Statewide Monitoring System. Special Education Division California Department of Education October 3, 2006. Purpose. To provide information about the California Department of Education’s Statewide Monitoring System. Outcomes.
To provide information about the California Department of Education’s Statewide Monitoring System
Fiscal and Administrative Relationships for Special Education Programs in California
Fiscal, Interagency, Nonpublic Schools
Policies, Local Plans, Charter Schools
CASEMIS, Statewide testing, KPIs, SPP
800#, local resolution, open complaints, ADR
Complaint Investigation and Reports
Special Education Self Reviews
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.
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
Every school district is reviewed every year.
Special Education Self Reviews Division
Every school district participates every four years
Policy and Procedure Review
Findings and Corrective Action Plans
CDE Follow up Visits
Verification Reviews Division
School districts with PI status and/or low KPI values in stakeholder-selected areas
KPIs and other Data
Staff and Parent Interviews
Policy and Procedure Review
Findings and Corrective Action Plans
Follow up Visits
Facilitated District Reviews Division
School districts with lowest 15% of KPIs and Program Improvement status
Begins with Verification Review
3 year support
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?
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
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
Compliance Data CDE website at: http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/se/ds/datarpts.asp
Enrollment Group* CDE website at: http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/se/ds/datarpts.asp
Number Of Special Ed Students
Random Sample Size (Number of SE Files)
30,000 - 149,999
2,055 - 16,438
15,000 - 29,999
975 - 3,498
400 - 1,830
1,000 - 4,999
60 – 682
1 – 999
50 percent up to30
Less than 20
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
X CDE website at: http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/se/ds/datarpts.asp
Parent Input Meeting, Survey 380/1900 possible
1/22/05 (parent input meeting), February 2005 (survey)
20 parents from 3 elementary schools
reported that they did not receive progress reports
Participation in extracurricular activities
40 surveys indicated that students cannot participate in after school activities.
8 parents from the preschool program
reported that their IEP did not discuss regular preschool
20 parents from sites reported no dis-
cussion of transition at their high school students' IEP
Percent scoring proficient on ELA CST CDE website at: http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/se/ds/datarpts.asp
Special education students failed to meet the
benchmark and their score are decreasing
Percent scoring proficient Math CST
Special education students failed to meet the benchmark and their score are decreasing (KPI2)
Disparity in percent receiving SE services
Ethnic disparity has increased from 7.9% to 28.8%.
Percent receiving special education services
The district percent in special education exceeds the benchmark and has increased over the prior year
7 CDE website at: http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/se/ds/datarpts.asp
Disparity in percent receiving special education services:
African American Students
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.
Jan Erickson CDE website at: http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/se/ds/datarpts.asp
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.
Item Number CDE website at: http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/se/ds/datarpts.asp
The File Review Forms include the following areas related to each item
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.
The Policy and Procedure form includes the same information as the student record form: Item No., Compliance Test, Compliance Standard and Guidance.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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).
“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)