August 27 th August 28 th August 29 th

Cabell County Kathy McCoy

Lincoln County Doug Smith

Morgan County Linda Ward

Monongalia County Patty Benedum

Marshall County Rick Redd

Ritchie County Linda Campbell

RESA 8 Dale Penwell

WVDE Lynn Boyer

WVDE Rosemary Cook

Memoriam Mike Pauley began career in special education in psychology Michael started in McDowell, Monroe, and Mercer Counties as a Sp Ed Specialist. He moved to Summers and Raleigh Counties as a school psychologist. He was also a Sp Ed Coordinator in Raleigh County. Michael moved back to Mercer County as an Assistant Director. He retired December, 2008 to be with his wife, two sons, and seven grandchildren. We have lost a good friend and professional

Using The Power of Data To Improve Results September 29, 2010 Data Results

Welcome Ghaski Browning Assistant Director Accountability Monitoring

Monitoring Priorities Self- Assessment Improvement Plan On-Site Monitoring Off-Site Monitoring State Determinations Local Determinations

Matthew Dotson Coordinator, Monitoring Professional Development Monitoring

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

Top Compliance Indicator Findings by RESA’s RESA 1 (McDowell, Mercer, Monroe, Raleigh, Summers, Wyoming) RESA 2 (Cabell, Lincoln, Logan, Mason, Mingo, Wayne) RESA 3 (Boone, Clay, Kanawha, Putnam) RESA 4 (Braxton, Fayette, Greenbrier, Nicholas, Pocahontas, Webster) RESA 5 (Calhoun, Jackson, Pleasants, Ritchie, Roane, Tyler, Wirt, Wood) RESA 6 (Brooke, Hancock, Marshall, Ohio, Wetzel) RESA 7 (Barbour, Doddridge, Gilmer, Harrison, Lewis, Marion, Monongalia, Preston, Randolph, Taylor, Tucker, Upshur) RESA 8 (Berkeley, Jefferson, Grant, Hampshire, Hardy, Mineral, Morgan, Pendleton)

RESA 1

RESA 2

RESA 3

RESA 4

RESA 5

RESA 6

RESA 7

RESA 8

Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring System (CIFMS) Ghaski Browning Assistant Director Anne Monterosso Coordinator Accountability Monitoring

West Virginia Department of Education Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring System Office of Special Programs Vision and Direction  Improve the Monitoring Process  Develop Collaborative Partnerships  Clear Communication  Clear Understanding  Targeted Technical Assistance  Improved outcomes for children with exceptionalities and their families

Authority Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 States have a responsibility to have a system of general supervision that monitors the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) by local education agencies (LEAs). Section 616. Monitoring, Technical Assistance, and Enforcement Primary Focus of Federal and State Monitoring Activities  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 requirements that are most closely related to improving educational results for children with disabilities.

Authority West Virginia State Code § The state board shall establish exceptional children program compliance review teams to conduct random unannounced on-site reviews of such programs at least every four years in each county for the purpose of reviewing identification procedures, complying with any or all applicable laws and policies, delivering services, verifying enrollment and attendance reports, recommending changes, and fulfilling such other duties as may be established by the state board.

Authority West Virginia Policy 2419: Regulations for the Education of Students with Exceptionalities Chapter 9 General Supervision and Accountability for Performance and Compliance General supervision responsibilities of the WVDE include administration, funding, monitoring and supervision of local education agency (LEA) implementation and implementation of interagency agreements to ensure collaboration among agencies serving students with exceptionalities.

Focus Of The Work  The State Performance Plan (SPP) is the basis for West Virginia’s special education general supervision process.  The SPP 20 indicators are established by OSP (14 apply to districts).  The monitoring system is part of the general supervision process.

West Virginia Department of Education Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring System “The Notebook”  Monitoring Manual  CSADA/ADA Workbook  Directions and Forms  On-Site Interview Forms  Resources

“The Manual” Notebook Section #1

West Virginia Department of Education Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring Manual General Supervision  State Performance Plan  Policies, Procedures and Effective Implementation  Effective Dispute Resolutions *  Data on Processes and Results  Integrated Monitoring Activities *  Targeted Technical Assistance and Professional Development  Improvement, Correction, Incentive and Sanctions *  Fiscal Management* *Detailed information regarding four monitoring related components of General Supervision are included in the manual.

General Supervision Overview  Effective Dispute Resolutions no revisions at this time  Integrated Monitoring Activities  Improvement, Correction, Incentive and Sanctions  Fiscal Management

Integrated Monitoring Activities*

Integrated Monitoring Activities  Annual Monitoring Process  Data Review  Least Restrictive Environment Review (SPP 5B)  Disproportionate Review (SPP 9 and SPP 10)  Discipline Review (SPP 4A & SPP 4B)  Comprehensive Self Assessment Desk Audit (CSADA)  Annual Desk Audit (ADA)  Public Reporting  On-Site Monitoring Process

Additional Information on Data Collection (page 4) Data Reviews The OSP reviews data throughout the year. The table below indicates when data are pulled and shared with OSP staff as well as RESA staff. OSP staff reviews state, RESA and district level data by enrollment size groups and/or by RESA region. District level data are used for a variety of purposes including: district selection for targeted technical assistance, selection for onsite reviews, selection for work with RESAs, selection for participation in various initiatives, selection for annual disproportionality and discipline reviews, etc. (see Appendix B for complete listing of Special Education Data Collections and Reports)

Agency Status WVDE Data Driven WVDE Data Driven Indicators require an additional review process.

Directions for Difficult Indicators (Page 5) SPP 9 and SPP 10 The LEA will implement the following steps as part of the review process. Step 1. Complete the appropriate review form based on the WVDE data determination. Both forms are found under Tab 3 Directions and Forms. Step 2. Based on the results of the LEA review, the LEA determines its compliance status as “met” or “not met”. Step 3. If status is “not met”, an improvement plan must be developed to address the deficiencies. Step 4. Targeted technical assistance will be available through the OSP and RESA to districts that are required to have corrective action plans.

Timelines for Activities (page 9) ActivityDue Date LEA collection and analysis of data documented through the CSADA and ADA workbook Year long process to be completed by April 30 th of each school year ADA (SPP 1 through SPP 14) on line submission by LEAs April 30 LEA Status Determination Reports completed by WVDE May 30 Annual Review Timeline

District Selection Process (page 9)  Performance levels and distance from SPP targets  Graduation and dropout rates  Demographics of district  Determinations (rubric)  Complaints/Due Process Hearings Decisions  Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)  Student Enrollment/Special Education Enrollment

CSADA/ADA Guidance for Directors Appendix C CSADA/ADA Guidance for Special Education Directors Steering Committee The district is required to establish a CSADA/ADA Steering Committee and select a chairperson. The district special education director may serve as the chairperson. Required members must include: parents; general and special education teachers; principals representing each programmatic level; vocational/technical school representative; Part C personnel; and other individuals at the district’s discretion.

Improvement, Correction, Incentive and Sanctions

Types of Plans  Improvement Plan (IP) – A plan resulting from data and systems analysis that will improve outcomes for students.  Corrective Action Plan (CAP) – Plan addressing identified noncompliance and actions/timelines to ensure correction within 12 months.

Written Reports for Correction and Improvement  SPP/APR Desk Audit Report  County On-site Monitoring Report  Letter of Findings (LOF)  Due Process Hearing Decision  Fiscal Monitoring Desk Audit Report  SPP Indicator Verification Report

Fiscal Management*

Fiscal Management Appendix A The general supervision includes mechanisms to provide oversight in the distribution and use of IDEA funds at the state and local level. Procedures are in place to ensure that fiscal resources are directed to areas needing improvement as noted in the APR. Supervision of fiscal activities also includes a review of required corrective actions as a result of monitoring activities. (see Appendix A)

