Disproportionality/ CEIS

Data Coordinator

Professional Development

Complaints Professional Development

Dr. Lanai JenningsCoordinatorOffice of Special Programs

Lorraine ElswickCoordinatorOffice of Special Programs

Positive Behavior Supports

Professional DevelopmentDr. Frances Clark

CoordinatorOffice of Special Programs

Indicator 4Rates of Suspension and Expulsion

What does Indicator 4 address?1. Equity in suspensions rates

4A: Comparison of SWD to SWOD4B: Comparison of SWD by race/ethnicity

2. When suspension rates are discrepant, is the difference due to inappropriate policies, procedures, and practices relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards

MeasurementIndicator 4A

Significant discrepancy for a district is defined as a relative difference of 160 between the rate for SWD and the rate for SWOD in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year

Indicator 4B Significant discrepancy is defined as a relative

difference greater than 100 in the suspension rate for a given SWD race/ethnic category vs. suspension rate for All Other SWD within the district

Minimum Cell Requirement20

Where/when do the data originate?

Data Element Data Source

Enrollment data Second Month Child Count

Enrollment SWD December Child Count

Discipline data for SWD and SWOD

Discipline Report from the 10th month submission

Calc

ulat

ion

INDICATOR 4A

Step 1: SWD rate= (# of SWD with OSS/EXP greater than 10 days)/# of SWD enrolled)

Step 2: SWOD rate = (# of SWOD with OSS/EXP greater than 10 days)/# of SWOD enrolled)

Step 3: (SWD rate – SWOD rate)/SWOD rate*100

INDICATOR 4B

Using Hispanic category as example

Step 1: Hispanic SWD rate= (# of Hispanic SWD with OSS/EXP greater than 10 days)/# of Hispanic SWD enrolled)

Step 2: All Other rate = (# of SWD in All Other racial/ethnic categories with OSS/EXP greater than 10 days)/# SWD of All Other racial/ethnic categories enrolled)

Step 3: (Hispanic SWD rate –All Other SWD rate)/All Other SWD rate*100

Indicator 4A Data

2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-200950

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

78.2

87.389.1 89.1

87.3

96.4

Percentage of Districts with No Significant Discrepancy in Rates of Suspension be-tween Students with and without Disabilities

School Year

Perc

ent

Data is also from 2008-2009 and reflects the cell size increase to 20

Indicator 4 Data

2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-20090.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Suspension Rates for Students with and without Disabilities (Based on Unduplicated Student Count of Students Suspended or

Expelled More Than Ten Days)

Students with DisabilitiesStudents without Disabilities

What OSP activities/initiatives are in place to address behavior?

WVRTI S/E: A Three-Tiered Model of Social/Emotional Supports for ALL

WVECPBS WVSWPBS

To get all PBS materials and information open http://wvde.state.wv.us/osp/,

open Improving Results, then click on Positive Behavior Supports

OR http://wvde.state.wv.us/osp/PositiveBehaviorSupport.html

https://sites.google.com/site/wvecpbs/

School Trained & Implementing 2008-2010

Mingo Co RESA II 7 schools (5 Elem, 1 Mid, 1High)

AIR Putnam Co RESA III 2 Elementary Schools

AIR Wood Co + 2 RESA V 9 Elementary Schools

Plesants Co RESA V County-wide (2 Elem, 1 Middle, 1 High)AIR Harrison Co & RESA 7 RESA VII 23 schools (13 Elem, 9 Middle, 1 High)

Randolph Co RESA VII 1 Elementary School

Doddridge Co RESA VII County-wide (2 Elem, 1 Middle, 1 High)Pendelton Co RESA VIII County-wide (3 Elem, 1 Middle, 1 High))AIR Hampshire Co RESA VIII 2 Elementary Schools

56 schools trained

SWPBS Training materials: https://sites.google.com/site/2009swpbstrainingmaterials/

Principal’s Orientation and Application Documents: http://wvde.state.wv.us/osp/PositiveBehaviorSupportschoolwide.html

WVRTI S/E: A Three-Tiered Model of Social/Emotional Supports for ALL Pilots: https://sites.google.com/site/wvsbmhtaskforce/

7 Pilot sites:RESA II: Mingo Co. – 2 Elementary Schools (Task Force Support Dr. Jennifer Whisman)RESA V: Pleasants Co – County-wide (Task Force Support Dr. Jennifer Whisman)

2 Elementary, 1 Middle & 1 High SchoolRESA VII: Marion Co – Alternative Mid/High School (Task Force Support Spec. Ed Dir. Gia Deasy)

What OSP activities/initiatives are in place to address behavior?

