disproportionality / ceis
DESCRIPTION
Disproportionality / CEIS. Dr. Lanai Jennings Coordinator Office of Special Programs. Data Coordinator. Professional Development. Lorraine Elswick Coordinator Office of Special Programs. Complaints. Professional Development. Dr. Frances Clark Coordinator - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
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
Rates of Suspension and Expulsion
1. Equity in suspensions rates4A: 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
Indicator 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
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
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
Data is also from 2008-2009 and reflects the cell size increase to 20
WVRTI S/E: A Three-Tiered Model of Social/Emotional Supports for ALL
WVECPBSWVSWPBS
To get all PBS materials and information open http://wvde.state.wv.us/osp/,
open Improving Results, then click on Positive Behavior open Improving Results, then click on Positive Behavior Supports Supports
OR http://wvde.state.wv.us/osp/PositiveBehaviorSupport.htmlhttp://wvde.state.wv.us/osp/PositiveBehaviorSupport.html
https://sites.google.com/site/wvecpbs/https://sites.google.com/site/wvecpbs/
School Trained & Implementing 2008-2010School Trained & Implementing 2008-2010
Mingo CoMingo Co RESA II RESA II 7 schools (5 Elem, 1 Mid, 1High)7 schools (5 Elem, 1 Mid, 1High)
AIR Putnam CoAIR Putnam Co RESA IIIRESA III 2 Elementary Schools2 Elementary Schools
AIR Wood Co + 2AIR Wood Co + 2 RESA VRESA V 9 Elementary Schools9 Elementary Schools
Plesants CoPlesants Co RESA VRESA V County-wide (2 Elem, 1 Middle, 1 High)County-wide (2 Elem, 1 Middle, 1 High)
AIR Harrison Co & RESA 7AIR Harrison Co & RESA 7 RESA VIIRESA VII 23 23 schools (13 Elem, 9 Middle, 1 High)schools (13 Elem, 9 Middle, 1 High)
Randolph CoRandolph Co RESA VIIRESA VII 1 Elementary School1 Elementary School
Doddridge CoDoddridge Co RESA VII RESA VII County-wide County-wide (2 Elem, 1 Middle, 1 High)(2 Elem, 1 Middle, 1 High)
Pendelton CoPendelton Co RESA VIIIRESA VIII County-wide County-wide (3 Elem, 1 Middle, 1 High))(3 Elem, 1 Middle, 1 High))
AIR Hampshire CoAIR Hampshire Co RESA VIIIRESA VIII 2 Elementary Schools2 Elementary Schools
56 schools trained56 schools trained
SWPBS Training materials: SWPBS Training materials: https://sites.google.com/site/2009swpbstrainingmaterialshttps://sites.google.com/site/2009swpbstrainingmaterials//
Principal’s Orientation and Application Documents: Principal’s Orientation and Application Documents: http://wvde.state.wv.us/osp/PositiveBehaviorSupportschoolwhttp://wvde.state.wv.us/osp/PositiveBehaviorSupportschoolwide.htmlide.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)
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
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.
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
Percent 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%
Percent 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%
Data 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)
Answers 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?
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
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,
ANDthe district’s review of policies,
procedures and practices confirms inappropriate identification
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
DECEMBER 1, 2009
1st Test - WWR and cell size
43 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
Monitoring 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
Monitoring 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
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 (RLA and Math)
Technical Assistance by OSP
National Center for Culturally Responsive Education Systems (NCCRESt)
Phonemic Awareness Project
• Procedures for out-of-state transfer students
• Determining eligibility in a different category
• Considering all areas of suspected disability
Significant Disproportionality
Additional information to be provided tomorrow at lunch
Parent Coordinator
Professional Development
Indicator 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.
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.
When your district is being surveyed it is very important that you encourage the parents to respond to the survey!! Thanks!!!
VIDEOVIDEO
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 dataFiscal 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/8H6DYJL
Birth 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:__________________________________
Karen RuddleCoordinator
Office of Special Programs
Secondary Transition
Professional Development
#1#2#13
#14
GraduationDropoutIEP documentationPost school outcomes
Indicator 14: Within one year of leaving high school, former students with disabilities are employed, enrolled in postsecondary education, or both.
DATAExit SurveyOne Year Follow Up SurveyKey Words: Timely, Accurate
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.
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.
DATAAnnual Data ReportExit & Follow Up SurveysKey Words: Timely, Accurate,
Prevention, Intervention, Alignment
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.
DATAAnnual Data ReportExit & Follow Up Surveys
Key Words: Cohort, Timely, Accurate, Alignment,
Intervention
GOGO
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
Requirements following periodic data pulls Supply missing data Correct error data
Timeline: As Soon As Possible
No 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.
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 annually
Letters of finding to districts with less than 100% compliance, improvement plan required
Periodic data pulls to correct and complete data entry
Presentation at the state School Psychologist Conference regarding Indicator 11 to raise awareness
99 total days from permission to EC
19 days beyond the 80-day timeline
Within 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
302 total days from permission to EC
222 days beyond the 80-day timeline
190 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
Correction
Verification of all eligible students receiving an IEP
Generalization
Set period of time where a district has
100% compliance with Indicator 11
For the 2009-2010 year WVDE reviewed data in 2 month intervals
Beginning 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
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.
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
Comprehensive Self-Assessment Desk Audit (CSADA)
Annual Desk Audit (ADA)On-site Monitoring Internal Data AnalysisState ComplaintsDue Process Hearings
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.
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.
Required data sources to be used by districts
State Determination of Compliance based on state data system for SPP Indicators
Refined 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
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
Percent of signed, written complaints with reports issued that were resolved within 60-day timeline or a timeline extended for exceptional circumstances
100% Compliance
Timelines - 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
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
Correction 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
Data 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
Data 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
Impact 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.
Activities 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
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
FFY 2009-2010
20 Due Process Complaints Filed3 Fully Adjudicated1 Within 45 days2 Extended properly
100%
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
4 Resolution Sessions Held4 Settlement Agreements
100%
Percent of mediations held that resulted in mediation agreements.
Indicator 19 is a State-level Compliance Indicator
• 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%
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
RESA 2