x80\x99s migrant student database. The reconciliation\n helped the LEA to ensure students\xe2\x80\x99 migrant status were accurate and complete when\n student answer documents were coded for assessment purposes.\n\n Lodi USD did not have procedures to reconcile its data on migrant student status with its\n MEP region, but has since begun to take steps to reconcile the data. Although we found\n discrepancies between the LEA and MEP data on the number of migrant students, the\n LEA and MEP regional staff worked together to resolve the discrepancies after we\n brought the matter to their attention.\n\nCDE has not provided guidance to LEAs about potential independent sources, such as the MEP\nregion, for assessing the reliability of student demographic data. Because migrants are not a\nsubgroup for AYP purposes, little attention has been paid to their inclusion in assessments as a\nsubgroup. Using an independent source to check the reasonableness of migrant students\xe2\x80\x99\nparticipation on assessments at the State and LEA levels would provide additional assurance that\nstudents\xe2\x80\x99 migrant status were coded correctly and that migrant students were included in\nassessments.\n\nRecommendations\n\nWe recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education encourage\nCDE to\xe2\x80\x94\n\n3.1 Consider enhancing the ability of the State, LEAs, and schools to ensure that all student\n subgroups, including migrants and LEPs, are being assessed by reporting or making\n available data on the number of students (by subgroup) enrolled on the first day of\n testing.\n\n3.2 Consider enhancing the ability of the State, LEAs, and schools to ensure all migrant\n students are being assessed by (1) taking the steps necessary to ensure the reliability and\n use of the statewide MEP database to check the reasonableness of migrant enrollment\n data for assessment purposes, and (2) instructing LEAs to reconcile student information\n with MEP regions\xe2\x80\x99 data at the time of testing.\n\nCDE Comments\n\nIn its comments, CDE stated that Migrant Regional Offices will be required to provide the most\ncurrent list of migrant students to the districts for inclusion in the STAR header sheets [as part of\nthe pre-identification process], and again at the beginning of the STAR testing period. CDE will\nalso direct Migrant Education Regional Offices to upload the most current enrollment data on\nmigrant students to the State migrant student database on or about March 1 of each year.\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A09F0003 Page 18 of 30\n\nFINDING NO. 4 \xe2\x80\x93 CDE Should Disaggregate CAHSEE Summary Reports by\n Students\xe2\x80\x99 Migrant Status\n\nSection 1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) of the ESEA requires the State to enable academic assessment results\nto be disaggregated by, among other means, students\xe2\x80\x99 migrant status and English proficiency\n(i.e., LEP) status. We reviewed the assessment data and summary reports that CDE made\navailable to LEAs and on the Internet. The assessment data included student demographic\ninformation, which would enable LEAs to disaggregate the assessment results by students\xe2\x80\x99\nmigrant and LEP status. CDE produced summary reports disaggregating STAR-CST assessment\nresults for the migrant subgroup and the LEP subgroup, and the CAHSEE results for the LEP\nsubgroup. CDE did not produce summary reports that disaggregated CAHSEE results for the\nmigrant subgroup and did not provide LEAs with instructions to produce the report. None of the\nthree LEAs reviewed disaggregated CAHSEE results for migrant students as a subgroup.\nPassing the CAHSEE is a graduation requirement for the high school class of 2006 and beyond.\nDisaggregated CAHSEE summary reports would provide visibility regarding migrant students\xe2\x80\x99\nperformance on this high-stakes assessment.\n\nRecommendation\n\n4.1 We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education\n require CDE to make available, or instruct LEAs to produce, summary reports that\n disaggregate CAHSEE results for the migrant subgroup.\n\nCDE Comments\n\nIn its comments, CDE stated that it will explore modifying the current CAHSEE Results website\nto include summary reports that disaggregate CAHSEE results for the migrant subgroup.\n\nOIG Response\n\nIn the draft report, the recommendation only required CDE to \xe2\x80\x9cconsider\xe2\x80\x9d making available, or\ninstructing LEAs to produce, the CAHSEE results disaggregated for the migrant subgroup. We\nmodified the language to no longer provide CDE the option of implementing the\nrecommendation because the State must report CAHSEE results for the migrant student\nsubgroup to comply with annual State report card requirements specified in the ESEA \xc2\xa7\n1111(h)(1)(C).