Special Education Division California Department of Education October 2, 2006

1. Verification Review in California Special Education DivisionCalifornia Department of EducationOctober 2, 2006

2. Origins • Evolved from prior, department-wide monitoring system • Self Review (not required but frequently completed) • Visitation (to verify self review) • Correction • Redesigned to address special conditions from OSEP • Comprehensive • Valid, reliable and accurate determinations of compliance with IDEA, Part B. • Redesigned to help: • Focus reviews based on KPI data • Customize to the characteristics of individual districts • Manage and track large amounts of compliance and correction data

3. Purpose To provide information about the California Department of Education’s General Supervision System

4. Outcomes Will provide information about General Supervision Questions: • What components constitute the State’s general supervision system? • Has the State made recent changes in its general supervision system? • How does the state ensure that noncompliance is identified? • How does the state ensure timely correction of noncompliance?

5. PurposeMonitoring QuestionsOverall Approach

6. Purpose of the Verification Review • Ensure that the Special Education Local Plan Areas (SELPAs) and Local Educational Agencies (LEAS) are providing appropriate supervision and monitoring of their special education programs and services. • To determine that students receive educational benefit in accordance with all of the procedural guarantees governing special education programs, and • Provide compliance and student outcome information that assists both CDE and the LEA to focus their activities on program improvement and corrective actions.

7. Monitoring Questions 1. Does the district provide services that result in educational benefit using the Rowley standard? 2. Does the district provide services that result in educational benefit as measured by special education goals and key performance indicators? 3. Does the district comply with procedural guarantees that are known to be frequent non-compliance items in other districts? 4. Does the district fulfill its responsibilities as the district of residence when its students are served by other districts and programs? 5. Does the SELPA fulfill its responsibilities for developing budget plans, service plans and for monitoring the procedural elements of the local plan?

8. Analyze Results, Submit CAPs, Track Correction Prepare Monitoring Plan Conduct Monitoring Activities District Selection • Enter and Evaluate Findings • Student • Systemic - District of Service, District of Residence, SELPA Train District Staff • District Notification • Contact Superintendent • Contact Special Ed Director • Correspondence and Orientation • Clarify Expectations and Scheduling Record Review Activities Post Review Meeting - Develop Corrective Actions Educational Benefit Review Activities Scheduling and Planning • Develop Corrective Actions Plans and Prepare Reports • District Summary • Student Corrective Action Plan • Systemic Corrective Action Plan • Policy and Procedure Review Activities • Focused Policy and Procedure Review • SELPA Governance • Mental Health Agreement Pre Review Meetings - Monitoring Plan Development Parent Input Meeting/Survey Review District Data IEP Implementation Document/Track Corrections Monitoring Implementation of Local Plan Due Process, Complaint and Compliance History • Conduct Follow up Reviews • Initiate other enforcement activities, as needed Other monitoring activities identified in the Monitoring Plan Monitoring Plan Written and Submitted for Approval Closed Based on Evidence of Correction Monitoring Plan Approved Special Education Verification Review

9. Focused Monitoring and Technical Assistance Units FMTA 1 FMTA II FMTA III Focused Monitoring and Technical Assistance (FMTA) The FMTA Consultants are assigned geographically. They are responsible for coordinating all monitoring and technical assistance activities for their assigned counties, districts and Special Education Local Plan Areas; and they can provide information and facilitate access to technical assistance related to program monitoring and program implementation.

10. Selection

11. Districts are selected for VRs based on Stakeholder-selected KPIs, the district’s PI status and their compliance history.

12. Monitoring Plan Preparation

13. Monitoring Plan The Monitoring Plan is developed from • Parent input meetings and surveys • KPI and other performance data • Compliance history

14. Parent Input Items • Item is included in Monitoring Plan if: • It is identified during one of the parent input processes;AND • It appears to be a violation of state or federal law or regulation; AND • It is potentially systemic (e.g., expressed by several parents, affects a number of students, occurs at a number of school sites)

15. All Verification Reviews have a parent input meeting, facilitated by other parents of children with disabilities contracted through the SEEDS project. VR Manual, pg. 9

16. The SEEDS project seeks and trains parents of children with disabilities to participate on VR teams and to facilitate parent input meetings. In addition to collecting input onsite, the SEEDS website allows families who were not able to participate to complete a survey online. SEEDS summarizes the parent input for discussion at the Pre-Review meeting for inclusion in the monitoring plan.

17. KPI (Data Report) Items • A KPI measure must be included in the Monitoring Plan to investigate if they have a low matrix value (the district’s “score” is below the statewide benchmark and is getting worse).

18. Selection Matrix (or “M”) Values Note: A value of “1” must be included in the Monitoring Plan

19. KPIs are published for each district and can be found on the CDE website at: http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/se/ds/datarpts.asp

20. In addition to Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), Verification Review teams examine a variety of district data available through the CDE websites. VR Manual, pg. 12

21. Compliance Data • Items are included in the Monitoring Plan if a review of the compliance history indicates: • That there is an ongoing pattern of non-compliance (multiyear); OR • There are persistent, open corrective actions which exceed the timelines

22. Compliance History • Each CDE consultant needs to review the LEA’s compliance history • Prior Verification and Self Review findings • Complaints • Due Process findings • Items should be included in the Monitoring Plan if a review of the CASEMIS compliance data, complaint history or Self Review indicates: • That there is an ongoing pattern of non-compliance (multiyear)OR • There are persistent, open corrective actions which exceed the timelines

23. VR teams review reports of districts’ compliance history as a part of preparing the monitoring plan.

24. Hearing Decisions may be found on the website of the Office of Administrative Hearings

25. VR teams review decisions and orders made through the hearing process.

26. The Monitoring Plan Document is prepared from the proceedings of the Pre-Review Meeting, where all of the district information is reviewed and discussed.

