California Department of Education Special Education Division Monitoring Activities Summary

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and implementing regulations in Title 34 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) section 300.600 requires the COE to place primary focus of its monitoring activities on improving educational and functional results and outcomes, as well as ensuring compliance with IDEA requirements with an emphasis on those most closely related to improved results for students.

34 CFR 300.600(b) requires:

• The primary focus of the State's monitoring activities must be on-
  • Improving educational results and functional outcomes for all children with disabilities; and
  • Ensuring that public agencies meet the program requirements under Part B of the Act, with a particular emphasis on those requirements that are most closely related to improving educational results for children with disabilities.

The COE routinely monitors compliance with the provisions of the IDEA for every district, every year, through a comprehensive system of oversight. Monitoring activities are completed as part of an Annual Submission Process (ASP), which includes the following components:

• Data Identified Noncompliance (DINC) reviews
• Performance Indicator Review (PIR)
• Annual disproportionality calculations
• Fiscal review
• Review of annual budget and service plans

In addition, the COE conducts on-site Comprehensive Reviews for a select number of districts every year to provide focused, targeted technical assistance , and conducts Critical Incident Reviews when a serious issue arises that warrants immediate intervention and attention. When the COE identifies noncompliance, it ensures that the noncompliance is corrected as soon as possible, and in no case later than one year after the noncompliance is identified.

The COE ensures compliance with IDEA requirements most closely related to improving results for students by ensuring compliance with a// provisions of the IDEA through its comprehensive  system of oversight. The COE believes that compliance is the foundation of an effective service delivery program. However, certain aspects of the CDE's system of oversight are specifically designed to provide a primary focus on improving educational and functional results and outcomes for students with disabilities.

Data Identified Noncompliance

The Office Special Education Programs (OSEP) of the U.S. Department of Education requires that a state must examine data it receives through its data collections to determine if the data demonstrates noncompliance with the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). If noncompliance is identified, the state must make a finding of noncompliance and require the LEA to make correction using federally specified procedures (OSEP Memorandum 09-02, October 17, 2008).

In order to carry out these requirements the Special Education Division (SEO) at the California Department of Education (COE) reviews and analyzes student level data submitted to the California Special Education Management Information System (CASEMIS) for compliance with state and federal requirements. Specifically, the data is analyzed in relationship to three compliance indicators from the California State Performance Plan (SPP):

• Indicator 11: One hundred percent of children were evaluated within 60 days of receiving parental consent for initial evaluation.
• Indicator 12: One hundred percent of children referred by Part C prior to age three, who are found eligible for Part B, have an Individual Education Plan (IEP) developed and implemented by their third birthday.
• Indicator 13: One hundred percent of youth aged 16 and above have an IEP that includes the eight required elements of transition.

In addition, the CASEMIS data is analyzed for compliance to the state and federal timeframe requirements for:

• Annual IEP meeting (once a year)
• Triennial re-evaluation to determine the student's continued eligibility (every three years)

Review of Annual Service and Budget Plans

California Education Code (EC) Section 56205 requires the submission of Annual Budget and Service Plans that are adopted at public hearings held by the special education local plan area (SELPA). These plans must identify expected expenditures and include a description of services, the physical location of the services, and must demonstrate that all individuals with exceptional needs have access to services and instruction appropriate to meet their needs as specified in their individualized education program.

Each SELPA Local Plan requires a budget plan component to be developed/updated annually. Each SELPA will adopt the Annual Budget Plan according to the governance and policymaking process established in their local plan. The completion of the process will be documented by evidence that a SELPA-level public hearing has been held to adopt the Annual Budget Plan. The Annual Budget Plan may be revised during any fiscal year according to the policymaking process established, pursuant to EC Section 56205 subparagraph (D) and (E) of paragraph (12) of subdivision  (a) and consistent with subdivision (f) of EC sections 56001 and 56195.9. The Annual Budget Plan shall identify expected expenditures for all items required by this part, which shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

(A) Funds received in accordance with Chapter 7.2 (commencing with EC Section 56836)
(B) Administrative costs of the plan
(C) Special education services to pupils with severe disabilities and low-incidence disabilities
(D) Special education services to pupils with nonsevere disabilities
(E) Supplemental aids and services to meet the individual needs of pupils placed in regular education classrooms and environments
(F) Regionalized operations and services and direct instructional support by program specialists in accordance with Article 6 (commencing with EC Section 56836.23) of Chapter 7.2
(G) The use of property taxes allocated to the SELPA pursuant to EC Section 2572

Notice of the SELPA-level public hearing shall be posted in each school at least 15 days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the Public Hearing Notice must be submitted with the Annual Budget Plan.

