September 2003

September 2003

Click here for Word or PDF Format for Printing

To:	BOCES District Superintendents
	Superintendents of Public Schools
	Superintendents of Big Four Cities
	SETRC Professional Development Specialists and Program Directors
	Executive Directors of Regional School Support Centers

From:	Lawrence C. Gloeckler

Subject:	Comprehensive System of Personnel Development (CSPD) Plan Submission Procedures and Relevant Dates

The purpose of this memorandum is to outline procedures for the submission of CSPD plans as required by Section 200.2(h) of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education.

In the 2002 consolidated application for IDEA flow-through funds the Department modified its long-standing requirement that the CSPD plan be submitted with the application as a condition of approval and substituted an assurance that the LEA had available upon request a CSPD reviewed by SETRC that was updated annually. This change had the intended outcome of providing timely access to flow-through funds for LEAs, and the unintended outcome, in some cases, of diminishing the impact of the CSPD process. As a result, the Department will reinstate submission procedures and dates as summarized below. This process will continue to provide for timely access to flowthrough funds but will also ensure the required focus on CSPD planning.

The CSPD plan has become a primary school improvement planning process and evaluation tool for many VESID-sponsored technical assistance (TA) and quality assurance initiatives. It is used for Chapter 405 districts, IDEA State Improvement Grant (SIG) districts and schools, districts involved in Focused Reviews conducted by the Special Education Quality Assurance (SEQA) offices, and other districts/schools identified by the Department for intensive technical assistance through SETRC and other VESID TA providers. While the CSPD plan addresses special education issues and concerns, such issues can not and should not be treated in isolation from the general education program. Therefore, VESID strongly encourages LEAs to integrate the CSPD into existing Professional Development Plans or other school improvement processes providing that the considerations unique to the special education CSPD process are addressed in consolidated plans.

A CSPD approval process is required for certain groups of districts/schools that are identified by the Department based on VESID Key Performance Indicators. In some cases approval is required to secure additional discretionary funding or technical assistance services. In other cases, approval is required as part of a corrective action and continuing eligibility for flow-through funds. The BOCES District Superintendent, as a representative of the Department, provides such approval.

Procedures for Submission and Approval

The LEA application for flow-through funds should be submitted as described in the annual application with a July 1 eligibility date for flow-through funds. This application includes the signed assurance that an updated CSPD is available and ensures that funds are available to the district on a timely basis.
Current CSPD plans (i.e., updated within the last 12 months) for all LEAs and BOCES are to be submitted to the appropriate SETRC program by November 1 of each year.

The CSPD plan for certain designated districts must be approved by the BOCES District Superintendent (or designee). Designated districts include:

Chapter 405 Targeted Technical Assistance Districts (see separate memorandum dated September 2003 for additional information about approval procedures).

IDEA State Improvement Grant (SIG) districts.

Districts identified by VESID Special Education Quality Assurance (SEQA) offices for Focused Reviews with the participation of SETRC as facilitator for development of the CSPD plan.

Other districts identified regionally and approved by VESID for intensive technical assistance and professional development through the SETRC network (note: these districts will have written upfront agreements specifying roles and responsibilities of district and SETRC personnel).

Note: Big 4 City CSPD Plans do not require District Superintendent approval. However, the Superintendent or designee of the Big 4 City is required to review and approve the plan using the same criteria as for other LEAs.

The CSPD Plan for all other districts does not require SETRC review or District Superintendent approval. However, the submitted plan should include a self-review based on the Personnel Development Quality Indicators and the CSPD Plan Review Matrix and form referenced below and attached to this memorandum.

