Read Monitoring Model text version

Minnesota Special Education Monitoring Model

Minnesota Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process

Minnesota Department of Education Division of Compliance and Assistance 1500 Highway 36 West Roseville, Minnesota 55113-4266 Phone: 651.582.8689 Fax: 651.582.8725 Internet address: http://education.state.mn.us/mde/index.html

Mission Safeguarding the individual rights of all learners. Vision Appropriate, equitable educational opportunities are available to all learners.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

AUTHORITY HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE SCOPE Total Special Education System (TSES) Application Components Monitoring Responsibilities Collaboration CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT MONITORING PROCESS Monitoring Visit Preparation Traditional Review Self-Review Fiscal Monitoring MONITORING COMPONENTS Record Selection Record Review Longitudinal Review District Status Stakeholder Information Interviews Program Appeals Corrective Action Plan Action Plan STATE RESPONSE TO NON-COMPLIANCE Eligibility Follow-up Review Validation Sanction Appeal ATTACHMENTS Definitions Self-Review Reporting Guideline Self-Review Reports Record Review Checklists Eligibility Checklists Data Privacy Compliance Peer Project

MONITORING AUTHORIZATION LAW The Division of Special Education Compliance and Assistance (DCA) within the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) has the authority and is directly required by both Federal and State law to monitor education for pupils participating in the following programs: IDEA Pub. L. 105-17. In order to monitor these programs, it may be necessary to review educational records of individual pupils. School districts must provide such records to monitoring personnel, and further written consent of either the pupil's parents or the pupil is not required. According to the Minnesota Attorney General's Office, state monitors include all persons acting as representatives of the state in the monitoring process including trained Compliance Peers. The following are the applicable rules regarding such disclosure: 1. Federal Regulations titled "Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA); 34 C.F.R. § 99.31 Prior Consent to Disclose Information (a) An educational agency or institution may disclose personally identifiable information from the education record of a student without the written consent of the parent or the eligible students if the disclosure is: (3) Subject to the conditions set forth in Section 99.35, to authorize representatives of: (iv) State education authorities (6)(i) The disclosure is to organizations conducting studies for, or on behalf of, education agencies or institutions to: (B) Administer student aid programs; or (C) Improve instruction. (ii) The agency or institution may disclose information under paragraph (a)(6)(i) of this section only if: (B) The information is destroyed when no longer needed for the purposes for which the study was conducted. (iv) For the purposes of paragraph (a) (6) of this section, the term "organization" includes, but is not limited to, Federal, State, and local agencies, and independent organizations. 34 C.F.R. § 99.35 Disclosure of Information for Federal or State Programs (a) The officials listed in Sec. 99.31(a)(3) may have access to education records in connection with an audit or evaluation of Federal or State supported education programs, or for the enforcement of or compliance with Federal legal requirements which relate to those programs.

2. Federal regulations titled "Education of Children with Disabilities" 34 C.F.R. § 300.571 Consent (b) An educational agency or institution subject to 34 C.F.R. Part 99 of this title may not release information from education records to participating agencies without parental consent unless authorized to do so under part 99. (Note: Sections 99.31 and 99.35 provide that for auditing, evaluation or enforcement purposes, state education agency personnel may access student records without prior parental or student consent.) 3. 20 U.S.C. 1232d(b): Assurance An application submitted under subsection (a) of this section shall set forth assurance, satisfactory to the Secretary: (1) that each program will be administered in accordance with all applicable statutes, regulations, program plans, and applications; (3) that the State will adopt and use proper methods of administering each applicable program, including: (A) monitoring of agencies, institutions, and organizations responsible for carrying out each program, and the enforcement of any obligations imposed on those agencies, institutions, and organizations under law. (E) the correction of deficiencies in program operations that are identified through monitoring or evaluations.

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE The current system that places special education policy development in a separate division from compliance monitoring of special education policy began in 1978 with the establishment of the Office of Monitoring and Compliance (OMC). In May of 1988, OMC convened a Monitoring Advisory Committee to discuss special education monitoring. This group included special education directors from metro and greater Minnesota, Education Cooperative Service Unit representatives, one director of an intermediate district, a general education administrator, a parent representative, and staff from OMC. The group worked throughout the year defining the mission of monitoring in Minnesota, the values and beliefs considered pivotal to the role of monitoring, the authority upon which monitoring rests, the specifics of the monitoring cycle, and other recommended components of the monitoring process. The outcome of the group's efforts was the March 1990 Minnesota Monitoring Model. The model delineated the components mentioned above and defined the major aspects of the monitoring process. In 1991, the OMC was joined with the Office of Equal Educational Opportunity to form one unit, the Office of Monitoring and Compliance/Equal Educational Opportunity (OMC/EEO). The monitoring model was revised in spring 1992, and again in July 1995. The first charter schools in Minnesota opened in 1992. Since then additional charter schools have joined the public school roster. Charter schools are held to the same legal requirements and are monitored in the same manner as other public schools. During the 1998-1999 school year, the Division of Compliance and Assistance (DCA) in conjunction with the Division of Special Education Policy (DSEP) required each administrative unit to develop an Implementation Plan consisting of a review of required elements of IDEA with special focus on specified low-incidence disability issues and practices, as well as a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) for areas found in non-compliance and a report of program evaluation and continuous improvement. All district plans were reviewed and a monitoring team, comprised of a compliance specialist and specialists from DSEP, who discussed the district plan with the district special education leadership, visited each district. During the 1999-2000 school year, thirteen administrative units piloted self-study due process compliance reviews that included DCA validation of district compliance findings. Districts surveyed parents, administrators, and general and special educators. Each district conducted record reviews of current due process documentation as well as longitudinal record reviews of Evaluation Reports (ERs) and Individual Education Plans (IEPs) from the most recent three-year period. After a district's self-study compliance review was concluded, MDE completed a Validation Review of the district's findings. In the spring, special education directors from the pilot sites met with MDE representatives to critique the self-study process. The recommendations from the pilot group were incorporated into a new monitoring model. Simultaneously, DSEP was in the third year of its Program Evaluation and Continuous Improvement project. Districts receiving grant monies selected a leadership team and developed special education mission and belief statements. Each leadership team collected district special education students' educational attainment data, state assessment results and attribute survey information. After interpreting the data, each leadership team developed and implemented an Action Plan for improvement.

During the 2000-2001 school year, DCA and DSEP collaborated to combine the self-study due process compliance review model and the program evaluation continuous improvement model into one system, resulting the in Minnesota Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process:Self-Review (MNCIMP:SR.) This collaboration provided the basis for district special education strategic planning with data-based decision making-to evaluate and improve special education programs. Effective in the 2000-2001 school year, MDE was given authority to approve educational programs in care and treatment facilities licensed by the Department of Human Services or the Department of Corrections. DCA collaborates with the DSEP in the approval process; special education monitoring is one component of approval. While care and treatment facilities are held to the same federal special education requirements, Minnesota statute defines the approval process components and specific requirements unique to care and treatment facilities. As regulations change accountability standards changed over time, so too has the degree of district involvement in the monitoring process. Based upon national trends and interest from local school districts, DCA uses a continuous improvement monitoring process with traditional monitoring and district self-study as options for full due process monitoring review. Both options focus on due process procedural safeguards and ensuring conferred educational benefit for special education students in order to provide a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). Compliance Monitoring of a Local Education Agency (LEA) is scheduled on a four-year cycle for both Traditional Review and Self-Review. Traditional Review is initiated and conducted by DCA. District Self-Review combines compliance monitoring with the district's self-study that promotes a continual program improvement process in which the district works collaboratively with MDE. District compliance is reviewed through annually submitted reports as well as a validation visit during the four-year cycle.

SCOPE Monitoring is the collection and analysis of data with the principle objective of determining special education program quality and compliance. DCA monitors district systemic practice and is not intended for individual staff evaluation or specific student review. Minnesota's Total Special Education System (TSES) is the organizational system, used to evaluate the provision of services to pupils with disabilities. Fourteen program components listed below provide a comprehensive outline of Minnesota's TSES: 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 Identification System Referral Evaluation or reevaluation Individualized Education Plan (IEP), Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) and Individual Interagency Intervention Plan (IIIP) Planning Instructional delivery of programs Staffing Facilities Due process procedural safeguards/ parent involvement Personnel development Interagency Transportation Coordination with other educational programs Fiscal resources and reporting Governance

The Special Education Due Process Manual references federal statutes and regulations, and state laws and rules according to the components listed above, with specific legal citations provided, clearly demonstrating the connection between law and implementation of due process requirements. Lead Compliance Specialists are assigned to administrative units (district, cooperatives, etc.) in order to provide continuity of service through consistent application of due process standards and technical assistance. Through this process compliance specialists develop a relationship with a district, which in turn provides a broad understanding and creates in-depth knowledge of a district's special education programs. As a result specialists are better able to support each district in meeting legal requirements that ensure FAPE. Compliance specialists also collaborate with other departmental divisions and units regarding the provisions of special education services to students identified with special education needs. Within DCA, district complaint decisions are forwarded to the designated compliance specialist for consideration in preparation for a monitoring visit. When complaint issues are found to be of a systemic nature, they are referred to monitoring for Focus Compliance Monitoring in the specifically identified problem area.

DSEP Program Specialists provide recommended practice training to districts and, when appropriate, technical assistance as identified in a Traditional Review Corrective Action Plan (CAP) or SelfReview Action Plan. Program specialists and compliance specialists share expertise, inform each other and collaborate in training districts. DSEP Specialists also participate in the annual review of district Self-Review Reports. The monitoring of Department of Human Services and Department of Corrections' licensed Care and Treatment facilities is also completed as a component and in connection with the approval process of the educational programs in Care and Treatment facilities. The monitoring of Charter Schools is another area in which interdepartmental cooperation is essential. In addition to interdepartmental collaboration, DCA trains and uses compliance peers from around the State of Minnesota to support the State's monitoring oversight responsibility. Once trained, Compliance Peers participate in LEA monitoring visits throughout the school year. Peers contribute a perspective from their current field experience that enriches the monitoring process as each district is reviewed. (Further explanation of Compliance Peers is in Attachment G.)

Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process

OVERVIEW

The Minnesota Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process (MNCIMP) provides the vehicle for MDE oversight of due process and procedural safeguards, conferred education benefit for special education students, as well as the provision of FAPE. MDE and DCA have the authority to ensure that each district demonstrates general compliance and continuous improvement in the implementation of the full provisions of IDEA. Each district is monitored for compliance under one of two continuous improvement options: Traditional Review (TR) or Self-Review (SR). Traditional Review identifies a district's compliance status during a monitoring visit and follow-up visit. Self-Review brings compliance and special education program evaluation into a single strategic plan to improve due process compliance and program results for students with disabilities. In order to participate in Self-Review, a district must maintain general due process compliance. Once considered to be in general compliance, a district may self-select to join SR. Both Traditional Review and Self-Review include a site visit where records are reviewed, staff interviewed, facilities visited and stakeholder information collected. Both MDE Specialists and Compliance Peers participate in site visits. After the monitoring visit, the district is provided preliminary data regarding ineligible students and is given opportunity to provide information that existed at the time of the monitoring visit but was not available, and to refute any of the preliminary findings of non-compliance. A Lead Compliance Specialist reviews the submitted data for compliance. Once a district receives the final monitoring report, it has thirty days to appeal the findings to the director of DCA.

TRADITIONAL REVIEW

Traditional Review is conducted by DCA on a four-year cycle. A district may choose to participate in Traditional Review or DCA may determine that Traditional Review is appropriate when a district demonstrates persistent and/or significant non-compliance. In preparation for a site visit, a Lead Compliance Specialist selects student records for review, and collects and reviews district data including but not limited to: previous monitoring reports; district complaint decisions; non-discriminatory evaluations and stakeholder surveys. During a monitoring visit, student records are reviewed, staff interviewed, and facilities visited. After an on-site monitoring visit, a Lead Compliance Specialist analyzes and interprets the collected data, and writes a report reflecting the status of the district's due process compliance related to the TSES components. The district must submit a CAP, within forty-five calendar days of receipt of the monitoring report, for review and approval by the Lead Compliance Specialist. The district may request and extension to complete the CAP. Once the CAP is approved, the district is responsible for implementing the CAP to improve identified areas of non-compliance. A follow-up review is conducted one year after the CAP is approved, allowing time for a district to train and implement changes and for the records to reflect delineated improvements. The follow-up review focuses on improvement in areas of previously identified non-compliance to verify that the corrective action implemented by the district resolved the systemic problems. In addition, any new findings of noncompliance discovered during a follow-up visit are included in the follow-up report and require a CAP. When found in general compliance, the district is released from monitoring until the next four-year cycle. When found in continued non-compliance, the process is repeated with increased oversight by DCA and sanctions as needed.

SELF-REVIEW Districts participating in MNCIMP:SR work in collaboration with MDE. Communication between the LEA and Lead Compliance Specialist is an essential element for the success of this process. The overall goal of Self-Review is for a district to maintain and improve general compliance of due process requirements, and develop a program evaluation system that addresses the quality of special education programming. A district must meet two requirements in order to participate in SelfReview: 1) Maintain general compliance, and 2) Submit an annual plan to MDE by June 30. The report addresses the district's progress on areas of non-compliance and other high needs addressed in the Action Plan. MDE staff and district representatives review the annual reports for internal consistency with the initial plan, the implementation of the Action Plan, progress made on areas of non-compliance, state goals and the data management plan. This review process affords MDE oversight to ensure procedural safeguards and FAPE are in effect, as well as support a district's efforts with program evaluation. MDE provides technical assistance throughout the Self-Review process and develops a dynamic understanding of district compliance and program issues. Initially, the majority of technical assistance is provided through DCA. As a district demonstrates consistent compliance, training on recommended practices is available through the DSEP. Self-Review includes the following components: · Planning Year: During a district's first year of SR, the leadership team creates the foundation for an integrated strategic plan through the development of mission, belief and goal statements, an internal monitoring process and a data collection plan including questions to be answered through the analysis and interpretation of data. By June 30 a Planning Report that includes an Annual Data Management Plan is submitted to MDE for review and approval. This plan addresses the collection of due process compliance data and is also used to establish a baseline for future comparisons and support progress toward district-identified goals or as an indication of area(s) of high need. On a regular basis the leadership team reviews the planning components and as appropriate revises the district's plan. (See Attachment B for more details and directions about the Planning Report and Annual Data Management Plan.) · Implementation: The district implements the plan during the school year immediately following approval and collects the data identified in the Annual Data Management Plan. The leadership team analyzes and interprets the data, and identifies compliance and program strengths, concerns and areas of due process non-compliance. The district then develops an Action Plan to address these areas and adjusts the Annual Data Management Plan as needed. The Implementation and Improvement Report, including an Action Plan is submitted for approval to MDE by June 30. A district's continual cycle of data collection, Action Planning and implementation demonstrates improvement that is verified through June 30 report reviews and validation visits.