Each SELPA Local Plan requires a service plan component to be developed/updated annually. Each SELPA will develop and adopt the Annual Service Plan according to the governance and policymaking process established in their local plan and includes a description of the full continuum of service options to be provided within the SELPA assuring access to appropriate instruction and services for all students with disabilities from birth to twenty-two years of age, including children with low-incidence disabilities .. The completion of the process will be documented by evidence that a SELPA-level public hearing has been held to adopt the Annual Service Plan.

Disproportionate representation

The following State Performance Plan Indicators are designed to collect data indicative of performance regarding the requirement to address disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services, to the extent the representation is the result of inappropriate identification.

Discipline
Measures 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

Disproportionality Overall
Measures percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification.

Disproportionality by Disability
Measures percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification.

Each year, the COE completes calculations to identify disproportionate representation of students by race, ethnic group, and disability in district special education programs throughout California using data from the California Special Education Management Information System (CASEMIS). Evaluations of the rates of suspensions and expulsions of students with disabilities are also performed. These calculations relate to the State Performance Plan Indicators 4b, 9, and 10 (above).

As a result of these calculations and preliminary determinations, the COE will review the LEA's special education policies and procedures and evaluate a sampling of student records when an LEA is deemed disproportionate. Items that are determined to be noncompliant during the student record reviews will be adopted by the COE as findings of noncompliance and will require a second evaluation, referred to as a Prong Two record review, in which a second set of student records is evaluated subsequent to the first student record review. All findings of noncompliance will be corrected as soon as possible, and in no case later than one year after the noncompliance is identified. The results of the reviews provides further data utilized by the COE to monitor performance regarding the requirement to address disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services, to the extent the representation is the result of inappropriate identification.

Significant Disproportionality

Pursuant to 34 C.F.R. § 300.646, COE is responsible for collecting and examining data to determine if significant disproportionality is occurring in local educational agencies (LEAs) in the state. COE must look at data related to the over representation of students by race and ethnicity with respect to:

1. Identification as children with disabilities
2. Identification in various disability categories
3. Placement in educational settings
4. Disciplinary actions including suspension and expulsion

Disproportionality is a result of the over representation of a specific race or ethnicity in relationship to the overall general education and special education populations of the district and state. COE uses the Alternate Risk Ratio and the E-formula to calculate disproportionality. Significant disproportionality is determined if the district has been identified as disproportionate for the same race or ethnicity in the current year and in two of the three previous years .

If an LEA is determined to be significantly disproportionate in any one of the four areas identified above, the COE will:

• Review the LEA's policies, procedures, and practices to ensure compliance with the requirements of the IDEA
• Require the LEA to publicly report on any required revision of policies, procedures, and practices
• Require the LEA to reserve 15 percent of its IDEA grant funds to provide comprehensive coordinated early intervening services to children in the LEA (including, but not exclusively for, those children in the groups that were identified as significantly disproportionate)

LEAs that are identified as significantly disproportionate in one or more areas may not take advantage of the opportunity to reduce its Maintenance of Effort by 50 percent should there be an increase in federal funds. When LEAs are notified by the COE of their designation as significantly disproportionate, they are provided information that includes instructions for submitting policies, procedures, timelines, and practices for COE review and instructions for revising as necessary, developing action and budget plans, fiscal documentation; and reporting.

