Special education division california department of education october 3 2006
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 48

Special Education Division California Department of Education October 3, 2006 PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 96 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

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.

Download Presentation

Special Education Division California Department of Education October 3, 2006

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Special education division california department of education october 3 2006

Statewide Monitoring System

Special Education DivisionCalifornia Department of EducationOctober 3, 2006


Purpose

Purpose

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


Outcomes

Outcomes

  • The participants will be familiar with elements of CDE’s statewide monitoring system:

    • Organization and staffing

    • Methods and activities

    • Follow-up and correction


General definition

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.


Special education division california department of education october 3 2006

Fiscal and Administrative Relationships for Special Education Programs in California


Organization of the statewide system of monitoring

Organization of the Statewide System of Monitoring


Special education division california department of education october 3 2006

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


Special education division california department of education october 3 2006

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.


Special education local plan area selpa

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)


Components of the statewide system of monitoring

Components of the Statewide System of Monitoring


Components

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


Special education division california department of education october 3 2006

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.


Special education division california department of education october 3 2006

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


Special education division california department of education october 3 2006

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


Special education division california department of education october 3 2006

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


Monitoring review activities

Monitoring Review Activities


Special education monitoring processes are shaped by key monitoring questions based in idea

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


Monitoring questions

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?


Special education division california department of education october 3 2006

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


Special education division california department of education october 3 2006

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


Both the vr and sesr use software to customize the reviews

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


Monitoring plan

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


Parent input items

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)


Kpi data report items

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).


Special education division california department of education october 3 2006

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


Special education division california department of education october 3 2006

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


Special education division california department of education october 3 2006

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


Special education division california department of education october 3 2006

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


Special education division california department of education october 3 2006

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.


Special education division california department of education october 3 2006

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.


Customized review protocols

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


Special education division california department of education october 3 2006

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


Special education division california department of education october 3 2006

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.


Special education division california department of education october 3 2006

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


Special education division california department of education october 3 2006

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.


Software assists with identification of systemic noncompliance

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


Special education division california department of education october 3 2006

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.


Special education division california department of education october 3 2006

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


Software assists in generating reports to district

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


Special education division california department of education october 3 2006

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.


Special education division california department of education october 3 2006

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.


Special education division california department of education october 3 2006

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.


Corrective action plans

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.


Sanctions and enforcement

Sanctions and Enforcement


Sanctions

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).


Substantial noncompliance

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)


Sanctions1

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


Summary

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.


  • Login