\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A09F0003 Page 19 of 30\n\nFINDING NO. 5 \xe2\x80\x93 LEAs Could Enhance the Use of Assessment Results to Improve\n Migrant Students\xe2\x80\x99 Academic Achievement\n\nThe ESEA \xc2\xa7 \xc2\xa7 1111(b)(3)(C)(xii) and (xv) require that the State\xe2\x80\x99s assessment system produce\nindividual student interpretive, descriptive, and diagnostic reports, and enable itemized score\nanalyses to be produced and reported. The Department\xe2\x80\x99s Standards and Assessments\nNon-Regulatory Guidance, issued March 10, 2003, specifies the qualities the student reports\nshould possess and clarifies that the analyses are to help parents, teachers, principals, and\nadministrators interpret test results and address the specific academic needs of students. The\nGuidance states\xe2\x80\x94\n\n These analyses should provide information to improve student achievement,\n strengthen curriculum alignment, and identify problem areas and areas of strong\n performance for entire schools and demographic subgroups of students.\n\nAdditionally, the ESEA \xc2\xa7 1111(b)(10) requires each State plan to describe how it will ensure that\nLEAs, schools, and teachers use assessment results to improve individual students\xe2\x80\x99 educational\nachievement.\n\nConsistent with the Federal statute and Departmental guidance, CDE made STAR-CST and\nCAHSEE assessment data available to LEAs and provided guidance on a suggested process for\nreviewing the data and developing strategies for addressing identified instructional needs of\nindividual students and the school as a whole. In the three LEAs reviewed, the MEP region used\nthe STAR-CST results to prioritize migrant education services for migrant students, and the LEP\nprogram used various assessment results to track LEP students\xe2\x80\x99 progress and monitor the\nprogram. In addition to the programmatic use, we also found that the schools we visited used a\nvariety of analytical tools and reports to examine an array of assessment and student\ndemographic data to improve student academic achievement individually and for groups of\nstudents, particularly LEP students. We found that the schools were not using the data\neffectively for migrants as a subgroup.\n\nFresno USD Did Not Make Migrant\nStatus Data Readily Available\n\nFresno USD did not make data on students\xe2\x80\x99 migrant status readily available to schools. The\nLEA Assessment Information System, which included students\xe2\x80\x99 demographic and assessment\ninformation, did not provide a menu option for students\xe2\x80\x99 migrant status. Unlike the ready access\nto assessment data for LEP students, school personnel needed to take additional steps involving a\nseparate migrant student list and individual student identification numbers in order to generate\nassessment results for migrant students individually or as a subgroup. As a result, the schools\nvisited could not use the available assessment and demographic data as effectively for the\nmigrant subgroup.\n\nLEAs Lacked Focus on Migrants\n\nThe three LEAs each made a variety of student demographic and assessment data, including\nmigrant and LEP status, available to schools electronically and through printed reports. The\nschools we visited used assessment results to address the academic and English proficiency\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A09F0003 Page 20 of 30\n\nneeds of the LEP subgroup, but lacked a specific focus on migrant students. According to school\nadministrators in two LEAs, migrant students were generally also LEP and school personnel did\nnot separately track migrants\xe2\x80\x99 academic performance. Ongoing efforts at schools in the three\nLEAs addressed academic achievement for LEP students individually and as a group, at the\nschool-level and through the school\xe2\x80\x99s LEP program. On some student lists, we found that\nmigrant status might be listed with other demographic and assessment data, but the schools did\nnot look at the migrants as a subgroup to track their progress compared to the LEP subgroup, or\nidentify other needs that may be unique to migrants.\n\nRecommendation\n\n5.1 We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education\n encourage CDE to consider providing additional guidance to LEAs to (1) ensure that\n schools have access to students\xe2\x80\x99 migrant status along with assessment results; and (2)\n take steps to look at migrants as a subgroup to track their progress on academic\n assessments, including comparison with the LEP subgroup where appropriate, and to\n identify needs that may be unique to migrants.\n\nCDE Comments\n\nIn its comments, CDE stated that it will make available to school districts and schools \xe2\x80\x9cread\nonly\xe2\x80\x9d access to the Migrant Student Information Network that provides disaggregated\nassessment reports for migrant students. In Spring 2006, CDE will provide training to the\nMigrant Regional Offices on the effective use of assessment data in program planning and\nincreasing student achievement.\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A09F0003 Page 21 of 30\n\n\n\n OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY\n\n\nOur audit objectives were to determine whether CDE and selected LEAs within the State had\nsufficient controls to ensure (1) migrant and LEP students were being assessed; (2) assessment\nresults were disaggregated by students\xe2\x80\x99 migrant and LEP status; (3) assessment reports enabled\neducators to understand and use the reported information to address the specific academic needs\nof migrant and LEP students; and (4) migrant and LEP students, who were enrolled in Title I\nschools identified for improvement, gained the same access to public school choice and SES as\nother eligible students. Our audit period was the 2003-2004 assessment cycle and the\nimplementation of public school choice and SES during school year 2004-2005.