Special Education Monitoring & Compliance Manual (IDEA

7m ago
5.18 MB
147 Pages
Last View : 1d ago
Last Download : n/a
Upload by : Annika Witter

Revised August 2014Special Education Monitoring &Compliance Manual(IDEA Part B)Jesús AguirreState Superintendent of EducationAmy MaisterraAssistant Superintendent ofElementary, Secondary, andSpecialized EducationJennifer MasoodiDirector of Monitoring and ComplianceRevised: August 20141

Revised August 2014OSSE Special Education Monitoring & Compliance ManualTable of Contents1. INTRODUCTION . 42. STATE EDUCATION AGENCY AUTHORITY . 63. STATE PERFORMANCE PLAN/ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT . 74. ANNUAL DETERMINATIONS . 95. OSEP CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN. 106. CORRECTION OF NONCOMPLIANCE . 117. MONITORING PROCESS OVERVIEW . 14Part B Compliance Monitoring Areas . 17LEA On-site Compliance Monitoring. 18LEA Focused Monitoring and Continuous Improvement . 25Additional Findings of Noncompliance . 298. District of Columbia Corrective Action Tracking System (DC-CATS) . 309. APPENDICES . 31Appendix ADeterminations Information and Frequently Asked QuestionsAppendix BOSSE FFY 2012 IDEA Part B Grant Award Special Conditions Enclosure EAppendix COSEP Memo 09-02Appendix DProng 1 & 2 FlowchartAppendix ENonpublic Monitoring SupplementAppendix FStudent Compliance Monitoring ToolAppendix GLEA Compliance Monitoring ToolAppendix HNonpublic School Compliance Monitoring ToolAppendix ISecondary Transition Compliance Monitoring ToolAppendix JSample Monitoring AgendasAppendix KPart B State Performance Plan Indicators2

Revised August 2014Appendix LGlossary3

Revised August 20141. INTRODUCTIONThe District of Columbia Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE), Division ofSpecialized Education, Division of Quality Assurance and Monitoring, is pleased to provide thisguidance and information regarding its Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part BState Monitoring and Compliance System in this and a subsequent series of materials for localeducation agencies (LEAs).As the state education agency (SEA) for the District of Columbia, OSSE’s role is to set highexpectations, provide resources and support, and exercise accountability to ensure that allresidents receive an excellent education. OSSE’s Vision for District of Columbia children withdisabilities is that they become successful adults, prepared for further education, successfullyobtaining and maintaining employment, living independently, and engaged in their community,and that during their years in secondary education, they will be educated in classrooms with theirnon‐disabled peers and participate fully in school life.OSSE’s vision aligns with federal requirements pertaining to SEA monitoring responsibilities. TheIDEA Part B regulations at 34 CFR §300.600 require that the SEA monitor the implementation ofIDEA Part B, make annual determinations about the performance of each LEA, enforce compliancewith IDEA Part B, and report annually on the performance of the SEA and each LEA. The primaryfocus of the SEA’s monitoring activities must be on improving educational results and functionaloutcomes for all children with disabilities and ensuring that LEAs meet the program requirementsof IDEA Part B. In exercising its monitoring responsibilities, the SEA must ensure that when itidentifies noncompliance with the requirements of IDEA Part B by LEAs, the noncompliance iscorrected as soon as possible, and in no case later than one year after the SEA’s identification ofthe noncompliance.The goal of OSSE’s Monitoring and Compliance System is to ensure that LEAs are meeting therequirements of both federal and local regulations. In alignment with federal regulations andOSSE’s Vision, OSSE’s monitoring approach is outcome oriented. To achieve desired performanceresults, it is critical that OSSE works collaboratively with LEAs and engages in shared accountabilitypractices that will maximize success for all students with disabilities. Monitoring activities that willenable OSSE to facilitate this collaborative approach to improved performance include: databasereviews, on-site compliance monitoring, record reviews, dispute resolution activities, LEA selfassessments, Phase I and Phase II grant applications, and audit findings reviews.Another key feature of OSSE’s Monitoring and Compliance System is the direct linkage betweenmonitoring activities and technical assistance. The Division of Special Education’s Training andTechnical Assistance Unit (T&TA) works directly with the Quality Assurance and Monitoring Unit toidentify specific compliance areas that warrant general and targeted technical assistance. OSSEoffers a multitude of training opportunities for LEAs to increase their knowledge of, and compliancewith, IDEA Part B requirements and to discover methods to improve outcomes for students withdisabilities. For more information on OSSE’s T&TA, please contact osse.tta@dc.gov.4

