1 / 33

The Connection Between Statewide Data Systems and Findings of Noncompliance

The Connection Between Statewide Data Systems and Findings of Noncompliance. Tools for a Successful Year. Building a Good Foundation. 2009 Special Education Director’s Conference. DISCUSSION POINTS. LEA Determinations Review OSEP FAQ Guidance

osric
Télécharger la présentation

The Connection Between Statewide Data Systems and Findings of Noncompliance

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. The Connection Between Statewide Data Systems and Findings of Noncompliance Tools for a Successful Year Building a Good Foundation 2009 Special Education Director’s Conference

  2. DISCUSSION POINTS • LEA Determinations Review • OSEP FAQ Guidance • LEA Determinations and Findings of Noncompliance Distinctions • Data Collections Used to Identify Noncompliance • Citations Tied to Findings • Timelines for Issuing Findings • Timely Correction • Corrective Action Examples Data & Reporting

  3. Compliance Indicators Disproportionality (9 &10) Child Find (11) Early Childhood Transition (12) Secondary Transition Plans (13) General Supervision (15) Complaints (16) Due Process (17) Timely, Valid and Reliable Data (20) Results Indicators Graduation (1) Dropout (2) Assessment (3) Discipline (4) EE Ages 6-21 (5) EE Ages 3-5 (6) Early Childhood Outcomes (7) Parent Involvement (8) Post-School Outcomes (14) Resolution Sessions (18) Mediation Agreements (19) Review of SPP Indicators Note: For more information, please visit http://www.isbe.net/spec-ed/pdfs/state_performance.pdf.

  4. Illinois LEA Determination Indicator Requirements • Each State chooses whether to consider results indicators when making determinations • IL stakeholders chose not to consider results indicators • All States were required to consider the following data when making determinations (based on the 2007-2008 school year data): • Indicator 9: Disproportionate Representation in Special Education • Indicator 10: Disproportionate Representation in Specific Disability Categories • Indicator 11: Child Find • Indicator 12: Early Intervention to Early Childhood Transition • Indicator 13: Secondary Transition • Indicator 15: General Supervision, Uncorrected Noncompliance • Indicator 20: Timely, Valid and Reliable data submissions • IDEA Part B Audit Findings

  5. Indicator 15 • OSEP reviewed States’ FFY05 and FFY06 APRs in relation to identification and correction of noncompliance and low performance in compliance areas (Indicator 15 section of APR – General Supervision) • This review, and the subsequent findings, were the impetus for new federal guidance

  6. New Federal Guidance • States received new federal guidance related to noncompliance (prior to making LEA Determinations this year in IL) • The guidance was the impetus for ISBE to clarify the distinction between the LEA Determinations process and findings of noncompliance • OSEP clarified that states must make findings of noncompliance when LEAs do not reach the measurable and rigorous targets for SPP compliance indicators (when noncompliance is identified through the State’s data systems

  7. OSEP FAQ Guidance Federal guidance related to findings of noncompliance: • “Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Identification and Correction of Noncompliance and Reporting on Correction in the SPP/APR” dated 9/3/08 • OSEP Memorandum 09-02 entitled, “Reporting on Correction of Noncompliance in the Annual Performance Report Required under Sections 616 and 642 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act” dated 10/17/08 • http://spp-apr-calendar.rrfcnetwork.org/getfile/view/id/575 • These documents marked the first written notification from OSEP that findings of noncompliance were to be made based on data reported by LEAs through the State’s data system(s)

  8. OSEP Clarification • ISBE received TA and additional clarification from OSEP between November 2008 and January 2009 after the federal guidance was released • IL was told to begin making formal findings of noncompliance to address individual instances where districts were not meeting the SPP target for compliance indicators (vs. addressing the issues through the use of individualized DIPs and the LEA Determinations process) • Therefore, ISBE developed a plan to issue findings of noncompliance to LEAs that did not meet the measurable and rigorous target of either 100% or 0%

