Initial Evaluation Timelines Changes OSP is required to report children who are transitioning from Part C to Part B under both CSADA indicators 3.2a and 3.6. (OSEP TA Document ; 12/1/2009) This means that IEPs must be developed and implemented by the students3 rd birthday and evaluations must be conducted in 80 days. GF code is required for all gifted referrals (excluding EG referrals) regardless of eligibility status effective July, 1, 2010.
Indicator Changes IndicatorChange 3: AssessmentTargets to be reset at the elementary, middle, and high school level. 14: Post School OutcomesMeasurement change: 2009-2010 collection will serve as baseline data.
Educational Environments Ages 3-5 Revised data collection instructions approved by OMB 4/21/10. Approval extends to 4/30/2013. Revisions are in the report of educational placements for 3 to 5 year olds. Revised instructions impact SY 2010-11 data, collected on December 1, 2010.
Educational Environments Ages 3-5 The metric changes are centered around the Regular Early Childhood (EC) Program. States are only required to report whether the child is spending less than 10 hours per week or at least 10 hours per week in the Regular EC Program. States are then required to designate where the special education services are provided for those in a Regular EC Program. The definition for the Early Childhood Category has not changed – it is defined as a program that includes a majority (50% or more) of nondisabled children.
All CWDs (3-5 ) In regular EC program at least 10 hours/week …and receiving the majority of Sped in the regular EC program …and receiving the majority of Sped in some other location In regular EC program <10 hours/week …and receiving the majority of Sped in the regular EC program …and receiving the majority of Sped in some other location Sped program (not in regular EC ) Separate Sped classSeparate schoolResidential facility [Not in the above] Home or CaregiversOther New Reporting Categories for SY 2010-11 Preschool Educational Environments Data
OSP will issue a memo to all special education directors regarding the technical aspects of entering and collecting the new educational environment data including district timelines and implications for the online IEP Technical Aspects Educational Environment Data (Ages 3-5)
Coordinated Early Intervening Services OSEP Memo 08-09 July 28, 2008 Outlines CEIS Who may receive When required Significant Disproportionality How states may elect to define Tracking requirements CEIS and RTI How Significant Disproportionality differs from disproportionate representation OSP Memo December 11, 2009 Defines WVs revised definition for CEIS Cell Size = 20 Relative Risk Ratios (RRR) must be greater than or equal to 3.0 Discipline: Type, Duration, and Incidence Consecutive Year Provision 7 Race/Ethnicities
§300.600(d)(3) Relates to Indicators 9 & 10 More than just an examination of numerical information is necessary Use monitoring data, review of policies, procedures, and practices etc. to determine if disproportionate representation (DR) results from inappropriate identification Consider both overrepresentation and underrepresentation Indicator 10 – provide data for children in the six high incidence disability categories, at a minimum State provides definition of DR All race/ethnicities (including the white subgroup) are included in calculation and identification of DR. §300.646 Identification, placement, or disciplinary actions Significant disproportionality triggered by just a numerical examination of data Analysis based on just overidentification Provide data for children in the six high incidence disability categories, at a minimum State has discretion in defining significant disproportionality for LEAs and the State Require identified LEAs to reserve 15% for CEIS Considering only the RRR of minority subgroups Disproportionate RepresentationSignificant Disproportionality
Reporting Report annually to OSEP in APR on the % of districts in which disproportionate representation results from Inappropriate Identification Provide raw data of districts identified with disproportionate representation If inappropriate identification is identified, report on corrective actions taken Report annually to the public on the performance of each LEA in the State Reporting LEA are required to publicly report on the revision of policies, procedures, and practices when significant disproportionality is evident CEIS is a new 618 report Two required reporting mechanisms 1. LEA Application FY 2011 CEIS program description Total number of students who received CEIS during 2009-2010 Total number of students who received CEIS in school year 2007- 2008, 2008-2009, and 2009-2010 who later qualified for special education and/or related services in 2009-2010 2. WVEISweb Intervention Screens Identifies students by WVEIS number Specify only students who received CEIS during the 2009-2010 school year Also, new tool from OSEP/DAC with potential LEA level reporting for both CEIS and reduction in MOE Disproportionate Representation Significant Disproportionality
Correction of Noncompliance OSEP Memo 09-02 October 17, 2008 Defines Correction on page 2 Has since been frequently clarified by OSEP Is now being fully enforced by OSEP and implemented by WVDE/OSP Correction requirements specific to Indicators are highlighted in green boxes (Blueprints)
Two Prongs of Correction Prong 1 -- has corrected each individual case of noncompliance; and Prong 2 -- is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements (i.e. achieved 100% compliance), based on the States review of updated data.
Correction Timelines and Exception Districts are required to correct any noncompliances as soon as possible, but in no case later than one year. Correction (Prong 1) is required for every individual case of noncompliance unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the district.
Thresholds for Correction Q. May States use thresholds for correction of noncompliance? For example, is 95% sufficient in determining correction?
Thresholds for Correction A. No. Consistent with the guidance in OSEP Memo 09-02 and the 2010 APR response tables, the State may not use a threshold of less than 100% to conclude that the LEA has corrected noncompliance. Before the State may conclude that the LEA has corrected the noncompliance, it must examine updated data (which can be for less than the entire reporting period, and less than all children) to ensure that the LEA has achieved 100% compliance.