Dr Lanai Jennings Coordinator Office of Special Programs

Dr. Lanai Jennings Coordinator Office of Special Programs Data Coordinator Lorraine Elswick Professional Development Complaints Coordinator Office of Special Programs Dr. Frances Clark Coordinator Office of Special Programs Professional Development Positive Behavior Supports Professional Development

Rates of Suspension and Expulsion

What does Indicator 4 address? 1. Equity in suspensions rates Ø 4 A: Comparison of SWD to SWOD Ø 4 B: Comparison of SWD by race/ethnicity 2. When suspension rates are discrepant, is the difference due to inappropriate policies, procedures, and practices relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards

Measurement Indicator 4 A Ø Significant discrepancy for a district is defined as a relative difference of 160 between the rate for SWD and the rate for SWOD in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year Indicator 4 B Ø Significant discrepancy is defined as a relative difference greater than 100 in the suspension rate for a given SWD race/ethnic category vs. suspension rate for All Other SWD within the district Minimum Cell Requirement Ø 20

Where/when do the data originate? Data Element Data Source Enrollment data Second Month Child Count Enrollment SWD December Child Count Discipline data Discipline for SWD and Report from the SWOD 10 th month submission

Calculation INDICATOR 4 A Step 1: SWD rate= (# of SWD with OSS/EXP greater than 10 days)/# of SWD enrolled) Step 2: SWOD rate = (# of SWOD with OSS/EXP greater than 10 days)/# of SWOD enrolled) Step 3: (SWD rate – SWOD rate)/SWOD rate*100 INDICATOR 4 B Using Hispanic category as example Step 1: Hispanic SWD rate= (# of Hispanic SWD with OSS/EXP greater than 10 days)/# of Hispanic SWD enrolled) Step 2: All Other rate = (# of SWD in All Other racial/ethnic categories with OSS/EXP greater than 10 days)/# SWD of All Other racial/ethnic categories enrolled) Step 3: (Hispanic SWD rate –All Other SWD rate)/All Other SWD rate*100

Indicator 4 A Data Percentage of Districts with No Significant Discrepancy in Rates of Suspension between Students with and without Disabilities 100 96. 4 95 90 87. 3 89. 1 87. 3 85 Percent 80 Data is also from 20082009 and reflects the cell size increase to 20 78. 2 75 70 65 60 55 50 2004 -2005 -2006 -2007 -2008 School Year 2008 -2009

Indicator 4 Data Suspension Rates for Students with and without Disabilities (Based on Unduplicated Student Count of Students Suspended or Expelled More Than Ten Days) 5. 0 4. 5 4. 0 3. 5 3. 0 Students with Disabilities 2. 5 Students without Disabilities 2. 0 1. 5 1. 0 0. 5 0. 0 2005 -2006 -2007 -2008 -2009

What OSP activities/initiatives are in place to address behavior? To get all PBS materials and information open http: //wvde. state. wv. us/osp/, open Improving Results, then click on Positive Behavior Supports OR http: //wvde. state. wv. us/osp/Positive. Behavior. Support. html WVECPBS WVSWPBS WVRTI S/E: A Three. Tiered Model of Social/Emotional Supports for ALL

https: //sites. google. com/site/wvecpbs/

Principal’s Orientation and Application Documents: http: //wvde. state. wv. us/osp/Positive. Behavior. Supportschoo lwide. html SWPBS Training materials: https: //sites. google. com/site/2009 swpbstrainingmaterials/ School Trained & Implementing 2008 -2010 Mingo Co RESA II 7 schools (5 Elem, 1 Mid, 1 High) AIR Putnam Co RESA III 2 Elementary Schools AIR Wood Co + 2 RESA V 9 Elementary Schools Plesants Co RESA V County-wide (2 Elem, 1 Middle, 1 High) AIR Harrison Co & RESA 7 RESA VII 23 schools (13 Elem, 9 Middle, 1 High) Randolph Co RESA VII 1 Elementary School Doddridge Co RESA VII County-wide (2 Elem, 1 Middle, 1 High) Pendelton Co RESA VIII County-wide (3 Elem, 1 Middle, 1 High)) AIR Hampshire Co RESA VIII 2 Elementary Schools 56 schools trained