District Superintendent approval of the CSPD for districts above is based on appropriate evidence of VESID-approved CSPD Quality Indicators as described in the SETRC Policy and Procedures Manual. Two matrices and a review form were developed to guide development and review of CSPD plans: 1) the Personnel Development Quality Indicators (to guide development) and 2) the CSPD Plan Review Matrix and review form. These materials and technical assistance in the use of these materials are available from your local SETRC program. The suggested CSPD development and approval process for designated districts is as follows:

The School Superintendent of the designated district should assemble a CSPD team that includes key district personnel (general education and special education teachers and administrators, paraprofessionals, and a parent of a student with a disability), the SETRC Professional Development Specialist (PDS) and if appropriate the Regional School Support Center (RSSC) Special Education Specialist. The SETRC PDS is trained to coach/facilitate the CSPD development process and provides sign-off on the CSPD process. Note: SETRC sign-off does not designate approval or disapproval of the content of the plan. SETRC sign-off does designate that the core requirements for the planning process were met. It is suggested that the district CSPD team conduct a self-evaluation of the content of the plan using the CSPD Plan Review Matrix and review form.

The CSPD plan is submitted to the District Superintendent for review and approval of the content of the plan. It is recommended that the District Superintendent convene a review team including SETRC, RSSC if appropriate, SEQA Regional Associate if available, and others with appropriate background to evaluate the CSPD using the CSPD Plan Review Matrix and review form. The review team will provide feedback to the school superintendent of the targeted district and the District Superintendent.

If needed, the district CSPD team under the supervision of the School Superintendent revises the plan and resubmits the plan to the BOCES District Superintendent for approval. As in step 2, a review team may be used to provide ongoing evaluation with feedback of the district’s plan.

By November 1, the BOCES District Superintendent reviews and rates the plan as either:

Status	Description
Approved	The CSPD Plan meets quality standards and is likely to have a positive impact on planned outcomes. IDEA Flow-through funds are continued.
Conditionally Approved	The CSPD Plan meets some quality standards but modifications are necessary for likely positive impact on planned outcomes. Flow-through funds are continued while modifications leading to "Approved" status are made. Failure to achieve "Approved" status in three months will result in a delay in the release of additional flow-through funds until "Approved" status is achieved.
Not Approved	The CSPD Plan does not meet quality standards and significant modifications are necessary for likely positive impact on planned outcomes. An immediate delay in the release of flow-through funds will occur until necessary revisions to the CSPD Plan are made and "Approved" status is achieved.

By November 7, and with monthly updates thereafter, each SETRC shall submit to VESID a report listing districts by the following categories:

A - Designated districts submitting CSPDs by November 1 – Approved
B - Designated districts submitting CSPDs by November 1 – Conditionally Approved
C - Designated districts submitting CSPDs by November 1 – Not Approved
D - Designated districts – did not submit CSPDs by November 1
E - Other districts submitting by November 1
F - Other districts not submitting by November 1

The report will trigger the following actions by VESID:

Categories A and E – no action

Category B -
Letter informing district that issues leading to conditional approval must be addressed during next quarter. Flow-through funds may be delayed the following quarter.

Category C -
Letter informing district that issues leading to "Not Approved" must be addressed immediately. Immediate delay in the release of flow-through funds until status changed to "Approved."

Category D -
Letter of warning indicating that the release of flow-through funds will be delayed until CSPD is submitted and "Approved" or "Conditionally Approved" status achieved.

Category F -
Letter informing district that flow-through funds may be delayed the following quarter if the CSPD is not submitted by the date of the next quarterly payment.

Upon receipt of monthly updates from SETRC, the Department will notify districts of any change in status, including release of flow-through funds.

Additional information about the CSPD process is available through the SETRC Network, regional VESID Special Education Quality Assurance offices, or through the VESID Central Office at 518: 486-7462 (attention Daniel Ryan or Laura Paris).