Revised August 2014OSSE is committed to a monitoring system that identifies noncompliance using methods thatsupport the ultimate goal of improving educational results and functional outcomes for allstudents with disabilities. While monitoring activities must, by federal law, examine complianceissues, OSSE has very deliberately structured its monitoring approach in such a way that thebroader themes of IDEA – inclusivity, quality of education, and teamwork – are emphasized.5

Revised August 20142. STATE EDUCATION AGENCY AUTHORITYOSSE has statutory authority under both federal and local law to establish, operate, and maintain anadministrative process to ensure compliance with all federal statutes for the programs under itsjurisdiction, including education of District children and youth with disabilities.The IDEA section 616 requires each SEA to implement a General Supervision System that monitorsthe implementation of the IDEA Part B and its accompanying regulations. As the SEA for theDistrict of Columbia, OSSE is responsible for the implementation of the General SupervisionSystem for the District, which includes but is not limited to State complaint processes and DueProcess adjudication in addition to LEA monitoring.Under local special education law, OSSE “has primary responsibility for the state‐level supervisoryfunctions for special education that are typically handled by a state department of education orpublic instruction, a state board of education, a state education commission, or a state educationauthority.” (DC ST 38-2561.01 (7)(a)(13))The District of Columbia Municipal Regulations, Title 5, Board of Education, Subtitle E (Former Title5) Chapters 22, 30 & 38, Subtitle A (District of Columbia Public Schools) Chapter 25 contain thelocal counterparts to the requirements of IDEA, beginning with the Free Appropriate PublicEducation (FAPE) requirement:5‐E3000. Special Education Policy3000.1 All local education agencies (LEA) in the District of Columbia shall ensure, pursuantto the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), that all children with disabilities,ages three to twenty‐two, who are residents or wards of the District of Columbia, haveavailable to them a free appropriate public education (FAPE) and that the rights of thesechildren and their parents are protected.6

Revised August 20143. STATE PERFORMANCE PLAN/ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORTThe IDEA Part B regulations at 34 CFR §300.600(c) require the SEA, as a part of its responsibilities,to use quantifiable indicators and such qualitative indicators as are needed to adequately measureperformance in priority areas and the indicators established by the Secretary of Education forState Performance Plans (SPP). The Secretary has identified 17 indicators to measure SEA/LEAperformance against IDEA regulations. Targets for indicators related to disproportionality,evaluation timelines, early childhood transition, secondary transition, correction ofnoncompliance, State complaint timelines, due process timelines and data were required to be setat 100%. Each year, SEAs must submit an Annual Performance Report (APR) to review and reporton progress toward and/or compliance with the 17 indicators.All instances of SEA data collection regarding the indicators, however conducted (throughdatabase reviews, written data requests, on-site monitoring, etc.), constitute “GeneralSupervision” and are a part of OSSE’s Monitoring and Compliance system. Any noncomplianceidentified pertaining to the indicators or related regulatory requirements must be corrected assoon as possible but in no case later than one year after the identification of the noncompliance.The Secretary’s Part B Indicators are as follows: Indicator 1 (Graduation)Indicator 2 (Dropout)Indicator 3 (Assessment)Indicator 4 (Suspension and Expulsion)Indicator 5 (LRE Settings)Indicator 6 (Preschool LRE)Indicator 7 (Preschool Outcomes)Indicator 8 (Parent Involvement)Indicator 9 (Disproportionate Representation in Special Education)Indicator 10 (Disproportionate Representation by Disability Category)Indicator 11 (Evaluation)Indicator 12 (Early Childhood Transition)Indicator 13 (Secondary Transition)Indicator 14 (Post-school Outcomes)Indicator 15 (Resolution Sessions)Indicator 16 (Mediation)Indicator 17 (State Systemic Improvement Plan)(Note that Correction of Noncompliance will still be reported and Valid and Reliable Data arestill required.)In addition to the system of indicators described above, the Office of Special Education Programs(OSEP) is now implementing a revised accountability framework which is focused on results for7

