1. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Monitoring in California Special Education Division California Department of Education

2. TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction California’s Monitoring Context Total Enrollment (K-12): 6.2 million Number of School Districts: 1,028 County Offices of Education:58 Special Education Local Plan Areas: 133 Number of Schools:11,491 Enrollment in Special Education:717,803

3. TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction The Basics

4. TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction For Performance Indicator Reviews (PIR), Compliance Determinations and Comprehensive Review (CR) selections, the CDE assigns a selection score to each indicator (compliance and performance). We compare the current year value to the prior year value and derive a selection number. Selection Scores

5. TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction Selection for Monitoring

6. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Comprehensive Review

7. TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction District Selection Monitoring Plan Development Meeting Parent concerns Data Compliance history Data entry of monitoring plan contents Record Review Activities IEP Implementation Reviews Other monitoring activities identified in the Monitoring Plan Enter and Evaluate Findings and CA Student Findings  District Noncompliance  Review and Edit Corrective Actions Scheduling and Planning Policy and Procedure Review Activities Post Review Meeting District Summary Student Corrective Action Report District-wide Corrective Action Report Document and Track Corrections Planning for the CRConducting the CRCR Follow-up Activities Monitoring Plan Written and Submitted for Approval Special Education Comprehensive Review Conduct Follow-up Reviews (Prong Two) Close CR Based on Evidence of Correction District Notification Contact Superintendent Contact Special Ed Director Correspondence and Orientation Train District Staff Educational Benefit Reviews Administrator, Staff, and Parent Interviews SELPA Governance Review CASEMIS Validation Review

8. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Performance Indicator Review

9. TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction Background The PIR is part of our overall Quality Assurance Process It’s designed to meet, along with our other processes, the requirements of a system of general supervision required by 34 Code of Federal Regulations Section 300.600

10. TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction Selection All LEAs in the 2015-16 SESR cycle will be reviewed. LEAs participating in CR are excluded. LEAs were selected to complete a PIR if: –They did not meet the target for indicators in 2014-15 APR Indicator 1 – Graduation Indicator 2 – Dropout Indicator 4a – Discipline Indicator 5 a-c - LRE Indicator 8 – Parent Involvement –Their performance on the target “got worse” over the prior year 2013-14 APR

12. TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction The contestants…

13. TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction Performance Indicator Review (PIR) The LEA will work with their SELPA administrator and general education colleagues to develop a new plan or provide an existing plan that will lead to the improvement of the LEA’s performance on one or more of the APR indicators. The LEA is required to submit: 1) a Special Education Program Improvement Assurances Form and 2) a plan developed and adopted by the LEA that includes activities to improve performance in the target indicator areas by June 30, 2016.

14. TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction Notification  Letter  Instructions  Statement of Assurances

15. TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction Resources The letters outline a process a district might use to develop a plan The instructions contain: –Web Resources –Sample Data “drill downs” –Sample Plan forms

16. TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction Special Education Program Improvement Assurances Form The LEA certifies that it has: 1) submitted and attached a plan to improve performance indicator targets or 2) that it has identified relevant planning team staff, developed a schedule of meetings for the purpose of identifying issues pertaining to performance indicator data, and will complete all required activities by the due date.

17. TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction Special Education Program Improvement Assurances Form The Special Education Local Plan Area (SELPA) certifies that a complete Special Education Performance Indicator Review will be conducted. The SELPA assures that it will review the completed plan by the required due date, June 30, 2016.

18. TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction Criteria for Evaluating Improvement Plans  Summarizes the issues/root causes that interfere with the performance of the district.  Includes: –Overall strategies to address the root causes. –Specific activities that will be used to address the strategies –Resources that will be used to implement the strategies and activities –Role of person responsible for carrying out activities –Dates by which activities will be initiated –Methods and standards that would be used to measure success

19. TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction SELPA Role SELPAs are expected to:  Play an active role in helping LEAs to understand the calculation of SPPIs and the implications of a failure to meet the targets established for LEAs in California.  Disseminate information about the requirements of the PIR and offer active technical assistance.  Assist the LEA to identify noncompliant policies, procedures, and practices; and to make plans to correct them.  Assist the LEA to identify locate and review data that would be helpful in the LEA’s improvement planning.  Assist the LEA to identify new strategies and activities that would assist the LEA to improve.  Commit resources to the improvement plans of the LEA  Certify that they have reviewed each of the PIR plans submitted by participating LEAs in their SELPA.

20. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Data Identified Noncompliance (DINC)

21. TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction Indicator 11: 60 Day Timeline o 1,517 students in 143 districts Indicator 12: Part C to Part B Transition o 179 students in 71 districts Indicator 13: Secondary Transition o 13,584 students in 394 districts IEP Annual Review o 12,300 students in 441 districts IEP Triennials o 7,725 students in 440 districts 2013-14 The numbers…. 2014-15 Indicator 11: 60 Day Timeline o 2,870 students in 364 districts Indicator 12: Part C to Part B Transition o 738 students in 211 districts Indicator 13: Secondary Transition o 1,604 students in 132 districts IEP Annual Review o 6,220 students in 327 districts IEP Triennials o 4,252 students in 294 districts 2014-15 21

22. TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction CASEMIS Fields for Indicator 11 A-28 PRNT_CSNT Date district received parent consent for initial evaluation for Part B special education services, for ages 3–22. Definition:It is the date the district/school received parent consent for the most recent initial evaluation eligibility for special education services for Part B (ages 3–22). 22

23. TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction CASEMIS Fields for Indicator 11 A-29 INIT_EVAL Date of IEP Team meeting to review initial evaluation and determine eligibility for Part B special education services, for ages 3–22. DefinitionThe date of the IEP team meeting to review initial evaluation and determine eligibility for special education services for Part B (ages 3–22). 23

24. TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction CASEMIS Fields for Indicator 11 A-30 EVLDLAY Reason the initial evaluation is beyond 60-day time line Definition:This is the reason the initial evaluation should be considered timely. Purpose:To comply with the requirements under IDEA (34 CFR 300.341 (c)(1)). Valid Format & Codes: CC(2-digit character code) Reason for delay: 10Parent did not make child available 20Official school break of more than five days 30 Transfer 90 Other (SELPA must list reason in district summary report to CDE) Note: This Field may be left blank for students whose initial evaluation was completed within 60 days or whose initial evaluation was untimely. Comment:This Field must be completed for each student whose initial evaluation date exceeds 60 days from the date the parent provided consent to evaluate and should be considered timely. 24

25. TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction Indicator 12 Monitoring Priority - Effective General Supervision Part B/Effective Transition. Indicator - Percent of children referred by Part C prior to age 3, who are found eligible for Part B, and who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays. Measurement: a.# of children who have been served in Part C and referred to Part B (LEA notified pursuant to IDEA Section 637(a)(9)(A) for Part B eligibility determination). b.# of those referred determined to be NOT eligible and whose eligibilities were determined prior to their third birthdays. c.# of those found eligible who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays. d.# of children for whom parent refusal to provide consent caused delays in evaluation or initial services. e.# of children who were referred to Part C less than 90 days before their third birthdays. Account for children included in a but not included in b, c, d, or e. Indicate the range of days beyond the third birthday when eligibility was determined and the IEP developed and the reasons for the delays. Percent = [(c) divided by (a – b – d – e)] times 100. 25

26. TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction CASEMIS Fields for Indicator 12 A-28 PRNT_CSNT Date district received parent consent for initial evaluation for Part B special education services, for ages 3–22. Definition:It is the date the district/school received parent consent for the most recent initial evaluation eligibility for special education services for Part B (ages 3–22). 26

27. TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction CASEMIS Fields for Indicator 12 A-36 LAST_IEP Date of student's last complete IEP meeting Definition:It is the date when the last IEP, IFSP, or ISP (if the student is placed in a private school by a parent) meeting was held for the student. It would most likely be the student's latest annual or triennial review of the IEP. All data on a student record shall be obtained from the IEP/IFSP/ISP document resulting from this meeting. In absence of an IEP date, this date may also be the last placement date. Purpose:To determine the length of time the student has been in the current program; to research and analyze historical profiles of students with common characteristics using past years' data. 27

28. TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction CASEMIS Fields for Indicator 12 A-31 TBDLAY Reason for IEP in place after child’s third birthday Definition:This is the reason the initial evaluation is beyond child’s third birthday and should be considered timely. Purpose:To comply with the requirements under IDEA (34 CFR 300.124 (b)). Valid Format & Codes: CC(2-dogit character code) Reason for delay: 10Parent refused to consent 20Parent did not make child available 30Official school break of more than five days 90Other (SELPA must list reason in district summary report to CDE) Note: This Field may be left blank for students whose initial IEP was completed by their third birthday or whose IEP was untimely. Comment:This Field must be completed for each student who turns three during the reporting year (July 1 through June 30) and whose IEP occurs after their third birthday. 28

29. TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction Indicator 13 Monitoring Priority - Effective Supervision Part B/Effective Transition. Indicator - Percent of youth with IEPs aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes appropriate measurable post-secondary goals that are annually updated and based upon an age appropriate transition assessment, transition services, including courses of study that will reasonably enable the student to meet those post-secondary goals, and annual IEP goals related to the student’s transition services needs. There also must be evidence that the student was invited to the IEP team meeting where transition services are to be discussed and evidence that, if appropriate, a representative of any participating agency was invited to the IEP team meeting with the prior consent of the parent or student who has reached the age of majority (20 USC 1416(a)(3)(B)). Measurement: Percent = [(# of youth with IEPs aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes appropriate measurable post-secondary goals that are annually updated and based upon an age appropriate transition assessment, transition services, including courses of study that will reasonably enable the student to meet those post-secondary goals, and annual IEP goals related to the student’s transition services needs. There also must be evidence that the student was invited to the IEP team meeting where transition services are to be discussed and evidence that, if appropriate, a representative of any participating agency was invited to the IEP team meeting with the prior consent of the parent or student who has reached the age of majority) divided by the (# of youth with an IEP age 16 and above)] times 100. 29

30. TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction 1. Is there an appropriate measurable post-secondary goal or goals that covers education or training, employment, and, as needed, independent living? 2. Is (are) the post-secondary goal(s) updated annually? 3. Is there evidence that the measurable post-secondary goal(s) were based on age appropriate transition assessment? 4. Are there transition services in the IEP that will reasonably enable the student to meet his or her post-secondary goal(s)? 5. Do the transition services include courses of study that will reasonably enable the student to meet his or her post-secondary goal(s)? 6. Is (are) there annual IEP goal(s) related to the student’s transition services needs? 7. Is there evidence that the student was invited to the IEP Team meeting where transition services were discussed? 8. If appropriate, is there evidence that a representative of any participating agency was invited to the IEP Team meeting with the prior consent of the parent or student who has reached the age of majority? Eight Elements of Transition 30

31. TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction Annual IEP A-36 LAST_IEP Date of student's last complete IEP meeting Definition:It is the date when the last IEP, IFSP, or ISP (if the student is placed in a private school by a parent) meeting was held for the student. It would most likely be the student's latest annual or triennial review of the IEP. All data on a student record shall be obtained from the IEP/IFSP/ISP document resulting from this meeting. In absence of an IEP date, this date may also be the last placement date. Purpose:To determine the length of time the student has been in the current program; to research and analyze historical profiles of students with common characteristics using past years' data. 31

32. TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction Triennial IEP A-37 LAST_EVAL Date of the latest determination of initial or continued eligibility for special education. Definition:For determination of continued eligibility in special education, the date in this Field shall be the date of such determination of continued eligibility, which in most or all cases will be an IEP team meeting date. This determination, also known as a triennial review, shall be made at least once every three years and more frequently if warranted or if requested by the student’s parents or teacher. Notwithstanding certain procedural requirements, the members of the IEP team may determine continued eligibility without a meeting. In such cases, the date in this Field shall be the date when the members of the IEP team reached agreement on continued eligibility. The members of the IEP team are not required to hold a meeting to determine continued eligibility if all of the following are true:  The members of the IEP team have previously agreed that determination of continued eligibility is to be based upon a summary of existing data  No new assessment has been conducted  The determination of continued eligibility is not expected to result in any changes to the student’s existing IEP, and  The student’s parents have not requested an IEP team meeting for the purpose of determining continued eligibility. Purpose:To monitor three-year re-evaluation of students with disabilities as per the federal requirements under IDEA. 32

33. TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE CASEMIS TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GUIDE, GO TO: WWW.CDE.CA.GOV/SP/SE/DS/CASEMIS.ASP 33

34. TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction DINC Website 34

35. TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction June Data Analyzed to Determine Noncompliance Sept/Oct/Nov Districts are notified of noncompliance Website is available for LEAs to record corrections December Prong II with December Submission Jan/Feb Data is analyzed to determine continued noncompliance April LEAs are notified and required to correct noncompliance LEAs submit revised Table A May/June LEAs with continued noncompliance will be designated as Needs Assistance* DINC will follow a regular, annual process 35

36. TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction DINC potential sanctions 34 districts, notified September 24, 2015 Evidence of corrective action was due October 20, 2015 Review of CAs by CDE consultants and administrators Notification letters, another opportunity to correct Monthly reporting

37. TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction Monthly reporting

38. TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction Monthly reporting

39. TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction Next… Notification to districts regarding participation in PIR Meeting of SSIP stakeholders: January 20, 2016 Monitoring Workgroup: January 22, 2016 (tentative date)

40. TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction Questions 40

41. TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction Additional Information Alison Greenwood, Education Administrator 916-327-3702 AGreenwood@cde.ca.gov 41