1. Idaho New Charter Schools Determination Levels 2011
Good morning and welcome to the review of the Determination Level process for 2011.

2. Last week, you received an electronic copy and your superintends received hard copies of the following three documents. We’re going to review the contents of each document as we review the determination process.
A letter of explanation

3. Copy of Data
Copy of your data

4. Monitoring Requirements
Technical Assistance
Incentives or Actions
MEETS REQUIREMENTS
No changes to compliance monitoring schedule
Upon request the Local Education Agency may receive technical assistance on general areas of need.
The Local Education Agency will receive a letter of recognition from State Education Agency.
And a rubric that explains the actions or incentives that are part of each determination level.

5. IDEA
Below are Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) requirements for States as stated in an FAQ document:
States are required to enforce the IDEA by making “determinations annually under IDEA section 616(e) on the performance of each LEA under Part B”
In the letter the OSEP requirements were explained that the determinations are made annually following IDEA guidelines.

6. IDEA
States must use the same four categories in IDEA section 616(d) as OSEP in making determinations of the status of LEAs/EIS programs. These categories are:
Meets Requirements;
Needs Assistance;
Needs Intervention; and
Needs Substantial Intervention.
In addition, States must use the same four categories for the LEAs, that OSEP uses for the States. They are Meets Requirements, Needs Assistance, Needs Intervention, and Needs Substantial Intervention.

7. IDEA States MUST consider: Performance on compliance indicators;
Whether data submitted by LEAs programs are valid, reliable, and timely;
Uncorrected noncompliance from other sources; and
Any audit findings.
Further, the State must consider the districts performance on the compliance indicators; data submissions being timely, valid, and reliable; and uncorrected noncompliance from other sources and any audit findings.

8. IDEA In addition, States could also consider:
Performance on performance indicators; and
Other information
Finally, the States could also consider the LEAs performance on the performance indicators and other information.

9. Monitoring Workgroup Participants
Directors
Superintendents
Parent Group
Regional Consultant
Central Office Staff
Across the Regions
Large and Small Districts
Debby Lund, Pat Farmer, JoAnn Curtis, Desi Laughlin, Mert Burns, Mel Wiseman, Mike Haberman, Charlie Silva, Cathy Thornton, Frank Howe, Evelyn Mason, Marybeth Flachbart, Jean Taylor, Jacque Hyatt, Jodie Mills, Gina Hoper and Janice Carson
To accomplish this task, the SDE pulled together a group of stakeholders to review the requirements and develop a process to analyze the data that would lead to each LEA’s determination. We looked across large and small districts as well as regionally. In addition, we included directors, superintendents, a parent group, a regional consultant, and central office staff.

10. Monitoring Workgroup Advise the SDE: Monitoring Process and Procedures
Timelines
Guidelines
Determination Criteria
The task before the workgroup is to advise the SDE on monitoring process and procedures, timelines, guidelines and determination criteria.

11. Compliance Indicators Used
Indicator 20- Data for Child Count, Exiting, and Discipline is submitted by the due date and is accurate.
The letter goes on to say that, following OSEP guidelines, the group used the following compliance indicator.

12. Copy of Data
You received that data in an Excel spreadsheet that looked like this. You received points for each area based on a criteria. Those points were then converted to a percentage which placed your LEA into one of the four determination levels. I am going to review each item with you in detail to explain what the data is and what the data collection system is that corresponds with the particular item.

13. Timely Corrected and Verified Noncompliance from Program Verification
What is it? Timely Corrected and Verified Noncompliance from Program Verification is all noncompliance found through the program verification process has been corrected and verified as corrected.
Where do you get this data? This data was obtained during your program verification meeting and subsequent follow-up meetings.
Timely Corrected and Verified Noncompliance from the Program Verification was the result of the results of the program verification and the correction and verification of noncompliance found in that verification results.

14. Timely Corrected and Verified Noncompliance from Program Verification
3 = Completed by or on March 1st
2 = Completed by or on April 1st
1 = Completed by or on May 1st
0 = Completed by or on June 1st  
If the program was verified by March 1st the LEA received 3 points, April 1st was 2 pts, May 1st was 1 pt. and after June 1st no points were earned in that area.

15. Complaints with Findings
What is it? The number of complaints your charter school received this school year with findings.
Where do you get this data? This is collected during a complaint investigation facilitated by our dispute resolution coordinator.
Another area that is considered as part of the determination level calculation for New Charters is if the New Charter received Complaints with Findings. This data is collected during the compliant investigation facilitated by our dispute resolution coordinator, Paul Epperson.

16. Complaints with Findings
3 = No Complaints with Findings
2 = One - Two Complaint with Findings
1 = Three Complaints with Findings
0 = Four + Complaints with Findings  
The follow guidelines were used in awarding of points.
3 = No Complaints with Findings
2 = One - Two Complaint with Findings
1 = Three Complaints with Findings
0 = Four + Complaints with Findings  

17. Indicator 20 Timely and Accurate Data
What is it? The SDE takes into consideration only Child Count and Exiting data.
Where do you get this data? There are time stamps for both of these data collection systems.

18. Indicator 20 Timely and Accurate Data

19. The final document, the Idaho LEA Determination Level rubric which explains the incentives or actions for each level. The items to point out would be in Needs Assistance Year, includes directs to the LEAs to seek assistance in there area of need. Further, the State will advice the LEA of available sources of technical assistance. In Year 2 of Needs Assistance, the requirements are the same and the State may direct the use of funds in the area or areas in which the program needs assistance.

20. In Needs Intervention the LEA will be required to prepare or implement a Corrective Action Plan in the areas of need. In addition, the State may direct the use of funds.

21. The level of Needs Substantial Intervention also requires the LEA to prepare or implement a Corrective Action Plan in the areas of need. In addition, section § (c)(2) requires the State to “Withhold, in whole or in part, any Part B funds.”

22. Idaho’s Determinations
The State of Idaho also receives a determination level. They letter is sent to Superintendent Luna and an is sent to the special education directors. Idaho received their determination level as week as well.

23. Idaho Determination Level
There are 20 Indicators in which the State reports on to OSEP. This is the Annual Performance Report for this year. This document is located on the special education site.

24. Idaho Determination Level
Meets Requirements
Change is Coming…..
Although there are 20 indicators, Idaho received a determination level based on all the compliance indicators. Idaho, for a second year in a row, is Meets Requirements.
I would like to bring to your attention is that last year LEAs that were in Meets Requirements were able to use up to 50% of their ARRA funds to reduce their maintenance of effort. If this scenario were to happen again to take advantage of that option, that LEA must be in the level of Meets Requirements.

25. Thank You!
(208)
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at