Revised August 2014infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities, and their families. OSEP’s previousaccountability system placed a heavy emphasis on compliance. OSEP’s new accountabilityframework, called Results Driven Accountability (RDA), incorporates an enhanced emphasis oneducational results and functional outcomes for children with disabilities while balancing thoseresults with the compliance requirements of IDEA.8

Revised August 20144. ANNUAL DETERMINATIONSThe IDEA Part B regulations at 34 CFR §§300.600(c) and 300.603 require the SEA to make“determinations” annually about the performance of each LEA based on information provided inthe SPP/APR, information obtained through monitoring visits, and any other public informationmade available. OSSE is required to use the same categories that the United States Departmentof Education, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) uses for state determinations asoutlined in Section 616(d) of IDEA. In making such determinations, OSSE will assign LEAs one ofthe following determination levels: RequirementsNeeds AssistanceNeeds InterventionNeeds Substantial InterventionOSSE’s determination is based on the totality of the LEA’s data and information, including the LEA’s:1. History, nature and length of time of any reported noncompliance; specifically, the LEA’sperformance on Indicators 4b, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 as outlined in the State PerformancePlan (SPP) and FFY 2010 Annual Performance Report (APR);2. Information regarding timely, valid and reliable data;3. On-site compliance monitoring, focused monitoring and dispute resolution findings;4. Sub-recipient audit findings;5. Other data available to OSSE regarding the LEA’s compliance with the IDEA, including, butnot limited to, relevant financial data and compliance with the Funding for Public Schoolsand Public Charter School Amendment Act of 2011;6. Performance on selected SPP results indicators; and7. Evidence of correction of findings of noncompliance, including progress toward fullcompliance.8. Results data such as graduation rates, assessment results, and post-school outcomes will betaken into account in the overall LEA determination level starting with the FFY 2014determination (issued in FFY 2016).The criteria for each determination level are set by OSSE according to U.S. Department ofEducation, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) guidelines. IDEA specifies different levelsof action/intervention depending on determination level. LEAs will be informed of their annualdetermination and any required actions/interventions in late summer/early fall.For more information regarding determinations, refer to Appendix A.9

Revised August 20145. OSEP CORRECTIVE ACTION PLANOn June 23, 2014, OSEP issued a letter to OSSE informing the State that the U.S. Department ofEducation has designated the District of Columbia as a “high risk” grantee and has imposed SpecialConditions on D.C.’s FFY 2014 grant awards under IDEA. OSEP imposed Special Conditions basedon the District of Columbia’s noncompliance with: Timely performance of initial evaluations and reevaluations;Timely correction of noncompliance; andSecondary transition requirements.Based on this noncompliance, OSSE received a “needs intervention” determination for the eighthconsecutive year and was required to submit a corrective action plan (CAP) to the Department inAugust 2014 to address the above mentioned areas. Pursuant to the CAP, OSSE must provide fourprogress reports (in addition to the APR) to OSEP. Reports must include data from all LEAs,including charter school LEAs, and provide the required content related to each area of identifiednoncompliance. Each report must be submitted to the Department in accordance with thefollowing reporting periods and timelines:First Progress Report: August 1, 2014, for the period April 1, 2014 – June 30, 2014Second Progress Report: November 3, 2014, for the period July 1, 2014 – September 30, 2014Third Progress Report: May 1, 2015, for the period October 1, 2014 – March 31, 2015Final Progress Report: August 1, 2015, for the period April 1, 2015 – June 30, 2015For each reporting period, OSSE will collect and analyze data related to the above listed complianceareas. For each LEA with noncompliance identified through this data collection, findings ofnoncompliance will be issued and correction of noncompliance must be verified as soon as possiblebut in no case later than one year after the identification of the noncompliance.For more information on OSSE’s Special Conditions, refer to Appendix B.10

