Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2010

 Overview of the State Performance Plan Development

 See Overview of the State Performance Plan Development preceding Indicator #1.

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:

  1. Percent of noncompliance related to monitoring priority areas and indicators corrected within one year of identification:

a.     # of findings of noncompliance made related to monitoring priority areas and indicators.

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. 

For any noncompliance not corrected within one year of identification, describe what actions, including technical assistance and/or enforcement that the State has taken.

  1. Percent of noncompliance related to areas not included in the above monitoring priority areas and indicators corrected within one year of identification:

a.     # of findings of noncompliance made related to such areas.

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.

For any noncompliance not corrected within one year of identification, describe what actions, including technical assistance and/or enforcement that the State has taken.

  1. Percent of noncompliance identified through other mechanisms (complaints, due process hearings, mediations, etc.) corrected within one year of identification:

a.     # of agencies in which noncompliance was identified through other mechanisms.

b.     # of findings of noncompliance made.

c.     # of corrections completed as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from identification.
 

Percent = c divided by b times 100. 
 

In 2006, USED revised the baseline measurement for this indicator as follows:   

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

For any noncompliance not corrected within one year of identification, describe what actions, including technical assistance and/or enforcement that the State has taken.

 

Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process 

SED has developed an array of formal monitoring protocols for the review of public school districts, BOCES, approved private day and residential schools, child care institutions, charter schools, approved preschools, State supported schools, incarcerated youth, etc.  These protocols comprise the SEQA on-site monitoring process.  Some versions of these protocols reflect a comprehensive array of regulatory requirements (while other versions reflect “focused monitoring” which include only those regulatory requirements that are considered most closely aligned with the focus of the review.  In any given school year, a sample number of school districts and non-district programs around the State are identified for a formal monitoring review.

School districts and community school districts (in NYC) are selected for monitoring based on State Performance Plan data.  Beginning with 2006-07, VESID aligned the selection criteria with specific Indicators related to graduation rates, drop out rates and performance on elementary and middle level English language arts and mathematics State assessments in order to identify the districts with the poorest performance.  Secondary factors include date of last review, other SED interventions, number of founded complaints during the last three years and regional SEQA staffing resources.  Input from regional network partners is considered prior to a final determination being made jointly by the SEQA Regional Supervisor and the BOCES District Superintendent.

In addition to the on-site monitoring activities described above, SED now collects data specific to SPP Indicators 4, 9, 10, and 13, through a district self-review process (see specific indicators for details) and data specific to Indicators 11 and 12, through the PD system (see specific indicators for details).  Districts reporting noncompliance in these areas are required to correct all instances of noncompliance within one year of identification.  Baseline data in these areas will be reported in the February 2007 SPP and issues of noncompliance identified through these processes will be reported in subsequent years.

In addition to the monitoring of public school programs, SEQA (both in NYC and upstate) monitors a selection of private sector programs each year.  SEQA regional offices have a designated caseload of approved private preschool, day and residential schools, and/or State-operated schools, charter schools, agency programs (OMRDD, OMH) as well as programs offered through the Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS). Additionally, SEQA reviews child-specific approvals of private residential school age programs that serve NYS students with disabilities receiving Emergency Interim Placement.  Due to the number of schools in these categories, the selection of these programs for monitoring is determined through a review of data, incidence of formal complaints, and stakeholder input (contracting school districts, parents, other State agency and/or education department review). Monitoring priorities are also established by SEQA in consideration of major policy/regulatory implementation.

NYS uses a data based computer system, Quality Assurance Information System (QAIS), to track all monitoring reviews conducted in each Regional Office across the State. Each review is individually logged as soon as selections are made and data is entered at all critical stages (date of initiation, final report issued, compliance issues identified, compliance assurance plans and due dates, status of each issue, date of corrective action(s), date of resolution, etc).  Regional Office supervisors use a variety of means to monitor timelines (internal logs, QAIS, status reports).   