PERSONNEL DEVELOPMENT QUALITY INDICATORS (MATRIX)

COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM OF PERSONNEL DEVELOPMENT (CSPD) PLAN
REVIEW MATRIX

CSPD Plan Review Form

CSPD Plan Review - Scoring Sheet

cc:    James Kadamus
        James Butterworth
        Rebecca Cort
        Fredric DeMay

PERSONNEL DEVELOPMENT QUALITY INDICATORS (MATRIX)

District ________________________________________________ Date ______________________

	PLANNING	CONTENT	DESIGN	CLIMATE/CULTURE	IMPLEMENTATION	EVALUATION
4 HIGH SUCCESS INDICATORS	Meaningful participation of all stakeholders in the development of a unified long-range personnel development plan tied to student performance	Content, skills, knowledge based on research relevant to district/building needs, associated with attainment of student performance aligned with the standards	Consistently uses a wide variety of delivery systems (i.e. strategies, formats, presentation models, and techniques) to meet the needs of the district personnel	Personnel development is recognized as a powerful change agent, administration serve as instructional leaders, mutual respect and collaboration at all levels	Opportunities for long-term follow-up (including data collection) for participants to practice skills and methodology presented throughout training, ongoing coaching and turnkey training, strong evidence of administrative support	Ongoing data collection and analysis linked to predetermined student performance consistent with unified personnel development plan, all stakeholders involved with evaluation and ongoing planning cycle
3	Group planning process results in CSPD plan identifying student performance and perceived staff needs	Context based on research and building needs but not associated with increase in student performance	Professional development training offers some opportunities for personnel to actively participate, with more than one follow-up session scheduled	Personnel development is valued in the district, some progress is evident in the areas of leadership and collaboration	Follow-up activities (technical assistance, discussion, participant sharing, etc.) are encouraged with administrative involvement	Student outcomes are evaluated but inconsistently used in relation to a unified personnel development plan
2	Plan developed by one person	Research or regulation driven without association to student performance	Opportunities limited, variety of delivery systems used, menu approach to training	Staff development is inconsistently available to staff	Follow-up is occasional and informal	Evaluations based on participant reaction to session
1 LOW SUCCESS INDICATORS	Training topics selected as needed, and/or individual staff seeks out staff development on their own. No stakeholder input.	No obvious relationship of training to district needs or improvement in student performance	Single presentation using limited presentation models, often to fill an available time slot, one-time training	Staff development is not a priority	Limited opportunity to monitor and refine skills. Follow-up is driven by participant.	Evaluation omitted

COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM OF PERSONNEL DEVELOPMENT (CSPD) PLAN
REVIEW MATRIX

District _____________________________________ CSPD Plan Review Date:_____________________________

.	High 4	3	2	Low 1	Inadequate 0
Analysis of Special Education Data and Problem Identification	District provided current as well as longitudinal data on SWDs that is disaggregated. There is evidence of the prioritization of needs in order to develop long-term CSPD goals that are based on multiple measures of assessment.	District provided current and longitudinal data on SWDs that is disaggregated. There is a single measure used as evidence of the prioritization of needs and use of data to develop long-term CSPD goals.	District provided current and longitudinal KPI and/or school processes data that is not disaggregated. There is some evidence of prioritizing needs and use of data to develop long-term CSPD goals.	District provided generalized information concerning data and special education problem areas with little or no linkage to CSPD goals	District provided no information or data to support CSPD Plan
Root Cause Discussions	District developed a clear and appropriate list of root causes based on data and with evidence of discussion	District developed a list of root causes with evidence of discussion	District developed a list of root causes without evidence of discussion	District listed causes without identifying root cause and without evidence of discussion	No evidence of cause/root cause analysis or discussion
Annual and Long-term Goals and Objectives	Goals and objectives are written in measurable terms and reflect a direct linkage to the analysis of data as measured by SWD student achievement and other key indicators	Goals and objectives are written in measurable terms and reflect a direct linkage to the analysis of data as measured by district's staff development needs and other key indicators	Goals and objectives may or may not be written in measurable terms but do reflect some analysis of data	Goals and objectives are not written in measurable terms and do not reflect analysis of data	Goals and objectives are not written in measurable terms and are not data based
Implementation of CSPD Plan	District's implementation of proposed CSPD activities exhibit adequate personnel and fiscal resources and should result in end of year expected student outcomes. CSPD activities are integrated with general education initiatives, and are based on changes in intermediate school processes data and/or SWD data that address goals and objectives that lead to improved KPI data.	District's implementation of CSPD activities exhibit some supportive resources and may result in end of year expected outcomes. CSPD activities may be integrated with general education initiatives and are based solely on improved KPI data without intermediate student achievement measures.	District's implementation of CSPD activities is based on the number of staff implementing change	District's implementation of CSPD activities is based on hours/number of staff trained	District's implementation of CSPD activities is unspecified
Evaluation of District's Monitoring of CSPD Plan	District has demonstrated specific evidence that activities will be implemented as scheduled with evaluation based on measures of job-embedded staff development and intermediate measures of student achievement leading to improved KPI data	District has demonstrated specific evidence that activities will be implemented and monitored as scheduled with evaluation based on measures of staff development leading to improved KPI data	District's plan has demonstrated specific evidence that activities will be implemented and monitored with specific linkage to LEA staff development but activities are not effectively linked to CSPD long-term goals and objectives	District's CSPD plan exhibits general evidence that CSPD activities will monitored without specifying linkage to staff development or long-term CSPD goals and objectives	District's CSPD Plan has not selected a method for monitoring progress

