Internal control review of education reporting

Special Examination Report No. 14-15

December 2014

Georgia Department of Audits and Accounts
Performance Audit Division
Greg S. Griffin, State Auditor Leslie McGuire, Director

Why we did this review
This special examination was conducted at the request of the Senate Appropriations Committee. The Committee asked us to describe the processes that local school systems and the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) have in place to ensure data accuracy. This includes student count data, as well data related to teacher certification, experience, and health benefit plan participation. The Committee also requested information on how GaDOE ensures the accuracy of other types of data reported by local school systems and other states' methods for ensuring data accuracy.
About Education Reporting
GaDOE manages 11 major data collections serving various purposes. The Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) and Certified/Classified Personnel Information (CPI) data collections generate information about students and local school system personnel that become primary elements in the state's calculation of K-12 education funding. The $9.3 billion in QBE formula earnings in fiscal year 2014 (including $7.8 billion for direct instruction) was driven by FTE and CPI data. Given the significant amount of resources expended for education each year, it is important to ensure the data is accurate.

Internal Control Review of Education
Reporting
Information on Data Accuracy Controls
What we found The Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) has processes in place to validate data reported by local school systems, including edit checks and year-to-year comparisons within school systems. In general, these processes can mitigate errors, duplications, and inconsistencies and identify fluctuations in the data reported by individual school systems. However, GaDOE's existing processes lack a comprehensive assessment of the data, such as across multiple school systems and/or over a period of several years, to identify significant trends or anomalies that could indicate weaknesses in local school systems' data collection and reporting processes, particularly as it relates to the Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) data collection.
As an example of this type of assessment, we reviewed FTE data reported by local school systems for fiscal years 2010-2014. Our analysis identified the following trends that may require additional research:
Significant growth of FTEs in special (higher funded) programs across all systems. The Early Intervention Program (EIP) categorization, which is targeted at elementary school students at risk of failing, experienced exceptional growth within certain school systems. Between fiscal years 2010 and 2014, 55 school systems reported FTE increases of over 200% in one or more EIP categories (Kindergarten, Primary, Upper Elementary).
Disproportionate number of FTEs in special programs among some systems. We also analyzed each school system's proportion of FTEs in special programs and found significant variation. In fiscal

270 Washington Street, SW, Suite 1-156

Atlanta, Georgia 30334

Phone: (404)656-2180

www.audits.ga.gov

year 2014, the percentage of FTEs in special programs ranged from 4% to 43% among school systems, with a statewide average of 23%.1 Six charter schools reported 10% or less of their FTEs in special programs. In addition, two charter schools and five school systems of varying sizes reported 40% or more of their FTEs in special programs.2 We reviewed the data by each program and found that many school systems were reporting a disproportionate number of FTEs in the Remedial Program and the three EIP categories.
We reviewed records for a small, non-representative sample of 184 students reported in the EIP, Remedial, Gifted, and Student with Disabilities categories across seven local school systems. Overall, we found that the school systems had more established placement processes and maintained better documentation for students categorized as Gifted and Students with Disabilities than students in the Remedial and EIP categories, which generally based eligibility decisions on criteria inconsistent with GaDOE guidance and lacked documentation to support placement decisions.
Given their importance in the calculation of funding allotted to local school systems, we conducted a more detailed review of controls related to the FTE and Certified/Classified Personnel Information (CPI) data collections. To ensure the accuracy of the FTE data, we generally found that local systems attempt to reconcile FTE counts produced by their electronic student information systems with the number of students in the classroom.3 Once GaDOE receives the FTE data, its system performs edit checks to identify discrepancies in the data. GaDOE also compares the number of FTEs in each program category within a school system to the prior year's count and requires an explanation for changes over 30%. To ensure the accuracy of the CPI data, we found that local school systems require documentation (e.g., experience verification forms) and verify certification information with the Professional Standards Commission (PSC). Similar to the FTE validation process, GaDOE performs edits checks on the CPI data to identify logical inconsistencies, such as an employee having fewer years of experience than the prior year. The edit checks also compare certification information reported by school systems to data obtained from the PSC.
Our review of control processes around student data reporting in seven other states found that some controls, such as edit checks, are similar to GaDOE's validation methods. However, other states take additional steps to validate the data.
What we recommend This report is intended primarily to provide answers to questions posed by the Senate Appropriations Committee. While existing data validation processes are appropriate, GaDOE may wish to explore additional, more comprehensive methods for validating FTE data reported by local school systems to detect significant trends and anomalies that warrant further investigation. In addition, GaDOE should consider its options to improve monitoring of school systems' implementation of EIP. These additional efforts to improve data accuracy and monitor compliance with program requirements would serve to improve confidence in data used to allocate significant state funding to local school systems.
Agency Response: GaDOE provided technical comments and specified some possible actions to improve EIP if additional resources become available (see p14).
1 One state charter school reported 100% of FTEs as participating in special programs; however, this charter school serves a unique population of students. 2 Includes the charter school noted in the footnote above. 3 An FTE is not the same as a student. One FTE represents six periods, or segments, of state-funded instruction in a typical school day.

Internal Control Review of Education Reporting

i

Table of Contents

Purpose of the Special Examination

1

Background

1

Overview of Data Collection Processes

1

Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Data

2

Certified/Classified Personnel Information (CPI) Data

4

Other Data Collections

4

Requested Information

What processes do local school systems and GaDOE have in place to ensure the

accuracy of Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) data?

6

What processes do local school systems and GaDOE have in place to ensure that

the data used to calculate training and experience and health insurance costs are

accurate and complete?

14

What processes does GaDOE have in place to ensure the accuracy of information

reported for other major data collections?

18

How do other states check the accuracy of reported information?

20

Appendices

Appendix A: Objectives, Scope and Methodology

22

Appendix B: Program Descriptions

24

Appendix C: Number of FTEs by Program and School System

25

Internal Control Review of Education Reporting

1

Purpose of the Special Examination
This examination was conducted at the request of the Senate Appropriations Committee. The Committee asked that we examine processes in place to ensure accuracy of data reported by local school systems to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE). Specifically, our examination set out to address the following questions:
1. What processes do local school systems and GaDOE have in place to ensure the accuracy of Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) data?
2. What processes do local school systems and GaDOE have in place to ensure that the data used to calculate training and experience and health insurance costs are accurate and complete?
3. What processes does GaDOE have in place to ensure the accuracy of information reported for other major data collections?
4. How do other states check the accuracy of reported information?
A description of the objectives, scope, and methodology used in this examination is included in Appendix A. A draft of the report was provided to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) for its review, and pertinent responses were incorporated into the report.
Background
Overview of Data Collection Processes The Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) collects data in compliance with state law, federal law, and rules established by the State Board of Education. GaDOE's Office of Technology Services manages 11 different data collections that serve a variety of purposes including meeting state and federal reporting requirements, tracking student performance, evaluating teachers, and determining public K-12 education funding. For each data collection, GaDOE has established reporting requirements and annually designates the number of reporting cycles with specific start and end dates. Local school systems are required to participate in data collection efforts by compiling and transmitting requested data during the designated reporting period.
To ensure local school systems transmit the required information to GaDOE within established timeframes and in the proper format, GaDOE has developed processes that include written guidance on data reporting and annual training for local school system personnel. As Exhibit 1 shows, local school systems send data to GaDOE by uploading files using a web-based application. Once uploaded, GaDOE's system runs automated validation checks, which generate error reports. Based on these reports, school systems make any necessary corrections and re-upload the data.

Internal Control Review of Education Reporting

2

Exhibit 1 Overview of the Data Reporting Process

Local Data System

Data Extract (text file)

Upload & Validation

Current Data (for this collection)

Make Corrections in
Local Data Systems

State Error Reports

Historical Data (data stored after superintendent sign-off)

Source: Agency documents

The Quality Basic Education (QBE) funding formula is the method by which the state's financial
contribution to public education is calculated.

While all data collection efforts serve important purposes, two of the most significant collections are the Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) and Certified/Classified Personnel Information (CPI) data collections. These collections involve the compilation of numerous data elements for every student and employee of approximately 200 local school systems.4 In addition, CPI and FTE have a minimum reporting period of 21 days. Most importantly, the FTE and CPI data collections generate data for use in the Quality Basic Education (QBE) funding formula. Based on FTE and CPI data, the state calculated $7.8 billion in allotments to local school systems for direct instructional costs in fiscal year 2014.

Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Data
FTE data captures student enrollment and instructional services provided by the local school systems to students in a given year. FTE data is submitted by all local school systems during two reporting periods October and March. For each reporting period, GaDOE designates an official count day on which student attendance and class schedules are recorded. The student must be regularly scheduled for the instructional program on the day of the count. Although the student does not have to be present on the actual count date, the student must have attended the classes within the preceding 10 days in order to earn funding.

One FTE represents six periods, or segments, of state-funded instruction in a typical school day. For each of the six segments, local school systems report a program code that designates the type of instructional program the student is receiving. For regular education services, the program codes reflect the grade level (e.g., primary grades, upper elementary, high school, etc.). There are also codes for special programs or types of courses, such as Gifted, Remedial, or Career, Technical, and Agricultural Education (CTAE). Depending on a student's individual needs and schedule, a student's day might be split among several programs. For example, if a

4 CPI data excludes board members and short-term substitutes.

Internal Control Review of Education Reporting

3

high school student spent four of six segments in regular high school classes and spent the other two segments in Gifted classes, the school system would count that one student as 4/6 of a FTE for high school and 2/6 of a FTE for the Gifted Program.

The program codes reported in the FTE data are used to allocate state funds under the QBE funding formula. Each program code is assigned a funding weight that is applied to the number of FTEs earned. The "base unit cost" represents the funding provided for one FTE in the Grades 9-12 program, which is the least expensive of the 19 QBE-funded programs. Each of the other 18 instructional programs (e.g., Primary Grades, Remedial, Gifted) has a higher funding weight assigned.

Exhibit 2 shows the funding weights for the 19 programs, as well as the number of FTEs in fiscal year 2014. In total, the school systems reported 1.7 million FTEs, which generated $7.8 billion in QBE earnings. Students in general education programs kindergarten, primary grades, upper elementary grades, middle grade/middle school, and high school accounted for 63% of QBE earnings and 77% of the FTEs (1.3 of 1.7 million). Students in the more specialized programs Early Intervention, CTAE, Students with Disabilities, Gifted, Remedial Education, Alternative Education, and ESOL accounted for 37% of earnings and 23% of the FTEs (394,500 of 1.7 million). A description of each program is provided in Appendix B and the number of FTEs by school system is provided in Appendix C.

