Results Driven Accountability The Ins, Outs and What We Know JENNIFER S. MAUSKAPF, ESQ. BONNIE L....

Results Driven Accountability The Ins, Outs and What We Know

JENNIFER S. MAUSKAPF, ESQ. BONNIE L. GRAHAM, ESQ.

[email protected] [email protected]

BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC

SPRING FORUM 2015

BRUSTEIN & MANASEVIT, PLLC 1

Agenda Overview of IDEA Monitoring

Results Driven Accountability

State Systemic Improvement Plan

Paying for Reforms with IDEA ◦ Blending and Braiding other Federal funds


IDEA Monitoring•U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) monitors States’ implementation of IDEA Parts B and C

•States monitor local educational agencies’ (LEAs) implementation of Part B and early intervention services (EIS) programs’ implementation of Part C


Monitoring Priorities


OSEP’s Vision for RDA All components of an accountability system will be aligned in a manner that best support States in improving results for infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities, and their families.

OSEP’s RDA Website: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/osep/rda/index.html


Components of RDA•State Performance Plan / Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR) measures results and compliance.

•Determinations reflect State performance on results, as well as compliance.

•Differentiated monitoring and technical assistance support improvement in all States, but especially low performing States.


RDA Core Principles1. Partnership with stakeholders

2. Transparent and understandable to educators and families

3. Drives improved results

4. Protects children and families

5. Differentiated incentives and supports to states

6. Encourages states to target resources and reduces burden

7. Responsive to needs


Proposed SPP/APR Focus on Systemic Improvement•“Aligned with RDA Vision and Goals”•Reduction of Reporting Burden• Combines SPP and APR into one document• Collects SPP/APR data through a web-based, on-

line submission process (GRADS)


State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP)•Comprehensive, multi-year SSIP, focused on improving results for children with disabilities• Instead of multiple small improvement plans for each

indicator• Broad strategies with detailed improvement activities

•New Indicator 17

•Multi-year, multi-phase process, beginning with FFY 2013 APR (submitted in 2015)


SSIP Phase 1

•Submitted April 1, 2015 via GRADS 360•Components of Phase I:•Data Analysis•Analysis of State Infrastructure to Support

Improvement and Build Capacity• Identification of Focus for Improvement, State

Identified Measureable Result (SIMR)• Theory of Action (If X then Y)• Selection of Coherent Improvement Activities


SSIP Phase 2•To be submitted in 2016 with FFY 2014 SPP/APR

•Plan for SSIP Implementation over the next 5 years

•Components of Phase 2:• Improving State Infrastructure• Support for LEA/EIS Program Implementation of Evidence-Based

Practices • Evaluation Plan for SSIP Implementation


SSIP Phase 3•To be submitted in 2017 with FFY 2015 SPP/APR

•Components of Phase 3:• Results of ongoing evaluation of strategies in the SSIP• Extent of implementation of strategies• Progress toward established goals• Any revisions made to the SSIP in response to the evaluation


SSIP Examples


Determinations: 2012-2015•OSEP working to revise determination process to be more results focused• 2012: Determinations were driven by

compliance indicators• 2013: Began to use compliance data in

determinations, issuance of ‘Compliance Matrix’ • 2014: OSEP used RDA data in determinations for

the first time• 2015: OSEP will continue to use RDA in

determination, but exactly how remains unclear


RDA Factors in 2014 Determinations First Time RDA Factors used in DeterminationsMade up 50% of each State’s APR DeterminationRDA Data used in FFY 2012 APR Considered:Participation and Performance on Statewide Assessments

and the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)

Had significant impact on many determinations


RDA Impact on 2014 Determinations

IDEA State Determinations 2014

Meets Requirements

Needs Assistance

Needs Intervention

Compliance Only (If results factors had not been considered)

43 14 3

Actual Determinations (Including RDA Results Factors)

18 36 6


Differentiated Monitoring and Support•Based on determinations and SSIP

•All States to receive TA on SSIP development and general TA

•States with the greatest needs will receive more intensive support

•OSEP piloting collaborative efforts in connection with SIG visits


New OSEP TA Initiatives NCSI. TA to SEAs to support school districts and local early intervention service programs in improving educational results and functional outcomes for children with disabilities. New Oct. 2014.

CIFR. State maintenance of financial support (MFS) and LEA maintenance of effort (MOE) reduction and coordinated early intervening service (CEIS) provisions. New Oct. 2014.

IDC. Interactive Institutes on High-Quality Data & the SSIP during April and May 2015.


Accountability for Compliance•Review of compliance indicators in SPP/APR

•Ongoing fiscal monitoring and audit resolution

•OSEP TA in key areas

•OSEP Desk Audit Process• To be conducted for every State over next four years• To include State accountability, dispute resolution, and data

quality• OSEP reserving option to conduct on-site reviews where

necessary to collect additional data / provide technical support


Paying for SSIP and RDA Efforts


Using IDEA B for Reforms

Eligibility◦ 619 funds serve children with disabilities ages 3 through 5 ◦ 611 funds serve children with disabilities ages 3 through 21◦ Child Find (identify, locate and evaluate children with

disabilities)◦ Coordinated early intervening services (student who need

additional academic and behavioral support to succeed in general education, but have not been identified as having a disability)


Using IDEA B for Reforms

Use of Funds◦ Excess cost of providing special education and related services

to CWDs◦ Intended as extra support, not to replace other funding

sources for basic educational services◦ LEAs that meet local MOE requirement also meet Supplement

not Supplant◦ OSEP applies Supplement not Supplant to CEIS funds


Using IDEA for State Reforms

State-level funds:◦ Automating IEP processes, expanding use of technology in IEP process◦ Assisting LEAs in providing positive behavioral interventions and

supports and mental health services to SWDs◦ Improving use of technology designed to help SWDs succeed in

general education environment◦ Providing transition supports to help SWDs move to college or career


Using IDEA for State Reforms

State-level funds:◦ Supporting development and provision of assessment

accommodations and/or design alternate assessments consistent with ESEA requirements

◦ Assisting SWDs that are not in traditional LEAs (correctional facilities, expelled, etc.)

