Results, Trends, and General Supervision Activities
Slide 3
The SPP and APR SPP State Performance Plan that shows baseline
data (1 st year of reporting), then rigorous targets for the life
of the SPP (along 20 Indicators) APR Annual Performance Report
submitted Feb. 1 st that describes whether or not the state
achieved/met the targets outlined in the SPP
Slide 4
APR Reporting Years For Indicators 3, 5-14, 16-19, & 20,
the APR is based on data for the preceding school year: Feb. 1,
2010 (based on FFY08; 08-09 school year) Feb. 1, 2011 (based on
FFY09; 09-10) Feb. 1, 2012 (based on FFY10; 10-11)
Slide 5
APR Reporting Years, contd Indicators 1-2, & 4A & B are
based on the two prior school years: Feb 1, 2010 (based on FFY07;
07-08 school year) Feb. 1, 2011 (based on FFY08; 08-09 s.y.) Feb.
1, 2012 (based on FFY09; 09-10 s.y.) Ind. 15 is based on 2+
preceding school years
Slide 6
Performance vs. Compliance Performance indicators are those for
which the OSEP is interested in the state setting rigorous,
measurable targets, based on baseline and historical performance.
These percentages range in value. Compliance indicators are those
for which the OSEP has mandated either a 0% or 100% target for
states to meet (Ind. 4B, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 for LEAs and the state;
and 20 for the state). These indicators also relate to
child-entitlement regulations (i.e., all or none).
Slide 7
Performance vs. Compliance Performance indicators are those for
which the OSEP is interested in the state setting rigorous,
measurable targets, based on baseline and historical performance.
These percentages range in value. Compliance indicators are those
for which the OSEP has mandated either a 0% or 100% target for
states to meet (Ind. 4B, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 for LEAs and the state;
and 20 for the state). These indicators also relate to
child-entitlement regulations (i.e., all or none).
Slide 8
FFY 2009 SPP Changes 1. Required to collect data and report for
Part B Indicator 4B (Discipline by Race/Ethnicity), using FFY 2008
Data 2. Required to collect and report data for Part B Indicator 13
(Post-secondary transition services) 3. Required to collect and
report data for Part B Indicator 14 (Post-secondary outcomes) 4.
Required to establish and extend targets for 2 additional years
(FFY 2011 and FFY 2012)
Slide 9
Indicator 1 Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high
school with a regular diploma.
Slide 10
Indicator 1 FFY 2009 Graduation Rate State Target: Current year
must meet the GOAL of 88.3%, or the current year must meet the
TARGET OBJECTIVE of 78%, or the current year is 2 percentage points
higher than the previous year, or the current year is 2 percentage
points higher than the most recent three-year average (42.67%)
including current year. NOT MET Actual Performance: 42.9% (decrease
from 46.1%) Data Source: NCLB AYP Report for SC
Slide 11
Indicator 2 Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high
school.
Slide 12
Indicator 2 FFY 2009 Dropout Rate State Target: 5.6% Using new
data source as required by OSEP, using ESEA FFY 2008 Baseline was
5.6% FFY 2009 Actual was 5.2% MET Data Source: SCDE Federal Dropout
report.
Slide 13
Indicator 3 Participation and performance of children with IEPs
on statewide assessments: A. Percent of the districts with a
disability subgroup that meets the States minimum n size that meet
the States AYP targets for the disability subgroup.
Slide 14
Indicator 3 cont. B. Participation rate for children with IEPs
C. Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level,
modified and alternate academic achievement standards in ELA and
Math
Slide 15
FFY 2009 Indicator 3 A Districts meeting AYP for students with
disabilities State Target: 66.6% or above Actual Performance: 2.3%
(n=2) NOT MET Data Source: AYP calculations Revised targets to use
AYP data Targets not set by subgroup (SC)
Slide 16
FFY 2009 Indicator 3 B Participation Rate of Students with
Disabilities: State Target: Above 95% Actual Performance-Math:
98.23% MET Actual Performance-ELA: 98.31% MET Data Source: Office
of Data Analysis and Mgmt.
Slide 17
Slide 18
FFY 2009 Indicator 3 C Performance rate of students with
disabilities State Target Math: 58.8% (3-8) and 71.3% (HS) Actual
Performance Math: 58.5% and 54.1% State Target ELA: 57.8% (3-8) and
70.0% (HS) Actual Performance ELA: 46.0% and 54.1% NOT MET ON ALL
Data Source NCLB AYP Report for SC
Slide 19
Indicators 4A and 4B For FFY 2009, states were required to
collect and report data for Part B Indicator 4B, using data from
the 2008-2009 school year. 4B is a compliance indicator Given this
change, and limitations to the old definition of 4A, SC decided to
change its definition of significant discrepancy for 4A while
crafting the new definition of 4B
Slide 20
Regulatory Citation 34 CFR 300.170 Suspension and expulsion
rates. (a) General. The SEA must examine data, including data
disaggregated by race and ethnicity, to determine if significant
discrepancies are occurring in the rate of long-term suspensions
and expulsions of children with disabilities (1) Among LEAs in the
State; or (2) Compared to the rates for nondisabled children within
those agencies.
