Kentucky Continuous Monitoring ProcessSpring 2012

Spring 2012 Schedule• April 1 – Districts receive documents• By May Co-op Meeting – Districts conduct DRT meetings• May Co-op Meeting – Discuss Root Causes and Activities• May 31 – District Documents Due• June 12 – Co-op Network Meeting• June 30 – Regional Reports Due

Changes

• Indicator 7 – Preschool Progress

• Indicator 9&10 - Disproportionality

Indicator 4

Suspension Rates

Indicator 4AIndicator 4A: Percent of districts that have a significant discrepancy in the rate of suspensions and expulsion of greater than 10 days in a school year.

OSEP Requirement: State Performance Plan Indicator 4A

State Target: Not applicable for this Indicator at the local district level. Districts are expected to have a ratio of less than 3.0 (i.e., must maintain a district rate that is less than 3 times the state rate).

Indicator 4A Data:

Year

Children with Disabilities

DiscrepancyChild Count

Number Suspended

District Rate

(Percent Suspended)

State Rate

District Ratio(times

above the state rate)

2010-2011 .20%

Data Source: Section 618 Data (December 1 Child Count Report of Children and Youth with Disabilities), Infinite Campus Discipline Report and/or Special Education End of Year Data File.

Indicator 4BIndicator 4B: Percent of districts that have a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school

year of children with disabilities by race and ethnicity.

OSEP Requirement: State Performance Plan Indicator 4B

State Target: Zero (0) districts with a significant discrepancy, by race or ethnicity, in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs; and (b) policies, procedures or practices that contribute to the significant discrepancy and do not comply with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards.

Indicator 4B Data:

Race/Ethnicity Child Count # Suspended More than 10 Days

% Suspended More than 10 Days

District Ratio SignificantDiscrepancy?

WhiteBlack or African-American

Hispanic/LatinoAsian

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific IslanderAmerican Indian or Alaska Native

Two or more racesData Source: Section 618 Data (Child Count Report of Children and Youth with Disabilities), Infinite Campus Discipline Report and/or Special

Education End of Year Data File.

Indicator 4CIndicator 4C: Rates of Suspensions and Expulsions: Suspension and expulsion rates for children with disabilities are comparable to the rates for

children without disabilities in the district.

OSEP Requirement: State Indicator – No OSEP reporting

State Target: The difference in the Suspension Rate for students with disabilities is no more than 2 percentage points higher than the Suspension Rate for students without disabilities.

Indicator 4C Data:

Total number of students grades K-12 without disabilities

Total number of students grades K-12 without disabilities who have been suspended or expelled.

Suspension/Expulsion rates of students without disabilities

Total number of students with disabilities ages 6 through 21

Total number of students with disabilities ages 6 through 21 who have been suspended or expelled.

Suspension/Expulsion rate for students ages 6-21 with disabilities

Difference (Should be no more than 2.00%)

Data Source: Section 618 Data (Child Count Report of Children and Youth with Disabilities), Infinite Campus Discipline Report and/or Special Education End of Year Data File.

Investigative Questions• Organized by Factor• Suggestion: Summarize DRT discussion

by Factor in the data analysis. For example:Regarding General District Discipline

Policies and Procedures: Short paragraph highlighting the investigative questions that were most significant for the DRT.

Indicator 4 Root CausesRoot Causes for Districts that DID NOT MEET All Indicator 4 Targets (Place an X by the root cause that most significantly impacted performance)

Root Causes for Districts that MET All Indicator 4 Targets (4A,B & C)(Place an X by the root cause that most significantly impacted performance)

4A. District discipline policies (e.g., Zero Tolerance) and procedures fail to include proactive alternatives to suspension and do not encourage flexibility to take into account individual issues/ needs of students with disabilities.

4A. District discipline policies and procedures provide proactive alternatives to suspension and encourage flexibility to take into account individual issues/needs of students with disabilities.

4B. Lack of or inconsistent implementation of school-wide positive proactive, instructional discipline approaches (or Positive Behavior Support [PBS] Systems).

4B. Effective Implementation of school-wide positive, proactive, instructional approaches to discipline (positive behavior support system, e.g., KYCID)

4C. District and/or school discipline data is not collected accurately, monitored consistently and used proactively for providing school and district level feedback and for flagging individual students at risk.

4C. District and /or school discipline data is collected accurately, monitored consistently and used proactively for providing school & district feedback and for flagging individual students at risk.

4D. Administrator and/or Teacher Practices are negative and reactive instead of evidence-based; staff fail to differentiate discipline based on individual needs of students with disabilities.

4D. Administrator and Teacher Practices are positive, proactive, instructional, & evidence-based; staff differentiate discipline based on individual needs of students with disabilities.