Revised August 20146. CORRECTION OF NONCOMPLIANCEIn exercising its monitoring responsibilities under 34 CFR §300.600(d), OSSE must ensure that whenit identifies noncompliance with requirements of Part B by LEAs, the noncompliance is corrected assoon as possible, and in no case later than one year after OSSE’s identification of thenoncompliance (34 CFR §300.600(e)). If LEA staff fail to respond to OSSE’s requests for data orevidence of timely correction of noncompliance, OSSE will escalate the request to the LEA’s head ofschool or executive director, and to the State Superintendent of Education and the Public SchoolCharter Board. In addition, failure to provide evidence of timely correction of noncompliance maybe factored into an LEA’s determination scores.When determining correction of noncompliance, OSSE must verify that the LEA: (1) has correctedeach individual case of noncompliance, unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of theLEA, consistent with OSEP Memorandum 09-02, dated October 17, 2008 (OSEP Memo 09-02); and(2) is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirement (i.e., achieved 100% compliance)based on a review of updated data such as data subsequently collected through the data system oran additional review of student files.Prong 1 and Prong 2 CorrectionsThere are two stages, or prongs, to correction of noncompliance. Both Prong 1 and Prong 2correction must occur as soon as possible, but no later than one year from the date of notification ofnoncompliance.Prong 1When an LEA receives written notification of a finding of noncompliance through the District ofColumbia Corrective Action Tracking System (DC-CATS), the LEA completes the Prong 1 correction ofnoncompliance by first correcting the individual student level noncompliance.For example, if OSSE reviews the secondary transition plan for Student A and finds noncompliancethrough that review, the LEA must correct Student A’s secondary transition plan by reconvening anIEP meeting (or properly executing an IEP amendment) and writing a compliant secondary transitionplan for the student. The LEA must submit proof of the correction into the Special Education DataSystem (SEDS) as well as DC-CATS. OSSE will review Student A’s revised secondary transition plan toensure that it is fully compliant.Prong 2Next, the LEA must demonstrate that it is now correctly implementing the specific regulatoryrequirement. To complete Prong 2, OSSE reviews additional data through another SEDS file review.For example, after the LEA has corrected Student A’s secondary transition plan, OSSE will reviewsecondary transition plans for other students within the LEA to ensure that the LEA is correctlyimplementing secondary transition requirements for all students. Both steps must be completed in11