NYS also uses QAIS to track all written signed complaints received by VESID by each SEQA office. All correspondence meeting this criterion are logged into this system.  SEQA staff also use an additional internal log to ensure accurate data collection.  Formal complaints are individually logged and the data is entered at all critical stages (60th day, findings issued, specific issues involved, status of each issue, due date for corrective action(s), date of resolution, etc.)  SEQA supervisors use a variety of means to monitor timelines such as internal logs, QAIS and complaint summaries.


Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004-05) - Reported in the SPP submitted in 2006

The State's baseline on the percent of issues of noncompliance identified that were corrected within one year of the report being issued, based on the revised measurement standard, is 81.20 percent.

 

 

a. # of findings of noncompliance

b. # of corrections completed within one year from identification

SEQA Reviews

1367

1150

60 day complaints

405

289

Total

1772

1439

 

Percent = [1439(b) divided by 1772 (a)] =.8120 times 100 = 81.20 %

 

A & B:   

Of the 1,367 issues of noncompliance identified in monitoring reports issued during the period 7/1/03- 6/30/04, 84.1 percent were corrected within one year of the report being issued with an additional 8   percent corrected as of November 9, 2005.  The data represents a total of 98 agencies monitored. 

C:           Of the 405 issues of noncompliance identified through the State complaint process during the period 7/1/03-6/30/04, 71.4 percent were corrected within one year of the report being issued, with an additional 5.19 percent corrected as of November 9, 2005. The data represent a total of 100 agencies in which noncompliance was identified through the State complaint process 

Table 1: Compliance Issues Identified through Monitoring

Review Reports
2003-2004

# Reports Issued

(a) # Of Findings

(b) # Corrected Within 1 Year

% Corrected Within 1 Year

Achievement

9

59

41

69.5%

LRE

11

63

45

71.4%

Transition/Exiting

2

19

16

84.2%

Performance

37

861

711

82.6%

Charter School

4

4

4

100.0%

Focused Charter School

7

21

20

95.2%

Focused OCFS

1

3

3

100.0%

Non-District

4

165

146

88.5%

Preschool

3

22

21

95.5%

Focus Preschool

20

150

143

95.3%

Totals

98

1367

1150

84.1%

 

The following table identifies the percentage of noncompliance issues identified and corrected through State complaints categorized according to the five domain areas (desk audit, evaluation, due process IEP, FAPE/LRE) used in our comprehensive Performance Review protocol and in QAIS.

Table 2: Compliance Issues Identified through State Complaints

Areas of Noncompliance

(b) # of Findings 

 

(c) # Corrected Within 1 Year 

% Corrected Within 1 Year 

Written Policies

35

24

68.6%

Evaluation

49

32

65.3%

Due Process

79

61

77.2%

IEP

53

39

73.6%

FAPE/LRE

189

133

70.4%

Totals

405

289

71.4%

 

Discussion of Baseline Data 

All findings of noncompliance identified through monitoring activities and through the State complaint process are reflected in the table above.  Most of the reviews included in the baseline data were focused in nature, targeting primarily the priority areas and indicators, and those that were not focused were heavily weighted in the priority areas.  

For all school districts outside of NYC, the focused review process has been redesigned to ensure formal follow-up by SEQA staff during the second and third years following initiation of the review.  The role of SETRC in providing technical assistance to school districts in resolution of noncompliance has been strengthened.  Additionally, SEQA managers, along with BOCES District Superintendents, now have responsibility for determining the allocation of SETRC resources on a regional basis to meet the specific training and technical assistance needs of districts.

 

In NYC, the process is different due to the organizational structure of NYC DOE.  The NYC SEQA regional office is responsible for this one school district and conducts focused reviews in each instructional region every year.  As a result, follow-up activities occur simultaneous to the implementation of a new focused review.  For this reason, the NYC SEQA regional office designs focused monitoring protocols each year that are representative of the current issues affecting students with disabilities.

 

For any noncompliance not corrected within the timeline prescribed on the corrective action plan, NYS has implemented a hierarchy of enforcement procedures on a case-by-case basis.  Those steps have included written communication with district/agency administrators, Boards of Education and BOCES District Superintendents.  In some cases IDEA funds have been frozen or withheld until such time that the district/agency makes adequate progress toward correcting noncompliance.  In some cases, IDEA funds have been redirected to address areas of noncompliance. 

