Presentation on theme: "Dazed and Confused: General Supervision Administrators’ Management Meeting September 2009 Karen Denbroeder, Administrator Special Programs, Information,"— Presentation transcript:
Dazed and Confused: General Supervision Administrators’ Management Meeting September 2009 Karen Denbroeder, Administrator Special Programs, Information, and Evaluation Kim C. Komisar, Ph.D., Administrator Program Administration and Quality Assurance Bureau of Exceptional Education and Student Services Florida Department of Education
Topics General Supervision System Overview – conceptual framework General supervision tools Changes to SPP Indicators Correction of noncompliance LEA determinations Leveled monitoring system
Topics Other hot topics… Coordinated early intervening services (CEIS) Services to parentally-placed private school students Revocation of consent ???
GS – Conceptual Framework SPP/APR guides the process of general supervision Continuous improvement focuses on the SPP indicators
Why “Dazed and Confused”? “Me, Myself, and Irene” was a close second…
GS – Conceptual Framework General supervision activities and processes are: 1. Tied to school year by data requirements 2. Confounded by APR reporting cycle (e.g., reporting on 2007-08 and 2008-09 in February 2010…) 3. Despite #1 and #2 above, action planning is conducted “…from this point forward…”
GS – Conceptual Framework Improvement planning related to performance indicators conducted by: SPP indicator teams Targeted districts Correction of noncompliance identified by Monitoring Dispute resolution Data collection
GS – Tools Guide to Calculations SPP indicator teams Planning calendar
GS – Tools Self-assessment system Assists with data collection/tracking SPP 13 – Secondary transition SPP 15 – Timely correction of noncompliance Informs district’s problem-solving process by identifying or ruling out procedural issues impacting performance
GS – Tools General supervision Web site Program improvement plans (PIPs) for targeted districts Self-assessment system for monitoring and professional development Corrective action plans (CAPs) for systemic noncompliance Student-level correction of noncompliance Corrective actions required through state complaint investigations (new)
The Lion King was another option… “ It's the Circle of Life And it moves us all Through despair and hope…”
October July August NovemberJanuary September June March February April May December
October July August NovemberJanuary September June March February April May December LEA Determinations Data Submission SPP 12 CEIS Determinations Data Submission SPP 11
October July August NovemberJanuary September June March February April May December PF Fall Cycle Level 1 – All districts begin self- assessment: SPP 13 Matrix DJJ All districts submit self- assessment results Districts submit: Student-level correction of noncompliance Corrective action plan (CAP), if required Fall cycle preliminary monitoring report disseminated Fall cycle final monitoring report disseminated Correct student- specific noncompliance
October July August January September June March February April May December PF Fall Cycle Districts targeted on: LRE/Student Performance (SPP 3, 5) Suspension/Expulsion (SPP 4) Begin Level 2 Fall self- assessment: LRE/Student Performance Suspension/Expulsion Districts submit: Self-assessment results Program improvement plan (PIP) CAP, if required Correct student- specific noncompliance Included in fall cycle preliminary monitoring report Districts submit: Student-level correction of noncompliance Address in CAP, if required Included in fall cycle final monitoring report November
October July August January September June March February April May December PF November PF Spring Cycle Districts targeted on: Exiting (SPP 1, 2, 13, 14) Disproportionality (SPP 9, 10) 60-Day Timeline (SPP 11) C-to-B Transition (SPP 12) Begin Level 2 Spring self-assessment: Exiting Disproportionality Districts submit: PIP Self-assessment results CAP, if required Spring cycle preliminary monitoring report disseminated Districts submit: Student-level correction of noncompliance CAP, if required Correct student- specific noncompliance
October July August January September June March February April May December PF November PF Level 3 – On-site monitoring begins Level 3 – On-site monitoring ends
