Special Education Performance Profiles and SPP Compliance Indicator Reviews Office for Exceptional Children.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Compliance Monitoring Orientation. Monitoring Components Focus Site Review/Fiscal Monitoring SPAM.
Advertisements

(Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act) and
A Multi-Year Improvement System and Schedule
VESID UPDATES Patricia J. Geary 9/15/06.  Behavioral Interventions  IDEA Federal Regulations  State Assessments  State Performance Plan  Levels of.
INDICATORS 11 AND 13 Bureau of Indian Education Division of Performance and Accountability WebEx October 18, 2011 DESK AUDIT.
Special Education Director’s Conference Sept. 29, 2006 Prepared by Sharon Schumacher.
Final Determinations. Secretary’s Determinations Secretary annually reviews the APR and, based on the information provided in the report, information.
Correction of Non-Compliance Prior to Notification Monitoring and Supervision March 11, 2013.
Special Education Accountability Reviews Let’s put the pieces together March 25, 2015.
Special Ed. Administrator’s Academy, September 24, 2013 Monitoring and Program Effectiveness.
Verification Visit by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) September 27-29, 2010.
Special Education Update Mississippi Department of Education Office of Special Education MASS Summer Conference 2013.
OSEP National Early Childhood Conference December 2007.
Systems Performance Review & Improvement (SPR&I) Training Oregon Department of Education Fall 2007.
WHAT IS EMIS? Education Management Information System Established by law in 1989, the Education Management Information System (EMIS) provides the architecture.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Jack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction State Performance Plan (SPP) & Annual Performance Report.
Accountability for Results State Performance Plan improving educational results and functional outcomes for all children with disabilities…
A Review of the Special Education Integrated Monitoring Process BIE Special Education Academy September 12-15, 2011 Tampa, Florida.
OSEP National Early Childhood Conference December 2007.
Welcome to the Regional SPR&I trainings Be sure to sign in Be sure to sign in You should have one school age OR EI/ECSE packet of handouts You.
1 Accountability Conference Education Service Center, Region 20 September 16, 2009.
STATE MONITORING VISIT Montgomery County Schools Week of April 18, 2016.
SPR&I: Changes, New Measures/Targets, and Lessons Learned from Focused Monitoring Visits David Guardino, SPR&I Coordinator Fall 2009 COSA Conference.
JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction Welcome Stakeholders December 5, 2007 Improving Special Education Services (ISES) December 5,
Monitoring and Evaluating SES Provider Programs
1 Charting the Course: Smoother Data Sharing for Effective Early Childhood Transition Wisconsin’s Journey Lori Wittemann, Wisconsin Department of Health.
Special Education Reporting OEDSA ITC Meeting March 8, 2010 David Ehle, EMIS 1.
An Introduction to the State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report.
State Performance Plan (SPP) Annual Performance Report (APR) Dana Corriveau Bureau of Special Education Connecticut State Department of Education ConnCASEOctober.
Letter of Explanation Copy of Data Disproportionality Initial Eligibility 60-day Timeline Early Childhood Transition Secondary Transition Corrected and.
Nash-Rocky Mount Public Schools Programs for Exceptional Children State Performance Plan/ Annual Performance Report/Continuous Improvement Performance.
SPP/APR Updates June SPP – State Performance Plan –Establishes baseline data and sets targets through school year for 20 Indicators APR.
Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring System US Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs Overview of the OSEP Continuous Improvement.
IDEA 2004 Part B Changes to the Indicator Measurement Table.
Improvement Planning Mischele McManus Infant/Toddler and Family Services Office of Early Childhood Education and Family Services July 20, 2007
Texas State Performance Plan Data, Performance, Results TCASE Leadership Academy Fall 2008.
Noncompliance and Correction (OSEP Memo 09-02) June 2012.
Kentucky Continuous Monitoring Process Spring 2012.
2010 OSEP Leadership Mega Conference Collaboration to Achieve Success from Cradle to Career Dan Schreier, Gregg Corr, Jill Harris, Ken Kienas, Kate Moran,
District Annual Determinations IDEA Part B Sections 616(a) and (e) A State must consider the following four factors: 1.Performance on compliance.
Spring 2010 Mississippi Department of Education Office of Instructional Enhancement and Internal Operations/Office of Special Education 1 SPP/APR Update.
National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center Connecting TA for Part B Indicators 1, 2, 13, & 14: Working Together to Support States OSEP Project.
TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction State of California Annual Performance Report Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004.
JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction Improving Special Education Services November 2010 Sacramento, CA SPP/APR Update.
In accordance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and Chapters 14 and 15 of the State Board Regulations, PDE provides general supervision.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Special Education State Performance Plan and Annual Performance.
January 2012 Mississippi Department of Education Office of Instructional Enhancement and Internal Operations/Office of Special Education 1 Noncompliance.
LEA Self-Assessment LEASA: Presentations:
1 Early Intervention Monitoring Wyoming DDD April 2008 Training.
State Performance Plan ESC-2 Presentation For Superintendents September 19, 2007.
6/18/2016 DES / AzEIP 2011 Cycle Two Self Report Overview & Training Cycle Two Self Report Overview & Training.
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs Building the Legacy: IDEA General Supervision.
Understanding the Data on Preschool Child Find and Transition Annual Performance Report Indicator 12 February, 2016
March 23, SPECIAL EDUCATION ACCOUNTABILITY REVIEWS.
Continuous Improvement Performance Plan (CIPP) New Hanover County Schools Students with Disabilities Data Story.
What is “Annual Determination?”
Public School Monitoring Roadmap
Special Education Reviews: A new paradigm for LEAs
SEK INTERLOCAL #637 INTERNAL FILE REVIEW
Guam Department of Education
Assessment, Evaluation and Support
G-CASE Fall Conference November 14, 2013 Savannah, Ga
Indicator 13, Secondary Transition IEP Record Reviews
Monitoring Child Outcomes: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
SPR&I Regional Training
Early Childhood Transition APR Indicators and National Trends
YEAR #4 (2010) DETERMINATIONS
Special Ed. Administrator’s Academy, September 24, 2013
New Special Education Teacher Webinar Series
Presentation transcript:

