in Correcting Noncompliance

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
IAPSEC: Outcomes Conference Paul Nijensohn & Sarah Sebert Principal Consultants Illinois State Board of Education June 19, 2009 Our Goal: To promote and.
Advertisements

(Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act) and
Updates on APR Reporting for Early Childhood Transition (Indicators C-8 and B-12)
Considering Assistive Technology and the AT Plan Sara Menzel, ATP UCP Michigan Assistive Technology Center
WISM Program Review in ESD 113 Region October 2012 Where are the challenges?
INDICATORS 11 AND 13 Bureau of Indian Education Division of Performance and Accountability WebEx October 18, 2011 DESK AUDIT.
File Review Activity Lessons learned through monitoring: Service areas must ensure there is documentation supporting the information reported in the self-
Final Determinations. Secretary’s Determinations Secretary annually reviews the APR and, based on the information provided in the report, information.
1 Determinations EI/ECSE SPR&I Training ODE Fall 2007.
Special Education Accountability Reviews Let’s put the pieces together March 25, 2015.
1 Common IEP Errors and Legal Requirements. 2 Today’s Agenda Parent Survey Results Procedural Compliance Self Assessment Results.
1 Overview of IDEA/SPP Early Childhood Transition Requirements Developed by NECTAC for the Early Childhood Transition Initiative (Updated February 2010)
Tennessee Department of Education Compliance Training February 2012 Department of Exceptional Children.
April 2010 Copyright © 2010 Mississippi Department of Education Mattie T. Updated Timeline and Goals.
2014 ALACASE CONFERENCE Preschool Indicators 2014 EI Preschool Conference.
A Review of the Special Education Integrated Monitoring Process BIE Special Education Academy September 12-15, 2011 Tampa, Florida.
OSEP National Early Childhood Conference December 2007.
Welcome to the Regional SPR&I trainings Be sure to sign in Be sure to sign in You should have one school age OR EI/ECSE packet of handouts You.
Sarah Walters - Part C Coordinator KDHE Tiffany Smith - Part B ECSE Coordinator KSDE 1.
2012 Change Documents ARD Process Guide & Notice of Procedural Safeguards.
BIE Special Education Academy September 2011 Tampa Bay, Florida Presenter: Donald Griffin Education Specialist, Special Education Bureau of Indian Education.
SPR&I: Changes, New Measures/Targets, and Lessons Learned from Focused Monitoring Visits David Guardino, SPR&I Coordinator Fall 2009 COSA Conference.
Fall 2010 Mississippi Department of Education Office of Instructional Enhancement and Internal Operations/Office of Special Education 1 SPP/APR Updates.
An Introduction to the State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report.
Improvement Planning Mischele McManus Infant/Toddler and Family Services Office of Early Childhood Education and Family Services July 20, 2007
Child Find (Indicator 11) Colleen Stover / Steve W. Smith 2009 COSA Conference October 2009 Meeting the 60 School-Day Requirement for Initial Evaluations.
Presented by the Early Childhood Transition Program Priority Team August 11, 2010 Updated September 2010.
Noncompliance and Correction (OSEP Memo 09-02) June 2012.
Climbing the Ladder Special Education OVERVIEW Niles North High School, District 219.
ESEA FOR LEAs Cycle 6 Monitoring Arizona Department of Education Revised October 2015.
IUSD Special Education Department October 14, 2015.
INDICATORS 11 AND 13 Bureau of Indian Education Division of Performance and Accountability WebEx March 22, 2011 DESK AUDIT.
Evaluation IEP Development, Review and Revision Placement
The New IDEA in Special Education
District of Columbia Public Schools | 1200 First Street, NE | Washington, DC | T | F | dcps.dc.gov DUE DILIGENCE GUIDELINES.
Oregon Department of Education March 10, 2005 Video Conference Title ID Subpart 2 Formal Agreements with Facilities to Provide Academic Programs.
In accordance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and Chapters 14 and 15 of the State Board Regulations, PDE provides general supervision.
1 The Development of a Compliant and Instructionally-Relevant Individualized Education Plan Solitia Wilson ADMS 625 Summer 2014.
Categorical Findings of Noncompliance March 24, 2011 Guidance & Intensive Technical Assistance Related to Correction of Noncompliance for SY
Prior Written Notice of Action & Notice of Conference March 2014 ADE-SEU.
What’s New for Transition to Special Education Services? Paula E. Goff, Part C Coordinator May 23, 2013.
Understanding the Data on Preschool Child Find and Transition Annual Performance Report Indicator 12 February, 2016
March 23, SPECIAL EDUCATION ACCOUNTABILITY REVIEWS.
SPECIAL EDUCATION PROCEDURES TO ADDRESS NON-COMPLIANT FINDINGS RELATED TO CHILD FIND Presenter Jim Kubaiko, Director Special Education.
Pre-Applicant Training| SC Public Charter School District| Beckie Davis Serving Students with Special Needs.
Child Find Office of Special Education Division of District Support.
Process for Enrolling New Special Education Students
Understanding the IEP Process
ARC Chairperson Training
Notice under IDEA.
Special Education Division Data Identified Noncompliance (DINC) Overview Presented by the Assessment, Evaluation, and Support Unit.
Serving Students with Special Needs
Compliance Monitoring
TIMELINE DECISION TREE:
Federal Policy & Statewide Assessments for Students with Disabilities
Eligibility Determination IFSP Meetings IFSP Service Implementation
ARC Chairperson Training
Stanislaus SELPA Session 1
Special Education Student Record Review Protocol
SPR&I Regional Training
Understanding Indicator 6: Early Childhood Special Education Settings for Children Ages Birth-Five Hello and welcome to Understanding Indicator 6: Early.
Update on the TEA Sped corrective action plan
Understanding Indicator 6: Early Childhood Special Education Settings for Children Ages Birth-Five Hello and welcome to Understanding Indicator 6: Early.
Understanding Indicator 6: Early Childhood Special Education Settings for Children Ages Birth-Five Hello and welcome to Understanding Indicator 6: Early.
Brielle Elementary School Special Education Monitoring Summary
SECN – Transition Role Group Meeting
New Enrollment and Transfer Students
Special Ed. Administrator’s Academy, September 24, 2013
New Special Education Teacher Webinar Series
Indicator 11 Initial Evaluation Edit Checks (80 Day Timeline)
Presentation transcript:

in Correcting Noncompliance The New Oregon Trail Focus on Results in Correcting Noncompliance

Rethinking Corrections Determinations - Which standards? Reasons for Corrections Types of Corrections Avoiding Overkill Aligning Errors and Corrections File review criteria ≠ Corrections Corrected? How do you know?

School Year 2007-2008 Extended School Year (ESY) CORRECTION REQUIRED Repeated noncompliance from previous years Noncompliance in standards related to: Extended School Year (ESY) Nonparticipation justification Secondary transition IEP Content Statewide assessment Any new instances of noncompliance Districts ranged from 4 standards to 60 standards

Targeted Standards Selected for alignment with IDEA monitoring priorities and outcomes (SPP) State actions that must occur on behalf of children and families Linked to other actions and processes: such as referral, evaluation, eligibility determination, IEP development, placement that lead to the provision of FAPE

Reasons for Correction To ensure a free appropriate public education is provided the child in accordance with IDEA To prevent future instances of the noncompliance

Rethinking Corrections Systemic and individual corrections Identifying underlying and related causes Assurances vs. evidence Efforts vs. outcomes and results Correction impossible (timelines) - now what? Verifying sustained corrections

Procedural safeguards are made available to parents upon initial referral. Assurances Efforts The District reviewed the standard and now provides Procedural Safeguards as required. The District provided training to staff on the requirements.

Procedural safeguards are made available to parents upon initial referral Description of process Evidence of results Adds details to the “assurance;” useful in problem solving Identify the date of the correction efforts. Such as training; review documents completed after that time – results?

- check the SPR&I file review guidance document Procedural safeguards are made available to parents upon initial referral Missed Timeline Think out of the box - check the SPR&I file review guidance document Cannot “correct” individual timeline error, but might be able to address content What is the context? Is the most recent evaluation an initial evaluation? Is this a transfer student?

Individual, Systemic, or....? No documentation was in the file that the parents had received Procedural Safeguards. Our district forms and notifications contain check-off boxes to document that the safeguards are sent to parents. In addition, the safeguards are offered to parents at every meeting and documented in the notes.

What is your evidence?

Corrected – How do you know? Consider – A check-box is not evidence. Are you sure everyone knows when procedural safeguards must be provided? Are you sure everyone (including new staff) knows the process in your district? As the director, what data do you receive that lets you know the process is working? Scenario – paper without process

Correction: Individual, Systemic or ? Standard: Parents receive progress reports at the time indicated on the IEP....(Not Met – 3rd Year) Progress reporting was not happening systematically in the district. We have reviewed the requirement with staff and shared examples of performance reporting. We have also implemented an accountability system to assure that progress reporting is happening in a timely manner. In December (2006) we provided additional training on progress reporting and data collection to document progress toward meeting IEP goals. Additional training has been provided on progress reporting using the Special EdVantage system. Administration has monitored that progress reports are systematically being sent to parents.

Standard: A copy of the evaluation/eligibility report is given to parents....Is this a correction? Our district procedures were reviewed with staff. Our preference is to have copies of all reports available to parents at the IEP or eligibility meeting. Since we rely on ESD specialists to provide some reports, they are not always available. District-wide the procedure is to mail reports to parents within 10 days of the meeting. This includes reports that must be translated for parents. WE have reviewed these procedures with district staff and requested that ESD staff follow our procedures. Our meeting notes now contain check boxes to document that reports were provided to parents.

Add your own examples