RFP Special Education Data Reporting and Accountability System 1.12.2024 (1).docx

STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

800 GOVERNORS DRIVE

PIERRE, SOUTH DAKOTA 57501-2235

ACCOUNTABILITY AND DATA PLATFORM

PROPOSALS DEADLINE: by April 5, 2024 5:00 PM CT

RFP #: 24RFP9840 Buyer: Rochelle Kenzy Phone: (605) 773-8063

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FORM

PRIMARY CONTACT INFORMATION

General Information

1.1 Purpose of this Request for Proposal (“RFP”)

The South Dakota Department of Education’s Division of SPED and Early Learning Services (“State”) seeks a qualified vendor to provide professional services on behalf of the State of South Dakota (“Consultant”) for the purpose of a web based secured system to collect federal and state data collections and an accountability system to meet requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Act IDEA as further specified in Section 2 below.

The Consultant will review all requirements of the RFP and provide a proposal by the deadline listed below. The Consultant will also provide supporting documentation on qualifications and experience to the State.

1.2 Letter of Intent

All interested Consultants may submit a Letter of Intent to respond to this RFP.

The Letter of Intent must be received by the State no later than March 1, 2024 at 5:00 PM CT. The State will receive letters of intent by email. The Letter of Intent must be submitted to Rochelle Kenzy via email at Rochelle.Kenzy@state.sd.us. Please place the following in the subject line of your email: “Letter of Intent for 24RFP9840”.

1.3 Schedule of Activities

RFP Publication February 21, 2024

Letter of Intent to Respond Due March 1, 2024 by 5:00 PM CT

Deadline for Submission of Written Inquiries March 8, 2024 by 5:00 PM CT

Responses to Consultant Questions March 22, 2024 by 5:00 PM CT

Proposal Submission Deadline April 5, 2024 5:00 PM CT

Oral proposals/discussions (if required) April 29- May 10, 2024

Anticipated Award /Contract Negotiation May/June 2024

Contract Start Date July 2024

1.4 Proposal Submission

All proposals must be completed and received by the date and time indicated in the Schedule of Activities.

Proposals received after the deadline will be late and ineligible for consideration.

An original and two (2) copies of the proposal shall be submitted. In addition, the Consultant shall provide one (1) copy of their entire proposal, including all attachments, in Microsoft Word or PDF electronic format. Consultants shall enclose the electronic copy with their mailed response and may not send the electronically copy of their proposal via email.

All proposals must be signed, in ink, by an officer of the responder, legally authorized to bind the responder to the proposal, and sealed in the form intended by the respondent. Proposals that are not properly signed may be rejected. The sealed envelope must be marked with the appropriate RFP Number and Title. The words “Sealed Proposal Enclosed” must be prominently denoted on the outside of the shipping container. Proposals must be addressed and labeled as follows:

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL #24RFP9840

BUYER ROCHELLE KENZY

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

800 GOVERNORS DRIVE

PIERRE SD 57501-2235

Proposals may be modified or withdrawn by the Consultant prior to the established due date and time. No oral, telephonic, telegraphic or facsimile responses or modifications to proposals will be considered.

1.5 Certification and Qualification

By signing and submitting this proposal, the Consultant certifies that neither it nor its principals are presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation, by any Federal department or agency, from transactions involving the use of Federal funds. Where the Consultant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, the Consultant shall attach an explanation to their proposal.

No proposal shall be accepted from, or no contract or purchase order shall be awarded to, any person, firm or corporation that is in arrears upon any obligations to the State of South Dakota, or that otherwise may be deemed irresponsible or unreliable by the State.

1.6 Non-Discrimination Statement

The State of South Dakota requires that all contractors, vendors, and suppliers doing business with any State, department, or institution, provide a statement of non-discrimination. By signing and submitting their proposal, the Consultant certifies they do not discriminate in their employment practices with regard to race, color, creed, religion, age, sex, ancestry, national origin or disability.

1.7 Consultant Inquiries

Consultants may make email inquiries concerning this RFP to obtain clarification of requirements. No inquiries will be accepted after the date and time indicated in the Schedule of Activities. Inquiries must be sent to Rochelle Kenzy at Rochelle.Kenzy@state.sd.us with the subject line “RFP #24RFP9840.”

The State will respond to Consultant’s inquiries (if required) via e-mail. All Consultants will be informed of any inquiries and the State’s response. Consultants may not rely on any other statements, either of a written or oral nature, that alter any specification or other term or condition of this RFP. Consultants will be notified in the same manner as indicated above regarding any modifications to this RFP.

Consultant’s Contacts: Consultant and their agents must direct all questions and comments regarding this RFP to the buyer of record as indicated above. Consultants and their agents may not contact any State of South Dakota employee other than the buyer of record regarding any of these matters during the solicitation and evaluation process. Inappropriate contacts are grounds for suspension or exclusion from specific procurements. Consultants and their agents who have questions regarding this matter should contact the buyer of record.

