Special Ed. Administrator’s
Academy
September 21, 2012
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
New Director’s Academy 2012
CORRECTION OF
NONCOMPLIANCE
2010 OSEP Leadership Mega
Conference
Key Question 2 - Identification
Q2. What actions must a State
take if it collects or receives
information indicating
noncompliance?
2010 OSEP Leadership Mega
Conference
5
Option
1
Option
2
Option
3
Make a finding of
noncompliance.
Verify whether data
demonstrate
noncompliance, and
then issue finding if
data do demonstrate
noncompliance.
Verify LEA has corrected
noncompliance before
State issues written
findings of
noncompliance, in which
case State not required to
issue written finding of
noncompliance.
2010 OSEP Leadership Mega
Conference
6
Correct approach:
The State must make a finding of noncompliance in
a timely manner, unless:
• In verifying whether the data demonstrate
noncompliance, the State determines that the
data do not demonstrate noncompliance; or
• The State verifies, using both prongs of OSEP
Memo 09-02, that the LEA has corrected the
noncompliance before the State issues written
findings of noncompliance.
2010 OSEP Leadership Mega
Conference
7
Correction Thresholds - Problem 1
•A State monitored an LEA and found
that in 5 of 20 records reviewed,
students had not received timely
evaluations.
•The State issued a finding of
noncompliance and required
correction within one year.
2010 OSEP Leadership Mega
Conference
8
Correction Thresholds - Problem 1
•To verify correction of the
noncompliance, the State:
 Reviewed the records for the 5 students
who had not received timely evaluations to
ensure that, although late, they were
evaluated; and
 Reviewed updated data (e.g., 20 new
student records). In 18 of the 20 records
(90%), the students were timely evaluated.
•The State incorrectly concluded that the
LEA had corrected the noncompliance.
2010 OSEP Leadership Mega
Conference
9
Problem - Two Prongs
•A State examined updated data to determine
whether an LEA had corrected previously
identified noncompliance.
•The State verified correction in the child
records where it initially based its findings, but
did not also verify, based on its review of
updated data, that the LEA was correctly
implementing the specific regulatory
requirements.
•The State incorrectly concluded that the LEA
had corrected the noncompliance.
2010 OSEP Leadership Mega
10
Conference
Correct Approach - Two Prongs
Before the State may conclude that
the LEA has corrected the
noncompliance, it must also examine
updated data to ensure that the LEA
has achieved 100% compliance.
2010 OSEP Leadership Mega
11
Conference
A comprehensive System: Supporting Compliant
Practices that Improve Results for SWDs
Results
Compliance
From: Martha Asti (ADE)
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 3:11 PM
Subject: Important Notice Regarding On-Site Monitoring
To Special Education Supervisors and Special Education Early Childhood Coordinators:
The ADE Special Education Unit will be delaying on-site monitoring visits to re-evaluate the duration,
frequency, and content of those visits and examine how those visits interact with other aspects of
monitoring (e.g. online data systems, fiscal monitoring, dispute resolution, APR reporting, etc.). This
decision is related in part to OSEP’s move toward Results Driven Accountability and the approval of the
Arkansas ESEA Flexibility. The delay in on-site visits will allow us to closely review our current procedures
for monitoring before making any substantial changes to the process.
A few of you who were monitored late in the spring may have noticed some minor changes in the
verification process that were a result of our preliminary review of on-site monitoring procedures. As
we move forward in this process, we will continue to consider revisions to our current procedures, but
rest assured that any substantial revisions to the system of monitoring will be shared with you well in
advance and implemented in phases. In the interim, we will continue to monitor districts for
compliance through our data systems, dispute resolution, fiscal requirements and APR reporting.
Please know that the primary focus of IDEA monitoring continues to be on improving educational results
for students with disabilities and ensuring that LEAs meet IDEA program requirements. An update of our
progress will be provided to you at the Special Education Supervisors’ Academy on September 21,
2012. We look forward to seeing you then.
Martha Kay
Period of Transition
Long Term Goals
• Integrated system of monitoring more fully utilizing data systems to:
– Determine monitoring priorities
– Ensure compliance with special education regulations
– Increase the District’s performance in meeting SPP targets
• Reduce paperwork and clarify due process procedures for districts to:
– Ensure transparency
– Promote consistency
• Redistribution of human capital to allow more time for:
– Assisting districts in improving their special education programs
– Working with special education consultants and the broader ADE to support
districts in increasing results for students with disabilities
• Implement procedures for cross regional teams to review:
– Monitoring data (electronic and onsite)
– District Self Assessments and Response Tables
– ACSIPs
Short Term Goals
• Identify priority items on General Program Checklist
• Identify priority items on Student Folder Checklists
• Review Forms
– Prior Written Notice
– Notice of Conference
– EDR
• Revise verification procedure to include written
documentation for Districts
• Use Referral Tracking data for desk monitoring
activities
• Implement procedure for cross regional teams to
review areas of potential non-compliance
• Review Program Approval process
What’s New?
• Reducing the number of items reviewed in
General Program Checklist and Student Folder
Checklist
Process for “Skinnying” down our
checklists…
What’s New?
• Program Approval
Special Ed. Employee Module (APSCN section)
This Year:

There will be no formal Program Approval this year.

Special Ed. Program Approval data will be submitted in Cycle 2.

Any updates to personnel (not caseloads, not folder counts, not per period
range) will be collected in Cycle 4 for Federal Reporting.

Cycle 4 data will be reviewed by Monitoring Section in February. Districts
we have questions about will be contacted.

ADE Accreditation reports will be reviewed by Monitoring Section in April
for per period range. Districts we have questions about will be contacted.

Teacher caseloads (EC and K-12) will be reviewed during on-site
monitoring.

Licenses for contacted providers will be reviewed during on-site
monitoring.
Special Ed. Employee Module (APSCN section)
Next Year:

There will be no formal Program Approval.

There will be no Cycle 2 submission.

All “Special Ed. Employee” data will be submitted for Cycle 4. Teacher
caseload (EC and K-12) will be added to Cycle 4.

Cycle 4 data will be reviewed by Monitoring Section in February.
Districts we have questions about will be contacted.

ADE Accreditation reports will be reviewed by Monitoring Section in
April for per period range.

Licenses for contacted providers will be reviewed during on-site
monitoring.
What’s New?
• Looking at different ways to monitor.
What’s New?
• Desk Monitoring
What’s New?
Looking Good! I’ll
sail through the
Verification Visit
100%
Compliance
What’s New?
• Verification Period:
– Written documentation of student level potential noncompliance
– Written documentation of areas cleared for each identified
student and updated data (new student folders)
– Written documentation of any potential non-compliance in
updated data (new student folders)
• CAP:
– Written documentation of student level non-compliance
– Written documentation of areas cleared for each identified
student and updated data (new student folders)
– Written documentation of any non-compliance in updated
data (new student folders)
What’s New?
• Examining priorities for monitoring
What’s New?
• Reviewing all forms
What’s new?
• Adjusting the rotation for cyclical monitoring
Questions to Consider…
• What are three things the ADE currently
monitors that are most closely related to
improving educational results and functional
outcomes for students with disabilities?
• What are the top three indicators you would
use to determine if a district was being
successful with students with disabilities?
• How could the ADE use the data collected
through Cycle submissions to focus its
technical assistance and monitoring efforts?
Why not go out
on a limb?
Isn’t that where
the fruit is?
-- Frank Scully.