History of Monitoring and Improvement

89. Indicate in the table below how monitoring has changed in the state since the enactment of the IDEA amendments of 1997. [Check one box in each row; disregard the shaded numbers.]

Since 1997 . . .	Greatly decreased	Slightly decreased	Stayed About the Same	Slightly increased	Greatly increased
parent input to the planning of monitoring procedures has . . .	1	2	3	4	5
other stakeholder input to the planning of monitoring procedures has . . .	1	2	3	4	5
parent involvement in data collection and analysis activities has . . .	1	2	3	4	5
other stakeholder involvement in data collection and analysis activities has . . .	1	2	3	4	5
public awareness of monitoring and improvement activities has . . .	1	2	3	4	5
use of data in planning the SEA's monitoring and improvement activities has . . .	1	2	3	4	5
the number or frequency of site visits to LEAs to collect information has . . .	1	2	3	4	5
the focus on child outcomes has . . .	1	2	3	4	5
the emphasis on compliance issues such as process and procedural requirements has . . .	1	2	3	4	5
public reporting of monitoring findings, by individual LEAs, has . . .	1	2	3	4	5
public reporting of monitoring findings, aggregated across LEAs, has . . .	1	2	3	4	5
the frequency of LEA self-assessments has . . .	1	2	3	4	5
other area (specify: _________) has . . .	1	2	3	4	5
other area (specify: _________) has . . .	1	2	3	4	5

90. What special situations in the state have played a role in shaping monitoring and improvement activities since 1997? [Check all that apply.]
1. None
2. Consent decree or settlement of a lawsuit
3. Pending litigation
4. State law that requires a specific monitoring methodology
5. State law that limits data collection by the SEA
6. State law that specifically limits extent of monitoring activities by the SEA
7. State law that limits the number of state agency staff devoted to monitoring activities
8. Limited state-level resources for monitoring due to other funding priorities
9. Other: _______________
10. Other: _______________
91. Has the performance of the SEA in conducting monitoring and improvement activities been formally evaluated since 1997?
1. Yes
2. No. SKIP to Item 95
92. How was the SEA's performance evaluated? [Check all that apply.]
1. The SEA conducted a self-evaluation.
2. An advisory group or steering committee evaluated the SEA's performance.
3. The SEA contracted with an independent external evaluator to assess the agency's performance.
4. Other: _______________
93. Did this evaluation include an opportunity for LEAs to provide feedback on the SEA's performance?
1. Yes
2. No
94. How was it decided that an evaluation was needed? [Check all that apply.]
1. SEA performance is evaluated every _____ year(s) according to a fixed schedule.
2. An advisory group or steering committee decided an evaluation was needed.
3. SEA administrators decided an evaluation was needed.
4. Evaluation occurs only in response to impending OSEP monitoring activities in the state.
5. Other: _______________
95. What was the last year the SEA made major revisions to the state's procedures for monitoring and improvement activities? __________
96. Please describe important changes, if any, that you have made to the state's monitoring and improvement activities since the 2004-2005 monitoring period (i.e., since the time period covered by this survey).

________________________________________ ________________________________________ ________________________________________ ________________________________________

97. Does the state have a plan for major changes in procedures for monitoring and improvement activities?
1. Yes, with changes scheduled to be put in place in the year _________ (e.g., 2006)
2. No

Top