1.8 Proprietary Information

The proposal of the successful Consultant(s) becomes public information as required by SDCL § 1-27 and § 5-18D-20. Proprietary information can be protected under limited circumstances such as client lists and non-public financial statements. Pricing and service elements are not considered proprietary. An entire proposal may not be marked as proprietary. Consultants must clearly identify in the Executive Summary and mark in the body of the proposal any specific proprietary information they are requesting to be protected. The Executive Summary must contain specific justification explaining why the information is to be protected. Proposals may be reviewed and evaluated by any person at the discretion of the State. All materials submitted become the property of the State and may be returned only at the State's option.

1.9 Length of Contract

July 1, 2024 to June 30, 2027

The State reserves the right to extend any contract awarded as a result of this Request for Proposal (RFP) for additional six (6) years if it is deemed to be in the best interest of the State of South Dakota. The contract may be renewed at the initiative of the State, and if mutually agreed upon by the parties, for additional one (1) year terms.

1.10 Contract Terms

Any contract or agreement resulting from this RFP will include the State’s standard terms and conditions as set forth in Exhibit A – Standard Contract Terms and Conditions, Exhibit D – Confidentiality Agreement and Exhibit E – I/T Standard Contract Terms.

The Consultant must indicate in their response any issues they have with specific contract terms if the Consultant does not indicate that there are any issues with any contract terms then the State will assume those terms are acceptable to the Consultant.

1.11 Governing Law

Venue for any and all legal action regarding or arising out of the transaction covered herein shall be solely in the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Hughes County, South Dakota. The laws of South Dakota shall govern this transaction.

1.12 Web Content Accessibility Guideline

If applicable the Consultant’s application is required to conform to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0

In addition, any website must meet the Web standards listed in this RFP and as found in the following:

https://www.sd.gov/bit?id=bit_standards_web https://www.sd.gov/bit?id=bit_standards_vendor_client_sec_req

1.13 Restriction of Boycott of Israel

For contractors, vendors, suppliers, or subcontractors with five (5) or more employees who enter into a contract with the State of South Dakota that involves the expenditure of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) or more, by submitting a response to this solicitation or agreeing to contract with the State, the bidder or offeror certifies and agrees that the following information is correct:

The bidder or offeror, in preparing its response or offer or in considering proposals submitted from qualified, potential vendors, suppliers, and subcontractors, or in the solicitation, selection, or commercial treatment of any vendor, supplier, or subcontractor, has not refused to transact business activities, has not terminated business activities, and has not taken other similar actions intended to limit its commercial relations, related to the subject matter of the bid or offer, with a person or entity on the basis of Israeli national origin, or residence or incorporation in Israel or its territories, with the specific intent to accomplish a boycott or divestment of Israel in a discriminatory manner. It is understood and agreed that, if this certification is false, such false certification will constitute grounds for the State to reject the bid or response submitted by the bidder or offeror on this project and terminate any contract awarded based on the bid or response. The successful bidder or offeror further agrees to provide immediate written notice to the contracting executive branch agency if during the term of the contract it no longer complies with this certification and agrees such noncompliance may be grounds for contract termination.

1.14 Restriction of Prohibited Entity

In accordance with the South Dakota Codified Law 5-18A, any bidder or offeror submitting a bid or offer in response to this document certifies and agrees that the following information is correct:

The bidder or offeror is not an organization, association, corporation, partnership, joint venture, limited partnership, limited liability partnership, limited liability company, or other entity or business association, including all wholly-owned subsidiaries, majority-owned subsidiaries, parent companies, or affiliates, of those entities or business associations, regardless of their principal place of business, which is ultimately owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by a foreign parent entity from, or the government of, the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of Cuba, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, or the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela

It is understood and agreed that, if this certification is false, such false certification will constitute grounds for the purchasing agency to reject the bid or response submitted by the bidder or offeror on this project and terminate any contract awarded based on the bid or response, and further would be cause to suspend and debar a business under SDCL § 5-18D-12.

The successful bidder or offeror further agrees to provide immediate written notice to the purchasing agency if during the term of the contract it no longer complies with this certification and agrees such noncompliance may be grounds for contract termination and would be cause to suspend and debar a business under SDCL § 5-18D-12.

