1. Kentucky Continuous Monitoring Process
Spring 2011

2. Spring Reporting Period
Indicators 4, 8, 20 and Child Count
Timelines:
April 1 – Districts receive documents
May Cooperative meetings – discuss root causes and activities
May 31 – District documents due to KDE and Cooperative directors
June Cooperative Network meeting – discuss root causes and activities statewide
June 30 – Regional reports due

3. Invite the appropriate people to discuss:
Discipline and suspension rates
Parent Involvement
Timeliness of reports
Prevalence rates – eligibility decisions

4. Correction of Noncompliance
Consider non- compliances identified since May 2010 data submission.
If no non- compliances have been identified, skip the rest of this page.
Document what the district is doing to correct identified non- compliances
No change on this page.
Districts should be continually monitoring their performance on compliance indicators.
When a noncompliance is identified, plans should be implemented to immediately correct the noncompliance.
The purpose of this item is to document district efforts toward immediately correcting identified noncompliances BEFORE a citation by DLS.
Data may be collected through record reviews or other district tracking mechanisms (such as spreadsheets or Infinite Campus for tracking evaluation timelines). There is no requirement for a specific number of records to be reviewed.
Indicator 11 and 13 data collection will be very similar to last year. Chris will send a spreadsheet. Districts will submit to DLS probably by May 31.

5. Indicator 4A
Kids 3-21

6. Indicator 4A No change since last year
Data are from December child count of students age 3 to 21.
Significant Discrepancy = suspensions over 10 days at a rate that is more than .60% of the total of students with disabilities AND more than one student is suspended over 10 days.
Risk Ratio = the probability that a student with a disability has of being suspended for greater than ten days compared to the state rate.
No change on this indicator since last year.

7. Indicator 4A Regional Data`
District
District Ratio
Significant Discrepancy
Ashland
0.00 No
Augusta
Bath
2.44
Yes
2.66
Boyd
Bracken
Carter
2.41
0.72
1.87
Elliott
3.16
Fairview
Fleming
5.42
3.65
2.61
Greenup
1.33
Johnson
0.98
Lawrence
Lewis
Martin
1.46
Mason
1.45
1.30
Menifee
Morgan
Paintsville
5.95
Raceland
Robertson
Rowan
3.52
Russell
3.06
2.93

8. Indicator 4B
Still grayed out even though we said it wouldn’t be. May only be one district in state. Is a non issue. Districts will get the data anyhow.
Data source says December Should say December 1, 2009.

9. Indicator 4B Regional Data
District
White District Ratio
White Sig Disc.?
Af-Am District Ratio
Af-Am Sig Disc?
Hispanic District Ratio
Hispanic Sig Disc?
Asian District Ratio
Asian Sig Disc?
Am Ind District Ratio
Am Ind Sig Disc?
Ashland
0.000 No
Augusta
Bath
Boyd
Bracken
Carter
Elliott
Fairview
Fleming
Greenup
Johnson
Lawrence
Lewis
Martin
Mason
Menifee
Morgan
Paintsville
Raceland
Robertson
Rowan
Russell

10. Indicator 4B
Data come from the December child count of ages 6 to 21.
Districts that have a significant discrepancy will be contacted individually by DLS.
This indicator is grayed out. Districts need not address suspensions by race/ethnicity if they do not have a significant discrepancy.
Districts should review these data and understand their suspensions by race/ethnicity.
Indicator 4B is a two part test.
Is there a significant discrepancy?
Is it due to policies, procedures, development and implementation of IEPs, or use of positive behavioral supports and procedural safeguards?
If a district has a discrepancy they will be contacted by DLS to deal with the issue. Jefferson County is the only one.
Bullett 3 is significant. 4B is a 2 prong test. Significant discrepancy? Is it due to ….
The investigative questions focus on the areas in the 3rd bullet above.

11. Indicator 4C Data Source- also 2009 Child Count Data
Look at all data. One root cause box
Root cause questions – looking at data as a whole. The same and would be a duplicate. Same activities. Diddn’t make sense. On

12. Indicator 4C No change for this indicator.
4C is not part of OSEP reporting.
Data come from December 1, child count of students age 6 to 21 and from Infinite Campus discipline data.
Review data for 4A, 4B, and 4C.
Determine the root cause for district performance on Indicator 4A.
Consider investigative questions for discipline practices as a whole in the district.

