1. Child Find (Indicator 11) Colleen Stover / Steve W. Smith 2009 COSA Conference October 2009 Meeting the 60 School-Day Requirement for Initial Evaluations

2. OBJECTIVES  Understand the Importance of Child Find  Understand the Importance of Accurate and Timely Data  Understand the Reason Codes and How They Can Inform Improvement Planning  Understand the Exceptions to the 60 School-day Timeline  Understand the Changes to the Child Find Collection Student Learning & Partnerships2

3.  What Is Child Find and Why Is It So Important?  Looking at The Data  IDEA Assurances: Timely and Accurate  Compliance  Are We Getting Closer?  Understanding the Reason Codes  Now It’s Your Turn  Looking at the Changes  Take-aways Meeting the 60 School-Day Requirement for Initial Evaluations - Child Find

4. The Purposes of the Child Find Collection are:  To locate, evaluate, identify, and serve in a timely manner  To meet reporting requirements for Indicator B11 - State Performance Plan (SPP) regarding compliance with IDEA  To identify: a.the number and percent of children with parental consent to evaluate whose initial evaluations were completed within or exceeded the 60 school-day timeline. b.the range of days evaluations were delayed and the reasons for these delays. c.includes children found eligible and not eligible. What Is Child Find and Why Is It So Important? Student Learning & Partnerships4

5. Looking At The Data: IDEA Assurances Student Learning & Partnerships5 IDEA Statement of Assurances: District / Agency Data Collection, Analysis, and Reporting  The district provides and validates data to ODE as required for the State Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual Performance Report (APR) within the timelines communicated by ODE. CFR §300.602  Timely  Accurate

6. Looking At The Data: Timeliness Student Learning & Partnerships6  Timely  An agency will be considered untimely if they do not submit any data by the close of the Collection or have uncorrected errors after the close of the Collection.  An agency will also be considered untimely, if they do not complete the correction process during the Electronic Correction period.

7. Looking At The Data:Timeliness  Districts Submitting Late 2007-2008 = 13 Districts, 6.57% 2008-2009 = 0 Districts, 0.0 % 100% Student Learning & Partnerships7

8. Looking At The Data: Accuracy Student Learning & Partnerships8  Accurate  An agency will be considered inaccurate, if the Collection had to be opened or left open after the Electronic Correction period closed.  An agency will also be considered inaccurate if they submit a Post-Submission Correction Form.

9. “OOPS” ERRORS Mis-counting >60 school-days? Students were claimed on Child Count but found eligible after December Child Count. Students were reported as not-eligible or no consent for initial services, but were reported on December Child Count. Duplicate records submitted for same student. 14 75 40 43 Number of Districts 07/08 08/09 32 77 45 41 Student Learning & Partnerships9 Looking At The Data: Accuracy

10. Reason Timeline Not Met Reasons for exceeding 60 School-Days 2007-2008 Original Number / % “Other” Recoded Number / % Prolonged student absence848.2%918.9% Parent/guardian did not present child/student for testing 333.2$444.3% Parent/guardian did not attend eligibility meeting 13813.5%17817.4% Initial testing results indicated need for additional testing not identified through initial evaluation planning 14013.7%14714.4% Delay by doctor/medical personnel918.9%999.7% Delay by district/program evaluation staff31630.9%41340.4% Within extended timeline by written agreement for a transfer student 333.2%333.2% Within extended timeline by written agreement to determine if a student has a specific learning disability 90.9%111.1% Other (Comment Required)17817.4%60.6%

11. Reason Timeline Not Met 2007- 2008 2008- 20009 2008-2009 Recodes & ? Maybes 1.Prolonged student absence91 (8.9%)57 (7.71%+ 1 ?2 2.Parent/guardian did not present child student for testing 44 (4.3%)36 (4.87%)+2 ?4 3.Parent/guardian did not attend eligibility meeting 178 (17.4%) 94 (12.72%) +11 (14.2%) 4.Initial testing results indicated need for additional testing not identified through initial evaluation planning 147 (14.4%) 71 (9.61%)0 5.Delay by doctor/medical personnel99 (9.7%)55 (7.44%)0 6.Delay by district/program evaluation staff 413 (40.4%) 293 (39.65%) +57* (47.36%) 7.Within extended timeline by written agreement for a transfer student 33 (3.2%)35 (4.74)+0 ?11 8.Within extended timeline by written agreement to determine if a student has a specific learning disability 11 (1.1%)27 (3.65%)0 9.Other (Comment Required)6 (0.6%)71 (9.61%)-71 (9.61%)

12. Student Learning & Partnerships12 107 fewer “OTHERS” to recode Looking At The Data:Accuracy

13. Student Learning & Partnerships13 What it means for Districts and ODE? Accurate and consistent data within/across districts. Fewer correction reports to complete. Reduction in paperwork. Decrease duplication of staff time and tasks. Improved professional development planning. Increased understanding of exceptions to the Child Find timeline.

14. Leads to 100% Compliance Student Learning & Partnerships14 Looking At The Data: Accuracy

15. COMPLIANCE: Compliance means 100% of initial evaluations completed were within the 60 school-day timeline.  Are we getting closer?  Understanding and Using the Reason Codes Student Learning & Partnerships15

16. Student Learning & Partnerships16  Number and Percentage of Compliant Evaluations and Districts 100% of evaluations completed within the 60 school-day timeline. (2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009) Compliance: Are We Getting Closer? Evaluations Reported Evaluations Compliant Districts in Compliance District Non- Compliant 2006-2007108 (54.55%) 2007-200816,168 15,602 (94.87%) 86 (43.7%) 111 (56.35%) 2008-200917,106 16,522 (96.59%) 112 (56.9%) 85 (43.15%) Difference between 07/08- 08/09 + 661 + 920 (1.72%) + 26 (13.2%) -26 (13.2%)

17. Compliance: Understanding the Reason Codes How Can the Reason Codes Help Us Reach Compliance?  Informs Professional Development & Improvement Planning  A Closer Look at a Few “Reason Codes”  Know the exceptions to the timeline  The two non-exception Reason Codes used most often Student Learning & Partnerships17

18. Compliance: Understanding the Reason Codes Student Learning & Partnerships18 Informs Professional Development & Improvement Planning Who: Individuals, teachers, service providers, administration, all staff, general education staff Where: Provider Specific, Classroom Specific, School Specific, School-level Specific, District-wide What:Which child find issues need greatest focus.

19. Reason Timeline Not Met2008-20009 2008-2009 Recodes & ? Maybes 1.Prolonged student absence57 (7.71%+ 1 ?2 2.Parent/guardian did not present child student for testing 36 (4.87%)+2 ?4 3.Parent/guardian did not attend eligibility meeting 94 (12.72%)+11 (14.2%) 4.Initial testing results indicated need for additional testing not identified through initial evaluation planning 71 (9.61%)0 5.Delay by doctor/medical personnel55 (7.44%)0 6.Delay by district/program evaluation staff293 (39.65%)+57* (47.36%) 7.Within extended timeline by written agreement for a transfer student 35 (4.74)+0 ?11 8.Within extended timeline by written agreement to determine if a student has a specific learning disability 27 (3.65%)0 9.Other (Comment Required)71 (9.61%)-71 (9.61%)

20. Compliance: A Closer Look at Two Non-exception “Reason Codes Student Learning & Partnerships20 14.2% of non-compliance could disappear if districts follow OARs 581-015-2120 and 2190 The district makes all efforts to arrange a mutually-agreed upon date to hold the Eligibility Meeting within the 60 school-day timeline and provides appropriate notice to the parent. If the parent cannot attend or cannot participate via an alternative mode, the district holds the Eligibility Meeting in accordance with OAR 581-015-2190. OAR 581-015-2120 (1)(a) OAR 581-015-2190 (1)

21. Compliance: A Closer Look at Two Non-exception “Reason Codes” Delay by district/program evaluation staff:  Evaluation staff errors: (2007-2008) = 413/ 40.4% (2008-2009)= 293/39.65% = Approximately the same BUT Student Learning & Partnerships21

