Association of California School Administrators October 2008

1. Compliance Assessment Processes in the QAP Association of California School AdministratorsOctober 2008

2. Purpose • To provide an overview of the major compliance assessment processes in the QAP

3. Compliance Assessment Processes • State Performance Plan Indicators • Special Education Self Reviews • Verification Reviews • Facilitated Reviews • Compliance Complaints • Due Process Hearings

4. SPP Indicators

5. The IDEA requires that CDE publicly report on the first 14 indicators at the district level. • Six are compliance indicators and eight are performance indicators. • The compliance indicators must be used as a part of the LEAs compliance determination

6. Pretend Unified School District 0000 Neverland SELPA District Identifying information

7. Pretend Unified School District 0000 Neverland SELPA District Enrollment information

8. Pretend Unified School District 0000 Neverland SELPA Annual Performance Report Indicators

9. Timely Correction of Noncompliance Timely and Complete Reporting Compliance Indicators Indicator 9: Overall Disproportionality Indicator 10: Disproportionality by Disability Indicator 11: Initial Evaluation Indicator 12: Part C to Part B Transition Indicator 13: Secondary Transition Audit Findings California Compliance Determinations Are Being Based On:

10. Verification Review

11. Purpose of the Verification Review • Ensure that the Special Education Local Plan Areas (SELPAs) and Local Educational Agencies (LEAS) are providing appropriate supervision and monitoring of their special education programs and services. • To ensure that students are provided with an educational context in which they receive educational benefit in accordance with all of the procedural guarantees governing special education programs, and • Provide compliance and student outcome information that assists both CDE and the LEA to focus their activities on program improvement and corrective actions.

12. Selection • Districts are selected for VRs based on: • SPP Indicators, • District’s PI status, and • District’s compliance history.

13. Monitoring Questions 1. Does the district provide services that result in educational benefit using the Rowley standard? 2. Does the district provide services that result in educational benefit as measured by special education goals and State Performance Plan indicators? 3. Does the district comply with procedural guarantees that are known to be frequent non-compliance items in other districts? 4. Does the district fulfill its responsibilities as the district of residence when its students are served by other districts and programs? • Does the SELPA fulfill its responsibilities for developing budget plans, service plans and for monitoring the procedural elements of the local plan?

14. Analyze Results, Submit CAPs, Track Correction Prepare Monitoring Plan Conduct Monitoring Activities District Selection • Enter and Evaluate Findings • Student • Systemic - District of Service, District of Residence, SELPA Train District Staff • District Notification • Contact Superintendent • Contact Special Ed Director • Correspondence and Orientation • Clarify Expectations and Scheduling Record Review Activities Post Review Meeting - Develop Corrective Actions Educational Benefit Review Activities Scheduling and Planning • Develop Corrective Actions Plans and Prepare Reports • District Summary • Student Corrective Action Plan • Systemic Corrective Action Plan • Policy and Procedure Review Activities • Focused Policy and Procedure Review • SELPA Governance • Mental Health Agreement Pre Review Meetings - Monitoring Plan Development Parent Input Meeting/Survey Review District Data IEP Implementation Document/Track Corrections Monitoring Implementation of Local Plan Due Process, Complaint and Compliance History • Conduct Follow up Reviews • Initiate other enforcement activities, as needed Other monitoring activities identified in the Monitoring Plan Monitoring Plan Written and Submitted for Approval Closed Based on Evidence of Correction Monitoring Plan Approved Special Education Verification Review

15. Counties by Regions Region I Ralph Scott (916) 327-0865 Region II Stan Harkness (916) 445-5632 Region III Christine Pittman (916) 327-4218 Region IV Anna Marsh (916) 327-3504 Region V Robert Morgan (916) 327-3696 Focused Monitoring and Technical Assistance (FMTA) Contact Information for County Assigned Consultant(s) The FMTA Consultants are assigned geographically. They are responsible for coordinating all monitoring and technical assistance activities for their assigned counties, districts and Special Education Local Plan Areas; and they can provide information and facilitate access to technical assistance related to program monitoring and program implementation. Region I - Ralph Scott, Manager (916) 324-8898 Region II - Stan Harkness, Manager (916) 445-4623 Region III - Christine Pittman, Manager (916) 327-6966 FMTA Region IV FMTA Region III FMTA Region II FMTA Region V FMTA Region I http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/se/qa/fmtacncnt.asp

16. Special Education Self Review

17. Origins • Evolved from prior, department-wide monitoring system • Self Review (not required but frequently completed) • Visitation (to verify self review) • Correction • Redesigned to address special conditions from OSEP • Comprehensive • Valid, reliable and accurate determinations of compliance with IDEA, Part B. • Redesigned to help: • Focus reviews based on performance indicator data • Customize to the characteristics of individual districts • Manage and track large amounts of compliance and correction data

18. General Approach • SESRs are conducted on a four year cycle. • SESRs are conducted through the SELPA structure.  • Division staff will work with SELPAs to train them on the SESR requirements and process • Multi-district SELPAs will subsequently work with their districts to plan and complete SESR activities • SESR will include a SELPA self review of governance activities • interagency agreement with mental health, • budget and service plans, and • SELPA processes for reviewing and correcting non-compliance (multidistrict SELPAs).

