1. Public School Monitoring Roadmap
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Spring 2017

2. Agenda Objectives Current Status Key Report Findings
Tiered Focused Monitoring
Public School Monitoring

3. 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

4. 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
All LEAs receive a mid-cycle review every 3 years
Special education only
Focuses on identified areas of non-compliance
Review Outcome
Assesses the degree to which LEAs are meeting state and federal regulations
Results in a plan for correcting non-compliance within 1 year
Review Components
56 special education elements
26 civil rights elements
25 career vocational/technical education elements
18 English learner education elements
Self-Assessment
Desk Review
Onsite Verification
Report Writing
Corrective Action Plan
Resolution
Public School Monitoring

5. 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
Purpose
Components
Announced in 2012
Places equal emphasis on results and compliance in making state determinations
Allows for differentiated technical assistance based on state needs
Shift emphasis from compliance to results
“Raise the bar” for special education
Reduce administrative burdens
Support state improvement plans
State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Reports
Determinations
Differentiated monitoring and support
Public School Monitoring

6. 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

7. tiered focused monitoring system
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

8. Cross-Unit Support & Corrective Action
Tiered Focused Monitoring Overview of the Approach
Cross-Unit Support & Corrective Action
Corrective Action
Directed Self-Improvement
LEA Self-Directed Improvement
70-80% of LEAs
Monitoring Tiers
Risk assessment leads to tier assignment for each LEA
LEA review process and technical assistance vary by tier
Public School Monitoring

9. Tiered Focused Monitoring Risk Assessment
The risk assessment is based on the Accountability Level along with the following risk factors:
Special education disproportionality data:
Identification
Discipline
Problem Resolution System complaint data
Public School Monitoring report data
Public School Monitoring

10. Tier: LEA Self-Directed Improvement
Meets requirements. Data points indicate no concern on compliance and performance outcomes.
Public School Monitoring

11. 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

12. 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

13. Tier: Directed
Self-Improvement
Low risk. No demonstrated risk in areas associated with student outcomes.
Public School Monitoring

14. 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

15. 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

16. Tiered Focused Monitoring Continuous Improvement & Monitoring Plan
CIMP 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
Continuous Improvement and Monitoring Plan Components
Public School Monitoring

17. Tier: Corrective Action
Moderate risk.
Areas of concern include both compliance and student outcomes.
Public School Monitoring

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. Tiered Focused Monitoring: Criteria & Cycle
Public School Monitoring

24. Tiered Focused Monitoring Monitoring Criteria
Monitoring Component
Group A
Group B
Criteria
Monitoring will focus on:
Identification
IEP Development
Programming & Support Services
Licensure and Professional Development
Parent/Student/
Community Engagement
Observations
Oversight
Onsite Component for Following Tiers:
LEA Self-Directed Improvement
Directed
Self-Improvement
Student Record Review
Interviews, as
appropriate
Interviews
Public School Monitoring

25. Tiered Focused Monitoring Example Monitoring Timeline
Year 1
Self-Assessment
Identification, IEP Development,
Programming & Support
Services
Year 2
Onsite Monitoring
Year 3
Internal CIMP/CAP Monitoring
Year 4
Licensure and Professional Development
Parent/Student/Community Engagement
Observations
Oversight
Year 5
Year 6
Monitoring Cycle
LEAs conduct self- assessment 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
Public School Monitoring

26. 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

27. Tiered Focused Monitoring Implementation Timeline
16-17
Planning: Stakeholder feedback sessions, self-assessment and systems development
17-18
Self-assessment with risk analysis for Year 1 LEAs
18-19
Implement onsite process for tiered focused monitoring
Public School Monitoring

28. Questions & Feedback
Public School Monitoring