|
1
|
- 4th Cycle MSIP, Improvement
- Planning, and IMACS Training
|
|
2
|
- Introductions
- Housekeeping Items
- Agenda
- Materials Overview
|
|
3
|
- For turning off your cell phones and beepers
|
|
4
|
- Special Education Monitoring System
- Improvement Planning Process
- Improvement Monitoring, Accountability, and Compliance System (IMACS)
|
|
5
|
- The State Education Agency is responsible to ensure the requirements of
IDEA are implemented
- In the most basic sense, this is what is meant by General Supervision
|
|
6
|
- Law contains accountability provisions not encountered in any previous
iterations
- Parallels to NCLB
- Annual reporting on LEAs in relation to targets indicated by the State
Performance Plan (SPP)
|
|
7
|
- Then
- Focus was primarily on compliance
- Frequently conducted by on-site reviews
- Comprehensive file reviews were standard procedure
- Now
- Focus is mainly on performance
- State Performance Plan (SPP) is central
- Monitoring encompasses multiple areas of general supervision
- Compliance monitoring relates to performance targets
|
|
8
|
|
|
9
|
- Required by IDEA 2004
- Set of 20 performance indicators established by OSEP (14 apply to
districts)
- Targets set for 2005-06 through 2010-11
- Improvement activities that will enable the state to meet the targets
- Public reporting of state and district performance compared to targets
|
|
10
|
- The SPP is the basis for Missouri’s special education general
supervision process in the 4th cycle of MSIP
|
|
11
|
- Improvement Plan (IP) – Plan resulting from data and systems analysis
that will improve outcomes for students
- Corrective Action Plan (CAP) – Plan addressing identified noncompliance
and actions/timelines to ensure correction within 12 months
|
|
12
|
- Improvement Monitoring, Accountability and Compliance System
- New web system for management of general supervision system
|
|
13
|
- Will be used to manage two parallel processes:
- Annual process for reviewing all districts every year – primarily
performance checks
- Cyclical process for reviewing all districts once within the 5 year
MSIP cycle – performance and compliance checks
|
|
14
|
- Main components
- Data analysis and improvement planning based on SPP Indicators not met
- Compliance file review based on SPP Indicators not met and subsequent
corrective actions
- Additional data collection for SPP reporting purposes
- Possible additional topics/narratives
- Limited number of on-site focused monitoring reviews
- Enforcement Actions
|
|
15
|
- An annual profile of Special Education data will be available to
districts and the public
- Within IMACS, districts will have access to more detailed district data
for analysis
- Probing questions will be available for district use (not required) in
analysis
- Districts will receive training and manual on data use/analysis and
improvement planning
|
|
16
|
- Performance indicators that will require an Improvement Plan and file
review for districts not meeting targets
- Graduation, Dropout, Assessment, Suspension/Expulsion, K-12 Placements
- Performance indicators that will not require an Improvement Plan or file
review (at this time)
- ECSE Placements, Early Childhood Outcomes, Parent Involvement,
Disproportionality, Post-secondary Outcomes
|
|
17
|
- Compliance indicators that will require a Corrective Action Plan if
noncompliance identified
- Part C to Part B Transition, Evaluation Timelines, Transition Plans
|
|
18
|
- Districts conduct file review on compliance indicators related to “not
met” SPP performance areas
- Districts enter file review data into IMACS
- Districts submit copies of documents from files for DESE to verify
results of self- assessment
- DESE conducts desk review of all data submitted by district
|
|
19
|
- Corrective actions will be managed through IMACS (correction and
timelines)
|
|
20
|
- Districts submit data on areas not currently collected through DESE data
systems:
- Part C to Part B Transition Timelines (SPP 12)
- 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
- Initial Evaluation Timelines (SPP 11)
- Percent of children with parental consent to evaluate who were
evaluated and eligibility determined within 60 days
|
|
21
|
- Additional topical areas may be added in any given year based upon DESE
areas of concern or OSEP requirements
|
|
22
|
- Limited number of districts each year
- District selection based on performance levels and distance from SPP
targets
- Focused on elementary communication arts/mathematics and
graduation/dropout rates (transition)
|
|
23
|
- DESE/RPDC review team members.
Are considering adding trained peers and trained parents in
future
- Data analysis to form hypotheses
- Interviews/focus groups/file review/classroom observations/web surveys
- Trainings for team leaders & team members
|
|
24
|
- Current State Plan limits enforcement actions to the withholding of
funds
- Possible enforcement actions
- Required training
- Required use of DESE forms
- Regular reports/updates to local board of education
- Directed use of funds
- Withholding of funds
- Imposed when districts have not corrected noncompliance within 12 months
of the monitoring report
|
|
25
|
- Discuss within your group how focused monitoring and the use of SPP
indicators to drive change is different from past monitoring efforts and
what this difference could mean for your district
- List any questions you have about how the new process works
|
|
26
|
|
|
27
|
- Data reviews and public posting
- Grant opportunities
- Discipline and disproportionality reviews for selected districts
- District voluntary use of IMACS
- Data analysis
- Improvement planning
- Compliance review
- Discipline & disproportionality reviews
|
|
28
|
|
|
29
|
|
|
30
|
- An annual profile of Special Education data will be posted publicly for
each district
- Preliminary report available to district in October
- Report available to public in Nov/Dec
- DESE will review performance data for districts grouped by enrollment
annually
- Thresholds will be established for targeting technical assistance and
issuing invitations to apply for grants
|
|
31
|
- Districts identified through data review
- Districts may be required to conduct a self-assessment
- Districts’ policies, procedures and practices evaluated through desk
and/or onsite reviews
|
|
32
|
- Certain districts must use the system – MSIP districts, grant
applicants, discipline & disproportionality reviews
- Other districts can use most parts of the system on a voluntary basis
for self-review. Data
entry/results would NOT be viewable by DESE or RPDCs unless the district
wants to share the information
|
|
33
|
- States will be placed in one of four classifications:
- Meets Requirements
- Needs Assistance
- Needs Intervention
- Needs Substantial Intervention
|
|
34
|
- So, where/how to start?
- Most of you already have; and we are putting more focus on performance
than ever before
|
|
35
|
- Data analysis
- RPDC Consultants
- Professional development offerings
- DESE website
- Data utilization and improvement planning manual and trainings
- Upcoming online access to research-based instructional activities tied
to SPP indicators
- Future online professional development
|
|
36
|
- SPP 13: State must document:
- Percent of youth aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes
coordinated, measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services that
will reasonably enable the child to meet the postsecondary goals.
|
|
37
|
- Is there a measurable post-secondary goal or goals in the areas of
education or training, employment and independent living, if necessary?
- Are the goals observable?
- Will the goal(s) occur AFTER the child graduates from high school?
- Are there annual IEP goal(s) that will reasonably enable the child to
meet the post-secondary goal(s)?
|
|
38
|
- For each post-secondary goal, is there one or more of the following
transition services:
- Instruction or Related service(s)?
- Community experience?
- Development of employment and
other post-school adult living objective?
- Acquisition of daily living skill(s) OR provision of a functional
vocational evaluation listed in association with meeting the
post-secondary goal?
|
|
39
|
- Were other agencies who are likely to pay for/provide transition
services invited to the IEP meeting?
- Is there evidence that the postsecondary goal(s) were based on
age-appropriate transition assessments?
- Do transition services include course of study?
|
|
40
|
- MAP assessment – elementary communication arts grade span 3-5 SPP3
- LRE (<21% outside regular
class or >60 outside regular class or in public/private separate
schools, residential placements etc.)
SPP5
- Graduation/Dropout SPP 1 & 2
|
Notes