Special Education Performance Profiles and SPP Compliance Indicator Reviews Office for Exceptional Children

Intended Outcomes Participants will understand: How the OSEP visit and the SEA Determination have impacted ODE and LEAs Critical elements of OEC’s SPP Compliance Indicator Reviews and actions they must take

Reasons for Changes October 2009 – OSEP Verification Visit and Focused Monitoring March 2010 – OSEP Letter of Findings June 2010 – SEA Determination

OSEP Report Highlights Identified critical areas in which ODE must improve: Ensure accurate and reliable data Expand monitoring system Monitor spending of Part B funds Ensure LRE

Other Important Findings OSEP also found ODE noncompliant with SPP Indicators 5, 11, 12, and 13 Indicator 5 – LRE Indicator 11 – Child Find Indicator 12 – Transition from Part C to B Indicator 13 – Post secondary transition

The Big Picture Indicators 5, 11, 12 and 13 represent the entire life span of a student with a disability while he/she is in school.

SEA Determinations Meets Requirements 31 states Needs Assistance 27 states Needs Intervention (Ohio & DC) Needs Substantial Intervention 0 states

ODE’s Corrective Action Plan ODE’s Corrective Action Plan (CAP) submitted to OSEP addresses the issues identified and is designed to improve ODE’s federally required system of general supervision of IDEA.

OEC’s Comprehensive System of Monitoring for Continuous Improvement As part of ODE’s CAP: All LEAs will be reviewed annually at varying levels of intensity IDEA on-site reviews include fiscal, early childhood and data verification Selection and scheduling of LEAs for on-site reviews coordinated with PACTS (Federal Program Reviews)

OEC’s Comprehensive Monitoring System for Continuous Improvement Selective Reviews IDEA On-site Reviews Compliance Indicator Reviews (SPED Profiles) Due Process More Intensive Level of IntensityMonitoring Methods All LEAs Some LEAs Less Intensive Few LEAs

OEC’s Comprehensive Monitoring System for Continuous Improvement Selective Reviews IDEA On-site Reviews SPP Compliance Indicator Reviews (SPED Profiles) Due Process More Intensive Level of IntensityMonitoring Methods All LEAs Some LEAs Less Intensive Few LEAs

SPP Compliance Indicator Review Purpose of the SPP Compliance Indicator Review is to ensure that LEAs meet SPP targets and are compliant with IDEA in order to improve services and results for students with disabilities.

State Performance Plan (SPP) Accountability for 20 Indicators Drives the work of OEC Progress on indicator targets measured yearly Results on performance reported to OSEP through Annual Performance Report or APR

Compliance Indicators Results Indicators 9 & 10: Disproportionality 11: Child find 12: Early childhood transition 13: Secondary transition 15: General supervision 16: Complaint timelines 17: Due process timelines 20: Data submission 1: Graduation 2: Dropout 3: Assessment 4: Discipline 5: School-age LRE 6: Preschool LRE 7: Preschool outcomes 8: Parent involvement 14: Postsecondary outcomes 18: Resolution sessions 19: Mediations SPP Indicators

Indicator 6 Preschool Educational Environments Indicator 7Preschool Outcomes Indicator 12Early Childhood Transition from Part C to Part B Are young children with disabilities entering kindergarten ready to learn? Indicator 3Statewide Assessment Indicator 4Suspension/Expulsion Indicator 5School-age Educational Environments Are children with disabilities achieving at high levels? Indicator 1Graduation Indicator 2Dropout Indicator 13Secondary Transition Indicator 14Postsecondary Outcomes Are youth with disabilities prepared for life, work and postsecondary education? Indicator 8Facilitated Parent Involvement Indicator 9Disproportionality (Across Disability Categories) Indicator 10Disproportionality (Specific Disability Categories) Indicator 11Child Find Indicator 15 Timely Correction of Noncompliance Findings Indicator 20 Timely and Accurate Data Does the district implement IDEA to improve services and results for children with disabilities?

Review of Data SEAs must review data at least annually for the purpose of identifying noncompliance with IDEA.

Notification of Noncompliance SEAs must notify LEAs of noncompliance with IDEA in writing ODE’s written notification = the “Summary Report” ( for Compliance Indicator Reviews) LEAs must correct noncompliance within one year of notification

SPP Compliance Indicator Review All LEAs receive a Special Education Performance Profile annually Profile identifies LEAs’ performance on ALL indicators Includes longitudinal data on ALL targets

Indicators Requiring Action by LEAs Indicator 4 (Discipline Discrepancy) Indicators 9 & 10 (Disproportionality) Indicator 11 (Initial Evaluations) Indicator 12 (Early Childhood Transition) Indicator 13 (Secondary Transition Planning) Indicator 15 (Timely Correction) Indicator 20 (Timely and Accurate data) Compliance with submitting surveys Indicator 8 (Parent Involvement) Indicator 14 (Postschool Outcomes)

Special Education Profile Review of Sample Profile

Timeline

Components of Monitoring 1)Review Data/Student Records 2)Identification of Noncompliance 3)Corrective Actions 4)Verification of Correction (2 prong) a)Individual Cases of Noncompliance b)Systemic Noncompliance 5)Verification of Accurate and Timely Reporting 6)Clearance or Sanctions Applied

Corrective Action Plan The Corrective Action Plan (CAP) must address individual and systemic issues Activities must ensure 100% correction Plan must be submitted 30 days from written notification

Verification of Correction - 2 Prong Approach Prong 1 – LEA must correct each individual case of noncompliance; and Prong 2 – LEA must show that it is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements, i.e. it has achieved 100% compliance, based on a review of updated data.