\n\nTo address these objectives, we interviewed CDE officials and staff responsible for\nimplementing the statewide assessment and accountability system and administering the Title I,\nTitle III (English language acquisition), and MEP programs. To determine whether internal\ncontrols ensured the inclusion of migrant and LEP students, we assessed CDE\xe2\x80\x99s policies,\nprocedures, and guidance for identifying migrant and LEP students; administering the\nSTAR-CST and CAHSEE assessments; reviewing, reporting, and using the assessment data;\nreporting accountability results and Title I schools\xe2\x80\x99 improvement status to LEAs; and\nimplementing public school choice and SES. We also reviewed CDE procedures for monitoring\nand oversight of LEA and school implementation in those areas.\n\nTo evaluate LEA procedures and determine whether CDE controls were in place, we selected\nthree LEAs (Fresno USD, Lodi USD, and Pajaro Valley USD) that had (1) sizable migrant, LEP,\nand Title I populations and (2) Title I schools across two or more school levels that were subject\nto public school choice and SES requirements. We defined as \xe2\x80\x9csizable\xe2\x80\x9d those LEAs that ranked\nin the top 100 (among the unified school districts) across the Migrant Education, Title III, and\nTitle I programs, based on CDE data on the proportion of migrant enrollment to total enrollment,\nproportion of LEP enrollment to total enrollment, and Title I allocation amount. To ensure that\nthe selected LEAs would include elementary, middle, and high schools, we limited our selection\npool to the 320 unified school districts from a total of 964 LEAs statewide. Of the six LEAs that\nmet our selection criteria, we judgmentally selected the three LEAs we visited based on the\nnumber of Title I schools subject to choice and SES; LEA total enrollment to provide a mix of\nlarge-, middle-, and small-sized LEAs; and diverse geographic locations.\n\nAt each LEA, we reviewed procedures and interviewed managers and staff responsible for\nimplementing the statewide assessment and accountability system, administering the Title I and\nTitle III programs, and approving parental requests for public school choice transfers. To\ndetermine whether internal controls ensured the inclusion of migrant and LEP students, we\nassessed LEA policies, procedures, and guidance for identifying migrant and LEP students;\nadministering the STAR-CST and CAHSEE assessments; reporting and using the assessment\ndata; reporting accountability results and Title I schools\xe2\x80\x99 improvement status to schools; and\nimplementing public school choice and SES. Additionally, we reviewed LEA procedures for\nmonitoring and oversight of school implementation in those areas. For each LEA, we also met\nwith program managers and staff from the cognizant MEP regional office about program\nprocedures for identifying migrant students and using assessment results.\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A09F0003 Page 22 of 30\n\nWe also visited a total of nine schools (an elementary, middle, and high school, in each LEA).\nFor each LEA, we used CDE data to select a Title I school subject to choice and SES (in Year 2\nor higher in PI status) at each level with large proportions of migrant and LEP enrollments. Lodi\nUSD and Pajaro Valley USD did not have Title I schools at the high school level and, thus, none\nof their high schools were subject to the choice and SES requirements. For these two LEAs, we\nselected from among all the high schools, based on the proportion of migrant and LEP\nenrollments. For each of the three LEAs, we randomly selected a school to visit when more than\none school met our selection criteria.\n\nTo determine whether CDE and LEA controls were in place at each school, we reviewed\ndocumentation and interviewed school administrators, testing coordinators, the Title III\ncoordinator, and other staff on their procedures and practices for identifying LEP students,\nadministering STAR-CST and CAHSEE assessments, reviewing and using assessment data, and\nimplementing public school choice and SES where applicable.\n\nWe assessed the reliability of computer-generated data at CDE and the three LEAs, and\nconcluded that the data were sufficiently reliable to use in meeting our audit objectives.\nSpecifically, we assessed the databases that CDE used to report 2003-2004 disaggregated STAR\nand CAHSEE summary results. Statewide and for the three LEAs, we verified: (1) migrant and\nLEP demographic and participation results to the data posted on CDE\xe2\x80\x99s website; (2) LEP\nenrollments to the March 2004 Language Census; and (3) migrant enrollments to MEP data from\nCDE\xe2\x80\x99s Migrant Student Information System, the cognizant MEP region, and/or the applicable\nLEA student information system. At each LEA, we assessed the reliability of the LEA student\ninformation system, which was used to code student demographic information for assessments,\nby verifying migrant enrollments to the MEP statewide or regional database, and LEP\nenrollments to the March 2004 Language Census. We also reviewed LEA controls to ensure that\nstudents\xe2\x80\x99 migrant and LEP status information in the student information system were accurate\nand complete. Additionally, we assessed the database that CDE used to report Title I schools\xe2\x80\x99\nimprovement status by comparing CDE\xe2\x80\x99s list of PI schools and their status to the LEA\xe2\x80\x99s list at\nthe three selected LEAs.