|
|
|
|
|
Tuesday,
July 15
|
| |
|
Session
1:
|
|
The Context of Educational Benefit and State Examples—
|
| |
|
Expected
Result
-
Participants will be aware of potential relationships among
administrative supervision, focused monitoring, Educational Benefit
(Rowley decision, etc.) and the selective purpose of the Workgroup and
short-term and long-term expected results.
|
| |
| RESULTS
of Session 1
|
|
| The following
background information was shared to provide the context in which the
group will work.
|
| |
| Purpose of the
workgroup |
|
|
To utilize selected
outcome measures and related procedural requirements in focused
monitoring protocols (file reviews, interviews, focus groups, etc.)
that carefully investigate compliance with important priorities in the
implementation of state and Federal law. |
| |
| Partner States
|
|
California
Connecticut
Florida
Louisiana
Mississippi
New Mexico
New York
Texas
|
|
|
|
| Workgroup tasks
for the two days (7/15 and 7/16)
|
- States became informed about several approaches/protocols for
examining Educational Benefit.
- State participants
clarified their premises and assumptions about how to investigate
Educational Benefit.
- Participants had access to resources (people and documents)
that operationalize and implement focused monitoring
investigations of Educational Benefit.
|
|
Introduction
to Educational Benefit
Assurance of
compliance is a principle result of effective administrative
supervision. Traditional
compliance has always been driven by numerous (more than 800) specific
procedures. Within a
focused monitoring approach, selected but important procedures based
on stakeholder selection are used to investigate a narrow area for
compliance.
Compliance
=
Educational
Procedures (traditional compliance)
+
Educational
Benefit (evidence-based judgment about “Reasonably Calculated”).
|
|
|
|
The components of
effective administrative supervision (monitoring):
|
|
- comprehensive policies and
procedures
- data on program processes and
results
- training and technical
assistance (CSPD/SIG)
- effective complaint
management
- investigations,
corrective actions, and enforcement
|
|
| The
history of Educational Benefit: |
| |
- 94-142 Free and
Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)
- Board of Education
vs Rowley (1982)—settling the question “what is FAPE?
- IDEA
97---shifted the focus to Educational Benefit
|
|
Rowley considerations:
|
| |
|
Board
of Education v. Rowley
Decided
June 28,
1982
Free Appropriate Public Education |
Justice
Rehnquist, “we think more must be made of it than either respondents
or the United States seems willing to admit…Thus, if personalized
instruction is being provided with sufficient supportive services to permit
the child to benefit from the instruction, and other items on the
definitional checklist are satisfied, the child is receiving a 'free
appropriate public education' as defined by the Act.”
The Act consists of access to specialized instruction and related
services which are individually designed to provide Educational
Benefit to the <child with a disability>” |
| |
|
Balance
struck in Rowley
|
“Congress
did not impose upon the states any greater substantive educational
standard <than general education> Indeed,…Congress expressly
‘recognize(d) …the process of providing special education and
related services … is not guaranteed to produce any particular
outcome.”
“It would do little good for Congress to spend millions of
dollars in providing access to public education only to have the …child
<with a disability> receive no benefit from that
education.” |
| |
A
Standard (?) for some students
|
“Such
instruction…if the child is being educated in the regular classrooms
of the public education system, should be Reasonably Calculated to
enable the child to achieve passing marks and advance from grade to
grade" (Justice
Rhenquist)
|
| |
| Note:
See the power point presentations “What
is Educational Benefit”
and
“Educational
Benefit Workgroup Meeting”
to review the entire presentation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Session
2:
|
|
California's Protocol for Investigating Educational Benefit
|
|
|
| Expected
Result - participants will be aware of California's State Department
of Education's protocol including pre-visit staffing, use of software
resulting in customized monitoring plan and customized monitoring
record reviews, interviews, etc. |
|
|
RESULTS
of Session 2 |
| |
| The
California Department of Education (CDE) has revised and focused its
monitoring system to increase emphasis on Educational Benefit.