13. Indicator 4C Regional Data
District
Total Non-Disabled Count
Non-Disabled Suspensions
Non-Disabled Suspension Rate
Total Special Ed Count
Special Ed Suspensions
Special Ed Suspension Rate
Difference
Ashland
2,719
120
4.41%
418 17
4.07%
-0.35%
Augusta
258 49
18.99% 30 4
13.33%
-5.66%
Bath
1,789 51
2.85%
213 19
8.92%
6.07%
Boyd
2,757
100
3.63%
512 16
3.13%
-0.50%
Bracken
1,069 70
6.55%
137 11
8.03%
1.48%
Carter
4,061
288
7.09%
699 99
14.16%
7.07%
Elliott
968 94
9.71%
145 18
12.41%
2.70%
Fairview
679 42
6.19%
105 12
11.43%
5.24%
Fleming
2,029
104
5.13%
335 29
8.66%
3.53%
Greenup
2,607
156
5.98%
386
10.88%
4.90%
Johnson
3,068 82
2.67%
649 36
5.55%
2.87%
Lawrence
2,007
118
5.88%
388
7.47%
1.59%
Lewis
2,128
124
5.83%
202
8.42%
2.59%
Martin
1,749 58
3.32%
372 27
7.26%
3.94%
Mason
2,388
173
7.24%
376 63
16.76%
9.51%
Menifee
967 40
4.14%
193
9.33%
5.19%
Morgan
1,746
5.67%
356
5.06%
-0.61%
Paintsville
706 13
1.84% 97 3
3.09%
1.25%
Raceland
959
2.82% 78
2.31%
Robertson
294
6.12% 61 6
9.84%
3.71%
Rowan
2,713
103
3.80%
456
11.18%
7.39%
Russell
1,934 72
3.72%
292
9.25%
5.52%

14. Indicator 8 Similar to last year.
Not district specific data but state-wide data. Have 3 items this year as opposed to 2 last year.
Districts will look at how they are performing on these 3 items.
The items don’t compare to last year. Have to do the data analysis – activities related to the 3 items
No root cause analysis because state and not district data
Evaluate the effectivness of last year’s activities
Have DRT conversations whether they are doing the 3 items.
Can report on district parent survey.
Still cannot do the district survey when the state survey is open May 1 through July 30.

15. Indicator 8
Data are collected from the annual parent survey conducted by KDE.
Selected districts are included each year. To see the list of districts included each year, see the State Performance Plan.
Three lowest ranked survey items statewide are:
I was given information about organizations that offer support for parents of students with disabilities.
The school offers parent training about special education issues.
The school connects parents to organizations that serve parents of children with children.
As last year, the district should write one activity to address the lowest ranked survey items and one activity to address increasing the response rate on the survey.

16. Indicator 20
Will not KCMP in the list because were not submitted to KDE last year.
Will be added back next year.
If information is inaccurate – goes back to the person at KDE:
Bill Buchannon for Preschool
KISTS – HDI
All Else – Chris Thacker

17. Indicator 20
Only timeliness is addressed. Accuracy has not been defined yet.
KCMP was not included since it was not submitted to DLS last year. It will be added next year.
For questions about data, contact the department to which the document was submitted. (i.e. Bill Buchanan or Kimberly Wiley for preschool, Tony Lobianco for KISTS or YOYO)
FYI – Indicator 11 and 13 data will likely be submitted on a similar form as last year. Deadline is currently set at May 31 but may be extended due to weather/state testing window delays.
If there is a possible data error, the district should contact the department to which the document was submitted. If they find that there was, indeed, an error, they will contact Chris Thacker, who will make the data change. He will contact Pam Coe who will make the change in the KCMP document and send it to the DoSE.

18. Child Count
Only data on KCMP will be the overall prevelance rate compared to the state.
Instruction manual has the regulation for DLS.
Not an OSEP indicator.

19. Child Count This is NOT an OSEP indicator.
There is no state target for child count.
Data are from the December 1, child count for ages 6 to 21 and the 2010 Growth Factor Report for grades K-12.
The purpose for this indicator is to encourage districts to investigate their eligibility practices to ensure that they are not over-identifying students with disabilities.
Regulation requires KDE to conduct a Child Count audit for districts that have “unusual child count data”.
Unusual child count data includes:
Prevalence rate over 15%
No change in numbers from year to year
High numbers of low incidence populations
Unusually low percentages of children with disabilities when compared to similar LEAs
District-Region-State Child Count Comparison file will be provided to cooperative directors for district use in more fully analyzing child count data.
Data from Dec Child count 6-21 and the growth factor report (general educaiton count that happens close to dec.1 which in KG through 12th grade.)
Purpose to investigate eligibility practices and weirdities.
Using the Comparison to region and state.
Ask why:
No root cause and no activities for this.
Give the file to districts. They can look up their data online. Show them how during meeting.

