1 / 17

Avoiding MDE Audits in Special Education

This presentation by Dr. Jim Lake, Director of Special Education at Lansing School District, Michigan, outlines the compliance measures and performance indicators under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA). It highlights the significant and less significant performance indicators, enforcement actions for local educational agencies (LEAs), and historical ratings of compliance across the state. The session emphasizes the importance of accurate data for informing special education practices and improving outcomes for students with disabilities.

georgina
Télécharger la présentation

Avoiding MDE Audits in Special Education

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Avoiding MDE Auditsin Special Education Jim Lake, Ph.D. Director of Special Education Lansing School District

  2. Michigan and all states are measured on the same 34 Performance Indicators (see handout)

  3. Results 1,2, 4a, 14 important 1, 6, 7 not as important Compliance 9, 10, 11, 13 15 IDEIA Part B (20)

  4. Part C0-3 year olds ResultsCompliance 1-8, 14, 18, 199-13, 15, 16, 17, 20 This is not as significant and/or it may be an ISD function

  5. Judgment on Indicators Feds – absolute standards State – “bell curve” For 766 LEAs (charters included)

  6. Judge Judy and Determinations 1 – OK 2 – Needs assistance 3 – Needs a lot of assistance 4 – The “not good at all” department

  7. Michigan’s History YearRating 2007 1 2008 2 Challenges 4, 10, 13, 15 Strengths 9, 11, 12, 16 (Handout)

  8. LansingData and Lessons(Handout)History 2008 Report (Handout)

  9. 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%)

  10. Enforcement Actions for IDEIA (Individuals w/Disabilities Education Improvement Act) and NPRM (National Public Reporting Mandate) • “Needs assistance” for 2 consecutive years 1. T.A. and/or 2. Re-direct use of Flowthrough $ and/or 3. Impose special conditions on IDEIA Flowthrough dollars

  11. Enforcement Actions for IDEIA and NPRM • “Needs intervention” for 3 consecutive years 1. May use any of the above actions, ________________________________________________________ Enforcement Actions for IDEIA and NPRM • “Needs assistance” for 2 consecutive years 1. T.A. and/or 2. Re-direct use of Flowthrough $ and/or 3. Impose special conditions on IDEIA Flowthrough dollars

  12. Enforcement Actions IDEIA 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

  13. Ounce of Prevention 1. Is your data clean? GI - GO

  14. Garbage in 1. Reporting from buildings/staff 2. Entry of data

  15. Garbage out Translation software Data checks for reasonableness

  16. Know Your DataMICIS Data Reports (see handout) Start working for next year • Service models • System problems • Staff problems

  17. Questions/Discussion? Jim Lake, Ph.D. Lansing School District 517.755.4000 Jim.Lake@lansingschools.net (Handouts on NCLB and IDEIA)

More Related