The monitoring process is based upon five monitoring questions:
|
| |
- Does the
district provide services that result in Educational Benefit using
the
Rowley standard?
- Does the district provide services that result in Educational
Benefit as measured by special education goals and key performance
indicators?
- Does the district comply with procedural guarantees that are
known to be frequent noncompliance items in other districts?
- Does the district fulfill its responsibilities as the district
of residence when its students are served by other districts and
programs?
- Does the SELPA (of which the district is part) fulfill its
responsibilities for monitoring the procedural elements of the local
plan?
|
|
|
California
defines compliance in the area of Educational Benefit as “the IEP
team used procedurally compliant information and processes to plan a
program that was Reasonably Calculated to result in Educational
Benefit.” Educational
Benefit can be measured in a variety of ways including: achieving
passing marks, advancing from grade to grade, making progress toward
meeting goals and objectives, improved scores on statewide or district
wide tests and alternate assessment measures, graduating with a
diploma, passing the High School Exit Exam.
|
| |
| Reasonable
calculation is defined by California
as:
|
|
- complete assessment
- needs
identified by the IEP team related to the disability and
involvement and progress in the general curriculum
- established goals
and objectives in each need area
- planned services to
support progress toward all goals, progress in the general
curriculum, participation in extracurricular and other nonacademic
activities, and education with other disabled and nondisabled
children
- review of the
child’s progress by the IEP team and adjusted if progress was
not made and/or to address anticipated needs
|
|
|
The
California monitoring process looks at Educational Benefit in two ways:
|
|
- Uses Key Performance Indicator
(KPI) data to identify
procedural elements that are associated with Educational Benefit (CDE
Special Education Goals)
- Directly examines issues of Educational Benefit through
team reviews of student records.
|
|
| Key
Performance Indicators
|
|
| Districts
are selected based on low KPI scores relative to other districts in
key KPIs. In order to
examine Educational Benefit based on KPIs, specific “procedural
guarantee” items were identified with KPIs if:
|
|
-
There was a
direct programmatic relationship (e.g. child find and assessment
procedures to percent of students served or ethnic disparity)
- Analysis of
preliminary research findings indicated that the item or cluster
of items was associated with “better” KPI values (e.g.
complete IEP and reading scores)
|
|
| Thus,
the analysis of Educational Benefit in this area is designed to show
those procedural items that may be contributing to “less
desirable” KPI values.
|
|
|
Team Review of Student Records
|
|
|
California
uses a team review of student records approach when investigating
Educational Benefit. The
purpose of the review is to determine whether the IEP was Reasonably
Calculated for Educational Benefit.
Five student records per school site are chosen to reflect a
full spectrum of the district’s special education programs and
services. Representatives
from the district who are familiar with the student’s program meet
with the state team to review documentation from the last three years
of the student’s program (e.g., triennial assessments, IEPs,
progress reports).
The documentation from each year is organized according to
present performance (needs), goals, and services. This information is
then charted on newsprint beginning with the most recent triennial.
|
|
| The
process assists teams in visualizing the student’s special education
program in order to ask the following important questions related to
Educational Benefit:
|
|
- Is the assessment
complete and does it identify the student’s needs?
- Does the present performance include all of the needs
identified in the assessment?
- Are all of the
student’s educational needs addressed by appropriate goals and
objectives?
- Do
the services support goals and objectives?
- Did
the student make yearly progress?
- If the student did
not make progress?
a. Were the goals and objectives changed in the next IEP to
assist
the student to make progress?
b. Were the services changed in the next IEP to assist
the student to
make progress?
- Were
enough services provided to ensure that the student would make
progress?
