Targeted Technical Assistance and Professional Development

Technical assistance must be directly linked to the SPP indicators and to the improvement activities. Technical assistance and activities to build capacity can be implemented at varying levels and through multiple means such as Web sites; documents; coaching; mentoring; job-embedded professional development; local, regional, and/or statewide learning networks; direct training from state personnel; and/or from other resources (e.g., Regional Resource Centers (RRCs), the National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center (NECTAC), other technical assistance providers).

Evidence that the Targeted Technical Assistance and Professional Development component is part of a state’s or an LEA’s system of general supervision includes:

• Technical assistance or professional development activities are directly linked to specific indicators in the SPP, including the identification and correction of noncompliance and improvement of performance.
• States systematically disseminate information to the LEAs about promising and evidence-based practices.
• Standards for professional development are designed to evaluate technical assistance and professional development activities.
• Evaluations of technical assistance and professional development activities involve evidence of a change of practice resulting in improved outcomes and compliance as well as building sustainability and capacity.
• Follow-up activities are built into the technical assistance design to determine whether activities are carried out consistently.
• Collaboration with teacher education personnel and other higher education officials addresses need for highly qualified teachers who exhibit skills and knowledge in areas of state need.
• Networks exist at state and local level to increase technical assistance capacity (e.g., personnel, knowledge base, local access, hard-to-reach audiences).

Effective Dispute Resolution

The timely resolution of complaints, mediations, and due process actions is required for effective dispute resolution. Effective dispute resolutions also track the issues identified to determine whether patterns or trends exist. Additionally, through the tracking of the issues over time, it is possible for states to evaluate the resolutions’ effectiveness and determine whether resolution was maintained in future situations. When there are instances of small numbers of complaints, mediations, or dispute resolutions, it is important for the state to determine the extent to which parents, families, and students understand their rights related to dispute resolution.

Evidence that the Effective Dispute Resolution component is part of a state’s or an LEA’s system of general supervision includes:

• Resolution of disputes are in accordance with required timelines.
• Tracking of issues identified is used to determine patterns and trends.
• Results of dispute resolution processes are analyzed to determine the effectiveness of the dispute resolution system.
• Data from dispute resolution are used to inform the state’s integrated monitoring system.
• Dispute resolution processes include mechanisms for ensuring that all related corrective actions have been implemented and noncompliance has been corrected.
• The state has methods of regularly reviewing issues raised in the dispute resolution system to compare to other monitoring information.
• States encourage the use of a continuum of resolution options to resolve disputes at an informal level and as early as possible.
• All personnel are trained appropriately on dispute resolution processes and the IDEA requirements.
• Data demonstrate that parents understand their rights related to resolving disputes under the IDEA.

Integrated Monitoring Activities

Effective monitoring strategies are integrated across all components of the general supervision system. Multiple data sources and methods are used to monitor every LEA. Selected monitoring activities ensure continuous examination of performance for compliance and results. This includes on-site and off-site monitoring activities. Monitoring protocols focus on specific priority areas, selected based on state performance and improvement needs.

When reviewing and/or revising their general supervision system, states analyze what monitoring activities can be used to collect performance data from all LEAs, for every indicator, included in their SPP. This analysis process allows states to ensure that their monitoring system is designed to maximize the use of monitoring resources to include effective professional development and targeted technical assistance. Overall, the general supervision system must include planned analysis and review of all available monitoring data from on-site and off-site monitoring activities.

Some key evidences of how a state or an LEA can demonstrate that the Integrated Monitoring Activities component is a part of the system of general supervision include:

• There is stakeholder involvement in the design, implementation, and evaluation of integrated monitoring activities.
• State procedures and protocols are implemented consistently to ensure process integrity.
• Training is provided at all levels (state and local) for those involved in monitoring to provide consistency in the implementation of procedures and to ensure transparency of the process.
• State and local data are systematically reviewed to determine activities for focused monitoring activities.
• Results of integrated monitoring activities trigger corrective actions; technical assistance; improvement strategies; fiscal decisions and other investments, sanctions, and incentives that ensure timely correction.
• State IDEA monitoring efforts are coordinated with other state activities.
• Focused monitoring activities are geared toward identifying solutions and activities to enhance and improve performance as well as correct noncompliance.
• Multiple data sources and methodologies are used including desk audits, surveys, on-site reviews, and local agency self assessments.
• States have procedures to track the effectiveness of corrective actions and improvement strategies.
• Monitoring activities lead to the identification of underlying causes of noncompliance to assist in the development of improvement strategies.
• Routine evaluation of the integrated monitoring activities is conducted as part of the state’s overall general supervision system.