1.15 Prohibition on Discrimination against Firearm-related Entity

In accordance with the State of South Dakota, Office of the Governor, Executive Order 2023-04, the following applies to any type of agreement by or on behalf of the State with a financial institution to provide financial services that involves the expenditure of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) or more:

For contractors who enter into a contract with the State of South Dakota that involves the expenditure of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) or more, by submitting a response to this solicitation or agreeing to contract with the State, the bidder or offeror certifies and agrees that the following information is correct:

The bidder or offeror, in preparing its response or offer or in considering proposals submitted from qualified, potential vendors, suppliers, and subcontractors, or in the solicitation, selection, or commercial treatment of any vendor, supplier, or subcontractor, has not discriminated against a firearm-related entity as defined by South Dakota Executive Order 2023-04. It is understood and agreed that, if this certification is false, such false certification will constitute grounds for the State to reject the bid or response submitted by the bidder or offeror on this project and terminate any contract awarded based on the bid or response. The bidder or offeror further agrees that falsely submitting this certification shall serve as cause for debarment from consideration of any state contract for a period not to exceed three years.

The successful bidder or offeror further agrees to provide immediate written notice to the contracting executive branch agency if during the term of the contract it no longer complies with this certification and agrees such noncompliance will result in the contract’s termination if the noncompliance is not cured as provided for in Section 3 of Executive Order 2023-04. The successful bidder or offeror further agrees that its failure to cure any subsequently arising noncompliance shall serve as cause for suspension or debarment from consideration of any state contract pursuant to SDCL § 5-18D-12.

1.16 Certification of No State Legislator Interest

Offeror (i) understands neither a state legislator nor a business in which a state legislator has an ownership interest may be directly or indirectly interested in any contract with the State that was authorized by any law passed during the term for which that legislator was elected, or within one year thereafter, and (ii) has read South Dakota Constitution Article 3, Section 12 and has had the opportunity to seek independent legal advice on the applicability of that provision to any Agreement entered into as a result of this RFP. By signing an Agreement pursuant to this RFP, Offeror hereby certifies that the Agreement is not made in violation of the South Dakota Constitution Article 3, Section 12.

Scope of Work

The Consultant shall:

Bid on Modules The State is looking for Consultants to bid on a Data Collection and Accountability System(s) Modules. Consultants can bid on all, one, or a combination of the following systems (Consultants should make it clear on what they are submitting the bid for):

1. State Accountability System

1. Indicator 13: secondary transition data collection and reporting

1. Indicator 11 and 12: initial evaluation timelines data collection and reporting

1. Results Driven Accountability (RDA)

1. Child Count federal and state reporting

1. Indicator 14: post school outcomes data collection

1. Dispute Resolution data collection, tracking and reporting

1. Suspension and Expulsion federal data collection and reporting RFP Scope of Work:

The State request for proposals on a secured web-based system that will improve the efficiency of the special education accountability system, data collection, tracking, and reporting of required federal and state reporting requirements. The system would incorporate input of data and reporting, track information, and provide an efficient manner in sharing information between the State, contractors, and local educational agency (LEAs). The State does not mandate a single Individual Education Plan (IEP) system or document.

General Information

System Requirements This web-based system will have several modules with related components incorporated into one platform or can be separate. This platform will allow the State, LEAs, and contractors to enter, track, report, and communicate about the following data and information: state accountability monitoring of LEA (student files with policy and procedures), Indicator 13: secondary transition data collection and reporting, Indicators 11 and 12: data collection and reporting, child count reporting, South Dakota Results Driven Accountability (RDA) process for LEAs, dispute resolution data tracking, Indicator 14: post-school outcomes survey, and federal suspension and expulsion data collection.

General Requirements The system should be accessed via the internet easily and securely by designated users (LEAs, contractors, and State), and should:

· Allow the State to:

· Edit included documents and templates.

· Update and/or grant access permissions.

· Archive information and data.

· Allow designated users to:

· Enter, access, and report Special Education Federal State Performance Plan (SPP) data requirements.

· Access housed documentation.

· Upload and download information.

· Generate extractable data reports needed by the State that can be sorted based on desired criteria (LEA-level, state-level, etc.)

· Include an interactive data dashboard that allows users to:

· Navigate easily.

· Submit data entry.

· Submit accountability requirements.

· Access tutorials on how to operate the system.

· Communicate between all designated users efficiently and effectively, send alerts or notifications to designated users regarding deadlines, errors in data entry, incomplete entry, etc.

Technology Requirements

· Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant.

· Data collection that would be incorporated into the system.

· Hosting the site: Describe the pros and cons for each.

· Automated data incorporated from other systems such as South Dakota’s student information system and South Dakota longitudinal data system and internal developed systems.

· Data must be owned by the State and not by the system creator.

· Consultant must provide training and support on system operation to the following designated users: State staff, contractor, and at the LEA level.

· Customer service for troubleshooting system issues.

· Single sign On (SSO) capabilities as required below.

· Users will have different levels of access to the system.

Consultant Knowledge and Requirements

· System must be American with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant along with reports in the system.

· Hosting the site: describe the pros and cons for vendor hosting versus State hosting the system.