- To assess for
overall compliance, considering the answers in each of the above,
was the IEP Reasonably Calculated to result in Educational
Benefit?
|
|
|
Through the first year of implementation, California
has found that this process:
|
|
-
is highly appreciated in the districts
- district staff are
implementing new approaches and changing practice as a result of
having participated in this process
-
seems to infuse meaning back into what is written on paper
- highlights
procedural issues in the context of the overall program
- helps to spot
emerging trends (e.g. drop outs)
-
forces continuity of program over time (every IEP is not a
new day)
- brings into question
the reasons for the change in services-levels, amount and location
|
|
| Based
upon this experience, the CDE plans to refine criteria for
compliance/noncompliance through focus groups with staff and with
district personnel. They
also intend to train PTI staff in the process so that they can support
parents and district teams to reflect back on prior IEPs in creating
the next one.
|
|
| Note:
For
more information see "CA
Educational Benefit"
power point
presentation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Session
4:
|
| Louisiana's Protocol for Investigating
Educational Benefit
|
|
| Expected
Results - participants will be aware of the selective nature of how
Louisiana
monitoring of an LEA focusing
the on-site protocol to investigate compliance areas related to the
measurable indicator that led to the LEA's selection ("Boxes
Methodology").
|
|
| RESULTS
of Session 4
|
|
| The
Louisiana Department of Education has developed a data-guided process
in which many data elements are collected thereby providing
information relative to student outcomes.
The information includes data specific to students with
disabilities, school systems, and individual school sites.
Trends and patterns gleaned from the data assist the Department
of Education in formulating a hypothesis to focus the on-site
compliance monitoring.
|
|
|
Louisiana
organizes the focused monitoring process through a “Box” method.
For each regulatory issue, a “box” or protocol has been
developed. Regulatory
areas include:
|
|
- Child Find
-
Gifted Education
-
Screening, Intervention, and Appraisal
- Program Placement
Services (ages 3-5)
- Program Placement
Services (ages 6-21)
- Transition
- Discipline
- Assessment/Outcomes
- Disproportional
- ESYPD
- Professional
Development
|
|
|
The process used to investigate educational benefit includes:
|
|
- Study the quantitative data to show
the “numbers picture"
- Form
a hypothesis based upon that data
- Go to
the “boxes” (protocols) to determine what tools are most
appropriate for the team to investigate or test the hypothesis
- Determine
whether there are additional methods of investigation needed
- Conduct
the on-site visit at which time more data are collected allowing the
team to go deeper into the issues
- Use the data gathered to make findings that will assist
the school system in identifying non-compliance issues and in
designing and implementing corrective action
|
|
| Once
the data are studied and a hypothesis is formulated, the team leader
selects the “probes” or items for interviews, observations, and
record reviews in order to conduct the investigations.
In other words, the “box” that has the most information
that would probe the issues needing to be investigated to test the
hypothesis on-site is identified. There are three areas of probes contained within each
“box.” They include:
|
|
- Administrative
issues for central office personnel
- School
site based issues for school based personnel
- Parent
and family issues for families and students
|
|
| Team
leaders are trained to ensure that each investigation and all
investigative techniques are tailored and focused specifically for
each visit. Teams are
instructed to use specific materials and tools that are individually
selected to focus the on-site visit thereby avoiding the temptation to
“hunt” for everything. However,
teams are also trained and instructed on how to report issues that
they “stumble upon” during the visit.
The balance is between focus and the flexibility to be able to
address serious findings beyond the focus areas.
The parent on the team is trained with other team members and
also leads the parent groups.
|
|
| The
professional development “box” has been created to identify how
and what methods are used by
the district to provide training to teachers.
This will determine whether the training is adequate and what
specific training is needed by the teacher in order to meet the needs
of the students.
|
|
| Note:
For more information see the “LA Investigating Educational
Benefit”
power point presentation and the “LA Investigating LRE”
power point presentations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Session 5:
|
|
Advocacy Perspectives on Investigating Educational Benefit |
|
| Advocates will
react to content presented during the first day and to the general
context of Focused Monitoring and Educational Benefit. Questions:
What about these approaches is promising? What key indicators should
be used to evaluate whether these approaches are improving compliance?
