Integrated Compliance
System Procedures
Toolbook • 2014-2015
Office of Special Programs
West Virginia Department of Education
October 2014
West Virginia Board of Education
2014-2015
Gayle C. Manchin, President
Michael I. Green, Vice President
Tina H. Combs, Secretary
Thomas W. Campbell, Member
Robert W. Dunlevy, Member
Lloyd G. Jackson II, Member
L. Wade Linger Jr., Member
William M. White, Member
Paul L. Hill, Ex Officio
Chancellor
West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission
James L. Skidmore, Ex Officio
Chancellor
West Virginia Council for Community and Technical College Education
Michael J. Martirano, Ex Officio
State Superintendent of Schools
West Virginia Department of Education
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction.................................................................................................................................... 1
Compliance and Results Data Collection Tools.................................................................. 3
District Self-Assessment (DSA)/Annual Desk Audit (ADA) Workbook......................... 7
Self-Assessment Student File Review Instructions........................................................ 56
Monitoring Entrance Letter and Schedule.......................................................................... 89
Interview Protocols.................................................................................................................... 93
Classroom Observation........................................................................................................... 104
Parent Focus Group.................................................................................................................. 109
Student Focus Group............................................................................................................... 114
Satisfaction Monitoring Survey............................................................................................ 120
LEA Compliance Monitoring Report.................................................................................... 122
West Virginia Monitoring Priorities..................................................................................... 129
Office of Special Programs (OSP) Monitoring/
Results Coordinator Assignments....................................................................................... 130
Desk Review............................................................................................................................... 131
Results Data Analysis.............................................................................................................. 133
Logic Model Review Worksheet........................................................................................... 135
Theory of Action Worksheet.................................................................................................. 137
Initiative Inventory for the Results Improvement Plan................................................ 139
Results Improvement Plan Focus for Improvement Worksheet................................ 143
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
i
ii
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
Introduction
The purpose of this handbook is to provide information, resources, and tools used in compliance and
results system procedures. The consistent implementation of monitoring procedures and practices
allow monitoring teams to evaluate and document district adherence to Individual with Disabilities
Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA) by focusing on improving results and outcomes for children with
disabilities and ensure public agencies meet requirements IDEA, §300.600.
The Office of Special Programs (OSP) Objectives:
• Assist the local education agency (LEA) in identifying potential root causes of low performance
by students with exceptionalities to increase results;
• Provide information to the LEA to assure continued procedural compliance with state and
federal laws and procedures and strategies for improvement planning;
• Review and evaluate critical elements of the district’s special education services based upon
the requirements of IDEA; W.Va. Code §18-20; Policy 2419: Regulations for the Education of
Students with Exceptionalities, and State Performance Plan (SPP) Indicators; and
• Identify any child specific and/or systemic noncompliance related to students with
exceptionalities.
Team Member Protocol
The OSP monitoring team members are guests of the county school system. Team members must
function with integrity and fairness. Team members have an extraordinary opportunity to make a
positive contribution to the county school system and/or school. The following guidelines are
established so the on-site review process will evaluate the standards in a uniform, consistent and
expert manner.
General Information about the on-site review and monitoring process:
The purpose of the review is to collect beneficial information for increased, continued procedural
compliance and improvement planning rather than a reprimand for low performance or noncompliance.
Use the data to determine where you will go, who you will interview and what data will be reviewed.
Narrow your focus, and do not include too many critical elements. There is no need to spend time
looking at things that are not problems.
While conducting the on-site review, document possible findings of noncompliance through two
sources. When a possible noncompliance is identified make copies of the noncompliance (i.e.,
IEP page). Consult with the monitoring coordinator prior to announcing any noncompliance. The
monitoring coordinator will direct the exit conference and announce possible noncompliance.
Team members should avoid criticizing the county staff or school system. Team members should
follow the verification procedures in this handbook and record observations without bias or opinion.
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
1
Team members should apprise the monitoring coordinator of their whereabouts at all times.
Allowable communication with the press, related to OSP monitoring activities, shall be limited to
personal identification and reason for the visit. All other requests for information should be referred
to the LEA. If any contact with the press occurs, report to the monitoring coordinator.
Observations of noncompliance made during the monitoring visit are relayed to the monitoring
coordinator. Such observations may or may not become part of the final report. It is imperative that
observations are not discussed or shared after leaving the monitoring site.
Entrance/Exit Conference
In the entrance and exit conference, help set the right tone. Your actions and demeanor, including
nonverbal behavior, can send unintended messages without saying a word.
In the entrance and exit conference, the monitoring coordinator is the spokesperson. Upon request,
team members may be asked to provide support such as helping to answer questions or providing
clarifications. Be supportive or helpful to your monitoring coordinator; this will help set a constructive
tone. Be sure to provide concise information the LEA can use to increase compliance and results at
each school.
Interviews/Focus Groups
When you are conducting interviews or focus groups remember to put your participants at ease. In
addition to interview introductions, it may be helpful to provide some brief background information
about yourself. Use the outline topics provided in the guided question template to facilitate the
group’s discussion.
School Visits
All school and office visits are conducted professionally, politely and efficiently and, all school visits
begin and end at the principal’s office. Team members must introduce themselves and explain the
purpose of the review prior to any interview. Interruptions of learning activities are kept to a minimum.
Team members wear an identification badge for security purposes and adhere to school procedures
regarding sign-in and sign-out sheets and visitors’ passes.
Team Member Expectations
Arrive at all designated meeting places and review sites on time. Contact the monitoring coordinator,
if delayed for unanticipated reasons. All team members should dress professionally. Keep cell
phones on vibrate and do not interrupt interviews or meetings to answer phones. Be courteous
to all. Thank all LEA staff for their assistance and participation. Wear department badge or other
identification while in the district office and schools. All team members must maintain confidentiality.
Consult with the monitoring coordinator when in doubt. Refrain from making judgment statements
or offering advice to the school staff, students or parents. Do not share personal opinions. A team
member’s role is to gather information, rather than to provide personal views about a situation. Listen
2
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
Compliance and Results Data
Collection Tools
and record.
The OSP has developed tools used for data collection during the monitoring process to assure
consistency for review of special education programs. Some tools are used on-site and others are
used off-site.
The following provides an overview of each of the resources and tools used during monitoring
activities:
District Self-Assessment (DSA)/Annual Desk Audit (ADA)
LEA’s are required to conduct an annual self-assessment of their special education programs. A
local Steering Committee is established to assist in the self-assessment process to review data and
determine the system’s compliance and student performance.
Selection of the Steering Committee
It is the responsibility of the LEA to determine the membership of the Steering Committee and select
a chairperson. The Steering Committee has required and suggested members which are as follows:
Required member must include:
• Director of Special Education;
• Parents;
• General and special education teachers;
• Principal representatives of each programmatic level;
• Principals of Priority and Focus Schools, if applicable;
• Director of Title I;
• Director of Curriculum and Instruction; and
• Career Technical Education school representative.
Suggested Members:
• Local board members;
• Other personnel from agencies such as Head Start, Division of Rehabilitation Services and
Department of Health and Human Resources;
• County office personnel;
• Part C personnel; and
• Other individuals at the district’s discretion.
Collection of Data
The Steering Committee will meet and consider a variety of sources of information when conducting
the District Self-Assessment (DSA). A thorough analysis of aggregated and disaggregated data is
required. LEA’s must conduct “drill down” activities to determine if there is a legitimate explanation for
why the compliance and/or performance indicators are not met. Careful review of all data elements
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
3
in the self-assessment document is required.
The following documents may be helpful in the data review:
• Section 618 reports (December 1 Child Count, LRE Report, Exit Report, Discipline Report)
• Certification information
• National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) results
• Large-scale assessment, accountability and pre-reporting requirements of both IDEA and
NCLB
• Local Education Agency Application
• IEP file review sample
• School schematics
• Transportation schedules with school bell to bell times
• Other Self-Assessment documents (i.e.: Title I Reviews)
• Office of Educational Performance Audits (OEPA) reports
• Suspension/expulsion data
• County policies, procedures and practices
• Policy 2419: Regulations for the Education of Students with Exceptionalities
• Disproportionality data
• Audit reports
The following forms are available to assist the LEA in the DSA process:
• District Self-Assessment Assurance Statement
• District Self-Assessment Membership
• District Self-Assessment (DSA)/Annual Desk Audit (ADA) Workbook
4
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
District Self-Assessment
Assurance Statement
County
Certification: We, the undersigned, have completed this District Comprehensive Self-Assessment
and the Annual Desk Audit and hereby certify to the best of our knowledge, the information contained
herein is complete and accurate and the identified activities will be implemented in the manner
described.
SuperintendentSuperintendent
(Original Signature)(Please Type)
Director of Special Education
Director of Special Education
(Original Signature)(Please Type)
ChairpersonChairperson
(Original Signature)(Please Type)
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
5
District Self-Assessment
County
Chairperson:
Year:
Name
Position / Agency
Email Address
6
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
District Self-Assessment (DSA)/
Annual Desk Audit (ADA) Workbook
In completing the self-assessment workbook, the Stakeholder Committee will review the data and
determine if the LEA meets the performance and compliance indicators. Each indicator on the selfassessment workbook must be addressed. After the analysis has been completed, the Stakeholder
Committee must develop an improvement plan to address each deficient area of slippage.
If LEA have not reached the target for a particular SPP Performance Indicator, the development
of an improvement plan designed to achieve the target is required. For indicators designated as
“compliance” indicators, the target must be 100% or 0%. Improvement plans must contain timelines
demonstrating consistent, steady progress towards achieving the target.
This self-assessment process should be considered the LEA’s needs assessment for the allocation
of resources and improvement planning. Progress on improvement plans must be reviewed
periodically throughout the year with revisions made as appropriate. All data and documentation
used in completing the self-assessment workbook must be maintained for five (5) years by the LEA
and available to the OSP upon request.
When district child data count indicates that significant disproportionality may exist, the district will
be notified by the OSP and be required to complete an assessment of their current policies, practices
and procedures in general and special education (e.g., pre-referral interventions, evaluation and
identification and placement in special education). The OSP will review the self-assessment file to
determine whether the district has appropriately identified its status when a compliance on-site visit
is scheduled.
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
7
DSA/ADA Self-Assessment Workbook
SPP Self-Assessment Section I
Indicator 1
GRADUATION
Results
WVDE Determined
Indicator 1
Graduation of students with IEPs: Percent of youth with IEPs graduating
from high school with a regular diploma.
Measurement
States must report using the adjusted cohort graduation rate required
under the ESEA. See calculation below.
Target Parameters
Targets should be the same as the annual graduation rate targets under
Title I of the ESEA
Target
85% for 4-year adjusted cohort rate per ESEA Flex Waiver
Baseline Year
2009-2010 per federal reporting requirements
Additional Information
5-year rate exists but 4-year rate is specified in OSEP’s Measurement
Table
# of cohort members who earned a regular high school
diploma by the end of the SY 2012-2013
4-Year
Adjusted
Cohort
Graduation
Rate
=
# of first-time 9th graders in fall 2009 [starting cohort]
+ students who transfer in during SY 2009-2010, 2010-2011,
2011-2012 and 2012-2013
- students who transfer out*, emigrate, or die during SY
2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-2013
4-Year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate
Students with IEPs
4-Year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate
85
81.44
0
20
18
-2
0
20
17
-2
0
20
16
-2
0
20
15
-2
0
20
13
-2
0
20
12
-2
0
-2
20
11
-2
20
10
-2
09
20
8
77.85
62.1
0
59.9
-2
59.6
74.26
70.67
67.08
14
57.5
63.49
20
80
0
80
0
80
Target
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
Graduation Drill Down Analysis
1. Review the data related to your graduation rates. It is critical that each local education agency (LEA)
collect, maintain, and submit accurate data.
2. Compare the graduation rates for general education students with the rates for special education
students. If the general education rate exceeds the special education rate, develop some working
hypotheses as to the reasons for the difference. Investigate the hypotheses by interviewing students
with disabilities who have not graduated with their cohort. Summarize the responses from the
interviews.
3. Review the secondary transition plan for each special education student who did not graduate.
Determine if each transition plan contained the required components, such as transition assessments,
measurable postsecondary goals, and transition services and activities. Document any interventions
that were made to promote graduation for each student. Detail the results of this review. Determine
what strategies, if any, were used to connect students (who later failed to graduate) with programs
and/or agencies that support students who are at-risk.
4. Review the transcripts and courses of study for the students who did not graduate to determine if any
patterns emerge from the review as to any specific group. Report the results of that review for any
group of students with similar transcript history.
5. Describe how transition services were provided to each special education student during the twelve
months preceding the academic year for which numbers indicate an unusually low graduation rate. If
transition services were provided to some students and not others, indicate what those services were
provided and report how the provision to transition services correlated to the likelihood of a student’s
graduating.
6. Describe the agency’s participation in any schoolwide/districtwide initiative to increase the rate of
graduation.
7. Describe any unique or special circumstances the LEA needs to know in order to understand why the
LEA’s graduation rates for students with individualized education program (IEP) are low.
*Develop a written plan to address areas of concern with regard to the low graduation rate.
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
9
Improvement Plan
Explanation of Slippage,
if Appropriate
Actions Steps
Evaluation Component
Person/Group Responsible
10
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
Indicator 2
DROPOUT
Results
WVDE Determined
Indicator 2
Percent of youth with IEP dropping out of high school.
Target
To Be Determined by State Stakeholder Committee
Additional Information
NA=District 34
Graduation Drill Down Questions
1. Review the data related to dropout rates for grades 9-12 to determine if the LEA reported students
accurately by exit code. If your numbers were reported inaccurately, detail how the data was
incorrectly gathered or tabulated by exit code and report a corrected tabulation to OSP promptly.
2. Determine if the LEA has an effective procedure to ensure that the exit code for any student who had
previously been coded as either “dropped out” or “moved, not known to be continuing” is changed
once the agency receives a request for records from another school.
3. Compare the dropout rates for general education students with the rates for special education
students. Describe the calculations you used to make that comparison and discuss your findings. If
the special education rate exceeds the general education rate, develop some working hypotheses as
to the reasons for the difference. Investigate the hypotheses by interviewing students with disabilities
who have dropped out.
4. Review the transition plan for each special education student who dropped out. Document any
interventions that were made prior to the student’s dropping out and determine if changes to the IEP
and/or transition plan including additional services might have resulted in the student’s graduating.
5. Determine what process, if any, was used to connect students (who later dropped out of school) with
programs and/or agencies that support students who are at-risk for dropping out. Identify the dropout
prevention services the school currently uses.
6. Review the transcripts and courses of study for the students who have dropped out to determine if
any pattern emerges from the review such as specific courses taken, specific grade levels involved,
or any other similar pattern prior to their dropping out. Report the results of that review for any group of
students with similar transcript history prior to their dropping out.
7. Describe how transition services were provided to each special education student during the twelve
months preceding the dropout in the academic year for which numbers indicate an unusually high
dropout rate. If transition services were provided to some students and not others, indicate what
those services were and report how the provision of transition services correlated to the likelihood of a
student’s continuing.
8. Describe the LEA’s participation in any schoolwide/districtwide initiative to prevent students’ dropping
out.
9. Describe any unique or special circumstances that the OSP needs to know in order to understand why
your agency’s dropout rates are excessive.
10. Describe how you measure student engagement?
11. Describe how at risk students are engaged in extracurricular activities.
12. Across the K-12 curriculum, what practices are used to identify student risk for dropout.
13. What is your district doing to build personal relationships with students with IEPs at risk of dropping
out? Adult advocate roles might be transition coordinators, mentors, graduation coaches, etc.
14. What student characteristics at the school level are related to dropping out? (Disability? Gender?
Race/ethnicity? Other)
15. What programs/structures are available in schools with low dropout rates? For example after school
tutoring, remedial reading, math, middle and high school transition activities, etc.
16. Are dropout prevention programs in place in schools showing a high dropout rate for students with
disabilities?
*Develop a written plan to address areas of concern with regard to the high dropout rates.
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
11
Improvement Plan
Explanation of Slippage,
if Appropriate
Actions Steps
Evaluation Component
Person/Group Responsible
12
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
Indicator 3
ASSESSMENT
Results
WVDE Determined
Indicator 3
Participation and performance of children with IEPs on statewide
assessments:
A. Percent of the districts with a disability subgroup that meets the
State’s minimum “n” size that meet the State’s Annual Yearly Progress
(AYP)/Annual Measurable Objective (AMO) targets for the disability
subgroup.
B. Participation rate for children with IEPs.
C. Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level, modified
and alternate academic achievement standards.
Measurement
3A - AMO data used for accountability reporting under Title I of the ESEA
as a result of ESEA flexibility.
3B - Assessment data reported in the Consolidated State Performance
Report
3C - Assessment data reported in the Consolidated State Performance
Report
Target Parameters
Targets should align with ESEA. 3B should be 95% or greater.
Target
75% by 2019-2020
Baseline Year
Target trajectories are currently based on SY 2011-2012 WESTEST 2
results. (See charts below).
Targets will be reset based upon results of first administration of Smarter
Balanced Assessment in spring 2014.
Reading Language Arts
Targets and Actual Performance
Actual Performance
(Reading Language Arts)
Targets
(Reading Language Arts)
100
80
60
40
18.9
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
0
20
19
-2
9
20
18
-1
8
20
17
-1
7
20
16
-1
6
20
15
-1
5
20
14
-1
4
-1
13
-1
12
20
11
-1
3
17.8
2
0
20
20
20
32.9
25.9
53.9
46.9
39.9
75
67.9
60.9
13
Mathematics
Targets and Actual Performance
Actual Performance
(Mathematics)
Targets
(Mathematics)
100
80
60
40
22.5
0
20
19
-2
9
20
18
-1
8
20
17
-1
7
20
16
-1
6
20
15
-1
5
20
14
-1
4
-1
13
-1
12
20
11
-1
3
20.6
2
0
20
20
20
35.7
29.1
55.5
48.9
42.3
75
68.7
62.1
Performance on Statewide Assessment Reading Proficiency Drill Down Questions
Participation: If a student was absent did the LEA make an effort to have student’s participate in the
assessment during the make-up window?
LRE Questions – Do you have the right service delivery system to serve your students well?
1. Analyze existing placements by disability to determine options/patterns to the LEA.
2. Cross check reading achievement by placement to determine if students in some placements are
demonstrating higher achievement than in others with the same disability.
a. If so, identify factors contributing to such differences:
i. Impact of the severity of the disability.
ii. Continuum of services available at individual school sites.
3. What types of assistive technology devices/services and other supports are available to the students
and teachers to foster the greatest independence in the least restrictive environment (LRE)?
4. Summarize the LEA’s strengths and concerns with respect to LRE as it relates to reading achievement?
5. Is the instruction guided by the performance standards?
6. Is the instruction rigorous with research based strategies that support cognitive processes with
academic instruction with learner needs?
7. Are they differentiating instructional delivery to meet the learning needs of students who require more
explicit instruction?
8. Does the learning foster instruction in a safe, positive and supportive environment that provides
support to help them lead fulfilling and rewarding lives?
9. Do all faculty and staff members understand that IEPs are legally binding documents?
10. Do all faculty and staff members have high expectations for themselves as well as their students,
clearly communicated and readily observed in personal behavior?
Certification Questions – Do you have staff who are well qualified to teach reading?
11. Determine if there has been an increase or decrease in the percentage of fully certified special
education teachers over the last three years.
a. If so, determine what factors contributed to the change.
b. Identify the activities the LEA has undertaken in the areas of hiring, retention, personnel
development for credentialing, and salary analysis to improve the percentages of certified
special education teachers.
c. Identify the number of unfilled special education positions existing in your LEA during the
current school year.
12. Determine the numbers/percent of teachers (both general education and special education) who are
“highly qualified” to teach reading.
14
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
Curriculum Questions – Do you have reading curricula that are sufficiently responsive to varied needs?
13. Identify the current reading curriculum used in the general education program. Does it address these
five critical areas: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension?
14. What supplemental materials/curricula are in use for special education students? To what degree do
these materials meet the criteria with regard to “explicit and systematic instruction” and “coordination
of phonics/word recognition activities with fluency building”?
15. What curriculum-based measures (CBM) are used with general education and special education
students?
16. To what extent is the information from the CBM used to drive modifications to instruction?
*Develop a written plan to address areas of concern with regard to reading curriculum.
Performance on Statewide Assessment Math Proficiency Drill Down Questions
Participation: If a student was absent did the LEA make an effort to have students participate in the
assessment during the make-up window?
LRE Questions – Do you have the right service delivery system to serve your students well?
1. Analyze existing placements by disability to determine options/patterns of the LEA.
2. Cross check math achievement by placement to determine if students in some placements are
demonstrating higher achievement than in others with the same disability.
a. If so, identify factors contributing to such differences:
i. Impact of the severity of the disability.
ii. Continuum of services available at individual school sites.
3. What types of assistive technology services/devices and other supports are available to the students
and teachers to foster the greatest independence in the least restrictive environment (LRE)?
4. Summarize the LEAs strengths and concerns with respect to LRE as it relates to math achievement.
Certification Questions – Do you have staff who are well qualified to teach math?
5. Determine if there has been an increase or decrease in the percentage of fully certified special
education teachers over the last three years.
a. If so, determine what factors contributed to the change.
b. Identify the activities the LEA has undertaken in the areas of hiring, retention, personnel
development for credentialing, and salary analysis to improve certification percentages.
c. Identify the number of unfilled special education positions existing in your LEA during the
current school year.
6. Determine the numbers/percent of teachers (both general education and special education) who are
“highly qualified” to teach math.
Curriculum Questions – Do you have math curricula that are sufficiently responsive to varied needs?
7. Identify the current mathematics curriculum used in the general education program. Does the
curriculum integrate the process standards of problem solving, reasoning and proof, communication,
representation, and connections with instruction targeting all the performance objectives contained
within five strands of the mathematics standards.
8. What supplemental materials/curricula are in use for special education students? To what degree do
these materials meet the criteria with regard to the mathematics standards and do they include the
availability of a variety of tools.
9. What curriculum-based measures (CBM) are used with general education and special education
students?
10. To what extent is the information from the CBM used to drive modifications to instruction?
*Develop a written plan to address areas of concern with regard to math curriculum.
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
15
Improvement Plan
Explanation of Slippage,
if Appropriate
Actions Steps
Evaluation Component
Person/Group Responsible
16
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
Indicator 4
SUSPENSION
4A Results
4B Compliance 0%
WVDE Determined
Indicator 4
Rates of suspension and expulsion:
A. Percent of districts that have a significant discrepancy in the rate of
suspensions and expulsions of greater than ten (10) days in a school
year for children with IEPs; and
B. Percent of districts that have: (a) a significant discrepancy, by race
or ethnicity, in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than
ten (10) days in a school year for children with IEPs, and (b) policies,
procedures or practices that contribute to the significant discrepancy
and do not comply with requirements relating to the development and
implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions
and supports, and procedural safeguards.
Measurement
A. Percent=[(# of districts that have a significant discrepancy in the rate
of the suspensions and expulsions for greater than ten (10) days in a
school year of children with IEPs) divided by the (# of districts in the
State) times 100.
B. Percent=[(# of districts that have: (a) a significant discrepancy,
by race or ethnicity, in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of
greater than ten (10) days in a school year of children with IEPs,
and (b) policies, procedures or practices that contribute to the
significant discrepancy and do not comply with requirements relating
to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive
behavioral interventions and supports, procedural safeguards)
divided by the (# of districts in the State) times 100.
