Bureau of Indian Education

1. Bureau of Indian Education Special Education Integrated Monitoring Process September 2008

2. Monitoring and Enforcement Monitoring Priorities 616(a)(3) The secretary shall monitor states/BIE and require each state to monitor its LEAs using quantifiable indicators to measure performance in the: Provision of FAPE in the LRE. States’/BIE exercise general supervisory authority. Disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services, to the extent the representation is the result of inappropriate identification

3. State/BIE Performance Plans 616(b)(1)-(2)(A)-(B) A performance plan must be in place, within one year of enactment, that evaluates efforts to implement IDEA and shows how the state will improve performance. The state/BIE performance plans must: Be reviewed by the state at least every six years Be approved by the secretary; and Establish measurable and rigorous targets for priority areas.

4. State/BIE Performance Plan Reporting 616(b)(2)(C) Plans must establish measurable and rigorous targets. States/BIE must annually collect data in these priority areas to analyze the performance of each LEA. Each state/BIE must report annually to the secretary on its performance under its performance plan. States/BIE must report annually to the public on the performance of each LEA on the targets in the state’s performance plan.

5. Secretary’s Review and Determination Secretary will review annual performance reports and determine whether the state: Meets the requirements; Needs assistance with implementation; Needs intervention with implementation; or Needs substantial intervention with implementation.

6. Enforcement 616(e) Specifies types of enforcement the secretary will impose if a state/BIE: “Needs assistance” for two consecutive years; “Needs intervention” for three consecutive years; or “Needs substantial intervention” at any time. New provisions: Permits the secretary to suspend payments if state/BIE is subject to withholding action. Requires the secretary to report to Congress on the enforcement actions taken. Incorporates prior law provisions regarding the nature of withholding actions and judicial review.

7. BIE SPP Monitoring Priorities FAPE in the LRE-Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6*, 7*, 8) Disproportionality-Indicators 9*, 10* Effective General Supervision Part B/Child Find-Indicator 11 Effective General Supervision Part B/Effective Transition-Indicators 12*, 13, 14 Effective General Supervision PartB/General Supervision-Indicators 15, 16, 17, 18. 19, 20 *N/A for BIE

8. BIE SPP/APR • Submitted February 1 of each year (February 1, 2007 & February 1, 2008) • Reporting on the progress the BIE has made on the BIE SPP Indicators • Data sources used: School Annual Report, 618 Data, State Assessment Data, Procedural Safeguards Data Base, Post Secondary Student Activity

9. BIE SPP/APR-School Level of Determinations-Data Years

10. OSEP Response February 2008 BIE SPP/APR • Indicator 1: Graduation • Revised baseline accepted; target of “maintains” was not accepted and BIE has to submit revised target in the February 2, 2009 APR • 2006 Baseline: 74.88% for SWD 70.14% for Nondisabled Peers Could not determine progress or slippage or if BIE met target due to new baseline. NOTE: American Indian National Graduation rate: between 51% and 54%

11. Indicator 2: Dropout • 2006 reported data are 9.4% (progress from 2005 data of 10.65%) BIE met its 2006 target not to exceed 9.6%

12. Indicator 3: Statewide Assessment • 3A: % of school SWD subgroup meeting AYP • 2006 data showed that 5 of 14 (35.71%) schools (with sufficient “n”) met AYP • 2005 data showed 4 of 24 (16.66%) schools (with sufficient “n”) met AYP Progress was demonstrated and BIE met its 2006 target of 5 schools with sufficient “n” size achieving AYP

13. 3B: Participation Rate • 2005 Data: Reading at 93.52% Math at 92.28% • 2006 Data: Reading at 97.7% Math at 97.9% Progress was demonstrated for Reading and Math and BIE met its 2006 targets of 95% for reading and 95% for math.