The year prior to the scheduled DCA validation visit, a district is required to complete a due process Self-Review that includes but is not limited to student record reviews and collection of stakeholder data. This review provides the district's current compliance status. (For further information about the Implementation and Improvement Report and Action Plan, see Attachment C). · Validation: Validation Review is conducted by DCA to verify a district's data collection process, ensure that all compliance areas are addressed, and document district improvement in non-compliance areas included in the previously approved Action Plan. Prior to a validation visit, a Lead Compliance Specialist reviews the district's Planning Report and Implementation and Improvement Report. Through this preparation any key areas not addressed by the district compliance review will be identified and reviewed during the DCA on-site visit. During the validation process, a district has the opportunity to demonstrate successful implementation of the Action Plan and highlight improvements made through the district's continuous improvement process. After the validation visit the Lead Compliance Specialist writes a report that addresses the status of the district's SelfReview process, areas of improvement and areas of non-compliance not previously identified. If areas of non-compliance remain or new areas are identified as non-compliant, the district revises the existing Action Plan to incorporate the new findings. This revised Action Plan must be submitted to MDE for approval by June 30th. Continued improvement and progress made to improve areas of non-compliance are reviewed through annual district reports. During the year following a validation visit, a district found in general compliance continues to implement the district plan as agreed upon with the Lead Compliance Specialist. The district is responsible for continuing the Self-Review process based on systemic practices and data driven decision-making. If, after conducting a Validation Review, it is determined that a district is not in general due process compliance, MDE decides if the district returns to Traditional Review or if the district remains in Self-Review with a follow-up on-site visit. Districts may choose to enter the Self-Review process at the beginning of any school year. If a district is scheduled for a monitoring visit prior to the district's readiness for a validation visit, DCA will conduct a Traditional Review. The Traditional Review results may then be integrated in the district's data collection practices and Action Planning for the following year. The corresponding course of action will be determined on a case-by-case basis by MDE.

FISCAL MONITORING OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS The use of state and federal special education funds is tied to monitoring district performance through the approval of LEA applications on an annual basis, which is the function of Special Education Funding and Data Team. When a district is in Traditional Review, fiscal monitoring of special education programs occurs simultaneously with program monitoring. For districts involved with Self-Review, fiscal monitoring typically occurs during the data collection phase of the implementation plan. This review may be conducted as a paper review at MDE or on-site as deemed appropriate by the fiscal monitoring and the Specials Education Funding and Data Team. When in response to a monitoring review, it is determined that federal or state special education funds have been spent in a manner inconsistent with state and federal law or rule, the Special Education Funding and Data Team may make adjustments to the district's special education funds. When documentation in a student record does not substantiate eligibility or a student without a current IEP is included on the corresponding December 1 Child Count, DCA notifies the Special Education Funding and Data Team of these findings and the district's special education funds are adjusted to reflect the corrected information and accurate child count. More details may be found in the Special Education Funding Manual available on the department's website < >, or call 65582-8242 for information. MONITORING COMPONENTS RECORD SELECTION Five percent of a district's December 1 Child Count is selected for record review. A proportional stratified random sample of special education records is selected that reflects district demographics, e.g. disability, age, race, culture, and language. Stratified random sampling divides the population into segments representing district demographics. The sample must be stratified by disability; grade range, i.e. Part C, pre-kindergarten, elementary, middle, and high school; minority status; and gender. In addition records are chosen based on annual areas of MDE focus determined by State program improvement goals and directives from the Federal Office of Special Education Programs. Additional records may be selected from the following options: a minimum of five records within multi-district administrative units; two records from each case manager across disability areas; one record from each disability area represented in a district; or two for each grade range. For longitudinal review, a minimum of two records in a district and three records in a cooperative are selected from the already identified and reviewed records. Additional records may be selected at the discretion of the Lead Compliance Specialist, or in the case of Self-Review, by the district. Options include but are not limited to: one record for each disability area represented in a district, one record from each teacher or one record for each grade level.

STUDENT RECORD REVIEW

During the record review, the most current due process documentation including the most recent evaluation and Individual Education Plan (IEP) are monitored to determine that legal standards are met. Areas reviewed correspond to compliance components listed under the TSES, referenced in the above section titled, Scope. Longitudinal review is conducted by monitoring a single student record over the most recent threeyear period to determine internal consistency and evidence of conferred educational benefit for the student. Internal consistency demonstrates that special education services and related services are based on student needs related to the identified disability. The two most recent Evaluation Reports (ERs) provide evidence of a disability and need for special education services. Internal consistency between the ERs and the three related IEPs determine when educational needs identified in the Evaluation Reports are consistently addressed throughout the IEP. Internal consistency is evident in the IEP when components are interrelated, i.e. Present Level of Performance (PLEP) corresponds to the evaluation information and provides the basis for goals and adaptations, while objectives indicate the skills necessary to achieve an identified goal. Finally, educational benefit reflects student growth over a three-year period in the IEP PLEP, goals, adaptations and objectives, as well as in progress reports and re-evaluation results. DISTRICT STATUS Monitoring data is used to reflect systemic district practices. A monitoring report may identify strengths, concerns and/or area(s) of non-compliance. An area of strength is identified when practices that exceed the legal standard are consistently applied throughout a district. An area of concern is identified when approximately fifteen percent of the records reviewed are identified as in non-compliance. Concerns are noted to make the district aware of the potential need for change of the district practices. Non-compliance is identified when approximately twenty percent of the files reviewed in a specific compliance area do not meet the required legal standard. Non-compliance is always noted if a student is included on the corresponding December 1 Child Count yet is not eligible to receive special education or does not have a current IEP on December 1. STAKEHOLDER INFORMATION Surveys In order to understand the perceptions of identified stakeholders regarding district special education services, MDE developed surveys to use during compliance reviews. Surveys were developed for use with parents of special education students, administrators, general and special educators, paraprofessionals and students. General educators and administrators involved with students with disabilities need to be included in the distribution of surveys. Parent surveys should be sent to a proportional stratified random sampling of parents of learners across all disabilities, all age ranges and including diversity with regard to race, culture, and socio-economic status. To help ensure that all segments of the parent sample have opportunity to respond to a survey, the district should provide an interpreter to meet with parents who have limited English to assist them in completing the survey. For non-readers the district should make arrangements to meet with these parents and provide assistance in completing a survey.

A Self-Review district may administer the state-designed surveys, a locally designed survey or select another method for gathering stakeholder information, e.g. focus groups. The district must collect information from the following stakeholders: parents, general education teachers, special education teachers including Part C staff, paraprofessionals and administrators. All data collection methods must address the following standards: 1. Equal access to educational opportunity 2. Appropriate pre-referral interventions 3. Effective evaluation and IEP process 4. Communication/involvement among IEP team members. 5. Student support in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) 6. Appropriate support for student and staff, i.e. training, services, adaptations, etc. 7. Adequate Funding 8. Areas of focus, e.g. transition, paraprofessional training and assistive technology, may vary over time. INTERVIEWS During a review visit, interviews are conducted with the special education director and/or leadership team to provide the district an opportunity to report on district progress and to verify district practices. Staff are interviewed regarding compliance practices, data collection, parent involvement, paraprofessional training, etc. Staff interviews may include questions related to record review findings. The Lead Compliance Specialist may interview parents and students. FACILITY REVIEW Visits are conducted to district sites where special education services are provided in order to verify that space provided for special education is accessible and conducive to learning as well as comparable and equivalent to space provided to general education within the district. FINAL REPORT APPEALS A district has 30 days from the receipt of the final monitoring report to file a written appeal of area(s) identified as in non-compliance. The appeal, which is sent to the Director of the Division of Compliance and Assistance, includes a rationale with supporting data. The district is notified in writing of the director's decision. If the appeal is decided in support of the district an amended final report is written and delivered to the district superintendent, school board chairperson and special education director. When an appeal is made, the forty-five day Corrective Action Plan (CAP) timeline count stops upon receipt of the appeal and does not start again until the district is notified of the decision regarding the appeal.

State Response to Non-compliance

CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN FOR TRADITIONAL REVIEW In Traditional Review a district has forty-five days from the receipt of the final report to develop and submit a CAP that corresponds to area(s) of due process non-compliance identified in the final monitoring report. A CAP delineates action needed; person(s) responsible; timelines, and evidence of completion. The Lead Compliance Specialist approves the plan as submitted or makes revisions as needed, and then notifies the district. Once approved, the district implements the CAP. Within the 45-day CAP timeline, districts may request an extension of time for submitting the CAP. The Lead Compliance Specialist provides a written response that provides timeline expectations. If a CAP is not submitted within the 45-day timeline, the Lead Compliance Specialist notifies the district. ACTION PLAN FOR SELF-REVIEW In Self-Review once a district analyzes and interprets data, and determines areas of non-compliance, the district must correct identified deficiencies. The district develops and implements an Action Plan as a systematic approach to improve identified areas of non-compliance. An Action Plan documents the district's goals, desired outcomes, strategies, activities, responsible parties, timelines, necessary resources and evidence of completion. The plan must be data-driven, meaningful and internally consistent with the leadership team's mission and goals. If areas of non-compliance are identified during a Validation Review, the district must make adjustments to the existing Action Plan to reflect new compliance findings. STUDENT ELIGIBLITY All required components of state disability criteria must be addressed in an ER to establish initial eligibility or on reevaluation that a disability continues to exist. Reevaluations must meet four purposes in federal regulations at §300.533: 1) List Present Levels of Educational Performance (PLEP) and student needs; 2) verify that the student continues to have a disability; 3) show that the student continues to need special education; and 4) document adaptations necessary for the student to meet IEP goals and participate in the general education curriculum. When student eligibility cannot be determined due to inadequate or insufficient information, a district is allowed a reasonable period of time to provide additional information that existed at the time of the review yet was not available. Additionally, data submitted is reviewed by the Lead Compliance Specialist to determine eligibility on a case-by-case basis. When documentation in a student record does not substantiate eligibility of a student and the student is included on the corresponding December 1 Child Count, funding will be adjusted to reflect the corrected child count and corresponding personnel time.

FOLLOW UP REVIEW If a district is found to have areas of systemic non-compliance through a Traditional Review, a Follow-up Review (FR) is conducted the year following approval of the district's CAP. When the district demonstrates continued non-compliance, repeated follow-up visits occur. MDE oversight increases with the need for each additional FR. The focus of a FR is systemic improvement in areas of previously identified areas of non-compliance. Any areas of systemic non-compliance not previously discovered during the previous monitoring visit are reported as New Findings in the Follow-up Review Report and are addressed in the corresponding CAP. If a Self-Review district is found in significant non-compliance during a Validation Review, DCA may exercise a variety of options, including but not limited to: a Traditional Follow-up Review within the same year as the validation visit or the following year. A FR provides the district an opportunity to demonstrate improved compliance. If a district continues in serious non-compliance, the district will be released from Self-Review and identified for Traditional Review until systemic compliance is demonstrated. SANCTIONS Since the use of discretionary funds is tied to monitoring performance, under state law, MDE may impose fiscal sanctions when it is determined that a district is failing to comply with federal special education law or has inappropriately used federal funds. The right of MDE to impose sanction is a responsibility mandated by the federal government that MDE not fund programs that are not in general compliance with federal regulations. If MDE were to provide unsupported federal funds to districts, the U.S. Office of Education is mandated to impose sanctions against the state. Minn. Stat. § 125A.75, subd.4;§ 127A. 42; 34 C.F.R. § 300.145, § 300.155; 20 U.S.C.§ 1232d(b)(1)-(5). Sanctions include but are not limited to the following: · If a student who does not have a current IEP or if a student is not eligible to receive services and is included on the December 1 Child Count, federal funds are forfeited. If a CAP is not fully implemented, child count monies may also be forfeited. · When appropriate, a district may be ordered to provide compensatory education for a student who did not receive FAPE due to continued non-compliance. · More frequent monitoring visits occur until all non-compliance issues are resolved. After the First Follow-up Monitoring Report, and in subsequent reports as applicable, the district is notified of the sanction that will be in effect if non-compliance continues as determined in the next follow-up visit.