Key Submit self-assessment DOE Report Submit PIP Submit CAP, if required Monitoring Correction of student-specific noncompliance Implement CAP Level 2 Spring targeted districts submit: Self-assessment results CAP, if required PIP (Level 2 Spring) Level 2 Fall – Districts targeted and begin self- assessment: LRE/Student Performance (SPP 3, 4, 5) October July August January September June March Level 1 – All districts begin self-assessment: SPP 13 Matrix DJJ Districts submit self-assessment results: Level 1 – All districts Level 2 Fall – Targeted districts February Level 1 – Districts submit, if needed: Student-level correction of noncompliance CAP and/or PIP (Level 2 Fall) Level 1 – Preliminary monitoring report disseminated Level 1 – Final monitoring report disseminated Level 3 – On-site monitoring begins Level 3 – On-site monitoring ends April May Level 1 and Level 2 Fall – Districts submit: CAP (Level 1 and/or Level 2 Fall, if needed) PIP (Level 2 Fall) December Level 2 Spring – Districts targeted and begin self- assessment: Exiting (SPP 1, 2, 13, 14) Disproportionality (SPP 9, 10) Timely Evaluation (SPP 11) C to B Transition (SPP 12) LEA Determinations CEIS Determinations PF Data Submission SPP 12 Data Submission SPP 11 November PF
Changes to State Performance Plan Indicators February 1, 2010 Submission
Changes to Annual Performance Report No February 2010 APR reporting for SPP indicators 6, 7, 13, and 14 (baseline and targets will be reported for indicator 7 in the SPP) Data to lag one year for indicators 1, 2, and 4 2007-08 data will be reported in APR for these indicators For all other indicators, 2008-09 data will be reported
Calculation Guide Organized by indicator Data sources Timeframe for data retrieval Calculation method Key data elements
Changes to APR Calculations have changed for Indicator 1: Graduation Indicator 3: Participation and performance on statewide assessment Indicator 11: 60-day timeline Indicator 13: Secondary transition in the IEP (no changes for Florida) Indicator 14: Post-school outcomes
Indicator 1: Graduation Rate Old formula Standard diploma SWD graduates in a given year divided by Total SWD completing their education or dropping out in the same year New formula NCLB calculation (four-year cohort model)
Indicator 1: Graduation Rate Because of the change to the indicator, we will be establishing new baseline and targets
Indicator 3: Participation and Performance Performance will now be calculated based on students enrolled for full academic year (reported in October and February) rather than all students taking the test Participation still calculated for all students enrolled
Indicator 11: 60-Day Timeline Old Measurement Reported separately the number of students (1) determined not eligible and (2) determined eligible whose initial evaluations were completed within 60 days New Measurement (1) and (2) have been collapsed Web-based reporting for 2008-09 data
Indicator 13: Secondary Transition in the IEP No reporting this year Indicator language has changed to mirror IDEA secondary transition requirements Florida is already using the correct language
Indicator 14: Post-school Outcomes Reporting not required this year Indicator requires mutually exclusive reporting of students Enrolled in higher education Competitively employed Enrolled in other postsecondary education or training Employed in some other employment
Indicator 14: Post-school Outcomes Consulting with FETPIP Office to address changes
Indicator 4B: Disproportionality in Suspension/Expulsion This indicator was in the original State Performance Plan and was removed by OSEP It will be included in the February 2011 APR submission based on data from 2008-09 It will be treated in the same way as indicators 9 and 10 (including a review of policies, practices and procedures)
Compliance Indicators Disproportionality due to inappropriate identification (SPP 9 and 10) Completion of initial evaluations within 60 day timeline (SPP 11) Transition from Part C to Part B (SPP 12) Secondary Transition in the IEP (SPP 13) Correction of noncompliance (SPP 15) Timely and accurate reported data (SPP 20)
Compliance Indicators Findings of noncompliance are corrected as soon as possible but no later than one year from identification/notification Correction of noncompliance occurs at the individual student level and at a systemic level Systemic noncompliance is defined as identified noncompliance in 25% or more of individual cases
Compliance Indicators Reporting correction of noncompliance in the APR occurs in the year following identification
Example In 2007-08, District A had findings of noncompliance in Indicator 10. In 2008-09, verification of correction of this noncompliance is reported in both Indicator 10 and in Indicator 15. The 2007-08 findings would be part of a district’s LEA determination in Spring 2009. The 2008-09 correction of these findings would be part of the district’s LEA determination in Spring 2010.
