In the past year, I have participated in three self-assessment processes. As the Executive Director of the Statewide Parent Advocacy Network (SPAN), I am a member of the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Service’s Early Intervention self-assessment team, and of the New Jersey Department of Education’s Special Education team. As a parent and advocate, I sit on the Montclair school district’s self-assessment committee. This article will summarize the strengths and concerns of the self-assessment process, and provide some helpful hints for parents who are or will be on their own district self-assessment team.

The U.S. Department of Education has required states to conduct self-assessments in preparation for federal monitoring visits as part of its new monitoring process. The goal is to get states to engage in a process of continuous self-improvement, starting with an internal "audit" of strengths and concerns even before the federal monitors visit. The hope is that, by involving key stakeholders, including parents, teachers, related service providers, administrators, and others, an honest appraisal can be conducted and a strong self-improvement plan can be developed and implemented. This is especially important since the U.S. Department of Education only monitors states once every six years.

When the federal monitors identified the lack of an effective monitoring system as a key area of noncompliance by New Jersey last year, the state remodeled its monitoring system on the new federal process. The state used to monitor every district on one or two issues every year; now the state will be conducting comprehensive monitoring but will only visit each district once every six years.

In its introduction to the self-assessment process, the State said that "the self-assessment is designed to identify areas of strengths, promising practices, areas that need improvement, and areas that may be noncompliance with state and federal requirements. The self-assessment leads to the development and implementation of an improvement plan which addresses all identified areas." It further noted that the benefits of self-assessment include:

• Local districts are provided an opportunity to be accountable for identifying their own areas of strength and need;
• Shared responsibility in the implementation of a comprehensive accountability system is facilitated;
• Priorities can be set and a plan of action can be developed;
• Districts are given the opportunity to identify and promptly correct areas of procedural noncompliance;
• Parents and community members can become more involved; and
• A continuous process that focuses on program effectiveness and student results is instituted.

The self-assessment has two major components: Program Effectiveness and Compliance with Federal and State Mandates.

Program Effectiveness looks at five goals: to increase the capacity of schools to improve the educational performance of students with disabilities; to improve the educational performance of all students with disabilities; to increase parental participation in educational activities regarding students with disabilities; to increase the participation of students with disabilities in appropriate post-school activities; and to identify and reduce any inappropriate disparities among racial ethnic groups in eligibility for special education and placement.

Compliance with Federal and State Mandates reviews each aspect of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and State special education code to ensure that practices, policies, and procedures are consistent with these laws and regulations.

The Self-Assessment team reviews any relevant data, including statistics and reviews of student records, as well as information gathered from surveys (not mandatory, but recommended) and at least one public forum (required).

The Steering Committee provides input into the process of data collection, participates in data analysis, and contributes to the development and at least annual review of the district’s improvement plan. The membership of the steering committee should reflect ethnic and cultural diversity as well as representatives from each group of key stakeholders. (Unfortunately, on the State’s steering committee, racial and ethnic diversity was noticeably absent). For districts, required members include the superintendent or designee, the Director of Special Education, at least one parent of a child with a disability, at least one general and special education teacher and child study team member, and related services personnel.

The New Jersey Departments of Education and Health sponsored 7 public forums: three in East Orange (two were originally scheduled, but so many people signed up, a third forum was added), two in East Brunswick, and two in Sewell. Over 900 parents and professionals attended these forums - the largest turn-out for a federal monitoring forum ever! A summary of the input provided at these forums is included on page ___ of this newsletter.

The State of New Jersey is also requiring each district to hold at least one structured public meeting as part of its self-assessment. The State has urged districts to disseminate meeting notices in languages other than English, if appropriate; schedule meetings at times and places accessible to parents; and provide interpreters or translators as needed.

The Montclair Self-Assessment Team includes the Director of Special Services, the child study coordinator/inclusion facilitator, four principals (high school, middle school, and elementary), teachers from each level, and several parents. It is a racially diverse group; about ½ of the participants are African-American. We have been meeting on a monthly basis, but now are beginning to meet just about every week.

The Team has:

• Reviewed district data and compared it to state data
• Developed and disseminated a parent survey
• Planned and conducted a public forum
• Identified strengths and concerns in the area of program effectiveness.

The Montclair School District held its public forum on Wednesday, January 26^th from 6-9 p.m. As a parent member of the steering committee, I developed a leaflet for the forum that was sent home in backpacks of classified elementary school students and in the mail to middle and high school parents and parents of children in out-of-district placements. The leaflet was simple and in color, with a picture of a person carrying a key and the words, "Your input is key to our success." The forum was also highlighted in the periodic newsletter that the Superintendent sends out to all parents and staff in the district. After the leaflets were disseminated, district staff and parents contacted each parent of a classified student by telephone to encourage them to attend. We offered food, child care, and transportation provided by other special education parents.

