1 DRAFT Monitoring/Evaluation Overview September 20, 2010 Title III Director’s Fall Meeting

2 MDE Responsibility Michigan Department of Education (MDE) is responsible for monitoring all English Language Learner (ELL)/ Immigrant program performance to ensure compliance under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).

3 Fulfilling MDE’s Responsibility Develop process to determine the current status of each program’s/ district’s progress.

4 The Process Develop evaluation tool Develop evaluation model Distribute the tool to LEAs Collect tool, analyze data Determine what type of review Conduct review Recommend improvement plan for districts

5 Purpose of Evaluation Checklist Tool Title III Program Evaluation Checklist Designed to provide districts with a self assessment tool to determine program progress and compliance with NCLB. Designed to provide MDE with a baseline review of all districts. Provide a sustainable model to maintain timely annual reviews.

6 Evaluation Checklist Tool Contents Six Sections Administrative Responsibilities Student Identification Parent and Community Involvement Instructional Programs and Assessment Teacher Qualifications and Professional Development Program Evaluation and School Improvement

7 Snap Shot of Evaluation Tool

8

9 The Evaluation Model Documentation + Performance = Type of Review Performance Data AYP AMAOs MEAP ELPA + Evaluation Checklist Type of Review =

10 Title III – Evaluation Risk Factors

11 Types of Review Desk Telephone On-Site

12 Types of Reviews Desk/Telephone Conducted for programs that have demonstrated positive program outcomes and achievement results based on state data for ELLs.

13 Types of Reviews On-Site Conducted for programs/districts that have not made significant progress based on state achievement data and or fiscal audit findings.

14 Send evaluation notification letter with Evaluation Checklist Tool. Return an electronic copy of completed Evaluation Checklist Tool to the Office of Field Services (OFS) by October 15, Forward completed copy to See for Evaluation Checklist Tool. OFS will notify Program/District of date, time, and type of review. Reviews will begin the second week of November Evaluation Program Implementation

15 Evaluation Program Implementation On-site Review Options: 1. Conducted by ELL/Evaluation Monitoring Consultant. 2. Joint review by ELL/Evaluation Monitoring Consultant and Field Services Team 3. Field Services Team only utilizing Title III Program On-site Visit Key Questions Tool

16 Required Documentation Programs/Districts selected for on-site review conducted by ELL Evaluation Monitoring Consultant must assemble a documentation notebook with each section and item clearly labeled. Notebooks remain at the school district in preparation for on-site visits.

17 Evaluation Program Implementation Subsequent to reviews, OFS will provide districts with written feedback on progress, noting commendations and recommendations for improvement.

18 Final Evaluation Report - Format Title III Evaluation/Monitoring Office of School Improvement Final Report District Name District Code Date Of Review Type of Review Review Team Members Key Observations Recommendations For Improvement Required Changes

19 Monitoring/Evaluation Progress To Date Type of Review Total On-site41620 Telephone Total213253

20 Monitoring/Evaluation Trends Based on a two-year review cycle: Districts continue to see significant value in using the Title III Self-Evaluation Tool to determine their compliance status. Strengthen process/procedures to monitor progress made by former limited English proficient (FLEP) students in meeting State academic content and performance standards for each of the two years after exiting the program. Need for increase in training and orientation relative to NCLB compliance.

21 Monitoring/Evaluation Trends Deficiencies exist in establishing effective methods of ELL parent 0utreach/communication. Lack effective process/procedures to monitor progress of students’ English proficiency. Needed awareness regarding the establishment of clear, written processes for handling complaints related to services to ELLs. Misunderstanding of Title III Allowable Expenses. Increase of awareness and access to data on Michigan Electronic Grant System (MEGS).

22 Key Findings Inconsistent information relative to Annual Measureable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs) within individual districts. Title III ELL Directors seek promising practices that effectively address process/procedures in the six major areas of the Self-Assessment Tool. Collaboration between Field Service Consultants and Special Populations Unit is needed to strengthen and improve process/procedure to ensure appropriate sign- off on Title III budgets.

23 Contact list Mike Radke – (517) Shereen Tabrizi – (517) Roberto Saenz – (517) Michigan Department of Education Office of Field Services

24 Evaluation Monitoring Overview Q & A