Timeline Compliance Indicators For indicator 11, evidence of correction for individual students demonstrates that the student was evaluated. For indicator 12, evidence of correction for individual students demonstrates that an IEP was developed and implemented. The current data reporting structure for both of these indicators includes this evidence.
LEA Determinations Determinations are made using a rubric that allocates points. Total points decide which determination a district receives. For the purposes of determinations, all calculations will be rounded to the nearest whole number.
LEA Determination Elements A district receives one point for each of the following if they meet substantial compliance (95%): Indicator 9 Indicator 10 Indicator 11 Indicator 12 Indicator 20
LEA Determination Elements A district receives one point if there is 100% correction of noncompliance identified in 2007-08 data. A district receives one point if there are no critical state audit findings reported by the Auditor General. Total possible points = 7
2009-10: Level 1 Monitoring Level 1 Self-Assessment – All districts SPP 13 – Secondary transition addressed in the IEP Matrix of services Services to students in DJJ facilities Basic procedural compliance at the facility and district levels IEP implementation Random sampling provides a “snapshot” of the district
2009-10: Level 2 Monitoring Level 2 – Targeted districts Focused protocols for newly targeted districts Why newly targeted only? If the district was targeted for a given indicator in 2008-09, procedural self-assessment was conducted and: Either procedural noncompliance was not a systemic issue or Procedural noncompliance was a systemic issue, and the district already has addressed or is currently addressing it through a CAP
2009-10: Level 2 Monitoring Level 2 – Targeted districts Purposeful sampling of those students most likely to be impacted by noncompliance in the indicator-specific related requirements provides more meaningful and useful data to district problem-solving teams
2009-10: Level 3 Monitoring Level 3 – On-site monitoring Level 1 self-assessment protocols and Level 2 (Spring, Fall, or both) self-assessment protocol(s), if applicable, and On-site monitoring of one or more of the following: Matrix of services 254/255 Timely correction of noncompliance Pattern of poor performance on multiple indicators Focus on IEP implementation
2009-10: Level 3 Selection Criteria Matrix of services 254/255 Adjusted for out-of-district students for purposes of district selection > 150% of state rate for 254 > 150% of state rate for 255 > 150% of state rate for 254 and 255 combined Monitoring activities will apply to both in- district and out-of-district students
2009-10: Level 3 Selection Criteria Timely correction of noncompliance Self-assessment results State complaint investigations Due process hearings SPP compliance indicators (11, 12, 13, (15))
2009-10: Level 3 Selection Criteria Timely correction of noncompliance OSEP timeline of “as soon as possible, but in no case longer than one year from identification” applies to LEA determinations BEESS internal timelines applies to district selection for on-site monitoring 60 days for student-specific noncompliance identified through self-assessment 10-12 months for systemic noncompliance Established timelines for noncompliance identified through state complaints (30-60 days) or due process hearings
2009-10: Level 3 Selection Criteria Timely correction of noncompliance – moving forward to 2010-11 OSEP timeline requires that within one year: Districts must correct all noncompliance Bureau must verify correction occurred
2009-10: Level 3 Selection Criteria Timely correction of noncompliance – moving forward to 2010-11 OSEP allows states to not report in the APR noncompliance that is corrected before it is formally “identified,” although states must verify the correction (e.g., discovered during on-site monitoring, but corrected prior to the report being disseminated)
2009-10: Level 3 Selection Criteria Pattern of poor performance on multiple indicators or clusters over time Example: Targeting by the exiting cluster doesn’t automatically trigger Level 3 – But targeting by the exiting cluster for three years in a row likely will!
Still not sufficiently “Dazed and Confused”?? Just wait!!
Timeline – Closing Out 2008-09 Final 2008-09 on-site visits being conducted now January 27, 2010 – Districts with CAPs submit final status report demonstrating: Correction of all student-specific noncompliance > 75% compliance on designated standards Yes, there is an elephant in the room… There will be overlap between years.
Timeline – 2009-10 Level 1 and Level 2 Fall Cycle (focused) October 15, 2009 – Level 2 Fall Cycle districts notified of status as targeted districts LRE/student performance (SPP 3, 5) Suspension/expulsion (SPP 4) October 15, 2009 – Draft manual and conference call information in BEESS Weekly Memo
Timeline – 2009-10 Level 1 and Level 2 Fall Cycle (focused) October 20, 21, 2009 – Informational conference calls Level 1 monitoring Level 2 monitoring October 26, 2009 – Districts begin self- assessment
Timeline – 2009-10 Level 1 and Level 2 Fall Cycle (focused) January 8, 2010 – Districts submit via Web site Self-assessment results PIP for Level 2 Fall January 29, 2010 – Level 1 and Level 2 Fall Cycle preliminary report disseminated
Timeline – 2009-10 Level 1 and Level 2 Fall Cycle (focused) March 8, 2010 – Districts submit Correction of student-specific noncompliance CAP for systemic noncompliance, if required March 29, 2010 – Level 1 and Level 2 Fall Cycle final report disseminated
Timeline – 2009-10 Level 2 Spring Cycle (focused) February 3, 2010 – Level 2 Spring Cycle districts notified of status as targeted districts Exiting (SPP 1, 2, 13, 14) Disproportionality (SPP 9, 10) Timely evaluation (SPP 11) C-to-B transition (SPP 12) February 8, 2010 – Level 2 Spring Cycle districts begin self-assessment Exiting (SPP 1, 2, 13, 14) Disproportionality (SPP 9, 10)
Timeline – 2009-10 Level 2 Spring Cycle (focused) April 5, 2010* – Districts submit via Web site Level 2 Spring Cycle self-assessment results PIP for Level 2 Spring Cycle Exiting (SPP 1, 2, 13, 14) Disproportionality (SPP 9, 10) Timely evaluation (SPP 11)* C-to-B transition (SPP 12)* April 26, 2010 – Level 1 and Level 2 Spring Cycle preliminary report disseminated * Date may differ for SPP 11, 12
Timeline – 2009-10 Level 2 Spring Cycle (focused) June 7, 2010 – Districts submit Correction of student-specific noncompliance for Level 2 Spring Cycle Exiting (SPP 1, 2, 13, 14) Disproportionality (SPP 9, 10) CAP for systemic noncompliance, if required June 28, 2010 –Level 2 Spring Cycle final report disseminated
Timeline – 2009-10 Level 3 - On-site monitoring Notification (goal) – November 1, 2009 On-site visits (goal) January – May 2010 May need to extend to August – October 2010
And now you know! Clearly - “Dazed and Confused”!
Use of CEIS Districts may choose to use up to 15% of IDEA funds for early intervening services Districts may be required to use the full 15%
Required CEIS Districts are required to set aside 15% of IDEA funds for early intervening services if any of the following criteria are met: Students of any race are at least 3.5 times more likely to be identified as disabled compared to all other races (SWD, IND, EBD, SLD, ASD, OHI, SILI)
Required CEIS Students with disabilities ages 6-21 of any race are at least 3.5 times more likely to be placed in a separate class or other separate environment when compared to all other races (SWD, IND, EBD, SLD, ASD, OHI, SILI) Students with disabilities of any race are at least 3.5 times more likely to be suspended/expelled when compared to all other races combined (SWD only)
Remember……. You must report in the automated student data base each student who received services funded through CEIS dollars States are required to track by student those nondisabled children who received these services and whether or not they ultimately were found eligible for special education and related services.
CEIS Reporting Requirements For districts voluntarily using up to 15% of IDEA dollars for CEIS and those who are required to use funds for CEIS, a code has been added to the Element “Fund Source” in automated student data base to indicate students receiving CEIS under requirements in the IDEA.
Fund Source Code I indicates student receiving Early Intervening Services funded by IDEA, Part B dollars. Reported on Federal/State Indicator Status format in Survey 5.