Exhibit 2

Program Weights and Number of FTEs Reported

Fiscal Year 2014

Program

Program Weight

FTEs

Kindergarten

1.6508 116,510 6.9%

Kindergarten Early Intervention

2.0348 14,658 0.9%

Primary Grades (1-3)

1.2849 329,843 19.4%

Primary Grades Early Intervention (1-3)

1.7931 36,756 2.2%

Upper Elementary (4-5)

1.0355 200,321 11.8%

Upper Elementary Early Intervention (4-5) Middle Grades (6-8)(2)

1.7867 1.0277

19,756 0

1.2% 0.0%

Middle School (6-8)

1.131 319,599 18.8%

High School General Ed (9-12)

1 339,938 20.0%

Career, Technical and Agricultural Education (CTAE)

1.1916 68,624 4.0%

Students with Disabilities - Cat I

2.3798 19,023 1.1%

Students with Disabilities - Cat II

2.7883

9,189 0.5%

Students with Disabilities - Cat III

3.5493 54,014 3.2%

Students with Disabilities - Cat IV

5.7509 10,170 0.6%

Students with Disabilities - Cat V

2.4511 14,158 0.8%

Gifted Students - Cat VI

1.6589 93,295 5.5%

Remedial Education

1.3087 18,925 1.1%

Alternative Education

1.4711 19,202 1.1%

English Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL)

2.5049 16,707 1.0%

Total

1,700,688

QBE Earnings(1) $621,219,124 7.9% $101,513,796 1.3% $1,419,649,014 18.1% $236,203,295 3.0% $658,769,159 8.4% $126,573,325 1.6%
$0 0.0% $1,185,454,040 15.1% $1,065,484,512 13.6%
$261,461,946 3.3% $158,672,607 2.0%
$94,307,457 1.2% $716,750,704 9.1% $226,919,379 2.9% $122,814,778 1.6% $518,440,476 6.6%
$84,651,679 1.1% $87,588,180 1.1% $155,739,051 2.0% $7,842,212,522

(1) QBE earnings is the amount earned for direct instructional costs prior to the five mill share deduction. (2) GaDOE staff indicated that all middle school students are now being reported in the Middle School Program.
Source: GaDOE's FY 2014 Mid-Term QBE State Allotment Sheet

Internal Control Review of Education Reporting

4

Certified/Classified Personnel Information (CPI) Data
CPI data includes information on teacher certifications, years of experience, teaching assignments, salary, and health insurance. School systems transmit CPI data to GaDOE three times a year October, March, and July. CPI data is used for math/science incentive funding, program reviews, state/federal reporting, and for determining teacher shortage areas. The data reported in October is used in the QBE funding formula's Training and Experience (T&E) calculation.
The T&E calculation provides state funding to account for the variation in salaries of teachers and other personnel, such as school administrators. For example, a teacher with a bachelor's degree and 21 years of experience would receive a minimum salary of $50,285 which includes $33,424 in base salary (funded through QBE) and $16,861 (funded through T&E). The state currently funds the base salary for only those employees earned through the QBE funding formula. However, it funds the T&E costs for all certificated employees, including any certificated personnel hired in addition to the number allotted through the QBE formula. In fiscal year 2014, T&E accounted for $2.4 billion.
The CPI data is also used to calculate the state's allotment for health insurance costs. School systems indicate if employees are participating in the State Health Benefit Plan (SHBP) or another plan offered by the system. In fiscal year 2014, the state allocated $11,340 per member for certified employees, as reported in the CPI data.5 In total, the state allotted $1.1 billion in health insurance costs for over 97,000 certified employees.

Other Data Collections
In addition to the FTE and CPI data, GaDOE has nine other data collections, as shown in Exhibit 3. These data collections vary in the type of data (student, teacher, or both), the level of detail and complexity, and the population reported (all students or only certain students). For example, the Student Record data provides a cumulative record of each student's activities and includes over 250 fields showing demographic information, enrollment events, course information, and other student information. In contrast, the Free and Reduced Price Meal data only shows the number of eligible students by school system. (See page 19 for a more detailed description of GaDOE's other data collections.)

5 The calculation of T&E and SHBP costs is based on certified, general-funded (state and local funds) positions.

Internal Control Review of Education Reporting

5

Exhibit 3 GaDOE's Other Data Collections

End of Pathway Assesment
Pre-ID
Free and Reduced Price Meal

FTE Data Survey
GUIDE
Student Record

Student Class
Teacher Class
Private School

Source: Agency documents

The nine data collections are used for a variety of purposes, such as to assess student performance, evaluate teachers, conduct program audits, and meet state and federal reporting requirements. In addition, the data collections create more seamless and efficient processes. For example, the Pre-ID data generates labels for tests and increases the percentage of test records automatically matched to student record data. Although each data collection serves a unique purpose, the data are interconnected and cross-checked against each other. For example, GaDOE's GUIDE database generates student identification numbers and is used to verify identification for all the other data collections that include student-level data.

Internal Control Review of Education Reporting

6

Requested Information

What processes do local school systems and GaDOE have in place to ensure the accuracy of Full Time Equivalent (FTE) data?
Local school systems and GaDOE have developed processes to ensure information reported as part of the FTE data collection effort is accurate. The school systems we reviewed validate the accuracy of FTE data through automated controls within the student information systems, ad hoc reports to identify errors, and data review by school level personnel. GaDOE's primary controls for ensuring accuracy are its edit checks of FTE data and year-to-year comparisons of FTE changes within each program category. After the FTE data is verified, it is used to calculate each school system's QBE allotment. The 1.7 million FTEs reported by local school systems generated $7.8 billion in QBE Earnings in fiscal year 2014.6
Local School System Controls
The audit team interviewed personnel from 15 local school systems to identify controls for generating and verifying FTE data. In general, the process and controls for generating FTE data were similar among all the school systems interviewed (see Exhibit 4). Each school system maintains a district-wide student information system (SIS) that tracks student schedules, grades, standardized test scores, participation in special programs, and other student data. School personnel assess the students' needs and assign students to classes using the statewide course numbering system. The course numbers designate the subject, as well as the type of instruction (Gifted, Remedial, etc.). The students' classes are used to populate the program code fields in the FTE data. If the school utilizes an alternative type of schedule, such as block, the SIS automatically converts the schedule into six segments. The SIS also tracks student attendance, which is entered directly by the teachers. The attendance records automatically populate the field in the FTE data that indicates the student was present at least one of the 10 days prior to the FTE count day (the student must be present during this 10-day period to be funded).
While the process and controls for generating FTE counts were similar among the school systems interviewed, the extensiveness of data verification efforts varied. School systems are not required by GaDOE to follow formal procedures for verifying the accuracy of the FTE data. Some school systems indicated performing basic checks to ensure that students' classifications were consistent with course schedules (e.g., a Gifted student was taking Gifted courses). Other school systems performed more detailed reviews by monitoring changes in student program classifications or by cross-checking placement information with standardized test scores to identify inconsistencies (e.g., a student with high test scores being reported in programs designed for low performing students). Several school systems also utilize software with edit checks in order to identify and correct potential errors prior to submitting the data to GaDOE.
Most of the school systems indicated that principals and/or program directors are required to review the FTE data, but in some cases this is an informal process rather

6 This amount does not include indirect costs or categorical grants and is prior to the five mill deduction, austerity cuts, and other adjustments.

Internal Control Review of Education Reporting

7

than an official sign-off verifying the data. During these reviews, the school systems often utilize standard data reports generated by GaDOE. For example, GaDOE provides a report that compares the preliminary FTE data to counts from prior FTE cycles. When the final FTE data is transmitted to GaDOE, all superintendents are required to officially sign off on the data, attesting to its accuracy.

In addition to varying levels of controls, we also found that the resources allocated to data reporting differed among school systems. The smaller systems interviewed generally have one student record coordinator in the central office who oversees FTE data collection in collaboration with program and curriculum staff. In contrast, one of the larger metro-Atlanta systems has an Executive Data Steering Committee that reviews the data and the processes behind the data. GaDOE indicated that lack of experience, low pay, and high turnover among student record coordinators presents a challenge.

Exhibit 4 Overview of the Local School Systems' FTE Data Collection Process and Examples of Controls

FTE Data Collection Process
School staff determine eligibility for special programs
(Gifted, Remedial, etc.).

Data Accuracy Controls

Specific

General and/or Ongoing

QBE funding is calculated based on the number of FTEs within each program category

School staff enter student schedules into SIS. If the student is being served through
a special program, the schedule should reflect this.

Districts use the statewide course numbering system, which reflects
the types of courses.

District and/or school staff attends GaDOE's data collection
conference. District staff provides training on data collections to school staff.

The student's class schedule is used to populate program
codes for the six segments in the FTE data.

Students must be in attendance at least one day during 10 day count period to be funded

Teachers enter student attendance directly into the
SIS.

The SIS has a master course schedule that is aligned with the
program funding categories. School personnel and/or
district staff compare FTE data to program rosters.
The 10 day present field in the FTE data is automatically
populated based on attendance records in the SIS.

The district's SIS runs automated edit checks to identify data errors.
District staff run ad hoc reports to identify potential errors (e.g., student previously reported as gifted being
reported as general ed).
District staff and school staff review FTE reports generated by GaDOE.

Source: Interviews with school system personnel
GaDOE Controls
Once GaDOE receives the FTE data, the two primary controls for ensuring accuracy are edit checks and year-to-year comparisons. The edit checks serve as a preventative control by rejecting incomplete or missing data and as a detective control by identifying potential data abnormalities for review and resubmission by the school systems. The year-to-year comparisons also serve as a detective control by generating warning messages when there is a significant change in the number of FTEs within a program in a school system. However, GaDOE cautions that even when the data is error-free or warning-free, it is not necessarily accurate.

Internal Control Review of Education Reporting

8

Edit checks GaDOE has over 220 edit checks that identify missing data, invalid codes, and logical inconsistencies in the FTE data. Many of the edit checks involve the program code field, which designates the funding weight. These checks identify discrepancies between the program code and grade level (e.g., the kindergarten program is reported for a ninth grader) and between the program code and other program-related fields (e.g., a Gifted delivery model is not reported for a student with Gifted Program segments). Edit checks may result in an error, in which the record is rejected, or in a warning, in which the record is accepted but a warning message is generated. Because each student is assigned a unique Georgia Testing Identifier (GTID), the system can also determine if multiple school systems are claiming the same student.
Year-to-Year Comparisons GaDOE reviews enrollment fluctuations relative to established year-over-year change thresholds. If an instructional program's FTE count (within a school system) changes by 10 or more and the percentage change is 15% or more, then a warning message is generated. If the percentage change is between 15% and 30%, the school system can approve the warning message, indicating that the counts are correct. When the percentage is greater than 30%, the school system must enter a comment explaining the difference, and GaDOE will review the comments and either approve or reject the explanation. However, GaDOE does not maintain any documentation of the review and does not store rejected comments that necessitated a change in the data. Prior to fiscal year 2014, the threshold for a warning message was 25%, and the threshold for requiring a comment was 50%.
Exhibit 5 shows the results of the year-to-year comparisons for all school systems in fiscal year 2013 and 2014. In fiscal year 2014, 811 records triggered a warning message because they reflected a percentage change of 15% or more in one of the 19 QBE program categories.7 About half of these records reflected a percentage change of over 30% and required an explanation. Many of the comments noted that the system had experienced growth without providing additional information. Other explanations included a change in program structure or delivery model, staffing issues, and test score trends.

7 In addition to the 19 QBE programs, GaDOE tracks other year-to-year changes, such as the number of drop-outs and the number of withdrawals reported.

Internal Control Review of Education Reporting

9

Exhibit 5
Many Programs Show Significant FTE Changes that Require Explanations (1)

Fiscal Year 2013

Number of

Threshold

Instances

Fiscal Year 2014

Number of

Threshold

Instances

No Warning Message

0% - 25%

3,070

0% -14%

2,905

Warning Message(2) -

26% - 50%

323

15%-30%

393

No Explanation Required

Warning Message(2) -

Over 50%

281

Over 30%

418

Explanation Required

(1) GaDOE creates a record that compares the number of FTEs for each program or category of students w ithin a school system to the prior year. The numbers show n include records for the 19 QBE programs. GaDOE also compares the number of dropouts, w ithdraw als, etc. (2) The number change in FTEs must also be greater than 10 f or the percentage thresholds to apply. Source: GaDOE data

Special Programs include Gifted, Early Intervention, Students
with Disabilities, Remedial, Alternative,
ESOL, and CTAE
General Education Programs include Kindergarten, Primary
Grades, Upper Elementary, Middle School/Grades, and High
School
See Appendix B for full descriptions.

