1. Results-based DESKTOP Monitoring for Selected Districts ESEA Directors Institute August 2016

2. Dr. Alyson F. Lerma Director of Monitoring Consolidated Planning & Monitoring Alyson.Lerma@tn.gov (615) 770-3871

3. Session Overview

4. Agenda CPM mission and commitment Overview of monitoring A new framework for 2016-17 Desktop monitoring –Selection method for identifying districts –Phases of the desktop monitoring process –Desktop monitoring tool –Required uploads and timeline Resources Review and questions

5. Session Objectives Discuss principles and goals of monitoring Summarize monitoring process in 2015-16 Explain the new multi-tiered monitoring framework Outline the phases of the desktop monitoring process –Pre-monitoring preparation –Report completion and submission –Results and follow-up Review the monitoring tool Share resources Answer questions

6. CPM Mission & Commitment

7. CPM Mission To provide excellent support and service to LEAs and other stakeholders in the effective implementation of federal education programs designed to prepare students for post- secondary and career success

8. CPM Commitment CPM is committed to: –working collaboratively with partners – both internal and external; –communicating clearly with all stakeholders; –providing consistent and timely feedback; –demonstrating competency in effective ESEA and IDEA program implementation; –ensuring compliance with federal and state regulations; –supporting flexibility and innovation where opportunities exist; and –focusing on what is best for the students of Tennessee.

9. Monitoring Overview

10. Monitoring Responsibility Federal requirements mandate that each state educational agency (SEA) oversee and monitor the implementation of compliant federal programs at least annually and provide performance reports. [EDGAR, 200.328] SEAs are also required to provide technical assistance (which can be informed by monitoring).

11. Characteristics of Successful Monitoring What Monitoring IS Focused on student outcomes Oversight to ensure compliance Opportunity to provide TA & collaborate with LEA partners Dialogue on program effectiveness based on many data sources Discussion of promising practices, needs, & unique circumstances of LEAs What Monitoring is NOT A “gotcha” A biased review A surprise Based on a single data source A static process

12. Guiding Principles Use of risk-based analysis –More than 60+ factors related to: prior findings, staff turnover, OCR findings, amount of federal funds received, fiscal issues, audit findings, IDEA complaint findings, and more Monitoring for compliance of IDEA and ESEA programs Focus on student outcomes and program effectiveness Collaboration within TDOE, with districts and stakeholders Clear communication Standardized protocols Dynamic process

13. Goals Provide an accurate, comprehensive review Highlight successful initiatives and exemplary practices Allow opportunities for partners to request assistance Engage in meaningful interaction Provide individualized follow-up assistance Reduce the number of findings of non-compliance Empower districts and schools

14. A New Framework for 2016-17

15. Three Tier Monitoring Process On-site monitoring 10% of LEAs Desktop monitoring10% of LEAs 80% of LEAs Self-assessment

16. Framework of Monitoring Processes On-site Teams will visit 10% of LEAs on- site to conduct monitoring* –Large urbans will rotate each year Increased standardization Regional consultants who support monitored LEAs will provide TA, but not participate in monitoring Can result in findings of non- compliance Self-assessment NEW 80% of LEAs will use a protocol to assess their ESEA & IDEA programs CPM monitoring coordinator will review all submissions & report on patterns, TA needs for upcoming year Will NOT result in corrective actions* Desktop NEW Two CPM consultants will review the submissions of required paperwork for monitoring an additional 10% of LEAs Regional consultants who support monitored LEAs will provide TA, but not participate in monitoring Can result in findings of non-compliance

17. Rationale for 2016-17 Changes Implement feedback from a variety of stakeholders Provide oversight of and tailored assistance to more LEAs Support LEAs demonstrating low to no risk in monitoring Utilize limited resources more effectively and efficiently Closer alignment to Tennessee Succeeds Further improve and streamline the process Decrease number of findings of non-compliance Assist in the transition to ESSA