Uses of CEIS Set Aside Funds Personnel RtI Coordinators, teachers, behavior specialists, substitutes, and paraprofessionals Professional Development Consultants Stipends for teachers and other staff Travel costs for participants
Uses of CEIS Set Aside Funds Technology Instructional Data collection and reporting tools Materials and Supplies Consumables for teachers and students
Challenges/Issues CEIS Specify applicable population of students Nondisabled K-12 students Tier II and Tier III Identify appropriate set-asides in budget(s) Budget for the 15% limit, if required
Parentally Placed Private School Students Requirements and Challenges
Proportionate Share – Part B Year StudentsFunds 2007-0813,871 $ 17,976,857 2008-09 8,901 $ 11,941,119 2009-10 9,478 $ 28,634,542
Year StudentsFunds 2007-08770 $ 417,258 2008-09 361 $ 176,676 2009-10 252 $ 293,862 Proportionate Share – Part B
FY 2008-09 Proportionate Share Expenditures ExpendituresRoll Part B = $8,846,354 $5,354,325 PreK = $ 133,886 $ 49,729
Private School Consultation How are eligible students enrolled in non-profit private schools identified? How are private school representatives and parents of children with disabilities informed of the process? How is the amount of proportionate share determined and how will funds be used?
Private School Consultation How are decisions made with regard to services offered in the consultative agreement? (i.e., types of services, including direct service, and any alternate service delivery) How is this information (consultative agreement) shared with private schools and parents?
Private School Consultation How are affirmations obtained from representatives of private schools? (Affirmation signed by private school reps should document that “timely and meaningful consultation occurred”)
Grant Challenges/Issues Consultation/Proportionate Share Describe district’s unique consultation process, including affirmation Identify set-asides in budget(s) Describe appropriate expenditures for satisfying share funds
You must have documentation on file that a “timely and meaningful consultation has occurred” and is signed off by private school officials or by a representative of private schools. Remember…
Expending Proportionate Share “YES!” Speech therapy Language therapy Occupational/physical therapy Instructional support per student’s services plan (SP) “NO!” Psychological testing Guidance counseling Any activities, including observations, leading to identifying eligibility (both initial and for reevaluations)
Expending Proportionate Share “YES!” Consumables and all instructional materials age-appropriate and for specific use by students with disabilities and their teachers “NO!” Evaluation and testing materials used by professionals conducting assessments to identify children initially and for reevaluations
Expending Proportionate Share “YES!” Computer hardware and software specific for use by SWD Transportation costs of serving SWD in public school (between private school/public school) “NO!” Upgrade computers at the school Purchase site license for new reading curriculum at school Reimburse parents for transporting SWD to public school
Revocation of Consent What does it really mean?
Revocation of Consent Parent must make the request in writing The district may not delay the cessation of services The district may not challenge the parent’s request Revocation of consent reflect dismissal from ESE, not discontinuation of some services
Revocation of Consent District must provide prior written notice of change of FAPE/placement Will reflect the parent’s request Can include the district’s rationale for advising that consent not be revoked Should include a description of the rights and benefits no longer conveyed
Revocation of Consent Historical record stands – prior participation in ESE cannot be deleted from the record Disciplinary protections no longer apply FCAT waiver no longer applicable OSEP says accommodations “may” be continued if the teacher provides them to other nondisabled students
Revocation of Consent Application to districts’ virtual instruction programs? The district has an obligation to provide FAPE to an eligible student with a disability FAPE is not “one size fits all” There is no algorithm to plug in the student data and have “FAPE in the LRE” fall out Think outside the box; be flexible; be honest
Revocation of Consent Application to districts’ virtual instruction programs? What does the district do when the parent of a student with multiple significant disabilities in need of highly specialized “low availability” services rejects placement at the school site(s) where the services currently are provided? If the parent refuses to allow the district to provide FAPE, the district may need to discuss revocation of consent.
Contact Us 850-245-0475 Data Collection and Reporting; SPP/APR; CEIS Karen.Denbroeder@fldoe.org General Compliance Kim.Komisar@fldoe.org Monitoring Patricia.Howell@fldoe.org Dispute Resolution Demetria.Harvell@fldoe.org