Dazed and Confused: General Supervision

1
Dazed and Confused General Supervision

• Administrators Management Meeting
• September 2009
• Karen Denbroeder, Administrator
• Special Programs, Information, and Evaluation
• Kim C. Komisar, Ph.D., Administrator
• Program Administration and Quality Assurance
• Bureau of Exceptional Education and Student
  Services
• Florida Department of Education

2
Topics

• General Supervision System
• Overview conceptual framework
• General supervision tools
• Changes to SPP Indicators
• Correction of noncompliance
• LEA determinations
• Leveled monitoring system

3
Topics

• Other hot topics
• Coordinated early intervening services (CEIS)
• Services to parentally-placed private school
  students
• Revocation of consent
• ???

4
GS Conceptual Framework

• SPP/APR guides the process of general supervision
  
• Continuous improvement focuses on the SPP
  indicators

5
Why Dazed and Confused?

• Me, Myself, and Irene was a close second

6
GS Conceptual Framework

• General supervision activities and processes are
• 1. Tied to school year by data requirements
• 2. Confounded by APR reporting cycle (e.g.,
• reporting on 2007-08 and 2008-09 in
• February 2010)
• 3. Despite 1 and 2 above, action planning is
• conducted from this point forward

7
GS Conceptual Framework

• Improvement planning related to performance
  indicators conducted by
• SPP indicator teams
• Targeted districts
• Correction of noncompliance identified by
• Monitoring
• Dispute resolution
• Data collection

8
GS Tools

• Guide to Calculations
• SPP indicator teams
• Planning calendar

9
GS Tools

• Self-assessment system
• Assists with data collection/tracking
• SPP 13 Secondary transition
• SPP 15 Timely correction of noncompliance
• Informs districts problem-solving process by
  identifying or ruling out procedural issues
  impacting performance

10
GS Tools

• General supervision Web site
• Program improvement plans (PIPs) for targeted
  districts
• Self-assessment system for monitoring and
  professional development
• Corrective action plans (CAPs) for systemic
  noncompliance
• Student-level correction of noncompliance
• Corrective actions required through state
  complaint investigations (new)

11
GS Tools General Supervision Web Site
12
GS Tools General Supervision Web Site
13
GS Tools General Supervision Web Site
14
GS Tools General Supervision Web Site
15
The Lion King was another option

• It's the Circle of Life And it moves us all
  Through despair and hope

16
December
November
January
February
October
March
September
August
April
July
May
June
17

• Data Submission
• SPP 11

• Data Submission
• SPP 12

December
November
January
February
October
CEIS Determinations
September
March

August
April
July
May
LEA Determinations
June
18
All districts submit self-assessment results

• Fall Cycle
• Level 1 All districts begin self-assessment
• SPP 13
• Matrix
• DJJ

December
November
January
Fall cycle preliminary monitoring report
disseminated
February
October
Correct student-specific noncompliance
September
March

• Districts submit
• Student-level
• correction of
• noncompliance
• Corrective action
• plan (CAP), if
• required

August
April
July
May
June
Fall cycle final monitoring report disseminated
19

• Fall Cycle
• Districts targeted on
• LRE/Student Performance
• (SPP 3, 5)
• Suspension/Expulsion
• (SPP 4)
• Begin Level 2 Fall self-assessment
• LRE/Student Performance
• Suspension/Expulsion

• Districts submit
• Self-assessment results
• Program improvement plan (PIP)
• CAP, if required

December
January
November
Included in fall cycle preliminary monitoring
report
February
October
Correct student-specific noncompliance
September
March

• Districts submit
• Student-level
• correction of
• noncompliance
• Address in CAP,
• if required

August
April
July
May
Included in fall cycle final monitoring report
June
20

• Spring Cycle
• Districts targeted on
• Exiting (SPP 1, 2,
• 13, 14)
• Disproportionality
• (SPP 9, 10)
• 60-Day Timeline
• (SPP 11)
• C-to-B Transition
• (SPP 12)
• Begin Level 2 Spring self-assessment
• Exiting
• Disproportionality