Verification of Correction Required by OSEP Can OEC verify correction: When a CAP is submitted? NO When a CAP is approved? NO When the CAP activities are completed? No When new policies and/or procedures are approved? No When OEC has documentation that individual cases have been corrected and LEA practice has changed? YES!!

Verification of Accurate and Timely Reporting In addition to verifying correction by reviewing updated student records, OEC will also verify that the information in the records matches the data reported in EMIS Example: Indicator 11 – OEC will compare the dates reported in EMIS to the dates on the consent form and initial evaluation team report

Correction Process Clearance LEAs have demonstrated they have met the two prongs of correction within one year of the finding. Progressive Sanctions LEAs have NOT met the two prongs within one year: 1.Required PD/TA from the SST 2.Revision of CAP to address identified issues 3.Redirect Part B funds to areas of need 4.Withhold funds

Data Verification Ensuring Timely & Accurate Reporting

Basic Questions Why do we have to do this? Compliance with Federal Law – IDEA requires reporting Why EMIS? Ohio Revised Code defines EMIS as the state data system for student records Student special ed data can be linked to Report Card, financial, and additional data required for federal reporting

So, now what do I have to do? Remember some basics: Your check ledger is not an IRS 1040 form and… Your district software IS NOT EMIS EMIS deadlines are not negotiable

The EMIS Coordinator Keeps abreast of EMIS communications. Disseminates any new EMIS information within the district Monitors general issues and other EMIS reports: –Dec Child Count –Student Disab Not Funded –General Issues COMMUNICATEs with special education staff 34

EMIS Coordinator and Monitoring Translate SSIDs to student names Extract records from district software Identify dates of district submission to EMIS

The Special Education Administrator Provides SSIDs of monitored records to EMIS staff Pulls records of students with requested IDs Examines records to understand reason for non-compliance, if it exists Ensures requested copies are provided to ODE

Preventing Data Goofs Reports generated by OEC and sent via “gen issues” Data that will be used for Indicators 11, 12 and13 Meant to HELP districts identify data errors, and ODE to identify additional business rules

Most Frequent Data Errors Fat finger errors Missing non-compliance reasons Missed reporting timelines Data in district software, but not uploaded to EMIS

Compliance Timeline Codes Describes reasons why an activity (e.g. ETR) was not completed according to the federally mandated timelines Some provide reasons to remove a missed timeline from non-compliance calculations 39

Reporting Cut-Offs Why the “prior to June 1” cut-off for reporting events? SPED staff need time to communicate with EMIS staff EMIS staff need time to enter and verify data EMIS & SPED staff may be off during summer months 40

District Software isn’t EMIS District records contain much more than ODE needs for reporting Entering into DASL or ESIS or IEP Anywhere is only first step Not all systems have automatic weekly uploads

Data Resources  EMIS Manual  EMIS Newsflash  Data Collection Tool for Students with Disabilities Visit search using the following keywords:

It’s not just about Compliance

SPP & Continuous Improvement Profile promotes continuous improvement of results for students with disabilities Provides longitudinal data on targets for all indicators SSTs will provide TA/PD to improve performance of children with disabilities

How does this connect to the Ohio Improvement Process? As part of ODE’s State System of Support (SSOS), SST/OIP facilitators must focus District Leadership Teams’ attention to the required aspects of their special education service delivery system by assisting them in reviewing their performance on SPP Indicators.

Does the SPP connect to OIP? SST/OIP facilitators will assist district leadership teams in review of performance on SPP indicators All districts can seek technical assistance on SPP indicators from SSTs

Using the Profile for Continuous Improvement Review SPP data and identify “systemic” issues – targets that have not been met over multiple years Put in place plans that will correct systemic issues Monitor progress in correcting systemic issues

OEC Regional Contact Region 15 Jana Perry, (614) ,

Questions Comments Concerns Thank you!