general supervision highlights on monitoring and the 09 02 memo n.
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
General Supervision: Highlights on Monitoring and the 09-02 Memo

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 58

General Supervision: Highlights on Monitoring and the 09-02 Memo - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

General Supervision: Highlights on Monitoring and the 09-02 Memo. Western Regional Resource Center APR Clinic 2010 • November 1-3, 2010 • San Francisco, California. What is General Supervision?. A requirement: IDEA 34 CFR §300.600

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'General Supervision: Highlights on Monitoring and the 09-02 Memo' - elmer

Download Now 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
general supervision highlights on monitoring and the 09 02 memo

General Supervision: Highlights on Monitoring and the 09-02 Memo

Western Regional Resource Center APR Clinic 2010 • November 1-3, 2010 • San Francisco, California

what is general supervision

What is General Supervision?

A requirement:

IDEA 34 CFR §300.600

The “State” must monitor the implementation of this part, enforce this part… and annually report on performance under this part.

A way to organize what you do

An important component of OSEP verification visits and determinations

A method of tracking and encouraging continuous improvement

components of general supervision

Policies, Procedures & Effective Implementation

State Performance Plan

Helpful Guidance

From TA Providers


Components of General Supervision

Integrated Monitoring Activities

Data on Processes and Results

Fiscal Management

Improvement, Correction, Incentives & Sanctions

Targeted Technical Assistance & Professional Development

Effective Dispute Resolution

according to osep

According to OSEP

Five Critical Elements of General Supervision:

A system to identify noncompliance in a timely manner using its different components

A system to ensure correction of identified noncompliance in a timely manner

Procedures and practices to implement the dispute resolution requirements of IDEA

Western Regional Resource Center APR Clinic 2010

according to osep1

According to OSEP

Five Critical Elements of General Supervision:

Procedures and practices to improve educational results and functional outcomes for all children with disabilities

Procedures and practices to implement other requirements, i.e., fiscal requirements, private schools, NIMAS, assessments, etc.


Building Effective General Supervision

General Supervision Foundation

step 1 identifying an issue

Step 1 – Identifying an Issue

What components are used to identify noncompliance?

Which issues to look for:

How few are too few?

How many is too many?

Determining and prioritizing what to look for.

components examples

On-site Activities

    • IEP/Record Reviews
    • Interviews (Families/Providers/Teachers)
    • Others ?
  • Off-site Activities
    • Database (includes SPP/APR data collections and analysis)
    • Self Assessment
    • Desk Audit
    • Surveys (Families/Providers/Teachers)
    • Contracts
    • Dispute Resolution (formal and informal)
    • Local reporting
    • Others?

Components (examples):


Which Issues to Look For

  • SPP/APR Indicators
  • Related Requirements
  • Your Indicators


using spp apr to identify issues
Using SPP/APR to Identify Issues
  • Compliance and performance
  • Self-identified issues (discussion of progress and slippage, improvement activities)
  • OSEP-identified issues (response table)



Monitoring Data and the SPP/APR

  • Coordination of APR data collection and monitoring data
  • Database data vs. census data vs. monitoring data


from osep on databases
From OSEP on Databases
  • If the SEA/LA receives data through its database that show noncompliance, the SEA/LA must:
    • Make a finding, AND
    • Require correction as soon as possible, and in no case later than one year after the SEA/LA’s notification



From OSEP on Databases

  • SEA/LA may identify one or more points in time during SPP/APR reporting period when it will review compliance data from database and identify noncompliance
  • In making compliance decisions, SEA/LA should then review all data received since the last time SEA/LA examined data from database and made compliance decisions. SEA/LA may either examine:
    • All data in database, OR
    • Statewide representative sample


from osep on identifying noncompliance
From OSEP on Identifying Noncompliance
  • Findings must be made based on data collected through any method that demonstrates noncompliance (e.g., when the level of compliance is less than 100%)
  • “Substantial compliance” (e.g., 95% compliance) or other “thresholds” (e.g., 3 of 4 children had a timely transition conference) do not apply to identification or correction of noncompliance



Make a finding of noncompliance.

Option 1

  • Verify whether data demonstrate noncompliance, and then issue finding if data do demonstrate noncompliance.

Option 2

  • Verify LEA has corrected noncompliance before State issues written findings of noncompliance, in which case State not required to issue written finding of noncompliance.

Option 3

Slide prepared by OSEP


scenario 1
  • On October 9, the Lead Agency monitored Oleander Infant/Toddler Daycare Program and found that 2 of 18 files did not have justification for not being in natural environments.
  • On October 23rd the program faxed the IFSP pages to the LA, with justification statements based on the Medical Team at UNC pediatric services, that two children with active foot/mouth disease were in pediatric medical rehab class for 3 months, after which they would be moved to the regular toddler class.
  • The Lead Agency issued the monitoring report on November 1st.



scenario 11
  • Should the Lead agency issue a finding of noncompliance for the two files that did not have adequate natural environment justifications?
  • What options does the Lead Agency have prior to issuing the monitoring report?



prioritizing issues monitoring with a focus
Prioritizing Issues – Monitoring with a Focus

How can you make this process manageable and still get the data you need?



Submit SPP/APR to OSEP

Enter CAPs in tracking log, review CAP progress, verify correction, and determine TA needs

Submit 618 Child Count, LRE, and Assessment Data

Submit 618 Personnel, Exiting, Discipline, Disp.Res.

Issue findings

School Visits (5 in February/March)


Examine B13, B11, B12 data to determine noncompliance



Examine B13, B11, B12 data to determine noncompliance

  • Monthly Activities
    • Resource Specialist Reports/Meetings
    • IEP Count Data Report
    • Evaluations Data Report
    • Exit Data Report
    • Personnel Data Report
    • On-site school visits (Sept - March


School Visits (5 in October/November)


Issue findings


Enter CAPs in tracking log, review CAP progress, verify correction, and determine TA needs




Review SPP/APR progress on improvement activities

Report APR performance to the public




Select schools for onsite visits in next school year

Hold initial meeting of APR indicator teams

Set agenda for APR indicator drafts meeting in Fall

Schedule training and share resources/tools

Provide APR data to indicator teams

Organizing the Identification Process - The Wheel


steps 2 3 investigating issues
Steps 2 & 3 – Investigating Issues


  • Step 2 – Determine the Extent/Level of the Issue
  • Step 3 – Determine the Cause of the Issue
factors to consider
Factors to Consider
  • What is the level of compliance/performance?
    • Look at percentages:

All (100%), mostly compliant (95%+),

moderately (85-94%), somewhat (76-84%), limited compliance (75% or less)

    • Look at number of instances of compliance in proportion to the N (total):4 out of 5 -vs.- 40 out of 50


factors to consider1
Factors to Consider
  • Where/with whom is the problem happening?
      • One or more providers/teachers
      • One or more local programs/schools
      • Statewide


factors to consider2
Factors to Consider
  • Historical/Trend Data
    • Open CAP on the same issue
    • Previous completed CAPS on the same issue
      • Repeat offense – not really fixing the problem although findings are corrected or not issued
    • Trend data – do data show clear progress or slippage in this area?
      • More applicable when looking at smaller time periods (quarters)


factors to consider3
Factors to Consider
  • Other Considerations
    • Demonstrated Ability to Correct (previously identified noncompliance corrected within timelines)
    • Exceptional Circumstances
    • Number of findings of noncompliance (multiple noncompliance issues vs. one)


step 3 determine cause of issue
Step 3 – Determine Cause of Issue
  • Root Cause Analysis
    • Need for Improvement
    • Need for Correction
      • Policies
      • Procedures
      • Practices
  • Keep in mind what the resolution might be - based on the cause
using analyses from steps 2 and 3
Using Analyses from Steps 2 and 3

Use decisionson the level/extent and the root cause of issues, including whetherthere isnoncompliance, in order to determine:

