Monitoring Activities and Data Sources

In 2004-05, what activities and data sources did states use to inform monitoring and improvement planning and implementation?

• Child records reviews are one means of ensuring compliance with the requirements of IDEA. For Part B, all 51 states reported the use of child records review as part of monitoring activities in the LEAs selected for monitoring.⁹ For Part C, all states but one reported reviewing child records in monitoring units¹⁰ selected for monitoring (50 states). See tables D-20 and E-24.
• Site visits are another method states use to monitor compliance with state and Federal requirements or to examine child outcomes. For Part B, all states reported conducting LEA site visits as part of their monitoring activities (51 states). Thirty-five states reported conducting site visits for all LEAs selected for monitoring. For Part C, 48 states reported conducting site visits as part of their monitoring activities. Thirty-one states reported conducting site visits for all monitoring units selected for monitoring. See tables D-26 and E-30.
• Self-assessments are detailed evaluations conducted by LEAs and monitoring units of their own areas of strength and areas in need of improvement regarding the provision of special education. For Part B, 42 states reported that they required at least some LEAs selected for monitoring to conduct a self-assessment. Thirty-six states reported that they required all LEAs selected for monitoring to conduct a self-assessment. Thirty-six states reported that they required all LEAs selected for monitoring to conduct a selfassessment. For Part C, 28 states reported that they required at least some monitoring units selected for monitoring to conduct a self-assessment. Twenty-three states reported that they required all monitoring units selected for monitoring to conduct a self-assessment. See tables D-27 and E-31.
• Other data sources. The mail survey asked states how often they used each data source in a provided list. The list comprised data sources frequently available to states and others that evaluators identified as important to self-assessment and improvement planning. For Part B, the data sources most frequently identified as data the state usually or always used when monitoring an LEA or planning improvements were child or student folders (50 states), suspension-expulsion data (48 states), least restrictive environment data (47 states), teacher interviews or focus groups (46 states), and site-based administrator interviews or focus groups (46 states). For Part C, the data sources most frequently identified as data the state usually or always used when monitoring or planning improvements were child folders (50 states), child assessment data (42 states), dispute resolution data (39 states), interviews or focus groups with local program directors (37 states), and monitoring unit self-assessment reports (37 states). See tables D-29 and E-33.

Top