  9. ISBE’s Plan • Make annual findings of noncompliance based on federal regulations aligned with SPP Indicators 4, 9 and 10 after data have been verified (January) • Make annual findings of noncompliance based on federal regulations aligned with SPP Indicators 11, 12 and 13 after data have been verified (September)

  10. LEA Determinations v. Findings of Noncompliance • What remained the same? • States required to make LEA Determinations annually under 616(d) • Determinations had to designate the status of each LEA as: Meets Requirements, Needs Assistance, Needs Intervention, or Needs Substantial Intervention • States required to consider: • Performance on compliance indicators • Whether data submitted by LEAs were valid, reliable, and timely • Uncorrected noncompliance from other sources • Any audit findings • In addition, States could also consider: • Performance on results indicators • Other information • Meaningful stakeholder involvement was an integral part of the process • Stakeholders set point values and criteria for each determination “category” and for each data indicator • Stakeholders set the appeals process and the public reporting policy • Findings of noncompliance made through the focused monitoring and complaint processes

  11. LEA Determinations v.Findings of Noncompliance • What changed? • ISBE required to make findings of noncompliance based on data reported to the State’s data systems • ISBE determines follow up (corrective actions and improvement activities) for the findings of noncompliance for each data indicator (v. stakeholders) • DIPs, corrective actions, and improvement activities are required as part of the correction of noncompliance process (v. LEA Determinations process)

  12. LEA Determinations v.Findings of Noncompliance • What changed? • Districts first notified of findings of noncompliance annually in January (SPP 4, 9 & 10) or September (SPP 11, 12, & 13) when data are validated and/or noncompliance is identified (v. after LEA Determination criteria had been set and district data had been pulled) • At a later date, the district receives separate notification of its overall determination (v. at the same time) • Districts document required corrective actions and improvement activities in their DIP after findings of noncompliance are identified (v. after LEA Determination) • ISBE reviews DIPs to ensure documentation of appropriate corrective actions and improvement activities. ISBE follows up with districts to ensure correction of noncompliance within 12 months (v. ISBE staff reviewing DIPs to ensure that appropriate follow up improvement activities were documented )

  13. Data Collections Used to Identify Noncompliance • Indicator 4 • Discipline data from Student Information System (SIS) • District self-assessments • Indicators 9 & 10 • Annual Fall Enrollment Data from SIS • Verified December Child Count through FACTS • District Self-Assessments • District Status Reports • Indicator 11 • FACTS • Indicator 12 • SIS Early Childhood data • DHS data • ISBE follow up requests • Transition Tracking Form • Indicator 13 • FACTS • Indicator 20 • FACTS • SIS • School Report Card • Other ISBE data requests

  14. Citations Tied to Findings • Indicator 4 • 34 CFR 300.101 [FAPE] • 34 CFR 300.170 [Suspension/expulsion rates] • 34 CFR 300.320 [IEPs] • 34 CFR 300.324 [Appropriate positive behavioral interventions and supports] • 34 CFR 300.530 [Manifestation determination and functional behavioral assessment] • 34 CFR 300.536 [Change of placement because of disciplinary removals] • 34 CFR 300.646 [Disproportionality] • 23 IAC 226.400 [Disciplinary actions] • 23 IAC 226.750 [Positive behavioral interventions] • 105 ILCS 5/10-20.14 [Student discipline policies; Parent-teacher advisory committee] • 105 ILCS 5/10-22.6 [Suspension or expulsion of pupils]

  15. Indicator 4 Resources • Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports • Illinois Statewide Technical Assistance Center • Illinois PBIS Network • Racial Disproportionality in School Disciplinary Practices • Proactively Culturally Responsive Discipline • Discipline and Race Article and Presentation • Building Safe and Responsive Schools • Safety in Numbers • National Wrap-Around Initiative • Project EASE Educational Alternatives to Suspension and Expulsion) Promising Strategies Document • DisMISS Project (Disproportionate Minority Involvement of Suspended Students) • Ten Alternatives to Suspension • Prevention Research & the IDEA Discipline Provisions: A Guide for School Administrators • The National Center on Education, Disability and Juvenile Justice