Are we headed in the right direction of full implementation of IDEA?
|
|
| Expected
Result:
participants will be aware of advocacy perspectives on Educational
Benefit, the selective nature of focused monitoring procedures, etc.
|
|
| RESULTS
of Session 5
|
|
| Comments
by advocates included:
|
|
- Do not focus just on
the grade-to-grade information of children, because there is more
to the picture than that. (e.g., student with high IQ receiving
adequate grades yet reading 5 grades below level.) In other words,
look at the whole picture.
-
CA handout about reasonable calculation deserves credit because
they cover a global view of the students.
A global view that is done over a period of time
(triennial).
- States of course
have the authority to monitor and to focus its monitoring system.
- Narrowing what gets
monitored, as long as what is being monitored is Reasonably
Calculated, is within a state’s authority.
- Focused monitoring
is a pragmatic solution to the fact that states cannot focus on
all 814 IDEA requirements. An advocacy attorney has to focus on
more than just the points of focused monitoring, yet focused
monitoring is a tremendous way to aid the process of Educational
Benefit.
- Parents are often
focusing on all 814 IDEA requirements when their child is not
‘succeeding’.
- Keeping a
stakeholder group involved is vital.
- The 814 IDEA
requirements and focused monitoring are on opposite extremes.
However, using a robust due process system with the focused
monitoring process creates a strong overall process for student
outcomes. If states
have identified the problems through focused monitoring many of
the 814 will be subsumed under these goals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wednesday,
July 16
|
|
|
Session 1:
|
|
Exploring How Educational Benefit Can Be
Monitored in Eight States
|
|
|
| State
Size-Alike Discussions on working definitions of “Educational
Benefit,” and “Reasonably Calculated.” Inevitably,
each state must decide how it will define previously undefined terms,
operationalize the general concept and related procedures, and
generally decide that this (what has been presented and discussed) is
what they want to do. This session is designed to facilitate
commonality, where feasible, in concepts and definitions. |
|
| Expected
Results - Each state will have the opportunity to clarify its thinking
on their working definitions of "Educational Benefit," and
"Reasonably Calculated." |
|
| RESULTS
of Session 1
|
|
| The
eight states were divided into two groups according to size.
Each group was asked to create working definitions of
“Educational Benefit” and “Reasonably Calculated.”
The following reflects the discussion of both groups as
recorded on newsprint.
|
|
|
|
LARGE
STATES SESSION
|
|
|
What
is Educational Benefit?
|
|
- Change in Behavior
- More complex goals
- Meeting general
education standards
- Promotions (grades)
- Passing marks
- Parent/teacher
observation of student integration into regular environments
- "We know it
when we see it!"
- Acceptance; higher
education; competitive employment
- Attendance
up--discipline rates down
- Growth on tests,
evaluations
- Assessments show
growth in need areas
|
|
|
|
What
are the themes?
|
|
|
- Academic success-
this can be operationally defined by a) passing; b) promotion; c)
growth; d) greater goal complexity; e) meeting general education
standards, etc.
- Behavioral growth-
operationally defined by a) change in behavior; b) discipline
rates down; c) acceptance; and possibly d) student integration
into regular education.
- Future benefit-
operationally defined by a) higher education, and b) competitive
employment.
|
What is
Reasonably Calculated?
|
- Evidence/How to know
it is part of calculation
- Plan, document,
implement, evidence
- Service quality
- Assessment of
long-term progress-time frame available
- Having a system
within a district dealing with assessing
- All constituents are
on the same page with short and long-term goals
- "We know it
when we see it!"
- Coherent, clinical
relationship between a) needs identifies, b) goals identified, c)
services provided, and d) assessment
- Sufficient/enough
expectations
- If low
expectations-not Reasonably Calculated education
- Multiple evidences
to show Reasonably Calculated-all members of team have input
(approach team membership)
- “Reasonably
Calculated” for student, NOT teacher
- Student-centered
and individualized
- Reporting
on regular basis; analyzing in context of Reasonably Calculated
- Sensitive
and periodic analyzing and revision when needed
- Plan;
document; implement; evidence (and causation among these notions).
- Service
quality
- Assessment
of long-term progress- use time frame available
- All
team members share common goals, etc.
