Data Coordinator Professional Development ComplaintsProfessional Development Dr. Lanai Jennings...
If you can't read please download the document
Data Coordinator Professional Development ComplaintsProfessional Development Dr. Lanai Jennings Coordinator Office of Special Programs Lorraine Elswick
Data Coordinator Professional Development
ComplaintsProfessional Development Dr. Lanai Jennings Coordinator
Office of Special Programs Lorraine Elswick Coordinator Office of
Special Programs Positive Behavior Supports Professional
Development Dr. Frances Clark Coordinator Office of Special
Programs
Slide 2
Rates of Suspension and Expulsion
Slide 3
What does Indicator 4 address? 1. Equity in suspensions rates
4A: Comparison of SWD to SWOD 4B: Comparison of SWD by
race/ethnicity 2. 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
Slide 4
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
Slide 5
Where/when do the data originate? Data ElementData Source
Enrollment dataSecond Month Child Count Enrollment SWDDecember
Child Count Discipline data for SWD and SWOD Discipline Report from
the 10 th month submission
Slide 6
Calculation INDICATOR 4A 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 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
Slide 7
Indicator 4A Data Data is also from 2008- 2009 and reflects the
cell size increase to 20
Slide 8
Indicator 4 Data
Slide 9
What OSP activities/initiatives are in place to address
behavior? WVRTI S/E: A Three- Tiered Model of Social/Emotional
Supports for ALL WVECPBS WVSWPBS To get all PBS materials and
information open http://wvde.state.wv.us/osp/,
http://wvde.state.wv.us/osp/ open Improving Results, then click on
Positive Behavior Supports OR
http://wvde.state.wv.us/osp/PositiveBehaviorSupport.html
Slide 10
https://sites.google.com/site/wvecpbs/
Slide 11
School Trained & Implementing 2008-2010 Mingo Co RESA II 7
schools (5 Elem, 1 Mid, 1High) AIR Putnam Co RESA III 2 Elementary
Schools AIR Wood Co + 2 RESA V 9 Elementary Schools Plesants Co
RESA V County-wide (2 Elem, 1 Middle, 1 High) AIR Harrison Co &
RESA 7 RESA VII 23 schools (13 Elem, 9 Middle, 1 High) Randolph Co
RESA VII 1 Elementary School Doddridge Co RESA VII County-wide (2
Elem, 1 Middle, 1 High) Pendelton Co RESA VIII County-wide (3 Elem,
1 Middle, 1 High)) AIR Hampshire Co RESA VIII 2 Elementary Schools
56 schools trained SWPBS Training materials: SWPBS Training
materials:
https://sites.google.com/site/2009swpbstrainingmaterials/
https://sites.google.com/site/2009swpbstrainingmaterials/
Principals Orientation and Application Documents:
http://wvde.state.wv.us/osp/PositiveBehaviorSupportschoo
lwide.html
Slide 12
WVRTI S/E: A Three-Tiered Model of Social/Emotional Supports
for ALL Pilots: https://sites.google.com/site/wvsbmhtaskforce/
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)
Slide 13
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: 1. Disciplinary timelines
exceeded 2. Failure to determine or document if the suspension
constitutes a change of placement 3. All pertinent information is
not reviewed or documented during MDR 4. Data quality issues
Slide 14
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.
Slide 15
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
Slide 16
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%
Slide 17
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%
Slide 18
Indicators 9 & 10 Data Sources December 1 Child Count 2 nd
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)
Slide 19
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?
Slide 20
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 Asianetc.
for all others] Dont calculate if less than 20 enrolled
Slide 21
Measurement Indicators 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 districts review
of policies, procedures and practices confirms inappropriate
identification
Slide 22
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
Slide 23
WVDE DATA DRIVEN DECEMBER 1, 2009 1 st Test - WWR and cell size
43 districts emerged with disproportionate representation 22
underrepresentation 6 overrepresentation 15 over-and
underrepresentation FEBRUARY 1, 2010 Second Test of Statistical
Significance 14 districts emerged with disproportionate
representation -2 overrepresentation -11 underrepresentation -1
over-and underrepresentation
Slide 24
Indicators 9 &10 Monitoring Process Overrepresentation Data
provided to districts in February Districts 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
Slide 25
Indicators 9 & 10 Monitoring Process Underrepresentation
Data provided to districts in February Districts 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 schools individual student achievement, SAT
(referral) data, instructional practices by racial/ethnic groups)
Determines whether the disproportionate underrepresentation is due
to inequity in practices
Slide 26
District Review Protocols
Slide 27
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.
Slide 28
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
Slide 29
SPP/APR Indicators 4b, 9 & 10 ARE NOT Significant
Disproportionality Additional information to be provided tomorrow
at lunch
Slide 30
Parent Coordinator Professional Development
Slide 31
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.
Slide 32
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.
Slide 33
Indicator 8 When your district is being surveyed it is very
important that you encourage the parents to respond to the survey!!
Thanks!!!
Slide 34
Slide 35
Slide 36
VIDEO
Slide 37
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.
Slide 38
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.
Slide 39
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
Slide 40
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.
Slide 41
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:____________________________________
Slide 42
Within the last year, I received a copy of my rights under the
Local School Districts/LEAs 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:______________________________________________
Slide 43
b. If yes, was an explanation of your rights provided, if
needed? Yes No NA
Slide 44
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) a.Each of the
concerns that I raised in the State Complaint was addressed in the
decision letter/letter of finding. Yes No
Slide 45
I have experienced or observed special education practices that
I believe were not in compliance with Part B of IDEA. Yes No Dont
know a. If yes, please
explain:______________________________________________
Slide 46
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)
Slide 47
Materials in the Parents Native Language/Mode of Communication
Special Education Monitoring by the State Due process Hearings and
Complaints Transportation Accommodations/Modifications Parent
Involvement No Improvement Needed Dont Know Other: (please explain
briefly) __________________________________________
Slide 48
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)
Slide 49
Materials in the Parents Native Language/Mode of Communication
Special Education Monitoring by the State Due process Hearings and
Complaints Transportation Accommodations/Modifications Parent
Involvement No Improvement Needed Dont Know Other: (please explain
briefly) __________________________________________
Slide 50
I know how to get the results of the U.S. Department of
Educations evaluation of my States performance under the federal
special education laws (i.e., the States Determination). Yes No I
know how to get the results of the States evaluation of my Local
School Districts/LEAs performance under the special education laws
(i.e., the LEAs Determination). Yes No
Slide 51
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:__________________________________
Slide 52
Karen Ruddle Coordinator Office of Special Programs Secondary
Transition Professional Development
Slide 53
4 Indicators for Transition #1 #2 #13 #14 Graduation Dropout
IEP documentation Post school outcomes
Slide 54
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.
Slide 55
I-14: Post School Outcomes DATA Exit Survey One Year Follow Up
Survey Key Words: Timely, Accurate
Slide 56
How do we document details of transition in the IEP and assure
items documented are correct? 1.Are there appropriate measurable
postsecondary goals that address a) education or training, b)
employment, and, as needed, c) independent living? Y N Can the
goals be measured? Will the goals occur after the student graduates
from school? Based on the information available about the student,
are the postsecondary goals appropriate for this student? If yes to
all three, then select Y. If postsecondary goals are not stated,
select N. 1.Are the postsecondary goals updated annually?Y N Were
the postsecondary goals reviewed and updated with the development
of the current IEP? If yes, then select Y. If the goals were not
updated with the current IEP, select N. 1.Is there evidence that
the measurable postsecondary goals were based on age-appropriate
transition assessment?Y N Is the use of transition assessment for
the postsecondary goals documented in the IEP? If yes, select Y. If
no, select N. 1.Are there transition services in the IEP that will
reasonably enable the student to meet his or her postsecondary
goals? Y N Are there transition services (at least one area)
identified in the IEP that will help the student make progress
toward the stated postsecondary goals? Transition services include:
instruction, related services, community experiences, development
of employment and other post school adult living objectives, and,
if appropriate, acquisition of daily living skills, and provision
of a functional vocational evaluation. If yes, select Y. If there
are no transition services that support postsecondary goals, select
N. 1.Do the transition services include courses of study that will
reasonably enable the student to meet his or her postsecondary
goals? Y N Do the transition services include courses of study that
align with the students postsecondary goals? If yes, select Y. If
no, select N. 1.Is/are there annual IEP goal(s) related to the
students transition services needs?Y N Is/are there annual goal(s)
in the IEP that is/are related to the students transition services
needs? If yes, select Y. If no, select N. 1.Is there evidence that
the student was invited to the IEP Team meeting where transition
services were discussed?Y N For the current year, is there
documented evidence on the IEP or Notice of IEP Team Meeting form
that the student was invited to attend the IEP Team meeting? If
yes, select Y. If no, select N. 1.Is there evidence that a
representative of any participating agency(s) was invited to the
IEP Team meeting with the prior consent of the parent or adult
student (has reached the age of majority)? Y N NA For the current
year, is there evidence in the IEP that representatives of any of
the following agencies/services were invited to participate in the
IEP development. Agencies may include, but are not limited to:
postsecondary education, vocational education, integrated
employment (including supported employment), continuing and adult
education, adult services, independent living or community
participation for post-secondary goals? Was consent obtained from
the parent or adult student? If yes to both questions, select Y. If
no invitation is evident and a participating agency is likely to be
responsible for providing or paying for transition services and
there was consent to invite them to the IEP meeting, then select N.
