![[Table of Contents]](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20081102193058im_/http://www.ed.gov/icons/up.gif){kind=icon}
As discussed throughout this report, OSEP works in partnership with States, institutions of higher education, students with disabilities and their families, advocacy groups, and others to ensure positive educational results for students with disabilities. OSEP uses research, dissemination, demonstration, systems change, and other technical assistance strategies to provide State and local educational agencies with tools to assist them in improving teaching and learning.
OSEP also recognizes, however, the critical importance of its compliance monitoring responsibility and activities to ensure compliance with Congress' mandates. OSEP places the highest priority on compliance with those IDEA requirements that have the strongest relationship with improved services and results for students with disabilities and their families, and tailors its monitoring and technical assistance activities in each State to maximize positive impact on educational services and results for students in that State.
Based in large part on the results of the National Longitudinal Transition Study1, OSEP has determined that the requirements with the strongest links to results and general supervision include those addressing:
Because each State has the primary responsibility for the administration of educational programs for its children with disabilities, OSEP focuses its monitoring activities on each State's systems for general supervision for ensuring that all public agencies comply with the requirements of Part B, including those emphasized above, in providing services to students with disabilities. These systems include the State's procedures for monitoring public agencies and ensuring that they correct any deficiencies, its complaint management and due process hearing systems, and its procedures for ensuring that special education programs administered by State agencies other than the State educational agency meet State standards and Part B requirements.
OSEP's State improvement procedures emphasize partnerships and technical assistance, as well as a strong accountability system to ensure compliance. OSEP works with States, Regional Resource Centers, and others to identify systemic strengths and weaknesses and to develop strategies for systemic reform and improvement. OSEP also provides and brokers technical assistance to States on an ongoing basis regarding legal requirements and best practice strategies for ensuring compliance in a manner that ensures continuous progress in educational results for students with disabilities. OSEP uses these strategies for State improvement in conjunction with a multifaceted compliance review process that, in tandem with ongoing technical assistance, includes: review and approval of State Plans; on-site compliance reviews; procedures to ensure the effective and timely implementation of corrective action plans; and discretionary review of final State decisions on Part B complaints.
Over the past three years, OSEP has worked intensively to reorient and strengthen its monitoring system so that it will--in conjunction with research, innovation, and technical assistance efforts--support systemic reform that produces better results for students with disabilities, and ensure compliance. To ensure a strong accountability system, OSEP has emphasized: strong and diverse customer input in the monitoring process; effective methods for ensuring compliance with Part B, with strongest emphasis on requirements that relate most directly to continuous improvement in learner results; prompt identification and correction of deficiencies; and corrective action requirements and strategies that yield improved access and results for students.
During the 1994-95 school year, OSEP conducted comprehensive monitoring visits to 14 States, Puerto Rico, and the Pre-College Programs of Gallaudet University. OSEP is conducting comprehensive monitoring visits to 11 States during the 1995-96 school year (see table 5.1 for the schedule of these reviews). Table 5.2 summarizes in general the procedures typically used by OSEP to plan and implement on-site reviews. However, OSEP tailors its monitoring and technical assistance activities to those that are needed in specific States. Thus, some States (for example, States with relatively few findings in their last review or with findings of a technical nature, and with good demonstrable success in correcting deficiencies) may require only a more narrow, focused review, while others will continue to require frequent OSEP comprehensive and follow-up monitoring visits.
1994-95 Reviewsa/ 1995-96 Reviews Idaho (9/94) Alabama (9/95) Minnesota (9/94) Indiana (9/95) Ohio (9/94) Vermont (9/95) Arkansas (10/94) Kentucky(9/95) Massachusetts (10/94) Nevada (10/95) Delaware (12/94) Rhode Island (1/96) Hawaii (1/95) Tennessee (1/96) California (1/95) Kansas (3/96) Louisiana (3/95) Colorado (5/96) Puerto Rico (3/95) Georgia (5/96) South Carolina (3/95) Oklahoma (5/96) North Carolina (5/95) Virginia (5/95) Maryland (5/95) Illinois (5/95) 1994-95 Follow-Up Reviews 1995-96 Follow-Up Reviews Florida (3/95) Pennsylvania (12/95) District of Columbia (3/95) New Jersey (12/95) West Virginia (5/95) New York (12/95)
a/ As directed by the Congress in the Education of the Deaf Act, OSEP also conducted a special monitoring review of the Pre-College Programs of Gallaudet University in May 1995.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Division of Assistance to the States.