Slide 21
Regulatory Citation (b) Review and revision of policies. If the
discrepancies described in paragraph (a) of this section are
occurring, the SEA must review and, if appropriate, revise (or
require the affected State agency or LEA to revise) its policies,
procedures, and practices relating to the development and
implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral
interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards, to ensure
that these policies, procedures, and practices comply with the
Act.
Slide 22
Data Source Data collected on Table 5 of Information Collection
1820-0621 (Report of Children with Disabilities Unilaterally
Removed or Suspended/Expelled for More than 10 Days). Discrepancy
can be computed by either comparing the rates of suspensions and
expulsions for children with IEPs to rates for nondisabled children
within the LEA or by comparing the rates of suspensions and
expulsions for children with IEPs among LEAs within the State.
Sampling from States 618 data is not allowed.
Slide 23
Table 5
Slide 24
4A Measurement Percent = [A divided by B] times 100 A = # of
districts that have a significant discrepancy in the rate of
suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year
of children with IEPs divided by the B= # of districts in the State
times 100
Slide 25
4B Measurement Percent = [(# of districts that have: (a) a
significant discrepancy, by race or ethnicity, in the rates of
suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year
of 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) divided by the (# of districts in the
State)] times 100.
Slide 26
4A Target & Reporting Year SPP FFY 2009 SPP (due 2/1/11)
use FFY 2008 (2008-2009) data establish baseline, targets, and
review/revise improvement activities FFY 2010 APR (due 2/1/12) use
FFY 2009 (2009-2010) data
Slide 27
4B Target & Reporting Year Target is 0% (Compliance
Indicator) SPP FFY 2009 SPP (due 2/1/11) use FFY 2008 (2008-2009)
data establish baseline, targets, and review/revise improvement
activities FFY 2010 APR (due 2/1/12) use FFY 2009 (2009-2010)
data
Slide 28
SPP/APR Reporting If discrepancies occurred and the district
with discrepancies had policies, procedures or practices that
contributed to the significant discrepancy and that do not comply
with requirements relating to the development and implementation of
IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports,
and procedural safeguards, describe how the State ensured that such
policies, procedures, and practices were revised to comply with
applicable requirements.
Relative Risk Ratio (4A) Calculates the risk for ONE LEA
Calculates the risk for all other LEAs Divide the ONE LEA by all
other LEAs Compares the risk for one LEA to the risks of all other
LEAs within the state. If the relative risk is greater than 2.50,
then the district is identified as having significant discrepancy
for Part B 4A and must review policies, procedures and practices
(i.e., the Indicator 4 Self- Assessment Rubric)
Slide 31
Weighted Risk (4B) WRR adjusts for district variability in
race/ethnic groups so that districts came be compared equally by
accounting for variability among ethnic-makeup of districts
Compares the risk for one race ethnicity to that of all other
ethnicities within the LEA, and weighted for cross LEA
comparability Must have subgroup size of 10
Slide 32
4B Issue Keep in mind that 4B is two-fold: A numerical trigger
defined by the WRR (with n-size applied). If the LEA has a WRR
greater than 2.50, then the LEA is defined as having significant
discrepancy for Part B 4B, and must review Policies, Procedures,
& Practices (i.e., Indicator 4 Self-Assessment Rubric) Only if
they meet the trigger & their P/P/P do not comply do they get a
finding
Slide 33
Indicator 4 Follow-Up If an LEA is found to have significant
discrepancy for Indicator 4A or 4B, they must complete a
comprehensive rubric identifying whether or not they followed
specific regulatory requirements and provide information about
where the evidence could be found. If an LEA indicates that it has
failed to correctly implement the regulatory requirements, it would
be issued a finding of noncompliance and must ensure both systemic
and individual correction.
Slide 34
FFY 2009 Indicator 4A Rates of suspension and expulsion:
Percent of districts that have a significant discrepancy in the
rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a
school year for children with IEPs; and SC Baseline: 5.68% (n=5)
Data Source: Table 5, FFY 2008 and Self Assessment Rubric
Slide 35
Indicator 4B B. Percent of districts that have: (a) 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.
Slide 36
FFY 2009 Indicator 4B State Compliance Target: 0% SC Actual
2.27% (n=2) NOT MET Data Source: FFY 2008 Table 5 and District Self
Assessment Rubric
Slide 37
Indicator 5 Percent of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21
served: A. Inside the regular class 80% or more of the day; B.
Inside the regular class less than 40% of the day; and C. In
separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital
placements.
Slide 38
FFY 2009 Indicator 5 LRE A Inside the regular class 80% or more
of the day State Target: 53% Actual Performance: 56.2% MET Data
Source: Table 3
Slide 39
Slide 40
FFY 2009 Indicator 5 LRE B Inside the regular class less than
40% of the day State Target:14.45% Actual Performance: 19.9% NOT
MET Data Source: Table 3
Slide 41
Slide 42
FFY 2009 Indicator 5 LRE C The percent of children with IEPs
served in separate schools, residential facilities, or
homebound/hospital placements State Target: 2.19% or below Actual
Performance: 1.73% MET Data Source: Table 3
Slide 43
Slide 44
FFY 2009 Indicator 6 Percent of children aged 3 through 5 with
IEPs attending a: A. Regular early childhood program and receiving
the majority of special education and related services in the
regular early childhood program; and B. Separate special education
class, separate school or residential facility.