WVRTI S/E: A Three-Tiered Model of Social/Emotional Supports for ALL Pilots: https: //sites. google. com/site/wvsbmhtaskforce/ 7 Pilot sites: RESA II: Mingo Co. – 2 Elementary Schools (Task Force Support Dr. Jennifer Whisman) RESA V: Pleasants Co – County-wide (Task Force Support Dr. Jennifer Whisman) 2 Elementary, 1 Middle & 1 High School RESA VII: Marion Co – Alternative Mid/High School (Task Force Support Spec. Ed Dir. Gia Deasy)

What OSP activities/initiatives are in place to address behavior? Exceeding the relative difference threshold, triggers a state level review of districts’ policies, procedures, and practices relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards Common issues revealed: 1. Disciplinary timelines exceeded 2. Failure to determine or document if the suspension constitutes a change of placement 3. All pertinent information is not reviewed or documented during MDR 4. Data quality issues

Identification of Noncompliance During SEA Review Requires Correction is defined in OSEP Memo 09 -02: Correction is achieved when: Ø Every instance of noncompliance identified via the review of policies, procedures, and practices is corrected and verified by WVDE. AND Ø If needed, the LEA has changed its policies, procedures, and/or practices that contributed to or resulted in noncompliance. AND Ø Based on its review of updated data, WVDE verified that the district is correctly implementing the specific statutory or regulatory requirement(s). Districts are required to correct any noncompliances as soon as possible, but in no case later than one year.

Disproportionate Representation SPP/APR Indicators 9 & 10 Refers to the over- or underrepresentation of students from a specific racial/ethnic group in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification Examination must include review of general and special education policies, procedures and practices Focus on whethere are patterns of differential treatment in the identification, referral, evaluation or eligibility of students Must result in a change in policies, practices or procedures that contribute to the disproportionality

Indicator 9 Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification Compliance indicator with a target of 0%

Indicator 10 Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification Compliance indicator with a target of 0%

Indicators 9 & 10 Data Sources December 1 Child Count 2 nd Month Enrollment Data Seven racial/ethnic groups Six categorical disabilities (autism, emotional/ behavioral disorder, mental impairment, specific learning disability, speech/language impairment, other health impairment)

Risk Ratio Method Answers the question: What is the risk of a student from a particular racial/ethnic group being identified for special education and related services compared to the risk of a student from any other racial/ethnic group?

Weighted Risk Ratio (WWR) Calculation Step 1: Calculate risk for each group Black Students with Disabilities/Black Enrolled Asian Students with Disabilities/Asian Enrolled. . . etc. Step 2: Calculate State Composition for each group Enrolled Black students/All enrolled Enrolled Asian students/All enrolled. . . etc. Step 3: Calculate weighted risk ratio [1 -State Black Composition/*District Black SWD risk]/[State American Indian Composition/*District American Indian SWD risk) + [State Asian…etc. for all others] Don’t calculate if less than 20 enrolled

Measurement Indicators 9 & 10 Disproportionate representation is defined as: a WWR of 2. 0 or higher with a cell size of 20 for overrepresentation, or a WWR of. 25 or below with a cell size of 50 for underrepresentation, AND the district’s review of policies, procedures and practices confirms inappropriate identification

Indicators 9 & 10 Annual CSADA Indicator Status: WVDE Data Driven Determination of initial compliance status based on weighted risk ratio and cell size for both over and underrepresentation Second test of statistical significance applied Z-Test for Two Proportions or Chi-Square Compliance status is district determined based on review of policies, procedures and practices resulting in inappropriate identification State level verification review required

WVDE DATA DRIVEN DECEMBER 1, 2009 FEBRUARY 1, 2010 1 st Test - WWR and cell size Second Test of Statistical Significance 14 districts emerged with 43 districts emerged with disproportionate representation ₋ 22 underrepresentation ₋ 6 overrepresentation ₋ 15 over-and underrepresentation disproportionate representation - 2 overrepresentation - 11 underrepresentation - 1 over-and underrepresentation

Indicators 9 &10 Monitoring Process – Overrepresentation Data provided to districts in February District’s compliance status is WVDE determined Status is indicated as Met or Not Met District conducts review of general and special education policies, procedures and practices (e. g. , Policy 2419 – Child Find, Evaluation, Eligibility) Determine whether the disproportionate overrepresentation is due to inappropriate identification

Indicators 9 & 10 Monitoring Process – Underrepresentation Data provided to districts in February District’s compliance status is WVDE determined. Status is indicated as Met or Not Met District conducts review of general and special education procedures and practices (designated school’s individual student achievement, SAT (referral) data, instructional practices by racial/ethnic groups) Determines whether the disproportionate underrepresentation is due to inequity in practices

District Review Protocols

Identification of Noncompliance During SEA Review Requires Correction is defined in OSEP Memo 09 -02: Correction is achieved when: Ø Every instance of noncompliance identified via the review of policies, procedures, and practices is corrected and verified by WVDE. AND Ø If needed, the LEA has changed its policies, procedures, and/or practices that contributed to or resulted in noncompliance. AND Ø Based on its review of updated data, WVDE verified that the district is correctly implementing the specific statutory or regulatory requirement(s). Districts are required to correct any noncompliances as soon as possible, but in no case later than one year.

Activities/Initiatives to Address Disproportionate Representation Findings of Noncompliance • • • Procedures for out-of-state transfer students Determining eligibility in a different category Considering all areas of suspected disability 3 -Tiered Model of Positive Behavior Support (PBS) School-wide PBS Early Childhood PBS 3 -Tiered Model of Instruction/Intervention Technical Assistance by OSP National Center for Culturally Responsive Education Systems (NCCRESt) Phonemic Awareness Project Early Literacy – Phyllis - Math?

SPP/APR Indicators 4 b, 9 & 10 ARE NOT Significant Disproportionality Additional information to be provided tomorrow at lunch

Parent Coordinator Professional Development

Indicator 8 Indicator addresses the 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.

Indicator 8 The data for this indicator originate from the Parent Survey that is mailed each year to selected districts. All districts will be surveyed in 6 years.

Indicator 8 When your district is being surveyed it is very important that you encourage the parents to respond to the survey!! Thanks!!!

The US Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, will be conducting a verification visit to the state of West Virginia. This visit is to evaluate WV on: Effectiveness with implementing a general supervision system · Collection of state reported data ·Fiscal management · Systems for improving child and family outcomes and protecting child and family rights. ·

The Office of Special Education has asked WVPTI to help in soliciting parent input in this process by way of a parent survey. Please go to the following website: Students ages 3 -21: http: //www. surveymonkey. com/s/8 H 6 DYJL Birth to Three: http: //www. surveymonkey. com/s/LVMJX 6 Y The US Dept. of Ed. developed all questions on this survey.

To date, WVPTI has disseminated the surveys through a variety of ways: Bulk mailed to the following agencies: • West Virginia Advocates • WV Developmental Disabilities Council • Autism Training Center • Mountain States Parents Can • Parent Network Specialists at CED • All Service Coordinators for WV Birth to Three • PERCS

The previous agencies listed are either disseminating the surveys individually, or at trainings/activities which they attend. WVPTI Staff and Trainers are disseminating at all activities/events/trainings, as well as individually. WVPTI Office Staff have taken a few over the phone. We are seeing results of the survey monkey. As of Sept. 15, we have a total of 46 surveys that have been done online.

Parent Verification Visit Survey: Part B of IDEA • I know how to get information about the special education services in my State. □ Yes □ No a. If yes, I can obtain that information from: (Please select all that apply. ) □ Web site (Name of website)_________________ □ State Education Agency □ Local School District/Local Education Agency (LEA) □ Parent Training Information center (WVPTI) □ Advocacy Group □ Other: __________________

• Within the last year, I received a copy of my rights under the Local School District’s/LEA’s special education program under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the Federal special education law for providing special education services to children with disabilities. □ Yes □ No a. If yes, who gave you this information? (Please select all that apply. ) □ Special Education Coordinator □ Special Education Teacher □ Related Service Provider (social worker, speech pathologist, etc. ) □ Evaluation Team □ Parent Training and Information Center (WVPTI) □ Local School District/LEA Representative □ School Administrator □ Other: _______________________

b. If yes, was an explanation of your rights provided, if needed? □ Yes □ No □ NA

• Within the past year I have asked for: (Please select all that apply. ) □ Mediation □ State Complaint □ Resolution Session □ Due Process Hearing □ Other Dispute Resolution applicable to the State, including facilitated Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) a. Each of the concerns that I raised in the State Complaint was addressed in the decision letter/letter of finding. □ Yes □ No

• I have experienced or observed special education practices that I believe were not in compliance with Part B of IDEA. □ Yes □ No □ Don’t know a. If yes, please explain: _______________________

• Based on my experiences with the special education services in my State, I feel the areas that are most effective are: (Please select the top three. ) □ Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) □ Provision of a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) □ Evaluation/Assessment □ IEPs □ Qualified Related Service Providers □ Qualified Special Education Teachers □ Timely Implementation of IEPs □ Transition from Part C to Part B (transition from the infant/toddler program to preschool)

□ Materials in the Parent’s Native Language/Mode of Communication □ Special Education Monitoring by the State □ Due process Hearings and Complaints □ Transportation □ Accommodations/Modifications □ Parent Involvement □ No Improvement Needed □ Don’t Know □ Other: (please explain briefly) _____________________

• Based on my experiences with the special education services in my • State, I feel the areas that need most improvement are: • (Please select the top three. ) □ Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) □ Provision of a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) □ Evaluation/Assessment □ IEPs □ Qualified Related Service Providers □ Qualified Special Education Teachers □ Timely Implementation of IEPs □ Transition from Part C to Part B (transition from the infant/toddler program to preschool)

□ Materials in the Parent’s Native Language/Mode of Communication □ Special Education Monitoring by the State □ Due process Hearings and Complaints □ Transportation □ Accommodations/Modifications □ Parent Involvement □ No Improvement Needed □ Don’t Know □ Other: (please explain briefly) _____________________

• I know how to get the results of the U. S. Department of Education’s evaluation of my State’s performance under the federal special education laws (i. e. , the State’s Determination). □ Yes □ No • I know how to get the results of the State’s evaluation of my Local School District’s/LEA’s performance under the special education laws (i. e. , the LEA’s Determination). □ Yes □ No

• I think my Local School District/LEA in my State is providing the special education services and supports that my child needs. □ Yes □ No a. If no, please explain: _________________

Students With Disabilities Are Ready For Success Beyond High School Karen Ruddle Coordinator Office of Special Programs Secondary Transition Professional Development

4 Indicators for Transition #1 #2 #13 #14 Graduation Dropout IEP documentation Post school outcomes

What is the expectation for the end Indicator 14: Within oneresult? year of leaving high school, former students with disabilities are employed, enrolled in postsecondary education, or both.

I-14: Post School Outcomes DATA Exit Survey One Year Follow Up Survey Key Words: Timely, Accurate

How do we document details of transition in the IEP and assure items documented are correct? 1. Are there appropriate measurable postsecondary goals that address a) education or training, b) employment, and, as needed, c) independent living? Y N Y N Can the goals be measured? Will the goals occur after the student graduates from school? Based on the information available about the student, are the postsecondary goals appropriate for this student? If yes to all three, then select Y. If postsecondary goals are not stated, select N. 1. Are the postsecondary goals updated annually? Were the postsecondary goals reviewed and updated with the development of the current IEP? If yes, then select Y. If the goals were not updated with the current IEP, select N. 1. Is there evidence that the measurable postsecondary goals were based on age-appropriate transition assessment? Is the use of transition assessment for the postsecondary goals documented in the IEP? If yes, select Y. If no, select N. 1. Are there transition services in the IEP that will reasonably enable the student to meet his or her postsecondary goals? Are there transition services (at least one area) identified in the IEP that will help the student make progress toward the stated postsecondary goals? Transition services include: instruction, related services, community experiences, development of employment and other post school adult living objectives, and, if appropriate, If yes, select Y. If there are no transition services that support postsecondary goals, select N. 1. Do the transition services include courses of study that will reasonably enable the student to meet his or her postsecondary goals? acquisition of daily living skills, and provision of a functional vocational evaluation. Y N Y N Do the transition services include courses of study that align with the student’s postsecondary goals? If yes, select Y. If no, select N. 1. Is/are there annual IEP goal(s) related to the student’s transition services needs? Is/are there annual goal(s) in the IEP that is/are related to the student’s transition services needs? If yes, select Y. If no, select N. 1. Is there evidence that the student was invited to the IEP Team meeting where transition services were discussed? For the current year, is there documented evidence on the IEP or Notice of IEP Team Meeting form that the student was invited to attend the IEP Team meeting? If yes, select Y. If no, select N. 1. Is there evidence that a representative of any participating agency(s) was invited to the IEP Team meeting with the prior consent of the parent or adult student (has reached the age of majority)? Y N NA For the current year, is there evidence in the IEP that representatives of any of the following agencies/services were invited to participate in the IEP development. Agencies may include, but are not limited to: postsecondary education, vocational education, integrated employment (including supported employment), continuing and adult education, adult services, independent living or community participation for post-secondary goals? Was consent obtained from the parent or adult student? If yes to both questions, select Y. If no invitation is evident and a participating agency is likely to be responsible for providing or paying for transition services and there was consent to invite them to the IEP meeting, then select N. If it is too early to determine if the student will need outside agency involvement, or no agency is likely to provide or pay for transition services, select NA. Does the IEP meet the requirements of Indicator 13? Yes = all Ys or NA (question 8 only) for each item are selected OR No = one or more Ns are selected If no, address this issue on your self-assessment with an improvement plan. Y N Indicator 13: All IEPs for transition age students document 100% of transition requirements, as described by the 8 questions on the checklist, and include postsecondary goals with an annual update, transition assessment, course of study, services and activities enable achievement of postsecondary goals, IEP goals link to postsecondary goals, student and agencies participate in the IEP.

I-13: Documenting Transition DATA CSADA: I 13 Checklist Exit & Follow Up Surveys Key Words: Sustained, Document, Timely Correction

How do we help students stay in school and prepare for the future? Indicator 2: Dropout calculations for students with disabilities is the same as for all students and follows the same timelines. The rate for students with disabilities will align with that for all students.

I-2: Dropout DATA Annual Data Report Exit & Follow Up Surveys Key Words: Timely, Accurate, Prevention, Intervention, Alignment

How do we help students graduate with a regular diploma? Indicator 1: Graduation calculations for students with disabilities is the same as for all students and follows the same timelines. The rate for students with disabilities will align with that for all students.

I-1: Graduation DATA Annual Data Report Exit & Follow Up Surveys Key Words: Cohort, Timely, Accurate, Alignment, Intervention

Secondary Transition Resources WV TCCo. P Transition Collaborative Data Analysis Intra- and Inter- Agency Coordination Self Developed, WVDE, and Commercial Resources Discussion Forum Teleconferences and Webinars Internet and WVDE Websites Local Professional Development

Break 15 Minutes GO

Debbie Ashwell Monitoring Coordinator Office of Special Programs Lorraine Elswick Coordinator Office of Special Programs Professional Development Compliance Professional Development

Indictor 11 Child Find (Initial Evaluation Timelines) SPP pp. 111 -116/APR pp. 79 -83 • 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. (WV=80 days) • Timeline begins when any school personnel receive the Notice of Individual Evaluation/Reevaluation • Timeline ends when Eligibility Committee convenes

Indictor 11 Data Sources: WVEIS data entered at the district when initial consent it given or refused Periodic Data Pulls to : • Monitor • Verify missing fields and error data correction of previously identified noncompliance Special Education Data Collections & Reports December 3, 2010 February 4, 2011 April 4, 2011 Final data pull August 1, 2011

Requirements following Supply missing data Correct error data periodic data pulls Timeline: As Soon As Possible No submission to WVDE required in response. Requirements following final data pull Supply missing data Correct error data within the given timeline Timeline: By date provided in notice (generally 2 weeks) No submission to WVDE required in response.

OSP Activities/Initiatives to address Indicator 11 Form change to include a box for the date consent form was received by district Training was provided to new directors on available data and reports Data presented at Leadership Conference annually Letters of finding to districts with less than 100% compliance, improvement plan required Periodic data pulls to correct and complete data entry Presentation at the state School Psychologist Conference regarding Indicator 11 to raise awareness

Trend Data in WV 97 92 87 82 77 72 FFY 05 82. 5 FFY 9006 FFY 07 92. 7 FFY 08 95. 8

District Reasons for Exceeding the 80 -Day Timeline 51 53 50 Extenuating Circumstances Failure to produce child Request to reschedule Transferred out 128 41 31 District error Others

# of Days to Complete Evaluations 450 400 386 350 302 300 250 200 176 150 100 99 50 0 FFY 05 FFY 06 FFY 07 FFY 08

From Another Angle 99 total days from permission to EC 19 days beyond the 80 -day timeline Within the 30 days in which to complete an IEP = No Denial of FAPE IF both meetings were held the same day (EC & IEP) 176 total days from permission to EC 96 days beyond the 80 -day timeline 66 days beyond the 30 -day timeline in which to complete an IEP FAPE Denied

From Another Angle 302 total days from permission to EC 222 days beyond the 80 -day timeline 190 days beyond the 30 -day timeline in which to complete an IEP FAPE Denied 386 total days from permission to EC 306 days beyond the 80 -day timeline 276 days beyond the 30 -day timeline in which to complete an IEP FAPE Denied

OSEP Requirements Correction Verification of all eligible students receiving an IEP Generalization Set period of time where a district has 100% compliance with Indicator 11 For the 2009 -2010 year WVDE reviewed data in 2 month intervals

OSEP Changes Beginning with the 2010 -2011 school year, the 80 -day timeline will apply to all referrals from Birth-to-Three (Part C) agencies. IEPs implemented by the 3 rd birthday AND evaluations completed and ECs held within 80 days of parental consent

Indicator 15 General Supervision SPP pp. 140 -150/APR pp. 97 -109 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.

Indicator 15 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. % = (b / a) x 100

Findings of Noncompliance Data Sources Comprehensive Self-Assessment Desk Audit (CSADA) Annual Desk Audit (ADA) On-site Monitoring Internal Data Analysis State Complaints Due Process Hearings

Correction of Noncompliance Must be corrected as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from the date of written notification For any noncompliance not corrected within one year of identification, describe what actions, including technical assistance and enforcement actions that the State has taken.

Verification of Correction Based on the OSEP 09 -02 memo, verification of correction is a 2 -prong process: Correction of identified noncompliance in a timely manner (child-specific) AND Verify district is correctly implementing regulatory requirements (district-wide) SEA must verify by viewing the actual data or a sample of the actual data which demonstrates the correction.

