1. Special Education Reviews: A new paradigm for LEAs
Notes for those using this presentation.
Feel free to use this presentation and make it your own!
It is helpful to have an additional handout of the District-Level Annual Performance Report for the LEA’s present for the presentation. I added to the District-Level APR the Compliance Determination Letter from CDE and the final slide of this presentation (which has a list of the state indicators for the States Annual Performance Report). We referred back to these documents throughout the presentation.
Andrew Ownby
Assistant Superintendent, SELPA

2. Etiology of Increased Monitoring
State required to report annually to the U.S. Department of Education (ED) on the performance and progress under the State Performance Plan (SPP).
This report is the State Annual Performance Report (APR).
The APR requires the CDE to report on 17 indicators
array of compliance and performance requirements relating to the provision of special education and related services.
11 (eleven) performance indicators,
5 (five) compliance indicators, and
1 (one) indicator with both performance and compliance components.
As there are sub categories of these indicators, there are actually at least 27 “scores” that are included on the report.

3. Etiology of Increased Monitoring
Each District can access their District Level Annual Performance Report
Download from CDE website (search through all the LEAs alphabetically) OR
SELPA Website under the Governance section

4. Etiology of Increased Monitoring
June 2016, the ED had determined that California was "needs assistance" in implementing the requirements of Part B of the IDEA.
CDE implementing a “tiered system of support” to its Local Education Agencies who do not meet targets and experience slippage from previous year in assessments, compliance, and student outcomes.
Remember, Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is the 3-22 part. There is a separate plan for Part C of the IDEA – the infant toddler part.

5. CDE System of Reviews Disproportionality (Dispro)
Performance Indicator Review (PIR)
Data Identified Noncompliance (DINC)
Comprehensive Reviews (CR)
Significant Disproportionality (Sig Disp)
Nonpublic School Reviews (NPS Review)

6. Compliance Determination
States must make compliance determinations of each LEA that provides special education and related services.
The determinations are the result of examining data regarding the local district’s performance on each of the state’s performance plan indicators and classifying each according to the following criteria as required by federal regulations
Meets requirements
Needs assistance
Needs intervention and
Needs substantial intervention

7. Compliance Determination
Annual Compliance Determination for letters sent to each district, via , on August 3, included:
Monitoring activities from used to make the determinations (e.g., needs assistance, needs intervention)
Monitoring plan for
Enclosures:
Chart of Compliance Determination Levels
Copy of relevant Federal regulations requiring these activities

8. Explain the chart. Left column is last year’s activities – Year 1 is this year. Threat of sanction at end of year 3 when headed into “Needs Substantial Intervention” if not improved results for SWD.
After 3 years of Needs assistance, if scores unimproved, move to Need Intervention.

9. Questions on:
Increased Monitoring Compliance Determinations District Level Annual Performance Reports

10. Disproportionality (Dispro)
Districts Selected based upon performance on:
Indicator 4 - Suspension and Expulsion
Indicator 5 - Lease Restrictive Environment
Indicator 9 - Overall Disproportionality
Indicator10 - Disproportionate Disability

11. Disproportionality (Dispro)
In and prior years
LEAs conducted an internal review:
Students selected by CDE
Policies and Procedures
New in
All student and Policy/Procedure documents reviewed by CDE
SELPA staff evaluated all LEAs Policy/Procedures and student files for compliance prior to submission

12. Disproportionality (Dispro)
The review instrument provided by CDE.
Student files selected by CDE sampling for matched areas
CDE reviews all submissions and makes determinations
Findings of noncompliance result in a corrective action plan monitored by CDE

13. Questions on:
Disproportionality

14. Performance Indicator Review (PIR)
Districts review their District Level Annual Performance Report and develop a plan to improve in selected areas not meeting state targets.
Each district prepares an improvement plan based on APR data.
A PIR is conducted by:
Special Education Administration
General Education Administration
SELPA representative(s)

15. Performance Indicator Review (PIR)
The review team:
Reviews the LEA data related to the indicators
Conducts a root cause analysis
Develops an improvement plan
The improvement plan is submitted to the CDE for review and approval.

16. Performance Indicator Review (PIR)
APR data for LEAs is based upon prior year and scheduled to be released in the fall of the subsequent year.
Plans developed in 17-18:
Based upon the APR
Data released/dated April 24, 2017 (end of 16-17)
Indicator 1 - Graduation Rate is a “prior year calculation”

17. Performance Indicator Review (PIR)
Indicator 1 - Graduation Rate (Prior Year Calculation) Indicator 2 - Dropout Four Year Rate Indicator 3 - Statewide Assessments Indicator 4 - Suspension and Expulsion Indicator 5 - Lease Restrictive Environment (LRE) Indicator 8 - Parent Involvement Indicator 14 - Post-School Indicator 17 - State Systemic Improvement Plan

