YEAR #2 DETERMINATIONS

1. YEAR #2DETERMINATIONS ISD Special Education Directors’ Meeting September 18, 2008

2. OSEP Determination of Michigan • June 6, 2008: Michigan received its determination of “needs assistance” with meeting the requirements of IDEA

3. OSEP Determination of Michigan • Michigan’s challenges: Indicators 4a, 10, 13, and 15 • Michigan’s strengths: Indicators 9, 11, 12, and 16

4. Progress on Indicator #13 (Transition) from 35% to 40% and did not demonstrate correction Did not provide valid and reliable data for SPP #10 (Disproportionate Representation) but had a plan to correct State Challenges on 2006-07 Determinations

5. State Challenges on 2006-07 Determinations • Did not complete the review required for districts identified with significant discrepancies in suspension/ expulsion data in 2005-06 • Slippage on Indicator #15 (Compliance Findings) from 100% to 90.18%

6. OSEP’s Direction to SEAs regarding Determinations of LEAs, including ISDs • Must include valid and reliable data • Must include Compliance Indicators 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17

7. OSEP’s Direction to SEAs regarding Determinations of LEAs, including ISDs • Must include other information such as audit findings, uncorrected noncompliance from other sources, etc. • May include optional performance indicators

8. Round #2 for LEAs/PSAs:Michigan’s Overall Design • Drop Graduation Rate from Determinations, as it duplicates Ed YES • Add all compliance indicators not used last year in Round #1 • Retain SPP #5 (Educational Settings) as the only performance indicator

9. Round #2 for LEAs/PSAs:Michigan’s Overall Design • Retain data, audit findings, and timely IEPs in the included elements • Issue no Level 4s until trend data is available • Restrict LEAs from receiving Level 1 if any elements are 3s or 4s

10. ROUND #1 Audit Findings Timely IEPs Timely, Accurate Data Educational Settings Graduation Rate Compliance Comparison of Round #1 and Round #2 Elements

11. Comparison of Round #1 and Round #2 Elements ROUND #2 • Audit Findings • Timely IEPs • Timely & Reliable Data • Educational Environments • Disproportionate Representation

12. Comparison of Round #1 and Round #2 Elements ROUND 2 (Cont.) • Disproportionate Representation • Child Find • Early Childhood Transition • Secondary Transition • Correction of Noncompliance

13. SPP #5Educational Settings • Dec. 1, 2006 data • For only the category of GE 80% or more of the time • The better of resident or operating district calculations • Based on state target of 55%

14. SPP #9Disproportionate Representation • Based on Focused Monitoring conducted during 2007-08 • All LEAs received a “1” exceptthose districts which were focused monitored and had findings of noncompliance, which received a “2”

15. SPP #10 Disproportionate Representation • Based on Focused Monitoring Findings for 2006-07 data • All districts receive a “1” except those districts which were focused monitored and had findings of noncompliance, which received a “2”

16. SPP #11 Child Find • Based on 2006-07 submissions of SRSD • No minimum cell size • Requires 95% compliance for “1”

17. SPP #12 Early Childhood Transition • Cohort Survey in 2006-07 • Difficulty with statewide data • Used only the criteria of IEPs which were late due to lack of staff availability • Used only “1” and “2”

18. SPP #13 Secondary Transition • Used data from Transition Checklist, 2006-07 • Applied only to those districts in Cohort 3, plus volunteers • Data ranged from 0% to 95%

19. SPP #15 Compliance Findings • 2006-07 data • Based on findings of noncompliance from either Focused Monitoring or SPSR • Which were not corrected within the required one-year time frame • Used only “1” and “2”

20. Timely IEPs • The single element which used newer data from Dec. 1, 2007 MI-CIS filing • Percentage of students with current IEPs

21. Valid, Timely, and Reliable Data • Used SRSD, MI-CIS, and SPSR submissions • Considered timeliness and accuracy • Used only “1” and “2” this year

22. Audit Findings • Used Single Audit Findings from 2006-07

23. Overall Calculation System • Level 1: Within l SD of the mean • Level 2: Between 1 and 2 SDs of the mean OR Within l SD of the mean with 1 or more elements of 3 or 4 • Level 3: 2 or more SDs from the mean

24. Results of Round #2 for LEAs/PSAs • 463 of 766 LEAs are at Level 1 (60%) • 272 of 766 LEAs are at Level 2 (36%) • 31 of 766 LEAs are at Level 3 (4%)

25. Results of Round #2 for LEAs/PSAs • 23 LEAs improved from Level 3 to Level 1 • 15 LEAs fell from Level 1 to Level 3 • 40 LEAs repeat at Level 2 • 9 LEAs repeat at Level 3

26. Enforcement Actions(IDEA and NPRM) • “Needs assistance” for 2 consecutive years l. T.A. 2. Re-direct use of Flowthrough funds 3. Impose special conditions on Flowthrough funds

27. Enforcement Actions(IDEA and NPRM) • “Needs intervention” for 3 consecutive years 1. May use any of the above actions, and

28. Enforcement Actions(IDEA and NPRM) 2. Must do one or more of these: a) Require improvement plan b) Require a compliance agreement c) Withhold or recover funds d) Refer for other appropriate enforcement actions

29. OSE/EIS and ISDs:Partners in Improvement • Level 3 “needs intervention” districts • Level 2 “needs assistance” for two years in a row • Level 2 “needs assistance” for the first time

30. Table Work • What did ISDs do last year for their Level 2 and 3 districts? • What can ISDs do this year for their Level 2 and 3 districts?

31. Public Report Uses actual data on the Indicators specified by OSEP Determinations Uses data to assess compliance with IDEA 2004 Public Reporting VS. Determinations

32. Public Reporting VS. Determinations • Gives an overall “rating” to all LEAs • Makes no judgment about LEAs performance except to compare to state targets

33. FORECAST for ROUND #3 Determinations (2007-08 Data) • Could be issued as soon as spring of 2009, pending OSEP’s release of SEA Determinations • Will likely include ratings of 3 and 4 in all areas, as appropriate • May include Level 4 ratings for first time, pending OSEP action to SEAs