Special Education General Supervision

Iowa uses a results-based accountability approach to monitoring within its general supervision system of IDEA. This aligns with 34 CFR § 300.600(b) and 34 CFR § 300.700(b) which require the primary focus of state monitoring activities to focus on improving educational results and functional outcomes for all children with disabilities. Emphasis is placed on those requirements that are most closely related to improving educational outcomes.

Overview

The vision of Iowa’s general supervision is to provide leadership in system structures and processes (policies, procedures, practices), and facilitate the use of a statewide IDEA data system to (1) improve early intervention and educational results and functional outcomes for infants, toddlers, and learners with disabilities; (2) empower families and caregivers to enhance educational results and outcomes for infants, toddlers, and learners with disabilities; (3) ensure early intervention service programs, area education agencies, and local education agencies meet IDEA Part C and Part B requirements with emphasis on results and outcomes for infants, toddlers, and learners with disabilities; and (4) use complete, valid, and reliable data for reporting and decision-making.

Iowa’s general supervision system is built around five general duties. The duty to:

1. Inform constituents of foundational knowledge and common understanding of state and federal policy, procedures, effective practices and access, collection and use of valid and reliable data;
2. Prevent noncompliance through the provision of infrastructure, technical assistance, policies, procedures and other methods;
3. Detect current status of early intervention and special education at the state, AEA and local level
4. Inspect detected risk at an intensity level commensurate with findings; and
5. Correct identified noncompliance and implement evidence-based practices matched to identified needs.

General Supervision Quick Reference for Administrators (126.35 KB) .pdf

Risk Assessment

The Iowa Department of Education (Department) maintains regular oversight of school districts and grant recipients to assess compliance with state and federal requirements, determine program effectiveness and improvement, and to identify information needed for strategic planning.  The Department’s monitoring activities ensure that awards are used for authorized purposes and the performance goals are achieved.  

As a federal pass-through entity, the Department’s responsibilities include the requirement to “evaluate each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring” (2 CFR § 200.332). The Division of Special Education’s Bureau of Accountability, Data and Finance conducts an annual compliance review of IDEA Part B and C subrecipients to determine the appropriate monitoring strategy for special education services and supports across the state.  

Factors for identifying the risk of noncompliance may include, but are not limited to, prior state complaints, fiscal monitoring, early childhood outcomes, K-12 outcomes, District-Developed Service Delivery Plan, IDEA-DA progress report and implementation plan, alternate assessment implementation, assessment participation, personnel changes, and more (2 CFR § 200.332). Refer to the Department’s  IDEA Risk Assessment Tool (108.25 KB) .pdf for more information. This tool is utilized on an annual basis to determine level of risk. The Bureau will draw on prior year data available to complete the risk analysis. This transparent risk assessment protocol and rubric is used to determine the focus of the Department’s monitoring efforts. If your organization is assigned a high level, it does not indicate that your organization has failed to comply with applicable rules. Similarly, a low level does not indicate that your organization is compliant with all applicable rules. Since the review is conducted annually, your risk assessment score may  change from year to year.

Timeline

The annual risk analysis and monitoring process uses the following timeline:

• October - The Bureau will conduct the risk assessment using data from the prior year.
• November - Subrecipients will be notified of the risk assessment results and next steps.
• January - The Bureau will begin follow-up monitoring activities as determined by the risk assessment.
• May - The Bureau will review the previous monitoring cycle to determine possible improvements to the risk assessment and monitoring process.

Monitoring

The Division of Special Education provides two types of monitoring and support for subrecipients of IDEA funds. All subrecipients receive universal monitoring on an ongoing basis and additional monitoring is provided to selected subrecipients based on the outcomes of the annual risk assessment.

Technical Assistance and Monitoring

The Department works collaboratively with Area Education Agencies and Local Education Agencies by providing high-quality technical assistance for fiscal and programmatic planning and implementation of all services administered through federally funded programs. Technical assistance needs are identified by reviewing the following information:

• Feedback collected from survey data
• Risk assessment data
• Claims and application data in IDEA PBC (Part B and C)
• Specific requests from school districts
• Audit reports
• Upcoming Department changes

By providing ongoing high-quality technical assistance and monitoring, the Department helps ensure subrecipients meet the intended purpose of IDEA, “improving educational results for children with disabilities,” and comply with program requirements.

Additional Monitoring

After completing the annual compliance review, the Bureau will determine each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance by distributing risk scores into three tiers (low, moderate, high) based on their number of risk points. The tiers are shown below in Table 1, along with the relevant monitoring strategy. The Department will notify providers about the risk assessment outcomes and next steps during the second quarter of the program year.

