Monitoring Annual Report
2010
Integrated
Monitoring
Activities
Monitoring
Activities
West Virginia Department of Education
Division of Curriculum and Instructional Services
Office of Special Programs
West Virginia Board of Education
2010-2011
Monitoring
Activities
Priscilla M. Haden, President
Jenny N. Phillips, Vice President
Robert W. Dunlevy, Secretary
Michael I. Green, Member
Burma Hatfield, Member
Lowell E. Johnson, Member
L. Wade Linger Jr., Member
Gayle C. Manchin, Member
William M. White, Member
Brian E. Noland, Ex Officio
Chancellor
West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission
James L. Skidmore, Ex Officio
Chancellor
West Virginia Council for Community and Technical College Education
Jorea M. Marple, Ex Officio
State Superintendent of Schools
West Virginia Department of Education
Introduction
The West Virginia Department of Education, Office of Special Programs (OSP) has the primary 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 2004 (IDEA) by local education agencies (LEAs). The OSP
monitoring system is accountable for enforcing the requirements and ensuring continuous improvement. As
stated in Section 616 of the 2004 amendments to the IDEA, “The primary focus of Federal and State monitoring
activities described in paragraph (1) shall be: (A) improving educational results and functional outcomes for
all children with disabilities and (B) 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.” The General Supervision System in West Virginia is comprised of the eight components
illustrated in the puzzle graphic below and is the responsibility of the OSP. Although each piece of the puzzle
represents a separate component, these components connect, interact and form a comprehensive system.
Effective
Dispute
Resolution
Integrated
Monitoring
Activities
State
Performance
Plan
Components of
General Supervision
Ask Yourself How Each Piece
Operates and Fits Into the Whole
Data on
Process
and Results
Fiscal
Management
Monitoring
Activities
Improvement,
Correction, Incentives &
Sanctions
Tar
Assis geted Te
chnic
tance
al
&
Deve Professio
lopm
nal
ent
Policies,
Procedu
res,and
EffecP
tirvic
e eIm
s plemen
tation
Proced
Effective
i
ures,and
Implem
entation
This annual report includes data on compliance indicator findings which were made during the Comprehensive Self-Assessment
Desk Audit (CSADA) reviews, On-Site Verification Visits of all 57 school districts including the West Virginia Schools for the
Deaf and Blind and the Office of Institutional Education Programs (OIEP); and two Full On-Site Monitorings with Preston County
and OIEP conducted by the OSP during the 2009-2010 school year. In addition, all 57 districts completed and submitted an
on-line CSADA or Annual Desk Audit (ADA).
When districts are found to be noncompliant on a compliance indicator(s) the districts are notified in writing by the OSP and
are required to submit improvement plan(s). The improvement plan(s) will provide specific steps the district takes to make
correction. The OSP conducts a review to verify the student specific correction(s) is/are completed and any systemic practices
and procedures are corrected to assist in preventing future noncompliance. This process documents the Department’s efforts
to meet requirements for IDEA 2004 and Policy 2419: Regulations for the Education of Students with Exceptionalities.
This report consists of seven sections as follows:
• Section 1: West Virginia School Districts’ Findings of Noncompliance for 2009-2010
• Section 2: Compliance Indicator Definitions
• Section 3: Top 10 Compliance Indicator Findings for the 2009-2010 School Year
• Section 4: United States Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs
(OSEP) 09-02 Memorandum
• Section 5: Annual Determinations for the past four school years (2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010)
• Section 6: OSP Monitoring Coordinator Assignments
• Section 7: Current Monitoring Process for 2010-2011 School Year
Section 1 identifies all the findings of noncompliance for all 57 school districts in West Virginia for the 2009-2010 school year.
Section 2 contains definitions for each of the identified compliance indicators. Section 3 consists of the top 10 compliance
indicator findings for school districts in the State. Section 4 includes the United States Department of Education, OSEP 09-02
memorandum, Reporting on Correction of Noncompliance in the Annual Performance Report Required under Sections 616 and
642 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The memorandum provides guidance regarding the OSP’s determination
of correction in the 57 school districts. Section 5 provides an overview of the annual determinations for the past four school
years. The district(s) will fall into one of four possible categories for their annual determination: “meets requirements”, “needs
assistance”, “needs intervention”, or “needs substantial intervention” (according to IDEA regulations Section 300.604). Section
6 is a map of the OSP monitoring coordinator assignments for the identified Local Education Agencies (LEAs) within RESA(s).
Section 7 explains the current on-site monitoring process for the 2010-2011 school year.
Monitoring
Activities
1
Section 1
Reported Findings for the 2009-2010 School Year
On-Site CSADA Verification Visits
57 School Districts
CSADA/ADA 2010 Submissions
57 School Districts
Full On-Site Monitoring
2 School Districts
Total Findings: 218
Total Findings: 111
Total Findings: 21
The chart above provides an overview of the total number of compliance indicator findings for the 2009-2010 school year. The
findings of noncompliance are provided to each Local Education Agency (LEA) for review and correction. According to OSEP,
if a State finds noncompliance in an LEA, the State must notify the LEA in writing of the noncompliance and the requirement
that the noncompliance be corrected as soon as possible, but in no case more than one year from identification. The one year
correction requirement begins the date the State provides written notification to the LEA. The written notification from the State
will detail specific steps the LEA must take to make correction of the noncompliance. Following correction the State reviews
student specific findings and conducts a second review to ensure no additional noncompliance is present.
Monitoring
Activities
2
Section 2
Indicator
SPP 4A
Performance/
Compliance
SPP 4B
Compliance
Replaces
CSADA/ADA Compliance Indicators
1.9a
Rates of Suspension and Expulsion
a. The rate of suspension and expulsion of greater than 10 days in a school year
for children with disabilities does not identify a significant discrepancy when
compared to the suspension and expulsion rate for student without disabilities.
1.9b
Rates of Suspension and Expulsion
b. The rate of suspension and expulsion of greater than 10 days in a school year
for children with disabilities does not identify a significant discrepancy by race/
ethnicity based on a review of district policies, procedures and practices.
Disproportionality
SPP 9
Compliance
2.1
Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in
special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification.
SPP 10
Compliance
2.2
Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in
specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification.
Effective General Supervision Part B/Child Find
SPP 11
Compliance
3.2a
Percent of children with parental consent to evaluation, who were evaluated within 80
days (or State established timeline).
SPP 12
Compliance
3.6
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 birthday.
3.7
Percent of youth aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes coordinated,
measureable, annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the
student to meet the post-secondary goals.
SPP 13
Compliance
West Virginia Policy 2419 Indicators
WV 1
2419 Ch 1
Compliance
1.19
Percent of exceptional students have an instructional day, school day and school
calendar equivalent to non-exceptional student so the same chronological age in the
same setting.
WV 2
2419 Ch 1
Compliance
1.20
Percent of classrooms for eligible student with disabilities are located in close proximity
to age appropriate non exceptional peers.
WV 3
2419 Ch 1
Compliance
1.21
Percent of classrooms for eligible exceptional students are adequate and comparable
to the classrooms for non-exceptional peers.
WV 4
2419 Ch 2
Compliance
1.2
Provision of presentations, informational medial releases, brochures to doctors,
organizations and other agencies.
WV 5
2419 Ch 2
Compliance
1.3
Percent of 3-5 year olds screened, referred and evaluated for services are completed
within appropriate timelines.
3.10
Percent of students with disabilities who have exited and have a Summary of
Performance in their file.
3.2b
Percent of reevaluations and annual reviews completed within required timelines.
WV 6
2419 Ch 3
Compliance
WV 7
2419 Ch 3,5
Compliance
Monitoring
Activities
3
WV 8
2419 Ch 4
Compliance
1.6
Percent of ECs with clearly documented data that support the conclusions of the EC.
WV 9
2419 Ch 5
Compliance
1.18
Percent of exceptional students are served in schools with age-appropriate peers and are
grouped with students who have similar social, functional and/or academic needs.
WV 10
2419 Ch 5
Compliance
3.9
Percent of students with disabilities and students identified as exceptional gifted and their
parents receive timely notice of the transfer of rights prior to age 18.
3.4
Percent of files reviewed must meet 80% compliance on the General File Review Checklist
for every compliance standard.
3.1
Percent of professional special education personnel are within overall caseload limits and
per period caseload limits.
WV 13
2419 Ch 7
Compliance
1.10
Percent of adherence to state policies and procedures when removal of a student with a
disability does not constitute a change of placement.
WV 14
2419 Ch 7
Compliance
1.11
Percent of adherence to state policies and procedures when removal of a student with a
disability constitutes a change of placement.
1.1
Percent of files and corresponding documentation verifies all services are implemented.
3.3
Current and accurate data are maintained, verified and reports are submitted in a timely
manner.
3.5
Districts comply with state and federal confidentiality requirements.
1.4
Percent of parents informed of their parental rights and responsibilities.
1.5
Percent of Prior Written Notices provided when the district proposes or refuses to initiate or
change the student’s identification, evaluation, educational placement or provision of FAPE.
WV 11
2419 Ch 5
Compliance
WV 12
2419 Ch 6
Compliance
WV 15
2419 Ch 9
Compliance
WV 16
2419 Ch 9
Compliance
WV 17
2419 Ch 10
Compliance
WV 18
2419 Ch 10
Compliance
WV 19
2419 Ch 10
Compliance
Monitoring
Activities
SPP: State Performance Plan
WV: West Virginia Policy 2419: Regulations for the Education of Students with Exceptionalities
4
Section 3
WV State Monitoring Top 10 Compliance Indicator Findings for School Districts
2009-2010 School Year
1.
Indicator
Citation
Compliance Indicator
Target
3.2*
(New SPP 11)
SPP
Indicator 11
Children with parental consent to evaluate are
evaluated within the established 80-day timeline.
100% of initial evaluations are completed
within the 80-day timeline or accurate,
acceptable reasons are entered in WVEIS.
Indicator
Citation
Compliance Indicator
Target
1.18*
(New WV 9)
Policy 2419
Chapter 5,
Section 2.J
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.
100% of exceptional students are served
in schools with age-appropriate peers and
are grouped with students who have similar
social, functional and/or academic needs.
Indicator
Citation
Compliance Indicator
Target
1.1*
(New WV 15)
Policy 2419
Chapter 9,
Section 1.C
Each public agency must provide special education
and related services to a student with an exceptionality
in accordance with an individualized education
program (IEP).
100% of files and corresponding
documentation verifying all services are
implemented.
Indicator
Citation
Compliance Indicator
1.11*
(New WV 14)
Policy 2419
Chapter 7,
Section 2
g
MonitorinTarget
The district implements the required procedures when The district follows policies and procedures
s of the time when removal of a student
a student with a disability is removed
for 100%
ivitie
ctschool
Afrom
disciplinary reasons and the removal constitutes a with a disability constitutes a change of
change of placement.
placement.
Indicator
Citation
Compliance Indicator
Target
3.4*
(New WV11)
Policy 2419
Chapter 5
IEPs are written to include all required components.
Files reviewed must meet 80% compliance
on the General IEP File Review Checklist.
2.
3.
4.
5.
5
6.
Citation
Compliance Indicator
Target
Policy 2419
Chapter 1,
Section 2.A
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.
100% of exceptional students have an
instructional day, school day and school
calendar equivalent to non-exceptional
students of the same chronological age in
the same setting.
Indicator
Citation
Compliance Indicator
Target
3.3*
(New WV 16)
Policy 2419
Chapter 9,
Section 1.C
It is the responsibility of each public agency to collect
and maintain current and accurate student data,
which verifies the delivery of a free appropriate public
education and report data as required.
Current and accurate data are maintained
and verify: 100% of reevaluation and annual
reviews are completed within required
timelines as set forth in Policy 2419; and
reports are submitted in a timely manner.
Indicator
Citation
Compliance Indicators
Target
3.1*
(New WV 12)
Policy 2419
Chapter 6,
Section 4.B
The district maintains required caseload limits.
100% of professional special education
personnel are within overall caseload
limits and per period caseload limits.
Indicator
Citation
Compliance Indicator
Target
3.7*
(New SPP 13)
SPP
Indicator 13
Students age 16 and above have an IEP that includes
coordinated, measurable, annual IEP goals and
transition services that will reasonably enable the
student to meet the post-secondary goals.
100% of IEPs for eligible students include
a statement of transition services that
is based on appropriate assessment
results and prepares the student for
identified postsecondary outcomes.
Indicator
1.19*
(New WV 1)
7.
8.
9.
Monitoring
Activities
10.
Indicator
Citation
Compliance Indicator
Target
1.10*
(New WV 13)
Policy 2419
Chapter 7,
Section 1
The district implements the required procedures when
a student with a disability is removed from school for
disciplinary reasons beyond ten cumulative days and
the removal does not constitute a change in placement.
The district follows policies and
procedures 100% of the time when
removal of a student with a disability
does not constitute a change of
placement.
6
Section 4
Monitoring
Activities
7
Monitoring
Activities
8
Monitoring
Activities
9
Monitoring
Activities
10
Section 5
District
Barbour
Berkeley
Boone
Braxton
Brooke
Cabell
Calhoun
Clay
Doddridge
Fayette
Gilmer
Grant
Greenbrier
Hampshire
Hancock
Hardy
Harrison
Jackson
Jefferson
Kanawha
Lewis
Lincoln
Logan
Marion
Marshall
Mason
McDowell
Mercer
Mineral
Mingo
Monongalia
Annual Determinations 2007
(Data Source 2005-2006)
48
Met Requirements
49
Met Requirements
50
Met Requirements
46
Needs Assistance
55
Met Requirements
52
Met Requirements
52
Met Requirements
55
Met Requirements
51
Met Requirements
49
Met Requirements
47
Met Requirements
46
Needs Assistance
53
Met Requirements
55
Met Requirements
53
Met Requirements
58
Met Requirements
50
Met Requirements
55
Met Requirements
47
Met Requirements
43
Needs Assistance
51
Met Requirements
49
Met Requirements
53
Met Requirements
52
Met Requirements
54
Met Requirements
44
Needs Assistance
43
Needs Assistance
44
Needs Assistance
61
Met Requirements
46
Needs Assistance
50
Met Requirements
Annual Determinations
Annual Determinations 2008
(Data Source 2006-2007)
54
Met Requirements
53
Met Requirements
43
Needs Assistance
57
Met Requirements
59
Met Requirements
56
Met Requirements
53
Met Requirements
57
Met Requirements
55
Met Requirements
46
Needs Assistance
57
Met Requirements
59
Met Requirements
48
Met Requirements
55
Met Requirements
54
Met Requirements
49
Met Requirements
54
Met Requirements
52
Met Requirements
51
Met Requirements
48
Met Requirements
51
Met Requirements
49
Met Requirements
50
Met Requirements
50
Met Requirements
55
Met Requirements
47
Met Requirements
43
Needs Assistance
48
Met Requirements
57
Met Requirements
53
Met Requirements
42
Needs Assistance
Annual Determinations 2009
(Data Source 2007-2008)
52
Met Requirements
51
Met Requirements
47
Met Requirements
52
Met Requirements
56
Met Requirements
50
Met Requirements
49
Met Requirements
55
Met Requirements
52
Met Requirements
48
Met Requirements
58
Met Requirements
56
Met Requirements
49
Met Requirements
52
Met Requirements
58
Met Requirements
55
Met Requirements
47
Met Requirements
48
Met Requirements
54
Met Requirements
47
Met Requirements
48
Met Requirements
54
Met Requirements
51
Met Requirements
47
Met Requirements
55
Met Requirements
41
Needs Assistance
44
Needs Assistance
45
Needs Assistance
55
Met Requirements
52
Met Requirements
46
Needs Assistance
Monitoring
Activities
11
Annual Determinations 2010
(Data Source 2008-2009)
86
Met Requirements
90
Met Requirements
78
Met Requirements
86
Met Requirements
85
Met Requirements
87
Met Requirements
82
Met Requirements
100
Met Requirements
72
Needs Assistance
88
Met Requirements
92
Met Requirements
92
Met Requirements
85
Met Requirements
78
Met Requirements
90
Met Requirements
78
Met Requirements
95
Met Requirements
72
Needs Assistance
81
Met Requirements
76
Met Requirements
78
Met Requirements
77
Met Requirements
85
Met Requirements
90
Met Requirements
88
Met Requirements
63
Needs Intervention
87
Met Requirements
87
Met Requirements
79
Met Requirements
88
Met Requirements
87
Met Requirements
District
Monroe
Morgan
Nicholas
Ohio
Pendleton
Pleasants
Pocahontas
Preston
Putnam
Raleigh
Randolph
Ritchie
Roane
Summers
Taylor
Tucker
Tyler
Upshur
Wayne
Webster
Wetzel
Wirt
Wood
Wyoming
Annual Determinations 2007
(Data Source 2005-2006)
52
Met Requirements
53
Met Requirements
52
Met Requirements
47
Met Requirements
48
Met Requirements
52
Met Requirements
53
Met Requirements
50
Met Requirements
54
Met Requirements
46
Needs Assistance
56
Met Requirements
45
Needs Assistance
46
Needs Assistance
53
Met Requirements
50
Met Requirements
61
Met Requirements
61
Met Requirements
48
Met Requirements
53
Met Requirements
55
Met Requirements
53
Met Requirements
55
Met Requirements
54
Met Requirements
46
Needs Assistance
Annual Determinations 2008
(Data Source 2006-2007)
52
Met Requirements
52
Met Requirements
48
Met Requirements
55
Met Requirements
55
Met Requirements
51
Met Requirements
57
Met Requirements
48
Met Requirements
55
Met Requirements
50
Met Requirements
54
Met Requirements
54
Met Requirements
49
Met Requirements
56
Met Requirements
53
Met Requirements
59
Met Requirements
59
Met Requirements
49
Met Requirements
55
Met Requirements
49
Met Requirements
57
Met Requirements
53
Met Requirements
47
Met Requirements
51
Met Requirements
Annual Determinations 2009
(Data Source 2007-2008)
53
Met Requirements
52
Met Requirements
53
Met Requirements
50
Met Requirements
49
Met Requirements
50
Met Requirements
57
Met Requirements
51
Met Requirements
55
Met Requirements
48
Met Requirements
55
Met Requirements
53
Met Requirements
49
Met Requirements
52
Met Requirements
46
Needs Assistance
54
Met Requirements
59
Met Requirements
49
Met Requirements
57
Met Requirements
48
Met Requirements
52
Met Requirements
52
Met Requirements
43
Needs Assistance
54
Met Requirements
Annual Determinations 2010
(Data Source 2008-2009)
92
Met Requirements
87
Met Requirements
73
Needs Assistance
87
Met Requirements
100
Met Requirements
73
Needs Assistance
92
Met Requirements
83
Met Requirements
96
Met Requirements
88
Met Requirements
100
Met Requirements
92
Met Requirements
86
Met Requirements
80
Met Requirements
68
Needs Intervention
100
Met Requirements
100
Met Requirements
90
Met Requirements
73
Needs Assistance
74
Needs Assistance
81
Met Requirements
87
Met Requirements
88
Met Requirements
96
Met Requirements
Average
50.98
52.24
51.18
85.24
Monitoring
Activities
12
Section 6
Office of Special Programs
Monitoring Assessment
Monitoring
Activities
13
Section 7
Current On-Site Monitoring Process
§18-20-7. Exceptional children program compliance review teams. (State Code)
The state board shall establish exceptional children program compliance review teams to conduct random unannounced onsite reviews of such programs at least every four years in each county for the purpose of reviewing identification procedures,
complying with any or all applicable laws and policies, delivering services, verifying enrollment and attendance reports,
recommending changes, and fulfilling such other duties as may be established by the state board.
District Selection Process
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Performance levels and distance from SPP targets
Graduation and dropout rates
Demographics of district
Determinations (rubric)
Complaints/Due Process Hearings Decisions
Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)
Student enrollment/special education enrollment
Entrance Conference
• The lead monitor reviews the purpose, scope and proposed schedule of the visit; and responds to questions from the district
administration.
• The district administration provides a brief overview of the district’s initiatives and a summary of the district’s Five-Year Strategic
Plan.
Monitoring Team Activities
On-site monitoring includes school visits, interviews with staff, selected file reviews, IEP verifications, financial review, WVEIS
data verification and a parent component. The monitoring team conducts central office activities to include, but not limited to
the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
interviews with central office personnel;
review of the District’s Five Year Strategic Plan;
review of LEA expenditures;
review of documentation of Time and Effort;
verification of WVEIS accuracy; and
special education IEP file reviews.
Monitoring
Activities
The lead coordinator determines school visitation schedule, and assigns team members accordingly. During school visits the monitoring
team include, but are not limited to the following:
• collaborates with the principal to schedule interviews and classroom observations;
• obtains special education teacher caseload and per instructional period class lists;
• tours the school facility;
• conducts administrator, teacher, student and other pertinent staff interviews;
• completes special education IEP file reviews;
• verifies IEP services;
• copies documentation substantiating findings;
• conducts classroom observations;
• summarizes preliminary findings and pertinent information with the principal; and
• verify all findings with two sources.
14
Exit Conference
Team members summarize district data and clarify identified issues and provide guidance regarding follow-up activities.
Throughout the 2010-2011 school year the OSP will conduct a full on-site monitoring of 14 school districts. This monitoring
schedule began October 2010 and will conclude April 2011.
Monitoring
Activities
15
Monitoring
Activities
Monitoring
Activities
Jorea M. Marple
State Superintendent of Schools