Improvement, Correction, Incentives, and Sanctions

Supporting improvement and ensuring correction through incentives and sanctions are critical components to a general supervision system. The enforcement of regulations, policies, and procedures is required by the IDEA and state rules. State guidelines and directives also steer the technical assistance provided to ensure the correction of noncompliance and, ultimately, to meet state and local targets.

Successful completion of corrective sanctions and improvement activities means that the state or an LEA has corrected the noncompliance and made significant progress toward reaching established targets on performance indicators. This is identified through data analysis, documentation of evidence of change, and other methods. Improvement plans are most effective when they emphasize measurable results and include changes needed in (1) practice (and related policies and procedures), (2) professional development, (3) targeted technical assistance, (4) infrastructure, and (5) sufficient supervision. Correction of noncompliance must be documented and verified by the state. The state and the LEA track the implementation of improvement activities and intervene quickly and effectively if tracking indicates a lack of progress.

A range of incentives and rewards are designed to recognize local agencies when they meet or exceed the targets. In providing incentives and rewards, the state agency should be specific about which target(s) the LEA has met and validated.

States must ensure timely correction of noncompliance. A state’s monitoring policies, procedures, and practices should include descriptions of how and when sanctions are to be imposed. An effective means of ensuring compliance is the development of a range of sanctions. It is important that the state analyze: corrective actions taken, previous monitoring reports, unique characteristics of the local program, and the local agency’s efforts and capacity to correct the identified problem(s) in making decisions about the imposition of sanctions.

States must evaluate the compliance and improvement efforts of the LEAs annually and make determinations of the status of each LEA. The states must examine the LEAs’ performance on compliance indicators; the validity, reliability, and timeliness of data submitted; uncorrected noncompliance from sources other than SPP indicators; and any audit findings. In developing the criteria for making determinations, states will want to consider the performance of their LEAs on results indicators and any other information available. Based on the state’s examination and review, the LEAs will be determined to “meet requirements,” “need assistance,” “need intervention,” or “need substantial intervention.”

Some key evidences of how a state or an LEA can demonstrate that the Improvement, Correction, Incentives, and Sanctions component is a part of the system of general supervision include:

• State rules clearly define the state’s authority for enforcement.
• Targeted training, technical assistance, and support are provided to the LEAs when developing and implementing corrective action.
• State rules authorize a range of sanctions.
• Model practices reflecting improvement activities of high performing LEAs are identified in order to be replicated at other local agencies.
• Rewards are provided to reinforce high performing LEAs.
• Targeted technical assistance is provided by other agencies through interagency agreements and memoranda of understandings.
• States have procedures to track the effectiveness of corrective actions and improvement strategies.
• States have procedures for prohibiting an LEA from reducing maintenance of effort if an LEA is not meeting the IDEA Part B requirements.
• States use any monitoring and enforcement authority available to them.

Fiscal Management

The state system of general supervision includes mechanisms to provide oversight in the distribution and use of the IDEA funds at the state and local level. States should have procedures for ensuring that fiscal resources are directed to areas needing improvement as noted in the APR. Supervision of fiscal activities should include a review of required corrective actions as a result of monitoring activities.

Some key evidences of how the state or an LEA can demonstrate that the Fiscal Management component is a part of the system of general supervision include:

• States distribute the IDEA funds in accordance with federal requirements.
• States distribute funds to LEAs in a timely manner.
• LEAs provide a proportionate share of the IDEA funds to private schools.
• States’ interagency agreements establish fiscal responsibility for the provision of special education and related services and procedures for dispute resolution.
• Funds are used in accordance with federal and state requirements.
• States and their LEAs use applicable procedures related to high-risk pools if the state reserves funds for this purpose.
• States maintain effort at the state level.
• States and their LEAs use applicable procedures related to exceptions to maintenance of effort.
• States allocate adequate resources to support the system of general supervision.
• States provide oversight on the use of funds.
• States ensure that audits are conducted annually in accordance with the Single Audit Act.
• States oversee their LEAs’ expenditures to ensure timely liquidations.
• States assist their LEAs in developing and implementing tracking systems for children receiving early intervention services.
• States ensure that their LEAs report on early intervening services.

Michigan’s general supervision system is a multi-faceted, logical assembly of the above eight components. An effective general supervision system ensures accountability with the IDEA through effective monitoring activities.