19. Analyze Results, Submit CAPs, Track Correction Prepare Monitoring Plan Conduct Monitoring Activities • Training • Statewide SELPA Level Training • Local Training Modules • Overview • Software Installation • Monitoring Plan Development • Student Record Reviews • Policy and Procedure Reviews • Entering Findings • Systemic Findings, CAs and Reporting • Follow-up and Correction Record Review Activities • Enter and Evaluate Findings • Student • Systemic - District of Service, District of Residence, SELPA Educational Benefit Review Activities Develop Corrective Actions Policy and Procedure Review Activities • Submit Findings and Corrective Actions for Review • Electronic data through secure portal • CDE review files for completeness, accuracy, and coherency IEP Implementation Monitoring Implementation of Local Plan Preparation and Planning Monitoring Plan Development Other monitoring activities identified in the Monitoring Plan • Document/Track Corrections • Submit through secure portal Parent Input Meeting/Survey Review District Data • Conduct Follow up Reviews • Initiate other enforcement activities, as needed Monitoring Plan Written and Submitted for Approval Close Based on Evidence of Correction Monitoring Plan Approved Special Education Self Review Process

20. Most Frequent Student Level Findings of Noncompliance (n=10,326)

21. Most Frequent District Level Findings of Noncompliance (n=1,181)

22. Compliance Complaints

23. Complaints Process • A complaint alleges that there has been a failure to implement a federal or state special education law or regulation by a public education agency. • Anyone who believes that there has been a violation of special education law or regulations may file a complaint • The complaint should describe the problem and include all the information needed to support the allegation or complaint • You may send your complaint in writing to: California Department of Education (CDE). When filing a complaint, you must forward a copy of the complaint to the public education agency at the same time you file a compliance complaint with the CDE • The state-level investigation and final report must be completed within 60 days of CDE receiving the complaint

24. Most Frequent Findings of Noncompliance in Complaints (n=891)

25. Due Process Hearings

26. Process Overview • Request for due process filed (within 2 years) • Request for Due Process Hearing and Mediation or a • Request for Prehearing Mediation Only • Receive Notice of Due Process Hearing and Mediation and Scheduling Order approx. one week after filing • Within the first 30 days after the request, the parties must have resolution session. • If resolved sign a settlement agreement • If not resolved proceed to prescheduled mediation • Participate in mediation • If successful sign a settlement agreement • If unsuccessful either party can file a due process hearing request • Due Process Hearing held as scheduled above (see second point) • Conducted like any other court trial • Hearing completed and decision made within 45 calendar days of filing date • Can appeal to state or federal court within 90 days of receiving decision

27. Sanctions and Enforcement

28. Sanctions are imposed when an LEA is: • Substantially out of compliance • Fails to comply with corrective action orders • Fails to implement the decision of a due process hearing • When required as a part of a compliance determination under IDEA04 30 EC 50425

29. Substantial Noncompliance • Means: • An incident of significant failure to provide a child with a disability with FAPE • An act which results in the loss of educational opportunity to the child • An act which interferes with the opportunity of parents or guardians to participate in the formulation of the IEP • A history of chronic noncompliance in a particular area • A systemic agency-wide problem of noncompliance 5 CCR 3088.1

30. A variety of sanctions may be applied: • Corrective action plan or compliance agreement • Special conditions on the Part B grants • Disapproving local plans • Withholding state and/or federal funds • Seeking court enforcement of corrective actions

31. Special Conditions can include.. • Payment on a reimbursement basis • Withholding authority to proceed to the next phase until receipt of evidence of acceptable performance within a given funding period • Requiring additional, more detailed financial reports • Additional project monitoring • Requiring the grantee to obtain technical or management assistance • Establishing additional prior approvals.

32. Withholding funds requires a written notice that includes: • Description of the specific past and present noncompliance that is the basis for withholding of funds. • The efforts that have been made by CDE to verify that all required corrective actions have been taken • The specific actions that must be taken by the LEA to bring it into compliance by an exact date to avoid withholding of funds. 5 CCR 3088.1

33. Withholding funds requires a written notice that includes: • Description of the specific past and present noncompliance that is the basis for withholding of funds. • The efforts that have been made by CDE to verify that all required corrective actions have been taken • The specific actions that must be taken by the LEA to bring it into compliance by an exact date to avoid withholding of funds. 5 CCR 3088.1

34. Questions