1. Consolidated Program Reviews Jan McCoy, PhD School Improvement Specialist

2. First and Foremost  If you haven’t received a letter saying you’re going to be visited this year, you are not going to be visited this year.

3. Who will be Visited?  Alsea SD  Astoria SD  Beaverton SD  Canby SD  Central Linn SD  Clackamas ESD- Consortia  Corvallis SD  Diamond; Frenchglen; Drewsey; Pine Creek  Double O SD  Eugene SD  Greater Albany Public SD  Harney County SD # 3 (Burns)  Greater Albany Public SD  Harney County SD # 3 (Burns)  Harney County SD # 4 (Crane)  Harney County Union High SD  Harrisburg SD  Hillsboro SD  Hood River County SD  Jewell SD  Klamath County SD; Lakeville-Consortia  Klamath Falls City Schools  Lane ESD-Consortia  Lebanon Community  Lebanon SD; Scio; Sweethome- Consortia  Lincoln County SD  Monroe SD  North Marion SD  Northwest Regional ESD-Consortia  Nyssa SD  Nyssa; Adrian; Vale SDs-Consortia  Oakland SD  Portland SD  Reynolds SD  Salem Keizer SD  Santiam Canyon SD  Scio SD  South Harney SD  Suntex SD  Sweet Home SD  Tillamook SD  Umatillo- Morrow ESD-Consortia  Vale SD  Warrenton Hammond SD

4. Monitoring Responsibility  ODE monitors implementation of federal and state programs  Review expenditures  Review program elements  Interview involved individuals  Report concerns with program implementation seeking remedies

5. Consolidation of What?  Federal Programs  Title I-A (help students in high poverty schools meet standards)  Title I-C (migrant education)  Title I-D (services for neglected and delinquent students)  Title II-A (enhance teacher quality)  Title II-D (support classroom use of technology)  Title III (help limited English proficient students learn English)  Title X (services to homeless students)  Perkin Civil Rights (support students with civil rights concerns)  State Programs  Division 22 (state law governing schools/districts)

6. Past Practice  Program staff arranged separate visits  Programs visited on variable schedules  Each visit had separate “lead”  No clear pattern for predicting visits  Multiple points of contact led to confusion

7. Possible Solution  All programs visit simultaneously or sequentially in brief window  Pilot model to determine how it works and for whom  3 pilots (Ontario, Gervais, & Forest Grove)  All programs participated  Participants surveyed following visits  Internal discussion of effectiveness

8. Results of Pilots  ODE collected needed data  District staff appreciated more limited window of interruption  Challenges with access to district/school staff (esp. small districts)  Challenges in coordination among ODE staff and contractors

9. What We Know about the Future  2010-11 visits will include all federal ESEA (formerly NCLB) at district  Division 22 will not be included for 2010-11  Most programs will visit on a variable 6-year cycle  Titles I-C and III require more frequent visits than do other programs

10. How Will Districts be Identified for Visits?  Minimally once per 6-year cycle  33 districts per year  Notification in late spring for coming school year  Specific dates communicated immediately before school starts in fall

11. Where do I find Monitoring Resources?  Notebook tabs  Monitoring tool  Materials are linked from http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=1896 http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=1896

12. Who comes to Visit?  ODE federal program staff  Contracted staff

13. Consolidated Program Reviews Jan McCoy, PhD School Improvement Specialist