1 / 33

YEAR #2 DETERMINATIONS

YEAR #2 DETERMINATIONS. ISD Special Education Directors’ Meeting September 18, 2008. OSEP Determination of Michigan. June 6, 2008: Michigan received its determination of “needs assistance” with meeting the requirements of IDEA. OSEP Determination of Michigan. Michigan’s challenges :

trixie
Download Presentation

YEAR #2 DETERMINATIONS

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  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

More Related