· Data can be automatically incorporated from other systems such as South Dakota longitudinal data system and internally developed systems.

· Data is owned by the State.

· Knowledge of the federal reporting requirements of Individuals with Disability Education Act (IDEA) and federal reporting of the State Performance Plan (SPP)

· Training and support on system use:

· State staff and data manager training

· Contractor training

· LEA training

· Immediate customer service to address system issues

Modules and Components:

Modules each have a specific purpose, specialized data entry needs, system requirements, and reporting needs.

The preference is for the following modules to be included in one system: State Accountability, Indicator 13 secondary transition, Results Driven Accountability, Indicators 11 and 12 data collection and reporting, and child count report modules.

2.1 State Accountability Module

Accountability Purpose:

The purpose of the State Accountability module is to allow the State to select specific LEAs to be reviewed, send letter notifications and reminders to designate users via system, select LEA case manager files to be reviewed, track noncompliance, generate reports and corrective action plans, and submit follow up documentation to support state general supervision of Federal Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) 23-01.

Accountability System:

· System should send notifications to necessary users at various points of the review process (for example: when a contractor completes a Corrective Action Plan, a notification is sent to the Accountability Manager for review).

· System should allow designated users to bring in information and/or data from outside sources, such as: dispute resolution documents, compliance indicators, special education trend data, etc.

· System can generate a list of student files to be reviewed based on specific, adjustable parameters set by contractors when preparing for a compliance review.

· System will house a variety of form letters that can be individualized to the LEA and updated yearly, as well as housing completed letters for future reference.

· System will house additional report templates, templates for information collection, and requirements for Specialty reviews (Disproportionality, Dispute Resolutions, Extraordinary Cost)

· System will allow for changes throughout the process.

· System will have a dashboard to track process.

· System will be able to allow for manual enter or upload a file of student and case manager information to incorporate in the selection of files for review.

· System will have review protocols for the review to identify noncompliance and implement noncompliance description and separate technical assistance comments.

Accountability Process Requirements:

State Preparation for Accountability Review:

· State sends notification letters directly to specific LEAs and agencies.

· State assigns contractors to specific LEAs and agencies to conduct reviews.

· State assigns date(s) for reviews

· State provides contractors access to the following editable and related up-to-date documents:

· LEA data (student exit information, child count, statewide assessment, trend, state performance plan/annual performance report, etc.)

· Letter templates for the reviews

· Review process checklist for state, contractor, and LEA

· Several reports include Corrective Action Plans

· Tracks components of the process and corresponding due dates

LEA or State uploads documents, information, and data that a contractor will use in a verification process, and State maintains documentation:

· Sample of previous child count IEP front pages

· Comprehensive Plan

· Files reviewed

· Immediate fixes documents (Prong 1)

· Update data and information documents (Prong 2)

Preparation for LEA Accountability review:

· File selection has a set of required criteria that includes student files completed by each case manager in the LEA, disability categories, least restrictive environment placements, specific demographic consideration, etc. System should be able to auto generate a list of files to pull based on entered criteria and requested number of files, and then the State or contractors must be able to easily add or change files before and during review.

· Schedule for the review will be developed to include start time, location, date, case manager and corresponding student file to be reviewed including a potential back up file, additional files to review via desk audits, and interviews.

· Child count verification is completed by LEAs uploading a sample of previous year’s child count. The Accountability team lead reviews documentation with submitted data.

· District policy and procedures review will include certified staff, comprehensive plans, assessment documentation, etc.

During Accountability Reviews:

· Contractor will need to be able to assign accountability team members to different components of the review.

· The review will include real-time technical assistance for each case manager in LEA while their assigned student file is being reviewed, additional student files reviewed by desk audits to meet the required LEA level criteria, transition-aged student file reviews with different selection criteria (see Indicator 13 component), interviews, and policy review.

· Interviewers are completed with varying stakeholders and information from interviews are tracked. Interview questions will be completed.

· Each member of the accountability team will be assigned specific student file(s). Each team member will use the accountability review process and protocol to review specific components. The list of items will need to identify noncompliance and technical assistance suggestions for each item and student file. These will need to be compiled in different reports.

· Accountability review items will need to be modified or adjusted to fit student files to be reviewed (most files will have a full review, whereas some select files will be reviewed for just one or two areas such as discipline, alternate assessment, Indicator 13, etc.)

After Accountability Reviews:

1. System will generate both internal and public reports for general supervision:

a. Corrective Action Plan (CAP) report must include: LEA name, date of review, date report was issued, date of CAP closure, timeline of correction completion, required corrective action for immediate fix and review of update information to ensure implementation of the regulations with specific timelines for each, and the following items for each file with noncompliance found: student name, assigned case manager, disability category, description of noncompliance found, state’s Administrative Rules related to the noncompliance, and a description of information to support the noncompliance. Designated users must also be able to continue using this report to track corresponding paperwork for the noncompliance findings throughout child specific correction and updated data and information for continued correction.

b. Public CAP Report that will be posted to the State with state-required content including LEA-specific information, including LEA name, year of review, date of the review, date CAP report was issued, date of CAP closure, and the state’s Administrative Rules that were identified with noncompliance.

c. Corrective Action Plan must be able to customize reports based on the root cause of the noncompliance.

2. CAP Follow Up Actions:

a. Notification letter will be generated to send to the LEA to complete requirements of the CAP.

b. Accountability team lead will sign off that all CAP requirements are completed with supporting uploaded documentation in the system.

c. Accountability team lead will notify the state when the CAP is completed.

d. State’s Accountability Manager will send final CAP closure notification to the state. This will include a cover letter, updated CAP report with each item verified complete, the closure date, updated public CAP report includes CAP closure date.

Accountability Reporting:

· Contractors and LEA need to be able to access all data in a user-friendly format.

· Track the number of findings of noncompliance by related regulation and aggregate from LEA level to the state level per year.

· Track LEA and agency reviews per year that include date report issued and closed.

· Track child count report findings.

· LEA level report on technical assistance comments.

· LEA level report on number of findings of noncompliance with related regulations.

· LEA level report related individual findings by case manager.

· Aggregated State report that outlines noncompliance regulations and associated corrective actions by LEA.

2.2 Indicator 13: Secondary Transition Data Collection and Reporting Module Indicator 13 Purpose:

The purpose of this section is to collect federal State Performance Plan (SPP) data regarding high school transition files that are in compliance and identify technical assistance needs. This needs to be connected to the accountability review module.

Indicator 13 Data and System:

· Indicator 13 data collection can occur during accountability reviews or separately. Information collected will be:

· Two files per teacher.

· Each disability category within age range identified by state.

· Individual student files reviewed will collect information on following checklist requirements: transition assessment completed in areas of employment, education/training, and independent living, create measurable post-secondary goals, measurable post-secondary goals updated annually, appropriate course of study, transition services and activities, annual goals linked, student invited to their IEP meeting, and consent gained to invite an outside agency.

· Corrective Action Plan (CAP) report must include: LEA name, date of review, date report was issued, date of CAP closure, timeline of correction completion, required corrective action for immediate fix and review of update information to ensure implementation of the regulations with specific timelines for each, and the following items for each file with noncompliance found: student name, assigned case manager, disability category, description of noncompliance found, state’s Administrative Rules related to the noncompliance, and a description of information to support the noncompliance. Designated users must also be able to continue using this report to track corresponding paperwork for the noncompliance findings throughout child specific correction and updated data and information for continued correction.

· Public CAP Report that will be posted to the State website with state-required content including LEA-specific information, including LEA name, year of review, date of the review, date CAP report was issued, date of CAP closure, and the state’s Administrative Rules that were identified with noncompliance.

Indicator 13 Reporting:

· State reports required to complete state and federal requirements:

· Report for individual LEA on list of students (student state identification number, name, disability category) reviewed and performance on each of the eight areas.

· Report by LEA of number files reviewed and number of files in compliance along with percentage of compliance.

· Report of agencies invited.

· Report of percentage of files in compliance by LEA.

· Aggregated State report that outlines noncompliance regulations and associated corrective actions by LEA.

· Track the number of findings of noncompliance by related regulation and aggregate from LEA level to the state level per year.

· Track LEA accountability reviews per year that include date report issued and closed.

· LEA level report on technical assistance comments.

· LEA level report on number of findings of noncompliance with related regulations.

· LEA level report related individual findings by case manager.

2.3 Results Driven Accountability (RDA) Module

RDA Purpose:

The purpose of this section focuses on LEA’s needs that includes two components: LEAs to conduct an internal review of student files and review special education data to improve educational results for students with disabilities.

Component #1: Annually the internal review will require each LEA to have each case manager to review a student file. Internal review checklist will mirror the State’s accountability compliance review protocols. After the internal review is completed, the LEA administration can support staff in identifying any noncompliance to correct and professional development needs.

· Each case manager in the LEA will conduct an internal file review on a student file.

· LEA can assign the requirement to specific case manager in the LEA.

· LEA administrator is notified of staff completion.

· LEA internal report by individual student file review is available to the LEA administrator.

· State will only have access to this section to update the compliance review protocol or other maintenance.

· State will only receive annually an aggregated report that list each LEA and the identified areas for professional development needs. Those professional development areas will also be aggregated in a state level report.

· Sign off by LEA administrator of completion of the process.

Component #2: Data Retreat Process

· System would create data visualization, trends, comparison data, quick glance and comparisons in easy, understandable manner.

· LEA data can be broken down by different levels (school, race, disability category, etc.…)

· LEA is able to review data, develop an action plan, and able to retrieve previous data to show improvement.

· All designated users can provide narrative and input in different components,

· Notification of upcoming actions and progress.

· Upload documentation to be housed in the system for review such as other data or information.

RDA System:

· LEA designees receive access from state. The LEA designee can provide access to LEA staff.

· House documentation uploaded by the State or LEA.

· Access level for designated users by LEA, contractor, or State.

· LEA can upload or manually student information by case manager to conduct the internal review.

· LEA designated staff can assign staff to component 1 or 2.

· State, contractors, and LEA level staff can access to component #2: data retreat process.

RDA Reporting:

· State only: List districts who completed annual internal review process.

· State only: Report by LEA and professional development areas identified.

· LEA only: report by noncompliance and technical assistance at individual file level.

2.4 Indicator 11 and 12 Data Collection

Indicator 11 and 12 data collection will need to be under one dashboard, but data entry component will be separate from each other.

Overall, Purpose: Collect data on students who were initially evaluated for special education and completion of the evaluations in a timely manner.

Indicator 11

Purpose: data entry and reporting on the percent of children who were evaluated within state timeline of receiving parental consent for initial evaluations and completed with the timeline.

Indicator 11 Data Entry:

· Collect information on the person submitting the data: name, title, and contact information.

· Student ID, demographics, date parent signed consent, date LEA received consent, date of the last evaluation completed, date 30-day calendar held eligibility meeting,

· Student eligible with a menu of options.

· Eligibility category with a menu of options.

· Reason timeline exceeded will have a menu of options.

· Open box for comments.

· LEA alerted of entry error such as: over the 25-school day timeline, date outside of collection window, duplicate student for both Indicator 11 and 12. This could be a text box or a colored cell.

· Upload documentations related to a specific student.

Indicator 11 System:

· Dashboard needs to have ability to display announcement and house technical assistance documents.

· State able to lock and unlock the data entry component per year.

· State will be able to assign and reset username and passwords of designated LEA staff.

· System would incorporate LEA school calendars from the Student Information Management System (SIMS) or LEA identified in the system. The system would need to have different school calendars.

· System would autogenerate the 25-school day evaluation timeline.

· Edit checks will be included to ensure LEA data is validated and report provide at LEA and state level on the errors.

· System will need to calculate if the LEA has met the state Indicator 11 target.

· State can edit the LEA data after it is locked to LEAs.

· LEAs can correct entry errors in the system or with an upload.

· LEA will need to sign off that data is valid and accurate. Once signed off, system will lock from additional data entry. Only the state level staff can reopen the sign off.

· State administrator must set data entry timeline and allow adjustments after initial timeline.

· System will maintain historical report.

· System will be able to have an annual data collection.

· State and LEA has ability to upload a student’s documents and LEA information related to the corrective action plan. Example documents can include referral, PPWN consent, and eligibility determination.

· System will allow designated state staff, contractors, and LEAs to access reports Special Education Federal State Performance Plan (SPP) data requirements.

· System will need to report evaluation timeline for a student’s data entry for both Indicator 11 and 12 together.

Indicator 11 Corrective Action Plan:

· Report includes:

· Date report sent, dates of submission documentation, description of noncompliance, related regulations, description of documentation of noncompliance, corrective action for the immediate fix and updated data and information submissions needed, along with timeline. Report will also include number of initial evaluations consent was received, number evaluations not completed in 25 school day timeline, and percent completed within timeline.

· State can edit the individual corrective action plan, insert values, school LEA names, dates, required documentation, etc.

Indicator 11 Reporting:

· System will generate a daily updated report to identify which LEAs have completed data entry, who has not entered data, and who has and has not signed off.

· State and LEA specific reports developed and auto generated with calculations completed for federal State Performance Plan (SPP) reporting which will include students reported under Indicator 11 and 12 components. State reports include:

· Lists all children uploaded or entered.

· Eligibility Report - List number of students that are eligible and not eligible by LEA.

· Over Days Report - Lists kids that are over 25 days

· Target Met - Indicator 11 - Display if the Indicator 11 target was met for statewide or single LEA.

· Target Met View All LEAs - Indicator 11 - View Indicator 11 Target Met for all LEAs instead of one at a time.

· Summary Report - Indicator 11 Summary Report at both the State level and LEA level

· Number of Initial Evaluations 3-21 for whom parental consent to evaluate was received.

· Number determined not eligible 3-21 whose evaluations were completed within 25 school day timeline.

· Number determined eligible 3-21 whose evaluations were completed within 25 school day timeline.

· Number of children whose evaluations were completed within the 25-school day timeline.

· Percent 3-21 completed within in timeline.