Slide 45
Indicator 6 OSEP continues to not require states to report on
this indicator.
Slide 46
Indicator 7 Percent of preschool children aged 3 through 5 with
IEPs who demonstrate improved: Positive social-emotional skills
(including social relationships); Acquisition and use of knowledge
and skills (including early language/ communication and early
literacy); and Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs
Reported baseline data for FFY 2008
Slide 47
FFY 2009 Indicator 7 Preschool Outcomes
Slide 48
Slide 49
Slide 50
FFY 2009 Indicator 8 Parents 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 State Target: 30.83% Actual
Performance: 38% MET Data Source: Parent Survey
Slide 51
Survey Information FFY2008 13,240 surveys mailed to parents in
15 LEAs 1,404 surveys were returned (10.6% return rate), which
exceeds the expected return rate. FFY2009 14,243 surveys mailed to
parents in 15 LEAs 430 surveys returned (3.0% return rate) Both
years, Spanish versions sent to parents of ELL students. Office of
Exceptional Childrenwww.ed.sc.gov
Slide 52
Slide 53
Representativeness In looking at the surveys returned, how
representative are they of SC students with disabilities? What does
this say about efforts needed to improve parent involvement? Under
(African-American, LD, OHI, 11-17 year olds) Over (White, SLI, 6-7
year olds) Office of Exceptional Childrenwww.ed.sc.gov
Slide 54
What does this say about efforts needed to improve parent
involvement? Office of Exceptional Childrenwww.ed.sc.gov
Slide 55
How are the data analyzed? NCSEAM recommends that data be
analyzed through the Rasch measurement framework. The analysis
locates each item, and each person, on the same measurement ruler.
An items location on the ruler is its calibration. A persons
position on the ruler is the persons measure.
Slide 56
The school explains what options parents have if they disagree
with a decision of the school. [600] ITEM CALIBRATIONS ON THE PART
B SCHOOL EFFORTS RULER* *.95 likelihood of agreement
800.############ + |. |.# |. | 700.### +. |.## |. |.## |.# |.## |.#
|.## | 600.## +.### |.## |.### |.## |.#### |.## |.### | 500.####
+.### |.####### |.#### |.###### |.#### |.##### |.### |.##### |.###
| 400.### +.#### |.### |.## |.# | ## |. | 300.# +. |.# |. |.# |. |
200.### +
Slide 57
FFY2009
Slide 58
Slide 59
Slide 60
The data suggests we Increase the numbers of completed surveys
(input) from parents who: Are African American Have children with
SLD, OHI, Multiple Disabilities, & DD Have children in grades
9-12 &/or ages 11-17 (3yr) Improve parent involvement for those
children: African-American (2yr) Are in grades 8-10 (FFY07 and 08)
Increase the number of respondents Office of Exceptional
Childrenwww.ed.sc.gov
Slide 61
FFY 2009 LEAs surveyed Anderson 02 York 01 Lancaster
Spartanburg 07 Anderson 05 Florence 05 Barnwell 45 Sumter 17
Florence 01 Dillon 03 Clarendon 03 Marion 02 Colleton Dorchester 02
Greenville (1/6 th )
Slide 62
2010-2011 LEAs to be surveyed Greenwood 52 Abbeville
Spartanburg 01 Spartanburg 06 Union Lexington 03 Dillon 01
Dorchester 04 Clarendon 02 Horry Richland 01 Richland 02 Greenville
(1/6 th )
Slide 63
FFY 2009 Indicator 9 -Disproportionality Districts with
disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in
special education and related services that is the result of
inappropriate identification. State Target: 0% Actual Performance:
0% MET Data Source: Weighted Risk Ratio and District
Verification
Slide 64
Slide 65
FFY 2009 Indicator 10 - Disproportionality Percent of districts
with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in
specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate
identification. State Target: 0% Actual Performance: 4.5% (n=4) NOT
MET African American MD (n=2), White SLI, White OHI Data Source:
Weighted Risk Ratio and District Verification
Slide 66
Slide 67
FFY 2009 Indicator 11 60-Day Timeline 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.
State Target: 100% Actual Performance: 99.16% NOT MET, but close
Data Source: Excent Extraction
Slide 68
Slide 69
FFY 2009 Indicator 12 - IEP by Third Birthday Percent of
children referred by Part C prior to age 3, who are found eligible
for Part B, and who have an IEP developed and implemented by their
third birthdays. State Target: 100% Actual Performance: 96.7% NOT
MET Data Source: Excent Extraction
Slide 70
Slide 71
Indicator 13 Percent of youth with IEPs aged 16 and above with
an IEP that includes appropriate measurable postsecondary goals
that are annually updated and based upon an age appropriate
transition assessment, transition services, including courses of
study, that will reasonably enable the student to meet those
postsecondary goals, and annual IEP goals related to the students
transition services needs. There also must be evidence that the
student was invited to the IEP Team meeting where transition
services are to be discussed and evidence that, if appropriate a
representative of any participating agency was invited to the IEP
Team meeting with the prior consent of the parent or student who
has reached the age of majority.
Slide 72
Indicator 13 - Transition Baseline Data was submitted Feb. 2,
2011 for the FFY09 SPP/APR Data Source: Table 1, Self-Report, Peer
Verification (State Monitoring), Appeals, Follow-Up Verification
(from Self-Reports)
Slide 73
FFY 2009 Indicator 13 Indicator 13 is a compliance indicator SC
Target: 100% SC Actual Performance: 98.92% NOT MET For FFY 2009,
3,112 IEPS from 94 LEAs & SOPs were reviewed. Following
appeals, 3,146 were rated as compliant.
Slide 74
Indicator 14 Percent of youth who are no longer in secondary
school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school, and were:
A. Enrolled in higher education within one year of leaving high
school; B. Enrolled in higher education or competitively employed
within one year of leaving high school; or C. Enrolled in higher
education or in some other postsecondary education or training
program; or competitively employed or in some other employment
within one year of leaving high school. Data Source: Survey sent to
graduates one year after graduating 2009-2010 Exiters will receive
a survey at the end of the 2011 Spring Semester.
Slide 75
What are Positive Post-School Outcomes? Post-school outcomes
(PSO) refers to what youth do after leaving high school,
specifically: Working Going to school Both Unengaged 75
Slide 76
Why are PSO important? One purpose of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) 2004 is: To ensure
that all children with disabilities have available to them a free
appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and
related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare
them for further education, employment, and independent living.
Youths post-school outcomes is one measure of how well states meet
this IDEA purpose. 76 IDEA Regulations 300.1(a) 76
Slide 77
How are PSO Data Collected? Each state determines how these
data are collected. In South Carolina data are collect Lifetrack,
Inc, between May and September using a mailed survey and follow-up
telephone calls, as needed. Data are collected from youth with
disabilities who had an IEP when they left school OR their
family/others, including youth who graduate, receive a certificate,
age-out, drop out, or those expected to return & did not.
Families of youth who die, do not receive the survey. 77
Slide 78
What Data are Collected? We collect data from youth while they
are in school and one year after they have left school. In school:
Demographic data (e.g., disability, race/ethnicity) Program data
(e.g., post- school goal, type of program they attended) Length of
time in school Out of school: Work and school experiences Type of
job or school Number of hours working or in school Kind of job
78
Slide 79
Commonly Used Terms States define terms associated with PSO
Competitive employment Higher Education Other postsecondary
education or training program Other employment Graduation,
certificate, dropped-out 79
Slide 80
Higher Education means In South Carolina: Higher education
means- youth who have been enrolled on a full- or part-time basis
in a community or technical college (2-year program) or
college/university (4- or more year program) for at least one
complete term, at any time in the year since leaving high school.
80
Slide 81
Competitive Employment means In South Carolina: Competitive
employment means work- (i) In the competitive labor market that is
performed on a full-time or part-time basis in an integrated
setting; and (ii) For which an individual is compensated at or
above the minimum wage, but not less than the customary wage and
level of benefits paid by the employer for the same or similar work
performed by individuals who are not disabled. (Authority: 7(11)
and 12(c) of the Act; 29 U.S.C. 705(11) and 709(c)) 81
Slide 82
Definitions : Other postsecondary school/training means youth
who have been enrolled on a full- or part-time basis for at least 1
complete term at any time in the year since leaving high school in
an education or training program, which could include JobCorps,
adult education, workforce development programs, on-the- job
training, vocational educational programs which are less than
two-years, and certificate programs (less than a two-year program).
Other employment means youth who have worked for pay or been
self-employed for a period of at least 90 total days at any time in
the year since leaving high school, including working in a family
business. 82
Slide 83
Definitions, continued Graduation means youth who have
completed the required 24 credit units required for a state
diploma, and who have successfully completed all sections of the
exit exams. Received a certificate means youth who have completed
the required 24 credit units required for a state diploma, but have
NOT successfully completed the exit exams, but who have exited
school Drop-out students who have exited school but who have not
reached maximum age (NOT THE SAME AS AYP DROP-OUT CALCULATION)
Slide 84
84
Slide 85
SC PSO Data These data represent youth who left school during
the [2009-2010] school year. Of the 3,570 who left high school,
29.7% of the leavers contacted responded to the survey. The
responders were found to represent graduates, dropouts, disability
groups, ethnicities, and gender. Of those who responded, 65%
reported working, going to school or doing both in the one year
since leaving high school. 85
Slide 86
Slide 87
Engagement by Gender
Slide 88
Engagement by Race/Ethnicity
Slide 89
Needs Summary/Next Steps Work with Lifetrack to improve survey
design and to ensure follow-up telephone interviews are attempted
with non-responders Work with LEAs to ensure up-to-date information
is in Excent when students exit Market surveys to LEAs, parents,
students Provide professional development regarding
unengagement
Slide 90
FFY 2009 Indicator 15 - General Supervision 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. State Target: 100%
Actual Performance: 92% NOT MET Increase from FFY 2008 77% Data
Source: Findings and dispute resolution data from SCDE
Slide 91
FFY 2009 Indicator 16 - Timely Complaints Percent of signed
written complaints with reports issued that were resolved within
60-day timeline or a timeline extended for exceptional
circumstances with respect to a particular complaint, or because
the parent (or individual or organization) and the public agency
agree to extend the time to engage in mediation or other
alternative means of dispute resolution, if available in the State.