- Acknowledge/act
on greater student progress
- Reasonably
Calculated may mean convening IEP team more frequently to make
adjustments
- IEP
dynamic tool; not just one-year look
- Analyze
connection between IEP and classroom implementation
- Is
failure-predictable
|
|
What
are the themes?
|
|
|
- Validity-
operationally defined by a) “how to know it is part of
calculation”; b) evidence; c) assessment of long-term process;
d) documentation
- Reliability-
a) operationally defined by multiple evidences; b) having a system
to deal with assessing; c) analysis of connection between IEP and
classroom implementation
- Utilization
of IEP’s
- Development
of a student-centered process- operationally defined by a) IEP as
a dynamic tool, b) student-centered and individualized; c)
“Reasonably Calculated” for student, NOT teacher.
|
|
What
are the issues?
|
- Educational
Benefit and Reasonably Calculated are interactive, but difficult
to know
- Many
factors that must be prioritized/distilled to most critical
- Where
does compliance/noncompliance fit in, i.e. legally defensible-
district and student levels
- Need
to build a system that is Reasonably Calculated, to standardize,
communicate, measure, monitor… Reasonably Calculated…through
stakeholder involvement…the conversation is important!
- Forward
planning or backward diagnosis of Reasonably Calculated at student
level
- Determining
how the individual level looks at the district level
- Language
critical (terms)
- When
do you reconvene, because early information suggests need; Ah-ha!
- Standards
for Reasonably Calculated and Educational Benefit need to be
defensible and how do you set them? Evaluate them?
- How
do you individualize at state, regional, district, school, student
levels?
|
|
|
|
SMALL
STATES SESSION
|
|
|
What
is Educational Benefit?
|
- Access
to general education and curriculum---if not individualized
decision-making
- Continuous
progress on curriculum-related IEP goals
- Development
of self-advocacy skills for after school
- Academic
or social outcomes that occur as a result of the services and
program provided to the student
- Sense
of self and community
- Student
receiving appropriate services to meet goals
- Opportunities,
supports, instruction, needed to exit
- Program
designed to ensure completion and students leave school with
understandings, skills and abilities necessary to participate
fully in democracy
- Productive
citizens, not just diplomas
- Evolving
IEP goals that build on mastery- overall plan for the student
- Meaningful,
visible, and measurable, individual, effective; provided through
specially designed instruction, related and supplementary aids and
services- result=educational success
- Access
to vs. assurance of
- Acquiring
skills to function in post-school community
- Not
limited by other people’s Reasonably Calculated perceptions
- Meaningful,
productive lives
- Role
of parent; parent perceptions of Reasonably Calculated of
Educational Benefit
- Goal
of full participation, social and life skills, and academics
- Assurance
of progress
- Ensuring
or providing effective appropriate services, (academic and related
extra curricula and other services) which would allow students
with disabilities to succeed in the Least Restrictive Educational
(LRE) setting
- Progress
on identified outcomes
- Ability
to think critically
|
Categories of
Educational Benefit
|
- Kinds of benefits:
academic, social, life
- Ongoing- short term,
annual, long term, final outcome
- Categories of
results: systematic,
sequential and measurable
- Ultimate
goal- end result mastery
- Definable-academic
- Harder
to define others (social, sense of self)
|
|
What
are the themes?
|
|
|
- Academic
Success- operationally defined by a) academics; b) assurance of
progress; c) progress on identified outcomes; d) continuous
progress on curriculum-related IEP goals
- Personal-
operationally defined by a) sense of self and community; b) not
limited by other people’s perceptions of Reasonably Calculated
- Future
Benefit/Life Skills- a) leave school with understandings,
skills… to participate fully in a democracy; b) development of
self-advocacy skills; c) productive citizens; d) think critically;
e) meaningful, productive lives; f) goal of full participation and
life skills
- Advocacy:
a) role of parent; b) receiving appropriate services; c) supports
needed to exit
|
What
is Reasonably Calculated?
|
- Systematic,
measurable and sequential plan/process
- Individually
determined
- Ongoing
process- integrity
- Honor
and builds trust
- Problem
solving
- Tied
to comprehensive assessment of needs and strengths
- Flexible
enough to adjust
- Responsive
to the kids changing needs
- Creative
out-of-the-box and makes common sense
- Why
are you doing it? Consistent and rational OR why not?