Exceeding the relative difference threshold, triggers a state level review of districts’ policies, procedures, and practices relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards

Common issues revealed:1. Disciplinary timelines

exceeded2. Failure to determine or

document if the suspension constitutes a change of placement

3. All pertinent information is not reviewed or documented during MDR

4. Data quality issues

Identification of Noncompliance During SEA Review Requires

Correction Correction is defined in OSEP Memo 09-02:

Correction is achieved when:

Every instance of noncompliance identified via the review of policies, procedures, and practices is corrected and verified by WVDE.

AND

If needed, the LEA has changed its policies, procedures, and/or practices that contributed to or resulted in noncompliance.

AND

Based on its review of updated data, WVDE verified that the district is correctly implementing the specific statutory or regulatory requirement(s).

Districts are required to correct any noncompliances as soon as possible, but in no case later than one year.

Disproportionate Representation SPP/APR Indicators 9 & 10 Refers to the over- or underrepresentation of

students from a specific racial/ethnic group in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification

Examination must include review of general and special education policies, procedures and practices

Focus on whether there are patterns of differential treatment in the identification, referral, evaluation or eligibility of students

Must result in a change in policies, practices or procedures that contribute to the disproportionality

Indicator 9Percent of districts with disproportionate

representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related

services that is the result of inappropriate identification

Compliance indicator with a target of 0%

Indicator 10Percent of districts with disproportionate

representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification

Compliance indicator with a target of 0%

Indicators 9 & 10Data SourcesDecember 1 Child Count2nd Month Enrollment DataSeven racial/ethnic groupsSix categorical disabilities (autism,

emotional/ behavioral disorder, mental impairment, specific learning disability, speech/language impairment, other health impairment)

Risk Ratio MethodAnswers the question:What is the risk of a student from a particular racial/ethnic group being identified for special education and related services compared to the risk of a student from any other racial/ethnic group?

Weighted Risk Ratio (WWR) Calculation

Step 1: Calculate risk for each group Black Students with Disabilities/Black Enrolled Asian Students with Disabilities/Asian Enrolled . . .

etc.Step 2: Calculate State Composition for each

group Enrolled Black students/All enrolled Enrolled Asian students/All enrolled. . .etc.

Step 3: Calculate weighted risk ratio [1-State Black Composition/*District Black SWD

risk]/[State American Indian Composition/*District American Indian SWD risk) + [State Asian…etc. for all others]

Don’t calculate if less than 20 enrolled

MeasurementIndicators 9 & 10 -

Disproportionate representation is defined as: a WWR of 2.0 or higher with a cell size

of 20 for overrepresentation, or a WWR of .25 or below with a cell size of

50 for underrepresentation, AND

the district’s review of policies, procedures and practices confirms inappropriate identification

Indicators 9 & 10 Annual CSADA Indicator Status:WVDE Data Driven Determination of initial compliance status

based on weighted risk ratio and cell size for both over and underrepresentation

Second test of statistical significance applied Z-Test for Two Proportions or Chi-Square

Compliance status is district determined based on review of policies, procedures and practices resulting in inappropriate identification

State level verification review required

WVDE DATA DRIVENDECEMBER 1, 2009

1st Test - WWR and cell size43 districts emerged

with disproportionate representation₋ 22

underrepresentation ₋ 6 overrepresentation₋ 15 over-and

underrepresentation

FEBRUARY 1, 2010

Second Test of Statistical Significance 14 districts emerged with

disproportionate representation- 2 overrepresentation- 11 underrepresentation- 1 over-and

underrepresentation

Indicators 9 &10Monitoring Process – OverrepresentationData provided to districts in FebruaryDistrict’s compliance status is WVDE determined

Status is indicated as Met or Not MetDistrict conducts review of general and special

education policies, procedures and practices (e.g., Policy 2419 – Child Find, Evaluation, Eligibility)

Determine whether the disproportionate overrepresentation is due to inappropriate identification

Indicators 9 & 10Monitoring Process – UnderrepresentationData provided to districts in FebruaryDistrict’s compliance status is WVDE determined.

