1. 2010 OSEP Leadership Mega Conference Collaboration to Achieve Success from Cradle to Career MSIP Updates and Feedback on FFY 2008 SPP/APRs Ruth Ryder and Becca Walawender Strand 4 Presentation S4-100

2. Agenda Updates Verification and Focused Monitoring Feedback on FFY 2008 Annual Performance Reports and Determinations

3. Updates MSIP Structure

4. Updates Team A Gregg Corr Team B Judy Gregorian Team C Alma McPherson Team D Larry Ringer Capacity Building Ellen Safranek Ginger Sheppard Jill Harris Tammy Proctor Bob MacGillivray Christine PilgrimLynne Fairfax Customer Service Delores Barber Cheryl BroadyKesha DewittLiz NewtonJennifer Wolfsheimer Technical Assistance Susan Falkenhan Susan Kauffman Josiah Willey Genee NorbertJennifer Miley Tony Williams Rhonda Spence Jennifer Simpson Perry Williams Jennifer Finch Verification/FM Al Jones Kim Mitchell James Williams Marion Crayton Brenda Wilkins Lucille Sleger Rich Steffan Ken Kienas Hillary Tabor Sheila Friedman Dwight Thomas Angela Tanner- Dean Barbara Thomas Danny Rice Kate Moran Audit Facilitator Lisa Pagano RA Facilitator Matt Schneer Audit Facilitator Charlie Kniseley RA Facilitator Dan Schreier Audit Facilitator Deb Jennings RA Facilitator Sheryl Parkhurst Audit Facilitator Cindy Bryant RA Facilitator Diana Chang

5. Updates SPP/APR Calendar is Growing Up! The Right IDEA: IDEA TA and Guidance

6. MICHELLE – PLEASE INSERT SCREEN SHOT OF NEW CALENDAR HERE

7. Updates Reporting and Analyzing Racial and Ethnic Data Based on Seven Categories for the U.S. Department of Education related to IDEA State Performance Plan Indicators 4-B, 9 and 10 and Significant Disproportionality

8. Verification and Focused Monitoring 2010 States Alabama American Samoa, CNMI, Palau, Marshall Islands California Hawaii Illinois Iowa Kansas Maryland Oregon Pennsylvania Utah West Virginia Wyoming

9. Verification and Focused Monitoring Procedures Critical Elements and the CrEAGS Parent Survey Verification Letters

10. Feedback on FFY 2008 Annual Performance Reports and Determinations The Process Determinations The Big Picture Indicators Enforcement Actions Technical Assistance Other Things We Learned Up Next

11. Balancing Results and Compliance The primary focus of Federal and State monitoring activities shall be on – improving education RESULTS and functional OUTCOMES for all children with disabilities ensuring that States meet the program requirements, with emphasis on those most related to improving results

12. The Process Issued on June 3, 2010 Considered the totality of information Looked at the APR as a whole – Valid and Reliable Data – Compliance, including correction and progress

13. The Big Picture Part B IDEA Determinations 2007200820092010 Meets Requirements9143031 Needs Assistance4110711 NA 2-2625 NA 3--162 NA 4---9 Needs Intervention10501 NA 2-520 NA 3--30 NA 4---1

14. Part B: 2007-2010

15. Where We Started and Where We’ve Come Part B

16. Determinations Selected Indicators

17. C 8C: Transition

18. B12: Early Childhood Transition

19. B11: Timely Initial Evaluations

20. B15: Timely Correction

21. Enforcement Actions Enforcement actions required based on June 3, 2010 determinations: 16 Part B States in “needs assistance” for two consecutive years 1 Part B State in “needs intervention” for three consecutive years

22. Technical Assistance NA2 States must report in the Feb 1, 2011 APR: The TA sources from which the State received assistance and what actions the State took as a result of that TA Some States that were NA3 or NA4 are required to report on Oct 1, 2010 on: How the TA being accessed addresses the determination factor

23. Other Things We Learned States generally addressed all indicator components, particularly when the optional templates were used Most sampling-related issues have been resolved and the Data Accountability Center continues its diligent work with those states that are submitting sampling plans

24. Other Things We Learned States have generally addressed representativeness of survey response groups States identified as being in need of assistance have been accessing technical assistance and have reported to OSEP on those activities States were able to provide baseline data, targets and improvement activities for Indicators C3 and B7 - the early childhood outcomes indicators

25. Areas in Need of Technical Assistance Verification of the correction of noncompliance That is – how does a state best demonstrate that it has verified correction at both the systemic and individual student levels Correction data are reported under the appropriate indicators, including reporting on dispute resolution and related requirement findings Discrepancies between 618 data and state- reported data are adequately explained

26. Areas in Need of Technical Assistance Transition to using CSPR data for indicators B1 and 2 Addressing under-representation for Indicators B9 and 10

27. Reminders Public Reporting Local Determinations FFY 2009 APR/SPP due February 1, 2011 Technical Amendments

28. STATES DO NOT HAVE TO REPORT ON INDICATOR B6 IN THE FFY 2009 APR/SPP DUE FEBRUARY 1, 2011

29. SPP/APR Indicator Analyses

30. THANK YOU