1 / 35

Larry Ringer and Dan Schreier Presenters

OSEP Update on Identification and Correction of Noncompliance Part B. Larry Ringer and Dan Schreier Presenters. Previous OSEP Guidance. OSEP has previously provided guidance regarding the identification and correction of noncompliance in:

salome
Download Presentation

Larry Ringer and Dan Schreier Presenters

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. OSEP Update on Identification and Correction of NoncompliancePart B Larry Ringer and Dan Schreier Presenters

  2. Previous OSEP Guidance OSEP has previously provided guidance regarding the identification and correction of noncompliance in: • Frequently Asked Questions, September 3, 2008 (Disseminated at the National Accountability Conference) • OSEP Memorandum 09-02, October 17, 2008

  3. Updated Guidance We will address issues that have surfaced through APR review and verification visits: • OSEP’s June 2009 SPP/APR response tables (for FFY 2007); • OSEP’s June 2010 SPP/APR response tables (for FFY 2008); and • The verification visit letters for visits conducted in Fall 2009.

  4. LEA Level Compliance Indicators • Indicators 9 and 10 – disproportionate representation/ensuring appropriate identification • Indicator 11 – timely initial evaluation • Indicator 12 – timely early childhood transition • Indicator 13 – IEP secondary transition content

  5. SEA Responsibility The SEA responsibility is to identify and correct noncompliance for all IDEA requirements, and report on that in Indicator 15, including the specific indicators on the preceding slide.

  6. IDENTIFICATION

  7. Key Questions - Identification • Must States identify all noncompliance regardless of the source of the data establishing noncompliance? • What actions must a State take if it collects or receives information indicating noncompliance? • May States use “thresholds” for identification of noncompliance?

  8. Key Principles - Identification • All noncompliance must be identified and corrected: • From all sources of compliance data • Regardless of the amount of noncompliance (no thresholds)

  9. Key Principles - Identification 2. When a State collects or receives data indicating noncompliance, it must: a. Make a finding of noncompliance; or b. Verify whether the data demonstrate noncompliance, and then issue a finding if the data do demonstrate noncompliance; or

  10. Key Principles - Identification c. Verify that the LEA has corrected the noncompliance before the State issues written findings of noncompliance, in which case the State would not be required to make a finding of noncompliance.

  11. Make a finding of noncompliance. Option 1 • Verify whether data demonstrate noncompliance, and then issue finding if data do demonstrate noncompliance. Option 2 • Verify LEA has corrected noncompliance before State issues written findings of noncompliance, in which case State not required to make a finding of noncompliance. Option 3

  12. Answering the Questions -- Thresholds Q: May States use “thresholds” for identification of noncompliance? A: No. If the State finds a compliance level less than 100%, it must: 1. Make a finding of noncompliance; or 2. Verify whether the data demonstrate noncompliance; or 3. Verify that the LEA has corrected the noncompliance before the State issues written findings of noncompliance

  13. Thresholds—Example 1 • A State found noncompliance in 4% of the student records it reviewed regarding the secondary transition content requirements (Indicator 13). The State did not verify that correction had already occurred or make a finding of noncompliance because the data showed a “high level of compliance.”

  14. Thresholds—Example 2 An LEA submitted data through the State’s database for Indicator 11 (timely initial evaluation). The data showed that the LEA met the timeline for 563/612 children (92%). The State did not verify that correction had already occurred or make a finding of noncompliance because the data showed a “high level of compliance.”

  15. Thresholds – Examples 1 and 2 Correct approach: • The State verifies that correction has already occurred or makes a finding of noncompliance when it finds any level of noncompliance. • The nature of the corrective actions may vary depending on the extent of the noncompliance and other factors.

  16. Answering the Questions: All Sources Q: Must States identify noncompliance, regardless of the source of the data establishing noncompliance? A: Yes, if a State collects or receives compliance data from any source (e.g., on-site visits, desk reviews, local self-assessments, data from a database, etc.), it must:

  17. Answering the Questions: All Sources (continued) • Make a finding of noncompliance; or • Verify whether the data demonstrate noncompliance, and then issue a finding if the data do demonstrate noncompliance; or • Verify that the LEA has corrected the noncompliance before the State issues written findings of noncompliance, in which case the State would not be required to make a finding of noncompliance.

