In the table below, indicate the number of LEAs, by type, that fell under the SEA's General Supervision responsibility for the 2004-2005 school year. Count every LEA, regardless of whether it was monitored in the 2004-2005 school year. Count each LEA only once.
Type of LEA
Number That SEA Was Responsible For
Public LEAs or districts
Cooperatives, intermediate units, service centers, etc.
State-operated schools/programs
Charter schools that are autonomous LEAs
Private schools [count only those for which a regular LEA is not responsible]
Other entities: ___________________________________
TOTAL:
Which of the following best describes the procedures the SEA was using to select LEAs for monitoring (as of the 2004-2005 school year)?
All LEAs were monitored each year. . SKIP to Item 20
A regular cycle (e.g., every 3 years) determined all of the LEAs to be monitored each year.
A cycle determined all of the LEAs to be monitored each year, but the cycle was not regular—the frequency of the monitoring for each LEA was determined by prior compliance or performance. SKIP to Item 17
Prior compliance or performance alone determined which LEAs were monitored each year. SKIP to Item 17
A cycle determined some of the LEAs selected for monitoring each year; others were selected based on prior compliance or performance. SKIP to Item 17
If all LEAs to be monitored were selected according to a regular cycle, the cycle was every ______ years. SKIP to Item 18
Where prior compliance or performance contributed to the selection of LEAs for monitoring, the selection criteria used by the SEA were related to which of the following? [Check all that apply.]
Process and procedural requirements (e.g., failure to complete paperwork or to meet timeliness requirements)
Provision of services or facilitation of the provision of services (e.g., provision of speech therapy, or provision of services in the least restrictive environment)
For the LEAs that the SEA did not select for monitoring, which of the following activities occurred in connection with the state's monitoring efforts, for at least some LEAs? [Check all that apply.]
The SEA collected and analyzed data from the LEAs on compliance indicators (i.e., data related to the processes and procedures required by law).
The SEA collected and analyzed data from the LEAs on child outcome indicators.
The SEA collected and analyzed data from the LEAs on dispute resolution.
The SEA conducted a desk audit or review of data or documents from the LEAs.
The LEAs conducted a self-assessment (self-review) and reported the results to the SEA.
None of the above occurred.
In the table below, indicate by type how many LEAs the SEA selected for monitoring.
Type of LEA
Number That SEA Selected for Monitoring
Public LEAs or districts
Cooperatives, intermediate units, etc.
State-operated schools/programs
Charter schools that are autonomous LEAs
Private schools (count only those for which a regular LEA is not responsible)
Other entities: __________________________
TOTAL:
For the LEAs selected for monitoring, were child records reviewed?
Yes
No. SKIP to Item 26
Was random sampling used to select any of the child records to be reviewed for any LEA?
Yes
No. SKIP to Item 25
Which best describes the random sampling used?
Simple random sampling was used, which means one group of records was selected from all child records, and all records had an equal chance of being selected. SKIP to Item 25.
Stratified random sampling was used, which means multiple groups of records were selected from categories of children sorted according to particular characteristics such as age, disability, or race/ethnicity.
Other: __________________________________________________________. SKIP to Item 25
What categories (or strata) were used for the stratified random sampling? [Check all that apply.]
24. Was oversampling (i.e., selection of a disproportionately large number from a particular category or strata) used for any of the categories?
Yes, for the following categories: _____________, _____________, _____________
No
What were the lowest and highest percentages of child records selected for review among the LEAs monitored in 2004-2005?
Lowest percentage of child records reviewed in any monitored LEA: ______%.
Highest percentage of child records reviewed in any monitored LEA: ______%.
For the LEAs selected for monitoring, did monitoring involve a site visit?
Monitoring included a site visit for all selected LEAs.
Monitoring included a site visit for some LEAs, following a regular cycle.
Monitoring included a site visit for some LEAs, based on decision criteria.
Monitoring never included a site visit.