\n\nWe performed our fieldwork at CDE and LEA offices in Sacramento, Fresno, Lodi, and\nWatsonville, California. We held an exit briefing with CDE officials on June 8, 2005. We\nperformed the audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards\napplicable to the scope of the review.\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A09F0003 Page 23 of 30\n\n\n\n\n ENCLOSURE\n\n CDE Comments on the Draft Report\n\x0c September 28, 2005\n\n\n\n\nGloria Pilotti, Regional Inspector General for Audit\nUnited States Department of Education\nOffice of Inspector General\n501 I Street, Suite 9-200\nSacramento, CA 95814\n\nDear Ms. Pilotti:\n\nThis is the California Department of Education\xe2\x80\x99s (CDE) response to the United States\nDepartment of Education Office of Inspector General\xe2\x80\x99s draft audit report entitled,\n\xe2\x80\x9cCalifornia\xe2\x80\x99s Inclusion of Migrant and Limited English Proficient Students in the\nStatewide Assessment and Accountability System.\xe2\x80\x9d Superintendent Jack O\xe2\x80\x99Connell\nasked that I respond on his behalf.\n\nFinding No. 1 \xe2\x80\x93 CDE Needs to Take Additional Steps to Ensure Limited English\nProficient Students Are Provided Reasonable Accommodations on Assessments\n\nRecommendation 1.1:\n\nInstruct local educational agencies (LEA) to establish and implement procedures to\nensure test administrators provide appropriate testing accommodations for limited\nEnglish proficient (LEP) students and properly mark the student answer document,\nwhen applicable.\n\n CDE\xe2\x80\x99s Corrective Action:\n\n The CDE-developed Testing Variations, Accommodations, and Modifications\n Matrix allows various variations for administering the tests within the\n Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program and the California High\n School Exit Examination (CAHSEE) to LEP students. This matrix ensures\n consistent testing variations across all state testing programs and provides\n necessary guidance to school and LEA staff members in understanding how the\n variations are to be provided to LEP students.\n\n To help ensure the appropriate variations are provided to LEP students,\n beginning with the spring 2006 test administrations, test examiners will be\n required to mark, on the answer documents, the specific testing variations the\n\x0cGloria Pilotti, Regional Inspector General for Audit\nSeptember 28, 2005\nPage 2\n\n\n LEP students use. This information will then be included in the District Student\n Data File that each LEA receives, and it will be available in the annual technical\n report produced by the state's contractor.\n\nRecommendation 1.2:\n\nEnsure that the test administration instructions and student answer documents for the\n2005-06 and future assessments clearly distinguish the LEP accommodations from the\nones for students with disabilities and section 504 students.\n\n CDE\xe2\x80\x99s Corrective Action:\n\n The CDE improved the 2005-06 answer documents for both the STAR Program\n and CAHSEE. The answer documents now include a separate section for test\n examiners to mark testing variations used by LEP students. The testing\n variations used for the STAR are to be marked separately for each content area\n test\xe2\x80\x94English-language arts, mathematics, science, and history-social science.\n\nRecommendation 1.3:\n\nInclude data on LEP students\xe2\x80\x99 use of accommodations in the assessment data made\navailable to LEAs to ensure LEP students are provided reasonable accommodations.\n\n CDE\xe2\x80\x99s Corrective Action:\n\n Beginning with the 2005-06 test administration, all testing variations used by LEP\n students will be included in each district\xe2\x80\x99s and the state\xe2\x80\x99s electronic student data\n files that include all test scores and student demographic data. The state\xe2\x80\x99s file\n includes no student names.\n\x0cGloria Pilotti, Regional Inspector General for Audit\nSeptember 28, 2005\nPage 3\n\n\nFinding No. 2 \xe2\x80\x93 CDE Needs to take Additional Steps to Ensure Eligible Students\nHave Access to Public School Choice in Accordance with Applicable Laws and\nRegulations\n\nRecommendation 2.1:\n\nContinue to refine CDE\xe2\x80\x99s assessment and accountability processes and procedures to\nensure that LEAs will receive assessment, adequate yearly progress (AYP), and\nprogram improvement (PI) results before the beginning of the school year, including\nJuly and August starts, so that parents of eligible students can be informed of public\nschool choice options in a timely manner.\n\n CDE\xe2\x80\x99s Corrective Action:\n\n The early delivery of test results to LEAs for AYP and PI purposes is a difficult\n outcome to achieve without substantial changes in the law and policies governing\n the administration of the STAR Program and CAHSEE. These changes would\n include eliminating year-round schools or changing regulations specifying the\n testing window for the STAR Program, drastically changing procedures for\n scaling tests (which could increase the error in the scale score metric), reducing\n the edit checks currently conducted on the student demographic data, and\n decreasing the number of STAR Program tests offered so that the complexity of\n compiling score results in the shorten time span is made less complicated.