understanding levels of determination—part b (cfr 300.603 and 604) improving performance to...

Understanding Levels of Determination—Part B

(CFR 300.603 and 604)

Improving Performance to Increase Positive Results

Eugene R. Thompson, Education Program Specialist, BIE/DPA

2011 BIE Special Education Academy September 13-15, 2011--Tampa, Florida

IDEA 2004—a new process for states

• State Performance Plan (SPP)—20 compliance and performance indicators; 15 apply to BIE (Sec. 616 (b)(2)(C)(ii)(ll)

• Annual Performance Report (APR)—progress on each SPP indicator reported here

The SPP is the BIE’s IEP.The APR is the annual review of the SPP.


Where is data collected from?

• Special education data collected from all schools to arrive at BIE performance

• BIE submits APR to OSEP every February 1• OSEP makes determination of every state

2011 BIE determination: Needs Assistance 2

• BIE makes a determination for each school based on specific criteria—by June 1


States Required to Make Determinations

• Sec. 515 (a)(1)(c)(i)(ii)• In general—the Secretary shall . . . Require

states to (i) monitor implementation of this part by local educational agencies, and (ii) enforce this part in accordance with paragraph (3) and subsection (e)


BIE’s Determination of Schools

Based on specific criteria:•Meets the requirements and purposes of IDEA•Needs Assistance in implementing IDEA requirements•Needs Intervention in implementing IDEA requirements•Needs Substantial Intervention in implementing IDEA requirements


What are the Specific Criteria?Indi-cator

Description Target Criteria Data Source

3 Statewide assessment (participation rate)

96% # children with IEPs participating in assessment. Avg of language or reading and math scores should = 96% or greater.

Annual Report for SY 2009-2010

4 Rates of suspension and expulsion

HS-13.42%ES-3.28%

HS rate should not exceed 13.42%; ES rate should not exceed 3.28%

Table 5—discipline; for > 10 consecutive days. [OSS + ISS = __ ÷ #swd roster = %




5 LRE placementA ≥ 80% with non-disabled peers, or B ≤ 40% with non-disabled peers

70.17%

7.37%

Removal from nondisabled peers:A ≥ 70.17 served ≥ 80% of time with nondisabled peers, orB ≤ 7.37 served ≤ 40% with nondisabled peers

Special Education Statistical Detail Report (roster)—October 31

8 Parental involvement (returned parent surveys)

Yes/No School returned parent surveys to Piedra Data Services by due date—May 7, 2010

School returned parent surveys to Piedra Data Services by May 7, 2010




11 Timely initial evaluations 100% # of children whose evaluations were completed within 60-days

Compliance monitoring, SY 2009-2010

15 Timely correction of noncompliance

Yes/No School corrected any noncompliance issues within one-year or sooner following written notification and met all compliance requirements

Compliance monitoring conducted during SY 2008-2009 and corrected in SY 2009-2010




20 Timely and accurate data 100% Timeliness and accuracy of state reported data and reports returned and submitted by due dates—January 9, 2009; T1—child count corrected roster; T2—personnel

T1—child count corrected rosterT2—personnel; appropriate data entry into NASIS; accurate entry of assessment data in annual report

Any audit findings-Lack of any audit-Finding with no correction & questionable costs-Finding with no correction & unjustified spending

Results of A133 audit A133 audit


The BIE Picture(Based on SY 2009-2010 data)

2011 Part B IDEA DeterminationsNo. of

SchoolsPercent

Meets Requirements 124 72%Needs Assistance 34 20% NA2 12 7%Needs Intervention 3 2%Needs Substantial Intervention 0 0%TOTAL 173


2011 Levels of Determination(based on SY 2009-2010 data)

ADD-Navajo MR NA NA2 NA3 NA4 NI NI2 NI3

Arizona Navajo Central 04 05 01

Arizona Navajo North 11 01

Arizona Navajo South 04 02 02

NM Navajo Central 06 02 01 01

NM Navajo North 05 02 02 01

NM Navajo South 02 05 02

TOTAL = 59 32 (54%)

16 (27%)

09 (15%)

02(3%)


ADD--West MR NA NA2 NA3 NA4 NI NI2 NI3 NSI

Arizona North 04 04

Arizona South 10 01

Billings 02 01 01

New Mexico North 06

New Mexico South 06 02 01

Sacramento 04

Seattle 08 02

TOTAL = 52 40(77%)

10(19%)

02(4%)


ADD—East MR NA NA2 NA3 NI NI2 NI3

Cheyenne River 04

Crow Creek-Lower Brule 06

Minneapolis 09 02

Oklahoma 03

Pine Ridge 04 02 01

Rosebud 02

South & Eastern 13 03

Standing Rock 04 01

Turtle Mountain 07 01

TOTAL = 62 52(84%)

08(13%)

01(2%)

01(2%)

Indicators That Were Problematic(Source: 2011 Determinations)

SPP Indicator BIE TCS TotalIndicator 3—Statewide assessment 6 21 27 (13%)

Indicator 4—Rates of suspension/expulsion 4 24 28 (14%)

Indicator 5—LRE placement 12 19 31 (15%)

Indicator 8—Parental involvement 9 18 27 (13%)

Indicator 11—Timely Initial evaluations 1 3 4 (2%)

Indicator 15—Timely correction of noncompliance 30 42 72 (35%)

Indicator 20—Timely and accurate data reporting 3 11 14 (7%)

Any audit findings 0 0 0

TOTAL 65 138 203

BIE Special Education Academy September 13-15, 2011--Tampa, Florida

Enforcement ActionsSchools in needs assistance for two consecutive years:

One of the following:Targeted technical assistanceIdentify school as high risk; impose special conditions

Additional actions may include:Use funds for areas of improvementDocument TA school accessed; actions school tookWritten notification to principal and ELO


Enforcement ActionSchools in needs intervention for three consecutive years:

One of the following:CAP to correct problems in one-yearBIE-Operated—withhold Part B payments (whole or part)Tribally Controlled Schools—Can provide notice to grantee of intent to rescind special education portion

Additional actions may include:Written notification to Principal, ELOTargeted technical assistanceFocused monitoring activitiesReallocate use of Part B funds to target areas needing improvement


Stakeholder Involvement

• BIE Special Education Data Summit• BIE Advisory Board for Exceptional Children;

BIE/TCS school staff; parents• Provides review, comment, advice,

suggestions• Based on involvement, changes made as

appropriate for achieving high standards in BIE and school performances


SY 2011-2012 Reminders

• Amend LSPPs by September 30—improvement activities to address indicator targets

• Evaluate improvement activities• Access and document sources of TA• Participate in webinars• Review Part B spending plans• Address needed systems change• Sustain meets requirements


Continuous Improvement 2011-2012

• Correct findings of noncompliance as soon as possible

• Correctly implement the specific regulatory requirements (the practice)

• Enter data into NASIS in real time• Be prepared for DPA desk audits• Focus on SPP Indicators to improve results


Looking Forward

• SY 2010-2011 data for 2012 APR and level of determination

• SY 2011-2012 data for 2013 APR and level of determination

• On-site focused monitoring visits to 58 schools—SY 2011-2012

• Indicator 11 desk audit—November 2011• Indicator 13 desk audit—November 2011• Review of updated data through NASIS--ongoing


Thank You

• Dr. Eugene R. Thompson• [email protected]• 505-563-5394 office• 505-250-1365 mobile


mailto:[email protected]

understanding levels of determination—part b (cfr 300.603 and 604) improving performance to...

Documents