Skip to main content
scroll to top

Compliance and Improvement Monitoring

Information regarding monitoring process, sample forms used in the process, as well as schools currently in the process.

The Bureau of Student Support has developed a two-part process for the monitoring of Individualized Education Program (IEP) compliance,which begins with school district staff being trained to complete a self-assessment of their students' IEPs for compliance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The Bureau feels the best way to ensure compliance is to increase school district staff's knowledge and understanding of the federal, state and local statutes, rules and regulations that relate to the development and implementation of students' IEPs to improve educational outcomes for students with disabilities. The second part of the IEP compliance review process involves Bureau staff conducting an on-site file review of school districts' identified evidence for student IEPs to verify that compliance has been met.

The intent of the self-assessment is:

  1. To determine compliance with IDEA;
  2. For school personnel to gain a deeper understanding of the New Hampshire Standards for the Education of Children with Disabilities along with the responsibilities associated with special education; and
  3. To provide information for the district to improve its special education policies, procedures, and practices.

Special Education Compliance Monitoring Reports 2013 to present

Through the Special Education Compliance & Improvement Monitoring (CIM) review, one method that the New Hampshire Department of Education (NHDOE), Bureau of Student Support (Bureau) utilizes to implement the general supervision system; the Bureau identifies and supports correction of noncompliance, consistent with the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) Memo 09-02. Districts are provided written notification of their findings of noncompliance with corrective actions through the Special Education Compliance & Improvement Monitoring Review Report. The report also indicates recommended preventive actions by the Bureau. The Bureau identifies recommended preventive actions and potential remedies to these practices. Whereas these practices do not rise to the standard of noncompliance, and therefore require no corrective actions, the Bureau believes that the practices are noteworthy to be addressed.

The Bureau has compiled a list of the noncompliant practices and a list of the recommended preventive actions from the 2017-2018 Special Education Compliance & Improvement Monitoring (CIM) Reports. These lists have been created to help districts identify and rectify any practices that may be found as noncompliant or may become noncompliant in order to assist in preparing for Compliance & Improvement Monitoring visits and to assist districts in determining professional development needs based on an internal review and comparison with the data.

In addition, the Bureau is providing the Self-Assessment Compliance Comparison Chart 2013-2014 to 2017-2018 for review of trend data.

District Selection for Special Education Compliance & Improvement Monitoring 2020-2021 to Present

The Bureau of Student Support has, with stakeholder input, revised the District Selection Process for Compliance & Improvement Monitoring as described in FY'20 Memo #11. This process also utilizes a multi-data approach rather than a single measurement tool for selection and removes the cohort model as well as incorporating a point system designed around meeting state targets. The District Selection Rubric outlines each data collection component and its corresponding point value. The point system is designed to determine whether school districts are meeting requirements aligned with the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP).

District Selection for Special Education Compliance & Improvement Monitoring 2015-2016 to 2019-2020

The District Selection Process for Compliance & Improvement Monitoring utilizes a multi-data approach rather than a single measurement tool for selection as described in FY'15 Memo #18. The District Selection Rubric outlines each data collection component and its corresponding point value. The point system is designed to determine whether school districts are meeting requirements aligned with the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP).

2019-2020 Special Education Compliance & Improvement Monitoring

2018-2019 Special Education Compliance & Improvement Monitoring

2017-2018 Special Education Compliance & Improvement Monitoring

Public Academies Special Education Monitoring

Public Academies Compliance & Improvement Monitoring Process

The Public Academies Compliance & Improvement Monitoring (CIM) process is designed to monitor public academies' compliance with IDEA 2004, NH Statutes, and the New Hampshire Standards for the Education of Children with Disabilities, while placing particular emphasis on improving the outcomes for students with disabilities and their families.

Monitoring is done on a cyclical basis. During the year prior to monitoring, the New Hampshire Department of Education (NHDOE), Bureau of Student Support (Bureau) offers training to each public academy who is involved in the monitoring process. Training encompasses writing Measurable Annual Goals, Written Prior Notice, Accommodations and Modifications, Specially Designed Instruction, CIM Self-Assessment form, and a topic selected by the public academy based on current need.

At the beginning of the school year in which the public academy is being monitored, the public academy will send the Bureau descriptions of their approved programs as well as their program's policy and procedure manual, special education personnel, and any special education forms that are used by the public academy. Following a review of these documents, the monitoring team will look for evidence of implementation of district policies and proceures which pertain to program approval and conduct an on-site review in which student files are examined for evidence of implementation of the policies and procedures through the special education process. The Bureau will also conduct a follow-up review to verify the implementation of corrective actions as defined in the summary report.

2016-2017 Public Academies Compliance & Improvement Monitoring

Monitoring Review

Public Academies Compliance & Improvement Monitoring Review Reports

Coe-Brown Northwood Academy

Pinkerton Academy