SC Target: 100% SC Actual: 100% MET Source: Office of General
Counsel, SCDE
Slide 92
FFY 2009 Indicator 17 Timely Due-Process Hearings Percent of
adjudicated due process hearing requests that were adjudicated
within the 45-day timeline or a timeline that is properly extended
by the hearing officer at the request of either party or in the
case of an expedited hearing, within the required timelines. SC
Target: 100% SC Actual: 100% MET Data Source: Office of General
Counsel, SCDE
Slide 93
FFY 2009 Indicator 18 Resolution Agreements Percent of hearing
requests that went to resolution sessions that were resolved
through resolution session settlement agreements. SC Target: 60% SC
Actual: 60% MET Source: Office of General Counsel, SCDE
Slide 94
FFY 2009 Indicator 19 Mediation Agreements Percent of
mediations held that resulted in mediation agreements. SC Target:
75% of requests resulting in mediation agreement if more than 10
held SC Actual: Less than 10 were held Data Source: Office of
General Counsel, SCDE
Slide 95
FFY 2009 Indicator 20 Timely and Accurate Submission State
reported data (618 and State Performance Plan and Annual
Performance Report) are timely and accurate State Target: 100%
Actual Performance: 100% MET
Slide 96
Slide 97
Timely & Accurate Data Indicator 20 State Level Indicator,
however a finding can be issued when an LEA fails to submit timely
and accurate data or fails to respond to data requests. Citation:
34 C.F.R. 300.211. The LEA must provide the SEA {state education
agency} with information necessary to enable the SEA to carry out
its duties under Part B of the Act, including, with respect to
300.157 and 300.160, information relating to the performance of
children with disabilities in programs carried out under Part B of
the Act.
Slide 98
SPP/APR Implications District Profile: Public report card for
special ed.; Findings of Noncompliance (conduct self-assessments,
develop a PICO, undertake and monitor activities) and individual
and systemic corrections; Lowered Determination (additional general
supervision requirements including required technical assistance,
professional development, on-site monitoring of student records,
and possible withholding of IDEA ;funds) Possible on-site
monitoring and general supervision Possible additional sanctions
(e.g., CEIS); Possible complaints; State-level implications;
AND
Slide 99
Implications for children Delay in determining whether the
student is a student with a disability (family implications) Delay
in the provision of services Delay in the protection granted by
IDEA (i.e., protection of the law) Violation of that childs right
to educational programs Long-term negative impact on childrens
educational outcomes (e.g., risk for school failure and drop out)
Others? The DATA are NOT just about NUMBERS
Goal The goal of SCDEs general supervision system is to ensure
that LEAs are meeting the requirements of both federal and state
regulations.
Slide 102
Four Components State Performance Plan (SPP) particularly areas
of noncompliance (e.g., findings of noncompliance) Annual
Determinations Compliance Monitoring Activities Fiscal
Accountability
Slide 103
SPP 20 Indicators Compliance Performance Data gathering related
to Indicators Indicators 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 20 rely on
district data entry/submission
Slide 104
OEC Support Resources Professional Development regionally,
topically, Research-to-Practice, other opportunities Is geared for
informational purposes that would benefit multiple LEAs/groups
Technical Assistance regionally, topically, on-site, virtually Is
geared for specific purposes to assist a particular LEA,
organization, school, or group with implementing regulatory
requirements of IDEA
Slide 105
OEC Data Resources OEC Data Calendar General & Seasonal OEC
Data Manual OEC Monthly Data Webinars OEC Fall Real-time Data
Meetings OEC Spring Virtual Data Meetings Pre-check for most data
reports: Tables 1 & 3, 2, 4, 5 (as requested), 6 Indicators 11,
12, and 7 (as requested) Confirmatory Self-Assessments Indicators
4A, 4B, 9, 10, and 13
Slide 106
Slide 107
What is a finding? A finding is a written notification from the
State to a LEA that contains the States conclusion that the LEA is
in noncompliance, and that includes the citation of the statute or
regulation and a description of the quantitative and/or qualitative
data supporting the States conclusion that there is noncompliance
with that statute or regulation. All findings of noncompliance must
be corrected as soon as possible, but in no case later than one
year.
