THE APR AND SPP--LINKING SPECIAL EDUCATION DATA TO ACCOUNTABILITY FOR EDUCATION RESULTS Building a Brighter Tomorrow through Positive and Progressive Leadership 2012 BIE Summer Learning Institute Colorado Convention Center Denver, Colorado June 12 & 13, 2012

The APR and SPP—Linking Special Education Data to Accountability for Education Results Presented by: Gloria J. Yepa and Dr. Eugene Thompson Division of Performance and Accountability Bureau of Indian Education

BIE Annual Performance Report Report on BIE’s progress on the BIE State Performance Plan Indicators applicable to the BIE are: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 Submitted 2/1/2012 to Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) Based on data

Indicator 1: Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma (results indicator). The BIE met its 2010 target of reducing the gap in the graduation rate between students with disabilities and all students by.5% over the previous year. SWDAllGap FFY %59.07%3.89% FFY %57.73%5.29% FFY %52.45%5.37%

Indicator 2: Percent of Youth with IEPs dropping out of high school (results indicator). The BIE did not meet its target that the drop-out rate of students with disabilities attending BIE operated high schools will not exceed 9.0%. FFY 2008 T #s /T DOs FFY 2009 T #s/T Dos FFY 2010 T #s/T DOsG or S SWD9.87 % 1,863/ %1,810/ %1,624/205No Gain All8.0812,224/ %13,460/ %13,017/142 8 Slipp age

Indicator 3: Participation and performance of children with IEPs on statewide assessments (results indicator): 3A: Percent of schools with a disability subgroup that meets the State’s minimum “n” size that meet the State’s AYP targets for the disability subgroup. Of the schools with sufficient “n” size for calculation, increase the amount of SWD subgroup achieving AYP by 3% over the previous year’s percentage (9%). The BIE met its target of the schools with sufficient “n” for calculation. Number of Schools Total # meeting the “n” size Total # meeting “n” size & met AYP Percent FFY %

3B: Participation rate for children with IEPs 3B: Participation rate for children with IEPs. The BIE did meet its target of 96% participation rate for Reading/LA and not met for Math. R/LAG - 3G - 4G - 5G- 6G - 7G - 8HSTotal T Asst % Asst Math T Asst % Asst

3C: Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level, modified and alternate academic achievement standards. The BIE did not meet its target in Reading/LA by reducing the gap by 20% (gap = 22.93%), results showed the gap increased by 0.55%; and the BIE did meet its target in Math by reducing the gap by 20% (gap = 13.64%), results showed the gap decreased by 4.27 %. R/LAFFY2008FFY2009MathFFY2008FFY2009 All37.55%39.45%33.26%30.48% SWD15.17%16.52%15.71%16.84% Gap22.38%22.93%17.55%13.64%

Indicator 4: Rates of suspension and expulsion: 4: Rates of Suspension and expulsion (results indicator): 4A: Percent of schools identified as having a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of children with IEPs for greater than 10 days in a school year. The BIE did not meet its target of no more than 2 of the BIE High Schools or 5 BIE elementary schools will report suspensions and expulsion rates greater than two times the BIE average for that group of schools. # of Schools with Significant Discrepancy for BIE Average Elementary Schools 06 High Schools13

Indicator 5: Percent of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21 served (results indicator): A. Inside the regular class 80% or more of the day; B. Inside the regular class less than 40% of the day; and C. In separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements

FFY 2008FFY 2009FFY 2010FFY 2010 Target % Inside regular class ≥ 80% Meets Target % Inside regular class ˂ 40% Meets Target % Served in separate setting Did Not Meet Target

Indicator 8: Percent of parents with a child receiving special education services who report that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities (results indicator). FFY 2010FFY 2010 Target Total Number of Parent Respondents 4,014 Number Reporting Schools Facilitated Their Involvement 1,529 Percentage Reporting Schools Facilitated Their Involvement 38.34%38.15%Meets Target

Indicator 11: Percent of children who were evaluated within 60 days of receiving parental consent for initial evaluation or, if the State establishes a timeframe within which the evaluation must be conducted, within that timeframe (compliance indicator). Number of children for whom parental consent to evaluate was received. 724 Number of children whose evaluations were completed within 60 days. 689 Percent of children with parental consent to evaluate, who were evaluated within 60 days. 95.0%The BIE did not meet the required 100% compliance.