Revised August 2014order for OSSE to determine that the noncompliance has been corrected. The noncompliance is notdeemed to be corrected until the LEA has achieved 100% compliance in a Prong 2 review. Forinitial evaluation timelines, reevaluation timelines, secondary transition requirements, and Part C toPart B transition timelines, correction is made when an LEA achieves 100% compliance on asubsequent quarterly review. For noncompliance identified through on-site monitoring, correction ismade when an LEA achieves 100% compliance on a subsequent file review conducted by OSSE.If an OSSE compliance monitor finds additional noncompliance during a Prong 2 file review, themonitor will notify the LEA of the noncompliance identified, work with the LEA to ensure correctionof all files, and will repeat the Prong 2 file review at a later date. As noted above, the originalnoncompliance identified by OSSE is not considered to be corrected until the LEA achieves 100%compliance on a Prong 2 file review.PLEASE NOTE: While OSEP allows a one year maximum timeline for the correction ofnoncompliance, OSSE must have time to perform the Prong 2 verification of systemic compliancefor each item in which noncompliance was identified. Therefore, OSSE expects LEAs to submitinitial corrections of noncompliance within 90 days of notification of a finding of noncompliance.Since the Prong 2 process can take several additional weeks or months to complete, LEAs mustcomplete all student-level Prong 1 corrections as soon as possible. If the LEA is unable todemonstrate 100% compliance on a Prong 2 file review within 1 year of the date of notification ofnoncompliance, then the LEA will be unable to earn full points for timely correction ofnoncompliance on its annual determination.In addition to Prong 1 and Prong 2 corrections, OSSE may include “additional corrective actions” or“improvement activities” to be completed after a finding of noncompliance. Additional correctiveactions and improvement activities are designed to assist the LEA in developing appropriatepractices or accessing necessary technical assistance in the area of the noncompliance, not todetermine correction of noncompliance.Two Prong Approach to Verifying Correction of NoncomplianceNotificationLEA receives written notification ofnoncomplianceLEA corrects individual student levelnoncomplianceOSSE reviews student level correction toverify complianceLEA demonstrates it is correctly implementingthe specific regulatory requirementOSSE reviews a sample of additional studentfiles to verify that the LEA is correctlyimplementing the specific regulatoryrequirementProng 1Verification of Prong 1Prong 2Verification of Prong 212

Revised August 2014For a copy of OSEP Memo 09-02, refer to Appendix C.For a copy of the Prong 1 & 2 Flow Chart, refer to Appendix D.13

Revised August 20147. MONITORING PROCESS OVERVIEWThe goal of OSSE’s Monitoring and Compliance System is to ensure that LEAs are meeting therequirements of both federal and local regulations. In alignment with federal regulations andOSSE’s Vision, OSSE’s monitoring approach is outcome oriented. However, if noncompliance isidentified through any of OSSE’s monitoring activities, OSSE will require the LEA to correct thenoncompliance as soon as possible (ideally within 90 days of identification) but in no case laterthan one year after the identification of the noncompliance.Contrary to the notion that monitoring is an annual on-site process, OSSE employs a number ofmonitoring activities to ensure compliance with federal and local regulations and improveeducational results and functional outcomes for students with disabilities. Monitoring activitiesinclude: database reviews, on-site compliance monitoring, record reviews, on-site focusedmonitoring, dispute resolution activities, LEA self-assessments, Phase I and Phase II grantapplications, and audit findings reviews.Database Reviews: In accordance with the CAP and with APR reporting requirements, OSSE willreview data in the Special Education Data System (SEDS) and in the Blackman Jones Database toidentify noncompliance and assess progress toward federal and local targets for special education.Pursuant to the Blackman/Jones Consent Decree and Title 5, Section 5019 of the District ofColumbia Municipal Regulations, all LEAs (including independent charter LEAs) are required to inputdata into SEDS. Data for CAP reporting will be reviewed according to the schedule displayed onpage 9. Data for APR indicators will be reviewed one time per year. LEAs will receive findings ofnoncompliance for noncompliance identified through database reviews.On-site Compliance Monitoring: Each year, OSSE will conduct on-site compliance monitoring for aselection of LEAs. This process will include record reviews, interviews and document reviews toidentify noncompliance and assess progress toward federal and local targets for special education.Details regarding on-site compliance monitoring can be found on page 15.Nonpublic Monitoring: OSSE is committed to ensuring that students educated in nonpublicsettings are placed in the least restrictive environment, are receiving proper positive behaviorsupports, and are receiving appropriate services, including specialized instruction and transitionservices. Pursuant to D.C. Code §38-2561.07, nonpublic schools applying for a Certificate ofApproval (COA) shall receive an evaluation including an on-site inspection of the operations andfacilities of the school or program. OSSE shall conduct an on-site inspection at least once duringthe period of the COA and may schedule other inspections as deemed necessary.The LEA responsible for the student placed in the nonpublic school is responsible for ensuringthat the nonpublic school is compliant with federal and local rules and regulations. Therefore,should noncompliance be identified during a nonpublic review, the responsible LEA will receivenotice of the findings of noncompliance and be accountable for correcting the noncompliance assoon as possible but in no case later than one year from the identification of noncompliance.Additional information regarding nonpublic monitoring can be found in Appendix G.14

Revised August 2014Record Reviews: Record reviews entail an examination of student level records that document thelevel of implementation of Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), financial and accountingrecords, or any other record that may contain information necessary for federal or local reporting.The majority of record reviews conducted by OSSE will occur through database reviews, on-sitecompliance monitoring, and required audit activities. OSSE reserves the right to review records ifinformation is not available in databases or at any such time that a review may be necessary.Findings of noncompliance identified through record reviews must be corrected as soon aspossible but in no case later than one year after the noncompliance was identified.Focused Monitoring: Focused monitoring purposefully selects priority areas to examine forcompliance and results while not specifically examining other areas for compliance in order tomaximize resources, emphasize important variables, and increase the probability of improvedresults. OSSE began on-site focused monitoring during the 2010-2011 school year for selectedLEAs. OSSE may choose to conduct an on-site focused monitoring visit in lieu of an on-sitecompliance monitoring visit if the LEA has demonstrated that it is in compliance with theregulatory requirements described in the Compliance Monitoring Areas. Details regarding on-sitefocused monitoring can be found on page 23.Child Find Monitoring: Child find monitoring is a process designed to ensure that students withdisabilities are being appropriately identified and served by their LEAs. Twice a year, OSSE willreview the enrollment rates for students with qualifying disabilities under IDEA at each LEA. LEAsthat have special education enrollment rates of less than 8% of the total student population will bereviewed to ensure that the LEA has proper special education referral and eligibility processes inplace, and to ensure that LEA staff understand their obligation to provide special education andrelated services to students with disabilities. Child find monitoring includes a review of LEA data,and may include staff interviews, parent/student interviews, a campus visit, and mandatoryparticipation in OSSE provided technical assistance programming as necessary.Dispute Resolution Activities: The State complaint and due process complaint processes aredesigned to resolve disputes between LEAs and parents (or organization or individual in the case ofState complaints). In the fact finding stages of each of these processes, the investigator or hearingofficer may identify noncompliance by the LEA. In the case of State complaints, findings ofnoncompliance are identified in the Letter of Decision. In the case of due process complaints,findings of noncompliance are identified in the Hearing Officer Determination (HOD). AlthoughOSSE may not issue an additional written finding of noncompliance, the Letter of Decision or HODserves as the written notice of the finding of noncompliance. Findings identified through disputeresolution activities must be corrected in the timeline outlined in the Letter of Decision or HOD butin no case later than one year after the identification of the noncompliance. Additionally, findingsmade through these processes and the correction of these findings are tracked by OSSE, reported inOSSE’s annual APR, and used in LEA annual determinations.General Supervision Authority Investigations: Under the IDEA, OSSE has responsibility for thegeneral supervision of all IDEA services in the District of Columbia to ensure the proper15