Monitoring Strategy

Low Risk

Subrecipients at the Low Risk level are viewed as operating effectively to manage risks. Therefore, no additional monitoring will be required for subrecipients that earn eight or fewer points on the risk assessment. Technical support will be provided to all districts at this level in order to maintain up-to-date on compliance information as well as best practices for students with disabilities.

Moderate Risk

The Bureau will begin due diligence procedures for Subrecipients at the Moderate Risk level to determine district-based supports that could include required technical assistance, corrective action plans, and other supports based on need(s) highlighted by the risk assessment. Where the risk assessment identifies common needs for improvement across a group of subrecipients, the Bureau may consider broad technical assistance activities.

High Risk

Subrecipients at the High Risk level will be required to partake in focused monitoring activities.  Bureau staff will begin working with the identified subrecipients as described in the process below. 

Due Diligence

Purpose

As part of the state’s general supervision system, due diligence is a process the Department also uses to consider and address credible allegations regarding an AEA’s, LEA’s, or Early ACCESS provider’s implementation of IDEA. Department staff may conduct due diligence to address and reach a conclusion in a reasonable amount of time regarding potential noncompliance; due diligence may result in follow up actions for the AEA, LEA, or Early ACCESS provider, a citation with required corrective action, and/or focused monitoring. 

Initiation of Due Diligence Process

The due diligence process is used when Department or Early ACCESS staff are made aware of a concern regarding an IDEA policy, procedure, practice, or other requirement that raises one or more potential implementation or compliance issues, if confirmed true.

The following situations may initiate due diligence when the information provided indicates the allegation is more likely true than not:

• Stakeholder calls or emails (ex. Call Cadre)
• Data review (ex. SPP/APR, Implementation Support Rubric, Dispute Resolution, ACHIEVE reports, IEP/IFSP reviews)
• Media reports
• Concerns brought forth from Regional Special Education Division Administrator
• Moderate or High Risk on IDEA Risk Assessment

Due Diligence Decision

Once due diligence activities have been completed, the General Supervision Leadership Team will determine whether or not the concern is a confirmed violation of an IDEA requirement, not confirmed, or if additional monitoring activities are required, such as focused monitoring. Focused monitoring may be initiated at any point during the due diligence process. Considerations for moving to focused monitoring might include discovery of systemic issues beyond the initial scope of the concern, revelation of a pattern of issues within the AEA, Early ACCESS provider, or District that is more substantial than initially alleged, or a need to conduct more in-depth monitoring activities.

If there is a confirmed violation and focused monitoring is not required, the team will work with Early ACCESS and/or special education leadership to issue a written notification of noncompliance along with corrective action to the relevant AEA, Early ACCESS provider, and/or District within 90 days from the date of the confirmed violation.

Focused Monitoring

As part of the state’s general supervision system of IDEA, focused monitoring activities and processes are designed to dig deeper into concerns at the Area Education Agency (AEA) or Local Education Agency (LEA) level. Focused monitoring may occur when the Department identifies a need to investigate a pattern of noncompliance, poor performance on specific priority areas, or concerns identified through a triangulation of data. Focused monitoring occurs to determine the specific reasons for noncompliance and what corrective action may be necessary.

Initiation of Focused Monitoring

Substantiated data elements prompt the Department to initiate focused monitoring. They can come from multiple sources and may occur within or outside of a regularly scheduled review process. Examples include:

• Data Review
  • When annually reviewing data elements, the Department may identify data that need to be further investigated to determine if there is individual or systemic noncompliance.
  • Examples of data sources: SPP/APR, Implementation Support Rubric, ACHIEVE reports, etc.
• Credible Allegations
  • When Department staff are made aware of a concern regarding an IDEA policy, procedure, practice, or other requirement that raises one or more potential implementation or compliance issues, staff determine if the concern is a credible allegation and may conduct focused monitoring.
• Dispute Resolution
  • Significant or multiple disputes or a systemic concern from a specific LEA or AEA may lead to focused monitoring.

Focused Monitoring Decision

The Department issues written notification of noncompliance (the final report) to the LEA/AEA, generally within 90 days of the State reaching a conclusion that the LEA/AEA has violated an IDEA requirement. In this report, corrective action will be ordered for the LEA/AEA to be completed.

After the LEA/AEA receives the issuance of findings, the focused monitoring team reviews corrective action evidence and verifies that individual and/or systemic noncompliance has been corrected. Subsequent verification is conducted.

Once all noncompliance is verified as corrected, the Department will issue a letter notifying the district that the corrective action plan is complete and the citations are closed. The LEA/AEA is required to have all corrective action completed, evidence of correction of noncompliance, and subsequent verification conducted all within 1 year from the date of the written notification of noncompliance.

Dispute Resolution

Visit the Dispute Resolution webpage for information on how disputes are resolved, violations are investigated and decisions are made.