June 24, 2010Special Education Strand

Morgantown, West Virginia

WVEIS Data Conference

Change…..Change……Change

1. Indicators 3, 11/12, 142. Preschool Educational

Environments (i.e., SPP/APR Indicator 6)

3. CEIS Calculations and Reporting

4. Correction of Noncompliance

Initial Evaluation TimelinesChangesOSP is required to report children who

are transitioning from Part C to Part B under both CSADA indicators 3.2a and 3.6. (OSEP TA Document ; 12/1/2009)This means that IEPs must be developed

and implemented by the student’s3rd birthday and evaluations must be conducted in 80 days.

GF code is required for all gifted referrals (excluding EG referrals) regardless of eligibility status effective July, 1, 2010.

Initial Evaluation Timelines

Student Eligibility Status Exceptionality Code

A 1= Eligible GF

B 2 = Ineligible GF

Indicator Changes

Indicator Change

3: Assessment Targets to be reset at the elementary, middle, and high school level.

14: Post School Outcomes

Measurement change: 2009-2010 collection will serve as baseline data.

Educational Environments Ages 3-5

Revised data collection instructions approved by OMB 4/21/10. Approval extends to 4/30/2013.

Revisions are in the report of educational placements for 3 to 5 year olds.

Revised instructions impact SY 2010-11 data, collected on December 1, 2010.

Educational Environments Ages 3-5 The metric changes are centered around the

Regular Early Childhood (EC) Program.States are only required to report whether the

child is spending less than 10 hours per week or at least 10 hours per week in the Regular EC Program.

States are then required to designate where the special education services are provided for those in a Regular EC Program.

The definition for the Early Childhood Category has not changed – it is defined as a program that includes a majority (50% or more) of nondisabled children.

New Reporting Categories for SY 2010-11 Preschool Educational Environments Data

OSP will issue a memo to all special education directors regarding the technical aspects of entering and collecting the new educational environment data including district timelines and implications for the online IEP

Technical Aspects Educational Environment Data (Ages 3-5)

Coordinated Early Intervening ServicesOSEP Memo 08-09

July 28, 2008 Outlines CEIS

Who may receive When required• Significant

Disproportionality How states may elect to

define Tracking requirements CEIS and RTI How Significant

Disproportionality differs from disproportionate representation

OSP MemoDecember 11, 2009Defines WV’s revised

definition for CEISCell Size = 20Relative Risk Ratios

(RRR) must be greater than or equal to 3.0

Discipline: Type, Duration, and Incidence

Consecutive Year Provision

7 Race/Ethnicities

§300.600(d)(3) Relates to Indicators 9 & 10 More than just an examination of

numerical information is necessary

Use monitoring data, review of policies, procedures, and practices etc. to determine if disproportionate representation (DR) results from inappropriate identification

Consider both overrepresentation and underrepresentation

Indicator 10 – provide data for children in the six high incidence disability categories, at a minimum

State provides definition of DR All race/ethnicities (including the

white subgroup) are included in calculation and identification of DR.

§300.646 Identification, placement, or

disciplinary actions

Significant disproportionality triggered by just a numerical examination of data

Analysis based on just overidentification

Provide data for children in the six high incidence disability categories, at a minimum

State has discretion in defining significant disproportionality for LEAs and the State

Require identified LEAs to reserve 15% for CEIS

Considering only the RRR of minority subgroups

Disproportionate RepresentationSignificant Disproportionality

Reporting Report annually to OSEP

in APR on the % of districts in which disproportionate representation results from Inappropriate Identification

Provide raw data of districts identified with disproportionate representation

If inappropriate identification is identified, report on corrective actions taken

Report annually to the public on the performance of each LEA in the State

Reporting LEA are required to publicly report on the

revision of policies, procedures, and practices when significant disproportionality is evident

CEIS is a new 618 report Two required reporting mechanisms

1. LEA Application FY 2011 CEIS program description Total number of students who

received CEIS during 2009-2010

Total number of students who received CEIS in school year 2007-2008, 2008-2009, and 2009-2010 who later qualified for special education and/or related services in 2009-2010

2. WVEISweb Intervention Screens Identifies students by WVEIS

number Specify only students who

received CEIS during the 2009-2010 school year

Also, new tool from OSEP/DAC with potential LEA level reporting for both CEIS and reduction in MOE

Disproportionate Representation

Significant Disproportionality

Click Yes here(Default setting is No)

Correction of NoncomplianceOSEP Memo 09-02

October 17, 2008 Defines Correction on page 2Has since been frequently clarified by OSEP

Is now being fully enforced by OSEP and implemented by WVDE/OSP

Correction requirements specific to Indicators are highlighted in green boxes (Blueprints)

Correction of Noncompliance

Two Prongs of Correction

Prong 1 -- has corrected each individual case of noncompliance; and

Prong 2 -- is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements (i.e. achieved 100% compliance), based on the State’s review of updated data.

Correction Timelines and ExceptionDistricts are required to correct any noncompliances as soon as possible, but in no case later than one year.

Correction (Prong 1) is required for every individual case of noncompliance unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the district.

Thresholds for Correction

Q. May States use “thresholds” for correction of noncompliance?

For example, is 95% sufficient in determining correction?

Thresholds for Correction

A. No. Consistent with the guidance in OSEP Memo 09-02 and the 2010 APR response tables, the State may not use a threshold of less than 100% to conclude that the LEA has corrected noncompliance. Before the State may conclude that the LEA has corrected the noncompliance, it must examine updated data (which can be for less than the entire reporting period, and less than all children) to ensure that the LEA has achieved 100% compliance.