Target Parameters
Target for 4B must be 0%
Baseline Year
2009-2010
Additional Information
The districts that have not met the target for Indicators 4A and/or 4B will
be monitored by the WVDE. If the WVDE review finds the district policies,
procedures or practices that contributed to the significant discrepancy
and that do not comply with requirements relating to the development
and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral intervention
and supports and procedural safeguards, the district will be determined
noncompliant and required to correct the deficiency any student specific
and/or systemic within one year of submission of identification.
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
17
Suspension/Expulsion Drill Down Questions
1. Review the numbers submitted to the OSP related to suspensions/expulsions to determine if your
agency reported accurately.
2. Compare the suspension/expulsion rates for general education students with the rates for special
education students. Describe the calculations you used to make that comparison and detail your
findings.
3. Review the disciplinary history for each suspended/expelled special education student. Document
any interventions that were implemented prior to the decision to suspend the student and determine
if changes in the IEP (including additional services) might have resulted in behavioral changes that
could have made suspension necessary.
4. Determine what process, if any, was used to connect the families of students with disciplinary issues to
school-based or outside health and social services agencies. What resources does the school have to
identify untreated mental/behavioral health issues?
5. Review the manifestation determinations for each suspended/expelled special education student,
including the adequacy of the evaluation, IEP, service deliver, functional behavioral assessment, and
behavior intervention plan. Report the results of that review for each student.
6. Describe how the agency provided services to each suspended/expelled student with disabilities
during the period that exceeded ten (10) school days, listing the alternate settings used by your
agency. If additional alternate setting were available but not used, please indicate what those options
were.
7. Describe the agency’s participation in any schoolwide/districtwide discipline initiative, such as the
Positive Behavioral Intervention Supports (PBIS), Character Counts, or any other structured-school
climate project.
8. Describe any unique or special circumstances that the OSP needs to know in order to understand why
your agency’s suspension rates are excessive.
*Develop a written plan to correct any noncompliance issues and to modify any school/district practices
that have resulted in an excessive suspension rates for students with disabilities.
Improvement Plan
Explanation of Slippage,
if Appropriate
Actions Steps
Evaluation Component
Person/Group Responsible
18
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
Indicator 5
EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT - AGES 6-21
Results
LEA Determined
Indicator 5
Percent of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21 served:
A. Inside the regular class 80% or more of the day;
B. Inside the regular class less than 40% of the day; and
C. In separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital
placements.
Measurement
A. Percent=[(# of children with IEPs served inside the regular class 80%
of the day) divided by the (total # of students aged 6 through 21 with
IEPs)] times 100.
B. Percent=[(# of children with IEPs served inside the regular class
less than 40% of the day) divided by the (total # of students aged 6
through 21 with IEPs)] times 100.
C. Percent=[(# of children with IEPs served in separate schools,
residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements) divided by
the (total # of students aged 6 through 21 with IEPs)] times 100.
Target
To Be Determined by State Stakeholders Committee
Baseline Year
2004-2005
Additional Information
NA-District 34 and District 97
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
19
Educational Environment School Age 6-21 Drill Down Questions
1. Review the current reporting requirements for all the service codes, particularly the requirement that
LEAs report the percentage of time that a student is inside the regular classroom (not the percentage
of time the student is receiving special education).
2. Examine the placement options in actual use in your LEA for each disability group. Is there variability
in placements for each disability or do you see any instances of all students with the same disability
being served in exactly the same setting?
3. Use the same process using placement data by grade. Is the pattern of more restrictive settings seen
in some grades but not in others, or is the problem universal?
4. If you have multiple sites for each age group (elementary, middle, high school), examine the
placement data by site. Use multiple years of data in order to determine if IEP Team placement
decisions are being influenced differently in different schools.
5. Examine the reasons that students in more restrictive settings are placed in those settings. Are they
placed in self-contained programs because of behavior issues or because of educational need?
6. Describe the staff development that has taken place in the areas of:
a. diverse learners;
b. behavior management strategies including functional behavioral assessment and behavior
intervention plans;
c. instruction strategies, such as learning styles;
d. collaboration skills;
e. accommodations; and
f. assistive technology.
7. Inspect the physical plant at each facility to determine if there are access issues that prevent students
from participating with their typical peers.
8. Inspect staffing patterns to determine if sufficient supports for general education teachers are
available to support an inclusive environment.
9. Provide evidence that the decision-making process involved in IEPs was based on meaningful dialog
related to the opportunity for integrated placements for students.
10. Describe your LEAs standards (main beliefs) used to determine that the education of a child cannot be
achieved satisfactorily in the general classroom.
11. What are the impediments to a more inclusive environment for students with disabilities in your LEA?
Include only those over which you have some control. Examples include such things as teacher
attitude, administrative support, culture of collaboration, use of assistive technology, etc.
Additional Information:
If a districts status is not met on SPP5b, the district is required to conduct a self-review. The status of
SPP5b is WVDE Data Driven and can be changed based on the district’s review.
*Develop a written plan to remove impediments to serving students with disabilities with typically
developing peers to the maximum extent appropriate.
20
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
Improvement Plan
Explanation of Slippage,
if Appropriate
Actions Steps
Evaluation Component
Person/Group Responsible
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
21
Indicator 6
EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT - AGES 3-5
Results
LEA Determined
Indicator 6
Percent of children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs attending a:
A. Regular early childhood program and receiving the majority of special
education and related services in the regular childhood program, and
B. Separate special education class, separate school or residential
facility.
Measurement
A. Percent=[(# of children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs attending a
regular early childhood program and receiving the majority of special
education and related services in regular early childhood program)
divided by the (total # of children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs)] times
100.
B. Percent=[(# of children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs attending a
separate special education class, separate school or residential
facility) divided by the (total # of children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs)]
times 100.
Targets
To Be Determined by State Stakeholders Committee
Baseline Year
SY 2011-2012
Educational Environment School Ages 3-5 Drill Down Questions
1. Are services for children ages 3-5 inclusive regardless of socio-economic level and/or ability?
2. Are student placements appropriately determined by the IEP Team?
3. Review the current IEP minutes to ensure that all the calculations are accurately recorded for each
preschool student.
4. Is the student’s Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) code correctly entered in WVEIS?
5. Conduct a record review and review provider schedules to ensure that a true continuum of services is
available within the district to meet individual student needs.
6. Determine if children with mild articulation concerns can benefit from therapy with a group setting in
the Regular Early Childhood Program.
7. Review the numbers of children identified as Developmental Delay and Speech Language only to
determine if eligibility and placement options are being determined accurately.
*Develop a written plan to remove impediments to serving students.
22
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
Improvement Plan
Explanation of Slippage,
if Appropriate
Actions Steps
Evaluation Component
Person/Group Responsible
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
23
Indicator 7
EARLY CHILDHOOD OUTCOMES
Results
LEA Determined
Indicator 7
Percent of preschool children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs who
demonstrate improved:
A. Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships);
B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/
communication and early literacy); and
C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs.
Measurement
Summary Statements for Each of the Three Outcomes:
Summary Statement 1: Of those preschool children who entered or exited
the preschool program below age expectations in each Outcome, the
percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they
turned 6 years of age or exited the program.
Measurement for Summary Statement 1:
Percent= # of preschool children reported in progress category (c) plus #
of preschool children reported in category (d) divided by [# of preschool
children reported in progress category (a) plus # of preschool children
reported in progress category (b) plus # of preschool children reported in
progress category (c) plus # of preschool children reported in progress
category (d)] times 100.
Summary Statement 2: The percent of preschool children who were
functioning within age expectations in each Outcome by the time they
turned 6 years of age or exited the program.
Measurement for Summary Statement 2:
Percent= # of preschool children reported in progress category (d) plus
# of preschool children reported in progress category (e) divided by [(the
total # of preschool children reported in progress categories (a) + (b) + (c)
+ (d) + (e)] times 100.
Target
To Be Determined by State Stakeholders Committee
Baseline Year
2009-2010
Additional Information
Consider justification for another baseline year given transition to Child
Outcome Summary Form (COSF) only reporting through PreK Assessment
System.
Early Childhood Outcomes Drill Down Questions
1. Review WV Child Assessment system to ensure that all children with IEPs have data entered and
finalized at exiting for OSEP reporting.
2. Is there missing data? Data must be reported in all three outcomes areas. The system will only access
completed student profiles.
3. Determine if all speech only children are entered on the system for reporting. Is there missing data?
There must be data in all three outcomes areas for each student.
4. Do you have a routine supervisor/monitoring process in place to ensure the quality of the child
outcomes data is entered and student are exited from the program on a regular basis by individuals?
5. Is there a process for ensuring the completeness and accuracy of the data? Do you analyze the data
for accuracy (e.g., pattern checking, teachers have entered the students on the data platform).
*Develop a written plan to improve results for preschool children expectations in each outcome.
24
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
Improvement Plan
Explanation of Slippage,
if Appropriate
Actions Steps
Evaluation Component
Person/Group Responsible
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
25
Indicator 8
PARENT INVOLVEMENT
Results
LEA Determined
Indicator 8
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.
Measurement
Percent=[(# of respondent parents who report schools facilitated parent
involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with
disabilities) divided by the (total # of respondent parents of children with
disabilities)] times 100.
Target
To Be Determined by State Stakeholders Committee
Baseline Year
2005-2006
Additional Information
Consider survey content and how the survey is administered.
Parent Involvement Drill Down Questions
1. What are the method(s) you are currently using to inform and provide an understanding to all schoolbased personnel regarding the IDEA ’04 regulations on parental involvement? If training is provided,
identify who is responsible and the frequency of such training(s). Report on your methods of assessing
the program’s effectiveness and any follow-up activities/strategies that ensure knowledge acquisition
and application.
2. Review the system currently in place to assist personnel in developing and maintaining communication
with parents. List the specifics of your system including training (district-wide and school specific, if
you have multiple campuses), administrative support, materials, and resources. If there is not such
a system, complete a needs assessment and develop a system that will meet your district’s unique
needs.
3. Does the district have a parent liaison? If yes, what are his/her responsibilities? Address the pros and
cons of having such a position in your district.
4. Identify the various ways in which district personnel communicate with and involve parents in the
decision-making process. Include a discussion of all modes of communication.
• Include a discussion of all modes of communication (i.e., method and frequency) and projected
outcomes.
• Identify circumstances specific to students in special education (i.e., evaluation/reevaluation,
IEP development and review, suspension-including in-school suspension, and expulsion-those
circumstances specific to students in special education).
5. Review the district’s procedures regarding communication and parental involvement highlighting the
areas of strength and those in need of improvement in order to build and maintain a process that is
systemic and consistent.
6. What opportunities doe the district currently offer for parent training/information? If appropriate,
examine the opportunities at each level (elementary/middle/high school) and articulate the number of
parent participants, strengths, and possible needs determined. Develop a list of outside resources you
could use to provide informational/training opportunities for parents.
7. Report on how the district’s parent-teacher conferences integrate with the student’s special education
and related services.
8. How does your district handle parent complaints and/or disagreements? If there is not such a policy
or process in place, identify ways in which the district could structure, implement, and track such a
process, including a description and sequence of steps to be taken and personnel responsible.
26
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
9. Review all written documentation that the LEA gives to parents throughout the special education
process (meeting notices, PWN, evaluation reports, IEPs, etc.). Determine if documents are written at
a level appropriate to elicit parent response and involvement. Are all notices written in the language of
the parents or provided in another mode of communication?
10. Examine documentation related to meeting attendance. What is used to document parent participation
in various meetings? Are parents given adequate notice in order to attend? What efforts are made
within the LEA to schedule meetings to accommodate culturally and socio-economically diverse
groups of parents and their schedules and needs?
11. Determine the resource options your agency maintains in order to assist parents. How is this
information disseminated? What ongoing support to parents is provided? List the parent agencies/
groups used as resources (Parent Educator Resource Center).
12. What opportunities have been provided to LEA staff related to cultural and disability awareness?
Review how your agency has ensured staff involvement and ongoing staff support.
13. What methods are used to ensure ongoing communication with parents by school staff? Review your
agency’s policies and procedures for handling parent input, including concerns and disagreements.
Examine any issues that were not successfully resolved and determine alternative approaches that
could be used in the future.
*Develop a written plan for parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for students
with disabilities.
Improvement Plan
Explanation of Slippage,
if Appropriate
Actions Steps
Evaluation Component
Person/Group Responsible
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
27
Indicator 9
DISPROPORTIONALITY – ALL DISABILITIES
Indicator 9
(Target must be 0%)
Measurement
Compliance 0%
LEA Determined
Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and
ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of
inappropriate identification.
Weighted Risk Ratio will remain at [2.0] to identify districts for LEA level
review of policies, procedures, and practices.
Disproportionality Drill Down Questions
1. Examine your race/ethnicity enrollment in each disability category.
a. Which race/ethnicities have high enrollment in the ED, ID, OHI, SLI, Autism, or SLD categories?
b. Are there any ethnicities with unusually low enrollment in these disability categories?
2. Identify any possible variables that have contributed to overrepresentation of certain ethnicities in the
identified categories.
a. Examine closely your transfer student information and list students in each category who are
currently receiving services in your LEA but who were not identified by your education agency.
b. Are there any other mitigating circumstances that could help explain your data if your data
suggest that there is overrepresentation (e.g., consider the possibility that a high number of
group homes in your LEA may serve a particular category of students).
3. Describe the prereferral intervention procedures in each school in your agency. If the implementation
of the LEA’s procedures differ between schools, analyze the referral and identification rates for each
site and consider the impact of the prereferral processes on those numbers.
4. List below all cognitive, academic, and behavioral measures used to evaluate students for special
education placement.
5. After reviewing the above measures, answer the following questions:
a. Does your LEA have sufficient numbers of personnel with the proper training to administer and
interpret these assessments? If not, could this lack of either personnel or proper training have
led to overrepresentation?
b. After reviewing the assessment measures and their sampling data, discuss whether the
measures identified above are nonbiased and appropriate assessments for use with the
populations in question. In the event you found exceptions with either or both (a) and (b) above,
how will you correct the situation?
6. Describe the nature of training and the dates your education agency has provided training on such
matters as cultural awareness for minority populations, implications of poverty, for teaching and
assessment, minority assessment, etc., to personnel involved in prereferral, referral, evaluation, and
placement. How could there be improvements in this area?
7. Based upon your analyses and a finding of disproportionate representation of one or more minority
groups in your education agency as well as a belief that your data are justified, please describe the
factors which you believe have contributed to the overrepresentation?
*Develop a written plan where you have found unjustified disproportionality, what specific actions will
you take to address and correct the situation? Be specific and provide timelines for implementation of
corrective actions.
28
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
Improvement Plan
Explanation of Slippage,
if Appropriate
Actions Steps
Evaluation Component
Person/Group Responsible
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
29
Indicator 10
DISPROPORTIONALITY – SPECIFIC DISABILITIES
Compliance 0%
LEA Determined
Indicator 10
Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and
ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of
inappropriate identification.
Measurement
Weighted Risk Ratio will remain at [2.0] to identify districts for LEA level
review of policies, procedures, and practices
Disproportionality Drill Down Questions
1. Examine your race/ethnicity enrollment in each disability category.
a. Which race/ethnicities have high enrollment in the ED, ID, OHI, SLI, Autism, or SLD categories?
b. Are there any ethnicities with unusually low enrollment in these disability categories?
2. Identify any possible variables that have contributed to overrepresentation of certain ethnicities in the
identified categories.
a. Examine closely your transfer student information and list students in each category who are
currently receiving services in your LEA but who were not identified by your education agency.
b. Are there any other mitigating circumstances that could help explain your data if your data
suggest that there is overrepresentation (e.g., consider the possibility that a high number of
group homes in your LEA may serve a particular category of students).
3. Describe the preferral intervention procedures in each school in your agency. If the implementation of
the LEA’s procedures differ between school, analyze the referral and identification rates for each site
and consider the impact of the prereferral processes on those numbers.
4. List below all cognitive, academic, and behavioral measures used to evaluate students for special
education placement.
5. After reviewing the above measures, answer the following questions.
a. Does your LEA have sufficient numbers of personnel with the proper training to administer and
interpret these assessments? If not, could this lack of either personnel or proper training have
led to overrepresentation?
b. After reviewing the assessment measures and their sampling data, discuss whether the
measures identified above are nonbiased and appropriate assessments for use with the
populations in question. In the event you found exceptions with either or both (a) and (b) above,
how will you correct the situation?
6. Describe the nature of training and the dates your education agency has provided training on such
matters as cultural awareness for minority populations, implications of poverty for teaching and
assessment, minority assessment, etc., to personnel involved in prereferral, referral, evaluation, and
placement. How could there be improvements in this area?
7. Based upon your analyses and a finding of disproportionate representation of one or more minority
groups in your education agency as well as a belief that your data are justified, please describe the
factors which you believe have contributed to the overrepresentation?
*Develop a written plan where you have found unjustified disproportionality, what specific actions will
you take to address and correct the situation? Be specific and provide timelines for implementation of
corrective actions.
30
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
Improvement Plan
Explanation of Slippage,
if Appropriate
Actions Steps
Evaluation Component
Person/Group Responsible
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
31
Indicator 11
CHILD FIND
Compliance 100%
WVDE Determined
Indicator 11
Child Find
Percent of children who were evaluated within 80 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.
Additional Information
Policy 2419 change to the definition will exempt districts from state of
emergency, snow days and summer breaks which directly impede initial
evaluation timelines.
Measurement
A. Number of children whom parental consent to evaluate was received.
B. Number determined not eligible whose evaluations were completed
within the state established timeline.
C. Number determined eligible whose evaluations were completed within
the state established timeline.
Account for children included in A but not included in B or C. Indicate the
range of days beyond the timeline when the evaluation was completed
and any reasons for the delays.
Target
100% of students with written parental consent for initial evaluation have
evaluations completed within the 80-day timeline established by West
Virginia Policy 2419.
Description of System
After error data were corrected by the districts and the final June 2013
file was obtained by WVDE, the LEA data were filtered to remove the
following: 1) duplicate entries; 2) entries outside the FFY 2012; 3) entries
containing documented parental refusal to evaluate; 4) entries with no
parental consent; 5) students evaluated for the gifted program and 6)
students never evaluated due to acceptable Reason Codes 4 and 8. The
data were then sorted based on the total number of days from parental
consent to eligibility committee meeting. Those evaluations exceeding
80 days were sorted based on the reason entered by the district.
Students who were never evaluated due to Reason Codes 4 and 8 were
removed because they are acceptable reasons for exceeding the 80-day
timeframe.
Trend Data
2005-2013
Indicator 11 - Percentage of Eligibility Determination within Timelines
100
95.8%
95
90%
90
85
96.2%
97%
98%
97.3%
92.7%
82.5%
80
75
70
2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2006
Note:
32
Reason Code 4: Parent failed to produce student for evaluation or
interrupted the process.
Reason Code 8: Student no longer in local education agency (LEA).
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
Child Find Drill Down Questions
Identify all files with initial evaluations conducted within the past 12 months in which the timeline from
consent to eligibility determination exceeded 80 day timeline. Analyze these files to identify the root causes
of the failure to complete the evaluations within the timeline.
1. Does the LEA have a tracking systems that provides special education staff with the ability to follow the
progress of a student through the evaluation process in order to ensure that timelines are not missed
because of inattention to deadlines?
2. If staff availability or performance is evident as the cause of a delay, analyze the quantity and
qualifications of staff within the LEA to determine their ability to complete the evaluation process within
the timelines. Include an analysis of the ability to evaluate low incidence disability areas.
3. Determine if there has been an increase or decrease in the percentage of qualified and fully certified
staff over the last three years.
• If so, determine what factors contributed to that change.
• Identify activities in the areas of hiring, retentions, personnel development, and salary analysis
that the LEA has undertaken to improve staff percentages.
• Identify the number of unfilled evaluator positions in your LEA during the current school year.
• Examine the number of contracted evaluators, and how do these numbers impact the process?
4. Analyze your evaluation process, including the tracking system once a student has been referred for
an evaluation.
• Consider your process for the review of existing data.
• Examine the impact of caseloads on the process. Do you need additional staff or more explicit
agreements with contractors?
• Examine your process when the evaluation needs of a student exceed your staff’s area
of expertise or experience. Do you have ready sources to follow up on vision, hearing, or
behavioral concerns? Has the need for medical certification contributed to any delay?
*Develop a written plan of the conclusions related to the above analysis. Provide an explanation of how the
issues have been resolved so that sustainability is evident.
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
33
Improvement Plan
Explanation of Slippage,
if Appropriate
Actions Steps
Evaluation Component
Person/Group Responsible
34
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
Indicator 12
EARLY CHILDHOOD TRANSITION
Compliance 100%
WVDE Determined
Indicator 12
Percent of children referred by Part C prior to age 3, who are found
eligible for Part B, and who have an IEP developed and implemented by
their third birthdays.
Target
100% of children referred by their third birthday who are found eligible
must have an IEP developed and implemented.
Early Childhood Transition Drill Down Questions
1. Is there a tracking system for number of forms received, numbers or children determined eligible,
completing and submitting the Child Notification Forms received by the LEA to ensure that children
referred by Part C are determined eligible for special education services and have an IEP in place and
implemented by the child’s third birthday?
2. Is there a process for ensuring follow-up on ALL child notifications forms received by the LEA (i.e.,
phone contact, letter, brochure)?
3. Review WV Birth to Three process and procedures for accuracy and designation of activities to ensure
a smooth transition.
*Develop a plan to address children who did not have an IEP developed and implemented by their third
birthday and an explanation of how a system is in place so that sustainability is evident.
Improvement Plan
Explanation of Slippage,
if Appropriate
Actions Steps
Evaluation Component
Person/Group Responsible
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
35
Indicator 13
SECONDARY TRANSITION
Compliance 0%
WVDE Determined (Monitoring LEAs)
LEA Determined
Indicator 13
Percent of youth with IEPs aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes
appropriate measurable postsecondary goals that are annually updated
and based upon an age appropriate transition assessment, transition
services, including courses of study, that will reasonably enable the
student to meet those postsecondary goals, and annual IEP goals
related to the student’s transition services needs. There also must be
evidence that the student was invited to the IEP Team meeting where
transition services are to be discussed and evidence that, if appropriate,
a representative of any participating agency was invited to the IEP Team
meeting with the prior consent of the parent or student who has reached
the age of majority.
Target
Random student files reviewed must be 100% compliant with all required
components.
Measurement
Indicator 13 data will be obtained from student file review via onsite
monitoring and through the Annual Desk Audit process for LEAs receiving
no onsite monitoring in a given year.
Note: Documentation reflects secondary students’ files randomly selected by OSP for the Transition File
Review.
Secondary Transition Drill Down Questions
Review all files of students 16 years of age and older to determine each cause for noncompliance related
to the required postsecondary components. All of the following must be addressed:
1. Review current IEP forms to determine if they facilitate and document compliance of all the required
components that support the articulated postsecondary goals and if the planning will reasonably
enable the student to meet the postsecondary goals.
The required components include:
• Documentation that the student who is at least 16 years of age, or younger if appropriate, was
invited to the IEP meeting.
• Documentation of measurable postsecondary goals in the areas of education/training,
employment, and where appropriate, independent living skills.
• Documentation of annual IEP goal(s) that will reasonably enable the student to meet the
postsecondary goals.
• Documentation of one or more transition services/activities that focus upon improving the
academic and functional achievement of the student to facilitate movement from school to postschool pursuits as identified in the measurable postsecondary goals.
• Evidence that consent has been attained from the parent (or student who has reached the age
of majority) if a representative of another agency that is likely to provide and/or pay for transition
services has been invited to the meeting.
• Documentation that the postsecondary goals were based upon age-appropriate transition
assessment(s).
• Documentation of courses of study that focus on improving the academic and functional
achievement of the student to facilitate the movement from school to post-school experiences.
• Documentation that the measurable postsecondary goals were updated annually.
2. Determine if there is any inconsistency in the levels of compliance between school sites. If so, identify
specific factors that may have contributed to the number of compliant or noncompliant student files at
each site. Is it a site-specific compliance issue or a district-wide issue?
3. Examine the involvement of personnel in transition planning and development. Has the LEA
designated one or more individuals to assume this responsibility? Describe the manner in which LEA
staff communicate with each other across departments in relation to transition planning. Also, describe
the manner in which the LEA has interacted with the assigned Specialist and/or Secondary Transition
Specialist. If no working relationships have been established, outline the steps you will take to ensure
such a partnership.
36
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
4. Analyze and document the level of knowledge of the special education staff regarding the required
components.
• Determine if the LEA staff is knowledgeable about the procedures necessary for completing all
of the transition components.
• Examine the years of experience of the staff in working with students 16 years of age and older.
• Identify the number and types of trainings, conferences, and course work in which staff has
participated outside of the LEA.
• List the professional development opportunities related to transition offered within the LEA.
• Determine if the staff responsible for the required components have attended available
professional development opportunities.
5. Determine if the LEA has identified transition resources, including age-appropriate transition
assessments. List those resources currently being used and develop a list of other possible resources
that could facilitate transition planning.
6. Document your conclusions related to the above analysis. Provide an explanation of how the issues
have been resolved so that sustainability is evident.
• Are students with disabilities trained in and utilizing self-advocacy?
• Are transition assessments, including students’ individual interests, preferences and vocational/
academic aptitudes considered and documented?
• Are work-based learning experiences and postsecondary goals aligned with classroom
instruction for students with disabilities.
*Develop a written plan for correction of all child specific findings, with specific timelines for correction.
Improvement Plan
Explanation of Slippage,
if Appropriate
Actions Steps
Evaluation Component
Person/Group Responsible
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
37
Indicator 14
POST SCHOOL OUTCOMES
Indicator 14
Results
LEA Determined
Percent of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect
at the time they left school, and were:
A. Enrolled in higher education within one year of leaving high school.
B. Enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within one
year of leaving high school.
C. Enrolled in higher education or in some other postsecondary
education or training program; or competitively employed or in some
other employment within one year of leaving high school.
Post School Outcomes Drill Down Questions
1. What supports are available to ensure the participation of students with disabilities in the world of work,
i.e., supported work, day programs, work crews, factory work?
2. How does your data compare to the State target?
3. Do the data vary significantly based on student race/ethnicity, on students age/grade level or special
education eligibility category?
4. 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?
5. Has the data show any significant changes over time?
*Develop a written plan to address improvement in post school outcomes for students with disabilities.
Improvement Plan
Explanation of Slippage,
if Appropriate
Actions Steps
Evaluation Component
Person/Group Responsible
38
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
WV Self-Assessment Section II
WV 1: FULL INSTRUCTIONAL DAY
Compliance 100%
WV 1: 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.
Full Instructional Day Drill Down Questions
1. Are students with disabilities receiving a full school day?
2. Are buses transporting students with disabilities arriving later than those transporting students without
disabilities?
3. Are buses transporting students with disabilities departing earlier than those transporting students
without disabilities?
4. Are student with exceptionalities provided individualized education program (IEP) services for a full
school calendar year?
Note: Exceptional students’ school day must begin and end at the same time as non-exceptional students’
school day. Any exceptions must have a valid doctor’s order.
Data Sources:
Current bus schedules transporting students with disabilities.
Current bell schedules for every school. (Must have start and stop times).
Current school year’s calendar.
Doctor’s orders for students with disabilities who attend on a shortened day.
Improvement Plan
Explanation of Slippage,
if Appropriate
Actions Steps
Evaluation Component
Person/Group Responsible
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
39
WV 2: CLASSROOM LOCATION
WV 2: Provide classrooms to eligible school age students with disabilities in close proximity to classrooms
for age appropriate non-exceptional peers that are adequate and comparable to the classrooms of nonexceptional students.
Classroom Location Drill Down Questions
1. Are special education classrooms located in close proximity to same age non-exceptional peers?
2. Are special education classrooms located on the appropriate floor as required for the specific age/
grade configuration of non-exceptional peers?
3. Are special education classrooms of adequate size?
4. Do special education classrooms meet the requirements of Policy 6200?
5. Are special education classrooms provided furnishings, equipment and technology comparable to
general education classrooms?
Data Sources:
School Schematics (must include square footage of each classroom).
Results of School Visits.
Previous monitoring findings on facilities issues.
Note:
Policy 6200:
Section 404.03 Indicates the location for Kindergarten classes be on ground floor with easy access to an
entrance not generally used by older children.
Section 405.03 Indicates if the building is a multiple-story structure, the first grade shall be assigned to
the ground level floor. Waivers to this requirement of policy require districts to secure an approved plan by
their Regional State Fire Marshal.
Section 701.02 All classrooms for students with exceptionalities shall be 1) located within the main facility,
2) located in close proximity to classrooms for age-appropriate non-exceptional peers and 3) easily
accessible to cafeteria, library and other central activities.
Improvement Plan
Explanation of Slippage,
if Appropriate
Actions Steps
Evaluation Component
Person/Group Responsible
40
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
WV 3: ON-GOING AWARENESS CAMPAIGN
WV 3: The district shall conduct an on-going awareness campaign that informs the agencies, organizations
and other individuals of the nature of exceptional students, the availability of special education and related
services, and the persons to contact for initiating a referral.
On-going Awareness Campaign Down Analysis
1. Does the district maintain a comprehensive approach to conduct an awareness campaign?
2. Does the district maintain copies of announcements and/or publications provided through multiple
mediums?
Data Sources:
Media Release
Distribution Lists
Training Agendas With Attendance Rosters
Pamphlets and Other Materials
Improvement Plan
Explanation of Slippage,
if Appropriate
Actions Steps
Evaluation Component
Person/Group Responsible
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
41
WV 4: SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE
Compliance 100%
WV 4: Prior to a student exiting as a result of graduation with a standard diploma or when the student
reaches age of twenty-one, the student is provided with a summary of his or her academic achievement
and functional performance, including recommendations on how to assist the student in meeting his or her
post secondary goals.
Note:
Districts will review files of recent graduates/exiting seniors to verify the Summary of Performance Report
is in their file. A random sample of student files consists of minimum of 10 students files selected across all
special education categories. If the graduating/exiting class is less than 10, all files must be reviewed.
Data Sources:
List of Graduating Seniors
File Review Summary of Recent Graduates and/or Copies of the Summary of Performance for Exiting
Seniors.
Improvement Plan
Explanation of Slippage,
if Appropriate
Actions Steps
Evaluation Component
Person/Group Responsible
42
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
WV 5: SPECIAL EDUCATION GROUPINGS
Compliance 100%
WV 5: Students with exceptionalities shall be provided services in settings that serve age-appropriate nonexceptional peers and must be grouped based upon meeting the students’ similar social, functional and/or
academic needs.
Special Education Grouping Drill Down Analysis
1. Are students provided instruction in educational settings with same age peers?
2. Are students provided instruction on the Next Generation CSOs and Next Generation Alternate
Academic Achievement Standards in different settings?
3. Are students grouped for instruction with similar social, functional and academic needs?
4. Are teachers providing instruction in multiple core content subjects during one instructional period?
Data Sources
WVEIS Report: WVP.245E WV Audit Enrollment History (Determines students placed appropriately due to
age).
Per Instructional Period Roster
WVEIS Print Teacher Rolls SCH.538 (Middle and High School – (Elementary When Available)
WVEIS Condensed Master Schedule by Teacher AOS.920
Per Instructional Period Teacher Made Schedules (Elementary Level Only When WVEIS Report
Unavailable).
Review teacher schedules to ensure appropriate groupings of SWD are based on similar social, functional
and/or academic needs.
Improvement Plan
Explanation of Slippage,
if Appropriate
Actions Steps
Evaluation Component
Person/Group Responsible
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
43
WV 6: FILE REVIEW
Compliance 100%
WV 6: IEPs are written to include all required components.
Data Sources:
General File Review Checklist
Transition File Review Checklist
Discipline File Review Checklist
Improvement Plan
Explanation of Slippage,
if Appropriate
Actions Steps
Evaluation Component
Person/Group Responsible
44
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
WV 7: CASELOAD
Compliance 100%
WV 7: The district maintains required caseload limits.
Caseload Drill Down Analysis
1. Are teacher rosters per instructional period for direct service in the special education environment
within allowable limits as required by Policy 2419?
2. Are case management caseloads within allowable limits as required by Policy 2419?
3. Are speech pathologist caseloads within allowable limits as required by Policy 2419?
Data Sources:
WVEIS Caseload Report
Per Period Instruction Period Roster
WVEIS Print Teacher Rolls SCH.538 (middle and high school)
WVEIS Condensed Master Schedule by Teacher AOS.920
Per Instructional Period Teacher Made Schedules (Elementary Only)
WVEIS Student Schedules
Improvement Plan
Explanation of Slippage,
if Appropriate
Actions Steps
Evaluation Component
Person/Group Responsible
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
45
WV 8: DISCIPLINE
Compliance 100%
WV 8: The district implements the required procedures when a student with a disability is removed from
school for disciplinary reasons beyond ten (10) cumulative days.
Discipline Drill Down Analysis
1. Have administrator’s received training in policies and procedures related to the discipline of special
education students?
2. What action has the district taken to train administrators in alternative options to suspension of student
with disabilities?
3. Has staff received training in how to conduct functional behavior assessments (FBA) and develop
appropriate behavior intervention plans (BIPs)?
4. Are BIPs targeted to address the specific behavior that lead to the suspension of students?
5. Are BIPs being implemented appropriately with supportive documentation?
6. Has the district supported the School-Wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Support Program? If
so, what changes have occurred as a result?
7. How does your data compare to the State target?
8. Does the data vary significantly based on student race/ethnicity?
9. Does the data vary significantly based on student age/grade level?
10. Does the data vary significantly based on student special education category?
11. Does the performance level reflect a system problem (e.g., involves multiple classrooms, buildings,
providers, personnel changes, or processes) or is it attributable to specific buildings, providers or
groups of students?
12. Has the data show any significant changes over time?
Data Resources
District Special Education Data Profile
Most Recent 10th Month Discipline Report
Discipline File Review Checklists
Discipline Flow Chart
Improvement Plan
Explanation of Slippage,
if Appropriate
Actions Steps
Evaluation Component
Person/Group Responsible
46
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
WV 9: SERVICE VERIFICATION
Compliance 100%
WV 9: Each public agency must provide special education and related services to a student with
exceptionality in accordance with an individualized education program (IEP).
Service Verification Down Analysis
1. Do IEPs and student schedules align?
2. Are IEPs implemented as written?
3. Are general education and service providers informed of their responsibilities with regard to IEP
implementation?
4. Does the availability of services and personnel dictate IEP Team decisions?
5. How do schools develop schedules to ensure IEP implementation and the continuum of services?
Data Sources:
WVEIS Student Schedules
General File Review Checklists
Related Service Provider Log/Lesson Plans
WVEIS Condensed Master Schedule by Teacher AOS.920
Improvement Plan
Explanation of Slippage,
if Appropriate
Actions Steps
Evaluation Component
Person/Group Responsible
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
47
WV 10: FAMILY EDUCATION RIGHTS AND PRIVACY ACT (FERPA)
Compliance 100%
WV 10: Collect, maintain and disclose personally identifiable student data in accordance with state and
federal confidentiality requirements.
FERPA Down Analysis
1. How are all personnel informed for their responsibilities with regard to Policy 4350 and FERPA?
2. Do personnel maintain access logs in student files?
3. Are access labels or sheets listing personnel having access to student records posted on or near file
cabinets?
Data Sources
Copy of Annual Notice to Parents
Countywide Policy 4350 Training/FERPA
Agenda
Attendance Roster
Verification of Access Lists
Access Logs
Improvement Plan
Explanation of Slippage,
if Appropriate
Actions Steps
Evaluation Component
Person/Group Responsible
48
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
Fiscal Management and Monitoring Procedures for all
IDEA Funds
IDEA funds are provided for the excess cost of special education and related services for students
with disabilities. IDEA funds are intended to supplement, not supplant state and local funds. The
Education Department of General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR), Parts 76 and 80 and Office
of Budget and Management (OBM) Circulars A-87 and A-133 set forth the funding application and
fiscal management requirements for state and subgrantees (LEA) receiving federal education funds.
Compliance supplements to the OMB Circulars and IDEA regulations further clarify requirements
specific to IDEA funds. The WVDE monitors local educational agencies (LEA), who are subgrantees,
using the following processes to ensure requirements are met. The following pages provides
information which are used for the monitoring procedures.
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
49
1900 Kanawha Boulevard, East, Building 6
Charleston, WV 25305
http://wvde.state.wv.us
Date
Special Education Director
County Schools
Address
City, State Zip Code
RE: Single Desk Audit
Dear Special Education Director:
Each local education agency (LEA) meeting the funding threshold for an A-133 single
audit of IDEA funds is audited annually by independent auditors. The audit reports and
the LEAs corrective action plans for correcting any audit findings are submitted to the
West Virginia Department of Education (WVDE) for review and approval by the Office of
Special Programs (OSP) and Office of School Finance. Audit Findings must be corrected
by September 30 of the next fiscal year (e.g., FY13 findings are corrected by September
30, 2014). The OSP monitoring teams review audit reports and verify correction of audit
findings during on-site monitoring visits.
(County Schools) received its A-133 audit on (Date). The audit report included identified
findings related to the special education program, and recommendations for correction,
which must be corrected on or before (Date). The OSP will verify that (County Schools) has
corrected each finding identified in the audit report.
If (County Schools) is scheduled for a Compliance Monitoring Review, or a Prong 2
correction visit the OSP will verify correction of the audit findings during the desk review
or on-site.
Sincerely,
CPA Coordinator
Office of Special Programs
EducateWV
Enhancing Learning. For Now. For the Future
50
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
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 expends funds for allowable costs in accordance with a WVDE-approved application
and subsequent approved budget revisions. The LEA maintains the same level of expenditure for students
with disabilities from year to year (maintenance of effort) to ensure IDEA funds supplement and do not
supplant state and local funds.
Policy Citation
Probe Questions
Data Sources
IDEA, 34 CRF §300.16;
§300.202 and §300.203.
Does the LEA spend the
calculated per pupil amount
spent for all students,
displayed in the Excess
Cost screen within the LEA
Application for Entitlement
Funds, for the education
of students with disabilities
before it spends IDEA funds?
LEA Application for
Entitlement Funds Special
Education Compliances
Component (Excess Cost
and Maintenance of Effort)
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?
Agency Status
Met
Not Met
Comparison of two years’
LEA expenditure data from
WVEIS following fiscal year
closing (or comparison of
other documentation for
LEAs not in WVEIS)
Comparison of approved
budget and Expenditures in
Project Financial Reports
Special Education Director/
Chief School Business
Official interviews during
onsite monitoring
Did the LEA expend IDEA
funds in accordance with the
approved budget or budget
revision?
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
51
PROCUREMENT
The LEA follows Policy 8200 procurement procedures (including policies specific to equipment) that
ensure the appropriate director/supervisor of the special education program has internal control for
developing and approving purchases
Policy Citation
Probe Questions
Data Sources
EDGAR §80.36
Policy 8200
Does the Special Education
Director approve all purchase
orders for expenditures from
IDEA funds?
Purchase Orders
Invoices
Agency Status
Met
Not Met
Record of goods received
(packing slip)
Does the date of the purchase
order indicate approval prior to Record of Expenditure
the date of the invoice?
LEA Application
Did the OSP give prior
Itemization of Equipment or
approval for any equipment
purchase of $5,000 or greater? subsequent written approval
from OSP
Audit Reports
Special Education Director/
Chief School Business
Official interviews during
onsite monitoring
The LEA has a policy/procedure for awarding contracts that ensures the appropriate director/supervisor of
each federal program has internal control for developing and awarding contracts.
Policy Citation
Probe Questions
Data Sources
EDGAR §80.36(b)(3)
Policy 8200
Does the Special Education
Director approve all contracts/
agreements for services paid
from IDEA funds?
Contracts/agreements
Does the date of the contract/
service agreement indicate
approval prior to the date of
the invoice?
Did the contractor submit
documentation of services
when invoicing for payment?
52
Documentation of hours
worked/Invoices
Agency Status
Met
Not Met
Record of expenditures
Audit Reports
Special Education Director/
Chief School Business
Officer interviews during
onsite monitoring
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
The LEA maintains an updated equipment list and adequate controls to account for the location, custody
and security of equipment purchased with IDEA funds.
Policy Citation
Probe Questions
Data Sources
EDGAR §80.36 (b)
General Education
Provisions Act
(GEPA),Section 443
Does the LEA maintain an
updated equipment list,
including a description, serial
number, acquisition date,
funding source, purchase
price, location use and
condition?
Equipment inventory
Does the LEA maintain
adequate controls to account
for the location, custody
and security of equipment
purchased with IDEA funds?
Does the LEA follow Policy
8200 requirements for disposal
of equipment?
Documentation /written
procedures for disposal of
equipment
Agency Status
Met
Not Met
Documentation/written
procedures for lost or stolen
equipment
Observation of tagged items
Evidence of procedures for
tracking equipment (e.g.
sign out process)
Has LEA conducted a physical
inventory within the past two
years?
PERSONNEL
Policy Citation
Probe Questions
Data Sources
OMB Circular A-87
Are FTE employees consistent
with the approved budget/
application?
LEA application
Where employees are funded
100% with a single federal
award, does the LEA have on
file certifications signed and
dated by the employee and/or
supervisor that the employees
worked solely on that program
for the period covered by
semi-annual time and effort
document?
Semi-annual time and effort
forms PAR (hourly) time and
effort forms
Agency Status
Met
Not Met
Monitoring
Where work on multiple
activities (cost objectives)
funded from different sources,
is the distribution of their
salaries/wages supported
by hourly time and effort
documentation signed
by the employee and/or
supervisor, with review and
pay adjustments occurring
quarterly as appropriate and
annually?
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
53
PROPORTIONATE SHARE FOR STUDENTS PARENTALLY PLACED IN PRIVATE SCHOOLS
The LEA follows the IDEA and Policy 2419 requirement to spend a proportionate amount of IDEA school
age and preschool funds for students with disabilities parentally placed in private schools.
Policy Citation
Probe Questions
Data Sources
IDEA
Policy 2419
Does the LEA conduct child
find and maintain a count
of all eligible students with
disabilities attending private
schools within the jurisdiction
of the LEA?
Child find documentation
(letters, newspaper notices,
record of eligible students,
including those not currently
receiving services, student
files)
Did the LEA conduct the
required consultation process
with representatives of all
private schools and parents
of private school students to
determine the plan for child
find and equitable private
school services?
Completed and signed
consultation form(s) for
appropriate year (FY10
includes ARRA)
Does the LEA plan reflect
services determined through
consultation as evidenced by
the LEA plan and individual
student Service Plans?
Does the IDEA budget include
the correctly calculated
amount coded within the
WVEIS system to enable
tracking of funds (program/
function code 51510)?
Are funds remaining at the end
of the fiscal year carried over
and expended the following
year for private school
students as appropriate within
the grant award period?
Agency Status
Met
Not Met
Plan for providing services
LEA application
Service Plans for private
school students
Documentation of services
Project Financial Reports
reviewed for correct amount
budgeted and amount
Expended in the fiscal year
and carryover year
Approved budget revision
Special Education Director
interview
For expenditure of remaining
funds, did LEA receive
approval for a budget revision
to transfer from 51510?
54
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
The LEA follows Policy 2419 requirements for planning and implementing coordinated early intervening
services.
Policy Citation
Probe Questions
Data Sources
IDEA, 34 CFR §300.226
Policy 2419
Was the LEA required to
reserve 15 % of IDEA funds for
CEIS or is the LEA voluntarily
implementing a CEIS plan
approved within the LEA
application?
Notification letter
If so, are funds being
expended in accordance with
the plan?
Review of Project Financial
Reports for expenditures
Is each student without
disabilities receiving CEIS
being indicated as such
within the WVEIS record and
are students being tracked
for the subsequent two years
to determine whether they
become identified as students
with disabilities?
Documentation review and
possible focused monitoring
for districts required to
reserve funds.
LEA online plan, budget
and CEIS report
Agency Status
Met
Not Met
WVEIS student records and
tracking report
Special education director/
staff interviews during
cyclical on-site monitoring
Does district data correspond
to the report submitted to
OSP within the online Special
Education Plan?
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
55
Self-Assessment Student File Review
Instructions
Student file reviews are an essential component of the monitoring process. Student file reviews
assist the team in determining the system’s strengths and weaknesses with the implementation
of IDEA and applicable state policies, practices and procedures. An annual file review must be
conducted and results reported to the Stakeholder Committee. The LEA will conduct a random file
review utilizing the sampling rules as described below. The LEA shall provide an explanation of
the process used in ensuring a random selection. In the event a LEA does not have any students
in a certain category, an alternate file will be selected based on the proportion of categories in the
special education population.
The individual student file review protocol provides the LEA with an assessment tool to be used
during the data collection process of the DSA. Results of the file protocol reviews will be used to
respond to the self-assessment process.
Three specific file reviews are to be conducted:
1. General File Reviews
2. Transition File Reviews: The random file review must include transition files. In addition, when a
LEA is selected for a compliance monitoring review, the OSP conducts a review of a sample of
transition files and reports the data in the SPP Indicator 13.
3. Discipline File Reviews: A file review must be completed on all students with disabilities removed
from school for more than ten (10) cumulative days for disciplinary reasons.
The file sample is 1% of the special education enrollment with a minimum of fifteen (15) student files
and a maximum of forty (40) student files. Files shall be randomly selected across programmatic
levels (elementary, middle, secondary) and proportionate to the population by category. In addition
to the general file review, transition and discipline files must be reviewed. Discipline procedures
and practices will be reviewed through completion of the Discipline File Review protocol for students
with disabilities suspended for greater than ten (10) school days or expelled from school. The chart
below provides the file sampling rule.
File Review Procedures
District Enrollment
(Students with Exceptionalities)
General
Transition
Indicator 13
Discipline
A (0-1500): All counties with the exception
of those listed below as Category B or C.
15
10
Max. 10
B (1501-2000): Cabell, Harrison, Putnam
and Wood.
20
15
Max. 10
C (2001-3000): Berkeley and Kanawha.
25
20
Max. 10
General file review: 1) One-third from each programmatic level; 2) across all exceptionalities; and 3)
at least two (2) initial EC/IEP.
56
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
File Reviews
General File Review Instructions
Open the General File Review PDF and either print or prepare to use the document digitally by
entering the following information as it is documented on the IEP under review.
1. Review Date
2. Reviewer
3. District
4. Student Name
5. IEP Date
6. Exceptionality
7. Age
8. School
9. Date of Birth
10.IEP Grade
11.WVEIS ID number
Select the IEP Type under review.
1. Initial
2. Annual
3. Reevaluation
4. Other
Begin the file review by completing the Meeting Notice questions MN1 thru MN4.