Other Considerations Related to FTEs
While GaDOE has edit checks and flags significant year-to-year changes in program categorizations, GaDOE does not perform other types of reviews that could indicate potential issues with program categorizations. For example, GaDOE does not analyze the data to identify trends or anomalies such as school systems with a disproportionate number of FTEs in programs with the highest funding weight, particularly special programs. In addition, GaDOE's FTE validation process does not ensure that school systems are meeting program requirements such as teacher certifications/training, differentiated instruction, and eligibility assessment. According to GaDOE's guidelines, these requirements must be met in order for students to earn FTE funding.
Analysis of FTE Data
The audit team analyzed fiscal year 2010-2014 FTE data to identify trends and anomalies that could potentially indicate control weaknesses.8 We found that the number of FTEs in special programs with higher funding weights grew more rapidly compared to general education programs. In addition, we found significant variation among school systems in the proportion of FTEs reported in special programs.
FTE Increases in Special Programs
Between fiscal years 2010 and 2014, the number of FTEs in special programs increased 15.5% (341,529 to 394,477), while the number of FTEs in general education programs increased 0.5% (1.30 million to 1.31 million). As shown in Exhibit 6, the fastest growing program statewide was Gifted, in which the number of FTEs increased 41% (66,172 to 93,295). The Early Intervention Program (EIP), which is targeted at elementary school students at risk of failing, also experienced exceptional growth within certain school systems. Between fiscal years 2010 and 2014, 55 school

8 The audit team used the QBE allotment sheets to analyze overall FTE trends and the actual FTE data reported during the October cycles to analyze trends at the school-level and by unique students.

Internal Control Review of Education Reporting

10

systems reported FTE increases of over 200% in one or more of the three EIP categories (Kindergarten, Primary, and Upper Elementary).9 As discussed below, some of this growth may be attributed to changes in service delivery models. Even with this significant growth, Gifted accounted for only 5.5% of FTEs, and the three EIP categories accounted for 4.2% of FTEs in fiscal year 2014.
Exhibit 6 FTE Growth Varies Among Special Programs, Fiscal Years 2010-2014
120,000

Number of FTEs

100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000

Students with Disabilities (Cat 1-V)
CTAE (9-12)
Gifted Students
Early Intervention (Kindergarten, Primary, Upper) Alternative Education
Remedial Education
ESOL

0 2010

2011

2012

Source: QBE Mid-Term Allotment Sheets

2013

2014

While the number of FTEs in some special programs has increased significantly, the number of unique students in these programs has not grown as rapidly. For example, between fiscal years 2010 and 2014, the number of Gifted FTEs increased 41% while the number of Gifted students increased 25%. This indicates that school systems are not just identifying more eligible students; they are also increasing the number of segments that students are being served through special programs. This may be partly attributed to the utilization of different service delivery models. For example, an EIP student served through the pull-out model is removed from the classroom for up to two segments a day to receive instruction from an additional teacher. If the school switched to a reduced-class size model, then the student would remain in the traditional classroom all day and would be funded at the EIP weight for six segments rather than one or two segments.
Proportion of FTEs in Special Programs
In addition to reviewing program growth, we also analyzed the proportion of FTEs in special programs by school system. In fiscal year 2014, the percentage of FTEs in special programs among school systems ranged from 4% to 43%, with a statewide average of 23%.10 Six charter schools reported 10% or less of their FTEs in special programs. Two charter schools and five school systems of varying sizes reported
9 Among the 55 school systems, the increase in the number of FTEs ranged from 4 to over 780. 10 One state charter school reported 100% of FTEs as participating in special programs; however, this charter school serves a unique population of students.

Internal Control Review of Education Reporting

11

40% or more of their FTEs in special programs.11 We reviewed the data by each program and found that many school systems were reporting a disproportionate number of FTEs in the Remedial Program and the three EIP categories. As shown in Exhibit 7, 1.1% of FTEs statewide were reported in the Remedial Program; however, 29 school systems reported more than 3.3% of FTEs (three times the average) in the Remedial Program.
The variation is greater when reviewing the data by unique students (rather than FTEs) at the school level. Statewide, 9.7% of students in grades 6-12 were reported in the Remedial Program for at least one segment in fiscal year 2014. However, over 50% of students were reported in the Remedial Program at 12 schools, one of which reported 98% of students in Remedial. Although some variation in program categorizations is to be expected given a diverse student population, these differences are considerable and could indicate potential issues in how students are being served and/or reported in the FTE data.

Exhibit 7 School Systems Reported a Disproportionate Number of FTEs in the Remedial and Early Intervention Programs in Fiscal Year 2014

Number of School

Program

Program Weight

Average FTEs (% of Total FTEs)

Systems with FTEs More Than Three Times the Average

Remedial Education

1.3087

1.11%

29

Kindergarten Early Intervention

2.0348

0.86%

24

Upper Elem entary Early Intervention (4-5)

1.7867

1.16%

18

Prim ary Grades Early Intervention (1-3)

1.7931

2.16%

17

Students with Disabilities - Cat V

2.4511

0.83%

16

Students with Disabilities - Cat II

2.7883

0.54%

12

Students with Disabilities - Cat IV

5.7509

0.60%

4

Students with Disabilities - Cat I

2.3798

1.12%

4

English Speakers of Other Lang (ESOL)

2.5049

0.98%

2

Gifted Students - Cat VI

1.6589

5.49%

1

Alternative Education

1.4711

1.13%

1

Students with Disabilities - Cat III

3.5493

3.18%

0

CTAE (9-12)

1.1916

4.04%

0

Source: GaDOE Data

Review of Student Records
Based on the results of the data analysis, the audit team reviewed a small, nonrepresentative sample of 184 student records at seven school systems to determine if placement in special programs is supported by documentation. The records sampled mostly concentrated on students in the EIP and Gifted programs due to their high growth, but also included student records for the Remedial and Special Education programs.

In general, we found that the level of documentation varied among the programs. Both the site visits and data analysis indicated issues in EIP related to eligibility, service delivery, and reporting. These issues are discussed in more detail on the next page.

11 Includes the charter school with 100% of FTEs in special programs.

Internal Control Review of Education Reporting

12

EIP EIP is intended to help students perform at expectations and exit the program in the shortest time possible. GaDOE's guidelines grant the school systems some flexibility in identifying eligible students, but two primary determinants are the EIP rubric for kindergarten through third grade and the Criterion-Referenced Competency Test (CRCT) for 4th and 5th graders. We reviewed 97 student files at seven school systems and identified various control issues, including eligibility criteria that were poorly defined or inconsistent with GaDOE's guidelines for utilizing the EIP rubric and CRCT scores. Furthermore, there was not always documentation in the student files that supported placement decisions or showed the students' progress. In addition to the eligibility and documentation problems, we also identified potential issues in service delivery and reporting. These issues are discussed in more detail in the text box on page 13.
Remedial The Remedial Program serves students in grades 6-12 who have identified deficiencies in reading, writing, or math. GaDOE's eligibility criteria include teacher recommendations, previously failed courses, and standardized test scores. We reviewed 24 student records at two school systems and found that, in general, the documentation did not clearly indicate the reason for the student's placement. Staff at the local school system indicated that the process for identifying and placing students is informal and fluid. For example, one school system indicated that high school students may be placed in Remedial based on discussions between the student and counselor at the time of course scheduling.
Gifted The Gifted Program serves kindergarten through 12th grade students of high intellectual ability through a variety of models, including advanced content, resource, and collaborative. The state's eligibility criteria for Gifted include four components mental abilities, achievement, creativity, and motivation. Students can qualify based on mental abilities and achievement test scores or by meeting criteria in three of the four components. We reviewed 37 Gifted student files at four school systems. All of the files included documentation that indicated how the student qualified for the program. Compared to the EIP and Remedial programs, the school systems also had a more established process for identifying students, administering evaluations, and making placement decisions.
Special Education GaDOE's five funding categories for Students with Disabilities take into account the type of disability (e.g., developmental delays, speech language impairments, orthopedic impairments, etc.). We reviewed 26 files at four school systems for students with specific learning disabilities, which include conditions such as perceptual disabilities and minimal brain dysfunction. In general, the systems maintain more extensive documentation for special education students compared to the other programs. The files included the students' Individualized Education Plans (IEP), as well as other records such as eligibility reports, evaluations, testing data, documentation of IEP meetings, and re-evaluation/re-determination forms.

Internal Control Review of Education Reporting

13

Issues Identified in the Early Intervention Program (EIP)
In our review of student data reporting, we identified a number of potential issues with EIP that are outlined in more detail below. In general, we found that GaDOE provides less guidance and monitoring of EIP compared to other programs, such as Gifted and Students with Disabilities. As a result, there are inconsistencies among school systems regarding eligibility criteria, exit processes, service delivery, and reporting.
Eligibility Criteria. The primary eligibility determinant for students in fourth and fifth grades is a CRCT score below 800 (does not meet expectations). Students with higher scores may be eligible, but only with documented evidence of poor performance. Students who meet CRCT standards but still qualify for EIP cannot exceed 3% of the population, according to GaDOE's guidelines. We reviewed CRCT data and found that 40% of school systems exceeded the 3% cap in fiscal year 2014. We also found that EIP students in 33% of systems had an average math CRCT score of 800 or higher. In one system we visited, more than 90% of fourth and fifth grade EIP students met expectations on the CRCT. The average score for these EIP students was 829 in math and 843 in reading. Another system we visited told us that all students scoring below 825 qualify for EIP. This appears to be inconsistent with GaDOE's guidance.
Exit Process. While GaDOE requires continual assessment of EIP students' progress, the school systems
differed in their process for exiting students from the program. The statutory intent of EIP is to help students perform at expectations and exit the program in the shortest time possible. Several of the systems we visited lacked a formal assessment process and did not maintain documentation of continual
progress in the students' files.
Service Delivery. We found four systems that did not offer EIP to qualified students in fiscal year 2014, even though state law makes the program mandatory for these systems. We spoke with the four systems and confirmed that students who scored less than 800 on the CRCT were not being provided EIP services. For systems that did offer EIP, we noted cases in which school systems exceeded class size requirements and student-teacher ratios, but found that GaDOE's guidance was inadequate. Although GaDOE has established maximum class sizes for certain EIP delivery models, class size waivers have lessened these restrictions. GaDOE provides limited guidance on the impact of these waivers. While GaDOE staff indicated that the number of EIP students should not exceed the number of non-EIP students, this requirement is not included in written guidelines. One of the school systems we visited had a reduced class model with 14 EIP and 8 non-EIP students, which appears to be inconsistent with GaDOE's guidance.
Reporting. We also identified issues in how EIP services are reported in the FTE data collection. According to GaDOE's guidelines, students served through certain delivery models cannot be counted as EIP for more than two segments. However, GaDOE cannot use the FTE data to monitor segment restrictions because the delivery model is not reported in the data collection. We compared the Student Class and FTE data collections and identified 52 school systems which reported more EIP segments than allowed by GaDOE. Because our review was limited in scope, we were unable to determine for all 52 systems if the system had improperly claimed segments or improperly reported the EIP service model, instead. However, during one site visit we confirmed that the school system had improperly claimed excess EIP segments. By our calculation, the system reported 84 erroneous segments.
We recommend that GaDOE implement monitoring to verify that school systems are following EIP requirements and, if class size waivers are available in the future, publish guidance on the effect of these waivers on class size restrictions.

Internal Control Review of Education Reporting

14

Agency Response: GaDOE indicated that it does not have the staff to implement monitoring of the Early Intervention Program (EIP). GaDOE used to have staff responsible for auditing and evaluating such data, but the funding for these positions was removed in the mid-to-late 90s and has not been replaced since. GaDOE indicated that with additional state funding, it could improve the EIP by:

Providing a series of webinars and face-to-face presentations from February 2015 to June 2015 to cover the administration of the program and the use of EIP instructional models.
Collecting exemplary EIP administration and instructional practice models to share with school districts for the 2015-2016 school year.
Partnering with school districts to present exemplary EIP models at the next curriculum leader and elementary principal conferences scheduled for May, June, and September of 2015.
Partnering with the Regional Educational Service Agencies (RESAs) to provide training to school district EIP staff and administrators for the 2015-2016 school year.
Revising the EIP rule and guidance. This review will need to be done jointly with the Governor's Office of Student Achievement (GOSA) since the EIP rule makes GOSA responsible for developing the exit criteria for the EIP. GaDOE does not think that it can make these changes and adequately communicate them to the school districts until the 20162017 school year.

What processes do local school systems and GaDOE have in place to ensure that the data used to calculate training and experience and health insurance costs are accurate and complete?

The Training & Experience (T&E) calculation is used to provide adjustments to the salaries of teachers and other school system
personnel.

Local school systems and GaDOE have developed processes to ensure the accuracy and completeness of information used to determine systems' T&E and health insurance funding. Local school systems have various processes in place, including obtaining certification information from the Professional Standards Commission (PSC) and requiring experience verification forms. GaDOE's primary data validation control is the edit checks that identify errors and inconsistencies. In addition to controls implemented by the local school systems and GaDOE, the PSC and the Georgia Department of Audits and Accounts also have processes in place to ensure the CPI data is accurate and complete. The accuracy and completeness of the CPI data is critical because it is used to calculate funding for Training and Experience (T&E) and health insurance costs. In fiscal year 2014, the state allotted $2.4 billion in T&E costs to the local school systems and $1.1 billion to cover health insurance costs.
Local School System Controls
The audit team interviewed personnel from eight school systems to identify the processes in place to collect and verify CPI data at the system level. We found that the general processes for collecting and verifying certification, experience, and health insurance information are similar among the eight school systems interviewed but there is some variation in the strength of the controls, as shown in Exhibit 8.
Experience When a new teacher is hired, the local school system obtains experience verification forms that are signed by the previous employers. Some systems allow the teacher to provide the previous employers with the forms, while other systems send the forms themselves. After the school

Internal Control Review of Education Reporting

15

system receives the completed forms, a determination is made as to the number of years of experience to credit the teacher. This determination may take into account a number of factors including if the school was accredited, if the employee worked a full-time year,12 if the employee was under contract, and if the employee received an unsatisfactory performance evaluation (in which case the year of experience should not be credited). Some school systems require this decision to be reviewed by supervisors or other personnel employed by the hiring school system.
After a determination is made, the years of experience is entered into the new school system's payroll system. Each year, school systems perform a roll-over, in which a year of experience is automatically added. However, there are some situations in which school system personnel have to make a manual change or freeze an employee to prevent the system from adding a year (e.g., if a teacher received an unsatisfactory performance evaluation). When school systems report the CPI data, the years of experience is imported directly from the payroll system.
Certification School systems also verify certifications for new hires. The school systems obtain certification information from the Professional Standards Commission (PSC), the agency responsible for issuing teaching certificates and maintaining information on all certified teachers in the state. Any changes in certification (e.g., new endorsements) among current personnel are also verified through PSC, but the specific procedures vary by school systems. Some systems reported receiving regular downloads of certification information from PSC to ensure that certification information is current. Other systems indicated that the teachers notify the central office of certification changes, and then staff log into PSC's website to verify changes. The certification information is maintained in the payroll system and then imported into CPI.
Health Insurance Employees make health benefit selections and this information is maintained in the payroll system. Data from the payroll system is pulled into CPI to indicate whether or not each employee is a State Health Benefit Plan participant. Based on the CPI data, school systems receive an annual funding amount of $11,340 per member. To check the accuracy of the CPI data, some school systems compare the CPI data to actual health insurance bills or payments to ensure the number of participants match.

In addition to the procedures discussed above, all of the school systems indicated performing additional steps to verify the accuracy and completeness of the CPI data. For example, most school systems indicated that CPI data is reviewed by the principals before submitting it to GaDOE. The principals verify that all the teachers in the CPI data match their personnel rosters. Several systems noted that the most common issue identified is a teacher being reported with the wrong grade level or subject assignment.

12 GaDOE regulations define a "full-time year" in a local education agency as a minimum of 63% of the defined school year for certified personnel.

Internal Control Review of Education Reporting

16

Exhibit 8 Teacher Data Collection and Verification Steps for Eight School Systems

System 1 System 2 System 3 System 4 System 5 System 6 System 7 System 8

Teacher Experience

Teacher Certification

Experience verification forms signed by previous employers school system sends form directly to previous employer





Experience verification forms signed by previous employers teacher sends form to previous employer









School systems spot check experience verification forms by calling previous employers



Information on unsatisfactory performance is requested on verification form



Supervisors/other personnel routinely review years of experience determinations





Years of experience is automatically updated during roll-over each year

Certification information is verified with PSC at time of hire

Certification changes are reported by teachers/verified by logging into PSC website





Certification changes are verified through regular downloads from PSC







Health insurance enrollment is pulled from payroll system personnel manually enter information into payroll





Health insurance enrollment is pulled from payroll system information is automatically imported from online benefit selection





Health insurance in CPI/payroll data is compared to DCH transactions



Health insurance information is spot checked for a sample of employees





CPI reports generated by GaDOE are reviewed

CPI data is reviewed by principals to ensure teachers and assignments are correct

CPI data is compared to employee verification forms completed by each school





Health Insurance

General Checks

Source: Interviews with school system personnel

GaDOE Controls
Once GaDOE receives the data from the local school systems, its application runs approximately 175 edit checks to identify invalid or missing data and inconsistencies. As part of these edit checks, CPI data is compared to PSC data. Some of the edit checks result in errors that require correction, while other edit checks only generate a warning message. Exhibit 9 shows examples of the edit checks.
In addition to the edit checks, GaDOE conducts further review of the health insurance field. In fiscal year 2014, this review focused on charter schools because charter schools have the option of offering plans other than the State Health Benefit Plan. Based on this review and other communication with the school systems, GaDOE identified systems that were over-reporting participation and school systems that were under-reporting participation. According to GaDOE, some systems incorrectly reported two spouses as participating in the plan when only the spouse paying for the plan should have been reported. In fiscal year 2015, GaDOE plans to conduct a more comprehensive review by obtaining data from the Department of Community Health (DCH) and verifying health insurance participation for all school systems.

Internal Control Review of Education Reporting

17

Exhibit 9 Examples of GaDOE Edit Checks

Missing or invalid certificate level

Certificate level does not match PSC data Certification Certificate field expiration date in PSC data has passed

Invalid assignment certificate type

Leadership certificate inconsistent with job code

Employee has fewer than 3 years of experience

Employee has more than 40 years of experience

Employee has fewer years of experience than prior year Experience
Employee's years of experience has increased by more than one from the prior year

Employee's years of experience is different from what was reported in another cycle in the same year

Years of experience inconsistent with state pay step

Health Insurance

Invalid Code No employees reported as participating in the State Health Benefit Plan or another district plan Inconsistency with empoyee type (e.g., long term sub is reported as participating)

Other data that may impact funding

Termination code was reported for an employee with an active assignment Employee is currently employed in another Georgia school system Fund code is inconsistent with job code

Source: GaDOE documents

External Controls
The Department of Audits and Account's Education Audits Division (EAD) and PSC provide additional controls over personnel data. EAD performs testing as part of its standard financial audit work to ensure that teachers have been paid according to the information in GaDOE's CPI data. For example, EAD auditors ensure that teacher salaries are consistent with certification and experience levels. They also conduct a walkthrough of the accounting system and related procedures with the school system staff to determine their processes for adding new employees to the payroll system and to ascertain an overall indication of the school system's control environment. In addition, EAD reviews a sample of teacher files to verify years of experience and certification.
Since local school systems and GaDOE rely on PSC data, its validity is critical to ensuring that certification information is accurate and that teachers are being paid appropriately. According to PSC, it only accepts official transcripts from a college or a school system applying on behalf of a prospective teacher. Once an application for certification is received by PSC, it is checked for completeness and is then passed on to an evaluator who reviews the application based on PSC's criteria. Supervisors perform spot checks of the evaluators' review of certification applications and the actual certificates. In addition, PSC officials indicated that its data system contains checks that prevent the entry of inconsistent data.

Internal Control Review of Education Reporting

18

What processes does GaDOE have in place to ensure the accuracy of information reported for other major data collections?
In addition to FTE and CPI data, GaDOE manages nine additional data collections that must be validated to ensure the reported data are accurate. These data collections have less impact on state funding but serve a variety of other purposes related to student performance, teacher evaluations, and state and federal reporting requirements. Although our review focused more on FTE and CPI data because of their financial impact, we identified GaDOE's general process for validating the other data collections. We found that the primary controls for ensuring accuracy include published guidance on data reporting and edit checks.
The type of data collected and purpose of these data sets are shown in Exhibit 10. Six of the data sets include student-level and/or teacher-level information Student Record, Student Class, Teacher Class, Pre-ID, GUIDE, and End of Pathway Assessment (EOPA). The other three data sets - Free and Reduced Price Meal, Private School, and the FTE Date Survey provide more general summary information.
For the larger, more comprehensive data collections (e.g., Student Record, Student Class), GaDOE's process and controls are similar to the FTE and CPI data collections. GaDOE provides file layout instructions to the school systems. When the local school systems upload the data, GaDOE's system generates reports for the school systems to review. GaDOE's application also runs edit checks to identify errors or missing values. The majority of the edit checks are general input controls to ensure proper entering of alpha or numeric characters and valid codes for schools, systems, teachers, students, and courses. School system superintendents must sign off on the data, attesting to the completeness and accuracy. For the smaller data collections, the data entry process is more simplified, and therefore the edit checks and reports are more basic.
In addition to the edit checks, GaDOE also cross-checks the Student Records data with the CPI and FTE data. These cross-checks identify discrepancies between the data sets that could indicate an error. For example, an error message is generated if a teacher in the Student Record data was not included in the CPI data. Error messages are also generated if student information in the Student Record data is inconsistent with how the student is reported in FTE (e.g., a Gifted student in the FTE data is not reported as Gifted in the Student Record data). However, because the Student Record data is collected after the FTE count, any errors identified in the FTE data cannot be resolved.

Internal Control Review of Education Reporting

19

Exhibit 10 Summary of Other GaDOE Data Collections

Data Set Student Record
Student Class

Collection Number of

Dates

Fields

Type of Data

February June

School systems provide system level, school

level, and student level data. The information

264

includes demographic data, student addresses, participation in special programs

such as Gifted, course information, student

safety events, and enrollment events.

October, March, & June

School systems provide student ID

31

information, course information (including any

special programs), and teacher ID

information.

Purpose/Use
Used for many purposes including: the statewide longitudinal data system, the college and career ready performance index, the state report card, federal reporting, program audits and monitoring, and data requests.
Used to report data for the student course profile, class rosters, and the class size data collections. The application provides one process for uploading class data to meet multiple reporting requirements.

Teacher Class

April

School systems provide teacher IDs, course Used for the teacher evaluation system to

17 numbers, the start and end date of classes, determine if the teacher is providing direct

and the school.

instruction to a student for 65% of a course.

Student and/or Teacher Level Data

Pre-ID GUIDE

August & January

32

School systems provide student identification, demographic data, course information,

Used to generate labels for tests. Pre-ID helps to reduce demographic errors from bubble sheets

teacher names, and test IDs.

and to increase the percentage of test records automatically matched to student record data.

School systems provide student names and

Year Round

21

demographic data for students who do not

have a Georgia Testing Identifier (GTID) or

Used to create and verify unique student identification numbers.

who have changed schools.

End of Pathway Assessment (EOPA)

June

School systems designate if students in the Used to determine pathway completers that took

EOPA application took the EOPA and passed one or more assessments and to indicate if the

9

the EOPA. The EOPA assesses the

assessment was passed. Students can earn

technical skills of students completing a three industry credentials by demonstrating proficiency

or four course path under Federal Perkins IV. on an EOPA.

Free & ReducedPrice Meal

November

Used to determine eligibility for teacher loan

School systems report the number of

forgiveness and for the E-Rate program, which

2

students eligible for free and reduced-price

provides discounts to schools for

meals at each school.

telecommunications and internet access. It also

serves as a general proxy measure for poverty.

Summary Data

Private School November

Used to comply with the Individuals with

School systems provide the number of

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) by calculating

14 students enrolled in each grade level for each the proportionate share of funding local systems

private school.

must make available for students with disabilities

enrolled in private schools.

FTE Data Survey (not the actual FTE data)

September

School systems submit general information

56

relevant to the FTE data, including school year beginning and end dates, SIS vendors,

and contact information for data coordinators.

Source: Agency documents and interviews with agency staff

Used to support other data collections.

Internal Control Review of Education Reporting

20

How do other states check the accuracy of reported information?
We identified seven states with relatively extensive data controls over student count data. We focused our review on student count data because all seven states reviewed collect this information and, like Georgia, use it for funding purposes.13 Based on our review, we determined that there are three levels of controls over student data collection generation, validation, and confirmation.14 The first level, generation, is comprised of requirements set by the state and imposed on the local school systems. The second level, validation, involves edit checks and data analysis by the state education agency. The third level is confirmation, in which the data is verified through an audit. While Georgia has implemented some level one and level two controls, no audits are being conducted to verify FTE data reported by local school systems.
The three levels of controls and their implementation by the seven states reviewed (Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, and Texas), are discussed in more detail below and shown in Exhibit 11.
Generation These safeguards are intended to ensure that systems are informed of reporting requirements and have sufficient information systems and data collection controls in place. For example, Colorado publishes a resource guide that outlines documentation that must be maintained to support student classifications and checks that should be performed to ensure data accuracy. Minnesota certifies student information system vendors to ensure compatibility with the state's system. Kentucky has a statewide information system that serves as a comprehensive source of student data (attendance, class rosters, grades, etc.) and allows for a seamless data collection. To ensure that data collection controls are sufficient, Michigan includes an evaluation of controls during the school system's annual financial audit.
Validation All seven states have validation checks to identify errors in student count data. These checks are usually automated and look for logical inconsistencies in the data. For example, Colorado runs checks to ensure that a student is not being counted in multiple districts. In addition to utilizing automated checks, North Carolina staff also reviews five-year trends and analyzes the data to identify potential issues. For example, staff may identify districts with large gains in students at the beginning of the year, followed by slow withdrawals.
Confirmation All seven states conduct audits of student count data that generally involve site visits. Some states conduct audits on a cyclical basis, while other states audit school systems based on risk factors, such as errors identified through validation checks. For example, North Carolina's Department of Public Instruction conducts an actual head count of students if an initial analysis revealed a potential issue at a particular school. In Florida, districts are periodically audited to identify errors in reported FTEs

13 Not all other states we contacted used school system personnel information (e.g., CPI data) in a manner similar to Georgia (e.g., T&E calculations).
14 Generation, validation, and confirmation are categorizations developed by the audit team.

Internal Control Review of Education Reporting

21

by program category and improper classification or placement of students assigned to educational alternative or exceptional student programs. Identified errors can result in the district's allocation of state funds being adjusted.
Exhibit 11 Three levels of internal controls over student enrollment data collection

A. Colorado's manual includes specific steps
for checking data accuracy.
D & E. North Carolina performs 27 automated checks and a manual 5-year trend
analysis.
F. Minnesota crosschecks data files to identify inconsistencies.

1. Generation
A. Prescriptive procedures B. Data system requirements C. District-level financial audits
2. Validation
D. Logic-based edit checks E. Trend analysis F. Data system cross-checks
3. Confirmation
G. Audits by the state

B. Minnesota DOE certifies information
system vendors.
C. Michigan districts conduct financial audits that include assessments of the
student count process.
G. Florida periodically audits districts to
identify errors in FTE reporting.

Source: Interviews, state laws, and agency documents

Internal Control Review of Education Reporting

22

Appendix A: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Objectives This report examines data collections by the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) and local school systems. Specifically, our examination set out to determine the following:
1. What processes do local school systems and GaDOE have in place to ensure the accuracy of Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) data?
2. What processes do local school systems and GaDOE have in place to ensure that the data used to calculate training and experience and health insurance costs are accurate and complete?
3. What processes does GaDOE have in place to ensure the accuracy of information reported for other major data collections?
4. How do other states check the accuracy of reported information?
Scope This examination covered activity related to internal controls over data collections. We focused on the FTE and the Certified/Classified Personnel Information (CPI) data because these are the most significant datasets for funding purposes. Although we focused on current processes and controls, we reviewed data from fiscal years 2010 to 2014 to identify trends and anomalies. Information used in this report was obtained by analyzing GaDOE data, interviewing staff from GaDOE and local school systems, reviewing a sample of student records, and reviewing state law and relevant publications. The data were assessed for issues with reliability, and were found to be generally reliable for the purposes of this exam.
Methodology
To determine the processes that local school systems and GaDOE have in place to ensure the accuracy of FTE data, we analyzed reported FTE counts from fiscal years 2010 through 2014, as well as 2014 student test scores and class schedules. While we concluded that the information was sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our review, we only independently verified the data in limited cases.
We also interviewed staff from GaDOE and 15 school systems regarding data controls. Seven of the 15 school systems participated in a focus group interview. The other eight school systems were interviewed as part of site visits conducted by the audit team. Seven of the eight site visits also entailed a review of student records; however, the sample of records was small and non-representative. The 15 school systems included systems that were randomly selected and systems that were specifically chosen because of high growth in particular programs.
To determine the processes GaDOE and local systems have in place to ensure that the data used to calculate training and experience and health insurance costs are accurate and complete, we reviewed Certified Personnel Information (CPI) data reported for fiscal years 2010 through 2014. While we concluded that the information was sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our review, we only independently verified the data in limited cases.

Internal Control Review of Education Reporting

23

We also interviewed staff from GaDOE and from eight local school systems to document controls over CPI data collection. Our sample included a large metroAtlanta system, as well as smaller systems from other urban and rural areas of the state.
To determine the processes that GaDOE has in place to ensure the accuracy of information reported for other major data collections, we reviewed GaDOE publications describing the different data collections, attended GaDOE's data collection training, and interviewed GaDOE staff. Due to the limited time frame, the audit team did not conduct any testing on these data collections.
To obtain information on how other states check the accuracy of reported information, we interviewed personnel from seven other states and reviewed relevant documents including state law, agency guidelines, and audit reports. Because all seven states collect student count data and use it for funding purposes, the review focused on this type of data rather than other types of reported information.
This special examination was not conducted in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards (GAGAS) given the timeframe in which the report was needed. However, it was conducted in accordance with Performance Audit Division policies and procedures for non-GAGAS engagements. These policies and procedures require that we plan and perform the engagement to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for the information reported and that data limitations be identified for the reader.

Internal Control Review of Education Reporting

24

Appendix B: Program Descriptions

Program
Kindergarten Early Intervention

Description Special Programs
Serves students in kindergarten at risk of not reaching or maintaining the academic grade level to obtain the necessary academic skills to reach grade-level performance in the shortest possible time.

Primary Grades Early Intervention (1-3)

Serves students in grades 1-3 at risk of not reaching or maintaining the academic grade level to obtain the necessary academic skills to reach grade-level performance in the shortest possible time.

Upper Elementary Early Intervention (4-5)

Serves students in grades 4-5 at risk of not reaching or maintaining the academic grade level to obtain the necessary academic skills to reach grade-level performance in the shortest possible time.

Career, Technical, and Agricultural Education (CTAE)
Students with Disabilities Cat I Students with Disabilities Cat II

Provides instruction to enable students to enter the workforce or a technical institute. In CTAE labs, students spend a minimum of 25 percent of the instructional time in "hands on" activities and the replacement costs of equipment and materials are at least 50 percent higher than those needed for a general education class except for cooperative work-study labs.
Serves students who have a specific learning disability or a speech-language impairment.
Serves students with mild intellectual disabilities.

Students with Disabilities Cat III
Students with Disabilities Cat IV

Serves students with behavior disorders, moderate and severe intellectual disabilities, and resourced specific disabilities in orthopedics, hearing, speech-language disorders, and specific learning dis abilities .
Serves students who are deaf-blind, visually impaired and blind, profoundly mentally disabled, resourced hearing impaired and deaf, resourced orthopedically disabled and resourced other health im paired.

Students with Disabilities Cat V

Serves those students in special education categories I-IV who require specially designed instruction or supplementary aids or services in alternative placements, in the least restrictive environment, including the regular classroom and who receive such services from assistive personnel.

Gifted Students - Cat VI Remedial Education

Serves students with high intellectual ability who need special instruction. Eligibility is based on a multiple-criteria assessment that includes four areas: mental ability, achievement, creativity, and m otivation. Serves students in grades 6-12 who have identified deficiencies in reading, writing, or mathematics.

Alternate Education

Serves students in a non-traditional classroom setting designed for students more likely to succeed in an alternate environment; often for students with disciplinary problems.

English Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL)

Serves students who score below proficiency on English language proficiency test. General Education Programs

Kindergarten

Serves students in kindergarten.

Primary Grades (1-3)

Serves students in grades 1-3.

Upper Elementary (4-5)

Serves students in grades 4-5.

Middle School (6-8)(1)

Serves students in grades 6-8

High School General Ed (9-12)

Serves students in grades 9-12.

(1) In prior years, there w as also a Middle Grades Program, but GaDOE indicated that all students in grades 6-8 are now being reported in the Middle School Program

Source: GaDOE documents

Internal Control Review of Education Reporting

2 5

Appendix C: FTEs by School System and Program

Appling County Atkinson County Atlanta Heights Charter School Atlanta Public Schools Bacon County Baker County Baldwin County Banks County Barrow County Bartow County Ben Hill County Berrien County Bibb County Bleckley County Brantley County Bremen City Brooks County Bryan County Buford City Bulloch County Burke County Butts County Calhoun City Calhoun County Camden County Candler County Carroll County Carrollton City Cartersville City Catoosa County CCAT School Charlton County Chatham County Chattahoochee County Chattooga County Cherokee Charter Academy Cherokee County Chickamauga City

Early Intervention
(K-5) 166 4.8% 282 16.8%

Students with Disabilities (Cat I-V) 291 8.4% 140 8.4%

Special Programs

Gifted 74 2.1% 32 1.9%

Career, Technical, & Agricultural Remedial Education 74 2.1% 216 6.3% 64 3.8% 106 6.3%

English

Speakers of

Other

Alternative Languages

36 1.0%

32 0.9%

17 1.0%

26 1.6%

Special Programs

General Education Programs(1)

889 26%

2,555 74%

667 40%

1,008 60%

Total 3,444 1,675

53 3,425
174 29
105 174 855 593 169 285 1,491
58 265
72 216 107
36 191 264 152 291 128 133
68 252
60 232 458
0 182 499
54 169

7.9% 6.9% 8.6% 9.1% 1.9% 6.1% 6.5% 4.3% 5.4% 9.2% 6.4% 2.6% 7.9% 3.5% 10.2% 1.3% 0.9% 2.0% 6.4% 4.5% 7.7% 19.8% 1.5% 3.3% 1.8% 1.3% 5.6% 4.3% 0.0% 11.5% 1.4% 5.9% 6.2%

