1. VCASE PRESENTATION Annual Plans, Maintenance of Effort (MOE) and Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS) 1 October 7, 2013

2. TRACIE COLEMAN Annual Plans 2

3. Annual Plan Overview  Superintendent’s Memorandum is issued each year around December/January  Link to Annual Plan workbook at the following link:  http://www.doe.virginia.gov/info_management/data_collection/special_education/index.shtml http://www.doe.virginia.gov/info_management/data_collection/special_education/index.shtml  Annual Plans are Due around mid-May  Annual Plans must be submitted through OMEGA 3

4. Common Phone Calls Macros 4

5. Must Enable Macros 5

6. Workbook Populates……. 6

7. Annual Plan Common Mistakes  The Superintendent's Certification Page  Missing Superintendent’s Name, Superintendent ‘s Approval Date or School Board’s Approval Date  LEA Assurances & Certifications  General Education Provision Act – Division fails to select IDEA box or Barriers to Access is selected without providing explanations  611 and 619 Narrative Section  Discrepancies between amounts in narrative section vs. amounts in budget section  Division did not address plans for CEIS or PSA or did not state reasons for not budgeting for CEIS or PSA  Based on the Dec. 1, 2012 Child Count, the division was required to budget for PSA, but did not budget funds 7

8. Other Required Assurances  Maintenance of Effort  Compliance Component Collected Outside the Annual Plan, new online application  Eligibility Component will be Collected Within the Annual Plan  Proportionate Set-Aside  Collected Outside the Annual Plan, new online application  Must identify expenditures in OMEGA  Excess Costs  Collected Outside the Annual Plan, new online application  Coordinated Early Intervening Services  Collaborative Effort involving Program Improvement, Student Services and Budget & Finance  Must identify expenditures in OMEGA  Use of Federal Funds for Sections 611 and 619  Must be Allowable under federal and state regulations (i.e., EDGAR, OMB Circulars A- 87, etc.,)  Allowable uses reviewed through OMEGA 8

9. TRACIE COLEMAN Maintenance of Effort 9

10. IDEA MOE IDEA Maintenance of Effort The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), §300.203, requires the Virginia Department of Education to determine that a school division complies with the maintenance of effort requirement to spend at least the same total amount of either local or local plus state dollars or per capita amount of either local or local plus state dollars for the education of children with disabilities that the school division spent from the same source for that purpose in the previous year. 10

11. IDEA MOE § 300.203 Maintenance of Effort. (b) Standard. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2).of this section, the SEA must determine that an LEA complies with paragraph (a) of this section for purposes of establishing the LEA's eligibility for an award for a fiscal year if the LEA budgets, for the education of children with disabilities, at least the same total or per capita amount from either of the following sources as the LEA spent for that purpose from the same source for the most recent prior year for which information is available. 11

12. IDEA LEA MOE CALCULATIONS MOE “tests” specified in §300.203 of the IDEA:  Local expenditures only  Local and State combined expenditures  Local per pupil expenditure  Local and State per pupil expenditure 12

13. IDEA MOE  The primary requisite for reporting expenditures for purposes of determining compliance with IDEA’s MOE requirements is that divisions will only report those expenditures made for students with disabilities for whom the division is legally responsible.  A school division only has to pass ONE of the four Maintenance of Effort tests  The division IS required to pass the same Maintenance of Effort test each year (proposed regulatory change)  MOE must be met for eligibility and compliance purposes 13

14. MOE MET USING TEST 3 14

15. NO WAIVERS TO MOE  There are NO WAIVERS of MOE available to an LEA  There are 5 Exceptions to meeting MOE  The voluntary departure………. (§204a)  Decrease in the enrollment of children with disabilities(§204b)  The termination of the obligation of LEA to provide a program……. (§204c)  The termination of costly long-term purchase…….(§204d)  Adjustment to local fiscal efforts in certain fiscal years or the assumption of cost by the high cost fund operated by the SEA (§205) 15

16. MOE ALLOWABLE EXCEPTION §300.204a A school division may reduce the level of expenditures below the previous year’s spending if the reduction is attributable to the voluntary departure, by retirement or otherwise, or departure for just cause, of special education or related service personnel.  Retirement  Resignation  Move  Includes savings between high salary of departing teaching and low salary of new teacher  Staff member’s decision to leave 16 Refer to MOE Guidance Documents for Additional Information

17. MOE ALLOWABLE EXCEPTION §300.204a does not include  Reduction-In-Force (RIF) or other termination  Does not include staff transferred to other positions  Does not include medical leave 17

18. MOE ALLOWABLE EXCEPTION §300.204b A school division may reduce the level of expenditures below the previous year’s spending if the reduction is attributable to a decrease in the enrollment of children with disabilities.  If this allowable exception is applicable, it is automatically calculated in the IDEA MOE Web Application 18

19. MOE ALLOWABLE EXCEPTION §300.204c A school division may reduce the level of expenditures below the previous year’s spending if the reduction is attributable to the termination of the obligation of the agency to provide a program of special education to a particular child with a disability that is an exceptionally costly program, as determined by the state’s education agency. 19 Refer to MOE Guidance Documents for Additional Information

20. MOE ALLOWABLE EXCEPTION §300.204c  Has left the jurisdiction of the agency  Reached maximum age  No longer needs the program  High cost program like private school  Any possible exception generated by this section will be considered on an individual, case by case basis, using the information submitted through the IDEA MOE application, and reviewed by the VDOE prior to approval 20

21. MOE ALLOWABLE EXCEPTION §300.204c  Does not include “doing the same for less”.  Does not include being “frugal”.  VDOE has specific federal guidance that §300.204c exceptions apply to a specific student, not to a program or a vendor. 21