For other areas of non-compliance the following sanctions may be applied at the discretion of the Lead Compliance Specialist: · First and Second Findings: funds are not withheld. · Third Finding: MDE recaptures funds relative to the seriousness of noncompliance and representative of the number of records reviewed that are found in non-compliance. DCA oversight increases. · Third Follow-up/Fourth Finding: A substantial loss of federal funding is determined by the percentage of records reviewed and found in noncompliance. This percentage is then applied to the district's total population of special education students. DCA oversight increases. · Fourth Follow-up/Fifth Finding: Federal funds are withheld until the district is found in general compliance. DCA oversight increases. · Sixth Finding: The district's application will not be approved and state money will be withheld. The level of DCA oversight increases. ATTACHMENTS: A. DEFINITIONS B. SELF-REVIEW REPORTING GUIDELINES 1. Reporting Guidelines for MNCIMP:SR 2. Procedures for Completing the Planning Report 3. Procedures for Completing the Implementation and Improvement Report http://education.state.mn.us/html/intro_monitor_cimp.htm C. MNCIMP:SR REPORTS 1. Planning Report 2. Implementation and Improvement Report http://education.state.mn.us/html/intro_monitor_cimp.htm D. RECORD REVIEW CHECKLISTS 1. Part B http://education.state.mn.us/html/intro_monitor_ptb.htm 2. Part C http://education.state.mn.us/html/intro_monitor_ptc.htm 3. Longitudinal Review http://education.state.mn.us/html/intro_monitor_long.htm 4. Non-Discriminatory Practices http://education.state.mn.us/html/intro_monitor_nondis.htm 5. Post-Secondary Transition 6. Stakeholder Surveys http://education.state.mn.us/html/intro_monitor_surveys.htm E. ELIGIBILITY CHECKLISTS http://education.state.mn.us/html/intro_monitor_check.htm F. DATA PRIVACY G. COMPLIANCE PEER PROJECT

ATTACHMENT A: DEFINITIONS Compliance: When a reviewed area meets the legal standards required by special education laws and rules it is considered to be in compliance. Compliance Peer: Individual who is selected and trained by MDE to participate in on-site monitoring visits. Compliance Peers may be special education supervisors, coordinators, lead teachers, specialists, higher education staff, or interagency representatives. CAP: Corrective Action Plan. District Leadership Team: The leadership team is a diverse group of stakeholders representative of the demographics of the district population. IEP: Individualized Education Program. IFSP: Individualized Family Service Plan. IIIP: Individual Interagency Intervention Plan. Lead Compliance Specialist: The MDE Special Education Monitor assigned to a particular district for monitoring visits and technical assistance. LEA: Local Education Agency. Longitudinal Reviews: Student record review that addresses internal consistency and conferred benefit based on two assessments, three annual IEPs and indicated progress reporting completed within a three-year cycle. MNCIMP: Minnesota Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process, which includes both traditional review and Self-Review. New Findings: An area of non-compliance not identified in an initial review or if applicable, in preceding Follow-up Reviews. Corrective action is required for new findings. SR: Self-Review. Serious non-compliance: A district demonstrates continuous non-compliance and/or a lack of good faith efforts to improve areas of identified non-compliance. Stakeholders: Parents, school administrators, general and special education staff, including paraprofessionals and students who are involved with special education due process and services provided as identified on the IEP. TR: Traditional Review.

ATTACHMENT B: SELF-REVIEW REPORTING GUIDELINES Reporting Guidelines for MNCIMP:SR The intention of the MNCIMP:SR is to incorporate program evaluation and due process compliance into district strategic planning to better meet individual needs of special education students. A requirement of CIMP:SR is that districts submit an annual report to MDE. Annual LEA reporting allows MDE to support a district's effort to improve special education programs, as well as meet the federal requirement that MDE provide oversight of district compliance standards with state and federal special education laws. Districts belonging to special education cooperatives or education districts must submit individual district reports. SR Report Format The reporting guidelines and report format were developed with district input. They are intended to be dynamic tools that change in response to what is learned through the SR process; consequently, they will be revised according to suggestions from districts and MDE staff. The reporting guidelines outline components and timelines for completion that allow a continuous record of SR activities. The forms are available on paper and in PC (Word 97) format. Timelines for Submitting Reports to the MDE Districts must submit the appropriate portion of the SR report by June 30 of each year. MDE staff and school district personnel review reports. For extensions or further clarification on timelines, directors may contact the MDE compliance specialist assigned to their district. Validation Review A Validation Review will be conducted during the four-year monitoring cycle. The MDE compliance specialist assigned to the district will conduct a Validation Review and prepare a separate monitoring report. Technology Support It is recommended that districts choosing to participate in the SR process select a district staff person who is familiar with and able to assist with technology issues related to Filemaker Pro, formatting Word 97 documents, installation, and operation of these software application programs. If districts choose to use state developed database programs, they must acquire the software application package needed to operate the database program.

ATTACHMENT B: SELF-REVIEW REPORTING GUIDELINES Procedures for Completing the Planning Report The Planning Report for SR is a working document that outlines long-range data collection plans for compliance and program improvement. Districts must submit all of the Planning Report components (1-8) by June 30 of the planning year. Planning Report Components: 1. Leadership Team Formation and Membership · Provide a brief narrative addressing: a. Leadership team members and positions b. Leadership team selection process c. Membership length d. Membership responsibilities 2. Mission, Belief, and Goal Development: · Describe process and activities used in development of mission, belief, and goal statements. 3. Mission Statement: · Provide the district and/or special education mission statement. 4. Belief Statements: · Provide the district and/or special education belief statements. 5. Goal Statements: · Goal statements should reflect district identified goals as well as those identified by MDE as described in the MN PECI 2000 manual: a) Student attainment b) System attainment c) Due process compliance 6. Long Range Data Collection Planning Cycle · Identify the school year data will be collected for each of the data sources, e.g. Year 2: 2002-2003; Year 3: 2003-2004; Year 4: 2004-2005. MDE generates the following data that must be reported annually by districts: · State Test Scores · Graduation Rates · Drop Out Rates For more information see Annual Data Management Plan, component 8.

The following data sources must be collected prior to the district's scheduled validation visit: · Record Review: Please refer to component 8 in these directions for further parameters around collecting record review information. · Longitudinal Review: There are two purposes for the completion of longitudinal reviews. One is to determine internal consistency between a student's identified educational needs and special education services provided. This review encompasses a three-year period covering the most recent reevaluation and three years of IEPs. The second purpose is to determine if the special education program conferred benefit to the student. Please refer to component 8 in these directions for further parameters around collecting longitudinal information. · Stakeholder Information: The purpose of collecting data from stakeholders is to gather information about the effectiveness of a district's special education program to support special education students in gaining educational benefit through the delivery of FAPE. There are several options the district can select to collect stakeholder information which include but are not limited to using: state developed surveys; district developed surveys; or other methods sufficient to solicit the data. Districts may choose to spread out the collection of the stakeholder information as long as all information is collected prior to the scheduled monitoring visit. Please refer to component 8 in these directions for further parameters regarding collecting stakeholder information. Describe any optional data sources the district is choosing to use and identify the year when data collection would begin for each data source. · Academic and Personal & Social Attributes: This data is optional for districts to report. A data base program is available to use when compiling data. · Other: Other areas of interest to the district. 7. Parental & Community Involvement Describe methods for parental and community involvement in the planning process. 8. Annual Data Management Plan The Annual Data Management Plan is a reporting component for both the planning report and the implementation and improvement report. The district must provide an annual plan for data collection that addresses the following components: · Instruments and procedures for the long-range data collection cycle. · Target populations (demographic representation). · Data collection timelines. · Analysis procedures. · Person(s) responsible. · Resources needed: identify centralized training and other supports needed to implement this plan. For each data source, please note the following: · State test score results are sent annually to directors of special education in December. · Graduation rates are sent annually to directors of special education in January. · Dropout rates are sent annually to directors of special education in January.

Record Review Five percent of a district's December 1 Child Count must be selected for record review. Select a proportional stratified random sample of special education records reflective of district demographics (e.g. race/culture/language). Stratified random sampling divides the population into strata representing the subgroups of interest. The sample must be stratified by disability, grade level (Part C, Pre-kindergarten, elementary, middle, and high school), minority status, and gender. Currently, a 20% standard is applied to determine the district level of special education compliance for each TSES area. Caution is advised in analyzing results for compliance when districts have small child counts (e.g. 400 or less) or sample size is minimal. In records selected for review, the most recent IEP and ER are monitored to determine whether the legal standard has been met as outlined in the TSES manual. Record review and eligibility checklists are available to assist districts with this review process and are coded to the corresponding TSES standards. Longitudinal Review Longitudinal reviews monitor evidence of conferred benefit of special education programming and internal consistency over a three-year period. Districts are advised to conduct longitudinal reviews on records pulled for the record review. A minimum of two records in a district is selected for longitudinal reviews. Districts are encouraged to identify a larger sample size when conducting these reviews. Options include but are not limited to: one record for each disability area represented in a district, one record from each teacher, or one record for each grade level. Stakeholder Information The district must collect information from the following stakeholders: parents, general education teachers, special education teachers, administrators and ECSE staff. All data collection methods must address the standards listed on page 5. In addition, there may be particular areas of focus identified by MDE that need to be included, e.g. Transition, Paraprofessionals, Assistive Technology, etc. Standards: 1. Equal access 2. Appropriate pre-referral interventions 3. Effective evaluation and IEP process 4. Communication/involvement among IEP team members 5. Student support in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) 6. Appropriate support for student and staff: training; services, adaptations, etc. 7. Adequate Funding State stakeholder surveys are available for districts to use along with a database program to score the survey results. If districts choose to use the surveys and scoring program, they must have Filemaker Pro 3.0 application software. ECSE survey data must be hand tabulated.

The following are suggested guidelines for distribution of stakeholder surveys: Parents of students with disabilities (birth through 21): there are 2 formats for this survey, birth to kindergarten entrance and K-12. It is very important to have a proportional stratified random sampling of all disabilities across all age ranges (including diversity with regard to race, culture, and socio-economic status) of learners with disabilities. To help ensure that all parents have a chance to respond to a survey, please send the survey only to parents whose primary language is English. Limited English Proficiency: if the parent of any child has a primary language other than English, we are asking the district to provide an interpreter to meet with these parents to assist them in completing the survey. Non-readers: if you are aware of any parents who are non-readers, please arrange an opportunity to meet with these parents and assist them in completing the survey. Special Education Staff: please send surveys to a sufficiently large number of special education staff in your district. General Education Teachers: please send surveys to a sufficiently large number of general education teachers in your district who work with students receiving special education services. Building Administrators: please send to an administrator in each building who is responsible for students receiving special education services e.g. principal, assistant principal, dean, ECSE coordinator/lead teacher, etc. Caution is advised in analyzing results when districts have small child counts, e.g. 400 or less, or the sample size is minimal.

ATTACHMENT B: SELF-REVIEW REPORTING GUIDELINES Procedures for Completing the Implementation and Improvement Report The Implementation and Improvement Report documents status and findings from the data sources included in the Annual Data Management Plan. Summarize findings in a narrative form for each data source addressed during the school year the report is submitted. The Implementation and Improvement Plan has ten components listed below. Districts must address the following components in the Implementation and Improvement: Background Information & Data Sources: Describe additional information, if any, that significantly affects the analysis of data. Summarize pertinent district data such as special education population; minority status; type and number of stakeholders solicited and response rate; number of records reviewed in each disability area; Part C and MDE focus areas, e.g. transition; number of longitudinal reviews; and other data sources identified by the leadership team. Program Evaluation: Annually, districts must report the following information and provide a brief description and analysis of the data. Select the degree of need based upon the urgency to implement change as determined by district criteria established by the leadership team. Test Scores; consider the following: · State-wide results for special education population. · District-wide results for all students. · District-wide results for all special education students. · Number of students represented in the data. · Pertinent disability specific information. Graduation Rates; consider the following: · State-wide results for special education population. · District-wide results for all students. · District-wide results for all special education students. · Pertinent disability specific information. · How information compares with previous years? · How this information compares with similar districts? Drop Out Rates; consider the following: · State-wide results for special education population. · District-wide results for all students. · District-wide results for all special education students. · Pertinent disability specific information. · How information compares with previous years? · How this information compares with similar district?

Attributes; optional: · Academic Attributes · Personal & Social Attributes Other; optional: · Describe the results of other data collected by the district. Record Review: · District report data collected each year. Describe the compliance status for each TSES area identified on the record review checklist that meets or exceeds the 20% non-compliance standard. Citations are identified when twenty percent of the files reviewed in a particular TSES area are found non-compliant. If choosing a higher standard for non-compliance, e.g. 15% for non-compliance, please note the higher standard in this section of the report. The non-compliant TSES areas must be addressed in the Action Plan developed by the district. Areas of concern are identified when fifteen percent of the records reviewed are identified as non-compliant. Identified strengths are successful practices that go beyond the legal standard and are consistently followed. Exceptions to the 20% criterion for systemic non-compliance are in the areas of eligibility, duration of the IEP, and other situations involving the provision of the FAPE. These exceptions are considered on an individual case basis. Contact your compliance specialist for further clarification when reporting these compliance issues. Longitudinal Review: Report longitudinal review data the year the district is scheduled for a monitoring visit. Longitudinal reviews address two areas: conferred benefit and internal consistency. When reporting conferred benefit, describe the data used to determine whether the student benefits from his/her special education program and service over time. Growth should be documented from evaluation to evaluation and across three consecutive IEP's. Internal consistency reporting pertains to each indicator you used to determine the consistency of the documentation from initial or prior evaluation and the most current evaluation. Secondly, whether all three consecutive IEP's were consistent with the IEP process. Address the quality indicators as strengths or weaknesses found in the review. Select the degree of need based upon the urgency to implement change as determined by district criteria established by the leadership team. Stakeholder Information: Report stakeholder information the year the district is scheduled for a monitoring visit. Stakeholder data should describe perceptions of the effectiveness of a district to implement special education programs and involve legally identified stakeholders. Caution is advised when using small sample sizes. Select the degree of need based upon the urgency to implement change as determined by district criteria established by the leadership team.

Summary of Findings: Annually address one or more of the reporting categories through a formative summary synthesizing all compliance and program data collected into a broad narrative response. Previously reported data should remain in the report. All categories should be addressed the year prior to validation. The bullets under each reporting category are examples of sources of data to be synthesized. Select the degree of need based upon the urgency to implement change as determined by district criteria established by the leadership team. Parental Involvement; parent involvement in special education programming: · Status of Parent Advisory Committee · Parental perceptions · TSES record review data · If applicable, parent support groups initiatives. LRE; programming for students with disabilities in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE): · Address the percentage of students placed in the different settings. · Longitudinal Reviews · TSES record review data · Specific survey perceptions from stakeholders · Discriminatory practices · Issues identified in complaint decisions · Continuum and array of services available to all students Part C; birth to age 3 special education services: · Activities to transition students to Part B services · Coordinated services and interagency initiatives · Services provided in the natural environment · Status on IIIP implementation · Longitudinal Review · TSES record review data · Specific survey perceptions from stakeholders Secondary Transition; transition services available to students with disabilities in grade nine or age 14 and above: · Coordinated services and interagency initiatives · Training initiatives that focus on social competencies, advocacy, post secondary education, employment, independent living, community participation, and recreation & leisure. · TSES record review data · Specific survey perceptions from stakeholders

Identification; systems in the district to identify children with disabilities beginning at birth: · Child-find activities in public and non-public schools and those who are school age and not attending school. · Pre-referral interventions · Eligibility · Specific survey perceptions from stakeholders · Non-discriminatory practices Evidence of Progress from Previous Year's Action Plan: · Document evidence of progress toward goals and outcomes from approved Action Plan. Summary of Activities for Parental & Community Involvement: · Describe how the current findings were shared with parents and the community. · Describe how parents and other stakeholders were involved in the development of the Action Plan. Annual Data Management Plan: Resubmit the Annual Data Management Plan with appropriate revisions reflective of data collected and new information gained through the implementation and improvement process. Include the initial date of the Annual Data Management Plan used for the current implementation year, as well as the date of the submitted revision. Action Plan: The Action Plan provides comprehensive documentation that synthesizes the district plan, data collection and analysis into meaningful implementation activities for improvement. It delineates the steps necessary to guide implementation of selected improvement strategies and the procedures by which evidence of improvement will be compiled. A suggested sequence for planning would be to complete the first column to get a comprehensive understanding of the Action Plan, and then by row, complete the information for each activity. Areas of high need and record review non-compliance must be addressed within the Action Plan. Goal Statement: Identify goal as stated in the MNCIMP:SR Planning Report. Desired Outcome: The Desired Outcome aligns with the goal statement. Provide a measurable statement of the expected outcome, arrived at as a result of implementing appropriate strategies and activities. Measurability would respond to the question: "What would indicate the extent to which the desired outcome has been reached?"

Strategies: Tactics that when employed, will contribute directly or indirectly, to obtaining the evidence necessary to show that the desired outcome has been met. Activities: Provide a detailed roadmap of implementation. Initiation and Completion Dates: Indicate the projected time for implementing and scheduling activities. Person(s) Responsible: Describe who will be accountable for ensuring that steps and activities are brought to completion. Resources Needed: List the money, materials, time, training, etc., necessary to complete the activity. Evidence of Completion: Provide indicators that will verify that the activity has been implemented.

ATTACHMENT C: See Separate Files MNCIMP:SR REPORTS

Planning Report

Implementation and Improvement Report

Informal Record Review Checklist

Part C: ages 0 through 2

(Part B standards required ages 3-21)

ATTACHMENT D: RECORD REVIEW CHECKLISTS: Part B The Record Review Checklist is a guide for conducting record reviews and is meant to be advisory only and does not represent a written, official position of the Department of Education. This checklist is not inclusive of the district's legal obligations. School districts and individuals are charged with notice of laws based upon publication, and contrary statements or incorrect information does not negate the provisions of law. The Due Process Manual (TSES), available on the MDE Compliance and Assistance website, cites all legal standards and provides for a comprehensive review of the district's special education program. The reference number listed in the left-hand column provides the TSES (2000) code that corresponds to a particular legal standard. Common requirements for students of all ages (3-21) are listed for two broad areas: 3.0 Evaluation Content and Procedures and 4.0 IEP/III-P Content and Procedures. Eligibility standards and additional requirements specific to particular student populations follow each of the broad areas. Ref. # 8.12.3 2.1.1 3.1.1 3.0 Evaluation Content and Procedures Identifiable access log that includes name of the party, date of access, and purpose for which the party is authorized to use the records. (Be sure to sign the access log. If missing, put an access log in the file.) Pre-referral interventions documented. (Only on initial evaluations for K-12. Located in the ER, separate document, or general education folder, etc. These interventions may be waived based on team decision.) The district provide parents with Notice of Proposed Evaluation/Re-evaluation plan that includes: · The reason for evaluation; · a description of areas to be assessed; · where the evaluation will be conducted; and, · materials and procedures, and if appropriate, modifications to the evaluation process. (Did the district provide written notice to the parent(s) when no additional data were required for re-evaluation?). Parental Informed Consent for Evaluation: · Initial evaluation: written signature prior to evaluation. · Re-evaluation: signature or documentation of attempts (2 or more) to get consent, if signature not received. (Did testing begin prior to expiration of 14 calendar days?) Evaluation Timelines: · Evaluation/re-Evaluation Report completed within 30-school days. (ER must be completed and delivered to the parent within the 30-school day timeline.) Frequency of Reevaluation: · The re-evaluation occurs within a three-year timeline.

3.1.3

3.1.5

3.2.2

29

CFL Revised September 2, 2002

Ref. # 3.2.5

3.0 Evaluation Content and Procedures SLD Evaluation Team · Includes the parent, child's regular teacher (or regular education teacher who is qualified to teach this age child), and · team member(s) licensed in the pupil's suspected area(s) of disability and when appropriate, other individuals with knowledge or expertise regarding the learner. Non-discriminatory Evaluation Practices: · Evaluation materials are selected and administered so as not to be discriminatory on a racial or cultural basis. Recognition or accommodation for persons whose differences or conditions cause standardized instruments to be invalid. Documentation not required. · (Scores for minority students might not be reported; if so, view the test protocol.) · (If ranges are used, use the lowest score in the range to determine eligibility.) · Percentiles can be converted to standard scores. · (If not documented in record review, conduct a director or staff interview.) Evaluation Materials and Procedures: · Performed in all areas related to the suspected disability, (vision, health, hearing, social/emotional, intellectual, academic, communication, and motor). · Performed with a variety of technically sound instruments that may evaluate relative contribution of cognitive and behavior factors, and physical or developmental factors. · Evaluation materials used to assess child under Part B are provided and administered in child's primary language or other mode of communication unless clearly not feasible to do so. · Consider private evaluations provided by parent (when available). Evaluation Report (ER): Evaluation Report contains the following information: · Parent(s) information about the child (separate bullet or embedded in the report). · Summary of results from data sources listed in the evaluation plan. · Present Levels of Performance (PLEP) and educational needs that derive from the disability. · Documentation of whether the child has a particular category of disability under 34 C.F.R. § 300.7 and is in need of special instruction and services, and for reevaluation, continues to have such a disability and continues to need special education and related services. · Whether any additions or modifications to the special education and related services are needed. Braille Evaluation: · A Braille skills inventory completed. · ER including a statement of strengths and deficits. Secondary Transition Evaluation: · District conducts an evaluation of secondary transition needs by grade 9 or age 14. · Areas of evaluation must be relevant to a pupil's needs. · Results must be documented as part of an ER. · May include the following areas: a) work b) recreation and leisure c) home living d) community participation e) post-secondary training and learning opportunities 30

CFL Revised September 2, 2002

3.2.6

3.2.7

3.2.12

3.2.8

3.2.9

Ref. # 3.0 Evaluation Content and Procedures 5.13.2 Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA): (Glossary) · Description of problem behaviors. · Identification of events, times and situations that predict the occurrence and nonoccurrence of the behavior. · Identification of antecedents, consequences and rein-forcers that maintain the behavior, the possible functions of the behavior and possible positive alternative behaviors. · Includes a variety of data collection methods and sources that facilitate the development of hypotheses and summary statements regarding behavioral patterns. 3.7 Team Override Documentation, includes: · Explanation of invalid results. · Explanation that indicates what objective data were used. · Identification of which data had the greatest relative importance for the eligibility decision. · Signature of team members agreeing to the decision and a signed statement from each team member that disagrees with the decision explaining the reasons for the disagreement. 3.8 Exit Procedures (Except for graduation or aging out): A child with a disability must be evaluated prior to determining that the child is no longer a child with a disability. ELIGIBILITY Refer to the criteria sheets for specific eligibility criteria information. 3.4.1 Autism 3.4.3 Deaf-Blind 3.4.4 EBD ­ Emotional Behavioral Disorders 3.4.5 DHH ­ Deaf/Hard of Hearing 3.4.6 DCD (MMMI/MSMI) ­ Developmental Cognitive Disability 3.4.7 OHI ­ Other Health Disabilities 3.4.8 PI ­ Physically Impaired 3.4.9 SMI ­ Severely Multiply Impaired 3.4.10 SLD ­ Specific Learning Disability 3.4.10C SLD Written report: For children identified as learning disabled, did the IEP/IFSP team certify in writing in the Evaluation Report: · The existence of severe underachievement in response to general education classroom instruction. · The existence of severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement. · The existence of an information processing disorder in a variety of settings. · Observations of relevant behavior of the learner, made by one team member other than the classroom teacher. · The relationship of that behavior to the learner's academic functioning. · The existence of any educationally relevant medical finding. · The discrepancy cannot be corrected without the provision of special education and related services. · The disability is not the result of visual, hearing, motor impairment, mental retardation, or emotional disturbance, environmental cultural, economic influences or history of inconsistent educational programming. 31

CFL Revised September 2, 2002

3.4.11 3.4.12 3.4.13 3.5 3.6.1 Ref. # 4.1.3

4.3.1

4.3.2

4.3.3

4.3.4

ELIGIBILITY Refer to the criteria sheets for specific eligibility criteria information. SP/L ­ Speech/Language Impaired TBI ­ Traumatic Brain Injury VI ­ Visually Impaired ECSE ­ Early Childhood Special Education (criteria for developmental delay or other category met) Criteria for DAPE ­ Developmental Adapted Physical Education (see criteria sheet) 4.0 IEP/III-P Content and Procedures Team Members: (requirement of statute is membership, not documentation of membership): · The parent(s). · The student (must be invited when transition needs are being considered). · At least one regular education teacher (where the child is enrolled or expected to enroll). · The pupil's special education teacher. · A representative of the district. · An individual who can interpret the instructional implications of the evaluations (can be one of the above district members or an additional person). · A team member licensed in the pupil's disability, and; · when appropriate, other individuals with knowledge or expertise regarding the learner. (Sources of membership: documentation on the IEP, optional team meeting form, phone logs, phone calls to team members, interview with director or site teams, survey questions.) Present Levels of Educational Performance (PLEP): · (Based on current information.) · (Relevant to the child.) · (From a variety of sources.) · Including how the disability affects involvement/progress in general curriculum or for preschool children, participation in appropriate activities. Goals and Objectives: · Measurable annual goals with short-term objectives or benchmarks, including evaluation procedures. · Related to meeting child's needs that result from the disability. LRE Explanation (including Pre-K): · Explanation of the extent (why), if any, to which the child will not participate with learners without disabilities in general education classes, extra curricular and nonacademic activities. · (Explanation of when the child will be excluded.) Special Education and Related Services: · Special education & related services · Modifications · Anticipated frequency, duration and location of the recommended services. · Program adaptations and/or modifications and support for school personnel (supplementary aids/services to be provided to, or on behalf of the learner). · IEP includes projected dates for initiation of each service.

32

CFL Revised September 2, 2002

Ref. # 4.3.5

4.3.6 4.3.7

4.8.3

4.8.4

4.3.8

4.0 IEP/III-P Content and Procedures When IEP's Must be in Effect: · At the beginning of each school year. · Implemented as soon as possible following the meeting. · IEP is in effect prior to provision of special education and related services. · IFSP must contain part B requirements for 3-5 population. · Meeting is conducted within 30-calendar days of determining that a child needs special education and related services. Review and Revision of the IEP: · Periodically, but not less than annually. Progress Reporting: · Statement of how the child's parents will be regularly informed (at least as often as nondisabled peers) including frequency and method of reporting. Continuum of Alternative Placements: · Regular classes, special classes, special schools, home instruction, instruction in hospitals and institutions. · Provisions for supplementary services (such as resource room or itinerant instruction). Extended School Year (ESY): · Available as necessary to provide FAPE. · Not limited to particular categories of disability; or unilaterally limit the type, amount, or duration of those services. · Needs review annually. · (Review EDRS report for ESY staff hours.) · (Conduct site interviews on ESY process and procedures.) IEP Notice Requirements & Procedural Safeguards: · Description of the action proposed or refused. · Explanation of why the district proposes or refuses to take the action. · Options considered plus reasons why rejected (when parent not at meeting). · Description of each evaluation procedure, test, record or report used as basis for proposed or refused action. · Description of any other relevant factors. · Statement of the procedural safeguards afforded to the parents. · Sources for parent to obtain assistance. Parental Consent: Prior written consent obtained prior to proceeding with: · Initial formal assessment. · Initial placement of child in special education program. · Initial provision of special education services. Refusal to consent may be overridden by the decision in a hearing held at district's initiative. Conditional Intervention Procedures (aversive and deprivating - not prohibited): · Manual restraint. · Mechanical or locked restraints. · Time-out procedures. · Temporary delay or withdrawal of regularly scheduled meals or water not to exceed 30 minutes. 33

CFL Revised September 2, 2002

Ref. # 4.3.9

4.0 IEP/III-P Content and Procedures Transition Services: · By grade 9 or age 14 (whichever comes first), the IEP shall address the student's needs which focus on courses of study for transition from secondary services to: a) Post secondary education and training b) Employment c) Community Living · Areas of planning must be relevant to a pupil's needs. · May include the following areas: work, recreation and leisure, home living, community participation, post-secondary training and learning opportunities. · Results must be documented as part of an Evaluation Report. · By age 16, a statement must identify the needed transition services, including, if appropriate, interagency responsibilities or any needed linkages. Transfer of Rights: · Beginning at least one year before a student reaches the age of majority, a statement must be included that the student has been informed of his/her rights that will transfer upon reaching age 18. (per Minnesota State law) Modification of State/District-Wide Assessment: · Statement of any individual modifications in the administration of assessments of student achievement (state and district) that are needed for the child to participate. · If the team determines the child will not participate, a statement must be included that explains why that assessment is not appropriate, and how the child will be assessed. Alteration of the School Day: · Must be based on learner needs and not administrative convenience. Interim IEP: · May be written for a period of no more than 60 school days. · To determine appropriateness of placement. · To resolve questions regarding the content of the IEP. Significant Change (in program or placement): · IEP/IFSP goals have been completed or require modification based on a progress report. · There is a need to add or delete a service based on a progress report or evaluation. · There is a change in the type of site or setting in which the pupil receives special education. · The amount of time a pupil spends with non-disabled peers is changed. · The amount of special education to accomplish the goals or objectives needs to be increased or decreased. · The team determines there is a need for a conditional intervention procedure. Is this appropriately documented in the IEP/IFSP? Coordination with other Educational Placements: · Profile of Learning is attached and addressed.

4.3.10

4.3.11

4.3.12 4.4

4.7.4

5.1.3

34

CFL Revised September 2, 2002

ATTACHMENT D: RECORD REVIEW CHECKLISTS: Part C

The Record Review Checklist is a guide for conducting record reviews and is meant to be advisory only and does not represent a written, official position of the Department of Education. This checklist is not inclusive of the district's legal obligations. School districts and individuals are charged with notice of laws based upon publication, and contrary statements or incorrect information does not negate the provisions of law. The Due Process Manual (TSES), available on the MDE Compliance and Assistance website, cites all legal standards and provides for a comprehensive review of the district's special education program. The reference number listed in the left-hand column provides the TSES (2000) code that corresponds to a particular legal standard. Parenthetical code (C) 1 following some reference numbers is for Part C data sorting purposes only. Ref. # 3.0 Evaluation Content and Procedures 8.12.3(C) 1 Identifiable access log that includes name of the party, date of access, and purpose for which the party is authorized to use the records. (Be sure to sign the access log. If missing, put an access log in the file.) 3.1.1(C) 1 The district provide parents with Notice of Proposed Evaluation/Re-evaluation Plan that includes: · The reason for evaluation, · a description of areas to be assessed, · where the evaluation will be conducted; and, · materials and procedures, and if appropriate, modifications to the evaluation process. (Did the district provide written notice to the parent(s) when no additional data was required for reevaluation?) 3.1.4 Parental Informed Consent for Evaluation: · Initial evaluation: written signature prior to evaluation. · Re-evaluation: signature or documentation of attempts (two or more) to get consent, if signature not received. 3.2.7 (C) Evaluation Materials and Procedures: 1 · Performed in all areas related to the suspected disability, (vision, health, hearing, social/emotional, intellectual, academic, communication and motor). · Performed with a variety of technically sound instruments that may evaluate relative contribution of cognitive and behavior factors, and physical or developmental factors. · Evaluation materials used to assess child under Part B are provided and administered in child's primary language or other mode of communication unless clearly not feasible to do so. · Consider private evaluations provided by parent (when available).

Ref. # 3.2.11

3.2.12 (C) 1

3.7(C) 1

3.8 (C) 1

3.0 Evaluation Content and Procedures Infant and Toddler Evaluation (Additional Federal Requirements): · Was the evaluation conducted by trained personnel and based on informed clinical opinion? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------A. Health Status and Medical History · Includes a review of all pertinent records related to the child's current health status and medical history. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------B. Levels of Functioning · Includes an evaluation of the child's level of functioning and unique needs in each of the following developmental areas: cognitive, physical (including vision and hearing), communication, social/emotional and adaptive. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------C. Unique Needs · Identifies services necessary to meet child's unique needs. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D. Family Evaluation · Includes a family evaluation (voluntary on the part of the family) to determine the resources, priorities and concerns of the family and identify the supports and services necessary to enhance the family's capacity to meet the developmental needs of their child. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------E. Non-discriminatory Procedures. · Utilizes non-discriminatory evaluation and assessment procedures as required under 34 C.F.R. §303.323. Evaluation Report (ER): ER contains the following information: · Parent(s) information about the child (separate bullet or embedded in the report). · Summary of results from data sources listed in the evaluation plan. · Present Levels of Performance (PLEP) and educational needs that derive from the disability. · Documentation of whether the child has a particular category of disability under 34 C.F.R. § 300.7 and is in need of special instruction and services, and for reevaluation, continues to have such a disability and continues to need special education and related services. · Whether any additions or modifications to the special education and related services are needed. Team Override Documentation includes: · Explanation of invalid results. · Explanation that indicates what objective data were used. · Identification of which data had the greatest relative importance for the eligibility decision. · Signature of team members agreeing to the decision and a signed statement from each team member that disagrees with the decision explaining the reasons for the disagreement. Exit Procedures (except for graduation or aging out): · A child with a disability must be evaluated prior to determining that the child is no longer a child with a disability.

3.5

ELIGIBILITY Refer to the criteria sheets for specific eligibility criteria information. ECSE Early Childhood Special Education · (Birth to age 3 criteria for developmental delay or other category met).

4.0 IFSP/III-P Content and Procedures

4.3.6(C) 1 Duration of the IFSP: · IFSP does not exceed 12 calendar months. 4.7.4(C) 1 Significant Change (in program or placement): · IFSP goals/outcomes have been completed or require modification based on a progress report. · There is a need to add or delete a service based on a progress report or evaluation. · There is a change in the type of site or setting in which the pupil receives special education. · The amount of time a pupil spends with non-disabled peers is changed. · The amount of special education to accomplish the goals/outcomes or objectives needs to be increased or decreased. · The team determines there is a need for a conditional intervention procedure. Is this appropriately documented in the IFSP? 4.11(C) 1 IFSP Notice Requirements & Procedural Safeguards: · Description of the action proposed or refused. · Explanation of why the district proposes or refuses to take the action. · Options, considered, and reasons why rejected (when parent not at meeting). · Description of each evaluation procedure, test, record or report used as basis for proposed or refused action. · Description of any other relevant factors. · Statement of the procedural safeguards afforded to the parents. · Sources for parent to obtain assistance. 4.15.1 IFSP Team Meetings: · Conducted in settings and times convenient to family and in the native language of the family (or other mode of communication) unless clearly not feasible to do so.

4.0 IFSP/III-P Content and Procedures

4.15.3 Required Content of IFSP: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------A. Present Level of Development: · Statement of the child's present level of development ("Description" page of IFSP). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------B. Family Information: · Only with family concurrence, a statement of family resources, priorities and concerns ("Family Thoughts" page of IFSP). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------C. Major Outcomes: · Major outcomes expected to be achieved by child and family, including evaluation procedures ("Outcome" page of IFSP). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D-F Early Intervention Services/Environmental Statement/Starting Date and Duration of Services: · Statement of services needed, including the projected date for initiating services, modifications and anticipated frequency, duration and location (referencing natural environments) of recommended services. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------H-I Transition to Preschool Services/Other Services (by age 2.9): · Documentation of steps to be taken to support transition from early intervention services to preschool or other appropriate services, convening conference at least 90 days prior to child's third birthday. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------J-K. Payment Arrangements/Signatures: · Statement of payment arrangements and authorized signatures for services designated (Team & Summary" page of IFSP). Implementation of the IFSP: · IFSP must also meet Part B requirements when used for children turning age 3. (Current plan may contain both Part C and Part B components). Parent Consent for IFSP: · Did the IFSP team provide the parent(s) with written notice of proposed special education services and obtain informed written consent prior to the initiation of services? IFSP Timelines: · Was the initial evaluation completed and the first IFSP meeting held within 45-[calendar] days of referral, or was there appropriate documentation if unable to meet timeline? IFSP Periodic Review: · Completed every six months ("Outcome" page of IFSP). · Information complete: degree of progress, modification/revision if necessary. · Provided for the participation of: parent(s), service coordinator, and when requested by parent(s), other family members and an advocate.

4.16

4.17.1

4.17.2

4.17.3

4.0 IFSP/III-P Content and Procedures

4.18 Interim IFSP: Early intervention services for an eligible child and the child's family may commence before the completion of the evaluation and assessment if the following conditions are met: · Parental consent is obtained. · Interim IFSP is developed that includes name of the service coordinator and identifies early intervention services that are determined to be needed immediately by the child and the child's family. · Evaluation and assessment are completed within the time period required.

ATTACHMENT D: RECORD REVIEW CHECKLISTS: Longitudinal Review IEP Dates: Year 1 _______ Year 2 ______ Year 3 _______ Year 4 ________ Evaluation Report (ER) Dates: Prior ER _____________ Current ER _____________ Directions: Longitudinal review of student files is a vital component of the monitoring process. The review addresses a number of quality indicators to determine if the record is internally consistent and if the student is receiving benefit from his/her special education program and service over time. Internal consistency is a comparison of ERs (the initial or prior evaluation and the most current evaluation), and the documentation of growth indicated on the three IEPs over time. Conferred benefit focuses on data that supports the assertion that educational benefit was conferred during the course of the three years. Growth should be documented from evaluation to evaluation and across three consecutive IEPs.

Internal Consistency Quality Indicators 1. Is the evaluation consistent with the Evaluation Report (ER)? 2. Are the evaluation results explained? 3. Does the ER contain adequate documentation to determine eligibility? 4. Are criteria components addressed? 5. Is transition addressed in the ER? (student age 14 or over) 6. Does the PLEP correspond with evaluation information? 7. Is the PLEP data current? 8. Are the goals measurable? 9. Are the goals tied to PLEP data? 10. Are objectives instructional? 11. Do services align with student needs? 12. Are adaptations tied to student needs identified in the IEP/ER? 13. Does the LRE explanation correspond with goals and services? 14. Do progress notes indicate attainment and team meetings addressed issues? Was there internal consistency evident from year to year in provision of special education services? Benefit Conferred Quality Indicators 1. Does PLEP data document student progress over three years? 2. Do progress notes indicate student attainment? 3. Are services adequate for identified need? 4. Are services, goals and adaptations responsive to changing student needs? 5. Do goals/objectives reflect growth/change over time? Was benefit conferred?

YES / NO

YES / NO

ATTACHMENT D: RECORD REVIEW CHECKLISTS: Non-Discriminatory Practices Evaluation and Eligibility Federal and State References IDEA Sec. 1414 (b) (2) Additional requirement (A) Tests and other evaluation materials used to assess a child under this section. (i) are selected and administered so as not to be discriminatory on a racial or cultural basis; and (ii) are provided and administered in the child's native language or other mode of communication, unless it is clearly not feasible to do so; and CFR 300.532 Evaluation procedures Each public agency shall ensure, at a minimum, that the following requirements are met: (a) (1) Tests and other evaluation materials used to assess a child under Part B of the Act: (i) are selected and administered so as not to be discriminatory on a racial or cultural basis; and (ii) are provided and administered in the child's native language or other mode of communication, unless it is clearly not feasible to do so; and (2) Materials and procedures used to assess a child with limited English proficiency are selected and administered to ensure that they measure the extent to which the child has a disability and needs special education, rather than measuring the child's English language skills. (b) A variety of assessment tools and strategies are used to gather relevant functional and developmental information about the child. (c) (1) Any standardized tests that are given to a child: (ii) are administered by trained and knowledgeable personnel in accordance with any instructions provided by the producer of the tests. 300.534 Determination of eligibility (a) Upon completing the administration of tests and other evaluation materials: (1) a group of qualified professionals and the parent of the child must determine whether the child is a child with a disability, as defined in 300.7; and (2) the public agency must provide a copy of the Evaluation Report (ER) and the documentation of determination of eligibility to the parent. (b) A child may not be determined to be eligible under this part if: (1) the determinant factor for that eligibility determination is: (i) lack of instruction in reading or math; or (ii) limited English proficiency. 300.535 Procedures for determining eligibility and placement. (a) In interpreting evaluation data for the purpose of determining if a child is a child with a disability under 300.7 and the educational needs of the child, each public agency shall: (1) Draw upon information from a variety of sources, including aptitude and achievement tests, parent input, teacher recommendations, physical condition, social or cultural background, and adaptive behavior.

300.19 Native language. (a) As used in this part, the term native language, if used with reference to an individual of limited English proficiency, means the following: (10) The language normally used by that individual, or, in the case of a child, the language normally used by the parents of the child, except as provided in paragraph (a) (2) of this section. (23) In all direct contact with a child (including evaluation of the child), the language normally used by the child in the home or learning environment. (b) For an individual with deafness or blindness, or for an individual with no written language, the mode of communication is that normally used by the individual (such as sign language, Braille, or oral communication). M.S. 125A.08 School district obligations (6) in accordance with recognized professional standards, testing and evaluation materials, and procedures used for the purposes of classification and placement of children with a disability are selected and administered so as not to be racially or culturally discriminatory. M.R. 3525.1329 Emotional or Behavioral Disorders: Subp. 2.D (1) the established pattern may occur with, but is not primarily the result of, intellectual, sensory, health, cultural, linguistic factors, or stressors such as transient medical or psychosocial events, chemical use, abuse or addiction, or a history of an inconsistent educational program. (Criteria being revised, 8/00) 3525.1341 Specific Learning Disability: Subp.2 C (3) the pupil's underachievement is not primarily the result of: visual, hearing, or motor impairment; mental impairment; emotional or behavioral disorders; or environmental, cultural economic influences, or a history of an inconsistent education program.