  • At what level resolution needs to happen
  • Who needs to be responsible
  • What actions should be required
  • What data will be used to verify correction


scenario 2
Scenario #2
  • The Lead Agency monitored the Mothers & Babies Program during an onsite visit. The findings report identified noncompliance based on the following:
    • 20 out of 50 children did not receive timely services
    • 2 out of 40 children did not have an IFSP meeting in 45 days
    • 5 out of 45 children did not receive written prior notice at the appropriate junctures



scenario 21
Scenario #2
  • What actions might the Lead Agency require of 2 the Mothers & Babies Program to ensure correction the noncompliance related to each of the following:
    • timely services (20 of 50)?
    • IFSP meeting within 45 days (2 of 40)?
    • written prior notice (5 of 45)?



step 4 assign accountability for the issue and its resolution
Step 4 - Assign Accountability for the Issue and its Resolution

The resolution should be based on the issue and the analyses conducted (extent/level and root cause)

For improvement issues (not a compliance issue)

Improvement plan

For noncompliance

Finding must be issued

Corrective action


for improvement issues
For Improvement Issues

Use decisions made about the level/extent and the root cause of the issue to:

Determine areas in need of improvement

Explore relationship to SPP indicators

Determine resources needed (staff, TA providers, best practice)

Develop improvement strategies


written notification of finding
Written Notification of Finding
  • Generally, OSEP expects written notification to be issued less than three months from discovery and should include:
    • SEA’s/LA’s conclusion that LEA/program is not in compliance
    • Citation of relevant regulatory or statutory requirement
    • Description of quantitative and/or qualitative data supporting SEA/LA’s conclusion, AND
    • Statement requiring correction as soon as possible, but in no case later than one year from notification
counting and reporting findings
Counting and Reporting Findings
  • SEA/LAs may choose how they will count and report their monitoring findings:
    • Group individual instances in a program involving the same legal requirement together as one finding, AND/OR
    • Report each of the individual instances of noncompliance as a separate finding
  • Exception: each finding identified through a State complaint or a due process hearing must be counted as a separate finding
required actions to correct noncompliance
Required Actions to Correct Noncompliance
  • Corrective action
    • What actions need to be taken to correct the noncompliance (based on analyses)?
      • Submit data to demonstrate correction
      • Corrective Action Plan
    • How will we know they worked?
  • Identify which data will be used to verify correction of the noncompliance
steps 5 6 verify correction and follow up
Steps 5 & 6 - Verify Correction and Follow-up
  • Step 5 – Verify Resolution of the Issue
    • OSEP Definition of Verifying Correction
  • Step 6 – Follow up on Resolution
    • Continuous Improvement
improvement issues not compliance issues
Improvement Issues (not compliance issues)

Several tools are available to assist states in:

  • Analyzing indicator data and other performance variables at SEA/LA and school levels
  • Designing effective improvement strategies
  • Evaluating improvement activities

step 5 ensure and verify resolution of the issue
Step 5 – Ensure and Verify Resolution of the Issue

For improvement issues (not compliance issues), this may be over a period of several years

For compliance issues, this is clearly defined by OSEP

compliance issues defined by osep
Compliance Issues (defined by OSEP)
  • Verifying resolution of compliance issues is clearly defined by OSEP. Two main documents explain and clarify the process states are to use to correct and verify correction of noncompliance:
    • OSEP Memo 09-02, October 17, 2008
    • F.A.Q. on Identification and Correction of Noncompliance, September 3, 2008
from osep on timeline for verifying correction
From OSEP on Timeline for Verifying Correction

The timeline for when correction must be verified (as soon as possible but in no case later than one year) begins on the date on which the SEA/LA notifies the LEA/program, in writing, of its finding of noncompliance

from osep on timely correction
From OSEP on Timely Correction

For an SEA/LA to report that noncompliance has been corrected it must first:

