2010 OSEP Leadership Mega Conference Collaboration to Achieve Success from Cradle to Career Dan Schreier, Gregg Corr, Jill Harris, Ken Kienas, Kate Moran,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
(Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act) and
Advertisements

A Multi-Year Improvement System and Schedule
Angela Tanner-Dean Diana Chang OSEP October 14, 2010.
INDICATORS 11 AND 13 Bureau of Indian Education Division of Performance and Accountability WebEx October 18, 2011 DESK AUDIT.
Early Childhood Transition Forums Sponsored by the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care, Department of Elementary and Secondary Education,
Final Determinations. Secretary’s Determinations Secretary annually reviews the APR and, based on the information provided in the report, information.
2011 OSEP Leadership Mega Conference Collaboration to Achieve Success from Cradle to Career 2.0 State Monitoring Under IDEA A Snapshot of Past Practices.
1 Determinations EI/ECSE SPR&I Training ODE Fall 2007.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education Overview of Results Driven Accountability Assuring Compliance and Improving Results August.
Correction of Non-Compliance Prior to Notification Monitoring and Supervision March 11, 2013.
Potpourri: Summary of Important Points to Remember Presenters: Jill Harris Laura Duos NOVEMBER 2011.
State Directors Conference Boise, ID, March 4, 2013 Cesar D’Agord Regional Resource Center Program WRRC – Western Region.
Special Education Accountability Reviews Let’s put the pieces together March 25, 2015.
ESEA FLEXIBILITY RENEWAL PROCESS: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS January29, 2015.
Part B Indicator 13 FFY 09 SPP/APR Writing Suggestions Western Regional Resource Center APR Clinic 2010 November 1-3 San Francisco, California.
Special Ed. Administrator’s Academy, September 24, 2013 Monitoring and Program Effectiveness.
1 Overview of IDEA/SPP Early Childhood Transition Requirements Developed by NECTAC for the Early Childhood Transition Initiative (Updated February 2010)
Pouring a Foundation for Program Improvement with Quality SPP/APR Data OSEP’s message regarding Indicators 1, 2, 13 and 14 - data collection and improvement.
Verification Visit by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) September 27-29, 2010.
Special Education Update Mississippi Department of Education Office of Special Education MASS Summer Conference 2013.
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.
Committee of Practitioners ESEA Flexibility Waiver Review June 25, 2014.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Jack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction State Performance Plan (SPP) & Annual Performance Report.
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.
2011 OSEP Leadership Mega Conference Collaboration to Achieve Success from Cradle to Career 2.0 Participation of the State Advisory Panel and State Interagency.
1 Accountability Conference Education Service Center, Region 20 September 16, 2009.
BIE Special Education Academy September 2011 Tampa Bay, Florida Presenter: Donald Griffin Education Specialist, Special Education Bureau of Indian Education.
Early Childhood Outcomes Center1 Using Data for Program Improvement Christina Kasprzak, NECTAC/ECO Ann Bailey, NCRRC July 2010.
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.
SSIP Process A Suggested Pathway, Timeline and Gantt Chart WRRC Regional Forum Eugene October 31 and November 1, 2013.
Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring System US Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs Overview of the OSEP Continuous Improvement.
No Child Left Behind Application Title I, Part A Part 2.
IDEA 2004 Part B Changes to the Indicator Measurement Table.
2011 OSEP Leadership Mega Conference Collaboration to Achieve Success from Cradle to Career 2.0 RTI: Instructional Process and Evaluation Component Response.
2010 OSEP Leadership Mega Conference Collaboration to Achieve Success from Cradle to Career MSIP Updates and Feedback on FFY 2008 SPP/APRs Ruth Ryder and.
New Indicator 14 Frequently Asked Questions Frequently Asked Questions 3 rd Annual Secondary Transition State Planning Institute Charlotte, NC May12-14,
1 Transition: Part C to Part B Infant & Toddler Connection of Virginia Spring/Summer 2007.
Presented by the Early Childhood Transition Program Priority Team August 11, 2010 Updated September 2010.
Noncompliance and Correction (OSEP Memo 09-02) June 2012.
Early Childhood Transition Part C Indicator C-8 & Part B Indicator B-12 Analysis and Summary Report of All States’ Annual Performance Reports.
JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction Improving Special Education Services November 2010 Sacramento, CA SPP/APR Update.
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.
October REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR PRESCHOOL EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENTS.
Special Education Performance Profiles and SPP Compliance Indicator Reviews Office for Exceptional Children.
Pre-finding Demonstration of Correction Opportunity State Performance Plan Indicators 11, 12, & 13 Texas Education Agency|July
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.
6/18/2016 DES / AzEIP 2011 Cycle Two Self Report Overview & Training Cycle Two Self Report Overview & Training.
March 23, SPECIAL EDUCATION ACCOUNTABILITY REVIEWS.
Part C State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report:
Agenda 3:00 Introductions and ZOOM Webinar reminders
G-CASE Fall Conference November 14, 2013 Savannah, Ga
Monitoring Child Outcomes: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
SPR&I Regional Training
Summary of Final Regulations: Accountability and State Plans
Using Data for Program Improvement
Using Data for Program Improvement
Special Ed. Administrator’s Academy, September 24, 2013
New Special Education Teacher Webinar Series
Presentation transcript:

2010 OSEP Leadership Mega Conference Collaboration to Achieve Success from Cradle to Career Dan Schreier, Gregg Corr, Jill Harris, Ken Kienas, Kate Moran, Larry Ringer S OSEP Update on Identification and Correction of Noncompliance Part B

Previous OSEP Guidance OSEP has previously provided guidance regarding the identification and correction of noncompliance in: Frequently Asked Questions, September 3, 2008 (Disseminated at the National Accountability Conference) OSEP Memorandum 09-02, October 17,

Updated Guidance We will address issues that have surfaced through APR review and verification visits: OSEP’s June 2009 SPP/APR response tables (for FFY 2007); OSEP’s June 2010 SPP/APR response tables (for FFY 2008); and The verification visit letters for visits conducted in Fall

2010 OSEP Leadership Mega Conference Collaboration to Achieve Success from Cradle to Career IDENTIFICATION OF NONCOMPLIANCE 4

Key Question 1 - Identification Q1. Must States identify all noncompliance regardless of the source of the data establishing noncompliance? 5

Key Principle 1 - Identification 1. All noncompliance must be identified and corrected: – From all sources of compliance data – Regardless of the amount of noncompliance (no thresholds) 6

Answering the Questions: All Sources (review of data in a database) Specifically, in reviewing data from a database, the following also apply: A State must review data from its database at least once each APR reporting period for the purpose of identifying noncompliance. 7

Answering the Questions: All Sources (review of data in a database) A State may identify one or more points in time during the SPP/APR reporting period when it will review compliance data from the database to identify and make findings of noncompliance. A State may review data in the database at other times as well, for purposes such as targeting resources, guidance or other technical assistance. 8

Problem - All Sources A State uses a database to collect data to report on Indicator 12 (early childhood transition) for reporting in the APR. The State failed to examine those data for the purposes of identifying noncompliance at any time during the APR reporting period and made no findings of noncompliance. 9

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. 10

Key Question 2 - Identification Q2. What actions must a State take if it collects or receives information indicating noncompliance? 11

12 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.

Key Question 3 - Identification Q3. May States use “thresholds” for identification of noncompliance? 13

Key Principle 3 - Identification 3. No. If a State identifies compliance that is less than 100%, it must: 1. Make a finding of noncompliance; or 2. Verify whether the data demonstrate noncompliance; or 3. Verify that the LEA has corrected the noncompliance before the State issues written findings of noncompliance. 14

15 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.

Thresholds - Problem 1 A State found noncompliance in 4% of the student records it reviewed regarding the secondary transition content requirements (Indicator 13). The State did not, as also required, verify that correction had already occurred or make a finding of noncompliance, because the data showed a “high level of compliance.” 16

Thresholds - Problem 2 An LEA submitted data through the State’s database for Indicator 11 (timely initial evaluation). The data showed that the LEA met the timeline for 563/612 children (92%). Because the data showed a “high level of compliance,” the State neither, as required, verified that correction had already occurred nor required correction. 17

Correct approach: Problems 1 and 2 The State must verify that correction has already occurred or ensure correction of the noncompliance when it finds any level of noncompliance. The nature of the corrective actions may vary depending on the extent of the noncompliance and other factors. 18

2010 OSEP Leadership Mega Conference Collaboration to Achieve Success from Cradle to Career CORRECTION OF NONCOMPLIANCE 19

Key Question 1 - Correction Q1. What are the “two prongs” of verifying correction in OSEP Memo 09-02? 20

Key Principle 1 – Correction Two Prongs of Correction in OSEP Memo – Prong 1 – LEA has corrected each individual case of noncompliance; and – Prong 2 – LEA is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements (i.e. achieved 100% compliance), based on the State’s review of updated data. 21

Key Question 2 - Correction Q2. Do both prongs of OSEP Memo apply to the verification of correction of all findings of noncompliance? 22

Key Principle 2 – Correction 2. Yes. Both prongs of OSEP Memo apply to correction of all findings of non- compliance, and noncompliance reported in APRs, whether there is a high level of compliance (but below 100%) or a low level of compliance. 23

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. 24

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. 25

Key Question 3 - Correction Q3. May States use “thresholds” for correction of noncompliance? 26

Key Principle 3 – Correction 3.No. Consistent with the guidance in OSEP Memo and the 2010 APR response tables, States must obtain updated data which can be: for less than the entire reporting period, and a subset of all children. These data must reflect 100% compliance before a State can conclude and report that noncompliance has been corrected. 27

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. 28

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. 29

Correct Approach - Problem 1 The State may not use a threshold of less than 100% to conclude that the LEA has corrected noncompliance. Before the State may conclude that the LEA has corrected the noncompliance, it must examine updated data to ensure that the LEA has achieved 100% compliance. 30

Correction Thresholds - Problem 2 A State reviewed 20 records and found that 18 records showed compliance and that two showed noncompliance with the requirement on which the State had made the finding of noncompliance. The State incorrectly closed the finding as the LEA verified that each individual case of noncompliance had been corrected. The State made a new finding of noncompliance on the two cases that showed noncompliance. 31

Correct Approach – Example 2 The finding remains open, because the updated data that the State reviewed did not show 100% compliance. The State would not make a new finding because the original finding would remain “open.” 32

Correct Approach – Example 2 (cont.) The State must ensure child-specific correction for the 2 records (from the updated data) in which the State found noncompliance. The State must review further updated data until the LEA achieves 100%. 33

Summary States must ensure the timely correction of any noncompliance, regardless of the source of the data establishing the noncompliance. States may not use thresholds in identifying or verifying the correction of noncompliance. 34

Summary In verifying the correction of noncompliance, States must meet both prongs of OSEP Memo 09-02, by verifying that the LEA: 1.Has corrected each individual case of noncompliance; and 2.Is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements (i.e. achieved 100% compliance), based on the State’s review of updated data. 35