20. Child Count Trend Data Big East.xlsx
Child Count Data Files
Child Count Trend Data Big East.xlsx
Child Count District-Regional-State Comparison rev.xlsx

21. Big East Incidence Rates Child Count 2010
All Students
Incidence
Incidence Rate 6-21
Ch Count 6-21
2010
Rate 3-21
Ashland Ind
3137
16.42%
13.32%
418
Augusta Ind
288
15.63%
10.76% 31
Bath Co
2002
11.59%
10.39%
208
Boyd Co
3269
17.47%
14.10%
461
Bracken Co
1206
17.41%
11.86%
143
Carter Co
4760
17.12%
14.35%
683
Elliott Co
1113
13.30%
132
Fairview Ind
784
13.52%
12.12% 95
Fleming Co
2364
13.62%
12.35%
292
Greenup Co
2993
14.33%
12.50%
374
Johnson Co
3717
18.99%
17.22%
640
Lawrence Co
2395
18.83%
15.62%
Lewis Co
2330
13.22%
8.41%
196
Martin Co
2121
19.28%
15.61%
331
Mason Co
2764
17.15%
12.95%
358
Menifee Co
1160
13.10%
11.55%
134
Morgan Co
2102
16.56%
14.41%
303
Paintsville Ind
803
14.32%
11.33% 91
Raceland Ind
1037
9.06%
7.62% 79
Robertson Co
355
18.31%
16.62% 59
Rowan Co
3169
18.33%
13.85%
439
Russell Ind
2226
14.24%
12.49%
278
Big East
46,095
16.08%
State
652,253
15.69%

22. Big East Incidence compared to State Rate

23. Incidence Rates in Big East Higher than State Rate
Functional Mental Disability
Mild Mental Disability
Multiple Disability
Speech Language Impairment
Visual Impairment

24. Autism Trend

25. Deaf-Blind Trend

26. Developmental Delay Trend

27. Emotional Behavior Disability Trend

28. Hearing Impaired Trend

29. Functional Mental Disability Trend

30. Mild Mental Disability

31. Multiple Disability Trend

32. Orthopedic Impairment Trend

33. Specific Learning Disability Trend

34. Speech Language Impairment Trend

35. Traumatic Brain Injury Trend

36. Visual Impairment Trend

37. Data Analysis Summarize data and describe progress or slippage.
Trend data and disaggregation
Patterns
Graphs or Tables
Summarize Investigative Question discussion by DRT
Describe discussion leading to root cause
* Did you summarize the data listed in your KCMP and identify whether you did or did not meet the state target as well as whether there has been progress or slippage since last year?
* Did you look at trend data over the past several years? Did you disaggregate data by school, teacher, level, or other pertinent groups?
* Did you look for patterns in your data?
* Did you represent data in graph or table format, when appropriate, to make it more easily understandable?
* Did you summarize the DRT’s response to the Investigative Questions highlighting an areas that are enlightening as to the district’s performance?
* Did you describe the DRT’s thinking and discussion that leads to the identification of the root cause?

38. Description of Previous Activities and Evaluation of Effectiveness
Copy and paste activities from last year’s KCMP.
Respond to evaluation questions
Implementation
Audience
Effectiveness
List data to support response to three questions.
* Did you list the activities and action steps from last year’s KCMP?
* Did you respond to the three evaluation questions?
1) To what extent was the activity implemented?
2) To what extent did it reach the appropriate audience?
3) To what extent did it achieve the desired outcomes?
* Did you list the data that supports your responses to the three questions?

39. Activities Reflect district priorities Actionable
Include measures of performance
Realistic
Timelines
Technical assistance needs
Responsibility
Innovation
* Do your activities reflect district priorities?
* Are your activities actionable?
* Do your activities include measures of performance?
* Are your activities realistic?
* Do your activities include timelines?
* Do your activities include technical assistance needs?
* Do your activities identify responsibility for implementation?
* Do your activities reflect innovation?