Michael L. Fuller, PhD, LSSBB — Educational Data & Compliance Consulting

Background

Four disciplines, one practice

Three decades working inside Ohio schools — not just analyzing them from the outside — across four areas that most compliance and data work only touches on one at a time.

30+ yrs

School Psychology

Direct experience with the students and buildings behind the data — how assessment, subgroups, and services actually work day to day.

Applied

Data Analytics

IRN-level ODEW file work: cleaning, cross-referencing, and reconciling report card, spending, attendance, and graduation data.

LSSBB

Process Improvement

Lean Six Sigma Black Belt methodology applied to district and ESC decision-making processes, not just manufacturing lines.

End-to-end

Grant Writing & Management

From identifying a fit and building the case for need, through award management and reporting — not just the application itself.

That combination is the point: a needs analysis grounded in real school psychology practice, backed by verified data, structured with a process-improvement discipline, and pointed at an actual funding or compliance outcome — not four separate consultants.

What I Do

How districts and ESCs put this to work

Each service starts from the same verified data — the difference is the audience and the decision it needs to support.

OAC 3301-35-07 Compliance Analysis

Component-by-component review against the state's data-driven decision-making requirements, including mandatory §(G) program review flags and corrective-action documentation.

ODEW and District Data Extractions

IRN-verified extraction, cleaning, and reconciliation across ODEW's report card, spending, attendance, and graduation files — built for decision-makers, not just spreadsheets.

Grant Readiness & Writing

Needs statements, baseline metrics, and competitive-priority documentation built from the same verified data — carried through to award management and reporting.

District & ESC Reporting

Comparative peer analyses, county and consortium rollups, and presentation-ready materials for board meetings, staff planning, and ESC leadership conversations.

Working Standards

How this data gets handled

Compliance data informs real decisions about real students. These aren't stylistic preferences — they're how every deliverable is built.

Every figure traces back to its ODEW source file, by name and date.

No number appears in a report without a documented origin — including where two ODEW files round the same figure differently.

Peer comparisons are labeled as methodology, not as an official standard.

Screening bands, quartile cuts, and efficiency indices are disclosed as analyst-built constructions — never presented as ODEW-endorsed benchmarks.

Small-cohort statistics are flagged before they're used to draw conclusions.

A district's rating built on 30 students gets a volatility caveat; one built on 3,000 does not need the same caution.

Conservative language, always, over confident-sounding overstatement.

"May be threshold-driven" instead of "would be" — district staff, ESC leadership, and boards all act on these documents, so precision outranks polish.

Sample Engagement

What this looks like in practice

Anonymized for confidentiality — reflects the structure of actual district and ESC engagements.

Sample County ESC — Member District Compliance Review

ODEW SY VERIFIED

7 Member Districts Reviewed

2 §(G) Review Triggers

61% Revised Threshold Applied

1 Decision-Ready Deliverable

An Educational Service Center needed a clear picture of which member districts carried mandatory Early Literacy review obligations heading into a board cycle — and which apparent improvements next year would reflect a genuine gain versus a moving compliance threshold.

The resulting analysis mapped every member district against the current and forthcoming Early Literacy star thresholds, flagged two districts approaching the boundary on data alone, and separated "threshold-driven" from "proficiency-driven" change before it reached the board table.

District and county names are illustrative. Underlying methodology reflects real engagement work.

Growth vs. Proficiency, at a Glance

ILLUSTRATIVE DATA

Sample quadrant chart plotting Value-Added Growth against Achievement Performance Index across seven illustrative districts

A district's star rating shows where it stands. Value-Added growth shows which way it's moving — often a different, more actionable story for boards and ESC leadership.