Dazed and Confused: General Supervision Administrators’ Management Meeting September 2009 Karen...
-
Upload
aspen-kelman -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of Dazed and Confused: General Supervision Administrators’ Management Meeting September 2009 Karen...
Dazed and Confused: General Supervision
Administrators’ Management Meeting September 2009
Karen Denbroeder, AdministratorSpecial Programs, Information, and Evaluation
Kim C. Komisar, Ph.D., AdministratorProgram Administration and Quality Assurance
Bureau of Exceptional Education and Student ServicesFlorida Department of Education
Topics
General Supervision System• Overview – conceptual framework
• General supervision tools
• Changes to SPP Indicators
• Correction of noncompliance
• LEA determinations
• Leveled monitoring system
Topics
Other hot topics…• Coordinated early intervening services (CEIS)
• Services to parentally-placed private school students
• Revocation of consent
• ???
GS – Conceptual Framework
SPP/APR guides the process of general supervision
Continuous improvement focuses on the SPP indicators
Why “Dazed and Confused”?
“Me, Myself, and Irene” was a close second…
GS – Conceptual Framework
General supervision activities and processes are:1. Tied to school year by data requirements2. Confounded by APR reporting cycle (e.g., reporting on 2007-08 and 2008-09 in February 2010…)3. Despite #1 and #2 above, action planning is conducted “…from this point forward…”
GS – Conceptual Framework
Improvement planning related to performance indicators conducted by:• SPP indicator teams
• Targeted districts
Correction of noncompliance identified by• Monitoring
• Dispute resolution
• Data collection
GS – Tools
Guide to Calculations SPP indicator teams Planning calendar
GS – Tools
Self-assessment system• Assists with data collection/tracking
• SPP 13 – Secondary transition
• SPP 15 – Timely correction of noncompliance
• Informs district’s problem-solving process by identifying or ruling out procedural issues impacting performance
GS – Tools
General supervision Web site• Program improvement plans (PIPs) for
targeted districts
• Self-assessment system for monitoring and professional development
• Corrective action plans (CAPs) for systemic noncompliance
• Student-level correction of noncompliance
• Corrective actions required through state complaint investigations (new)
GS – Tools: General Supervision Web Site
GS – Tools: General Supervision Web Site
GS – Tools: General Supervision Web Site
GS – Tools: General Supervision Web Site
The Lion King was another option…
“It's the Circle of Life And it moves us all
Through despair and hope…”
October
July
August
November January
September
June
March
February
April
May
December
October
July
August
November January
September
June
March
February
April
May
December
LEA Determinations
Data Submission• SPP 12
CEIS Determinations
Data Submission• SPP 11
October
July
August
November January
September
June
March
February
April
May
December
P
F
Fall CycleLevel 1 – All districts begin self-assessment:• SPP 13• Matrix• DJJ
All districts submit self-assessment results
Districts submit:• Student-level correction of noncompliance• Corrective action plan (CAP), if required
Fall cycle preliminary monitoring report disseminated
Fall cycle final monitoring report disseminated
Correct student-specific noncompliance
October
July
August
January
September
June
March
February
April
May
December
P
F
Fall CycleDistricts targeted on:• LRE/Student Performance (SPP 3, 5)• Suspension/Expulsion (SPP 4)Begin Level 2 Fall self-assessment:• LRE/Student Performance• Suspension/Expulsion
Districts submit:• Self-assessment results• Program improvement plan (PIP)• CAP, if required
Correct student-specific noncompliance
Included in fall cycle preliminary monitoring report
Districts submit:• Student-level correction of noncompliance• Address in CAP, if required
Included in fall cycle final monitoring report
November
October
July
August
January
September
June
March
February
April
May
December
P
F
November
PF
Spring CycleDistricts targeted on: • Exiting (SPP 1, 2, 13, 14)• Disproportionality (SPP 9, 10)• 60-Day Timeline (SPP 11)• C-to-B Transition (SPP 12)Begin Level 2 Spring self-assessment:• Exiting• Disproportionality
Districts submit:• PIP• Self-assessment results • CAP, if required
Spring cycle preliminary monitoring report disseminated
Districts submit:• Student-level correction of noncompliance•CAP, if required
Correct student-specific noncompliance
October
July
August
January
September
June
March
February
April
May
December
P
F
November
PF
Level 3 – On-site monitoring begins
Level 3 – On-site monitoring ends
Key
Submit self-assessment
DOE Report
Submit PIP
Submit CAP, if required
Monitoring