◦ Provide services to low-performing schools to improve achievement for SWDs provided a school’s low performance is solely caused by the SWD subgroup


Using IDEA for District-Wide Reforms

Local-level funds:◦ Professional development to teachers who work with SWDs,

including dual certification supports, new teacher programs, and teacher mentoring

◦ Increasing use of technology to help SWDs access general education ◦ Assistive technology devices and PD to teachers on using devices

with SWDs


Using IDEA for District-Wide Reforms

Local-level funds:◦ Providing positive behavioral supports for SWDs◦ Providing transition supports for SWDs◦ Implementing progress monitoring tools, web-based IEPs and

other relevant data systems for SWDs


Blended and Braided Funding

Braided Funding: individual funding streams to states and LEAs are coordinated, but each individual award maintains its award-specific identity

Blended Funding: individual funding streams to state and LEAs is merged into one award, and each individual award loses its award-specific identity.


Why the push? 1. Current system focuses on compliance rather than outcomes

2. Program fragmentation, overlap and duplication 3. Proliferation of requirements over time


Braiding Funds


State-Level Teams Reform Effort: State Level staff to work directly with low-performing schools; provide data coaching, leadership coaching and instructional support to help improve outcomes for students◦ IDEA Part B, state-level activity funds◦ Title I, state-level funds◦ Title II, state activities funds


State-Level Teams Using IDEA:

◦ Exempt from supplanting◦ BUT – efforts should be focused on meeting the needs of students

with disabilities

Using Title I:◦ Supplanting concerns

◦ Is the work required by state law?◦ Is the work provided in non-Title I schools with nonfederal funds?

◦ Eligibility concerns◦ Is the work limited to Title I schools and students?

Using Title II:◦ School/ student eligibility is not a concern◦ BUT – efforts should be focused on support for teachers and principals


LEA Data Systems and Digitized Teaching and Learning

Reform Effort: Statewide data systems to improve access to digital materials and supports for students; digital professional development and learning opportunities for teachers and leaders◦ IDEA, Part B◦ Title I, II and III


LEA Data Systems and Digitized Teaching and Learning

Using IDEA:◦ Supplanting not a concern if LEA meets local MOE, then

considered to be meeting supplement not supplant◦ Eligibility issues- funds must be used for special education

purposes (e.g., purchase assistive technology for student with disability, pursuant to IEP; digital training focused on using technology to serve students with disabilities, etc.)

Using Title I, II, III:◦ Possible supplanting issues◦ Title I, III – eligible schools/students◦ Title II – focus on professional development


Blending Funds


Schoolwide Consolidation

What Programs?◦ All ED formula programs, except Reading First; and all ED

discretionary programs, but must comply with application

◦ IDEA – may consolidate, but with caveats◦ Cap based on student count◦ Not exempt from programmatic requirements



Full Consolidation (with state and local funds)◦ No distinction between federal and nonfederal◦ No separate fiscal accounting records, by federal

program, that identify the specific activities supported by each program’s funds◦ May use federal funds for basic operational

expenses◦ Generally, “intent and purposes” only, but IDEA

must meet programmatic requirements



Federal Consolidation only◦ Must use federal funds for “educational” needs of the school,

identified in the needs assessment and articulated in Schoolwide plan◦ Do not have to track IDEA funds to eligible SWDs

◦ Must comply with applicable cost principles: 2 CFR 200, subpart E


Blending, Braiding and Time and Effort

200.430(i)(6)-(7): Time and Effort: Pilot systems that approve funding based on documented outcomes and program performance.◦ Approval from Federal agencies for all blended funding; ◦ Must describe the method of charging costs, relate the charging of

costs to the specific activity that is applicable to all fund sources, and demonstrate that the method is based on quantifiable measures of the activity in relation to time charged.


Questions??


Disclaimer This presentation is intended solely to provide

general information and does not constitute legal advice or a legal service. This presentation does not create a client-lawyer relationship with Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC and, therefore, carries none of the protections under the D.C.

Rules of Professional Conduct. Attendance at this presentation, a later review of any printed or electronic

materials, or any follow-up questions or communications arising out of this presentation with any attorney at

Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC does not create an attorney-client relationship with Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC. You

should not take any action based upon any information in this presentation without first consulting legal counsel

familiar with your particular circumstances.


Results Driven Accountability The Ins, Outs and What We Know JENNIFER S. MAUSKAPF, ESQ. BONNIE L....

Documents

Transcript of Results Driven Accountability The Ins, Outs and What We Know JENNIFER S. MAUSKAPF, ESQ. BONNIE L....