2.2 ORIGENES DEL AGUA
2.2.2 PROBLEMAS DE AGUA MÁS COMUNES EN LOS POZOS
Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2011 (SY 2011-2012)
Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / General Supervision Indicator 15: General supervision system (including monitoring, complaints, hearings, etc.)
identifies and corrects noncompliance as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from identification.
(20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(B))
Measurement:
Percent of noncompliance corrected within one year of identification: a. # of findings of noncompliance.
b. # of corrections completed as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from identification.
Percent = [(b) divided by (a)] times 100.
States are required to use the “Indicator 15 Worksheet” to report data for this indicator (see Attachment 1).
FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target
2011 (2011-2012)
100% of noncompliance related to monitoring priority area and Indicators will be corrected within one year of identification.
Data reported in the FFY 2011 APR is based on findings issued during the 2010-2011 school year and corrected within one year.
Actual Target Data for FFY 2011 (SY 2011-2012):
89.09% of noncompliance was corrected within one year of identification.
Indicator/Indicator Clusters General Supervision System Components # of LEAs Issued Findings in FFY 2010 (7/1/10 to 6/30/11) (a) # of Findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2010 (7/1/10 to 6/30/11) (b) # of Findings of noncompliance from (a) for which
correction was verified no later than one year from identification
1. Percent of youth with IEPs graduating
from high school with a regular diploma. Monitoring Activities: Self- Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other
0 0 0
2. Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high school.
14. Percent of youth who had IEPs, are no longer in secondary school and who have been competitively employed, enrolled in some type of postsecondary school or training program, or both, within one year of leaving high school.
Dispute Resolution: Complaints,
Hearings 0 0 0
3. Participation and performance of children with disabilities on statewide assessments.
Monitoring Activities: Self- Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other
0 0 0
7. Percent of preschool children with IEPs who demonstrated improved outcomes.
Dispute Resolution: Complaints,
Hearings 0 0 0
4A. Percent of districts identified as having a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities for greater than 10 days in a school year.
Monitoring Activities: Self- Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other
Indicator/Indicator Clusters General Supervision System Components # of LEAs Issued Findings in FFY 2010 (7/1/10 to 6/30/11) (a) # of Findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2010 (7/1/10 to 6/30/11) (b) # of Findings of noncompliance from (a) for which
correction was verified no later than one year from identification
4B. Percent of districts that have: (a) a significant discrepancy, by race or ethnicity, in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs; and (b) policies, procedures or practices that contribute to the significant discrepancy and do not comply with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards.
Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings
0 0 0
5. Percent of children with IEPs aged 6
through 21 -educational placements. Monitoring Activities: Self- Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other
2 5 5
6. Percent of preschool children aged 3 through 5 – early childhood placement.
Dispute Resolution: Complaints,
Hearings 2 2 1
8. Percent of parents with a child receiving special education services who report that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities.
Monitoring Activities: Self- Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other
0 0 0
Dispute Resolution: Complaints,
Hearings 0 0 0
9. Percent of districts with
disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education that is the result of inappropriate identification.
Monitoring Activities: Self- Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other
Indicator/Indicator Clusters General Supervision System Components # of LEAs Issued Findings in FFY 2010 (7/1/10 to 6/30/11) (a) # of Findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2010 (7/1/10 to 6/30/11) (b) # of Findings of noncompliance from (a) for which
correction was verified no later than one year from identification
10. Percent of districts with
disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of
inappropriate identification.
Dispute Resolution: Complaints,
Hearings 0 0 0
11. Percent of children who were evaluated within 60 days of receiving parental consent for initial evaluation or, if the State establishes a timeframe within which the evaluation must be conducted, within that timeframe.
Monitoring Activities: Self- Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other
10 10 9
Dispute Resolution: Complaints,
Hearings 0 0 0
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.
Monitoring Activities: Self- Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other
12 12 11
Dispute Resolution: Complaints,
Hearings 0 0 0
13. Percent of youth aged 16 and above with IEP that includes appropriate
measurable postsecondary goals that are annually updated and based upon an age appropriate transition assessment, transition services, including courses of study, that will reasonably enable the student to meet those postsecondary goals, and annual IEP goals related to the student’s transition service needs.
