1 / 30

SESR 2010-11

SED Staff Meeting February 14, 2011. SESR 2010-11. 1. Purpose. To provide updated information to SED Consultant staff about the 2010-11 SESR. Outcomes. Participants Review impact of OSEP findings on CDE/SED monitoring processes Reviewed changes to SESR for 2010-11

kimama
Download Presentation

SESR 2010-11

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. SED Staff Meeting February 14, 2011 SESR 2010-11 1

  2. Purpose • To provide updated information to SED Consultant staff about the 2010-11 SESR

  3. Outcomes • Participants • Review impact of OSEP findings on CDE/SED monitoring processes • Reviewed changes to SESR for 2010-11 • Reviewed roll out dates – process manual, indicators and software

  4. Agenda • Purpose, Outcomes and Agenda • Impact of OSEP letter on monitoring • Review of 09-02 requirements and subsequent teleconference instructions • Overview of changes to SESR 10-11 • Process and Materials • Software • Roll out timelines • Q and A

  5. OSEP Letter – Noncompliance Issues • Correction of noncompliance using Prong 2 • Resolution meeting within 15 days of receiving due process complaint; • Monitor corrective actions from due process hearing decisions; • Significant Disproportionality; • 27-month period in which to obligate Part B funds • Include all fund sources in state MOE calculations

  6. Correction of Noncompliance • Does the State have a general supervision system that is reasonably designed to ensure correction of identified noncompliance in a timely manner? • Required Actions/Next Steps • Within 90 days of receipt of this letter, the State must provide an assurance that it has revised its procedures for verifying the correction of noncompliance for Indicators 11, 12, and 15 (timely correction) so that it verifies that noncompliance has been corrected only if the LEA is: • correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements (i.e., achieved 100% compliance) based on a review of updated data such as data subsequently collected through on-site monitoring or a State data system; and • has corrected noncompliance for each child, unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the LEA. With its response, during the SPP/APR clarification period, to OSEP’s FFY 2009 California Part B SPP/APR Status Table, the State must describe the extent to which it verified correction of findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2008 under Indicators 11, 12, and 15 in a manner consistent with the guidance in OSEP Memo 09-02.

  7. Dispute Resolution • Does the State have procedures and practices that are reasonably designed to implement the dispute resolution requirements of IDEA? • Required Actions/Next Steps • Within 90 days from the date of this letter, the State must provide to OSEP the State’s procedures for ensuring that LEAs: • implement corrective actions specified in due process hearing decisions; and • (2) meet the requirements of §300.510(a), including its mechanism for tracking timelines for resolution meetings and for issuing findings of noncompliance when LEAs do not meet the requirements of 34 CFR §300.510.

  8. Implementation of Grant Assurances • Does the State have procedures and practices that are reasonably designed to implement selected grant assurances? • Required Actions/Next Steps • Within 90 days from the date of this letter, the State must provide its revised procedures for determining, consistent with the requirements of 34 CFR §300.646(a), whether LEAs have significant disproportionality based on race and ethnicity occurring in the State and the LEAs of the State with respect to: • the identification of children as children with disabilities, including the identification of children as children with disabilities in accordance with a particular impairment; • the placement in particular educational settings of these children; and • the incidence, duration, and type of disciplinary actions, including suspenstions and expulsions.

  9. Timely Obligation and Liquidation of Funds Does the State have procedures that are reasonably designed to ensure the timely obligation and liquidation of IDEA funds? Required Actions/Next Steps Within 90 days from the date of this letter, the State must submit evidence that is has revised policies and practices for ensuring, and provided LEAs with notice that, Part B funds are available for a 27-month period for obligation to LEAs that submit timely, substantially approvable applications, as required by Part B of the IDEA, EDGAR, and the Tydings Amendment to GEPA, 20 U.S.C. section 1225(b).

