1. YEAR #2 DETERMINATIONS ISD Special Education Directors’ Meeting September 18, 2008

2. 1/4/2016 2 OSEP Determination of Michigan June 6, 2008: Michigan received its determination of “needs assistance” with meeting the requirements of IDEA

3. 1/4/2016 3 OSEP Determination of Michigan Michigan’s challenges: Indicators 4a, 10, 13, and 15 Michigan’s strengths: Indicators 9, 11, 12, and 16

4. 1/4/2016 4 State Challenges on 2006-07 Determinations Progress on Indicator #13 (Transition) from 35% to 40% and did not demonstrate correction Did not provide valid and reliable data for SPP #10 (Disproportionate Representation) but had a plan to correct

5. 1/4/2016 5 State Challenges on 2006-07 Determinations Did not complete the review required for districts identified with significant discrepancies in suspension/ expulsion data in 2005-06 Slippage on Indicator #15 (Compliance Findings) from 100% to 90.18%

6. 1/4/2016 6 OSEP’s Direction to SEAs regarding Determinations of LEAs, including ISDs Must include valid and reliable data Must include Compliance Indicators 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17

7. 1/4/2016 7 OSEP’s Direction to SEAs regarding Determinations of LEAs, including ISDs Must include other information such as audit findings, uncorrected noncompliance from other sources, etc. May include optional performance indicators

8. 1/4/2016 8 Round #2 for LEAs/PSAs: Michigan’s Overall Design Drop Graduation Rate from Determinations, as it duplicates Ed YES Add all compliance indicators not used last year in Round #1 Retain SPP #5 (Educational Settings) as the only performance indicator

9. 1/4/2016 9 Round #2 for LEAs/PSAs: Michigan’s Overall Design Retain data, audit findings, and timely IEPs in the included elements Issue no Level 4s until trend data is available Restrict LEAs from receiving Level 1 if any elements are 3s or 4s

10. 1/4/2016 10 Comparison of Round #1 and Round #2 Elements ROUND #1 Audit Findings Timely IEPs Timely, Accurate Data Educational Settings Graduation Rate Compliance

11. 1/4/2016 11 Comparison of Round #1 and Round #2 Elements ROUND #2 Audit Findings Timely IEPs Timely & Reliable Data Educational Environments Disproportionate Representation

12. 1/4/2016 12 Comparison of Round #1 and Round #2 Elements ROUND 2 (Cont.) Disproportionate Representation Child Find Early Childhood Transition Secondary Transition Correction of Noncompliance

13. 1/4/2016 13 SPP #5 Educational Settings Dec. 1, 2006 data For only the category of GE 80% or more of the time The better of resident or operating district calculations Based on state target of 55%

14. 1/4/2016 14 SPP #9 Disproportionate Representation Based on Focused Monitoring conducted during 2007-08 All LEAs received a “1” except those districts which were focused monitored and had findings of noncompliance, which received a “2”

15. 1/4/2016 15 SPP #10 Disproportionate Representation Based on Focused Monitoring Findings for 2006-07 data All districts receive a “1” except those districts which were focused monitored and had findings of noncompliance, which received a “2”

16. 1/4/2016 16 SPP #11 Child Find Based on 2006-07 submissions of SRSD No minimum cell size Requires 95% compliance for “1”

17. 1/4/2016 17 SPP #12 Early Childhood Transition Cohort Survey in 2006-07 Difficulty with statewide data Used only the criteria of IEPs which were late due to lack of staff availability Used only “1” and “2”

18. 1/4/2016 18 SPP #13 Secondary Transition Used data from Transition Checklist, 2006-07 Applied only to those districts in Cohort 3, plus volunteers Data ranged from 0% to 95%

19. 1/4/2016 19 SPP #15 Compliance Findings 2006-07 data Based on findings of noncompliance from either Focused Monitoring or SPSR Which were not corrected within the required one-year time frame Used only “1” and “2”

20. 1/4/2016 20 Timely IEPs The single element which used newer data from Dec. 1, 2007 MI-CIS filing Percentage of students with current IEPs

21. 1/4/2016 21 Valid, Timely, and Reliable Data Used SRSD, MI-CIS, and SPSR submissions Considered timeliness and accuracy Used only “1” and “2” this year

22. 1/4/2016 22 Audit Findings Used Single Audit Findings from 2006-07

23. 1/4/2016 23 Overall Calculation System Level 1: Within l SD of the mean Level 2: Between 1 and 2 SDs of the mean OR Within l SD of the mean with 1 or more elements of 3 or 4 Level 3: 2 or more SDs from the mean

24. 1/4/2016 24 Results of Round #2 for LEAs/PSAs 463 of 766 LEAs are at Level 1 (60%) 272 of 766 LEAs are at Level 2 (36%) 31 of 766 LEAs are at Level 3 (4%)

25. 1/4/2016 25 Results of Round #2 for LEAs/PSAs 23 LEAs improved from Level 3 to Level 1 15 LEAs fell from Level 1 to Level 3 40 LEAs repeat at Level 2 9 LEAs repeat at Level 3

26. 1/4/2016 26 Enforcement Actions (IDEA and NPRM) “Needs assistance” for 2 consecutive years l. T.A. 2. Re-direct use of Flowthrough funds 3. Impose special conditions on Flowthrough funds

27. 1/4/2016 27 Enforcement Actions (IDEA and NPRM) “Needs intervention” for 3 consecutive years 1. May use any of the above actions, and

28. 1/4/2016 28 Enforcement Actions (IDEA and NPRM) 2. Must do one or more of these: a) Require improvement plan b) Require a compliance agreement c) Withhold or recover funds d) Refer for other appropriate enforcement actions

29. 1/4/2016 29 OSE/EIS and ISDs: Partners in Improvement Level 3 “needs intervention” districts Level 2 “needs assistance” for two years in a row Level 2 “needs assistance” for the first time

30. 1/4/2016 30 Table Work What did ISDs do last year for their Level 2 and 3 districts? What can ISDs do this year for their Level 2 and 3 districts?

31. 1/4/2016 31 Public Reporting VS. Determinations Public Report Uses actual data on the Indicators specified by OSEP Determinations Uses data to assess compliance with IDEA 2004

32. 1/4/2016 32 Public Reporting VS. Determinations Makes no judgment about LEAs performance except to compare to state targets Gives an overall “rating” to all LEAs

33. 1/4/2016 33 FORECAST for ROUND #3 Determinations (2007-08 Data) Could be issued as soon as spring of 2009, pending OSEP’s release of SEA Determinations Will likely include ratings of 3 and 4 in all areas, as appropriate May include Level 4 ratings for first time, pending OSEP action to SEAs