Inyo County Office of Education Report

Inyo County Superintendent of Schools Special Education Review June 12, 2014 Joel D. Montero Chief Executive Officer Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM June 12, 2014 Dr. Terence K. McAteer, Superintendent of Schools Inyo County Superintendent of Schools P.O. Drawer G Independence, CA 93526 Dear Superintendent McAteer, In November 2013, the Inyo County Superintendent of Schools and the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT) entered into an agreement for a special education review. Specifically, the agree- ment stated that FCMAT would perform the following: 1. Review all special education program delivery systems of the six Inyo County school districts, which will include, but not be limited to, caseloads and staffing, instructional aide staffing, administrative structures, and designated instruction service staff, and ensuring the districts adhere to federal and state compliance requirements. 2. Review the continuum of special education services provided in Inyo County. Review the learning center models in each of the six districts, which will include but not be limited to Response to Intervention (RtI) and student study team (SST) models. 3. Review the Inyo County Superintendent of Schools special education services provided to districts. 4. Review the collaboration style between the administrative unit of the special education local plan area (SELPA) and school districts in Inyo County. This final report contains the study team’s findings and recommendations in the above areas of review. FCMAT appreciates the opportunity to serve the Inyo County Superintendent of Schools, and extends thanks to all the staff for their assistance during fieldwork. Sincerely, Joel D. Montero Chief Executive Officer Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM i TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents Foreword ...........................................................................................................iii Introduction .....................................................................................................1 Background .................................................................................................................1 Study Guidelines .......................................................................................................1 Study Team ..................................................................................................................1 Executive Summary .......................................................................................3 Findings and Recommendations ..............................................................5 Special Education Delivery System .....................................................................5 Continuum of Services ............................................................................................9 Response to Intervention .....................................................................................11 Staffing and Caseloads ..........................................................................................13 Administrative Unit Collaboration with Districts ..........................................15 Appendices ....................................................................................................17 Inyo County SuperIntendent of SChoolS ii Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM iii ABOUT FCMAT About FCMAT FCMAT’s primary mission is to assist California’s local K-14 educational agencies to identify, prevent, and resolve financial and data management challenges. FCMAT provides fiscal and data management assistance, professional development training, product development and other related school business and data services. FCMAT’s fiscal and management assistance services are used not just to help avert fiscal crisis, but to promote sound financial practices and efficient operations. FCMAT’s data management services are used to help local educational agencies (LEAs) meet state reporting responsibilities, improve data quality, and share information. FCMAT may be requested to provide fiscal crisis or management assistance by a school district, charter school, community college, county office of education, the state Superintendent of Public Instruction, or the Legislature. When a request or assignment is received, FCMAT assembles a study team that works closely with the local education agency to define the scope of work, conduct on-site fieldwork and provide a written report with findings and recommendations to help resolve issues, overcome challenges and plan for the future. Studies by Fiscal Year 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 Inyo County SuperIntendent of SChoolS seidutS fo rebmuN FCMAT also develops and provides numerous publications, software tools, workshops and professional development opportunities to help local educational agencies operate more effec- tively and fulfill their fiscal oversight and data management responsibilities. The California School Information Services (CSIS) arm of FCMAT assists the California Department of Education with the implementation of the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS) and also maintains DataGate, the FCMAT/CSIS software LEAs use for CSIS services. FCMAT was created by Assembly Bill 1200 in 1992 to assist LEAs to meet and sustain their financial obligations. Assembly Bill 107 in 1997 charged FCMAT with responsi- bility for CSIS and its statewide data management work. Assembly Bill 1115 in 1999 codified CSIS’ mission. AB 1200 is also a statewide plan for county offices of education and school districts to work together locally to improve fiscal procedures and accountability standards. Assembly Bill 2756 (2004) provides specific responsibilities to FCMAT with regard to districts that have received emergency state loans. In January 2006, SB 430 (charter schools) and AB 1366 (community colleges) became law and expanded FCMAT’s services to those types of LEAs. iv ABOUT FCMAT Since 1992, FCMAT has been engaged to perform more than 1,000 reviews for LEAs, including school districts, county offices of education, charter schools and community colleges. The Kern County Superintendent of Schools is the administrative agent for FCMAT. The team is led by Joel D. Montero, Chief Executive Officer, with funding derived through appropriations in the state budget and a modest fee schedule for charges to requesting agencies. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 1 INTRODUCTION Introduction Background The Inyo County Special Education Local Plan Area (SELPA) is made up of six districts and the Inyo County Superintendent of Schools. The 2013-14 enrollment of the SELPA member districts ranges in size from 25 in Death Valley Unified to 1,963 in Bishop Unified. The enroll- ments in the other districts are: Lone Pine, 361; Big Pine, 184; Round Valley, 137; and Owens Valley, 66. All are K-12 districts except for Round Valley, which is K-8. Inyo County encom- passes more than 10,000 square miles. In November 2013, the Inyo County Superintendent of Schools and the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT) entered into an agreement for management assistance to review the special education program. Study Guidelines FCMAT visited the district from April 29 to May 2, 2014 to conduct interviews, collect data and review documents. This report is the result of those activities and is divided into the following sections: • Special Education Delivery System • Continuum of Services • Response to Intervention • Staffing and Caseloads • Administrative Unit Collaboration with Districts In writing its reports, FCMAT uses the Associated Press Stylebook, a comprehensive guide to usage and accepted style that emphasizes conciseness and clarity. In addition, this guide empha- sizes plain language, discourages the use of jargon and capitalizes relatively few terms. Study Team The study team was composed of the following members: William P. Gillaspie, Ed.D. JoAnn Murphy FCMAT Deputy Administrative Officer FCMAT Consultant Bakersfield, California Santee, California Anne Stone Laura Haywood FCMAT Consultant FCMAT Technical Writer Mission Viejo, California Bakersfield, California Each team member reviewed the draft report to confirm its accuracy and to achieve consensus on the final recommendations. Inyo County SuperIntendent of SChoolS 2 Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Executive Summary The special education program delivery system is unique to this SELPA because of the number of special education students in each individual district and the geography of the SELPA. Resource specialist and special day class (RS/SDC) programs are combined in the smaller districts, with districts contracting for services such as occupational therapy and speech. This program model does meet federal and state compliance requirements. The SELPA should regularly monitor the number of students and their disabilities in each district to ensure the combined RS/SDC model in the small districts stays compliant This program with federal and state regulations. model does The county office employs two psychologists. One conducts assess- ments for the preschool program and some districts, and provides meet federal and program and behavioral support to all the districts; the second state compliance conducts assessments for several districts, the preschool program requirements. and the charter schools. The county office will not employ a second psychologist for 2014-15, and should ensure that the districts, preschool and charter schools currently served by the second psychologist have a psychologist available for assessments to comply with federal and state regulations. Considering the relatively few special education students, the geography, and the use of state schools and nonpublic schools (NPSs), there is a continuum of services with some possible exceptions. Programs for the emotionally disturbed (ED) and autism, found in other SELPAs, are not available in this SELPA. A transition class for students 18-22 also is not available. The psychologist services at Bishop USD are understaffed for the 2013-14 school year at .68 FTE, which should be 1.3 FTE according to criteria established in CalEdFacts, a compilation of staffing statistics throughout California. The psychologist assigned to Bishop USD works as a full-time coordinator of special education, which establishes an administrative support ratio that exceeds that of most districts this size. Psychologist services are projected to decrease to .45 FTE for the 2014-15 school year with the elimination of the .23 provided by contracted staff and the psychologist as a .55 special education coordinator with 178 students. The coordinator position should be eliminated and the psycholo- gist assigned as a full-time psychologist for the high school. The special day classes at Bishop High School are understaffed. The low adult-to-student ratio combined with large class sizes in some periods, with one SDC teacher serving students in three locations (two classrooms and a small alcove with cubbies) is potentially unsafe. There are seven mild to moderate SDC students, two of which require 1:1 assistants; ED students and RSP students. The district does not have a transition-focused program for its students who are ages 18-22 and require transition services. The Inyo County Superintendent of Schools, as the administrative unit (AU), and the SELPA director meet with the Governance Council three times a year. The SELPA director has a monthly meeting that is voluntary for all Inyo special education staff. Information is sent to any staff unable to attend. Staff in more remote districts can access the meetings through video conferencing. Any potential changes in county office delivery are discussed with superintendents at the AU/ SELPA/Governance Council meetings. These meetings should be held at least quarterly to discuss finance issues and potential changes in county office services, and to prepare and approve Inyo County SuperIntendent of SChoolS 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY the annual budget and service plan as required by state regulations. Additional meetings may be needed to review and approve the Local Plan rewrite and the policies and procedures. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 5 SPECIAL EDUCATION DELIVERY SYSTEM Findings and Recommendations Special Education Delivery System The total special education enrollment for the SELPA, infant through 22, as reported in the California Special Education Management Information System (CASEMIS) for December 1, 2013, was 312 students. Bishop USD, the largest of the districts, served the largest number of special education students: 178 or 57%. The county office preschool program served 30 students and the Mono County Infant Program served 10 students. The remaining 94 students were enrolled in the other SELPA member districts. The delivery system in the small and outlying districts is a resource specialist program combined with a special day class program. The special education staff in these districts supports both the identified special education students and nonidentified at-risk students. The districts and the SELPA reported that the number of special education students in these districts varies, and this model supports all students. Transporting students from the outlying districts to a central area for service is not always practical. Bishop USD provides special education in both combined resource/special day classes and in separate resource and special day classes. At the high school, the district operates a special day class and a learning center. The teacher for the learning center has 38 students on her caseload, although approximately 50 students are assigned to the learning center daily. This class is considered an elective. Some special education students on the special day class teacher’s caseload receive their special education services in the learning center elective. Students come to the learning center for one period a day for instruction in study skills and homework support. These students are in the general education program for the rest of their day. Students can also visit the learning center during one specific period for additional classroom or testing support. The learning center teacher also is assigned to coordinate the WorkAbility program for the SELPA and provides special education assessments and services to special education students in the Palisades, Keith Bright and Juvenile Hall alternative programs. All of the SELPA member districts contract with a nonpublic agency (NPA) or hire staff to provide speech and language, occupational therapy (OT) and other related services, such as interpreters, as required by the student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) plan. The districts also contract with the county office for psychology services. Bishop USD employs a .23 psychologist and contracts with the county office for a .47 psychologist. The SELPA member districts are given special education federal and state guidelines for referring a student to special education, assessment, timelines and IEP development. According to the SELPA, all areas of noncompliance that were identified in the last Special Education Self-Review have been addressed and are now compliant. The county office employs two psychologists. The first psychologist’s assignment includes assess- ment support to the preschool and some districts, and behavioral support to all districts. The SELPA and county office reported that the model to provide behavioral support services to the districts is being revised to add more behavior aides, which will allow the psychologist to offer more program specialist services to the districts. Inyo County SuperIntendent of SChoolS 6 SPECIAL EDUCATION DELIVERY SYSTEM The second psychologist’s assignment this year has been assessments and support to Lone Pine preschool, three small districts, Bishop High School, the county office charter schools, and the alternative programs. This second position will not be a county office position in the 2014-15 school year. The county office also employs a preschool teacher, and a speech therapist for the county preschool, private preschools and Lone Pine preschoolers. The speech therapist is retiring as of June 30, 2014. The county office also is the contracting agency for some of the NPA OT services in the county. The county office has in the past employed an OT, but was unable to fill the posi- tion this year; therefore, contracted services were acquired. FCMAT reviewed the SELPA’s Local Plan and its Procedure Manual. The plan was last revised in 2003. Local Plan requirements are defined in Education Code Section 56205. Since the major requirements of the plan have not changed since 2003, the SELPA Governance Council may determine that a complete revision is not needed. However, additions or revisions could be made to reflect changes in Education Code such as mental health funding and responsibility, out-of- home funding and responsibility and the annual budget and program plan. The Procedure Manual was written in 2002, with some sections revised in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2008. Current policies and procedures are necessary to ensure federal and state compli- ance. District staff reported that they are not familiar with either the Local Plan or the Procedure Manual. They reported that when they are unsure of how to proceed with a special education situation they contact the SELPA or their district administration for assistance. Topics that are not clearly defined or are not addressed in the current Procedure Manual include but are not limited to: • Requests for records • Retaining records • Confidentiality • Prior written notice • Independent educational evaluations • Discipline documentation • Suspension/expulsion • Manifestation determination • Referral procedures for related services such as occupational therapy, physical therapy, assistive technology • Responsibility of the administrator at an IEP meeting • Re-evaluation procedures including prior parent written consent • Transition IEP requirements for students 14+ including when and how to include outside agencies • Transition services to be provided to students 14+ • Extended school year eligibility and services • Referral to alternative programs and district of residence responsibilities • IEP review prior to finalizing the document Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 7 SPECIAL EDUCATION DELIVERY SYSTEM • Interim placement procedures • Transition from county office preschool to district programs, and responsibilities of each entity These areas are not necessarily out of compliance, but SELPA Governance Council approved policies, procedures and forms are not in place. Current and approved policies, procedures and forms are necessary for consistency and compliance in special education operations throughout the SELPA. Recommendations The SELPA and county office should: 1. Monitor caseload numbers in the small districts twice a year to determine if they continue to warrant the current special education program delivery model. 2. Review the high school learning center model to determine if the students assigned to the learning center should receive more than one period a day of support. If so, revise the current model. 3. Review the current model of providing WorkAbility coordination and support to the alternative programs, and make changes in the delivery system as needed. 4. Replace the county office preschool speech therapist who is retiring so that services for identified preschoolers continue to meet federal and state compli- ance. 5. Continue with the one county office psychologist/behavior specialist/program specialist position. 6. Ensure that the districts now served by the second county office psychologist receive the required psychologist services for 2014-15 to meet federal and state requirements. 7. Continue pursuing the hiring of an OT to meet the needs of the SELPA member districts. 8. Review the Local Plan with the Governance Council and determine if any sections need revision or if any sections need to be added to the plan. If so, convene a committee comprised of district representatives and parents. 9. Establish a committee to revise the Procedure Manual that includes: • District representatives • Special education administration, special education teachers preschool through high school, related services providers and parents 10. Ensure that any changes in the Local Plan and the Procedure Manual are reviewed and approved by the Governance Council. Inyo County SuperIntendent of SChoolS 8 SPECIAL EDUCATION DELIVERY SYSTEM 11. Provide training on these documents to all special education staff, district administrators and, as appropriate, general education teachers. 12. Following the rewrite of the Local Plan and the Procedure Manual, establish a committee that annually reviews the Procedure Manual and revises as needed to ensure the SELPA’s continued compliance with federal and state regula- tions. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 9 CONTINUUM OF SERVICES Continuum of Services As described earlier in this report, the size of the districts and vastness of the county make it challenging for the SELPA to provide a continuum of special education services. To ensure that students do have the full continuum, where appropriate, resource and special day type programs are combined. Distance learning NPAs are contracted to provide the required related services when hiring staff is not possible. Mono County and Inyo County collaborate to provide infant services. The county office and Lone Pine provide the preschool program. The county office infant/preschool teacher is respon- sible for transitioning students from the infant program to county office preschool services, the county office speech preschool program or the district preschool services. This employee also is responsible for arranging and completing assessments for all incoming preschool students, coor- dinating any triennial assessments and facilitating the transition from preschool to kindergarten. The SELPA assists the districts with NPA contracts for occupational therapy, speech and physical therapy services. The county office psychologist provides some special education assessments and behavioral services for the member districts. The full continuum of services is available to the member districts through district programs, the county office, the state schools, nonpublic schools and other related service NPAs. The SELPA has no classes specifically designed for students with emotional disturbance (ED). Data from the December 1, 2013 CASEMIS report indicate that seven students in the SELPA had the designation of emotional disturbance, and only four of these were in grades 9-12. Students with emotional disturbance are supported in their district’s special education program. District and county office staff reported that additional high school age students might benefit from a highly structured program with a strong mental health component. Such a program could reduce the additional aide support provided by the districts and the need for additional behav- ioral support. Based on best practices, ED programs have 8-10 students with one teacher and two trained aides. Based on current data, it is unclear if there are enough students in the SELPA of similar age and eligibility for a centralized ED program. A continuum of services exists despite the relatively small number of special education students, geography constraints, and the use of the state schools and NPSs. However, programs for ED and autism found in other SELPAs are not available in this SELPA. The districts now serve the 18-22 year old special