  10. Appropriate Use of IDEA Funds Does the State have procedures that are reasonably designed to ensure appropriate use of IDEA funds? In response to OSEP’s questions regarding the sources of funds that the State includes in its calculation of the States’s maintenance of State financial support, the State acknowledged that, as shown in the CASEMIS system, there are situations where California Children’s Services (CCS), another State agency, is apparently paying for services (occupational and/or physical therapy) included in some students’ individualized education programs (IEPs), but that the State has not been including such funds in its calculation of maintenance of State financial support. Required Actions/Next Steps OSEP will address the required actions and next steps regarding this noncompliance under separate cover.

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

  12. Key Principles - Identification 12 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.

  13. Make a finding of noncompliance. Option 1 • Make a finding of noncompliance. Option 1 • Verify whether data demonstrate noncompliance, and then issue finding if data do demonstrate noncompliance. Verify whether data demonstrate noncompliance, and then issue finding if data do demonstrate noncompliance. State collects or receives data indicating noncompliance Option 2 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. 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 Option 3

  14. Key Principles – CorrectionTwo Prongs of Correction in OSEP Memo 09-02 14 • 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: • 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.

  15. From OSEP TeleconferenceDecember 9, 2010 • Pre-Finding Correction – In order for (a) student level finding(s) to be considered corrected before reporting (e.g. submission of SESR data), the district must demonstrate correction at the student level and at the 100% level in a subsequent record pull.

  16. Number of Records to Pull –OSEP clarified that there is not a specific number of files that have to be reviewed as part of the second pull of records to ensure the LEA has achieved 100% compliance. There is not a specific of window of time that needs to be reviewed. The objective is to review a reasonable amount of files for the subset of students affected by the noncompliance and review additional files over a time frame that provides a high level of confidence of achievement of compliance.

  17. Correction Using Prong 2– OSEP stated the “root cause” can shape the number and types of records that the State requires the LEA to review within a particular timeframe. The OSEP stated there are not a specific number of student records that a LEA must review to demonstrate student level findings have been corrected. The number of records reviewed should be tied to the root cause (e.g. individual practitioner, school site, district level).

  18. Complaints and Due Process – For findings in state complaints or OAH decisions, OSEP Memo 09-02 provides states some flexibility. If the OAH decision is specific to the child, then the State only has to require the LEA to ensure timely correction of the individual case of noncompliance (Prong 1). In this instance, the LEA is not required to review to pull additional set of records to ensure its procedures and practices for this area of noncompliance is at the 100% level (Prong 2).

  19. Impact on Monitoring • Ensure Prong 2 Correction for 2008-09 (due December 2009) • Ensure Prong 2 Correction for 2009-10 (due December 2010) • Various complaints (and OAH decisions if more than one child) need to include prong 2 correction • All VRs and SESRs initiated in 2010-11 will include prong 2 corrections • Ensure the implementation of the OAH hearing officer’s order as well as identify and correct procedural violations.

  20. SESR Changes in Brief • No more systemic findings based on student noncompliance (entire systemic entry module will be eliminated) • Prong 2 correction applied to all items found noncompliant at the student level regardless of the number • Monitoring plan is modified • Question 5 and ethnicity now in CASEMIS • Indicator 4, 9 and 10 eliminated – will be in special self review • Submission will require documentation of entry of MP into software. • Fiscal review will be incorporated into the software • Systemic report is now the District Level report and includes: • Policies and Procedures • SELPA Governance • Fiscal • Prong 2 record pull requirements

  21. Timelines • April 2011 – SELPA training • April – May – Follow-up training • June 30, 2011 – Monitoring plan due • December 10, 2011 – Findings due • December 10, 2012 or earlier – CAs due

  22. Overview of Process

  23. Prong 2 Corrective Action Page (Proposed)

  24. Prong 2 Documentation of Correction Page (Proposed)

  25. Roll Out Dates • Manual/CD – April 2 • 2009-10 Indicators – March 23 • Software available - March 23

  26. Q and A

More Related