Welcome to the 2008-2009 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.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
General Supervision Overview of State Performance Plan Indicators 15 – General Supervision 20 – Timely and Accurate Data.
Advertisements

(Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act) and
What do the Federal Regulations Require?. The federal regulations have been revised to include a number of new systems/reports that are intended to drive.
Office of Special Education & Early Intervention Services What happens after Focused Monitoring? -
Addressing the Disproportionate Representation of Racially and Ethnically Diverse Students in Special Education SPR&I Regional Training.
Navigating the SPR&I Database Oregon Department of Education Fall
Angela Tanner-Dean Diana Chang OSEP October 14, 2010.
Early Childhood Transition Forums Sponsored by the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care, Department of Elementary and Secondary Education,
Chapter 56 Workgroup Orientation Session The Road to Chapter 60 June 30, 2007.
Final Determinations. Secretary’s Determinations Secretary annually reviews the APR and, based on the information provided in the report, information.
1 Determinations EI/ECSE SPR&I Training ODE Fall 2007.
Disproportionality of Racial and Ethnic Groups in Special Education Significant Disproportionality and EIS versus Disproportionate Representation due to.
Special Education Data In the Era of Accountability & District Improvement Steve Smith ODE IDEA Data Manager Fall 2007.
State Directors Conference Boise, ID, March 4, 2013 Cesar D’Agord Regional Resource Center Program WRRC – Western Region.
Special Education Accountability Reviews Let’s put the pieces together March 25, 2015.
Indicator 4A & 4B Rates of Suspension & Expulsion Revised Methodology Identification of Significant Discrepancy DE-PBS Cadre December 1, 2011.
Special Ed. Administrator’s Academy, September 24, 2013 Monitoring and Program Effectiveness.
1 Overview of IDEA/SPP Early Childhood Transition Requirements Developed by NECTAC for the Early Childhood Transition Initiative (Updated February 2010)
Verification Visit by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) September 27-29, 2010.
April 2010 Copyright © 2010 Mississippi Department of Education Mattie T. Updated Timeline and Goals.
Systems Performance Review & Improvement (SPR&I) Training Oregon Department of Education Fall 2007.
Objectives: 1) Participants will become familiar with General Supervision Monitoring Plan Section of the Kansas Infant Toddler Services Procedural Manual.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Jack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction State Performance Plan (SPP) & Annual Performance Report.
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs Building the Legacy: IDEA General Supervision.
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.
1 Supplemental Regulations to 34 CFR Part 300 Assistance to States for the Education of Children with Disabilities and Preschool Grants for Children with.
Timeline Changes and SPR&I Database Updates SPR&I Fall Training Day Two.
1 Accountability Conference Education Service Center, Region 20 September 16, 2009.
SHAME FEAR I AM NOT SEEN ACCESS I AM SEEN SYSTEMS CHANGE I AM A SPECIAL CITIZEN ACCOUNTABILITY and BUILD CAPACITY I BELONG AND MEANINGFUL LIFE EFFECTIVENESS.
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.
IDEA & Disproportionality Perry Williams, Ph.D. Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education.
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.
IDEA 2004 Part B Changes to the Indicator Measurement Table.
Navigating System Performance Review and Improvement (SPR&I) Oregon Department of Education Fall
Presented by: Jan Stanley, State Title I Director Office of Assessment and Accountability June 10, 2008 Monitoring For Results.
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,
YEAR #2 DETERMINATIONS ISD Special Education Directors’ Meeting September 18, 2008.
JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction Improving Special Education Services November 2010 Sacramento, CA SPP/APR Update.
Determinations Mischele McManus July 20, 2007
Indicator B5: LRE Regional SPR&I Trainings.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Special Education State Performance Plan and Annual Performance.
O S E P Office of Special Education Programs United States Department of Education Aligning the State Performance Plan, Improvement Strategies, and Professional.
Special Education Performance Profiles and SPP Compliance Indicator Reviews Office for Exceptional Children.
Fundamentals of Special Education Finance OkASBO Conference FY 2013.
1 Early Intervention Monitoring Wyoming DDD April 2008 Training.
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs General Supervision: Developing an Effective System Implications for States.
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.
Special Education Reviews: A new paradigm for LEAs
Agenda 3:00 Introductions and ZOOM Webinar reminders
Guam Department of Education
2018 OSEP Project Directors’ Conference
G-CASE Fall Conference November 14, 2013 Savannah, Ga
SPR&I Regional Training
Early Childhood Transition APR Indicators and National Trends
in Correcting Noncompliance
Idaho New Charter Schools Determination Levels 2011
YEAR #4 (2010) DETERMINATIONS
Special Ed. Administrator’s Academy, September 24, 2013
Presentation transcript:

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 should have one school age OR EI/ECSE packet of handouts School age and EI/ECSE will break out after introductions School age and EI/ECSE will break out after introductions Lots of information to cover in one day so breaks and lunch will need to be held to time allowed Lots of information to cover in one day so breaks and lunch will need to be held to time allowed PDU Certificates will be handed out at the end of the day PDU Certificates will be handed out at the end of the day

School Age Agenda: Final Determinations Final Determinations General Supervision: System and procedural changes General Supervision: System and procedural changes B5 LRE: Process, data analysis & improvement planning B5 LRE: Process, data analysis & improvement planning 79 districts flagged due to data 79 districts flagged due to data B4, 9 & 10 disproportionality: Process, data analysis & improvement planning B4, 9 & 10 disproportionality: Process, data analysis & improvement planning 52 districts B4 52 districts B4 4 districts B9 only, 4 districts B9 only, 40 districts B10, 40 districts B10, 9 districts both B9 and 10 9 districts both B9 and 10

Agenda continued Transition B13 Transition B13 PCR B15: Process PCR B15: Process New review form New review form Corrective action document Corrective action document Individual versus systemic noncompliance Individual versus systemic noncompliance Technical assistance, district team support Technical assistance, district team support

Packets: Color coded by section Color coded by section Follows agenda Follows agenda Slides refer to handouts Slides refer to handouts Additional resources included after training evaluation document Additional resources included after training evaluation document

Final Determinations FFY SPR&I Training

Oregon: From “Meets Requirements” to “Needs Assistance” Why? Why? B % of ( ) noncompliance corrected within one year B % of ( ) noncompliance corrected within one year B % B % B4 - Two tier process “worksheet” required revision by OSEP and identification of 38 districts with a significant discrepancy showed slippage B4 - Two tier process “worksheet” required revision by OSEP and identification of 38 districts with a significant discrepancy showed slippage

OSEP Requirements of States States are required to make “Determinations” annually on the performance of LEAs/EIS programs [IDEA 616(d) relates to determinations; 616(e) relates to enforcement actions] States must use the same four categories as OSEP in making Determinations of the status of local programs. These categories are:  Meets Requirements  Needs Assistance  Needs Intervention  Needs Substantial Intervention

States must consider…  Performance on compliance indicators  Part B: 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Whether data submitted by LEAs are valid, reliable, and timely;  Uncorrected noncompliance from other sources (file reviews, legal findings); and  Any audit findings OSEP Requirements of States [cont.]

Issues for States to Consider Ensuring fairness, equity, and transparency Ensuring fairness, equity, and transparency Deciding the criteria to be used Deciding the criteria to be used Involving stakeholders Involving stakeholders Deciding if Determinations will be reported publicly Deciding if Determinations will be reported publicly Determining an appeals policy Determining an appeals policy Determining how State resources will be allocated for each of the Determinations categories Determining how State resources will be allocated for each of the Determinations categories

General Supervision Timeline Feb 2008: ODE submitted FFY 2006 APR to OSEP including: Feb 2008: ODE submitted FFY 2006 APR to OSEP including: PCR including second year noncompliance ( ) that was still uncorrected PCR including second year noncompliance ( ) that was still uncorrected *KPI data *KPI data April 2008: ODE publicly reported district/program performance in special education report card April 2008: ODE publicly reported district/program performance in special education report card

General Supervision Timeline April 2008: Districts submitted PCR data April 2008: Districts submitted PCR data Targeted file review consisted of 11 standards of general supervision, and previous noncompliance from Targeted file review consisted of 11 standards of general supervision, and previous noncompliance from Districts also submitted worksheet analysis on B3 Assessment Districts also submitted worksheet analysis on B3 Assessment May – August 15th 2008: County Contacts collected evidence of correction for: May – August 15th 2008: County Contacts collected evidence of correction for: Any remaining second year noncompliance from Any remaining second year noncompliance from First year noncompliance from First year noncompliance from Newly identified noncompliance from if districts were able to correct it or corrected it at the time of submission Newly identified noncompliance from if districts were able to correct it or corrected it at the time of submission

How Oregon Calculated Final Determinations for FFY 2006 Noncompliance identified in that was not corrected within one year Noncompliance identified in that was not corrected within one year All districts/programs got to 100% compliance for 05-06!!! All districts/programs got to 100% compliance for 05-06!!! Compliance Indicators B9, 10, 11 & 13 Compliance Indicators B9, 10, 11 & 13 B9 & 10 – Disproportionality B9 & 10 – Disproportionality B11: Child Find B11: Child Find B13: Transition goals and services B13: Transition goals and services Timely and accurate submission of data Timely and accurate submission of data SECC SECC Special Education Exit Special Education Exit Child Find Child Find

