Resolution of NCLB SES Complaint Investigation March 28, 2013

VIA EMAIL Dr. Bob Morrison, Superintendent Ivan Cantu, Title I Coordinator Special Programs 501 S Jupiter Garland, TX 75042-7108 cnmoore@garlandisd.net icantu@garlandisd.net | (972) 487-3215 Marion W Coleman, Director Boost Academy 204 W. Bedford Euless Rd #109 Hurst, TX 76053 (682) 970-9706 Naana Otchway, Manager Avenue Academy 204 W. Bedford Euless Rd #109 Hurst, TX 76053 (214) 777-2848 Florine K. Mati, Director Diverse Links / Diverse Learning 1220-G Airport Freeway #511 Bedford, TX 76022 (817) 510-3232

boostacademy@yahoo.com

avenueacademy@rocketmail.com

diverselearning@yahoo.com

SUBJECT:

Garland Independent School District Boost Academy | Avenue Academy | Diverse Links Student Sign-in Sheets Submitted for Invoice Payment Provision of SES to Eligible Students

This letter serves to resolve the February 25, 2013 complaint filed by Garland Independent School District (district) concerning the named Providers. The agencys state-level investigation findings and conclusion are reported in this letter for each Provider. The agencys investigation was conducted under Title I, Section 1116(e) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and the Supplemental Educational Services (SES) Non-Regulatory Guidance, January 14, 2009. Complaint Allegation for Named Providers The district alleged that the providers submitted fraudulent documentation, specifically, student tutoring sign-in / attendance sheets, to invoice the district for payment for tutoring services that were not provided to the students.

TEA Final Resolution Letter Garland Independent School District

Boost Academy | Avenue Academy | Diverse Links

Page 2

District Local Investigation In accordance with the state-level NCLB/SES Provider complaint process, the district submitted its findings and supporting documentation to the agency for a state-level investigation. The districts findings and conclusions are based on the following: inspection of student tutoring attendance sign-in sheets; auditing of invoices and payments; interviews or written statements of students; and responses by providers representatives.

1. Diverse Learning The sign-in sheets, dates and times, without breaks, were part of the reason we initially looked into this Provider. When the campus administrator spoke to several students, they reported signing in at once, and never returning to tutoring sessions. When we interviewed most of the students on the sign-in sheets, they all stated the same thing. They were asked to sign in for several dates at once, and most students indicated never returning to the sessions or rejecting services (but still asked to sign). I have attached the sign-in sheets and student statements. The company was notified (on 2/6/13) and offered an opportunity to meet with us. At this time, we are working with them to schedule a time to meet this week. 2. Boost This situation is similar to the one above, and even though it is a separate Provider, the tutor on record is the same that provided services for the company above. Once again, the student claims to have been asked to sign in several times during the initial contact and never receiving services. Student sign-in sheet and student statement are attached. The company was notified on (2/6/13) and offered an opportunity to meet. They have requested to meet this Friday, March 1st. I have requested to move the meeting to Wednesday, 2/27/13. 3. Avenue Academy This was part of random validation checks on our part. Most students participating with this company have verified attending and receiving services. However, one student claims to have never attended tutorial services. When shown the sign-in sheet, stated it was not signature. We had the student sign name, and it is clearly not writing. We have attached sign-in sheet and statement. We met with a representative of the company on 2/21/13, and discussed the issue. He stated that the tutor was no longer with the company, but he wasn't aware of any additional information regarding the issue. I asked that any comments or feedback from his supervisors be submitted as soon as possible.
District Conclusion

The district stated that the SES providers failed to submit accurate student attendance and falsified student signatures.