  16. Citations Tied to Findings • Indicators 9 & 10 • 34 CFR 300.1(a) [Purposes-FAPE] • 34 CFR 300.8(c) [Definitions of disability terms] • 34 CFR 300.111 [Child find] • 34 CFR 300.173 [Overidentification and disproportionality] • 34 CFR 300.201 [Consistency with State policies] • 34 CFR 300.226 [Early intervening services] • 34 CFR 300.301 – 300.311 [FAPE, FEOG, program options, etc.] • 34 CFR 300.646 [Disproportionality] • 23 IAC 226.700(a) [Comprehensive program of special education]

  17. Indicators 9 & 10 Resources The following tools and resources may be accessed from the LEA Determinations link found at www.isbe.net/spec-ed • Illinois’ Process for Determining and Addressing Disproportionality in Special Education • Weighted and Alternate Risk Ratios • District Self-Assessment • District Status Report • Disproportionality PowerPoint Presentation • Methods for Assessing Racial/Ethnic Disproportionality in Special Education: A Technical Assistance Guide • October 2, 2008 Conference Call Audio Cast • Special Education Disproportionality FAQ • Use of IDEA Part B Funds for Early Intervening Services

  18. Citations Tied to Findings • Indicator 11 • 34 CFR 300.111 [Child find] • 34 CFR 300.131 [Child find for parentally-placed private school children with disabilities] • 34 CFR 300.300 [Parental consent] • 34 CFR 300.301 [Initial evaluations] • 34 CFR 300.304 [Evaluation procedures] • 34 CFR 300.306 [Determination of eligibility] • Indicator 12 • 34 CFR 300.124 [Transition of children from the Part C program to preschool programs] • 34 CFR 300.321 [IEP team] • 34 CFR 300.323 [When IEPs must be in effect]

  19. Indicators 11 & 12 Resources The following resources may be accessed from the LEA Determinations link found at www.isbe.net/spec-ed Indicator 11: • Special Education Funding and Child Tracking System Instructions • Illinois School Code (Section 105 ILCS 5/14-8.02) Indicator 12: • Designing and Implementing Effective Early Childhood Transition Processes • Overview of IDEA/SPP Early Childhood Transition Requirements • When I’m 3, Where Will I Be? A Family’s Transition Workbook • Early Intervention to Early Childhood Tracking Form Video Training • Early Intervention to Early Childhood Transition FAQ • Early Intervention to Early Childhood Tracking Form • Statewide Collaborative Transition Training Presentation • Early Intervention to Early Childhood Federal Register Citations • Extended School Year Services for Students with Disabilities • Early Intervention to Early Childhood Special Education Transition Memorandum - October 2005 • Child Find Screening, Data Collection Form  • Illinois School District's Responsibility Toward Early Intervention • Intergovernmental Agreement

  20. Citations Tied to Findings • Indicator 13 • 34 CFR 300.320 [Definition of IEP] • 34 CFR 300.321 [IEP team] • Indicator 15 • 34 CFR 300.??? [ ] • Indicator 20 • 34 CFR 300.601 [State performance plans and data collection] • 34 CFR 300.640 [Annual report of children served-report requirement] • EDGAR ???

  21. Indicator 13 Resources The following resources may be accessed from the LEA Determinations link found at www.isbe.net/spec-ed • FACTS Manual Instructions for Entry of Indicator 13 Data • Illinois SPP Indicator 13 Checklist • Harrisburg Training Resources for FACTS Indicator 13 Data Entry • Training Video • New User Basics Document • Building a Better IEP: Understanding Indicator 13 and the Transition Plan Requirements- a PowerPoint Training • Transition Plan Sample • Transition Outreach Training for Adult Living (TOTAL) Training Videos • National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center (NSTTAC) Indicator 13 FAQ • NSTTAC Web-based Examples and Non-Examples for SPP Indicator 13 • NSTTAC Evidence Based Secondary Transition Practices • Age-Appropriate Transition Assessment Resources • NSTTAC Age Appropriate Transition Assessment Guide • National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth (NCWDY) Career Planning Begins with Assessment

  22. Indicator 13 – What’s New? The following resources for Indicator 13 and transition plan development are accessible from the Secondary Transition page at http://www.isbe.state.il.us/spec-ed/html/total.htm • 2009 PEATC Transition Webinar Series • PEATC and VCU RRTC bring six 30 minute webinars; Next Steps: Transition for students with disabilities. This is a FREE opportunity for students, families, educators, adult service providers and others interested in Transition. FREE, but registration is required. To register, please link to http://www.peatc.org/newsmanager/news_article.cgi?sess=8ee7992460bb0064160079671f724c0a&news_id=66 • Proyecto Visión • This bilingual web site is a project to connect Latinos with disabilities to employment opportunities. It provides information on education, employment, and independent living resources and lists hundreds of job, scholarship, internship, grant, award, and other educational opportunities of interest to Latinos and students with disabilities

  23. Indicator 20 Resources • Indicator 20: Forum Guide to Building a Culture of Quality Data: A School & District Resource • Taking Your Data to the Laundry: How to Improve Data Accuracy (December 2008) • SIS Website • FACTS Manual

  24. When LEAs Have Findings of Noncompliance • State notifies LEA in writing of the noncompliance, and of the requirement that the noncompliance be corrected as soon as possible, but in no case more than one year from identification (written notice to LEA from State)

  25. Timelines for Issuing Findings • Indicators 4, 9 and 10 • Annual findings of noncompliance in January (after data have been verified) • Indicators 11, 12, and 13 • Annual findings of noncompliance in September (after data have been verified) • Indicator 20 • Ongoing

  26. Timely Correction • Noncompliance must be corrected as soon as possible, but in no case later than one year from identification • Subsequent correction will be determined by the State via updated data, documentation submitted for the corrective action, file reviews, interviews, observations, etc.

  27. Full Correction • LEA is correctly implementing the specific statutory/regulatory requirement • LEA corrected student-specific noncompliance

  28. Full Correction Not Achieved • If the LEA does not meet the criteria for full correction, the State/LEA must identify the causes of continuing noncompliance • The State must address the continued lack of compliance, including, as appropriate, taking enforcement actions

  29. Steps to Correct Noncompliance • In determining the steps that the LEA must take to correct the noncompliance (and document the correction) the following factors may be considered: • Whether noncompliance was extensive • Whether noncompliance resulted in denial of basic rights under IDEA • Whether noncompliance represents an isolated incident or reflects long-standing failure to meet IDEA requirements

  30. Steps to Correct Noncompliance • For child-specific indicators (9, 10 and 13) the State must ensure that the LEA has corrected each individual case of noncompliance • For child-specific indicators with specific timeline requirements (11, 12) the State must additionally ensure that the LEA has completed the required action (evaluation or initiation of services) though late

  31. Corrective Actions • The State determines the specific nature of the required corrective action • Corrective actions will be implemented via the system of general supervision, which includes focused monitoring and other accountability measures • Corrective actions will be documented in the LEAs’ DIPs found on the IIRC website

  32. Corrective Action Examples • Student-related • Programs • Services • Interventions • Staff-related • Professional development • Accountability • Policies and procedures • Practices • Parent-related • Professional development • Involvement • Data-related • Timely • Accurate • Accountability

  33. Questions? Scott Beever or Jodi Fleck 217-782-5589 sbeever@isbe.net jfleck@isbe.net

More Related