If it is too early to determine if the student will need outside
agency involvement, or no agency is likely to provide or pay for
transition services, select NA. Does the IEP meet the requirements
of Indicator 13?Y N Yes = all Ys or NA (question 8 only) for each
item are selected OR No = one or more Ns are selected If no,
address this issue on your self-assessment with an improvement
plan. 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.
Slide 57
I-13: Documenting Transition DATA CSADA: I 13 Checklist Exit
& Follow Up Surveys Key Words: Sustained, Document, Timely
Correction
Slide 58
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?
Slide 59
I-2: Dropout DATA Annual Data Report Exit & Follow Up
Surveys Key Words: Timely, Accurate, Prevention, Intervention,
Alignment
Slide 60
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.
Slide 61
I-1: Graduation DATA Annual Data Report Exit & Follow Up
Surveys Key Words: Cohort, Timely, Accurate, Alignment,
Intervention
Slide 62
Secondary Transition Resources WV TCCoP Transition
Collaborative Discussion Forum Teleconferences and Webinars
Internet and WVDE Websites Local Professional Development Self
Developed, WVDE, and Commercial Resources Intra- and Inter- Agency
Coordination Data Analysis
Slide 63
Break 15 Minutes GOGO
Slide 64
MonitoringProfessional Development ComplianceProfessional
Development Debbie Ashwell Coordinator Office of Special Programs
Lorraine Elswick Coordinator Office of Special Programs
Slide 65
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
Slide 66
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
Slide 67
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.
Slide 68
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
Slide 69
Trend Data in WV
Slide 70
District Reasons for Exceeding the 80-Day Timeline
Slide 71
# of Days to Complete Evaluations
Slide 72
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
Slide 73
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
Slide 74
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
Slide 75
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 3 rd birthday AND
evaluations completed and ECs held within 80 days of parental
consent
Slide 76
Indicator 15 General 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.
Slide 77
Indicator 15 Measurement 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
Slide 78
Findings of Noncompliance Data Sources Comprehensive
Self-Assessment Desk Audit (CSADA) Annual Desk Audit (ADA) On-site
Monitoring Internal Data Analysis State Complaints Due Process
Hearings
Slide 79
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.
Slide 80
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.
Slide 81
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
Slide 82
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
Slide 83
Indicator 16 SPP 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
Slide 84
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
Slide 85
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
Slide 86
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 OSPs approval of corrective actions
Slide 87
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
Slide 88
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
Slide 89
Indicator 16 Impact on Provision of FAPE 300.151(b) Remedies
for denial of appropriate services. The SEA must address: (1) 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 (2)
appropriate future provision of services for all children with
disabilities.
Slide 90
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
Slide 91
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
Slide 92
Indicator 17 Data Source WVDE maintains Dispute Resolution Data
Base CMS FFY 2009-2010 20 Due Process Complaints Filed 3 Fully
Adjudicated 1 Within 45 days 2 Extended properly 100%
Slide 93
Indicator 18 Resolution Sessions SPP 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
Slide 94
Indicator 18 Data Source WVDE maintains Dispute Resolution Data
Base CMS 4 Resolution Sessions Held 4 Settlement Agreements
100%
Slide 95
Indicator 19 Mediation SPP pp 160-163/APR pp 118-120 Percent of
mediations held that resulted in mediation agreements. Indicator 19
is a State-level Compliance Indicator
Slide 96
Indicator 19 Data Source WVDE maintains Dispute Resolution Data
Base CMS 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%
Slide 97
Indicator 20 Data SPP 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.