Presentation - Washington Association of School Administrators

wasa.oly.org

Presentation - Washington Association of School Administrators

Washington Integrated

Sub-Recipient Monitoring System

WISM In Review

Two-Year Pilot Results

August 2, 2013

Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction

Special Education Office

(360) 725-6075


Disclaimer

Training provided today is meant to supplement and not

supplant reading bulletins and accompanying documents;

guidance from the U.S. Department of Education; chapter

392-172A WAC; Part 300 of the federal regulations; and, the

Individuals with Disabilities Act. This presentation and/or

materials should be viewed and applied by users according to

their specific needs. The presentation should be used as

guidance and is not intended as legal advice.

Douglas H. Gill, Ed.D.,

Director, Special Education

2


Workshop Goals

• Briefly review the key milestones of the comprehensive,

risk-based, monitoring system including key concepts

and guiding principles.

• Focus on two-year data trends from Systems Analysis

activities for both student-level and systems level

results.

• Identify strategies for preparing for and participating in

on-site visits and off-site desk reviews.

• Save time for reflection, lessons learned, and participant

input

3


Key Concepts

• Integrated fiscal accountability is the “glue” that

holds the General Supervisory System together.

• Monitoring is like an ongoing, two-way

communication.

*Every district – every year*

• To be both effective and efficient, monitoring

must focus on finance, compliance, and

performance.

4


Guiding Principles

• Don’t ever view monitoring as just a series of

separate distinct events.

• Integrated monitoring must encompass and

include all activities from pre-award to close-out.

• To be effective, the Washington Integrated Sub-

Recipient Monitoring (WISM) System must be in

writing, widely disseminated, and fully

understood.

5


I.

Pre-Award

(All LEAs)

II.

Determinations

(All LEAs)

III.

Systems

Analysis

(Visits & Desk Reviews -

Only Designated LEAs)

IV.

Close-Out

(All LEAs)

6


Single Federal Fund Application

(iGrants Form Package 267)

• Page 1 – Budget & Assurances

• Page 2 – Use of Funds

• Page 3 – CEIS

• Page 4 – Child Find &

Proportionate Share

• Page 5 – General Supervision

• Page 6 – Appendices

OSPI Program Area:

iGrants System 2013-14

Form Package Profile

iGrants Form Package 267

Special Education IDEA Part B Sections 611 and 619

Federal Grant

Special Education

Purpose:

Provides financial assistance to Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) on behalf of students in need of

special education and related services.

Application Information

Board Approval Required:

No

Form Package Due Date:

Monday, July 01, 2013 5:00 PM

Project Period:

7/1/2013through8/31/2014

Eligible SubGrantees

Other Related Information




Reference URLs and Materials

Grant Award Reporting and Processes for FY2012-13 (B051-12)

Special Education Maintenance of Effort Worksheet

Special Education Program Risk-Based Self-Assessment

IDEA Part B Budget Information

Timeline for Grant Administration

Special Education IDEA Tutorial

Use of Funds Bulletin

Website Addresses

Special Education/Finance-Grants

School District

Eligible SubGrantees and the term "School District" includes LEAs, Washington State

Center for Childhood Deafness and Hearing Loss, and Washington State School for the

Blind.

Allocations include a base allocation and relative population and poverty allocation.

The form package is due July 1, 2013 for the July 1 spending start date. LEAs that submit

after July 1 will receive the spending start date in which all required components 7 are

received. The form package is due September 3, 2013 for the September 1

spending start date.


• LEA/ESA implements grant award…

– …making available to all students eligible for

special education a free appropriate public

education (FAPE) that emphasizes special

education and related services designed to meet

their unique needs and prepare them for further

education, employment, and independent living.

WAC 392-172A-01005

8


• IDEA 2004 requires the U.S. Department of

Education to rate States according to their

performance (IDEA 616(a) and CFR 300.600 &

300.602)

• Meets Requirements (Level 1)

• Needs Assistance (Level 2)

• Needs Intervention (Level 3)

• Needs Substantial Intervention (Level 4)

9


Incorporating A Risk-Based Approach

(Used by OSPI Special Education)

• To identify LEAs/ESAs which are more likely to:

– benefit from technical assistance and support

in order to meet the goals of IDEA, federal

fiscal requirements, and programmatic

requirements or

– otherwise present a greater risk to the federal

interest because of the sheer size of the

LEA/ESA grant portfolio.

• Through the use of a risk matrix in conjunction

with data performance analysis

10


(On-site Visits / Off-site Desk Reviews)

• Systems Level Review

– WISM Critical Elements Analysis Guide (CrEAG)

• Data Verification

• Fiscal Accountability

• Dispute Resolution

• Monitoring Priority Areas

• Student Level Review

– IEP Review Form (revised September 2012)

– Evaluation Review Form

http://www.k12.wa.us/SpecialEd/Data/ModelStateForms.aspx

11


• Impact Summary (Appendix I of the 2012-13 iGrants Form

Package 267)

– The LEA/ESA will need to maintain timely,

accurate, and comprehensive fiscal and

programmatic records pertaining to budgets,

expenditures, compliance, and student outcomes

in order to submit a year-end summary report.

• Expenditure Report – F196

• Submittal of IDEA Part B Compliance Package (if

applicable)

13


Two-Year Pilot Results

Where are the challenges

– Critical Element I Data Management

• Related Question A – Data systems

• Related Question B – LRE reporting

– Critical Element II Fiscal (A) & (B)

• Related Question (A)-B – Time and Effort Tracking

• Related Question (A)-C – Cost Allocation

• Related Question (B)-D – Contract Oversight

– Critical Element III Dispute Resolution

• Almost exclusively recommendations only

– Critical Element IV Monitoring Priority Areas

• Related Question B – Least Restrictive Environment

• Related Question C – Discipline

• Related Question E – Secondary Transition

15


Sample Required Actions

Critical Element I – Data Management

• Remove the identified students from the district’s

November federal child count or submit

documentation to show the students were eligible

to be counted.

• Verify correct LRE code for identified students

and provide documentation of review and

revisions to the district’s November federal child

count.

16


Sample Required Actions

Critical Element II (A & B) – Fiscal

• Submit time and effort documentation for

identified staff for the specified months.

• Develop and apply proportional cost allocation

model to preschool program and provide

documentation, including adjusting journal

entries, transaction recap, & expenditure reports.

17


Two-Year Pilot Results

Where are the challenges

(Continued)

– Critical Element V IEP (A) Implementation

• Related Question A

– Sufficient Evaluations

– Consistency between evaluations, IEP, and service delivery

– Critical Element V IEP (B) Procedural

• Related Question A

– Measurable Annual Goals

– Present Levels of academic achievement and functional

performance

• Related Question C

– Frequency, location and duration of services

18


100%

95%

90%

93.1%

2011-12 Monitoring Results

Total of 1,015 files reviewed (26 Districts)

97.1%

89.8%

99.6%

95.6%

90.3%

95.8%

85%

80%

79.5%

75%

70%

68.2%

65%

60%

60.1%

55%

50%

Sufficient

Evals (807)

Consistency

(945)

SDI (986)

Secondary

Transition

(122 of 203)

Present

Levels (911)

Measurable

Goals (692)

Progress

Rept (1011)

State Assmt Summary of

(970) Svcs (917)

IEP Team

(972)

19


2012-13 Monitoring Results

Total of 760 files reviewed (10 Districts & ESA)

100%

95%

94.1%

96.1%

96.8%

97.1%

96.7%

93.6%

97.0%

93.3%

90%

85%

80%

78.6%

75%

71.2%

70%

65%

60%

55%

50%

Sufficient

Evals (715)

Consistency

(730)

SDI (736)

Secondary

Transition

(116 of 163)

Present

Levels (738)

Measurable

Goals (597)

Progress

Rept (735)

State Assmt

(711)

Summary of

Services

(737)

IEP Team

(709)

20


Aggregate Monitoring Results (2011-13)

Total of 1775 files reviewed (36 Districts & 1 ESA)

100%

95%

94.4%

97.0%

92.9%

98.4%

94.7%

93.2%

94.7%

90%

85%

85.7%

80%

75%

72.6%

70%

65%

65.0%

60%

55%

50%

Sufficient

Evals (1522)

Consistency

(1675)

SDI (1722) Secondary

Transition

(238 of 366)

Present Measurable

Levels (1649) Goals (1289)

Progress

Rept (1746)

State Assmt

(1681)

Summary of

Services

(1654)

IEP Team

(1681)

21


100%

90%

2011-13 Secondary Transition Monitoring Results

(366 total transition files reviewed)

87.7%

97.0%

92.3%

91.5%

95.9%

80%

76.8%

70%

65.0%

60%

50%

Total

(238)

Assessment

(321)

Postsecondary

Goals (281)

Transition

Services (355)

Course of Study

(338)

Student Invite

(335)

Agency Invite

22

(351)


100%

2011-13 Monitoring Results by ESD

95%

90%

85%

ESD 105 (183

files, 8 SDs)

80%

75%

70%

ESD 112 (336

files, 4 SDs/ 1

ESA)

ESD 113 (239

files, 11 SDs)

65%

ESD 121 (659

files, 4 SDs)

60%

55%

50%

Sufficient

Evals

Consistency SDI Secondary

Transition

Present

Levels

Measurable

Goals

Progress

Rept

State Assmt Summary of

Services

IEP Team

23


2011-13 Monitoring Results by District Size Group

100%

95%

90%

85%

80%

75%

SM/NH (43

files, 6 SDs)

MD (77 files,

6 SDS)

70%

LG (302 files,

13 SDs)

65%

XL (1353 files,

8 SDs/1 ESA)

60%

55%

50%

Sufficient

Evals

Consistency SDI Secondary

Transition

Present

Levels

Measurable

Goals

Progress

Rept

State Assmt Summary of

Services

IEP Team

24


Preparation Strategies

Systems Analysis Activities

• Model State Forms

• Revised Evaluation & IEP Module

• Program Risk-Based Self-Assessment Tool

• WISM Critical Elements Analysis Guide

(CrEAG)

• Regional ESD Meetings

25


III. Pre-Review Activities

• Notification Letter

– District is sent a letter in advance from OSPI

with date of review and request for advance

documents

• Conference Call

– Team Coordinator and Special Education

Administrator will conference in advance of onsite

visit to confirm daily schedule, answer

emerging questions, etc.

• Student Records Review

– Comprehensive representative sampling of

currently enrolled students receiving special

education and related services

26


III. Core Review Activities

• Data Integration

– Review and analysis of relative data elements

across the general supervisory system

– Review and analysis of data/information from

district documentation checklist

• On-site Visits

– Between one and three days based on district

size and complexity of district systems

• Off-site Desk Reviews

– Designated two week window for core review

activities.

Link to Orientation Webinar:

http://www.k12.wa.us/SpecialEd/programreview/default.aspx.

27


III. Post-Review Activities

• Follow-Up Inquiries

– As may be needed on fiscal, compliance, and/or

performance data collection(s), reporting, and analysis

• Peer Review Activities

– Preliminary results of student file review confirmed to

ensure inter-rater reliability

• Report Development

– Review of parent survey results

– Written report with appended Required Action Tracker is

issued using Washington’s CrEAG Report Tool

– Final Report Briefing through K-20 or conference call

(at district request)

28


Lessons Learned

So far….

• Resource Assessment

– Capacity building

• Timing

– Notification Letters

– Issuing Reports

• Communication

– Orientations for Visits and Desk Reviews

– Clearer distinction between required actions and

technical assistance recommendations

29


Reflections & Input

30


For More Information…

Valerie Arnold

Jennifer Story

Program Review Coordinator Program Review Supervisor

(360) 725-6075 (360) 725-6075

Valerie.Arnold@k12.wa.us

Jennifer.Story@k12.wa.us

Website Link:

http://www.k12.wa.us/SpecialEd/default.aspx

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines