Transcript August 27th August 28th August 29th Cabell County Kathy McCoy Lincoln County Doug Smith Morgan County Linda Ward.

August
27th
August
28th
August
29th
Cabell County
Kathy McCoy
Lincoln County
Doug Smith
Morgan County
Linda Ward
Monongalia County
Patty Benedum
Marshall County
Rick Redd
Ritchie County
Linda Campbell
RESA 8
Dale Penwell
WVDE
Lynn Boyer
WVDE
Rosemary Cook
Memoriam
Mike Pauley 1951-2010
•1973 began career in special
education in psychology
•Michael started in McDowell,
Monroe, and Mercer Counties as a
Sp Ed Specialist.
•He moved to Summers and Raleigh
Counties as a school psychologist.
He was also a Sp Ed Coordinator in
Raleigh County.
•Michael moved back to Mercer
County as an Assistant Director. He
retired December, 2008 to be with
his wife, two sons, and seven
grandchildren.
We have lost a good friend and professional
Using The Power of Data To
Improve Results
September 29, 2010
Welcome
Ghaski Browning
Assistant Director
Monitoring
Accountability
Monitoring Priorities
SelfAssessment
Improvement
Plan
On-Site
Monitoring
Off-Site
Monitoring
Local
State
Determinations Determinations
Matthew Dotson
Coordinator, Monitoring
Monitoring
Professional
Development
10
1.10 The district implements the required procedures when a student with a disability is
removed from school for disciplinary reasons beyond ten cumulative days and the removal does
not constitute a change in placement.
Indicator
1.10*
(New WV 13)
Citation
Policy 2419
Chapter 7.
Section 1
Compliance Indicator
The district implements the required
procedures when a student with a
disability is removed from school for
disciplinary reasons beyond ten
cumulative days and the removal does
not constitute a change in placement.
Target
The district follows policies and
procedures 100% of the time when
removal of a student with a disability
does not constitute a change of
placement.
9
3.7 Students age 16 and above have an IEP that includes coordinated, measurable,
annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the student to meet postsecondary goals.
Indicator
3.7*
(New SPP 13)
Citation
SPP
Indicator
13
Compliance Indicator
Students age 16 and above have an IEP
that includes coordinated, measurable,
annual IEP goals and transition services
that will reasonably enable the student
to meet the post-secondary goals.
Target
100% of IEPs for eligible students
include a statement of transition
services that is based on
appropriate assessment results and
prepares the student for identified
postsecondary outcomes.
8
3.1 The district maintains required caseload limits.
Indicator
3.1*
(New WV 12)
Citation
Compliance Indicators
Policy
The district maintains required caseload
limits.
2419
Chapter
6. Section
4.B
Target
100% of professional special
education personnel are within
overall caseload limits and per period
caseload limits.
7
3.3 It is the responsibility of each public agency to collect and maintain current and accurate
student data, which verifies the delivery of a free appropriate public education and report data
as required.
Indicator
3.3*
(New WV 16)
Citation
Policy 2419
Chapter 9.
Section 1.C
Compliance Indicator
It is the responsibility of each public
agency to collect and maintain
current and accurate student data,
which verifies the delivery of a free
appropriate public education and
report data as required.
Target
Current and accurate data are
maintained and verify: 100% of
reevaluation and annual reviews are
completed within required timelines
as set forth in Policy 2419; and
reports are submitted in a timely
manner.
6
1.19 Provide eligible exceptional students an instructional day, a school day and school
calendar at least equivalent to that established for non-exceptional students of the same
chronological age in the same setting.
Indicator
1.19*
(New WV 1)
Citation
Policy 2419
Chapter 1.
Section 2.A
Compliance Indicator
Provide eligible exceptional students
an instructional day, a school day and
school calendar at least equivalent to
that established for non-exceptional
students of the same chronological
age in the same setting.
Target
100% of exceptional students have
an instructional day, school day and
school calendar equivalent to nonexceptional students of the same
chronological age in the same
setting.
5
3.4 Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) are written to include all required
components.
Indicator
3.4*
(New WV11)
Citation
Compliance Indicator
Policy 2419 IEPs are written to include all
Chapter 5 required components.
Target
Files reviewed must meet 80%
compliance on the General IEP File
Review Checklist.
4
1.11 The district implements the required procedures when a student with a disability is
removed from
school for disciplinary reasons and the removal constitutes a change of
placement.
Indicator
1.11*
(New WV 14)
Citation
Policy 2419
Chapter 7.
Section 2
Compliance Indicator
The district implements the required
procedures when a student with a
disability is removed from school for
disciplinary reasons and the removal
constitutes a change of placement.
Target
The district follows policies and
procedures 100% of the time when
removal of a student with a disability
constitutes a change of placement.
3
1.1 Each public agency must provide special education and related services to a student with an
exceptionality in accordance with an individualized education program.
Indicator
1.1*
(New WV 15)
Citation
Policy 2419
Chapter 9.
Section 1.C
Compliance Indicator
Each public agency must provide
special education and related services
to a student with an exceptionality in
accordance with an individualized
education program (IEP).
Target
100% of files and corresponding
documentation verifying all services
are implemented.
2
1.18 Students with exceptionalities shall be provided services in settings that serve ageappropriate non-exceptional peers and must be grouped based upon meeting the students’
similar social,
functional and/or academic needs.
Indicator
1.18*
(New WV 9)
Citation
Policy 2419
Chapter 5.
Section 2.J
Compliance Indicator
Students with exceptionalities shall be
provided services in settings that serve
age-appropriate non-exceptional peers
and must be grouped based upon
meeting the students’ similar social,
functional and/or academic needs.
Target
100% of exceptional students are
served in schools with ageappropriate peers and are grouped
with students who have similar
social, functional and/or academic
needs.
1
1. 3.2 Children with parental consent to evaluate are evaluated within the established 80-day
timeline.
Indicator
3.2*
(New SPP 11)
Citation
Compliance Indicator
SPP
Children with parental consent to
Indicator 11 evaluate are evaluated within the
established 80-day timeline.
Target
100% of initial evaluations are
completed within the 80-day timeline
or accurate, acceptable reasons are
entered in WVEIS.
Top Compliance Indicator Findings by
RESA’s
RESA
 RESA
 RESA
 RESA
 RESA
 RESA
 RESA

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
(McDowell, Mercer, Monroe, Raleigh, Summers, Wyoming)
(Cabell, Lincoln, Logan, Mason, Mingo, Wayne)
(Boone, Clay, Kanawha, Putnam)
(Braxton, Fayette, Greenbrier, Nicholas, Pocahontas, Webster)
(Calhoun, Jackson, Pleasants, Ritchie, Roane, Tyler, Wirt, Wood)
(Brooke, Hancock, Marshall, Ohio, Wetzel)
(Barbour, Doddridge, Gilmer, Harrison, Lewis, Marion, Monongalia,
Preston, Randolph, Taylor, Tucker, Upshur)

RESA 8
Pendleton)
(Berkeley, Jefferson, Grant, Hampshire, Hardy, Mineral, Morgan,
RESA 1
3.2 Children with parental consent to evaluate are evaluated within the established 80-day
timeline.
Indicator
Citation
3.2*
SPP
(New SPP 11) Indicator 11
Compliance Indicator
Children with parental consent to
evaluate are evaluated within the
established 80-day timeline.
Target
100% of initial evaluations are
completed within the 80-day timeline
or accurate, acceptable reasons are
entered in WVEIS.
RESA 2
3.2 Children with parental consent to evaluate are evaluated within the established 80-day
timeline.
Indicator
3.2*
(New SPP 11)
Citation
SPP
Indicator 11
Compliance Indicator
Children with parental consent to
evaluate are evaluated within the
established 80-day timeline.
Target
100% of initial evaluations are
completed within the 80-day timeline
or accurate, acceptable reasons are
entered in WVEIS.
RESA 3
3.2 Children with parental consent to evaluate are evaluated within the established 80-day
timeline.
Indicator
Citation
3.2*
SPP
(New SPP 11) Indicator 11
Compliance Indicator
Children with parental consent to
evaluate are evaluated within the
established 80-day timeline.
Target
100% of initial evaluations are
completed within the 80-day timeline
or accurate, acceptable reasons are
entered in WVEIS.
RESA 4
1.19 Provide eligible exceptional students an instructional day, a school day and school calendar
at least equivalent to that established for non-exceptional students of the same chronological age
in the same setting.
Citation
Policy 2419
Chapter 1.
(New WV 1) Section 2.A
Indicator
1.19*
Compliance Indicator
Provide eligible exceptional students an
instructional day, a school day and
school calendar at least equivalent to
that established for non-exceptional
students of the same chronological age
in the same setting.
Target
100% of exceptional students have an
instructional day, school day and
school calendar equivalent to nonexceptional students of the same
chronological age in the same setting.
RESA 5
1.18 Students with exceptionalities shall be provided services in settings that serve ageappropriate non-exceptional peers and must be grouped based upon meeting the students’
similar social, functional and/or academic needs.
Indicator
1.18*
(New WV 9)
Citation
Policy 2419
Chapter 5.
Section 2.J
Compliance Indicator
Students with exceptionalities shall be
provided services in settings that serve
age-appropriate non-exceptional peers
and must be grouped based upon
meeting the students’ similar social,
functional and/or academic needs.
Target
100% of exceptional students are
served in schools with ageappropriate peers and are grouped
with students who have similar social,
functional and/or academic needs.
RESA 6
1.18 Students with exceptionalities shall be provided services in settings that serve ageappropriate non-exceptional peers and must be grouped based upon meeting the students’ similar
social, functional and/or academic needs.
Indicator
1.18*
(New WV 9)
Citation
Policy 2419
Chapter 5.
Section 2.J
Compliance Indicator
Students with exceptionalities shall be
provided services in settings that serve
age-appropriate non-exceptional peers
and must be grouped based upon
meeting the students’ similar social,
functional and/or academic needs.
Target
100% of exceptional students are
served in schools with age-appropriate
peers and are grouped with students
who have similar social, functional
and/or academic needs.
RESA 7
1.11 The district implements the required procedures when a student with a disability is removed
from school for disciplinary reasons and the removal constitutes a change of placement.
Indicator
1.11*
Citation
Policy 2419
Chapter 7.
(New WV 14) Section 2
Compliance Indicator
The district implements the required
procedures when a student with a
disability is removed from school for
disciplinary reasons and the removal
constitutes a change of placement.
Target
The district follows policies and
procedures 100% of the time when
removal of a student with a disability
constitutes a change of placement.
RESA 8
3.7 Students age 16 and above have an IEP that includes coordinated, measurable, annual IEP
goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the student to meet post-secondary goals.
Indicator
3.7*
(New SPP 13)
Citation
Compliance Indicator
SPP
Students age 16 and above have an IEP
Indicator 13 that includes coordinated, measurable,
annual IEP goals and transition services
that will reasonably enable the student to
meet the post-secondary goals.
Target
100% of IEPs for eligible students
include a statement of transition
services that is based on appropriate
assessment results and prepares the
student for identified postsecondary
outcomes.
Continuous Improvement and
Focused Monitoring System
(CIFMS)
Ghaski Browning
Assistant Director
Anne Monterosso
Coordinator
Monitoring
Accountability
West Virginia Department of Education
Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring System
Office of Special Programs
Vision and Direction






Improve the Monitoring Process
Develop Collaborative Partnerships
Clear Communication
Clear Understanding
Targeted Technical Assistance
Improved outcomes for children with exceptionalities and their families
Authority
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of
2004
States have a responsibility to have a system of general supervision that
monitors the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Act
(IDEA) by local education agencies (LEAs).
Section 616. Monitoring, Technical Assistance, and Enforcement
Primary Focus of Federal and State Monitoring Activities


Improving educational results and functional outcomes for all children
with disabilities;
and
Ensuring that States meet the program requirements under this part,
with a particular emphasis on those requirements that are most closely
related to improving educational results for children with disabilities.
Authority
West Virginia State Code
§18-20-7
The state board shall establish exceptional children program compliance
review teams to conduct random unannounced on-site reviews of such
programs at least every four years in each county for the purpose of
reviewing identification procedures, complying with any or all
applicable laws and policies, delivering services, verifying enrollment
and attendance reports, recommending changes, and fulfilling such
other duties as may be established by the state board.
Authority
West Virginia Policy 2419:
Regulations for the Education of Students with Exceptionalities
Chapter 9
General Supervision and Accountability for Performance and Compliance
General supervision responsibilities of the WVDE include
administration, funding, monitoring and supervision of local education
agency (LEA) implementation and implementation of interagency
agreements to ensure collaboration among agencies serving students
with exceptionalities.
Focus Of The Work

The State Performance Plan (SPP) is the basis for West Virginia’s
special education general supervision process.

The SPP 20 indicators are established by OSP (14 apply to districts).

The monitoring system is part of the general supervision process.
West Virginia Department of Education
Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring System
“The Notebook”

Monitoring Manual

CSADA/ADA Workbook

Directions and Forms

On-Site Interview Forms

Resources
“The Manual”
Notebook
Section #1
West Virginia Department of Education
Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring Manual
General Supervision








State Performance Plan
Policies, Procedures and Effective Implementation
Effective Dispute Resolutions *
Data on Processes and Results
Integrated Monitoring Activities *
Targeted Technical Assistance and Professional Development
Improvement, Correction, Incentive and Sanctions *
Fiscal Management*
*Detailed information regarding four monitoring related components of
General Supervision are included in the manual.
General Supervision
Overview
 Effective Dispute Resolutions
no revisions at this time
 Integrated Monitoring Activities
 Improvement, Correction, Incentive and Sanctions
 Fiscal Management
Integrated Monitoring
Activities*
Integrated Monitoring
Activities
Annual Monitoring Process
Data Review
Least Restrictive Environment Review (SPP 5B)
Disproportionate Review (SPP 9 and SPP 10)
Discipline Review (SPP 4A & SPP 4B)
Comprehensive Self Assessment Desk Audit (CSADA)
Annual Desk Audit (ADA)
Public Reporting
On-Site Monitoring Process
Additional Information on Data Collection
(page 4)
Data Reviews
The OSP reviews data throughout the year. The table below
indicates when data are pulled and shared with OSP staff as
well as RESA staff. OSP staff reviews state, RESA and
district level data by enrollment size groups and/or by RESA
region. District level data are used for a variety of purposes
including: district selection for targeted technical assistance,
selection for onsite reviews, selection for work with RESAs,
selection for participation in various initiatives, selection for
annual disproportionality and discipline reviews, etc. (see
Appendix B for complete listing of Special Education Data
Collections and Reports)
Agency Status
WVDE Data Driven
WVDE Data Driven Indicators require an additional review process.
Directions for Difficult Indicators
(Page 5)
SPP 9 and SPP 10
The LEA will implement the following steps as part of the review process.
Step 1. Complete the appropriate review form based on the WVDE data
determination. Both forms are found under Tab 3 Directions and Forms.
Step 2. Based on the results of the LEA review, the LEA determines its
compliance status as “met” or “not met”.
Step 3. If status is “not met”, an improvement plan must be developed to
address the deficiencies.
Step 4. Targeted technical assistance will be available through the OSP and
RESA to districts that are required to have corrective action plans.
Timelines for Activities
(page 9)
Annual Review Timeline
Activity
Due Date
LEA
collection
and
analysis
of
data
documented through the
CSADA
and
ADA
workbook
ADA (SPP 1 through SPP
14) on line submission by
LEAs
Year long process to be
completed by April 30th of
each school year
April 30
LEA Status Determination May 30
Reports completed by
WVDE
District Selection Process
(page 9)
 Performance levels and distance from SPP targets
 Graduation and dropout rates
 Demographics of district
 Determinations (rubric)
 Complaints/Due Process Hearings Decisions
 Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)
 Student Enrollment/Special Education Enrollment
CSADA/ADA Guidance for Directors
Appendix C
CSADA/ADA Guidance for Special Education Directors
Steering Committee
The district is required to establish a CSADA/ADA Steering Committee
and select a chairperson. The district special education director may
serve as the chairperson.
Required members must include:
parents;
general and special education teachers;
principals representing each programmatic level;
vocational/technical school representative;
Part C personnel; and
other individuals at the district’s discretion.
Improvement, Correction, Incentive
and Sanctions
Types of Plans

Improvement Plan (IP) – A plan resulting from data and systems
analysis that will improve outcomes for students.

Corrective Action Plan (CAP) – Plan addressing identified
noncompliance and actions/timelines to ensure correction within 12
months.
Written Reports
for
Correction and Improvement

SPP/APR Desk Audit Report

County On-site Monitoring Report

Letter of Findings (LOF)

Due Process Hearing Decision

Fiscal Monitoring Desk Audit Report

SPP Indicator Verification Report
Fiscal Management*
Fiscal Management
Appendix A
The general supervision includes mechanisms to provide oversight
in the distribution and use of IDEA funds at the state and local
level. Procedures are in place to ensure that fiscal resources are
directed to areas needing improvement as noted in the APR.
Supervision of fiscal activities also includes a review of required
corrective actions as a result of monitoring activities. (see
Appendix A)
Fiscal Monitoring Information
Workbook
Monitoring Priority: Fiscal Monitoring
EXCESS COST/SUPPLEMENT NOT SUPPLANT
The LEA uses IDEA funds for the excess cost of special education and related services for students with disabilities.
The LEA maintains the same level of expenditure for students with disabilities from year to year (maintenance of effort) to ensure IDEA supplement
and do not supplant state and local funds.
Policy Citation
IDEA, 34 CRF §300.16;
§300.202 and §300.203.
Probe Questions
Does the LEA spend the calculated
per pupil amount spent for all
students, displayed in the Excess
Cost screen within the Five Year
Online Strategic Plan, for the
education of students with
disabilities before it spends IDEA
funds?
Are IDEA funds expended in such
a manner to supplement and not
supplant state/ local funds
expended for students with
disabilities?
Did the LEA spend the same
amount of state/local funds for the
education of students with
disabilities as was spent in the
prior year?
Data Sources
Agency Status
Met
LEA Five Year Online Strategic Plan – 
Not Met
Special
Education
Compliances 
Component
LEA expenditure data from WVEIS
CSADA/ADA
Workbook

State Performance Plan Alignment

Re-numbered Indicators to Match State Performance Plan & Policy
2419

Quick Reference Indicator Chart

Removal of ADA Workbook
CSADA/ADA
Workbook

Comprehensive Self Assessment Desk Audit (CSADA)

Annual Determination Audit (ADA)
Comprehensive Self Assessment Desk Audit
(CSADA)

The monitoring process includes self assessment activities which are required to
be completed by the LEA on an annual basis.

The self assessment consists of collection and/or analysis of data for 14 SPP
indicators and 19 WV indicators.

The self assessment activities assist districts with improvement planning.

The CSADA will be reviewed when a districts has an on-site monitoring visit.
Annual Desk Audit
ADA

The ADA is a subset of indicators from the CSADA workbook.

The first fourteen indicators are SPP indicators and are required to be reported
to the OSP.
Annual Desk Audit Review Timelines
Activity
Due Date
LEA collection and analysis of data
documented through the
CSADA/ADA workbook.
Year long process to be completed by
April 30th of each school year.
ADA (SPP 1 through SPP 14) on line
submission by LEAs.
April 30
LEA Status Determination Reports
completed by WVDE.
May 30
CSADA/ADA
Workbook
Agency Status






WVDE Determined
Met
Not Met
WVDE Data Driven
Met
Not Met
State Performance Plan Alignment
Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE
Indicator 1: Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma.
Policy Citation
Target
Data Sources
SPP 1
Performance
(20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))
For the 2009-2010 school year, at least 80% of
youth with IEPs will graduate from high school
with a regular diploma.
*Please note- reporting of the 4-year adjusted
cohort graduate rate will begin in 2011.
Common indicator probe questions:

How do your data compare to the State target?

Do the data vary significantly based on student race/ethnicity?

Do the data vary significantly based on student special education
eligibility category?

Does the performance level reflect a systemic problem (e.g., involves
multiple classrooms, buildings, providers, personnel changes, or
processes), or is it attributable to specific buildings, providers, or
groups of students?
CSADA worksheet with actual data located:
http://wveis.k12.wv.us/nclb/county/ose/2010s/MainFrame.cfm
Agency Status
WVDE Determined

Met

Not Met
NA OIEP
Indicator specific probe questions:

Are appropriate supplementary aids and services, assistive technology and Positive
Behavior Supports implemented to assist students with disabilities in achieving graduation
requirements?

Are appropriate transition activities and linkages provided to students with disabilities?

What trends do you see in your graduation data over the past five years?

What current initiatives (general and special education) are in place to address graduation
rates?

Does the present scheduling system create barriers toward graduation for students with
disabilities?
Improvement plan:
Lead coordinators: Karen Ruddle, Valerie Wilson
Resources:
National Resources

National Dropout Prevention Center http://www.dropoutprevention.org

National Association of Secondary School Principals http://www.principals.org

National High School Center http://www.betterhighschools.org
State Performance Plan Alignment
Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE
Indicator 1: Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma.
Policy Citation
Target
Data Sources
SPP 1
Performance
(20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))
For the 2009-2010 school year, at least 80% of
youth with IEPs will graduate from high school
with a regular diploma.
*Please note- reporting of the 4-year adjusted
cohort graduate rate will begin in 2011.
Common indicator probe questions:

How do your data compare to the State target?

Do the data vary significantly based on student race/ethnicity?

Do the data vary significantly based on student special education eligibility
category?

Does the performance level reflect a systemic problem (e.g., involves
multiple classrooms, buildings, providers, personnel changes, or
processes), or is it attributable to specific buildings, providers, or groups of
students?
CSADA worksheet with actual data located:
http://wveis.k12.wv.us/nclb/county/ose/2010s/MainFrame.cfm
Agency Status
WVDE Determined

Met

Not Met
NA OIEP
Indicator specific probe questions:

Are appropriate supplementary aids and services, assistive technology and Positive Behavior
Supports implemented to assist students with disabilities in achieving graduation requirements?

Are appropriate transition activities and linkages provided to students with disabilities?

What trends do you see in your graduation data over the past five years?

What current initiatives (general and special education) are in place to address graduation
rates?

Does the present scheduling system create barriers toward graduation for students with
disabilities?
Improvement plan:
Lead coordinators: Karen Ruddle, Valerie Wilson
Resources:
National Resources

National Dropout Prevention Center http://www.dropoutprevention.org

National Association of Secondary School Principals http://www.principals.org

National High School Center http://www.betterhighschools.org
State Performance Plan Alignment
Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE
Indicator 1: Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma.
Policy Citation
Target
Data Sources
SPP 1
Performance
(20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))
For the 2009-2010 school year, at least 80% of
youth with IEPs will graduate from high school
with a regular diploma.
*Please note- reporting of the 4-year adjusted
cohort graduate rate will begin in 2011.
Common indicator probe questions:

How do your data compare to the State target?

Do the data vary significantly based on student race/ethnicity?

Do the data vary significantly based on student special education
eligibility category?

Does the performance level reflect a systemic problem (e.g., involves
multiple classrooms, buildings, providers, personnel changes, or
processes), or is it attributable to specific buildings, providers, or groups
of students?
CSADA worksheet with actual data located:
http://wveis.k12.wv.us/nclb/county/ose/2010s/MainFrame.cfm
Agency Status
WVDE Determined

Met

Not Met
NA OIEP
Indicator specific probe questions:

Are appropriate supplementary aids and services, assistive technology and Positive Behavior
Supports implemented to assist students with disabilities in achieving graduation
requirements?

Are appropriate transition activities and linkages provided to students with disabilities?

What trends do you see in your graduation data over the past five years?

What current initiatives (general and special education) are in place to address graduation
rates?

Does the present scheduling system create barriers toward graduation for students with
disabilities?
Improvement plan:
Lead coordinators: Karen Ruddle, Valerie Wilson
Resources:
National Resources

National Dropout Prevention Center http://www.dropoutprevention.org

National Association of Secondary School Principals http://www.principals.org

National High School Center http://www.betterhighschools.org
State Performance Plan Alignment
Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE
Indicator 1: Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma.
Policy Citation
Target
Data Sources
SPP 1
Performance
(20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))
For the 2009-2010 school year, at least 80% of
youth with IEPs will graduate from high school
with a regular diploma.
*Please note- reporting of the 4-year adjusted
cohort graduate rate will begin in 2011.
Common indicator probe questions:

How do your data compare to the State target?

Do the data vary significantly based on student race/ethnicity?

Do the data vary significantly based on student special education eligibility
category?

Does the performance level reflect a systemic problem (e.g., involves
multiple classrooms, buildings, providers, personnel changes, or
processes), or is it attributable to specific buildings, providers, or groups
of students?
CSADA worksheet with actual data located:
http://wveis.k12.wv.us/nclb/county/ose/2010s/MainFrame.cfm
Agency Status
WVDE Determined

Met

Not Met
NA OIEP
Indicator specific probe questions:

Are appropriate supplementary aids and services, assistive technology and Positive Behavior
Supports implemented to assist students with disabilities in achieving graduation
requirements?

Are appropriate transition activities and linkages provided to students with disabilities?

What trends do you see in your graduation data over the past five years?

What current initiatives (general and special education) are in place to address graduation
rates?

Does the present scheduling system create barriers toward graduation for students with
disabilities?
Improvement plan:
Lead coordinators: Karen Ruddle, Valerie Wilson
Resources:
National Resources

National Dropout Prevention Center http://www.dropoutprevention.org

National Association of Secondary School Principals http://www.principals.org

National High School Center http://www.betterhighschools.org
State Performance Plan Alignment
Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE
Indicator 1: Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma.
Policy Citation
Target
Data Sources
SPP 1
Performance
(20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))
For the 2009-2010 school year, at least 80% of
youth with IEPs will graduate from high school
with a regular diploma.
*Please note- reporting of the 4-year adjusted
cohort graduate rate will begin in 2011.
Common indicator probe questions:

How do your data compare to the State target?

Do the data vary significantly based on student race/ethnicity?

Do the data vary significantly based on student special education eligibility
category?

Does the performance level reflect a systemic problem (e.g., involves
multiple classrooms, buildings, providers, personnel changes, or
processes), or is it attributable to specific buildings, providers, or groups
of students?
CSADA worksheet with actual data located:
http://wveis.k12.wv.us/nclb/county/ose/2010s/MainFrame.cfm
Agency Status
WVDE Determined

Met

Not Met
NA OIEP
Indicator specific probe questions:

Are appropriate supplementary aids and services, assistive technology and Positive Behavior
Supports implemented to assist students with disabilities in achieving graduation
requirements?

Are appropriate transition activities and linkages provided to students with disabilities?

What trends do you see in your graduation data over the past five years?

What current initiatives (general and special education) are in place to address graduation
rates?

Does the present scheduling system create barriers toward graduation for students with
disabilities?
Improvement plan:
Lead coordinators: Karen Ruddle, Valerie Wilson
Resources:
National Resources

National Dropout Prevention Center http://www.dropoutprevention.org

National Association of Secondary School Principals http://www.principals.org

National High School Center http://www.betterhighschools.org
State Performance Plan Alignment
Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE
Indicator 1: Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma.
Policy Citation
Target
Data Sources
SPP 1
Performance
(20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))
For the 2009-2010 school year, at least 80% of
youth with IEPs will graduate from high school
with a regular diploma.
*Please note- reporting of the 4-year adjusted
cohort graduate rate will begin in 2011.
Common indicator probe questions:

How do your data compare to the State target?

Do the data vary significantly based on student race/ethnicity?

Do the data vary significantly based on student special education eligibility
category?

Does the performance level reflect a systemic problem (e.g., involves multiple
classrooms, buildings, providers, personnel changes, or processes), or is it
attributable to specific buildings, providers, or groups of students?
CSADA worksheet with actual data located:
http://wveis.k12.wv.us/nclb/county/ose/2010s/MainFrame.cfm
Agency Status
WVDE Determined

Met

Not Met
NA OIEP
Indicator specific probe questions:

Are appropriate supplementary aids and services, assistive technology and Positive
Behavior Supports implemented to assist students with disabilities in achieving graduation
requirements?

Are appropriate transition activities and linkages provided to students with disabilities?

What trends do you see in your graduation data over the past five years?

What current initiatives (general and special education) are in place to address graduation
rates?

Does the present scheduling system create barriers toward graduation for students with
disabilities?
Improvement plan:
Lead coordinators: Karen Ruddle, Valerie Wilson
Resources:
National Resources

National Dropout Prevention Center http://www.dropoutprevention.org

National Association of Secondary School Principals http://www.principals.org

National High School Center http://www.betterhighschools.org
Directions and Forms
Notebook
Section #3
Directions and File Review Forms




File review forms match on-line IEP
Removed district level review for discipline concerns
Revised forms to include new indicator numbers
Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)
On-Site Interview Forms
Notebook
Section #4
On-Site Interview Forms

Interview Topics

General Education Teacher Interview

Special Education Teacher Interview

Principal Interview

Special Education Director Interview

Fiscal Monitoring Self Assessment – Interview

Data Entry Verification Form
Resources
Notebook
Section #5
Resources

Federal Guidance Memorandums

WVDE Guidance Memorandums
West Virginia
Integrated Monitoring System
To be effective, components must:




Connect
Interact
Articulate
Inform Each Other
West Virginia Department of Education
Continuous Improvement & Focused Monitoring System
“Next Steps”

Draft Monitoring Manual

Mid-South Regional Resource Center

Stakeholder Involvement
Conclusion

The responsibility for compliance with IDEA and positive results for
students with disabilities is shared by responsible agencies and
individuals at the federal, state and local levels.

An effective system for General Supervision helps ensure both of these
outcomes.
Discussion
Questions, issues?
Further suggestion?
Please consider serving as a member of the stakeholder group.
CIFMS
Presentation will be made available during
the conference
Break
15 Minutes
GO
CIFMS continued. . .
Presentation will be made available during
the conference
State and Local Determinations
Debbie Ashwell
Coordinator
Office of Special Programs
Monitoring
Professional
Development
Pursuant to section 616(a)(1)(C)(i) of the IDEA
and 34 CRF §300.600(a), and approved by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), States
are required to make “Determinations” annually
under section 616(d) on the performance of
LEA/EIS programs.
States MUST Consider
Performance
on compliance
indicators;
Whether data submitted by
LEAs/EIS programs is valid,
reliable, and timely;
Uncorrected noncompliance from
other sources; and
Any audit findings.
States MAY Consider
Performance
on performance
indicators; and
Other information.
WV Considers
SPP Performance Indicators
1
2
 3b
 3c
5
6
7
Graduation
Dropout
Participation
Proficiency
Educational Environment Ages 6-21
Educational Environment Ages 3-5
Early Childhood Outcomes
WV Considers
SPP Compliance Indicators
4
9
 10
 11
 12
 13
 15
Suspension
Disproportionality – All Disabilities
Disproportionality – Specific Disabilities
Child Find
Early Childhood Transition
Post School Transition
General Supervision
WV Considers
SPP Compliance Indicators
 16
 17
 20
Complaint Correction (also 15)
Due Process Hearing Correction (also 15)
Timely and Accurate Data
In addition:
 Audit/Fiscal Management
 LEA Application Submission
and Approval
Categories Assigned by OSEP
Meets
Requirements
Needs
Assistance
Needs
Intervention
Needs
Substantial Intervention
Status Determined




