Download
1 / 31
310 likes | 508 Vues
Data Updates. SELPA Meeting September 2010. Other Stuff. Indicator 13 – Secondary Transition New federal ethnicity FAQ Early Intervening Services Personnel Data. CASEMIS Changes for 2010-2011. Indicator 13 – Secondary Transition. New Indicator 13 - Transition.
E N D
Data Updates SELPA Meeting September 2010
Other Stuff • Indicator 13 – Secondary Transition • New federal ethnicity FAQ • Early Intervening Services • Personnel Data
New Indicator 13 - Transition “Percent of youth with IEPs aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes appropriate measurable postsecondary 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 postsecondary 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 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))
Indicator 13 Options • data can be collected from the Special Education Self Review (SESR) data: • data can be collected using an online survey of school districts selected under an approved federal sampling plan; • the data can be collected in CASEMIS using a new Table E; or • the data can be collected by adding fields to Table A of CASEMIS.
Its about the use of Part B funds for CEIS. Districts that are Significantly Disproportionate and those districts who voluntarily use IDEA funds for CEIS should be reporting students in this field.
CEIS is a data collection and reporting issue not an IEP issue. The requirement is to report students who received CEIS in the TWO years prior to referral.
Compliance Determinations Will be made for 2008-09 shortly Disseminated to SELPAs to review before release to the field Any determination other than a “Meets Requirements” results in inability to use increased fed funds toward meeting MOE
Overall Determinations 34 CFR 300.603 (b) Determination—(1) General. Based on the information provided by the State in the State’s annual performance report, information obtained through monitoring visits, and any other public information made available, the Secretary determines if the State— (i) Meets the requirements and purposes of Part B of the Act; (ii) Needs assistance in implementing the requirements of Part B of the Act; (iii) Needs intervention in implementing the requirements of Part B of the Act; or (iv) Needs substantial intervention in implementing the requirements of Part B of the Act.
California Compliance Determinations Are Being Based On: Timely Correction of Noncompliance Timely and Complete Reporting Compliance Indicators Indicator 4: Suspension/Expulsion Indicator 9: Overall Disproportionality Indicator 10: Disproportionality by Disability Indicator 11: Initial Evaluation Indicator 12: Part C to Part B Transition Indicator 13: Secondary Transition Audit Findings
Findings of Noncompliance based on CASEMIS data OSEP expects CDE to make findings of noncompliance based on data supplied to CDE through CASEMIS. (see OSEP FAQ on compliance #8 at http://spp-apr-calendar.rrfcnetwork.org/explorer/view/id/530.) Previously, CDE sent letters related to annual IEP timelines and triennial reviews. Now CDE is expected to send findings of noncompliance and corrective action plans for items calculated through the CASEMIS data submissions. Specifically, findings will be made related to Indicator #4 – Suspension and Expulsion, Indicator #9 – Disproportionality Overall, Indicator #10 - Disproportionality by Disability, Indicator #11 - Initial Evaluation, Indicator #12 - Transition from Part C to Part B, and Indicator #13 - Post Secondary Transition.
Findings and Corrective Actions using the New Correction Rules • Does the district have students that were evaluated outside the timelines? • Were the evaluations completed? • If all evaluations were completed, did a follow-up sample demonstrate that the district implemented the requirements at the 100% level? • If all evaluations were completed and the district implemented requirements at the 100% level, then the finding is rescinded. • If there were incomplete evaluations, then the district must provide evidence that each of the evaluations were completed. • Also the district has to demonstrate through a subsequent sample that the are correctly implementing the requirement at the 100% level. • If a follow-up sample demonstrates that the district does not implement the requirement at the 100% level, then the district must take additional actions to ensure correction and demonstrate that the requirement is implemented at the 100% level.
Disproportionality Significant Disproportionality and Disproportionate Representation calculations have been made for 2008-09. They were sent to SELPAs for review and letters were sent to districts in June. Special Self Reviews for Disproportionate Representation will be scheduled in the Fall of 2010 once we have general education data available for 2000-10. For 2010-11, calculations for disproportionate representation and significant disproportionality will be made using the new federal ethnicity categories. Note that OSEP requires CDE use the “two or more races” category as a category in the calculation of over and under representation.