CSPD Plan Review Form

Name & Title of Reviewer(s): __________________________________________________
District Reviewed: ____________________________ Date of Review: __________________

This review form was developed to evaluate the quality of a CSPD plan and corresponds to the CSPD plan review matrix. The Department uses this format to review the CSPD plans of Chapter 405 targeted school districts and encourages its’ use at the local level. The checklists immediately below are used to identify those areas addressed in the CSPD plan and serve as a reference to the review team. The five shaded blocks are used to provide a qualitative evaluation of the major components of the plan and will generate a comparative score and the basis for comments or suggestions.

Check Chapter 405 problem area(s) identified for the Chapter 405 school district:

o Classification – School-Age
o Declassification – Preschool
o Declassification – School-Age
o Separate Site Placements – School-Age
o Disproportionate Representation – School-Age Identification
o Disproportionate Representation – Preschool Placement
o Disproportionate Representation – School-Age Placement

Check Special Education KPI Areas Addressed in CSPD:

o Grade 4 ELA exam scores at or above level 3
o Grade 4 Math exam scores at or above level 3
o Grade 8 ELA exam scores at or above level 3
o Grade 8 Math exam scores at or above level 3
o Passing score on Regents English exam
o Passing score on Regents Math exam
o Number of students with disabilities earning a high school diploma
o Number of students with disabilities dropped out
o Classification rate
o Integration in general education classes
o Placement in separate settings
o Over-representation of minorities
o Number of students with disabilities who have post-school plans (reported on PD-5)
o Students with disabilities transition to postsecondary education, employment or adult
services at the same rate as nondisabled peers
o Other:

Check Other Considerations Addressed in CSPD:

o Prereferral Strategies
o CSE/CPSE Operations/Training
o Disproportionality based on race/ethnicity in classification
o Disproportionality based on race/ethnicity in placement
o IEP process and development
o Transition planning/implementation
o LRE and related topics
o Behavioral Interventions
o Assistive Technology
o Implementing approach to teaching of reading
o Literacy acquisition for high/low incidence populations
o Mathematics skill acquisition
o Test Accommodations
o Parent Involvement
o Cross-agency cooperation
o Due Process Issues
o Analysis of paraprofessional/professional shortages/training
o Leadership Issues
o Other:

1) Analysis of Special Education Data and Problem Identification. Look for:

Area	Present? Yes/No	If Yes, indicate quality: (1 = Low success to 4= High success) If No/Inadequate, score = 0
Identification of problem areas as a result of data analysis	.	.
Discussion of the rationale for prioritization of long-term needs	.	.
Evidence of data analysis as a basis for development of annual and long-term goals and objectives	.	.
TOTAL	.	.
Comments:

2) Root cause discussions. Look for:

Area	Present? Yes/No	If Yes, indicate quality and probability of: (1 = Low success to 4= High success) If No, score = 0
Evidence of discussions about root causes	.	.
Description of identified root causes	.	.
TOTAL	.	.
Comments:

3) Annual and Long-term goals and objectives. Look for:

Area	Present? Yes/No	If Yes, indicate quality: (1 = Low success to 4= High success) If No/Inadequate, score = 0
Linkage of district data to CSPD long-term and annual goals and objectives	.	.
Goals and objectives written in measurable terms	.	.
TOTAL	.	.
Comments:

4) Implementation of the CSPD plan. Look for:

Area	Present? Yes/No	If Yes, indicate quality: (1 = Low success to 4= High success) If No/Inadequate, score = 0
Extent to which the proposed activities will result in expected student outcomes (End of Year Evaluation)	.	.
Integration of CSPD activities with general education programmatic and professional development initiatives	.	.
Extent to which staff development activities will address goals and objectives	.	.
Adequacy of the personnel and fiscal resources to implement the activities	.	.
TOTAL	.	.
Comments:

5) Evaluation of District's Monitoring of CSPD plan. Look for:

Area	Present? Yes/No	If Yes, indicate quality: (1 = Low success to 4= High success) If No/Inadequate, score = 0
Evidence that the activities will be responsibly implemented and coordinated within the district	.	.
Quality, comprehensiveness and appropriateness of the activities relative to the issues they address	.	.
Provision of a schedule of implementation with initiation and completion dates for each activity	.	.
Evidence of appropriate and ongoing evaluation to determine the effectiveness of the personnel development activities that are based on measures of effective implementation of staff development knowledge/skills	.	.
Evidence of appropriate and ongoing evaluation to determine the effectiveness of the personnel development activities that are based on measures of student educational outcomes	.	.
TOTAL	.	.
Comments:

CSPD Plan Review
Scoring Sheet Form

Scoring (Add up scores in each section)

Section 1:	Data Analysis	__________________	(Maximum 12 points)
Section 2:	Root Cause	__________________	(Maximum 8 points)
Section 3:	Annual Goals	__________________	(Maximum 8 points)
Section 4:	Implementation	__________________	(Maximum 16 points)
Section 5:	Monitoring	__________________	(Maximum 20 points)

Final Total: (Maximum 64 points)

Recommendation Guide:

56-64 points – CSPD plan approved. The CSPD Plan meets quality standards and is likely to have a positive impact on planned outcomes

48-55 points – CSPD plan conditionally approved. The CSPD plan meets some quality standards but modifications are necessary for likely positive impact on planned outcomes.

Under 48 points – CSPD plan not approved. The CSPD plan does not meet quality standards and significant modifications are necessary for likely positive impact on planned outcomes.

Check a recommendation below that corresponds to the recommendation guide above. Explain any recommendations inconsistent with the recommendation guide. Specify modifications or corrective actions as appropriate.

o CSPD plan approved as submitted.

o CSPD plan conditionally approved and must be resubmitted with modifications in the following areas: _______________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

o CSPD plan not approved and must be resubmitted with modifications in the following areas:

_____________________________________________________________________________

I have reviewed the CSPD plan and provided a copy of the recommendation above to the School Superintendent (LEA).

Signature _________________________________________________	Date _____________
BOCES District Superintendent (or designee) or SETRC Professional Development Specialist

Additional Comments:

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

Category B -	Letter informing district that issues leading to conditional approval must be addressed during next quarter. Flow-through funds may be delayed the following quarter.
Category C -	Letter informing district that issues leading to "Not Approved" must be addressed immediately. Immediate delay in the release of flow-through funds until status changed to "Approved."
Category D -	Letter of warning indicating that the release of flow-through funds will be delayed until CSPD is submitted and "Approved" or "Conditionally Approved" status achieved.
Category F -	Letter informing district that flow-through funds may be delayed the following quarter if the CSPD is not submitted by the date of the next quarterly payment.