4.2 Resultados obtenidos
4.2.2 Presentación de resultados
4.2.2.1 Elección de estudios post-ESO
2012 school year and who did not meet both prongs of verification of correction of noncompliance prior to the findings being issued.
Number of LEAs who appeared noncompliant in database (Step 2) 30 Number of LEAs who provided allowable exceptions to the timeline (Step 3) 20 Number of LEAs with identified noncompliance (Step 3) 10 Number of LEAs whose noncompliance was corrected (both prongs) prior to
the issuance of findings (Step 4) 9
Number of LEAs who were issued findings of noncompliance (Step 5) 1
After an initial review of data, LEAs who appeared noncompliant were given an opportunity to clarify their data. The State database does not allow LEAs to indicate whether or not a missed timeline was due to one of the allowable exceptions under IDEA 34 CFR §300.301(d). The opportunity to provide this information was conducted by sending the affected LEAs a letter which required their response and any necessary documentation of the allowable exceptions. Upon review of the LEA responses, it was determined that 44 individual student cases
exceeded the 60-day timeline.
The 44 cases of missed timelines belonged to 10 separate LEAs. At the time of the data review, all LEAs had corrected the individual cases of identified noncompliance by completing the evaluations and eligibility determinations, although outside of the 60-day timeframe. Three of the LEAs were previously on Improvement Plans for noncompliance identified in FFY 2010, and have since demonstrated correction of the noncompliance. One (1) LEA was currently on
an Improvement Plan for noncompliance identified in FFY 2010 and has corrected the original cases of noncompliance, but has not demonstrated correction based on reviews of updated data. That LEA has since entered into a Compliance Agreement with MDE to address several outstanding areas of noncompliance. For the other six LEAs, the OSE then reviewed updated data from the 2012-2013 school year to determine if the LEAs were correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements and had achieved 100% compliance. It was determined that five LEAs satisfied the 2-pronged approach of verified correction of noncompliance in
accordance with OSEP Memo 09-02 prior to the OSE’s issuance of written notifications of findings. Therefore, those five LEAs were not issued findings.
The remaining LEA was issued a finding of noncompliance for Indicator 11. LEAs are issued a single finding regardless of the number of student records that were found out of compliance in each LEA. The LEA has corrected the individual cases of identified noncompliance by
completing the evaluations and eligibility determinations, although outside of the 60-day
timeframe. However, the LEA could not demonstrate 100% compliance based upon a review of SY 2012-2013 data prior to the issuance of findings. The LEA has submitted an Improvement Plan with activities to ensure the correction of noncompliance and future adherence to the 60- day timeline. A monthly data review is also required for each LEA who was issued a finding. LEAs will be monitored to ensure that correction takes place as soon as possible, but no later than 12 months from the date of the written notification of the finding.
In summation, of the 10 LEAs with identified noncompliance for FFY 2011:
One LEA has outstanding noncompliance from FFY 2010 and the FFY 2011 noncompliance is being addressed through a Compliance Agreement;
Two LEAs were previously on Improvement Plans for FFY 2010 and the FFY 2011 noncompliance was addressed and corrected while under those Improvement Plans; Five LEAs were able to demonstrate correction of noncompliance based on reviews of
updated data prior to the issuance of findings; and
One LEA was issued a finding of noncompliance for FFY 2011 noncompliance.
Children included in (a) but not included in (b):
All 44 children included in (a) but not included in (b) had received eligibility determinations, although outside of the 60-day timeframe, at the time of the data review.
Range of days beyond the timeline and reasons for delays:
The range of days for those LEAs that had dates beyond the allowed 60 days ranged from 1 to 172 days. Reasons cited by LEAs included delays in receipt of medical records or other
paperwork, medical delays, staff did not follow established procedures, miscalculations of the timeline, staff unavailability, additional testing needed, etc.
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for FFY 2011 (SY 2011-2012):
State Performance Plan 2005-2012
Improvement Activities
Improvement Activities FFY 2011
(SY 2011-2012)
MDE staff in the Data Division will generate reports indicating the number and percentage of students in each LEA and Statewide that were evaluated in accordance with timelines.
The SPP/APR staff conducted an analysis of the data to determine if timelines were met by LEAs.
Staff in the Data Division annually will conduct desktop audits by reviewing and analyzing LEA and State reports to determine compliance with this
Indicator.
Results of the data analysis for
Indicator 11 were provided to the LEAs. LEAs whose data appeared to be noncompliant were contacted and/or were offered technical assistance concerning data entry.
LEAs that are not compliant with this Indicator will be notified in writing and are required to develop and implement corrective actions to demonstrate compliance with this requirement.
A review and analysis of data by staff in the Division of SPP/APR during the 2011-2012 school year was conducted and findings of noncompliance were issued to LEAs.
Reports will be generated quarterly for any LEA found to be noncompliant to track compliance with this Indicator following the OSE’s notification to the LEA of noncompliance with the established timelines.
LEAs found to be noncompliant must submit monthly data reports to track compliance with this Indicator following the OSE’s notification to the LEA of noncompliance with the established timelines.
Training will be provided on an annual basis following the review and analysis of the LEA and State reports and incorporates issues or concerns
obtained through feedback provided by the MSIS users.
The Evaluation and Eligibility trainings continued to be provided through 2011 –2012. OSE offered five sessions at the following locations:
o Jackson, MS – October 27-28, 2011 o Oxford, MS – November 7-8, 2011 o Jackson, MS – November 29-30, 2011 o DeSoto, MS – January 29-30, 2012 o Gulfport, MS – February 28-29, 2012
At the New Special Education Directors training, on October 24, 2012, new Special Education Directors were provided training on evaluation and eligibility and Child Find.
State Performance Plan 2005-2012
Improvement Activities
Improvement Activities FFY 2011
(SY 2011-2012)
Eligibility timelines will be monitored by monitoring staff conducting on-site focused monitoring visits when
reviewing eligibility records. Findings of noncompliance must be corrected as soon as possible, but in no case later than 12 months from identification of noncompliance.
Eligibility timelines are monitored during on-site visits conducted by the OSE monitoring teams annually. Any findings of noncompliance with eligibility timelines are addressed through written findings in the Evaluation Report provided to the monitored LEAs. Findings of
noncompliance must be corrected as soon as possible, but in no case later than 12 months from the identification of noncompliance.
Information will be disseminated via the OSE Listserv regarding data entry in MSIS relative to Indicator 11 and the requirement to conduct initial
evaluations and make an initial
eligibility determination within 60 days of a child’s referral by the LSC for a comprehensive assessment.
Information is disseminated via the OSE Listserv regarding data entry in MSIS relative to Indicator 11 and the requirement to conduct initial
evaluations and make an initial
eligibility determination within 60 days of a child’s referral by the LSC for a comprehensive assessment.
OSE will add a component in MSIS to ensure timelines for instructional interventions, assessment and eligibility were conducted in
accordance with established timelines. Specifically, with regard to the initial evaluation and determination of eligibility, all students referred for an initial comprehensive assessment were assessed and a determination of
eligibility made within 60 days of the date of referral by the Local Survey Committee for a comprehensive assessment.
During the SY 2005-2006, OSE added a component in MSIS to ensure
timelines for instructional interventions, assessment, and eligibility were
conducted in accordance with
established timelines. Specifically, with regard to the initial evaluation and determination of eligibility, all students referred for an initial comprehensive assessment were assessed and a determination of eligibility made within 60 days of the date of referral by the Multidisciplinary Evaluation Team for a comprehensive assessment.
MSIS tracks the established timelines for each step and OSE has the
capability to generate reports indicating the number and percentage of students in each LEA and Statewide that were evaluated in accordance with timelines.
Reports in MSIS were used for training for LEAs concerning data entry into MSIS. LEAs were trained how to use the reports to ensure compliance with Indicator 11.
OSE staff will monitor LEA data in the
OSE staff monitored data and contacted LEAs about approaching
State Performance Plan 2005-2012
Improvement Activities
Improvement Activities FFY 2011
(SY 2011-2012)
State database and alert LEAs to approaching deadlines when necessary.
deadlines during FFY 2011.
In an effort to address concerns from LEAs on technical difficulties with the current method of data collection, OSE will develop a new screen in the State database application that streamlines data entry for initial evaluation data.
OSE developed a new screen for the State database application to collect initial ruling data. The screen was operational during the FFY 2011 (SY 2011-2012).
One-on-one technical assistance was offered to LEAs via telephone and email to assist with their data entry. All training materials are posted on the OSE web site to allow LEAs twenty- four-hour-a-day access.
The data screen used to capture data for Indicator 11 is examined and tested each year. OSE reviews all requests from LEA users to update the data screen and reports generated from the data entered in order to offer a better data environment for the users.
OSE, in collaboration with The Office of Curriculum and Instruction offered five RtI regional trainings, with a focus on early identification and intervention with students to differentiate students who respond to interventions in general education and students suspected of having a disability who should be located, identified, and evaluated for special education and related services per Child Find regulations:
Hattiesburg, MS – November 28,2011 Tupelo, MS – December 24, 2011 Jackson, MS – January 24, 2012 Oxford, MS – February 7, 2012 Gulfport, MS – March 9, 2012
A new interagency agreement was drafted to reflect the new Part C regulations to be approved and implemented in 2012-2013 covering joint Child Find responsibilities and outlining new efforts to collaborate on developing Statewide promotional materials and guidance documents to be used across agencies.
OSE staff participated on the State Interagency Coordinating Council with representatives from Part C and Part B programs, parent groups, university programs, Head Start, and other
disability programs to support joint Child Find responsibilities.
OSE staff participated on the Mississippi Advisory Council on Fetal Alcohol Spectrum
Disorders with representatives other State agencies and disability groups/programs to ensure Child Find responsibilities are addressed.
A State team attended the Mega Leadership Conference and pre-conference sessions focused on Child Find responsibilities and inclusive, high-quality service provision in special education. In addition OSE staff attended the Southeast Regional Resource Center Conference focused on planning and development of improvement activities in special education. This information will be incorporated into training, guidance documents, and other interagency efforts at
promoting Child Find responsibilities.
The State 619 Coordinator met with staff from the Head Start Collaboration office to identify opportunities to ensure that Child Find responsibilities were appropriately addressed.
OSE staff collaborated with Office of Curriculum and Instruction to review proposals to address students suspected of having dyslexia/reading learning disabilities to ensure that Child Find responsibilities were appropriately addressed.
OSE staff participated in professional development activities with the School Turnaround Learning Community regarding the development and use of early warning systems to identify students suspected of having a disability who should be located, identified, and evaluated for special education and related services per Child Find regulations. This information will be incorporated in future trainings and guidance for districts.
Correction of FFY 2010 Findings of Noncompliance (if State reported less than 100% compliance):
Level of compliance (actual target data) State reported for FFY 2010 for this Indicator: 99.09%
1. Number of findings of noncompliance the State made during FFY
2010 (the period from July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011) 10 2. Number of FFY 2010 findings the State verified as timely corrected
(corrected within one year from the date of notification to the LEA of the finding)
9
3. Number of FFY 2010 findings not verified as corrected within one
year [(1) minus (2)] 1
Correction of FFY 2010 Findings of Noncompliance Not Timely Corrected (corrected more than one year from identification of the noncompliance):
4. Number of FFY 2010 findings not timely corrected (same as the
number from (3) above) 1
beyond the one-year timeline (“subsequent correction”)
6. Number of FFY 2010 findings not verified as corrected [(4) minus (5)] 1
Verification of Correction of FFY 2010 noncompliance (either timely or subsequent):
The OSE has verified that all but one LEA with noncompliance in FFY 2010: (Prong 1) has completed the evaluation, although late, for any child whose initial evaluation was not timely, unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the LEA; and (Prong 2) is correctly implementing 34 CFR §300.301(c)(1) (i.e. achieved 100% compliance) based on a review of updated data collected through the State data system, MSIS, consistent with OSEP
Memorandum 09-02, dated October 17, 2008.
The OSE required each LEA that was issued a finding of noncompliance in FFY 2010 to
develop and implement an Improvement Plan which included activities to ensure that timelines were met. At the time of the issuance of the findings, all evaluations had been completed, although late. The LEAs were required to submit to OSE a monthly data review of current evaluations to ensure that timelines were being monitored. Upon a review of SY 2011-2012 data in the State database approximately 6 months after the issuance of the findings, all but one LEA demonstrated 100% compliance at that time. Thus, the correction of noncompliance for 9 LEAs from FFY 2010 was verified within 12 months in accordance with OSEP Memo 09- 02.
The remaining district has not yet shown 100% compliance due to continued missed timelines. The MDE OSE is working closely with the LEA to correct this noncompliance. The LEA has also not demonstrated correction of noncompliance identified in FFY 2010 in areas related to Indicator 12, discipline, least restrictive environment, transition services, FAPE, ESY, IEP development, manifestation determinations, and meaningful educational benefit.
On or about November 2, 2012 MDE and the LEA entered into a Compliance
Agreement/Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) regarding the LEA’s failure to achieve compliance within the one year timeline. On January 17, 2013, the administrators of the Corrective Action Plan (CAP) presented a recommended revision of the plan to the SBE that details the plan for the LEA to achieve compliance by the June 30, 2013 deadline specified in the Compliance Agreement. The recommended revisions were approved by the SBE on
January 18, 2013. Please see Indicator 15 for further details of the Compliance Agreement and MDE’s general supervision activities related to this case.
Correction of Any Remaining Findings of Noncompliance from FFY 2009 or Earlier:
All previous noncompliance has been verified as corrected and was reported as such in prior Annual Performance Reports.
Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for FFY 2011 (SY 2011-2012):
Target = 100%/Actual = 99.59% - Target not met
While Mississippi did not meet the 100% target for FFY 2011 (SY 2011-2012), it did show progress from the FFY 2010(SY 2010-2011) data of 99.09%. All SPP Improvement Activities will continue throughout the next school year. OSE will continue to work with LEAs to ensure correct data entry in the State database.
Additional Information Required by the OSEP APR Response Table for this Indicator:
Statement from the Response Table State’s Response
OSEP appreciates the State’s efforts and looks forward to reviewing in the FFY 2011 APR, the State’s data demonstrating that it is in compliance with the timely initial evaluation requirements in 34 CFR §300.301(c)(1). Because the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2010, the State must report on the status of correction of
noncompliance identified in FFY2010 for this