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 (compliance indicator).

Files Reviewed# 100% Compliance % Compliance %The BIE did not meet the required 100% compliance

Indicator 14: Percent of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school, and were (results indicator): a. Enrolled in high 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 high education or in some other postsecondary education or training program; or competitively employed or in some other employment within one year of leafing high school.

CategoryNumberPercent Enrolled in higher education Engaged in competitive employment Enrolled in other postsecondary education or training Not in any of the above three categories Total Number of Respondents

CategoryNumber of Respondents Percent Number of Responders Measurement A: Percent of youth enrolled in higher education within one year of leaving high school met Measurement B: Measurement A + percent of youth competitively employed within one year of leaving high school met Measurement C: Measurement B + percent of youth enrolled in any other type of postsecondary education/training or employed in any other type of employment Not met

Indicator 15: General supervision system identifies and corrects noncompliance as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from identification (compliance indicator). FFY 2010 Identified Corrected Within One Year Number of Findings375 Findings Corrected Within One Year 285 Percent Corrected Within One Year 76.00%The BIE did not meet the required 100% compliance

Indicator 16: Percent of signed written complaints with reports issued that were resolved within 60-day timeline or a timeline extended for exceptional circumstances with respect to a particular complaint, or because the parent (or individual or organization) and the public agency agree to extend the time to engage in mediation or other alternative means of dispute resolution, if available in the State (compliance indicator).

Indicator 17: Percent of adjudicated due process hearing requests that were adjudicated within the 45-day timeline or a timeline that is properly extended by the hearing officer at the request of either party or in the case of an expedited hearing, within the required timelines (compliance indicator).

Indicator 18: Percent of hearing request that went to resolution sessions that were resolved through resolution session settlement agreements (compliance indicator). Indicator 19: Percent of mediations held that resulted in mediation agreements (results indicator).

Indicator#WithdrawnResolved within the required timelines ComplianceResults 16: State Complaint Investigation 3000%The BIE did not meet the required 100% Compliance 17: Due Process Hearings 4Did not have any fully adjudicated DPH 18: Resolution Sessions : Mediations303100%The BIE met target.

Indicator 20: State reported data (618 and State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report) are timely and accurate (compliance indicator). This was recalculated but have not been informed.

BIEs Determination of Schools for 2012 Based on specific criteria: Meets the requirements and purposes of IDEA Needs Assistance in implementing IDEA requirements Needs Intervention in implementing IDEA requirements Needs Substantial Intervention in implementing IDEA requirements

The BIE Picture (Based on SY data) 2012 Part B IDEA Determinations No. of Schools Percent Meets Requirements12170% Needs Assistance2615% NA2, 3, 4, 62012% Needs Intervention53% Needs Substantial Intervention 11% TOTAL173

2012 Levels of Determination (based on SY data) ADD-NavajoMRNANA2NA3NA4NINSI Arizona Navajo Central Arizona Navajo North Arizona Navajo South 0701 NM Navajo Central NM Navajo North NM Navajo South TOTAL = % 08 14% 06 10% 04 7% 01 2% 02 3% 01 2%

2012 Levels of Determination (based on SY data) ADD--WestMRNANA2NA6NI Arizona North Arizona South 1001 Billings 01 New Mexico North 0501 New Mexico South 0801 Sacramento 02 Seattle TOTAL = % 09 17% 04 8% 01 2% 01 2%

2012 Levels of Determination (based on SY data) ADD—EastMRNANA2NA3NA4NI Cheyenne River 0301 Crow Creek-Lower Brule 06 Minneapolis 0902 Oklahoma 0201 Pine Ridge 0502 Rosebud 01 South & Eastern Standing Rock 0301 Turtle Mountain TOTAL = % 10 16% 03 5% 01 2% 01 2% 01 2%