There were over 100 participants at the public meeting; most were parents. Approximately 15% of the participants were African-American, which was disappointing since more than 50% of Montclair’s classified students are African-American. The Director of Special Services, Dr. Scagliotti, opened the meeting with some statistics about special education in Montclair. While 14.5% of Montclair’s students are classified by the child study team, only 12% of New Jersey students overall are classified by the child study team. He went on to state that children of color are overrepresented in special education in our district.

Then it was the audience’s turn to have their say. There were personal testimonies of positive and negative educational experiences from across the district. While there were some wonderful stories from parents at Nishuane Elementary School and the Developmental Learning Center, there were more concerns raised than strengths. Parents were anxious to tell their stories, while district personnel running the forum were trying to stay focused on gathering specific information.

A running record was kept of the concerns being voiced by parents. Key areas of concern included:

• Administrative barriers regarding student accessibility to all programs and services
• Least restrictive environment
• Behavior issues, including the need to train teachers and child study teams in behavioral assessment and development and implementation of positive behavior support plans
• Reporting of student progress
• Quality of IEPs
• Transitions, from pre-school to elementary to middle to high school and to adult life
• Need for improved communication
• More comprehensive assessments
• Need for additional child study team and special education staff
• Sensitivity to cultural differences
• Overrepresentation of African-American students in special education
• Staff development for general and special educators and child study teams
• Impact of budget cuts on special education
• Need for improvement in child find activities
• Pre-referral strategies, including training for Pupil Assistance Committee personnel

A survey based on the State’s survey with some additional questions from SPAN’s survey was also disseminated to parents at the meeting.

In Montclair, our team is now meeting to discuss the results of the forum and surveys. We have completed a review of "Program Effectiveness," and are beginning to discuss compliance issues. A subcommittee composed of district staff will be reviewing a sampling of student records, while parent members will be looking at district special education policies to ensure that they meet federal and state standards.

When these two processes are complete, we will finalize our assessment of Montclair’s strengths and needs, and develop a plan to build on our strengths and address our needs. This plan will then be submitted to our Superintendent and district Board of Education for review and discussion. Hopefully we will start working on implementation of our plan before the state monitors come next year.

At the state level, the Early Intervention and Special Education teams met with the federal monitors and the state to discuss the forums, survey results from the state, SPAN, and the New Jersey Coalition for Inclusive Education, and our draft self-assessment documents. The next step is to develop specific actions that will be taken to correct as many of the problems as possible before the federal monitors come back for their validation visit in September, 2000.

As an experienced participant on state and local level teams, I have the following tips to share:

• Be prepared! Make sure you review IDEA and the State Code before the process starts, and periodically along the way. You may be the most knowledgeable person on your team about what the law actually requires!
• Take a look at the state self-assessment document (draft available from SPAN) before or during your district self-assessment process. This will give you a good idea about how the process should work and how detailed and honest the self-assessment should be.
• Don’t be afraid to be the only person raising a concern. You have a unique perspective, so you may be the only person who’s aware of that concern or who cares so much about it. Stand up for your right to include your concerns in the summary of concerns; raising concerns is not a consensus process!
• Look closely at your district’s data. Does it coincide with your experience? Raise questions about the accuracy of data if it doesn’t feel right to you. Ask where the data came from, and how it was compiled. Add other data you are aware of, or suggest other data sources.
• Make sure your concerns and recommendations are included in the self-assessment document.
• Go to every meeting! Lots can happen in one meeting, and you don’t want your perspective to be ignored anywhere along the way.
• If you are a parent member, remember that you aren’t just representing your own experience but the experiences of other parents. Talk to other parents to get their ideas, concerns, and recommendations. Make sure that your district’s public forum is widely publicized, and that supports such as transportation, food, and child care are provided to maximize parent participation. Advocate strongly for your district to do a parent survey that combines questions about parent satisfaction and involvement with items concerning compliance. Refer to the information gathered through the surveys and forum when your team is discussing each area of program effectiveness and compliance.
• Be honest - and that means giving credit where it’s due as well as raising concerns and areas of noncompliance. It’s easier for people to hear problems when they also hear compliments.
• Advocate for the results of the self-assessment to be widely disseminated in your district. It’s important for everyone to know where your district is, and where you are heading, so that everyone can pitch it to help reach your goals.

The districts participating in the self-assessment process this year are like guinea pigs; they are trying it out to see how it fits, and whether or not it’s effective. It will be interesting to compare the self-assessments from this year’s district participants with the state’s monitoring findings next year. But one fact remains: the self-assessment process will only be as effective as the team members make it. So go out and make self-assessment an important tool to improve special education in your town!