Special Ed. Administrator’s Academy September 21, 2012

1. Special Ed. Administrator’s Academy September 21, 2012

2. Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education New Director’s Academy 2012

4. CORRECTION OF NONCOMPLIANCE

5. Key Question 2 - Identification Q2. What actions must a State take if it collects or receives information indicating noncompliance? 2010 OSEP Leadership Mega Conference

6. 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 issue written finding of noncompliance. Option 3 2010 OSEP Leadership Mega Conference

7. 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 not demonstrate noncompliance; or • The State verifies, using both prongs of OSEP Memo 09-02, that the LEA has corrected the noncompliance before the State issues written findings of noncompliance. 2010 OSEP Leadership Mega Conference

8. Correction Thresholds - Problem 1 • 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. 2010 OSEP Leadership Mega Conference

9. Correction Thresholds - Problem 1 • 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 (e.g., 20 new student records). In 18 of the 20 records (90%), the students were timely evaluated. • The State incorrectly concluded that the LEA had corrected the noncompliance. 2010 OSEP Leadership Mega Conference

10. Problem - Two Prongs • A State examined updated data to determine whether an LEA had corrected previously identified noncompliance. • The State 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. 2010 OSEP Leadership Mega Conference

11. Correct Approach - Two Prongs 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. 2010 OSEP Leadership Mega Conference

12. A comprehensive System: Supporting Compliant Practices that Improve Results for SWDs Results Compliance

14. Period of Transition

15. Long Term Goals • Integrated system of monitoring more fully utilizing data systems to: • Determine monitoring priorities • Ensure compliance with special education regulations • Increase the District’s performance in meeting SPP targets • Reduce paperwork and clarify due process procedures for districts to: • Ensure transparency • Promote consistency • Redistribution of human capital to allow more time for: • Assisting districts in improving their special education programs • Working with special education consultants and the broader ADE to support districts in increasing results for students with disabilities • Implement procedures for cross regional teams to review: • Monitoring data (electronic and onsite) • District Self Assessments and Response Tables • ACSIPs

16. Short Term Goals • Identify priority items on General Program Checklist • Identify priority items on Student Folder Checklists • Review Forms • Prior Written Notice • Notice of Conference • EDR • Revise verification procedure to include written documentation for Districts • Use Referral Tracking data for desk monitoring activities • Implement procedure for cross regional teams to review areas of potential non-compliance • Review Program Approval process

17. What’s New? • Reducing the number of items reviewed in General Program Checklist and Student Folder Checklist

18. Process for “Skinnying” down our checklists…

19. What’s New? • Program Approval

20. Special Ed. Employee Module (APSCN section) This Year: • There will be no formal Program Approval this year. • Special Ed. Program Approval data will be submitted in Cycle 2. • Any updates to personnel (not caseloads, not folder counts, not per period range) will be collected in Cycle 4 for Federal Reporting. • Cycle 4 data will be reviewed by Monitoring Section in February. Districts we have questions about will be contacted. • ADE Accreditation reports will be reviewed by Monitoring Section in April for per period range. Districts we have questions about will be contacted. • Teacher caseloads (EC and K-12) will be reviewed during on-site monitoring. • Licenses for contacted providers will be reviewed during on-site monitoring.

21. Special Ed. Employee Module (APSCN section) Next Year: • There will be no formal Program Approval. • There will be no Cycle 2 submission. • All “Special Ed. Employee” data will be submitted for Cycle 4. Teacher caseload (EC and K-12) will be added to Cycle 4. • Cycle 4 data will be reviewed by Monitoring Section in February. Districts we have questions about will be contacted. • ADE Accreditation reports will be reviewed by Monitoring Section in April for per period range. • Licenses for contacted providers will be reviewed during on-site monitoring.

22. What’s New? • Looking at different ways to monitor.

23. What’s New? • Desk Monitoring

24. What’s New? Looking Good! I’ll sail through the Verification Visit 100% Compliance

25. What’s New? • Verification Period: • Written documentation of student level potential non-compliance • Written documentation of areas cleared for each identified student and updated data (new student folders) • Written documentation of any potential non-compliance in updated data (new student folders) • CAP: • Written documentation of student level non-compliance • Written documentation of areas cleared for each identified student and updated data (new student folders) • Written documentation of any non-compliance in updated data (new student folders)

26. What’s New? • Examining priorities for monitoring

28. What’s New? • Reviewing all forms

30. What’s new? • Adjusting the rotation for cyclical monitoring

32. Questions to Consider… • What are three things the ADE currently monitors that are most closely related to improving educational results and functional outcomes for students with disabilities? • What are the top three indicators you would use to determine if a district was being successful with students with disabilities? • How could the ADE use the data collected through Cycle submissions to focus its technical assistance and monitoring efforts?

33. Why not go out on a limb? Isn’t that wherethe fruit is? -- Frank Scully.