Compliance Monitoring

OVERVIEW
   
 

The agency 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 2011-2012 school year and the 2016-2017 school year. The following outlines the desk review schedule:

   
 

2011 - 2012

2012 - 2013

2013 - 2014

2014 - 2015

2015 - 2016

2016 - 2017

Blue Mountain

Addison Rutland

Caledonia Central

Essex North

Addison Central

Addison Northwest

Chittenden South

Barre

Chittenden Central

Montpelier

Addison Northeast

Bennington Rutland

Hartford

Burlington

Colchester

Orange East

Battenkill

Caledonia North

Milton

Chittenden East

Essex Caledonia

Orange North

Franklin Central

Grand Isle

North Country

Lamoille North

Essex Town

Orange Windsor

Franklin Northwest

Norwich/
Dresden

Orleans Central

Orange Southwest

Franklin Northeast

Orleans Southwest

Lamoille South

Rivendell

South Burlington

Rutland Southwest

Franklin West

Rutland City

Rutland Northeast

Rutland South

Windham Central

Washington Central

Rutland Central

Rutland Windsor

Southwest Vermont

Washington South

Windsor Northwest

Windham Northeast

Springfield

St. Johnsbury

Windham Southwest

Windham Southeast

Windsor Southeast

Windsor Southwest

Washington West

Washington Northeast

Windsor Central

Winooski

 

 

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.

    • Data is collected annually through the Combined Incident Reporting Software (CIRS) report. The data team gets the information from that report and checks for disproportionate representation of students with disabilities being suspended or expelled from school.

  • 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.

    • Same as Indicator 9, see above.

  • 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.

    • Data is collected annually by comparing previous year end Part C child count with current year Part B child count. The Early Education Team follows up with LEAs regarding any children who are not accounted for in this comparison.

  • 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.

    • Data is collected from LEAs in conjunction with Indicator 11 data. The LEA submits copies of all IEPs of youth who have transition goals and services listed (ages 16 and above). Using a checklist, the Monitoring Team reviews the goals and services for compliance with state and federal rules.

   
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.

Page Last Updated on December 4, 2014