Source: http://slideplayer.com/slide/3911302/
Timestamp: 2017-08-22 11:48:24
Document Index: 81013561

Matched Legal Cases: ['§300', '§300', '§300', '§300', '§300', '§300', '§300', '§300', '§300', '§300', '§300', '§ 300', '§300', '§300', '§ 300', '§300', '§300', '§300', '§300', '§300', '§300', '§613']

2011 OSEP Leadership Mega Conference Collaboration to Achieve Success from Cradle to Career 2.0 Coordinated Early Intervening Services and Reduction of. - ppt download
2011 OSEP Leadership Mega Conference Collaboration to Achieve Success from Cradle to Career 2.0 Coordinated Early Intervening Services and Reduction of.
Published byAnissa Chamblin Modified over 2 years ago
Presentation on theme: "2011 OSEP Leadership Mega Conference Collaboration to Achieve Success from Cradle to Career 2.0 Coordinated Early Intervening Services and Reduction of."— Presentation transcript:
1 2011 OSEP Leadership Mega Conference Collaboration to Achieve Success from Cradle to Career 2.0 Coordinated Early Intervening Services and Reduction of Maintenance of Effort: What does Table 8 tell us? Lucille Sleger, Office of Special Education Programs, Monitoring and State Improvement Planning Division Meredith Miceli, Office of Special Education Programs, Research to Practice Division Danielle Crain, Data Accountability Center Session ID: 218
2 Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS)
3 Purpose of the Presentation – Statutory authority and regulations – Verification and audit findings (2008-2010) – Using Part B funds for CEIS and CEIS/MOE – Purpose and use of Table 8 data – OSEP guidance
5 Statutory Authority The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004—Section 613(f) (f)(1) - General requirements (f)(2) - Activities (f)(3) - Does not limit or create the right to FAPE (f)(4) – Reporting (f)(5) - Coordination with Elementary and Secondary Education Act of l965 IDEA Section 618(a)(3) – Data collection
6 Regulatory Authority 34 CFR §300.226--Early intervening services 34 CFR §300.646(b)(2)--Disproportionality and required use of 15% of Part B funds 34 CFR §300.205(a) and (d)--MOE Reduction and Adjustments to local funds
7 CEIS Issues (2008-2010) Using CEIS funds for students who were not eligible The SEA was not collecting required data from LEAs:  students who received CEIS services data  students who received CEIS services who subsequently received special education services
8 CEIS Issues (2008-2010) The State did not track: ▪ The amount of funds used for CEIS ▪How CEIS funds were used (e.g., for allowable costs)
9 State Procedures State procedures used to implement CEIS include: ▪ Calculating the amount of CEIS funds that can be approved in LEA applications and budgets ▪ Identifying significant disproportionality to determine if the LEA must use 15% of its Part B funds for CEIS ▪ Notifying LEAs that funds must be use for CEIS and ensuring those funds are used for CEIS ▪ Notifying LEAs about when Part B funds must be expended ▪ Ensuring CEIS funds are used for eligible children and allowable activities ▪ Collecting and reporting required CEIS data
10 Using Part B Funds for CEIS and CEIS/ MOE Reduction
11 Using Part B Funds for CEIS A State must determine significant disproportionality annually The date on which significant disproportionality was determined determines the fiscal years of grants awarded under Part B that can be used for CEIS The LEA may use Part B section 611 and/or section 619 funds Calculations (of up to 15%) are made prior to any other IDEA reductions
12 Using Part B Funds for CEIS If significant disproportionality is identified, the Part B funds must be used for CEIS during the period funds are available for obligation If significant disproportionality is not identified, the LEA may reallocate unspent funds during the time the funds are available for obligation Follow applicable supplement/not supplant requirements to avoid audit issues
13 CEIS and MOE An LEA may use up to 15% of the amount it receives under Part B, both sections 611 and 619, for CEIS, less any amount reduced by the LEA pursuant to 34 CFR §300.205 See 34 CFR §300.226(a)
14 Example Prior year’s allocation: $ 1,000,000 Current year’s allocation: $ 2,000,000 Increase: $ 1,000,000 Available for MOE reduction: $ 500,000 Maximum available for CEIS: $ 300,000 If the LEA uses $100,000 for MOE, the LEA can use $200,000 for CEIS
