Questions: Click on the question to view the answer
1. Why the change in name from Coordinated Compliance Review (CCR) to Categorical Program Monitoring (CPM)?
2. Do LEAs have more responsibility for monitoring compliance with CPM?
3. Why does CPM monitor only a sample of an LEA's schools?
4. Does the Categorical Program Monitoring (CPM) process monitor fewer schools in the LEA than the Coordinated Compliance Review (CCR) process?
5. When will LEAs be informed which schools/sites have been selected for the 06-07 monitor?
6. Is a self-review mandated in the CPM?
7. How are the Ongoing Program Self-Evaluation Tools (OPSETs) to be used by LEAs?
8. Is each school site expected to conduct interviews as indicated on the monitoring?
9. What assistance is available to help site and district administrators understand the CPM process?
10. What assistance is available during a visit?
Questions and Answers
- 1. Why the change in name from Coordinated Compliance Review (CCR) to Categorical Program Monitoring (CPM)?
In addition to stating precisely what this process is designed to do – monitor categorical programs – the new title replaces the word “review” with “monitoring.” The term review had come to signify an “event” that occurred only once every four years. Monitoring, on the other hand, implies a process – one in which the local educational agency (LEA) is an active participant on an ongoing basis.
The change from CCR goes beyond a name change; the process itself has a tighter statutory focus. Under CPM, the process centers on both the statutory monitoring requirements for LEAs and the California Department of Education (CDE). The CPM monitoring instruments have tighter adherence and alignment with state and federal law. The instruments are used by CDE monitoring teams to test for compliance.
Return to Top of Page
2. Do LEAs have more responsibility for monitoring compliance with CPM?
LEAs have always been responsible for maintaining compliant categorical programs whether they were scheduled for a CCR or not. This is still true under CPM. One difference between CCR and CPM is the concept of self-review. Under CCR, an LEA would conduct a self-review and submit the self-review findings to the CDE prior to a CDE visit. The CCR team would then verify the findings of the LEA.
The CPM process uses program instruments that contain core and supporting items that are strictly statutory. The items are found in state and federal law, regulations, or court order. CDE staff use the instruments as the test for compliance. LEAs may use the instruments or the Ongoing Program Self-Evaluation Tools (OPSETs) as a means of self-monitoring. As mentioned earlier, monitoring is an LEA and CDE responsibility. The method used to do local self-monitoring is the choice of the LEA.
Return to Top of Page
3. Why does CPM monitor only a sample of an LEA's schools?
LEAs are up for CDE monitoring once every four years. CPM looks at all schools in all LEAs that are part of the current CPM cycle. California Education Code 64001 permits the Superintendent of Public Instruction to differentiate monitoring reviews based on student academic achievement, as demonstrated by the Academic Performance Index (API), and current status of compliance with state and federal categorical programs.
In addition:
- a. Districts or county offices of education designated as Program Improvement will be scheduled for a monitoring visit.
b. Districts with unresolved findings of noncompliance will be scheduled for a monitoring visit
c. All schools and all significant subgroups in those schools that do not meet one of the following two tests will be placed in the eligibility pool for monitoring visits:- Had an API of 800 or higher for the two most recent consecutive years, or
- The sum of actual API growth is at least equal to the sum of the target API growth for the three most recent consecutive years.
From this pool we use an objective selection criteria. By LEA and per grade designation (elementary, middle, and high school), 10% of the eligible schools are selected for monitoring visits.
- Had an API of 800 or higher for the two most recent consecutive years, or
- d. For each of the 11 regions, 10% of the LEAs that are not designated as Program Improvement, have no unresolved noncompliance findings, and have all schools meeting one of the two tests in c. are randomly selected for a monitoring visit.
Return to Top of Page
4. Does the Categorical Program Monitoring (CPM) process monitor fewer schools in the LEA than the Coordinated Compliance Review (CCR) process?
Actually the CCR process did not cover all schools in the LEA. Under CPM, all schools in the CPM cycle are monitored using performance data.
Return to Top of Page
5. When will LEAs be informed which schools/sites have been selected for the 2006-07 monitoring cycle?
The California Department of Education does not receive spring testing data until the end of August. Since site selection is data driven and uses the most current API data (for 2005-06), final selection of sites will take place in September.
However, if an LEA is designated as Program Improvement, then that district or county office will automatically be scheduled for a monitoring visit.
We are considering conducting a preliminary selection this spring, using 2004-05 data. When the new 2005-06 data are available in August, sites selected for a visit might change.
Return to Top of Page
6. Is a self-review mandated in the CPM?
No, a self-review is no longer mandated. It is the responsibility of the LEA to create and maintain compliant categorical programs. How the LEA accomplishes this is a local decision. It is recommended that the LEA consider using an ongoing improvement cycle, and the CPM OPSETs were created to help LEAs do this.
Return to Top of Page
7. How are the Ongoing Program Self-Evaluation Tools (OPSETs) to be used by LEAs?
The OPSETs are designed to provide suggestions to LEAs and sites on how to create and maintain compliant categorical programs. The OPSETs are strictly voluntary and are not used by the monitoring team during a visit.
Return to Top of Page
8. Is each school site expected to conduct interviews as indicated on the monitoring instrument, or do they simply collect documentary evidence?
A major part of the new CPM process is the notion of ongoing self-evaluation. How an LEA conducts this is a local choice. Given that conducting interviews is part of the information gathering during an onsite visit by CDE, an LEA might consider interviews as part of the self-evaluation process.
Return to Top of Page
9. What assistance is available to help site and district administrators understand the CPM process?
Various resources on the CPM process are available online at http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/cr/cc/. Each region has a designated Regional Team Leader who serves as the primary point of contact for the LEA in addressing questions around the CPM process.
Return to Top of Page
10. What assistance is available during a visit?
The role of the CPM team is to monitor for compliance; they do not monitor for program quality. During a compliance visit, assistance in resolving items of noncompliance is available upon request. Reasons for items being noncompliant should be clearly represented in the written findings.
Program effectiveness and quality assistance is to be addressed outside the CPM visit. We are beginning the foundational work on an effective practices piece separate from compliance monitoring.
Return to Top of Page