Monitoring Activities: Self- Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other
2 2 2
Dispute Resolution: Complaints,
Indicator/Indicator Clusters General Supervision System Components # of LEAs Issued Findings in FFY 2010 (7/1/10 to 6/30/11) (a) # of Findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2010 (7/1/10 to 6/30/11) (b) # of Findings of noncompliance from (a) for which
correction was verified no later than one year from identification
Other areas of noncompliance:
Assessment and Evaluation Monitoring Activities: Self- Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other
1 1 1
Dispute Resolution: Complaints,
Hearings 0 0 0
Other areas of noncompliance: Child Find Monitoring Activities: Self- Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other
0 0 0
Dispute Resolution: Complaints,
Hearings 1 1 1
Other areas of noncompliance: FAPE Monitoring Activities: Self- Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other
13 26 26
Dispute Resolution: Complaints,
Hearings 4 5 3
Other areas of noncompliance: ESY Monitoring Activities: Self- Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other
0 0 0
Dispute Resolution: Complaints,
Indicator/Indicator Clusters General Supervision System Components # of LEAs Issued Findings in FFY 2010 (7/1/10 to 6/30/11) (a) # of Findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2010 (7/1/10 to 6/30/11) (b) # of Findings of noncompliance from (a) for which
correction was verified no later than one year from identification
Other areas of noncompliance: IEP
Development Monitoring Activities: Self- Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other
11 25 25
Dispute Resolution: Complaints,
Hearings 1 2 0
Other areas of noncompliance: Educable
Child Monitoring Activities: Self- Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other
1 1 1
Dispute Resolution: Complaints,
Hearings 0 0 0
Other areas of noncompliance: Fiscal –
Use of Amounts Monitoring Activities: Self- Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other
2 2 2
Dispute Resolution: Complaints,
Hearings 0 0 0
Other areas of noncompliance:
Supplement Aides and Services Monitoring Activities: Self- Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other
1 1 1
Dispute Resolution: Complaints,
Indicator/Indicator Clusters General Supervision System Components # of LEAs Issued Findings in FFY 2010 (7/1/10 to 6/30/11) (a) # of Findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2010 (7/1/10 to 6/30/11) (b) # of Findings of noncompliance from (a) for which
correction was verified no later than one year from identification
Other areas of noncompliance:
Manisfestation Determinations Monitoring Activities: Self- Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other
0 0 0
Dispute Resolution: Complaints,
Hearings 1 1 0
Other areas of noncompliance: Meaningful
Educational Benefit Monitoring Activities: Self- Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other
0 0 0
Dispute Resolution: Complaints,
Hearings 1 1 0
Other areas of noncompliance: MOD Monitoring Activities: Self- Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other
4 5 5
Dispute Resolution: Complaints,
Hearings 0 0 0
Other areas of noncompliance:
Nonacademic Services Monitoring Activities: Self- Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other
1 1 1
Dispute Resolution: Complaints,
Indicator/Indicator Clusters General Supervision System Components # of LEAs Issued Findings in FFY 2010 (7/1/10 to 6/30/11) (a) # of Findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2010 (7/1/10 to 6/30/11) (b) # of Findings of noncompliance from (a) for which
correction was verified no later than one year from identification
Other areas of noncompliance: Discipline Monitoring Activities: Self- Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other
3 4 4
Dispute Resolution: Complaints,
Hearings 1 1 0
Sum the numbers down Column a and Column b 110 98 Percent of noncompliance corrected within one year of identification = (b) / (a) X 100 = 89.09%
(column (b) sum divided by column (a) sum) times 100. Process for selecting LEAs for Monitoring:
Mississippi’s system of general supervision is an integrated system which includes the following activities:
1) Integrated Monitoring Activities (on-site monitoring, desk-audits, self-assessments, LEA assurances, Project Application)
2) Data (database, desk-audits)
3) Policies, Procedures, and Effective Implementation (self-assessments, LEA assurances, Project Application)
4) State Performance Plan
5) Dispute Resolution (on-site investigations, desk audits)
6) Targeted Technical Assistance and Professional Development (on-site, collaborative targeted technical assistance)
7) Improvement, Correction, Incentives and Sanctions
8) Fiscal Management (desk-audits, on-site investigations, technical assistance) LEAs in the 2010-2011 school year were selected for on-site monitoring visits to investigate formal State complaints, to conduct investigative audits, and to conduct audits of non-public
schools and State agencies. Desk audits were conducted through reviews of the State database during this same period of time.
