Completing the

1
Completing the Self-evaluation in the LEA
federal fund application
Special Education Monitoring Washington State
2
General Supervision
Washington State Special Education Monitoring
State Performance Plan
Data Collection Analysis
Integrated Program Review
Dispute Resolution
Safety Net
Fiscal Mgmt
Learning Improvement
APR Reporting
AND
Determinations
3
SPP 20 Indicators
Data Collection
Verification Visits
District Profile
Washington Special Education Program Review
Process
On-site cooperative venture
LEA App Self-evaluation
System Analysis
TA/ feedback
Review, Analysis, Selection
Review, Analysis, Selection
Self-study
TA
Training TA
4
Twenty Indicators

• Graduation rates
• Dropout rates
• Statewide assessments (WASL)
• Suspension/expulsion rates
• Least Restrictive Environment
• (ages 6-21)

5

• Preschool LRE w/ typically developing
• 
  peers
• Preschool outcomes
• Parent involvement
• Disproportionate rep special education
• Disproportionate rep specific categories

6

• Timely initial eval eligibility
• (w/in 35 school days of consent)
• Part C B transition IEP by 3rd b-day
• Transition IEPs
• Postsecondary outcomes
• General supervision - correction of
• 
  non-compliance

7

• Timely resolution of citizen complaints
• Timely adjudication of due process
• requests
• Resolution settlement agreements
• Mediation agreements
• Timely and accurate data

8
Program Review Focus Areas
Secondary Transition Indicators 1,2,13,14
WASL Indicator 3
LRE Indicators 5,6
Disproportionate Representation Indicators 4, 9,
10
9
Self-evaluation is a critical piece of monitoring
in Washington. Each district provides
explanations regarding their data and their
unique district circumstances.
Use your district data profile http//www.k12.wa.
us/SpecialEd/data.aspx to complete your
Self-evaluation
10
District data profile
http//www.k12.wa.us/SpecialEd/data.aspx
11
Does everyone know how to access the DATA
PROFILES outside of iGrants?
http//www.k12.wa.us/SpecialEd/data.aspx
12
LEA Application for Federal Flow Through
Funds iGrants Form Packages 267 and 271

• Tutorial for navigating iGrants is now available
• To access the tutorial, navigate your Internet
  browser to https//eds.ospi.k12.wa.us/iGrants/Doc
  s/08-09/Tutorials/inventoryoftutorials.html

Contact for Special Education iGrants is
Tara Canlett tara.canlett_at_k12.wa.us or
360-725-6075
13
(No Transcript)
14
(No Transcript)
15
(No Transcript)
16
Tips
This self-evaluation is a critical piece of our
monitoring process. Make sure you read the
questions completely . Make sure you are
answering the question that is being asked
17

• Data Verification Worksheet
• Data is used for
• federal reporting
• monitoring
• significant disproportionality
• making determinations
• Significant data reporting challenges
  (inaccuracies) have been evident across the state
  especially in LRE and graduation reporting.

18
Data Verification Worksheet addresses LRE,
graduation/dropout, other data issues
Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) Reporting
LRE reporting is based solely on the amount of
time the student spends in a general education
setting. Table 1 Served in the regular class
from 80 to 100 of the dayTable 2 Served in
the regular class from 40 to 79 of the dayTable
3 Served in the regular class less than 40 of
the day EXAMPLE for 1650 instructional
minutes/wk 1650 x .80 1320 so 1320 1650
min gen ed Table 1 1650 x .40 660 so 660
1319 min gen ed Table 2
0 659 min gen ed Table 3
19
IEP Example
1515/1800 84
20
State Model IEP form
http//www.k12.wa.us/SpecialEd/forms.aspx
21
Data Verification Worksheet , cont.
Graduation reporting
Need to ensure that graduation dates are entered
into the data system whats the
process? Updates to system as graduation dates
change?
Dropout reporting
Process for documenting dropouts?
Other challenges?
Any other data issues noted? Errors
in district profile?
22
Childfind

• Describe childfind activities to locate ALL
  children including those in private schools and
  those not enrolled.
• Describe the consultation process used to obtain
  the of private school students unilaterally
  placed even if you have 0
• Identify the evaluated and found eligible
• TABLES INSERT S
• Describe consultation to determine services

What did you do to find out?
23
Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS)

• Will the district use up to 15 of Part B funds
  for CEIS? Describe your plan.
• Activities for implementing coordinated EIS may
  include
• professional development for teachers and other
  school staff to enable such personnel to deliver
  scientifically based academic and behavior
  interventions, including scientifically based
  literacy instruction, and where appropriate,
  instruction on the use of adaptive and
  instructional software and
• providing educational and behavioral evaluations,
  services, and supports, including scientifically
  based literacy instruction.
• Districts must have a method for tracking
  students receiving EIS. If funds are used for
  professional development, the district must have
  a method of linking students to the staff that
  received training.

OSEP memo July 28,2008 FAQs CEIS Significant
Disproportionality
24
The basics
First !! Ensure Data Accuracy
(Data Verification)

• Analyze data trends
• What has impacted performance?
• Highlight significant factors that
• impact your data
• What strategies/plans are in place
• to address?

25
For each self-evaluation page
26
Indicator 1 Graduation rates Indicator 2
Dropout rates
27
Who drops out in Washington?
28
Indicator 13 Transition IEPs
29
Indicator 14 Post-school outcomes
30
Describe the three-year data trends including
potential reasons
Graduation Rates (Indicator 1)
XXXXX School District has increased the
graduation rate from X to X. Although we have
not yet met the state target, we are steadily
improving. These improvements are in part a
reflection of staff development which has
occurred across the district for the past two
years. PD has been focused on supporting
students through a greater degree of personal
engagement, and providing research-based
strategies (RTI for reading PBIS). This past
year we improved the alignment of our curriculum
with the GLEs...
Dropout Rates (Indicator 2)
Post-school Outcomes (Indicator 14)
31

• What are the 2 most significant factors impacting
  grad / drop / post-school outcomes?

Local community factors (economy,
transportation,) Work experience options Data
collection/entry/reporting Vocational course
offerings Secondary class scheduling Other
___________________
32
For each of the factors indicated above, what
strategies and/or activities HAVE BEEN
IMPLEMENTED by the district during the past year
to increase graduation rates, decrease dropout
rates, and/or improve post-school outcomes for
students receiving special education services
(check below all that apply)

• ? Increased focus on building rapport
• Conducting transition assessments
• Vocational/work experiences
• Life Skills program
• Alternative formats
• (on-line, indep study options, credit retrieval,
  etc)
• Staff development (topics/who?)

33
In the upcoming year, how will the district
initiate or support continued improvements?
Include the status of any previously initiated
strategies/activities.
We are instituting Navigation 101 for all
students (08-09) in order to improve goal setting
and parental involvement. Weve developed
contacts in the local business community for work
experience options and are putting together
agreements with 6 local businesses (completed by
12/08) . PD continues quarterly on engaging and
supporting students and providing appropriate
transition assessment...
34
Indicator 3 WASL
35
WASL
Data Trends Very small gains in 4th grade
reading (1), 7th 10th grade reading scores
were 3 percentage points below previous year, but
still above the State average. Math scores have
shown small gains (1-2) at the 4th 7th grade
levels, but have decreased at the 10th grade
level. The elementary buildings have implemented
RTI for reading and math and are working hard to
ensure the fidelity of interventions. There are
known issues with the consistency of
accommodations both in classrooms and during WASL
testing across all levels...
Factors Utilization of research-based
instruction/interventions Inconsistent use of
accommodations
36

• Two major factors
• research-based instruction
• consistency of accommodations

WASL

• Strategies implemented
• RTI in reading - elementary level
• Collaboration between general/special ed teachers
• Training on use of accommodations

• Upcoming year
• Extending RTI in reading across all levels.
  Mandated collaboration time for teams (gen/spec
  ed teachers)
• Training on use of accommodations will continue
  as part of monthly staff meetings

37
Suspension/expulsion

• If your district exceeded the set high range for
  suspension/expulsion in the 2007-2008 school
  year, you are required to review, and revise as
  appropriate, your policies, procedures and
  practices relating to
• development/implementation of IEPs,
• use of positive behavioral interventions
  supports, and
• procedural safeguards
• to ensure compliance with the
  IDEA.

38
Indicator 4 Suspension/Expulsion
Regardless of yes/no Must have a plan to
decrease or maintain
39
Indicator 5 LRE (6-21)
Table 1 80-100 gen ed Table 2 40-79 gen
ed Table 3 0-39 gen ed
TABLE 2
TABLE 1
TABLE 3
TABLES 4-8
What impacts LRE?
40
LRE
41
LRE

• What are the things that impact your percentages
  of students in different settings?
• Data calculations?
• Lack of collaboration gen/sped?
• Classroom mgmt/behavior?
• Team decision-making process?
• Class schedules driving decisions?

42
LRE

• If you are greater than the state average
• in Table 3
• must review policies/procedures/practices
• - describe review and any revisions
• Briefly describe policies/procedures/practices
  that ensure students are educated in their LRE

43
Washingtons definition Disproportionate
Representation
Racial/ethnic distribution of students in
special education and related services or in
specific eligibility categories that falls
outside the threshold defined by the state and
cannot be justified by the unique characteristics
of the district and is the result of
inappropriate identification.  
Threshold WRR of lt 0.5 or gt 2.0 over 3
consecutive yrs
NOTE Over-representation or under-representation
shown in these weighted risk ratios means we
have to look further to determine if the
disproportionate representation is due to
inappropriate identification.
44
Indicator 9 Disproportionate representation in
special education and related services
State Totals
Weighted risk ratios
Under-rep
Over-rep
Over-rep
NOTE! lt 1.0 underrepresentation gt 1.0
overrepresentation
45
2006 Childcount Data 6-21 yrs
In Washington
Need training? http//www.k12.wa.us/SpecialEd/p
resent.aspx
46

• The professional literature distinguishes between
  judgmental non-judgmental disability categories

• judgmental or
• high-incidence (soft)
• Specific learning
• disability
• Mental retardation
• Emotional disturbance

• nonjudgmental or
• low-incidence (hard)
• Deafness
• Blindness
• Orthopedic impairment
• Severe mental retardation

47
Indicator 10 Disproportionate representation in
specific eligibility categories
State Totals
48
Indicator 10 Disproportionate representation in
specific eligibility categories
Random district
lt 0.5 for 3 consecutive years gt 2.0 for 3
consecutive years
49
(No Transcript)
50
(No Transcript)
51
(No Transcript)
52
Describe the three-year data trends including
potential reasons
Districts are required to address areas that
meet the criteria for the past year AND those
that extend across the 3 years. (more than 2.0 or
less than 0.5 but greater than 0 for the past
year)
Ind 9
Special Education
Describe all groups meeting the definition. Data
shows overrepresentation for Black students in
our district (2.35 for 06-07 2.54 for 07-08)
for special education. We have 23 Black students
of which 9 are eligible for special ed meaning
39 of our Black students are eligible. These
numbers are high, however, we do have a foster
home in the community that specifically serves
minority populations with disabilities. Two of
our Black students with disabilities reside in
this foster home
Still 30!!
More explanation needed
53
Describe all groups meeting the definition.
ADD 2 of our Black students reside in this
foster home, and are very low functioning (MR).
7 remaining Black students 5 SLD , 1 EBD, 1
MR. Limited resources in the district to
provide interventions prior to referral.
54
Describe the three-year data trends including
potential reasons
Eligibility Categories
Data shows overrepresentation for Black students
in our district in MR (4.35, 2.54, 3.12) and
EBD (2.30, 2.78, 3.48) across 3 years. We have
16 Black students in our district (7 eligible)
2 MR, 2 SLD, 3 EBD. The two MR students have
significant cognitive impairments and are
extremely low-functioning. Data also shows
overrepresentation for White students in Autism
(only served w/ medical diagnosis) and Hispanic
students in CD (2.54 and 2.78). We have on-going
concerns with English language learners and
appropriate instruction and assessment...
55

• What are the 2 most significant factors
  influencing?

Staff development Research-based intervention
strategies Data collection/entry/reporting Cultura
l factors in teaching learning Referral and/or
evaluation practices Numbers of students Other
Resources/Assessment Tools
56
For each of the factors indicated above, what
strategies and/or activities HAVE BEEN
IMPLEMENTED by the district during the past year
to increase graduation rates, decrease dropout
rates, and/or improve post-school outcomes for
students receiving special education services
(check below all that apply)

• ? Discussions/analysis of racial/ethnic
  distribution
• Improved communication gen sped
• Research-based interventions gen sped
• Incorporating culture into the curriculum
• Re-evaluations
• Updating assessment tools
• Staff development (topics/who?)

57
Does district data show ratios less than 0.5
(gt0) or greater than 2.0 in any cell under
Indicator 9 or Indicator 10 for the past year?

• If yes, district MUST review P/P/P related to
• Child find
• Evaluation
• Eligibility

And revise as necessary to be compliant with IDEA
2004 Describe the review process and subsequent
revisions.
58
Ind 11 Timely Initial Evaluation Ind 12 C to
B transition
Need training? http//www.k12.wa.us/SpecialEd/p
resent.aspx
59
Indicators 11 12 are compliance
indicators 3. If the district is NOT at 100
for 11 or 12 what are the two most significant
factors impacting the timelines?
Drop-down choices wrong. USE other boxes.
How do these factors influence?
5. What strategies implemented?
Check boxes wrong. USE other boxes.
If the district is NOT at 100 for 11 or 12, you
MUST describe how the district will reach 100 by
the end of the school year.
Co-ops check boxes in 4 are wrong
60
General Supervision
Describe progress/slippage relating to compliance
issues identified in your most recent corrective
action and/or improvement plan. INCLUDE the
results of the most recent internal file review.
Were there findings against the district in any
due process orders during 07-08 year? If yes,
describe actions taken by the district in
response to the order.
61

• As a part of the monitoring process,
• we are reviewing performance on
• all indicators however,
• program review efforts will
• be concentrating this year (08-09) on
• Disproportionate Representation
• Secondary Transition.

62
Contact the program review team at OSPI
(360-725-6075) Leslie Pyper leslie.pyper_at_k12.wa.
us Jennifer Story jennifer.story_at_k12.wa.us Vale
rie Arnold valerie.arnold_at_k12.wa.us
Questions??