|
|
|
PROGRAMS
& SERVICES:
SPECIAL EDUCATION:
POLICY & ADMINISTRATION:
MONITORING:
COMPLIANCE MONITORING ACTIVITIES
|
| |
|
OVERVIEW
 |
| |
|
| |
The department uses a variety of methods to monitor local educational agencies (LEAs) including focused monitoring activities and desk review activities to investigate LEA performance, especially in areas of low performance or noncompliance. It is critical that these activities:
- be implemented fairly and consistently across districts/programs;
- identify areas of noncompliance;
- trigger effective corrective actions, technical assistance, improvement strategies, fiscal decisions, and other investments, sanctions, and incentives that ensure timely correction; and
- lead to status determination of districts/programs.
|
| |
|
COMPLIANCE MONITORING ACTIVITIES
|
| |
|
| |
While the focused monitoring system focuses on performance indicators, the compliance monitoring activities are concerned with compliance indicators. At present, the department relies on a desk review to determine an LEA’s compliance with state and federal special education rules and regulations.
A desk review is the process of reviewing materials and information that are representative of a LEA's performance. Such information and materials includes a LEA’s data from the state data system and data submission specific to Indicators 11 and 13. Desk reviews are a means of conducting annual monitoring of LEAs. This process allows department staff to identify noncompliance and ensure corrective action of noncompliance without having to go on site to the LEA.
All 60 LEAs in Vermont will be monitored by a desk review at least once between the 2007-2008 school year and the 2010-2011 school year. The following outlines the desk review schedule: |
| |
|
| |
2007 - 2008 |
2008 - 2009 |
2009 - 2010 |
2010 - 2011 |
| Addison Rutland |
Addison Northeast |
Colchester |
Addison Northwest |
| Milton |
Addison Central |
Caledonia Central |
Southwest Vermont |
| Chittenden East |
Chittenden Central |
Essex Caledonia |
Bennington Rutland |
| Chittenden South |
Franklin Northwest |
Franklin Northeast |
Caledonia North |
| Burlington |
Franklin Central |
Franklin West |
St. Johnsbury |
| South Burlington |
Orange East |
Lamoille South |
Winooski |
| Lamoille North |
Orange North |
Washington Central |
Essex North |
| Orange Southwest |
Orange Windsor |
Rutland Central |
Grand Isle |
| North Country (OENSU) |
Orleans Southwest |
Washington West |
Rutland South |
| Orleans Central |
Rutland Northeast |
Windham Northeast |
Rutland City |
| Rutland Southwest |
Rutland Windsor |
Windham Southwest |
Washington South |
| Windham Central |
Washington Northeast |
Windsor Central |
Windham Southeast |
| Windsor Northwest |
Montpelier |
Springfield |
Norwich-Dresden |
| Windsor Southeast |
Battenkill Valley |
Essex Town |
Rivendell |
| Windsor Southwest |
|
Barre |
|
| Hartford |
|
|
|
| Blue Mountain |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Through desk reviews, the following State Performance Plan (SPP) indicators are reviewed for LEA’s compliance:
-
4a - Percent of significant discrepancies in suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities for greater than 10 days in a school year.
-
9 - Percent of disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification.
-
Disproportionate representation data is gathered from the annual Child Count submission. The data team analyzes each LEA’s racial and ethnic representation in special education and in specific disability categories using an LEA-level Weighted Risk Ratio <.33 OR LEA-level Alternate Risk Ratio >3.0 or <.33 if the sum of the comparison group (all other race/ethnicity categories) used to calculate the Weighted Risk Ratio is <11. If it appears that there is a disproportionate representation in a specific LEA, the Monitoring Team follows up with the LEA to determine whether it was due to inappropriate identification.
-
10 - Percent of disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification.
-
11 - Percent of children with parental consent to evaluate, who were evaluated and eligibility determined within 60 days or state established timelines.
-
Data is collected directly from a sampling of LEAs annually. Each LEA reviews their data and submits a completed worksheet listing all initial evaluations completed in a given year, the timelines for each evaluation, and reasons for a delay beyond 60 days. The Monitoring Team reviews the data to make a final determination regarding the appropriateness of each delay.
-
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 birthday.
-
13 - 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 student to meet the postsecondary goals.
|
| |
|
COMPLIANCE MONITORING ACTIVITIES (CAPs)
|
| |
|
| |
When instances of noncompliance (through compliance monitoring) have been identified, the department uses a corrective action planning processes to ensure correction of noncompliance in a timely manner (within one year) and meeting of measurable and rigorous targets. States also use incentives to reward performance. Department staff will provide follow-up and track improvement and correction of noncompliance on an ongoing basis. When performance has not improved and noncompliance is not corrected in a timely manner, there are a range of formalized strategies for enforcement.
- Corrective Action Planning Process
Following a desk review of compliance indicators, an LEA will receive a compliance monitoring report which details any and all areas of noncompliance. The LEA is required to develop a corrective action plan (CAP) which details how they will correct the noncompliance within one year of receipt of the compliance monitoring report. A monitoring team consultant is assigned to each LEA to provide guidance and connect with any technical assistance or training that may be needed. Once the CAP is received at the department, it is reviewed by the Monitoring Team and either accepted or returned to the LEA for revision. The monitoring team consultant assigned will provide all follow-up activities and track progress.
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
Monitoring:
Focused Monitoring | Compliance Monitoring
- - - - -
Monitoring | Dispute Resolution | Secondary Transition
Policy & Administration
- - - - -
Special Education:
Laws & Regulations | Forms
Data Reports & Publications | Policy & Administration
General Resources | Parental Resources
Special Education
*PDF files require the use of Adobe Acrobat Reader.
To download a free version of Adobe Acrobat Reader, click on the icon below.
View Acrobat tips and information.
|
 |
 |