1. Kentucky Continuous Monitoring Process Spring 2012

2. Spring 2012 Schedule April 1 – Districts receive documents By May Co-op Meeting – Districts conduct DRT meetings May Co-op Meeting – Discuss Root Causes and Activities May 31 – District Documents Due June 12 – Co-op Network Meeting June 30 – Regional Reports Due

3. Changes Indicator 7 – Preschool Progress Indicator 9&10 - Disproportionality

4. Indicator 4 Suspension Rates

5. Indicator 4A Indicator 4A: Percent of districts that have a significant discrepancy in the rate of suspensions and expulsion of greater than 10 days in a school year. OSEP Requirement:State Performance Plan Indicator 4A State Target: Not applicable for this Indicator at the local district level. Districts are expected to have a ratio of less than 3.0 (i.e., must maintain a district rate that is less than 3 times the state rate). Indicator 4A Data: Year Children with Disabilities Discrepancy Child Count Number Suspended District Rate (Percent Suspended) State Rate District Ratio (times above the state rate) 2010-2011.20% Data Source: Section 618 Data (December 1 Child Count Report of Children and Youth with Disabilities), Infinite Campus Discipline Report and/or Special Education End of Year Data File.

6. Indicator 4B Indicator 4B: Percent of districts that have a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year of children with disabilities by race and ethnicity. OSEP Requirement:State Performance Plan Indicator 4B State Target: Zero (0) districts with a significant discrepancy, by race or ethnicity, in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs; and (b) policies, procedures or practices that contribute to the significant discrepancy and do not comply with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards. Indicator 4B Data: Race/EthnicityChild Count # Suspended More than 10 Days % Suspended More than 10 Days District Ratio Significant Discrepancy? White Black or African-American Hispanic/Latino Asian Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander American Indian or Alaska Native Two or more races Data Source: Section 618 Data (Child Count Report of Children and Youth with Disabilities), Infinite Campus Discipline Report and/or Special Education End of Year Data File.

7. Indicator 4C Indicator 4C: Rates of Suspensions and Expulsions: Suspension and expulsion rates for children with disabilities are comparable to the rates for children without disabilities in the district. OSEP Requirement:State Indicator – No OSEP reporting State Target: The difference in the Suspension Rate for students with disabilities is no more than 2 percentage points higher than the Suspension Rate for students without disabilities. Indicator 4C Data: Total number of students grades K-12 without disabilities Total number of students grades K-12 without disabilities who have been suspended or expelled. Suspension/Expulsion rates of students without disabilities Total number of students with disabilities ages 6 through 21 Total number of students with disabilities ages 6 through 21 who have been suspended or expelled. Suspension/Expulsion rate for students ages 6-21 with disabilities Difference (Should be no more than 2.00%) Data Source: Section 618 Data (Child Count Report of Children and Youth with Disabilities), Infinite Campus Discipline Report and/or Special Education End of Year Data File.

8. Investigative Questions Organized by Factor Suggestion: Summarize DRT discussion by Factor in the data analysis. For example: Regarding General District Discipline Policies and Procedures: Short paragraph highlighting the investigative questions that were most significant for the DRT.

9. Indicator 4 Root Causes Root Causes for Districts that DID NOT MEET All Indicator 4 Targets (Place an X by the root cause that most significantly impacted performance) Root Causes for Districts that MET All Indicator 4 Targets (4A,B & C) (Place an X by the root cause that most significantly impacted performance) 4A. District discipline policies (e.g., Zero Tolerance) and procedures fail to include proactive alternatives to suspension and do not encourage flexibility to take into account individual issues/ needs of students with disabilities. 4A. District discipline policies and procedures provide proactive alternatives to suspension and encourage flexibility to take into account individual issues/needs of students with disabilities. 4B. Lack of or inconsistent implementation of school-wide positive proactive, instructional discipline approaches (or Positive Behavior Support [PBS] Systems). 4B. Effective Implementation of school-wide positive, proactive, instructional approaches to discipline (positive behavior support system, e.g., KYCID) 4C. District and/or school discipline data is not collected accurately, monitored consistently and used proactively for providing school and district level feedback and for flagging individual students at risk. 4C. District and /or school discipline data is collected accurately, monitored consistently and used proactively for providing school & district feedback and for flagging individual students at risk. 4D. Administrator and/or Teacher Practices are negative and reactive instead of evidence-based; staff fail to differentiate discipline based on individual needs of students with disabilities. 4D. Administrator and Teacher Practices are positive, proactive, instructional, & evidence-based; staff differentiate discipline based on individual needs of students with disabilities. 4E. District personnel fail to adequately develop, review, revise and implement the IEP, FBA, & BIP so that all three documents effectively analyze & address the specific suspension-related behaviors of concern. 4E. District personnel develop, review, revise, and implement the IEP, FBA, & BIP so that all three documents effectively analyze & address the specific suspension-related behaviors of concern. 4F. District fails to adequately or proactively implement IDEA discipline requirements/ procedural safeguards (e.g., manifestation determinations). 4F. District implementation of IDEA discipline requirements/procedural safeguards (e.g., manifestation determinations) is adequate and often proactive (e.g., meet at +5 days suspension to evaluate student needs/design interventions). Other (Specify):

10. Indicator 4 Activities Sample activities are organized by factor. Make sure that the activity is connected to the root cause and will have an impact.

11. Indicator 8 Parent Involvement

12. Indicator 8 Indicator 8: Percent of parents with a child receiving special education services who report that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities. OSEP Requirement:State Performance Plan Indicator 8 State Target: Thirty percent (30.5%) of parents with a child receiving special education services report that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities. Indicator 8 Data The KDE annually conducts parent surveys for a rotating sample of districts each year. Since KDE does not have parent survey information for each district each year, KDE is asking district to address the three lowest ranked items collected. The three lowest ranked survey items are: Item #7: I was given information about organization that offer support for parents of students with disabilities. Item #21: The school offers parents training about special education issues Item #24: The school connects parents to organizations that serve parents of children with disabilities. Data Source: KDE Parent Survey

13. Indicator 20 Timely and Accurate Reporting

14. Indicator 20 Indicator 20:District reported data (End-of-Year Exiting Table, Maintenance of Fiscal Effort, Child Count, Personnel Report, Preschool Count, Preschool Supplemental Count, Kentucky In-School Transition Survey, Preschool End-of-Year Report, Post-School Outcomes, KCMP Data, KCMP Monitoring Document) are timely and accurate.OSEP Requirement:State Performance Plan Indicator 20 State Target: One hundred percent (100%) of district reported data are timely and accurate. On-TimeAccurateReport Not Currently MeasuredEnd-of-Year Exiting/Discipline Tables (07/31/10) Not Currently MeasuredFall KCMP (11/30/10) Not Currently MeasuredChild Count Report (12/15/10) Not Currently MeasuredPersonnel Report (12/15/10) Not Currently MeasuredPreschool Enrollment Count (12/15/10) Not Currently MeasuredWinter KCMP (3/31/11) Not Currently MeasuredMaintenance of Fiscal Effort (03/31/11) Not Currently MeasuredPreschool Supplemental Threes Count (05/15/11) Not Currently MeasuredSpring KCMP (5/31/11) Not Currently MeasuredIndicator 11 & 13 Data Report (05/31/11) Not Currently MeasuredKentucky In School Transition Survey (06/13/11) Not Currently MeasuredPreschool End-of-Year Performance Report (06/30/11) Not Currently MeasuredYouth One-Year-Out (YOYO) Survey (06/30/11) Not Currently MeasuredPercentage Data Source: KDE District Reports

15. Indicator 20 Root Causes Root Causes for Districts that DID NOT MEET Target (Place an X by the root cause that most significantly impacted performance) Root Causes for Districts that MET Target (Place an X by the root cause that most significantly impacted performance) 20A. District does not utilize data standards and guidance for special education in the student information system. 20A. District staff fully utilizes data standards and guidance for special education in the student information system. 20B. There is a lack of internal procedures for ensuring that timelines are met. 20B. Internal procedures ensure that timelines are met. 20C. There is no system in place for ensuring that persons responsible for submitting reports are made aware of reporting requirements. 20C. Persons responsible for submitting reports are made aware of reporting requirements. 20D. Data are not reviewed for errors prior to submission 20D. Data are reviewed for potential errors and concerns prior to submission. Other (Specify):

16. Interim Data Since January 1, 2012 Since January 1, 2012

17. Interim Data Indicators 1&2 Number of students that have dropped out since January 1, 2012 Indicator 4 Number of students that have been suspended 8 or more days this school year. Indicator 11 Number of initial evaluations since January 1, 2012. Number of evaluations completed within timeline. Indicator 12 Number of First Steps students referred to the district since January 1, 2012. Number with IEPs in place by the 3 rd birthday. Indicator 13 Number of records that have been reviewed for transition since January 1, 2012. Number of records that were found to be compliant for Indicator 13 Indicator 20 (were the following reports submitted on time?) Winter KCMP (2/28/12) Maintenance of Fiscal Effort (3/31/12)

18. Don’t Forget to… update the status of your Fall and Winter activities.

19. Have a great spring and summer!