YEAR #2 DETERMINATIONS ISD Special Education Directors’ Meeting September 18, 2008

1/4/ OSEP Determination of Michigan June 6, 2008: Michigan received its determination of “needs assistance” with meeting the requirements of IDEA

1/4/ OSEP Determination of Michigan Michigan’s challenges: Indicators 4a, 10, 13, and 15 Michigan’s strengths: Indicators 9, 11, 12, and 16

1/4/ State Challenges on Determinations Progress on Indicator #13 (Transition) from 35% to 40% and did not demonstrate correction Did not provide valid and reliable data for SPP #10 (Disproportionate Representation) but had a plan to correct

1/4/ State Challenges on Determinations Did not complete the review required for districts identified with significant discrepancies in suspension/ expulsion data in Slippage on Indicator #15 (Compliance Findings) from 100% to 90.18%

1/4/ OSEP’s Direction to SEAs regarding Determinations of LEAs, including ISDs Must include valid and reliable data Must include Compliance Indicators 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17

1/4/ OSEP’s 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

1/4/ Round #2 for LEAs/PSAs: Michigan’s Overall Design Drop Graduation Rate from Determinations, as it duplicates Ed YES Add all compliance indicators not used last year in Round #1 Retain SPP #5 (Educational Settings) as the only performance indicator

1/4/ Round #2 for LEAs/PSAs: Michigan’s Overall Design Retain data, audit findings, and timely IEPs in the included elements Issue no Level 4s until trend data is available Restrict LEAs from receiving Level 1 if any elements are 3s or 4s

1/4/ Comparison of Round #1 and Round #2 Elements ROUND #1 Audit Findings Timely IEPs Timely, Accurate Data Educational Settings Graduation Rate Compliance

1/4/ Comparison of Round #1 and Round #2 Elements ROUND #2 Audit Findings Timely IEPs Timely & Reliable Data Educational Environments Disproportionate Representation

1/4/ Comparison of Round #1 and Round #2 Elements ROUND 2 (Cont.) Disproportionate Representation Child Find Early Childhood Transition Secondary Transition Correction of Noncompliance

1/4/ SPP #5 Educational Settings Dec. 1, 2006 data For only the category of GE 80% or more of the time The better of resident or operating district calculations Based on state target of 55%

1/4/ SPP #9 Disproportionate Representation Based on Focused Monitoring conducted during All LEAs received a “1” except those districts which were focused monitored and had findings of noncompliance, which received a “2”

1/4/ SPP #10 Disproportionate Representation Based on Focused Monitoring Findings for data All districts receive a “1” except those districts which were focused monitored and had findings of noncompliance, which received a “2”

1/4/ SPP #11 Child Find Based on submissions of SRSD No minimum cell size Requires 95% compliance for “1”

1/4/ SPP #12 Early Childhood Transition Cohort Survey in Difficulty with statewide data Used only the criteria of IEPs which were late due to lack of staff availability Used only “1” and “2”

1/4/ SPP #13 Secondary Transition Used data from Transition Checklist, Applied only to those districts in Cohort 3, plus volunteers Data ranged from 0% to 95%

1/4/ SPP #15 Compliance Findings data Based on findings of noncompliance from either Focused Monitoring or SPSR Which were not corrected within the required one-year time frame Used only “1” and “2”

1/4/ Timely IEPs The single element which used newer data from Dec. 1, 2007 MI-CIS filing Percentage of students with current IEPs

1/4/ Valid, Timely, and Reliable Data Used SRSD, MI-CIS, and SPSR submissions Considered timeliness and accuracy Used only “1” and “2” this year

1/4/ Audit Findings Used Single Audit Findings from

1/4/ Overall Calculation System Level 1: Within l SD of the mean Level 2: Between 1 and 2 SDs of the mean OR Within l SD of the mean with 1 or more elements of 3 or 4 Level 3: 2 or more SDs from the mean

1/4/ Results of Round #2 for LEAs/PSAs 463 of 766 LEAs are at Level 1 (60%) 272 of 766 LEAs are at Level 2 (36%) 31 of 766 LEAs are at Level 3 (4%)

1/4/ Results of Round #2 for LEAs/PSAs 23 LEAs improved from Level 3 to Level 1 15 LEAs fell from Level 1 to Level 3 40 LEAs repeat at Level 2 9 LEAs repeat at Level 3

1/4/ 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

1/4/ Enforcement Actions (IDEA and NPRM) “Needs intervention” for 3 consecutive years 1. May use any of the above actions, and

1/4/ 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

1/4/ OSE/EIS and ISDs: Partners in Improvement Level 3 “needs intervention” districts Level 2 “needs assistance” for two years in a row Level 2 “needs assistance” for the first time

1/4/ Table Work What did ISDs do last year for their Level 2 and 3 districts? What can ISDs do this year for their Level 2 and 3 districts?

1/4/ Public Reporting VS. Determinations Public Report Uses actual data on the Indicators specified by OSEP Determinations Uses data to assess compliance with IDEA 2004

1/4/ Public Reporting VS. Determinations Makes no judgment about LEAs performance except to compare to state targets Gives an overall “rating” to all LEAs

1/4/ FORECAST for ROUND #3 Determinations ( Data) Could be issued as soon as spring of 2009, pending OSEP’s release of SEA Determinations Will likely include ratings of 3 and 4 in all areas, as appropriate May include Level 4 ratings for first time, pending OSEP action to SEAs