December
January
November
February
October
September
March

• Districts submit
• PIP
• Self-assessment
• results
• CAP, if required

August
April
July
May

• Districts submit
• Student-level
• correction of
• noncompliance
• CAP, if required

Spring cycle preliminary monitoring report
disseminated
Correct student-specific noncompliance
June
21
December
January
November
February
October
September
March
Level 3 On-site monitoring begins
August
April
July
May
June
Level 3 On-site monitoring ends
22
Level 1 and Level 2 Fall Districts submit CAP
(Level 1 and/or Level 2 Fall, if needed) PIP
(Level 2 Fall)

• Data Submission
• SPP 12

• Data Submission
• SPP 11

• Districts submit self-assessment results
• Level 1 All districts
• Level 2 Fall Targeted districts

Level 2 Fall Districts targeted and begin
self-assessment LRE/Student Performance (SPP 3,
4, 5)
December
Level 1 Preliminary monitoring report
disseminated
January
November

• Level 1 All districts begin self-assessment
• SPP 13
• Matrix
• DJJ

• Level 2 Spring Districts targeted and begin
  self-assessment
• Exiting (SPP 1, 2, 13, 14)
• Disproportionality (SPP 9, 10)
• Timely Evaluation (SPP 11)
• C to B Transition (SPP 12)

February
October
Level 3 On-site monitoring begins
CEIS Determinations
September
March

• Level 1 Districts submit, if needed
• Student-level correction of noncompliance
• CAP and/or
• PIP (Level 2 Fall)

Key Submit self-assessment DOE
Report Submit PIP Submit CAP, if
required Monitoring Correction of
student-specific noncompliance Implement CAP
August
April
Level 1 Final monitoring report disseminated

• Level 2 Spring targeted districts submit
• Self-assessment results
• CAP, if required
• PIP (Level 2 Spring)

July
May
June
LEA Determinations
Level 3 On-site monitoring ends
23
Changes to State Performance Plan Indicators

• February 1, 2010 Submission

24
Changes to Annual Performance Report

• No February 2010 APR reporting for SPP indicators
  6, 7, 13, and 14 (baseline and targets will be
  reported for indicator 7 in the SPP)
• Data to lag one year for indicators 1, 2, and 4
• 2007-08 data will be reported in APR for these
  indicators
• For all other indicators, 2008-09 data will be
  reported

25
Calculation Guide

• Organized by indicator
• Data sources
• Timeframe for data retrieval
• Calculation method
• Key data elements

26
Changes to APR

• Calculations have changed for
• Indicator 1 Graduation
• Indicator 3 Participation and performance on
  statewide assessment
• Indicator 11 60-day timeline
• Indicator 13 Secondary transition in the IEP (no
  changes for Florida)
• Indicator 14 Post-school outcomes

27
Indicator 1 Graduation Rate

• Old formula
• Standard diploma SWD graduates in a given year
  divided by Total SWD completing their education
  or dropping out in the same year
• New formula
• NCLB calculation (four-year cohort model)

28
2007-08 Graduation Rate
29
Indicator 1 Graduation Rate

• Because of the change to the indicator, we will
  be establishing new baseline and targets

30
Indicator 3 Participation and Performance

• Performance will now be calculated based on
  students enrolled for full academic year
  (reported in October and February) rather than
  all students taking the test
• Participation still calculated for all students
  enrolled

31
Indicator 11 60-Day Timeline

• Old Measurement
• Reported separately the number of students (1)
  determined not eligible and (2) determined
  eligible whose initial evaluations were completed
  within 60 days
• New Measurement
• (1) and (2) have been collapsed
• Web-based reporting for 2008-09 data

32
Indicator 13 Secondary Transition in the IEP

• No reporting this year
• Indicator language has changed to mirror IDEA
  secondary transition requirements
• Florida is already using the correct language

33
Indicator 14 Post-school Outcomes

• Reporting not required this year
• Indicator requires mutually exclusive reporting
  of students
• Enrolled in higher education
• Competitively employed
• Enrolled in other postsecondary education or
  training
• Employed in some other employment