State Initiatives & Activities Required data sources to be used by districts State Determination of Compliance based on state data system for SPP Indicators Refined process for improvement planning and progress reporting Follow-up visits to verify correction Request from OSP for additional reporting mechanisms through WVEIS Consistency of director menus on WVEIS

Impact on Student Achievement Consistent and accurate data leads to authentic improvement planning Correction of noncompliance leads to more appropriate services for students Correction of individual noncompliance leads to provision of FAPE for the student Correction of systemic noncompliance leads to FAPE for all students

Indicator 16 SPP – Page 151 / APR – Page 110 Percent of signed, written complaints with reports issued that were resolved within 60 -day timeline or a timeline extended for exceptional circumstances 100% Compliance

Indicator 16 Timelines 60 -day timeline begins on date of receipt of formal state complaint in the OSP Extensions issued for extenuating circumstances Extensions granted on a case-by-case basis

Indicator 16 Complaint resolution processes available Early Resolution – within 15 days of receipt of complaint Mediation – any time throughout the investigation, if agreed upon by parent and district Due Process Complaint – any time throughout the investigation If resolved, complaint is considered closed

Indicator 16 Correction of Noncompliance Violations of federal regulations and/or Policy 2419 require corrective action(s) Violations corrected within 15 days, but in no case later than one year of written notification (Letter of Findings) Corrective Action Status provided throughout correction period, if warranted Case closed upon OSP’s approval of corrective actions

Indicator 16 Data Collection and Reporting Data maintained in the Complaint Management System (CMS) Data annually reported in APR – February 1 Data reported to public on the OSP website Annual complaint summary published on the website Letters of Findings (LOFs) subject to Freedom of Information (FOIA) Requests

Indicator 16 Data FFY 2009 39 State Complaints filed 3 Insufficient – omitted legal allegations, facts, etc. 19 resolved through ER, Mediation, DPH or parent complainant withdrawal 17 complaints investigated within 60 day or approved extended timeline 100% Compliance

Indicator 16 Impact on Provision of FAPE § 300. 151(b) – Remedies for denial of appropriate services. The SEA must address: (1) The failure to provide appropriate services, including corrective action appropriate to address the needs of the child (such as compensatory services or monetary reimbursement; and (2) appropriate future provision of services for all children with disabilities.

Indicator 16 Activities to Ensure Correction Require corrective actions to rectify the improper practice, procedure Verification and approval of correction by OSP Follow-up conducted when notified practice is continuing On-site monitoring verification of correction

Percent of fully adjudicated due process hearing requests that were fully adjudicated within the 45 day timeline or a timeline properly extended. Indicator 17 is a State-level Compliance Indicator

Indicator 17 Data Source WVDE maintains Dispute Resolution Data Base CMS FFY 2009 -2010 20 Due Process Complaints 3 Fully Adjudicated 1 Within 45 days 2 Extended properly 100% Filed

Indicator 18 Resolution Sessions SPP pp 158 -159/APR pp 116 -117 Percent of hearing requests that went to resolution sessions, which were resolved through resolution session settlement agreements. Indicator 18 is a State-level Compliance Indicator

Indicator 18 Data Source WVDE maintains Dispute Resolution Data Base CMS 4 4 Resolution Sessions Held Settlement Agreements 100%

Indicator 19 Mediation SPP pp 160 -163/APR pp 118 -120 Percent of mediations held that resulted in mediation agreements. Indicator 19 is a State-level Compliance Indicator

Indicator 19 Data Source WVDE maintains Dispute Resolution Data Base CMS 17 Mediation Request (3 of the 17 request were in a due process hearing) • 16 Mediations Held • 10 Agreements • • 62% West Virginia Did not meet the target of 81%

Indicator 20 Data SPP pp 164 -170/APR 121 -125 Data is submitted in a timely manner and is both valid and reliable All data for WV 618 Annual Data reports are collected through WVEIS except Personnel Report which is in paper form.

Tabletop Discussio ns RESA 3 RESA 6 RESA 1 RESA 4 RESA 7 RESA 2 RESA 5 RESA 8