Step Specific Activities ==== =================== Step 1: Select States that OSEP will monitor during the Select/inform States following school year. OSEP will monitor following school year In the spring, inform States that will be monitored the following school year. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Step 2: Conduct spring monitoring academy for States Conduct monitoring OSEP will monitor the following year. State academy and arrange educational agency staff and representatives visit dates from Parent Training and Information Projects are invited to attend. At the time of the academy or shortly thereafter arrange dates with each State for public meet- ing/pre-site visit and on-site visit. Disseminate to national organizations schedule of public meetings and on-site visits. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Step 3: Send notice to State educational agency, State Conduct public and national advocacy organizations, and parents meeting/pre-site to inform them of upcoming compliance review and visit the purpose, schedule, and location of public meetings, and to invite their oral or written comments. Conduct public meetings to gather input about appropriate issues and geographical focuses of visit. Meet with State educational agency officials to plan on-site visit, to collect data regarding State systems for general supervision, and to collect other information to assist in identi- fying appropriate issues and geographical focuses for OSEP compliance review. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Step 4: After pre-site visit, continue to receive (and, Plan on-site data if appropriate, solicit) comments to assist in collection identifying appropriate issues and geographical procedures focuses for OSEP compliance review. Analyze and synthesize information from: public meetings and other comment sources; pre-site meetings with State educational agency; State educational agency documents (including State plan, monitoring and local educational agency application review documents, placement data, funding formulas, etc.); previous OSEP monitor- ing report(s) and related corrective action documents and other relevant information. Use information from public input, preliminary interviews of State officials, and review of State Plan and other documents to determine appropriate focuses for compliance review, to design data collection and verification stra- tegies and forms, and to select State agencies and local educational agencies to be visited to collect data regarding the effectiveness of State educational agency's systems for general supervision. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Step 5: Interview State educational agency officials and Conduct on-site review State educational agency documents to review complete collection of data regarding State edu- cational agency's systems for general super- vision. Interview officials from other State agencies that provide educational and/or residential ser- vices to students with disabilities, to deter- mine whether the educational programs for such students are under the general supervision of the State educational agency and meet its stan- dards. Collect data in a number of public agencies, in- cluding local educational agencies, to determine effectiveness of State educational agency's sys- tems for general supervision. (Data collection methods include reviewing student records and interviewing agency administrators, teachers, related services providers, and parents.) Note exemplary programs and practices. Summarize preliminary findings in exit confer- ence with State educational agency officials. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Step 6: Analyze and synthesize data collected from all Prepare and sources to determine areas of noncompliance. disseminate report Prepare report that includes commendations and findings of noncompliance, data that support each finding, and results expected from the corrective actions. Issue report to the State educational agency and to the public. (If State concludes that evi- dence of noncompliance is significantly inac- curate and one or more findings incorrect, it may request--within 15 calendar days--reconsi- deration of the finding. If OSEP agrees facts in Report are insufficient to support finding, it will issue letter informing State the finding has been revised or withdrawn.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Step 7: Work with State to develop corrective action Develop and plan (CAP). implement corrective action plan Agree on a CAP, including activities, timelines and needed resources, using the State's prelim- inary CAP as the basis. This is done in a meeting or conference call with representatives from the State educational agency, the State Advisory Panel, and OSEP staff. ------------------------------------------------------------------------SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Programs, Division of Assistance to the States
Montana (10/94) Arizona (2/95) Washington (3/95) New Hampshire (11/94) Connecticut (3/95) Wyoming (3/95) Utah (11/94) Delaware (3/95) Massachusetts (5/95) Minnesota (12/94) Hawaii (3/95) South Carolina (8/95) Wisconsin (12/94) Iowa (3/95) North Carolina (9/95) Arkansas (1/95) Michigan (3/95) Puerto Rico (9/95) Idaho (1/95) New Mexico (3/95) Virginia (9/95)
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Division of Assistance to the States.