Slide 108
Findings A state must make a finding of noncompliance if it
finds any level of noncompliance with the IDEA. If the LEA
immediately (i.e., before the State issues a written notification
of a finding) corrects noncompliance and provides documentation of
such correction, the State may choose not to make a finding.
Slide 109
Correction Correction timeline begins on the date the State
informs a LEA in writing that it has a finding. The LEA must
correct each individual case of noncompliance found at the child
level. (For example, all children received an initial evaluation
although late.) Correction of noncompliance must be consistent with
OSEP Memorandum 09-02
Slide 110
Correction The LEA must also demonstrate correction of any
systemic noncompliance within the one year timeline. The state must
verify correction of the noncompliance, and may choose to do so in
a timeframe earlier than one year. (Example: the LEA may
demonstrate correction for Indicator 11 after a 3 month time
period.)
Slide 111
Correction If an LEA does not correct within one year, they
then have a continuing case of noncompliance. Continued
noncompliance may affect the LEA determination along with
additional required general supervision activities. Correction will
look different depending on the nature of the finding, and the
length of time of the noncompliance.
Slide 112
Plan for Improving Childrens Outcomes(PICO-r) LEA completes
PICO-r to correct any/all finding(s) of noncompliance Plan
describes measurable, sequential activities the LEA will implement
for correction Plan includes specifics Concrete and outcome-based
activities staff responsible for implementation of the plan outputs
that show evidence of completed activities benchmark results to
determine improvements
Slide 113
Plan for Improving Childrens Outcomes (PICO-r) Plan development
and reporting consists of the following: Identification of causal
factors for noncompliance Completion of self-assessment probe
questions Completion of PICO document with submission to Regional
Representative for review Examination of data on a quarterly basis
to monitor and report progress toward correction and compliance
Revised in 2011 to improve the efficacy of the PICOs
Slide 114
Slide 115
PICO-r LEAs will have ONE PICO, encompassing ALL findings,
their appropriate determination (if necessary), and other needs (as
needed). It will serve as an umbrella program evaluation tool using
a logic model, that is amended and updated as needed or required.
LEAs required to have PICOs will submit semi-annual reports to the
OEC.
Slide 116
Slide 117
Determinations The IDEA Part B regulations at 34 CFR 300.600(c)
and 300.603 require state education agencies (SEAs) to make
determinations annually about the performance of each LEA based on
information provided in the SPP/APR, information obtained through
monitoring visits, and any other public information made
available.
Slide 118
Determinations Identifies the LEAs performance in implementing
the requirements & purposes of the IDEA; Classified by 4
determinations; Mirrors the process the OSEP uses in making state
(SEA) determinations; & Linked to funding & general
supervision
Slide 119
Determinations address History, nature, and length of time of
any reported noncompliance; Evidence of correction, including
progress toward full compliance; Information regarding valid and
reliable data; Audit findings; and Monitoring findings.
Determinations For FFY 2008 Determinations, the OEC created a
triage to identify the degree to which it would conduct general
supervision activities. Other monitoring and general supervision
activities could be required for ALL LEAs, dependent upon their
implementation of IDEA. The OEC used the same protocol as OSEP in
calculating FFY 2008 Determinations In Summer 2010, OSEP changed
its protocol for calculating LEAs determinations. As a result, the
OEC is in the process of updating its Determinations Rubric. Once
finalized, the OEC will provide this information to LEAs PRIOR TO
ISSUING DETERMINATIONS
Slide 122
StatusProcessToolsData neededParticipants Onsite monitoring
Meets requirements LEAs earning meets will be posted on the web.
LEAs will receive commendation letters. N/A NA Needs assistance 2
Notification letter, Follow-up letter, Conference call PICOTBD by
PICO LEA Leadership Team; OEC Regional Representative TBD Needs
intervention 1 Notification letter, Follow-up letter, Onsite visit
PICOTBD by PICO LEA Leadership Team; OEC Regional Representative
& Monitors TBD Needs intervention 2 Notification letter,
Follow-up letter, Onsite visit, Onsite monitoring following (30-45
days) PICOTBD by PICOLEA Leadership Team; OEC Regional
Representative & Monitors Required (30-45 days after Onsite
visit )
Slide 123
FFY08 Determinations Profile
Slide 124
Determinations, contd Meets Meets - written commendations to
the LEAs superintendent, the LEAs board of education, the State
Board of Education as well as recognition on the Office of
Exceptional Children (OEC) website. 55 LEAs achieved Meets
Requirements
Slide 125
Determinations, contd Needs Assistance (1 st Yr) Notification
for correction Required PICO Advised of TA May be required to
participate in TA & PD Needs Assistance (2 nd Yr) Required
PICOs Required TA participation. May be required to have focused
on-site general supervision activities SAME FOR Needs Intervention
1 st Year
Slide 126
Determinations, contd Needs Intervention (Yr 2) All
requirements of Needs Intervention (1 st Year) On-site General
Supervision Activities Required TA and PD Needs Intervention (Yr 3)
All requirements of NI2 Possible compliance agreement May be
high-risk grantee May withhold funds
Slide 127
Determinations, contd Needs Substantial Intervention - in
addition to complying with all regulations described for Needs
Intervention, the State may recover funds under section 452 of the
General Education Provisions Act; withhold, in part or whole, any
further payments to the LEA of IDEA funds; and/or refer the matter
for appropriate enforcement action.
Slide 128
Slide 129
Compliance Monitoring Monitoring activities include: Database
reviews On-site visits Record reviews (on site and through Excent)
Dispute resolution outcomes/issues LEA Self-Assessments
Slide 130
What are we looking for? Are young children with disabilities
entering kindergarten ready to learn? Indicator 6: Preschool
Educational Environments Indicator 7: Preschool Outcomes Indicator
12: Early Childhood Transition
Slide 131
What are we looking for? Are children with disabilities
achieving at high levels? Indicator 3: Statewide Assessment
Indicator 4: Suspension/Expulsion Indicator 5: School-age
Educational Environments
Slide 132
What are we looking for? Are youth with disabilities prepared
for life, work and postsecondary education? Indicator 1: Graduation
Indicator 2:Dropout Indicator 13: Postsecondary Transition
Indicator 14: Postsecondary Outcomes
Slide 133
What are we looking for? Does the district implement IDEA to
improve services and results for children with disabilities?
Indicator 8: Facilitated Parent Involvement Indicator 9:
Disproportionate Representation - Child with a Disability Indicator
10: Disproportionate Representation - Eligibility Categories
Indicator 11: Child Find Indicator 15: Timely Correction of
Noncompliance Finding Indicator 20: Timely and Accurate Data Fiscal
Accountability
Slide 134
When are you coming to see me? If you are in Needs Intervention
for more than one year, expect a visit. If you are in Needs
Substantial Intervention, expect a LONG visit. If you fall into a
cyclical monitoring cycle, expect a visit. If SCDE administration
requires the OEC to monitor your district, expect a visit.
Slide 135
When We Come to Visit Record reviews Staff interviews Student
and family interviews Review of policies and procedures
Slide 136
Will the visit result in findings? Possibly. Pursuant to OSEP
Memorandum 09-02 dated October 17, 2008 (OSEP Memo 09-02), the SCDE
must account for all instances of noncompliance. The OEC will make
student level and/or LEA level findings of noncompliance if
warranted.
Slide 137
And then what? All instances of noncompliance must be corrected
as soon as possible but in no case later than one year of
notification of non-compliance. (District will develop PICO-r) The
OEC will verify correction consistent with OSEP Memo 09-02, and
issue a correction notice.
Slide 138
But when are you coming to see ME??? If you earn a
determination of NI for the second time. If you earn a
determination of NSI The OEC is developing a six year cycle for
onsite monitoring, likely similar to Indicator 8 sampling plan (see
SPP). Taking into consideration new districts and district
consolidations
Slide 139
Will you visit a district more than once every six years?
Possibly. If the district earns NI for a second year in a row, then
they may receive more than one onsite visit within the six year
period. If other issues become problematic during the six year
cycle, the OEC or SCDE administration may decide that an onsite
visit is warranted.
Holly May, MA, LPC Program Manager, SCDMH Deaf Services
Slide 143
welcome Objectives of this presentation Identify relationship
between Etiology of Deafness and Mental Health Present Systematic
Best Practices for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Youth Mental Health
Services
Slide 144
The Whole Picture D/HH show significantly more symptoms of
Mental Health Problems than Hearing (Journal of Deaf Studies and
Deaf Education 2007 Kvam, et al) Deaf Children are more vulnerable
to neglect, emotional, physical and sexual abuse than children in
the general population. (Sullivan, Vernon & Scanlan, 1987)
Slide 145
Facts, please 92% of D/HH children born to parents who can hear
15% of those parents develop sign language skills necessary to
communicate (meaningfully!) (Mindel and Vernon 1970)
Slide 146
Traumatization 50% of D/HH girls have been sexually abused as
compared to 25% of hearing girls. (Sullivan et al., 1987) 54% of
D/HH boys have been sexually abused compared to 10% of hearing
boys. (Sullivan et al., 1987)
Slide 147
Traumatization Individuals with Disabilities are over four
times more likely to be victims of crime than non- disabled
population. (Sobsey, 1996) Children with communication disorders
are more likely to be physically and sexually abused than children
without these disorders. (Sullivan & Knutson, 1998)
Slide 148
Traumatization Maltreatment of children with disabilities is
1.5-to-10 times higher than children without disabilities.
