1. Results-based ON-SITE Monitoring for Selected Districts 2016-17
ESEA Directors Institute
August 2016

2. Dr. Alyson F. Lerma Director of Monitoring Consolidated Planning & Monitoring (615)

3. Session Overview

4. Agenda CPM mission and commitment Overview of monitoring
A new framework for
On-site monitoring
Selection method for identifying districts
Phases of the on-site monitoring process
On-site monitoring tool
Resources
Review and questions

5. Session Objectives Discuss principles and goals of monitoring
Summarize monitoring process in
Explain the new multi-tiered monitoring framework
Outline the phases of the on-site monitoring
Pre-visit
On-site Visit
Follow-up
Review the updated 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, ]
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
Two LEAs chosen randomly
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 and open dialogue
Provide individualized follow-up assistance
Reduce the number of findings of non-compliance
Empower districts and schools

14. Review of Monitoring
Risk analysis to determine which LEAs would be monitored
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.
On-site monitoring of 20 LEAs in :
Seventeen were programmatic OR programmatic and fiscal
Three were fiscal
On-site monitoring visits to all large-urbans

15. Feedback from 2015-16 Monitoring
Online survey link ed to all participants
130 TOTAL responses
61 District-level responses
69 School-level responses
Feedback from TDOE divisions, district and school partners, CPM Advisory Council, and M.A.S.S.

16. A New Framework for

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

18. Framework of Monitoring Processes
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
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

19. 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

20. On-site Monitoring in 2016-17

21. On-site Monitoring Use of risk analysis from 2014-15
District programs demonstrating significant risk
26 districts total in ; of those, 7 are fiscal only
Random selections & focus monitoring
Includes programmatic only, fiscal only, or both
Monitoring cycle is Sept.-March
*Large urbans: will be monitored each year but rotate between on-site & desktop

22. Phases of On-site Monitoring Process
Pre-Visit
Visit
Post-visit & follow-up

23. Phase 1: Pre-Visit The monitoring team will:
schedule and conduct a conference call with district leaders
student IDs (2 per school) to IDEA director
review information available in ePlan, EIS, state report
Approx. 6 weeks before the visit
The CPM regional consultant will visit in person to provide assistance & support.

24. Phase 1: Pre-Visit The district will:
review the monitoring tool (on ePlan, TDOE Resources);
upload all required evidence (Appendix A) to ePlan;
LEA Document Library; 2017; Results-based Monitoring; On-site Monitoring; Required Evidence
collect and prepare required evidence for on-site review (Appendix A);
participate in a conference call with monitoring team
submit agenda draft to monitoring team and schedule meetings with district and school personnel
work with schools selected for monitoring to prepare for visit

25. Phase 2: On-site Visit
Duration of 3-5 days (depending on district size)
Begins with a meeting with district leadership
Interview central office staff and leadership team
SCHOOL-LEVEL: Interview leadership team, staff, and parents; classroom visits; review delivery of services and implementation of IEPs
Review district and school-level documentation
Visit approximately 10% of Title I schools, including non-public, and charter (if applicable)
Exit meeting with district leaders to review findings

26. Phase 3: Post-visit & Follow-up
Findings are shared with district leaders at exit meeting
Follow-up with CPM regional consultant and other TDOE staff for technical assistance and support
Official from TDOE with final monitoring report within 10 business days (after exit meeting)
Completed report and signature pages posted to ePlan
Official status letter mailed, ed, and posted to ePlan
Survey link ed to monitoring participants

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

28. 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

29. Refinements to Monitoring Tool
Comprehensive step-by-step instructions in Introduction
Formatting change
Yes/No to document compliance
Minimum open-ended questions
Additional notes
Combined some sections
Removed duplication
Expanded some sections

30. Refinements to Monitoring Tool
ALL required evidence is listed in Appendix A

31. Resources & Support

32. Resources ePlan: www.eplan.tn.gov CPM staff Coordinated Spending Guide
TDOE Resources
CPM staff
Monitoring coordinator & director of monitoring
Project directors
Regional consultants
Office of Local Finance (for fiscal or joint fiscal monitoring)
Coordinated Spending Guide

33. Contacts & Support Carissa Sacchetti Alyson F. Lerma
ESEA & IDEA Monitoring Coordinator
Alyson F. Lerma
Director of Monitoring

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

35. Review & Questions

36. Review CPM mission and commitment Overview of monitoring
A new framework for
On-site monitoring
Selection method for identifying districts
Phases of the on-site monitoring process
On-site monitoring tool
Resources
Review and questions

37. Questions?

39. Notifications can also be submitted electronically at:
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:
Notifications can also be submitted electronically at: