disproportionality ceis l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Disproportionality / CEIS PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Disproportionality / CEIS

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 98

Disproportionality / CEIS - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 120 Views
  • Uploaded on

Disproportionality / CEIS. Dr. Lanai Jennings Coordinator Office of Special Programs. Data Coordinator. Professional Development. Lorraine Elswick Coordinator Office of Special Programs. Complaints. Professional Development. Dr. Frances Clark Coordinator

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

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Disproportionality / CEIS' - kaida


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
disproportionality ceis

Disproportionality/ CEIS

Dr. Lanai Jennings

Coordinator

Office of Special Programs

Data

Coordinator

Professional

Development

Lorraine Elswick

Coordinator

Office of Special Programs

Complaints

Professional

Development

Dr. Frances Clark

Coordinator

Office of Special Programs

Positive

Behavior

Supports

Professional

Development

what does indicator 4 address
What does Indicator 4 address?
  • Equity in suspensions rates
    • 4A: Comparison of SWD to SWOD
    • 4B: Comparison of SWD by race/ethnicity
  • When suspension rates are discrepant, is the difference due to inappropriate policies, procedures, and practices relating to the development and implementation of IEPs or the lack of positive behavioral interventions and supports, or procedural safeguards
measurement
Measurement

Indicator 4A

  • Significant discrepancy for a district is defined as a relative difference of 160 between the rate for SWD and the rate for SWOD in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year

Indicator 4B

  • Significant discrepancy is defined as a relative difference greater than 100 in the suspension rate for a given SWD race/ethnic category vs. suspension rate for All Other SWD within the district

Minimum Cell Requirement

  • 20
calculation
Indicator 4A

Indicator 4B

Using Hispanic category as example

Step 1: Hispanic SWD rate= (# of Hispanic SWD with OSS/EXP greater than 10 days)/# of Hispanic SWD enrolled)

Step 2: All Other rate = (# of SWD in All Other racial/ethnic categories with OSS/EXP greater than 10 days)/# SWD of All Other racial/ethnic categories enrolled)

Step 3: (Hispanic SWD rate –All Other SWD rate)/All Other SWD rate*100

Step 1: SWD rate= (# of SWD with OSS/EXP greater than 10 days)/# of SWD enrolled)

Step 2: SWOD rate = (# of SWOD with OSS/EXP greater than 10 days)/# of SWOD enrolled)

Step 3: (SWD rate – SWOD rate)/SWOD rate*100

Calculation
indicator 4a data
Indicator 4A Data

Data is also from 2008-2009 and reflects the cell size increase to 20

what osp activities initiatives are in place to address behavior
What OSP activities/initiatives are in place to address behavior?

To get all PBS materials and information open http://wvde.state.wv.us/osp/,

open Improving Results, then click on Positive Behavior Supports

OR

http://wvde.state.wv.us/osp/PositiveBehaviorSupport.html

WVSWPBS

WVECPBS

WVRTI S/E: A Three-Tiered Model of Social/Emotional Supports for ALL

slide11

Principal’s Orientation and Application Documents: http://wvde.state.wv.us/osp/PositiveBehaviorSupportschoolwide.html

SWPBS Training materials: https://sites.google.com/site/2009swpbstrainingmaterials/

slide12

WVRTI S/E: A Three-Tiered Model of Social/Emotional Supports for ALL Pilots: https://sites.google.com/site/wvsbmhtaskforce/

7 Pilot sites:

RESA II: Mingo Co. – 2 Elementary Schools (Task Force Support Dr. Jennifer Whisman)

RESA V: Pleasants Co – County-wide (Task Force Support Dr. Jennifer Whisman)

2 Elementary, 1 Middle & 1 High School

RESA VII: Marion Co – Alternative Mid/High School (Task Force Support Spec. Ed Dir. Gia Deasy)

what osp activities initiatives are in place to address behavior13
What OSP activities/initiatives are in place to address behavior?

Exceeding the relative difference threshold, triggers a state level review of districts’ policies, procedures, and practices relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards

Common issues revealed:

  • Disciplinary timelines exceeded
  • Failure to determine or document if the suspension constitutes a change of placement
  • All pertinent information is not reviewed or documented during MDR
  • Data quality issues
identification of noncompliance during sea review requires correction
Identification of Noncompliance During SEA Review Requires Correction

Correction is defined in OSEP Memo 09-02:

Correction is achieved when:

  • Every instance of noncompliance identified via the review of policies, procedures, and practices is corrected and verified by WVDE.

AND

  • If needed, the LEA has changed its policies, procedures, and/or practices that contributed to or resulted in noncompliance.

AND

  • Based on its review of updated data, WVDE verified that the district is correctly implementing the specific statutory or regulatory requirement(s).

Districts are required to correct any noncompliances as soon as possible, but in no case later than one year.

disproportionate representation
Disproportionate Representation
  • SPP/APR Indicators 9 & 10
  • Refers to the over- or underrepresentation of students from a specific racial/ethnic group in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification
  • Examination must include review of general and special education policies, procedures and practices
  • Focus on whether there are patterns of differential treatment in the identification, referral, evaluation or eligibility of students
  • Must result in a change in policies, practices or procedures that contribute to the disproportionality
indicator 9
Indicator 9

Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification

Compliance indicator with a target of 0%

indicator 10
Indicator 10

Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification

Compliance indicator with a target of 0%

indicators 9 10
Indicators 9 & 10

Data Sources

  • December 1 Child Count
  • 2nd Month Enrollment Data
  • Seven racial/ethnic groups
  • Six categorical disabilities (autism, emotional/ behavioral disorder, mental impairment, specific learning disability, speech/language impairment, other health impairment)
risk ratio method
Risk Ratio Method

Answers the question:

What is the risk of a student from a particular racial/ethnic group being identified for special education and related services compared to the risk of a student from any other racial/ethnic group?

weighted risk ratio wwr calculation
Weighted Risk Ratio (WWR) Calculation
  • Step 1: Calculate risk for each group
    • Black Students with Disabilities/Black Enrolled
    • Asian Students with Disabilities/Asian Enrolled . . . etc.
  • Step 2: Calculate State Composition for each group
    • Enrolled Black students/All enrolled
    • Enrolled Asian students/All enrolled. . .etc.
  • Step 3: Calculate weighted risk ratio
    • [1-State Black Composition/*District Black SWD risk]/[State American Indian Composition/*District American Indian SWD risk) + [State Asian…etc. for all others]
    • Don’t calculate if less than 20 enrolled
measurement indicators 9 10
MeasurementIndicators 9 & 10 -

Disproportionate representation is defined as:

  • a WWR of 2.0 or higher with a cell size of 20 for overrepresentation, or
  • a WWR of .25 or below with a cell size of 50 for underrepresentation,

AND

  • the district’s review of policies, procedures and practices confirms inappropriate identification
indicators 9 1022
Indicators 9 & 10

Annual CSADA Indicator Status:

  • WVDE Data Driven
  • Determination of initial compliance status based on weighted risk ratio and cell size for both over and underrepresentation
  • Second test of statistical significance applied
    • Z-Test for Two Proportions or Chi-Square
  • Compliance status is district determined based on review of policies, procedures and practices resulting in inappropriate identification
  • State level verification review required
wvde data driven
December 1, 2009

February 1, 2010

Second Test of Statistical Significance

14 districts emerged with disproportionate representation

2 overrepresentation

11 underrepresentation

1 over-and underrepresentation

1st Test - WWR and cell size

  • 43 districts emerged with disproportionate representation
    • 22 underrepresentation
    • 6 overrepresentation
    • 15 over-and underrepresentation
WVDE DATA DRIVEN
indicators 9 1024
Indicators 9 &10

Monitoring Process – Overrepresentation

  • Data provided to districts in February
  • District’s compliance status is WVDE determined Status is indicated as Met or Not Met
  • District conducts review of general and special education policies, procedures and practices (e.g., Policy 2419 – Child Find, Evaluation, Eligibility)
  • Determine whether the disproportionate overrepresentation is due to inappropriate identification
indicators 9 1025
Indicators 9 & 10

Monitoring Process – Underrepresentation

  • Data provided to districts in February
  • District’s compliance status is WVDE determined. Status is indicated as Met or Not Met
  • District conducts review of general and special education procedures and practices (designated school’s individual student achievement, SAT (referral) data, instructional practices by racial/ethnic groups)
  • Determines whether the disproportionate underrepresentation is due to inequity in practices
identification of noncompliance during sea review requires correction27
Identification of Noncompliance During SEA Review Requires Correction

Correction is defined in OSEP Memo 09-02:

Correction is achieved when:

  • Every instance of noncompliance identified via the review of policies, procedures, and practices is corrected and verified by WVDE.

AND

  • If needed, the LEA has changed its policies, procedures, and/or practices that contributed to or resulted in noncompliance.

AND

  • Based on its review of updated data, WVDE verified that the district is correctly implementing the specific statutory or regulatory requirement(s).

Districts are required to correct any noncompliances as soon as possible, but in no case later than one year.

findings of noncompliance

Activities/Initiatives to Address Disproportionate Representation

  • 3-Tiered Model of Positive Behavior Support (PBS)
    • School-wide PBS
    • Early Childhood PBS
  • 3-Tiered Model of Instruction/Intervention (RLA and Math)
  • Technical Assistance by OSP
  • National Center for Culturally Responsive Education Systems (NCCRESt)
  • Phonemic Awareness Project
Findings of Noncompliance

Procedures for out-of-state transfer students

Determining eligibility in a different category

Considering all areas of suspected disability

spp apr indicators 4b 9 10 are not
SPP/APR Indicators 4b, 9 & 10 ARE NOT

Significant Disproportionality

Additional information to be provided

tomorrow at lunch

parent involvement indicator 8 betsy peterson coordinator

Parent InvolvementIndicator 8Betsy PetersonCoordinator

Parent

Coordinator

Professional

Development

indicator 8
Indicator 8
  • Indicator addresses the percent of parents with a child receiving special education services who report that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities.
indicator 832
Indicator 8
  • The data for this indicator originate from the Parent Survey that is mailed each year to selected districts. All districts will be surveyed in 6 years.
indicator 833
Indicator 8
  • When your district is being surveyed it is very important that you encourage the parents to respond to the survey!! Thanks!!!
slide37

The US Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, will be conducting a verification visit to the state of West Virginia. This visit is to evaluate WV on:

  • Effectiveness with implementing a general supervision system
  • Collection of state reported data
  • Fiscal management
  • Systems for improving child and family outcomes and protecting child and family rights.
slide38

The Office of Special Education has asked WVPTI to help in soliciting parent input in this process by way of a parent survey.

  • Please go to the following website:
  • Students ages 3-21: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/8H6DYJL
  • Birth to Three: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/LVMJX6Y
  • The US Dept. of Ed. developed all questions on this survey.
slide39

To date, WVPTI has disseminated the surveys through a variety of ways:

  • Bulk mailed to the following agencies:
  • West Virginia Advocates
  • WV Developmental Disabilities Council
  • Autism Training Center
  • Mountain States Parents Can
  • Parent Network Specialists at CED
  • All Service Coordinators for WV Birth to Three
  • PERCS
slide40

The previous agencies listed are either disseminating the surveys individually, or at trainings/activities which they attend.

WVPTI Staff and Trainers are disseminating at all activities/events/trainings, as well as individually.

WVPTI Office Staff have taken a few over the phone.

We are seeing results of the survey monkey. As of Sept. 15, we have a total of 46 surveys that have been done online.

slide41

Parent Verification Visit Survey: Part B of IDEA

  • I know how to get information about the special education services in my State.

□ Yes □ No

a. If yes, I can obtain that information from: (Please select all that apply.)

□ Web site (Name of website)_________________________________

□ State Education Agency

□ Local School District/Local Education Agency (LEA)

□ Parent Training Information center (WVPTI)

□ Advocacy Group

□ Other:____________________________________

slide42

Within the last year, I received a copy of my rights under the Local School

  • District’s/LEA’s special education program under Part B of the Individuals with
  • Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the Federal special education law for
  • providing special education services to children with disabilities.

□ Yes □ No

a. If yes, who gave you this information? (Please select all that apply.)

□ Special Education Coordinator

□ Special Education Teacher

□ Related Service Provider (social worker, speech pathologist, etc.)

□ Evaluation Team

□ Parent Training and Information Center (WVPTI)

□ Local School District/LEA Representative

□ School Administrator

□ Other:______________________________________________

slide44

Within the past year I have asked for: (Please select all that apply.)

□ Mediation □ State Complaint

□ Resolution Session □ Due Process Hearing

□ Other Dispute Resolution applicable to the State,

including facilitated Individualized Education Programs (IEPs)

  • Each of the concerns that I raised in the State Complaint was
  • addressed in the decision letter/letter of finding.

□ Yes □ No

slide45

I have experienced or observed special education practices

  • that I believe were not in compliance with Part B of IDEA.

□ Yes □ No □ Don’t know

a. If yes, please explain:______________________________________________

slide46

Based on my experiences with the special education services in my

  • State, I feel the areas that are most effective are:
  • (Please select the top three.)

□ Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)

□ Provision of a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)

□ Evaluation/Assessment

□ IEPs

□ Qualified Related Service Providers

□ Qualified Special Education Teachers

□ Timely Implementation of IEPs

□ Transition from Part C to Part B (transition from the

infant/toddler program to preschool)

slide47

□ Materials in the Parent’s Native Language/Mode of Communication

□ Special Education Monitoring by the State

□ Due process Hearings and Complaints

□ Transportation

□ Accommodations/Modifications

□ Parent Involvement

□ No Improvement Needed

□ Don’t Know

□ Other: (please explain briefly) __________________________________________

slide48

Based on my experiences with the special education services in my

  • State, I feel the areas that need most improvement are:
  • (Please select the top three.)

□ Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)

□ Provision of a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)

□ Evaluation/Assessment

□ IEPs

□ Qualified Related Service Providers

□ Qualified Special Education Teachers

□ Timely Implementation of IEPs

□ Transition from Part C to Part B (transition from the

infant/toddler program to preschool)

slide49

□ Materials in the Parent’s Native Language/Mode of Communication

  • □ Special Education Monitoring by the State
  • □ Due process Hearings and Complaints
  • □ Transportation
  • □ Accommodations/Modifications
  • □ Parent Involvement
  • □ No Improvement Needed
  • □ Don’t Know
  • □ Other: (please explain briefly) __________________________________________
slide50

I know how to get the results of the U.S. Department of

  • Education’s evaluation of my State’s performance under the
  • federal special education laws (i.e., the State’s Determination).

□ Yes □ No

  • I know how to get the results of the State’s evaluation of my
  • Local School District’s/LEA’s performance under the special
  • education laws (i.e., the LEA’s Determination).
  • □ Yes □ No
slide51

I think my Local School District/LEA in my State is

  • providing the special education services and supports
  • that my child needs.

□ Yes □ No

a. If no, please explain:__________________________________

secondary transition students with disabilities are ready for success beyond high school
Secondary TransitionStudents With DisabilitiesAre Ready ForSuccess Beyond High School

Karen Ruddle

Coordinator

Office of Special Programs

Secondary

Transition

Professional

Development

4 indicators for transition
4 Indicators for Transition
  • #1
  • #2
  • #13
  • #14
  • Graduation
  • Dropout
  • IEP documentation
  • Post school outcomes
what is the expectation for the end result
Indicator 14: Within one year of leaving high school, former students with disabilities are employed, enrolled in postsecondary education, or both.What is the expectation for the end result?
i 14 post school outcomes
I-14: Post School Outcomes

DATA

  • Exit Survey
  • One Year Follow Up Survey

Key Words: Timely, Accurate

how do we document details of transition in the iep and assure items documented are correct
Indicator 13: All IEPs for transition age students document 100% of transition requirements, as described by the 8 questions on the checklist, and include postsecondary goals with an annual update, transition assessment, course of study, services and activities enable achievement of postsecondary goals, IEP goals link to postsecondary goals, student and agencies participate in the IEP.How do we document details of transition in the IEP and assure items documented are correct?
i 13 documenting transition
I-13: Documenting Transition

DATA

  • CSADA: I 13 Checklist
  • Exit & Follow Up Surveys

Key Words: Sustained, Document, Timely Correction

how do we help students stay in school and prepare for the future
Indicator 2: Dropout calculations for students with disabilities is the same as for all students and follows the same timelines. The rate for students with disabilities will align with that for all students. How do we help students stay in school and prepare for the future?
i 2 dropout
I-2: Dropout

DATA

  • Annual Data Report
  • Exit & Follow Up Surveys

Key Words: Timely, Accurate, Prevention, Intervention, Alignment

how do we help students graduate with a regular diploma
Indicator 1: Graduation calculations for students with disabilities is the same as for all students and follows the same timelines. The rate for students with disabilities will align with that for all students. How do we help students graduate with a regular diploma?
i 1 graduation
I-1: Graduation

DATA

  • Annual Data Report
  • Exit & Follow Up Surveys

Key Words: Cohort, Timely, Accurate, Alignment, Intervention

infrastructure system

Infrastructure System

Debbie Ashwell

Coordinator

Office of Special Programs

Monitoring

Professional

Development

Lorraine Elswick

Coordinator

Office of Special Programs

Compliance

Professional

Development

slide65

Indictor 11

Child Find

(Initial Evaluation Timelines)

SPP pp.111-116/APR pp. 79-83

Percent of children who were evaluated within 60 days of receiving parental consent for initial evaluation or, if the State establishes a timeframe within which the evaluation must be conducted, within that timeframe. (WV=80 days)

Timeline begins when any school personnel receive the Notice of Individual Evaluation/Reevaluation

Timeline ends when Eligibility Committee convenes

slide66

Indictor 11

Data Sources:

WVEIS data entered at the district when initial consent is given or refused

Periodic Data Pulls to :

Monitor missing fields and error data

Verify correction of previously identified noncompliance

Special Education Data Collections & Reports

December 3, 2010

February 4, 2011

April 4, 2011

Final data pull August 1, 2011

slide67

Requirements following periodic data pulls

    • Supply missing data
    • Correct error data
      • Timeline: As Soon As Possible

No submission to WVDE required in response.

  • Requirements following final data pull
    • Supply missing data
    • Correct error data within the given timeline
      • Timeline: By date provided in notice (generally 2 weeks)

No submission to WVDE required in response.

osp activities initiatives to address indicator 11
OSP Activities/Initiatives to address Indicator 11
  • Form change to include a box for the date consent form was received by district
  • Training was provided to new directors on available data and reports
  • Data presented at Leadership Conference annually
  • Letters of finding to districts with less than 100% compliance, improvement plan required
  • Periodic data pulls to correct and complete data entry
  • Presentation at the state School Psychologist Conference regarding Indicator 11 to raise awareness
from another angle
From Another Angle
  • 99 total days from permission to EC
  • 19 days beyond the 80-day timeline
  • Within the 30 days in which to complete an IEP

= No Denial of FAPE

IF both meetings were held the same day (EC & IEP)

  • 176 total days from permission to EC
  • 96 days beyond the 80-day timeline
  • 66 days beyond the 30-day timeline in which to complete an IEP
  • FAPE Denied
from another angle73
From Another Angle
  • 302 total days from permission to EC
  • 222 days beyond the 80-day timeline
  • 190 days beyond the 30-day timeline in which to complete an IEP
  • FAPE Denied
  • 386 total days from permission to EC
  • 306 days beyond the 80-day timeline
  • 276 days beyond the 30-day timeline in which to complete an IEP
  • FAPE Denied
osep requirements
OSEP Requirements

Correction

Verification of all eligible students receiving an IEP

Generalization

Set period of time where a district has 100% compliance with Indicator 11

For the 2009-2010 year WVDE reviewed data in 2 month intervals

osep changes
OSEP Changes

Beginning with the 2010-2011 school year, the 80-day timeline will apply to all referrals from Birth-to-Three (Part C) agencies.

IEPs implemented by the 3rd birthday AND evaluations completed and ECs held within 80 days of parental consent

indicator 15 general supervision
Indicator 15General Supervision

SPP pp. 140-150/APR pp. 97-109

  • General supervision system (including monitoring, complaints, hearings, etc.) identifies and corrects noncompliance as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from identification.
indicator 15 measurement
Indicator 15Measurement
  • Percent of noncompliance corrected within one year of identification:

a. # of findings of noncompliance.

b. # of corrections completed as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from identification.

% = (b / a) x 100

findings of noncompliance data sources
Findings of NoncomplianceData Sources
  • Comprehensive Self-Assessment Desk Audit (CSADA)
  • Annual Desk Audit (ADA)
  • On-site Monitoring
  • Internal Data Analysis
  • State Complaints
  • Due Process Hearings
correction of noncompliance
Correction of Noncompliance
  • Must be corrected as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from the date of written notification
  • For any noncompliance not corrected within one year of identification, describe what actions, including technical assistance and enforcement actions that the State has taken.
verification of correction
Verification of Correction
  • Based on the OSEP 09-02 memo, verification of correction is a 2-prong process:
    • Correction of identified noncompliance in a timely manner (child-specific) AND
    • Verify district is correctly implementing regulatory requirements (district-wide)
  • SEA must verify by viewing the actual data or a sample of the actual data which demonstrates the correction.
state initiatives activities
State Initiatives & Activities
  • Required data sources to be used by districts
  • State Determination of Compliance based on state data system for SPP Indicators
  • Refined process for improvement planning and progress reporting
  • Follow-up visits to verify correction
  • Request from OSP for additional reporting mechanisms through WVEIS
  • Consistency of director menus on WVEIS
impact on student achievement
Impact on Student Achievement
  • Consistent and accurate data leads to authentic improvement planning
  • Correction of noncompliance leads to more appropriate services for students
  • Correction of individual noncompliance leads to provision of FAPE for the student
  • Correction of systemic noncompliance leads to FAPE for all students
indicator 16 spp page 151 apr page 110
Indicator 16SPP – Page 151 / APR – Page 110