education students in the general high school programs and, as appropriate, with WorkAbility. As noted earlier in this report, the Bishop High School Learning Center teacher is the WorkAbility coordinator. The December 1, 2013 CASEMIS report identified 18 students in this age range: one in a county office program, one in Big Pine, three in Lone Pine, one in Owens Valley and 12 in Bishop. The students in Bishop, Big Pine and Owens Valley may be able to access a specific program designed to provide indepen- dence skills and pre-work skills. Recommendations The SELPA and county office should: 1. Continue combining resource and special day programs, providing related services by hiring staff or NPA distance learning, and collaborating with Mono County for infant services. Inyo County SuperIntendent of SChoolS 10 CONTINUUM OF SERVICES 2. Continue with the county office providing most preschool services to ensure adherence to federal and state regulations. 3. Review the eligibility designation and grade levels of all middle and high school special education students to determine if additional students are eligible for a structured/therapeutic ED program. If the number of students is sufficient, begin developing such a program. 4. Review the special education program for students ages 18-22 to determine if a sufficient number of students would be eligible for a structured transition program in the SELPA. If so, begin developing the program. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 11 RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION Response to Intervention (RtI) Districts and the SELPA reported that the small districts do not use an RtI pyramid of interven- tions, but incorporate interventions into the general education classes. This model, along with the combined resource/special day class model, successfully meets the needs of the students with research-based intervention implemented in small classes. Big Pine USD’s Board Policy 6120 addresses RtI and referring a student for assessment. Discussions with the other districts and the SELPA indicated that the districts have some research-based interventions in place, particularly in reading. The SELPA and county office also reported that the districts were provided RtI training several years ago. This past year training has been focused on the Common Core. All of the districts submitted information to FCMAT regarding their student study team (SST) process, and all use a similar process. This process has not changed since the districts began implementing RtI. The current forms do not reflect a district’s specific RtI interventions or the pre- and post-testing data required prior to referring a student for a special education assessment. Recommendations The districts should: 1. Review their RtI model and develop board policies specifying that research- based interventions will be provided to students, who will be referred to special education if the interventions are found to be unsuccessful. The county office should: 1. Review and revise the SST process and forms in conjunction with the districts to reflect the research-based intervention provided to a student with pre- and post-data that supports the need for referral for a special education assess- ment. 2. Train site administrators, general education teachers and special education staff on the revised SST process. Inyo County SuperIntendent of SChoolS 12 Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 13 STAFFING AND CASELOADS Staffing and Caseloads The six districts of Inyo County use a combination of RSP, SDC and combined RSP/SDC and/ or learning centers as part of their program delivery. Two of the districts provide additional support by using speech aides to assist and expand the scope of the speech services. The following table shows a breakdown of the special education certificated and classified staffing and the number of students served in each program category at all six districts in Inyo County. Speech District RSP SDC RSP/SDC Aides Aide 1:1 Big Pine Unified .063 .9375 .4688 1.00 *Bishop Unified 1.0 4.0 2.0 Death Valley Unified .5 .25 Lone Pine Unified 2.0 2.0 .69 2.0 Owens Valley Unified 1.0 1.5 2.0 Round Valley School District 1.0 1.6 Source: Data provided from districts to the SELPA for 2013-14 Bishop Unified did not submit data on instructional aides The special education program delivery system is unique to this SELPA because of the number of special education students in each individual district and the geography of the SELPA. RS and SDC programs are combined in the smaller districts, and districts contract for services such as occupational therapy and speech. This program model meets federal and state compliance requirements. The SELPA should regularly monitor the number of students and their disabilities in each district to determine if the combined RS/SDC model in the small districts continues to meet federal and state compliance. The county office employs two psychologists: one does assessments for some districts, the preschool program and behavioral support services for all of the districts; the second does assessments for several districts, the preschool program and the charter schools. Psychologist services at Bishop USD are understaffed for the 2013-14 school year at .68 FTE, which should be 1.3 FTE according to criteria established in CalEdFacts. The psychologist assigned to Bishop USD works as a full-time coordinator of special education, which is a higher administrative support ratio than for most districts this size. Services are projected to decrease to .45 FTE for the 2014-15 school year with the elimination of the .23 provided by contract and the psychologist as a .55 special education coordinator with 178 students, which still is a higher administrative support ratio than other districts this size. The special day classes at Bishop High School are understaffed. The low adult-to-student ratio combined with large class sizes in some periods, with one