  18. Make a finding of noncompliance. Option 1 • Verify whether data demonstrate noncompliance, and then issue finding if data do demonstrate noncompliance. Option 2 • Verify LEA has corrected noncompliance before State issues written findings of noncompliance, in which case State not required to make a finding of noncompliance. Option 3

  19. Answering the Questions: All Sources (review of data in a database) However, in reviewing data from a database, the following also apply: • A State must make a finding of noncompliance if data in a database demonstrate noncompliance. • A State must review data from its database at least once each APR reporting period for the purpose of identifying noncompliance.

  20. Answering the Questions: All Sources (review of data in a database) • A State may identify specific time(s) during each reporting period when it will review compliance data in the database and identify noncompliance. • A State may review data in the database at other times as well, for purposes such as targeting resources, guidance or other technical assistance.

  21. All Sources—Example 1 • A State uses a database to collect data to report on Indicator 12 (early childhood transition) for reporting in the APR. The State does not make a finding of noncompliance even if the data for an LEA show noncompliance.

  22. All Sources—Example 1 Correct approach: The State must make a finding of noncompliance in a timely manner, unless: • In verifying whether the data demonstrate noncompliance, the State determines that the data do demonstrate noncompliance; or • The State verifies that the LEA has corrected the noncompliance before the State issues written findings of noncompliance.

  23. CORRECTION

  24. Key Questions - Correction • What are the “two prongs” of verifying correction in OSEP Memo 09-02? • Do both prongs of OSEP Memo 09-02 apply to the verification of correction of all findings of noncompliance? • May States use “thresholds” in determining whether noncompliance has been corrected?

  25. Key Principles – CorrectionTwo Prongs of Correction in OSEP Memo 09-02 Before a State can conclude and report that noncompliance has been corrected, it must first verify, consistent with OSEP Memo 09-02, that the LEA:

  26. Key Principles – CorrectionTwo Prongs of Correction in OSEP Memo 09-02 • 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.

  27. Answering the Questions – Two Prongs Q. Do both prongs of OSEP Memo 09-02 apply to verification of correction of all noncompliance? • Yes. Both prongs of OSEP Memo 09-02 apply to correction of all non-compliance, whether there is a high level of compliance (but below 100%) or a low level of compliance.

  28. Two Prongs—Example 1 A State examined data to determine whether an LEA had corrected previously identified noncompliance. It verified correction in the child records where it initially based its findings, but did not also verify, based on its review of updated data, that the LEA was correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements. The State incorrectly concluded that the LEA had corrected the noncompliance.

  29. Two Prongs—Example 1 Correct approach: Before the State may conclude that the LEA has corrected the noncompliance, it must also examine updated data to ensure that the LEA has achieved 100% compliance.

  30. Answering the Questions- Correction Thresholds Q. May States use “thresholds” for correction of noncompliance? A. No. Consistent with the guidance in OSEP Memo 09-02 and the 2010 APR response tables, States must obtain updated data (which can be for less than the entire reporting period, and less than all children) reflecting 100% compliance before a State can conclude and report that noncompliance has been corrected.

  31. Correction Thresholds—Example 2 A State monitored an LEA and found that in 5 of 20 records reviewed, students had not received timely evaluations. The State issued a finding of noncompliance and required correction within one year.

  32. Correction Thresholds—Example 2 To verify correction of the noncompliance, the State: • Reviewed the records for the 5 students who had not received timely evaluations to ensure that, although late, they were evaluated; and • Reviewed updated data (20 new student records). In 18 of the 20 cases (90%), the students were timely evaluated. The State incorrectly concluded that the LEA had corrected the noncompliance.

  33. Correction Thresholds—Example 2 Correct approach: 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 to ensure that the LEA has achieved 100% compliance.

  34. Summary • States must ensure the timely correction of any noncompliance, regardless of the source of the data establishing the noncompliance. • States may not use thresholds in identifying or verifying the correction of noncompliance.

  35. Summary • In verifying the correction of noncompliance, States must meet both prongs of OSEP Memo 09-02, by verifying that the LEA: • Has corrected each individual case of noncompliance; and • Is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements (i.e. achieved 100% compliance), based on the State’s review of updated data.

More Related