DRAFT—R.
Cohen; DRC; 5/22/06 6/5/06
186-C:5 Program
Approval, Monitoring, and
Corrective Action. –
I. The state board of education shall adopt rules
establishing a process and standards
for the approval and monitoring of programs
of education that are maintained by school districts, regional special
education centers, and private organizations or state institutions for the
benefit of [educationally disabled] children with disabilities,
including charter schools, home-based programs, alternative schools or programs, programs
approved by health and human services which provide special education [What about the
following: “educational service
providers who provide services to the Department of Education, or to school districts
for children with disabilities in placements for whom the division of health
and human services have financial responsibility?]
except, however, that
approval of edu cation programs for the special district established in RSA
194:60 shall be pursuant to the standards set forth in the interagency
agreements between the department of corrections and the department of
education.
II. The purpose of program approval and monitoring is to
ensure that the programs specified in section I meet and maintain compliance
with applicable federal and state law, including standards of quality
established by such laws.
III. The program approval and monitoring process and standards shall
be overseen by Department personnel knowledgeable in research based educational
practices, and expert trained in professionally accepted program evaluation
methods. Such process shall utilize
professionally accepted program evaluation methods to ensure reliable and valid
findings, including but not limited to:
a.
Utilization of onsite monitoring and relevant benchmark, performance
and outcome data compiled in accordance with state and federal law at
sufficiently frequent intervals to ensure maintenance of standards.
b.
Program approval and monitoring teams which consist of at least one
educator, one related service professional, one educational administrator
knowledgeable in federal and state special education laws, research based
education and special education practices, and professionally accepted program
evaluation practices, and one parent.
None of the members of the team shall have been employed or retained by
the monitored the school district and shall otherwise not have a conflict of
interest. With the exception of the parent, other members of the team may be
from out of state. [How about:
Monitoring team members shall be independent of any agency or
organization that would have a conflict of interest. I also believe that we wanted the parent representative to be
knowledgeable about IDEA and the NH special education laws/process]]
c.
A case [can we omit the word “case”? Most parents hate that word] review process, which
shall consist of a sufficient number of randomly selected cases,[can we
replace the word “case” with “student files, including assessments, IEPs and
other documents” and add interviews with a random sampling of parents (and
perhaps students or graduates of the program)?] including stratified
random sampling, selected by the Department Monitoring Team, necessary for a
reliable and valid conclusions about each program and school, including
discreet sites such as alternative programs or schools.
d.
Reliability checks to ensure accuracy of reported data, team
observations and findings. [How about an independent
inter-rater follow up reliability check
of a sampling of monitoring reports to provide a QC/reliability
safeguard? Should any additional
requirements or focus be given to programs that have previously been found out
of compliance or who have not met targets under NCLB?]
IV. The Department shall
issue a report prior to the expiration of the existing program which shall
include:
a. Findings concerning exemplary
characteristics of each program, each instance of noncompliance with federal or
state law,[need to state which laws] an analysis of all benchmark, performance
or outcome data relevant to educational results and functional outcomes and the
extent to which each program is or is not meeting required or expected
standards.
b.
Based on said findings approve each program in the district,
conditionally approve it, or deny approval.
For purposes of this section:
1. A program shall receive full approval
when……………………………………
2. A program shall receive conditional approval
when……………………………
3. A program shall not receive approval when………………………………………
(need provisions of hearing for school district to challenge at
least 3.)
V.
Corrective Action, Technical Assistance, and Enforcement
Below New as of 6/5/06
a. Subject to the provisions of paragraph V(b), when any
deficiency[probably need definition of deficiency] [should
“noncompliance” be included or reflected in the definition of deficiency, or be
listed as a separate issue?] is found as a result of program approval or monitoring process or
through the complaint process pursuant
to 34 CFR 300.151-152, the Department shall require the School District to
submit a corrective action plan within 30 days, unless immediate or more
expeditious action is warranted. Such plan shall at a minimum include specific
actions and activities to remedy the deficiencies, the timelines, persons responsible, and the
manner of reporting to the Department to verify that the deficiencies has been
corrected. The Department shall approve
the plan within 30 days if the
Department is satisfied that the aforementioned components are in the plan,
that the plan is designed to re medy the deficiencies in a reasonably
expeditious [is this language too vague for a statute?] time frame taking
into account the nature and severity of the deficiencies as well as all other
applicable legal requirements, and demonstrates capacity for continued
compliance. If the Department denies
approval, it shall recommend to the school district [specific
improvements to be made to the district’s plan] plan
improvements. The School District
shall have 15 days to submit a revised plan for approval. [What if the District’s 2nd
attempt at writing a plan is insufficient?
