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. 

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 process.  Some versions of these protocols reflect a comprehensive array of regulatory requirements (e.g., Performance Review, Collaborative Review) while other versions reflect “focused monitoring” which include only those regulatory requirements that are considered most closely aligned with the focus of the review (e.g., LRE, Achievement, Transition/Exiting, IDEA/Selected Practices).  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.

The monitoring process used for the school district of the City of New York is as follows:  Although NYC is one school district, the NYCDOE has established ten separate instructional regions.  Each year, a formal monitoring review is conducted in each region regardless of what data indicate.  Although there are inter- and intra-regional differences in the performance of students with disabilities, all regions are in need of improvement.  Given the large number of schools located within each region, criteria are established by which a sample of schools are selected since the number of school buildings in each of the instructional regions ranges from approximately 100–150+ facilities.  In general, efforts are made to ensure a sample that is representative of the region as well as of any other administrative unit of the NYCDOE (alternative programs, District 75).  Depending upon the scope of the review, a sampling of schools would typically consist of 10-12 schools in addition to the regional CSE and each building’s CSE subcommittee.  Results from such reviews are then generalized.  Corrective actions are directed to either regional personnel (if the noncompliance is found to be unique to the region) or to central NYCDOE administration (if the noncompliance is found to be systemic).  The focus of the monitoring is different from year to year and is determined through a review of data, complaints from parents and/or other sources.

In areas outside of NYC, school districts are selected for monitoring based on data, including: data reflecting performance on the VESID Key Performance Indicators, number of years since last review, number of founded complaint issues in the last three years, other SED interventions, and regional 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 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 private sector non-approved 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 (2004-2005)

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 

Desk Audit

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 are reflected in Table 1 for the baseline identified for A & B.  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. To sort out the findings of noncompliance that are not related to priority areas and indicators would require substantial time and effort.  This was not possible to accomplish, in the timeline allotted for the development of the SPP.  However, as NYS transitions to a new electronic tracking system during the 2005-06 school year and revises its monitoring protocols to be consistent with IDEA 2004 and the SPP, the data will be analyzed, sorted and reported in future documents according to priority and nonpriority areas, consistent with OSEP guidance.  

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 NYCDOE.  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 identified and 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

$300,000 in 2005-06

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

Operationalize the 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 Center for Special Education Accountability Monitoring

Regional Resource Centers

Technical Assistance Alliance for Parent Centers

SEQA and Policy staff

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

2006-11

SETRC