August 27 th August 28 th August 29 th

Special Recognitions Cabell County Kathy McCoy Lincoln County Doug Smith Morgan County Linda Ward Monongalia County Patty Benedum Marshall County Rick Redd Ritchie County Linda Campbell RESA 8 Dale Penwell WVDE-OSP Lynn Boyer WVDE-OSP Rosemary Cook

Memoriam Mike Pauley

Using The Power of Data To Improve Results September 29, 2010 Data Results

Welcome Ghaski Browning Assistant Director Accountability Monitoring

Monitoring Priorities Self- Assessment Improvement Plan On-Site Monitoring Off-Site Monitoring State Determinations Local Determinations

Matthew Dotson Coordinator, Monitoring Professional Development Monitoring

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

Top Compliance Indicator Findings by RESA’s RESA 1 (McDowell, Mercer, Monroe, Raleigh, Summers, Wyoming) RESA 2 (Cabell, Lincoln, Logan, Mason, Mingo, Wayne) RESA 3 (Boone, Clay, Kanawha, Putnam) RESA 4 (Braxton, Fayette, Greenbrier, Nicholas, Pocahontas, Webster) RESA 5 (Calhoun, Jackson, Pleasants, Ritchie, Roane, Tyler, Wirt, Wood) RESA 6 (Brooke, Hancock, Marshall, Ohio, Wetzel) RESA 7 (Barbour, Doddridge, Gilmer, Harrison, Lewis, Marion, Monongalia, Preston, Randolph, Taylor, Tucker, Upshur) RESA 8 (Berkeley, Jefferson, Grant, Hampshire, Hardy, Mineral, Morgan, Pendleton)

RESA 1

RESA 2

RESA 3

RESA 4

RESA 5

RESA 6

RESA 7

RESA 8

Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring System (CIFMS) Ghaski Browning Assistant Director Accountability Monitoring

CIFMS Presentation will be made available during the conference

Break 15 Minutes GOGO

CIFMS continued... Presentation will be made available during the conference

State and Local Determinations MonitoringProfessional Development Debbie Ashwell Coordinator Office of Special Programs

Pursuant to section 616(a)(1)(C)(i) of the IDEA and 34 CRF § (a), and approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), States are required to make “Determinations” annually under section 616(d) on the performance of LEA/EIS programs.

States MUST Consider  Performance on compliance indicators;  Whether data submitted by LEAs/EIS programs is valid, reliable, and timely;  Uncorrected noncompliance from other sources; and  Any audit findings.

States MAY Consider  Performance on performance indicators; and  Other information.

WV Considers SPP Performance Indicators 1 Graduation 2 Dropout 3b Participation 3c Proficiency 5 Educational Environment Ages Educational Environment Ages Early Childhood Outcomes

WV Considers SPP Compliance Indicators 4 Suspension 9 Disproportionality – All Disabilities 10 Disproportionality – Specific Disabilities 11 Child Find 12 Early Childhood Transition 13 Post School Transition 15 General Supervision

WV Considers SPP Compliance Indicators 16 Complaint Correction (also 15) 17 Due Process Hearing Correction (also 15) 20 Timely and Accurate Data In addition: Audit/Fiscal Management LEA Application Submission and Approval

Categories Assigned by OSEP  Meets Requirements  Needs Assistance  Needs Intervention  Needs Substantial Intervention

Status Determined Meets Requirements – score above the cut score Needs Assistance – score at or below the cut score Needs Intervention – score at or below the cut score 2 years in a row, lack of improvement in achievement on Reading or Math WESTEST2 and fail to correct all noncompliance on self-assessment Needs Substantial Intervention – in addition, fail to comply with IDEA and Policy 2419 requirements, determined on a case by case basis

Enforcement Meets Requirements  None Needs Assistance 1 year  None required

Enforcement Needs Assistance 2 consecutive years  Contact the OSP for technical assistance which could include:  Identifying and implementing PD, instructional strategies and methods of instruction based on scientifically-based research  Designation of distinguished superintendents, principals, special education administrators, special education teachers and other teachers to provide advice, technical assistance and support  Provision of additional approaches to technical assistance, such as collaboration with WVDE personnel, RESAs, institutions of higher education and/or national experts

Enforcement Needs Intervention 3 or more consecutive years  The WVDE takes one or more of the following actions:  determines the district has the capacity to correct the problem within one year and requires the district to prepare a corrective action plan or Improvement Plan;  determines the district does not have the capacity to correct the problems within one year and requires the district to enter into a compliance agreement which may include withholding of no more than 50% of the district’s state and federal allocations;  seeks to recover funds; and/or  withholds funds, whole or in part.

Enforcement Needs Substantial Intervention (the district continues to violate federal or state law and regulations)  The WVDE must withhold, in whole or in part, any further payments to the LEA under Part B of the IDEA, taking any one or more of the following actions:  withhold funds until a corrective action plan is approved;  withhold funds until the deficiencies are corrected;  withhold state and federal allocations used for the salary of the special education director;  redirect funds (i.e., earmark specific funds for training activities, appoint a lead coordinator to ensure compliance with corrective activities);  remove the district’s eligibility to apply for discretionary grants established by the WVDE;

Enforcement  cease funding for all subsequent years until deficiencies are corrected, if the district is currently involved in a grant program maintained by the WVDE;  request an audit be conducted of the district’s financial records;  direct the administration of the district’s special education services;  fine the district on a daily and/or monthly basis until deficiencies are corrected;  refer district to the OEPA for consideration of accreditation status; and/or  file independent action against the superintendent’s licensure, citing negligence in carrying out his/her duties.

LEA Determination No required date to notify districts however, OSEP recommends the following:  As soon as possible after issuing their annual report to the public  In a timely manner so the LEAs can take actions necessary for improvement  Before subgrants are issued to LEAs

History of Determinations in WV September 12, 2007 one compliance indicator June 30, 2008 one compliance indicator May 1, , 10, 11, 12, 13, 15 mandated by OSEP May 1, compliance indicators, 5 correction of noncompliance indicators, LEA application May 1, compliance indicators, 5 correction of noncompliance indicators, LEA application

Performance Rubric

LEA Determination May 1, 2011 Compliance Indicators Part A

Compliance Rubric Part A

LEA Determinations May 1, 2011 Compliance Indicators Part B

Compliance Rubric Part B

LEA Determinations May 1, 2011 District Total Calculation Performance Totals + Compliance Totals Total Possible Points = Percentage Cut score TBD

Assistant Superintendent West Virginia Department of Education Assessment/ Accountability Special Programs Instruction Instructional Technology