SDC teacher serving students in three locations (two classrooms and a small alcove with cubbies) is potentially unsafe. The student population includes seven mild to moderate SDC students with two students who require 1:1 assistants; ED students and RSP students. Some students are ages 18-22. The district does not have a transition-focused program to serve 18-22 year old students, which is a statutory require- ment. The Administrative Unit and the SELPA director meet with the Governance Council three times a year. The SELPA director has a monthly meeting that is voluntary for all Inyo special education Inyo County SuperIntendent of SChoolS 14 STAFFING AND CASELOADS staff. Information is sent to any staff unable to attend. Staff in more remote districts can access the meetings through video conferencing. Any potential changes in county office delivery are discussed with superintendents at the AU/ SELPA/Governance Council meetings. Additional meetings may be needed to review and approve the Local Plan rewrite and the policies and procedures. Recommendations The Bishop USD should: 1. Eliminate the coordinator position and assign the psychologist full time to the high school. The county office should: 1. Retain one psychologist/behavior specialist and ensure that for the 2014-15 school year the districts, the preschool and the charter schools now served by the second psychologist have a psychologist available for assessments to remain compliant with federal and state regulations. 2. Increase the number of meetings held with the AU, the SELPA and Governance Council to at least quarterly to discuss finance issues and poten- tial changes in county office services, and to prepare and approve the annual budget and service plan as required by state regulations. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 15 ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT COLLABORATION WITH DISTRICTS Administrative Unit Collaboration with Districts The county office superintendent has monthly meetings with the district superintendents. The SELPA Governance Council meets three times a year following the county office meeting. In addition, the SELPA director holds a monthly meeting for all Inyo special education staff. The staff meetings combine training on a specific topic with general information about changes in operating procedures. For both meetings, remote access is provided through the Polycom confer- encing system, and materials are sent to those that did not attend. The districts and the SELPA reported that Polycom cannot always be accessed due to various factors including weather. Email attachments sent to outlying districts cannot always be opened. Potential changes in county office staffing, such as recruiting for an occupational therapist, are discussed at the SELPA Governance Council. District and county office staff reported that the district special education providers do not always receive this information in a timely manner. The SELPA contracts with Special Education Information System (SEIS) for the SELPA comput- erized IEP system. All special education teachers have access to the students on their caseloads. Students are added or transferred to a case carrier by the SELPA. Site administrators do not have what is referred to as read-only access. Therefore, a site administrator cannot review an IEP, cannot determine what IEPs are coming due or generate any reports. In many SELPAs, IEPs are reviewed for compliance issues before being finalized. The compliance items reviewed include those required by CASEMIS, along with items such as yearly revision of goals, accuracy of dates, services related to the disability, and English language learner require- ments. In this SELPA, the administrative secretary is responsible for reviewing some of the IEPs and returning incomplete or inaccurate IEPs to the case carrier for correction. Not all IEPs are sent in for review prior to finalization, and not all IEPs are corrected prior to finalization. Reviewing IEPs prior to finalization increases compliance. Recommendations The SELPA should: 1. Increase the number of Governance Council meetings to four times a year to ensure that required SELPA reports can be submitted within the required timelines. 2. Ensure that all staff changes that will impact the member districts’ special education budgets are discussed at the Governance Council meetings. 3. Continue monthly staff meetings for all Inyo special education staff and provide both training and information at the meetings. 4. Provide access to the meetings through Polycom and send the materials distributed at those meetings by email attachment, fax or general mail. 5. At the monthly special education meeting, convey potential changes in SELPA or county office staffing to ensure that district staff have timely infor- mation. Inyo County SuperIntendent of SChoolS 16 ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT COLLABORATION WITH DISTRICTS 6. Provide site administrators with read-only access on SEIS for their district of residence students. 7. Train site administrators in how to access and generate reports through SEIS. 8. Develop a system in which: • All IEPs are sent to the SELPA for review prior to finalization • A percentage of IEPs, to be determined by the SELPA, are reviewed by a SELPA special education staff member • IEPs requiring correction are returned to the case carrier • After correction the IEP is returned to the SELPA for review prior to being finalized Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 1177 APPENDDRICAEFST Appendices Appendix A - Study Agreement Inyo County SuperIntendent of SChoolS 1188 DARPPAEFNTDICES Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 1199 APPENDDRICAEFST Inyo County SuperIntendent of SChoolS 2200 DARPPAEFNTDICES Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 2211 APPENDDRICAEFST Inyo County SuperIntendent of SChoolS 2222 DARPPAEFNTDICES Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM