Results-Driven Accountability (RDA) Parent Survey Continuous Improvement Process: Frequently Asked Questions

Results-Driven Accountability (RDA)
C o n t i n u o u s Imp r o v e me n t P r o c e s s : F r e q u e n t l y A s k e d Q u e s t i o n s
Parent Survey
What does it mean if I have 16% of my parent surveys returned?
If you have 16% of your parent surveys returned, you have met the minimum
threshold for the response rate for parent surveys. This means that you will not
need to develop an action plan for 2015-16 designed to increase your response
rate.
Should I aim for a response rate higher than 16% for my parent surveys?
Timelines
•
Conduct record reviews based
on the student sample.
•
The ESSU will support the AUs by analyzing the effectiveness of various
strategies that are currently being used across AUs to assist in determining
which actions appear to result in achieving better response rates.
June 1, 2015: All 2014-15
record reviews should be
completed in the ESSU Data
With regard to survey data, the higher your response rate, the more you will be
able to rely on the data submitted.
With the parent survey data representing a sample of your population (i.e., 100
or 200 families of your total population of families with children on IEPs), the
survey itself is already a proportion of your total population (e.g., if your
population of students on IEPs is 500 then 100 families of 500 total families
would mean 20% of your total population). If your sample’s response rate is
currently 50%, it means you have received 50% of the total number of surveys
distributed. In the example presented here, a 50% response rate for a sample
that represents 20% of the families in the AU would mean that you are
receiving responses from 10% of the total population (i.e., 50 families).
Therefore, when a survey represents a sample of your total population versus
your entire population, it is even more important to have the highest response
rate possible in order to be able to have the results inform your work.
August 2014 - May 2015 –
Management System.
•
June 2015 - Submit the
signed verification of Indicator
7 data
•
September 15, 2015 –
complete the submission of
data entered in the ESSU Data
Management System from
post-school interviews
(Indicator 14 data collection
on students who exited one
year prior and are 16+ years
of age)
We requested a second set of the parent surveys to disseminate to our
families. When will we receive these surveys?
The ESSU will be sending the second set of surveys within the next week to those AUs that had requested them.
The AUs should be receiving them shortly if they have not already received them.
April 2015
Page 1
RESULTS DRIVEN ACCOUNTABILITY: CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT PROCESS FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
2
Fiscal
If we have areas identified in our Fiscal Self-Audit as areas of need (i.e., red lifesavers), should we be working
on those areas now? Or wait for training?
The ESSU’s fiscal team has been analyzing the data from the fiscal self-audits and will bring these results to the
May fiscal training being provided to the AU Directors. AUs should wait until May; next steps will be announced
at that time. For added information, the ESSU Fiscal Team presented the following Talking Points to the Fiscal
Practices & Procedures Advisory group in March, describing in detail the Fiscal Self-Audit process and results.
Why?
 Monitoring of IDEA Part B – Subpart C – Local Education Agency (LEA) Eligibility
 34 CFR §300.200: An LEA is eligible for assistance under Part B of the Act for a fiscal year if the agency
submits a plan that provides assurances to the State Education Agency (SEA) that the LEA meets
specific conditions
 34 CFR §300.201: The LEA, in providing for the education of children with disabilities within its
jurisdiction, must have in effect policies, procedures, and programs that are consistent with the State
policies and procedures
 34 CFR §300.211: The LEA must provide the SEA with information necessary to enable the SEA to
carry out its duties under Part B of the Act
 2013 - Developing process for fiscal monitoring as part of CIMP (Continuous Improvement Monitoring
Process) when the move to RDA and changes to circulars required us to rethink the format/process
 New Uniform Grants Guidance (UGG) consolidated OMB Circulars A-21, A87, A-89, A-102 and A-110,
A-122, A-133 into a uniform set of rules
 Release of newly updated EDGAR – December 19, 2014
 Effective with new federal funding (for IDEA – July 1, 2015)
 To increase efficiency and effectiveness of federal awards and strengthen oversight of federal funds
to reduce the risk of fraud, waste and abuse
 SEA is required to do a Risk Assessment for all LEAs (Administrative Units - AUs)
 Single audits do not provide the level of information needed to ensure compliance with monitoring
of IDEA funds, and are not required for AUs receiving less than $500K in Federal funds (threshold is
increasing to $750K on July 1, 2015)
How?
 Collaboration with our Grants Fiscal Management Office and ESSU’s Results Driven Accountability (RDA) team
 Consultation with Brustein and Manasevit – our DC attorneys
 AGA (Association of Government Accountants) Monitoring Tools – 1) Risk Assessment, 2)Financial and
Administrative
 Federal Register (Vol. 78, No. 248) Part III Office of Management and Budget
 The Administrator’s Handbook on EDGAR, 2nd Edition
 Federal Register Part II Department of Education - IDEA
When?
 January 2014 – Fiscal Self-Assessment draft
 March 2014 – Fiscal Self-Assessment final to EDAC
 April 2014 – Explained role of Fiscal Self-Assessment in RDA to special education directors at state meeting
April 2015
Page 2
RESULTS DRIVEN ACCOUNTABILITY: CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT PROCESS FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
3
 May 2014 – Unveiled “IDEA and ECEA Fiscal Checklist” at the ESSU/Grants Fiscal joint training – allowed time
for AUs to dig in
 August 2014 – Finalized “IDEA and ECEA Fiscal Checklist” in the Statewide Data Management System
 January 16, 2015 – 100% of AUs completed the checklist on time
100
Internal Controls
95
Accounting
90
Record Retention and Access
85
Grant Management and Administration
80
Payroll/Time Distribution
Procurement
75
Self-Audit
Indirect Costs
Property Management
Next Steps?
 CDE/ESSU will be receiving TA and training from:
 OSEP
 Brustein and Manasevit
 Center for IDEA Fiscal Reporting (CIFR)
 WestEd
 CDE/ESSU will then:
 Dig into data further
 Use baseline data from IDEA and ECEA Fiscal Checklist to provide TA and training to AUs
 Measure annual progress with AUs
Compliance
When do we need to have all of our record reviews completed?
The Transition IEP record reviews were completed in December 2014. The record reviews for the remainder of
the sample need to be completed by June 1, 2015.
Is an AU able to request assistance from ESSU for the record reviews? What type of technical assistance is
available?
The Accountability Specialists at the ESSU are able to work with any AUs that request technical assistance. The
AU Director may make requests such as having a team from ESSU conduct review records with the AU team;
requesting an inter-rater reliability check be conducted by the ESSU, i.e., where the ESSU reviews a sample of
the AU’s records without initially viewing the AU’s responses to determine inter-rater agreement; or, the AU
Director may request specific technical assistance around a particular question from the record review. To
request technical assistance, please contact your AU Partner.
April 2015
Page 3
RESULTS DRIVEN ACCOUNTABILITY: CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT PROCESS FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
4
Please provide clarification about which students meet participation requirements for EEOs/alternate
assessment.
The Colorado Academic Standards’ alternate academic achievement standards are called the Colorado Academic
Standards/Extended Evidence Outcomes (EEOs). In order for a student’s IEP Team to consider alternate
standards for instruction and assessment, an optional worksheet has been designed to assist the IEP Team as
they work through the process. These are called “participation guidelines” and are posted
here: http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdesped/instructionalstandards . There is also a companion document and
PowerPoint to give more information.
The IEP Team considers the body of evidence and evaluations that support the existence of a cognitive disability
and then determines whether that cognitive disability can be considered to be in the “significant” cognitive
disability range. The definition of significant cognitive disability is outlined in Colorado statute
http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdesped/iep_forms.asp#eligibility in the Intellectual Disability category. (Significant
cognitive disability may co-exist with other disabilities or be considered a multiple disability; but the eligibility
criteria checklist outlines the requirements. There are also guidelines:
http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdesped/guideliensfordeterminationeligibility_id_md
*Just as a note, there are some disability categories that exclude the existence of an intellectual disability in the
eligibility requirements, such as Severe Learning Disability (SLD) and Serious Emotional Disorder (SED). The
Speech Language Impairment category does not include the existence of a significant cognitive disability as a
qualifier. (SLI) Therefore, in these disability categories, the IEP Team would not consider the use of alternate
standards for instruction or participation in alternate assessment.
If the student’s characteristics as a learner consistently indicate that the impact of the disability is indeed in the
significant cognitive disability range, at that point, the IEP Team can consider which academic achievement
standard is the most appropriate for instruction, and then for assessment built upon that academic achievement
standard. Just because the student is considered to have a significant cognitive disability, that is not an
automatic determiner that the student MUST receive instruction on alternate standards; they may, but they are
not required to. The IEP Team will make that determination based upon the body of evidence. (Criterion# 4) If
the team determines that the impact of the disability is such that it is most appropriate for the student to
receive instruction on alternate academic achievement standards and their progress evaluated using alternate
assessment based upon alternate academic achievement standards, then the IEP Team designates alternate
standards for instruction/assessment. Such a decision indicates that the student’s instruction will be modified
and is based upon the alternate enrolled grade-level expectations through the EEOs, which reflect a different
level of complexity, content and rigor. The student’s progress toward those standards is then evaluated by the
Colorado Measures of Academic Success Alternate assessments in English Language Arts/Literacy, Mathematics
(CoAlt: DLM) and CoAlt: Science and Social Studies. If the student meets participation requirements for
alternate standards and assessment, then ALL district/state assessment is taken in the alternate form. (Alternate
ACCESSS) For students enrolled in 11th Grade, this includes the 11th Grade Alternate Assessment for the
Colorado ACT
The Standards Side-by-Side Reference Tools have been created and designed to help teachers and parents see
the relationships between the enrolled grade-level expectations (Evidence Outcomes), the Extended Evidence
Outcomes and the DLM Essential Elements for English Language Arts/Literacy and Mathematics (These are
located just beneath the DLM logo on the Instructional Standards for Students with a Disability webpage at the
link above.) (The Essential Elements correspond with the CCSS references in the Evidence Outcomes and can
April 2015
Page 4
RESULTS DRIVEN ACCOUNTABILITY: CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT PROCESS FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
5
serve as the “learning progressions” or foundational skills a student would need to make progress toward the
EEOs. (On an IEP, you would reference the CAS/EEOs.) The Writing Standards-aligned IEP Guidance document
outlines a Seven Step Process for designing IEPs that are aligned to academic standards.
For questions about alternate participation requirements, please contact Linda Lamirande
[email protected] or call 303-866-6863.
When are standards included in the IEP?
For the 7 step process on writing standards-aligned IEPs, Step 1 is reviewing the standards, step 2 is collecting
data, and step 3 is the Present Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance. Thus, the
recommendation is to include standards before developing the goals, step 4.
Indicator 14: Post School Outcome Interviews
When can I start the Post School Outcome interviews?
The Post School Outcome interviews occur at least one year from the date of exit of the student. If a student
exited in December, s/he could be interviewed now. If the students exited in June 2014, the Post School
Outcome interviews should proceed once the anniversary date of exit has passed.
ESSU Data Management System (DMS)
I am having trouble accessing the DMS. Who can help me?
If you or any member of your team is having trouble accessing the DMS, contact Cindy Millikin at CDE.
What is the status of the AU Improvement Plan?
The AU Improvement Plan is currently under construction in the DMS. Once developed, it will provide a means
for the AU to develop an improvement plan based on an analysis and summary of the trend data across the AU,
a description of root cause analyses, and then action steps documented to specify the activities for the plan.
This Plan was originally intended to be created in January, 2015; however, with the other initiatives and
components in the DMS, the requirement for the Plan to be developed in 2014-15 was removed. This
functionality will most likely be amended to integrate with and reflect the work of the Results Work Group as a
foundation for improvement planning.
April 2015
Page 5
RESULTS DRIVEN ACCOUNTABILITY: CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT PROCESS FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
6
What is the purpose and how does one initiate “real-time” reviews?
There is a new functionality available in the ESSU DMS that allows the AU to conduct record reviews of IEPs that
have currently been developed and are not in the predetermined sample set provided by CDE. With this
functionality, the AU would upload the IEP to the DMS and conduct a standard review. Lifesavers will represent
the status of all IEPs reviewed as “real-time reviews”, i.e., there would be two columns of lifesavers in the
compliance area – one for the reviews conducted from the sample and one for the reviews that are being
conducted in real time.
Must the AU be an Enrich user in order to conduct real-time reviews?
Real-time reviews can be conducted by any AU whether or not they use Enrich. If the AU is using Enrich for their
IEP system, the upload of the IEPs to the DMS would occur electronically with a command on the students’
Programs tab (Enrich version 10.2). If the AU’s version of Enrich is not at 10.2, the IEPs can be uploaded through
the zipped file process (see handouts from Fall 2014 on Uploading Documents to the DMS) or contact Cindy
Millikin.
How do I start doing real-time reviews?
If the AU Director would like to initiate real-time reviews in the DMS, contact Cindy Millikin and she will set up
the Compliance area to include that functionality.
Enrich
How does one access reports in Enrich?
Access to reports in Enrich is role-based, meaning that the system administrator would have checked that you
are able to create, view, and/or delete reports based on your Enrich access. When you click on Create/Manage
Reports, you will see four categories for reports: Saved Reports, Shared with Me, Report Templates, and Blank
Reports. There is a sample view of the report templates that displays the layout of a report. You can choose a
report template and then Edit the Criteria to add or delete elements.
What help features are there in Enrich?
There are a variety of help features within Enrich. Some of these features are built into the system and are
there upon implementation. For example, there are approximately 25 videos within Enrich. Videos are found
when you click on Help in the banner bar. To view one of the video options in the IEP, click on Help for Goals:
April 2015
Page 6
RESULTS DRIVEN ACCOUNTABILITY: CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT PROCESS FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
7
Videos available in the goal
area
There are district guidelines which contain information created by the district/AU in order to guide staff in
completing that section of the document. When an AU creates guidelines, that text is also viewed directly on
the screen by the staff without having to click on Help. The text is located directly under the banner, as in the
example, below:
The state guidelines are drawn directly from the IEP Procedural Guidance document, parsed out by the specific
content area in which it is located. Finally, the Federal Regulations tab in the Help area includes the regulations
from IDEA that are applicable to that area.
There are other features in Enrich to support the staff in completing their IEP-related documentation. The
navigation bar enables the staff member to move quickly between sections. The up arrow in the upper right
corner of the screen operates as a [Top] tool.
Text Assistant is a feature in every memo box where the AU system administrator team is able to design stem
statements and other helpful text to assist staff in ensuring that all components needed in a specific area are
included. In the first example to the right, the stem statement inserts the student’s name to personalize the
comment.
Another critical feature that provides help to the staff is the Validation tool. When a staff member feels that
s/he has completed all components of the IEP, clicking on the Validation tool will identify if any areas have been
missed. The items that have been missed turn red in the navigation bar and are noted in red in the data entry
area.
April 2015
Page 7
RESULTS DRIVEN ACCOUNTABILITY: CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT PROCESS FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
8
These are just some of the features that are included in Enrich to assist the staff member in maneuvering within
the system and in completing all critical IEP-related documentation. Many of these features are built once the
initial implementation is underway.
How does one access the standards in Enrich?
The standards are located in the goal area of Enrich. The IEP team will have considered the student’s strengths
and needs and the impact of the disability on the student’s progress in the Colorado Academic Standards and
determined those standards in need of specialized instruction. It is important that the IEP team is familiar with
the layout of the components of the standards (see below).
When the IEP team member clicks Standard in Enrich, the following sequence occurs:
Click on Add Standard:
Click on the desired Content Area:
April 2015
Page 8
RESULTS DRIVEN ACCOUNTABILITY: CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT PROCESS FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
9
Click on the Grade Level:
Click on the desired standard:
Click on the concepts and skills area:
April 2015
Page 9
RESULTS DRIVEN ACCOUNTABILITY: CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT PROCESS FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
10
Click on the component of the standard’s concepts and skills that best reflect the standards-based focus of the
goal:
Where can I learn more?
Resource information
•
OSERS OSEP RDA Core Principles:
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/osep/rda/core-principles.html
•
OSEP Results Driven Accountability:
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/osep/rda-summary.doc
•
The National Post School Outcomes Center: http://psocenter.org/
The Colorado Department of Education
Exceptional Student Services Unit
Cindy Millikin, Director of RDA
1560 Broadway, Suite 1175, Denver, CO 80203
303-866-6619  [email protected]
April 2015
Page 10