General Supervision Overview of State Performance Plan Indicators 15 – General Supervision 20 – Timely and Accurate Data.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 IDEA 2004 SPP Indicators Related to Transition: How We Collect the Data & What We Have Learned Ginger Blalock Summer Transition Meeting June 11, 2007.
Advertisements

Secondary Transition Overview of State Performance Plan Indicators 1 – Graduation Rates, 2 – Dropout Rates, 13 – Transitional IEPs, and 14 – Post-school.
Disproportionality Overview of State Performance Plan Indicators 4 – Suspension and Expulsion, 9 – Disproportionality in Special Education, and 10 – Disproportionality.
Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)
Dispute Resolution Overview of State Performance Plan Indicators 16 – Citizen Complaints, 17 – Due Process, 18 – Resolution Settlement Agreements, and.
Student Performance Overview of State Performance Plan Indicators 3 – State Assessment Performance, 7 – Early Childhood Outcomes.
Special Education Leadership Meeting November 30, 2010 An Update on Special Education Compliance Monitoring Jennifer L. Kline, Esq. Education Associate.
1 Title I Hiring Requirements for Paraeducators and Parental Notification of Teacher and Paraeducator Qualifications Regional Technical Assistance Sessions.
DeterminationsDeterminations Now what??. Determination Levels Meets Requirements Needs Assistance Needs Intervention Needs Substantial Intervention.
DeterminationsDeterminations Now what??. Determination Levels Meets Requirements Needs Assistance Needs Intervention Needs Substantial Intervention.
(Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act) and
General Supervision: Highlights on Monitoring and the Memo Western Regional Resource Center APR Clinic 2010 November 1-3, 2010 San Francisco, California.
Early Childhood Special Education Part B, Section 619* Part C to B Transition by Three Jessica Brady, Noel Cole Michigan Department of Education Office.
Special Education Federal Child Count Reporting November 2013.
Office of Special Education & Early Intervention Services What happens after Focused Monitoring? -
12/1/14 Child Count Collection Due December 15, /30/15 Exiting Collection Due July 15, 2015 Lucinda Morabito, Data and Reporting Coordinator Vermont.
Angela Tanner-Dean Diana Chang OSEP October 14, 2010.
Final Determinations. Secretary’s Determinations Secretary annually reviews the APR and, based on the information provided in the report, information.
Part B Indicator 13 FFY 09 SPP/APR Writing Suggestions Western Regional Resource Center APR Clinic 2010 November 1-3 San Francisco, California.
Special Education Data Collection and Reporting Data Collection, Verification, and Reporting Timelines Sara Berscheit / Steve W. Smith 2009 COSA Conference.
Special Ed. Administrator’s Academy, September 24, 2013 Monitoring and Program Effectiveness.
2013 Office of Special Education (OSE) Fall Forum Tuesday, November 4, 2013  10:15 am – 11:45 am  Ballroom E Jayme Kraus Data Analyst, Performance Reporting.
California Stakeholder Group State Performance and Personnel Development Plan Stakeholders January 29-30, 2007 Sacramento, California Radisson Hotel Welcome.
Systems Performance Review & Improvement (SPR&I) Training Oregon Department of Education Fall 2007.
Objectives: 1) Participants will become familiar with General Supervision Monitoring Plan Section of the Kansas Infant Toddler Services Procedural Manual.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Jack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction State Performance Plan (SPP) & Annual Performance Report.
Using State Data to Inform Parent Center Work. Region 2 Parent Technical Assistance Center (PTAC) Conference Charleston, SC June 25, 2015 Presenter: Terry.
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs Building the Legacy: IDEA General Supervision.
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.
1 Supplemental Regulations to 34 CFR Part 300 Assistance to States for the Education of Children with Disabilities and Preschool Grants for Children with.
1 Accountability Conference Education Service Center, Region 20 September 16, 2009.
SPR&I: Changes, New Measures/Targets, and Lessons Learned from Focused Monitoring Visits David Guardino, SPR&I Coordinator Fall 2009 COSA Conference.
An Introduction to the State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report.
State Performance Plan (SPP) Annual Performance Report (APR) Dana Corriveau Bureau of Special Education Connecticut State Department of Education ConnCASEOctober.
Letter of Explanation Copy of Data Disproportionality Initial Eligibility 60-day Timeline Early Childhood Transition Secondary Transition Corrected and.
Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring System US Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs Overview of the OSEP Continuous Improvement.
Texas State Performance Plan Data, Performance, Results TCASE Leadership Academy Fall 2008.
Noncompliance and Correction (OSEP Memo 09-02) June 2012.
2010 OSEP Leadership Mega Conference Collaboration to Achieve Success from Cradle to Career Dan Schreier, Gregg Corr, Jill Harris, Ken Kienas, Kate Moran,
FREQUENCY and DURATION SPED Monitoring TETN December 16, 2010 Event # 8222.
Special Education Federal Child Count Reporting NOVEMBER 2015.
March 7, 2012 ESC-20/AACASE Special Education Director Meeting.
Spring 2010 Mississippi Department of Education Office of Instructional Enhancement and Internal Operations/Office of Special Education 1 SPP/APR Update.
In accordance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and Chapters 14 and 15 of the State Board Regulations, PDE provides general supervision.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Special Education State Performance Plan and Annual Performance.
January 2012 Mississippi Department of Education Office of Instructional Enhancement and Internal Operations/Office of Special Education 1 Noncompliance.
Special Education Performance Profiles and SPP Compliance Indicator Reviews Office for Exceptional Children.
1 Early Intervention Monitoring Wyoming DDD April 2008 Training.
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs General Supervision: Developing an Effective System Implications for States.
State Performance Plan ESC-2 Presentation For Superintendents September 19, 2007.
6/18/2016 DES / AzEIP 2011 Cycle Two Self Report Overview & Training Cycle Two Self Report Overview & Training.
Understanding the Data on Preschool Child Find and Transition Annual Performance Report Indicator 12 February, 2016
March 23, SPECIAL EDUCATION ACCOUNTABILITY REVIEWS.
KCMP Quarter 3 Indicators 1, 2, 4, and 20 November - January.
Public School Monitoring Roadmap
Division of Special Education and Student Services
Guam Department of Education
Assessment, Evaluation and Support
Kim Miller Oregon Department of Education
G-CASE Fall Conference November 14, 2013 Savannah, Ga
SPR&I Regional Training
Early Childhood Transition APR Indicators and National Trends
Idaho New Charter Schools Determination Levels 2011
PLACE TITLE TEXT HERE SUBTITLE
YEAR #4 (2010) DETERMINATIONS
Special Ed. Administrator’s Academy, September 24, 2013
Presentation transcript:

General Supervision Overview of State Performance Plan Indicators 15 – General Supervision 20 – Timely and Accurate Data

This power point includes: 1. A description of each indicator; 2. The SPP targets for each year and whether our State met the targets; 3. Any additional pertinent information related to the indicator (if applicable); 4. A list of some of the improvement activities included in the States SPP/APR for the indicator;

5. A description of how the indicator might impact a districts determination level (as described in WAC A ); and 6. Contact information for questions about the indicator.

General Supervision Indicator 15: The States general supervision system (including monitoring, complaints, hearings, etc.) identifies and corrects noncompliance as soon as possible, but in no case later than one year from identification. (20 U.S.C (a)(3)(B)) Data for this indicator are collected and maintained by OSPIs special education department.

State Targets – Indicator 15 YearTargetActualMet Target? % Yes % Yes % Yes % Yes %TBD %TBD Note: Since this is a Compliance Indicator, States are federally-required to set the target at 100% for all years.

Timely and Accurate Data Indicator 20: State-reported data (including 618 and State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report data) are timely and accurate. (20 U.S.C (a)(3)(B)) Data for this indicator are maintained by OSPIs special education department.

State Targets – Indicator 20 YearTargetActualMet Target? (Different calculation was used in ) %98.3% No %95.5% No % Yes %TBD %TBD Note: Since this is a Compliance Indicator, States are federally-required to set the target at 100% for all years.

Required Reports for Ind. 20 Annual Performance Report (APR), including the required data and correct calculations for all 20 indicators; Child Count (due February 1 st ); Personnel report (due November 1 st ); Educational Environments (due February 1 st );

Required Reports (cont.) Exiting Data (due November 1 st ); Discipline report (due November 1 st ); State Assessment (due February 1 st ); and Dispute Resolution (due November 1 st ).

SPP/APR Improvement Activities Here are some of the improvement activities included in our SPP/APR to address these two indicators: Model state forms were created to assist districts with meeting compliance requirements; Evaluation and IEP Technical Assistance Module, including numerous compliance areas, was developed and disseminated to school districts;

Improvement Activities (cont.) District-level data across the SPP/APR indicators are posted to the web each fall; Revision of reporting instructions, combined with regional trainings, to clarify the data reporting requirements; Regional WAC trainings were conducted in the fall of 2007; Develop/collect technical assistance resources across all twenty performance indicators and make available to LEAs and the general public on OSPIs website;

Improvement Activities (cont.) New statewide process for timely correction of non-compliance was implemented in ; Ongoing training to districts regarding the collection and submission of data through the states data system; Annual training and OSPI bulletins to districts addressing the required data collection process; AND MORE…

Impact on Determinations Indicators 15 and 20 are both compliance indicators. District performance related to indicator 15 will impact a districts determination level with regard to criteria 2 (timely correction of non-compliance). District performance related to indicator 20 will impact a districts determination level with regard to criteria 3 (timely and accurate data). See the next three slides for more information…

Determination Criteria 2 – Timely Correction of Non-compliance DescriptionDetermination Level If OSPI determined that non-compliance existed in the district with regard to indicator 15, the district corrected the non-compliance in a timely manner. (Note: this non-compliance would be any area of procedural compliance that is not tied directly to one of the other 19 performance indicators). 1 (Meets Requirements) The district corrected the identified non- compliance related to indicator 15, but did not complete the corrections within one year of notification. 3 (Needs Intervention) The district did not correct the identified non- compliance related to indicator 15 – uncorrected non-compliance still exists in the district. 4 (Needs Substantial Intervention) Note: There are no determination level 2 criteria for this indicator.

Determination Criteria 3 – Timely and Accurate Data The data report must be both accurate and submitted on or before the required due date shown on the previous slide. DescriptionDetermination Level All of the required reports were on time and accurate. 1 (Meets Requirements) 4, 5, or 6 of the 7 reports were on time and accurate. 2 (Needs Assistance) 1, 2, or 3 of the 7 reports were on time and accurate. 3 (Needs Intervention) None of the reports were on time and accurate. 4 (Needs Substantial Intervention)

Contact Information For questions about indicator 15, contact Valerie Arnold at: For questions about indicator 20 and data reporting, contact Sandy Grummick at: For instructions regarding the required district-level data reports, visit OSPIs website at: