YEAR #2 DETERMINATIONS

YEAR #2 DETERMINATIONS

ISD Special Education Directors’ Meeting

September 18, 2008

04/21/23 2

OSEP Determination of Michigan

June 6, 2008: Michigan received its determination of “needs assistance” with meeting the requirements of IDEA

04/21/23 3

OSEP Determination of Michigan

Michigan’s challenges:

Indicators 4a, 10, 13, and 15Michigan’s strengths:

Indicators 9, 11, 12, and 16

04/21/23 4

State Challenges on 2006-07 Determinations

Progress on Indicator #13 (Transition) from 35% to 40% and did not demonstrate correction

Did not provide valid and reliable data for SPP #10 (Disproportionate Representation) but had a plan to correct

04/21/23 5

State Challenges on 2006-07 Determinations

Did not complete the review required for districts identified with significant discrepancies in suspension/ expulsion data in 2005-06

Slippage on Indicator #15 (Compliance Findings) from 100% to 90.18%

04/21/23 6

OSEP’s Direction to SEAs regarding Determinations of LEAs, including ISDs

Must include valid and reliable data

Must include Compliance Indicators 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17

04/21/23 7

OSEP’s Direction to SEAs regarding Determinations of LEAs, including ISDs

Must include other information such as audit findings, uncorrected noncompliance from other sources, etc.

May include optional performance indicators

04/21/23 8

Round #2 for LEAs/PSAs:Michigan’s Overall Design

Drop Graduation Rate from Determinations, as it duplicates Ed YES

Add all compliance indicators not used last year in Round #1

Retain SPP #5 (Educational Settings) as the only performance indicator

04/21/23 9

Round #2 for LEAs/PSAs:Michigan’s Overall Design

Retain data, audit findings, and timely IEPs in the included elements

Issue no Level 4s until trend data is available

Restrict LEAs from receiving Level 1 if any elements are 3s or 4s

04/21/23 10

Comparison of Round #1 and Round #2 Elements

ROUND #1

Audit FindingsTimely IEPsTimely, Accurate DataEducational SettingsGraduation RateCompliance

04/21/23 11


ROUND #2Audit FindingsTimely IEPsTimely & Reliable DataEducational EnvironmentsDisproportionate Representation

04/21/23 12


ROUND 2 (Cont.) Disproportionate RepresentationChild FindEarly Childhood TransitionSecondary TransitionCorrection of Noncompliance

04/21/23 13

SPP #5Educational Settings

Dec. 1, 2006 dataFor only the category of GE 80% or

more of the timeThe better of resident or operating

district calculationsBased on state target of 55%

04/21/23 14

SPP #9Disproportionate Representation

Based on Focused Monitoring conducted during 2007-08

All LEAs received a “1” except those districts which were focused monitored and had findings of noncompliance, which received a “2”

04/21/23 15

SPP #10 Disproportionate Representation

Based on Focused Monitoring Findings for 2006-07 data

All districts receive a “1” except those districts which were focused monitored and had findings of noncompliance, which received a “2”

04/21/23 16

SPP #11 Child Find

Based on 2006-07 submissions

of SRSDNo minimum cell sizeRequires 95% compliance for “1”

04/21/23 17

SPP #12 Early Childhood Transition

Cohort Survey in 2006-07Difficulty with statewide dataUsed only the criteria of IEPs which

were late due to lack of staff availability

Used only “1” and “2”

04/21/23 18

SPP #13 Secondary Transition

Used data from Transition Checklist, 2006-07

Applied only to those districts in Cohort 3, plus volunteers

Data ranged from 0% to 95%

04/21/23 19

SPP #15 Compliance Findings

2006-07 dataBased on findings of noncompliance

from either Focused Monitoring or SPSR

Which were not corrected within the required one-year time frame

Used only “1” and “2”

04/21/23 20

Timely IEPs

The single element which used newer data from Dec. 1, 2007

MI-CIS filingPercentage of students with current

IEPs

04/21/23 21

Valid, Timely, and Reliable Data

Used SRSD, MI-CIS, and SPSR submissions

Considered timeliness and accuracyUsed only “1” and “2” this year

04/21/23 22

Audit Findings

Used Single Audit Findings from 2006-07

04/21/23 23

Overall Calculation System

Level 1: Within l SD of the meanLevel 2: Between 1 and 2 SDs of

the mean

OR Within l SD of the mean with 1 or more elements of 3 or 4

Level 3: 2 or more SDs from the mean

04/21/23 24

Results of Round #2 for LEAs/PSAs

463 of 766 LEAs are at Level 1 (60%)

272 of 766 LEAs are at Level 2 (36%)31 of 766 LEAs are at Level 3 (4%)

04/21/23 25

Results of Round #2 for LEAs/PSAs

23 LEAs improved from Level 3 to Level 1

15 LEAs fell from Level 1 to Level 340 LEAs repeat at Level 29 LEAs repeat at Level 3

04/21/23 26

Enforcement Actions(IDEA and NPRM)

“Needs assistance” for 2 consecutive years

l. T.A. 2. Re-direct use of Flowthrough

funds 3. Impose special conditions on

Flowthrough funds

04/21/23 27


“Needs intervention” for 3 consecutive years

1. May use any of the above actions, and

04/21/23 28


2. Must do one or more of these: a) Require improvement plan b) Require a compliance

agreement c) Withhold or recover funds d) Refer for other appropriate

enforcement actions

04/21/23 29

OSE/EIS and ISDs:Partners in Improvement

Level 3 “needs intervention” districtsLevel 2 “needs assistance” for two

years in a rowLevel 2 “needs assistance” for the

first time

04/21/23 30

Table Work

What did ISDs do last year for their Level 2 and 3 districts?

What can ISDs do this year for their Level 2 and 3 districts?

04/21/23 31

Public Reporting VS. Determinations

Public ReportUses actual data

on the Indicators specified by

OSEP

DeterminationsUses data to

assess compliance with IDEA 2004

04/21/23 32

Public Reporting VS. Determinations

Makes no judgment about LEAs performance except to compare to state targets

Gives an overall “rating” to all LEAs

04/21/23 33

FORECAST for ROUND #3 Determinations (2007-08 Data)

Could be issued as soon as spring of 2009, pending OSEP’s release of SEA Determinations

Will likely include ratings of 3 and 4 in all areas, as appropriate

May include Level 4 ratings for first time, pending OSEP action to SEAs

Documents

YEAR #2 DETERMINATIONS