34
Indicator 14 Post-school Outcomes

• Consulting with FETPIP Office to address changes

35
Indicator 4B Disproportionality in
Suspension/Expulsion

• This indicator was in the original State
  Performance Plan and was removed by OSEP
• It will be included in the February 2011 APR
  submission based on data from 2008-09
• It will be treated in the same way as indicators
  9 and 10 (including a review of policies,
  practices and procedures)

36
Correction of Noncompliance
37
Compliance Indicators

• Disproportionality due to inappropriate
  identification (SPP 9 and 10)
• Completion of initial evaluations within 60 day
  timeline (SPP 11)
• Transition from Part C to Part B (SPP 12)
• Secondary Transition in the IEP (SPP 13)
• Correction of noncompliance (SPP 15)
• Timely and accurate reported data (SPP 20)

38
Compliance Indicators

• Findings of noncompliance are corrected as soon
  as possible but no later than one year from
  identification/notification
• Correction of noncompliance occurs at the
  individual student level and at a systemic level
• Systemic noncompliance is defined as identified
  noncompliance in 25 or more of individual cases

39
Compliance Indicators

• Reporting correction of noncompliance in the APR
  occurs in the year following identification

40
Example

• In 2007-08, District A had findings of
  noncompliance in Indicator 10.
• In 2008-09, verification of correction of this
  noncompliance is reported in both Indicator 10
  and in Indicator 15.
• The 2007-08 findings would be part of a
  districts LEA determination in Spring 2009.
• The 2008-09 correction of these findings would be
  part of the districts LEA determination in
  Spring 2010.

41
Timeline Compliance Indicators

• For indicator 11, evidence of correction for
  individual students demonstrates that the student
  was evaluated.
• For indicator 12, evidence of correction for
  individual students demonstrates that an IEP was
  developed and implemented.
• The current data reporting structure for both of
  these indicators includes this evidence.

42
LEA Determinations

• 2008-09 Data

43
LEA Determinations

• Determinations are made using a rubric that
  allocates points. Total points decide which
  determination a district receives.
• For the purposes of determinations, all
  calculations will be rounded to the nearest whole
  number.

44
LEA Determination Elements

• A district receives one point for each of the
  following if they meet substantial compliance
  (95)
• Indicator 9
• Indicator 10
• Indicator 11
• Indicator 12
• Indicator 20

45
LEA Determination Elements

• A district receives one point if there is 100
  correction of noncompliance identified in 2007-08
  data.
• A district receives one point if there are no
  critical state audit findings reported by the
  Auditor General.
• Total possible points 7

46
Leveled Monitoring System

• 2009-10

47
2009-10 Level 1 Monitoring

• Level 1 Self-Assessment All districts
• SPP 13 Secondary transition addressed in the
  IEP
• Matrix of services
• Services to students in DJJ facilities
• Basic procedural compliance at the facility and
  district levels
• IEP implementation
• Random sampling provides a snapshot of the
  district

48
2009-10 Level 2 Monitoring

• Level 2 Self-Assessment Targeted districts
• Fall Cycle
• SPP 3, 5 cluster (LRE/assessment)
• SPP 4 (Suspension/Expulsion)
• Concurrent with Level 1
• Spring Cycle
• SPP 1, 2, 13, 14 cluster (Exiting)
• SPP 9, 10 cluster (Disproportionality)

49
2009-10 Level 2 Monitoring

• Level 2 Targeted districts
• Focused protocols for newly targeted districts
• Why newly targeted only? If the district was
  targeted for a given indicator in 2008-09,
  procedural self-assessment was conducted and
• Either procedural noncompliance was not a
  systemic issue or
• Procedural noncompliance was a systemic issue,
  and the district already has addressed or is
  currently addressing it through a CAP

50
2009-10 Level 2 Monitoring

• Level 2 Targeted districts
• Purposeful sampling of those students most likely
  to be impacted by noncompliance in the
  indicator-specific related requirements provides
  more meaningful and useful data to district
  problem-solving teams