· Number of Initial evaluations Birth3 for whom parental consent to evaluate was received (pulled from Indicator 12)

· Number determined not eligible B-3 whose evaluations were completed within 25-day timeline (pulled from Indicator 12)

· Number determined eligible B-3 whose evaluations were completed within 25-day timeline (pulled from Indicator 12)

· Percent completed B-3 within timeline (pulled from Indicator 12)

· Total number of Initial Evaluations for whom parental consent to evaluate was received (Total combined Indicator 11 and 12)

· Total number determined not eligible whose evaluation were completed within 25 days (Total combined Indicator 11 and 12)

· Total number (11 and 12) determined eligible whose evaluations were completed within 25 day (Total combined Indicator 11 and 12)

· Total percent (11 and 12) completed within timeline (Total combined Indicator 11 and 12)

Indicator 12 Component Purpose: Percent of children referred by Part C prior to age 3, who are found eligible for Part B, and who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays.

Indicator 12: Data Entry

· Collect information on the person submitting the data: name, title, and contact information.

· Student state ID, name, date of birth, Date Permission Received Date last evaluation completed,

· Date eligibility determined.

· Eligible for Special education with drop down menu options.

· Eligibility category with drop down menu options.

· Date of IEP meeting

· Date services begin.

· Reason timeline was exceeded with drop down menu options.

· Open comment box

· Data edit checks include:

· LEA alerted of entry error such as over the 25-school day timeline for both Indicator 11 and 12. This could be a text box or a colored cell.

· Indicator 12: LEA notified with an alert the eligibility and IEP meeting surpassed the 3rd birthday. This could be a text box or a colored cell.

LEA will need to sign off that data is valid and accurate. Once signed off, system will lock from additional data entry. Only the state level staff can reopen the sign off.

Indicator 12: System requirements

· Dashboard needs to have ability to display announcement and house technical assistance documents.

· State able to lock and unlock the data entry component per year.

· State will be able to assign and reset username and passwords of designated LEA staff.

· Edit checks will be included to ensure LEA data is validated and report provide at LEA and state level on the errors.

· System will need to report evaluation timeline for a student’s data entry for both Indicator 11 and 12 together.

· System would incorporate LEA school calendars from the SIMS system or LEA identify in the system. The system would need to have different school calendars. System would autogenerate the 25-school day evaluation timeline.

· System will need to calculate if the LEA has met the state Indicator 12 target.

· State can edit the LEA data after it is locked to LEAs.

· LEAs can correct entry errors in the system or with an upload.

· System track which LEAs have completed sign off or has not signed off.

· System: State administrator must set data entry timeline and allow adjustments after initial timeline.

· System will maintain historical report.

· System will be able to have an annual data collection.

· State and LEA has ability to upload a student’s documents and LEA information related to the corrective action plan. Example documents can include referral, PPWN consent, and eligibility determination.

· System will allow designated state staff, contractors, and LEAs to access reports Special Education Federal State Performance Plan (SPP) data requirements.

Indicator 12 Corrective Action Plan

· Report includes:

· Date report sent, dates of submission documentation, description of noncompliance, related regulations, description of documentation of noncompliance, corrective action for the immediate fix and updated data and information submissions needed, along with timeline. Report will also include information in summary report (see in report section).

· State can edit the individual corrective action plan, insert values, school LEA names, dates, required documentation, etc.

Indicator 12 Reporting:

· Sign off report by LEA that maintains historical sign off results.

· Lists all children uploaded or entered.

· Eligibility Report - List number of students that are eligible and not eligible by LEA.

· IEP Past 3rd Birthday – Lists students who had their IEP Developed after their 3rd birthday.

· Over Days Report - Lists kids that are over 25 days.

· Target Met - Indicator 12 - Display if the Indicator 12 target was met for statewide or single LEA.

· Target Met - View Indicator 12 Target Met for all LEAs instead of one at a time.

· Summary Report - Indicator 12 Summary report at both the State level and LEA level

a) # of children who have been served in Part C and referred to Part B for Part B eligibility determination.

b) # of those referred determined to be NOT eligible and whose eligibility was determined prior to their third birthdays.

c) # of those found eligible who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays.

d) # of children for whom parent refusal to provide consent caused delays in evaluation or initial services or to whom exceptions under 34 CFR §300.301(d) applied.

e) # of children determined to be eligible for early intervention services under Part C less than 90 days before their third birthdays.

f) # of children who did not have, and IEP developed and implemented by their 3rd birthday

· Percent = [(c) divided by (a - b - d - e - f)] times 100.

2.5 Child Count Reporting Module

Child Count Purpose:

The purpose of this section is to annually meet the federal child count reporting of all students with disabilities receiving special education and related services on December 1 of the school year between ages of 3 and 21 inclusively. The child count collection is an unduplicated head count of students receiving special education services.

