Presentation on theme: "Rowan-Salisbury School District Continuous Improvement Performance Plan 2010-2011."— Presentation transcript:
Rowan-Salisbury School District Continuous Improvement Performance Plan 2010-2011
Focus improving education results “The primary focus of Federal and State monitoring activities shall be on improving education results and functional outcomes for all children with disabilities. ”
Monitoring Priorities 616(a)(3) The Secretary shall monitor States and require each state to monitor its LEAs using quantifiable indicators to measure performance in the following areas: 1. FAPE in the LRE 2. Disproportionality 3. Effective General Supervision
State Performance Plan Reporting 616(b)(2)(C) States must annually collect data in these priority areas to analyze the performance of each LEA. Each state must report annually to the Secretary on its performance under its performance plan. States must report annually to the public on the performance of each LEA on the identified targets in the state’s performance plan.
Indicator 4 Suspension/Expulsion Rates of suspension and expulsion of students with disabilities greater than 10 days in a school year that is twice the state average or greater. State Target 2007-08 = 8% of LEAs State Target 2008-09 = 8% of LEAs State Target 2009-10 = 6% of LEAs State Target was met. Baseline data was collected for 09-10.
Indicator 5 Least Restrictive Environment Percent of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21 served in regular, separate, or public, private, home or hospital settings.
Indicator 6 Least Restrictive Environment For Preschool Data for this indicator will be reported for the first time in February 2012.
Indicator 7 Preschool Outcomes Percent of preschool children with IEPs who demonstrate improvement in: Positive social-emotional skills, Acquisition and use of knowledge Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs.
Indicator 7 LEA Data PK with Improved... 08-09 Student changed growth trajectories in PK Program 08-09 Student was functioning like same aged peers when exiting PK 09-10 Student changed growth trajectories in PK Program 09-10 Student was functioning like same aged peers when exiting PK Social Emotional Skills 100%44%99%63% Use of Skills100%25%99%64% Appropriate Behavior100%50%95%65%
Indicator 8 Parent Involvement Percent of parents with a child receiving special education services who report that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving service and results for children with disabilities. State Target: 2009-10 = 40% RSS: 32% when sampled in 07-08 LEAs with less than 50,000 students are surveyed once every 5 years.
Indicator 9 Disproportionality in EC Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification. State Target - 0% of LEAs RSS - not disproportional
Indicator 10 Disproportionality by Category Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification. State target: 0% of LEAs RSS: not disproportional
Indicator 11 90 Day Timeline Percent of children referred for whom a referral was received and placement determined within 90 days. State Target2007-082008-092009-10 100%74.5%71.6%92.96%
Indicator 12 Part C to Part B Percent of children referred by Part C prior to age 3 and who are found eligible for Part B who receive special education and related services by their third birthday. State Target2007-082008-092009-10 100%92.1%62.1%79.71%
Indicator 13 IEPs and Postsecondary Goals Indicator 13: Percent of youth with IEPs aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes appropriate measurable postsecondary goals that are annually updated and based upon an age appropriate transition assessment, transition services, including courses of study, that will reasonably enable the student to meet those postsecondary goals, and annual IEP goals related to the student’s transition services needs. There also must be evidence that the student was invited to the IEP Team meeting where transition services are to be discussed and evidence that, if appropriate, a representative of any participating agency was invited to the IEP Team meeting with the prior consent of the parent or student who has reached the age of majority.
Indicator 13 IEPs and Postsecondary Goals State Target2007-082008-092009-10 100%97.7%100%
Indicator 14 Post-School Outcomes Percent of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school, and were: A. Enrolled in higher education within one year of leaving high school. B. Enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within one year of leaving high school. C. Enrolled in higher education or in some other postsecondary education or training program; or competitively employed or in some other employment within one year of leaving high school. State Target: baseline data was collected in 2009-10 RSS: was sampled in 2009-10 - 69%
Indicator 15 General Supervision Percent of compliance rate of Internal Record Review State Target2007-082008-092009-10 100%61%82.7%100%
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.