Final Determinations Matrix Meets Requirements: Meets Requirements: 95% or better correction of noncompliance across PCR and compliance indicators (100% for 9 & 10) 95% or better correction of noncompliance across PCR and compliance indicators (100% for 9 & 10) If less than 95% in one, at least 90% If less than 95% in one, at least 90% Timely and Accurate: 2 out of 3, no single collection both untimely and inaccurate Timely and Accurate: 2 out of 3, no single collection both untimely and inaccurate Needs Assistance: Needs Assistance: Between 50-94% correction of noncompliance across PCR and compliance indicators (100% for 9 & 10) Between 50-94% correction of noncompliance across PCR and compliance indicators (100% for 9 & 10) Timely and Accurate: 1 out of 3, no single collection both untimely and inaccurate Timely and Accurate: 1 out of 3, no single collection both untimely and inaccurate Needs Intervention: Needs Intervention: Less than 50% correction of noncompliance for PCR or any compliance indicator (noncompliance with 9 or 10) Less than 50% correction of noncompliance for PCR or any compliance indicator (noncompliance with 9 or 10) All 3 collections untimely or inaccurate, or any single collection both untimely and inaccurate All 3 collections untimely or inaccurate, or any single collection both untimely and inaccurate

Looking at Correction of Noncompliance for B11 ODE started with Child find data districts submitted for ODE started with Child find data districts submitted for If less than 95%, looked at submission for improvement or slippage If less than 95%, looked at submission for improvement or slippage Used % change from to to determine the number of evaluations in compliance (from June 08 going back) out of number of evaluations completed (07- 08) Used % change from to to determine the number of evaluations in compliance (from June 08 going back) out of number of evaluations completed (07- 08) If district met the number of evals needed, evidence of correction was provided and 100% stated on determination summary If district met the number of evals needed, evidence of correction was provided and 100% stated on determination summary If district did not meet the number of evaluations needed, original compliance % was used for final determinations If district did not meet the number of evaluations needed, original compliance % was used for final determinations

Looking at Correction of Noncompliance for B13 ODE started with PCR review of transition standards from ODE started with PCR review of transition standards from These 3 standards require individual files to be corrected These 3 standards require individual files to be corrected Districts that sent in evidence that individual files are corrected by August 15 th received credit for correction to 100% for this indicator Districts that sent in evidence that individual files are corrected by August 15 th received credit for correction to 100% for this indicator New PCR review process (student by student) will allow for more transition standards to be monitored, and assist with tracking individual file corrections New PCR review process (student by student) will allow for more transition standards to be monitored, and assist with tracking individual file corrections

Determination Packets ODE Guidance ODE Guidance Determinations Rubric Determinations Rubric Notifications and Standards Identification Notifications and Standards Identification District Summary Sheet District Summary Sheet

Meets Requirements-Enforcement Actions (Each year ODE determines that a district Meets Requirements it will consider taking one or more of the following actions) ODE determines district has met all requirements and no further action is required; ODE determines district has met all requirements and no further action is required; ODE offers technical assistance at the request of the district; or ODE offers technical assistance at the request of the district; or ODE identifies district as in need of support in implementing the requirements within the timelines, which may include, but is not limited to, focused monitoring activities. ODE identifies district as in need of support in implementing the requirements within the timelines, which may include, but is not limited to, focused monitoring activities. ODE is not restricted from utilizing any other authority available to it to monitor and enforce the requirements of Part B ODE is not restricted from utilizing any other authority available to it to monitor and enforce the requirements of Part B

Needs Assistance-Enforcement Actions (After 2 consecutive years the ODE is required to take one or more of the following enforcement actions) Advises the district of available technical assistance to address the areas in which it needs assistance Advises the district of available technical assistance to address the areas in which it needs assistance Direct the use of district - level funds under section 611(e) of the Act on the area or areas in which the State needs assistance. Direct the use of district - level funds under section 611(e) of the Act on the area or areas in which the State needs assistance. Prohibit the district from reducing the district’s/program’s maintenance of effort under 34 CFR § for any fiscal year Prohibit the district from reducing the district’s/program’s maintenance of effort under 34 CFR § for any fiscal year Identify the district as a high-risk grantee and impose special conditions on the district’s grant under Part B of the Act. [34 CFR (a)] [20 U.S.C. 1416(e)(1)] Identify the district as a high-risk grantee and impose special conditions on the district’s grant under Part B of the Act. [34 CFR (a)] [20 U.S.C. 1416(e)(1)] ODE is not restricted from utilizing any other authority available to it to monitor and enforce the requirements of Part B ODE is not restricted from utilizing any other authority available to it to monitor and enforce the requirements of Part B