Correction of student-specific noncompliance
Implement CAP
Level 2 Spring targeted districts submit:•Self-assessment results •CAP, if required•PIP (Level 2 Spring)
Level 2 Fall – Districts targeted and begin self-assessment:LRE/Student Performance (SPP 3, 4, 5)
October
July
August
January
September
June
March
Level 1 – All districts begin self-assessment:•SPP 13•Matrix•DJJ
Districts submit self-assessment results: •Level 1 – All districts•Level 2 Fall – Targeted districts
February
Level 1 – Districts submit, if needed:Student-level correction of noncompliance•CAP and/or•PIP (Level 2 Fall)
Level 1 – Preliminary monitoring report disseminated
Level 1 – Final monitoring report disseminated
Level 3 – On-site monitoring begins
Level 3 – On-site monitoring ends
April
May
Level 1 and Level 2 Fall – Districts submit:CAP (Level 1 and/or Level 2 Fall, if needed)PIP (Level 2 Fall)
December
Level 2 Spring – Districts targeted and begin self-assessment:•Exiting (SPP 1, 2, 13, 14)•Disproportionality (SPP 9, 10)•Timely Evaluation (SPP 11)•C to B Transition (SPP 12)
LEA Determinations
CEIS Determinations
P
F
Data Submission•SPP 12
Data Submission•SPP 11
November
PF
Changes to State Performance Plan Indicators
February 1, 2010 Submission
Changes to Annual Performance Report No February 2010 APR reporting for SPP
indicators 6, 7, 13, and 14 (baseline and targets will be reported for indicator 7 in the SPP)
Data to lag one year for indicators 1, 2, and 4• 2007-08 data will be reported in APR for these
indicators
• For all other indicators, 2008-09 data will be reported
Calculation Guide Organized by indicator Data sources Timeframe for data retrieval Calculation method Key data elements
Changes to APR
Calculations have changed for• Indicator 1: Graduation
• Indicator 3: Participation and performance on statewide assessment
• Indicator 11: 60-day timeline
• Indicator 13: Secondary transition in the IEP (no changes for Florida)
• Indicator 14: Post-school outcomes
Indicator 1: Graduation Rate
Old formula• Standard diploma SWD graduates in a given
year divided by Total SWD completing their education or dropping out in the same year
New formula• NCLB calculation (four-year cohort model)
2007-08 Graduation Rate
45.2%
43.0%
41.5%
42.0%
42.5%
43.0%
43.5%
44.0%
44.5%
45.0%
45.5%
Old Formula New Formula
Indicator 1: Graduation Rate
Because of the change to the indicator, we will be establishing new baseline and targets
Indicator 3: Participation and Performance
Performance will now be calculated based on students enrolled for full academic year (reported in October and February) rather than all students taking the test
Participation still calculated for all students enrolled
Indicator 11: 60-Day Timeline
Old Measurement• Reported separately the number of students (1)
determined not eligible and (2) determined eligible whose initial evaluations were completed within 60 days
New Measurement• (1) and (2) have been collapsed
Web-based reporting for 2008-09 data
Indicator 13: Secondary Transition in the IEP
No reporting this year Indicator language has changed to mirror
IDEA secondary transition requirements Florida is already using the correct
language
Indicator 14: Post-school Outcomes
Reporting not required this year Indicator requires mutually exclusive
reporting of students• Enrolled in higher education
• Competitively employed
• Enrolled in other postsecondary education or training
• Employed in some other employment
Indicator 14: Post-school Outcomes
Consulting with FETPIP Office to address changes
Indicator 4B: Disproportionality in Suspension/Expulsion
This indicator was in the original State Performance Plan and was removed by OSEP
It will be included in the February 2011 APR submission based on data from 2008-09
It will be treated in the same way as indicators 9 and 10 (including a review of policies, practices and procedures)
Correction of Noncompliance
Compliance Indicators
Disproportionality due to inappropriate identification (SPP 9 and 10)
Completion of initial evaluations within 60 day timeline (SPP 11)
Transition from Part C to Part B (SPP 12) Secondary Transition in the IEP (SPP 13) Correction of noncompliance (SPP 15) Timely and accurate reported data (SPP 20)
Compliance Indicators
Findings of noncompliance are corrected as soon as possible but no later than one year from identification/notification
Correction of noncompliance occurs at the individual student level and at a systemic level
Systemic noncompliance is defined as identified noncompliance in 25% or more of individual cases
Compliance Indicators
Reporting correction of noncompliance in the APR occurs in the year following identification
Example
In 2007-08, District A had findings of noncompliance in Indicator 10.
In 2008-09, verification of correction of this noncompliance is reported in both Indicator 10 and in Indicator 15.
The 2007-08 findings would be part of a district’s LEA determination in Spring 2009.
The 2008-09 correction of these findings would be part of the district’s LEA determination in Spring 2010.
Timeline Compliance Indicators
For indicator 11, evidence of correction for individual students demonstrates that the student was evaluated.
For indicator 12, evidence of correction for individual students demonstrates that an IEP was developed and implemented.
The current data reporting structure for both of these indicators includes this evidence.
LEA Determinations
2008-09 Data
LEA Determinations
Determinations are made using a rubric that allocates points. Total points decide which determination a district receives.
For the purposes of determinations, all calculations will be rounded to the nearest whole number.
LEA Determination Elements
A district receives one point for each of the following if they meet substantial compliance (95%):• Indicator 9
• Indicator 10
• Indicator 11
• Indicator 12
• Indicator 20
LEA Determination Elements
A district receives one point if there is 100% correction of noncompliance identified in 2007-08 data.
A district receives one point if there are no critical state audit findings reported by the Auditor General.
Total possible points = 7
Leveled Monitoring System
2009-10
2009-10: Level 1 Monitoring
Level 1 Self-Assessment – All districts• SPP 13 – Secondary transition addressed in
the IEP
• Matrix of services
• Services to students in DJJ facilities• Basic procedural compliance at the facility and
district levels
• IEP implementation
• Random sampling provides a “snapshot” of the district
2009-10: Level 2 Monitoring
Level 2 Self-Assessment – Targeted districts• Fall Cycle
• SPP 3, 5 cluster (LRE/assessment)
• SPP 4 (Suspension/Expulsion)
• Concurrent with Level 1
• Spring Cycle• SPP 1, 2, 13, 14 cluster (Exiting)
• SPP 9, 10 cluster (Disproportionality)
2009-10: Level 2 Monitoring
Level 2 – Targeted districts• Focused protocols for newly targeted districts
• Why newly targeted only? If the district was targeted for a given indicator in 2008-09, procedural self-assessment was conducted and:• Either procedural noncompliance was not a systemic
issue or
• Procedural noncompliance was a systemic issue, and the district already has addressed or is currently addressing it through a CAP
2009-10: Level 2 Monitoring
Level 2 – Targeted districts• Purposeful sampling of those students most
likely to be impacted by noncompliance in the indicator-specific related requirements provides more meaningful and useful data to district problem-solving teams
2009-10: Level 3 Monitoring
Level 3 – On-site monitoring • Level 1 self-assessment protocols and
• Level 2 (Spring, Fall, or both) self-assessment protocol(s), if applicable, and
• On-site monitoring of one or more of the following:• Matrix of services 254/255
• Timely correction of noncompliance
• Pattern of poor performance on multiple indicators
• Focus on IEP implementation
2009-10: Level 3 Selection Criteria
Matrix of services 254/255• Adjusted for out-of-district students for
purposes of district selection• > 150% of state rate for 254
• > 150% of state rate for 255
• > 150% of state rate for 254 and 255 combined
• Monitoring activities will apply to both in-district and out-of-district students
2009-10: Level 3 Selection Criteria
Timely correction of noncompliance• Self-assessment results
• State complaint investigations
• Due process hearings
• SPP compliance indicators (11, 12, 13, (15))
2009-10: Level 3 Selection Criteria
Timely correction of noncompliance• OSEP timeline of “as soon as possible, but in
no case longer than one year from identification” applies to LEA determinations
• BEESS internal timelines applies to district selection for on-site monitoring• 60 days for student-specific noncompliance
identified through self-assessment
• 10-12 months for systemic noncompliance
• Established timelines for noncompliance identified through state complaints (30-60 days) or due process hearings
2009-10: Level 3 Selection Criteria
Timely correction of noncompliance – moving forward to 2010-11• OSEP timeline requires that within one year:
• Districts must correct all noncompliance
• Bureau must verify correction occurred
2009-10: Level 3 Selection Criteria
Timely correction of noncompliance – moving forward to 2010-11• OSEP allows states to not report in the APR
noncompliance that is corrected before it is formally “identified,” although states must verify the correction (e.g., discovered during on-site monitoring, but corrected prior to the report being disseminated)
2009-10: Level 3 Selection Criteria
Pattern of poor performance on multiple indicators or clusters over time
Example:• Targeting by the exiting cluster doesn’t
automatically trigger Level 3 –
• But targeting by the exiting cluster for three years in a row likely will!
Monitoring Timeline
2009-10
Still not sufficiently “Dazed and Confused”?? Just wait!!
Timeline – Closing Out 2008-09
Final 2008-09 on-site visits being conducted now
January 27, 2010 – Districts with CAPs submit final status report demonstrating:• Correction of all student-specific noncompliance
• > 75% compliance on designated standards
• Yes, there is an elephantin the room… There will
be overlap between years.
Timeline – 2009-10
Level 1 and Level 2 Fall Cycle (focused)• October 15, 2009 – Level 2 Fall Cycle districts
notified of status as targeted districts• LRE/student performance (SPP 3, 5)
• Suspension/expulsion (SPP 4)
• October 15, 2009 – Draft manual and conference call information in BEESS Weekly Memo
Timeline – 2009-10
Level 1 and Level 2 Fall Cycle (focused)• October 20, 21, 2009 – Informational
conference calls • Level 1 monitoring
• Level 2 monitoring
• October 26, 2009 – Districts begin self-assessment
Timeline – 2009-10
Level 1 and Level 2 Fall Cycle (focused)• January 8, 2010 – Districts submit via Web
site• Self-assessment results
• PIP for Level 2 Fall
• January 29, 2010 – Level 1 and Level 2 Fall Cycle preliminary report disseminated
Timeline – 2009-10
Level 1 and Level 2 Fall Cycle (focused)• March 8, 2010 – Districts submit
• Correction of student-specific noncompliance
• CAP for systemic noncompliance, if required
• March 29, 2010 – Level 1 and Level 2 Fall Cycle final report disseminated
Timeline – 2009-10
Level 2 Spring Cycle (focused)• February 3, 2010 – Level 2 Spring Cycle
districts notified of status as targeted districts• Exiting (SPP 1, 2, 13, 14)
• Disproportionality (SPP 9, 10)
• Timely evaluation (SPP 11)
• C-to-B transition (SPP 12)
• February 8, 2010 – Level 2 Spring Cycle districts begin self-assessment• Exiting (SPP 1, 2, 13, 14)
• Disproportionality (SPP 9, 10)
Timeline – 2009-10
Level 2 Spring Cycle (focused)• April 5, 2010* – Districts submit via Web site
• Level 2 Spring Cycle self-assessment results
• PIP for Level 2 Spring Cycle• Exiting (SPP 1, 2, 13, 14)
• Disproportionality (SPP 9, 10)
• Timely evaluation (SPP 11)*
• C-to-B transition (SPP 12)*
• April 26, 2010 – Level 1 and Level 2 Spring Cycle preliminary report disseminated
* Date may differ for SPP 11, 12
Timeline – 2009-10
Level 2 Spring Cycle (focused)• June 7, 2010 – Districts submit
• Correction of student-specific noncompliance for Level 2 Spring Cycle
• Exiting (SPP 1, 2, 13, 14)
• Disproportionality (SPP 9, 10)
• CAP for systemic noncompliance, if required
• June 28, 2010 –Level 2 Spring Cycle final report disseminated
Timeline – 2009-10
Level 3 - On-site monitoring• Notification (goal) – November 1, 2009
• On-site visits (goal)• January – May 2010
• May need to extend to August – October 2010
And now you know! Clearly - “Dazed and Confused”!
Coordinated Early Intervening Services
CEIS
Use of CEIS
Districts may choose to use up to 15% of IDEA funds for early intervening services
Districts may be required to use the full 15%
Required CEIS
Districts are required to set aside 15% of IDEA funds for early intervening services if any of the following criteria are met:• Students of any race are at least 3.5 times more
likely to be identified as disabled compared to all other races (SWD, IND, EBD, SLD, ASD, OHI, SILI)
Required CEIS
• Students with disabilities ages 6-21 of any race are at least 3.5 times more likely to be placed in a separate class or other separate environment when compared to all other races (SWD, IND, EBD, SLD, ASD, OHI, SILI)
• Students with disabilities of any race are at least 3.5 times more likely to be suspended/expelled when compared to all other races combined (SWD only)
Remember…….
You must report in the automated student data base each student who received services funded through CEIS dollars
States are required to track by student those nondisabled children who received these services and whether or not they ultimately were found eligible for special education and related services.
CEIS Reporting Requirements
For districts voluntarily using up to 15% of IDEA dollars for CEIS and those who are required to use funds for CEIS, a code has been added to the Element “Fund Source” in automated student data base to indicate students receiving CEIS under requirements in the IDEA.
Fund Source
Code I indicates student receiving Early Intervening Services funded by IDEA, Part B dollars.
Reported on Federal/State Indicator Status format in Survey 5.
Percentage of Districts Required to Implement CEIS and Districts Choosing Whether to Implement CEIS on
Voluntary Basis (Yes or No)
CEIS Required19%
CEIS VoluntaryYes37%
CEIS VoluntaryNo44%
Uses of CEIS Set Aside Funds
Personnel• RtI Coordinators, teachers, behavior
specialists, substitutes, and paraprofessionals
Professional Development• Consultants
• Stipends for teachers and other staff
• Travel costs for participants
Uses of CEIS Set Aside Funds
Technology• Instructional
• Data collection and reporting tools Materials and Supplies
• Consumables for teachers and students
Challenges/Issues
CEIS• Specify applicable population of students
• Nondisabled K-12 students
• Tier II and Tier III
• Identify appropriate set-asides in budget(s)
• Budget for the 15% limit, if required
Parentally Placed Private School Students
Requirements and Challenges
Proportionate Share – Part B
Year Students Funds
2007-08 13,871 $ 17,976,857
2008-09 8,901 $ 11,941,119
2009-10 9,478 $ 28,634,542
Year Students Funds
2007-08 770 $ 417,258
2008-09 361 $ 176,676
2009-10 252 $ 293,862
Proportionate Share – Part B
FY 2008-09Proportionate Share Expenditures
Expenditures Roll
Part B = $8,846,354 $5,354,325
PreK = $ 133,886 $ 49,729
Private School Consultation
How are eligible students enrolled in non-profit private schools identified?
How are private school representatives and parents of children with disabilities informed of the process?
How is the amount of proportionate share determined and how will funds be used?
Private School Consultation
How are decisions made with regard to services offered in the consultative agreement? (i.e., types of services, including direct service, and any alternate service delivery)
How is this information (consultative agreement) shared with private schools and parents?
Private School Consultation
How are affirmations obtained from representatives of private schools? (Affirmation signed by private school reps should document that “timely and meaningful consultation occurred”)
Grant Challenges/Issues
Consultation/Proportionate Share• Describe district’s unique consultation
process, including affirmation
• Identify set-asides in budget(s)
• Describe appropriate expenditures for satisfying share funds
You must have documentation on file that a“timely and meaningful consultation has occurred”
and
is signed off by private school officials or by a representative of private schools.
Remember…
Expending Proportionate Share
“YES!” Speech therapy Language therapy Occupational/physical
therapy Instructional support
per student’s services plan (SP)
“NO!” Psychological testing Guidance counseling Any activities, including
observations, leading to identifying eligibility (both initial and for reevaluations)
Expending Proportionate Share
“YES!” Consumables and all
instructional materials age-appropriate and for specific use by students with disabilities and their teachers
“NO!” Evaluation and
testing materials used by professionals conducting assessments to identify children initially and for reevaluations
Expending Proportionate Share
“YES!” Computer hardware
and software specific for use by SWD
Transportation costs of serving SWD in public school (between private school/public school)
“NO!” Upgrade computers
at the school Purchase site license
for new reading curriculum at school
Reimburse parents for transporting SWD to public school
Revocation of Consent
What does it really mean?
Revocation of Consent
Parent must make the request in writing The district may not delay the cessation
of services The district may not challenge the
parent’s request Revocation of consent reflect dismissal
from ESE, not discontinuation of some services
Revocation of Consent
District must provide prior written notice of change of FAPE/placement• Will reflect the parent’s request
• Can include the district’s rationale for advising that consent not be revoked
• Should include a description of the rights and benefits no longer conveyed
Revocation of Consent
Historical record stands – prior participation in ESE cannot be deleted from the record
Disciplinary protections no longer apply FCAT waiver no longer applicable OSEP says accommodations “may” be
continued if the teacher provides them to other nondisabled students
Revocation of Consent
Application to districts’ virtual instruction programs?• The district has an obligation to provide FAPE
to an eligible student with a disability
• FAPE is not “one size fits all”
• There is no algorithm to plug in the student data and have “FAPE in the LRE” fall out
• Think outside the box; be flexible; be honest
Revocation of Consent
Application to districts’ virtual instruction programs?• What does the district do when the parent of a
student with multiple significant disabilities in need of highly specialized “low availability” services rejects placement at the school site(s) where the services currently are provided?
• If the parent refuses to allow the district to provide FAPE, the district may need to discuss revocation of consent.
Contact Us850-245-0475
Data Collection and Reporting; SPP/APR; CEIS• [email protected]
General Compliance• [email protected]
Monitoring• [email protected]
Dispute Resolution• [email protected]