18. Performance Indicator Review
Questions on:
Performance Indicator Review

19. Data Identified Noncompliance (DINC)
Data from the CASEMIS system related to:
Indicator 11 - Initial Evaluation;
Indicator 12 - Transition from Part C to Part B; and
Indicator 13 - Post-secondary Transition
annual and triennial review timeliness
All districts that report noncompliant data are ordered to correct the noncompliance.
Reporting on-line to include the date, location and description of the correction
Pulled directly from our SP Ed data submission via CASEMIS. Targeting student level noncompliance in the area of assessment timelines, transition plans and Part C to Part B transitions.
In addition to the three Indicators listed on the slide, this is the review that will pick up every overdue annual and triennial student IEP from the prior year.
The expectation for these areas is 100% compliance
That means not one person in a district can error on developing a transition plan; miss an assessment, annual or triennial timeline; or miss the Infant/toddler to preschool age IEP development timeline.

20. Data Identified Noncompliance (DINC)
Correction is then reevaluated in the subsequent data submission:
DINC Prong 2
CDE Rechecks compliance after December 1st CASEMIS reporting is completed
DINC Prong 3
CDE rechecks data submitted in April (an added data submission)
PIR Plans are due to CDE on 1/31/2018

21. Data Identified Noncompliance
Questions on:
Data Identified Noncompliance

22. Comprehensive Review (CR)
Conducted annually for selected districts whose performance on compliance and performance indicators does not meet established targets.
The CR is based on a monitoring plan that is developed from:
Parent input,
SPP indicator data, and
compliance history information.

23. Comprehensive Review (CR)
The four primary review activities are:
Student record reviews, focusing on:
procedural compliance,
educational benefit, and
IEP implementation;
Policy and procedure reviews;
Interviews; and
SELPA governance review.

24. Comprehensive Review (CR)
The CDE staff with district staff conducts CRs.
Follow-up visits of CRs are conducted to ensure 100 percent compliance in subsequent records review.

25. Questions on:
Comprehensive Review

26. Significant Disproportionality (Sig Disp)
The CDE identifies a district as having significant disproportionality if it fails calculations related to significant over-identification.
Calculations are made in four areas:
overall identification by race and ethnicity,
identification by disability,
by placement, and
by rates of suspension and expulsion.

27. Significant Disproportionality (Sig Disp)
Sig Disp is about RISK of students from any racial or ethnic group being:
Identified,
Placed in more restrictive settings, or
Disciplined
at markedly higher rates than their peers.

28. Significant Disproportionality (Sig Disp)
Districts found to be Sig Disp are directed to use 15 percent of their IDEA funds to provide Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS) to address the specific issues of disproportionality.
Must target all pupils, not a specific ethnic/racial group
Focus on early elementary grades

29. Significant Disproportionality (Sig Disp)
Each district in Sig Disp is required to:
assemble a stakeholder group from general and special education to:
conduct compliance and program self-reviews that assist the district to identify the root causes of the disproportionality.
Plan and future monitoring submitted to CDE

30. Significant Disproportionality
Questions on:
Significant Disproportionality

31. Nonpublic School Review (NPS Review)
Part of the State Annual Performance Report
NPS are monitored in three ways:
Self-Review
On-Site Review
Follow-up Review
CDE Notice included request for SELPAs and Districts to participate in the NPS reviews

32. Nonpublic School Review (NPS Review)
notices of the NPS Monitoring Cycle sent on 9/21/2017
13 NPS where Solano County SELPA has students placed are slated for review
9 Follow-Up Review
3 On-Site Reviews
1 Self-Review

33. Nonpublic School Review (NPS Review)
Certification levels:
Approved
Conditional
Suspended
Revoked
8 of our 13 NPS certified in Approved status
5 of our 13 NPS Conditionally certified

34. Nonpublic School Reviews
Questions on:
Nonpublic School Reviews

35. Corrective Actions for Non Compliance
Every finding of noncompliance includes a corrective action
Each student level findings of noncompliance require student individual corrective action.
Systemic corrective actions may be applied:
the number of findings for a particular compliance item is high relative to the size of the district.
the district may also be required to show evidence of compliant policies and procedures and additional training requirements.
All findings of noncompliance require that the district or CDE staff pull additional records and demonstrate that there is a compliance rate of 100 percent for each finding.

36. Consequences of Non-Compliance
Hierarchy of sanctions includes:
requiring submission of data to demonstrate correction;
issuing letters of noncompliance;
holding local board hearings;
implementing focused and continuous monitoring;
applying adverse certification action for nonpublic schools,
California law and regulation allows the State Superintendent of Public Instruction to apply a …

37. Consequences Hierarchy of sanctions, continued:
requiring intermediary agency assurance;
implementing specialized corrective actions;
requiring compensatory services;
issuing grant awards with special conditions;
withholding of state and federal funds; and
employing writs of mandate.

38. Takeaways
Improved outcomes and procedural compliance for student with disabilities is a State focus.
Consequences for not improving outcomes or continued non-compliance are getting closer to implementation.

39. Final Questions

40. Thank you!
Be sure to check out the new Solano County SELPA website Follow us on