Special Education Annual Performance Report Presented by: Jody A. Fields, Ph.D Special Education Data Summit, June 15-16, 2015 Holiday Inn Airport Conference Center, Little Rock, AR

Trivia 1 How many indicators are reported on the local education agency (LEA) Annual Performance Report? 5 points

Section 616 of IDEA SEC > MONITORING, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT. (b) State Performance Plans.-- (1) Plan.— (A) …each State shall have in place a performance plan that evaluates that State's efforts to implement the requirements and purposes of this part and describes how the State will improve such implementation. (B) Submission for approval.--Each State shall submit the State's performance plan to the Secretary for approval in accordance with the approval process described in subsection (c). (C) …Review.--Each State shall review its State performance plan at least once every 6 years and submit any amendments to the Secretary.

Section 616 of IDEA (2) Targets.-- (A) In general.--As a part of the State performance plan described under paragraph (1), each State shall establish measurable and rigorous targets for the indicators established under the priority areas described in subsection (a)(3). (B) Data collection.-- (i) In general.--Each State shall collect valid and reliable information as needed to report annually to the Secretary on the priority areas described in subsection (a)(3). (ii) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize the development of a nationwide database of personally identifiable information on individuals involved in studies or other collections of data under this part.

Trivia 1 Answer 1. Graduation2. Dropout3. Assessment A-C 4. Discipline A-B 5. SA LRE A-C 6. EC LRE A-B 7. EC Outcomes A-B x 3 8. Family Outcomes 9. Disproportionality - Identification 10. Disproportionality - Disability 11. Child Find12. C to B Transition 13. Secondary Transition 14. Post-school Outcomes Timely and Accurate Reporting

Section 616 of IDEA (2) Targets.-- (C) Public reporting and privacy.-- (i) In general.--The State shall use the targets established in the plan and priority areas described in subsection (a)(3) to analyze the performance of each local educational agency in the State in implementing this part. (ii) Report.— (I) Public report.--The State shall report annually to the public on the performance of each local educational agency located in the State on the targets in the State's performance plan. The State shall make the State's performance plan available through public means, including by posting on the website of the State educational agency, distribution to the media, and distribution through public agencies. (II) State performance report.-- The State shall report annually to the Secretary on the performance of the State under the State's performance plan. (iii) Privacy.--The State shall not report to the public or the Secretary any information on performance that would result in the disclosure of personally identifiable information about individual children or where the available data is insufficient to yield statistically reliable information.

Trivia 2 There are four related indicators that when you sum their indicator numbers together they equal 30. What are the name the four indicators (number or name)? 4 points for 4; 3 points for 3; 2 points for 2; 1 point for 1

Indicator 1: Graduation Results indicator: Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma. (20 U.S.C (a)(3)(A)) Calculation: – The four-year graduation rate follows a cohort, or a group of students, who begin as first-time 9th graders in a particular school year and who graduate with a regular high school diploma in four years or less. – The cohort is "adjusted" by adding any students transferring into the cohort and by subtracting any students who transfers out, emigrate to another country, or die during the years covered by the rate. – All subcategories are identified in their initial 9 th grade year except race which identified at 12 th grade.

Indicator 1: Graduation FFY Target ≥ 88.00%89.00%77.00% 85.00% Data87.49%94.15%90.18%81.42% 75.76%75.31%79.15% Number of youth with IEPs in the current year's adjusted cohort graduating with a regular diploma Number of youth with IEPs in the current year's adjusted cohort eligible to graduate FFY 2012 Data FFY 2013 Target FFY 2013 Data 2,6813, %85.00%80.44% Historical Data FFY 2013 SPP/APR Data FFY Target ≥85.00% SPP/APR Targets

Trivia 2 Answer 1. Graduation2. Dropout13. Secondary Transition 14. Post-school Outcomes

Indicator 2: Dropout Results indicator: Results indicator: Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high school. (20 U.S.C (a)(3)(A)) Calculations: Option 1: States must report a percentage using the number of youth with IEPs (ages 14-21) who exited special education due to dropping out in the numerator and the number of all youth with IEPs who left high school (ages 14-21) in the denominator. (Cycle 7 Data) Option 2: Use the annual event school dropout rate for students leaving a school in a single year determined in accordance with the National Center for Education Statistic's Common Core of Data. Data for this indicator are “lag” data. Describe the results of the State’s examination of the data for the year before the reporting year (e.g., for the FFY 2013 APR, use data from ), and compare the results to the target. (Cycle 3 Data)