Status is indicated as Met or Not MetDistrict conducts review of general and special

education procedures and practices (designated school’s individual student achievement, SAT (referral) data, instructional practices by racial/ethnic groups)

Determines whether the disproportionate underrepresentation is due to inequity in practices

District Review Protocols

Identification of Noncompliance During SEA Review Requires Correction

Correction is defined in OSEP Memo 09-02: Correction is achieved when: Every instance of noncompliance identified via the review of

policies, procedures, and practices is corrected and verified by WVDE.

AND If needed, the LEA has changed its policies, procedures, and/or

practices that contributed to or resulted in noncompliance.AND

Based on its review of updated data, WVDE verified that the district is correctly implementing the specific statutory or regulatory requirement(s).

Districts are required to correct any noncompliances as soon as possible, but in no case later than one year.

Activities/Initiatives to Address Disproportionate

Representation 3-Tiered Model of Positive Behavior

Support (PBS) School-wide PBS Early Childhood PBS

3-Tiered Model of Instruction/Intervention

Technical Assistance by OSP National Center for Culturally

Responsive Education Systems (NCCRESt)

Phonemic Awareness Project Early Literacy – Phyllis - Math?

Findings of Noncompliance

• Procedures for out-of-state transfer students

• Determining eligibility in a different category

• Considering all areas of suspected disability

SPP/APR Indicators 4b, 9 & 10

ARE NOTSignificant

DisproportionalityAdditional information to be provided

tomorrow at lunch

Parent InvolvementIndicator 8

Betsy PetersonCoordinator

Parent Coordinator

Professional Development

Indicator 8Indicator addresses the percent of parents with a child receiving special education services who report that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities.

Indicator 8 The data for this indicator originate from the Parent Survey that is mailed each year to selected districts. All districts will be surveyed in 6 years.

Indicator 8When your district is being surveyed it is very important that you encourage the parents to respond to the survey!! Thanks!!!

Parent Involvement

Pat Haberbosch, Director WV Parent Training and

Information (PTI)

The US Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, will be conducting a verification visit to the state of West Virginia. This visit is to evaluate WV on:

·Effectiveness with implementing a general supervision system

·Collection of state reported data·Fiscal management

·Systems for improving child and family outcomes and protecting child and family rights.

The Office of Special Education has asked WVPTI to help in soliciting parent input in this process by way of a parent survey. Please go to the following website:Students ages 3-21: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/8H6DYJLBirth to Three: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/LVMJX6Y

The US Dept. of Ed. developed all questions on this survey.

To date, WVPTI has disseminated the surveys through a variety of ways:

Bulk mailed to the following agencies:

• West Virginia Advocates•WV Developmental Disabilities Council•Autism Training Center•Mountain States Parents Can•Parent Network Specialists at CED•All Service Coordinators for WV Birth to Three•PERCS

The previous agencies listed are either disseminating the surveys individually, or at trainings/activities which they attend.

WVPTI Staff and Trainers are disseminating at all activities/events/trainings, as well as individually.

WVPTI Office Staff have taken a few over the phone.

We are seeing results of the survey monkey. As of Sept. 15, we have a total of 46 surveys that have been done online.

Parent Verification Visit Survey: Part B of IDEA

•I know how to get information about the special education services in my State.

