Public School Monitoring
Roadmap
Massachusetts Department of
Elementary and Secondary Education
Spring 2017
Agenda
•
•
•
•
Objectives
Current Status
Key Report Findings
Tiered Focused Monitoring
Public School Monitoring
2
Objectives
• Develop an understanding of the tiered
focused monitoring process
• Ask clarifying questions about the tiered
focused monitoring process
• Provide feedback regarding the process
• Review and discuss next steps
Public School Monitoring
3
Coordinated Program Review
Current Status: Massachusetts Monitoring
Review Process
• All LEAs receive full CPR every 6 years
• LEAs submit self-assessment including student
record review and policy documentation
• Onsite review focuses on areas of concern
identified in self-assessment
• Findings of non-compliance result in corrective
action
Review Components
56 special education
elements
26 civil rights elements
• All LEAs receive a mid-cycle review every 3 years
• Special education only
• Focuses on identified areas of non-compliance
25 career
vocational/technical
education elements
Review Outcome
18 English learner
education elements
• Assesses the degree to which LEAs are meeting state
and federal regulations
• Results in a plan for correcting non-compliance within 1
year
SelfAssessment
Public School Monitoring
Desk
Review
Onsite
Verification
Report
Writing
Corrective
Action Plan
Resolution
4
Results-Driven Accountability
Current Status: Federal Monitoring
RDA represents a fundamental shift in monitoring IDEA requirements by focusing on educational
results and outcomes for students with disabilities
Background
•
Announced in 2012
•
Places equal emphasis on
results and compliance in
making state
determinations
•
Allows for differentiated
technical assistance
based on state needs
Public School Monitoring
Purpose
•
Shift emphasis from
compliance to results
•
“Raise the bar” for special
education
•
Reduce administrative
burdens
•
Support state
improvement plans
Components
•
State Performance
Plan/Annual Performance
Reports
•
Determinations
•
Differentiated monitoring
and support
5
Key Report Findings
Results-Oriented Approach
A survey of special education administrators indicated that they perceive the current CPR to
be a necessary task rather than a driver of improvements
• Many states have adjusted monitoring processes to emphasize connection to student
outcomes
• Several states have shifted to a continuous monitoring process
• LEAs participate in various monitoring activities over a multi-year cycle
• Allows for tiered and differentiated monitoring
• Allows for timely technical assistance
• Massachusetts stakeholders expressed the need for reviews to support larger LEA
improvement efforts
• Emphasize elements most tied to student outcomes
• Incorporate performance data
• Shift resources to provide more technical assistance to districts requiring the most
support
Public School Monitoring
6
Key Report Findings
Review Outcomes
Stakeholder input and nationwide best practices suggested a move towards a
tiered focused monitoring system
A tiered focused monitoring system:
•
Uses regularly-collected data to conduct a risk assessment
•
Differentiates monitoring intensity based on LEA need
•
Aligns support to each LEA’s level of risk and specific risk factor(s)
The tiered focused monitoring system aligns to several key themes raised by stakeholders
Key themes from stakeholder outreach included:
•
Move towards an outcomes-driven process
•
Move away from a “one size fits all” approach to monitoring
•
Develop a stronger orientation towards technical assistance and district support
Public School Monitoring
7
Tiered Focused Monitoring
Overview of the Approach
LEA Self-Directed
Improvement
Directed SelfImprovement
Corrective
Action
Monitoring Tiers
• Risk assessment
leads to tier
assignment for
each LEA
• LEA review
process and
technical
assistance vary
by tier
Cross-Unit
Support &
Corrective
Action
Public School Monitoring
8
Tiered Focused Monitoring
Risk Assessment
The risk assessment is based on the Accountability
Level along with the following risk factors:
•Special education disproportionality data:
oIdentification
oDiscipline
•Problem Resolution System complaint data
•Public School Monitoring report data
Public School Monitoring
9
Tier: LEA Self-Directed
Improvement
Meets requirements.
Data points indicate no
concern on compliance
and performance
outcomes.
Public School Monitoring
10
Tier: LEA Self-Directed
Improvement
• Self-assessment completed and
submitted to PSM.
• PSM issues parent surveys.
• PSM conducts either record review
or onsite observations.
Public School Monitoring
11
Tier: LEA Self-Directed
Improvement
• If areas of concern are identified, PSM
provides written feedback to LEA prior to
development of Continuous
Improvement & Monitoring Plan
(CIMP).
• LEA develops and implements CIMP
within the prescribed timelines.
• LEA completes check-off in WBMS at dates
indicated in CIMP to show progressing or
complete; PSM monitors CIMP
implementation.
Public School Monitoring
12
Tier: Directed
Self-Improvement
Low risk.
No demonstrated risk in
areas associated with
student outcomes.
Public School Monitoring
13
Tier: Directed
Self-Improvement
• Self-assessment completed and submitted
to PSM.
• PSM issues parent surveys.
• PSM conducts either record review or
onsite observations.
Public School Monitoring
14
Tier: Directed
Self-Improvement
• If areas of concern are identified, PSM
provides written feedback to LEA prior to
development of CIMP.