As shown in table 5.4, the findings in the 21 final monitoring reports that OSEP issued during fiscal year 1995 concentrated in areas directly related to:
NUMBER OF REPORTS WITH FINDINGS OF NONCOMPLIANCE REGARDING INDICATED REQUIREMENTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 12 Student and representatives of other agencies invited to IEP meeting 4 If student doesn't attend meeting, agency takes steps to consider preferences/interests TRANSITION 12 Content of meeting notice 14 Statement of needed transition services 1 If agreed upon services not provided, meeting convened to identify alternative strategies ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 12 Removed from regular education only if education cannot be achieved satisfactorily in regular classes with supplementary aids and services 3 Placement determined at least annually LEAST 7 Placement decision based on IEP RESTRICTIVE 8 Continuum of alternative placements ENVIRONMENT 2 Student attends school would attend if nondisabled unless IEP requires other arrangement 12 Student participates with nondisabled students in extracurricular/nonacademic ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 14 Extended school year FREE 15 Services provided in conformity with IEP APPROPRIATE 2 Length of school day consistent with State standard PUBLIC 3 Initial evaluation meets State timelines EDUCATION 2 Services continue if suspended long-term or expelled ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 Agencies establish safeguards 6 Prior notice or proposed/refused actions provided to parents PROCEDURAL 7 Prior notice includes full explanation of procedural SAFEGUARDS safeguards 10 Prior notice includes other required content 11 Hearing and review timelines ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 17 Procedures to identify deficiencies MONITORING 14 Procedures to correct deficiencies ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 All complaints resolved COMPLAINTS 11 Complaints resolved within 60 days ----------------------------------------------------------------------- GENERAL 8 Programs administered by State agency other than SUPERVISION SEA meet SEA standards and Part B requirements ----------------------------------------------------------------------- LEA 9 Incomplete State procedures/guidance APPLICATIONS 10 SEA approval of applications although they do not meet Federal requirements ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 IEP developed/reviewed in meeting IEP 5 Agency representative participates in IEP meeting 12 IEP content ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 Students reevaluated at least once every 3 years EVALUATION 2 Written report for learning disabilities evaluation ----------------------------------------------------------------------- CHILD COUNT 3 SEA ensures accuracy of Part B child count ----------------------------------------------------------------------- PERSONNEL 1 Personnel meet highest requirements STANDARDS -----------------------------------------------------------------------
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Division of Assistance to the States.
Earlier OSEP reports consisted largely of detailed and technical findings regarding the content of local educational agency applications, local educational policies and procedures, and explanations of procedural safeguards. OSEP now collects data and writes reports to stress findings and corrective actions that more closely affect student results. Thus, for example, data collection and reports include a strong focus on State and local policies, procedures, and practices relating to transition and placement in the least restrictive environment.
The nature of OSEP's findings in areas such as placement in the least restrictive environment and monitoring have evolved over time. For example, while in the past placement findings often focused largely on the procedural issue of when agencies made placement decisions, findings now focus on the range of placement options available to students with disabilities (including students with more severe disabilities) and the consideration of appropriate supplementary aids and services as part of any decision to remove a student from the regular education environment for any portion of the day. Further, while in the past OSEP focused its review of placement practices largely on students who were completely segregated from students without disabilities in institutions and other separate school settings, OSEP now focuses its reviews largely on placement practices for students who attend regular school buildings but who are removed from the regular education program for a portion of the school day. This change in the nature of placement-related findings reflects a decrease nationally in separate school placements.
In the past, many OSEP reports included long lists of Part B requirements for which States had no method for determining compliance. As reflected in more recent reports, most States have now developed a method to examine compliance regarding all or nearly all requirements. Recent OSEP reports have focused more on the effectiveness of States' procedures for identifying and correcting deficiencies. For example, a recent report showed that one State had a method to address all but five Part B requirements, and focused on the ineffectiveness of some of the State's monitoring procedures in identifying deficiencies relating to transition, placement in the least restrictive environment, and the provision of a free appropriate public education. The report further addressed problems that the State was experiencing in ensuring the correction of identified deficiencies.
Prior to the 1994-95 school year, each OSEP monitoring report included a corrective action plan developed by OSEP with limited dialogue with the State. Often States implemented the required procedures with little verifiable impact on services and results for students with disabilities. OSEP found that to better ensure that corrective actions positively affect student results in a State, it is important to include the State in the development of the corrective action requirements and to integrate technical assistance with the development, implementation, and evaluation of the corrective actions. OSEP found that although some States had completed all required corrective actions, many of the same deficiencies would be noted as part of the next OSEP review of the State. Accordingly, OSEP revised its corrective action procedures during the 1994-95 and 1995-96 school years to emphasize joint development of corrective action plans and to provide for "follow-up" visits. (See table 5.5 for a description of these revised corrective action procedures.) As noted in table 5.1, OSEP conducted three follow-up visits during the 1994-95 school year, and will conduct three follow-up visits during the 1995-96 school year to determine the extent to which the State has effectively implemented selected components of the agreed-upon corrective action plan, and to work with them to develop any further corrective actions and provide technical assistance needed to ensure full and effective correction.