□ Yes □ Noa. If yes, I can obtain that information from: (Please

select all that apply.) □ Web site (Name of

website)_________________________________□ State Education Agency□ Local School District/Local Education Agency (LEA)□ Parent Training Information center (WVPTI)□ Advocacy Group□ Other:____________________________________

•Within the last year, I received a copy of my rights under the Local School District’s/LEA’s special education program under Part B of the Individuals

with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the Federal special education law for providing special education services to children with disabilities.□ Yes □ Noa. If yes, who gave you this information? (Please select all that apply.)□ Special Education Coordinator□ Special Education Teacher□ Related Service Provider (social worker, speech pathologist, etc.)□ Evaluation Team□ Parent Training and Information Center (WVPTI)□ Local School District/LEA Representative □ School Administrator□ Other:______________________________________________

b. If yes, was an explanation of your rights provided, if needed? □ Yes □ No □ NA

•Within the past year I have asked for: (Please select all that apply.)□ Mediation □ State Complaint □ Resolution Session □ Due Process Hearing□ Other Dispute Resolution applicable to the State, including facilitated Individualized Education Programs (IEPs)

a. Each of the concerns that I raised in the State Complaint was addressed in the decision letter/letter of finding.□ Yes □ No

•I have experienced or observed special education practices that I believe were not in compliance with Part B of IDEA.

□ Yes □ No □ Don’t knowa. If yes, please

explain:______________________________________________

•Based on my experiences with the special education services in my State, I feel the areas that are most effective are:

(Please select the top three.)□ Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)□ Provision of a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)□ Evaluation/Assessment□ IEPs□ Qualified Related Service Providers□ Qualified Special Education Teachers□ Timely Implementation of IEPs□ Transition from Part C to Part B (transition from the infant/toddler program to preschool)

□ Materials in the Parent’s Native Language/Mode of Communication□ Special Education Monitoring by the State□ Due process Hearings and Complaints□ Transportation□ Accommodations/Modifications□ Parent Involvement□ No Improvement Needed□ Don’t Know□ Other: (please explain briefly) __________________________________________

•Based on my experiences with the special education services in my• State, I feel the areas that need most improvement are: • (Please select the top three.)

□ Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)□ Provision of a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)□ Evaluation/Assessment□ IEPs□ Qualified Related Service Providers□ Qualified Special Education Teachers□ Timely Implementation of IEPs□ Transition from Part C to Part B (transition from the infant/toddler program to preschool)

□ Materials in the Parent’s Native Language/Mode of Communication□ Special Education Monitoring by the State□ Due process Hearings and Complaints□ Transportation□ Accommodations/Modifications□ Parent Involvement□ No Improvement Needed□ Don’t Know□ Other: (please explain briefly) __________________________________________

•I know how to get the results of the U.S. Department of Education’s evaluation of my State’s performance under the federal special education laws (i.e., the State’s Determination).

□ Yes □ No

•I know how to get the results of the State’s evaluation of my Local School District’s/LEA’s performance under the special education laws (i.e., the LEA’s Determination).

□ Yes □ No

•I think my Local School District/LEA in my State is providing the special education services and supportsthat my child needs.

□ Yes □ Noa. If no, please

explain:__________________________________

Secondary TransitionStudents With Disabilities

Are Ready ForSuccess Beyond High School

Karen RuddleCoordinator

Office of Special Programs

Secondary Transition

Professional Development

4 Indicators for Transition

#1#2#13

#14

GraduationDropoutIEP documentationPost school outcomes

What is the expectation for the end result?Indicator 14: Within one year of leaving high school, former

students with disabilities are employed, enrolled in postsecondary education, or both.

I-14: Post School Outcomes

DATAExit SurveyOne Year Follow Up SurveyKey Words: Timely, Accurate

How do we document details of transition in the IEP

and assure items

documented are

correct?

1. Are there appropriate measurable postsecondary goals that address a) education or training, b) employment, and, as needed, c) independent living? Y N

Can the goals be measured? Will the goals occur after the student graduates from school?Based on the information available about the student, are the postsecondary goals appropriate for this student? If yes to all three, then select Y. If postsecondary goals are not stated, select N.

1. Are the postsecondary goals updated annually? Y N

Were the postsecondary goals reviewed and updated with the development of the current IEP? If yes, then select Y. If the goals were not updated with the current IEP, select N.