Indicator 2: Dropout FFY Target ≤ 2.83%2.87% 4.25%4.20% Data2.59%3.51%3.37%4.28%3.66%3.06%2.92%2.62% Number of youth with IEPs (ages 14-21) who exited special education due to dropping out Total number of all youth with IEPs who left high school (ages 14-21) FFY 2012 Data FFY 2013 Target FFY 2013 Data 43322, %2.77%1.97% Historical Data FFY 2013 SPP/APR Data FFY Target ≤2.77%2.62%2.54%2.29%2.14%1.98% SPP/APR Targets

Trivia 3 Early childhood has how many indicators reported in the LEA APR Report? 5 points

Indicator 3: Assessment Results indicator: Participation and performance of children with IEPs on Statewide assessments: A.Percent of the districts with a disability subgroup that meets the State’s minimum “n” size that meet the State’s AYP/AMO targets for the disability subgroup. B.Participation rate for children with IEPs. C.Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level, modified and alternate academic achievement standards.

Indicator 3A: Districts Meeting AMO for Disability Subgroup Percent of the districts with a disability subgroup that meets the State’s minimum “n” size that meet the State’s AYP/AMO targets for the disability subgroup. Calculation: Based on the post-appeal data the Office of Innovation in Education at the UA runs the calculation on behalf of ADE Accountability Office State minimum “n” size is 25

Indicator 3A: Districts Meeting AMO for Disability Subgroup FFY Target ≥16.95%17.15% Data16.67%13.64%6.25%19.38%34.25% Number of districts in the State Number of districts that met the minimum "n" size Number of districts that meet the minimum "n" size AND met AMO FFY 2012 Data FFY 2013 Target FFY 2013 Data %17.16%1.59% Historical Data FFY 2013 SPP/APR Data FFY Target ≥17.16%17.65%18.14%18.63%19.12%19.61% SPP/APR Targets

Trivia 3 Answer 6. EC LRE A-B 7. EC Outcomes A-B x 3 8. Family Outcomes 11. Child Find12. C to B Transition Timely and Accurate Reporting

Indicator 3B: Participation Rate for Children with IEPs Percent of the children with IEPs participating in the statewide assessment Provide separate reading/language arts and mathematics participation rates, inclusive of all ESEA grades assessed (3-8 and high school), for children with IEPs. Only include children with disabilities who had an IEP at the time of testing. Calculation: Participation rate percent = [(# of children with IEPs participating in an assessment) divided by the (total # of children with IEPs enrolled during the testing window, calculated separately for reading and math)]. The participation rate is based on all children with IEPs, including both children with IEPs enrolled for a full academic year and those not enrolled for a full academic year.

Indicator 3B: Participation Rate for Children with IEPs FFY Targets for Reading and Mathematics ≥95.00% State Rate: Reading96.56%97.84%98.62%98.59%99.12%98.78%98.81%97.81% State Rate: Mathematics96.56%97.84%98.62%98.02%98.88%98.61% 97.69% Historical Data FFY Target s for Reading and Mathematics Participation ≥95.00% SPP/APR Targets

Indicator 3B: Participation Rate for Children with IEPs: Reading FFY 2013 Assessment Data Groups: Reading Reading assessment participation data by grade Grade345678HS a.Children with IEPs b. IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations c. IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations f. IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate standards Number of Children with IEPs Number of Children with IEPs participating FFY 2012 Data FFY 2013 Target FFY 2013 Data Reading 30,18229, %95.00%97.72% FFY 2013 SPP/APR Data: Reading

Indicator 3B: Participation Rate for Children with IEPs: Mathematics FFY 2013 Assessment Data Groups: Mathematics Mathematics assessment participation data by grade Grade345678HS a.Children with IEPs b. IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations c. IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations f. IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate standards Number of Children with IEPs Number of Children with IEPs participating FFY 2012 Data FFY 2013 Target FFY 2013 Data Mathematics32,67031, %95.00%96.91% FFY 2013 SPP/APR Data: Mathematics

Indicator 3C: Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level, modified and alternate academic achievement standards. Proficiency rate percent = ([(# of children with IEPs scoring at or above proficient against grade level, modified and alternate academic achievement standards) divided by the (total # of children with IEPs who received a valid score and for whom a proficiency level was assigned, and, calculated separately for reading and math)]. The proficiency rate includes both children with IEPs enrolled for a full academic year and those not enrolled for a full academic year.

Indicator 3C: Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level, modified and alternate academic achievement standards. FFY Targets for Reading ≥13.17%19.58%25.99%32.40%38.81%45.22% State Rate: Reading14.62%16.49%19.95%24.99%27.20%31.49%36.06%33.23% Targets for Mathematics ≥18.54%25.06%31.58%38.10%44.62%51.14% State Rate: Mathematics 18.98%24.81%30.86%38.29%42.56%44.86%45.42%42.09% Historical Data FFY Target s for Reading ≥ 31.27% 30.29% 32.27% 34.23% 36.19% 38.15% Targets for Mathematics ≥ 40.13% 38.17% 37.19% 39.15% 41.11% 43.07% SPP/APR Targets

Indicator 3C: Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level, modified and alternate academic achievement standards. Reading proficiency data by grade Grade345678HS a.Children with IEPs who received a valid score and a proficiency was assigned 4,5994,6264,5324,3824,1603,9463,248 b. IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations scored at or above proficient against grade level c.IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations scored at or above proficient against grade level f.IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate standards scored at or above proficient against grade level FFY 2013 Assessment Data Groups: Reading Children with IEPs who received a valid score and a proficiency was assigned Number of Children with IEPs Proficient FFY 2012 Data FFY 2013 Target FFY 2013 Data Reading9,51529, %31.27%32.26% FFY 2013 SPP/APR Data: Reading

Indicator 3C: Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level, modified and alternate academic achievement standards. Reading proficiency data by grade Grade HS a. Children with IEPs who received a valid score and a proficiency was assigned 4,5994,6264,5324,3824,1603,9463,248 b. IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations scored at or above proficient against grade level c. IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations scored at or above proficient against grade level f. IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate standards scored at or above proficient against grade level FFY 2013 Assessment Data Groups: Mathematics Children with IEPs who received a valid score and a proficiency was assigned Number of Children with IEPs Proficient FFY 2012 Data FFY 2013 Target FFY 2013 Data Mathematics 12,84231, % 40.13%40.56% FFY 2013 SPP/APR Data: Mathematics

Indicator 4: Suspension and Expulsion Results/compliance indicator: Rates of suspension and expulsion: A.Percent of districts that have a significant discrepancy in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs; and B.Percent of districts that have: a.a significant discrepancy, by race or ethnicity, in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs; and b.policies, procedures or practices that contribute to the significant discrepancy and do not comply with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards. Note: This measurement is for all students in K-12.

4A: Suspension and Expulsion Measurement: Percent = [(# of districts that have a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions for greater than 10 days in a school year of children with IEPs) divided by the (# of districts in the State)] times 100 This is a hybrid indicator. Part I: Identify districts as having a significant discrepancy. Rate of students receiving out-of-school suspensions/expulsion totaling greater than 10 days. Rate of special education – Rate of general education If special education’s rate is 1.36 percentage points higher than general education’s rate then the district is identified as having a significant discrepancy.

4A: Suspension and Expulsion Part II: Compliance…If the district is identified as having a significant discrepancy they… Must complete a review of their policies, procedures, and practices via the Special Education Disproportionality Self-Assessment tool Submit the tool the their ADE Special Education Area Supervisor District will receive notification of acceptance or non- acceptance of self-assessment content.

Indicator 4A: Percent of districts that have a significant discrepancy in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs FFY Target ≤ 7.59%7.11% 7.00%6.23% Data 9.06%7.57%11.76% 7.86%6.91%10.26%3.69% Number of districts that have a significant discrepancy Number of districts in the State FFY 2012 Data FFY 2013 Target FFY 2013 Data %5.77%4.65% Historical Data FFY 2013 SPP/APR Data FFY Target ≤5.77%5.43%5.11%4.78%4.45%4.12% SPP/APR Targets

Trivia 4 There are 3.5 indicators that address disproportionality; What are the indicator numbers and names of at least two of the indicators. (Number and name) 4 points for 3.5; 2 points for 2; 1 point for 1

Indicator 4B: Disproportionality in Suspension and Expulsion Compliance indicator: Rates of suspension and expulsion: Percent of districts that have: a.a significant discrepancy, by race or ethnicity, in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs; and b.policies, procedures or practices that contribute to the significant discrepancy and do not comply with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards.

Indicator 4B: Disproportionality in Suspension and Expulsion Measurement: Special Education by race the rate of student with IEPs suspended/ expelled for greater than 10 days General Education overall: the rate of general education students suspended suspended/expelled for greater than 10 days (not by race) Rate = Special education rate for Hispanic - General education rate for all races If the special education rate 4 percentage points higher than general education for a particular race then the district is identified as having a significant discrepancy in discipline for that race.

Trivia 4 Answer 4. Discipline A-B 9. Disproportionality - Identification 10. Disproportionality - Disability

Indicator 4B: Disproportionality in Suspension and Expulsion FFY Target 0.00% Data0.00% Number of districts that have a significant discrepancy, by race or ethnicity Number of those districts that have policies, procedures, or practices that contribute to the significant discrepancy and do not comply with requirements Number of districts in the State FFY 2012 Data FFY 2013 Target FFY 2013 Data % Historical Data FFY 2013 SPP/APR Data FFY Target0.00% SPP/APR Targets

Indicator 5: Education Environments (Children 6-21) Result Indicator: Percent of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21 served: A.Inside the regular class 80% or more of the day; Percent = [(# of children with IEPs served inside the regular class 80% or more of the day) divided by the (total # of students aged 6 through 21 with IEPs)] times 100. B.Inside the regular class less than 40% of the day; and Percent = [(# of children with IEPs served inside the regular class less than 40% of the day) divided by the (total # of students aged 6 through 21 with IEPs)] times 100. C.In separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A)) Percent = [(# of children with IEPs served in separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements) divided by the (total # of students aged 6 through 21 with IEPs)] times 100.

FFY A Target ≥ 48.91%51.49%54.29%56.93%59.77% Data 48.33%51.05%51.80%52.15%53.10%53.87%53.26%52.88% 5B Target ≤ 12.52% 12.51% Data 12.11%12.02%12.65%13.60%12.49%12.42%12.52%13.18% 5C Target ≤ 2.58%2.57% 2.56% Data 2.60%2.69%2.76%2.82% 2.80%2.70%2.57% Historical Data FFY Target A ≥ 53.97%55.93%57.89%59.85%61.81%63.77% Target B ≤ 12.99%13.62%13.03%12.64%12.16%12.00% Target C ≤ 2.55%2.53%2.49%2.46%2.43%2.40% SPP/APR Targets

Number of children with IEPs aged served Total number of children with IEPs aged FFY 2012 Data FFY 2013 Target FFY 2013 Data A.Number of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21 inside the regular class 80% or more of the day 27,844 52, % 53.97% 52.90% B. Number of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21 inside the regular class less than 40% of the day 7,049 52, % 12.99% 13.39% C. Number of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21 inside separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/ hospital placements 1,247 52, % 2.55% 2.37% FFY 2013 SPP/APR Data

Trivia 5 True or False A review of policies, procedures, and practices is required if an LEA was identified as having too many students in other educational settings. 3 points

Indicator 6: Preschool Environments Results indicator: Percent of children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs attending a: A.Regular early childhood program and receiving the majority of special education and related services in the regular early childhood program; and B.Separate special education class, separate school or residential facility. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A))

Indicator 6: Preschool Environments Column 1Column 2 Row set (A) CHILDREN ATTENDING A REGULAR EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAM AT LEAST 10 HRS PER WEEK, … (A1) … and RECEIVING the majority of hours of SPECIAL EDUCATION and related SERVICES in the REGULAR EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAM (A2) … and RECEIVING the majority of hours of SPECIAL EDUCATION and related SERVICES in some OTHER LOCATION Row Set (B) CHILDREN ATTENDING A REGULAR EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAM LESS THAN 10 HRS PER WEEK, … (B1) …and RECEIVING the majority of hours of SPECIAL EDUCATION and related SERVICES in the REGULAR EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAM (B2) …and RECEIVING the majority of hours of SPECIAL EDUCATION and related SERVICES in some OTHER LOCATION Row Set (C) CHILDREN ATTENDING A SPECIAL EDUCATION program (NOT in any regular early childhood program),... (C1) …specifically, a SEPARATE SPECIAL EDUCATION CLASS (C2) …specifically, a SEPARATE SCHOOL (C3) …specifically, a RESIDENTIAL FACILITY ROW Set (D) CHILDREN ATTENDING NEITHER A REGULAR EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAM NOR A SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAM (NOT INCLUDED IN ROW SETS A, B OR C) (D1) …and RECEIVING the majority of hours of SPECIAL EDUCATION and related SERVICES at HOME (D2) …and RECEIVING the majority of hours of SPECIAL EDUCATION and related SERVICES at the SERVICE PROVIDER LOCATION or some OTHER LOCATION not in any other category

Trivia 5 FALSE: In the APR, only Indicators 4A, 4B, 9 & 10 require a review of Policies, Procedures, and Practices

Indicator 6: Preschool Environments FFY A Target ≥ 31.50% Data 31.00%30.03% 6 B Target ≤ 27.13% Data 27.63%28.82% FFY Target A ≥31.01%31.99%32.97%33.95%34.93%35.94% Target B ≤29.80%30.78%30.30%29.83%28.61%26.65% Historical Data SPP/APR Targets

Indicator 6: Preschool Environments Number of children with IEPs aged 3 through 5 attending Total number of children with IEPs aged 3 through 5 FFY 2012 Data FFY 2013 Target FFY 2013 Data A. A regular early childhood program and receiving the majority of special education and related services in the regular early childhood program 3,622 12, % 31.01% 28.91% B.Separate special education class, separate school or residential facility 3,579 12, % 29.80% 28.57% FFY 2013 SPP/APR Data

Trivia 6 What indicators use data collected in the referral tracking module? 4 points Number and Name; 2 points for Number or Name; 1 point for Number or Name for one

Indicator 7: Preschool Outcomes Results indicator: Percent of preschool children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs who demonstrate improved: A.Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships); B.Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/ communication and early literacy); and C.Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs.

Indicator 7: Preschool Outcomes Indicator Measurement for Each Outcome Area A1.Of those preschool children who entered or exited the preschool program below age expectations in Outcome A, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program. (c+d)/(a+b+c+d) A2. The percent of preschool children who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome A by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program. (d+e)/(a+b+c+d+e) B1. Of those preschool children who entered or exited the preschool program below age expectations in Outcome A, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program. (c+d)/(a+b+c+d) B2. The percent of preschool children who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome A by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program. (d+e)/(a+b+c+d+e) C1. Of those preschool children who entered or exited the preschool program below age expectations in Outcome A, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program. (c+d)/(a+b+c+d) C2. The percent of preschool children who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome A by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program. (d+e)/(a+b+c+d+e)

Indicator 7: Preschool Outcomes FFY A1 Target ≥ 90.00%90.50% Data 89.56% 89.68%89.61%89.20%90.17% A2 Target ≥ 69.00%69.50% Data 68.61% 66.74%66.58%68.25%64.56% B1 Target ≥ 90.00%90.50% Data 89.64% 91.34%90.31%89.81%90.80% B2 Target ≥ 60.00%60.50% Data 59.74% 57.67%57.43%57.68%55.87% C1 Target ≥ 92.00%92.50% Data 91.68% 90.32%90.82%91.00%91.40% C2 Target ≥ 78.00%78.50% Data 77.81% 76.23%76.69%78.03%74.09% Historical Data FFY Target A1 ≥89.16%89.64%90.12%90.60%91.08%91.56% Target A2 ≥66.32%66.80%67.28%67.76%68.24%68.72% Target B1 ≥89.98%90.46%90.64%91.42%91.90%92.38% Target B2 ≥57.17%56.21%57.19%58.17%59.64%61.11% Target C1 ≥90.71%89.73%90.21%91.17%91.65%92.13% Target C2 ≥75.95%74.97%73.99%75.46%76.93%78.40% FFY FFY 2018 Targets

Trivia 6 Answer 11. Child Find – Timely Evaluation12. C to B Transition

Indicator 7: Preschool Outcomes Outcome A: Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships) Number of Children a.Preschool children who did not improve functioning132 b.Preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers 359 c. Preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it1,378 d. Preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers1,840 e. Preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers1,367 Numerator Denominator FFY 2012 Data FFY 2013 Target FFY 2013 Data A1. Of those preschool children who entered or exited the preschool program below age expectations in Outcome A, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program. (c+d)/(a+b+c+d) 3,218 3, % 89.16% 86.76% A2. The percent of preschool children who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome A by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program. (d+e)/(a+b+c+d+e) 3,207 5, % 66.32% 63.18% FFY 2013 SPP/APR Data

Indicator 7: Preschool Outcomes Outcome B: Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language and communication) Number of Children a. Preschool children who did not improve functioning110 b. Preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers 419 c. Preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it1,773 d.Preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers2,181 e. Preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers593 Numerator Denominator FFY 2012 Data FFY 2013 Target FFY 2013 Data B1. Of those preschool children who entered or exited the preschool program below age expectations in Outcome A, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program. (c+d)/(a+b+c+d) 3,954 4, % 89.98% 88.20% B2. The percent of preschool children who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome A by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program. (d+e)/(a+b+c+d+e) 2,774 5, % 57.17% 54.65% FFY 2013 SPP/APR Data

Indicator 7: Preschool Outcomes Outcome C: Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs Number of Children a. Preschool children who did not improve functioning90 b.Preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers 282 c. Preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it1,005 d. Preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers2,020 e. Preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers1,679 Numerator DenominatorFFY 2012 Data* FFY 2013 Target* FFY 2013 Data C1. Of those preschool children who entered or exited the preschool program below age expectations in Outcome A, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program. (c+d)/(a+b+c+d) 3,025 3, % 90.71% 89.05% C2. The percent of preschool children who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome A by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program. (d+e)/(a+b+c+d+e) 3,699 5, % 75.95% 72.87% FFY 2013 SPP/APR Data

Indicator 8: Parent Involvement Results Indicator: 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. Do you use a separate data collection methodology for preschool children? Yes Will you be providing the data for preschool children separately? Yes

Indicator 8: Parent Involvement FFY Preschool Target ≥ 84.00%85.00%86.00%87.00%88.00% Data82.92%88.50%87.60%90.90%84.90%90.50%92.71%92.57% School Age Target ≥ 93.00%94.50% 95.00%96.00% Data95.35%93.50%94.40%95.10%93.60%95.10%95.18%95.00% Historical Data FFY FFY 2018 Targets FFY Preschool Target ≥89.94%90.92%91.90%92.88%93.86%94.84% School-age Target ≥94.05%94.53%95.01%95.49%95.97%96.45%

Indicator 8: Parent Involvement Number of respondent parents who report schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities Total number of respondent parents of children with disabilities FY 2012 Data FY 2013 Target FFY 2013 Data Preschool4,5545, %89.94%90.02% School Age17,19518, %94.05%93.57% FFY 2013 SPP/APR Data Also required to determine if the survey responses are representative of child count by race and disability by race For information on completing and submitting family surveys check out the February IDEA Data & Research Newsletter at Join the newsletter notification

Trivia 7 What two indicators require an analysis of representativeness? 4 points for Number and Name of both; 2 points for Number or Name of both; 1 point for number or name of 1

Indicator 9: Disproportionate Representation Compliance indicator: Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification. This indicator has two components: Identification and Clearance via a review of policies, procedures, and practices.

Indicator 9: Disproportionate Representation How you get identified for Over-Representation A risk ratio methodology was used to determine if a district has disproportionate representation. District enrollment and special education child count data were examined and adjusted according to the following criteria. Students receiving services in a private residential treatment program are removed from the special education child count numbers and the district October 1 enrollment numbers for the selected year. Students in private residential treatment facilities are excluded because the State rules governing private residential treatment facilities state that a student belongs to the district where the facility is located; therefore, enrollment of such students would artificially increase the district’s special education child count and district wide enrollment. After the October 1 enrollment and December 1 child count is adjusted for students in private residential treatment facilities, weighted risk ratios are generated. Both risk ratios and weighted risk ratios are examined and the lowest value is selected as the districts risk for identifying students of a particular race for special education.

Trivia 7 Answer 8. Family Outcomes14. Post-School Outcomes

Indicator 9: Disproportionate Representation How you get identified? (cont) Risk ratios are considered invalid if (1) the district enrollment of a racial or ethnic group is less than 5% or (2) the number of students in a disability category is below 40. Once adjusted, Disproportionate Representation is defined as a district that has risk ratios greater than 4.00 for over-representation. In , 16 districts with an “N” size less than 40 were excluded from being identified for this indicator. Additionally, numerous districts were excluded using the 5% criteria for specific racial or ethnic categories. Zero districts were excluded from all categories.

FFY Target 0.00% Data0.00% Historical Data FFY FFY 2018 Targets FFY Target0.00% Number of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services Number of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification Number of districts that met the State’s minimum n-size FFY 2012 Data FFY 2013 Target FFY 2013 Data % FFY 2013 SPP/APR Data

Indicator 10: Disproportionate Representation in Specific Disability Categories Compliance indicator: Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification. This indicator has two components: Identification and Clearance via a review of policies, procedures, and practices.

Indicator 10: Disproportionate Representation in Specific Disability Categories How you get identified for Over-Representation There are six disability categories that must be examined under Indicator 10: Autism, Emotional Disturbance, Intellectual Disability, Other Health Impairments, Specific Learning Disabilities, and Speech Language Impairment. A risk ratio methodology was used to determine if a district had disproportionate representation within the six disabilities. However, the district enrollment and special education child count data were examined and adjusted according to the following criteria. Students receiving services in a private residential treatment program are removed from the special education child count numbers and the district October 1 enrollment numbers for the selected year. Students in private residential treatment facilities are excluded because the State rules governing private residential treatment facilities state that a student belongs to the district where the facility is located; therefore, enrollment of such students would artificially increase the district’s special education child count and district wide enrollment. After the October 1 enrollment and December 1 child count are adjusted for students in private residential treatment facilities, risk ratios are generated for each of the six disability categories.

FFY Target 0.00% Data0.00% Historical Data FFY FFY 2018 Targets FFY Target0.00% Number of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services Number of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification Number of districts that met the State’s minimum n-size FFY 2012 Data FFY 2013 Target FFY 2013 Data % FFY 2013 SPP/APR Data

Trivia 8 What are the two types of indicators in the APR? 4 points for 2 of 2 1 point for 1 of 2

Indicator 11: Child Find Compliance indicator: 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. Data Source: Referral Tracking

Indicator 11: Child Find A.# of children for whom parental consent to evaluate was received. B.# of children whose evaluations were completed within 60 days (or State-established timeline). Account for children included in (a), but not included in (b). Indicate the range of days beyond the timeline when the evaluation was completed and any reasons for the delays. Percent = [(b) divided by (a)] times 100.

Trivia 8 Answer Result indicatorsCompliance Indicators

FFY Target 100% Data91.91%98.93%97.69%98.50%99.00%99.41%99.42%99.60% Historical Data FFY FFY 2018 Targets FFY Target100.00% (a) Number of children for whom parental consent to evaluate was received (b) Number of children whose evaluations were completed within 60 days (or State- established timeline) FFY 2012 Data FFY 2013 Target FFY 2013 Data 17,03416, %100%99.62% FFY 2013 SPP/APR Data

Indicator 12: Early Childhood Transition Compliance indicator: Percent of children referred by Part C prior to age 3, who are found eligible for Part B, and who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays. Data Source: Referral Tracking

Trivia 9 The measurement for Indicator 11 states, children are to be 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. Does Arkansas have a state established timeframe? Y/N If yes, what is the timeframe? 3 points if correct

FFY Target 100% Data75.91%97.58%97.38%99.27%99.14%99.21%99.53%99.15% Historical Data FFY FFY 2018 Targets FFY Target100.00%

FFY 2013 SPP/APR Data a. Number of children who have been served in Part C and referred to Part B for Part B eligibility determination.834 b. Number of those referred determined to be NOT eligible and whose eligibility was determined prior to third birthday.106 c. Number of those found eligible who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays.696 d. Number for whom parent refusals to provide consent caused delays in evaluation or initial services or to whom exceptions under 34 CFR § (d) applied. 21 e. Number of children who were referred to Part C less than 90 days before their third birthdays.10 Numerator (c) Denominator (a- b-d-e) FFY 2012 Data FFY 2013 Target FFY 2013 Data Percent of children referred by Part C prior to age 3 who are found eligible for Part B, and who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays. [c/(a-b-d-e)]x % 100% 99.86% Number of children who have been served in Part C and referred to Part B for eligibility determination that are not included in b, c, d, e 1 Account for children included in (a), but not included in b, c, d, or e. Indicate the range of days beyond the third birthday when eligibility was determined and the IEP developed, and the reasons for the delays. One (1) Part C to B referral did not have eligibility determined prior to the third birthday and the child was found to be not eligible for services. The number of days beyond the third birthday was 12. A root cause analysis found that the eligibility determination delay was due to LEA error.

Trivia 9 Answer Yes, 60 days same as the federal timeline

Indicator 13: Secondary Transition Compliance indicator: 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: Secondary Transition Historical Data FFY FFY 2018 Targets FFY Target 100% Data 96.34%96.19%96.51%89.07% FFY Target100.00% FFY 2013 SPP/APR Data Number of youth aged 16 and above with IEPs that contain each of the required components for secondary transition Number of youth with IEPs aged 16 and above FFY 2012 Data FFY 2013 Target FFY 2013 Data %100%98.58%

Indicator 14: Post-school Outcomes Results indicator: 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.

Indicator 14: Post-school Outcomes Measurement: A.Percent enrolled in higher education = [(# of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school and were enrolled in higher education within one year of leaving high school) divided by the (# of respondent youth who are no longer in secondary school and had IEPs in effect at the time they left school)] times 100. B.Percent enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within one year of leaving high school = [(# of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school and were enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within one year of leaving high school) divided by the (# of respondent youth who are no longer in secondary school and had IEPs in effect at the time they left school)] times 100. C.Percent enrolled in higher education, or in some other postsecondary education or training program; or competitively employed or in some other employment = [(# of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school and were enrolled in higher education, or in some other postsecondary education or training program; or competitively employed or in some other employment) divided by the (# of respondent youth who are no longer in secondary school and had IEPs in effect at the time they left school)] times 100.