Fiscal Monitoring Information Workbook EXCESS COST/SUPPLEMENT NOT SUPPLANT The LEA uses IDEA funds for the excess cost of special education and related services for students with disabilities. The LEA maintains the same level of expenditure for students with disabilities from year to year (maintenance of effort) to ensure IDEA supplement and do not supplant state and local funds. Policy CitationProbe QuestionsData SourcesAgency Status IDEA, 34 CRF §300.16; § and § Does the LEA spend the calculated per pupil amount spent for all students, displayed in the Excess Cost screen within the Five Year Online Strategic Plan, for the education of students with disabilities before it spends IDEA funds? Are IDEA funds expended in such a manner to supplement and not supplant state/ local funds expended for students with disabilities? Did the LEA spend the same amount of state/local funds for the education of students with disabilities as was spent in the prior year? LEA Five Year Online Strategic Plan – Special Education Compliances Component LEA expenditure data from WVEIS  Met  Not Met Monitoring Priority: Fiscal Monitoring

CSADA/ADA Workbook  State Performance Plan Alignment  Re-numbered Indicators to Match State Performance Plan & Policy 2419  Quick Reference Indicator Chart  Removal of ADA Workbook

CSADA/ADA Workbook  Comprehensive Self Assessment Desk Audit (CSADA)  Annual Determination Audit (ADA)

Comprehensive Self Assessment Desk Audit (CSADA)  The monitoring process includes self assessment activities which are required to be completed by the LEA on an annual basis.  The self assessment consists of collection and/or analysis of data for 14 SPP indicators and 19 WV indicators.  The self assessment activities assist districts with improvement planning.  The CSADA will be reviewed when a districts has an on-site monitoring visit.

Annual Desk Audit ADA  The ADA is a subset of indicators from the CSADA workbook.  The first fourteen indicators are SPP indicators and are required to be reported to the OSP. Annual Desk Audit Review Timelines ActivityDue Date LEA collection and analysis of data documented through the CSADA/ADA workbook. Year long process to be completed by April 30 th of each school year. ADA (SPP 1 through SPP 14) on line submission by LEAs. April 30 LEA Status Determination Reports completed by WVDE. May 30

CSADA/ADA Workbook Agency Status  WVDE Determined  Met  Not Met  WVDE Data Driven  Met  Not Met

State Performance Plan Alignment Indicator 1: Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma. Policy Citation TargetData SourcesAgency Status SPP 1 Performance (20 U.S.C (a)(3)(A)) For the school year, at least 80% of youth with IEPs will graduate from high school with a regular diploma. *Please note- reporting of the 4-year adjusted cohort graduate rate will begin in CSADA worksheet with actual data located: WVDE Determined  Met  Not Met NA OIEP Common indicator probe questions:  How do your data compare to the State target?  Do the data vary significantly based on student race/ethnicity?  Do the data vary significantly based on student special education eligibility category?  Does the performance level reflect a systemic problem (e.g., involves multiple classrooms, buildings, providers, personnel changes, or processes), or is it attributable to specific buildings, providers, or groups of students? Indicator specific probe questions:  Are appropriate supplementary aids and services, assistive technology and Positive Behavior Supports implemented to assist students with disabilities in achieving graduation requirements?  Are appropriate transition activities and linkages provided to students with disabilities?  What trends do you see in your graduation data over the past five years?  What current initiatives (general and special education) are in place to address graduation rates?  Does the present scheduling system create barriers toward graduation for students with disabilities? Improvement plan: Lead coordinators: Karen Ruddle, Valerie WilsonResources: National Resources  National Dropout Prevention Center  National Association of Secondary School Principals  National High School Center Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE

State Performance Plan Alignment Indicator 1: Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma. Policy Citation TargetData SourcesAgency Status SPP 1 Performance (20 U.S.C (a)(3)(A)) For the school year, at least 80% of youth with IEPs will graduate from high school with a regular diploma. *Please note- reporting of the 4-year adjusted cohort graduate rate will begin in CSADA worksheet with actual data located: WVDE Determined  Met  Not Met NA OIEP Common indicator probe questions:  How do your data compare to the State target?  Do the data vary significantly based on student race/ethnicity?  Do the data vary significantly based on student special education eligibility category?  Does the performance level reflect a systemic problem (e.g., involves multiple classrooms, buildings, providers, personnel changes, or processes), or is it attributable to specific buildings, providers, or groups of students? Indicator specific probe questions:  Are appropriate supplementary aids and services, assistive technology and Positive Behavior Supports implemented to assist students with disabilities in achieving graduation requirements?  Are appropriate transition activities and linkages provided to students with disabilities?  What trends do you see in your graduation data over the past five years?  What current initiatives (general and special education) are in place to address graduation rates?  Does the present scheduling system create barriers toward graduation for students with disabilities? Improvement plan: Lead coordinators: Karen Ruddle, Valerie WilsonResources: National Resources  National Dropout Prevention Center  National Association of Secondary School Principals  National High School Center Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE

State Performance Plan Alignment Indicator 1: Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma. Policy Citation TargetData SourcesAgency Status SPP 1 Performance (20 U.S.C (a)(3)(A)) For the school year, at least 80% of youth with IEPs will graduate from high school with a regular diploma. *Please note- reporting of the 4-year adjusted cohort graduate rate will begin in CSADA worksheet with actual data located: WVDE Determined  Met  Not Met NA OIEP Common indicator probe questions:  How do your data compare to the State target?  Do the data vary significantly based on student race/ethnicity?  Do the data vary significantly based on student special education eligibility category?  Does the performance level reflect a systemic problem (e.g., involves multiple classrooms, buildings, providers, personnel changes, or processes), or is it attributable to specific buildings, providers, or groups of students? Indicator specific probe questions:  Are appropriate supplementary aids and services, assistive technology and Positive Behavior Supports implemented to assist students with disabilities in achieving graduation requirements?  Are appropriate transition activities and linkages provided to students with disabilities?  What trends do you see in your graduation data over the past five years?  What current initiatives (general and special education) are in place to address graduation rates?  Does the present scheduling system create barriers toward graduation for students with disabilities? Improvement plan: Lead coordinators: Karen Ruddle, Valerie WilsonResources: National Resources  National Dropout Prevention Center  National Association of Secondary School Principals  National High School Center Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE

State Performance Plan Alignment Indicator 1: Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma. Policy Citation TargetData SourcesAgency Status SPP 1 Performance (20 U.S.C (a)(3)(A)) For the school year, at least 80% of youth with IEPs will graduate from high school with a regular diploma. *Please note- reporting of the 4-year adjusted cohort graduate rate will begin in CSADA worksheet with actual data located: WVDE Determined  Met  Not Met NA OIEP Common indicator probe questions:  How do your data compare to the State target?  Do the data vary significantly based on student race/ethnicity?  Do the data vary significantly based on student special education eligibility category?  Does the performance level reflect a systemic problem (e.g., involves multiple classrooms, buildings, providers, personnel changes, or processes), or is it attributable to specific buildings, providers, or groups of students? Indicator specific probe questions:  Are appropriate supplementary aids and services, assistive technology and Positive Behavior Supports implemented to assist students with disabilities in achieving graduation requirements?  Are appropriate transition activities and linkages provided to students with disabilities?  What trends do you see in your graduation data over the past five years?  What current initiatives (general and special education) are in place to address graduation rates?  Does the present scheduling system create barriers toward graduation for students with disabilities? Improvement plan: Lead coordinators: Karen Ruddle, Valerie WilsonResources: National Resources  National Dropout Prevention Center  National Association of Secondary School Principals  National High School Center Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE

State Performance Plan Alignment Indicator 1: Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma. Policy Citation TargetData SourcesAgency Status SPP 1 Performance (20 U.S.C (a)(3)(A)) For the school year, at least 80% of youth with IEPs will graduate from high school with a regular diploma. *Please note- reporting of the 4-year adjusted cohort graduate rate will begin in CSADA worksheet with actual data located: WVDE Determined  Met  Not Met NA OIEP Common indicator probe questions:  How do your data compare to the State target?  Do the data vary significantly based on student race/ethnicity?  Do the data vary significantly based on student special education eligibility category?  Does the performance level reflect a systemic problem (e.g., involves multiple classrooms, buildings, providers, personnel changes, or processes), or is it attributable to specific buildings, providers, or groups of students? Indicator specific probe questions:  Are appropriate supplementary aids and services, assistive technology and Positive Behavior Supports implemented to assist students with disabilities in achieving graduation requirements?  Are appropriate transition activities and linkages provided to students with disabilities?  What trends do you see in your graduation data over the past five years?  What current initiatives (general and special education) are in place to address graduation rates?  Does the present scheduling system create barriers toward graduation for students with disabilities? Improvement plan: Lead coordinators: Karen Ruddle, Valerie WilsonResources: National Resources  National Dropout Prevention Center  National Association of Secondary School Principals  National High School Center Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE

State Performance Plan Alignment Indicator 1: Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma. Policy Citation TargetData SourcesAgency Status SPP 1 Performance (20 U.S.C (a)(3)(A)) For the school year, at least 80% of youth with IEPs will graduate from high school with a regular diploma. *Please note- reporting of the 4-year adjusted cohort graduate rate will begin in CSADA worksheet with actual data located: WVDE Determined  Met  Not Met NA OIEP Common indicator probe questions:  How do your data compare to the State target?  Do the data vary significantly based on student race/ethnicity?  Do the data vary significantly based on student special education eligibility category?  Does the performance level reflect a systemic problem (e.g., involves multiple classrooms, buildings, providers, personnel changes, or processes), or is it attributable to specific buildings, providers, or groups of students? Indicator specific probe questions:  Are appropriate supplementary aids and services, assistive technology and Positive Behavior Supports implemented to assist students with disabilities in achieving graduation requirements?  Are appropriate transition activities and linkages provided to students with disabilities?  What trends do you see in your graduation data over the past five years?  What current initiatives (general and special education) are in place to address graduation rates?  Does the present scheduling system create barriers toward graduation for students with disabilities? Improvement plan: Lead coordinators: Karen Ruddle, Valerie WilsonResources: National Resources  National Dropout Prevention Center  National Association of Secondary School Principals  National High School Center Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE

Directions and Forms Notebook Section #3

Directions and File Review Forms  File review forms match on-line IEP  Removed district level review for discipline concerns  Revised forms to include new indicator numbers  Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)

On-Site Interview Forms Notebook Section #4

On-Site Interview Forms  Interview Topics  General Education Teacher Interview  Special Education Teacher Interview  Principal Interview  Special Education Director Interview  Fiscal Monitoring Self Assessment – Interview  Data Entry Verification Form

Resources Notebook Section #5

Resources  Federal Guidance Memorandums  WVDE Guidance Memorandums

West Virginia Integrated Monitoring System To be effective, components must:  Connect  Interact  Articulate  Inform Each Other

West Virginia Department of Education Continuous Improvement & Focused Monitoring System “Next Steps”  Draft Monitoring Manual  Mid-South Regional Resource Center  Stakeholder Involvement

Conclusion  The responsibility for compliance with IDEA and positive results for students with disabilities is shared by responsible agencies and individuals at the federal, state and local levels.  An effective system for General Supervision helps ensure both of these outcomes.

Discussion Questions, issues? Further suggestion? Please consider serving as a member of the stakeholder group.

CIFMS Presentation will be made available during the conference

Break 15 Minutes GOGO

CIFMS continued... Presentation will be made available during the conference

State and Local Determinations MonitoringProfessional Development Debbie Ashwell Coordinator Office of Special Programs

Pursuant to section 616(a)(1)(C)(i) of the IDEA and 34 CRF § (a), and approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), States are required to make “Determinations” annually under section 616(d) on the performance of LEA/EIS programs.

States MUST Consider  Performance on compliance indicators;  Whether data submitted by LEAs/EIS programs is valid, reliable, and timely;  Uncorrected noncompliance from other sources; and  Any audit findings.

States MAY Consider  Performance on performance indicators; and  Other information.