Mississippi’s system of general supervision also includes State audits. These include
accreditation audits, investigative audits, and audits of non-public schools and State agencies. The State Board of Education (SBE), Commission on School Accreditation, or the State
Superintendent of Education may call for an investigative audit at anytime, which may include a comprehensive evaluation of special education programs and IDEA compliance. Audits are conducted for a variety of reasons, including complaints, fiscal, and cross-departmental
concerns. Improvement plans and technical assistance visits are the primary methods used to verify implementation of corrective actions. Comprehensive follow-up visits are also conducted approximately 3 to 4 months after the initial visit. Any LEA that fails to provide sufficient
documentation that all areas of noncompliance have been resolved within 12 months is subject to automatic and mandatory sanctions, including a report to the Office of Accreditation and a recommendation to the Commission on School Accreditation to take immediate action to downgrade the accreditation status of the LEA. Intensive technical assistance is provided to sanctioned LEAs. Continued noncompliance may ultimately result in withholding of funds.
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for FFY 2011 (SY 2011-2012):
Mississippi continues to implement a comprehensive system to ensure its general supervisory responsibilities of IDEA Part B are implemented. The general supervisory system requires LEAs to implement the provisions of IDEA by monitoring and ensuring continuous
improvement with a primary focus on improving educational results and functional outcomes for all children with disabilities.
Through the State Performance Plan, data, implementation of effective policies and procedures, integrated monitoring activities, improvement, correction of noncompliance, sanctions, dispute resolution, targeted technical assistance and professional development, fiscal management, the Modified Mattie T. Consent Decree and the Mattie T. Implementation Plan (MTIP), monitoring strategies are integrated across all components of OSE’s system of general supervision.
The OSE will continue to utilize a variety of integrated monitoring strategies and activities to ensure implementation of the requirements of IDEA by local LEAs.
The monitoring process is one area of training that OSE continues to promote and highlight at various State meetings and conferences for school district personnel, including LEA
superintendents (Mississippi Association of School Superintendents). The monitoring process is also highlighted bi-annually at the New Directors of Special Education trainings, Special Education Advisory Panel meetings, and other meetings upon request.
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)
The MDE OSE has developed a method of tracking LEA noncompliance which will ensure that individual findings are tracked with regard to specific issues and to ensure that the timelines for correction do not exceed one year from the time of identification. A shared file or folder has been established by the Office of Management Information Systems (MIS) and staff assigned to the monitoring division, as well as the
Director of the OSE and the Bureau Director for Program will have shared access to this folder. Each individual staff member assigned to the monitoring division is responsible for ensuring that individual findings and the date for corrective actions are entered into the system. Individual staff are then responsible for ensuring corrective actions are made no later than one year from identification. This will be
monitored routinely by the Division Director of Program Evaluation and Improvement and the Bureau Director.
The shared folder was utilized during the SY 2011-2012. Regular and ongoing reviews of LEA timeline compliance (Timeline Tracker) were created to ensure that each LEA was implementing corrective actions as soon as possible, but no later than 12 months from notification of noncompliance.
Team leaders were assigned to conduct all follow-up visits and assist the OSE to coordinate timelines. OSE staff works collaboratively with the follow-up team
leaders to ensure that LEA personnel correct noncompliance in a timely manner.
Whenever it appears that correction of noncompliance may not be occurring at a rate or pace fast enough to ensure correction within 12 months of identification, strategic measures are implemented to redirect the LEA’s corrective actions and/or to provide any needed technical assistance that will ensure timely correction of all identified noncompliant findings.
The MDE OSE has implemented a number of improvement strategies and activities designed to assist LEAs with effective improvement plan activities. All LEAs with active improvement plans are assigned to 1 of 3 Regional Service Centers that employ technical assistance specialists. These individuals are responsible for and responsive to the needs of LEAs on corrective actions to support LEA personnel in the implementation of activities. The technical assistance specialists spend time in the LEA, within individual schools, attending TST
The OSE implemented a number of strategies or activities designed to assist LEAs in effectively implementing
improvement plan activities. All LEAs with an active improvement plan were assigned to one of three Regional Service Centers that employ technical assistance specialists. These individuals are responsible for, and responsive to, the needs of LEAs on
corrective actions to support LEA personnel in the implementation of improvement plan activities. The technical assistance
specialists spent time in each LEA, within individual schools, attending TST meetings, LSC meetings, eligibility determination
State Performance Plan 2005-2012
Improvement Activities
Improvement Activities FFY 2011
(SY 2011-2012)
meetings, LSC meetings, eligibility determination meetings, IEP meetings as well as other school-based decision making team sessions. They attend professional development alongside LEA personnel as well as provide
training in specific areas of need. These individuals are expected to spend 3/4 of the work week in assigned LEAs to support their improvement plan activities.
meetings, IEP meetings as well as other school-based decision-making team sessions. They attended professional development alongside LEA personnel as well as provided technical assistance in specific areas of need. These individuals are expected to spend 3/4 of the work week in assigned LEAs to support their improvement plan activities.