\n\n In CDE\xe2\x80\x99s September 2004 approved State of California Consolidated State\n Application Accountability Workbook, critical element 1.4 was revised to include a\n specific date in August (August 31) that California will release all elements of the\n AYP determination. AYP calculations were made available to LEAs on the CDE\xe2\x80\x99s\n website on August 25, 2005 and to the public on August 31, 2005. The data were\n made available to LEAs one week earlier this year in order for them to review the\n information for accuracy and make PI determinations for their schools.\n\n Furthermore, in numerous communications regarding the 2005 AYP reporting\n cycle, the CDE stated that it is the responsibility of the LEA to identify schools for\n PI immediately after the release of the 2005 AYP data. LEAs are not to delay the\n identification of schools for PI pending data corrections, appeals of AYP data or\n until the CDE releases the official list of schools in PI.\n\n The CDE released the list of schools and LEAs in PI to LEAs for review on\n September 13, 2005, more than 30 days earlier than this information was\n provided in 2004, and released it to the public on September 20, 2005.\n\x0cGloria Pilotti, Regional Inspector General for Audit\nSeptember 28, 2005\nPage 4\n\n\nRecommendation 2.2:\n\nProvide written guidance to LEAs describing the information that must be included in\nparental notification letters about public school choice, including the identification of at\nleast two school options, where applicable, and the schools\xe2\x80\x99 academic achievement\ninformation.\n\n CDE\xe2\x80\x99s Corrective Action:\n\n Sample parent notification letters for use by school districts, county offices of\n education, and direct-funded school, including a cover letter with more detailed\n instructions on the use of the letters, are posted on CDE\xe2\x80\x99s website. The sample\n letters address all the components required in No Child Left Behind (NCLB),\n Section 1116(b)(6). Additionally, the LEA and School Improvement\n Nonregulatory Guidance of January 7, 2004 recommends providing information\n about the schools available for transfer. Therefore, the sample letters provide\n contact information for parents interested in school choice and inform them that\n interested parents will receive information about the schools available for transfer\n and the schools' academic achievement.\n\nRecommendation 2.3:\n\nEnhance CDE\xe2\x80\x99s monitoring procedures by incorporating (1) the reference to the\napplicable statutory provision on parental notifications and (2) specific instructions for\nreviewers to confirm that LEA parental notification letters regarding public school choice\ncontain the required information.\n\n CDE\xe2\x80\x99s Corrective Action:\n\n Training institutes will be held in eight regions throughout the state to inform the\n LEAs about the required parent notification components and the need to ensure\n that parents are adequately informed about the schools available for transfer and\n the academic status of the schools.\n\n The Program Improvement component of the 2005-06 Categorical Program\n Monitoring Document includes compliance Item II-PI 1, which requires CDE\n reviewers to ensure that the LEA parent notification letter incorporates all the\n required components.\n\x0cGloria Pilotti, Regional Inspector General for Audit\nSeptember 28, 2005\nPage 5\n\n\nFinding No. 3 \xe2\x80\x93 CDE Could Enhance Procedures to Ensure All Migrant and LEP\nStudents Are Being Assessed\n\nRecommendation 3.1:\n\nConsider enhancing the ability of the State, LEAs, and schools to ensure that all student\nsubgroups, including migrants and LEPs, are being assessed by reporting or making\navailable data on the number of students (by subgroup) enrolled on the first day of\ntesting.\n\n CDE\xe2\x80\x99s Corrective Action:\n\n CDE will require the Migrant Regional Offices to provide the districts with the\n most current list of migrant students when the district is completing the STAR\n header sheets, and again at the beginning of the STAR testing period. CDE will\n inform the districts that the list includes all migrant students that need to be\n assessed, and that migrant students assessed are on the list.\n\nRecommendation 3.2:\n\nConsider enhancing the ability of the State, LEAs, and schools to ensure all migrant\nstudents are being assessed by (1) taking the steps necessary to ensure the reliability\nand use of the statewide Migrant Education Program (MEP) database to check the\nreasonableness of migrant enrollment data for assessment purposes, and (2) instructing\nLEAs to reconcile student information with MEP regions\xe2\x80\x99 data at the time of testing.\n\n CDE\xe2\x80\x99s Corrective Action:\n\n Currently, the California Basic Education Data System (CBEDS) and Language\n Census data are used to perform reasonability checks on the participation rates\n for LEP students tested. In both the CBEDS and Language Census, there is an\n established census collection date, March 1 of each year. The migrant data has\n no such official census count since it is constantly updated. Therefore, there is no\n specific number from the migrant database that can be used to perform\n reasonability checks on the data. However, CDE will direct Migrant Education\n Regional Offices to upload the most current enrollment data on migrant students\n to the state migrant student database on or about March 1 of each year.\n\x0cGloria Pilotti, Regional Inspector General for Audit\nSeptember 28, 2005\nPage 6\n\n\nFinding No. 4 \xe2\x80\x93 CDE Should Disaggregate CAHSEE Summary Reports by\nStudents\xe2\x80\x99 Migrant Status\n\nRecommendation 4.1:\n\nConsider making available, or instructing LEAs to produce, summary reports that\ndisaggregate CAHSEE results for the migrant subgroup.\n\n CDE\xe2\x80\x99s Corrective Action:\n\n As required under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Section\n 1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii), CDE enables CAHSEE results to be disaggregated by, among\n other things, students\xe2\x80\x99 migrant status and English proficiency status. In the\n electronic student data files provided to the LEAs following each of the CAHSEE\n administrations and twice after each school year, data is provided to enable\n assessment results to be disaggregated by migrant and English proficiency\n status. Additionally, as part of CDE\xe2\x80\x99s annual data release of CAHSEE results,\n CDE posts on its website a research file, which contains all of the data for a\n school district, or member of the public, to disaggregate the data by migrant\n status. Although CDE has provided LEAs with the requisite data up to seven\n times annually, CDE will explore modifying the current CAHSEE Results Web\n Site to include summary reports that disaggregate CAHSEE results for the\n migrant subgroup.\n\nFinding No. 5 \xe2\x80\x93 LEAs Could Enhance the Use of Assessment Results to Improve\nMigrant Students\xe2\x80\x99 Academic Achievement\n\nRecommendation 5.1:\n\nConsider providing additional guidance to LEAs to (1) ensure that schools have access\nto students\xe2\x80\x99 migrant status along with assessment results; and (2) take steps to look at\nmigrants as a subgroup to track their progress on academic assessments, including\ncomparison with the LEP subgroup where appropriate, and to identify needs that may\nbe unique to migrants.\n\n CDE\xe2\x80\x99s Planned Corrective Action:\n\n CDE will make available to school districts and schools \xe2\x80\x9cread only\xe2\x80\x9d access to the\n Migrant Student Information Network that provides disaggregated assessment\n reports for migrant students; and in the spring of 2006, provide training to the\n Migrant Regional Offices regarding the effective use of assessment data in\n program planning and increasing student achievement.\n\x0cGloria Pilotti, Regional Inspector General for Audit\nSeptember 28, 2005\nPage 7\n\n\nIf you have any questions regarding CDE\xe2\x80\x99s response, please contact Kim Sakata, Audit\nResponse Coordinator, Audits and Investigations Division, at (916) 323-2560 or by\ne-mail at ksakata@cde.ca.gov.\n\nSincerely,\n\n/s/ Sue Stickel for\n\nGAVIN PAYNE\nChief Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction\n\nGP:ks\n\x0c"


type: legislation

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 Svarbus teisinis pranešimas
 |
 52006PC0280
 Pasiūlymas Tarybos sprendimas leidžiantis Jungtinei Karalystei įvesti specialią priemonę, nukrypstančią nuo Direktyvos 77/388/EEB dėl valstybių narių apyvartos mokesčių įstatymų derinimo 5 straipsnio 6 dalies ir 11 straipsnio A skirsnio 1 dalies b punkto (Tik tekstas anglų kalba yra autentiškas) /* KOM/2006/0280 galutinis */
 [pic] | EUROPOS BENDRIJŲ KOMISIJA |Briuselis, 08.06.2006KOM(2006) 280 galutinisPasiūlymasTARYBOS SPRENDIMASleidžiantis Jungtinei Karalystei įvesti specialią priemonę, nukrypstančią nuo Direktyvos 77/388/EEB dėl valstybių narių apyvartos mokesčių įstatymų derinimo 5 straipsnio 6 dalies ir 11 straipsnio A skirsnio 1 dalies b punkto(Tik tekstas anglų kalba yra autentiškas)(pateikta Komisijos)AIŠKINAMASIS MEMORANDUMASPASIūLYMO APLINKYBėS |110 | Pasiūlymo pagrindas ir tikslai Pagal 1977 m. gegužės 17 d. Šeštosios Tarybos direktyvos 77/388/EEB dėl valstybių narių apyvartos mokesčių įstatymų derinimo – Bendra pridėtinės vertės mokesčio sistema: vienodas vertinimo pagrindas, 27 straipsnio 1 dalį Taryba, Komisijos pasiūlymu, vieningai gali leisti bet kuriai valstybei imtis specialių priemonių, nukrypstant nuo tos direktyvos nuostatų, kad būtų supaprastinta mokesčių taikymo tvarka. Laišku, kurį Komisijos generalinis sekretoriatas užregistravo 2005 m. balandžio 7 d., Jungtinė Karalystė paprašė leisti pakeisti dabartines nukrypti leidžiančias priemones dėl PVM skaičiavimo, susijusio su tarnybiniams automobiliams, iš dalies naudojamiems asmeniniais tikslais, skirtų degalų įsigijimo išlaidomis. Vadovaudamasi direktyvos 77/388/EEB 27 straipsnio 2 dalimi, Komisija 2005 m. spalio 26 d. laišku informavo kitas valstybes nares apie Jungtinės Karalystės prašymą. 