1. Yes = Compliant
2. No = Not Compliant
Answer the question GS1
1. Yes = Compliant
2. No = Not Compliant
3. N/A = Not applicable or required within this IEP at this time
Answer each IEP specific questions for items IEP1 thru IEP4.
1. Yes = Compliant
2. No = Not Compliant
3. N/A = Not applicable or required within this IEP at this time
The transition file review is incorporated into the general file review which should be completed
regardless of student age for items TR1 thru TR10.
1. Yes = Compliant
2. No = Not Compliant
3. N/A = Not applicable or required within this IEP at this time
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
57
The reviewer will read the Present Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance
(PLAAFP) statement before answering IEP5 thru IEP7.
1. Yes = Compliant
2. No = Not Compliant
Before reviewing IEP annual goals, first select the number of goals to be reviewed. The criteria for
selecting the number of goals is as follows:
1. Examine the IEP to determine the number of areas for which goals have been developed;
2. Review one goal from each goal area (exceed 4);
3. For each goal, enter only the section determined noncompliant into the appropriate text area
verbatim (Timeframe, Condition, Behavior, Criteria and Procedure);
4. For all sections of the goal, click Y or N to indicate section compliance; and
5. For all IEP items 8 thru 11, choose the goal number as it corresponds to the IEP document.
EXAMPLE:
1. The IEP in review has annual goals developed for Reading, Writing, Behavior, Math, and
Functional Skills.
2. Since the maximum number of goals to review is four, select four areas to review.
3. Review the first goal for each of the selected areas to review:
a. One goal for reading;
b. One goal for writing;
c. One goal for behavior; and
d. One goal for math.
4. The review will exclude at least one of the goal areas since there are more than 4 addressed
in the IEP.
Complete the IEP section by answering IEP12 and IEP13.
1. Yes= Compliant
2. No= Not Compliant
3. N/A =Not applicable or required within this IEP at this time
The SR section is for indicating compliance relating to IEP supplemental aids and services, special
services and/or related services. SR1-5 are optional as are SR11-15. These optional items should
only be left unanswered if the IEP does not address supplemental aids and/or related services. SR610 are mandatory for all IEPs.
1. Yes= Compliant
2. No= Not Compliant
3. N/A =Not applicable or required within this IEP at this time
58
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
To complete the compliance questions relating to assessments, AS1 and AS2, indicate participation
in the Statewide Assessment, if appropriate, by choosing Y, N or N/A following guidelines provided
on the file review protocol. Additionally choose Y, N or N/A for student IEPs requiring an APTA
justification statement following the guidelines provided on the file review protocol.
1. Yes= Compliant
2. No= Not Compliant
3. N/A =Not applicable or required within this IEP at this time
The least restrictive environment (LRE1 thru LRE4) is required for all IEPs and should be completed
in full.
1. Yes= Compliant
2. No= Not Compliant
3. N/A =Not applicable or required within this IEP at this time
Item GS2 must be answered for all IEPs. N/A is not acceptable.
1. Yes= Compliant
2. No= Not Compliant
Eligibility items (EL1 thru EL4) are to be answered only if an eligibility committee meeting was
convened on the date of the current IEP or within one year prior to the current IEP.
1. Yes= Compliant
2. No= Not Compliant
3. N/A =Not applicable or required within this IEP at this time
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
59
60
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
GS1
MN4
MN3
Chapter 5
Section 3.B
IDEA §300.324
(a)(6)
 YES
 YES
Yes= Parent response to invitation is recorded or
documentation of reasonable (2 or more) attempts
to contact the parent is documented. The district
documented parent response/options.
No= Parent response not recorded or insufficient
documentation of attempts or the district did not
consider parent response/options.
Yes= IEP amendment addresses required components and
evidence the parent was provided a copy.
No= The amendment does not address required
components; no evidence parent provided a copy of
the IEP.
N/A= No amendment was attached to the IEP.
Parent Invitation
IEP Amendment
 YES
Procedural Safeguards
Reason for Meeting/Invited
Members
MN2
Yes= One of the boxes indicating method of delivery must
be checked on meeting notice or other evidence of
procedural safeguard provided to the parent.
No= The box was not checked and no other evidence of
procedural safeguard provided to the parent.
 YES
Yes= The meeting purpose and applicable subtype is
selected. The meeting purpose is aligned with required
members.
No= The appropriate meeting purpose was not selected or
the required members did not align with the meeting.
Chapter 10
Section 2.B
IDEA §300.504
 YES
 NO
 NO
 NO
 NO
 NO
 N/A
Item Key IEP - General Requirements
LRE - Placement
TR - Transition
EL - Eligibility
GS - General Supervision
SR - IEP Services
AS - Assessments
MN - Meeting Notice
Yes= 8 day Notice observed or waived per documentation.
No= 8 day Notice not observed or documentation to waive
notice not available.
Criteria
 Other
8 Day Notice
Compliance Item
 Re-Eval
WVEIS #
School
Exceptionality
District
MN1
ITEM
Authority
Grade
Date of Birth
 Annual
Age
Last Name
 Initial
IEP Date
First Name
IEP Type
Reviewer
General File Review
Review Date
Reset Form
WVDE August 2014
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
61
 YES
Yes= At least one year before the student turned 18, the
student and parent were informed that rights under
Part B will transfer on 18th birthday. Documentation
found in file and/or student initials found on IEP.
No= Was done after 17th birthday OR no documentation.
N/A= Was not required because student is less than 17 years
of age.
ESY Services
Parent and student are
informed prior to the
students 18th birthday of
transfer of educational rights
Chapter 5
Section 2.F
IDEA §300.320
(c)
Chapter 5
Section 1.F.4.c
IDEA §300.321
(7)(b)(3)
IEP3
IEP4
TR1
(Note, may need to
review previous IEPs or
other documentation for
consent.)
Parent or adult student
provided permission to
invite the agency(ies) to the
transition IEP meeting
 YES
Yes= ESY services are related to the critical skills identified
in the previous IEP or IEP team determined need.
No= ESY services are not related to the critical skills
identified in the previous IEP or IEP team determined
needs.
N/A= Student does not need ESY.
Chapter 5
Section 2.H
IDEA §300.106
IEP2
Yes= Parent or adult student consent was obtained prior
to district invitation of agencies providing transition
services.
No= Parent or adult student consent was not obtained prior
to district invitation of agencies providing transition
services.
N/A= IEP states no agency is needed at this time or student
was 14 years of age or younger as of the date of the
IEP.
NOTE: For CD only students: speech therapist may
serve as the district representative.
Chapter 5
Section 1.D
IDEA §300.321
(a)(2)(3)
 YES
 YES
Yes= Documentation of attendance at meeting or
written agreement, signed by parent and district
representative, indicating excusal was approved with
input from the excused member. (In Lieu of Attendance
form)
No= Documentation of attendance and/or procedurally
correct excusal form was unavailable.
The IEP Team consists of:
• General education
teacher of the student,
• Special education
teacher of the student,
and
• Representative of the
district (administrator
or designee qualified
to provide or supervise
special education)
IEP1
 YES
Yes= IEP was reviewed within 365 days (e.g., April 5 to
April 5).
No= IEP not reviewed within 365 days.
N/A= Initial IEP only.
The current IEP has been
reviewed within one year
from the date of the previous
IEP.
Criteria
Chapter 5
Section 1.C
IDEA §300.324
(b)(3)(1)
Compliance Item
Authority
ITEM
 NO
 NO
 NO
 NO
 NO
 N/A
 N/A
 N/A
 N/A
62
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
 YES
 YES
 YES
 YES
Yes= The IEP contains at least one appropriate
postsecondary goal in the area of education or training
that is:
• Measurable;
• Founded in Present Level; and
• Supported by assessment results.
No= The IEP does not contain a postsecondary goal in the
area of education or training the goal is not measurable
or the goal does not align with present levels of
performance and assessment results.
N/A= Student was 14 years or younger as of the date of the
IEP.
Yes= The IEP contains at least one appropriate
postsecondary goal in the area of employment that is:
• Measurable
• Founded in PL and
• Supported by assessment results
No= The IEP does not contain a postsecondary goal in the
area of employment, the goal is not measurable or the
goal does not align with present levels of performance
and assessment results.
N/A= Student was 14 years or younger as of the date of the
IEP.
Yes= The IEP contains at least one appropriate
postsecondary goal in the area of independent living
that is:
• Measurable;
• Founded in Present Level; and
• Supported by assessment results.
No= The IEP does not contain a postsecondary goal in the
area of independent living, the goal is not measurable
or the goal does not align with present levels of
performance and assessment results.
N/A= An independent living goal is not appropriate for the
student.
There is an appropriate
measurable postsecondary
goal that addresses
education or training after
high school.
There is an appropriate
measurable postsecondary
goal that addresses
employment after high
school.
If needed, there is an
appropriate measurable
postsecondary goal that
addresses independent
living.
IDEA §300.321
(7)(b)(3)
IDEA §300.320
(b)(1)
IDEA §300.320
(b)(1)
IDEA §300.320
(b)(1)
TR2
TR3
TR4
TR5
Criteria
Yes= Documentation that notice was sent to agency
representatives or signature of agency representative
on the IEP.
No= No documentation that the notice was sent to agency
Agency representatives were
representatives nor was there signature of agency
invited to transition meeting
representative on the IEP.
N/A= Statement or other evidence that no agency(s)
identified at this time or student was 14 years of age or
younger as of the date of the IEP
Compliance Item
Authority
ITEM
 NO
 NO
 NO
 NO
 N/A
 N/A
 N/A
 N/A
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
63
 YES
 YES
 YES
 YES
Yes= Courses of study are indicated by Pathway and Cluster
and are aligned to the postsecondary goals.
No= No Pathway or Cluster selected and/or not aligned to
the postsecondary goals.
N/A= Student was 14 years or younger as of the date of the
IEP.
Yes= File contains the student’s invitation to the IEP meeting
or the student signature was on the IEP.
No= File does NOT contain the student’s invitation to the IEP
meeting.
N/A= Student was 14 years or younger as of the date of the
IEP.
Yes= At least one area is indicated by checking an
appropriate box and is connected to at least one
annual goal.
No= No area has been selected and/or it is not connected
to at least one annual goal.
N/A= Student was 14 years or younger as of the date of the
IEP.
Yes= At least one or more activities/linkages are addressed
by selection of the party responsible and a description
of services to be provided.
No= No activity/linkage has been addressed by selecting
the party responsible and/or the description of
services to be provided is not present.
N/A= Student was 14 years or younger as of the date of the
IEP.
Transition services include
courses of study that will
enable the student to meet
postsecondary goal(s).
There is evidence that the
student was invited to the
IEP meeting.
There are annual IEP goal(s)
related to the student’s
transition services needs?
There are transition services
in the IEP that will reasonably
enable the student to meet
his or her post-secondary
goals.
IDEA §300.320
(b)(2)
IDEA §300.321
(b)(1)
TR7
TR8
TR9
TR10
Transition
Comments
 YES
Postsecondary goal(s) are
based on age appropriate
transition assessments.
Criteria
IDEA §300.320
(b)(1)
TR6
Compliance Item
Yes= The file contains documentation that age appropriate
transition assessment(s) were used to develop
student’s postsecondary goals.
No= The file does NOT contain documentation that age
appropriate transition assessment(s) were used to
develop student’s postsecondary goals.
N/A= Student was 14 years or younger as of the date of the
IEP.
Authority
ITEM
 NO
 NO
 NO
 NO
 NO
 N/A
 N/A
 N/A
 N/A
 N/A
64
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
 YES
Yes= Articulate gaps between student’s grade level
expectations and his or her demonstrated
performance.
No= Does not articulate gaps between student’s grade
level expectations and his or her demonstrated
performance.
Yes= DOES NOT include language that predetermines
placement.
No= Does include language that predetermines placement.
Yes= The IEP contains at least one targeted objective from
the standards.
No= The IEP does not contain at least one targeted
objective from the standards.
N/A= The IEP area of need selected is an access skill which
does not target any specific standard objective.
Present Levels: Performance
Gaps
Present Level Statement
DOES NOT include
language which might
be considered as a
predetermination of
placement.
Targeted standard selected
from one of the following:
NxGen Content Standards,
Nx Gen Essential Elements,
Early Learning Standards
Framework, CTE Content
Skill Sets, Nx Gen Learning
Skills and Technology Tools
Progress Reporting to
Parents
Critical Skills
Chapter 5
Section 2.D
Chapter 5
Section 2.D
Chapter 5
Section 2.D
Chapter 5
Section 2.D
Chapter 5
Section 2.D
IEP7
IEP7.1
IEP7.2
IEP 8
IEP 9
Present
Levels
Comments
 YES
Yes= Written in objective, measurable terms and easy-tounderstand non- technical language.
No= Not written in objective, measurable terms and easy-tounderstand non-technical language.
Communication of Present
Levels
Chapter 5
Section 2.D
IEP6
 YES
 YES
Yes= The IEP specifies How and When the progress toward
the IEP annual goals and objectives will be reported to
the parent.(as frequently as typical peers)
No= The IEP does not specify How and/or When the
progress toward the IEP annual goals and objectives
will be reported to the parent.
Yes= The IEP contains at least one critical skill.
No= The IEP does not contain at least one critical skill
N/A= The student is Gifted
 YES
 YES
 YES
Present Levels: Impact
Statement
Criteria
Chapter 5
Section 2.D IDEA
§300.320 (1)(i)
IEP5
Compliance Item
Yes= Present levels include how the disability affects
involvement/ progress in general curriculum. (If
preschool, how disability affects participation in
appropriate activities.)
No= Present levels do not include how the disability affects
involvement/ progress in general curriculum.
Authority
ITEM
 NO
 NO
 NO
 NO
 NO
 NO
 NO
 N/A
 N/A
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
65
 Y
 Y
 Y
N/A
N/A
IEP10
 N
 N
 N
 N
 Y
 N/A
 N/A
 N/A
 Y  N
N/A = No goal written
N/A
Annual
Goals
 Y
 Y
 Y
IEP11
 N
 N
 N
 N
 Y
 N/A
 N/A
 N/A
 Y  N
N/A = No goal written
No = Not stated or does
not describe specially
designed instruction
necessary for the student
to perform the behavior.
Yes = identifies the
circumstances under which
the behavior will occur and
the specially designed
instruction necessary for
the student to perform the
behavior.
Yes = Timeframe included
and does not exceed one
year.
No = Not included or
exceeds one year.
Conditions
Timeframe
 Y
 Y
 Y
IEP12
 N
 N
 N
 N
 Y
 N/A
 N/A
 N/A
 Y  N
N/A = No goal written
 Y
 Y
 Y
IEP13
 N
 N
 N
 N
 Y
 N/A
 N/A
 N/A
 Y  N
N/A = No goal written
No = Not stated or does
not specify the expected
amount of growth
Yes = Specifies the
expected amount of growth
or level of performance
(how much, how often and
to what standards) required
to achieve the goal.
Yes = Stated in positive
terms, the behavior refers
to observable, measurable
actions the student will
perform.
No = Not stated or does
not state in positive terms
with the behavior in
observable, measurable
terms.
Evaluation Criteria
Behavior
 Y
 Y
 Y
IEP14
 N
 N
 N
 N
 Y
 N/A
 N/A
 N/A
 Y  N
N/A = No goal written
No = Not stated or does
not Identify the specific
evaluation method(s)
required to determine
whether the goal/objective
has been attained.
Yes = Identifies the specific
evaluation method(s)
required to determine
whether the goal/objective
has been attained.
Evaluation Procedure
SUPPLEMENT
SPECIAL
66
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
 YES
 YES
 YES
 YES
 YES
Yes= Special Services location(s) are identified
No= Special Services location(s) are NOT identified
Yes= A specific quantitative amount of time or a
specific description of instructional/environmental
circumstances.
No= Amount of time or circumstance is not specific.
Yes= Initiation date is not less than 5 days after the IEP Team
meeting date AND includes month, day and year.
No= Initiation date is less than 5 days after the IEP Team
meeting date and/or does not include month, day and
year.
Yes= Duration date must include month and year
No= Duration date is missing month and/or year
Special Services: Location
Special Services: Extent/Frequency
Special Services : Initiation Date
Special Services: Duration Date
SR7
SR8
SR9
SR10
Supplementary Services: Duration
Date
SR5
Yes= Appropriate special services are identified or justified
within the Present Level narratives.
No= Special Services are not identified or justified within the
Present Level narratives.
 YES
Yes= Duration date must include month and year
No= Duration date is missing month and/or year
N/A= No Supplemental Services Listed
Supplementary Services : Initiation
Date
SR4
Special Services: Identified
 YES
Yes= Initiation date is not less than 5 days after the IEP Team
meeting date AND includes month, day and year.
No= Initiation date is less than 5 days after the IEP Team
meeting date and/or does not include month, day and
year.
N/A= No Supplemental Services Listed
SR6
 YES
SR3
Supplementary Services: Location
SR2
Yes= A specific quantitative amount of time or a
specific description of instructional/environmental
circumstances.
No= Amount of time or circumstance is not specific.
N/A= No Supplemental Services Listed
 YES
Yes= Supplementary Services is a location within the GEE
No= Supplementary services are not identified as GEE
N/A= No Supplemental Services Listed
Supplementary Services: Identified
SR1
Supplementary Services: Extent/
Frequency
 YES
Yes= Appropriate supplementary services are identified or
justified within the Present Level narratives.
No= Supplementary services are not identified or justified
within the Present Level narratives.
N/A= No Supplemental Services Listed
Criteria
Compliance Item
ITEM
 NO
 NO
 NO
 NO
 NO
 NO
 NO
 NO
 NO
 NO
 N/A
 N/A
 N/A
 N/A
 N/A
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
67
Servivice
Comments
RELATE
 YES
 YES
Yes= Initiation date is not less than 5 days after the IEP Team
meeting date AND includes month, day and year.
No= Initiation date is less than 5 days after the IEP Team
meeting date and/or does not include month, day and
year.
N/A= No related services listed
Yes= Duration date must include month and year
No= Duration date is missing month and/or year
N/A= No related services listed
Related Services : Initiation Date
Related Services: Duration Date
SR14
SR15
 YES
Related Services: Location
SR12
SR13
 YES
Yes= Related Services location(s) are identified
No= Related Services location(s) are NOT identified
N/A= No related services listed
Related Services: Identified
SR11
Yes= A specific quantitative amount of time or a
specific description of instructional/environmental
circumstances.
Related Services: Extent/Frequency
No= Amount of time or circumstance is not specific.
N/A= No related services listed
 YES
Yes= Appropriate related services are identified or justified
within the Present Level narratives.
No= Related services are not identified or justified within the
N/A= Present Level narratives.
No related services listed
Criteria
Compliance Item
ITEM
 NO
 NO
 NO
 NO
 NO
 N/A
 N/A
 N/A
 N/A
 N/A
68
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
IDEA §300.320
(a)(6)
AS1
Assessment
Comments
AS2
Authority
ITEM
 YES
 YES
Yes= Student’s IEP contains a justification statement as to
why student is not being administered WESTEST2
No= Student selected for APTA with no justification
N/A= Student selected for participation in WESTEST2 or in
grades PreK through 2
Statewide (All WV MAPS)
APTA justification statement
Criteria
Yes= Testing condition is indicated as either standard or
with accommodations and selected accommodations
are aligned with IEP services and or Present Levels of
Academic and Functional Performance.
No= Testing condition is not indicated as either standard or
with accommodations and/ or “With Accommodation”
was selected but no accommodation selected that is
aligned with IEP Present Levels and/or Services
N/A= No selection made. (Is only permissible for PreK
through Grade 2 students)
Compliance Item
 NO
 NO
 N/A
 N/A
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
69
EL4
EL3
EL2
EL1
ITEM
GS2
ITEM
LRE4
LRE3
LRE2
LRE1
ITEM
Criteria
Placement: Percentage
of Time
Placement Options
(LRE Code)
IDEA §300.320
(a)(4)
IDEA §300.320
(a)(4)
Criteria
Appropriate procedures not followed (See Policy 2419, Ch.4 Section 2)
N/A=
consistent with
eligibility criteria
Initial or Reevaluation not addressed within the previous 365 days.
contained in the evaluation report(s).
No=
documentation
Yes=
IDEA §300.306
Initial or Reevaluation not addressed within the previous 365 days.
Eligibility determination is supported by, and consistent with, the information
N/A=
in the evaluation report(s).
Chapter 4
Evaluation
No=
No evidence that noted areas of concern were evaluated and documented
(c)(4)
Evaluation Procedures
documented in the evaluation report(s).
Evidence that noted areas of concern have been evaluated and are
IDEA §300.304
Yes=
Initial or Reevaluation not addressed within the previous 365 days.
information
No evidence of parental input
N/A=
developmental
evidence of attempts made to obtain parental input for evaluation.
No=
relevant functional/
eligibility and gathering
used in determining
Parent signature on eligibility document, evidence of parental input, or
Initial or Reevaluation not addressed during the current school year.
N/A=
Yes=
Appropriate procedures not followed (See Policy 2419, Ch.3 Section 3.B.)
reevaluation
Parent input was
days latency)
No=
initial evaluation or
Signed consent form on file with date preceding initial evaluation.(For
“N/A”, or Blank fields
team as documented within the IEP.
Addresses all required components and justifies the action taken by the IEP
Criteria
reevaluation, at least 3 documented contact attempts with no less than 30
Yes=
No=
Yes=
Not an Initial IEP
IEP implementation.
District/agency did not obtain parental consent for initial placement prior to
No=
N/A=
An inappropriate or no LRE Code is selected.
District/agency obtained parental consent for initial placement.
No=
Parental consent for
Compliance Item
Prior Written Notice
Compliance Item
Parental Consent
Percentage of time not indicated.
An appropriate placement option (LRE Code) is selected.
Yes=
Yes=
childhood program.)
Chapter 4
(1)(i)
IDEA §300.305 (a)
Chapter 4
IDEA §300.300
Chapter 4
Authority
(a)(6)
IDEA §300.324
3. B
Chapter 5 Section
Authority
(b)(2)
2.K IDEA §300.300
Initial Placement:
Yes=
Chapter 5 Section
100% GEE
Percentage of time in special education and general education is indicated
N/A=
No=
Does not explain the extent
exceptional students.
(a)(5)
(For students 3-5 must also include hours per week in regular early
extracurricular or other non-academic activities.
No=
participation with non-
2.J IDEA §300.320
Explains the extent, if any, to which the student will not participate in
the general education classroom, the general education curriculum, or
Yes=
Placement: Extent of
Compliance Item
Chapter 5 Section
Authority
 YES
 YES
 YES
 YES
 YES
 YES
 YES
 YES
 YES
 NO
 NO
 NO
 NO
 NO
 NO
 NO
 NO
 NO
 N/A
 N/A
 N/A
 N/A
 N/A
 N/A
Eligibility Comments
LRE Comments
Discipline File Review Instructions
The discipline file review is to be conducted for students with disabilities that have 10 or more
accumulated days of suspension during the current school year.
Open the Discipline File Review PDF and either print or prepare to use the document digitally by
entering the following information as it is documented on the IEP under review.
1. Review Date
2. Reviewer
3. District
4. Student Name
5. IEP Date
6. Exceptionality
7. Age
8. School
9. Date of Birth
10.IEP Grade
11.WVEIS ID number
Complete the file review by completing the discipline questions DC1 thru DC7.
1. Yes= Compliant
2. No= Not Compliant
3. N/A =Not applicable or required within this IEP at this time
70
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
71
Criteria
WVEIS #
School
Exceptionality
District
 YES
 YES
Yes= If school personnel determined the removal was a change of
placement: 1. The MDR was held within 10 school days, 2.
parents were notified in writing of the MDR meeting, and the
MDR team included the student’s parent, an individual from
the school district who is knowledgeable about the student
and interpretation of the behavior and any relevant members
of the IEP Team, as determined by the parent and the school
district and 3. all pertinent information in the student’s file,
including the student’s IEP, any teacher observations, and
any relevant information provided by the parents which has
been reviewed.
No= If school personnel determined the removal was a change of
placement and one or more of the “Yes” criteria was not met.
N/A= School personnel determined the removal was not a change
of placement.
Procedural Safeguards Change
of Placement
Manifestation Determination
procedures Change of
Placement
Chapter 7
Section 2.B
Chapter 7
Section 2.C
DC2
DC3
Yes=
If school personnel determined the removal was a change
of placement, did the parent receive all of the following: 1.
same day written notice of the removal,2. Prior Written Notice
(PWN) and 3. the procedural safeguards?
No= If school personnel determined the removal was a change
of placement and the parent did not receive 1. same
day written notice of the removal, 2. PWN and/or 3. the
procedural safeguards.
N/A= School personnel determined the removal was not a change
of placement.
 YES
Determination Change of
Placement
Chapter 7
Section 2
DC1
Yes= On the Manifestation Determination Review form, either the
change of placement or not a change of placement box is
checked.
No= On the Manifestation Determination Review (MDR) form,
neither the change of placement or not a change of
placement box is checked.
Grade
Date of Birth
Compliance Item
Age
Last Name
Authority
IEP Date
First Name
ITEM
Reviewer
Discipline Review Checklist
Review Date
Reset Form
WVDE July 2013
 NO
 NO
 NO
 N/A
 N/A
72
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
Not a manifestation of the
student’s disability
Teacher consultation
Positive behavior supports and
intervention
Chapter 7
Section 2.C
Chapter 7
Section 2.C
Chapter 7
Section 2.C
DC5
DC6
DC7
Discipline
Comments
Manifestation of the student’s
disability
Compliance Item
Chapter 7
Section 2.C
Authority
DC4
ITEM
 YES
 YES
 YES
 YES
Yes= If school personnel determined the removal was a
manifestation: 1. a Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA)
was administered and 2.a Behavior Improvement Plan (BIP)
was developed or an existing BIP was reviewed and revised,
as needed, to address the current
behavior(s); and 3. the student was returned to the previous
placement (except drugs, weapons or serious bodily injury
removals) unless the parent and district mutually agreed to
change the student’s placement.
No= If school personnel determined the removal was a
manifestation and one or more of the above “Yes” criteria was
not met.
N/A= School personnel determined the removal was not a
manifestation.
Yes= If school personnel determined the removal was not a
manifestation; 1. disciplinary action was administered, 2.
an IEP was developed that specifies educational services
enabling the student to continue to participate in the general
curriculum, although in another setting, and to progress
toward IEP goals; and 3. an FBA and BIP, as appropriate, to
address the behavior violation.
No= If school personnel determined the removal was a
manifestation and one or more of the above “Yes” criteria was
not met.
N/A= School personnel determined the removal was not a
manifestation.
Yes= For each subsequent removal beyond 10 cumulative school
days that is not a change of placement school personnel,
in consultation with at least one teacher of the student,
determined the extent services were needed to enable the
student to continue to participate in the general education
curriculum, although in another setting, and to make progress
toward IEP goals.
No= If school personnel determined the removal was not a
change of placement and one or more of the “Yes” criteria
was not met.
N/A= School personnel determined the removal was a change of
placement.
Yes= The student’s file provides evidence that 1. positive behavior
supports and interventions have been considered in IEP
development ( present levels of performance, goals services
and/or BIPs); and/or 2. are imbedded in the school-wide
positive system of supports for all students.
No= The student’s file does not provide evidence that positive
behavior supports and interventions have been considered
in IEP development ( present levels of performance, annual
goals services and/or BIPs); and/or are integrated in the
school-wide positive system of supports for all students.
Criteria
 NO
 NO
 NO
 NO
 N/A
 N/A
 N/A
Transition File Review Instructions
Open the Transition File Review PDF and either print or prepare to use the document digitally by
entering the following information as it is documented on the IEP under review.
1. Review Date
2. Reviewer
3. District
4. Student Name
5. IEP Date
6. Exceptionality
7. Age
8. School
9. Date of Birth
10.IEP Grade
11.WVEIS ID number
The transition review incorporates elements which should be completed to meet federal compliance
standards.
1. Yes= Compliant
2. No= Not Compliant
3. N/A = Not applicable or required within this IEP at this time
If any one item on the transition file review checklist is rated as “NO”, it will result in a finding of
noncompliance.
Note: The transition review begins with IEP1. This item is required for overall compliance.
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
73
74
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
Agency representatives were
invited to transition meeting
There is an appropriate
measurable postsecondary goal
that addresses education OR
training after high school.
IDEA §300.320
(b)(1)
TR3
TR1
IDEA §300.321
(7)(b)(3)
Parent or adult student provided
permission to invite the
agency(ies) to the transition IEP
meeting
(Note, may need to review
previous IEPs or other
documentation for consent.)
Chapter 5
Section 1.F.4.c
IDEA §300.321
(7)(b)(3)
TR2
The current IEP has been
reviewed within one year from
the date of the previous IEP.
Chapter 5
Section 1.C
IDEA §300.324
(b)(3)(1)
IEP1
Criteria
WVEIS #
School
Exceptionality
District
 YES
 YES
Yes= The IEP contains at least one appropriate postsecondary
goal in the area of education or training that is:
• Measurable
• Founded in Present Levels, and
• Supported by assessment results
No= The IEP does not contain a postsecondary goal in the area
of education or training or the goal is not measurable or the
goal does not align with present levels of performance and
assessment results.
 YES
 YES
Yes= Documentation that notice was sent to agency
representatives or signature of agency representative on the
IEP.
No= No documentation that the notice was sent to agency
representatives nor was the signature of agency
representative on the IEP.
N/A= Statement or other evidence that no agency(s) identified at
this time or student was 14 years of age or younger as of the
date of the IEP.
Yes= Parent or adult student consent was obtained prior to district
invitation of agencies providing transition services
No= Parent or adult student consent was not obtained prior to
district invitation of agencies providing transition services.
N/A= IEP states no agency is needed at this time or student was 14
or younger.
Yes= Within 365 days (e.g., April 5 to April 5)
No= IEP date exceeds 365 days
N/A= Initial IEP only
Grade
Date of Birth
Compliance Item
Age
Last Name
Authority
IEP Date
First Name
ITEM
Reviewer
Transition File Review Checklist
Review Date
Reset Form
WVDE July 2013
 NO
 NO
 NO
 NO
 N/A
 N/A
 N/A
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
75
 YES
 YES
 YES
 YES
 YES
 YES
Yes= The IEP contains at least one appropriate postsecondary
goal in the area of employment that is:
• Measurable
• Founded in Present Levels and
• Supported by assessment results
No= The IEP does not contain a postsecondary goal in the area
of employment, the goal is not measurable, or the goal does
not align with present levels of performance and assessment
results.
Yes= The IEP contains at least one appropriate postsecondary
goal in the area of independent living that is:
• Measurable
• Founded in Present Levels, and
• Supported by assessment results
No= The IEP does not contain a postsecondary goal in the area
of independent living, the goal is not measurable or the
goal does not align with present levels of performance and
assessment results.
N/A= An independent living goal is not appropriate for the student.
Yes= The file contains documentation that age appropriate
transition assessment(s) were used to develop student’s
postsecondary goals.
No= The file does NOT contain documentation that age
appropriate transition assessment(s) were used to develop
student’s postsecondary goals.
Yes= Courses of study are indicated by Pathway and Cluster and
are aligned to the postsecondary goals.
No= No Pathway or Cluster selected and/or not aligned to the
postsecondary goals.
Yes= File contains the student’s invitation to the IEP meeting or the
student signature was on the IEP.
No= File does NOT contain the student’s invitation to the IEP
meeting.
Yes= At least one area is indicated by checking an appropriate
box and is connected to at least one annual goal.
No= No area has been selected and/or is not connected to at
least one annual goal.
Yes= At least one or more activities/ linkages are addressed
by selection of the party responsible and a description of
services to be provided.
No= No activity/ linkage has been addressed by selecting the
party responsible and/or the description of service(s) to be
provided is not present.
There is an appropriate
measurable postsecondary goal
that addresses employment
after high school.
If needed, there is an
appropriate measurable
postsecondary goal that
addresses independent living.
Postsecondary goal(s) are
based on age appropriate
transition assessments.
Transition services include
courses of study that will
enable the student to meet
postsecondary goal(s).
There is evidence that the
student was invited to the IEP
meeting.
There are annual IEP goal(s)
related to the student’s transition
services needs?
There are transition services
in the IEP that will reasonably
enable the student to meet his
or her post-secondary goals.
IDEA §300.320
(b)(1)
IDEA §300.320
(b)(1)
IDEA §300.320
(b)(1)
IDEA §300.320
(b)(2)
IDEA §300.321
(b)(1)
TR4
TR5
TR6
TR7
TR8
TR9
TR10
TR
Comments
 YES
Criteria
Compliance Item
Authority
ITEM
 NO
 NO
 NO
 NO
 NO
 NO
 NO
 N/A
Service Verification Instructions
The Service Verification checklist is used to confirm schedules of students with exceptionalities
match the service minutes listed on the IEP. Randomly select no fewer than 3 IEP files of differing
exceptionality from each school.
Open the Service Verification Checklist PDF and either print or prepare to use the document digitally
by entering the following information as it is documented on the IEP under review.
1. Review Date
2. Reviewer
3. District
4. Student Name
5. IEP Date
6. Exceptionality
7. Age
8. School
9. Date of Birth
10.IEP Grade
11.WVEIS ID number
Next indicate compliance by selecting Y or N following the guidelines provided on the file review
protocol answering questions SV1 for each student.
1. Yes= Compliant
2. No= Not Compliant
76
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
77
SV
Comments
First Name
SV1
ITEM
Review Date
Compliance Item
Reviewer
DOB
(mm/dd/yyyy)
(mm/dd/yyyy)
IEP Date
Age
Grade
Exceptionality
WVEIS #
School
Yes= Student and service provider’s schedule align with
specially designed minutes as indicated on the IEP.
No= The student and/or service provider’s schedule do not
align with specially designed minutes as indicated on
the IEP.
Criteria
District
Service Verification Checklist
Specially designed service(s) are
delivered as written on the IEP.
Last Name
Authority
Reset Form
WVDE July 2013
 NO
 NO
 NO
 YES
 YES
 YES
Indicator 4A and 4B LEA Discipline Review
The protocol is used by a LEA when identified by the OSP as having a significant discrepancy in
suspension and expulsion. The protocol may serve to review either 4A and/or 4B data. The 4A is a
review of the LEA’s policies, procedures and practices that are used in suspensions and expulsions
of students with disabilities for greater than ten (10) days in a school year compared to students
without disabilities, and 4B is a review of LEA policies, procedures and practices for suspensions
and expulsions of greater than ten (10) days in a school year among children with disabilities which
reveals a significant discrepancy by race/ethnicity.
78
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
79
SPP 4B - The rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than ten days in a school year for students with disabilities in an LEA by race/ethnicity
reveals a significant discrepancy greater than the State established bar (3.28).
�
4) Individualized Education Programs (IEPs)
5) Positive Behavior Supports and Interventions
6) Procedural Safeguards
West Virginia Department of Education
July 2013
1
Adapted from NY State Education Department
File Review for Indicators 4A/4B
Determination of Compliance: Y (Yes) or N (No). A notation of Y indicates the district is in compliance with the specific regulatory requirement. A notation
of N indicates the district is not in compliance with the specific regulatory requirement. Compliance for some issues may be determined solely on the review of
individual student records. Instances of compliance noted for fewer than 100 percent of the records reviewed must be determined as noncompliant. For other
issues, the State must consider additional sources of documentation as indicated on the protocol. The team will carefully review findings from all documentation
and evidence to make a determination of compliance for each area reviewed. The deficiencies identified as a result of the State’s review and subsequent
compliance determination on the Annual Desk Audit (ADA) must be targeted in the district’s improvement plan.
Documentation and Evidence: For each area, the form provides a specific list of documentation (information to look at) and evidence (information to look for)
which must be considered in the State’s review of the district’s policies, procedures and practices.
1) West Virginia Education Information System (WVEIS) Data Entry Verification
2) General Procedures for Disciplinary Removals
3) Comparative Analysis of Suspension Data by Special Education Status or Race/Ethnicity
Instructions for Completing the Reviews: The State will conduct a review of policies, procedures and practices pertaining to the development and
implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports and the provision of procedural safeguards for any district identified as
having a significant discrepancy in the rate of suspension and expulsion as defined in SPP Indicators 4A and 4B. Specifically, the review will be completed on
a minimum of five (5) files of students suspended for greater than ten (10) days or expelled, unless the district’s suspension data indicate fewer than five (5)
students were suspended for greater than ten (10) days in a given year. This document establishes the protocol by which the review of the following areas will
be conducted:
SPP 4A - The rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than ten days in a school year for students with disabilities in an LEA reveals a significant
discrepancy greater than the State established bar (3.28).
�
Review required for:
District & School____________________________________________ WVEIS#___________________ Date of Review: ___________________________
Student/Disability/Race______________________________________ Review Completed By: ________________________________________________
State Review of Policies, Procedures and Practices
Significant Discrepancy in Suspension and Expulsion
Indicators 4A & 4B
80
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
West Virginia Department of Education
July 2013
2
Findings of Noncompliance
Description of specific issues of noncompliance in policy, procedures and /or practices:
6. On what date did the 11th cumulative day of removal occur?
5. Has Policy 4373 been followed specific to the application of appropriate consequences for inappropriate
behaviors?
4. Does the discipline record entered match the attendance record?
3. Are discipline offense and action codes (consequences) accurate (i.e., standard WVEIS codes)?
2. Have all disciplinary actions resulting in a removal from the bus for a student with transportation services on the
IEP been entered in the WVEIS?
Policy Requirements –
1. Have all disciplinary actions resulting in a removal from the classroom setting been entered in the WVEIS?
File Review for Indicators 4A/4B
Date:
Determination of Compliance
Yes
No
N/A
Evidence
Look for:
� Match between WVEIS student discipline and attendance records
� Accurate reporting of discipline codes and action/duration codes
WVEIS Data Entry Verification- The student’s attendance and discipline records must be reviewed for accuracy and to determine whether
or not school personnel appropriately applied the discipline procedures outlined in the IDEA and Policy 2419, Chapter 7.
Documentation
Look at:
� Student’s Records
� Student’s WVEIS Discipline Record
� Student’s WVEIS Attendance Record
I.
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
81
West Virginia Department of Education
July 2013
3
4. Was a manifestation determination review conducted within 10 school days of the decision to change the
student’s placement as a result of a disciplinary action?
� Parents were notified in writing of the meeting.
� The team includes the student's parent, an individual from the school district who is knowledgeable about
the student and interpretation of behavior and any relevant members of the IEP Team as determined by
the parent and the school district.
� All pertinent information in the student’s file including the student’s IEP, any teacher observations and any
relevant information provided by the parents has been reviewed.
3. If school personnel determined the removal was a change of placement, was the parent provided same day
written notice of the removal, PWN and the procedural safeguards?
2. Did school personnel determine whether a change of placement occurred?
If the decision was that the removal was a change of placement, proceed to #3.
If the decision was that the removal was not a change of placement, proceed to #6.
File Review for Indicators 4A/4B
Evidence
Look for:
� Same-day parent notification of disciplinary actions, procedural
safeguards & PWN
� Determination of change of placement decision or documentation
of consultation with a teacher when not a change of placement
� Completed Manifestation Determination Reviews, FBAs, BIPs
� Implementation of positive behavior supports and interventions
Determination of Compliance
Policy Requirements Yes
No
N/A
1. Have school personnel considered any unique circumstances on a case-by-case basis when determining
whether or not a change of placement has occurred for a student with a disability who violates a code of
student conduct (i.e., greater than 10 consecutive days, or a series of removals that constitute a pattern that
totals more than 10 cumulative school days in a school year, etc).
General Procedures for Disciplinary Removals
The district’s policies, procedures and practices must be reviewed to ensure the rights of students with disabilities under IDEA are protected specific to
disciplinary actions taken by school principals and superintendents.
Documentation
Review student’s special education record for the school year(s) specified based
on the type of review required.
II.
82
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
West Virginia Department of Education
July 2013
4
Findings of Noncompliance
Description of specific issues of noncompliance in policy, procedures and/or practices:
8. Did the IEP Team consistently revise the IEP to address continued impeding behavior(s), when appropriate?
7. Were positive behavior supports and interventions implemented, as appropriate? The student’s file provides
evidence that positive behavior supports and interventions:
o have been considered in IEP development ( present levels of performance, annual goals services
and/or BIPs); and/or
o are imbedded in the school-wide positive system of supports for all students.
6. For each subsequent removal beyond 10 cumulative school days that was not a change of placement, did
school personnel, in consultation with at least one teacher of the student, determine and document the extent
to which services are needed to enable the student to continue to participate in the general education
curriculum, although in another setting, and to progress toward meeting the IEP goals?
b. If the conduct was not a manifestation of the student’s disability, the IEP Team
o applied the disciplinary action, which may include relevant disciplinary procedures applicable to
students without disabilities;
o convened an IEP Team to develop an IEP that specifies the educational services to enable the
student to continue to participate in the general curriculum, although in another setting, and to
progress toward IEP goals; and
o provided a FBA and BIP, as appropriate, to address the behavior violation so that it does not occur.
a. If the conduct was a manifestation of the student’s disability, the IEP Team
o conducted a FBA and developed a BIP, if one has not been completed; or
o reviewed the existing BIP and revised, as needed, to address the current behavior(s); and
o returned the student to the placement from which the student was removed (except drugs, weapons or
serious bodily injury removals) unless the parent and district mutually agreed to change the student’s
placement.
5. Did the manifestation determination review form document the following decisions of the team (i.e., the school
district's failure to implement the IEP or the behavior had a direct and substantial relationship to the student’s
disability)?
File Review for Indicators 4A/4B
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
83
West Virginia Department of Education
T:Compliance/Indicators/4a and 4b Review Form 7-2013
July 2013
5
Describe your process for conducting the manifestation review and addressing the
student’s behavioral needs.
Describe your process for determining whether a series of short-term suspensions
constitutes a pattern of removal and ultimately, a change of placement.
What steps do you take when a student is nearing or has reached the 11th day threshold
for OSS?
What did you find? Were there any trends in the data by dispensation of the number of
days of suspension, types of suspension (ISS/OSS), consequences or number of days
by race/ethnicity or SWD and SWOD?
Explain your system for documenting and tracking disciplinary offenses and
consequences.
Have you had an opportunity to look at your data by prevalence (e.g., offense codes,
number of days suspended, types of consequences, ISS, OSS) when disaggregated by
race/ethnicity and students with disabilities (SWD) and students without disabilities
(SWOD)?
Is this process different for students with disabilities? If yes, describe the difference(s).
How does a student with an individual behavior plan fit into the aforementioned schoolwide plan for creating a positive school climate?
What is your process for preventing and/or reducing inappropriate behavior in your
school?
Questions and Points of Discussion for Personnel Interviews:
Discuss your school-wide plan for creating a positive school climate.
Interview the following individuals individually or collectively, if available:
� Principal(s) responsible for discipline Teachers
� Central Office Staff
Counselors
III. Interviews (as needed)
File Review for Indicators 4A/4B
List the names and positions of personnel interviewed:
_________________________________ _____________________
_________________________________ _____________________
_________________________________ _____________________
Summary of Responses
Indicator 5B Special Education: Separate Class
This is a performance indicator for which WVDE has established targets through the SPP that must
be met by the district. Districts exceeding the target must review a sample of IEPs and WVEIS
records of all students placed in the Special Education Environment - Separate Class (SEE-SC).
84
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
85
Other ___
Is the student’s Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) correctly entered in WVEIS. Data
entry errors could result in the over reporting of students with an LRE of 2.
Review the student’s Individualize Education Program (IEP). Are all the calculations
on the placement page correct?
Review the student’s IEP Service page. Does the Services page accurately reflect the
location of services? (i.e., GEE/SEE)
Review the students’ IEP present level and goals pages. Do the annual goals and
present levels of educational performance substantiate the level of need for services
as delineated on the Services page?
Review the student’s evaluation data. Were all relevant evaluation data utilized to
ensure consideration for placement was appropriate?
Comments
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Rating
September 2010 On the district level, to ascertain if categorical disabilities automatically result in an LRE of 2, summarize this finding in a statement. Retain all documentation in
the preparation for further review.
�
�
�
�
�
Probe Questions
Instructions: The individual student file review form provides district/agencies with an assessment tool to be used during the data collection process of the
Comprehensive Self-Assessment Desk Audit (CSADA). The district must summarize file reviews in a manner which provides a tally for each compliance standard
to respond to the CSADA Indicator SPP5 b. The rating scale is: Y = yes N = no NA = not applicable.
Annual Review ___
Birth Date: _____________________Reviewer: _____________________________
School: __________________________________________________________
IEP: Initial ___
Exceptionality: ___________________________Date of Review: _______________
Student Name: ___________________________________________________
SPP 5b Least Restrictive Environment File Review Checklist
SPP9 and SPP10 Disproportionality File Review Checklist
The file review checklist is used by a LEA having disproportionate overrepresentation based on
race/ethnicity. The purpose of the checklist is to assist LEAs in determining whether inappropriate
identification has occurred through the examination of general and special education policies,
procedures, and practice. The SPP9 and SPP10 Indicators are specified as compliance indicators
which may result in a finding during the Annual Desk Audit (ADA) process.
State Performance Plan Indicator 9 – Disproportionality All Disabilities
The WVDE identifies LEAs with data showing disproportionate representation of racial/ethnic groups
in special education and related services that is a result of inappropriate identification. An LEA is
identified with disproportionate representation in all disabilities when the data indicate a weighted
risk ratio (WWR) of 2.0 or higher with a cell size of 20. Each LEA identified must conduct a review of
its policies, practices and procedures to determine if the disproportionate representation is a result
of inappropriate identification.
State Performance Plan Indicator 10 – Disproportionality in Specific Disability Categories
The WVDE identifies LEAs with data showing disproportionate representation of racial/ethnic groups
in specific disability categories that is a result of inappropriate identification. An LEA is identified
with disproportionate representation when the data indicate a weighted risk ratio (WWR) of 2.0 or
higher with a cell size of 20 in a specific category of disability. Each LEA identified must conduct a
review of its policies, practices and procedures to determine if the disproportionate representation
is a result of inappropriate identification.
86
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
DISPROPORTIONALITY FILE REVIEW CHECKLIST - OVERREPRESENTATION
Indicators SPP 9 and SPP 10
Student’s Name:
DOB: ___________________________________
Disability: ___________________________ District/School: ___________________________________________
Race/Ethnicity: _______________________ Current Grade: _______ Grade at Time of Referral: _____________
Reviewer: _____________________________________
Date: ________________________________________
Purpose: The file review checklist must be utilized by any district identified as having disproportionate overrepresentation based
on race/ethnicity. The purpose of the checklist is to assist districts in determining whether inappropriate identification has
occurred through the examination of general and special education policies, procedures and practices pertaining to the
identification, evaluation and/or eligibility of students for special education.
