U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs
Building the Legacy: IDEA 2004 1
General Supervision
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs
Building the Legacy: IDEA 2004 2
Concepts of General Supervision
Accountability for Implementation & Improved Results
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs
Building the Legacy: IDEA 2004 3
The BIG 8 of General Supervision
(and Continuous Improvement)
1. What are the minimum components for General Supervision ?
2. How do the components form a state system ?
3. What are the annual processes operating within the system ?
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs
Building the Legacy: IDEA 2004 4
Difference between
Concepts & a
Model
Each state develops
Its Own Model of General
Supervision based on what’s
required and desired
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs
Building the Legacy: IDEA 2004 5
State Performance
Plan
Policies, Procedures, and Effective
Implementation
Data on Processes
and Results
Targeted Technical
Assistance & Professional Development
Effective Dispute
Resolution
Integrated Monitoring Activities
Improvement, Correction,
Incentives & Sanctions
Components of General
Supervision
Ask Yourself
How Each Piece
Operates and
Fits Into the
Whole
Fiscal Management
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs
Building the Legacy: IDEA 2004 6
Requirements:State Performance Plan (SPP)
34 CFR §§76.720 and 80.40 Annual performance reports (APRs)
34 CFR §300.157 Performance goals and indicators
34 CFR §300.601 SPP
34 CFR §300.600 (c) and (d) Monitoring and enforcement
34 CFR §300.602 Targets and reporting
State Performance
Plan
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs
Building the Legacy: IDEA 2004 7
State Performance Plan
Stakeholders should be actively involved in all aspects of the SPP.
The development and implementation of the SPP leads to improved results.
Reporting is critical to ensuring accountability to the public.
The SPP is the blueprint for systems change.
State Performance
Plan
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs
Building the Legacy: IDEA 2004 8
Requirements:Policies, Procedures & Effective
Implementation 20 U.S.C. §1232d(b)(1) Program
administered in accordance with rules 20 U.S.C. §1232e(b)(1) local
educational agency (LEA) administers program in accordance with rules
34 CFR §76.700 Compliance with statutes
34 CFR §300.100 State policies and procedures (state plan)
34 CFR §300.154 Methods of ensuring services
34 CFR §§300.200-300.201 LEA policies and procedures
Policies, Procedures & Effective
Implementation
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs
Building the Legacy: IDEA 2004 9
Policies, Procedures & Effective Implementation
Aligned with IDEA Implemented by local programs Methods to detect noncompliance and
ensure correction of noncompliance Program improvement through
improvement planning and incentives Current interagency agreements and
memoranda of understanding (MOU) when required to ensure IDEA implementation
Mechanisms to determine effectiveness of agreements and MOU
Policies, Procedures & Effective
Implementation
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs
Building the Legacy: IDEA 2004 10
Requirements: Effective Dispute Resolution
34 CFR §300.150 Procedural safeguards
34 CFR §§300.151-300.153 Complaint procedures
34 CFR §300.500 Procedural safeguards
34 CFR §300.504 Procedural safeguards notice
Effective Dispute
Resolution
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs
Building the Legacy: IDEA 2004 11
Effective Dispute Resolutions
Are timely Track issues Inform onsite and offsite
monitoring activities Periodically evaluate
effectiveness of resolutions Determine that parents and
families and students understand their rights, especially in cases where there are few or no complaints, hearings, or other resolutions
Effective Dispute
Resolution
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs
Building the Legacy: IDEA 2004 12
Requirements:Data on Processes & Results
20 U.S.C. §1232d(b)(4) Evaluate effectiveness
20 U.S.C. §1232e(b) LEAs report to the state educational agency (SEA), board, Secretary
34 CFR §300.601(b) Data collection
34 CFR §300.602 Targets and reporting
34 CFR §300.640 Annual report of children served
Data on Processes & Results
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs
Building the Legacy: IDEA 2004 13
Data on Processes & Results
Collection and verification• 618• Dispute resolution• Previous monitoring reports• other
Examination and analyses• Areas of state concern• Clusters of related indicators
Reporting• APR (state)• LEA Performance compare to state
targetsStatus determination Improvement
• Data are used to plan and revise activities
Data on Processes & Results
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs
Building the Legacy: IDEA 2004 14
Requirements:Integrated Monitoring Activities
20 U.S.C. §1232d(b)(3)(A) Proper methods of monitoring
34 CFR §300.120 Monitoring least restrictive environment (LRE)
34 CFR §300.149 SEA responsibility for general supervision
34 CFR §300.600 State monitoring
Integrated Monitoring Activities
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs
Building the Legacy: IDEA 2004 15
Integrated Monitoring Activities
Stakeholders involvedFocus on specific hypotheses for areaTeams include family members Investigation related to noncompliance
and program improvementMultiple methods and data sources to
monitor every program, every yearActivities include continuous examination
of performance for compliance and results
Written reports specify evidence of correction and of improvement
Internal and external technical assistance and professional development support improvement and correction
Integrated Monitoring Activities
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs
Building the Legacy: IDEA 2004 16
Requirements:Targeted TA and Professional
Development
20 U.S.C. §1232d(b)(3)(B), (C), (D) Provide TA, promising practices and disseminate information
20 U.S.C. §1232e(b)(8) LEA has effective dissemination to teachers and administrators
34 CFR §300.119 TA on LRE
34 CFR §300.156 Personnel qualifications
Targeted T/A &
Prof Dev
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs
Building the Legacy: IDEA 2004 17
Targeted Technical Assistance & Professional Development
Directly connected to the SPP and improvement activities
Provided to correct noncompliance and improve results
Principles of adult learningMeasure effectiveness of implementation Incorporate various agencies in
development and disseminationDistribute promising practices and
evidence based practices to local programs
Targeted T/A &
Prof Dev
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs
Building the Legacy: IDEA 2004 18
Requirements:Improvement, Correction, Incentives, & Sanctions
20 U.S.C. §1232d(b)(3(A) and (E) Proper methods – correction and enforcement
34 CFR §80.12 Special conditions 34 CFR §80.43 Enforcement 34 CFR §300.222 LEA compliance 34 CFR §300.600 State monitoring
and enforcement 34 CFR §§300.603-300.604
Determinations and enforcement actions
34 CFR §300.608 Enforcement
Improvement & Correction,
Incentives & Sanctions
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs
Building the Legacy: IDEA 2004 19
Improvement, Correction, Incentives & Sanctions
Explicit state authority to enforce regulations, policies, and procedures
TA to ensure correction of noncompliance
Improvement planning to meet targets Corrective action planning and follow-up
tracking of correction and improvement Range of formalized strategies and/or
sanctions for enforcement with written timelines
Determines the status of local programs annually
Improvement & Correction,
Incentives & Sanctions
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs
Building the Legacy: IDEA 2004 20
Requirements:Fiscal Management
34 CFR §§300.704 and 300.705 Distribution of funds
34 CFR §300.209 Treatment of charter schools
34 CFR §300.133 Private schools proportionate share
34 CFR §§300.163 and 300.203-300.205 Maintenance of effort
34 CFR §§300.162 and 300.202 Excess cost/supplement not supplant
34 CFR §300.226 Early intervening services 15%
OMB Circular A-133 – Single Audits
Fiscal Management
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs
Building the Legacy: IDEA 2004 21
Fiscal Management
States distribute funds in accordance with federal requirements.
Funds are used in accordance with federal and state requirements.
States provide oversight on the use of funds.
Funds are aligned to problem areas in the SPP/APR
Fiscal Management
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs
Building the Legacy: IDEA 2004 22
Describing a ‘System’ of General Supervision
Problems in Description (beginning list) Equating general supervision as only
onsite monitoring Viewing administration as a
collection of separate and isolated functions
Defining accountability as an event rather than a ‘state’ and process
Others?
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs
Building the Legacy: IDEA 2004 23
State Performance
Plan
Policies, Procedures, and
Effective Implementation
Data on Processes
and Results
Targeted T/A & Professional Development
Effective Dispute
Resolution
Integrated Monitoring Activities
Improvement, Correction,
Incentives & Sanctions
Fiscal Manage-
ment
What is‘System ?’
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs
Building the Legacy: IDEA 2004 24
It’s about Better Results
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs
Building the Legacy: IDEA 2004 25
State Performance
Plan
Policies, Procedures, and Effective
Implementation
Data on Processes
and Results
Targeted Technical
Assistance & Professional Development
Effective Dispute
Resolution
Integrated Monitoring Activities
Improvement, Correction,
Incentives & Sanctions
Fiscal Management
General Supervision
Big 8
Building the Legacy 2004 27 U.S. Department of Education
Office of Special Education Programs
Monitoring and Enforcement
Primary focus of federal and state monitoring activities must be on:
– Improving education results and functional outcomes
– Ensuring that public agencies meet program requirements, particularly those most closely related to improving educational results
28
State Monitoring and Enforcement (TB 1-1)
34 CFR 300.600(a) requires that a state:– Monitor the implementation of
Part B – Enforce, and
– Report annually on performance
30
State must Monitor LEAs
The state must monitor its LEAs, using quantifiable indicators in each of the following priority areas, and using such qualitative indicators as are needed to adequately measure performance in those areas:
31
Monitoring Priority Areas
Provision of FAPE in the LRE State exercise of general supervision,
including child find, effective monitoring, the use of resolution meetings, mediation, and a system of transition services as defined in 34 CFR 300.43 and in 20 U.S.C. 1437(a)(9) and
32
Monitoring Priority Areas
Disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services, to the extent the representation is the result of inappropriate identification
Building the Legacy 2004 35 U.S. Department of Education
Office of Special Education Programs
Analyzing LEA Performance
Each state must use the targets in its SPP to analyze the performance of each LEA
Building the Legacy 2004 36 U.S. Department of Education
Office of Special Education Programs
When must states begin reporting on LEA Performance?
Spring 2007 – State must report to public on status of LEAs against 2005-06 SPP targets
Building the Legacy 2004 37 U.S. Department of Education
Office of Special Education Programs
Secretary’s Determinations
Secretary annually reviews the APR and, based on the information provided in the report, information obtained through monitoring visits, and any other public information available, the Secretary determines if the state:
Building the Legacy 2004 38 U.S. Department of Education
Office of Special Education Programs
Secretary’s Determinations
• Meets requirements• Needs assistance• Needs intervention• Needs substantial intervention
39
Additional Requirements (TB 5/6-7)
– That the SEA must not make further payments under Part B of the act to specified state agencies or LEAs that caused or were involved in the Secretary’s determination
40
When LEA has Not Met Requirements
If an SEA determines that an LEA is not meeting the requirements of Part B of the act, including the targets in the state's performance plan, the SEA must prohibit the LEA from reducing the LEA’s maintenance of effort under 34 CFR 300.203 for any fiscal year
Building the Legacy 2004 41 U.S. Department of Education
Office of Special Education Programs
State Enforcement
Needs assistance Advises LEA of available sources of TA,
includingProvision of advice by expertsProfessional development,
instructional strategies and methodsDesignating distinguished educatorsCollaboration with Institutions of
Higher Education (IHEs), national technical assistance (TA) centers, and private TA providers
Building the Legacy 2004 42 U.S. Department of Education
Office of Special Education Programs
State Enforcement
Needs intervention Corrective action or improvement plan Withholds any further payments under
Part B
Building the Legacy 2004 43 U.S. Department of Education
Office of Special Education Programs
Compliance Agreements?
• Does the SEA have option to use a compliance agreement for an LEA which cannot correct in one year?– No. Compliance agreements apply only to
states– If LEA cannot timely correct, state is out
of compliance with it general supervisory responsibility
– SEA can request to enter in compliance agreement with Secretary
Building the Legacy 2004 44 U.S. Department of Education
Office of Special Education Programs
State Enforcement
Needs substantial intervention Withholds any further payments under
Part B
Building the Legacy 2004 45 U.S. Department of Education
Office of Special Education Programs
Other Enforcement Mechanisms
A state is not restricted from utilizing any other authority available to it to monitor and enforce the requirements of Part B
Building the Legacy 2004 46 U.S. Department of Education
Office of Special Education Programs
OSEP On-going Oversight
• Will focus on performance and compliance• Will primarily identify states for focused
monitoring by looking at their performance against the targets
• Other data sources such as rank orders and audits will also be used
Building the Legacy 2004 47 U.S. Department of Education
Office of Special Education Programs
Is CIFMS going away?
Verification-General supervision-Data-Financial systems
Focused MonitoringRelated to Specific Indicators
SPP/APR
Nope!
IV. State Monitoring and Enforcement (§300.600)
Section 300.600(a) has been amended to require States to: (1) monitor implementation of Part B of the Act; (2) make determinations annually about the performance of each LEA using categories in Section 300.603(b)(1); (3) enforce Part B of the Act in accordance with the statutory enforcement mechanisms that are appropriate for States to apply to LEAs; and (4) annually report on the performance of the State and of each LEA under Part B of the Act.
These amendments also clarify, in §300.600(e), that a State, in exercising its monitoring responsibilities under §300.600(d), must ensure that when it identifies noncompliance with the requirements of Part B of the Act by its LEAs, the noncompliance will be corrected as soon as possible, and in no case, later than one year after the State’s identification of the noncompliance. (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1416(a))
Implementation considerations: • States have some discretion in developing a process for making annual determinations on the performance of LEAs. • However, States’ annual determination processes must include consideration of: o an LEA’s performance on all State Performance Plan (SPP) compliance indicators; o whether an LEA submitted valid and reliable data for each indicator; o LEA-specific audit findings; and o any uncorrected noncompliance from any source.
• States are also advised to consider performance on results indicators, such as an LEA’s graduation and dropout rates, or the participation rate of students with disabilities in State assessments when making annual determinations. • States must use enforcement mechanisms to enforce this part consistent with §300.604. • If States are unable to correct noncompliance within one year of identification, States may enter into a compliance agreement with the Department under section 457 of GEPA, if the Department deems a Compliance Agreement is appropriate.
For More Information
• http://idea.ed.gov
• http://www.ed.gov
• http://www.monitoringcenter.lsuhsc.edu
• http://www.rrfcnetwork.org
Top Related