1 / 20

Division Staff Meeting

Special Education Division July 2012. Division Staff Meeting. Agenda. Welcome and Introductions Good News/Accomplishments Updates Compliance Determination from OSEP  Significant Disproportionality OSEPs Results Driven Accountability. FFY 2010-11 Compliance Determination.

gordon
Download Presentation

Division Staff Meeting

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. Special Education Division July 2012 Division Staff Meeting

  2. Agenda • Welcome and Introductions • Good News/Accomplishments • Updates • Compliance Determination from OSEP  • Significant Disproportionality • OSEPs Results Driven Accountability

  3. FFY 2010-11Compliance Determination

  4. 2010-11Significant Disproportionality

  5. We received OSEPs official review of California Verification Visit on February 7, 2011 Posted on OSEP website: http://www2.ed.gov/fund/data/report/idea/partbvvltr/index.html#ca

  6. In order to address OSEP’s requirement, the CDE asked Dr. Lalit Roy to examine the requirements and recommend an approach. See ftp.cde.ca.gov/sp/se/ds/Disproportionality%20Measures.pdf

  7. Criteria Submitted to the OSEP • Denominator greater than 20 • LCIs not included • Use of two measures: Must be out on both the E-formula (3 standard errors) and the Alternate Risk Ratio (value greater than 4) • A district is considered to have significant disproportionality if any one cell is out on both measures in three out of the most recent four years (must include the current year)

  8. Letter Sent to SELPAs re: 49 Districts on 7/3/12 included: • Sample Letter to District(s) • Inform of District Status • Data for District(s) • Methods of Calculation • CEIS Memo from OSEP • Sample Assurance Statement

  9. Preliminary Timeline July 3: SELPA data preview released July 10: Webinar July 31: Official notification letter to district superintendents from Deputy Superintendent Dr. William Ellerbee Aug. 8: Detailed information and instructions packet sent to SELPAs and districts (developing action and budget plans; fiscal documentation, reporting, and due dates) Aug. 31: Assurances form due to the CDE Jan. 4: Action and Budget Plan Due to the CDE

  10. Results Driven Accountability

  11. OSEP Change • OSEP is revising its accountability system • They want to shift the balance from a primary focus on compliance to a focus on results and outcomes for children with disabilities.  • They are suspending state visits this year in order to develop new system

  12. OSEP Plan • OSEP will engage staff and stakeholders in a careful assessment and revision of the critical components of OSEP’s work. • All previously scheduled on-site visits are suspended (including formula grant verification visits and discretionary grant monitoring visits). • OSEP will monitor states through the APRs and compliance with fiscal requirements. • The title of this effort is “Results-driven Accountability (RDA).”

  13. Teleconferences • In May, a series of conference calls were held to gather input from State Directors of Education, Part C Coordinators, and representatives of Parent Centers.  • During each call, stakeholders were asked to respond to a set of questions. • CDE participated in a call with PTIs and SEAs from the Pacific 

  14. Survey • In order to expand the scope of input provided by the CDE, we decided to use the OSEP questions to survey stakeholders in California • Sent first to CDE staff • Also sent to ISES stakeholders, SELPA, SEACO and Parent Orgs

  15. Base Questions • Are there better ways to measure child find, early childhood transition, secondary transition, and effective monitoring? (These priorities are required in the statute but we have flexibility in how we measure them.) • Which indicators are most closely related to improving educational results and functional outcomes? • How can we refocus the determination process so that it factors in performance on results indicators, not just compliance indicators? • How can OSEP best support your State’s efforts to improve educational results and functional outcomes for children with disabilities?

  16. Additional Questions • How can OSEP use data to focus its TA and monitoring efforts? • Taking into consideration that OSEP-funded TA providers have limited resources, how can OSEP more effectively utilize its TA resources to support States’ efforts to improve results? • As OSEP moves to a more results-driven accountability system, is there a more effective way for OSEP to ensure that the IDEA rights of children with disabilities and their families are protected?

  17. Implications for Improvement Planning • OSEP RDA may: • impact the analysis of performance indicators. • impact the selection of priority indicators for improvement planning. • lead to changes in the indicator tables; calculation of indicators and data collection at the local level. • affect CDE monitoring priorities and processes.

More Related