The OSE continued the process of evaluating its monitoring activities to
determine areas in need of improvement and refinement. On an ongoing basis, challenges and barriers were addressed throughout the monitoring/technical assistance process as they became known.
Specially designed protocols developed to examine an LEA’s process to identify a child as a child with a disability continue to be used with LEA staff, OSE staff, and
contractual consultants through the targeted technical assistance visits. This collaborative review focuses on the procedures used in the Three Tier Instructional Model (pre- referral practices) and those used in the Evaluation and Determination of Eligibility process to determine if the pre-referral and assessment and determination of eligibility processes were conducted in accordance with State and Federal requirements. In addition, the OSE provided targeted
technical assistance to LEAs implementing Plans of Rapid Compliance in accordance with the Mattie T. Modified Consent Decree to assist LEAs in meeting the goals of the Decree.
Fifty-one follow-up visits were conducted during the 2011-2012 school year as a result of districts receiving a monitoring visit during the 2010-2011 school year.
Thirty-one formal State complaints were investigated through an on-site investigation during the 2011-2012 school year following the OSE’s receipt of a written formal State
State Performance Plan 2005-2012
Improvement Activities
Improvement Activities FFY 2011
(SY 2011-2012)
complaint.
Nine on-site audits were conducted at non- public facilities during SY 2010-2011. Twenty-eight Plans of Rapid Compliance
technical assistance visits were conducted during SY 2011-2012.
OSE staff coordinated with other offices in the MDE to conduct collaborative monitoring visits or investigative audits. Three
investigative audits were conducted at the request of the State Superintendent of Education.
The MDE OSE works closely with the technical assistance specialists. Joint training opportunities and collaborative work sessions are a routine part of this endeavor. The technical assistance specialists provide quarterly reports on their activities in all assigned LEAs. There is also an informal method for providing feedback and conducting routine communication with OSE staff between the regularly scheduled quarterly report due dates. The technical assistance specialists meet quarterly with the Mattie T. consultants and the OSE staff to allow an
opportunity for problem solving and collaborative planning efforts.
Six technical assistance specialists are employed through three Regional Service Centers in the State to work exclusively with LEAs that are implementing corrective action improvement plans following completion of an on-site focused monitoring visit. They also have expanded their work responsibility to support LEAs in the implementation of
Technical Assistance Plan activities as a part of the targeted technical assistance process. Their primary responsibility is to
provide regular, on-going technical
assistance to LEA personnel in monitored LEAs as they implement corrective actions or to LEAs who had a targeted technical
assistance visit. Their services are provided on-site (in-district) and they are available to LEA personnel in assigned LEAs 3.5 – 4 days each week.
Training is provided to Regional Service Center technical assistance specialists on a quarterly basis to support their ability to provide technical assistance to assigned LEAs implementing improvement plans. Quarterly reports are provided to the OSE by
the Regional Service Centers technical assistance specialists.
In addition to the regional technical
assistance specialists, the MDE/OSE has contracted with three additional technical assistance providers to assist LEAs who
State Performance Plan 2005-2012
Improvement Activities
Improvement Activities FFY 2011
(SY 2011-2012)
have current corrective action plans and who may be in need of intensive and recurring training and technical assistance. These specialists work in the areas of IEP training and development, inclusive and collaborative practices in general education, and working with special and general education teachers on developing and implementing
accommodations and modifications in general education classrooms.
Feedback is routinely provided to LEAs on improvement plans through the OSE’s review of the LEA quarterly submissions. Once the quarterly reports are received by the OSE, assigned monitoring staff review these and
provide feedback to the LEA. Most often the feedback pertains to specific
questions that must be answered by the LEA with regard to a lack of
documented measurable change as a result of the LEA’s implementation of improvement plan activities. We