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

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

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

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

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

Guidance from Arne Duncan Key Policy Letter, 10-21-09 Urges States to maintain high standards in issuing Determinations, and Not to compromise the Determinations process 5/6/2019

Impact on ARRA funds 5/6/2019

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

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

SPP #9 Disproportionate Representation Based on Focused Monitoring conducted during 2008-2009 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

SPP #10 Disproportionate Representation Based on Focused Monitoring Findings issued during 2008-2009 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

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

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

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

SPP #15 Compliance Findings 2007-2008 data monitored in 2008-2009 Based on findings of noncompliance from Focused Monitoring or complaints Which were not corrected within the required one-year time frame 5/6/2019

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for your kind attention Questions? Call Shirley Young 517-241-0041 Thanks for your kind attention ………………… 5/6/2019