1. YEAR #4 (2010) DETERMINATIONS
Local Directors’ Meeting
June 9, 2010

2. OSEP Determination of Michigan
As of June 3, 2010, Michigan’s Determination was a
“meets requirements”
5/6/2019

3. Four Levels of Compliance
Meets requirements (of IDEA)
Needs assistance in meeting requirements
Needs intervention in meeting requirements
Needs substantial intervention in meeting requirements
5/6/2019

4. Must include valid and reliable data
OSEP Direction* to SEAs regarding Determinations of LEAs, including ISDs
Must include valid and reliable data
Must include Compliance Indicators 9, 10, 11, 12, 15
(*NOTE: Unchanged from 2006)
5/6/2019

5. May include optional performance indicators
OSEP Direction to SEAs regarding Determinations of LEAs, including ISDs
Must include other information such as audit findings, uncorrected noncompliance from other sources, etc.
May include optional performance indicators
5/6/2019

6. Guidance from Arne Duncan
Key Policy Letter,
Urges States to maintain high standards in issuing Determinations, and
Not to compromise the Determinations process
5/6/2019

7. Impact on ARRA funds
5/6/2019

8. Round #4 for LEAs/ISDs: Michigan’s Overall Design
Focuses on compliance indicators
Per OSEP, sets the criteria for Level 2 at 75% on individual elements
Emphasizes timely correction in multiple elements
5/6/2019

9. Round #4 for LEAs/ISDs: Michigan’s Overall Design
Retains “timely IEPs” in the included elements
Restricts districts from receiving Level 1 if district has any uncorrected noncompliance
Gives determinations to ISDs based on status as an operating district, not aggregate of their locals
5/6/2019

10. SPP #9 Disproportionate Representation
Based on Focused Monitoring conducted during
All LEAs receive a “1” except those districts which were focused monitored, had findings of noncompliance and did not correct on a timely basis
5/6/2019

11. SPP #10 Disproportionate Representation
Based on Focused Monitoring Findings issued during
All districts receive a “1” except those districts which were focused monitored, had findings of noncompliance, and did not correct on a timely basis
5/6/2019

12. SPP #11 Child Find Based on 2008-2009 (3) SRSD submissions
No minimum cell size
Requires 95% compliance for “1”
5/6/2019

13. SPP #12 Early Childhood Transition
Pertinent only to locals who did not receive requests to conduct Indicator 12 activities
“Skips” for those districts who don’t conduct Indicator 12 activities
5/6/2019

14. SPP #13 Secondary Transition
Used data from Transition Checklist, April 1 through October 1, 2009
Applies only to those districts in Cohort 2
Not reported in the February, 2010 APR, but is included in Determinations
5/6/2019

15. SPP #15 Compliance Findings
data monitored in
Based on findings of noncompliance from Focused Monitoring or complaints
Which were not corrected within the required one-year time frame
5/6/2019

16. Timely IEPs The single element which uses newer data from Dec. 1, 2009
MI-CIS submission
Percentage of students with current IEPs
NOT an SPP indicator
5/6/2019

17. Valid, Timely, and Reliable Data
Uses data submissions (SRSD/MSDS, MI-CIS, REP and
B-11 verification)
7 sub-elements in this section
Considers both timeliness and accuracy
5/6/2019

18. Uses Single Audit Findings from 2008 and 2009 (2 years)
Expanded to describe all four levels
5/6/2019

19. Overall Calculation System
Level 1: Raw score average 1.49 and below
Level 2: Raw score average 1.50 to 2.49
Level 3: Raw score average 2.50 to 3.49
Level 4: Raw score average 3.50 or greater
5/6/2019

20. Enforcement Actions (IDEA and NPRM)
“Needs assistance” for 2 consecutive years
l. T.A.
2. Re-direct use of Flowthrough
funds
3. Impose special conditions on
Flowthrough funds
5/6/2019

21. Enforcement Actions (IDEA and NPRM)
“Needs intervention” for 3 consecutive years
1. May use any of the above actions, and
5/6/2019

22. Enforcement Actions (IDEA and NPRM)
2. Must do one or more of these:
a) Require improvement plan
b) Require a compliance agreement
c) Withhold or recover funds
d) Refer for other appropriate enforcement actions
5/6/2019

23. Public Reporting VS. Determinations
Uses data to assess compliance with IDEA 2004
Public Report
Uses “masked” data on the Indicators
specified by OSEP relative to targets
5/6/2019

24. Public Reporting VS. Determinations
Gives an overall “rating” to all LEAs
Makes no judgment about LEAs’
performance except to compare to state targets
5/6/2019

25. FORECAST for ROUND #5 Determinations (2009-2010 Data)
Expected to include Indicator 4b (Discipline by race/ethnicity)
Expected to include timely submission of CAPs and progress reports through CIMS system
5/6/2019

26. Overall Rankings for this year
Level 1: 768 Locals
Level 2: 66 Locals
Level 3 and 4: -0- Locals
5/6/2019

27. Release of this year’s Determinations
Mid-June
Hard-copy packets to superintendents
ISDs to receive copies 2-3 days ahead of time
Copies will be archived in CIMS as of August 15, 2010
5/6/2019

28. Submitting Comments after Receiving your Determination
Explanations or comments are welcome. There is no “appeal” process.
Comments go to Ann Omans, Program Accountability Supervisor
5/6/2019

29. Thanks for your kind attention
Questions?
Call Shirley Young
Thanks for your kind attention
…………………
5/6/2019