Percent of signed, written complaints with reports issued that were resolved within 60-day timeline or a timeline extended for exceptional circumstances

100% Compliance

indicator 16
Indicator 16

Timelines -

  • 60-day timeline begins on date of receipt of formal state complaint in the OSP
  • Extensions issued for extenuating circumstances
  • Extensions granted on a case-by-case basis
indicator 1685
Indicator 16

Complaint resolution processes available -

  • Early Resolution – within 15 days of receipt of complaint
  • Mediation – any time throughout the investigation, if agreed upon by parent and district
  • Due Process Complaint – any time throughout the investigation

If resolved, complaint is considered closed

indicator 1686
Indicator 16

Correction of Noncompliance

  • Violations of federal regulations and/or Policy 2419 require corrective action(s)
  • Violations corrected within 15 days, but in no case later than one year of written notification (Letter of Findings)
  • Corrective Action Status provided throughout correction period, if warranted
  • Case closed upon OSP’s approval of corrective actions
indicator 1687
Indicator 16

Data Collection and Reporting

  • Data maintained in the Complaint Management System (CMS)
  • Data annually reported in APR – February 1
  • Data reported to public on the OSP website
  • Annual complaint summary published on the website
  • Letters of Findings (LOFs) subject to Freedom of Information (FOIA) Requests
indicator 1688
Indicator 16

Data FFY 2009

  • 39 State Complaints filed
  • 3 Insufficient – omitted legal allegations, facts, etc.
  • 19 resolved through ER, Mediation, DPH or parent complainant withdrawal
  • 17 complaints investigated within 60-day or approved extended timeline

100% Compliance

indicator 1689
Indicator 16

Impact on Provision of FAPE

§300.151(b) – Remedies for denial of appropriate services. The SEA must address:

  • The failure to provide appropriate services, including corrective action appropriate to address the needs of the child (such as compensatory services or monetary reimbursement; and
  • appropriate future provision of services for all children with disabilities.
indicator 1690
Indicator 16

Activities to Ensure Correction

  • Require corrective actions to rectify the improper practice, procedure
  • Verification and approval of correction by OSP
  • Follow-up conducted when notified practice is continuing
  • On-site monitoring verification of correction
indicator 17 due process hearing timelines spp pp 155 157 apr pp 113 115

Percent of fully adjudicated due process hearing requests that were fully adjudicated within the 45 day timeline or a timeline properly extended.

Indicator 17 is a State-level Compliance Indicator

Indicator 17Due Process Hearing TimelinesSPP pp 155-157/APR pp 113-115

indicator 17 data source wvde maintains dispute resolution data base cms
Indicator 17 Data SourceWVDE maintains Dispute Resolution Data BaseCMS

FFY 2009-2010

  • 20 Due Process Complaints Filed
  • 3 Fully Adjudicated
  • 1 Within 45 days
  • 2 Extended properly

100%

indicator 18 resolution sessions spp pp158 159 apr pp 116 117
Indicator 18 Resolution SessionsSPP pp158-159/APR pp 116-117

Percent of hearing requests that went to resolution sessions, which were resolved through resolution session settlement agreements.

Indicator 18 is a State-level Compliance Indicator

indicator 18 data source wvde maintains dispute resolution data base cms
Indicator 18 Data SourceWVDE maintains Dispute Resolution Data BaseCMS
  • 4 Resolution Sessions Held
  • 4 Settlement Agreements

100%

indicator 19 mediation spp pp 160 163 apr pp 118 120
Indicator 19MediationSPP pp 160-163/APR pp 118-120

Percent of mediations held that resulted in mediation agreements.

Indicator 19 is a State-level Compliance Indicator

indicator 19 data source wvde maintains dispute resolution data base cms
Indicator 19Data SourceWVDE maintains Dispute Resolution Data BaseCMS
  • 17 Mediation Requests
  • 3 of the 17 requests were in due process hearings
  • 16 Mediations Held
  • 10 Agreements

62%

West Virginia did not meet the target of 81%

indicator 20 data spp pp 164 170 apr 121 125
Indicator 20DataSPP pp 164-170/APR 121-125

Data is submitted in a timely manner and is both valid and reliable

All data for WV 618 Annual Data reports are collected through WVEIS except Personnel Report which is in paper form.

slide98

Tabletop Discussions

RESA 1

RESA 2

RESA 3

RESA 4

RESA 5

RESA 6

RESA 7

RESA 8