Special Education Division California Department of Education October 3, 2006

1. Statewide Monitoring System Special Education DivisionCalifornia Department of EducationOctober 3, 2006

2. Purpose To provide information about the California Department of Education’s Statewide Monitoring System

3. Outcomes • The participants will be familiar with elements of CDE’s statewide monitoring system: • Organization and staffing • Methods and activities • Follow-up and correction

4. General Definition • Focused monitoring (FMS) is a system where performance information is quantified, collected and analyzed according to protocols designed to detect whether individual school districts appear to be complying with their legal responsibilities • The overall goal is to achieve appropriate educational outcomes for those children. • Information is used to identify and select school districts for greater scrutiny, including increasingly detailed levels of review and intervention.

5. Fiscal and Administrative Relationships for Special Education Programs in California

6. Organization of the Statewide System of Monitoring

7. Organization and Function of Units in the Special Education Division Monitoring Functions Fiscal, Interagency, Nonpublic Schools Policies, Local Plans, Charter Schools CASEMIS, Statewide testing, KPIs, SPP 800#, local resolution, open complaints, ADR Complaint Investigation and Reports Complaint Follow-up Verification Reviews Special Education Self Reviews Facilitated Reviews

8. 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.

9. Special Education Local Plan Area (SELPA) • A single LEA or group of LEAs that are of sufficient size and scope to ensure FAPE for all students within the area. • Responsible for • developing a local plan • receiving and disbursing funds • coordinating services across the region • monitoring implementation of local plan and correction of problems • District of residence (DOR) is always responsible for students served by other districts (DOS)

10. Components of the Statewide System of Monitoring

11. Components • Annual Collection and Analysis of District Information • Local Plans • Student Level Data • Ongoing Compliance History • Key Performance Indicators (KPI) • Monitoring Reviews • Special Education Self Reviews • Verification Reviews • Facilitated District Reviews

12. Annual Collection and Analysis of District Information Activities Local Plans – Annual Budget and Service Plans (SELPA) Student Level Data - Compliance testing Ongoing Compliance History – Triage process Key Performance Indicators – Calculation and review of district KPI data Scope Every school district is reviewed every year.

13. Special Education Self Reviews Scope Every school district participates every four years Activities SELPA/District conducted Monitoring Plan Parent Input KPIs Compliance History Record Review Ed. Benefit IEP Implementation Policy and Procedure Review SELPA Governance Findings and Corrective Action Plans CDE Follow up Visits

14. Verification Reviews Scope School districts with PI status and/or low KPI values in stakeholder-selected areas Activities CDE conducted Monitoring Plan Parent Input KPIs and other Data Compliance History Record Review Ed. Benefit IEP Implementation Staff and Parent Interviews Policy and Procedure Review SELPA Governance Findings and Corrective Action Plans Follow up Visits

15. Facilitated District Reviews Scope School districts with lowest 15% of KPIs and Program Improvement status Activities Begins with Verification Review 3 year support Grant process RCAT+ support Program Improvement

16. Monitoring Review Activities

17. Special Education monitoring processes are shaped by key monitoring questions, based in IDEA

18. 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?

19. Special Education Goals and Key Performance Indicators play a central role in selection of districts for reviews and for shaping the content of the review

20. 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

21. Both the VR and SESR use software to customize the reviews • Three master tables “under the hood” • Compliance items • Administrator, staff and parent interview questions • Student and Systemic Corrective Actions • Every review based on a monitoring plan • Parent Input • Performance Data (KPIs) • Compliance history

22. Monitoring Plan • The Monitoring Plan is an important first step in VR and SESR • The Monitoring Plan is developed from • Parent input from meetings and surveys • KPI and other performance data • Compliance history • Key elements of the Monitoring Plan are entered into the software in order to generate customized review forms and data entry screens • Review activities are directed by the Monitoring Plan

23. 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)

24. 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).

25. 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

26. 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? Special Education Self Reviews: Selection of Student Records *Los Angeles Unified School District range of enrollment in eleven sub-districts: 53,252 – 77,447

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 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

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) 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. Jan Erickson Christine Pittman 3/15/05 Revise the Monitoring Plan, page 5, “Settings” to include student records from the charter school in Cadillac Unified School District that serves Bingham Unified School District special education students.

31. 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

32. 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

33. 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.

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. Software assists with identification of systemic noncompliance • Findings are entered into the software • Software generates several key reports that assist teams in identifying systemic issues • Potential Systemic Report • Overall Findings Report

37. The Overall Findings Report lists every noncompliant finding made about every item for the district. It includes the item, compliance test, form where finding was made, name of the student, the type of finding and the text of the finding. This report allows the team to review the evidence of noncompliance against each item to determine if there is sufficient, quality evidence to make a systemic finding.

38. It identifies whether the item is potentially systemic based on the percentage of NC findings or based on a policy and procedure finding. The Potential Systemic Report is organized by item number. It includes the number of noncompliance and not applicable findings for the item

39. Software Assists in Generating Reports to District • Systemic findings are entered based on evidence • Software suggests corrective actions at student and district level (can be edited by team) • Three final reports are generated • Superintendent Summary • Student Corrective Action Plan • Systemic Corrective Action Plan

40. The Report Summary provides a brief overview of the review and summarizes systemic findings in each monitoring plan area and for each district where children are served. It can be downloaded to MS Word and edited by the team.

41. The student level report is organized by district, then by student and item number. It includes the item number, the item test, legal citations, the finding statement, the software-generated corrective action, and the Due Date that was previously selected.

42. The systemic corrective action report is organized by district and then by item number. It includes the item number, the compliance test, the legal citations, the finding statement, and a standard four-part corrective action.

43. Corrective Action Plans • Student level findings require correction within 45 days • Systemic findings require 4 activities and must completed within 6 months: • Provision of compliant policies and procedures • Dissemination to appropriate personnel • Training of appropriate personnel • Provide information for follow-up reviews • Systemic findings are reviewed in 6 months by reviewing a new sample of records • Items are cleared when there is evidence of correction • In all cases, identified noncompliance must be corrected within one year.

44. Sanctions and Enforcement

45. Sanctions When a district, special education local plan area, or county office of education fails to comply substantially with a provision of law regarding special education and related services, the state superintendent of public instruction may apply sanctions (e.g., special conditions, withholding funds, writ of mandate).

46. Substantial Noncompliance “Substantial noncompliance” means an incident of significant failure to provide a child with a disability with a free appropriate public education, an act whichresults in the loss of an educational opportunity to the child or interferes with the opportunity of the parents or guardians of the pupil to participate in the formulation of the individual education program, a history of chronic noncompliance in a particular area, or a systemic agency-wide problem of noncompliance. (California Code of Regulations§ 3088.1)

47. Sanctions • Letters of Noncompliance • Local Board Hearings • Special Monitoring • Specialized Corrective Actions • Compensatory Services • Special Conditions on Grant Awards • Writ of Mandate • Withholding Federal Funds

48. Summary • The Special Education Monitoring Process: • has been developed to meet federal general supervision responsibilities using focused monitoring approaches • has several components and uses data to identify districts who may need greater scrutiny and support • uses software that customizes reviews and promotes consistency across reviewers and review teams • Facilitates identification and correction of student level and systemic noncompliance • Applies graduated sanctions in those situations where additional enforcement activity is needed.