1. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Special Education Verification Review (VR) 2013−14 TRAINING MODULE Student Record Reviews

2. Getting a better picture...

3. TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction 3 Purpose of the VR The VR will answer the following questions: The VR will answer the following questions: 1.Does the LEA comply with procedural requirements associated with the indicators of the State Performance Plan (SPP)? 2.Does the CDE provide effective general supervision in accordance with the SPP? 3.Does the LEA comply with procedural guarantees that are known to be frequently noncompliant items throughout California school districts?

4. TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction 4 Purpose of the VR The VR will answer the following questions: The VR will answer the following questions: 4. Does the LEA fulfill its responsibilities when other districts and programs serve it students (District of Residence)? 5.Does the Special Education Local Plan Area (SELPA), of which the district is a part, fulfill its responsibilities for monitoring the procedural elements of the Local Plan? 6.Does the LEA allocate federal (IDEA) resources appropriately to meet the needs of the special education students?

5. TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction Monitoring Activities or actions conducted to determine the function of a program or service compared to what is required by a regulation or requirement for the purpose of accountability. (OSEP)

6. TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction Monitoring Plan Includes information collected from: 1.State Performance Plan Indicators (SPPI): Assessments, Least Restrictive Environment, Transition Part C to Part B, and others. 2.Compliance Complaint History: Timelines, IEP team meeting process, and other issues. 3.Other district data: Emergency Behavior Reports, Suspension/ Expulsion Reports, information about highly qualified teachers 4.Parent Input Process

7. TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction Review Protocol COMPLIANT COMPLIANT if after reviewing the student file, documented evidence is found to demonstrate the conditions of the compliance test have been met. XX NON-COMPLIANT NON-COMPLIANT if after reviewing the file, documented evidence is not included in the file and cannot be found to demonstrate the conditions of the compliance test have been met. X NOT APPLICABLE* NOT APPLICABLE* if after reviewing the student file, the conditions of the compliance test are not applicable to that particular student. *NAs must be included in the data entry.

8. TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction General Guidelines Completing the file reviews: 1.Review the most recent IEP, with any supporting assessments, reports, and other documentation 2.The LEA is compliant unless specific documentation necessary to satisfy the compliance test cannot be found 3.Only sections of the protocol relevant to the specific file you are looking at are to be reviewed

9. TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction General Guidelines Completing the file reviews: 4.“Not Applicable Section” vs. “Not Applicable Item” Line out the entire section. Line out the entire section. If the entire section of the protocol does not apply to the file being reviewed -- Line out the entire section.Line out the entire section. Write “NA” on the item. Write “NA” on the item. If the section of the protocol applies to the file being reviewed but, the item within the section does not apply to the student - Write “NA” on the item. Write “NA” on the item. 5.Every test item that applies to the student must be assessed, with justification for a NC or NA finding. Summary of Non-Compliant Findings 6.Include concise, specific reasons for your findings on the Summary of Non-Compliant Findings 7. When in doubt ask.

10. TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction Review Protocol Complete only the sections that apply to the student file you are reviewing. There are eleven: School Age Identification /Initial Assessment Low Incidence English Learner African American Behavior Transition OHI with Diabetes IEP Implementation Education Benefit CMA and CAPA Private School Interim Placement

11. TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction Scenario: What Areas Should Be Reviewed? Student A: Disability designation is Speech and Language English language learner English language learner Served at a nonpublic school Served at a nonpublic school 16-years old 16-years old Behavior Support Plan Behavior Support Plan Has received special education services for 6 years Has received special education services for 6 years Current IEP is an annual review Current IEP is an annual review  School Age  Identification /Initial Assessment  Low Incidence  English Learner  African American  OHI with Diabetes  IEP Implementation  Education Benefit  CMA and CAPA  Behavior  Transition  Private School

12. TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction NA - Section

13. TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction Findings If “Noncompliant (NC)”: If “Noncompliant (NC)”: -- State the reason why the requirements of the test question have not been met. If “Nonapplicable (NA)”: If “Nonapplicable (NA)”: --State the reason why the item does not apply to the file. If “Compliant (C)”: If “Compliant (C)”: -- No statement is needed to justify the finding. NOTE: NC and NA findings must be documented on the “Summary of Noncompliant Findings” form and will entered in the software.

14. TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction The Summary of Noncompliant Findings (1a and b) is used to document the findings for later entry into the software.

15. TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction Worksheet 1c is used to summarize findings from the District level protocols. Write findings under the appropriate section heading.

16. The Finding Statement Directly relates to the legal requirement Demonstrates through the evidence reviewed and written why the district does not meet the legal requirement States the source of the evidence Is stated in a complete sentence

17. TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction Summary of Non-Compliant Findings 2-4-1 NC The file reviewed did not include evidence that reevaluations were completed every three years. The file did not include a letter of excusal from the parents. 3-1-1.1 NA At the time of the review, there were no initial or triennial assessments required for the student.SAMPLE11

18. TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction Summary “Findings” “Findings” are the result of what is or is not documented in the file in relationship to the Compliance Test and Legal Citation. “Finding statements” “Finding statements” are a written conclusion that includes...a description of the quantitative or qualitative data supporting the decision of compliance or noncompliance with the regulation/requirement. (OSEP) Reviewers are not required to provide statements of findings for “compliant (C)” findings.*

19. TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction Summary “NC” or, “NA” findings must:  Directly relate to the legal requirement of the test item;  Demonstrate through the evidence reviewed and written why the district does not meet the legal requirement or, why the item does not apply to the file  State the source of the evidence  Be stated in a complete sentence.

20. TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction CDE Review of Findings CDE Staff will be completing a quality check of the finding statements If CDE staff have a question about a finding, we will come to the reviewer for clarification Again, if you have any questions, please ask