February 14, 2007
Dear County Superintendents:
Bifurcation of County Office of Education Functions
In July of 2005, the State Board of Education (SBE) took action to establish the circumstances under which county offices of education (COEs) that are state-approved providers of supplemental educational services (SES) may continue to provide such services in the event the COE is identified for Program Improvement under Title I.
Based on guidance received from the U.S. Education Department (ED) at that time, it was determined that COEs may bifurcate their services by separating the administration of county office direct service functions to schools from the administration of technical assistance services to districts and schools. Letters sent to county superintendents in September 2005 and 2006 advised that county office boards should take action to separate the direct service functions to schools/programs from the administration of technical assistance services to districts and schools by designating separate administrators and budgets for these two functions. COEs were advised to be prepared to show evidence of separate budget and reporting structures during a Categorical Program Monitoring review if they chose to bifurcate services. Additionally, they were advised that any SES application submitted by the COE must not rely on data from the county-operated schools/programs for their “demonstrated record of effectiveness,” nor may the COEs use the same staff or delivery system to provide SES that they use for their regular county-operated schools/programs. COEs that chose to bifurcate their services were further advised to amend their Local Educational Agency (LEA) Plan appropriately and file a “Notice of Intent to Bifurcate Services” form with CDE.
Since that time, ED has released further guidance on this issue in the form of a letter from U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education Henry L. Johnson, a copy of which is enclosed. This letter clarifies and gives more detail regarding how to appropriately separate these functions. This letter also lists possible criteria the SEA could consider to determine if the COE and SES programs are operating as separate entities. Of the following criteria listed in Assistant Secretary Johnson’s letter, the following are applicable to California:
- The entity has decision-making authority independent from the Superintendent. (It may, however, still be held accountable to the school board.)
- The entity has its own hiring capabilities and does not need to abide by the district’s hiring obligations and requirements.
- The entity has its own operating structure (e.g., a means of communicating with the public separate from the school district).
- The entity has a separate and independent advisory committee.
With this additional information in mind, CDE has revised its “Notice of Intent to Bifurcate Services” form, which is also enclosed.
You will note that the new guidance from ED also states that, “the SEA should document the justification it uses to award approval to an entity that is affiliated with an LEA identified for improvement”. In order to comply with this new guidance, we are requesting all COEs that have taken local board action to bifurcate their services to file this new form with CDE. This includes those COEs who have previously sent in a “Notice of Intent to Bifurcate Services” form. This can be done at any time, but should be done when a COE applies to be an approved SES provider or when a COE is identified for Program Improvement and wishes to continue as an approved SES provider. These forms will be sent to the address indicated on the form.
If you have any questions, please contact Debbie Rury, Consultant, NCLB Implementation and Coordination Office, at (916) 319-0651.
Sincerely,
William L. Padia, Deputy Superintendent
Assessment and Accountability Branch
WLP:dr
Enclosure
1430 N Street
Sacramento, CA 95814