Texas Education Agency | NCLB / SES Complaint Investigation

TEA Final Resolution Letter Garland Independent School District

Boost Academy | Avenue Academy | Diverse Links

Page 3

SES Provider Responses to TEAs Complaint Investigation On February 27, 2013, the agency sent a written notice to each provider concerning the complaint filed by the district. Each provider was given an opportunity to respond and submit any information for consideration in the resolution of the complaint. The named Providers did not respond to the agencys notice. TEA State-level Findings As part of its investigation, the agency reviewed the information submitted by the district including: o student tutoring attendance sign-in sheets; o student witness statements; and o written correspondence between the providers and the district. The agencys findings, conclusions, and corrective actions are presented for each Provider as follows: 1. The campuses involved in this complaint are Bussey Middle School and S.J. Davis; 2. The district submitted one student statement regarding Boost Academy, two student statements regarding Avenue Academy, and seven student statements regarding Diverse Links (dba Diverse Learning); and 3. The tutors who signed the student sign-in sheets were: (1) Jennifer Hatcher, (2) Barbara Drawhorn, and (3) Vickie M. Clay. Sample Students Statements and Sign - In Sheets 1. On February 20, 2013, a student explained that a woman came to the students house and asked for the students email. The student provided the woman the email address. The student stated, that the woman asked for my signature about eight times and she told me to right down the dates and the time down. The student told the woman, My internet is not working and my dad's computer isn't working either so I didn't do itshe gave me a worksheet about science. The student had not seen her since that visit and she never tutor[ed] me before and she never came back. The student stated, No one has contacted me and I had never gone to tutor[ing] or [completed] the practice on the internet. The student further explained that the woman emailed me about my username and password for passkey. Boost Academy submitted the student's sign-in sheet showing that the student was tutored from December 8, 2012 - December 29, 2012. Each of the five (5) sessions was from 10:00 AM - 2:30 PM, for a total of 22:30 hours. The sign-in sheet was signed by Jennifer Hatcher (tutor) on December 29, 2012. 2. On February 20, 2013, a student wrote, "I was walking towards my house when somebody stopped me for tutoring. I signed the paper with my informationthen, two days later, they came to my house and told my [parent] about tutoring. The students

Texas Education Agency | NCLB / SES Complaint Investigation

TEA Final Resolution Letter Garland Independent School District

Boost Academy | Avenue Academy | Diverse Links

Page 4

parent declined the offer because she didn't think it was real so she didn't sign me up for it. The student verified the signature on the sign-in sheet and the student did not write my name over and over again." Avenue submitted the student's sign-in sheet showing that the student received tutoring from December 20, 2012 - December 29, 2012. The six (6) sessions were 4 PM - 5 PM, 4 PM - 6 PM, or 10 AM - 2 PM for a total of 15:17 hours. Further, the student's signature on his statement did not match the signature on the sign-in sheet. The sign-in sheet was signed by Barbara Drawhorn (tutor) on December 29, 2012. 3. On January 8, 2013, a student wrote, I got handed a booklet when a woman came to my house [and] she had me signing a paper and told me to write different dates and times. I also had to write my name about 6 times. She didn't really give me [many] details. But I knew it was for tutoring. I've never been to any tutoring. Diverse Links submitted the student's sign-in sheet showing that the student was tutored from December 8, 2012 - December 29, 2012. The six (6) sessions were from 10 AM - 2:30 PM, for a total of 22:30 hours. The sign-in sheet was signed by Jennifer Hatcher (tutor) on December 29, 2012. 4. On February 8, 2013, a student wrote, "They came into my house [and] they told me to sign a paper. They gave me a workbook they told me they were going to help me with any classes [that] I was failing. The student was instructed to go to a public library. However, the student has not gone to the public library. Diverse Links submitted the student's sign-in sheet showing that the student was tutored from December 8, 2012 - December 29, 2012. The six (6) sessions were from 10 AM - 2: 15 PM, for a total of 21:15 hours. The sign-in sheet was signed by Jennifer Hatcher (tutor) on December 29, 2012. 5. On February 8, 2013, a student wrote, "2 ladies came into my house and started explaining to my family about the program. They gave me a workbook that would help me with my reading and [had written] inside the workbook, a number [that] I could call to record the hours I have done. The women handed the student a sign-in sheet and they started to tell me to put down dates and hours on the sheet and then sign. After that they told me I could go to the library and they left.. The student further stated, I haven't received any tutoring besides that workbook." Diverse Links submitted the student's sign-in sheet showing that the student received tutoring from December 8, 2012- December 29, 2012. The six (6) sessions were from 10 AM to 2:30 or 2:15 PM, for a total of 21:30 minutes. The sign-in sheet was signed by Jennifer Hatcher (tutor) on December 29, 2012. 6. On February 8, 2013 statement by a student "I signed up and later on I told them I wasn't interested anymore and I did not do any tutorials for them. They did give me a book even after I told them I didn't want to anymore. And I still didn't do any tutorials for them. Diverse Links submitted the sign-in sheet showing that the student received tutoring from December 8, 2012 - December 29, 2012. The six (6) sessions were from 10 AM - 2:15 PM, totaling 21:15 hours. Further the student's signature on the statement did not match the signature on the sign-in sheet. The sign-in sheet was signed by Jennifer Hatcher (tutor) on December 29, 2012.

Texas Education Agency | NCLB / SES Complaint Investigation

TEA Final Resolution Letter Garland Independent School District

Boost Academy | Avenue Academy | Diverse Links

Page 5

The district interviewed and gathered written statement from their students. There is no indication that the agency should question the authenticity or veracity of the students signed statements. Therefore, the agency did not conduct direct interviews with the students.
Conclusion

Based on the students' statements and attendance sign-in sheets, the agency finds that Boost Academy, Avenue Academy, and Diverse Links (dba Diverse Learning) falsified information on the sign-in sheets and submitted the false information to the district for the purposes of invoicing and receiving payment for tutoring services that were not provided to the students. This investigation finds that violation by the three Providers is categorized as systemic in accordance with the agencys standards. The agency found similar violations with respect to all three Providers in the investigation report dated March 25, 2013. The San Antonio Independent School District filed a complaint alleging similar improprieties. In addition, Boost Academy and Avenue Academy were removed from the Texas Stateapproved SES Provider List on March 11, 2013 for falsifying their tax identification number on the state's SES Application. Boost Academy is a sister company to Diverse Links (Diverse Learning). As a result of the agencys March 25, 2013 investigation report, Diverse Links was placed on probationary status. The agency notified Diverse Links that another systemic or serious violation would result in its removal from the Texas state-approved Provider list. This is the second systemic violation for Diverse Links. Therefore, the agency will send a Notice of Removal to Diverse Links dba Diverse Learning. Corrective Actions The district is required to take the following actions: 1. The district must report the agencys investigative findings at the next public meeting of the districts Board of Trustees, as a board agenda item. 2. The district must reassign all students subject to the falsified documents from the Provider, including their "dba", to another provider of the parents choice. The district must contact each of the parents to allow the parents to select the SES provider(s) of their choice. The district is responsible for assisting the parents in making appropriate selections to meet the needs of the student. Applicable Regulations are included as an enclosure/attachment. Please note that invoicing and payment disputes are contractual matters between the district and the Provider. The agency does not have jurisdiction and authority to resolve such disputes. Appeal of TEAs Decision The TEAs decision is final and there is no administrative appeal at TEA. The district or Provider may appeal this decision to the Secretary of Education, U.S. Department of Education. The TEA will consider these findings in the selection of providers for the next SES application year.

Texas Education Agency | NCLB / SES Complaint Investigation

TEA Final Resolution Letter Garland Independent School District

Boost Academy | Avenue Academy | Diverse Links

Page 6

This concludes TEAs state-level investigation and review of the February 15, 2013 complaint filed by Garland Independent School District. Should you have any questions, please contact the TEA or Texas Center for District and School Support (TCDSS). Referral to Other Agencies The TEA referred the Providers subject to this complaint to the U.S. Department of Educations Office of Inspector General (ED/OIG). Therefore, this investigation report will be provided to ED/OIG. Contacts
TEA Investigations TEA SES Program TEA SES Program TCDSS Assistance Emi Johnson Becca Marsh Leticia Govea Brandon Spenrath 512.463.9342 512.936.2256 512.463.1427 512.919.5169 complaintsmanagement@tea.state.tx.us sisdivision@tea.state.tx.us sisdivision@tea.state.tx.us. brandon.spenrath@esc13.txed.net

Respectfully,

Emi Johnson, Director Special Investigations Enclosure(s): Courtesy Copy: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Inspector General, Dallas, TX Chief Deputy and Deputy Commissioners Office, TEA Accreditation Department, TEA School Improvement and Support Division, TEA TCDSS, Region XIII Education Service Center Applicable Requirements

Texas Education Agency | NCLB / SES Complaint Investigation

Enclosure Federal and State SES Requirements

RE: San Antonio Independent School District SES Providers

Applicable requirements for the resolution of the above-referenced complaint are as follows: 1. Title I, Section 1116(e) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). 2. Supplemental Educational Services (SES) Non-Regulatory Guidance, January 14, 2009. 3. SES Assurances and Code of Ethics, TEA SES Application, 2012-2013

Under Item D-3 of the NCLB SES Federal Guidance (2009), the TEA has standards and techniques for withdrawing approval of an SES provider and removing the provider from the State-approved list. The TEA may remove an SES provider from the approved list if the provider fails to provide SES consistent with applicable health, safety, and civil rights requirements, or fails to meet any of the regulatory or statutory requirements, particularly after more than one violation. NOTE: The agency included the Standards and Mechanisms for Removal of SES Providers with its Notice of Complaint Investigation, dated March 1, 2013.

Under Item E-5 of the Federal Guidance, the district may impose conditions so long as they are reasonable, do not subject SES providers to more stringent requirements than apply to other contractors of the district, and do not have the effect of inappropriately limiting education options for parents. The LEA may include administrative provisions to deal with this issue. For example, an LEA may require that all employees of a provider undergo background checks if the LEA requires this for all entities with whom it enters into contracts for direct services to students. Or, an LEA might require that each provider carry a reasonable amount of liability insurance if the LEA requires this of other contractors that serve its students. These types of conditions are allowable, so long as they are reasonable, do not subject SES providers to more stringent requirements than apply to other contractors of the LEA, and do not have the effect of inappropriately limiting educational options for parents. Similarly, an LEA may include in its contracts with providers

Applicable Federal and State SES Requirements

administrative provisions dealing with such issues as the fees charged to providers for the use of school facilities, the frequency of payments to providers, and whether payment Further, LEAs may terminate an agreement if a provider fails to meet additional administrative or operational terms that may be included in the agreement, such as conducting background checks on the providers employees, provided those terms are reasonable, do not subject the provider to more stringent requirements than apply to other contractors of the LEA, and do not have the effect of inappropriately limiting educational options for students and their parents. If an LEA terminates a providers services, the LEA should, if possible, allow the students the provider served to receive SES from another provider. The LEA might accommodate students with their second or third choice of provider if their original provider is no longer able to serve them. Under Item G-9, the parent must enroll their child for services. Under Item G-14, the district is responsible for personalizing the SES process for parents, to help parents complete the enrollment forms, including having a contact person who can assist them with questions or an easy way for the parents to return the enrollment forms to the school. Under H-9, if parents subject to this complaint are not satisfied with the SES provider, the parent may request and receive a new provider any time during the year. It is the districts discretion to allow for such changes. If a number of parents request a change of a particular SES provider, the TEA should be notified so that TEA can monitor the SES provider more carefully. Under H-21, the district may immediately terminate its contract with you under certain circumstances and in accordance with the termination clause in the contract. The district does not need approval from TEA to terminate its contract with you. A termination from a district does not necessarily mean you are removed from the state approved list. However, the district must notify TEA of its action and TEA will consider that action in further determinations. May an LEA (i.e., school district) terminate the services provided to an individual student? Yes. An LEA may terminate a providers provision of SES to an individual student if the provider is unable to meet the students specific achievement goals and the timetable set out in the agreement between the LEA and provider [Section 1116(e) (3) (C); 34 C.F.R. 200.46(b) (2) (ii)]. The agreement between an LEA and a provider must specify the terms and processes for terminating services. An LEAs authority to terminate an agreement is limited to services provided to an individual student (or students) and should not cover all students served by a provider. An LEA may also terminate its agreement with a provider if the provider violates provisions in the agreement, such as provisions regarding student progress reports, invoicing payment for services, protecting student privacy, and complying with applicable health, safety, and civil rights laws. Further, LEAs may terminate an agreement if a provider fails to meet additional administrative or operational terms that may be included in the agreement, such as conducting background checks on the providers employees, provided those terms are reasonable; do not subject the provider to more stringent requirements than apply to Texas Education Agency | NCLB/SES Complaint Investigation Enclosure Page 2

Applicable Federal and State SES Requirements

other contractors of the LEA, and do not have the effect of inappropriately limiting educational options for students and their parents. If an LEA terminates a providers services, the LEA should, if possible, allow the students the provider served to receive SES from another provider. The LEA might accommodate students with their second or third choice of provider if their original provider is no longer able to serve them. However, under no circumstances may an LEA refuse to offer as an option to parents any provider on the State-approved list because of program design concerns. If an LEA has general concerns about the quality of a providers services, the LEA should make its concerns known to the SEA (TEA). Additionally, it is not within an LEAs authority to remove a provider from the Stateapproved provider list or to terminate an agreement with a provider for generally failing to raise student achievement. Only an SEA may withdraw approval of a provider if, for two consecutive years, the provider does not contribute to increasing the academic proficiency of the students it serves [Section 1116(e)(4)(D); 34 C.F.R. 200.47(a)(4)(ii)].

I.1-4 The Role of the Parent in Selecting a Provider. At the local level, parents must be able to choose from among all SES providers approved by the State and available to serve students. If they so choose, parents may obtain assistance from the LEA in selecting a provider [Section 1116(e)(2)(B); 34 C.F.R. 200.46(a)(2)]. Parents should also have an option to change or terminate services, if they are not satisfied with the services they are receiving.

Texas Education Agency | NCLB/SES Complaint Investigation Enclosure

Page 3