Dispute Resolution Overview of State Performance Plan Indicators 16 – Citizen Complaints, 17 – Due Process, 18 – Resolution Settlement Agreements, and.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Quality Education Investment Act of 2006 (QEIA) 1 Quality Education Investment Act (QEIA) of 2006 County Superintendents Oversight and Technical Assistance.
Advertisements

Adherence with Regional Criteria WECC Reliability Policy Issues Committee Meeting February 19, 2009 Michelle Mizumori Director of Market Operations Interface.
Elements of High Quality Preschool Programs New Jersey Administrative Code N.J.A.C. 6A:13A.
New Jersey Quality Single Accountability Continuum (NJQSAC)
August 28, 2009 Federal Emergency Management Agency Public Assistance Arbitration Process.
Session I Chapters 1-5 Presented by… Lynn Boyer, Ph.D.
AYP Changes for 2007 K-20 Videoconference June 11, 2007 Presented by: JoLynn Berge OSPI Federal Policy Coordinator.
Secondary Transition Overview of State Performance Plan Indicators 1 – Graduation Rates, 2 – Dropout Rates, 13 – Transitional IEPs, and 14 – Post-school.
Disproportionality Overview of State Performance Plan Indicators 4 – Suspension and Expulsion, 9 – Disproportionality in Special Education, and 10 – Disproportionality.
Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)
General Supervision Overview of State Performance Plan Indicators 15 – General Supervision 20 – Timely and Accurate Data.
Student Performance Overview of State Performance Plan Indicators 3 – State Assessment Performance, 7 – Early Childhood Outcomes.
Some slides in this presentation were excerpted from US Eds February 2009 PowerPoint presentation titled: Help! Im a New Title I Director. What Do I Need.
1 Title I Hiring Requirements for Paraeducators and Parental Notification of Teacher and Paraeducator Qualifications Regional Technical Assistance Sessions.
Title I: Supplemental Educational Services Regional Technical Assistance Sessions May,2009.
School Year. 34 CFR IAC An organization or individual may file a signed written complaint alleging that a public.
Compliance Monitoring Orientation. Monitoring Components Focus Site Review/Fiscal Monitoring SPAM.
DeterminationsDeterminations Now what??. Determination Levels Meets Requirements Needs Assistance Needs Intervention Needs Substantial Intervention.
DeterminationsDeterminations Now what??. Determination Levels Meets Requirements Needs Assistance Needs Intervention Needs Substantial Intervention.
Updates in IDEA NCLB is the symbol of the paradigm shift to a new mission of universal high achievement From: All children will have universal access.
AYP Update Performance Reporting Division Texas Education Agency ESC Title I Meeting September 18, 2006.
Performance Reporting Division Texas Education Agency TI ESC Meeting September 18, AYP Update.
Title I, Part A and Section 31a At Risk 101
Using Data to Improve Dispute Resolution System Performance CADRE Webinar May 18, 2011 Noon PDT 3 PM EDT.
(Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act) and
Mississippi Special Education Advisory Panel Annual Report to the State Board of Education July 2009.
SPECIAL EDUCATION: What You Need to Know The Training Institute on Disability Rights.
Early Childhood Special Education Part B, Section 619* Part C to B Transition by Three Jessica Brady, Noel Cole Michigan Department of Education Office.
Title I, Part A Targeted Assistance 101 Field Services Unit Office of School Improvement.
Office of Special Education & Early Intervention Services What happens after Focused Monitoring? -
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Jack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction California Department of Education Special Education Self-
State Monitor Advocate
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education
Final Determinations. Secretary’s Determinations Secretary annually reviews the APR and, based on the information provided in the report, information.
Civil Rights Training. Why? Civil Rights Regulations are intended to assure that benefits of Child Nutrition Programs are made available to all eligible.
Verification Visit by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) September 27-29, 2010.
IDEA 2004 Procedural Safeguards: Legal Rights and Options Mississippi Association of School Superintendent Spring, Mississippi Department of Education.
Systems Performance Review & Improvement (SPR&I) Training Oregon Department of Education Fall 2007.
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.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA) Office of Non-Public Education Office of Innovation and Improvement Office of Special.
1 Welcomes You To It’s Those Wonderful Rights! Welcome To read the script that goes with each slide, click on the Notes tab (to the left of this screen).
LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT ©PACER Center, Inc., 2005.
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.
Complaints Information Santina Thibedeau March 5, 2009.
Flowchart of Campus Master Planning Process
Richard Henderson Evelyn S. Johnson A NNUAL P ERFORMANCE R EPORT U PDATE Richard O’Dell Division of Special Education Idaho State Department of Education.
PROCESSING STANDARDS Presentation to: Nutrition Services Directors Presented by: Sonia Jackson Date: July 7, 2015.
Texas State Performance Plan Data, Performance, Results TCASE Leadership Academy Fall 2008.
Noncompliance and Correction (OSEP Memo 09-02) June 2012.
Oregon Department of Education Office of Special Education Presenter:Bob Siewert, Associate Superintendent Presentation to the Joint Ways & Means Subcommittee.
Spring 2010 Mississippi Department of Education Office of Instructional Enhancement and Internal Operations/Office of Special Education 1 SPP/APR Update.
West Virginia Department of Education Introducing ……. Policy 2419: Regulations for the Education of Students with Exceptionalities.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Special Education State Performance Plan and Annual Performance.
DUE PROCESS, MEDIATION & AGENCY COMPLAINTS Elvin W. Houston December 7, 2011.
Civil Rights Training Updated March Why? Civil Rights Regulations are intended to assure that benefits of Child Nutrition Programs are made available.
1 Early Intervention Monitoring Wyoming DDD April 2008 Training.
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.
Required Services and Procedures for Students with Disabilities Presented by Scott Hall and Ty Manieri 2010 Oregon Special Education Fall Conference Eugene,
THE APR AND SPP--LINKING SPECIAL EDUCATION DATA TO ACCOUNTABILITY FOR EDUCATION RESULTS Building a Brighter Tomorrow through Positive and Progressive Leadership.
Part C Data Managers — Review, Resources, and Relationship Building
Equitable Services Under ESSA
SPR&I Regional Training
Resolving Issues ADR, Due Process and CDE Complaints
Update on the TEA Sped corrective action plan
Wyoming Dispute Resolution
What are a parent’s options when they and the school disagree?
Presentation transcript:

Dispute Resolution Overview of State Performance Plan Indicators 16 – Citizen Complaints, 17 – Due Process, 18 – Resolution Settlement Agreements, and 19 – Mediation Agreements

This power point includes: 1. A description of each indicator; 2. The SPP targets for each year and whether our State met the targets; 3. Any additional pertinent information related to the indicator (if applicable); 4. A list of some of the improvement activities included in the States SPP/APR for the indicator;

5. A description of how the indicator might impact a districts determination level (as described in WAC A ); and 6. Contact information for questions about the indicator.

Citizen Complaints Indicator 16: Percent of signed written complaints with reports issued that were resolved within the 60-day timeline (or a timeline extended for exceptional circumstances or because the parent and the public agency agree to extend the time to engage in mediation or other alternative means of dispute resolution). (20 U.S.C (a)(3)(B)) Data for this indicator are generated and maintained by OSPIs Special Education department.

State Targets – Indicator 16 YearTargetActualMet Target? %98% No %93% No % Yes %77% No %TBD %TBD Note: Since this is a Compliance Indicator, States are federally-required to set the target at 100% for all years.

Due Process Indicator 17: Percent of adjudicated due process hearing requests that were adjudicated within the 45-day timeline (or a timeline that is properly extended by the hearing officer or in the case of an expedited hearing, within the required timelines). (20 U.S.C (a)(3)(B)) Data for this indicator are generated and maintained by OSPI (Administrative Resources and Special Education departments).

State Targets – Indicator 17 YearTargetActualMet Target? % Yes % Yes %93% No % Yes %TBD %TBD Note: Since this is a Compliance Indicator, States are federally-required to set the target at 100% for all years.

Resolution Settlement Agreements Indicator 18: Percent of hearing requests that went to resolution sessions that were resolved through resolution session settlement agreements (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B)) Data for this indicator are generated by Washingtons Office of Administrative Hearings and maintained by OSPIs Special Education department.

State Targets – Indicator 18 YearTargetActualMet Target? (baseline year)18.5%(baseline year) %19.3% No %41.9% Yes %32.9% Yes %TBD %TBD Note: Since this is a Results Indicator, States are permitted to set their own targets.

Mediation Agreements Indicator 19: Percent of mediations held that resulted in mediation agreements. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B)) Data for this indicator are collected by Sound Options Mediation Group and maintained by OSPIs Special Education department.

State Targets – Indicator 19 YearTargetActualMet Target? %87% Yes %82% No %79% No %89% Yes %TBD %TBD Note: Since this is a Results Indicator, States are permitted to set their own targets.

SPP/APR Improvement Activities Here are some of the improvement activities included in our SPP/APR to address these four indicators: Model state forms were created/updated, including forms related to due process and resolution agreements; Regional WAC trainings were conducted in the fall of 2007, including an overview of the new requirements related to dispute resolution;

Improvement Activities (cont.) Ongoing training related to dispute resolution continues to be provided to school administrators, regional ESDs, parents, advocates, other agencies, etc.; Data tracking systems were created/updated to ensure accurate data collection and reporting; OSPI staff continue to provide ongoing training to Administrative Law Judges (ALJs);

Improvement Activities (cont.) The States contracted mediator, Sound Options Mediation Group, provides trainings to regional ESDs, parents, and others; Develop/collect technical assistance resources across all twenty performance indicators and make available to LEAs and the general public on OSPIs website; AND MORE…

Impact on Determinations Indicators 17, 18, and 19 do not currently impact a districts determination level. An individual districts compliance with citizen complaint corrective actions (associated with indicator 16) will impact the districts performance on criteria 2 of the determinations process (timely correction of non-compliance). See the next slide for more information…

Determination Criteria 2 – Timely Correction of Non-compliance DescriptionDetermination Level The district complied with all corrective actions that were ordered as a result of a citizen complaint in a timely manner. 1 (Meets Requirements) The district complied with all corrective actions that were ordered as a result of a citizen complaint, but did not complete the actions within one year of notification. 3 (Needs Intervention) The district did not comply with all corrective actions that were ordered as a result of a citizen complaint. 4 (Needs Substantial Intervention) Note: There are no determination level 2 criteria for this indicator.

Contact Information For questions about indicators 16, 17, 18, and 19, contact Pam McPartland at: For information about the Office of Administrative Hearings, visit: For information about mediations, visit the Sound Options Mediation Group website at: