1. Special Education General Supervision, Support and Compliance
Aaron Christensen, M. Ed., Education Programs Consultant
Jack Brimhall, Ph.D, Education Administrator

2. Introduction Aaron’s Background Jack’s Background
Education Programs Consultant for CDE
Program Specialist for Elk Grove Unified
Inclusive Education Teacher
RSP Teacher
Jack’s Background
FMTA Administrator
Principal of Elementary School
Assistant Principal at a High School
High School English Teacher

3. Objectives Provide an Overview of the CDE Monitoring Process
Discuss Frequent Areas of Noncompliance
Discuss Current Topics of Concerns
Provide References for Education Code and How to Access Support
Answer Questions

4. Jack, just a brief these are the different components that make up what we do and we are specifically going to review what we do on these three

5. Annual Performance Report Measures
14 State Performance Plan Indicators are reported in the LEA’s Annual Performance Report.
1 – Graduation 4 year rate
Percent of all exiting students in grade twelve, and exiting ungraded students eighteen and over, who graduate from high school with a regular diploma.
2 – Dropout 4 year rate
Percent of all students in grades nine and higher, and ungraded students thirteen and over, who exit special education by dropping out of school.
3 – Statewide assessments
Academic achievement testing to meet the requirements of No Child Left Behind (NCLB).
4 - Suspension and expulsion
Percent of all students ages three through twenty-two receiving special education that are suspended or expelled for greater than ten days in the school year.
5 – Least restrictive environment
The average amount of time students ages six through twenty-two receive their special education or services in settings apart from their non-disabled peers.
Where do we get the data.
These are taken from CASEMIS and CALPADS

6. Annual Performance Report Measures Continued
14 State Performance Plan Indicators are Tracked
6 – Preschool least restrictive environment
The percent of children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs attending a:
A. Regular early childhood program and receiving a majority of special education and related services in the regular program
B. Separate special education class, separate school or residential facility.
7 – Preschool assessments
This is a SELPA level calculation. Percent of preschool children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs who demonstrate improved:
A. Positive social-emotional skills (including personal relationships)
B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication and early literacy)
C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs.
8 – Parent involvement
Percent of parents with a child receiving special education services who report that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities.
9 – Disproportionality overall
Percent of racial and ethnic disproportionality among students ages six through twenty-two which may be due to policies, procedures, or practices.

7. Annual Performance Report Measures Continued
14 State Performance Plan Indicators are Tracked
10 – Disproportionality disability
Percent of racial and ethnic disproportionality by disability among students ages six through twenty-two which may be due to policies, procedures, or practices.
11- Eligibility evaluation
Percent of children ages birth through twenty-two whose eligibility for special education was determined within 60 days of receipt of parental consent for evaluation.
12 – Part C to B transition
Percent of children ages birth through two in each district receiving special education under IDEA Part C who were referred for assessment for special education under IDEA Part B, found eligible under Part B, and had an IEP developed before their third birthdays. This is a SELPA level calculation.
13 – Secondary transition goals and services
Percent of youth aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes all eight coordinated, measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the student to meet the postsecondary goals.
14 – Post School
Percent of youth who had an IEP, are no longer in secondary school, and who have been:
A. enrolled in higher education,
B. enrolled in higher education or competitively employed,
C. enrolled in higher education, or in some other post-secondary education or training program; or competitively employed or in some other employment.

8. Annual Performance Report
Found at
Can click on the link to look at the web page and a report.

9. Other Data 60 Day Timeline Part C to B Transition Timely Reporting
Holding IEPs within 60 days of receiving signed consent for assessment
Part C to B Transition
Holding the IEP prior to the student turning 3 for those students already receiving services
Timely Reporting
A rating of how frequently the LEA reports by the deadline
Timely Correction
A rating of how frequently the LEA completes corrective actions by the due date
A-133 Audit Findings

10. Focused Monitoring and Technical Assistance (FMTA) Monitoring Activities
Data Identified Noncompliance
(DINC)
Performance Indicator Review
(PIR)
Disproportionality
(DISPRO)
Comprehensive Review
(CR)
Critical Incident Review
(CIR)
Budget
Annual Service and Budget Plan
Fiscal
Talk about how SELPA has an opportunity to preview some items.

11. DINC The CDE reviews the following data for DINC:
Annual Timeline
Triennial Timeline
60 Day Timeline
Transition
C to B Transition
Any data that is noncompliant must be corrected.

12. DINC September Notification Submission by the End of November
Notify EPC if you believe there is an error.
Submission by the End of November
All items must be corrected in order to have the submission accepted.
EPC will review submission prior to recommending approval.
Prong 2 in March
Any uncorrected noncompliances will be flagged for further review or follow-up.

13. Performance Indicator Review (PIR)
LEAs are selected to complete a PIR if:
They do not meet the target for indicators in APR for:
Indicator 1 –Graduation
Indicator 2 –Dropout
Indicator 4a –Discipline
Indicator 5 a-c -LRE
Indicator 8 –Parent Involvement
Additional Indicators will be added in
Indicator 3 –Statewide Assessments
Indicator 14 –Post School
And their performance on the target “got worse” over the prior year.

14. PIR: Process
LEAs are notified in the Spring that they will participate in the review.
The review letter specifies the indicators that were not met.
The LEA must submit a plan that includes an analysis of the issue and a plan to address the issue.

15. Disproportionality: DISPRO
If the LEA is disproportionate in the data for:
Indicator 4B - Suspension and expulsion by race or ethnicity
Indicator 9 – Disproportionality overall
and/or Indicator 10 – Disproportionality by disability
The CDE will complete a review of the LEA’s special education policies, procedures, and practices related to the indicator for which they are disproportionate.

16. Dispro Process
LEAs are notified of participation in the review in the Fall.
The EPC will ask for a copy of the LEA’s policies and procedures.
The EPC will conduct a review of selected student’s IEP records.

17. Comprehensive Review (CR)
Annually at the beginning of the school year.
Each of the performance, and compliance indicators are rated on the 1-4 scale. For each component of a table a scale score is provided and the scores are averaged. LEAs that have an average below 3 in both performance and compliance components are selected for a CR.

18. Scale Score & Description
Scoring
Indicator
Scale Score & Description
4b – Discipline by ethnicity
4 – Meets Requirements: LEA rate of suspension/expulsion is below the statewide rate for every ethnic group.
3 – Needs Assistance: LEA is above the state rate of suspension/expulsion in less than three ethnic groups.
2 – Needs Intervention: LEA is above the state rate of suspension/expulsion in three or more of the ethnic groups.
1 – Needs Significant Intervention: LEA has been identified as Significantly Disproportionate and is participating in a corrective action plan process.
0 – No Score: The LEA has insufficient data to make a determination.
9 – Overall Disproportionality
4 – Meets Requirements: LEA is not disproportionate.
3 – Needs Assistance: LEA is disproportionate in one race/ethnicity category with some noncompliant policies, procedures and practices.
2 – Needs Intervention: LEA is disproportionate in two or more race/ethnicity categories wit noncompliant policies, procedures, and practices.
1– Needs Significant Intervention: LEA has been identified as Significantly Disproportionate and is participating in a corrective action plan process.
10 – Disproportionality by Disability
3 – Needs Assistance: LEA has between 1 and 9 race/ethnic-disability cells with over- or under-representation and some noncompliant policies, procedures and practices
2 –Needs Intervention: LEAs has 10 or more race/ethnic-disability cells with over- or under-representation and some noncompliant policies, procedures and practices.
1 – Needs Significant Intervention: LEA has been identified as Significantly Disproportionate and is participating in a corrective action plan process
Timely Submission of Required Reports to CDE
4 – Meets Requirements: Districts whose reports are timely and complete 90 percent or more of the time.
3 – Needs Assistance: Districts whose reports are timely and complete between 70 and 89 percent or more of the time.
2 – Needs Intervention: Districts whose reports are timely and complete between 50 and 69 percent or more of the time.
1 – Needs Significant Intervention: Districts whose reports are timely and complete less than 50 percent of the time.

19. Scale Score & Description
Non-APR Indicator
Scale Score & Description
Complaints Noncompliance
4 – The LEA had no complaint noncompliance findings in the current year.
3 – This score is not possible.
2 – The LEA had fewer compliant noncompliance findings in the current year than in the previous year but still has more than 0 noncompliance findings.
1 – The LEA had more complaint noncompliance findings in the current year than in the previous year.
Data Identified Noncompliant Individualized Education Programs (IEP)
4 – The LEA had no IEP noncompliance findings in the current DINC
2 – The LEA had fewer IEP noncompliance findings in the current DINC than in the previous report but still has more than 0.
1 – The LEA has more IEP noncompliance findings in the current DINC report than in the prior year.
Data Identified Noncompliant Triennials
4 – The LEA had not Triennial noncompliant findings in the current DINC report.
2 – The LEA had fewer Triennial noncompliant findings in the current DINC than in the previous DINC report, but still had more than 0 findings.
1 – The LEA had more Triennial noncompliant findings in the current DINC than in the prior year’s report.