19 2,082
176 34
364 323 845 872 252 218 1,255 185 261 119 117 373 230 592 252 221 223
56 404 121 1,098 202 188 1,071
5 76 2,630 82 209

2.8% 4.2% 8.7% 10.7% 6.5% 11.2% 6.5% 6.3% 8.1% 7.0% 5.4% 8.1% 7.8% 5.7% 5.5% 4.6% 5.6% 6.1% 6.2% 6.5% 5.9% 8.7% 4.5% 5.9% 7.8% 4.2% 4.6% 10.1% 3.4% 4.8% 7.3% 9.0% 7.6%

0 0.0% 1,965 4.0%
74 3.7% 1 0.3%
239 4.3% 80 2.8%
477 3.7% 836 6.0% 116 3.7% 104 3.4% 734 3.1%
92 4.0% 135 4.0% 262 12.6%
38 1.8% 449 5.6% 270 6.6% 156 1.6% 225 5.5% 174 5.1% 202 5.4%
3 0.5% 295 3.3% 165 8.1% 670 4.7% 462 9.7% 238 5.8% 618 5.8%
7 4.7% 53 3.3% 2,798 7.8%
4 0.4% 135 4.9%

0 0.0% 852 1.7%
79 3.9% 11 3.5% 111 2.0% 34 1.2% 326 2.5% 187 1.3% 77 2.5% 98 3.2% 215 0.9% 30 1.3% 85 2.5% 34 1.6% 58 2.7% 129 1.6% 42 1.0%
0 0.0% 81 2.0% 69 2.0% 49 1.3% 36 5.6%
0 0.0% 21 1.0% 193 1.4% 43 0.9% 82 2.0% 249 2.3% 10 6.8% 42 2.6% 324 0.9%
0 0.0% 36 1.3%

0 1,488
124 21
252 170 693 682 170 153 892 127 226
90 152 413 162 525 236 181 202
39 607 149 741 205 140 672
6 70 1,101 88 160

0.0% 3.0% 6.1% 6.6% 4.5% 5.9% 5.3% 4.9% 5.4% 4.9% 3.8% 5.6% 6.8% 4.3% 7.2% 5.1% 4.0% 5.4% 5.8% 5.3% 5.4% 6.0% 6.8% 7.3% 5.2% 4.3% 3.4% 6.3% 4.1% 4.4% 3.1% 9.7% 5.8%

4 0.6% 472 1.0%
19 0.9% 3 0.9%
50 0.9% 32 1.1% 134 1.0% 151 1.1% 30 1.0% 31 1.0% 244 1.0% 25 1.1% 36 1.1% 20 1.0% 23 1.1% 95 1.2% 43 1.1% 109 1.1% 46 1.1% 35 1.0% 38 1.0%
7 1.1% 103 1.2%
20 1.0% 150 1.1%
49 1.0% 44 1.1% 112 1.1%
3 2.0% 17 1.1% 335 0.9% 14 1.5% 30 1.1%

0 0.0% 264 0.5%
14 0.7% 0 0.0% 7 0.1%
11 0.4% 199 1.5%
93 0.7% 18 0.6% 11 0.4% 66 0.3%
0 0.0% 2 0.1% 1 0.0% 11 0.5% 11 0.1% 67 1.6% 38 0.4% 0 0.0% 4 0.1% 61 1.6% 0 0.0% 7 0.1% 10 0.5% 46 0.3% 53 1.1% 66 1.6% 15 0.1% 0 0.0% 1 0.1% 105 0.3% 3 0.3% 7 0.3%

76 10,548
660 99
1,128 824
3,529 3,414
832 900 4,897 517 1,010 598 615 1,577 850 1,611 1,104 836 1,066 269 1,549 554 3,150 1,074 990 3,195
31 441 7,792 245 746

11% 21% 33% 31% 20% 29% 27% 25% 27% 29% 21% 23% 30% 29% 29% 20% 21% 17% 27% 25% 28% 42% 17% 27% 22% 23% 24% 30% 21% 28% 22% 27% 27%

596 38,836
1,362 219
4,451 2,051 9,537 10,459 2,290 2,200 18,453 1,755 2,328 1,488 1,505 6,488 3,228 8,049 2,993 2,555 2,698
377 7,379 1,483 11,015 3,695 3,128 7,429
117 1,147 28,161
664 1,990

89% 79% 67% 69% 80% 71% 73% 75% 73% 71% 79% 77% 70% 71% 71% 80% 79% 83% 73% 75% 72% 58% 83% 73% 78% 77% 76% 70% 79% 72% 78% 73% 73%

672 49,384
2,022 318
5,579 2,875 13,066 13,873 3,122 3,100 23,350 2,272 3,338 2,086 2,120 8,065 4,078 9,660 4,097 3,391 3,764
646 8,928 2,037 14,165 4,769 4,118 10,624
148 1,588 35,953
909 2,736

0 0.0% 633 1.6%
29 2.1%

84 2,422
29

7.6% 6.1% 2.1%

50 4.5% 3,072 7.7%
142 10.2%

0 0.0% 271 0.7%
37 2.7%

0 0.0% 996 2.5%
90 6.5%

7 0.6% 416 1.0%
16 1.2%

0 0.0% 326 0.8%
1 0.1%

141 8,136
344

13% 20% 25%

963 31,674
1,047

87% 80% 75%

1,104 39,810
1,391

Internal Control Review of Education Reporting

2 6

Clarke County Clay County Clayton County Clinch County Cobb County Coffee County Colquitt County Columbia County Commerce City Cook County Coweta Charter Academy Coweta County Crawford County Crisp County Dade County Dalton City Dawson County Decatur City Decatur County DeKalb County Dodge County Dooly County Dougherty County Douglas County Dublin City Early County Echols County Effingham County Elbert County Emanuel County Evans County Fannin County Fayette County Floyd County Forsyth County Franklin County Fulton County Fulton Leadership Academy Gainesville City Georgia Connections Academy

Early Intervention
(K-5) 1,006 8.2%
7 2.4% 2,231 4.3%
102 7.7% 7,712 6.9%
975 13.0% 0 0.0%
1,122 4.5% 183 12.3% 171 5.4% 0 0.0% 440 2.0% 46 2.6% 803 20.1% 329 15.8% 709 9.3% 226 6.4% 130 3.2% 148 2.9%
2,129 2.2% 355 11.2% 218 16.1% 798 5.2%
1,933 7.5% 98 4.0%
282 13.6% 116 14.5% 335 3.0% 146 5.0%
46 1.1% 66 3.7% 109 3.7% 434 2.1% 1,536 15.4% 418 1.0% 200 5.5% 2,312 2.4%

Students with Disabilities (Cat I-V) 978 8.0% 18 6.1% 2,730 5.2% 110 8.3% 8,002 7.2% 346 4.6% 679 7.4% 868 3.5% 127 8.5% 181 5.7% 12 2.1% 1,327 6.0% 174 10.0% 339 8.5% 185 8.9% 408 5.4% 231 6.5% 211 5.3% 396 7.7% 5,434 5.5% 290 9.2% 29 2.1% 573 3.7% 1,618 6.3% 140 5.8% 178 8.6% 36 4.5% 937 8.5% 208 7.1% 268 6.5% 99 5.6% 219 7.4% 1,187 5.9% 837 8.4% 2,401 5.9% 250 6.9% 5,961 6.3%

0 0.0% 1,159 14.7%

26 9.7% 282 3.6%

0 0.0%

214 7.3%

Special Programs

Gifted 913 7.4%
0 0.0% 1,576 3.0%
33 2.5% 7,604 6.8%
283 3.8% 769 8.3% 1,557 6.3%
84 5.6% 154 4.9%
10 1.7% 974 4.4%
19 1.1% 148 3.7% 103 4.9% 468 6.1% 157 4.4% 533 13.3% 145 2.8% 4,614 4.7% 105 3.3%
4 0.3% 331 2.2% 1,890 7.3%
66 2.7% 156 7.5%
28 3.5% 708 6.4% 142 4.8%
57 1.4% 88 4.9% 88 3.0% 1,153 5.7% 894 9.0% 3,294 8.0% 93 2.6% 6,447 6.8%

Career,

Technical, &

Agricultural

Remedial Education

264 2.2% 164 1.3%

11 3.7%

0 0.0%

211 0.4% 1,767 3.4%

44 3.3%

86 6.5%

2,237 2.0% 4,058 3.6%

256 3.4% 364 4.9%

104 1.1% 556 6.0%

282 1.1% 827 3.3%

52 3.5%

73 4.9%

94 3.0% 159 5.0%

0 0.0%

0 0.0%

138 0.6% 864 3.9%

0 0.0% 125 7.2%

161 4.0% 236 5.9%

47 2.3% 116 5.6%

57 0.7% 307 4.0%

47 1.3% 240 6.8%

41 1.0% 132 3.3%

160 3.1% 378 7.4%

253 0.3% 2,572 2.6%

19 0.6% 147 4.7%

11 0.8%

90 6.6%

130 0.8% 703 4.6%

140 0.5% 1,334 5.2%

30 1.2%

99 4.1%

100 4.8% 142 6.8%

9 1.1%

61 7.6%

271 2.5% 618 5.6%

40 1.4% 219 7.5%

27 0.7% 261 6.3%

27 1.5% 121 6.8%

51 1.7% 194 6.6%

223 1.1% 682 3.4%

86 0.9% 478 4.8%

0 0.0% 1,437 3.5%

70 1.9% 222 6.1%

1,234 1.3% 2,790 2.9%

English

Speakers of

Other

Alternative Languages

107 0.9% 231 1.9%

2 0.7%

0 0.0%

574 1.1% 698 1.3%

13 1.0%

0 0.0%

1,138 1.0% 1,837 1.6%

77 1.0%

80 1.1%

87 0.9% 190 2.1%

284 1.1%

49 0.2%

15 1.0%

9 0.6%

34 1.1%

21 0.7%

1 0.2%

0 0.0%

259 1.2%

65 0.3%

20 1.1%

0 0.0%

39 1.0%

8 0.2%

22 1.1%

1 0.0%

74 1.0% 243 3.2%

40 1.1%

10 0.3%

34 0.8%

13 0.3%

53 1.0%

32 0.6%

1,043 1.1% 2,192 2.2%

33 1.0%

8 0.3%

16 1.2%

8 0.6%

170 1.1%

26 0.2%

286 1.1% 225 0.9%

27 1.1%

0 0.0%

21 1.0%

0 0.0%

8 1.0%

18 2.3%

117 1.1%

17 0.2%

32 1.1%

15 0.5%

45 1.1%

14 0.3%

16 0.9%

41 2.3%

34 1.2%

4 0.1%

253 1.3% 112 0.6%

97 1.0%

54 0.5%

440 1.1% 318 0.8%

41 1.1%

16 0.4%

989 1.0% 1,028 1.1%

10 3.7% 324 4.1%

0 0.0% 269 3.4%

4 1.5% 208 2.6%

6 2.2% 69 0.9%

0 0.0% 468 5.9%

88 3.0%

0 0.0%

0 0.0%

45 1.5%

0 0.0%

Special Programs

General Education Programs(1)

3,663 30%

8,606 70%

38 13%

259 87%

9,787 19% 42,486 81%

388 29%

939 71%

32,588 29% 78,824 71%

2,381 32%

5,123 68%

2,385 26%

6,851 74%

4,989 20% 19,808 80%

543 36%

946 64%

814 26%

2,349 74%

23

4%

555 96%

4,067 18% 18,040 82%

384 22%

1,358 78%

1,734 43%

2,253 57%

803 38%

1,285 62%

2,266 30%

5,354 70%

951 27%

2,578 73%

1,094 27%

2,925 73%

1,312 26%

3,816 74%

18,237 18% 80,536 82%

957 30%

2,200 70%

376 28%

980 72%

2,731 18% 12,631 82%

7,426 29% 18,353 71%

460 19%

1,970 81%

879 42%

1,198 58%

276 35%

522 65%

3,003 27%

8,030 73%

802 27%

2,135 73%

718 17%

3,406 83%

458 26%

1,322 74%

699 24%

2,250 76%

4,044 20% 16,167 80%

3,982 40%

5,965 60%

8,308 20% 32,674 80%

892 25%

2,747 75%

20,761 22% 73,950 78%

46 2,779

17% 35%

221 5,129

83% 65%

347 12%

2,601 88%

Total 12,269 297 52,273 1,327
111,412 7,504 9,236
24,797 1,489 3,163 578
22,107 1,742 3,987 2,088 7,620 3,529 4,019 5,128
98,773 3,157 1,356
15,362 25,779
2,430 2,077
798 11,033
2,937 4,124 1,780 2,949 20,211 9,947 40,982 3,639 94,711
267 7,908
2,948

Internal Control Review of Education Reporting

2 7

Gilmer County Glascock County Glynn County Gordon County Grady County Greene County Gwinnett County Habersham County Hall County Hancock County Haralson County Harris County Hart County Heard County Henry County Heritage Preparatory Academy School Houston County Irwin County Ivy Prep Academy at Kirkwood for Girls School Ivy Preparatory Academy School Ivy Preparatory Young Men's Leadership Academy School Jackson County Jasper County Jeff Davis County Jefferson City Jefferson County Jenkins County Johnson County Jones County Lamar County Lanier County Laurens County Lee County Liberty County Lincoln County Long County Lowndes County Lumpkin County Macon County Madison County

Special Programs

Early Intervention
(K-5) 156 3.7%
8 1.4% 419 3.4% 270 4.2% 520 11.6%
0 0.0% 3,172 1.8%
387 5.5% 824 3.0%
42 4.5% 363 10.7%
23 0.5% 162 4.7%
95 4.9% 693 1.7%

Students with Disabilities (Cat I-V) 197 4.7% 24 4.1% 778 6.3% 359 5.5% 196 4.4% 117 5.5% 11,531 6.7% 494 7.1% 1,543 5.6% 90 9.5% 355 10.5% 187 3.7% 173 5.0% 136 7.1% 3,185 7.8%

Gifted 170 4.0%
9 1.5% 768 6.2% 304 4.7%
35 0.8% 23 1.1% 16,393 9.5% 188 2.7% 858 3.1% 12 1.3% 147 4.3% 143 2.9% 181 5.2% 65 3.4% 2,236 5.5%

Career,

Technical, &

Agricultural

Remedial Education

14 0.3% 192 4.5%

10 1.7%

38 6.4%

139 1.1% 468 3.8%

146 2.3% 265 4.1%

40 0.9% 274 6.1%

10 0.5% 124 5.9%

0 0.0% 3,985 2.3%

43 0.6% 333 4.8%

231 0.8% 1,286 4.7%

25 2.7%

58 6.2%

149 4.4% 194 5.7%

161 3.2% 329 6.6%

78 2.3% 210 6.1%

49 2.5% 130 6.8%

276 0.7% 2,090 5.1%

English

Speakers of

Other

Alternative Languages

48 1.1%

84 2.0%

8 1.4%

0 0.0%

124 1.0% 109 0.9%

71 1.1%

59 0.9%

48 1.1%

51 1.1%

22 1.0%

9 0.4%

1,829 1.1% 3,351 1.9%

73 1.0% 153 2.2%

307 1.1% 784 2.8%

10 1.1%

0 0.0%

35 1.0%

5 0.1%

59 1.2%

1 0.0%

36 1.0%

11 0.3%

22 1.1%

0 0.0%

486 1.2%

88 0.2%

0 0.0% 378 1.4% 171 10.0%

14 1,392
156

7.0% 5.1% 9.1%

46 23.0% 2,227 8.2%
109 6.4%

17 8.5% 88 0.3% 26 1.5%

0 0.0% 1,367 5.0%
82 4.8%

3 1.5% 288 1.1%
18 1.1%

0 0.0% 140 0.5%
0 0.0%

7 2.0%

5 1.5%

2 0.6%

0 0.0%

0 0.0%

3 0.9%

0 0.0%

0 0.0%

17 4.7%

9 2.5%

0 0.0%

0 0.0%

8 2.2%

2 0.6%

9 2.7% 454 6.3%
34 1.5% 117 4.0%
78 2.6% 483 18.1%
93 7.1% 103 9.3% 133 2.5% 155 6.2% 176 10.4% 333 5.2% 134 2.2% 530 5.4% 200 17.5% 230 7.6% 270 2.6% 439 11.6%
65 4.2% 447 9.4%

22 6.7% 545 7.6% 126 5.7% 219 7.4% 166 5.6% 150 5.6%
66 5.1% 73 6.6% 397 7.5% 146 5.8% 153 9.1% 406 6.3% 324 5.3% 568 5.8% 71 6.2% 186 6.2% 706 6.9% 249 6.6% 89 5.8% 467 9.9%

2 0.6% 368 5.1%
47 2.1% 53 1.8% 199 6.7% 16 0.6% 60 4.6% 38 3.4% 261 5.0% 84 3.4% 79 4.7% 284 4.4% 216 3.5% 239 2.4% 51 4.5% 40 1.3% 321 3.1% 251 6.6% 45 2.9% 266 5.6%

7 2.1% 39 0.5% 20 0.9% 105 3.6% 54 1.8% 130 4.9% 53 4.1% 61 5.5% 70 1.3% 59 2.4% 79 4.7% 39 0.6% 124 2.0% 43 0.4% 53 4.6% 32 1.1% 37 0.4% 68 1.8%
0 0.0% 85 1.8%

0 0.0% 384 5.3% 118 5.4% 144 4.9% 139 4.7% 177 6.6%
76 5.8% 68 6.1% 268 5.1% 117 4.7% 82 4.9% 313 4.9% 318 5.2% 820 8.4% 60 5.3% 176 5.8% 530 5.2% 196 5.2% 84 5.5% 252 5.3%

2 0.6% 78 1.1% 25 1.1% 30 1.0% 32 1.1% 29 1.1% 14 1.1% 11 1.0% 59 1.1% 27 1.1% 14 0.8% 71 1.1% 71 1.2% 116 1.2% 13 1.1% 34 1.1% 116 1.1% 39 1.0% 20 1.3% 50 1.1%

0 0.0% 40 0.6%
7 0.3% 45 1.5% 12 0.4%
5 0.2% 5 0.4% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 0.1% 0 0.0% 4 0.1% 12 0.2% 14 0.1% 0 0.0% 27 0.9% 38 0.4% 12 0.3% 6 0.4% 28 0.6%

Special Programs

General Education Programs(1)

861 20%

3,366 80%

97 16%

495 84%

2,805 23%

9,568 77%

1,474 23%

5,012 77%

1,164 26%

3,312 74%

305 14%

1,810 86%

40,261 23% 132,432 77%

1,671 24%

5,311 76%

5,833 21% 21,730 79%

237 25%

706 75%

1,248 37%

2,146 63%

903 18%

4,105 82%

851 25%

2,615 75%

497 26%

1,425 74%

9,054 22% 31,871 78%

80 5,880
562

40% 22% 33%

120 21,243
1,151

60% 78% 67%

17

5%

325 95%

36 10%

324 90%

42 1,908
377 713 680 990 367 354 1,188 591 583 1,450 1,199 2,330 448 725 2,018 1,254 309 1,595

13% 27% 17% 24% 23% 37% 28% 32% 23% 24% 35% 23% 19% 24% 39% 24% 20% 33% 20% 34%

288 5,275 1,824 2,239 2,301 1,675
934 754 4,073 1,915 1,102 4,982 4,959 7,452 692 2,291 8,187 2,537 1,232 3,137

87% 73% 83% 76% 77% 63% 72% 68% 77% 76% 65% 77% 81% 76% 61% 76% 80% 67% 80% 66%

Total 4,227 592
12,373 6,486 4,476 2,115
172,693 6,982
27,563 943
3,394 5,008 3,466 1,922 40,925
200 27,123
1,713
342
360
330 7,183 2,201 2,952 2,981 2,665 1,301 1,108 5,261 2,506 1,685 6,432 6,158 9,782 1,140 3,016 10,205 3,791 1,541 4,732

Internal Control Review of Education Reporting

2 8

Marietta City Marion County McDuffie County McIntosh County Meriwether County Miller County Mitchell County Monroe County Montgomery County Morgan County Mountain Education Center School Murray County Muscogee County Newton County Oconee County Odyssey School Oglethorpe County
Pataula Charter Academy Paulding County Peach County Pelham City Pickens County Pierce County Pike County Polk County
Provost Academy Georgia Pulaski County Putnam County Quitman County Rabun County Randolph County Richmond County Rockdale County Rome City Schley County Scholars Academy Charter School Screven County Seminole County Social Circle City Spalding County

Early Intervention
(K-5) 366 4.0%
52 3.9% 97 2.3% 49 3.1% 131 4.5% 48 4.6% 102 4.4% 142 3.7% 219 14.2% 79 2.5%

0 0.0% 324 4.4%
0 0.0% 568 3.0%
65 1.0% 36 0.3% 42 1.9%

0 1,624
57 215 158 271
71 208

0.0% 5.7% 1.5% 15.0% 3.7% 7.4% 2.1% 2.8%

0 121
50 39 168 92 1,407 379 436 57

0.0% 9.3% 1.8% 12.3% 7.6% 9.3% 4.6% 2.4% 7.3% 4.3%

19 87 66 79 1,472

7.9% 3.8% 4.1% 4.8% 14.4%

Students with Disabilities (Cat I-V) 507 5.6% 69 5.2% 250 5.9% 80 5.0% 287 9.8% 60 5.8% 116 5.0% 213 5.6% 72 4.7% 226 7.1%

121 391 2,138 1,698 364 367 174

10.8% 5.3% 6.9% 8.9% 5.3% 2.9% 7.7%

12 2,006
207 107 316 221 203 553

2.9% 7.0% 5.5% 7.4% 7.4% 6.1% 6.1% 7.4%

19 85 249 20 151 84 1,325 809 343 47

0.9% 6.5% 9.2% 6.3% 6.9% 8.5% 4.3% 5.1% 5.8% 3.6%

3 1.2% 230 10.2%
88 5.4% 129 7.9% 531 5.2%

Special Programs

Gifted 428 4.7%
26 2.0% 139 3.3%
15 0.9% 6 0.2%
72 6.9% 29 1.3% 220 5.7% 39 2.5% 114 3.6%

Career,

Technical, &

Agricultural

Remedial Education

64 0.7% 291 3.2%

17 1.3%

65 4.9%

98 2.3% 236 5.6%

54 3.4%

94 5.9%

15 0.5% 126 4.3%

14 1.3%

71 6.8%

48 2.1% 154 6.7%

23 0.6% 142 3.7%

86 5.6% 107 6.9%

74 2.3% 149 4.7%

English

Speakers of

Other

Alternative Languages

87 1.0% 252 2.8%

17 1.3%

0 0.0%

48 1.1%

10 0.2%

19 1.2%

1 0.1%

32 1.1%

0 0.0%

12 1.2%

2 0.2%

24 1.0%

3 0.1%

44 1.1%

4 0.1%

21 1.4%

4 0.3%

37 1.2%

9 0.3%

0 375 479 1,091 597 374
94
7 1,156
91 61 361 176 149 292
0 73 91
0 87
0 307 872 130
38

0.0% 5.1% 1.5% 5.7% 8.8% 2.9% 4.2%
1.7% 4.0% 2.4% 4.2% 8.4% 4.8% 4.5% 3.9%
0.0% 5.6% 3.4% 0.0% 4.0% 0.0% 1.0% 5.5% 2.2% 2.9%

0 0.0% 172 2.3%
0 0.0% 465 2.4% 124 1.8%
0 0.0% 26 1.2%
0 0.0% 168 0.6% 129 3.4%
23 1.6% 81 1.9% 103 2.8% 59 1.8% 122 1.6%
64 2.9% 20 1.5% 74 2.7% 20 6.3% 26 1.2% 12 1.2% 265 0.9% 137 0.9% 69 1.2%
0 0.0%

17 378 1,510 545 321
1 112

1.5% 5.1% 4.8% 2.9% 4.7% 0.0% 5.0%

3 1,563
213 90
217 157 139 387

0.7% 5.5% 5.6% 6.3% 5.1% 4.3% 4.2% 5.2%

86 63 130 13 92 65 1,197 750 234 84

4.0% 4.8% 4.8% 4.1% 4.2% 6.6% 3.9% 4.7% 3.9% 6.4%

981 87.3% 75 1.0%
359 1.2% 190 1.0%
76 1.1% 178 1.4%
26 1.2%
4 1.0% 331 1.2%
41 1.1% 17 1.2% 44 1.0% 39 1.1% 40 1.2% 77 1.0%
51 2.3% 14 1.1% 26 1.0%
4 1.3% 25 1.1% 12 1.2% 350 1.1% 185 1.2% 64 1.1% 16 1.2%

5 0.4% 93 1.3% 100 0.3% 86 0.5% 25 0.4%
0 0.0% 11 0.5%
1 0.2% 66 0.2% 32 0.8% 11 0.8%
5 0.1% 24 0.7%
0 0.0% 78 1.0%
0 0.0% 2 0.2% 17 0.6% 0 0.0% 12 0.5% 0 0.0% 40 0.1% 118 0.7% 104 1.8% 0 0.0%

3 1.2% 38 1.7%
5 0.3% 109 6.7% 424 4.1%

0 0.0% 11 0.5% 14 0.9% 12 0.7% 160 1.6%

0 0.0% 145 6.4%
82 5.1% 68 4.2% 384 3.8%

0 0.0% 26 1.1% 20 1.2% 19 1.2% 105 1.0%

1 0.4% 0 0.0% 2 0.1% 1 0.1% 28 0.3%

Special Programs

General Education Programs(1)

1,995 22%

7,106 78%

246 19%

1,082 81%

878 21%

3,334 79%

312 20%

1,273 80%

597 20%

2,317 80%

279 27%

761 73%

476 21%

1,839 79%

788 21%

3,047 79%

548 35%

998 65%

688 21%

2,513 79%

1,124 1,808 4,586 4,643 1,572
956 485
27 6,914
770 524 1,182 991 661 1,717
220 378 637
96 561 265 4,891 3,250 1,380 242

100% 25% 15% 24% 23% 7% 22%
7% 24% 20% 36% 28% 27% 20% 23%
10% 29% 24% 30% 26% 27% 16% 21% 23% 18%

0 5,560 26,569 14,392 5,244 11,880 1,770
386 21,732
3,022 914
3,113 2,648 2,666 5,748
1,955 926
2,069 222
1,639 722
25,881 12,562
4,561 1,077

0% 75% 85% 76% 77% 93% 78%
93% 76% 80% 64% 72% 73% 80% 77%
90% 71% 76% 70% 75% 73% 84% 79% 77% 82%

26 537 277 417 3,104

11% 24% 17% 26% 30%

216 1,729 1,343 1,212 7,114

89% 76% 83% 74% 70%

Total 9,101 1,328 4,212 1,585 2,914 1,040 2,315 3,835 1,546 3,201
1,124 7,368 31,155 19,035 6,816 12,836 2,255
413 28,646
3,792 1,438 4,295 3,639 3,327 7,465 2,175 1,304 2,706
318 2,200
987 30,772 15,812
5,941 1,319
242 2,266 1,620 1,629 10,218

2 9

Special Programs

Stephens County Stewart County Sumter County Talbot County Taliaferro County Tattnall County Taylor County Telfair County Terrell County Thomas County Thomaston-Upson County Thomasville City Tift County Toombs County Towns County Treutlen County Trion City Troup County Turner County Twiggs County Union County Valdosta City Vidalia City Walker County Walton County
Ware County Warren County Washington County Wayne County Webster County Wheeler County White County Whitfield County Wilcox County Wilkes County Wilkinson County Worth County
Grand Total

Early Intervention
(K-5) 218 5.6%

Students with Disabilities (Cat I-V) 331 8.4%

Gifted 231 5.9%

34 6.7% 113 2.4%

43 8.5% 306 6.6%

0 0.0% 161 3.5%

7 1.4% 4 2.1% 286 8.2%

36 7.0% 13 7.0% 161 4.6%

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 87 2.5%

153 10.6% 136 8.4%
46 3.3%

69 4.8% 101 6.3% 111 7.9%

30 2.1% 72 4.5% 23 1.6%

324 6.1% 384 9.1%

560 10.6% 320 7.6%

320 6.1% 136 3.2%

144 5.1% 481 6.3% 168 5.7%

153 5.5% 409 5.3% 228 7.7%

214 7.6% 322 4.2%
46 1.6%

86 7.9% 42 3.8% 112 8.4%

91 8.4% 42 3.8% 93 7.0%

30 2.8% 9 0.8%
135 10.2%

547 4.5% 147 10.6%
37 4.2%

466 3.8% 107 7.7%
73 8.3%

668 5.5% 128 9.2%
1 0.1%

144 5.3% 873 11.2%

205 7.6% 475 6.1%

98 3.6% 196 2.5%

63 2.5% 606 6.8% 216 1.6%

142 831 1,044

5.6% 9.4% 7.8%

14 491 1,140

0.6% 5.5% 8.6%

577 10.1% 38 6.0%

472 8.3% 62 9.8%

330 5.8% 7 1.1%

0 0.0% 255 4.9%

210 6.9% 349 6.7%

68 2.2% 123 2.4%

25 6.3% 103 10.5% 113 2.9%

13 3.3% 79 8.0% 260 6.7%

6 1.5% 73 7.4% 121 3.1%

972 7.2% 67 5.8% 60 3.8%

768 5.7% 53 4.6% 98 6.2%

850 6.3% 17 1.5% 42 2.7%

127 8.6% 513 15.8%

87 5.9% 114 3.5%

14 0.9% 122 3.8%

71,170 4.2% 106,554 6.3% 93,295 5.5%

Career,

Technical, &

Agricultural

Remedial Education

31 0.8% 280 7.1%

0 0.0%

21 4.2%

42 0.9% 285 6.1%

18 3.5%

31 6.0%

0 0.0%

11 5.9%

38 1.1% 216 6.2%

24 1.7%

78 5.4%

57 3.5%

81 5.0%

35 2.5% 121 8.6%

139 2.6% 336 6.4%

156 3.7% 236 5.6%

107 3.8%

90 3.2%

249 3.2% 414 5.4%

39 1.3% 165 5.6%

12 1.1%

58 5.3%

12 1.1%

76 6.8%

6 0.5%

66 5.0%

104 0.9% 679 5.6%

22 1.6%

72 5.2%

6 0.7%

34 3.9%

26 1.0% 154 5.7%

181 2.3% 263 3.4%

45 1.8% 160 6.3%

145 1.6% 442 5.0%

242 1.8% 613 4.6%

English

Speakers of

Other

Alternative Languages

41 1.0%

5 0.1%

6 1.2%

0 0.0%

51 1.1%

28 0.6%

6 1.2%

0 0.0%

2 1.1%

0 0.0%

38 1.1%

32 0.9%

18 1.2%

0 0.0%

17 1.1%

3 0.2%

15 1.1%

0 0.0%

59 1.1%

8 0.2%

48 1.1%

9 0.2%

26 0.9%

2 0.1%

80 1.0% 112 1.5%

34 1.2%

36 1.2%

14 1.3%

1 0.1%

13 1.2%

0 0.0%

14 1.1%

13 1.0%

132 1.1%

50 0.4%

15 1.1%

0 0.0%

10 1.1%

0 0.0%

31 1.1%

4 0.1%

77 1.0%

31 0.4%

30 1.2%

0 0.0%

90 1.0%

9 0.1%

136 1.0%

33 0.2%

Special Programs

General Education Programs(1)

1,137 29%

2,788 71%

104 21%

400 79%

986 21%

3,659 79%

98 19%

415 81%

30 16%

157 84%

858 24%

2,650 76%

372 26%

1,074 74%

467 29%

1,145 71%

351 25%

1,057 75%

1,746 33%

3,526 67%

1,289 30%

2,948 70%

736 26%

2,066 74%

2,067 27%

5,603 73%

716 24%

2,236 76%

292 27%

793 73%

194 17%

918 83%

439 33%

889 67%

2,646 22%

9,570 78%

491 35%

897 65%

161 18%

715 82%

662 25%

2,035 75%

2,096 27%

5,725 73%

454 18%

2,069 82%

2,614 29%

6,269 71%

3,424 26%

9,899 74%

48 0.8% 20 3.2% 20 0.7% 95 1.8%
0 0.0% 36 3.7% 11 0.3%
3 0.0% 31 2.7% 21 1.3%
7 0.5% 143 4.4%

293 5.1% 25 4.0%
129 4.3% 291 5.6%
26 6.6% 48 4.9% 258 6.7% 613 4.6% 73 6.3% 122 7.7% 105 7.1% 252 7.8%

57 1.0% 6 1.0%
34 1.1% 56 1.1%
5 1.3% 9 0.9% 44 1.1% 141 1.0% 14 1.2% 18 1.1% 17 1.2% 36 1.1%

17 0.3% 0 0.0% 1 0.0%
23 0.4% 0 0.0% 4 0.4% 7 0.2%
395 2.9% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 0.2% 2 0.1%

1,794 158 462
1,192 75
352 814 3,742 255 361 360 1,182

31% 25% 15% 23% 19% 36% 21% 28% 22% 23% 24% 36%

3,907 472
2,565 3,988
321 630 3,060 9,705 896 1,217 1,114 2,060

69% 75% 85% 77% 81% 64% 79% 72% 78% 77% 76% 64%

18,925 1.1% 68,624 4.0% 19,202 1.1% 16,707 1.0% 394,477 23% 1,306,211 77%

Total 3,925 504 4,645 513 187 3,508 1,446 1,612 1,408 5,272 4,237 2,802 7,670 2,952 1,085 1,112 1,328
12,216 1,388 876 2,697 7,821 2,523 8,883
13,323
5,701 630
3,027 5,180
396 982 3,874 13,447 1,151 1,578 1,474 3,242
1,700,688

Internal Control Review of Education Reporting

(1) Includes Kindergarten, Primary Grades (1-3), Upper Elementary (4-5), Middle Grade, Middle School, and High School

Source: Mid-Term QBE Allotment Sheet for Fiscal Year 2014

The Performance Audit Division was established in 1971 to conduct in-depth reviews of state-funded programs. Our reviews determine if programs are meeting goals and objectives; measure program results and effectiveness; identify alternate methods to meet goals; evaluate efficiency of resource allocation; assess compliance with laws and regulations; and provide credible management information to decision-makers. For more information, contact
us at (404)656-2180 or visit our website at www.audits.ga.gov.