2005 m. spalio 27 d. laišku Komisija pranešė Jungtinei Karalystei, kad turi visą informaciją, kuri, Komisijos nuomone, yra būtina prašymui įvertinti. |120 | Bendrosios aplinkybės 1986 m. Jungtinė Karalystė gavo leidimą, nustatydama PVM dydį, taikomą degalų įsigijimo išlaidoms, susijusioms su tarnybinių automobilių naudojimu asmeniniais tikslais, taikyti vienodo tarifo schemą (Tarybos sprendimas 86/356/EEB). Pagal šią sistemą Jungtinei Karalystei leista iš karto atskaityti visą PVM, susijusį su išlaidomis degalams, skirtiems tarnybiniams automobiliams. Po to PVM buvo apmokestinami degalai, skirti automobilio naudojimui asmeniniais tikslais. Vidutinė degalų, sunaudojamų asmeniniais tikslais naudojant tarnybinius automobilius, kaina buvo apskaičiuojama remiantis makroekonomikos pagrindais, o tada apmokestinama atsižvelgiant į variklio galingumą ir automobilio degalų rūšį. Vidutinė kaina buvo kasmet tikslinama, atsižvelgiant į vidutinės degalų kainos pokytį. Naudotis šia sistema buvo patogiau ir mokesčių administratoriams, ir mokesčių mokėtojams. Pavyzdžiui, mokesčių mokėtojams nebereikėjo turėti išsamių kilometražo išrašų. Reikia atkreipti dėmesį į tai, kad ši sistema mokesčių mokėtojams nebuvo privaloma; jie galėjo, jei norėjo, laikytis įprastų PVM taisyklių ir vykdyti įsipareigojimą turėti kilometražo išrašus. Šiuo metu Jungtinė Karalystė numato keisti šią sistemą. Pagrindiniai principai išliktų tie patys, tačiau pagal naująją siūlomą sistemą būtų taikomas „diferencijuotas mokestis“, susijęs su automobilio išmetamu CO2 kiekiu. Kadangi išmetamas CO2 kiekis tiesiogiai priklauso nuo degalų sunaudojimo, CO2 išmetama tuo daugiau, kuo daugiau sunaudojama kuro, todėl ir PVM, kurį reikėtų mokėti už asmeniniais tikslais sunaudojamus degalus, turėtų būti didesnis. Komisija supranta, kad dabartinė tvarka iš tiesų suteikė Jungtinei Karalystei galimybę metams bėgant paprastinti apmokestinimo tvarką ir kad naujosios sistemos, kuri ir toliau nebus privaloma mokesčių mokėtojams, pasekmės bus tokios pačios. Be to, Jungtinė Karalystė paaiškino, kad mokestis, kurio tarifas priklauso nuo išmetamo CO2 kiekio, tiksliau atspindės asmeninį naudojimą negu dabartiniai tarifai, kuriuos apskaičiuojant atsižvelgiama į variklio dydį ir degalų rūšį. Todėl Komisija mano, kad tikslinga Jungtinei Karalystei leisti taikyti pakeistą specialiąją priemonę. Šiomis aplinkybėmis pradinis Tarybos sprendimas 86/356/EEB turės būti panaikintas. Tačiau siekiant, kad perėjimas būtų sklandus, šis sprendimas bus panaikintas 2007 m. balandžio 30 d., bet kuriuo atveju ne vėliau negu tinkamų nacionalinių priemonių įsigaliojimo dieną. |130 | Pasiūlymo srityje taikomos nuostatos 1986 m. liepos 21 d. Tarybos sprendimas 86/356/EEB, leidžiantis Jungtinei Karalystei nustatant neatskaitytiną PVM, taikomą tarnybiniams automobiliams skirtų degalų įsigijimo išlaidoms, taikyti vienodo tarifo priemones. |140 | Derėjimas su kitomis Sąjungos politikos sritimis ir tikslais Netaikoma. |KONSULTACIJOS SU SUINTERESUOTOSIOMIS šALIMIS IR POVEIKIO VERTINIMAS |Konsultacijos su suinteresuotosiomis šalimis |219 | Netaikoma. |Tiriamųjų duomenų rinkimas ir naudojimas |229 | Nepriklausomo tyrimo neprireikė. |230 | Poveikio vertinimas Siūlomas sprendimas susijęs su supaprastinimo priemonėmis, taikytinomis apmokestinant PVM Jungtinės Karalystės tarnybinių automobilių degalus, todėl jis gali turėti teigiamą poveikį ekonomikai. Poveikis bet kuriuo atveju bus ribotas dėl siauros leidžiančios nukrypti nuostatos taikymo srities. |TEISINIAI PASIūLYMO ASPEKTAI |305 | Siūlomų veiksmų santrauka Leidimas Jungtinei Karalystei nukrypti nuo Šeštosios Tarybos direktyvos 77/388/EEB 5 straipsnio 6 dalies ir 11 straipsnio A skirsnio 1 dalies b punkto, kad ji galėtų taikyti specialias priemones ir nustatydama PVM dalį, susijusią su asmeniniais tikslais naudojant tarnybinius automobilius sunaudojamų degalų įsigijimo išlaidomis, remtis išmetamu CO2 kiekiu. |310 | Teisinis pagrindas 1977 m. gegužės 17 d. Šeštosios Tarybos direktyvos 77/388/EEB dėl valstybių narių apyvartos mokesčių įstatymų derinimo – Bendra pridėtinės vertės mokesčio sistema: vienodas vertinimo pagrindas, 27 straipsnio 1 dalis. |329 | Subsidiarumo principas Pasiūlymas priklauso išimtinei Bendrijos kompetencijai. Todėl subsidiarumo principas netaikomas. |Proporcingumo principas Pasiūlymas atitinka proporcingumo principą dėl toliau nurodytos (-ų) priežasties (-čių). |331 | Šis sprendimas suteikia leidimą valstybei narei jos pačios prašymu ir nėra privalomas. |332 | Atsižvelgiant į ribotą šios leidžiančios nukrypti nuostatos taikymo sritį, speciali priemonė yra proporcinga siekiamam tikslui. |Pasirinkta priemonė |341 | Siūloma priemonė – kitos. |342 | Kitos priemonės būtų netinkamos dėl toliau nurodytos (-ų) priežasties (-čių). Pagal Šeštosios Tarybos direktyvos 77/388/EEB dėl valstybių narių apyvartos mokesčių įstatymų derinimo 27 straipsnį leidžiančios nukrypti nuo bendrų PVM taisyklių nuostatos gali būti suteikiamos tik vieningai leidus Tarybai Komisijos pasiūlymu. Tarybos sprendimas yra vienintelė tinkama priemonė, kadangi jis gali būti skirtas vienai valstybei narei. |POVEIKIS BIUDžETUI |409 | Pasiūlymas nedaro poveikio Bendrijos biudžetui. |PAPILDOMA INFORMACIJA |520 | Galiojančių teisės aktų panaikinimas Priėmus šį pasiūlymą, galiojantys teisės aktai bus panaikinti. |Persvarstymo, keitimo, laikino galiojimo sąlyga |533 | Pasiūlyme pateikiama laikino galiojimo sąlyga. |1. PasiūlymasTARYBOS