 

Measurable and Rigorous Targets 

FFY

Measurable and Rigorous Target

2005
(2005-06)

100% of noncompliance issues identified through the State’s general supervision system (including monitoring, complaints, hearings, etc.) will be corrected within one year from identification.

2006
(2006-07)

100% of noncompliance issues identified through the State’s general supervision system (including monitoring, complaints, hearings, etc.) will be corrected within one year from identification.

2007
(2007-08)

100% of noncompliance issues identified through the State’s general supervision system (including monitoring, complaints, hearings, etc.) will be corrected within one year from identification.

2008
(2008-09)

100% of noncompliance issues identified through the State’s general supervision system (including monitoring, complaints, hearings, etc.) will be corrected within one year from identification.

2009
(2009-10)

100% of noncompliance issues identified through the State’s general supervision system (including monitoring, complaints, hearings, etc.) will be corrected within one year from identification.

2010
(2010-11)

100% of noncompliance issues identified through the State’s general supervision system (including monitoring, complaints, hearings, etc.) will be corrected within one year from identification.

Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources 

Activity

Timeline

Resources

Implement a new computer data system, Comprehensive Special Education Information System (CSEIS) to:

·        provide easily retrievable data regarding monitoring results and resolution of compliance issues;

·        provide managers and all regional staff with timely notice of upcoming due dates;

·        generate letters to school districts notifying them of pending corrective actions; and

·        notify managers and regional staff when dunning letters are due. 

Spring 2006

CSEIS

SEDCAR and SEQA staff

Generate regional monthly reports related to compliance timelines. 

2006-11

CSEIS

Provide training to SEQA staff on implementation of CSEIS and strategies to improve timely resolution of instances of noncompliance identified through monitoring and complaints. 

2005-06

SEQA, SEDCAR and SETRC staff

Implement new revised “Procedures for Ensuring the Identification and Resolution of Compliance Issues” to address overdue compliance assurance documentation.  The procedures will include progressively shorter deadlines with increased involvement of higher-level district and regional administrators. 

January 2006

SEQA staff

National Center for Special Education Accountability Monitoring (NCSEAM)

Provide Procedures for Ensuring the Identification and Resolution of Compliance Issues with all program review final reports and complaint finding letters to ensure districts/agencies understand the State’s procedures to correct noncompliance.

2006-11

SEQA staff

Establish a new Nondistrict Unit to provide general oversight of all in state and out of state private day and residential programs for students with disabilities. 

2005-11

Nondistrict SEQA Unit

Realign the current monitoring processes and protocols, as well as QAIS/CSEIS, to support meeting the SPP targets.

2005-07

Quality Assurance Workgroup, Policy, SEQA and SEDCAR staff

Provide guidance documents, sample forms and notices, and other technical assistance materials to assist districts/agencies in complying with regulatory requirements.

2006-11

Guidance documents, including but not limited to:

Sample IEP and Guidance Document

Individual Evaluations and Eligibility Determinations

Discipline Procedures for Students with Disabilities

Sample Forms and Notices

 

Develop criteria to determine if a district/agency is in need of assistance, needs intervention, or needs substantial intervention, consistent with the provisions of section 616 of IDEA, and establish procedures for initiating actions consistent with IDEA and federal regulations.

2006

Quality Assurance Workgroup, Policy, SEQA and SEDCAR staff

Develop new data entry systems to report identification and correction of noncompliance relating to suspension, disproportionality, timeliness of evaluations and services and transition services (indicators 4, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13)

2005-08

Pupils with Disabilities (PD) data collection forms, CSEIS, ISRS

Identify other strategies to efficiently and effectively address issues related to noncompliance.

2006-11

National technical assistance centers:

·        National Center for Special Education Accountability Monitoring

·        Regional Resource Centers

·        Technical Assistance Alliance for Parent Centers

Establish training priorities for SETRC regional trainers based on data generated from CSEIS indicating consistent areas of noncompliance.

2006-11

SETRC