Performance Indicator Review Process

Beginning in 2014-15, the COE began to implement the PIR process, which evaluates a LEA's performance on the following performance measures and State Performance Plan Indicators (SPPI):

• SPPI 1:         Graduation Rate
• SPPI 2:         Dropout Rate
• SPPI 4a:       Suspension and Expulsion
• SPPI 5:         Least Restrictive Environment
• SPPI 8:         Parent Involvement

In 2014-15, only LEAs that were scheduled for Special Education Self-reviews that year and had one or more performance indicator values that did not meet the targets established statewide for 2012-13 and did not demonstrate improvement from the prior year (2011-12) participated in the PIR process. In 2015-16, only LEAs that were scheduled for Special Education Self-reviews that year and had one or more performance indicator values that did not meet the targets established statewide for 2014-15 and did not demonstrate improvement from the prior year (2013-14) participated in the PIR process. Beginning in 2016-17, every LEA will participate in the PIR selection process annually. Participating LEAs did not meet the established targets. LEAs that participate are required to submit: 1) a Special Education Program Improvement Assurances Form and 2) a plan developed and adopted by the LEA that includes activities to improve performance in the target indicator areas. The purpose of the improvement plan is to engage both general education and special education LEA staff in an effort to build LEA capacity to improve the educational performance and functional outcomes for students with disabilities.

In addition, the COE is evaluating additional performance measures as part of the PIR, including SSPI 3: Statewide Assessments and SSPI 14: Post-school Outcomes. As a method of ensuring compliance with those IDEA requirements most closely related to improving results for students, the COE will institute a review of applicable policies and procedures, as well as student file reviews. The COE will select the student files to be reviewed and will conduct the review of those files. The COE will report findings of noncompliance to the LEA and will ensure that findings of noncompliance identified through these reviews are corrected by the LEA as soon as possible, and in no case later than one year after the noncompliance is identified. Reviews of student files and policies and procedures are completed for those LEAs that have not met the target for a particular indicator for the third consecutive year.

Comprehensive Review Process

The purpose of the Comprehensive Review (CR) is:

• To ensure that LEAs are providing appropriate supervision and monitoring for special education programs and services
• To provide information to the COE regarding key compliance questions
• To provide effective general supervision to LEAs in accordance with the obligations imposed on the COE under the IDEA in accordance with the State Performance Plan (SPP) and as required by Title 34 Code of Federal Regulations Section 300.600

Each year, a select number of LEAs are selected for participation in the CR process, which consists record review and may include a thorough, on-site, COE-led review of the LEAs' special education and related services delivery program. The CR is based on a monitoring plan that is developed by COE staff from parent input, SPP indicator data, and compliance history information. The monitoring plan provides focus and direction, and acts as a strategic plan for the CR. The primary CR monitoring activities include student record reviews (focusing on procedural compliance, educational benefit, and IEP implementation), policy and procedure reviews, interviews, and a SELPA governance review. The COE works in partnership with the LEA to complete the CR. Follow-up reviews are completed after the CR is conducted to ensure that the district has resolved non-compliance issues identified by the CR and is 100 percent compliant in subsequent records review.

The Educational Benefit process is employed as part of the student records review during the CR. The Educational Benefit process reviews student IEPs over multiple years in a way that exceeds simple verification of compliance with law, and evaluates whether IEP revisions are effectively designed to support each student's educational progress. During the Educational Benefit review, three years of IEP information is analyzed with the first year including an initial IEP or triennial assessment IEP. The relationship of assessments compared to identified goals and services is analyzed and compared from year to year. COE staff participating in the Educational Benefit review make judgments about the adequacy of the effort to ensure that there was reasonable calculation that the IEP would result in educational benefit for the student.

The Educational Benefit review process ensures that the focus of student record reviews is not only compliance, but on the efforts documented to improve the educational and/or functional results of students with disabilities.

The CR process also includes conducting interviews with teachers and LEA staff to further ascertain the adequacy and effectiveness of the special education program. Interview questions are tailored to each LEA after the COE conducts a comprehensive analysis of data that may inform potential areas for inquiry. Interview questions may be designed to address questions raised by an examination of the LEA's demographic data, assessment data, Least Restrictive Environment Data, discipline data, etc.