15 CEIS and MOE  If an LEA is REQUIRED to use the entire 15% available for CEIS because it has been identified with significant disproportionality under 34 CFR §300.646, then the LEA cannot reduce its MOE  As described on the previous slide, the LEA must subtract any amount used for MOE reduction from the amount it intends to use for CEIS; therefore, if the LEA reduced its MOE, it would also have to reduce its CEIS amount, and the LEA would not have 15% available for CEIS
16 CEIS and MOE  The amount of funds expended by an LEA for CEIS must count toward the maximum amount of expenditures that the LEA may reduce under 34 CFR §300.205(a)  This means that, no matter how much is available for CEIS (up to 15%) or for MOE reduction under §300.205(a), the total amount expended on CEIS and MOE reduction together cannot exceed the lesser of the total amount available for MOE reduction under §300.205(a) or the amount available for CEIS See 34 CFR §§300.205(d) and 300.226(a)
17 CEIS and MOE When an LEA reduces its MOE pursuant to 34 CFR §300.204 or § 300.205, the adjusted amount is the LEA’s new MOE level until the LEA, on its own, increases the level of special education expenditures, using local, or State and local, funds
18 Purpose and Use of Table 8
19 Purpose of Table 8 Table 8 is used to: Determine the amount of FY 2009 Part B funds reserved for CEIS Exercise fiduciary responsibilities to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse and to ensure the effective use of FY 2009 Part B funds Provide information to Congress and the public regarding LEAs that took advantage of CEIS and MOE flexibilities
20 Use of Table 8 Data Table 8 data is used to: Inform Congress of the implementation and use of the CEIS and MOE reduction provisions in IDEA Monitor States on the implementation of CEIS and MOE reduction Report to the public on ideadata.org and the Annual Report to Congress
21 OSEP Guidance  OSEP Memorandum 08-09: Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS) under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act  Table 8 Questions and Answers (Revised December 2010)  OSEP Memorandum 07-09: Disproportionality of Racial and Ethnic Groups in Special Education – These documents and slides are available by searching CEIS or significant disproportionality in the Topic Browser at: http://therightidea.tadnet.org/articles http://therightidea.tadnet.org/articles
22 Table 8: Section A A1A. LEA/ESA Name A1B. LEA/ESA NCES ID # A2. The total LEA/ESA allocation for Section 611 of IDEA (dollars $) A3. The total LEA/ESA allocation for Section 619 of IDEA (dollars $) A4. Total LEA/ESA allocation for Sections 611 and 619 of IDEA for FFY 2010 2 A5. 15% of the total LEA/ESA allocation for Sections 611 and 619 of IDEA for FFY 2010 2 A2A. FFY 2009A2B. FFY 2010 A2C. Increase in LEA/ESA allocations from FFY 2009 to FFY 2010 A3A. FFY 2009A3B. FFY 2010 A3C. Increase in LEA/ESA allocations from FFY 2009 to FFY 2010 2 TABLE 8 REPORT ON IDEA PART B MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT REDUCTION (34 CFR §300.205(a)) AND COORDINATED EARLY INTERVENING SERVICES (34 CFR §300.226) FFY 2010 SECTION A. LEA ALLOCATIONS [1] [1] The NCES ID numbers are also used to identify LEAs when entering data into the EDEN system. [2] [2] THESE FIGURES WILL BE AUTO-CALCULATED. DO NOT REPORT FIGURES IN THIS COLUMN.
23 Table 8: Section B B1A. LEA/ESA Name B1B. LEA/ESA NCES ID # B2. For each LEA/ ESA, specify the determination under 34 CFR § 300.600(a)(2) that controls whether the LEA may be able to reduce MOE during SY 2010-2011. B3. Reduction of local and/or State funds taken pursuant to Section 613(a)(2)(C) by the LEA/ESA during SY 2010-11 (dollar $ amount) B4. Percent of the available reduction taken by LEA /ESA during SY 2010-11 (PERCENT) TABLE 8 REPORT ON IDEA PART B MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT REDUCTION (34 CFR §300.205(a)) AND COORDINATED EARLY INTERVENING SERVICES (34 CFR §300.226) FFY 2010 SECTION B. MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT REDUCTION LEA/ESA Determinations: What year’s data were used to make the LEA/ ESA determinations in your state? ______________ [1] [1] These NCES ID numbers are also used to identify LEAs when entering data into the EDEN system. [2] [2] THESE PERCENTAGES WILL BE AUTO-CALCULATED. DO NOT REPORT FIGURES IN THIS COLUMN.
