Transcript

00:00:01.52
>> You're listening to A Date with Data with your host, Amy Bitterman.

00:00:07.34
>> Hey, it's Amy, and I'm so excited to be hosting A Date with Data. I'll be chatting with state and district special education staff who, just like you, are dealing with IDEA data every day.

00:00:19.50
>> A Date with Data is brought to you by the IDEA Data Center.

00:00:24.61
>> Hello, welcome to A Date with Data. With Differentiated Monitoring and Support—or DMS 2.0—in full swing, and the general supervision Q&A from OSEP released in July 2023, general supervision is a high-priority area for all states.

>> Today I’m joined by Leah Voorhies, Assistant Superintendent of Student Support and State Director of Special Education, and LauraLee Gillespie, Special Education Coordinator for the Utah Program Improvement Planning System (UPIPS), both from the Utah State Board of Education.

>> They’re here to share the story of Utah’s general supervision system—how they use it to monitor and support LEAs across the state. Welcome, Leah and LauraLee. Thank you for being here.

00:01:24.09
>> Thank you.

00:01:25.10
>> Thank you for having us.

00:01:26.52
>> Of course! Can you start by briefly introducing yourselves and describing your roles?

00:01:33.38 — Leah Voorhies
>> I'm Leah Voorhies. I've been the Assistant Superintendent and State Director for about eight years. Before that, I served as Special Education Coordinator for six years. I’ve worked on improving and implementing general supervision systems in Utah—at both LEA and state levels—for 22 years.

00:02:08.98
>> Mmm, you have a long history with this work.

00:02:13.10 — LauraLee Gillespie
>> I'm LauraLee Gillespie. I've been with the state for six years, focusing on program improvement and compliance. Before joining the state, I worked at the Disability Law Center—Utah’s protection and advocacy agency—representing parents of students with disabilities in special education.

00:02:39.38
>> Great. I want to start with the data-focused areas of your general supervision system—SPP/APR, results and process data, and LEA determinations. Can you describe what you do in these areas?

00:03:00.75 — LauraLee
>> I’ll start. We focus heavily on data—indicator data from the APR, state-level data, and LEA-level data. In Utah, districts and charter schools are all public schools, so we refer to all of them simply as LEAs.

>> A few priority areas include:

• Post-secondary transition planning
• Inclusive practices and effective instruction
• Educational benefit reviews (we’re early in this work)

>> We want LEAs to understand the importance of monitoring progress over time and developing meaningful, rigorous IEPs.

>> Our LEA performance determinations are based on all 16 indicators. We aggregate the data into a score and issue a determination. We also calculate a results-driven accountability (risk) score, which includes Indicators 1–14 plus:

• Fiscal data
• Timely/accurate data submissions
• Program improvement plan completeness
• Corrective action history

>> The higher the risk, the more support we offer the LEA.

00:05:49.08
>> Yes, I wanted to ask about how the risk score feeds into your monitoring—how you decide which LEAs to monitor and when.

00:06:01.73 — LauraLee
>> We recently overhauled our process. We now use a six-year cycle—but it’s not a “you’re off the hook for six years” cycle. We tell LEAs we’ll come at least once every six years, but risk determines whether we come sooner.

>> We also consider:

• Targeted Support and Improvement (TSI) status
• Dispute resolution volume
• Hotline calls
• Fiscal concerns
• Specific student populations (e.g., youth in custody)

>> For indicators like 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 1% participation, monitoring is triggered primarily by data rather than risk.

00:08:18.61
>> Great. Through all these areas, how are stakeholders involved?

00:08:38.01 — Leah
>> Stakeholder feedback is important to us—not only because it’s required, but because Utah is small enough that we know all our major stakeholders personally.

>> Across the entire agency, we have standard procedures for collecting feedback. In special education, we go to stakeholders—we don’t require them to come to us. We meet regularly with:

• The Parent Training and Information Center
• PTA
• Disability Law Center
• The Legislative Coalition for People with Disabilities
• A statutory statewide disability policy committee
• Nonprofit organizations and state agencies

>> We also use focus groups and follow-up surveys.

00:11:47.06 — Leah
>> If we tried to roll something out that they hadn’t given feedback on, it wouldn’t go well. These are people we know well—partners and friends. Maintaining trust matters deeply.

00:12:40.64
>> Absolutely. What aspects of your general supervision work are you especially proud of?

00:12:51.33 — LauraLee
>> Several things:

1. Integrating practice and compliance

Our specialists—effective instruction, inclusion, behavior—join monitoring visits and conduct interviews. Staff often start nervous but end up building relationships and continuing conversations afterward.

2. On-site monitoring

Intentional relationship-building happens on site.

3. Real-time coaching

During Indicator 13 file reviews, our transition coach provides immediate guidance—helping LEAs improve both compliance and practice.

4. Educational benefit reviews

We’re early in this work, but it’s powerful. LEA staff see for themselves what needs to improve.

5. Internal capacity building

We run quarterly internal “general supervision sessions” for state staff. Everyone needs to understand our role, especially with new requirements like §300.201.

00:17:28.68 — Leah
>> Having a stable team has allowed us to be intentional with continuous improvement—internally, with LEAs, with stakeholders, and with higher-education programs preparing new teachers. Relationships make improvement possible.