ATTACHMENT D: RECORD REVIEW CHECKLISTS: Non-Discriminatory Practices Checklist for Non-discriminatory Evaluation and Eligibility Determination There are three key decision points where documentation of non-discriminatory evaluation and eligibility procedures may be found: 1. Pre-referral/referral determination 2. Evaluation plan 3. Eligibility determination The Evaluation Report documents the implementation of the non-discriminatory practices outlined in the evaluation plan as well as non-discriminatory eligibility determination. *Law and rule require districts to carry out non-discriminatory procedures. Many of these procedures are defined in best practice. An asterisk * indicates that an element represents best practice. If best practice elements are present, monitors may write a commendation; if missing, write as a "concern." Citations may only be written for required elements. 1. Pre-referral/Referral determination Types of Documentation: · Evaluation Report · *District pre-referral form · *Socio-cultural checklist Required elements: · Two documented interventions *Best practice: · File includes information to support decision that the learner's difficulties are probably not due to race, cultural or language differences and that a special education evaluation is therefore warranted. · District has a pre-referral form with background information such as: a. Race/ethnic background b. Native language; languages used by family members c. Current use of native language/native language proficiency (ELL only) d. English language proficiency (ELL only) e. Educational history f. Health/developmental history g. Family composition h. Relevant information about student's experiences or living situation · File includes home-family questionnaire · File documents contact with parents prior to referral · File documents involvement of a cultural liaison prior to referral · File includes Socio-cultural Checklist from Reducing Bias in Special Education Assessment 2. Evaluation Plan Documentation: · Notice of Educational Evaluation/Reevaluation Plan

Required elements: · Parent information · Special factors for assessment, including behavior, limited English proficiency, vision impairment, hearing impairment, assistive technology, race or culture. · Lists all staff, including interpreter/translator or cultural liaison. · Includes all procedures, including informal or supplemental procedures. · Describes any planned adaptations of standard test administration procedures (ex., testing of limits). *Best practice · States student's race/cultural/ethnic background and native language. · Team uses Test Selection Checklist to determine suitability of specific tests. · For native English-speaking minority students, plan includes use of a standardized intellectual ability battery plus at least one additional nonverbal measures plus at least one additional supplemental measure such as testing of limits. · Team includes cultural liaison or person with knowledge of the student's race and cultural background. · For ELL, team includes ESL/bilingual education teacher, bilingual home-school liaison or other person with knowledge of first and second language acquisition. · For ELL, plan includes evaluation of intellectual functioning and communication in both native language and English. · For ELL, plan includes evaluation of academic achievement in language(s) in which the student has received instruction with interpreter used as needed for directions, etc. · For all students, plan includes more than one observation, including observations conducted by cultural liaisons and/or ESL/bilingual education staff and including observations in several settings and with different groups of peers. 3. Eligibility Determination Data source: · Evaluation Report · *Criteria checklists from Reducing Bias Required elements: · Parent information · Information about student's race, cultural and language background. · For each area assessed, a statement of professional judgment as to the validity of the standardized testing procedures given the student's race, cultural and language background. · Description of all sources of evaluation data, including informal and supplemental procedures. · Description of any adaptations made to standardized test procedures, including use of native language interpreter or testing of limits procedures. · Data to support the team's finding that limited English proficiency is not the determinant cause. · Data to support the team's finding that lack of instruction in reading or math is not the determinant cause. · Data addressing all elements of criteria.

·

For ELL students, districts are recommended to follow the decision-making process included in Minnesota's over-ride procedure (M.R. 3525.1354). The information outlined below should be incorporated into written Evaluation Reports: a. information explaining why procedures used with the majority of pupils resulted in invalid findings for this pupil; b. a summary of the objective data that was used to determine that the student has a disability. This may include "test scores, work products, self-reports, teacher comments, previous testing, observational data, ecological assessments; and other developmental data."

Districts are not required to record eligibility determinations made in this fashion for ELL as over-rides to state criteria. *Best practice: · File includes a criteria checklist from Reducing Bias in Special Education Assessment.

ATTACHMENT D: RECORD REVIEW CHECKLISTS: Non-Discriminatory Practices Due Process and Parent Involvement Federal and State References CFR 300.19 Native language. (a) As used in this part, the term native language, if used with reference to an individual of limited English proficiency, means the following: (1) The language normally used by that individual, or, in the case of a child, the language normally used by the parents of the child, except as provided in paragraph (a) (2) of this section. (2) In all direct contact with a child (including evaluation of the child), the language normally used by the child in the home or learning environment. (b) For an individual with deafness or blindness, or for an individual with no written language, the mode of communication is that normally used by the individual (such as sign language, Braille, or oral communication). 300.345 Parent participation. (e) Use of interpreters or other action as appropriate. The public agency shall take whatever action is necessary to ensure that the parent understands the proceedings at the IEP meeting, including arranging for an interpreter for parents with deafness or whose native language is other than English. 300.503 Prior notice by the public agency; content of notice. (c) Notice in understandable language. (1) The notice required under paragraph (a) of this section must be ­ (i) Written in language understandable to the general public; and (ii) Provided in the native language of the parent or other mode of communication used by the parent, unless it is clearly not feasible to do so. (2) If the native language or other mode of communication of the parent is not a written language, the public agency shall take steps to ensure (i) That the notice is translated orally or by other means to the parent in his or her native language or other mode of communication; (ii) That the parent understands the content of the notice; and (iii) That there is written evidence that the requirements in paragraphs (c)(2) (I) and (ii) of this section have been met. M.R. 3525.2900 Individual Education Plan: Subp. 1 A Designate a team of persons responsible. (8) when a regulated procedure is being considered, one person on the team who is knowledgeable about ethnic and cultural issues relevant to the pupil's behavior and education; and (9) if appropriate, someone who is a member of the same minority or cultural background or who is knowledgeable concerning the racial, cultural or disabling differences of the pupil. (Rule scheduled for repeal during 00-01 school year.)

ATTACHMENT D:

RECORD REVIEW CHECKLISTS: Non-Discriminatory Practices

Checklist for Due Process and Parent Involvement Documentation: · Copies of notices provided to parents. · Parent Rights and Procedural Safeguards · *Phone logs or other documentation of parent contacts. · *Written documentation that materials were interpreted orally. · Inclusion of interpreter or cultural liaison on team logs. · *District form documenting parent preference for language and mode of communication. · *District form documenting oral interpretation. Required elements: · Notices given in parents' native language and/or mode of communication. · Interpretation provided during IEP and other team meetings. · Contents of Evaluation Report and IEP provided to parents in their native language in written translation or oral interpretation. · IEP team includes a cultural liaison when regulated behavior interventions are being considered. · For any other student, a cultural liaison is included as appropriate. *Best Practice: · District asks parents their preference regarding language and mode of communication and documents preference in file. · District asks parents if they would like to have a cultural liaison and documents their response. · District tape records oral interpretation of materials so that parents have a record of the information for future reference. · The interpreter is present at interactions with the parents (as opposed to interpretation via telephone). · Interpretation and written translations are prepared by qualified personnel with training in special education. · Indian home-school liaisons and other cultural liaison staff are team members and attend meetings.

ATTACHMENT D: RECORD REVIEW CHECKLISTS: Post-Secondary Transition Transition Evaluation (Minn. R. 3525.2900, subp. 4) Did the district conduct a multidisciplinary evaluation of secondary transition needs in the areas of Jobs/Job Training, Post-Secondary Education, Community Participation, Recreation and Leisure and Family Living by age 14 or Grade 9? Are the evaluation results in each of the 5 transition areas documented as part of an evaluation summary according to part 3525.2750? Parent/Student/Agency Participation (34 CFR §§ 300.345, 300.344) Did the notice indicate that a purpose of the meeting was transition planning? Did the notice indicate that the public agency will invite the student beginning at age 14 or grade 9 (whichever comes first)? If the student did not attend the IEP meeting, did the public agency take steps to ensure that the student's preferences and interests were considered in the development of the IEP? (If the student attended the meeting, indicate N/A). Did the notice inform the parent that they may invite other individuals who have knowledge or special expertise regarding their child, including related services personnel, as appropriate? Did the public agency invite a representative of any other agency that is likely to be responsible for providing or paying for transition services? If an invited agency did not attend, did the district take other steps to obtain the agency's participation in the planning of transition services? (If the agency attended the meeting, indicate N/A). Content of the Individualized Education Program (34 CFR § 300.347) Does the IEP include: A statement of Present Level of Educational Performance (PLEP) related to transition including strengths, preferences and needs? A statement of transition service needs (courses of study) that specifies courses of study that will be meaningful to the student's future? A statement of needed transition services (a coordinated set of activities) within the five transition areas that is a coordinated set of activities within an outcome-oriented process, that promotes movement from school to post-school activities, including post-secondary education, vocational training, integrated employment, continuing and adult education, adult services, independent living or community participation and includes: · Instruction? · Related services? · Community experiences? · Development of employment and other post-school adult living objectives? · If appropriate, acquisition of daily living skills? · If appropriate, a functional vocational evaluation? A statement, if appropriate, of interagency responsibilities or any needed linkages (i.e. linkages to agencies or services the student needs)? A statement of measurable annual goals, including benchmarks or short-term objectives that flow from identified needs? TSES 3.2.5 3.2.9 3.2.9 CODE

4.11.1 4.1.3 4.1.3 4.1.3 4.11.1 4.11.1

4.3.1 4.3.9 4.3.9

4.3.9 4.3.2

Transfer of Rights (34 CFR § 300.347(c)) A statement at least one year before the student reaches the age of majority under state law that the student and the parent have been informed of the rights that will transfer to him/her upon reaching the age of majority (age 18), unless a legal guardian or conservator has been appointed?

4.3.10

Legal References: 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.344, 345 and 503, Minn. Stat. § 125A.08(a)(1), Minn. R. 3525.2900, subp. 4 School________________________________________________ Date__________________________________________________ Name of person reviewing file_____________________________ Code: + (Yes) ? (Unclear/Not Documented) - (No) N/A (Not Applicable)

ATTACHMENT D: STAKEHOLDER SURVEYS Revised editions Fall 2004

ATTACHMENT E: ELIGIBILITY CHECKLISTS: For complete information regarding disability criteria requirements, refer to Minnesota Rule 3525.1329. Procedures for Completing Criteria Checklists If a student record has an eligibility issue, complete the following steps: 1. Select the criteria checklist in the disability identified for the student. 2. Enter the identifying information required: · Name, DOB, Building, Reviewer Name, Date of Evaluation Report · Evaluation: Check if the current evaluation is an initial evaluation. For initial Evaluation Reports, information reported must meet initial criteria. · Reevaluation: Check if the current evaluation is a reevaluation. For reevaluations, information reported must address the criteria components, but not necessarily at the same standard as initial evaluations. Review the initial evaluation to see if the student qualified for services. 3. Complete the items listed in the checklist. Answer a definitive yes or no. Consult with peer members if a determination cannot be made. 4. Check YES or NO in the header of the criteria checklist that notes the decision of whether the student is eligible. 5. Make a copy of the Evaluation Report. 6. Attach the criteria checklist to the copy of the Evaluation Report and give to the lead monitor. Note: For EBD, OHI and MMMI/MSMI evaluations conducted prior to 11/26/01 use the criteria checklists created under the old rule.

ATTACHMENT E: ELIGIBILITY CHECKLISTS 3.4.1 Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) Evaluation: Reevaluation: · (Must meet initial criteria) · (Must address criteria components) A multidisciplinary team shall determine that a pupil is eligible and in need of special education instruction and related services if the pupil meets the criterion in items A and B below: A. Documentation in Evaluation Report of at least two of these sub-items; one must be sub-item 1. The evaluation must address all three sub-items collected from multiple settings: 1. Qualitative impairment of reciprocal social interactions: (two or more indicators) Yes_____ No_____ __ limited use of facial expressions towards others __ limited joint attention __ gross impairment in ability to make friends __ difficulty relating to people __ appears to prefer isolated or solitary activities __ misinterprets others' behaviors and social cues __ significant vulnerability and safety issues due to social naiveté __ does not show or bring things to others to indicate interest in activity __ other 2. Qualitative impairment in communication: (one or more indicator) Yes_____ No_____ __ not using finger to point or request __ using others' hand or body as a tool __ absence or delay of spoken language __ repetitive, idiosyncratic language __ inability to initiate or maintain conversation __ odd production of speech (intonation, rhythm, rate) __ showing lack of spontaneous imitations or lack of varied imaginative play __ limited understanding of nonverbal communication skills (gestures, facial expressions, tone of voice) __ other 3. Restricted, repetitive or stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests, activities: (one or more indicator) Yes_____ No_____ __ repetitive hand or finger mannerisms __ rigid, rule-bound thinking __ lack of true imaginative play vs. reenactment __ insistence on following __ demonstrating distress or resistance to change routines or rituals __ over-reaction or under-reaction to sensory stimuli __ intense, focused preoccupation with a limited range of play, interests, or conversation topics __ other

Behavioral indicators in item A must include the use of at least two of the methods below: Yes_____ No_____ __ structured interview with parents __ autism rating scales or checklist(s) __ communication and developmental scales __ functional behavior evaluation __ application of DSM-IV diagnostic criteria __ informal and standardized evaluation instruments __ intellectual testing AND: B. Verification that ASD adversely affects the pupil's Present Level of Performance; data from each of these: 1. Education needs in each core features identified in A Yes_____ No_____ AND: 2. Observation in two different settings on two different days AND: 3. Historical summary of developmental history and behavior patterns Yes_____ No_____ Yes_____ No_____

ATTACHMENT E: ELIGIBILITY CHECKLISTS 3.4.3 Deaf-Blind Evaluation: Reevaluation: · (Must meet initial criteria) · (Must address criteria components) "Deaf-Blind" means medically verified visual loss coupled with medically verified hearing loss, that together, interfere with acquiring information or interacting in the environment. Both conditions need to be present simultaneously, and the pupil must meet the criteria for both visually impaired and deaf and hard of hearing to be eligible for special education services under this category. Documentation verifies meeting criteria for both disability areas: Visual Impairment Deaf and Hard of Hearing Yes_____ No_____ Yes_____ No_____

PUPILS AT RISK: If no documentation is present for either visual impairment or deaf and hard of hearing, then one of the following items below must be documented: ___ 1. Are already identified as deaf or hard of hearing or visually impaired but have not yet had a medical or functional evaluation of the other sense (vision or hearing). ___ 2. Have an identified condition that includes a potential deterioration of vision or hearing in the future. ___ 3. Have a medically or functionally identified hearing loss and a verified deficit in vision determined by a functional evaluation in the learning environment. ___ 4. Have a medically or functionally identified vision impairment and verified hearing loss determined by a functional evaluation in the learning environment, or ___ 5. Have an identified syndrome or condition that includes hearing and vision loss in combination with multiple disabilities (e.g. CHARGE Syndrome).

ATTACHMENT E: ELIGIBILITY CHECKLISTS

3.4.4 Emotional or Behavioral Disorders

Evaluation: Reevaluation: · (Must meet initial criteria) · (Must address criteria components) A pupil is eligible and in need of special education and related services for an emotional or behavioral disorder when the pupil meets the criteria in items A to C below:

A. Documentation in report of established pattern of emotional or behavioral responses in at least one of the following sub-items and which represents a significant difference from peers: self-worth defined by behaviors: · isolating self from peers · overly perfectionistic · displaying pervasive sad disposition · displaying intense fears or school refusal · failing to express emotion · changes in eating or sleeping patterns Yes_____ No_____ ____ Withdrawn or anxious behaviors, pervasive unhappiness, depression, severe problems with mood or feelings of

· developing physical symptoms related to worry or stress ____ Disordered thought processes manifested by unusual behavior patterns, atypical communication styles or distorted interpersonal relationships, for example: · reality distortion beyond normal developmental fantasy and play or talk · inappropriate laughter, crying sounds, or language · self-mutilation · developmentally inappropriate sexual acting out or developmentally inappropriate self-stimulation · rigid, ritualistic patterning · perseveration or obsession with specific objects · overly affectionate behavior towards unfamiliar persons · hallucinating or delusions of grandeur · other: _______________________________ ____ Aggressive, hyperactive, or impulsive behaviors that are developmentally inappropriate, for example: · physically or verbally abusive behaviors · impulsive or violent, destructive, or intimidating behavior · behaviors that are threatening to others or excessively antagonistic · other: _________________________________________________

B. Documentation of the pattern of emotional or behavioral responses that adversely affects educational performance and results in: ____ inability to demonstrate satisfactory social competence that is significantly different from age, cultural or ethnic norms; or ____ a pattern of unsatisfactory educational progress that is not primarily a result of intellectual, sensory, physical, health, cultural or linguistic factors, illegal chemical use, autism spectrum disorders, or inconsistent educational programming. C. Documentation of prior interventions and evaluation data establishes significant impairments in one or more of these areas: ___ intra-personal, ___ academic, ___vocational, ___ social skills

AND:

Yes_____ No_____

Yes_____ No_____ Yes_____ No_____

Data documents that the impairment:

____ 1) Severely interferes with the pupil's or other students' educational performance, ____ 2) Consistently occurs in at least three different settings, including two educational (one must be classroom), and either one home, child care or community, and ____ 3) Occurred throughout a minimum of six months, or results from the well-documented, sudden onset of a serious mental health disorder diagnosed by a licensed mental health professional. K-12 evaluations must be supported by current or existing data from: Yes_____ No_____ ____ clinically significant scores on standardized, nationally normed behavior rating scales ____ individually administered, standardized, nationally normed tests of intellectual ability and academic achievement ____ interviews with parent, pupil and teacher ____ three systematic observations in the classroom or other learning environments ____ record review ____ mental health screening ____ health history review procedures ____ functional behavioral assessment ____ other procedures (see MR 3525.1329)

FOR LEARNERS WHO ARE PRE-KINDERGARTEN: The learner must meet criteria in areas A-B above. For criteria item C, the following must be met:: C. Evaluation data in the Evaluation Report must establish and define developmentally significant impairments in at least one of the following areas: Yes_____ No_____ ____ self-care ____ social relations ____ social or emotional growth AND: Data documents that the emotional or behavioral responses are exhibited in at least one setting: Yes_____ No_____ ____ home ____ childcare ____ community AND: Occurred throughout a minimum of six months, or resulted from the well-documented, sudden onset of a serious mental health disorder diagnosed by a licensed mental health professional Yes_____ No_____ Pre-K evaluations must be supported by current or existing data from: ____ two or more systematic observations, including one in the home ____ a case history, including medical, cultural and developmental information ____ information on the pupil's cognitive ability, social skills, and communication abilities ____ standardized and informal interviews, including parent, teacher, caregiver and childcare provider ____ standardized adaptive behavior scales Yes_____ No_____

ATTACHMENT E: ELIGIBILITY CHECKLISTS

3.4.5 Deaf and Hard of Hearing

Evaluation: Reevaluation: · (Must meet initial criteria) · (Must address criteria components) A pupil who is deaf or hard of hearing is eligible for special education instruction and services if the pupil meets one of the criteria in item A and one of the criteria in item B, C, or D below:

A. Audiological documentation provided by certified audiologist that the pupil has one of the following: Yes_____ No______ ___ Sensorineural hearing loss unaided 20 db or greater in better ear. ___ Conductive hearing loss unaided 20 db or greater in better ear (persisting over 3 months. (or three times in 12 previous months) with audiogram from certified audiologist. ___ Unilateral sensorineural or persistent conductive loss unaided 45 db hearing loss in affected ear. ___ Sensorineural hearing loss unaided 35 db or greater at two or more adjacent frequencies in better ear. AND, ONE OF THE FOLLOWING IN B, C, OR D: B. Documentation in Evaluation Report of the pupils hearing loss affecting educational performance (one only). Yes_____ No______ ___ 1. Need to consistently use amplification in education setting as determined by audiological measures and systematic observational data. OR: ___ 2. Achievement deficit (15%ile or at least 1.0 SD below the mean in one area). Test name __________________________________ Basic reading skills Reading comprehension Written language General Knowledge Results ________ Results ________ Results ________ Results ________

C. Documentation of hearing loss affecting use and understanding of spoken English Yes_____ No_____ ___ 1. Systematic observation of communication behaviors that limit a pupil's classroom interaction under typical conditions. AND/OR: ___ 2. Use of ASL or one or more alternative or augmentative system alone or in combination with spoken English documented by parent or teacher reports and language sampling conducted by a professional with knowledge in the area of communication. D. Documentation of adaptive behavior deficit affecting age appropriate social functioning (both must be present). ___ 1. Systematic observation in primary learning environment by a licensed professional. Yes_____ No______ AND: ___ 2. Standardized social skills evaluation (below average skills) Yes_____ No_____ Test Name___________________________ Results ___________________

For complete information regarding disability criteria requirements, refer to Minnesota Rule 3525.1331

3.4.6 Developmental Cognitive Disability

Evaluation: Reevaluation: · (Must meet initial criteria) · (Must address criteria components) The team shall determine that a pupil is eligible as having DCD and is in need of special education instruction and related services if the pupil meets the criteria in items A and B below: A. Documentation of below average adaptive behavior in school and home: 1) A composite score at or below the 15%ile on a nationally normed, technically adequate measure of adaptive behavior: Yes_____ No_____ Adaptive behavior test name _____________________________________Score _____

AND:

2) Documentation of needs and the level of support required in at least four of seven adaptive behavior domains across multiple environments supported by a systematic observation and parent input: Yes_____ No_____ Domain Need(s) & Level of Support Daily Living & Independent Living Skills ___________________________________________ Social & Interpersonal Skills _______________________________________________ Communication Skills _______________________________________________ Academic Skills _______________________________________________ Recreation and Leisure Skills _______________________________________________ Community Participation Skills _______________________________________________ Work and Work-Related Skills _______________________________________________

AND: B. Documentation in Evaluation Report of significantly below general intellectual functioning:

Cognitive evaluation name ____________________ Score: ____________Yes _____ No_____ mild to moderate severe-profound 2 Standard Deviations (+ or - 1 SEM) 3 Standard Deviations (+ or - 1 SEM)

Intellectual functioning verified through: __ a written summary of results from at least two systematic observations Yes_____ No_____

AND:

__ one or more of the following:

Yes_____ No_____

· criterion-referenced tests · supplemental tests of specific abilities · clinical interviews family · alternative methods of intellectual assessment, · observation and analysis of behavior across multiple environments

For complete information regarding disability criteria requirements, refer to Minnesota Rule 3525.1333

3.4.7 Other Health Disabilities

Evaluation: Reevaluation: · (Must meet initial criteria) · (Must address criteria components) The team shall determine that a pupil is eligible and in need of special education instruction and services if the pupil meets the criterion in items A and B below:

A. Medical Documentation (Dated within 12 months for initial evaluations): Yes_____ No_____

1. Written and signed documentation by a licensed physician of a medically diagnosed chronic or acute health condition. Health Condition: _____________________________________ Yes_____ No_____

OR:

2. In the case of a diagnosis of Attention Deficit Disorder/Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: written and signed documentation of a medical diagnosis by a licensed physician. Yes_____ No_____ DSM-IV criteria, items A-E, must be provided by a licensed physician, mental health, or medical professional licensed to diagnose the condition. Yes_____ No_____ B. In comparison with peers, the health condition adversely affects the pupil's ability to complete educational tasks within routine timelines as documented by three or more of the following: Yes_____ No_____ ____ 1. Excessive absenteeism linked to the health condition (e.g., hospitalizations, medical treatments), ____ 2. specialized health care procedures needed during the school day, ____ 3. medications that affect comprehension, memory, attention, or fatigue, ____ 4. limited physical strength resulting in decreased capacity to perform school activities, ____ 5. limited endurance resulting in decreased stamina and decreased ability to maintain performance, ____ 6. heightened or diminished alertness resulting in impaired abilities (e.g., maintain focus, sustain effort), ____ 7. impaired ability to manage and organize materials and complete classroom assignments with routine timelines, or ____ 8. impaired ability to follow directions or initiate and complete a task. For All Evaluations: The health condition results in a pattern of unsatisfactory educational progress as determined by a comprehensive evaluation documenting the required components in items A and B above. Findings must be supported by current or existing data from items A-E below: Yes_____ No_____ ____ A. Individually administered nationally normed standardized evaluation of the pupil's academic performance, ____ B. documented systematic interviews conducted by a licensed special education teacher with classroom teachers and the pupil's parent or guardian, ____ C. one or more documented systematic observations in the classroom or other learning environment by a licensed special education teacher, ____ D. a review of the pupil's health history, including the verification of a medical diagnosis of a health condition, and ____ E. record reviews (See MN Rule 3525.1335 for examples). For complete information regarding disability criteria requirements, refer to Minnesota Rule 3525.1335.

3.4.8 Physically Impaired

Evaluation: Reevaluation: · (Must meet initial criteria) · (Must address criteria components) A pupil is eligible and in need of special education instruction and services if the pupil meets the criterion in item A and one of the criteria in item B below: A. Medically diagnosed physical impairment (documented evidence in file) Physical impairment ____________________________________ AND: B. Documentation in Evaluation Report of need for special education instruction Yes_____ No_____ and services, from one of the items below: ___ 1. Two systematic observations in daily routine setting documenting a lack of functional level in organizational or independent work skills (one by physical and health disabilities teacher). OR: ___ 2. Two systematic observations in daily routine setting documenting an inability to manage or complete motoric portions of classroom tasks within time constraints (one by physical and health disabilities teacher). OR: ___ 3. Physical impairment interferes with educational performance (one SD or more below on an achievement test). Achievement Test ________________________________ SD ___________

For complete information regarding disability criteria requirements, refer to Minnesota Rule 3525.1337.

Yes_____ No_____

3.4.8 Physically Impaired

Evaluation: Reevaluation: · (Must meet initial criteria) · (Must address criteria components) A pupil is eligible and in need of special education instruction and services if the pupil meets the criterion in item A and one of the criteria in item B below: A. Medically diagnosed physical impairment (documented evidence in file) Yes_____ No_____ Physical impairment ____________________________________ AND: B. Documentation in Evaluation report of need for special education instruction and services, from one of the items below: Yes_____ No_____

___ 1. Two systematic observations in daily routine setting documenting a lack of functional level in organizational or independent work skills (one by physical and health disabilities teacher). OR: ___ 2. Two systematic observations in daily routine setting documenting an inability to manage or complete motoric portions of classroom tasks within time constraints (one by physical and health disabilities teacher). OR: ___ 3. Physical impairment interferes with educational performance (1 SD or more below on an achievement test). Achievement Test ________________________________ SD ___________

For complete information regarding disability criteria requirements, refer to Minnesota Rule 3525.1337.

3.4.9 Severely Multiply Impaired

Evaluation: Reevaluation: · (Must meet initial criteria) · (Must address criteria components) The team shall determine that a pupil is eligible as being severely multiply impaired if the pupil meets the criteria for two or more of the following disabilities listed below: Documentation in the Evaluation Report to verify two or more disability areas: _____ Deaf and Hard of Hearing _____ Physically Impaired _____ Developmental Cognitive Disability _____ Visually Impaired _____ Emotionally/Behaviorally Disordered _____ Autism Spectrum Disorders

For complete information regarding disability criteria requirements, refer to Minnesota Rule 3525.1339.

Yes_____ No_____

3.4.10 Specific Learning Disability

Evaluation · (Must meet initial criteria) Reevaluation: · (Must address criteria components)

Information about each item must be sought from the parent and must be included as part of the evaluation data. The evaluation date must confirm that the disabling effects of the pupil's disability occur in a variety of settings. A pupil has a specific learning disability and is in need of special education and related services when the pupil meets the criterion in item A, B, and C below: A. Documentation in report of severe underachievement evidence of low achievement in one of the seven areas listed in Part B (e.g., cumulative record reviews, class work samples, anecdotal teacher records, formal & informal tests, curriculum-based evaluation results, and other instructional support programs results). Yes_____ No_____ AND: Supporting information includes an observation of the pupils academic performance in regular classroom setting by team member other than pupil's regular classroom teacher. Yes_____ No_____ B. Documentation in report of severe discrepancy between ability and achievement (1.75 SD) in one or more of the following: · · · Basic Reading Skills Reading Comprehension Listening Comprehension · Written Expression · Mathematical Reasoning Yes_____ No_____

· Oral Expression · Mathematical Calculation

Intellectual test name: ___________________________________________________ Verbal: ______ Performance: ______ Full Scale: ______ Other: _____________________ Score: ______

Achievement test name: _________________________ Regression score: _________ (Report standard scores; composite, cluster, broad, basic skills or application scores may be used. No subtest scores.) AND: C. Documentation in report of sufficient data verifies: 1. Information processing condition; inadequate or lack of acquisition, lack of organization skills, storage, retrieval, manipulation or expression of information, such as: Yes_____ No_____ · · · · spatial arrangements following written and oral directions motor control for written tasks transfer of information onto paper · visual or auditory memory difficulties · verbal or non-verbal expression difficulties · correct use of development order in relating events Yes_____ No_____

2. The disabling effects of information processing condition occurs in variety of settings AND:

3. The underachievement is not primarily the result of: vision, hearing, motor impairment, developmental cognitive disabilities, EBD, environment, cultural or economic, influences, or a history of inconsistent educational program. Yes_____ No_____ Parent information is sought to support each of the criteria elements. Yes_____ No_____

For complete information regarding disability criteria requirements, refer to Minnesota Rule 3525.1341.

3.4.11 Speech or Language Impairment

Evaluation: · (Must meet initial criteria) Reevaluation: · (Must address criteria components)

FLUENCY DISORDER

A pupil has a fluency disorder and is eligible for speech or language special education services if the pupil meets the criterion in items A and B below:

A. Documentation in Evaluation Report of judgment by an educational speech language pathologist AND another adult or the pupil that the pattern interferes with communication. Yes_____ No_____ AND: B. Two speech samples with 5% dysfluency: Scores ___________ ___________ Yes_____ No_____

VOICE DISORDER

A pupil has a voice disorder and is eligible for speech or language special education services if the pupil meets the criterion in items A and B below:

A. Documentation in the Evaluation Report of judgment by an educational speech language pathologist and another adult or the pupil that the pattern interferes with communication. Yes_____ No_____ AND: B. Two voice profile evaluations noting moderate to severe vocal severity ratings, two-weeks apart, and at different times of the day. Yes_____ No_____ VOICE PROFILE #1: Results: Moderate: ______ Severe: ______ Date: ______ Time: ______ VOICE PROFILE #2: Results: Moderate: ______ Severe: ______ Date: ______ Time: ______

ARTICULATION DISORDER A pupil has an articulation disorder and is eligible for speech or language special education when the pupil meets the criteria in item A and either item B or C below: A. Documentation in Evaluation Report of judgment by an educational speech language pathologist

and another adult or the pupil that the pattern interferes with communication. AND: B. Articulation evaluation __________________________ Score _________ Yes_____ No_____ (2.0 SD or more below on a norm referenced, technically adequate articulation instrument). OR: C. For learners age 9 or older, one consistent sound error in two, three-minute conversational speech samples. Yes_____ No_____ Yes_____ No_____

LANGUAGE DISORDER A pupil has a language disorder and is eligible for speech or language special education when the pupil meets the criteria in item A and B and either item C or D below:

A. Documentation in Evaluation Report of judgment by an educational speech language pathologist and another adult or the pupil that the pattern interferes with communication. Yes_____ No_____ AND: B. Analysis of language sample or observation documented in Evaluation Report that language behavior is below or different from expectations based on age, developmental level or cognitive level. Yes_____ No_____ AND: C. Language Evaluation (2.0 SD or more below on two norm referenced, technically adequate language tests). Yes_____ No_____ Test name: ____________________________ SD _______ Test name: ____________________________ SD _______ OR, if technically adequate norm referenced evaluation instrument not available. D. Two measurement procedures to indicate substantial differences from expectations, based on age developmental or cognitive level. Procedure #1: ________________________ Procedure #2: ________________________ Results: ___________________ Results: ___________________ Yes_____ No_____

For complete information regarding disability criteria requirements, refer to Minnesota Rule 3525.1343.

3.4.12 Traumatic Brain Injury

Evaluation: Reevaluation: · (Must meet initial criteria) · (Must address criteria components) The team shall determine that a pupil is eligible and in need of special education and related services if the pupil meets the criterion in item A and one of the criteria in items B and C as documented by the information gathered according to item D below: A. Documentation in file by a physician of medically verified traumatic brain injury. Yes_____ No_____ AND: B. Documentation in report of functional impairment attributed to the TBI adversely affecting educational performance in one or more of the following areas: Yes_____ No_____ _____ intellectual/cognitive _____ communication _____ social/emotional/behavioral _____ academic _____ motor _____ sensory _____ functional skills/adaptive behavior

(See examples in MN Rule 3525.1348) functional impairments AND: C. Verification of impairment not primarily the result of previously existing conditions: Yes_____ No_____ - visual, hearing, motor impairments - environmental or economic disadvantage - language or specific learning disabilities AND: D. Documentation in report of functional impairment (one from both #1 and #2 below): Yes_____ No_____ 1. ___ checklists ___ classroom or work samples ___ documented, systematic behavioral observations ___ educational/medical history ___ interviews with parent, student, & other knowledgeable individuals 2. ___ criterion referenced measures ___ sociometric measures ___ personality or projective measures ___ standardized assessment measures - mental retardation - emotional/behavioral disorders - cultural differences

For complete information regarding disability criteria requirements, refer to Minnesota Rule 3525.1348.

3.4.13 Visual Impairment

Evaluation: Reevaluation: · (Must meet initial criteria) · (Must address criteria components) A pupil is eligible as having a visual disability and in need of special education when the pupil meets one of the criteria in item A and one of the criteria in item B below: A. Documentation of visual impairment by licensed eye specialist in at least one area: Yes_____ No_____ ____ visual acuity of 20/60 or less in better eye with best conventional correction. 1. estimation of acuity for difficult to test pupils, 2. for pre-kindergarten, measured acuity must be significantly deviant from what is developmentally age-appropriate. ____ visual field of 20 degrees or less or bilateral scotomas. ____ congenital or degenerative condition: _____________ (e.g., progressive cataract, glaucoma, retinitis pigmentosa) AND: B. Documentation of functional evaluation of visual abilities, at least one area evaluated by a teacher of the visually impaired. Yes_____ No_____ ___ 1. Limited ability in accessing program appropriate educational media without modifications. ___ 2. Limited ability to access full range of program appropriate materials or media without accommodating actions (changes in posture, body movement, squinting, focal distance, etc.). ___ 3. Variable visual ability due to environmental factors (contrast, color, movement, or weather) that can't be controlled. ___ 4. Reduced or variable visual ability due to visual fatigue or eye condition factors.

For complete information regarding disability criteria requirements, refer to Minnesota Rule 3525.1345.

Three Through Six Years of Age (Developmental Delay or other disability category) Evaluation: Reevaluation: · (Must meet initial criteria) · (Must address criteria components) Team determines a child is eligible and for Early Childhood Special Education when the child meets the criteria described in items A or B (including sub-items) below: A. Meets criteria of one of the other disability categories Yes_____ No_____ Disability category ____________________________ OR: B. Meets the criteria for developmental delay Yes_____ No_____

3.5 Early Childhood Special Education

1. The child has: _____a. A medically diagnosed condition or syndrome known to hinder normal development; _____b. a delay of 1.5 SD or more below the mean in two or more developmental areas. (Scores from subtests of instruments are not acceptable) Test Name ____________________ SD __________ Developmental Area ___________ Test Name ____________________ SD __________ Developmental Area ___________ AND: 2. Supported by a documented systematic observation in child's routine setting. Yes_____ No_____ AND: 3. Corroboration of the developmental evaluation or medical diagnosis from: Yes_____ No_____ ____ Developmental history, and ____ other evaluation procedure conducted on a different day (e.g., parent report, language sample, criterion-referenced tool, or developmental checklist).

For complete information regarding disability criteria requirements, refer to Minnesota Rule 3525.1350.

3.5 Early Childhood Special Education Birth Through Two Years of Age (Developmental Delay or other disability category)

Evaluation: Reevaluation: · (Must meet initial criteria) · (Must address criteria components) Team determines a child is eligible for Early Childhood Special Education when the child meets the criteria described in items A or B (including sub items) below: A. Meets criteria of one of the other disability categories Disability category ____________________________ OR: B. Meets the criteria for developmental delay Yes_____ No_____ 1. The child has: _____a. Medically diagnosed condition or syndrome known to hinder normal development, or _____b. overall developmental delay, composite score of 1.5 SD or more below the mean: Test Name ____________________________ Composite SD _________________ (Subtests of instruments are not acceptable) _____c. Or, if less than 18 months old, delay in motor development of 2.0 SD or more below the mean below: Test Name _________________________ Motor SD ________________________ AND: 2. Supported by a documented systematic observation in child's routine setting. Yes_____ No_____ AND: 3. Corroboration of the developmental evaluation or medical diagnosis from: Yes_____ No_____ ____Developmental history, and ____other evaluation procedure conducted on a different day (e.g., parent report, language sample, criterion-referenced tool, or developmental checklist).

For complete information regarding disability criteria requirements, refer to Minnesota Rule 3525.1350.

Yes_____ No_____

3.6.1 Developmental Adapted Physical Education

Evaluation: Reevaluation: · (Must meet initial criteria) · (Must address criteria components) A pupil is eligible for developmental adapted physical education: special education if the team determines the pupil meets the criteria in items A and B below: A. Identified disability ______________________________ (Not: Speech/Language or ECSE: Birth-3) AND: B. Documentation in evaluation report of delay from either: Yes_____ No_____ Yes_____ No_____

____1. Standardized psychomotor evaluation or physical fitness test, administered individually by an appropriate licensed teacher (1.5 SD below). Test __________________________ OR: ____2. Development or achievement and independence in school, home and community settings is inadequate to allow success in regular PE (two or more sources of data): ____ motor and skill checklists ____ criterion referenced measures ____ parent and staff interviews ____ informal tests ____ medical history or reports ____ systematic observations ____ social, emotional, and behavioral evaluations ____ deficits in achievement related to the defined curriculum

For complete information regarding disability criteria requirements, refer to Minnesota Rule 3525.1352.

SD ___________________________

ATTACHMENT F: DATA PRIVACY When acting as officials of MDE, Compliance Peers are allowed access to confidential files without direct parental permission. 34 C.F.R. § 99.31; § 99.35 Private or confidential data may be used and disseminated to individuals or agencies specifically authorized access to that data by state, local or federal law enacted or promulgated after the collection of the data. 34 C.F.R § 99.31 6(i) FERPA Prior consent is not required to disclose information when (6)(i) The disclosure is to organizations conducting studies for, or on behalf of, educational agencies or institutions to: (B) Administer student aid programs; or (C) Improve instruction (ii) The agency or institution may disclose information under paragraph (a)(6) (I) of the section only if: (a) The information is destroyed when no longer needed for the purposes for which the study was conducted. (iii) For the purposes of paragraph (a)(6) of this section the term "organization" includes, but is not limited to Federal, State and local agencies and independent organizations.

ATTACHMENT G: COMPLIANCE PEER PROJECT Compliance peers are individuals who are selected and trained by MDE to participate in the MDE monitoring process. MDE benefits from the use of additional experts while other agencies gain a staff member with expertise about due process procedures along with the opportunity to view special education programs in the districts throughout Minnesota. Selection: DCA is responsible for selecting and training Compliance Peers. Applicants must have agency support and are typically agency leaders who will provide additional technical assistance in their respective districts. It is the intent of DCA to select peers that represent a diversity of cultures, disability licensure areas, geographic regions and agencies. Responsibilities: Compliance peers may assist with the evaluation of compliance, focusing on programmatic and systemic improvement and/or assessment of specific instructional practices and specific program planning. The Lead Compliance Specialist coordinates peer assignments, determines the specialized focus of peer review and assigns specific tasks as appropriate. As a representative of MDE, a peer must follow strict standards of data privacy and confidentiality, and demonstrate professional behavior. Peers need to be willing to learn, be flexible and sensitive to the approaches used in other districts. Peers must be willing to respond to direction given by DCA for selection, scheduling and review practices and must meet the agreed upon obligations to remain a Compliance Peer. Training: Peer training is required prior to participation as a member of a MDE compliance monitoring team. Areas of training include, but are not limited to: · DCA expectations for on-site team involvement · Data privacy/confidentiality · Monitoring review procedures · Data collection procedures · Legal standards Logistics: A Compliance Peer must receive the endorsement of the sponsoring agency and commit to training, shadowing and a minimum of five days of on-site compliance review during a school year. DCA will reimburse travel, and other expenses while a peer is engaged in training and participating in MDE monitoring review activities. The district is responsible for any substitute staffing needs while the Compliance Peer is at on-site compliance review visits.

Information

Monitoring Model

73 pages

Report File (DMCA)

Our content is added by our users. We aim to remove reported files within 1 working day. Please use this link to notify us:

Report this file as copyright or inappropriate

162403

Notice: fwrite(): send of 208 bytes failed with errno=104 Connection reset by peer in /home/readbag.com/web/sphinxapi.php on line 531