27. X X X X X X X X Parent Input Meeting, Survey 380/1900 possible 1/22/05 (parent input meeting), February 2005 (survey) Progress Reports 20 parents from 3 elementary schools reported that they did not receive progress reports 3-2-7 Participation in extracurricular activities 40 surveys indicated that students cannot participate in after school activities. 3-2-6 Preschool LRE 8 parents from the preschool program reported that their IEP did not discuss regular preschool Parent Input items are summarized and specific item numbers are identified to correspond to the potential noncompliance. The team also determines which methods will be used to investigate the items. 7-5-2 Secondary Transition 20 parents from sites reported no dis- cussion of transition at their high school students' IEP 3-6-1 3-6-2

28. Percent scoring proficient on ELA CST Special education students failed to meet the benchmark and their score are decreasing (KPI1) X Percent scoring proficient Math CST Special education students failed to meet the benchmark and their score are decreasing (KPI2) X Disparity in percent receiving SE services Ethnic disparity has increased from 7.9% to 28.8%. X Percent receiving special education services The district percent in special education exceeds the benchmark and has increased over the prior year X KPI and other data items are summarized and recorded. The software already includes preset items to be investigated if there is a low matrix value.

29. 7 7 60 Disparity in percent receiving special education services: Hispanic students African American Students Parent concerns: Elementary students (Progress reports) Middle school students (Extracurricular activities) High school age students (Transition) Preschool students (LRE) The team also records the number of records to be reviewed (based on a division wide standard) and any special populations or settings that require closer scrutiny Bingham Unified School District will pull records of school age students from the district’s Woodhaven Charter school, the County sponsored Heavenly Hills Charter School, Grayling, Alpena, and Outback Challenge non-public schools, Grand Traverse court school, the County’s infant/preschool and ED programs, and Cadillac Unified School District.

30. Enrollment Group* District Size Number Of Special Ed Students Random Sample Size (Number of SE Files) Non-compliance Tolerance Percentage Sample of Infant Toddler Files Sample of Preschool Files 1 30,000 - 149,999 2,055 - 16,438 70 22 7 7 2 15,000 - 29,999 975 - 3,498 60 19 6 6 3 5,000 -14,999 400 - 1,830 50 16 5 5 4 1,000 - 4,999 60 – 682 40 13 4 4 5a 1 – 999 20 –129 50 percent up to30 10 3 3 5b Less than 20 None 0 0 0 How Many Records? Based on a decision of the Superior Court of San Diego County, CDE formalized its processes for determining systemic noncompliance. In order to avoid a determination that a finding was “arbitrary or capricious”, CDE established standards for the number of records, sites and method needed to corroborate a systemic finding. *Los Angeles Unified School District range of enrollment in eleven sub-districts: 53,252 – 77,447

31. Jan Erickson Christine Pittman The Monitoring Plan is reviewed and approved by the appropriate FMTA Unit Manager. Once approved the monitoring plan is entered into the VR software.

32. Customized Review Protocols • Once the monitoring plan is entered into the software customized forms can be printed: • Student record reviews • Parent, staff and administrator interviews • Policy and Procedure Reviews

33. Item Number Compliance Test Compliance Standard Compliance Test Other Guidance Legal Citations Finding The File Review Forms include the following areas related to each item

34. The Policy and Procedure form includes the same information as the student record form: Item No., Compliance Test, Compliance Standard and Guidance.

35. Interview forms include general questions. The form identifies all of the monitoring plan areas tied to that question so that specific probe questions can be tailored to each of the monitoring plan areas.

36. Record Reviews

37. For Verification Reviews, a student sample is drawn at random to meet the specifications of the monitoring plan.

38. The Student Record Review form is organized into sections. The School Age section includes items that apply to all students. These must be evaluated for all school age students. Other sections include items that apply only to some students (e.g., Low Incidence, English Learners). If the items apply to the student, then the additional items in the special sections must also be completed.

39. Educational Benefit Reviews

40. General Instructions • A team made up of district staff and a CDE facilitator reviews up to 10 records of students • Students should be drawn from random list • Students should be representative of the district’s service population • Select students who had a triennial review three years ago.

41. Educational Benefit Review Questions x x x x x x x x ?

42. The District/CDE team records any concerns on a matrix to determine individual or systemic noncompliance in relation to educational benefit. (Student level procedural noncompliance is always identified and corrected. )

43. IEP Implementation Reviews

44. IEP Implementation • The purpose is to determine whether services are provided according to the IEP. • The IEP is taken literally – if it says 1 time per week for 30 minutes, staff should consider that the minimum amount of service to be provided.

45. IEP Implementation and Service Data • A minimum of fifteen student files are reviewed. • Review five IEPs of students who are emotionally disturbed or whose IEPs indicate mental health services. • Review at least ten additional students who are representative of the types of disabilities of students in the district. • The district team should review students who have also been the subject of record reviews and Educational Benefit reviews

46. Policy and Procedure Review

47. Policy and Procedure Review • District policies and procedures are reviewed in all areas identified through the monitoring plan. • Overall policies are checked through the SELPA Governance Review • Policy and Procedure findings are always considered systemic at the district level.

48. SELPA Governance Review Activities

49. SELPA Governance Review Activities • Local Plan Policies and Procedures • Implementation of the Local Plan • Budget and Service Plans • Mental Health Agreement

50. Compliance Test – Local Plan (21) Joint Powers agreement, (EC 56195(e)) (22) Part C, IDEA, Early Intervention Services Note: (12) Governance