Process for State and Local Improvement

70. In the table below, indicate the types of analysis used to support decisions related to corrective actions and local improvement planning or implementation. [Check all boxes that apply; disregard the shaded numbers.]

Type of Analysis	Used for Decisions Related to Corrective Actions	Used for Decisions Related to Local Improvement Planning or Implementation
Comparing levels of compliance or performance to targets set for that LEA	1	2
Comparing present levels of compliance or performance to the LEA's own baseline	1	2
Determining trends for the LEA and comparing those to the LEA's current compliance or performance	1	2
Comparing areas of strength to areas of weakness within the LEA	1	2
Comparing levels of compliance or performance to standards that apply to all LEAs in the state	1	2
Comparing levels of compliance or performance to the levels for other LEAs in the state	1	2
Other: _______	1	2

71. In the table below, estimate how frequently the actions listed were required of LEAs as part of corrective actions or as part of local improvement planning and implementation. [Check two boxes in each row; disregard the shaded numbers.] View question 71
72. Estimate in the table below how frequently the SEA took the actions listed in support of corrective actions or improvement planning and implementation by LEAs. [Check two boxes in each row; disregard the shaded numbers.]
    View question 72
73. What procedures did the SEA follow in monitoring progress on corrective actions?
1. Progress on corrective actions was not monitored by the SEA.
2. Progress on corrective actions was noted and addressed the next time the LEA was selected for monitoring but was not followed in the interim.
3. LEAs were required to take the initiative on corrective actions and report progress to the SEA.
4. SEA staff took the initiative to follow up with LEAs on corrective actions, possibly including conducting a follow-up visit to the LEA.
5. Other: ______________________________________
74. What procedures did the SEA follow in monitoring progress on local improvement plans?
1. Progress on plans was not monitored by the SEA.
2. Progress on plans was noted and addressed the next time the LEA was selected for monitoring but was not followed in the interim.
3. LEAs were required to take the initiative on improvement plans and report progress to the SEA.
4. SEA staff took the initiative to follow up with LEAs on improvement plans, possibly including conducting a follow-up visit to the LEA.
5. Other: ______________________________________
75. Did the SEA examine the relationship between (a) findings from a review of an LEA's compliance with the processes and procedures required by law and with requirements to provide appropriate services and (b) the LEA's child outcomes?
1. Yes
2. No. SKIP to Item 77
76. What kind of analysis did the SEA conduct? [Check all that apply.]
1. A cross-sectional statistical analysis comparing compliance data to outcome data across LEAs at a single point in time
2. A longitudinal statistical analysis comparing compliance data to outcome data over time within an LEA
3. A qualitative analysis that used expert informants to provide evidence of links between compliance and outcomes within an LEA
4. An informal analysis based on the judgment of SEA staff
5. Other: ______________________________________
77. How did the state reward individual LEAs for reducing noncompliance? [Check all that apply.]
1. Proclamation, public commendation, or award
2. Additional funds or monetary award
3. Less frequent monitoring
4. Other: ______________________________________
5. Other: ______________________________________
6. State used no rewards
78. Did the SEA have written guidelines or procedures outlining the specific incentives the state would use with LEAs to reduce noncompliance?
1. Yes
2. No
79. How did the state reward individual LEAs to encourage local improvement planning and implementation? [Check all that apply.]
1. Proclamation, public commendation, or award
2. Additional funds or monetary award
3. Less frequent monitoring
4. Other: ______________________________________
5. Other: ______________________________________
6. State used no rewards
80. Did the SEA have written guidelines or procedures outlining the specific incentives the state would use with LEAs to encourage local improvement activities?
1. Yes
2. No
81. What sanctions did the state have authority to use in the event of noncompliance by an LEA? [Check all that apply.]
1. Negotiating a compliance agreement
2. Imposing restrictions or special conditions on the use of funds
3. Withholding funds in whole or in part
4. Obtaining a "cease and desist" order
5. Referring the noncompliant entity to the state attorney general
6. Other: ______________________________________
7. Other: ______________________________________
82. What factors did the SEA consider in deciding whether to impose a sanction? [Check all that apply.]
1. Duration of noncompliance
2. Extent (breadth) of noncompliance
3. Severity of the noncompliance
4. Effort made to correct the problem
5. Whether the problem was related to provision of student services versus procedural requirements
6. Other: ______________________________________
83. Did the SEA have written guidelines or procedures outlining the specific sanctions that would occur for specific types of noncompliance?
1. Yes
2. No
84. Did the SEA use materials, procedural guidelines, or technical assistance related to monitoring and improvement planning that were provided by any of the following? [Check all that apply.]
1. Regional Resource Centers (RRCs)
2. Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education (CADRE)
3. National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO)
4. National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center (NECTAC)
5. National Center for Special Education Accountability Monitoring (NCSEAM)
6. Early Childhood Outcome Center (ECO)
7. Other OSEP-funded projects: ________________, ________________, ________________
8. Other Department of Education-funded projects: ________________, ________________, ________________
9. In-state university or university-affiliated consultants
10. Out-of-state university or out-of-state university-affiliated consultants
11. Private consultants or private organizations
12. Professional organizations: ________________, ________________, ________________
13. Other: ________________
14. None of the above
85. In regard to the preparation of teachers and other personnel, did findings from monitoring influence practices at universities in the state?
1. Yes
2. No . SKIP to Item 87
3. Don't know . SKIP to Item 87
86. In what ways did findings from monitoring influence practices at universities in the state? [Check all that apply.]
1. Findings were considered by state agencies when deciding which personnel preparation programs to license or support.
2. Findings were used by faculty in deciding what type of technical assistance or professional development to offer.
3. Findings were used by the state in considering what university-based technical assistance or professional development to support.
4. Findings were used by faculty for curriculum planning.
5. Other: ________________
6. Other: ________________
87. Were monitoring findings used by other departments and divisions in the SEA or by other state agencies?
1. Yes
2. No . SKIP to Item 89
3. Don't know . SKIP to Item 89
88. List departments, divisions, or other agencies using monitoring findings:

________________________________________ ________________________________________ ________________________________________ ________________________________________

Top