(Baladerian, 1991; Sosbey & Doe, 1991; Sosbey & Vamhagen,
1989; Sullivan & Knutson, 2000)
Slide 149
Communication Neglect Increased frustration by adults and
children, including immediate family Difficulty teaching deaf
children about safety Difficulties teaching/learning skill building
and socialization General lack of social norms (Sullivan, Scanlon,
Brookhouser & Schulte 1992) Inaccessible prevention programs
Decreased opportunities for incidental learning (i.e. cognition vs.
metacognition)
Slide 150
Communication Neglect Decreased opportunities for trusting,
open relationships Less disclosure of abuse to caregivers Less
understanding of the parameters of healthy/safe touching Ideal
Victims perceived as unable to report incidents (Critchfield 1983,
Elder 1993)
Slide 151
AND. An higher incidence of other disabilities that accompany
the etiological factors that caused the Deafness (Hindley &
Kroll, 1989) Blindness (Ushers Syndrome) Physical Disabilities,
deformities Other Syndromes (Waardenburg's) Drug and Alcohol
Abuse
Slide 152
One example CMV: Attacks hearing, visual and cognitive centers,
as well as parts of CNS thought to be responsible for impulse
control 80 to 90% experience significant neurological problems
(Cohen 2004) Inability to tolerate minimal frustration Cognitive
delays
Slide 153
CMV Approaches Involving family, teach effective strategies at
home Short, highly focused work periods, followed by some equally
intense physical release Expecting impulsive responses, offering
outlet or ritualized response
Slide 154
Depression & Dysthymia Suicide Assessment by clinician
qualified to provide AND qualified to communicate effectively
Change in affect (eye gaze, facial expressions) Deaf children use
facial expressions to greater degree than general population
Unwillingness to make eye contact can be warning
Slide 155
Treatment Team Certified Interpreter WITH Mental Health
experience (please not the school interpreter!) Ethical Guidelines
for mental health treatment state that therapy must be offered in
the clients native language
Slide 156
Therapeutic Adaptations Individual Therapeutic Process Longer
More information needed for assessment (i.e. what supports,
communication, experiences) Adaptation of therapeutic approaches
for D/HH (i.e. relaxation techniques utilize senses other than
hearing) Therapist often puts more emphasis on increasing
socialization skills and safety
Slide 157
Therapeutic Adaptations Family To Sign or not to Sign, setting
example Interpreter Therapist often educating family on deafness,
sign language, etc Parents own guilt about having d/hh child and
understanding deafness
Slide 158
Therapeutic Adaptations Family/Parents Supporting parents in
decreasing over protectiveness Encourage, facilitate, guide family
to d/hh community resources Discussion of cultural gaps Deaf Family
vs. Hearing Family
Slide 159
Other than just going to the Deaf Club.. Use of Internet, I.M.
Chats, Text Videophones VLogs Kids World Deafnet Online ASL classes
Big Brother-Big Sisters
Slide 160
SCDMH Deaf Services 32 total positions across the state, with
18 positions filled, serving 301 consumers Statewide Coordination
Clinical Services ASL Interpreter Services National model of
excellence CMHS and NASMHPD
Slide 161
SCDMH Deaf Services Services available to consumers in their
home community Regional delivery of services allow for parity
between rural and urban regions Qualified supervision Effective use
of scarce resources Providing outpatient and inpatient services to
children
Slide 162
SCDMH Deaf Services Services provided directly to consumers in
their own language Identified as a strong consumer preference As
required by law and court decisions Effective use of technology
Videophone capacity between clients and staff E-mail
availability/24 hours crisis service Electronic Medical Record
Slide 163
Process Referral 800-647-2066 - 24/7 availability voice/TTY/fax
[email protected] or [email protected][email protected]@scdmh.org
Emergency Deaf Services staff Interpreter Hospital responsibility
Required for DMH facility admission Telepsychiatry project
Slide 164
Process Intake Deaf Services clinical staff with local center
administrative support Ongoing services Itinerant Deaf Services
Clinician Center staff with an interpreter & consultation
Co-therapy with MHC and Deaf Services staff MHC or Deaf Services
pyschiatrist
Slide 165
Ages We Serve
Slide 166
Resources http://raisingdeafkids.org (Resources for Parents,
including Self- Esteem, Mentoring Information)
http://raisingdeafkids.org http://www.ndepnow.org (Language and
Communication- driven Education Advocates) http://www.ndepnow.org
http://www.handsandvoices.org/ (Parent Support)
http://www.handsandvoices.org/
http://clerccenter.gallaudet.edu/KidsWorldDeafNet (National
Network, E-Library, Discussion Forums)
http://clerccenter.gallaudet.edu/KidsWorldDeafNet
http://centerondeafness.utk.edu/pec/sotacs.html (Transition,
Secondary and Post Secondary and transition)
http://centerondeafness.utk.edu/pec/sotacs.html
Slide 167
Resources PEPNet South: Pat Varner-Bland: [email protected]
http://www.nidcd.nih.gov/ (National Institutes of Health)
http://www.nidcd.nih.gov/ http://www.nationaldeafacademy.com
(Residential Treatment Program, publishes very informative
newsletter) http://www.nationaldeafacademy.com National Association
of the Deaf www.NAD.org (formed to promote, protect and preserve
rights and quality of D/HH Life)www.NAD.org ASDC
www.deafchildren.org (parent-helping-parent, publishes
Endeavor)www.deafchildren.org www.deafmh.org (SCDMH Deaf Services)
www.deafmh.org
Slide 168
Thank you Holly May, MA, Program Manager, SCDMH Deaf Services
[email protected]@scdmh.org (best way to contact) (864) 297-5044
(office)
