The Differentiated Monitoring Process

The Differentiated Monitoring Process

Every IEP requires the IEP Team to answer whether the student has behavior that impedes his or her own learning or the learning of others. When the answer is yes, the team must act — the question cannot be checked and left unaddressed. Proactive behavior planning is the first and best protection for both the student and the LEA, because a well-developed behavior plan reduces the behavior that leads to removals.

Legal Citations

• IDEA — monitoring and enforcement (Section 616)

• 34 CFR Part 300 — general supervision (300.600–300.602, 300.606–300.608)

• Alabama Administrative Code, Chapter 290-8-9

Practical Guidance

SES monitors LEAs through six methods described in the Alabama State Department of Education Compliance Monitoring Manual: on-site monitoring, self-assessment monitoring (completed by all LEAs annually), desk-review monitoring, high-risk assessment, technical assistance, and enhanced self-monitoring.

The type of monitoring an LEA receives is determined by data, not by a fixed cycle alone: the LEA's risk assessment, previous monitoring results, the LEA at-a-Glance data review, the LEA Determination Profile, and information from the Regional Specialist. SES reserves the right to require any type of monitoring as necessary to ensure compliance with federal and state law.

The risk assessment scores each element as low risk (0), medium risk (1), or high risk (2), drawing on data integrity, results indicator data, and fiscal data. For example, an LEA with IDEA Part B carryover above thirty percent of its approved budget scores high risk on that element; more than three subgrant or financial corrections also indicates high risk.

LEAs on the cyclical monitoring schedule receive an on-site visit. SES specialists meet with the special education coordinator or director and staff to provide technical assistance and, if required, to develop a Corrective Action Plan (CAP). The LEA receives an official report of the review outcomes through the monitoring system.

LEAs identified as low risk but not requiring on-site or desk-review monitoring may be selected for enhanced self-monitoring, which requires a progress report or additional documentation beyond the regular annual self-assessment, typically without staff interviews or a monitoring report.

Common Errors Identified Through Monitoring

• Treating the annual self-assessment as a paperwork exercise rather than an honest audit of local practice

• Fiscal risk factors — high carryover, multiple subgrant corrections — left unaddressed before the next determination cycle

• Monitoring data sources (LEA at-a-Glance, Determination Profile) never reviewed locally before an on-site or desk review

• Corrective actions from a prior cycle not verified as sustained before the current review

Alabama State Department of Education — Special Education Services (SES)

Materials are provided for technical assistance purposes and do not constitute legal advice.