Indicator 14: Post-school Outcomes Data Collection: A dual collection of phone survey and administrative databases. Phone survey is contracted with LifeTrack Services, Inc. via Great River Education Cooperative Administrative data was provided by the Arkansas Department of Higher Education and Arkansas Department of Workforce Services for matching. The administrative data process is conducted by the Division of Research and Technology at the ADE. Additional MOUs are being developed to expand agency partnerships which could provide more post-school student information, as well as increases in response rate and representativeness.

Trivia 10 What indicator does the school district have zero responsibility in the data collection process? 4 points

Indicator 14: Post-school Outcomes FFY A Target ≥ 13.00% 13.15% Data 12.86%14.54%15.88%18.42% 14 B Target ≥ 49.00% 49.15% Data 48.55%49.52%42.95%43.88% 14 C Target ≥ 60.00% 60.15% Data 59.34%61.05%55.92%58.13% Historical Data FFY FFY 2018 Targets FFY Target A ≥ 13.35%13.84%14.33%14.82%15.31%15.80% Target B ≥ 49.04%49.53%50.02%50.51%51.00%51.49% Target C ≥ 59.36%60.14%60.92%61.70%62.48%63.26%

Indicator 14: Post-school Outcomes FFY 2013 SPP/APR Data Number of respondent youth who are no longer in secondary school and had IEPs in effect at the time they left school Number of respondent youth who enrolled in higher education within one year of leaving high school Number of respondent youth who competitively employed within one year of leaving high school Number of respondent youth enrolled in some other postsecondary education or training program within one year of leaving high school (but not enrolled in higher education or competitively employed) Number of respondent youth who are in some other employment within one year of leaving high school (but not enrolled in higher education, some other postsecondary education or training program, or competitively employed). 5 Number of respondent youth Number of respondent youth who are no longer in secondary school and had IEPs in effect at the time they left school FFY 2012 Data FFY 2013 Target FFY 2013 Data A.Enrolled in higher education (1) %13.35%18.17% B.Enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within one year of leaving high school (1 +2) % 49.04% 52.19% C. Enrolled in higher education, or in some other postsecondary education or training program; or competitively employed or in some other employment ( ) % 59.36%54.64%

Trivia 10 Answer Indicator 14: Post-school Outcomes

Other Requirements: Representativeness American Indian/ Alaskan Native Asian Black (non-Hispanic) Hispanic Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander White (non-Hispanic) Two or More Races Leavers 0.41% 37.98%7.38%0.14%53.01%0.68% Responders 0.58%0.38%36.47%6.53%0.00%55.47%0.58% Difference 0.17%-0.03%-1.51%-0.85%-0.14%2.46%-0.11% Racial/Ethnic Representativeness of Responders by Percentage Reason of Exit Representativeness of Responders by Percentage Graduated with a Regular Diploma Graduated with a Certificate Dropped Out Reached Maximum Age Leavers 86.89%1.09%11.89%0.14% Responders 89.64%0.58%9.60%0.19% Difference 2.75%-0.52%-2.29%0.06%

Indicator 14: Post-school Outcomes Other Requirements: Representativeness Disability Representativeness of Survey Responders by Percentages Autism Emotional Disturbance Deaf-Blindness Hearing Impaired Multiple Disabilities Mental Retardation Leavers4.64%2.60%0.00%0.96%3.28%13.39% Responders4.61%1.73%0.00%0.77%2.11%8.83% Difference-0.04%-0.87%0.00%-0.19%-1.17%-4.56% Other Health Impairment Orthopedic Impairment Speech/ Language Impairment Specific Learning Disability Traumatic Brain Injury Visual Impairment Leavers20.77%0.96%1.64%51.50%0.27%0.00% Responders22.07%0.96%1.92%56.81%0.19%0.00% Difference1.31%0.00%0.28%5.31%-0.08%0.00%

Timely and Accurate Reporting Includes: Cycle 4 Data: – Child Count – Educational Environment Cycle 7: – School Age Exits – EC Exits/Kindergarten Conference – EC Outcomes – Referral Tracking – Discipline Does not include: Cycle 4 Data: – Special Education Employees Cycle 7: – Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS) Compliance Indicator: District submitted required data elements on or before due dates; made revisions within the allotted review periods.

Who won!