24 Table 8: Section C C1A. LEA/ESA Name C1B. LEA/ESA NCES ID # C2. Required CEISC3. Voluntary CEIS C2A. Was the LEA/ESA required to use 15% of funds for CEIS due to significant disproportionality in SY 2010-11? (Y/N) C2B. Amount reserved for required CEIS in the LEA /ESA in SY 2010-11 (dollars $) C2C. Percent taken for required CEIS during SY 2010-11 (PERCENT) 6 C3A. Did the LEA/ESA voluntarily use up to 15% of IDEA 611 and 619 fund for CEIS in SY 2010-11? (Y/N) C3B. Amount reserved for voluntary CEIS in SY 2010-11 (dollars $) C3C. Percent taken for voluntary CEIS during SY 2010-11 (PERCENT) TABLE 8 REPORT ON IDEA PART B MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT REDUCTION (34 CFR §300.205(a)) AND COORDINATED EARLY INTERVENING SERVICES (34 CFR §300.226) FFY 2010 SECTION C. PROVISION OF COORDINATED EARLY INTERVENING SERVICES (CEIS) [1] [1] These NCES ID numbers are also used to identify LEAs when entering data into the EDEN system. [2] [2] THESE PERCENTAGES WILL BE AUTO-CALCULATED. DO NOT REPORT FIGURES IN THIS COLUMN.
25 Table 8: Section D D1A. LEA/ESA Name D1B. LEA/ESA NCES ID # D2. Total number of children receiving CEIS under the IDEA in the LEA/ESA during SY 2010-11 D3. Total number of children who received CEIS under the IDEA anytime in the past two school years (including SY 2008-09, SY 2009-10, and SY 2010-11) and received special education and related services in SY 2010-11 TABLE 8 REPORT ON IDEA PART B MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT REDUCTION (34 CFR §300.205(a)) AND COORDINATED EARLY INTERVENING SERVICES (34 CFR §300.226) FFY 2010 SECTION D. NUMBER OF CHILDREN RECEIVING COORDINATED EARLY INTERVENING SERVICES [1] [1] These NCES ID numbers are also used to identify LEAs when entering data into the EDEN system.
26 Table 8 Web-based Data Entry & Submission System LEAS send data to the SEA SEA enters data into the Web- based system SEA submits data to DAC LEAs enter data into the Web- based system SEAs submit data to DAC LEAS send data to the SEA SEA uploads data to the Web-based system DAC retrieves the data Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
27 Table 8 Web-based Data Entry & Submission System DAC sent out an evaluation of the system during the month of June Evaluation contained 13 questions DAC received 65 responses
28 Table 8 Web-based Submission System (cont.) Anticipated changes for 2010-11 data collection based on recommendations: – Inform states prior to submitting data: Data must be reported in all sections for all LEAs Section A does not allow “-9” because of automatic calculations States need to proceed to “View and Submit SEA data” to submit the data
29 Table 8 Web-based Submission System (cont.) Anticipated changes for 2010-11 data collection based on recommendations (cont.): – Submission year field (Section B2) will be pre- loaded with more options – Easier way to reset passwords – Email confirmation when data have been submitted Notification that data are locked after submission – Provide a final submission report with LEA and statewide numbers
30 Table 8 Web-based Submission System (cont.) Exploring feasibility and cost of the following changes based on recommendations: – Adding a field for data notes – Allowing states to manually upload data for only certain LEAs, instead of having to upload all of the data at once – Allowing dollar amounts to be entered as decimals and not rounded – Improving the method of data entry for each LEA – Retrieving NCES numbers from EDFacts
31 Preliminary Analysis Percentage of LEAs in each determination level that controls whether the LEA may be able to reduce MOE for SY 2009-10: – 84.5 percent received meets requirements – 12.1 percent received needs assistance – 1.1 percent received needs intervention – 0.3 percent received needs substantial intervention – 2.0 percent did not receive a determination
32 Preliminary Analysis (cont.) Amount reduced under the IDEA MOE provision in IDEA §613(a)(2)(c) during SY 2009-10 – 4,393 LEAs (29.5%) reduced MOE – $325,460 was the average amount reduced under the IDEA MOE provision
33 Preliminary Analysis (cont.) MOE reduction – 12,280 LEAs (82.4%) were eligible to reduce MOE – (1) had an increase in IDEA 611 allocations from FFY 2008 to FFY 2009; and – (2) received a determination of "meets requirements“. – 4,322 LEAs (35.2%) of those eligible actually reduced MOE
34 Preliminary Analysis (cont.) LEAs required to use 15% of IDEA 611 and 619 funds for CEIS due to significant disproportionality in SY 2009-10 – 299 LEAs were required to use 15% of funds for CEIS due to significant disproportionality – 2.0 percent of LEAs were required to use 15% of funds for CEIS due to significant disproportionality
35 Preliminary Analysis (cont.) LEAs voluntarily used up to 15% of IDEA 611 and 619 funds for CEIS in SY 2009-10 – 1,596 LEAs voluntarily used up to 15% of IDEA 611 and 619 funds for CEIS – 10.7 percent of LEAs voluntarily used up to 15% of IDEA 611 and 619 funds for CEIS
36 Preliminary Analysis (cont.) Children receiving CEIS – 1,044,435 children received CEIS during SY 2009-10 – 119,665 children received CEIS anytime in the past two school years and received special education and related services in SY 2009-10
37 Public Availability of Table 8 Data Released in early Fall Publically available on www.ideadata.orgwww.ideadata.org Formats: – CSV file with LEA-level data, state aggregates, and national aggregates – Data Tables with State and National aggregates
38 Data Table 1 Presents state and national aggregates of the following information: – Number of Reported LEAs – Number of LEAs required to use 15% of funds for CEIS due to significant disproportionality – Percentage of LEAs required to use 15% of funds for CEIS due to significant disproportionality
39 Example of Data Table 1
40 Data Table 2 Presents state and national aggregates for the number and percentage of LEAs in each determination category: – Meets requirements – Needs assistance – Needs intervention – Needs substantial intervention
41 Example of Data Table 2
42 Data Table 3 Presents state and national aggregates of the following information: – Number of Reported LEAs – Number of LEAs that reduced MOE – Dollar amount reduced under the IDEA MOE provision
43 Example of Data Table 3
44 Data Table 4 Presents state and national aggregates of the following information: – Number of reported LEAs – Number of LEAs voluntarily used up to 15% of IDEA 611 and 619 funds for CEIS – Percentage of LEAs voluntarily used up to 15% of IDEA 611 and 619 funds for CEIS
45 Example of Data Table 4
46 Data Table 5 Presents state and national aggregates of the following information: – Number of Reported LEAs – Number of children who received CEIS – Number of children who received CEIS anytime in the past two school years and received special education and related services
47 Example of Data Table 5
48 Contact information Lucille Sleger, OSEP – Lucille.Sleger@ed.gov Lucille.Sleger@ed.gov Meredith Miceli, OSEP – Meredith.Miceli@ed.gov Meredith.Miceli@ed.gov Danielle Crain, DAC – DanielleCrain@Westat.com DanielleCrain@Westat.com
Download ppt "2011 OSEP Leadership Mega Conference Collaboration to Achieve Success from Cradle to Career 2.0 Coordinated Early Intervening Services and Reduction of."
Ppt on value stream mapping in lean manufacturing Ppt on applied operational research Ppt on diversity of life on earth Educational backgrounds for ppt on social media Ppt on marketing management by philip kotler's segment-by-segment Ppt on different occupations in a hospital Ppt on chapter 12 electricity generation Edit ppt on mac Ppt on world book day activities Ppt on finance commission of india
COORDINATED EARLY INTERVENTION SERVICES CEIS 1.
1 Connecticut State Department of Education American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA): Bureau of Special Education Teleconference May 21, 2009.
1 Connecticut State Department of Education American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA): Strategic Planning, Community Consensus Mark K. McQuillan Commissioner.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012 BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION Division of Performance and Accountability Special Education Program 1.
 Two aspects to IDEA MOE: 1. Eligibility Process  Determines eligibility to receive IDEA-B funds  Compares upcoming year’s Budget to prior year Expenditures*