Revised August 2014implementation of the IDEA for District of Columbia students. (See 34 CFR §§300.149, 300.600) Inaddition, the DCMR assigns OSSE the duty of monitoring and investigating nonpublic schools toensure compliance with the IDEA and the DCMR. (See 5E DCMR §2837) To ensure that students inthe District of Columbia receive special education and related services as they are entitled to underthe IDEA and the DCMR, OSSE evaluates concerns brought to its attention alleging violations of theIDEA, the DCMR, and/or unsafe conditions for District of Columbia students and may initiateinvestigations accordingly. Investigations may include database reviews, review of LEA or nonpublicdocuments, interviews with LEA or nonpublic staff, students, and parents, and site visits asnecessary. An investigation report or letter of finding is provided at the conclusion of theinvestigation which describes each allegation investigated, the investigatory procedure, and theinvestigative conclusions. In cases where noncompliance is discovered and findings are issued,investigations may result in individual corrective actions, systemic corrective actions, continuedmonitoring, and/or disciplinary action against a nonpublic school’s COA as appropriate.LEA Self-Assessments: The LEA self-assessment is a process by which LEAs may be required toassess their own performance and progress toward compliance with IDEA Part B. The selfassessment is designed to guide LEAs through a collaborative analysis and planning process toengage stakeholders in developing targeted improvement activities in the areas that the LEA ismost in need. The self- assessment tool may be based on the compliance monitoring tool (seeAppendices E and F) used by OSSE for on-site monitoring visits, thus LEAs can prepare for futureon-site monitoring as well as clearly identify areas of noncompliance in student files and LEApolicies and procedures. In lieu of the full self-assessmen

Under local special education law, OSSE “has primary responsibility for the state‐level supervisory functions for special education that are typically handled by a state department of education or public instruction, a state board of education, a state education commission, or a state edu

Related Documents:

telemetry 1.24 Service P threshold_migrator 2.11 Monitoring P tomcat 1.30 Monitoring P trellis 20.30 Service P udm_manager 20.30 Service P url_response 4.52 Monitoring P usage_metering 9.28 Monitoring vCloud 2.04 Monitoring P vmax 1.44 Monitoring P vmware 7.15 Monitoring P vnxe_monitor 1.03 Monitoring vplex 1.01 Monitoring P wasp 20.30 UMP P .

Page 1 of 9 Rapid Regulatory Courses in HealthStream Getting Started Tip Sheet Please note: Everyone is required to take two compliance trainings titled: Rapid Regulatory Compliance: Non-clinical I Rapid Regulatory Compliance: Non-clinical II Depending on your position at CHA, you may have more courses on your list. One must complete them all.File Size: 1MBPage Count: 9Explore furtherRapid Regulatory Compliance: Clinical II - KnowledgeQ .quizlet.comRapid Regulatory Compliance: Clinical I - An HCCS .quizlet.comRapid Regulatory Compliance: Non-clinical II-KnowledgeQ .quizlet.comThe Provider Compliance Tip fact sheets are now available .www.cms.govRapid Regulatory Compliance - Non-Clinical - Part Istudyres.comRecommended to you b

Idera SQL compliance manager alerts, Idera SQL compliance manager Audit logs, Idera SQL compliance . Monitoring these activities is critical from a security aspect and is required for compliance and operational reasons. SQL compliance manager is a comprehensive auditing solution that uses policy-based algorithms to track

Total Special Education System (TSES) This document serves as the Total Special Education System Plan for Zumbro Education District (ZED) in accordance with Minnesota Rule 3525.1100. This plan also includes an assurance for compliance with the federal requirements pertaining to districts' special education responsibilities found in United States

Special Education Teachers Special Education Supervisor – Mrs. Hall Special Education – Ms. Bachar A19 Special Education – Mrs. Bisson A-Annex Special Education – Mr. Gendreau C10 Special E

SIRIUS monitoring relays: Perfect protection of machines and systems Monitoring relays 3UG451 / 461 / 463 monitoring relays for line and single-phase voltage monitoring – as 3UG481 / 483 also for IO-Link 10 6* 3RR21/22 monitoring relays for direct mounting on contactors for multi-phase current monitoring – as 3RR24 also for IO-Link 12 7 .