• LEA develops and implements CIMP
within the prescribed timelines.
• LEA provides PSM with written reports on
progress at dates prescribed in CIMP.
• PSM reviews written reports and monitors
CIMP implementation.
Public School Monitoring
15
Tiered Focused Monitoring
Continuous Improvement & Monitoring Plan
• Continuous
and Monitoring Plan Components
CIMP Improvement
Component
Description
Improvement Area
The criteria (i.e. SE 2, CR 16) addressed by the
CIMP
Description of Current Problem
Explains the reason the LEA is targeting the
criteria for improvement
LEA Outcome
Describes the goal of the CIMP. What
improvements will be made as a result of the
CIMP?
Action Plan
Details the steps the LEA will take to meet the
outcome described above
Success Metrics
Explains how the LEA will know that they have
met their desired outcome
Measurement Mechanism
Details how the Success Metrics will be
measured
Completion Timeframe
States when the Success Metrics will be met
Public School Monitoring
16
Tier: Corrective Action
Moderate risk.
Areas of concern include both
compliance and student
outcomes.
Public School Monitoring
17
Tier: Corrective Action
• Self-assessment completed and submitted
to PSM.
• PSM reviews self-assessment and
develops onsite activities to include the
following:
• Record review
• Observations
• Interviews
• Parent surveys
Public School Monitoring
18
Tier: Corrective Action
• PSM develops program review report.
• Technical assistance led by PSM.
• LEA develops Corrective Action Plan
(CAP) in WBMS; reviewed by PSM.
• LEA completes Progress Reporting in
WBMS; reviewed by PSM.
Public School Monitoring
19
Tier: Cross-Unit Support &
Corrective Action
High risk – Level 5 LEAs.
Ongoing non-compliance
and areas of concern have
profound effect on student
outcomes.
Public School Monitoring
20
Tier: Cross-Unit Support &
Corrective Action
•Self-assessment completed and
submitted to PSM.
•PSM reviews self-assessment and
develops onsite activities to include the
following:
•Record review
•Observations
•Interviews
•Parent surveys
Public School Monitoring
21
Tier: Cross-Unit Support &
Corrective Action
•
•
•
•
•
PSM develops program review report.
Cross-unit support team analysis of root cause.
Technical assistance led by PSM.
LEA develops CAP in WBMS; reviewed by PSM.
Cross-unit support team works with LEA in
building systems, developing in-district capacity
and Progress Reporting activities. Progress
Reports submitted by LEA in WBMS; reviewed by
PSM.
Public School Monitoring
22
Tiered Focused Monitoring:
Criteria & Cycle
Public School Monitoring
23
Tiered Focused Monitoring
Monitoring Criteria
Monitoring
Component
Group A
Group B
Criteria
Monitoring will focus on:
• Identification
• IEP Development
• Programming & Support
Services
Monitoring will focus on:
• Licensure and
Professional
Development
• Parent/Student/
Community
Engagement
• Observations
• Oversight
Onsite Component
for Following Tiers:
• Student Record Review
• Interviews, as
appropriate
• Observations
• Interviews
•LEA Self-Directed
Improvement
•Directed
Self-Improvement
Public School Monitoring
24
Tiered Focused Monitoring
Example Monitoring Timeline
Monitoring Cycle
Year 1
Self-Assessment
Identification, IEP
Development,
Programming & Support
Services
Year 6
Internal CIMP/CAP
Monitoring
Year 2
Onsite Monitoring
Year 5
Onsite Monitoring
Year 3
Internal CIMP/CAP
Monitoring
Year 4
Self-Assessment
•
LEAs conduct selfassessment the year before
onsite review
•
Self-assessment and PSM
monitoring inform
CIMP/CAP development
•
LEAs develop and
implement CIMP/CAP
during onsite monitoring
years
•
LEAs conduct internal
monitoring of CIMP/CAP
•
PSM provides tiered support
to LEAs throughout cycle
Licensure and Professional
Development
Parent/Student/Community
Engagement
Observations
Oversight
Public School Monitoring
25
Tiered Focused Monitoring
Outcomes Oriented Monitoring
Priority
Approach
Move towards an outcomes-driven
process
CIMP/CAPs and corresponding
technical assistance are designed to
support LEAs in directing time and
resources to activities that will improve
student outcomes.
Move away from a “one size fits all”
approach to monitoring
Based on a risk assessment, PSM
targets monitoring and technical
assistance to demonstrated areas of
need.
Develop a stronger orientation towards
technical assistance and district
support
LEAs in every tier will receive support
from PSM. This includes general
guidance, regional meetings and
district-specific support.
Public School Monitoring
26
Tiered Focused Monitoring
Implementation Timeline
16-17
17-18
18-19
Public School Monitoring
• Planning: Stakeholder feedback sessions, self-assessment
and systems development
• Self-assessment with risk analysis for Year 1 LEAs
• Implement onsite process for tiered focused monitoring
27
Questions
&
Feedback
Public School Monitoring
28