18. Desktop Monitoring in 2016-17

19. Desktop Monitoring Use of risk analysis from 2014-15 to identify districts –Used the same risk analysis due to lack of assessment results –Will update risk analysis in 2016-17 for the next year District programs demonstrating elevated risk –15 total in 2016-17 2 Title I schools selected for monitoring –2 large urbans (monitored each year but rotate between on-site and desktop) 2 Title I schools and 1 charter to be monitored

20. Phases of the Desktop Monitoring Process Pre- monitoring Preparation Report Completion & Submission Findings & Follow-up

21. Phase 1: Pre-monitoring Preparation CPM regional consultant will schedule a conference call with district leaders to provide assistance, answer questions, and share identified schools to be monitored (mid-Sept.). The assigned CPM monitor will email a reminder of the due date and submission instructions in mid-Oct. The district will: –download the document from ePlan (TDOE Resources; Monitoring –ESEA/IDEA/Fiscal; 2016-17; Desktop); –collaborate with other central office staff and impacted schools; and –collect required documentation.

22. Phase 2: Report Completion & Submission The district will: answer all questions in the Practices and Open Response sub-sections; upload signed assurance page (Appendix A) to ePlan; upload all required evidence (see Appendix B) to ePlan; and ensure all desktop monitoring documents (report, signed assurance, and required evidence) are submitted. MUST be uploaded to ePlan on or before Nov. 15, 2016 (large urbans’ due March 1, 2017).

23. Phase 3: Results & Follow-up After the monitoring team reviews evidence and report, the CPM regional consultant will schedule an in-person meeting to review the findings and obtain signatures. Follow-up technical assistance from TDOE Official email from TDOE with final monitoring report within 10 business days (after on-site meeting) –Completed report, findings and signature pages posted to ePlan –Official status letter mailed, emailed, and posted to ePlan Survey link emailed to monitoring participants

24. Results-based Monitoring Tool Available on ePlan –TDOE Resources; Monitoring – ESEA/IDEA/Fiscal; 2016-17; Desktop Focuses on outcomes Includes ESEA & IDEA compliance areas Organized around levers that impact student achievement

25. Sections of the Monitoring Tool Introduction and District & School Information Quality Leadership (District & school levels) Effective Educators Instructional Practices Climate & Culture Family & Community Engagement Additional Areas Appendix A: Evidence & Documentation Monitoring Signatures Practices, Recommendations, & Corrective Action Items

26. Desktop Monitoring Tool Same layout & sections as on-site, but less intensive Specific instructions for each sub-section Required sub-sections: –Practices: Yes/No –Open Response Additional Notes are optional; to provide more detailed explanation or connect to current year

27. Appendix A: Signed Assurance Documentation of who provided information for each section Each person’s signature verifies the accuracy of the information provided Director of Schools must sign Must be uploaded to ePlan on or before Nov. 15, 2016 (Mar. 1 for large urbans) –LEA Document Library; 2017; Results-based Monitoring; Desktop Monitoring; Required Evidence

28. Appendix B: Required Evidence ALL required evidence to be uploaded is listed in Appendix B Evidence is listed by section in same order as in the document and in the table of contents Districts upload documentation from 2015-16 –Large urbans upload from 2016-17 (monitored each year)

29. Uploading Required Evidence ALL required evidence to be uploaded is listed in Appendix B Must be uploaded to ePlan on or before Nov. 15, 2016 –(March 1 for large urbans) –LEA Document Library; 2017; Results-based Monitoring; Desktop Monitoring; Required Evidence

30. Practices, Improvement, & CAP CAP will be posted in ePlan; official status letter will be mailed, emailed, and uploaded to ePlan

31. Resources & Support

32. Resources ePlan: www.eplan.tn.govwww.eplan.tn.gov –TDOE Resources; Monitoring -ESEA/IDEA/Fiscal; 2016-17 Results-based monitoring; Desktop TDOE / CPM Staff –Monitoring coordinator & director of monitoring –Project directors –Regional consultants –Office of local finance (for monitoring with fiscal on-site)

