1. Results Driven Accountability The Ins, Outs and What We Know JENNIFER S. MAUSKAPF, ESQ. BONNIE L. GRAHAM, ESQ. JMAUSKAPF@BRUMAN.COM BGRAHAM@BRUMAN.COM BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC SPRING FORUM 2015 BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC 1

2. Agenda Overview of IDEA Monitoring Results Driven Accountability State Systemic Improvement Plan Paying for Reforms with IDEA ◦Blending and Braiding other Federal funds BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC 2

3. IDEA Monitoring U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) monitors States’ implementation of IDEA Parts B and C States monitor local educational agencies’ (LEAs) implementation of Part B and early intervention services (EIS) programs’ implementation of Part C BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC 3

4. Monitoring Priorities “The primary focus of Federal and State monitoring activities shall be on – ◦Improving educational results and functional outcomes for all children with disabilities; and ◦Ensuring that States meet the program requirements under this part with a particular emphasis on those that are closely related to improving education results for children with disabilities.” IDEA Sec. 616(a)(2) BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC 4

5. OSEP’s Vision for RDA All components of an accountability system will be aligned in a manner that best support States in improving results for infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities, and their families. OSEP’s RDA Website: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/osep/rda/inde x.html http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/osep/rda/inde x.html BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC 5

6. Components of RDA State Performance Plan / Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR) measures results and compliance. Determinations reflect State performance on results, as well as compliance. Differentiated monitoring and technical assistance support improvement in all States, but especially low performing States. BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC 6

7. RDA Core Principles 1.Partnership with stakeholders 2.Transparent and understandable to educators and families 3.Drives improved results 4.Protects children and families 5.Differentiated incentives and supports to states 6.Encourages states to target resources and reduces burden 7.Responsive to needs BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC 7

8. Proposed SPP/APR Focus on Systemic Improvement “Aligned with RDA Vision and Goals” Reduction of Reporting Burden Combines SPP and APR into one document Collects SPP/APR data through a web-based, on- line submission process (GRADS) BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC 8

9. State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) Comprehensive, multi-year SSIP, focused on improving results for children with disabilities Instead of multiple small improvement plans for each indicator Broad strategies with detailed improvement activities New Indicator 17 Multi-year, multi-phase process, beginning with FFY 2013 APR (submitted in 2015) BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC 9

10. SSIP Phase 1 Submitted April 1, 2015 via GRADS 360 Components of Phase I: Data Analysis Analysis of State Infrastructure to Support Improvement and Build Capacity Identification of Focus for Improvement, State Identified Measureable Result (SIMR) Theory of Action (If X  then Y) Selection of Coherent Improvement Activities BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC 10

11. SSIP Phase 2 To be submitted in 2016 with FFY 2014 SPP/APR Plan for SSIP Implementation over the next 5 years Components of Phase 2: Improving State Infrastructure Support for LEA/EIS Program Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices Evaluation Plan for SSIP Implementation BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC 11

12. SSIP Phase 3 To be submitted in 2017 with FFY 2015 SPP/APR Components of Phase 3: Results of ongoing evaluation of strategies in the SSIP Extent of implementation of strategies Progress toward established goals Any revisions made to the SSIP in response to the evaluation BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC 12

13. SSIP Examples BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC 13

14. Determinations: 2012-2015 OSEP working to revise determination process to be more results focused 2012: Determinations were driven by compliance indicators 2013: Began to use compliance data in determinations, issuance of ‘Compliance Matrix’ 2014: OSEP used RDA data in determinations for the first time 2015: OSEP will continue to use RDA in determination, but exactly how remains unclear BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC 14

15. RDA Factors in 2014 Determinations  First Time RDA Factors used in Determinations  Made up 50% of each State’s APR Determination  RDA Data used in FFY 2012 APR Considered:  Participation and Performance on Statewide Assessments and the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)  Had significant impact on many determinations BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC 15

16. RDA Impact on 2014 Determinations IDEA State Determinations 2014 Meets Requirements Needs Assistance Needs Intervention Compliance Only (If results factors had not been considered) 43143 Actual Determinations (Including RDA Results Factors) 18366 BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC 16

17. Differentiated Monitoring and Support Based on determinations and SSIP All States to receive TA on SSIP development and general TA States with the greatest needs will receive more intensive support OSEP piloting collaborative efforts in connection with SIG visits BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC 17

18. New OSEP TA Initiatives NCSI. TA to SEAs to support school districts and local early intervention service programs in improving educational results and functional outcomes for children with disabilities. New Oct. 2014. CIFR. State maintenance of financial support (MFS) and LEA maintenance of effort (MOE) reduction and coordinated early intervening service (CEIS) provisions. New Oct. 2014. IDC. Interactive Institutes on High-Quality Data & the SSIP during April and May 2015. BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC 18

19. Accountability for Compliance Review of compliance indicators in SPP/APR Ongoing fiscal monitoring and audit resolution OSEP TA in key areas OSEP Desk Audit Process To be conducted for every State over next four years To include State accountability, dispute resolution, and data quality OSEP reserving option to conduct on-site reviews where necessary to collect additional data / provide technical support BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC 19

20. Paying for SSIP and RDA Efforts BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC 20

21. Using IDEA B for Reforms Eligibility ◦619 funds serve children with disabilities ages 3 through 5 ◦611 funds serve children with disabilities ages 3 through 21 ◦Child Find (identify, locate and evaluate children with disabilities) ◦Coordinated early intervening services (student who need additional academic and behavioral support to succeed in general education, but have not been identified as having a disability) BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC 21