File Selection: First, select the designated number of student files in the race/ethnicity and disability category(ies) as specified in
the data summary sheet for Indicators 9 and 10. To the maximum extent possible, select students from a variety of school settings
whose files contain a recent eligibility committee determination (initial or reevaluation). Exclude files of students reviewed in the
prior self-assessment cycle to eliminate redundancy.
Instructions: For each student file, review the area of inquiry, checking yes or no for each statement and documenting all
supporting evidence. Determine for each file whether the district has appropriately implemented policies, procedures and
practices specific to the identification, evaluation and/or eligibility of the student for special education utilizing Policy 2419,
Chapters 2, 3 and 4. For each student file reviewed, denote any issues of noncompliance revealed. Finally, based on the
collective results of the file reviews, determine the district’s compliance status for Indicators SPP 9 and SPP 10 overrepresentation on the Annual Desk Audit.
Important Note: This completed form and all supporting documentation must be maintained in the district’s SelfAssessment/ADA data file. Copies of each file review checklist along with a summary of the results must be submitted to
the OSP on or before May 15.
Yes
No
Findings of
Noncompliance
AREA OF INQUIRY
Pre-referral and Intervention Process
!
1.
Documentation in the student’s file indicates ____ the teacher, ____the parent, or
_____other identified the following concern(s) relevant to the student’s performance:
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
2.
Documentation in the student’s file indicates the Student Assistance Team (SAT)
consisted of the required members at the following meetings:
____Initial ____Other
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Documentation in the student’s file indicates a second SAT meeting was convened to
review the student’s progress as a result of the intervention(s).
3.
!
!
Documentation indicates the parent was invited to review the recommendations made by
the SAT.
The SAT records indicate the team reviewed and documented, from the student’s
records, areas that may be impacting the student’s performance (e.g., health, discipline,
test results, grades, retentions, etc.). The review indicates the following area(s) of
concern:____________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
West Virginia Department of Education
February 2011
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
Disproportionality File Review Checklist
1
87
Yes
No
!
!
!
!
4.
5.
6.
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Documentation in the student’s file indicates the SAT considered all information about
the student’s environmental, cultural, ESL skills and economic background that may be
contributing factors in the presenting learning/behavior difficulties.
Documentation in the student’s file indicates scientific research based intervention
strategies and instruction were identified and aligned with the student’s
academic/behavioral performance deficits.
Documentation in the student’s file indicates accommodations and/or modifications were
made in the general education classroom to facilitate the student’s participation and
success.
7.
Documentation in the student’s file indicates the intervention strategies were:
_____ implemented over a specific period of time (i.e., 6 to 9 weeks)
_____ monitored for effectiveness
_____ modified as needed.
8.
Documentation in the student’s file includes the baseline and subsequent data required
to determine the student’s progress/regression after implementation of the interventions.
Multidisciplinary Evaluation Process
Documentation in the student’s file indicates the assessment and other evaluation
materials required for identification of the suspected disability were selected and
administered in accordance with Chapter 3, Section 4B of Policy 2419 (e.g., tests are
non-discriminatory based on race/culture, administered in the student’s native language,
etc.).
10. The documented evidence indicates the evaluation was sufficiently comprehensive to
identify all of the student’s special education and related services need, whether or not
commonly linked to the suspected disability.
9.
!
!
!
!
Eligibility Determination Process
!
!
11. Documentation in the student’s file indicates the Eligibility Committee consisted of the
!
!
Documentation in the student’s file indicates the parent was appropriately notified of the
meeting.
!
!
Documentation in the student’s file indicates the parent attended the EC meeting.
!
!
!
!
!
!
required members.
12. Documentation in the student’s file indicates the student’s eligibility is not due to:
____ a lack of appropriate instruction in reading
____ a lack of appropriate instruction in math
____ limited English proficiency
13. Documentation indicates the student met all three criteria for eligibility in special
!
!
!
!
!
!
education:
____ meets state eligibility requirements for specific disability category;
____ experiences adverse effect on educational performance; and
____ requires special education.
*This completed form and all supporting documentation must be maintained in the district’s Self-Assessment/ADA data file. Copies of
each file review checklist along with a summary of the results must be submitted to the OSP on or before May 15.
West Virginia Department of Education
88
February 2011
Disproportionality File Review Checklist
2
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
Monitoring Entrance Letter and
Schedule
The scheduling for the on-site review will be based on the location and size of the LEA. Larger
systems can expect a visit of four (4) to five (5) day; smaller systems may only require three (days).
The LEA’s superintendent receives an entrance letter with a schedule approximately two (2) weeks
prior to the on-site monitoring visit. An example of the entrance letter and monitoring schedule are
provided on the following pages.
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
89
1900 Kanawha Boulevard, East, Building 6
Charleston, WV 25305
http://wvde.state.wv.us
October 31, 2014
Superintendent
Compliant County Schools
100 Percent Monitoring Street
Compliance, WV 10000
REF: Special Education On-Site Monitoring Entrance Letter
Dear Ms. /Mr.:
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA) assigns to each state
education agency (SEA) the general supervisory authority for ensuring educational services
are provided to all eligible students with exceptionalities in accordance with federal and state
statutes and regulations. In an effort to meet this requirement and in accordance with West Virginia
Department of Education (WVDE), Office of Special Programs (OSP) procedures, a special
education on-site monitoring will be conducted for Compliant County Schools during the week of
November 17-21, 2014.
The team will arrive on Monday, November 17, 2014, at 10:00 a.m. for an entrance conference
with the Compliant County Schools’ central office staff and other district personnel as determined
by the district. A schedule outlining the details of our monitoring activities is attached. On Friday,
November 21, 2014, the monitoring team will conduct an exit conference at 11:00 a.m. to review
preliminary findings and/or recommendations as a result of the monitoring visit.
The Office of Special Programs is looking forward to working with Compliant County Schools
and its efforts to ensure the continuous improvement of educational performance for students
with exceptionalities. If you have any questions concerning this monitoring visit, please contact
Monitoring Coordinator, at (304) 558-2696 or @ k12.wv.us.
Sincerely,
Assistant Director
Office of Special Programs
Cc: Special Education Director
Monitoring Coordinator
Results Coordinator
EducateWV
Enhancing Learning. For Now. For the Future
90
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
West Virginia Department of Education/Office of Special Programs
Special Education Monitoring Schedule
Compliant County Schools
November 17-21, 2014
Date
Entrance Conference
WVDE Personnel
LEA Representative
Monday, Nov. 17, 2014
10:00-11:00
• The LEA will provide
an overview of county
initiatives and results-driven
data analysis.
• The monitoring team will
provide an overview of the
on-site monitoring process.
• Monitoring
Coordinator
• RESA Special
Education Director
• Results
Coordinator
• Guest Monitor
• Superintendent
• Special Education
Director
• Principals of
selected schools
• Other personnel at
district discretion
Date
Activities
Monday, Nov. 17, 2014
11:00-4:00
• Interview Special Education
Director
• General, Transition, and
Discipline File Reviews
Date
School Visits
Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2014
8:30-4:00
Date
WVDE Personnel
• Monitoring
Coordinator
• Results
Coordinator
• Guest Monitor
WVDE Personnel
Compliant Elementary
• Monitoring
School
Coordinator
Principal selects and
• Results
schedules the following:
Coordinator
• Principal Interview
• Guest Monitor
• General Educator Interview
(1 up to a panel of 3)
• Special Educator Interview
(1 up to a panel of 3)
• School/Classroom WalkThroughs
• Verification of student
services
• Monitoring Team will debrief
at the end of day.
School Visits
WVDE Personnel
Wednesday, Nov. 19, 2014 Compliant Middle School
• Monitoring
8:30-3:00
Principal selects and
Coordinator
schedules the following:
• Results
• Principal Interview
Coordinator
• General Educator Interview • Guest Monitor
(1 up to a panel of 3)
• Special Educator Interview
(1 up to a panel of 3)
• School/Classroom WalkThroughs
• Verification of student
services
• Monitoring Team will debrief
at the end of day.
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
LEA Representative
• Special Education
Director
LEA Representative
• Principal
• Staff
LEA Representative
• Principal
• Staff
91
Date
Mid-Week Review of On-Site
Monitoring
Wednesday, Nov. 19, 2014 • The lead monitor will
3:00-4:00
provide an overview of
preliminary monitoring
findings with special
education director.
Date
Thursday, Nov. 20, 2014
8:30-4:00
Date
Friday, Nov. 21, 2014
9:00-11:00
Date
Friday, Nov. 21, 2014
11:00-12:00
School Visits
• Monitoring
Coordinator
WVDE Personnel
Compliant High School
• Monitoring
Principal selects and
Coordinator
schedules the following:
• Results
• Principal Interview
Coordinator
• General Educator Interview • Guest Monitor
(1 up to a panel of 3)
• Special Educator Interview
(1 up to a panel of 3)
• School/Classroom WalkThroughs
• Parent Focus Group
• Student Focus Group
• Verification of student
services
• Monitoring Team will debrief
at the end of day.
Activities
Compliant County Board of
Education Office
• Team Review/Discussion
and Wrap up
Exit Conference
• The lead monitor will
provide an overview of
preliminary monitoring
findings and/or
recommendations.
92
WVDE Personnel
WVDE Personnel
• Monitoring
Coordinator
• Results
Coordinator
LEA Representative
• Special Education
Director
LEA Representative
• Principal
• Staff
LEA Representative
• N/A
WVDE Personnel
LEA Representative
• Monitoring
Coordinator
• RESA Special
Education Director
• Results
Coordinator
• Superintendent
• Special Education
Director
• Principals of
selected schools
• Other personnel at
district discretion
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
Interview Protocols
The interview protocols are designed to collect information regarding the LEA’s special education
program through the responses of educators either in a panel discussion or individual interviews.
The questions are to guide team members during the interview process. The collection of responses
are provided to the monitoring coordinator during the daily scheduled team meeting time.
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
93
West Virginia Department of Education
Office of Special Programs
Special Education Director Interview Questions
District:
WVDE Team Member:
School:
Date:
Leadership Guided Questions
How is the decision made to
whether a student is on a standard
diploma or modified diplomas.
What types of special education
service delivery models are used
to support the majority of students
with disabilities on a standard
diplomas.
Is there a special education
classroom that require intense
modifications to the curriculum
that prevent them from accessing
instruction in the general
education setting?
Things to listen/probe for
(not all-inclusive)
Responses
• Understanding of Continuum of
Services
• Review LEA application budget
• Discussion of models, such as,
Consultation, Co-teaching and/
other resource room services
• Based on IEP Team decisions
• Role of principal and other
school administrators in leading
the schools’ work in curriculum,
assessment and instruction, and
professional learning
How are resources allocated in
your district?
Who chairs the IEP Team meetings
in the district?
If there is a disagreement in an
IEP Team meeting what is in place
to resolve issues?
Does your district have students
placed in out-of-school
environment (OSE)?
If so provide name(s) of student(s)
and explain reason for the OSE
placement.
What are your school’s procedures
for providing services to students
placed in (OSE)?
Describe how the principal and
other administrators communicate
with, engage, and support
teachers to foster the success of
all students
94
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
Professional Development
Guided Questions
Have all special education
teachers received professional
development on writing
Standards-Based IEPs (SBIEP) aligned to the NEXT
Generation Content Standards
and Objectives, Essential and
Community Elements? When did
the training take place?
What training has been provided
to staff on meeting the needs of
diverse learners in the general
education classroom?
Things to listen/probe for
(not all-inclusive)
Responses
• Knowledge of Next Generation
Content Standards and Objections,
Next Generation Essential and
Community Elements; and Next
Generation Learning Skills and
Technology Tools Content
• Training Schedule
• Knowledge of Policy 4373
• RESA CPI training
• Knowledge of RESA activities and
supports
Have all teachers who are
involved in restraint and seclusion
procedures been trained in Crisis
Prevention Institute (CPI)?
How do they document (restraint)
these occasions accurately?
Do you provide annual training on
Policy 4350/FERPA and to whom?
Instruction Guided Questions
How is the decision made for a
student to be placed in a general
education classroom vs. a more
segregated setting?
If a building has segregated
classrooms(s), how was the
decision made to create a
segregated class in that building?
Things to listen/probe for
(not all-inclusive)
Responses
• Knowledge of the EC/IEP process
• Discussion of staffing, caseloads
and resources available
• Knowledge of the ESY based on
individual student needs
Describe the District’s Extended
School Year (ESY) process?
Is transportation provided to
students attend ESY?
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
95
School Climate and Culture
Guided Questions
Describe the culture and working
environment in your district.
What are your schools procedures
for addressing the behavioral
needs when a student with a
disability is suspended?
How are school-wide expectations
for student behavior addressed
and explicitly taught in each
setting?
Family and Community Guided
Questions
Describe how the district
engages families and community
members.
Do you have a Parent/Educator
Resource Center?
96
Things to listen/probe for
(not all-inclusive)
Responses
• Safe and orderly learning
environment
• Culture of trust and respect for
students and adults encouraged
• Support systems that promote
the academic achievement and
career readiness of students (e.g.,
advisement, career counseling,
transition coaching, interventions,
re-teaching)
• Support systems that promote the
personal growth and development
of students (e.g., counseling,
mentoring, advisement, coaching,
goal setting, time management,
problem-solving)
• Examples of ways
accomplishments of students
recognized and celebrated.
• Staff accomplishments recognized
and celebrated
• Implementation and knowledge of
Policy 4373
Things to listen/probe for
(not all-inclusive)
Responses
• Organizational structures that
encourage families and community
to become involved
• Methods teachers use to
communicate with parents/
guardians about student
expectations and progress
• Opportunities for parents to
communicate with teachers
• Communication with families about
available school interventions
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
West Virginia Department of Education
Office of Special Programs
Principal Interview Questions
District:
WVDE Team Member:
School:
Date:
Curriculum Planning Guiding
Questions
Describe your school’s special
education program.
Describe your involvement in
curriculum planning.
Do all members of the IEP Team
provide input in the development
of the IEP?
Do all teachers have access
to their students’ IEPs and
understand their role in the
implementation of the program?
Things to listen/probe for
(not all-inclusive)
Responses
• Understanding of special education
in general
• Shared understanding of
expectations
• Resources aligned with standards
• Monitoring curriculum
implementation
• Provide a list of final IEPs
• Provide a list of IEPs general
education teachers have read
• Provide co-teaching across
settings, pull-out resource classes
Are all IEPs finalized?
Is the intensity of support
necessary for student
achievement provided in the Least
Restrictive Environment (LRE)?
Are there enough resources
available to provide this support?
How are teachers provided
access to their students’ FBA/BIP?
How do they document that the
plans are being followed?
Assessment Guided Questions
Describe the processes used to
gather, analyze, and use student
assessment data to improve and
adjust instruction.
Are special education teachers
involved in data meetings
and do they participate in the
problem-solving process with
the instructional team for their
SWDs who are not responding to
targeted and intensive instruction?
How often do these meetings take
place?
Things to listen/probe for
(not all-inclusive)
Responses
• Balanced system of assessment
(e.g. constructed response, writing
prompts, performance tasks,
projects, etc.)
• Common assessments, district or
school benchmark tests, etc.
• Alignment of assessments with
curriculum standards
• Adjusting instruction based on
assessment data
• Accuracy of grading practices
• Schedule of Team meetings
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
97
Instruction Guided Questions
Discuss your role as the school’s
instructional leader.
Things to listen/probe for
(not all-inclusive)
How do you ensure SWDs
receive instruction based on Next
Generation Content Standards
and Objectives and Common
Core Essential and Community
Elements?
• Orderly, well-managed learning
environment
• Academically challenging
environment
• Research-based practices
• Differentiation/UDL strategies
• Use of technology, including
assistive technology for SWDs
• SWD arrive and leave school at the
same time as SWODs
• Lesson plans, walk-through
Planning and Organization
Guided Questions
Things to listen/probe for
(not all-inclusive)
Are students with disabilities
provided a full instructional day?
Describe the processes,
procedures, and structures you
have implemented to ensure the
school focuses on high levels of
learning for all students.
Describe the processes used to
develop, implement, and monitor
the school improvement plan.
Things to listen/probe for
(not all-inclusive)
Describe how the school engages
families and community members
in the continuous improvement
process.
• Organizational structures that
encourage family and community
involvement and decision-making
• Methods the school uses to
communicate with parents/
guardians about student
expectations and progress
• Opportunities for parents to
communicate with teachers
• Communication with families about
available school interventions
Professional Learning Guided
Questions
Things to listen/probe for
(not all-inclusive)
How do you ensure that the
impact of professional learning
on teacher practices and student
learning is monitored and
evaluated?
Does your school provide
instruction in a co-teaching
setting? Describe your coteaching model?
98
Responses
• Clean and inviting school campus
• Vision/mission
• Implementation of rules, policies,
schedules, and procedures
• Resources (personnel, time,
facilities, equipment, and materials)
available and adequate, including
resources to meet the needs of
SWD
Family and Community
Engagement Guided Questions
Describe the purpose and
structure of professional learning
at your school.
Responses
Responses
Responses
• Purposes based on analysis of data
• Multiple professional learning
designs (e.g., collaborative
lesson study, analysis of student
work, problem solving sessions,
curriculum development,
coursework, action research,
classroom observations, online
networks, etc.)
• Examples of how teachers have
used what they learned through
professional learning provided by
the school
• Resources available and adequate
• Cultivates collaborative inquiry to
enhance performance
• Communicates expectations
regarding professional learning
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
Leadership Guided Questions
Describe how you communicate
with, engage, and support faculty
and staff to promote success for
all students.
Describe the purpose of the
school leadership team. Who are
the members? How often does the
team meet? What types of data
does the team analyze?
How has your leadership
made a difference in student
achievement?
How do you ensure and document
IEP implementation?
Describe the process used to
monitor the general education
teachers have read and
understand the IEPs of students
that they are assigned?
Things to listen/probe for
(not all-inclusive)
Responses
• Your role in leading the school’s
work in curriculum, assessment,
instruction, and professional
learning
• Opportunities for teachers to
participate in shared decisionmaking and problem-solving
• Ways you and other school
administrators provide teachers
with specific feedback on the
performance of their practices and
responsibilities
• Participating in collaborative
instructional meetings
• Leading the implementation of
new instructional programs or
professional learning
• Gains in student achievement
• Review documentation that is
maintained in student file or the
WVDE App
How do general education
teachers document the provision
of supplementary aides and
services/accommodations that are
delineated on the students’ IEPs?
School Culture Guided
Questions
What do you believe teachers/staff
value most about working at this
school?
What are your district/school
procedures for addressing the
behavioral needs when a student
with a disability is suspended?
Things to listen/probe for
(not all-inclusive)
Responses
• Values
• Trust and respect
• Perception of the school in the
community
• Positive Behavior Intervention and
Supports (PBIS)
How are SWDs assigned in-school
suspension (ISS) provided an
opportunity to progress in their
goals?
How are school-wide expectations
for student behavior addressed
and explicitly taught in each
setting?
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
99
West Virginia Department of Education
Office of Special Programs
Teacher Interview Questions
District:
WVDE Team Member:
School:
Date:
Curriculum Planning Guided
Questions
Describe your involvement in
curriculum planning, including
documents used in planning.
Are special education teachers
involved in data meetings
and do they participate in the
problem-solving process with
the instructional team for their
SWD who are not responding to
targeted and intensive instruction?
How often do these meetings take
place?
Assessment Guided Questions
Describe how various
assessments are collected,
analyzed, and used to improve
instruction.
What sources of reliable, valid
data are used to determine
instructional needs?
100
Things to listen/probe for
(not all-inclusive)
Responses
• Shared understanding of
expectations
• Students with disabilities access to
general curriculum
• Monitoring of curriculum
implementation
• Resources (personnel, time,
facilities, equipment, and materials)
available and adequate, including
resources to meet the needs of
students with disabilities
Things to listen/probe for
(not all-inclusive)
Responses
• Types of assessments used (e.g.,
constructed response, writing
prompts, performance tasks,
projects, etc.)
• Common assessments
• Assessment results used to adjust
instruction
• Assessment results used to provide
feedback to students
• Grading practices
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
Instruction Guided Questions
How do you plan for students to
be successful and what do you do
when they are not?
What is your process if a student
is not demonstrating progress in
their current placement?
Are students with disabilities
provided a full instructional day?
Do SWD arrive at school and
leave school at the same time as
students without disabilities?
How is the need for ESY services
determined?
Does your school have students
placed in Out-of-School
environment (OSE)? Please
provide names?
Things to listen/probe for
(not all-inclusive)
Responses
• Orderly, well-managed learning
environment
• Students academically challenged.
• Higher-order thinking skills
cultivated
• Differentiated instruction/UDL
strategies
• Use of technology, including
assistive technology for students
with disabilities
• Students set goals and monitor their
progress
• Specific feedback to students
• Increased learning time for students
• Placement options considered
• Teachers received training
• Review lesson plans
How do you ensure SWD receive
instruction based on Next
Generation Content Standards
and Objectives and Common
Core Essential and Community
Elements?
How do general education
teachers document the provision
of supplementary aids and
services/accommodations as
delineated on student’s IEPs?
Professional Guided Questions
Describe the purposes and
structures of professional learning.
How is the impact of professional
learning on teacher practices and
on student learning monitored and
evaluated?
Things to listen/probe for
(not all-inclusive)
Responses
• Purposes based on analysis of data
• Multiple professional learning
designs (e.g., collaborative
lesson study, analysis of student
work, problem solving sessions,
curriculum development,
coursework, action research,
classroom observations, online
networks, etc.)
• Examples of how teachers have
used what they learned through
professional learning provided by
the school
• Resources available and adequate
• Participate in collaborative inquiry
to enhance performance
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
101
Leadership Guided Questions
Describe how the principal and
other administrators communicate
with, engage, and support
teachers to foster the success of
all students.
Describe how the purpose of the
school leadership team. Who are
the members? How often does the
team meet? What types of data
does the team analyze?
How do you use feedback from
classroom observations from the
school administrators?
Are you provided access to the
student’s FBA/BIP?
How do you document the plans
that are implemented?
Things to listen/probe for
(not all-inclusive)
Responses
• Role of principal and other
school administrators in leading
the school’s work in curriculum,
assessment instruction, and
professional learning
• Opportunities for teachers to
participate in shared decisionmaking and problem-solving
• Ways principal and other school
administrators provide teachers
with specific feedback on the
performance of their practices and
responsibilities
• Principal and other school
administrators model and lead the
analysis of data to improve student
achievement
• Faculty perception of leadership
If you are involved in a restraint
and seclusion procedures been
trained in Crisis Prevention
Institute (CPI)?
Have you reviewed annual training
on Policy 4350/FERPA?
School Climate and Culture
Guided Questions
Describe the culture and working
environment at this school.
What are your schools procedures
for addressing the behavioral
needs when a student with a
disability is suspended?
How are students with disabilities
who are assigned in-school
suspension (ISS) provided an
opportunity to progress on the IEP
goals?
How are school-wide expectations
for student behavior addressed
and explicitly taught in each
setting?
102
Things to listen/probe for
(not all-inclusive)
Responses
• Safe and orderly learning
environment
• Culture of trust and respect for
students and adults encouraged
• Support systems that promote
the academic achievement and
career readiness of students (e.g.,
advisement, career counseling,
transition coaching, interventions,
re-teaching)
• Support systems that promote the
personal growth and development
of students (e.g., counseling,
mentoring, advisement, coaching,
goal setting, time management,
problem-solving)
• Examples of ways accomplishments
of students recognized and
celebrated. Staff accomplishments
recognized and celebrated
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
Family and Community
Guided Questions
Things to listen/probe for
(not all-inclusive)
Describe how the school engages
families and community members
to help the school continuously
improve.
• Organizational structures that
encourage families and community
to become involved
• Methods teachers use to
communicate with parents/
guardians about student
expectations and progress
• Opportunities for parents to
communicate with teachers
• Communication with families about
available school interventions
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
Responses
103
Classroom Observation
A school walk-through is one of the components used to triangulate evidence that will support or
disprove monitoring finding hypothesis(es). The data is compiled with other investigative practices
to show trends that may/may not support the hypothesis(es). The main elements to a walk-through
is a quick review of the instructional practices demonstrated by the teachers, the level of student
engagement, teacher lesson plans, technology available and utilized, classroom locations that are
comparable to general education classrooms.
The monitoring coordinator will instruct team members during walk-through, depending on the data
acquired during interviews and record reviews. The school walk-through checklist is used to record
the information observed during the walk-through. It is important that the team member stay focused
on the requested information on the checklist when completing the walk-through.
Prior to the visit to the schools, principals are notified walk-throughs will be conducted as part of
the school visit. The principals should inform staff to have a copy of their lesson plans available
for the team member(s) to review, if requested. Not all classrooms will receive a walk-through, but
the possibility is open for any teacher in the school. Based on the observation results, drill down
questions could be formulated for more clarification during the on-site visit.
104
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
105
Time Out:
Time In:
Date:
• Encourages productivity by providing students with appropriately challenging and relevant
materials and assignments and encourages critical and creative thinking, exploring new
ideas, and/or risk-taking.
• Communicates high, but reasonable, expectations for student learning.
• Provides academic rigor, encourages critical and creative thinking, and pushes students to
achieve goals.
• All students are engaged in tasks that require comparison, classification, analysis of
perspectives, induction, investigation, problem solving, inquiry, research, decision-making,
etc.
• Facilities students’ use of higher-level thinking skills in instruction.
• Develops higher-order thinking through questioning and problem-solving activities.
• Provides academic rigor, encourages critical and creative thinking, and pushes students to
achieve goals.
• Examples may include: providing feedback, cooperative learning, advance organizers,
questioning techniques, similarities and differences, reinforcing effort, goal setting,
summarizers, graphic representations, and reciprocal teaching.
Appropriate level of challenge for
students
Higher-order skills and processes
Uses appropriate research-based
instructional strategies
Evidence/Observation
(circle one)
• Teachers design long and short term instructional plans for guiding student mastery of the
Content Standards and Objectives based on the needs, interests and performance levels of
their students.
• Units of study, lesson plans are clearly aligned to the required curriculum.
• Addresses appropriate curriculum standards and integrates key content elements.
• Plans instruction effectively for content mastery, pacing, and transitions.
• Plans for differentiated instruction.
Observed
(0,1,2,3)
3
2
Effectiveness level of implementation
of co-teaching strategies
1
(circle one)
Station Teaching
† No
Subject:
Other:
0
Parallel Teaching
One Teach/One Support
† Yes
Alternative Teaching
Co-Teaching
Team Teaching
Grade:
Curriculum documents aligned with
required standards
Curriculum and Instruction
0 – not observed at all (very little or no evidence)
1 – observed sporadically (some evidence/attempted implementation)
2 – observed as standard classroom practice (considerable evidence/
acceptable level of implementation)
3 – observed as pervasive practice (extensive evidence/high level of
implementation)
Teacher(s):
School Name:
Classroom Observation Form
West Virginia Department of Education • Office of Special Programs
106
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
• Exhibits strong communication skills (uses precise language, correct vocabulary, and
grammar) and offers clear explanations and directions. Monitors for student understanding
throughout the instructional period, e.g., conferencing with students, asking questions, and/
or engaging in KWLs, 3-2-1 activities, quick write, ticket out the door, etc.
• Communicates and presents material clearly, and checks for understanding.
• Shares accurate results of student progress with students, parents, and key school
personnel.
• Provides constructive and frequent feedback to student on their progress toward their
learning goals.
•
•
•
•
• The standards are the expectations for learning for all students, but within a class period
instruction is paced and presented differently with the use of varying materials, resources,
and tasks.
• Content – offers students choices regarding task complexity, offers multiple modes
of learning, re-teaches idea or skill to struggling learners, etc. (multiple means of
representation)
• Product – students have choices to express required learning (e.g. Presentations, portfolios,
etc.) (multiple means of expression)
• Process – may use strategies such as combining small and whole group instruction,
varied assignments, pacing instruction based on individual needs, etc. (multiple means of
engagement)
• Learning environment – recognizes students as individuals in terms of ability, achievement,
learning styles, etc.
• Differentiates the instructional content, process, product, and learning environment to meet
individual developmental needs.
• Provides remediation, enrichment, and acceleration to further student understanding of
material.
• Uses diagnostic, formative, and summative assessment data to inform instructional
modifications for individual students.
• Develops critical and creative thinking by providing activities at the appropriate level of
challenge for students.
• Demonstrates high learning expectations for all students commensurate with their
developmental levels.
• Communicates high, but reasonable, expectations for student learning.
• Bases instruction on goals that reflect high expectations for all students and a clear
understanding of the curriculum.
Communicates clearly and checks
for understanding
Teaches lesson with fidelity
Instruction is differentiated by
content, product, process, and/or
learning environment
High expectations evident
Lesson presented and taught correctly.
Demonstrates accurate, deep, and current knowledge of subject matter.
Demonstrates pedagogical knowledge.
Communicates and presents material clearly and accurately.
• Examples may include: think-pair-share activities, class discussion (small or large groups),
small group collaboration, debate, writing exercises, etc.
• Monitors student learning and actively engages with students. Learners are actively
involved in actions that support cognition and intentional learning. Uses effective
questioning, smooth transitions, and challenging but interesting activities to increase
engagement and/or maintain interest.
• Engages students and maintains interest.
Students engaged in active learning
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
107
Orderly, well-managed learning
environment
• Models fairness and respect; classroom is conducive to learning.
• Student behavior expectations are evident (rules posted, behavior consistently monitored
and addressed appropriately).
• Students are consistently on task and understand behavior expectations. Teachers
appropriately address off-task behaviors. Responds to disruptions in a timely, appropriate
manner.
• Establishes clear expectations for classroom rules, routines, and procedures and enforces
them consistently and appropriately.
• Promotes a climate of trust and teamwork within the classrooms.
• Actively listens and pays attention to students’ needs and responses.
• Creates a warm, attractive, inviting, and supportive classroom environment.
Evidence/Observation
• Shares accurate results of student progress with students, parents, and key school
personnel.
• Provides specific, descriptive, and frequent feedback to students on their progress toward
their learning goals.
Appropriate feedback on effort/
achievement relative to the standard
Observed
(0,1,2,3)
• Students monitor their own learning using tools such as rubrics, checklists, exemplars,
learning targets, feedback.
• Involves students in setting learning goals and monitoring their own progress.
• Teaches students how to self-assess and to use metacognitive strategies in support of
lifelong learning.
Students actively monitor their own
progress
School Climate and Culture
• Monitors for student understanding throughout the instructional period. Examples include
conferencing with students, asking questions, providing frequent feedback to students,
having students self-assess and discuss, quick writes, ticket out the door.
• Uses formal and informal assessments for diagnostic, formative, and summative purposes.
• Uses assessment tools for both formative and summative purposes to inform, guide, and
adjust instruction.
• Provides constructive and frequent feedback to students on their progress toward their
learning goals.
Formative assessments used
to provide specific feedback to
students
Evidence/Observation
• Effectively uses resources including personnel, time, facilities, equipment, and materials.
• Effectively uses appropriate instructional technology to enhance student learning.
• Arranges the classroom materials and resources to facilitate group and individual activities.
Materials/resources effectively used
Observed
(0,1,2,3)
• Students use current technology, e.g., interactive boards, notepads, web-pages, etc.
as a part of the learning process to research, create documents and/or projects, and to
demonstrate a greater understanding of learning of the grade/content standard, etc.
Student technology use
Assessments
• Effectively uses appropriate instructional technology to enhance instruction and student
learning, e.g., interactive boards, computers, digital cameras, projection systems,
calculators, software, interactive games, voting systems, online assessment, etc. to
enhance students’ research and problem-solving skills, to differentiate instruction, to
enhance student learning of the grade/content standard, etc.
Teacher technology integration
108
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
• Classroom is free from interruptions. Instruction begins and ends on time. Student
transitions during instruction are smooth with no loss of instructional time.
• Responds to disruptions in a timely, appropriate manner.
• The classroom is clean and conducive to learning. Classroom equipment (computers,
interactive boards, etc.) is in working order.
• Creates a warm, attractive, inviting and supportive classroom environment.
• Establishes clear expectations for classroom rules, routines, and procedures and enforces
them consistently and appropriately.
• Expectations for behavior are evident (rules posted, behavior consistently monitored and
addressed when necessary)
• Classroom culture provides non-threatening environment that promotes appropriate
discussion between and among students.
• Promotes a climate of trust and teamwork within the classroom.
• Promotes respect for and understanding of students’ diversity, including-but not limited torace, color, religion, sex, national origin, or disability.
• Classroom provides non-threatening environment that promotes appropriate discussion
between teacher and students. There are no incidents of undue criticism, negative
comments, etc.
• Maintains appropriate tone throughout the lesson.
• Promotes respect for and understanding of students’ diversity, including-but not limited torace, color, religion, sex, national origin, or disability.
• Actively listens and pays attention to students’ needs and responses.
• Creates a warm, attractive, inviting, and supportive classroom environment.
• Uses verbal and non-verbal communication techniques to foster positive interactions and
promote learning in the classroom and school environment.
• Listens and responds with cultural awareness, empathy, and understanding to the voice
and opinions of stakeholders (parents, community, students, and colleagues).
Minimal interruptions within the
classroom
Clean, well-maintained, inviting
learning environment
Rules, routines, procedures
established and implemented
Positive student-student interactions
Positive adult-student interactions
Parent Focus Group
Parents are an integral part of the successful education process. Monitoring visits will include a
Parent Focus group or a more generic parent meeting. Interaction with parents through a face to
face meeting is an important investigative tool that can help provide the OSP with information and
perspectives about the system’s special education programs.
For the parent meeting, all parents of students with disabilities in the system are invited to attend the
meeting; however, the special education director coordinates the selection and invitation process.
For the focus group, the parents of the students that are directly involved with the priority area will be
selected for input, such as middle school/high school parents invited to a focus group to discuss the
dropout rate in the system. Both types of parent meetings will have a minimum of two team members
in attendance, one to facilitate and one to take notes of what was said the meeting.
Parent Meeting/Focus Group
Prior to the on-site visit, the compliance coordinator will work with the special education director to:
• Secure an accessible facility for the parent meeting;
• Make arrangements for translators, interpreters, or any equipment needs with the system, if
appropriate;
• Provide a letter/invitation to parents that will announce the parent meeting which should be
distributed one week before the on-site review; and
• Secure all meeting information prior to the arrival and make arrangements to meet with the
special education director for a debriefing.
At the parent meeting the assigned team members will:
• Arrange the meeting room to maximize participation. Horseshoe arrangement is recommended
if possible. At the conclusion of the meeting, return room to original arrangement.
• Check the operating condition of equipment if used during the meeting.
• Greet parents as they arrive for the meeting.
• Distribute: Parent Resource Information (if the District has a Parent Resource Center) and other
parent information, if appropriate.
At the parent meeting team members will:
• Introduce all team members.
• Monitor time allotted for each question.
• Act as a troubleshooter, if problems should arise.
• Present guided questions.
• Keep the discussions flowing and on-track (focused).
• Redirect discussions from irrelevant topics.
• Close with remarks of appreciation for parent participation.
• Take notes from the discussion.
• Assist parents with individual concerns after conclusion of the meeting.
The parent invitation letter, script and question template are included on the next pages. The letter is
provided to the parents by the special education director or the school administration in an attempt
to elicit group participation prior to the scheduled meeting.
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
109
1900 Kanawha Boulevard, East, Building 6
Charleston, WV 25305
http://wvde.state.wv.us
Sample Letter (Invitation to Parent Focus Group Meeting)
Date
[Parent Address]
Dear Parent:
The West Virginia Department of Education, Office of Special Education (OSP) has a
responsibility, under federal statute and regulations, to have a system of general
supervision that monitors the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA) by LEAs. As stated in Section 616 of the 2004 amendments
to the IDEA, “The primary focus of Federal and State monitoring activities are to improve
educational results and functional outcomes for all children with disabilities and ensure
that States meet the program requirements under this part, with a particular emphasis on
those requirements that are closely related to improving educational results for children
with disabilities.” In addition, The West Virginia Code §18-20, Education of Exceptional
Children requires the WVDE to assure all students with exceptionalities receive an
education in accordance with state and federal laws and regulations.
The OSP and [Name of District] County Schools would like to invite you to participate in
a Parent Focus Group/parent meeting to obtain your perspective on the district’s special
education programs and their procedures and practices. The meeting will be held on
[Date and Time] at [Location]. The meeting will be approximately one hour in length and
will be facilitated by [Two Monitoring Team Members].
The OSP looks forward to meeting with you and learning about your child’s school system.
If you have any questions please contact [Special Education Director] at [Phone Number]
or email at [Email Address].
Sincerely,
Special Education Director
EducateWV
Enhancing Learning. For Now. For the Future
110
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
Parent Meeting/Focus Group Script
Welcome
• Good morning/afternoon and welcome to our parent meeting. Thanks for taking the time to join
us.
• Introduction the monitoring coordinator and other monitors in attendance. Provide some basic
background information about yourselves.
Ground Rules
• This is a focus group. It is more of a discussion rather than an interview.
• My role as a facilitator will be to guide the discussion. My co-facilitator will primarily be taking
notes about what we discussed.
• Explain that the LEA is being reviewed, not them. All responses are confidential and will be
complied into a collective response, no names will be used.
• We’re on a first name basis.
• No right or wrong answers, only different points of view. You don’t need to agree with others, but
it is important that everyone listen respectfully as others share their views.
• Be sure to talk to each other.
• We do ask you turn off your cell phones or if you cannot, we ask you set them on vibrate. If you
must take a call please do so quietly, (i.e. step into the next room and rejoin us as quickly as
you can).
• Individual child specific issues will be addressed after the focus group meeting.
Overview
We are here as part of the WVDE, OSP On-site Monitoring visit to collect information about the LEA
special education program for students with exceptionalities. We also would like to discuss the
achievement of students with exceptionalities. We want to get your thoughts as it relates to you and
your child.
We are here to learn more about your views on how well your child has prepared for life after high
school, whether that will be attending college, vocational school, on the job training or employment.
Everything that you say here is confidential. It is very important that everyone feels comfortable to
state their views, without being afraid that they will be judged. Also, many of the questions that I
am asking you have no right answers-we want to learn from you. This is your time to help educators
understand how you feel about transition from high school to college. Finally, you do not need to
respond to any of the questions if you do not want to, but we very interested in what everyone has to
say. Does anyone have any questions at this time?
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
111
West Virginia Department of Education
Office of Special Programs
Parent Interview Questions
District:
WVDE Team Member:
School:
Date:
Guiding Questions
How long have you been a part of this school
community?
Guiding Principles
• Opportunity for parents to introduce themselves
and talk about their involvement in the school
Responses:
How has this school changed since you have been
a part of the school community?
• Parents awareness of any instructional changes
or changes in student achievement
• Communication from school about these changes
Responses:
Do you believe this school exhibits a welcoming
environment for parents and community members?
• Activities at school for parents PTA, parent night
Responses:
How does the school communicate with you? What
opportunities are there for you to communicate with
the school? What suggestions would you make for
improvement or change in this area?.
• Achievement level of individual students,
information about available interventions, clear
course or grade level expectations.
• Frequent and regular parent communication with
the school
Responses:
112
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
How well is your child being prepared for the next
grade (for elementary schools)?
• Listen for evidence of high expectations.
How well is your child being prepared for college or
career readiness (for middle and high schools)?
Do you feel the school monitors the academic
progress, attendance patterns, and behavioral
concerns of your child?
Do staff members encourage your child to
participate in extracurricular activities?
Would you describe this school as safe and orderly?
Why or why not?
Responses:
What programs and support are provided by the
school, district, or community that helps you and
your family?
• Knowledge of flexible learning program or
extended learning time.
• Saturday school, before-school/after-school
tutoring opportunities, etc.
• Effectiveness of interventions.
Responses:
Are there needs that should be addressed to make
this even better school?
Responses:
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
113
Student Focus Group
The Student Focus Group is an important investigative tool that can help provide the OSP with
information and perspectives about the system’s special education programs. Monitoring visits will
include a Student Focus group or a more generic student meeting.
Student Meeting
Prior to the on-site visit, the compliance coordinator will work with the LEA special education director
to:
• Secure a room for the student meeting;
• Make arrangements for translators, interpreters, or any equipment needs with the system, if
appropriate; and
• Provide a letter to parents to announce the student meeting and obtain permission.
At the student meeting the assigned monitoring team members will:
• Arrange the meeting room to maximize participation. Horseshoe arrangement is recommended
if possible. At the conclusion of the meeting, return room to original arrangement.
• Check the operating condition of equipment if used during the meeting.
• Greet students as they arrive for the meeting.
At the student meeting team members will:
• Introduce all team members.
• Monitor time allotted for each question.
• Act as a troubleshooter, if problems should arise.
• Present guided questions.
• Keep the discussions flowing and on-track (focused).
• Redirect discussions from irrelevant topics.
• Close with remarks of appreciation for student participation.
• Take notes from the discussion.
The student invitation letter and question template are included on the next pages. The letter is
provided to the parents by the special education director or the school administration in an attempt
to elicit group participation prior to the scheduled meeting. The parent notification of student
participation shall be provided by the special education director or school administrator to the parent
prior to their child participating in the scheduled focus group.
114
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
1900 Kanawha Boulevard, East, Building 6
Charleston, WV 25305
http://wvde.state.wv.us
Sample Letter (Parent Notification of Student Participation In A Focus Group)
Date
[Parent Address]
Dear Parent:
The West Virginia Department of Education, Office of Special Education (OSP) has a
responsibility, under federal statute and regulations, to have a system of general supervision
that monitors the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement
Act of 2004 (IDEA) by LEAs. As stated in Section 616 of the 2004 amendments to the IDEA,
“The primary focus of Federal and State monitoring activities are to improve educational
results and functional outcomes for all children with disabilities and ensure that States meet
the program requirements under this part, with a particular emphasis on those requirements
that are closely related to improving educational results for children with disabilities.” In
addition, The West Virginia Code §18-20, Education of Exceptional Children requires the
WVDE to assure all students with exceptionalities receive an education in accordance with
state and federal laws and regulations.
The OSP and [Name of District] County Schools would like to invite your child to participate
in a Student Focus Group meeting to obtain his/her perspective on how well he/she has been
prepared for life after high school, whether that will be attending college, vocational school,
on the job training or employment. Everything that your child says will be kept confidential.
The questions have no right answers, we simply want to learn from your child. This is an
opportunity for your child to help educators understand how he/she feel about transition
from high school to college, vocational school, on the job training or employment. Your child
does not need to respond to any of the questions if he/she does not want to but we am very
interested in what everyone has to say.
The meeting will be held on [Date and Time] at [Location]. The meeting will be approximately
one hour in length and will be facilitated by [Two Monitoring Team Members]. If you do not
wish for your child to participate in the focus group, please notify your child’s principal prior
to the scheduled date and time.
The OSP looks forward to meeting with your child and learning about your child’s school
system. If you have any questions please contact [Special Education Director] at [Phone
Number] or email at [Email Address].
Sincerely;
Special Education Director/School Administrator
EducateWV
Enhancing Learning. For Now. For the Future
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
115
West Virginia Department of Education
Office of Special Programs
Student Interview Questions
District:
WVDE Team Member:
School:
Date:
Strand
Curriculum Planning
Guiding Questions
Talk about how you know what your
teachers want you to learn and what
they expect from you.
Do you feel that you are being
academically challenged?
Do you feel your classes are preparing
you to do the kinds of things you want
to do after you finish school?
Things to listen/probe for
(not all-inclusive)
• Student awareness of standards and
learning targets
• Finish work without problems or
questions
• Talks about college and career goals
• Makes connections between goals
and instruction
• Identifies helpful staff
Is there a particular teacher or staff
member at this school who helps you
when you have problems with school
work or personal problems?
Responses
Assessment
What kinds of tests and tasks do your
teachers use to let you know how you
are doing in your classes?
• Balanced system of assessment
• Adjusting instruction based on
assessment data
Do teachers sometimes teach things
differently when you don’t understand
the first time?
Responses
116
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
Instruction
Are your classes orderly and wellmanaged? Does your teacher keep
things going smoothly in your classes?
• Student perception of learning
environment as orderly and wellmanaged
• Academically challenging
Do your teachers expect you to do your
environment
best in class? How do you know?
• Use of technology
• Knowledge of classes needed to
Do your classes require you to think?
graduate
Explain?
Talk about how you use technology to
help you learn.
Do you know how many credits you
have toward graduation?
Do you know how many you need to
graduate?
Responses
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
117
Planning and
Organization
Is your school clean and well-kept?
Are school rules clear to you? Is
everyone treated the same when they
do not follow the rules?
Do you have the things you need
to do your best? (Books, supplies,
technology, time to ask questions)
What would you change about your
school that would help you learn
better?
• Inviting learning environment
• Rules policies, and procedures
clear, consistent, well-known and
respected
• Resources to support student
learning (e.g., books, supplies,
technology, time to ask questions,
etc.)
• Identifies a time and topics of
discussion
Have you ever had a meeting that
talked about “transition planning”
talking about what you want to do after
high school and what kinds of things
could be done in school to help you do
these things later on? Did your parents
participate?
How often do you meet with your
guidance counselor? Have you ever
discussed your career interests with
your school guidance counselor or
anyone at school? Have you attended
a college fair, college night, or visited a
college campus?
Responses
Leadership
How often do you see the principal
or assistant principal(s) in your
classroom? Around the school?
• Builds and sustains relationships
• Guides and school’s work in
curriculum and instruction
Responses
118
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
School Culture
What do you like best about your
school?
What needs to be done to make this an
even better school?
How are students recognized for doing
well?
• Students’ perception of the school
• Sense of community
• Celebrations of student
accomplishments
• Mentoring
• Drop-out Prevention
What does your school do to
encourage students to stay in school?
Responses
Family and Community
Do your parents participate in school
activities?
How does the school let your parents
know about things at the school? How
can your parents get in touch with the
school?
• Welcoming environment that
encourages participation
• Two-way communication
Responses
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
119
Satisfaction Monitoring Survey
Following the exit meeting, the monitoring coordinator distributes a satisfaction survey to be
completed by the LEA. This is an evaluation of performance of the monitoring activities and team
members. This information will be used for continuing improvement of the OSP monitoring process
and changes will be made, if appropriate.
The next page will provide an example of the satisfaction survey.
120
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
The Office of Special Programs (OSP) on-site visit is to review the district’s
implementation of IDEA, WV State Code and Policy 2419. The OSP would
appreciate the district’s input, so we may continually work to improve our
monitoring process. Please rate your level of satisfaction with the on-site
monitoring activities.
Extremely satisfied
or
Guest Monitor:
Very satisfied
Special Education
Director:
Satisfied
School Year:
Somewhate satisfied
County:
Not at all satisfied
West Virginia Department of Education
Office of Special Programs
1. In general, how satisfied were you with the monitoring visit?
2. Did the Compliance Coordinator attempt to gain your trust and confidence
prior to the visit?
3. At the entrance conference, did the Compliance Coordinator clearly outline
the procedures and team activities for the visit?
4. Were staff interviews and focus group sessions conducted in a professional
manner?
5. At the exit conference, did the Compliance Coordinator and other members
of the monitoring team present themselves as fair and impartial? At the
exit conference, did the Compliance Coordinator address preliminary
compliance findings?
6. Did district staff have ample time to ask questions?
7. Did the team clearly describe the follow up monitoring activities?
8. Do you feel comfortable contacting the Compliance Coordinator with any
follow up questions?
9. What are some ways that we can improve the monitoring process?
10. Do you believe that you have the capacity to correct all findings?
11. What additional support would you like from the WVDE Office of Special Programs?
12. Did the Compliance Coordinator clearly communicate information about scheduled monitoring
activities prior to the monitoring visit? Was there any additional information that you would have liked to
have?
13. What do you believe are the greatest obstacles for your district in regards to improving student
achievement? What additional support could the WVDE provide to assist you in overcoming those
barriers?
14. Do you have any additional comments?
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
121
LEA Compliance Monitoring Report
The LEA compliance monitoring report enumerates the findings of noncompliance for individual
students as well as systemic issues. The LEA compliance monitoring report includes the following
components: report cover, administrative findings, file review summary, and student corrections. All
of the sections of the LEA monitoring report, along with the LEA Report Cover Letter are included on
the next pages.
122
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
1900 Kanawha Boulevard, East, Building 6
Charleston, WV 25305
http://wvde.state.wv.us
December 20, 2014
Mr. / Ms.,
Superintendent
Compliant County Schools
100 Percent Monitoring Street
Compliance, WV 10000
REF: Special Education Monitoring Report
Dear Mr. / Ms.:
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA) assigns to each state
education agency (SEA) the general supervisory authority for ensuring educational services are
provided to all eligible students with exceptionalities in accordance with the state and federal statutes
and regulations. The enclosed report summarizes the findings of noncompliance for individual
students and systemic issues identified in the local education agency (LEA). Preliminary findings
were discussed during the exit conference at the conclusion of the monitoring visit. The findings in
this report are final. The LEA must correct the findings of noncompliance as soon as possible, but
in no case more than one year from the date on which the SEA provided written notification to the
LEA of the noncompliance.
If within 30 calendar days of receipt of the monitoring report, the local education agency (LEA)
provides evidence that a finding is inaccurate; the LEA may file a written appeal requesting
reconsideration and submitting documentation to substantiate the finding(s) in question to the
Office of Special Programs (OSP). The OSP will review the appeal and if the facts contained in the
report are refuted by evidence submitted, the finding will be withdrawn.
Please be aware this report is considered public information under the Freedom of Information Act.
Therefore, a copy must be provided to individuals upon receipt of a written request. All personally
identifiable student and teacher information must be redacted before dissemination.
The OSP appreciates your cooperation during the on-site monitoring and your efforts to ensure the
continuous improvement of educational performance for all students with exceptionalities. The OSP
looks forward to working with district staff in the improvement process. Questions regarding this
report should be directed to, Coordinator, at (304) 558-2696 or email @ k12.wv.us.
Sincerely,
Assistant Director
Office of Special Programs
cc: Special Education Director
EducateWV
Enhancing Learning. For Now. For the Future
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
123
Example Monitoring Report
Compliant County Schools
2014-2015 LEA Compliance Monitoring Report
West Virginia Department of Education
Date of Record Review:
November 21, 2014
Date of Notification:
December 20, 2014
Verification of Corrections Due by:
December 20, 2015
Prepared by: WVDE, OSP
Compliance Coordinator:
Phone: (304)558-2696
Submit documentation to:
West Virginia Department of Education
Office of Special Programs
Building 6, Room 304
1900 Kanawha Boulevard, East
Charleston, WV 25305-0330
124
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
2014-2015 LEA Compliance Monitoring Report
Administrative Findings
Item
Description
Corrective Action
AF1
Finance: Budget and
Expenditures
COMPLIANT - No Action
Required
COMPLIANT - No Action
Required
COMPLIANT - No Action
Required
Correction Required: See
Correction Key
Correction Required: See
Correction Key
COMPLIANT - No Action
Required
COMPLIANT - No Action
Required
Correction Required: See
Correction Key
AF2
AF3
AF4
AF5
AF6
Finance: Time/Effort
Finance: Audit
Findings
Instructional
Groupings
Certification/
Caseloads
AF8
Full Instructional Day
Classroom Location
and Size
Continuum of
Services
Item
Description
AF4
Instructional
Groupings
AF5
Certification/
Caseloads
AF8
Continuum of
Services
AF7
Due Date
LEA Verification
Date
OSP Verification
Date
12/20/15
12/20/15
12/20/15
Specific Findings
Maximum number of students per instructional period are over Compliant County High
School for Mr. Smith' Links RLA class with 17 students and Mr. Doe's Links Math
class with 16 students.
Ms. Doe is the teacher of the gifted for Compliant County Schools, but does not hold
gifted certification. Out-of-field authorization is pending.
All special education services are provided in a pull-out setting. There is not a full
continuum of services available to meet the individual needs of all special education
students.
All identified noncompliance must be corrected within one year. Correction of the identified noncompliance within one
year is monitored based upon submitted documentation and/or follow up visits. If upon review the district has failed to
correct a noncompliance, the WVDE notifies the district in writing stipulating further direction to ensure the
noncompliance is corrected. Correction must occur within one year of written notification of the identification of
noncompliance.
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
125
2014-2015 LEA Compliance Monitoring Report
File Review Summary
General Supervision
Item
Topic
Authority
GS1
IEP Amendment
IDEA §300.324
GS2
Prior Written Notice (PWN) IDEA §300.324
Notice of IEP/EC Meeting
Item
Topic
Authority
MN1
8 Day Notice
IDEA §300.504
MN2
Reason for Meeting
IDEA §300.504
MN3
Procedural Safeguards
IDEA §300.504
MN4
Parent Invitation
IDEA §300.504
IEP Participation and
Item
Topic
Authority
IEP1
IEP Annually Reviewed
IDEA §300.324
IEP2
IEP Team
IDEA §300.321
IEP3
ESY Services
IDEA §300.321
IEP4
Transfer of Rights
IDEA §300.106
IEP5-7 Present Levels
IDEA §300.324
IEP8
Progress Update
IDEA §300.320
IEP9
Critical Skill
IDEA §300.320
IEP10
Goal - Timeframe
IDEA §300.320
IEP11
Goal - Condition
IDEA §300.324
IEP12
Goal - Behavior
IDEA §300.320
IEP13
Goal - Criteria
IDEA §300.320
IEP14
Goal - Procedure
IDEA §300.320
Secondary Transition Goals and Services
Item
Topic
Authority
TR1-10 Transition
IDEA §300.320
IEP Services
Item
Topic
Authority
SR1-5 Supplemental Services
IDEA §300.320
SR6-10 Special Services
IDEA §300.320
SR11-15 Related Services
IDEA §300.320
126
Sample Size Compliance
Focus Areas
6
100.00
Compliance Criteria Met
15
100.00
Sample Size Compliance
Focus Areas
15
100.00
**Address Systemic
15
73.33
Findings Below 75% Prior
15
100.00
to Prong Two Review
15
100.00
Sample Size Compliance
Focus Areas
12
100.00
15
100.00
0
100.00
5
60.00
45
84.44
**Address Systemic
15
100.00
Findings Below 75% Prior
15
100.00
to Prong Two Review
2
100.00
30
50.00
32
96.88
32
100.00
32
93.75
Sample Size Compliance
Focus Areas
10
100.00
Compliance Criteria Met
Sample Size Compliance
Focus Areas
20
95.00
Compliance Criteria Met
30
100.00
10
100.00
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
Assessment
Item
Topic
Authority
AS1-2
Testing
IDEA §300.320
Least Restrictive Environment/Placement
Item
Topic
Authority
LRE1-4 Placement
Eligibility
Item
Topic
EL1-4
Eligibility Procedures
Discipline
Item
Topic
DC1-7
Discipline Procedures
Service Verification
Item
Topic
SV
Service Verification
IDEA §300.116
Authority
IDEA §300.304
Authority
IDEA §300.536
Authority
IDEA §300.600
Sample Size Compliance
Focus Areas
3
100.00
Compliance Criteria Met
Sample Size Compliance
19
100.00
Focus Areas
Compliance Criteria Met
Sample Size Compliance
Focus Areas
12
100.00
Compliance Criteria Met
Sample Size Compliance
0
100.00
Sample Size Compliance
9
100.00
Focus Areas
Compliance Criteria Met
Focus Areas
Compliance Criteria Met
**All items scoring below 75% indicate a systemic finding that should be addressed prior to Prong Two
Review increasing the probability of Prong Two Compliance. Methods for addressing systemic
findings could include staff training, mentoring, memorandum or clarification, etc.
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
127
2014-2015 LEA Compliance Monitoring Report
Individual Student Corrections
Corrective Action Codes:
1
2
3
4
Correction has been made.
No longer enrolled in LEA.
No longer receives special education services.
Student ID
First Name
Last Name
School
111111111
John
Doe
CES
Item
Noncompliance
MN2
First Name
Jane
Item
Noncompliance
First Name
Johnny
Item
Noncompliance
IEP 7
N
IEP 11
N
Last Name
School
Doe
CHS
Signature of
Date of
LEA
Correction
Validator
N
Student ID
11111114
First Name
Janie
Item
Noncompliance
IEP 6
N
IEP 7
N
IEP 11
N
128
Last Name
School
Doe
CMS
Signature of
Date of
LEA
Correction
Validator
N
Student ID
11111113
MN2
LEA
SEA
Verification Verification
Date
Date
N
Student ID
11111112
IEP 11
**All Student Items Must Be Corrected at 100%.
No longer in school (graduation, dropout, deceased).
Last Name
School
Doe
CHS
Signature of
Date of
LEA
Correction
Validator
Corrective Action
Notify parents of procedural error(s). If appropriate membership was not
in attendance, reschedule IEP with appropriate membership.
Corrective Action
Amend IEP with parental agreement to include an appropriate condition
statement.
Corrective Action
Reconvene IEP Team to restate present level narrative to identify
performance gaps.
Amend IEP with parental agreement to include an appropriate condition
statement.
Notify parents of procedural error(s). If appropriate membership was not
in attendance, reschedule IEP with appropriate membership.
Corrective Action
Reconvene IEP Team to restate present level narrative in objective and
measurable terms.
Reconvene IEP Team to restate present level narrative to identify
performance gaps.
Amend IEP with parental agreement to include an appropriate condition
statement.
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
West Virginia Monitoring Priorities
The West Virginia monitoring priorities consist of West Virginia Compliance Indicators reviewed
during the on-site monitoring process. LEA’s should review the West Virginia monitoring priorities as
part of the DSA to assure compliance.
West Virginia Monitoring Priorities
WV Indicator
Descriptions of Indicators
Compliance Level
WV 1
Exceptional student have an instructional day, school day and
school calendar equivalent to non-exceptional students in the
same chronological age setting.
100%
WV 5
Exceptional students are served in schools with age-appropriate
peers and are grouped with students who have similar social,
functional and/or academic needs.
100%
WV 7
Professional special education personnel are within overall
caseload limits and per period caseload limits.
100%
WV 8
Adherence to state policies and procedures when removal
of a student with a disability does not constitute a change of
placement. Adherence to state policies and procedures when
removal of a student with a disability constitutes a change of
placement.
100%
WV 9
Student files and corresponding documentation verifies all
services are implemented.
100%
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
129
OSP Monitoring
Results Coordinator Assignments
The OSP compliance/result coordinator assignments include at least one compliance coordinator
and one results coordinator for each of the eight RESA’s. The compliance coordinator assigned to
his/her RESA will have primary responsibilities for conducting the on-site monitoring process. The
results coordinator assigned to his/her RESA will support the compliance coordinator during the
monitoring process. The results coordinator will assist with identifying LEA deficits in performance
and support LEA efforts to improve overall results.
130
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
Desk Review
The following requirements are monitored through the OSP Desk Monitoring:
• five most recent purchase orders, including requisitions and invoices;
• most recent single audit report;
• equipment list;
• private school consultation;
• FY14 LEA Plan/budget spreadsheet with corresponding teacher names and time and effort
documentation;
• WVEIS caseload report (unduplicated caseloads to include all special education teachers and
related service providers);
• list of all special education providers with corresponding certification;
• school bell to bell schedules and special education bus schedules; and
• the name and telephone number of the district’s treasurer.
The next page provides the OSP Desk Audit Summary form used during the desk review.
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
131
OSP Desk Review Summary
County:Date Received:
OSP Team:
1. The name and telephone number of the district’s treasurer:
Preliminary Findings:
2. Copies of five most recent purchase orders, including requisitions, invoices and cut
check:
Preliminary Findings:
3. Latest Finance Audit Report (pages related only to special education financial audit):
Preliminary Findings:
4. Private school consultation:
Preliminary Findings:
5. WVEIS caseload report (unduplicated caseloads to include all special education teachers
and related service providers):
Preliminary Findings:
6. Special Education Providers with Corresponding Certification:
Preliminary Findings:
7. School Bell to Bell schedules and special education bus schedules:
Preliminary Findings:
8. LEA Plan/budget spreadsheet with corresponding teacher names and time and effort
documentation for the most recent completed time period:
Preliminary Findings:
132
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
Results Data Analysis
The OSP has revised the monitoring framework to focus on educational results and functional
outcomes for students with disabilities and balancing those results with compliance requirements of
IDEA. The OSP provides a Basic Data Display before monitoring visit which provides basic data for
the LEA to begin to focus on student results and a Theory of Action. The LEA presents their Theory
of Action initiatives to improve results for students with disabilities and their Result Improvement Plan
(RIP) during the Entrance Conference. The following provides an example of the Basic Data Display
and tools to assist in the Results component for the LEA.
Facilitated Discussion
Infrastructure Analysis
1. What types of infrastructure analyses have been completed by your LEA in preparation for
other accountability and improvement initiatives (e.g. ESEA Flexibility Waivers, etc.)? How can
information obtained from the previous analyses be used in the Results Improvement Plan (RIP)
analysis?
2. What are the systemic challenges that prevent your LEA from implementing evidence-based
practices with fidelity?
3. How will you ensure that improvement strategies included in your RIP will be aligned to other
initiatives designed to improve results for children and youth with disabilities?
4. What will be your first steps in completing the infrastructure analysis?
What types of technical assistance will your LEA need to support the completion of the infrastructure
analysis
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
133
How Good Is Your Logic Model?
Ask yourself:
• Is each listed outcome truly an ‘outcome’? Does the logic model clearly separate outcomes from
outputs, or are the distinctions blurred?
• Does the highest-level outcome represent a meaningful benefit of value to the public?
• Does it have inherent value? Can it be associated with the program?
• Is the model truly logical? Do the relationships among the program elements make sense? Are the
casual relationships supported? Three ways to check:
• Starting at inputs, ask “why?” at each level: why do we need these inputs? Why do we need to
conduct these activities?
• Starting at the impact level, and working backward, ask “how?” How are we going to produce
these outcomes? The items immediately preceding an outcome should show “how.”
• Sometimes components are necessary but not sufficient. Ask yourself, “What else?”
For example, achieving healthy one-year-olds requires not only achieving a healthy birth but
also achieving proper care during the baby’s first year. Asking ‘what else?’ helps spot leaps of
faith.
• Are the resources realistic? Is what you intend to do even possible given your resources?
• How valid are the assumptions? Are they based on experience and research, or are they best
guesses?
• Does the logic model reflect the opinions and support of key stakeholders? Were any stakeholders
left out?
134
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
Logic Model Review Worksheet
Inputs
Are all the major resources listed such as:
†† Teachers, service providers, administrators, etc.
†† Support from key stakeholders or organizations
†† Funding sources, e.g., private or public funding, donations, fee for service
†† Research base
†† Do the resources seem comprehensive?
†† Do the inputs seem to match the program?
Comments:
Activities
†† Are all the major activities listed that comprise the program, e.g., training, coaching, etc.
†† Is it clear what the program will actually do?
†† Do the activities seem sufficient?
Comments:
Participation
†† Is it clear who the activities are to reach and benefit? (e.g., youth ages 6-11)
†† Are all primary audiences included?
†† Are the mix and intensity of activities appropriate for the type of students/participants? (e.g.,
greater intensity for higher-risk populations than for lower-risk ones)
Comments:
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
135
Outcomes
†† Is each outcome truly an “outcome”?
†† Are there outcomes written as change statements? Will things increase, decrease or stay the
same?
†† Are the outcomes linked as progressive steps towards a long-term goal?
†† Are the outcomes meaningful and relevant?
†† Are the outcomes realistic and attainable?
Comments:
Overall Review Questions
†† Do the inputs, outputs, and outcomes link together in a sequence to achieve the desired result?
Is the logic model truly logical?
†† Do the steps that turn inputs into outputs into outcomes seem sensible and logical?
†† Can the program, as described in this logic model, be implemented with available resources?
Is what you intend to do possible, given your resources? If not, what will be done?
†† What might be unintended or negative outcomes?
†† Does the one-page graphic communicate well?
Comments:
Adapted from DEVELOPING A LOGIC MODEL: TEACHING AND TRAINING GUIDE 2/29/2008 HANDOUT - 50 © 2008 by
the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. All rights reserved
136
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
137
Did the activity occur? Did the activity accomplish its intended outcome(s)? If not, why not?
Do practitioners implement the practices with fidelity (i.e., as intended)?
Evaluation
What activities will
be implemented to
ensure schools support
practitioners?
What activities will be
implemented to ensure
effective training, TA,
coaching and other
supports related to
desired practices?
What activities will be
implemented to ensure
practitioners have
relevant knowledge
and implement aligned
practices?
If practitioners know A,
B, C and do D, E, F
What activities will
be implemented to
ensure LEA system
supports schools and
implementation of
desired practices?
If we provide direct
supports for effective
practices e.g., training,
TA, coaching on A, B, C
and D, E, F
Plan of Action
If the schools did G, H, I
to support practitioners
If the LEA system did
J, K, L to schools and
practitioners
Theory of Action
Did outcomes improve?
What are the desired
results or outcomes for
children and/or families?
Then the desired result
for children and/or
families will improve
What do the data tell us
about child and/or family
outcomes?
What data do we have
on practices?
• What are the questions you hope to answer?
• What observations or conclusions can you make based on your local
analysis by variables?
• What observations or conclusions can you make based on the LEA system
infrastructure analysis (i.e., governance, funding/finance, personnel/
workforce, data system, monitoring and accountability, and quality
standards)?
• What are the local contributing factors?
Data Analysis
Results
Practices
LEA Systems
Level
Theory of Action Worksheet
138
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
Evaluation
Plan of Action
Theory of Action
Data Analysis
Level
LEA System
LEA Systems:
Schools
Schools
Direct Supports
Practices
Results
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
139
Initiative Name
and
Contact Person
Expected
Outcome
Previous Initiatives
Target
Population
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
† Yes
† No
† Yes
† No
† Yes
† No
† Yes
† No
† Yes
† No
† Yes
† No
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1=Low
5=High
Financial
Commitment
† Yes
† No
Mandatory/
Regulatory
Activity
1 2 3 4 5
1=Few Schools
5=All Schools
Scale of
Implementation
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1=Low
5=High
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1=Low
5=High
Relationship to Level of
Focus Area for Success
Improvement
(Outcomes)
Evidence of
Outcomes
This inventory can be used to identify current and previously implemented initiatives that relate to the focus area for improvement identified in the
LEA’s Results Improvement Plan.
Initiative Inventory for the Results Improvement Plan
140
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
Adapted by the Southeast Regional Resource Center (SERRC) from the District Initiative Inventory developed by the Scaling –up of Evidence-based Practices
Center (SISEP) and the National Implementation Research Network(NIRN). The SISEP-NIRN District Initiative Inventory is available at
http://implementation.fpg..unc.edu/. October 2013.
What lessons were learned from these previously implemented initiatives that could potentially enhance development and implementation of the LEA’s Results
Improvement Plan?
What were some of the challenges experienced in implementing the previous initiatives?
Are there components of the above initiatives that could be incorporated into the improvement strategies in the LEA’s Results Improvement Plan?
Of the previously implemented initiatives, are there any initiatives that should be re-initiated and included in the Results Improvement Plan?
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
141
Initiative Name
and
Contact Person
Expected
Outcome
Current Initiatives
Target
Population
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
† Yes
† No
† Yes
† No
† Yes
† No
† Yes
† No
† Yes
† No
† Yes
† No
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1=Low
5=High
Financial
Commitment
† Yes
† No
Mandatory/
Regulatory
Activity
1 2 3 4 5
1=Few Schools
5=All Schools
Scale of
Implementation
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1=Low
5=High
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1=Low
5=High
Relationship to Level of
Focus Area for Success
Improvement
(Outcomes)
Evidence of
Outcomes
142
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
Adapted by the Southeast Regional Resource Center (SERRC) from the District Initiative Inventory developed by the Scaling –up of Evidence-based Practices
Center (SISEP) and the National Implementation Research Network(NIRN). The SISEP-NIRN District Initiative Inventory is available at
http://implementation.fpg..unc.edu/. October 2013.
What lessons were learned from these current initiatives that could potentially enhance development and implementation of the LEA’s Results Improvement
Plan?
What were some of the challenges experienced in implementing the current initiatives?
When considering the current initiatives, are there any core components that should be incorporated into the improvement strategies in the LEA’s Results
Improvement Plan?
Should any of the above initiatives be incorporated in the LEA’s Results Improvement Plan? If yes, which ones?
Results Improvement Plan Focus for
Improvement Worksheet
Purpose: This worksheet is designed to assist LEAs in summarizing results from Results Improvement
Plan data and infrastructure analysis to determine if a primary concern leads to a meaningful
and appropriate focus for improvement supported by data. It should be completed after the LEA
completes both the broad and in-depth data and infrastructure analyses. This worksheet can also
be used to inform the development of the theory of action.
Primary Concern:
What from your broad data analysis
supports the identification of this area
as primary concern?
What from your infrastructure analysis,
including strengths and challenges
of system components, supports
the identification of this as a primary
concern?
Are there currently initiatives in your
LEA that are related to this primary
concern? Are you connected to them?
Are there resources (e.g., funding,
expertise) in your LEA that can be
leverage to address this primary
concern? Are they equitably
distributed?
How did information from your
in-depth data and infrastructure
analysis help you further refine this
as your primary concern (e.g., What’s
working? What’s not working?)
Is this a priority in your LEA? Is there
leadership commitment to making the
change?
Is there stakeholder support or buy
in on the part of partner agencies,
practitioners, families, legislature,
advocacy groups, administrators?
Are there schools, programs in the
LEA that have effectively addressed
this issue where you could scale-up
success or learn more about what
works?
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
143
What strategies might you use to build
your schools’ capacity to improve
results in this area?
Do the strategies address the
magnitude of the problem?
Focus for Improvement: What are the
results for children and families that
you expect to achieve with this focus?
Is this focus feasible? Can it be
addressed in 2-4 years?
Conclusion: Do the answers you
provided to the questions above
substantiate the rationale for selecting
this focus for improvement? Will
the information be convincing to
stakeholders? If not, what are your
next steps?
144
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
Notes
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
145
Notes
146
WVDE • Office of Special Programs
Notes
Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook
147
Michael J. Martirano, Ed.D.
State Superintendent of Schools