Child Count Data:

In South Dakota, student child count information will be entered into the Infinite Campus State Information Management System (SIMS) and then a child count report is exported from SIMS. This report will be used to upload to the Child Count Reporting Module for the December 1 snapshot of students who are eligible and receiving special education services.

Designated users will upload the report from SIMS that include LEA and school information, student demographic information, and relevant special education information for students including disability category(ies) and special services provided.

Sign off components for child count upload and final sign off after verification.

Child Count System:

· System will collect individual student level information by LEA.

· State will determine designated users by LEA and state level either through import or manually.

· State level users will have ability to provide and reset username and passwords.

· State will be able set data import timeline parameters and can be changed.

· Once data is uploaded, the system will need to conduct data verification procedures and create an accuracy check report for LEA designated user to correct.

· System will need to have sign off for different parts of the process: initial LEA sign-off the data is accurate and after state verification process.

· State has the ability to make edits to the data once the data has been uploaded by the LEA – this would include removing a sign-off on the data, making the edits, and then forcing the LEA user to go back in and review to sign-off again on the updated data.

· System will also need a component for the private school students eligible for special education and related services and those who are (and who are not) receiving services. This component will allow LEA to enter student manually and by upload.

· State needs an updated list of LEAs who has uploaded data and who has not, who has signed off, and send notifications and reminders depending on situation.

· State must be able to lock the system so LEAs are unable to make additional changes.

· System will allow designated state staff, contractors, and LEAs to access reports Special Education Federal State Performance Plan (SPP) data requirements.

Child Count Reporting:

· Reports must export CVS and excel options.

· Autism Report: lists all students under the autism spectrum disorder (560) category, filterable by LEA.

· Child Count List: lists all children on IEPs sorted by LEA and school.

· Child Count: Ages 3-5 Report: lists all children ages 3-5 on IEPs sorted by Least Restrictive Environment.

· Child Count: Ages 6-21 Report: lists all children ages 6-21 on IEPs sorted by Least Restrictive Environment.

· Child Count: By Age Report: child count report broken down by age.

· Child Count: By Grade Report: child count report broken down by grade.

· Disability Count Report: child count report broken down by disability.

· Disability Report: child count report that is filterable by year, LEA, school, and disability.

· Data Verification Report (DVR): ED Setting: lists children reported outside of approved mapping.

· DVR Report: Grade Age: lists children reported outside of age/grade range.

· Multiple Disability Report: lists all children with multiple disabilities and the funding levels by LEA and schools.

· Statistical Profile Report: child count report by gender, grade, age, ethnicity, education setting, year, LEA, school, and primary disability.

· Summary of Instructional Program Type: lists children by instructional program type.

· Federal report for EDFACTs submissions

The Following data collection and reporting requests may be included in the same system as above or in a separate system:

2.6 Indicator 14: Post School Survey Data Collection and Reporting Module Indicator 14 Purpose:

The purpose of this section is to collect information on percent of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school, and were in enrolled in higher education, competitively employment or some other training or employment within one year of leaving high school.

Indicator 14 Data:

· LEA Data Entry Component:

· Timeline May to October 1 annually

· Collect information on the person submitting the data: name, title, and contact information,

· Part 1: LEAs enter demographic, program information, and follow up contact information for students that just left high school (age out, dropped out, graduated).

· Part 2 (after July 1): State conducts verification that all students who exited special education by July 1 are entered into system.

· Edit check missing required information and missing student information.

· Post School Outcome Survey (from May to Oct. 1 annually):

· Survey students who exited the prior school year section:

· Designated interviewer will enter their contact information.

· Track of date of attempts along with type of attempt (call, text, email, etc.).

· Access to student’s contacts.

· Access to survey and enter data and information about exiter engagement in post school activities related to employment, education/training, and other areas.

· Part A: What did students do (post-secondary school)

· Part B: Competitive Employment (at least minimum wage for at least 3 months)

· Part C: Other Post-Secondary Education or Training (programs that don’t result in a degree, including military)

· Part D: Other Employment (working on family farm, sub-minimum wage, self-employed, etc.)

· Part E: Not Engaged

· In September, the districts will be notified of the list of students who have not been contacted. The district will have an opportunity to provide post-school outcomes information.

Indicator 14 System:

· State will have control who has access to the post-school outcome survey questions that include contractor or LEA.

· State level will be able to access all data entered into system.

· LEA level access to include reports.

· Data sorting option for State Educational Agency (SEA) and LEA levels.

· State set parameters for data entry dates.

· Edit student data if needed.

· Notification to LEAs to review data.

· System will allow designated state staff, contractors, and LEAs to access reports Special Education Federal State Performance Plan (SPP) data requirements.

Indicator 14 Reporting:

· All reports would have options for upload or download in CVS file or Excel options.

· Specific…