Were LEAs selected for monitoring required to conduct self-assessments that were incorporated into the overall monitoring and local improvement activities conducted by the SEA?
Yes, all were.
Yes, some were, but not all.
No. SKIP to Item 29
Did the SEA provide a standard self-assessment procedure (e.g., a standard set of elements to address, procedures for addressing those elements) for the LEA to follow?
Yes
No
In the table below, indicate how often the SEA used each of the following data sources when monitoring an LEA or when planning improvements. [Check one box in each row; disregard the shaded numbers.]
Data Source
Frequency of Use for Monitoring or Improvement Planning
Never
Rarely
Usually
Always
Parent survey
1
2
3
4
Parent interviews or focus groups
1
2
3
4
Teacher survey
1
2
3
4
Teacher interviews or focus groups
1
2
3
4
Advocate survey
1
2
3
4
Advocate interviews or focus groups
1
2
3
4
Site-based administrator (principal) survey
1
2
3
4
Site-based administrator (principal) interviews or focus groups
1
2
3
4
Central office/program office administrator survey
1
2
3
4
Central office/program office administrator interviews or focus groups
1
2
3
4
LEA self-assessment reports
1
2
3
4
Public hearings
1
2
3
4
Review of child or student folders, including review of IEPs/IFSPs
1
2
3
4
Review of dispute resolution data (complaints, mediations, due process hearings)
1
2
3
4
Review of LRE (least restrictive environment) data
1
2
3
4
Review of child/student assessment data
1
2
3
4
Review of suspension-expulsion data
1
2
3
4
Review of dropout data or graduation data
1
2
3
4
Review of AYP data
1
2
3
4
Other: ___________________________________
1
2
3
4
Other: ___________________________________
1
2
3
4
Were findings from Part C monitoring activities used for monitoring or improvement planning related to the Part C to Part B transition?
Yes
No
Did the state have an electronic database of individual child records (i.e., records that included individual student/child identifiers) from which information was extracted and analyzed for monitoring and improvement planning?
Yes
No. SKIP to Item 35
Indicate in the table below which data were included in the database for which age group. [Circle Yes or No in each box.]
Data Available to SEA in Electronic Form
Child Age Group
Data Available to SEA in Electronic Form
Some or all child records were available for all LEAs
Some or all child records were available for some LEAs
Available child records included IEPs/ IFSPs for all LEAs
Available child records included IEPs/ IFSPs for some LEAs
Birth through 2
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
3 through 5
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
6 through 18
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
19 through 21
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Did the database allow the tracking of children from Part C to Part B?
Yes
No
How often were the data updated?
Continuously
Monthly
Annually
Other: ___________________________
After completing Item 34, SKIP to Item 39
Does the state have plans to establish an electronic database of individual child records?
Yes
No. SKIP to Item 39
Will the planned electronic database include child records from all LEAs?
Yes
No.
What ages will be included in the planned electronic database?
_________through _________
On what date will the planned database be fully operational?
_______________
Did the SEA have available for monitoring and improvement planning detailed information (including summaries of issues, topics, or resolutions) from any of the following? [Check all that apply.]
Complaints
Mediations
Due process hearings
Compensatory education
Compliance findings
Corrective actions
Local improvement plans
Were data regarding dispute resolution analyzed to determine whether statewide systemic noncompliance had occurred?
Yes
No
Were data regarding dispute resolution analyzed to determine whether local systemic noncompliance (within LEAs) had occurred?
Yes
No
Did findings from monitoring and improvement activities lead to further evaluation in specific areas where statewide systemic noncompliance or deficiencies in performance were found?
Yes
No. SKIP to Item 44
Who conducted such an evaluation?
The SEA conducted the evaluation.
An advisory group or steering committee conducted the evaluation.
The SEA contracted with an independent external evaluator to conduct the evaluation.
The SEA required LEAs to conduct self-evaluations focused on the problem area.
PDF & Related Info