51
2009-10 Level 3 Monitoring

• Level 3 On-site monitoring
• Level 1 self-assessment protocols and
• Level 2 (Spring, Fall, or both) self-assessment
  protocol(s), if applicable, and
• On-site monitoring of one or more of the
  following
• Matrix of services 254/255
• Timely correction of noncompliance
• Pattern of poor performance on multiple
  indicators
• Focus on IEP implementation

52
2009-10 Level 3 Selection Criteria

• Matrix of services 254/255
• Adjusted for out-of-district students for
  purposes of district selection
• gt 150 of state rate for 254
• gt 150 of state rate for 255
• gt 150 of state rate for 254 and 255 combined
• Monitoring activities will apply to both
  in-district and out-of-district students

53
2009-10 Level 3 Selection Criteria

• Timely correction of noncompliance
• Self-assessment results
• State complaint investigations
• Due process hearings
• SPP compliance indicators (11, 12, 13, (15))

54
2009-10 Level 3 Selection Criteria

• Timely correction of noncompliance
• OSEP timeline of as soon as possible, but in no
  case longer than one year from identification
  applies to LEA determinations
• BEESS internal timelines applies to district
  selection for on-site monitoring
• 60 days for student-specific noncompliance
  identified through self-assessment
• 10-12 months for systemic noncompliance
• Established timelines for noncompliance
  identified through state complaints (30-60 days)
  or due process hearings

55
2009-10 Level 3 Selection Criteria

• Timely correction of noncompliance moving
  forward to 2010-11
• OSEP timeline requires that within one year
• Districts must correct all noncompliance
• Bureau must verify correction occurred

56
2009-10 Level 3 Selection Criteria

• Timely correction of noncompliance moving
  forward to 2010-11
• OSEP allows states to not report in the APR
  noncompliance that is corrected before it is
  formally identified, although states must
  verify the correction (e.g., discovered during
  on-site monitoring, but corrected prior to the
  report being disseminated)

57
2009-10 Level 3 Selection Criteria

• Pattern of poor performance on multiple
  indicators or clusters over time
• Example
• Targeting by the exiting cluster doesnt
  automatically trigger Level 3
• But targeting by the exiting cluster for three
  years in a row likely will!

58
Monitoring Timeline

• 2009-10

59

• Still not sufficiently Dazed and Confused??
  Just wait!!

60
Timeline Closing Out 2008-09

• Final 2008-09 on-site visits being conducted now
• January 27, 2010 Districts with CAPs submit
  final status report demonstrating
• Correction of all student-specific noncompliance
• gt 75 compliance on
  designated standards
• Yes, there is an elephant
• in the room There will
• be overlap between years.

61
Timeline 2009-10

• Level 1 and Level 2 Fall Cycle (focused)
• October 15, 2009 Level 2 Fall Cycle districts
  notified of status as targeted districts
• LRE/student performance (SPP 3, 5)
• Suspension/expulsion (SPP 4)
• October 15, 2009 Draft manual and conference
  call information in BEESS Weekly Memo

62
Timeline 2009-10

• Level 1 and Level 2 Fall Cycle (focused)
• October 20, 21, 2009 Informational conference
  calls
• Level 1 monitoring
• Level 2 monitoring
• October 26, 2009 Districts begin
  self-assessment

63
Timeline 2009-10

• Level 1 and Level 2 Fall Cycle (focused)
• January 8, 2010 Districts submit via Web site
• Self-assessment results
• PIP for Level 2 Fall
• January 29, 2010 Level 1 and Level 2 Fall Cycle
  preliminary report disseminated

64
Timeline 2009-10

• Level 1 and Level 2 Fall Cycle (focused)
• March 8, 2010 Districts submit
• Correction of student-specific noncompliance
• CAP for systemic noncompliance, if required
• March 29, 2010 Level 1 and Level 2 Fall Cycle
  final report disseminated

65
Timeline 2009-10

• Level 2 Spring Cycle (focused)
• February 3, 2010 Level 2 Spring Cycle districts
  notified of status as targeted districts
• Exiting (SPP 1, 2, 13, 14)
• Disproportionality (SPP 9, 10)
• Timely evaluation (SPP 11)
• C-to-B transition (SPP 12)
• February 8, 2010 Level 2 Spring Cycle districts
  begin self-assessment
• Exiting (SPP 1, 2, 13, 14)
• Disproportionality (SPP 9, 10)

66
Timeline 2009-10

• Level 2 Spring Cycle (focused)
• April 5, 2010 Districts submit via Web site
• Level 2 Spring Cycle self-assessment results
• PIP for Level 2 Spring Cycle
• Exiting (SPP 1, 2, 13, 14)
• Disproportionality (SPP 9, 10)
• Timely evaluation (SPP 11)
• C-to-B transition (SPP 12)
• April 26, 2010 Level 1 and Level 2 Spring Cycle
  preliminary report disseminated
• Date may differ for SPP 11, 12

67
Timeline 2009-10

• Level 2 Spring Cycle (focused)
• June 7, 2010 Districts submit
• Correction of student-specific noncompliance for
  Level 2 Spring Cycle
• Exiting (SPP 1, 2, 13, 14)
• Disproportionality (SPP 9, 10)
• CAP for systemic noncompliance, if required
• June 28, 2010 Level 2 Spring Cycle final report
  disseminated

68
Timeline 2009-10

• Level 3 - On-site monitoring
• Notification (goal) November 1, 2009
• On-site visits (goal)
• January May 2010
• May need to extend to August October 2010

69

• And now you know! Clearly - Dazed and Confused!

70
Coordinated Early Intervening Services

• CEIS

71
Use of CEIS

• Districts may choose to use up to 15 of IDEA
  funds for early intervening services
• Districts may be required to use the full 15

72
Required CEIS

• Districts are required to set aside 15 of IDEA
  funds for early intervening services if any of
  the following criteria are met
• Students of any race are at least 3.5 times more
  likely to be identified as disabled compared to
  all other races (SWD, IND, EBD, SLD, ASD, OHI,
  SILI)

73
Required CEIS

• Students with disabilities ages 6-21 of any race
  are at least 3.5 times more likely to be placed
  in a separate class or other separate environment
  when compared to all other races (SWD, IND, EBD,
  SLD, ASD, OHI, SILI)
• Students with disabilities of any race are at
  least 3.5 times more likely to be
  suspended/expelled when compared to all other
  races combined (SWD only)

74
Remember.

• You must report in the automated student data
  base each student who received services funded
  through CEIS dollars
• States are required to track by student those
  nondisabled children who received these services
  and whether or not they ultimately were found
  eligible for special education and related
  services.

75
CEIS Reporting Requirements

• For districts voluntarily using up to 15 of IDEA
  dollars for CEIS and those who are required to
  use funds for CEIS, a code has been added to the
  Element Fund Source in automated student data
  base to indicate students receiving CEIS under
  requirements in the IDEA.

76
Fund Source

• Code I indicates student receiving Early
  Intervening Services funded by IDEA, Part B
  dollars.
• Reported on Federal/State Indicator Status format
  in Survey 5.

77
(No Transcript)
78
Uses of CEIS Set Aside Funds

• Personnel
• RtI Coordinators, teachers, behavior specialists,
  substitutes, and paraprofessionals
• Professional Development
• Consultants
• Stipends for teachers and other staff
• Travel costs for participants

79
Uses of CEIS Set Aside Funds

• Technology
• Instructional
• Data collection and reporting tools
• Materials and Supplies
• Consumables for teachers and students

80
Challenges/Issues

• CEIS
• Specify applicable population of students
• Nondisabled K-12 students
• Tier II and Tier III
• Identify appropriate set-asides in budget(s)
• Budget for the 15 limit, if required

81
Parentally Placed Private School Students

• Requirements and Challenges

82
Proportionate Share Part B

Year Students Funds
2007-08 13,871 17,976,857
2008-09 8,901 11,941,119
2009-10 9,478 28,634,542
83
Proportionate Share Part B

Year Students Funds
2007-08 770 417,258
2008-09 361 176,676
2009-10 252 293,862
84
FY 2008-09Proportionate Share Expenditures
Expenditures Roll Part B 8,846,354
5,354,325 PreK 133,886
49,729

85
Private School Consultation

• How are eligible students enrolled in non-profit
  private schools identified?
• How are private school representatives and
  parents of children with disabilities informed of
  the process?
• How is the amount of proportionate share
  determined and how will funds be used?

