special ed. administrator’s academy september 21, 2012

Special Ed. Administrator’s Academy

September 21, 2012

Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary EducationNew Director’s Academy 2012

CORRECTION OF NONCOMPLIANCE

2010 OSEP Leadership Mega Conference

Key Question 2 - Identification

Q2. What actions must a State take if it collects or receives information indicating noncompliance?

52010 OSEP Leadership Mega Conference

6

Option 1

Make a finding of noncompliance.

Option 2

Verify whether data demonstrate noncompliance, and then issue finding if data do demonstrate noncompliance.

Option 3

Verify LEA has corrected noncompliance before State issues written findings of noncompliance, in which case State not required to issue written finding of noncompliance.

2010 OSEP Leadership Mega Conference

Correct approach: The State must make a finding of noncompliance in a timely manner, unless: •In verifying whether the data demonstrate noncompliance, the State determines that the data do not demonstrate noncompliance; or •The State verifies, using both prongs of OSEP Memo 09-02, that the LEA has corrected the noncompliance before the State issues written findings of noncompliance.

72010 OSEP Leadership Mega Conference

Correction Thresholds - Problem 1

•A State monitored an LEA and found that in 5 of 20 records reviewed, students had not received timely evaluations. •The State issued a finding of noncompliance and required correction within one year.

82010 OSEP Leadership Mega Conference

Correction Thresholds - Problem 1•To verify correction of the noncompliance, the State:Reviewed the records for the 5 students who had not received timely evaluations to ensure that, although late, they were evaluated; and Reviewed updated data (e.g., 20 new student records). In 18 of the 20 records (90%), the students were timely evaluated. •The State incorrectly concluded that the LEA had corrected the noncompliance.

92010 OSEP Leadership Mega Conference

Problem - Two Prongs•A State examined updated data to determine whether an LEA had corrected previously identified noncompliance. •The State verified correction in the child records where it initially based its findings, but did not also verify, based on its review of updated data, that the LEA was correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements. •The State incorrectly concluded that the LEA had corrected the noncompliance.

102010 OSEP Leadership Mega Conference

Correct Approach - Two Prongs

Before the State may conclude that the LEA has corrected the noncompliance, it must also examine updated data to ensure that the LEA has achieved 100% compliance.

112010 OSEP Leadership Mega Conference

A comprehensive System: Supporting Compliant Practices that Improve Results for SWDs

Compliance

Results

From: Martha Asti (ADE) Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 3:11 PM Subject: Important Notice Regarding On-Site Monitoring To Special Education Supervisors and Special Education Early Childhood Coordinators: The ADE Special Education Unit will be delaying on-site monitoring visits to re-evaluate the duration, frequency, and content of those visits and examine how those visits interact with other aspects of monitoring (e.g. online data systems, fiscal monitoring, dispute resolution, APR reporting, etc.). This decision is related in part to OSEP’s move toward Results Driven Accountability and the approval of the Arkansas ESEA Flexibility. The delay in on-site visits will allow us to closely review our current procedures for monitoring before making any substantial changes to the process. A few of you who were monitored late in the spring may have noticed some minor changes in the verification process that were a result of our preliminary review of on-site monitoring procedures. As we move forward in this process, we will continue to consider revisions to our current procedures, but rest assured that any substantial revisions to the system of monitoring will be shared with you well in advance and implemented in phases. In the interim, we will continue to monitor districts for compliance through our data systems, dispute resolution, fiscal requirements and APR reporting. Please know that the primary focus of IDEA monitoring continues to be on improving educational results for students with disabilities and ensuring that LEAs meet IDEA program requirements. An update of our progress will be provided to you at the Special Education Supervisors’ Academy on September 21, 2012. We look forward to seeing you then. Martha Kay

Period of Transition

Long Term Goals

• Integrated system of monitoring more fully utilizing data systems to:– Determine monitoring priorities– Ensure compliance with special education regulations– Increase the District’s performance in meeting SPP targets

• Reduce paperwork and clarify due process procedures for districts to:– Ensure transparency – Promote consistency

• Redistribution of human capital to allow more time for:– Assisting districts in improving their special education programs– Working with special education consultants and the broader ADE to support

districts in increasing results for students with disabilities

• Implement procedures for cross regional teams to review:– Monitoring data (electronic and onsite) – District Self Assessments and Response Tables– ACSIPs

Short Term Goals

• Identify priority items on General Program Checklist• Identify priority items on Student Folder Checklists• Review Forms– Prior Written Notice– Notice of Conference– EDR

• Revise verification procedure to include written documentation for Districts

• Use Referral Tracking data for desk monitoring activities

• Implement procedure for cross regional teams to review areas of potential non-compliance

• Review Program Approval process

What’s New?

• Reducing the number of items reviewed in General Program Checklist and Student Folder Checklist

Process for “Skinnying” down our checklists…

What’s New?

• Program Approval

Special Ed. Employee Module (APSCN section)

This Year: There will be no formal Program Approval this year. Special Ed. Program Approval data will be submitted in Cycle 2. Any updates to personnel (not caseloads, not folder counts, not per period

range) will be collected in Cycle 4 for Federal Reporting. Cycle 4 data will be reviewed by Monitoring Section in February. Districts

we have questions about will be contacted. ADE Accreditation reports will be reviewed by Monitoring Section in April

for per period range. Districts we have questions about will be contacted. Teacher caseloads (EC and K-12) will be reviewed during on-site

monitoring. Licenses for contacted providers will be reviewed during on-site

monitoring.

Special Ed. Employee Module (APSCN section)

Next Year: There will be no formal Program Approval.

There will be no Cycle 2 submission.

All “Special Ed. Employee” data will be submitted for Cycle 4. Teacher caseload (EC and K-12) will be added to Cycle 4.

Cycle 4 data will be reviewed by Monitoring Section in February. Districts we have questions about will be contacted.

ADE Accreditation reports will be reviewed by Monitoring Section in April for per period range.

Licenses for contacted providers will be reviewed during on-site monitoring.

What’s New?

• Looking at different ways to monitor.

What’s New?

• Desk Monitoring

What’s New?

Looking Good! I’ll sail through the Verification Visit

100% Compliance

What’s New?• Verification Period:– Written documentation of student level potential non-

compliance – Written documentation of areas cleared for each

identified student and updated data (new student folders)– Written documentation of any potential non-compliance

in updated data (new student folders) • CAP:– Written documentation of student level non-compliance – Written documentation of areas cleared for each

identified student and updated data (new student folders)– Written documentation of any non-compliance in updated

data (new student folders)

What’s New?

• Examining priorities for monitoring

What’s New?

• Reviewing all forms

What’s new?

• Adjusting the rotation for cyclical monitoring

Questions to Consider…• What are three things the ADE currently

monitors that are most closely related to improving educational results and functional outcomes for students with disabilities?

• What are the top three indicators you would use to determine if a district was being successful with students with disabilities?

• How could the ADE use the data collected through Cycle submissions to focus its technical assistance and monitoring efforts?

Why not go out

on a limb?

-- Frank Scully.

Isn’t that where

the fruit is?