Account for ALL noncompliance identified by SEA/LA


in which LEAs/programs noncompliance occurred

the level of noncompliance in each, AND

the root cause(s) of noncompliance

If needed, require change in the LEA’s/program’s


Procedures, AND/OR


from osep on timely correction1
From OSEP on Timely Correction
  • In order to demonstrate that previously identified noncompliance has been corrected, an SEA/LA must:
    • Prong 1 - Account for the correction of all child-specific instances of noncompliance


    • Prong 2 - Determine whether each LEA or Program with identified noncompliance is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements (achieved 100% compliance)
Both prongs apply to correction of all findings of noncompliance, and noncompliance reported in APRs, whether there is a high level of compliance (but below 100%) or a low level of compliance

States cannot use a threshold of less than 100% to conclude that the LEA/program has corrected noncompliance

From OSEP on Timely Correction

from osep on correction of child specific noncompliance
For child-specific noncompliance that is not a timeline requirement, SEA/LA must ensure that LEA/program corrected noncompliance in each individual case, unless:

The requirement no longer applies


The child is no longer within the jurisdiction of LEA/program

From OSEP on Correction of Child-Specific Noncompliance
from osep on correction of child specific noncompliance1
From OSEP on Correction of Child-Specific Noncompliance
  • For child-specific noncompliance with a timeline requirement, the SEA/LA must ensure that the service/evaluation/etc. was provided, although late, unless:
    • The requirement no longer applies


    • The child is no longer within the jurisdiction of LEA/program
To ensure correction of child-specific noncompliance regardless of whether or not it is a timeline requirement…

The SEA/LA could review or require a local agency to review all or a sample of the records of affected children to verify correction

From OSEP on Correction of Child-Specific Noncompliance

For an SEA/LA to report LEAs/programs are implementing the specific regulatory requirements, in addition to the correction explained for child specific noncompliance, the SEA/LA must:

Based on its review of updated data, and within one year of notifying the program of noncompliance, determine if the LEA/program is in compliance

From OSEP on Timely Correction

verification of correction of noncompliance
For an SEA/LA to report LEAs/programs are implementing the specific regulatory requirements:

Must be based on NEW (updated) data

Correction = 100%


May happen very quickly

Period of time (at 100%) for verification should depend on the level of noncompliance and the cause of the noncompliance

How correction will be verified should be determined before finding is made

Verification of Correction of Noncompliance


New Children Transitioning

from C to B

By February 15th, 2010

FFY 2009

Noncompliance Corrected & Verified

By November 11, 2010

1000 children:


Indicator C8/B12

August 15th 2009:

1. Child Specific

2 children






2. Program

0 children





1. Child Specific

12 children






2. Program

0 children





1. Child Specific

2 children






2. Program



Monitoring Results FFY 2009:

By November 12 - C8/B12 - 93%, Three Findings


from osep on verifying correction
From OSEP on Verifying Correction

If 100% is not obtained when reviewing updated data to verify correction:

a new finding is NOT issued

the original finding remains “open”

The child-specific noncompliance identified from this review of updated data must be corrected AND the state must review further updated data until the LEA/program achieves 100%

notification of verifying correction
Notification of Verifying Correction

After correction has been verified:

Notify (in writing) the accountable party (LEA/program/etc.) that correction has been verified and the finding of noncompliance is closed out. Notification may include:

Corrective actions taken to correct noncompliance

Data used to verify correction

Correction of each instance

Updated data demonstrating 100% compliance

Whether the noncompliance was corrected within 12 months of issuing the finding

documentation of correction and verification of correction
Documentation of Correction and Verification of Correction

What documentation could you use as evidence of how you verify correction?

  • Notification of findings
  • Corrective action plans
  • Notification of verification of correction
  • Procedures for verification of correction
    • How data for verification is collected and verified
    • If samples are used, how they are representative
step 6 follow up on resolution of the issue
Step 6 - Follow Up on Resolution of the Issue

Incentives for correction/improvement

Sanctions/enforcement actions for uncorrected noncompliance

Easier to use if set up in advance

western regional resource center apr clinic 2010

Western Regional Resource CenterAPR Clinic 2010

November 1-3, 2010 • San Francisco, California

Western Regional Resource Center APR Clinic 2010