PHASE ACTIONS TAKEN ===== ============= MONITORING VISIT Throughout on-site process, OSEP discusses preliminary findings and possible strategies for corrective action with the State educational agency. MONITORING REPORT Each monitoring report sets forth parameters for the development of a corrective action plan, specifying expected results of corrective action for each finding. The extent to which each report prescribes the specific steps that the State must follow to ensure correction and specific timelines for each step depends upon a configuration of factors, including the severity of the findings and the persistence of the identified noncompliance (including whether the same violations were identified in a previous monitoring report). The cover letter to each report invites the State to meet with OSEP (in Washington or through a conference telephone conversation) to establish more specific steps and timelines for the corrective action plan. OSEP also invites a representative of the State's Special Education Advisory Panel to participate in the meeting or conference call, and encourages the State to invite additional resource people, such as Regional Resource Center staff, who could assist in the development of the corrective action plan. The cover letter to the report also informs the State that the corrective action plan must be developed within 45 days of the State's receipt of the report, and that a if corrective action plan is not jointly developed within 45 days, OSEP will unilaterally develop a detailed corrective action plan for the State. DEVELOPMENT AND State develops preliminary proposals for APPROVAL OF corrective actions. CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN OSEP monitoring staff consult with other OSEP staff, as appropriate, who are knowledgeable about technical assistance resources, including systems change initiatives, research and dissemination projects, Regional Resource Centers and other technical assistance centers, etc. OSEP meets--in person or by teleconference--with the State educational agency, a representative of the State's Special Education Advisory Panel, and any additional resource people invited by the State educational agency. In the meeting, the participants discuss strategies, resources, and specific action steps for the development and implementation of a corrective action plan that will ensure compliance and support systemic reform resulting in improved student results. The participants work toward--and as much as possible reach--agreement on the specific results, steps, resources, documentation procedures and timelines for corrective action. Having determined that the State's proposal includes actions and timelines to ensure effective, timely, verifiable correction of all deficiencies, OSEP approves the State's corrective action plan. DOCUMENTATION OF The State educational agency submits, and OSEP CORRECTIVE ACTION approves, information to document the effective completion of all corrective actions. Having determined that the submitted information documents the effective completion of all corrective actions, OSEP approves the completed corrective actions. ON-SITE When determined appropriate, OSEP conducts an VERIFICATION OF on-site follow-up review to verify effective CORRECTIVE ACTION completion of one or more corrective actions.Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Division of Assistance to the States.
As noted above, OSEP has used technical assistance, research, and dissemination strategies in tandem with its accountability system to support State efforts to improve teaching, learning, and student results. One strong example is the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) Transition Initiative. Since 1984, 393 model demonstration projects have developed a wide range of service delivery models that have facilitated the transition of youths and adults with disabilities from secondary special education to a number of postsecondary environments, including higher education, employment, and community integration. In 1983, Congress mandated that the Department commission a national study of the transition experiences of youth with disabilities in secondary school and beyond. Under contract to OSEP, SRI International conducted the National Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education Students (NLTS), which included more than 8,000 youth with disabilities. OSEP has also funded Transition Systems Change Grants in 34 States, and will be funding grants in additional States during fiscal year 1996. OSEP has used the results of the NLTS and information gained from other discretionary projects to focus its monitoring activities and technical assistance efforts, and to inform Federal, State, and local policy and instructional design decisions.
Similarly, in 1986, OSERS proposed the Regular Education Initiative. OSEP recognized that building the capacity of schools to serve students in the least restrictive environment could be conceptualized as an issue of enforcement of the least restrictive environment provisions of IDEA and as an issue of implementing best practice, and has employed both monitoring and discretionary program activities. Since 1987, 26 States have received systems change awards from OSEP to encourage large-scale adoptions of effective educational practices across State systems, and to increase the movement of students with disabilities from segregated to integrated to inclusive school campuses. Also since 1987, OSEP has supported three 5-year Institutes to address inclusion issues. OSEP has also funded 3-year research and demonstration projects to examine the academic and social inclusion of students with severe disabilities in general education classes. As with the Transition Initiative, OSEP has used information gained from all of these discretionary projects to focus its monitoring activities and technical assistance efforts, and to inform Federal, State, and local policy and instructional design decisions.
2 OSEP also made findings regarding requirements related to evaluation of students with disabilities and the development of IEPs. Both sets of requirements and OSEP's findings relate directly to the provision of a free appropriate public education; evaluations serve as a critical source of information for making individualized determinations regarding the program and placement that each student needs, and Congress has mandated the development of an IEP as the mechanism for making such determinations.
-###-
[Appendix B]