Results-based Monitoring for IDEA & ESEA Programs

1. Results-based Monitoringfor IDEA & ESEA Programs Office of Consolidated Planning & Monitoring Fall 2014

2. District Selection: Risk Analysis

3. District Selection: Risk Analysis • An annual risk analysis identifies which LEAs are perceived to be at-risk based on various indicators. • The risk analysis includes programmatic, fiscal administrative, and achievement components of both IDEA and ESEA. • The programmatic risk analysis is weighted differently for program monitoring and fiscal monitoring. • There is often considerable overlap between program and fiscal risk, so many LEAs will receive both program and fiscal monitoring. • Two LEAs, not identified through the risk analysis, are randomly selected for results-based and fiscal monitoring.

4. District Selection: Risk Analysis Indicators

5. District Selection: Risk Analysis Indicators • FISCAL • Indicator 1: ESEA Title I Allocation > $500,000 {1 point} • Indicator 2: ESEA Title I Allocation > $1,500,000 {1 point} • Indicator 3: ESEA Title I Allocation > $5,000,000 {1 point} • Indicator 4: ESEA Discretionary Grants FY14 {1 point per} • Indicator 5: IDEA Part B Allocation > $500,000 {1 point} • Indicator 6: IDEA Part B Allocation > $1,500,000 {1 point} • Indicator 7: IDEA Part B Allocation > $3,000,000 {1 point} • Indicator 8: IDEA Preschool Allocation > $75,000 {1 point} • Indicator 9: IDEA Part B Discretionary Grants FY14 {1 point per} • Indicator 10: IDEA Preschool Discretionary Grants FY14 {1 point per} • Indicator 11: Title II-A Funds used for Class Size Reduction FY14 {1 point}

6. District Selection: Risk Analysis Indicators • FISCAL • Indicator 12: ESEA Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Non-compliance FY13 {1 point each} • Indicator 13: IDEA Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Non-compliance FY13 {1 point each} • Indicator 14: ESEA & IDEA & CTE Potential Dropdead Funds Left to Draw > $0 FY13 (as of Aug. 1, 2014) {1 point each} • Indicator 15: Title I Potential Carryover = or > 15% FY14 (as of Aug. 1, 2014) {1 point} • Indicator 16: IDEA Part B Potential Excess Carryover = or > 50% FY14 (as of Aug. 1, 2014) {1 point per grant} • Indicator 17: IDEA Preschool Potential Excess Carryover = or > 50% FY14 (as of Aug. 1, 2014) {1 point per grant} • Indicator 18: Bookkeeper < 3 yrsexp w/ Federal Programs FY14 {1 point}

7. District Selection: Risk Analysis Indicators • PERSONNEL • Indicator 19: ESEA Director < 3 yrsexp FY14 {1 point} • Indicator 20: IDEA Director < 3 yrsexp FY14 {1 point} • Indicator 21: Director of Schools < 3 yrsexp FY14 (NOT USED for FY14) {1 point} • MONITORING & AUDIT • Indicator 22: ESEA Monitoring CAP 2013-14 {1 point per item} • Indicator 23: IDEA Monitoring CAP 2013-14 {1 point per item} • Indicator 24: Fiscal Monitoring CAP 2013-14 {1 point per item} • Indicator 25: CAP Items Not Addressed in Timely Manner for 2012-13{1 point per item} • Indicator 26: TDOE Single Audit (A133) Findings 2013-14 {1 point per item} • Indicator 27: US Ed Monitoring Findings 2013-14 {1 point per item}

8. District Selection: Risk Analysis Indicators • REPORTING DEADLINES • Indicator 28: Missed Deadline ePlan Con. Funding App & Projected Budget FY15 {1 point} • Indicator 29: Missed Deadline ePlan Final Budget FY14 {1 point} • Indicator 30: Missed Deadline Comparability Title I and/or Not Compliant 2013-14 {1 point} • Indicator 31: Missed Deadline Final Expenditure Report (NOT USED for FY14) {1 point} • Indicator 32: Missed Deadline IDEA Dec. 1 Census Counts 2013-14 {1 point} • Indicator 33: Missed Deadline IDEA EOY Statewide Frequency 2013-14 {1 point} • Indicator 34: Missed Deadline IDEA SSEER Report (NOT USED for FY14) {1 point} • Indicator 35: Missed Deadline IDEA Excess Cost Report (NOT USED for FY14) {1 point}

9. District Selection: Risk Analysis Indicators • COMPLAINTS & HEARINGS • Indicator 36: ESEA Complaints 2013-14 {1 point per} • Indicator 37: IDEA Complaints 2013-14 {1 point per} • Indicator 38: IDEA Due Process Hearings 2013-14 {1 point per} • STUDENT RESULTS • Indicator 39: LEA In Need of Improvement (INI) 2013-14 {1 point} • Indicator 40: LEA In Need of Subgroup Improvement (INSI) 2013-14 {1 point} • Indicator 41: LEA Exemplary 2013-14 {credit 1 point} • Indicator 42: LEA Reward Schools 2014 {credit 1 point per} • Indicator 43: LEA Priority Schools 2015 {1 point per} • Indicator 44: LEA Focus Schools 2015 {1 point per} • Indicator 45: LEA 3-8 Math All Students % Below Basic is > State % 2013-14 • {1 point} • Indicator 46: LEA 3-8 Reading All Students % Below Basic is > State % 2013-14 {1 point}

10. District Selection: Risk Analysis Indicators • STUDENT RESULTS • Indicator 47: LEA Algebra I All Students % Below Basic is > State % 2013-14 {1 point} • Indicator 48: LEA English II All Students % Below Basic is > State % 2013-14 {1 point} • Indicator 49: LEA 3-8 Math Students w Disabilities % Below Basic is > State % 2013-14 {1 point} • Indicator 50: LEA 3-8 Reading Students w Disabilities % Below Basic is > State % 2013-14 {1 point} • Indicator 51: LEA Algebra I Students w Disabilities % Below Basic is > State % 2013-14 {1 point} • Indicator 52: LEA English II Students w Disabilities % Below Basic is > State % 2013-14 {1 point} • Indicator 53: LEA has Suspension Rates > State Rate 2013-14 (NOT USED for FY14) {1 point per subgroup}

11. District Selection: Risk Analysis Indicators • STUDENT RESULTS • Indicator 54: LEA has Students w Disabilities Grad Rate < State Rate 2011-12 {1 point per subgroup} • Indicator 55: LEA IDEA Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) (% SWD in GenEdSetting = or > 80% of Day) 2013-14 {1 point} • Indicator 56: LEA IDEA Disproportionate Representation of SWD by race/ethnicity 2012-13 {1 point} • ADDITIONAL RISK CONCERNS • Indicator 57: CPM Office - TDOE Concerns of Additional Risk {5 points} • Indicator 58: IDEA Program - TDOE Concerns of Additional Risk {5 points} • Indicator 59: Fiscal - TDOE Concerns of Additional Risk {5 points}

12. 2014-15 IDEA & ESEA Results-based & Joint Fiscal Monitoring TDOE Consolidated Planning & Monitoring * ** ** * ** ** * * Montgomery Davidson TSB Sumner DeKalb Campbell Hawkins Sullivan Lake ** Johnson Lauderdale * * * * Knox ** Roane ** ASD ** Monroe * Shelby Fayette Wayne Murfreesboro Hamilton ** ** ** * * ** ** Murfreesboro monitoring will be delayed one year.

13. Monitoring Preparation

14. Sample Agenda

15. Sample Agenda

16. Sample Agenda

17. Required Documents – Results-based Full list on ePlan in the LEA Document Library under the 2015 folder for “Results-based Monitoring for IDEA & ESEA Program Documents”.

18. Required Documents – Fiscal Full list on ePlan in the LEA Document Library under the 2015 folder for “Joint Fiscal Monitoring Document”.

21. Monitoring Process

22. Process Overview • Program & Fiscal Monitoring Team • Lead: CPM Regional Consultant • Assigned CPM Regional Consultant • Staff representing Special Education, other critical subgroups and other areas (EL, non-public, etc.) • Lead: Fiscal Consultant • Assigned Fiscal Consultant • CPM Nashville staff when needed • Program Monitoring Only will include program staff • Fiscal Monitoring Only will include fiscal staff

23. Monitoring Process Overview • Step 1. TDOE identifies LEAs based on risk and notifies selected LEAs • Step 2. Data collection • TDOE gathers assessment and growth data on districts and schools by proficiency levels, subjects and subgroups (SWD, ED, etc.) • TDOE reviews LEA consolidated application and budget for ESEA and IDEA • TDOE reviews LEA strategic plan • TDOE requests LEA upload specific items • Step 3. TDOE selects schools based upon school assessment results and other factors • At least two schools are selected for a two hour onsite visit • Additional sites such as a preschool, non-public school, or program maybe also be selected

24. Monitoring Process Overview • Step 4. Phone call between TDOE and LEA to explain the process and clarify expectations • TDOE wants to see and hear about day-to-day procedures • LEA and School interviews • Note: Preparing boxes of information is not necessary • Agenda is negotiated with the LEA • Step 5.On-site visit approximately 3.5 days • Entrance meeting (approximately one hour) with the district leadership and other relevant staff to review district strategic plan, initiatives, best practices, challenges, etc. • Meetings with ESEA Director, IDEA Supervisor, Fiscal Director and staff • School visit schedules • Time slots for TDOE to write comments and final report (at least two) • Review and modify final report with ESEA, IDEA and Fiscal Directors • Exit Conference with LEA leadership

25. Monitoring Process Overview • Step 6. Written Comments, Improvement Plan, Compliance Plan and LEA Letter • Prior to the exit conference, the results-based and fiscal monitoring comments are drafted • The Improvement Plans and Compliance Action Plans are finalized in the exit conference (suggestions from the LEA are incorporated into the final document) • Letter indicating Closed or Incomplete status is sent to the LEA within two weeks

26. Monitoring Process Overview • Some documentation required for the visit is uploaded to ePlan. • Many documents are reviewed on-site but no copies of documentation are expected. • Process relies heavily on interviews with LEA staff and listening to their procedures and challenges within their districts. • School site visits are conducted by meeting with the principal and school leadership then walking through classrooms and parts of the building. • TDOE staff writes up all comments, improvement plans and compliance action plans while in the district. • An on-site exit conference reviews the completed written monitoring instrument with LEA leadership.

27. Joint Fiscal Monitoring

28. Fiscal Monitoring • A number of federal grants will be monitored: • ESEA Formula Grants • IDEA Part B Formula Grants • IDEA Preschool (619) Formula Grants • First to the Top Grants • Title I School Improvement Grants • 21st Century Discretionary Grants • Random samples of transactions will be reviewed on-site • Number of transactions may expand if issues are identified during monitoring

29. Fiscal Monitoring • Joint Fiscal Monitoring Instrument • Updated for this year– similar to last year’s instrument • The instrument is located on ePlan in LEA Document Library in the 2015 Joint Fiscal Monitoring Documents folder • To prepare for the visit, please review the monitoring instrument and monitoring documents list prior to on-site monitoring visit

30. Fiscal Monitoring • Joint Fiscal Monitoring Instrument • Budgets and Revisions • Travel • Procurement • Contracts • General Fiscal Requirements (including most recent A-133 audit) • Use of Funds (ESEA & IDEA) • Personnel • Title II A • Title III A, English Language Acquisition • ESEA Transferability • In addition, samples will be reviewed from School Improvement and 21st Century grants (if applicable)

31. Fiscal Monitoring • Required upload of documents • Upload required documents by the specified date in the LEA notification email • Fiscal consultants will review prior to visit • Ensure policies cover all requirements • Fiscal consultants will review during visit • Samples of documentation during visit to ensure that the policies and procedures are being followed

32. Fiscal Monitoring • Final notes • Fiscal team will ask for various information on-site, which may include: • Payroll records • General ledger • Travel reimbursements • Purchase documentation (e.g. requisition, bids, purchase order, packing slip, invoice, check) • Inventories • Goal is to ensure that your system • is properly accounting for federal funds • has appropriate internal controls in place • is prepared for federal monitoring or audit

33. Joint Fiscal Monitoring QUESTIONS?

34. Results-based Monitoring

35. Results-based Monitoring Purpose: To monitor and support districts in the implementation of IDEA & ESEA programs that improve outcomes for students, while recognizing continuous improvement is necessary. • Shifting our focus from COMPLIANCE to PERFORMANCE

36. IDEA Monitoring Shift of Focus • IDEA compliance monitoring has produced 85-95% compliance in the areas of student records, parent notification, etc. • Student outcomes measured by academic achievement, graduation rate and dropout rate have not improved over time. • Focus is changing from strict compliance to student outcomes.

37. Continuous Improvement Cycle

38. CPM: Monitoring To monitor and support districts in the implementation of IDEA & ESEA programs that improve outcomes for students, while recognizing continuous improvement is necessary:Results based Monitoring Implemented 2014-15 School Year

39. Process Overview • Why a results-based monitoring tool? • Shifts focus from compliance to program effectiveness • Encourages collaborative conversations around district programs • Provides a better understanding of successes and challenges • How is the results-based monitoring tool organized? • Based on factors influencing student outcomes • Combines IDEA & ESEA monitoring items • Adds an Improvement Plan focusing on suggested strategies to increase student outcomes • Includes a Compliance Action Plan

40. Major Sections of the Monitoring Tool • Quality Leadership • Effective Teachers • Instructional Practices • Climate and Culture • Parent and Community Involvement • Appendices

45. Pilot Survey Results

46. Participating LEA Demographics Six districts and twelve schools volunteered for the monitoring pilot:

47. Relevant Survey Results

48. 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