4E. District personnel fail to adequately develop, review, revise and implement the IEP, FBA, & BIP so that all three documents effectively analyze & address the specific suspension-related behaviors of concern.

4E. District personnel develop, review, revise, and implement the IEP, FBA, & BIP so that all three documents effectively analyze & address the specific suspension-related behaviors of concern.

4F. District fails to adequately or proactively implement IDEA discipline requirements/ procedural safeguards (e.g., manifestation determinations).

4F. District implementation of IDEA discipline requirements/procedural safeguards (e.g., manifestation determinations) is adequate and often proactive (e.g., meet at +5 days suspension to evaluate student needs/design interventions).

Other (Specify): Other (Specify):

Indicator 4 Activities• Sample activities are organized

by factor.• Make sure that the activity is

connected to the root cause and will have an impact.

Indicator 8

Parent Involvement

Indicator 8Indicator 8: Percent of parents with a child receiving special education services who report that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of

improving services and results for children with disabilities.

OSEP Requirement: State Performance Plan Indicator 8

State Target: Thirty percent (30.5%) of parents with a child receiving special education services report that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities.

Indicator 8 Data

The KDE annually conducts parent surveys for a rotating sample of districts each year.  Since KDE does not have parent survey information for each district each year, KDE is asking district to address the three lowest ranked items collected.The three lowest ranked survey items are:Item #7: I was given information about organization that offer support for parents of students with disabilities.Item #21: The school offers parents training about special education issuesItem #24: The school connects parents to organizations that serve parents of children with disabilities.

Data Source: KDE Parent Survey

Indicator 20

Timely and Accurate Reporting

Indicator 20Indicator 20: District reported data (End-of-Year Exiting Table, Maintenance of Fiscal Effort, Child Count, Personnel Report, Preschool Count, Preschool

Supplemental Count, Kentucky In-School Transition Survey, Preschool End-of-Year Report, Post-School Outcomes, KCMP Data, KCMP Monitoring Document) are timely and accurate

.OSEP Requirement: State Performance Plan Indicator 20State Target: One hundred percent (100%) of district reported data are timely and accurate.

On-Time Accurate ReportNot Currently Measured End-of-Year Exiting/Discipline Tables (07/31/10)

Not Currently Measured Fall KCMP (11/30/10)

Not Currently Measured Child Count Report (12/15/10)

Not Currently Measured Personnel Report (12/15/10)

Not Currently Measured Preschool Enrollment Count (12/15/10)

Not Currently Measured Winter KCMP (3/31/11)

Not Currently Measured Maintenance of Fiscal Effort (03/31/11)

Not Currently Measured Preschool Supplemental Threes Count (05/15/11)

Not Currently Measured Spring KCMP (5/31/11)

Not Currently Measured Indicator 11 & 13 Data Report (05/31/11)

Not Currently Measured Kentucky In School Transition Survey (06/13/11)

Not Currently Measured Preschool End-of-Year Performance Report (06/30/11)

Not Currently Measured Youth One-Year-Out (YOYO) Survey (06/30/11)

Not Currently Measured PercentageData Source: KDE District Reports

Indicator 20 Root CausesRoot Causes for Districts that DID NOT MEET Target

(Place an X by the root cause that most significantly impacted performance)

Root Causes for Districts that MET Target(Place an X by the root cause that most significantly impacted

performance)

20A. District does not utilize data standards and guidance for special education in the student information system.

20A. District staff fully utilizes data standards and guidance for special education in the student information system.

20B. There is a lack of internal procedures for ensuring that timelines are met.

20B. Internal procedures ensure that timelines are met.

20C. There is no system in place for ensuring that persons responsible for submitting reports are made aware of reporting requirements.

20C. Persons responsible for submitting reports are made aware of reporting requirements.

20D. Data are not reviewed for errors prior to submission 20D. Data are reviewed for potential errors and concerns prior to submission.

Other (Specify): Other (Specify):

Interim Data

Since January 1, 2012

Interim DataIndicators 1&2

Number of students that have dropped out since January 1, 2012

Indicator 4Number of students that have been suspended 8 or more days this school year.

Indicator 11Number of initial evaluations since January 1, 2012.Number of evaluations completed within timeline.

Indicator 12Number of First Steps students referred to the district since January 1, 2012.Number with IEPs in place by the 3rd birthday.

Indicator 13Number of records that have been reviewed for transition since January 1, 2012.Number of records that were found to be compliant for Indicator 13

Indicator 20(were the following reports submitted on time?)

Winter KCMP (2/28/12)Maintenance of Fiscal Effort (3/31/12)

Don’t Forget to…

update the status of your Fall and Winter activities.

Have a great spring and summer!