NA II:  ODE will be contacting the districts to set up a meeting to formalize NAII status and required follow up  Advise districts of available sources of technical assistance to address areas on which the district needs assistance

Needs Intervention-Enforcement Actions (After 3 consecutive years the ODE is required to take one or more of the following enforcement actions) The ODE may take any of the actions described in 34 CFR (a) (Needs Assistance). The ODE may take any of the actions described in 34 CFR (a) (Needs Assistance). Requires the district to prepare a corrective action plan or improvement plan. Requires the district to prepare a corrective action plan or improvement plan. For each year of the determination, withhold not less than 20 percent and not more than 50 percent of the district’s funds under section 611(e) of the Act, until the ODE determines the district has sufficiently addressed the areas in which the district/program needs intervention. For each year of the determination, withhold not less than 20 percent and not more than 50 percent of the district’s funds under section 611(e) of the Act, until the ODE determines the district has sufficiently addressed the areas in which the district/program needs intervention. Seek to recover funds under section 452 of GEPA. Seek to recover funds under section 452 of GEPA. Withhold, in whole or in part, any further payments to the district under Part B of the Act. [34 CFR (b)] [20 U.S.C. 1416(e)(2)] Withhold, in whole or in part, any further payments to the district under Part B of the Act. [34 CFR (b)] [20 U.S.C. 1416(e)(2)] ODE is not restricted from utilizing any other authority available to it to monitor and enforce the requirements of Part B ODE is not restricted from utilizing any other authority available to it to monitor and enforce the requirements of Part B

Needs Substantial Intervention  ODE reserves the right to identify a district as Needs Substantial Intervention if its substantial failure to comply significantly affected the core requirements of the program, such as the delivery of services to children with disabilities or the district’s exercise of general supervision, or if the district informed the ODE it was unwilling to comply.

Maintenance of Effort (MOE) If an SEA determines that an LEA is not meeting the requirements of Part B of the Act, including the targets in the SPP, the SEA must prohibit the LEA from reducing the LEA’s maintenance of effort under 34 CFR § for any fiscal year

How do we “measure” the one year timeline for correction? When the ODE notifies the district in writing of the noncompliance When the ODE notifies the district in writing of the noncompliance When the ODE notifies the district and documents in writing that the noncompliance is corrected When the ODE notifies the district and documents in writing that the noncompliance is corrected This occurs in August with Final Determinations information This occurs in August with Final Determinations information

Timing of enforcements actions Are enforcement actions sequential? Are enforcement actions sequential? No, the enforcement actions are not sequential No, the enforcement actions are not sequential Must ODE wait two (needs assistance) or three (needs intervention) years before taking enforcement action? Must ODE wait two (needs assistance) or three (needs intervention) years before taking enforcement action? Under section 616(g) of the Act, the ODE may at any time utilize any authority under the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA) to monitor and enforce the requirements of IDEA, regardless of the determinations made of the district’s/program’s status under section 616(d) of the Act. Under section 616(g) of the Act, the ODE may at any time utilize any authority under the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA) to monitor and enforce the requirements of IDEA, regardless of the determinations made of the district’s/program’s status under section 616(d) of the Act.

FFY 2005 Determination Distribution 10 districts 10 districts 5% 5% 71 districts 71 districts 35% 35% 119 districts 119 districts 60% 60%

FFY 2006 Determination Distribution 2 districts 2 districts 1% 1% 13 districts 13 districts 7% 7% 181 districts 181 districts 92% 92%

What are ODE’s expectations for districts? Develop and sustain a system that allows you to: Develop and sustain a system that allows you to: Identify noncompliance Identify noncompliance Correct noncompliance at individual and systemic levels Correct noncompliance at individual and systemic levels Improve the process and system to ensure desired outcomes Improve the process and system to ensure desired outcomes

ODE On-going Oversight Will continue to focus on performance and compliance Will continue to focus on performance and compliance Will primarily identify districts for focused monitoring by looking at continued noncompliance and performance against the targets Will primarily identify districts for focused monitoring by looking at continued noncompliance and performance against the targets Other data sources such as legal issues and audits may also be used Other data sources such as legal issues and audits may also be used

Take Aways Identification of noncompliance through SPR&I is not what determines your status Identification of noncompliance through SPR&I is not what determines your status Lack of documented and verified evidence of correction of noncompliance and sustained compliance over time will drive focused monitoring efforts Lack of documented and verified evidence of correction of noncompliance and sustained compliance over time will drive focused monitoring efforts Future determinations will likely include a comprehensive review of compliance and performance indicators as well as timely and accurate submission of data Future determinations will likely include a comprehensive review of compliance and performance indicators as well as timely and accurate submission of data