1. Is there evidence that the measurable postsecondary goals were based on age-appropriate transition assessment? Y N

Is the use of transition assessment for the postsecondary goals documented in the IEP? If yes, select Y. If no, select N.

1. Are there transition services in the IEP that will reasonably enable the student to meet his or her postsecondary goals? Y N

Are there transition services (at least one area) identified in the IEP that will help the student make progress toward the stated postsecondary goals? Transition services include:

instruction, related services, community experiences, development of employment and other post school adult living objectives, and, if appropriate,

acquisition of daily living skills, and provision of a functional vocational

evaluation.

If yes, select Y. If there are no transition services that support postsecondary goals, select N.

1. Do the transition services include courses of study that will reasonably enable the student to meet his or her postsecondary goals? Y N

Do the transition services include courses of study that align with the student’s postsecondary goals? If yes, select Y. If no, select N.

1. Is/are there annual IEP goal(s) related to the student’s transition services needs? Y NIs/are there annual goal(s) in the IEP that is/are related to the student’s transition services needs? If yes, select Y. If no, select N.

1. Is there evidence that the student was invited to the IEP Team meeting where transition services were discussed? Y N

For the current year, is there documented evidence on the IEP or Notice of IEP Team Meeting form that the student was invited to attend the IEP Team meeting? If yes, select Y. If no, select N.

1. Is there evidence that a representative of any participating agency(s) was invited to the IEP Team meeting with the prior consent of the parent or adult student (has reached the age of majority)? Y N NA

For the current year, is there evidence in the IEP that representatives of any of the following agencies/services were invited to participate in the IEP development. Agencies may include, but are not limited to: postsecondary education, vocationaleducation, integrated employment (including supported employment), continuing and adult education, adult services, independent living or community participation for post-secondary goals?Was consent obtained from the parent or adult student? If yes to both questions, select Y. If no invitation is evident and a participating agency is likely to be responsible for providing or paying for transition services and there was consent to invite them to the IEP meeting, then

select N. If it is too early to determine if the student will need outside agency involvement, or no agency is likely to provide or pay for transition services, select NA.

Does the IEP meet the requirements of Indicator 13? Y N Yes = all Ys or NA (question 8 only) for each item are selected OR No = one or more Ns are selected

If no, address this issue on your self-assessment with an improvement plan.

Indicator 13: All IEPs for transition age students document 100% of transition requirements, as described by the 8 questions on the checklist, and include

postsecondary goals with an annual update, transition assessment, course of study, services and activities enable achievement of postsecondary goals, IEP goals link to postsecondary goals, student and agencies participate in the IEP.

I-13: Documenting Transition

DATACSADA: I 13 ChecklistExit & Follow Up Surveys

Key Words: Sustained, Document, Timely Correction

Indicator 2: Dropout calculations for students with disabilities is the same as for all students and follows the same timelines. The rate for

students with disabilities will align with that for all students.

How do we help students stay in school and prepare for the

future?

I-2: Dropout

DATAAnnual Data ReportExit & Follow Up Surveys

Key Words: Timely, Accurate, Prevention, Intervention,

Alignment

How do we help students graduate with a regular diploma?

Indicator 1: Graduation calculations for students with disabilities is the same as for all students and follows the same timelines. The

rate for students with disabilities will align with that for all students.

I-1: Graduation

DATAAnnual Data ReportExit & Follow Up Surveys

Key Words: Cohort, Timely, Accurate, Alignment,

Intervention

Secondary Transition ResourcesWV TCCoPTransition

Collaborative

Discussion Forum Teleconferences and Webinars

Internet and WVDE Websites

Local Professional Development

Self Developed, WVDE, and Commercial Resources

Intra- and Inter- Agency

Coordination

Data Analysis

Break

15 Minutes

GO

Infrastructure System

Monitoring Professional Development

Compliance Professional Development

Debbie AshwellCoordinatorOffice of Special Programs

Lorraine ElswickCoordinatorOffice of Special Programs

Indictor 11Child Find(Initial Evaluation Timelines)SPP pp.111-116/APR pp. 79-83•Percent of children who were evaluated within 60 days of receiving parental consent for initial evaluation or, if the State establishes a timeframe within which the evaluation must be conducted, within that timeframe. (WV=80 days)•Timeline begins when any school personnel receive the Notice of Individual Evaluation/Reevaluation•Timeline ends when Eligibility Committee convenes