2.2 Monitoring surveys 7 3 Monitoring habitat 8 3.1 Food supply - direct measurement 9 3.2 Food supply - indirect measurements 9 4 Monitoring protocol summary 10 4.1 Monitoring otters 10 4.2 Monitoring habitat 11 SECTION 2:REVIEW OF ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES AND PROTOCOL RATIONALE 13 1 Introduction 13 1.1 Monitoring otter populations 13

Michigan Administrative Rules for Special Education (MARSE) R340.1850 – R 340.1855 (State complaints) Michigan Department of Education-Office of Special Education (MDE-OSE) Special Education State Complaints: Procedures and Model Forms (6.8.2021) Special Education Dispute Resolution Options (6.7.2021)

Education System (TSES) 2017 Index 1. SPPS Total Special Education System (TSES) 2017 2. SPPS Restrictive Procedures Plan 3. Appendix A: Plan for Receiving Referrals a. SPPS Child Find and Referral Process for Special Education b. Special Education Process for Referrals Birth to Age 3 c. Referral Form Early Childhood Special Education Birth-3 .

Total Special Education System (TSES) This document serves as the Total Special Education System Plan for Hiawatha Valley Education District (HVED) and member districts in accordance with Minnesota Rule 3525.1100. This plan also includes an assurance for compliance with the federal requirements pertaining to districts' special education .

3 THE COMPLIANCE GUIDE – INTRODUCTION THE COMPLIANCE GUIDE – INTRODUCTION 4 Defining Ethics and Compliance Compliance means adherence to, or conformance with laws or regulations and with an organisation’s standards, policies, and procedures. From a legal perspective, compliance is the way organisations seek to ensure that they, their

Welcome to the 2016 Compliance Trends Survey report, a joint effort between Deloitte and Compliance Week, which gauges the scope and complexity of the modern compliance function. In this, we have brought together Deloitte’s deep insight and experience and Compliance Week’s broad industry experience to gauge how well compliance and ethics

NIMS Compliance Checklist Deadline for Compliance is September 30, 2006 Standard Compliance Requirements Compliance Applies To: Notes Documentation Required Compliance Date 1. Adoption of NIMS All Governments, non-government organizations, and private sector incident management/response org

Compliance Training {General Compliance and Fraud, Waste & Abuse Prevention}2021 · Recognize how compliance program violations should be reported. Compliance Program Requirement The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) requires Sponsors to implement and maintain an effective compliance program for its Medicare Parts C and D plans.

contributes to an improved insight and control of all compliance risks the institution is exposed to. It allows associated functions to prioritize on mitigating compliance risks and monitoring. A solid and comprehensive compliance risk management will ultimately reduce the likelihood of a major non-compliance event or ethics failure.

It entrusts UNESCO with the leadership, coordination and monitoring of the Education 2030 agenda. It also calls upon the Global Education Monitoring (GEM) Report to provide independent monitoring and reporting of the Sustainable Development Goal on education (SDG 4), and on education in the other SDGs, for the next fifteen years.

Special Education: An Advocate's Manual was written as a reference manual for everyone from parents entering the special education process for the first time to attorneys. It is a synthesis of federal and state special education statutes and regul

Total Special Education System (TSES) This document serves as the Total Special Education System Plan (TSES) for the Minneapolis Public Schools (MPS) in accordance with Minnesota Rule pt. 3525.1100. This TSES is in addition to the assurance for compliance with the federal requirements pertaining to districts' special education

Total Special Education System (TSES) This document serves as the Total Special Education System Plan for Albert Lea Area Schools in accordance with Minnesota Rule 3525.1100. This plan also includes an assurance for compliance with the federal requirements pertaining to districts' special education responsibilities found in United States Code .

The most popular agile methodologies include: extreme programming (XP), Scrum, Crystal, Dynamic Sys-tems Development (DSDM), Lean Development, and Feature Driven Development (FDD). All Agile methods share a common vision and core values of the Agile Manifesto. Agile Methods: Some well-known agile software development methods include: Agile .