22. Using IDEA B for Reforms Use of Funds ◦Excess cost of providing special education and related services to CWDs ◦Intended as extra support, not to replace other funding sources for basic educational services ◦LEAs that meet local MOE requirement also meet Supplement not Supplant ◦OSEP applies Supplement not Supplant to CEIS funds BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC 22

23. Using IDEA for State Reforms State-level funds: ◦Automating IEP processes, expanding use of technology in IEP process ◦Assisting LEAs in providing positive behavioral interventions and supports and mental health services to SWDs ◦Improving use of technology designed to help SWDs succeed in general education environment ◦Providing transition supports to help SWDs move to college or career BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC 23

24. Using IDEA for State Reforms State-level funds: ◦Supporting development and provision of assessment accommodations and/or design alternate assessments consistent with ESEA requirements ◦Assisting SWDs that are not in traditional LEAs (correctional facilities, expelled, etc.) ◦Provide services to low-performing schools to improve achievement for SWDs provided a school’s low performance is solely caused by the SWD subgroup BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC 24

25. Using IDEA for District- Wide Reforms Local-level funds: ◦Professional development to teachers who work with SWDs, including dual certification supports, new teacher programs, and teacher mentoring ◦Increasing use of technology to help SWDs access general education ◦Assistive technology devices and PD to teachers on using devices with SWDs BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC 25

26. Using IDEA for District- Wide Reforms Local-level funds: ◦Providing positive behavioral supports for SWDs ◦Providing transition supports for SWDs ◦Implementing progress monitoring tools, web-based IEPs and other relevant data systems for SWDs BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC 26

27. Blended and Braided Funding Braided Funding: individual funding streams to states and LEAs are coordinated, but each individual award maintains its award- specific identity Blended Funding: individual funding streams to state and LEAs is merged into one award, and each individual award loses its award-specific identity. BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC 27

28. Why the push? 1. Current system focuses on compliance rather than outcomes 2. Program fragmentation, overlap and duplication 3. Proliferation of requirements over time BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC 28

29. Braiding Funds BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC 29

30. State-Level Teams Reform Effort: State Level staff to work directly with low- performing schools; provide data coaching, leadership coaching and instructional support to help improve outcomes for students ◦IDEA Part B, state-level activity funds ◦Title I, state-level funds ◦Title II, state activities funds BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC 30

31. State-Level Teams Using IDEA: ◦Exempt from supplanting ◦BUT – efforts should be focused on meeting the needs of students with disabilities Using Title I: ◦Supplanting concerns ◦Is the work required by state law? ◦Is the work provided in non-Title I schools with nonfederal funds? ◦Eligibility concerns ◦Is the work limited to Title I schools and students? Using Title II: ◦School/ student eligibility is not a concern ◦BUT – efforts should be focused on support for teachers and principals BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC 31

32. LEA Data Systems and Digitized Teaching and Learning Reform Effort: Statewide data systems to improve access to digital materials and supports for students; digital professional development and learning opportunities for teachers and leaders ◦IDEA, Part B ◦Title I, II and III BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC 32

33. LEA Data Systems and Digitized Teaching and Learning Usin g IDEA: ◦Supplanting not a concern if LEA meets local MOE, then considered to be meeting supplement not supplant ◦Eligibility issues- funds must be used for special education purposes (e.g., purchase assistive technology for student with disability, pursuant to IEP; digital training focused on using technology to serve students with disabilities, etc.) Using Title I, II, III: ◦Possible supplanting issues ◦Title I, III – eligible schools/students ◦Title II – focus on professional development BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC 33

34. Blending Funds BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC 34

35. Schoolwide Consolidation What Programs? ◦All ED formula programs, except Reading First; and all ED discretionary programs, but must comply with application ◦IDEA – may consolidate, but with caveats ◦Cap based on student count ◦Not exempt from programmatic requirements BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC 35

36. Schoolwide Consolidation Full Consolidation (with state and local funds) ◦No distinction between federal and nonfederal ◦No separate fiscal accounting records, by federal program, that identify the specific activities supported by each program’s funds ◦May use federal funds for basic operational expenses ◦Generally, “intent and purposes” only, but IDEA must meet programmatic requirements BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC 36

37. Schoolwide Consolidation Federal Consolidation only ◦Must use federal funds for “educational” needs of the school, identified in the needs assessment and articulated in Schoolwide plan ◦Do not have to track IDEA funds to eligible SWDs ◦Must comply with applicable cost principles: 2 CFR 200, subpart E BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC 37

38. Blending, Braiding and Time and Effort 200.430(i)(6)-(7): Time and Effort: Pilot systems that approve funding based on documented outcomes and program performance. ◦Approval from Federal agencies for all blended funding; ◦Must describe the method of charging costs, relate the charging of costs to the specific activity that is applicable to all fund sources, and demonstrate that the method is based on quantifiable measures of the activity in relation to time charged. BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC 38

39. Questions?? BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC 39

40. Disclaimer This presentation is intended solely to provide general information and does not constitute legal advice or a legal service. This presentation does not create a client- lawyer relationship with Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC and, therefore, carries none of the protections under the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct. Attendance at this presentation, a later review of any printed or electronic materials, or any follow-up questions or communications arising out of this presentation with any attorney at Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC does not create an attorney-client relationship with Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC. You should not take any action based upon any information in this presentation without first consulting legal counsel familiar with your particular circumstances. BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC 40