WV Considers SPP Performance Indicators 1 Graduation 2 Dropout 3b Participation 3c Proficiency 5 Educational Environment Ages Educational Environment Ages Early Childhood Outcomes

WV Considers SPP Compliance Indicators 4 Suspension 9 Disproportionality – All Disabilities 10 Disproportionality – Specific Disabilities 11 Child Find 12 Early Childhood Transition 13 Post School Transition 15 General Supervision

WV Considers SPP Compliance Indicators 16 Complaint Correction (also 15) 17 Due Process Hearing Correction (also 15) 20 Timely and Accurate Data In addition: Audit/Fiscal Management LEA Application Submission and Approval

Categories Assigned by OSEP  Meets Requirements  Needs Assistance  Needs Intervention  Needs Substantial Intervention

Status Determined Meets Requirements – score above the cut score Needs Assistance – score at or below the cut score Needs Intervention – score at or below the cut score 2 years in a row, lack of improvement in achievement on Reading or Math WESTEST2 and fail to correct all noncompliance on self-assessment Needs Substantial Intervention – in addition, fail to comply with IDEA and Policy 2419 requirements, determined on a case by case basis

Enforcement Meets Requirements  None Needs Assistance 1 year  None required

Enforcement Needs Assistance 2 consecutive years  Contact the OSP for technical assistance which could include:  Identifying and implementing PD, instructional strategies and methods of instruction based on scientifically-based research  Designation of distinguished superintendents, principals, special education administrators, special education teachers and other teachers to provide advice, technical assistance and support  Provision of additional approaches to technical assistance, such as collaboration with WVDE personnel, RESAs, institutions of higher education and/or national experts

Enforcement Needs Intervention 3 or more consecutive years  The WVDE takes one or more of the following actions:  determines the district has the capacity to correct the problem within one year and requires the district to prepare a corrective action plan or Improvement Plan;  determines the district does not have the capacity to correct the problems within one year and requires the district to enter into a compliance agreement which may include withholding of no more than 50% of the district’s state and federal allocations;  seeks to recover funds; and/or  withholds funds, whole or in part.

Enforcement Needs Substantial Intervention (the district continues to violate federal or state law and regulations)  The WVDE must withhold, in whole or in part, any further payments to the LEA under Part B of the IDEA, taking any one or more of the following actions:  withhold funds until a corrective action plan is approved;  withhold funds until the deficiencies are corrected;  withhold state and federal allocations used for the salary of the special education director;  redirect funds (i.e., earmark specific funds for training activities, appoint a lead coordinator to ensure compliance with corrective activities);  remove the district’s eligibility to apply for discretionary grants established by the WVDE;

Enforcement  cease funding for all subsequent years until deficiencies are corrected, if the district is currently involved in a grant program maintained by the WVDE;  request an audit be conducted of the district’s financial records;  direct the administration of the district’s special education services;  fine the district on a daily and/or monthly basis until deficiencies are corrected;  refer district to the OEPA for consideration of accreditation status; and/or  file independent action against the superintendent’s licensure, citing negligence in carrying out his/her duties.

LEA Determination No required date to notify districts however, OSEP recommends the following:  As soon as possible after issuing their annual report to the public  In a timely manner so the LEAs can take actions necessary for improvement  Before subgrants are issued to LEAs

History of Determinations in WV September 12, 2007 one compliance indicator June 30, 2008 one compliance indicator May 1, , 10, 11, 12, 13, 15 mandated by OSEP May 1, compliance indicators, 5 correction of noncompliance indicators, LEA application May 1, compliance indicators, 5 correction of noncompliance indicators, LEA application

Performance Rubric

LEA Determination May 1, 2011 Compliance Indicators Part A

Compliance Rubric Part A

LEA Determinations May 1, 2011 Compliance Indicators Part B

Compliance Rubric Part B

LEA Determinations May 1, 2011 District Total Calculation Performance Totals + Compliance Totals Total Possible Points = Percentage Cut score TBD

State Performance Plan Policies, Procedures, and Effective Implementation Data on Processes and Results Targeted T/A & Professional Development Effective Dispute Resolution Integrated Monitoring Activities Improvement, Correction, Incentives & Sanctions Fiscal Manage- ment What is a ‘System ?’

It’s about Better Results