SPRENDIMASleidžiantis Jungtinei Karalystei įvesti specialią priemonę, nukrypstančią nuo Direktyvos 77/388/EEB dėl valstybių narių apyvartos mokesčių įstatymų derinimo 5 straipsnio 6 dalies ir 11 straipsnio A skirsnio 1 dalies b punkto(Tik tekstas anglų kalba yra autentiškas)EUROPOS SĄJUNGOS TARYBA,atsižvelgdama į Europos bendrijos steigimo sutartį,atsižvelgdama į 1977 m. gegužės 17 d. Šeštąją Tarybos direktyvą 77/388/EEB dėl valstybių narių apyvartos mokesčių įstatymų derinimo – Bendra pridėtinės vertės mokesčio sistema: vienodas vertinimo pagrindas[1], ypač į jos 27 straipsnio 1 dalį,atsižvelgdama į Komisijos pasiūlymą[2],kadangi:(1) Laišku, kurį Komisijos generalinis sekretoriatas užregistravo 2005 m. balandžio 7 d., Jungtinė Karalystė paprašė leidimo nukrypti nuo Direktyvos 77/388/EEB 5 straipsnio 6 dalies ir 11 straipsnio A skirsnio 1 dalies b punkto.(2) Vadovaudamasi direktyvos 77/388/EEB 27 straipsnio 2 dalimi, Komisija 2005 m. spalio 26 d. laišku informavo kitas valstybes nares apie Jungtinės Karalystės prašymą. 2005 m. spalio 27 d. laišku Komisija pranešė Jungtinei Karalystei, kad turi visą informaciją, kuri, Komisijos nuomone, yra būtina prašymui įvertinti.(3) Jungtinė Karalystė norėtų pakeisti leidžiančią nukrypti nuostatą, kurią jai leista taikyti 1986 m. liepos 21 d. Tarybos sprendimu 86/356/EEB, leidžiančiu Jungtinei Karalystei nustatant neatskaitytiną PVM, taikomą tarnybiniams automobiliams skirtų degalų įsigijimo išlaidoms, taikyti vienodo tarifo priemones[3], kuriuo leidžiama taikyti specialias supaprastinimo priemones, siekiant, kad pridėtinės vertės mokesčio (PVM) dalis, susijusi su tarnybiniams automobiliams, iš dalies naudojamiems asmeniniais tikslais, skirtų degalų įsigijimo išlaidomis, būtų nustatoma pagal vienodą tarifą. Taikant šią tvarką apmokestinamiesiems asmenims nereikia turėti išsamių kilometražo išrašų, kad galėtų apskaičiuoti tikslų PVM dydį, susijusį su kiekvieno automobilio naudojimu asmeniniais ir verslo reikalais. Kaip ir dabartinė sistema, siūloma naujoji sistema apmokestinamiesiems asmenims nebus privaloma.(4) Dabartinė sistema pagrįsta naudojamų degalų rūšimi ir automobilio variklio dydžiu. Jungtinė Karalystė norėtų iš dalies pakeisti šią sistemą, kad ji būtų grindžiama mašinos išskiriamu anglies dvideginio (CO2) kiekiu, kadangi anglies dvideginio išskyrimas yra proporcingai susijęs su degalų naudojimu, taigi su degalų įsigijimo išlaidomis. Tai reiškia, kad naudojant išskiriamu CO2 kiekiu grįstą vienodo tarifo diferencijuotą sistemą galima pasiekti to paties tikslo apmokestinti įmonių patiriamas degalų įsigijimo išlaidas, susijusias su automobilių naudojimu asmeniniais reikalais. Be to, Junginė Karalystė tuo pat metu tikisi pasiekti didesnio tikslumo nustatydama mokesčius asmeniniam naudojimui, kadangi bus praplatinta, taigi patikslinta, tarifų skalė, lyginant su dabartine tarifų skale.(5) Dabartinė tvarka sudarė Jungtinei Karalystei galimybę supaprastinti apmokestinimo tvarką, susijusią su tarnybiniams automobiliams skirtų degalų įsigijimo išlaidomis, o siūloma sistema, pagrįsta išmetamu CO2 kiekiu, turės panašių padarinių. Įvedus naująją sistemą, turėtų atsispindėti tiksliau asmeninis naudojimas.(6) Leidimo galiojimo laikas turėtų būti apribotas, kad, atsižvelgiant į iki nustatytos datos sukauptą patirtį, būtų galima įvertinti, ar tebėra pagrįstas leidžiančios nukrypti nuostatos taikymas.(7) Sprendimas 86/356 po kurio laiko turėtų būti panaikintas; bet kokiu atveju jis turi nebegalioti tą dieną, kai įsigalios nacionalinės nuostatos, kuriomis patvirtinama naujoji speciali priemonė, siekiant išvengti tokios padėties, kai vienu metu galioja leidimai taikyti abi sistemas.(8) Jungtinė Karalystė turėtų informuoti Komisiją apie nacionalines nuostatas, kuriomis įvedama nauja speciali priemonė, kai tik jos bus patvirtintos, ir turėtų užtikrinti, kad ši priemonė neįsigaliotų iki 2007 m. balandžio 30 d.(9) Leidžianti nukrypti nuostata neturi neigiamo poveikio Bendrijos nuosaviems ištekliams, kuriuos sudaro surenkamas PVM,PRIĖMĖ ŠĮ SPRENDIMĄ:1 straipsnisNukrypstant nuo Direktyvos 77/388/EEB 5 straipsnio 6 dalies ir 11 straipsnio A skirsnio 1 dalies b punkto, Jungtinei Karalystei leidžiama nuo 2007 m. gegužės 1 d. iki 2015 m. gruodžio 31 d. nustatyti pagal vienodą tarifą pridėtinės vertės mokesčio dalį, susijusią su asmeniniais tikslais naudojant tarnybinius automobilius sunaudojamų degalų įsigijimo išlaidomis.2 straipsnis1 straipsnyje minima mokesčio dalis išreiškiama fiksuotomis sumomis, nustatytomis remiantis tam tikros rūšies automobilių išmetamu CO2 kiekiu, kuris atspindi degalų sunaudojimą. Jungtinė Karalystė, atsižvelgdama į vidutinės degalų kainos pasikeitimus, kasmet patikslina šias fiksuotas sumas.3 straipsnisRemiantis šiuo sprendimu nustatyta sistema nėra privaloma apmokestinamiesiems asmenims.4 straipsnisTarybos sprendimas 86/356 panaikinamas 2007 m. balandžio 30 d.Jungtinė Karalystė informuoja Komisiją apie 1 straipsnyje nurodytas nacionalines nuostatas, kai tik jos priimamos.5 straipsnisŠis sprendimas skirtas Jungtinei Didžiosios Britanijos ir Šiaurės Airijos Karalystei.Priimta Briuselyje,Tarybos varduPirmininkas [1] OL L 145, 1977 6 13, p. 1. Direktyva su paskutiniais pakeitimais, padarytais Direktyva 2006/18/EB (OL L 51, 2006 2 22, p. 12).[2] OL C [...], [...], p. [...].[3] OL L 212, 1986 8 2, p. 35.