Assessment of Professional Development Systems: Improving Rural Special Education Services

Rural Special Education Quarterly, Fall 2003 by Rude, Harvey A, Brewer, Robin D

The Office of Special Education Programs (2001), in response to the dilemma of minimal compliance identified a system of compliance assurance called the Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process (CIMP). CIMP, then, is a process that must be owned by the organization being monitored. In past compliance monitoring iterations, the onus for proving compliance was placed on the state or local school agency being monitored. This led to adversarial positions between state and federal jurisdictions, often with differing views on what constituted an effective system of educational excellence. The CIMP approach calls for ongoing assessment and commitments to continuous improvement in areas of highest priority need. After self-assessment detailing how successful each state has been in achieving compliance with federal regulations, a process of assessment planning follows with the purpose of developing strategies for the validation of self-assessment through the collection of data. Once data is collected, it is presented in a structured public forum to plan a process for reporting results. Reporting to the public is accomplished through a dissemination plan identified by a representative Steering Committee in collaboration with staff members from the Office of Special Education Programs. The final three steps in the process consist of improvement planning, implementation of improvement strategies, and verification with accompanying consequences for results.

The CIMP has been adopted by many local school districts with a subsequent demonstration of promising results for emphasizing strategic improvements. The support of federal and state education agencies provide a promising approach to implementing mandated monitoring activities in a manner providing for strategic and continuous improvement through an ongoing assessment and planning. Finally, this provides for individualization in the planning and accountability of professional development activities well-suited to the individual needs and requirements of rural special education situations.

Model Number Three: Quality Performance and Results Measures

In balanced systems accountability emphasis is on inputs and processes in equal measure with the more difficult accountability concepts of individual learning outcomes and systems standards outcomes. One of the stumbling blocks to achieving this desirable balance is the lack of common language with which to describe a desired level of outcome in terms that are consistent and contribute to general understanding among the customers and providers (stakeholders) of professional development. Friedman (1999) identified four essential questions of accountability to provide guidance: 1) What do we want for our children and families? (this identifies the desired results); 2) How do we know if we have achieved the results we want? (this suggests the types of indicators of effectiveness we are willing to accept); 3) What works to achieve the outcomes we want? (this delineates the strategies that lead to the desired indicators and results); and, 4) How do we know the elements of our strategy are performing as well as possible? (these provide a description of the qualitative change outcomes that become our performance measures).