86
Private School Consultation

• How are decisions made with regard to services
  offered in the consultative agreement? (i.e.,
  types of services, including direct service, and
  any alternate service delivery)
• How is this information (consultative agreement)
  shared with private schools and parents?

87
Private School Consultation

• How are affirmations obtained from
  representatives of private schools? (Affirmation
  signed by private school reps should document
  that timely and meaningful consultation
  occurred)

88
Grant Challenges/Issues

• Consultation/Proportionate Share
• Describe districts unique consultation process,
  including affirmation
• Identify set-asides in budget(s)
• Describe appropriate expenditures for satisfying
  share funds

89
Remember

• You must have documentation on file that a
• timely and meaningful consultation has occurred
  
• and
• is signed off by private school officials or by a
  representative of private schools.

90
Expending Proportionate Share

• YES!
• Speech therapy
• Language therapy
• Occupational/physical therapy
• Instructional support per students services plan
  (SP)

• NO!
• Psychological testing
• Guidance counseling
• Any activities, including observations, leading
  to identifying eligibility (both initial and for
  reevaluations)

91
Expending Proportionate Share

• YES!
• Consumables and all instructional materials
  age-appropriate and for specific use by students
  with disabilities and their teachers

• NO!
• Evaluation and testing materials used by
  professionals conducting assessments to identify
  children initially and for reevaluations

92
Expending Proportionate Share

• YES!
• Computer hardware and software specific for use
  by SWD
• Transportation costs of serving SWD in public
  school (between private school/public school)

• NO!
• Upgrade computers at the school
• Purchase site license for new reading curriculum
  at school
• Reimburse parents for transporting SWD to public
  school

93
Revocation of Consent

• What does it really mean?

94
Revocation of Consent

• Parent must make the request in writing
• The district may not delay the cessation of
  services
• The district may not challenge the parents
  request
• Revocation of consent reflect dismissal from ESE,
  not discontinuation of some services

95
Revocation of Consent

• District must provide prior written notice of
  change of FAPE/placement
• Will reflect the parents request
• Can include the districts rationale for advising
  that consent not be revoked
• Should include a description of the rights and
  benefits no longer conveyed

96
Revocation of Consent

• Historical record stands prior participation in
  ESE cannot be deleted from the record
• Disciplinary protections no longer apply
• FCAT waiver no longer applicable
• OSEP says accommodations may be continued if
  the teacher provides them to other nondisabled
  students

97
Revocation of Consent

• Application to districts virtual instruction
  programs?
• The district has an obligation to provide FAPE to
  an eligible student with a disability
• FAPE is not one size fits all
• There is no algorithm to plug in the student data
  and have FAPE in the LRE fall out
• Think outside the box be flexible be honest

98
Revocation of Consent

• Application to districts virtual instruction
  programs?
• What does the district do when the parent of a
  student with multiple significant disabilities in
  need of highly specialized low availability
  services rejects placement at the school site(s)
  where the services currently are provided?
• If the parent refuses to allow the district to
  provide FAPE, the district may need to discuss
  revocation of consent.

99
(No Transcript)
100
Contact Us850-245-0475

• Data Collection and Reporting SPP/APR CEIS
• Karen.Denbroeder_at_fldoe.org
• General Compliance
• Kim.Komisar_at_fldoe.org
• Monitoring
• Patricia.Howell_at_fldoe.org
• Dispute Resolution
• Demetria.Harvell_at_fldoe.org