FREQUENCY andDURATION SPED Monitoring TETN December 16, 2010 Event # 8222
Agenda • Frequency and Duration • History of Related Services Issue • Review of Guidance from IDEA Coordination • Findings of Monitoring • Indicating Frequency and Duration Clearly • Noncompliance from data submission/CAPs • Request for Reconsideration of Findings
How Did We Get Here? • May 6-10, 2002—Office of Special Education Programs on-site visit to Texas • Visited 7 districts
OSEP Findings • IEPs do not reflect the amount of service that the IEP team has determined the child needs, NOR • IEPs do not reflect the amount and frequency of services provided to the child.
What OSEP Saw in IEPs • IEPs reflected “minimum” amounts of services to be provided, regardless of individual students’ needs. • Many times all students received the same amount of services, regardless of individual students’ needs.
Guidance on TEA Websitehttp://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/special.ed/guidance/ • August 14, 2006, Federal Register provides guidance within its discussion of the comments regarding proposed 2006 IDEA regulations: “What is required is that the IEP include information about the amount of services that will be provided to the child, so that the level of the agency’s commitment of resources will be clear to parents and other IEP team members. The amount of time to be committed to each of the services to be provided must be appropriate to the specific service, and clearly stated in the IEP in a manner that can be understood by all involved in the development and implementation of the IEP.”
Requirements for Documenting Provision of Related Services • Frequency---how often the student will receive the service(s)—number of times per week or day. If service is less than daily then the conditions for the provision of the services must be clearly specified within the IEP using a weekly reference
Requirements for Documenting Provision of Related Services • Duration—how long each “session” will last (number of minutes) and when services will begin and end (starting and ending dates) • Location– where services will be provided (in general education classroom or another setting)
Additional Guidance-FAQ August 2009 • If a term (1 class period) is used in the IEP to define duration of service, the term must be defined in the IEP Examples: 1 class period= 50 minutes 1 unit = 15 minutes
Findings of PMI • 30 minutes per semester • 60 minutes per 6 weeks • 30X /year for a duration of 60 minutes • 1X per month, 30 minutes • 8-40 minutes sessions in a 6-weeks • 1620 minutes per semester
Making It Specific 30 minutes 5X in a 6 weeks 1 time a week for 30 minutes for 5 weeks, one week with no services so therapists may access carryover in general education classroom, in a 6 week period
180 minutes per six week period 45 minutes for 4 consecutive weeks and two weeks with no services to determine generalization, in a six week period
10-30 minutes sessions in a 6-week period 2 sessions for 30 minutes for four weeks and then 1 time for 30 minutes for two weeks in a 6-week period
1- 45 minutes every 3 weeks That’s it!
60 minutes per semester 1-60 minute session every 18 weeks
The Test Can anyone understand when the student will have services?
Notification of Noncompliance Identified in Data Submission for SPP Indicators • On November 16, 2010, correspondence was sent from IDEA Coordination to LEAs concerning noncompliance identified in data submission for SPP indicators 11, 12, and 13. • For noncompliance in any of these indicators, LEAs must develop corrective action plans to submit to the agency to identify how the noncompliance will be corrected as soon as possible, but in no case longer than one year.
For LEAs in any stage of intervention in the PBM system, the corrective action for this noncompliance will be included in the corrective action plan (CAP) that will be submitted according to the PBM submission due dates shown below: • Stage 1B—November 19** • Stage 2—December 10 • Stage 3—January 14 • Districts who were not in any stage or were Stage 1A—December 20
For LEAs who are in Stage 4 interventions--- January 14 The LEA only has one year to correct this noncompliance, and the LEA’s on-site visit may be late in the year. LEAs should begin working to correct this noncompliance now. Submit a CAP that includes any issues of noncompliance that the LEA is still working to correct as well as the SPP noncompliance---After the on-site visit, if new issues of noncompliance are identified, the CAP can be revised. Submissions will be uploaded through ISAM.
The CAP form can be accessed on the website athttp://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/pmi/spedmon/2011. Questions
Receipt of Report—Asking for Reconsideration of Findings • When an LEA receives a preliminary report of findings from an on-site visit or desk audit, a receipt of report (RoR) will be enclosed. • If the LEA disagrees with any finding in the preliminary, the LEA will indicate disagreement with the report and request the agency to reconsider the finding.
Any documentation or evidence that the LEA would like the agency to review must accompany the RoR. • If the agency determines that the documentation provides evidence that the finding was inaccurate, the preliminary report will be corrected and the report will be considered final.
It has come to the agency’s attention that some LEAs are receiving advice that asking for reconsideration and submitting documentation will not be beneficial. • This information is not accurate. Reconsideration requests are always carefully reviewed, and, if the documentation provides evidence that the finding was inaccurate, the report will be modified. • However, the LEA may find it beneficial to communicate with the PMI contact regarding questioned or unclear findings prior to asking for reconsideration, as common understanding may resolve the issues.
Future SPED Monitoring TETNs January 19 April 11 February 16 May 13 March 8 June 15 All sessions are from 1:00-3:00 p.m.
If you need assistance: • Call (512) 463-5226 • Email www. tea.state.tx.us/spedmon or www.tea.state.tx.us/rfmon • PBM supervisors: Margaret Mays Susan Marek • RF supervisors: Michele O’Donnell Gaynel Roberts