22. MOE ALLOWABLE EXCEPTION §300.204d A school division may reduce the level of expenditures below the previous year’s spending if the reduction is attributable to the termination of costly expenditures for long-term purchases.  Certain equipment  Certain construction costs  Certain supplies/material (software/computers)  Certain programs 22

23. MOE ALLOWABLE EXCEPTION §300.204d  §300.204d exceptions must be based on “long-term” purchases; long-term means across two fiscal years.  Does not include “doing the same for less”  Does not include being “frugal” 23

24. MOE ALLOWABLE EXCEPTION §300.205 Under this section of the IDEA regulations, a possible allowable exception to MOE expenditures is addressed, However If you use this exception, CEIS is a factor. 24

25. IDEA MOE NOT MET  LEA has not met its MOE requirement  VDOE pays back USED using non-federal funds  LEA pays back VDOE  The level of effort that an LEA must meet in the year after it fails MOE is the level that it should have met in the prior year 25

26. IDEA MOE 2012-2013  Look out for Superintendent’s Memorandum Issuance for financial data collection  Ensure SSWS Access is Available  Use the calculator available in the IDEA MOE Web Application when the collection window is closed  Contact VDOE if additional information or clarification is needed 26

27. Proposed IDEA Regulatory Changes  On September 18 a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) on local education agency maintenance of effort was published in the federal register. The link to the NPR is: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/search?condition s[agency_ids]=126&conditions[publication_date][is]=09% 2F18%2F2013&conditions[type]=PRORULE https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/search?condition s[agency_ids]=126&conditions[publication_date][is]=09% 2F18%2F2013&conditions[type]=PRORULE  Comments are needed from this group on where LEAs are experiencing the most problems in implementing the MOE requirements.  Please use the various methods to comment which are listed in the NPR. 27

28. NPR General Purpose – 1  Clarification that the four "tests" for LEA MOE ‐ Local funds only, local and state funds either per capita or in total for each ‐ are applicable both to eligibility requirements for LEAs to receive funds AND for compliance. The current regulations are unclear if the tests are applicable for both grant eligibility and compliance.  Clarification on the comparison year for using local funds only to comply with the MOE requirement. 28

29. NPR General Purpose – 2  Clarification that LEAs that fail to meet the MOE requirements in a given year are still required to maintain the amount that would have been required in the absence of that failure and not the LEA’s reduced amount.  Clarification of consequences of LEAs not meeting MOE ‐ SEA is responsible to pay back funds using non ‐ federal funds to OSEP; it is optional for SEA to recover from LEAs. 29

30. ANGELA PHENICIE CEIS Identification 30

31. Significant Disproportionality and CEIS IDEA 20 U.S.C § 1418(D) IDEA 20 U.S.C § 1413(F)

32. What do I do? Where do I start? Yikes, my division has been identified as significantly disproportionate! CEIS…what? ARGH!!!!! Significant Disproportionality

33. Section 618(d)  Section 618(d) of the IDEA and the implementing regulations in 34 CFR §300.646 require States to collect and examine data to determine if significant disproportionality based on race or ethnicity is occurring in the State and the LEAs of the State. Significant Disproportionality

34. Significant disproportionality is determined through analysis of data and measurement against established criteria. Significant disproportionality can occur in any of the four following areas:  Identification for special education  Identification for specific disability categories  Placement of students with disabilities  Discipline of students with disabilities Significant Disproportionality

35. Race/EthnicityDisability TypePlacementDiscipline American Indian or Alaska Native Emotional DisturbanceRegular Class 40% to 79% Duration = suspension or expulsion totaling greater than 10 days AsianIntellectual DisabilityRegular Class less than 40% Type = out of school suspension or expulsion Black or African AmericanOther Health Impairment Separate School or Residential Facility Incidence = cumulative # of suspension or expulsion incidents Hispanic/LatinoSpecific Learning Disability Native Hawaiian/ Other Pacific Islander Autism Spectrum Disorder Two or more races Speech and Language Impairment White

36.  This requirement is different from the requirement to determine disproportionate representation based on inappropriate identification that is reported in the IDEA State Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual Performance Reports (APR) in Indicators 9 and 10. Significant Disproportionality

37.  Significant Disproportionality is based on data NOT on a district’s policies, procedures, and practices.  Significant Disproportionality is not a State Performance Plan Indicator. Significant Disproportionality

38. Disproportionate Representation  The focus is on identification only  A State monitoring priority. Relates to Indicators 9 & 10 of State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report  State must do more than just examine numerical information  State must use monitoring data, and review of policies, practices, and procedures to determine if disproportionate representation results from inappropriate identification  Focuses on over-representation and under-representation Significant Disproportionality  The focus is on identification, placement, and disciplinary actions  State must annually identify LEAs having significant disproportionality and notify LEAs  Significant disproportionality is determined by a numerical examination of data only  If significant disproportionality is identified, State must order LEA to reserve 15% for CEIS; provide for the review and revision of policies, practices, and procedures; and require the LEA to publicy report on any revision  Focuses on over-representation only

39. Significant Disproportionality States must:  Provide for the review and revision (if appropriate)of policies, procedures, and practices used in identification or placemen of children;  Require LEAs to use 15% of the IDEA funds for Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS); and  Publicly report on the revision of policies, practices, and procedures. 39

40. TOM MANTHEY CEIS Program Planning 40

41. Purpose of Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS) 41

42. Purpose of Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS) 42

43. Requirements 43

44. Requirements 44

45. Allowable & Impermissible Costs 45

46. Annual CEIS Plan 46

47. Questions & Answers 47

48. Contact Information 48 Tracie Coleman 804-225-2704 tracie.coleman@doe.virginia.gov Angela Phenicie 804-371-7582 angela.phenicie@doe.virginia.gov Tom Manthey 804-225-4024 tom.manthey@doe.virginia.gov