Indictor 11Data Sources:WVEIS data entered at the district when initial consent it given or refused

Periodic Data Pulls to :•Monitor missing fields and error data•Verify correction of previously identified noncompliance

Special Education Data Collections & ReportsDecember 3, 2010February 4, 2011April 4, 2011Final data pull August 1, 2011

Requirements following periodic data pulls Supply missing data Correct error data

Timeline: As Soon As PossibleNo submission to WVDE required in response.

Requirements following final data pull Supply missing data Correct error data within the given timeline

Timeline: By date provided in notice (generally 2 weeks)No submission to WVDE required in response.

OSP Activities/Initiatives to address Indicator 11

Form change to include a box for the date consent form was received by district

Training was provided to new directors on available data and reports

Data presented at Leadership Conference annuallyLetters of finding to districts with less than 100%

compliance, improvement plan requiredPeriodic data pulls to correct and complete data

entryPresentation at the state School Psychologist

Conference regarding Indicator 11 to raise awareness

Trend Data in WV

FFY 05 FFY 06 FFY 07 FFY 0875

80

85

90

95

100

82.5

9092.7

95.8

District Reasons for Exceeding the 80-Day Timeline

53

50

41

31

128

51

Extenuating Cir-cumstancesFailure to produce childRequest to rescheduleTransferred out District errorOthers

# of Days to Complete Evaluations

FFY 05 FFY 06 FFY 07 FFY 080

50100150200250300350400450

99

176

302

386

From Another Angle99 total days from

permission to EC19 days beyond the

80-day timelineWithin the 30 days in

which to complete an IEP

= No Denial of FAPE IF both meetings

were held the same day (EC & IEP)

176 total days from permission to EC

96 days beyond the 80-day timeline

66 days beyond the 30-day timeline in which to complete an IEP

FAPE Denied

From Another Angle302 total days from

permission to EC222 days beyond the

80-day timeline190 days beyond the

30-day timeline in which to complete an IEP

FAPE Denied

386 total days from permission to EC

306 days beyond the 80-day timeline

276 days beyond the 30-day timeline in which to complete an IEP

FAPE Denied

OSEP RequirementsCorrection

Verification of all eligible students receiving an IEP

GeneralizationSet period of time where a district has

100% compliance with Indicator 11

For the 2009-2010 year WVDE reviewed data in 2 month intervals

OSEP ChangesBeginning with the 2010-2011 school year, the 80-day timeline will apply to all referrals from Birth-to-Three (Part C) agencies. IEPs implemented by the 3rd birthday AND evaluations completed and ECs held within 80 days of parental consent

Indicator 15General Supervision

SPP pp. 140-150/APR pp. 97-109

General supervision system (including monitoring, complaints, hearings, etc.) identifies and corrects noncompliance as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from identification.

Indicator 15Measurement

Percent of noncompliance corrected within one year of identification:

a. # of findings of noncompliance.

b. # of corrections completed as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from identification.

% = (b / a) x 100

Findings of NoncomplianceData Sources

Comprehensive Self-Assessment Desk Audit (CSADA)

Annual Desk Audit (ADA)On-site Monitoring Internal Data AnalysisState ComplaintsDue Process Hearings

Correction of Noncompliance

Must be corrected as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from the date of written notification

For any noncompliance not corrected within one year of identification, describe what actions, including technical assistance and enforcement actions that the State has taken.

Verification of Correction

Based on the OSEP 09-02 memo, verification of correction is a 2-prong process: Correction of identified noncompliance in a timely

manner (child-specific) AND Verify district is correctly implementing regulatory

requirements (district-wide)

SEA must verify by viewing the actual data or a sample of the actual data which demonstrates the correction.

State Initiatives & ActivitiesRequired data sources to be used by

districtsState Determination of Compliance based

on state data system for SPP IndicatorsRefined process for improvement planning

and progress reporting Follow-up visits to verify correctionRequest from OSP for additional reporting

mechanisms through WVEISConsistency of director menus on WVEIS

Impact on Student Achievement

Consistent and accurate data leads to authentic improvement planning

Correction of noncompliance leads to more appropriate services for students

Correction of individual noncompliance leads to provision of FAPE for the student

Correction of systemic noncompliance leads to FAPE for all students

Indicator 16SPP – Page 151 / APR – Page 110

Percent of signed, written complaints with reports issued that were resolved within 60-day timeline or a timeline extended for exceptional circumstances

100% Compliance

Indicator 16Timelines - 60-day timeline begins on date of receipt

of formal state complaint in the OSPExtensions issued for extenuating

circumstancesExtensions granted on a case-by-case

basis

Indicator 16

Complaint resolution processes available -

Early Resolution – within 15 days of receipt of complaint

Mediation – any time throughout the investigation, if agreed upon by parent and district

Due Process Complaint – any time throughout the investigation

If resolved, complaint is considered closed

Indicator 16Correction of Noncompliance Violations of federal regulations and/or

Policy 2419 require corrective action(s)Violations corrected within 15 days, but in

no case later than one year of written notification (Letter of Findings)

Corrective Action Status provided throughout correction period, if warranted

Case closed upon OSP’s approval of corrective actions

Indicator 16Data Collection and ReportingData maintained in the Complaint

Management System (CMS)Data annually reported in APR – February 1Data reported to public on the OSP websiteAnnual complaint summary published on

the websiteLetters of Findings (LOFs) subject to

Freedom of Information (FOIA) Requests

Indicator 16Data FFY 200939 State Complaints filed3 Insufficient – omitted legal

allegations, facts, etc. 19 resolved through ER, Mediation, DPH

or parent complainant withdrawal17 complaints investigated within 60-

day or approved extended timeline100% Compliance

Indicator 16Impact on Provision of FAPE§300.151(b) – Remedies for denial of

appropriate services. The SEA must address:

(1) The failure to provide appropriate services, including corrective action appropriate to address the needs of the child (such as compensatory services or monetary reimbursement; and

(2) appropriate future provision of services for all children with disabilities.

Indicator 16Activities to Ensure CorrectionRequire corrective actions to rectify the

improper practice, procedureVerification and approval of correction by

OSPFollow-up conducted when notified

practice is continuingOn-site monitoring verification of

correction

Indicator 17Due Process Hearing

TimelinesSPP pp 155-157/APR pp 113-115

Percent of fully adjudicated due process hearing requests that were fully adjudicated within the 45 day timeline or a timeline properly extended. Indicator 17 is a State-level Compliance Indicator

Indicator 17 Data Source

WVDE maintains Dispute Resolution Data Base

CMSFFY 2009-2010

20 Due Process Complaints Filed3 Fully Adjudicated1 Within 45 days2 Extended properly

100%

Indicator 18 Resolution Sessions

SPP pp158-159/APR pp 116-117

Percent of hearing requests that went to resolution sessions, which were resolved through resolution session settlement agreements.

Indicator 18 is a State-level Compliance Indicator

Indicator 18 Data Source

WVDE maintains Dispute Resolution Data Base

CMS

4 Resolution Sessions Held4 Settlement Agreements

100%

Indicator 19Mediation

SPP pp 160-163/APR pp 118-120

Percent of mediations held that resulted in mediation agreements.

Indicator 19 is a State-level Compliance Indicator

Indicator 19Data Source

WVDE maintains Dispute Resolution Data Base

CMS

• 17 Mediation Request• (3 of the 17 request were in a due process hearing)• 16 Mediations Held• 10 Agreements

62%West Virginia Did not meet the target of 81%

Indicator 20Data

SPP pp 164-170/APR 121-125

Data is submitted in a timely manner and is both valid and reliable

All data for WV 618 Annual Data reports are collected through WVEIS except Personnel Report which is in paper form.

RESA 1

RESA 3

RESA 6 RESA 8RESA 7

RESA 4 RESA 5

Tabletop Discussions

RESA 2