33. Contacts & Support Carissa Sacchetti ESEA & IDEA Monitoring Coordinator Carissa.Sacchetti@tn.gov 615-917-3393 Alyson F. Lerma Director of Monitoring Alyson.Lerma@tn.gov 615-770-3871

34. Contacts & Support CPM & Fiscal Regional Consultants District Map LAKE OBION WEAKLEY DYER GIBSON LAUDERDALE HAYWOOD FAYETTE CROCKETT BENTON SHELBY TIPTON HENRY CARROLL HUMPHREYS HENDERSON MADISON HARDEMAN McNAIRY HARDIN HOUSTON STEWART ROBERTSON MONTGOMERY DICKSON CHEATHAM PERRY HICKMAN WILLIAMSON DAVIDSON MAURY LEWIS WAYNE LAWRENCE MARSHALL GILES SUMNER MACON TROUSDALE WILSON RUTHERFORD BEDFORD LINCOLN SMITH DEKALB WHITE PUTNAM JACKSON CLAY CANNON COFFEE FRANKLIN MOORE PICKETT OVERTON FENTRESS CUMBERLAND BLEDSOE WARREN VAN BUREN GRUNDY SEQUATCHIE MARION SCOTT MORGAN CAMPBELL ROANE LOUDON RHEA HAMILTON BRADLEY McMINN POLK MEIGS MONROE BLOUNT SEVIER KNOX ANDERSON CLAIBORNE GRAINGER JEFFERSON HANCOCK HAWKINS SULLIVAN JOHNSON CARTER UNICOI HAMBLEN GREENE COCKE WASHINGTON UNION Vacant, CPM Cindy Smith, Fiscal Michelle Mansfield, CPM Brad Davis, Fiscal Bridgett Carwile, CPM Rob Mynhier, Fiscal Shalonda Meeks, CPM Brian Runion, Fiscal Deborah Thompson, CPM Dustin Winstead, Fiscal Henry LaFollette, CPM Jackie Broyles, Fiscal Central Time Zone Eastern Time Zone CHESTER DECATUR 12 3 4 5 6 1)Vacant Renee.Palakovic@tn.gov (615) 253-3786 Renee.Palakovic@tn.gov 2)Janet (Michelle) Mansfield Janet.Mansfield@tn.gov (731) 225-3627 Janet.Mansfield@tn.gov 3)Bridgett Carwile Bridgett.Carwile@tn.gov (615) 626-3466 Bridgett.Carwile@tn.gov 4)Shalonda Meeks Shalonda.Meeks@tn.gov (615) 864-5471 Shalonda.Meeks@tn.gov 5)Deborah Thompson Deborah.Thompson@tn.gov (615) 864-5162 Deborah.Thompson@tn.gov 6)Henry LaFollette Henry.LaFollette@tn.gov (615) 580-2038 Henry.LaFollette@tn.gov

35. Review & Questions

36. Review CPM mission and commitment Overview of monitoring A new framework for 2016-17 Desktop monitoring –Selection method for identifying districts –Phases of the desktop monitoring process –Desktop monitoring tool –Required uploads and timeline Resources Review and questions

37. Questions?

38. Districts and schools in Tennessee will exemplify excellence and equity such that all students are equipped with the knowledge and skills to successfully embark on their chosen path in life. Excellence | Optimism | Judgment | Courage | Teamwork

39. FRAUD, WASTE, or ABUSE Citizens and agencies are encouraged to report fraud, waste, or abuse in State and Local government. NOTICE: This agency is a recipient of taxpayer funding. If you observe an agency director or employee engaging in any activity which you consider to be illegal, improper or wasteful, please call the state Comptroller’s toll- free Hotline: 1-800-232-5454 Notifications can also be submitted electronically at: http://www.comptroller.tn.gov/hotline