22. Compliance: A Closer Look at Two Non-exception “Reason Codes”  57 “Other” comments recoded = 350/47.36% Evaluation staff errors = 6.96% Slippage from 2007-2008  With more information, 17 “Others” could be exceptions 11 “Others” could be < 60 days = 28 “Others” could be exceptions or within the timeline Student Learning & Partnerships22

23. YOUR TURN: Ask Yourselves Student Learning & Partnerships23 Should these evaluations really be out of compliance?  Do you need more information in order to recode these? If so, what information would be helpful?  Is it possible these evaluations were exceptions to the timeline?  What could the district have done to prevent non-compliance?  If the district did what they could have done, which Reason Code could the district have used? Would it still be non- compliant?

24. Student Learning & Partnerships24 YOUR TURN: Should These Evaluations Really Be Out of Compliance? Easy What could the district have done differently? If they had, which Reason Code could the district have used? 1.Student withdrew from school after permission to test was signed. Re-enrolled and testing was resumed. 2.Student enrolled 3/2/09 Testing was started at another school district.

25. YOUR TURN: Should These Evaluations Really Be Out of Compliance? Hard Student Learning & Partnerships25 What could the district have done differently? If they had, which Reason Code could the district have used? 1.Had to schedule meeting when parent could attend; she chose the date according to her work. 2.Parent rescheduled meeting due to vacation. Parent did not attend rescheduled meeting and a 3rd meeting was scheduled and attended.

26. YOUR TURN: Should These Evaluations Really Be Out of Compliance? HARDEST Student Learning & Partnerships26 What could the district have done differently? If they had, which Reason Code could the district have used? 1.School has a 4 day week. Due to SLP lack of availability and time, the time was 62 days after counting Veterans Day, Thanksgiving and Christmas. 2.It took awhile for all the evaluations to be completed. School days were missed for inclement weather. Parent signed for re-evaluation consent on 2/18/09.

27. Changes for 2009-2010  Reason Codes Changes  ECSE Developmental Delay  Child Find Q & A

28. Student Learning & Partnerships28 Reason Code Changes 2009-2010 Reason Timeline Not Met Student not available for testing (Comment Required) Parent/guardian did not present child/student for testing (Comment Required) 1. 2. WHY? Student not available for testing:  Prolonged student absence included in “Parent/guardian did not present child/student for testing” Comments required for #1 and #2:  To ensure data quality:  Monitor districts’ understanding and consistent use of these Reason Codes  Inform Technical Assistance to districts

29. Changes for 2009-2010  ECSE Developmental delay transition to school age: Initial or re-evaluation Currently: Evaluations for these students are considered Initial Evaluations and are included in the Child Find Collection Change: Evaluations for these students are considered Re- Evaluations and will not be included in the Child Find Collection.  Align with the CFRs, Federal guidance, and OARs.  Accurately reflect districts’ compliance regarding timely initial evaluations  Reduce paperwork and data-reporting for districts and programs WHY? Student Learning & Partnerships29

30. Take-aways:  Great job improving number and percentage of evaluations completed within the 60 school-day timeline.  Great job meeting the IDEA assurance of timely submittal.  Know the exceptions to the timeline and how to use them when appropriate.  Remember to provide parent with proper notice, accommodate needs as much as possible and hold the eligibility meeting within the 60 school-days even if parent cannot attend.  Know and train on the changes to ECSE DD transitions to school age. (No longer reported on Child Find Collection.) Student Learning & Partnerships30

31.  Look at the Reason Codes you have selected and ask how they can inform professional development.  If you exceed the 60 school-day timeline:  Know the definition of each Reason Code and when to use it.  When you have to make a comment, be specific.  Count only school days (Excel “workday” function). Student Learning & Partnerships31 Take-aways Continued:

32.  Colleen Stover, Education Specialist Child Find, Indicator 11  503.947.5705  colleen.stover@state.or.us colleen.stover@state.or.us HOW CAN ODE HELP? Student Learning & Partnerships32