Would the DOE then write a plan and impose it upon the District?] The Department shall monitor or follow
up on an approved plan [at each of the timelines in the
plan to demonstrate compliance is occurring within the pre-identified
parameters in the plan] to determine that the deficiencies are corrected.
b. In denying full approval under Section IV or
when requiring corrective action under Section Va, the Department shall determine whether the school district:
(i)
may benefit from voluntary assistance either as requested by the
school district or proposed by the Department.
(ii)
needs mandatory assistance.
(iii)
needs intervention.
(iv)
needs substantial intervention.
c. If
the Department determines that to correct a deficiency, the school district may
benefit from technical assistance pursuant to V(b)(i), the Department shall
make available voluntary assistance, and the school district and the Department
shall agree on assistance from the Department which shall include assistance
from the Department, the Special Education Technical Assistance and
Consultation grant program, or other
Department approved providers. [Who
pays?]
d. If the Department
determines that due to the length, nature, severity, or recurring nature of the same or similar
deficiencies or the number or frequency of other deficiencies that mandatory
technical assistance is warranted pursuant to V(b)(ii), the Department shall
(i) require the school district to work with the following
entities: the Department, the Special
Education Technical Assistance and Consultation grant program, other technical
assistance resources approved by the Department, as specified by the
Department. Technical assistance hereunder
shall include technical assistance described in 20 USC 1416 (e)(1)(i)-(iv).
(ii) Target the use of
___funds on the area or areas that the school district requires assistance.
e. If after a
pre-determined period of voluntary or mandatory assistance, not to
exceed one year, the School District has not substantially remedied the
deficiencies, the Department shall intervene pursuant to pursuant to V(b)(iii), as follows: [Isn’t 1
year a long time for noncompliance to continue unabated?]
i. Institute or continue the
requirements of IV(d)(i), (ii), and/or
ii. Withhold between 50% --100% of
federal and state special education funds
f. If after a pre-determined period after a period of
intervention specified in V(a), not to exceed
one additional year, the school
district has not substantially remedied the deficiencies--
i.
the Department shall substantially intervene pursuant to
V(b)(iv), by:
a. Directly or through contract assume
management and supervision of the special education programs of the school
district and other components of the school district that it deems necessary to
ensure that the school district comes into substantial compliance. [Who pays].
b. Target the use of __funds on the area
or areas in which the school district requires assistance.
ii.
A parent of child with disabilities may place his or her child
in another program or placement that the Department has approved under this
section or has approved on an individual basis, or that otherwise provides a free and appropriate
education to the child at the school district’s expense. [What would be the process
for this? Timeline? Once the District is in compliance, would
the child have to return? How
quickly? Could the parent instead
utilize additional resources (i.e. paraprofessional, consultative assistance,
or supplemental services like under NCLB) to enable the child to continue
his/her education in his/her neighborhood school instead of placing the child
out of district?]
VI.
Special Onsite Monitoring
a. The Department may conduct special onsite monitoring during the five-year interval between the
regular program approval reviews when based on data it has received from a
school district or from other sources
that there is reason to believe
that deficiencies exist which impact education of children with disabilities
d. The Department shall conduct such
special onsite monitoring during the
five year interval between the regular program approval reviews:
(i) When
required as part of the resolution or remediation of a complaint processed under 34 CFR
300.151-152.
(ii) When based on data the Department has received from a school district or from
other sources there is reason to
believe that deficiencies are substantially
impacting education of children with disabilities
(iii) In other situation as defined by regulations
promulgated by the Department taking into account the length, nature, severity, or frequent or recurring nature of suspected or actual
deficiencies.
c. The requirements of Sections II-V apply to
special onsite monitoring.
Source. 1981, 352:2. 1990, 140:2, X, eff. June 18, 1990.
1998, 270:2, eff. July 1, 1999.