14. 3C: Proficiency rate SWD against standards • 2006 SWD Reading 15.33%/ND 38.16% Gap: 23.17%, increase by 1.36% (Slippage) • 2006 SWD Math 15.17%/ND 33.60% Gap: 18.27%, increase by 2.74% (Slippage) BIE did not meet 2006 targets for reading and math of reducing the gap by 20% of the preceding year’s gap.

15. Indicator 4 Suspension/Expulsion (4B N/A) • 4A: % of agencies exceeding 2x the BIE SWD average rate For 2005 & 2006, the agencies with rates exceeding the BIE SWD average are to have a review (revisions if needed) of their P/P and practices related to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards to ensure compliance with the IDEA

16. 2005: 4 agencies had rates exceeding the BIE average • 2006: 4 agencies had rates exceeding the BIE average BIE did not meet 2006 target of no more than 2 agencies with suspension and expulsion rates > 2 times the BIE SWD average.

17. Indicator 5: LRE Placement • 5A: Removed from regular class <21% of day 2005 57.6%; 2006 65.01% Met Target: ≥1% =58.13% • 5B: Removed from regular class >60% of the day 2005 9.5%; 2006 8.9% Met Target: ≤5%=9.025% • 5C: Served in public/private separate schools, residential, or homebound or hospital placements 2005 .74%; 2006 .84% Target Not Met: ≤.45%

18. Indicator 8: Parent Involvement • 2005 data 31% • 2006 data 33% BIE did not meet 2006 target of 34.1%

19. Indicator 11: Child Find • 2006 data not valid/reliable, collect as follows: Evaluations completed within 60-day timeline # determined eligible; # determine not eligible Evaluations not completed within 60-day timeline Range of days beyond timeline and reasons for delay • Report on correction of noncompliances • 2005: should have corrected 2006 Revising Compliance Monitoring (formerly 2nd Tier) corrected data collection

20. Indicator 13: Secondary Transition with IEP Goals • 2005 86%; 2006 90% - Progress BIE did not meet 2006 target of 100% • Report on correction of noncompliances • 2005: should have corrected 2006 (2006-2007) • 2006: should have corrected 2007 (2007-2008)

21. Indicator 14: Secondary Transition/Post-School Outcomes-Competitive Employment, Enrolled School 2006 baseline data is 67.4%, not valid/reliable Post Secondary School Activity was revised to improve data collection

22. Indicator 15: Monitoring, Complaints, and Hearings • 2005 74%; 2006 93% - Progress BIE did not meet its 2006 target of 100% • Report on timely correction of noncompliance • 2006: should have corrected 2007 (2007-2008)

23. Indicator 16: Written Complaints • 2005 100%; 2006 100% - Progress/Unchanged BIE met 2006 target of 100% • Indicator 17: Due Process Hearings • 2006 No fully adjudicated hearings • Indicator 18: Hearing Requests that went to Resolution • Not required to report until any FFY in which 10 or more resolution meetings were held

24. Indicator 19: Mediations • Not required to report until any FFY in which 10 or more mediations were held • Indicator 20: Timeliness of State Reported Data and Reports • 2006 data shows 86.1% BIE did not meet 2006 target of 100%

25. BIE Level of Determination • The Department of Education has determined that, under IDEA section 616(d), BIE needs intervention (LEVEL 3)in meeting the requirements of Part B of the IDEA • Indicator 11: This is a critical indicator since children cannot begin to receive needed special education and related services until an initial evaluation is completed • Lack of satisfactory progress implementing the PIAP

26. BIE-DPA Special Education Gloria J. Yepa: gyepa@bia.edu, 505-563-5264 Elsie Belone: ebelone@bia.edu, 505-563-5384 A. Sue Bement: sbement@bia.edu, 505-563-5274 Fern Diamond: fdiamond@bia.edu, 505-563-5396 Sally Hollow Horn: smhollowhorn@bia.edu, 505-563-5276 Eugene R. Thompson: ethompson@bia.edu, 505-563-5394 Laura N. Tsosie: ltsosie@bia.edu, 505-563-5275 Deborah Lee: dlee@bia.edu, 505-563-5265