Categorical Program Monitoring: An Ongoing Process 200506

1
Categorical Program Monitoring An Ongoing
Process2005-06
2
Welcome and Introductions
CPM

•   

3
Todays Goals

• Provide attendees with information about the CPM
  process and its primary components
• Instruments (e.g., CPI)
• Guide (OPSET)
• Through use of and discussion about the OPSETs,
  help attendees formulate ideas for implementing
  this ongoing monitoring tool locally.
• Provide attendees an opportunity to discuss local
  needs for the Regional Trainings.
• Provide attendees an opportunity to begin the
  dialogue about CPM with their Regional Team
  Leaders.

4
Regional Assignments(Tab 3)
CPM

•   

5
2005-06 Regional Team Leaders
Region 1 Pilo Salas Region 2 Lynn
Bartlett Region 3 Geeta Rezvani Region 4
Robert Gomez Region 5 Jim Greco Region 6
Ted Hawthorne Region 7 Lynn Bartlett Region 8
Ana Marsh Region 9 Ted Hawthorne Region 10
Geeta Rezvani Region 11 Jesus Contreras
6
2005-06 CPM Regions and Counties

• Region County
• Lake, Mendocino
• Glenn
• Alpine, Colusa, El Dorado
• Contra Costa, San Francisco
• San Joaquin
• Tulare
• Santa Barbara
• 11 Los Angeles, LAUSD

7
Equalization of Scheduling

• Balancing the four-year workload within each
  region
• Forwarding reviews for the following counties to
  2006-07
• San Mateo County
• Solano County
• Tulare County (50 of the LEAs)
• Ventura County

8
Background and Overview (Tab 2)
CPM

•   

9
Goals of CPM

• Assure that funds are used for the authorized
  purposes and that statutory performance goals are
  achieved. (34 CFR 80.40(a))
• Increase the efficiency and consistency of CDE
  categorical monitoring, data reporting,
  recording, and analysis.
• Demonstrate an understanding and need for
  categorical program integration and analysis.

10
Background

• The Coordinated Compliance Review (CCR) process
  has been modified in several significant ways
• Reconfiguration of the CCR instruments to ensure
  tighter adherence and alignment with state and
  federal law
• Development of a Categorical Program Guide
  aligned with the new instruments

11
Process
Old name Coordinated Compliance Review

• New name
• Categorical Program Monitoring (CPM)
• Review implied an event that occurred only
  once every four years.
• Monitoring implies a process one in which the
  LEA is an active participant on an ongoing basis.

12

• Adapted from the California School Leadership
  Academys Continuous Improvement Planning Process
  (CIPP) as presented in Nine Lessons of Successful
  School Leadership Teams, Bill McKeever, 2003.

13
CPM Instrument and Guide

• Both are grounded in law.
• The Instrument is the compliance test.
• The Guide is a companion to the Instrument.
• An analogy with the classroom

CPM Instrument (The test)
CPM OPSET (The study guide)
CPM Effective Practices (The course)
14
Program Dimensions

• Involvement
• Governance and Administration
• Funding
• Standards, Assessment, and Accountability
• Staffing and Professional Development
• Opportunity and Equal Educational Access
• Teaching and Learning

15
Involvement
Opportunity and Equal Educational Access
Governance and Administration
Teaching and Learning
Funding
Staffing and Professional Development
Standards, Assessment, and Accountability
16
Instruments(Tab 4)
CPM
17
CPM Instruments

• Compliance monitoring items core and supporting
• Cross-Program Instrument and program specific
  Instrument
• Used for the first time during the 2005-06 CPM
  cycle
• Primary user of the Instrument is the CPM program
  reviewer
• The CPM Instrument is the test for compliance
• On the CDE Web site at http//www.cde.ca.gov/ta/cr
  /cc/

18
(No Transcript)
19
(No Transcript)
20
Sources of Evidence

• Emphasis on evidence of compliance
• Specific documents requested only if legally
  required

21
The Guide
CPM
22
CPM Guide

• Designed to assist LEAs in creating and
  maintaining compliant programs
• Resource for LEAs to use on an ongoing basis
  before, during, and beyond a CPM cycle
• Primary audience is the LEA

23
Table of Contents of the CPM Guide

• Message from the State Superintendent
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• Purpose of the Guide
• Overview of the CPM Process
• LEA monitoring activities
• CDE monitoring activities
• Ongoing Program Self-Evaluation Tools (OPSET)
• Effective Practices (for 2006-07 cycle)
• Appendices
• Sample Notification of Findings
• CDE Contacts

24
Ongoing Program Self-Evaluation Tool (OPSET)

• Synthesizes program requirements
• Includes the core and supporting items from the
  Instrument
• Provides examples of evidence
• Identifies resources

25
(No Transcript)
26
Cross-Program (CP) OPSET(Tab 5)
CPM
27
CP Reflects Goals of CPM by

• assuring funds are used for authorized purposes
  and program goals are achieved.
• increasing consistency of monitoring, data
  reporting, recording, and analysis.
• demonstrating categorical program integration and
  analysis.

28
Cross-Program

• Contains compliance items that apply across
  categorical programs
• Eliminates redundancy and duplication of findings
  of non-compliance
• Provides a CPM Team focus

29
Involvement

• I-CP.1 LEA consults NPS officials in planning
  NCLB programs.

30
Governance and Administration

• II-CP.2 LEA implements the LEA Plan
• II-CP.3 SSC develops and updates the SPSA
• II-CP.4 SSC annually updates SPSA
• II-CP.5 SSC meets legal composition
• II-CP.6 LEA provides information to parents
• II-CP.7 LEA maintains equipment inventory

31
Funding

• III-CP.8 LEA disburses per the ConApp.
• III-CP.9 supplement state and federal funds.
• III-CP.10 LEA properly charges salaries.

32
Standards and Accountability

• IV-CP.11 SARC is complete.
• IV-CP.12 LEA evaluates achievement SSC
  determines if strategies meet student needs

33
Staffing and Professional Development

• V-CP.13 LEA hires NCLB compliant teachers
• V-CP.14 LEA hires qualified paraprofessionals

34
Opportunity and Equal Access

• VI-CP.15 Activities are available to all
  qualified persons.VI-CP.16 Programs are
  accessible to disabled persons.

35
Writing Findings
36
Background

• The LEA reviews the Single Plan for Student
  Achievement (SPSA) for MabenHigh SPSA
  objectives, activities and expenditures for EL
  students are not aligned with school goals to
  improve their achievement.
• On-site interview confirms School Site Council
  (SSC) did not compare planned activities with
  assessed student needs.

37
Sample Statement of Findings

• Findings At Maben High School, SPSA objectives,
  activities and expenditures are not aligned with
  school goals to improve the academic achievement
  of English learners.

38
Site Selection(Tab 6)
CPM
39
Selection Criteria for 2005-06
40
CPM

• Forms (Tab 7)
• Satisfaction Survey
• Notification of Findings of Noncompliance
• Proposed Resolution of Findings of Noncompliance

41
Calendared Events(Tab 8)
CPM
42
CDE Calendared Events

• Schedule of on-site visits
• Trainings and professional development
• Team meetings to prepare for on-site visits
• Team meetings during on-site visits
• Post on-site team meetings

43
Regional Categorical Program Training

• Purpose
• Develop regional relationships
• Focus will be on specific programs
• Follow-up to Overview Seminars
• Review categorical program instruments and OPSETs
• Tailored to regional audience
• Invitees
• LEAs scheduled for on-site visits
• Coordinated/facilitated by RTLs
• Presented by selected CDE program staff

44
Regional Categorical Program Compliance Training
Schedule

• Region Date Location
• 1 Nov. 3-4 Mendocino COE
• 2 Nov. 17 - 18 Willows
• 3 Oct. 31-Nov. 1 Sacramento COE
• 4 Oct. 25-26 Pleasant Hill
• 6 Nov. 28-29 San Joaquin COE
• 7 Nov. 9-10 Visalia USD
• 8 Oct. 20-21 Santa Barbara ESD
• 11 TBD TBD

45
Questions