Meets Requirements – score above the cut
score
Needs Assistance – score at or below the cut
score
Needs Intervention – score at or below the
cut score 2 years in a row, lack of
improvement in achievement on Reading or
Math WESTEST2 and fail to correct all
noncompliance on self-assessment
Needs Substantial Intervention – in
addition, fail to comply with IDEA and Policy
2419 requirements, determined on a case by
case basis
Enforcement
Meets Requirements
 None
Needs Assistance 1 year
 None
required
Enforcement
Needs Assistance 2 consecutive
years
Contact the OSP for technical
assistance which could include:
 Identifying and implementing PD, instructional strategies
and methods of instruction based on scientifically-based
research
 Designation of distinguished superintendents, principals,
special education administrators, special education
teachers and other teachers to provide advice, technical
assistance and support
 Provision of additional approaches to technical assistance,
such as collaboration with WVDE personnel, RESAs,
institutions of higher education and/or national experts
Enforcement
Needs Intervention 3 or more
consecutive years
 The WVDE takes one or more of the
following actions:
 determines the district has the capacity to
correct the problem within one year and
requires the district to prepare a corrective
action plan or Improvement Plan;
 determines the district does not have the
capacity to correct the problems within one
year and requires the district to enter into a
compliance agreement which may include
withholding of no more than 50% of the
district’s state and federal allocations;
 seeks to recover funds; and/or
 withholds funds, whole or in part.
Enforcement
Needs Substantial Intervention (the
district continues to violate federal or
state law and regulations)
 The
WVDE must withhold, in whole or in part,
any further payments to the LEA under Part B
of the IDEA, taking any one or more of the
following actions:
 withhold funds until a corrective action plan is approved;
 withhold funds until the deficiencies are corrected;
 withhold state and federal allocations used for the salary of
the special education director;
 redirect funds (i.e., earmark specific funds for training
activities, appoint a lead coordinator to ensure compliance
with corrective activities);
 remove the district’s eligibility to apply for discretionary
grants established by the WVDE;
Enforcement
 cease funding for all subsequent years until





deficiencies are corrected, if the district is
currently involved in a grant program
maintained by the WVDE;
request an audit be conducted of the
district’s financial records;
direct the administration of the district’s
special education services;
fine the district on a daily and/or monthly
basis until deficiencies are corrected;
refer district to the OEPA for consideration of
accreditation status; and/or
file independent action against the
superintendent’s licensure, citing negligence
in carrying out his/her duties.
LEA Determination
No required date to notify districts however,
OSEP recommends the following:
 As
soon as possible after issuing their
annual report to the public
 In
a timely manner so the LEAs can take
actions necessary for improvement
 Before
subgrants are issued to LEAs
History of Determinations in WV
September 12, 2007
one compliance indicator
June 30, 2008
one compliance indicator
May 1, 2009
9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15 mandated by OSEP
May 1, 2010
7 compliance indicators, 5 correction of noncompliance
indicators, LEA application
May 1, 2011
9 compliance indicators, 5 correction of noncompliance
indicators, LEA application
Performance Rubric
LEA Determination May 1, 2011
Compliance Indicators Part A
Compliance Rubric Part A
LEA Determinations May 1, 2011
Compliance Indicators Part B
Compliance Rubric Part B
LEA Determinations May 1, 2011
District Total Calculation
Performance Totals + Compliance Totals
------------------------------------------------Total Possible Points
=
Percentage
Cut score TBD
What is a
‘System ?’
Integrated
Monitoring
Activities
Improvement,
Correction,
Incentives &
Sanctions
State
Performance
Plan
Fiscal
Management
Effective
Dispute
Resolution
Policies,
Procedures, and
Effective
Implementation
Data on
Processes
and Results
Targeted T/A &
Professional
Development
It’s about
Better
Results