Categorical Program Monitoring Update

1
Categorical Program MonitoringUpdate
CPM
2
Welcome and Introductions
CPM

•   

3
Purpose of Presentation

• Provide information and highlights of CPM
  regarding
• Current Status
• For the Future
• Questions and Answers

4
Background and Overview
CPM

•   

5
Monitoring and Reviewing

• Monitor programs
• Review documents

6
Goal of CPM
Promote the achievement of statutory desired
outcomes and verify compliance with program
requirements.

• Categorical funds are used for authorized
  purposes.
• Statutory performance goals are achieved.
• (34 CFR 80.40(a))

7
NCLB, Title I, Part A Desired Outcome All
students reach proficiency on challenging state
academic content standards and state academic
assessments. (20 USC 6301)
Desired Outcome for English Learners English
learners acquire full proficiency in English as
rapidly and effectively as possible. (20 USC
1703f, 6892 EC 300f, 5 CCR 11302a)
Refer to last page of packet
8
Seven Dimensions

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

9
Categorical Program Cycle

• Measure achievement and the effectiveness of
  current improvement strategies
• Reaffirm or revise goals
• Revise improvement strategies and expenditures
• Implement approved plan(s)
• Monitor implementation

10
Categorical Program Cycle

• General model of ongoing improvement
• Applies to
• Single Plan for Student Achievement
• LEA ongoing monitoring
• CDE monitoring process

11
CPM Process

• Overall feedback is positive.
• SDAD is applying ongoing monitoring to the
  implementation of CPM.
• Continue to make incremental improvements where
  needed.

12
Instruments
CPM
13
Program Instruments Currently

• Contain compliance monitoring items core and
  supporting
• Cross-Program Instrument and program specific
  Instruments
• The CPM Instruments are the test for compliance
• On the CDE Web site at http//www.cde.ca.gov/ta/cr
  /cc/

14
Program Instruments For the Future

• No plans for major changes
• Updated when there is a change in program
  requirements

15
Cross-Program Instrument

• Currently contains compliance items that apply
  across categorical programs
• For the future
• Identify and eliminate redundancy and duplication
  of items
• Continue to work with CDE staff on using and
  writing findings for cross-program items

16
Sources of Evidence Currently

• Evidence verifying compliance includes
• Documents
• Interviews
• Observations
• Information requested only if legally required
  and listed in the instrument
• List of documents to send to CDE at
  http//www.cde.ca.gov/ta/cr/cc

17
Findings Currently

• Findings of noncompliance rely on evidence
  reviewed not opinion
• Findings clearly state why the LEA is
  noncompliant

18
What the Monitoring Team Uses
Cross-Program Desired Outcome This instrument
contains compliance items that apply across
categorical programs the desired outcome is to
eliminate redundancy and the duplication of
findings of noncompliance.
19
What the Monitoring Team Records
20
Sample Findings

• Findings for II-CP.3(a) At Maben High School,
  SPSA objectives, activities, and expenditures are
  not aligned with school goals to improve the
  academic achievement of English learners.

21
Ongoing Program Self-Evaluation Tool(OPSET)
CPM
22
OPSET Currently

• Designed to help create and maintain compliant
  state and federal categorical programs
• Organized around the same seven dimensions as the
  CPM instruments
• Helps answer the question "What must be done for
  a program to be considered compliant?
• On the CDE Web site at http//www.cde.ca.gov/ta/cr
  /cc/

23
OPSET Structure

• Synthesis of Requirements
• Core and Supporting Items
• Examples of Evidence
• Resources

24
(No Transcript)
25
OPSETs For the Future

• Continue to refine resources and suggestions for
  improving ongoing monitoring

26
Site Selection
CPM
27
Selection Criteria Currently

• California Education Code Section 64001(b) the
  Superintendent of Public Instruction shall
  establish thecriteria for differentiating these
  reviews based on the achievement of pupils, as
  demonstrated by the Academic Performance
  Indexand evidence of district compliance with
  state and federal law.

28
Initial Selection

• Step 1
• Districts and county offices of education
  designated as Program Improvement will be
  scheduled for a monitoring visit.
• For all public schools within the LEAs of a given
  cycle, API data will be compared to CDE criteria.
  
• A random sample of LEAs and schools in the LEAs
  meeting these criteria will be selected.
• If the LEA/schools meet the criteria, then
  ongoing monitoring continues.

29
Calendaring Visits

• Step 2
• Eligible schools are prioritized for a monitoring
  visit.
• LEA and schools are calendared for a visit.
• CDE monitoring team calendars a planning meeting.
• LEA CPM coordinator is notified of visits,
  including the programs being monitored.
• LEA sends documents to CDE.
• Schools not selected for a visit continue ongoing
  monitoring.

30
Prior to the Visit

• Step 3
• Team reviews documents.
• Specific program staff determines if documents
  are sufficient for monitoring purposes and a
  visit is not necessary.
• Provide LEA coordinator with feedback.
• Schools continue ongoing monitoring of programs
  not scheduled for the onsite visit.

31
Elements of a Visit
CPM
32
Schedule of Onsite Activities

• Based on
• Programs being monitored.
• Findings from a team review of documents prior to
  visiting the LEA.

33
At the Administrative Center

• Entrance meeting
• Administration meeting
• Review documents
• Interviews and meetings
• Finalize logistics
• Debriefing

34
At the Instructional Setting

• Site entrance meeting
• Observations
• Review documents
• Interviews and group meetings
• Ongoing communication
• Debriefing

35
Before Leaving

• Team meeting
• Finalize Notification of Findings
• Exit meeting(s)
• Informal discussion
• Formal reading of findings
• Follow up

36
Current Monitoring Cycles
CPM
DRAFT
37
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
38
Equalization of Scheduling

• Balancing the four-year workload within each
  region
• Moved from Cycle A to Cycle B
• San Mateo County
• Solano County
• Tulare County (50 of the LEAs)
• Ventura County

39
Draft of Current Cycles
DRAFT

• Cycle A 2005-06
• Cycle B 2006-07
• Cycle C 2007-08
• Cycle D 2008-09
• These are subject to change.

40
Draft for Cycle A (2005-06)
DRAFT

• Region County
• 1 Lake, Mendocino
• 2 Glenn
• 3 Alpine, Colusa, El Dorado
• 4 Contra Costa, San Francisco
• 5 No LEAs Scheduled
• 6 San Joaquin
• 7 Tulare (50)
• 8 Santa Barbara
• 9 No LEAs Scheduled
• 10 No LEAs Scheduled
• 11 Los Angeles, LAUSD

41
Draft for Cycle B (2006-07)
DRAFT

• Region County
• 1 Sonoma
• 2 Lassen, Siskiyou
• 3 Sacramento
• 4 Marin, San Mateo, Solano
• 5 No LEAs Scheduled
• 6 Amador, Calaveras, Tuolumne
• 7 Fresno, Kings, Merced,Tulare (50)
• 8 Ventura
• 9 No LEAs Scheduled
• 10 Riverside
• 11 Los Angeles, LAUSD
• Moved from Cycle A

42
Draft of Cycle C (2007-08)
DRAFT

• Region County
• 1 Del Norte, Humboldt
• 2 Butte, Modoc, Shasta, Trinity
• 3 No LEAs Scheduled
• 4 Alameda, Napa
• 5 Monterey, San Benito, Santa Cruz
• 6 No LEAs Scheduled
• 7 No LEAs Scheduled
• 8 No LEAs Scheduled
• 9 Imperial, Orange, San Diego
• 10 No LEAs Scheduled
• 11 Los Angeles, LAUSD

43
Draft of Cycle D (2008-09)
DRAFT

• Region County
• 1 No LEAs Scheduled
• 2 Plumas, Tehama
• 3 Nevada, Placer, Sierra, Sutter, Yolo, Yuba
• 4 No LEAs Scheduled
• 5 Santa Clara
• 6 Stanislaus
• 7 Madera, Mariposa
• 8 Kern, San Luis Obispo
• 9 No LEAs Scheduled
• 10 San Bernardino
• 11 Los Angeles, LAUSD

44
http//www.cde.ca.gov/ta/cr/cc/
45
Questions
46
Why no commendations?

• The role of the CPM team is to monitor
  compliance not program quality.
• Commendations are statements of quality that
  represent subjectivity in the absence of specific
  criteria.

47
What assistance is available during a visit?

• During a compliance visit, assistance in
  resolving items of noncompliance should be
  clearly represented in the written findings.
• Additional compliance assistance, at the request
  of the LEA, can and should be offered.
• Program effectiveness and quality assistance is
  to be addressed outside the CPM visit.

48
Will program quality and effectiveness assistance
be available?

• We are beginning the foundational work on an
  effective practices piece separate from
  compliance monitoring.
• It will not be used to determine compliance.
• It is in response to LEAs requesting suggestions
  on creating and maintaining effective, quality
  programs.