- Not
tied to convenience or availability
- Access
to vs. assurance of for a period of time.
- System
perspective vs. individual kid- balance these
- Support
for teacher to make it happen.
|
|
What
are the themes?
|
- Validity- a)
systematic, measurable and sequential plan/process; b) tied to
comprehensive assessment of needs and strengths.
- Reliability- a)
ongoing process- integrity; b) honors and builds trust; c)
consistent and rational.
- Flexible parameters-
a) flexible enough to adjust; b) individually determined;
responsive to the kids’ changing needs; c) creative
“out-of-the-box”.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Session
2: |
| The Role of Families in Investigating Educational Benefit |
|
| Expected Result
- participants will be aware of the unique and
particularized contributions families can play in the investigation
process.
|
|
| RESULTS
of Session 2
|
|
| Parents from the
states of
California, and New Mexico presented strategies designed to honor the
contributions and roles of parents in the focused monitoring system.
|
|
|
|
Framework For Discussing Parent Involvement In Focused Monitoring
|
|
| Parent involvement in focused monitoring is
a critical aspect of parent involvement in special education.
There are many key ways parents may be involved: |
|
- Defining Educational Benefit
- Planning of monitoring
activities
- Providing data a) judgments of
their children’s progress b) perceptions of Reasonably Calculated of
school practices and services c) self-reports of participation
- Assisting in collecting data
a) off-site activities b) on-site activities
- Interpreting the data (develop
some hypotheses to why those actions occurred)
- Creating reports (particularly
reports going back to parent audience; easily read and understood by
audiences)
- Assisting in disseminating
findings (take suggestions back to parent groups; close circle of
parents being involved in full circle of the process)
- Be a member of external third
party evaluations of the monitoring process as that is put in place
- Be involved in education and
training activities (in the training of monitoring teams, training
parents, etc.)
|
| There are many ways parent
input may be collected |
|
|
|
- Individual
interviews
- Focus group
interviews
- Town hall
meetings
- Phone
surveys
- Mail
surveys
- Web surveys
|
| Considerations
regarding method:
|
|
|
|
- Reliability
and validity
- Credibility
and trustworthiness
- Feasibility
- Utility
|
| Issues
and challenges regarding parent involvement:
|
| |
|
|
- Resources
(a) training
(b) compensation
(c) technical support
- Changing
the culture of accountability monitoring
|
|
| Note: For more
information see “Framework for Parent Involvement in Focused
Monitoring” power point presentation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
California
Parents Remarks
|
|
| In
California, parents
in local districts provide direct input through meetings, surveys, and
interviews. Supporting
Early Education Delivery System (SEEDS) parent
consultants participate on monitoring teams to:
|
- conduct
input meetings and interviews,
- provide
summaries and analyses,
- participate
in monitoring planning, Educational Benefit
and post-review meetings.
|
| SEEDS Staff Who Are Parents Of Children With Disabilities: |
- Participate
in the state-level design team
- Provide
analysis of parent input at the state level
- Recruit,
train, and coach Parent Moderators for input meetings.
- Assist
in the development of parent questions
- Participate
in the development and pilot of Educational Benefit review
- Disseminate
parent concerns via SEEDS website
|
| Parent
Input Shapes The Monitoring Plan (Rationale)
|
- Parents
provide data on the compliance areas under investigation
- Parents
raise concerns about compliance in other areas
- Parents
share their experiences and perspectives on the relationships,
processes, and results that affect their children receiving
special education services
|
|
Parent Input Into the Monitoring Plan (Criteria)
|
- Item is included in monitoring plan if:
|
|
- It
is identified during one of the parent input process;
AND
- It appears to be a violation of state or federal law
or regulations;
AND
- It
is potentially systemic (e.g.,
expressed by several parents, affects a number of students, occurs
at a number of school sites)
|
Parent
Roles In Developing The VR Monitoring Plan
|
- Conduct
Parent/Guardian Input Session in advance (use other methods if
attendance is low)
- Summarize
key points at debriefing meeting following the Input Session
- Attend
Monitoring Plan meeting to add parent perspective to other data
sources
|
Securing
And Analyzing Parent Input for CCR SESR
|
- Overall purpose is
to get meaningful input from parents of students
- Requires
district to design the method for gaining parent input with
representatives from parent organizations (CAC and PTI - see
http://www.cde.ca.gov/spbranch/sed/caprntorg.htm)
- Can
select method(s) from focus group, parent input meeting or survey
- Must
use CDE questions at a minimum
- Must meet minimum participation criteria
- Must include all identified areas of concern in
monitoring plan
- Must include parent rep concurrence with issues
identified in monitoring plan
|
Methods For Obtaining Parent Input For
CCR SESR
|
- Focus Group
- Involves
securing input from an invited group of parents using a specific
question protocol (Participants should be invited based on specific
criteria)
- Parent Input Meeting
- All parents
and members of the advocacy community are sent announcements to
provide input on specific questions at an open, public input session.
- Survey
|
|
| Origin Of Questions for both Verification
Review and CCR Self-Review
|
- Purpose of
the questions is to focus on most frequent concerns
- Parents
from SEEDS Project have conducted parent input sessions and interviews
over two years
- SEEDS
conducted analysis of most frequent concerns
- Reviewed
most frequent noncompliant items
- Crafted questions and probes based on prior
years’ questions that would most effectively elicit information in
the “focus” areas
- Piloted questions in interviews with parents –
analyzed responses to see if questions got responses in the
“focus” areas
- Adjusted questions and identified compliance
items associated with each of the questions and probes based on
typical responses.
- Edited
questions to be “family-friendly”
- Brought to state design team for further
revision
|
|
|
| Parent Involvement In Educational Benefit Review |
- Participated
in the design and pilot of the Educational Benefit review process at
the state level
- Incorporated
related questions into the Parent/Guardian Input Session protocol
- Participated
in a local
County
Office
of Education Educational Benefit review
|
Next
Steps
|
- Continue to
build relationships with parent groups to enhance the diversity of the
SEEDS consultant bank and disseminate key concepts related to
monitoring
- Continue
to articulate the parent voice in state-level monitoring activities
|
|
| Note: For more
information "The
Role of Families in CA Monitoring System"
power
point presentation.
|
|
|
|
New
Mexico
Parent Remarks
|
|
|
- Dare to Dream: The future belongs to
those who believe in the beauty of their dreams (E. Roosevelt)
- Educational Benefit is not
only about kids, but also about parents and families, so there is a
very serious need for parents to be involved in Educational Benefit!!!
- Parents need to be involved in
the review process
- Parents in N.M. get stipends
and they are full team members
- Monitoring teams are hard
work--They include: a) team leaders; b) peers; c) parents; d) separate
meetings to teach and help family team members participate equally in
the process.
- Family roles: a) family
meetings; b) phone interviews (more than just parents doing phone
interviews, team leaders and peers do phone interviews with parents);
c) observations (observers go and gather their own information at the
end of day, meet together and see what peers have said); d) file
reviews (Family members participate in everything and are equal team
members.)
- Family Team Members have many
responsibilities
- Family Meetings
- Support of the parents is so
important-- Leaders are role model
- We are all role models of
collaboration at the local level
|
|
|
New Mexico
believes that including parents
meaningfully in the focused monitoring process brings
trust, accountability, and integrity to their work!
|
|
| Note: For more
information see "New
Mexico Parent Presentation"
power point
presentation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Session
3(a):
|
Investigating student performance for Compliance -
How to conduct folder reviews and staff interviews |