20. Scale Score & Description
Indicator
Scale Score & Description
1 – Graduation Rate
Each indicator receives an individual scaled score as described below.
0 – there was no data for any of the following: current year, prior year or current year determination
4 – LEA met the goal and improved or stayed the same from the prior year
3 – LEA met the goal but decreased from the prior year
2 – LEA did not meet the goal but improved or stayed the same from the prior year
1 – LEA did not meet the goal by but decreased from the prior year
2 – Dropouts
3 – ELA Participation, State Tests
3 – Math Participation, State Tests
3 – ELA Proficient (percent)
3 – Math Proficient (percent)
4a – Overall Discipline (10+ days of suspension)
5a – Least Restrictive Environment >80%
5b – Least Restrictive Environment <40%
5c – Least Restrictive Environment Separate Schools
8 – Parent Involvement
14a – Post School Higher Education
14b – Post School Competitive Employment
Ind14c – Post School Any Education or Employment

21. CR Determination

22. CR: Process
Talk about CASEMIS verification

23. CR: Record Review Format

24. CR: Educational Benefit Review

25. CR: Implementation Verify that the IEP is executed as written.
Interview administration, service providers, parents, and general education teachers to:
Verify service minutes provided to students
Verify general education involvement and provision of IEP

26. CR: Corrective Actions
There is a corrective action assigned for each noncompliance found.
Corrective actions are either student level, district level or both.
The district is given 60 school days for district level and 45 school days for student level corrections.
Corrections are reviewed by the education program consultants to verify they meet the corrective action.

27. CR: Follow Up Reviews
Each area of noncompliance must be retested until the LEA reaches 100% compliance.
This is accomplished by follow up reviews to test for compliance in those areas found non- compliant at the last review.
Once the LEA has completed all corrective actions and reaches 100% compliance, the CR is closed.
The LEA has one year to reach 100% compliance from the date of the letter of the original findings.

28. Critical Incident Review (CIR)
Generally follows the same process as a CR, but focuses on the specific critical incident.
The critical incident is an area of specific concern that has been brought to the attention of CDE and warrants a special review.

29. Dispute Resolution Parent Call State Compliance Complaints
If we receive a call from a concerned parent we listen to the parent concerns and try to help the parent and district resolve the issue.
At any time the parent can attempt to file a state compliance complaint or file for due process with the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).
State Compliance Complaints
State compliance complaints are reviewed for validity by the CDE and then an investigation initiated if appropriate.
LEAs are required to submit evidence and information as required by the complaint investigator.

30. Dispute Resolution State Compliance Complaints Continued Due Process
Any areas of noncompliance will require a corrective action by the LEA.
Corrective actions must be completed within the deadline provided.
Due Process
The CDE also enforces orders from due process decisions.

31. Frequently noncompliant items
Monitoring
GE teacher at IEP meeting
Timely, annual review of IEP
Notification of meeting to discuss transition services
Present levels of Performance in IEPs, including how the disability affects performance in general curriculum
Discussion of the potential harmful effect of the placement
Initial and Triennials include documentation of vision and hearing screening
Over representation of AA identified under the category of ED
Over representation of AA in discipline
Courses of multi-year study not written in the IEP for students of transition age
Prior Written Notice

32. Current Topics of Concern
RSP Waivers and RSP Caseloads
California Education Code Section and
The Office of Civil Rights (OCR) and the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) issued a joint Dear Colleague Letter on December 28, It includes two resource documents.
Frequently Asked Questions about the Rights of Students with Disabilities in Public Charter Schools under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
Frequently Asked Questions about the Rights of Students with Disabilities in Public Charter Schools under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

33. Resources
p/policy.html x gs%2C
Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP)
California Special Education Reference
GRADS 360
Office of Administrative Hearings
Comments in Federal Register
Dataquest

34. Support EPC – How I can help LEAs – How you can help
Discuss concerns or issues and reference education code.
Provide trainings.
Provide support for any of the submission and review processes.
LEAs – How you can help
Help me to better understand the needs and issues that Charter Schools encounter.

35. Questions