MDE Shift to Results-Driven (or Based) Accountability (RDA or RBA) Listening Tour Erin Levin Program Monitoring Supervisor Marikay Litzau Compliance & Assistance Director (and usually Loraine Jensen and Robyn Widley from Special Education) “Leading for educational excellence and equity. Every day for every one.”

RBA listening tour? Purpose To the extent possible, how can MDE revamp its special education and compliance systems to best support district RBA efforts while satisfying existing compliance requirements? Options Learning about other states’ efforts can short circuit Minnesota’s search, but we still need district input. Result? No guarantees MDE will be able to implement everyone’s favorite changes. education.state.mn.us

MNCIMP Program Eval Reboot Recommendations May 2015 Districts need a single plan tied to RBA measurable results Accountability (State and Federal) Compliance improvements and results Districts want resources from MDE (financial and logistical) to ensure accountability, but not making accountability punitive Districts want MDE to coordinate with them education.state.mn.us

Three Main Themes DATA FOCUS DISTRICT – MDE RELATIONS Combine and integrate data. Make data meaningful. Clear expectations and flexibility. DISTRICT – MDE RELATIONS Focus on high-priority initiatives first. Recognize districts may not be uniform in performance. Training to ensure decision-makers utilize data effectively. MDE provide trend and comparative analysis data. MDE “facilitator” and “coaching” role rather than “enforcer.” PLANS WORK TOGETHER Unity of effort. Integrate general and special education. Remove overlap and redundancy. Target fewer goals. Individualized goals may be individualized to each district based on district needs. education.state.mn.us

On the Horizon? Federal monitoring of states now includes results-based accountability Compliance remains and results are added Minnesota meets requirements MN joined 15 state collaborative; lots of ideas Shift as well for districts monitored by MDE? Likely MDE significantly decreased paperwork review requirements this year Clearing way for better look at student results education.state.mn.us

Record review reduction Year Part B LEAs Part B record review (files) Part B review length (pages) Part B total pages Part B citations to review Part B total citations to review 15-16 163 1,612 20 32,240 35 56,420 16-17 164 1,693 11 18,623 19 32,167 Reduction n/a -9 -13,617 -16 -24,253 % Reduction -45% -42% -46% -43% Part C LEAs Part C record review (files) Part C review length (pages) Part C total pages Part C citations  to review Part C total citations to review 66 277 13 3,601 21 5,817 60 250 9 2,250 3,250 -4 -1,351 -8 -2,567 -31% -38% -44% Combined B & C LEAs Combined B & C record review (files) Combined B & C review length (pages) Combined B & C  total pages Combined B & C citations to review Combined B & C  total citations to review 1,889 33 35,841 56 62,237 1,943 20,873 32 35,417 -13 -14,968 -24 -26,820 -39% education.state.mn.us

Door #1 education.state.mn.us

Modify current cyclical system Keep 6 year compliance cycle and assigned monitors Use review findings to initiate TA & support from MDE Compliance Special Education Others?? Title? Fiscal? Develop more and better training based on what surfaces? education.state.mn.us

Six Year Schedule 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 Group A   15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 Group A MDE Review Self-correction Free Self Review Group B Group C Group D Group E Group F education.state.mn.us

NEW Six Year Schedule 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 Group A   15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 Group A MDE Review Self-correction Free Self Review Group B Group C Self Review SELF ANALYSIS; CREATE RBA PLAN ADDRESSING ROOT CAUSES REVIEW RESULTS; APPLY RISK ANALYSIS  APPLY TA APPLY TA  Group D Group E Group F education.state.mn.us

Results-Based Accountability Considerations Most districts already tracking student progress Keep assigned lead monitors and monitoring cycle Apply risk analysis to results and target technical assistance Let districts lead on technical assistance decisions education.state.mn.us

Door #2 education.state.mn.us

Annual compliance review PLUS Minimally, the compliance review necessary for federal compliance indicator reporting C: timely receipt of services, timely eligibility determinations, transition B: Suspension/expulsion rates, child find timelines, C to B transition timelines, transition Plus? Potentially an additional compliance area Could reflect widespread areas of confusion Could be based on federal focus Direct training efforts (MDE’s and districts’) Risk analysis to target monitoring resources education.state.mn.us

Annual compliance review PLUS MDE conducts risk analysis of all districts every year Annual minimum record review plus potential additional compliance area Risk analysis findings drive level of monitoring and TA education.state.mn.us

Possible Risk Categories High risk-add site visit? Medium risk-add online interviews? Low risk-Record reviews education.state.mn.us

Risk analysis—mountain style education.state.mn.us

Academic Achievement 15% Post-Secondary Workforce Readiness 35% Value Allocation Academic Achievement 15% Academic Growth 50% Post-Secondary Workforce Readiness 35% 17

Academic Achievement 15% 6/3/2018 Academic Achievement 15% Participation in & Performance on State Assessments (75%) Preschool Skills (25%) 18

Median Growth Percentile (20%) Academic Growth 50% Median Growth Percentile (20%) Rise Up (60%) Keep Up (20%) 19

Post-Secondary Workforce Readiness 35% 6/3/2018 Post-Secondary Workforce Readiness 35% Graduation Rate (20%) Dropout Rate (40%) Reflects SSIP and Olmstead efforts Post-School outcomes (40%) 20

Post-school Outcomes Attempted: % of the sample the AU attempted to reach with expectation of 100% Participated: % participated in the phone survey in the sample (we don’t know what to expect yet; to be determined) Outcome: %Enrolled in higher education, or in some other postsecondary education or training program; or competitively employed or in some other employment 21

Technical Assistance? Monitoring will vary based on risk assessment Level of technical assistance based on monitoring results Will include other divisions at MDE education.state.mn.us

Door #3 education.state.mn.us

Hybrid—Maine System Splits compliance and RBA. Compliance moving up to 3 year cycle Self-assessment of 20% of files for indicators (plus more non-indicator items) All districts have a one-day site visit—it’s a file review visit of 10% of files Transition indicator special focus Pre-train staff at all high schools Self-review files for benchmarks Re-review files in spring for indicators education.state.mn.us

Maine System Annual RBA being phased in; starting with ten districts now and scaling up in future Three items measured for RBA Proficiency in math Proficiency in reading Dropout rate Stakeholder group of five sped directors plus a few DOE staff meet monthly Group will set benchmarks for three tiers and interventions for each tier education.state.mn.us

Maine System Takeaways Compliance track Maine has more limited resources and far smaller population; use Excel/thumb drives instead of our MNCIMP Three year compliance cycle reflects our status quo and is okay with OSEP Could choose different compliance items RBA track Far less robust than Colorado’s Could use different factors Scaling up education.state.mn.us

Technical Assistance? Monitoring will vary based on risk assessment Level of technical assistance based on monitoring results Will include other divisions at MDE education.state.mn.us

Door #4 education.state.mn.us

Status quo Minnesota meets federal requirements Comprehensive monitoring reports Quantitative Qualitative Wait for federal requirements? Guidance? education.state.mn.us

Help! Need your input. education.state.mn.us