An Introduction to the State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Compliance Monitoring Orientation. Monitoring Components Focus Site Review/Fiscal Monitoring SPAM.
Advertisements

Erik McCormick Former OSEP Part B Data Manager September 29, 2006 Special Education Data – The Old, the New and the Huh?
Updates in IDEA NCLB is the symbol of the paradigm shift to a new mission of universal high achievement From: All children will have universal access.
(Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act) and
1 10 pt 15 pt 20 pt 25 pt 5 pt 10 pt 15 pt 20 pt 25 pt 5 pt 10 pt 15 pt 20 pt 25 pt 5 pt 10 pt 15 pt 20 pt 25 pt 5 pt 10 pt 15 pt 20 pt 25 pt 5 pt Transition.
This document was developed by the National Post-School Outcomes Center, Eugene, Oregon, (funded by Cooperative Agreement Number H326U090001) with the.
Each Year, nationwide, 1.2 million students fail to graduate from high school!
Teaching and Learning Special Education Secondary Programs Transition Services.
Pre-test Please come in and complete your pre-test.
Special Education Director’s Conference Sept. 29, 2006 Prepared by Sharon Schumacher.
Early Childhood Transition Forums Sponsored by the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care, Department of Elementary and Secondary Education,
Special Education Data In the Era of Accountability & District Improvement Steve Smith ODE IDEA Data Manager Fall 2007.
State Directors Conference Boise, ID, March 4, 2013 Cesar D’Agord Regional Resource Center Program WRRC – Western Region.
Special Education Accountability Reviews Let’s put the pieces together March 25, 2015.
Special Ed. Administrator’s Academy, September 24, 2013 Monitoring and Program Effectiveness.
1 Overview of IDEA/SPP Early Childhood Transition Requirements Developed by NECTAC for the Early Childhood Transition Initiative (Updated February 2010)
1 Early Childhood Special Education Connecticut State Department of Education Early Childhood Special Education Maria Synodi.
Office for Exceptional Children Updates OAPSA February 6, 2015.
Continuous Improvement Performance Plan (CIPP) New Hanover County Schools Students with Disabilities Data Story.
Erin Arango-Escalante & Sandra Parker. EC Indicators At-a-Glance.
Systems Performance Review & Improvement (SPR&I) Training Oregon Department of Education Fall 2007.
Office of Special Programs WV Department of Education September 8, 2014 Office of Special Programs WV Department of Education September 8, 2014 Results.
2011 BIE SPECIAL EDUCATION ACADEMY SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 Strengthening Partnerships Between Special and General Education for Positive Student Outcomes TAMPA,
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Jack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction State Performance Plan (SPP) & Annual Performance Report.
Accountability for Results State Performance Plan improving educational results and functional outcomes for all children with disabilities…
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs Building the Legacy: IDEA General Supervision.
A Review of the Special Education Integrated Monitoring Process BIE Special Education Academy September 12-15, 2011 Tampa, Florida.
What does Indicator #13 say? Virginia Department of Education  “Percent of youth with IEPs aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes appropriate measurable.
Sarah Walters - Part C Coordinator KDHE Tiffany Smith - Part B ECSE Coordinator KSDE 1.
Early Childhood Education for ALL Young Children: A Look at the IDEA Six-Year State Performance Plan Susan Crowther IDEA, Part B, Section 619 Coordinator.
1 Accountability Conference Education Service Center, Region 20 September 16, 2009.
SPR&I: Changes, New Measures/Targets, and Lessons Learned from Focused Monitoring Visits David Guardino, SPR&I Coordinator Fall 2009 COSA Conference.
IDEA & Disproportionality Perry Williams, Ph.D. Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education.
Data Slides for Children & Students with IEPs in 2010 Michigan Department of Education Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services.
State Performance Plan (SPP) Annual Performance Report (APR) Dana Corriveau Bureau of Special Education Connecticut State Department of Education ConnCASEOctober.
Letter of Explanation Copy of Data Disproportionality Initial Eligibility 60-day Timeline Early Childhood Transition Secondary Transition Corrected and.
Nash-Rocky Mount Public Schools Programs for Exceptional Children State Performance Plan/ Annual Performance Report/Continuous Improvement Performance.
SPP/APR Updates June SPP – State Performance Plan –Establishes baseline data and sets targets through school year for 20 Indicators APR.
Richard Henderson Evelyn S. Johnson A NNUAL P ERFORMANCE R EPORT U PDATE Richard O’Dell Division of Special Education Idaho State Department of Education.
IDEA 2004 Part B Changes to the Indicator Measurement Table.
FROM COLLABORATIVE COMMUNITIES TO COMPLIANCE Zabrina Cannady and Robin Boutwell Houston County School District.
Texas State Performance Plan Data, Performance, Results TCASE Leadership Academy Fall 2008.
District Annual Determinations IDEA Part B Sections 616(a) and (e) A State must consider the following four factors: 1.Performance on compliance.
KETTLE MORAINE (KM) SCHOOL DISTRICT: Ryan Meyer.
1 State Performance Plan (SPP) Indicator # Measurement 1Graduation 2Dropout 3Statewide Assessments 4Suspension and Expulsion 5Least Restrictive Environment.
Spring 2010 Mississippi Department of Education Office of Instructional Enhancement and Internal Operations/Office of Special Education 1 SPP/APR Update.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction California Department of Education California Department of.
TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction State of California Annual Performance Report Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004.
Annual Desk Audit (ADA) March 31, 2015 Webinar. Agenda  Purpose/Introduction of the ADA  Indicator Reviews  With Five-year trends  Navigating the.
JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction Improving Special Education Services November 2010 Sacramento, CA SPP/APR Update.
July 2008 Copyright © 2008 Mississippi Department of Education SPP/APR MSIS Updates July 2008.
State Performance Plan/ Annual Performance Report/Continuous Improvement Performance Plan (SPP/APR/CIPP) Buncombe County Schools 2013.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Monitoring in California Special Education Division California.
Special Education Performance Profiles and SPP Compliance Indicator Reviews Office for Exceptional Children.
State Performance Plan ESC-2 Presentation For Superintendents September 19, 2007.
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs Building the Legacy: IDEA General Supervision.
March 23, SPECIAL EDUCATION ACCOUNTABILITY REVIEWS.
THE APR AND SPP--LINKING SPECIAL EDUCATION DATA TO ACCOUNTABILITY FOR EDUCATION RESULTS Building a Brighter Tomorrow through Positive and Progressive Leadership.
Continuous Improvement Performance Plan (CIPP) New Hanover County Schools Students with Disabilities Data Story.
Special Education School District Profile Slinger School District Lynda McTrusty.
Special Education General Supervision, Support and Compliance
What is “Annual Determination?”
Appleton Area School District
Milwaukee School District
Special Education Division Data Identified Noncompliance (DINC) Overview Presented by the Assessment, Evaluation, and Support Unit.
Guam Department of Education
Mission Possible: Planning a Successful Life for Students with Intellectual Disabilities TAC it up! VCU T/TAC May 2010.
SPR&I Regional Training
SECN – Transition Role Group Meeting
Special Ed. Administrator’s Academy, September 24, 2013
Presentation transcript:

An Introduction to the State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report

What is the State Performance Plan (SPP)? 34 CFR § (a) of IDEA 2004 states that “each State shall have in place a performance plan that evaluates that State’s efforts to implement the requirements and purposes of Part B of the Act and describes how the State will improve such implementation.”

What is the State Performance Plan (SPP)? § of the Federal Regulations for the implementation of IDEA 2004 specifies that each state must: Submit a State Performance Plan (SPP) Review the SPP at least once every six years Submit any amendments to the SPP

Components of General Supervision Monitoring SPP & State Goals with Measurable Targets Effective Policies and Procedures Data on Processes and Results Effective Dispute Resolution Integrated On-Site and Off-Site Monitoring Activities Improvement, Correction, Incentives and Sanctions Fiscal Management Targeted Technical Assistance and Professional Development

What is the Annual Performance Report (APR)? 34 CFR § (a) of the Federal Regulations for the Implementation of IDEA 2004 requires each state to issue an Annual Performance Report (APR) on 20 specific indicators.

State Performance Plan 20 Data are timely, valid, and reliable 15 Correction of noncompliance 14 Post School Outcomes 1 Graduation rate 11 Child Find timelines 3 Participation and Performance on Statewide & district Assessment 12 Part C to Part B transition 19 Mediation outcomes 9 Disproportionate representation 13 Secondary Transition 5 LRE Placement 18 Due Process complaint resolved 7 Preschool Skills 2 Drop out rate 17 Due Process Hearing Timelines 6 Preschool Settings 8 Parent Involvement 4 Suspension & Expulsion Rates 10 Disproportionate Representation in SpEd disability categories 16 State level complaint timelines

High Stakes The stakes for states are very high. OSEP Determinations OSEP Verification AU Determinations Unit Work State Performance Plan

Compliance or Performance? 20 Indicators of two types are required in the SPP ~ Compliance and Performance Nine Compliance Indicators ~ Indicators 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17 and 20 Eleven Performance Indicators ~ Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 14, 18, and 19

Compliance or Performance? Compliance Indicators are: 9 & 10 ~ Disproportionate representation 11 ~ Child find timeline 12 ~ Transition from Part C to Part B 13 ~ Secondary transition with measurable IEP goals 15 ~ Correction of Noncompliance 16 ~ State level complaint timelines 17 ~ Due Process hearing timelines 20 ~ Data are valid, reliable, and timely

Compliance or Performance Performance Indicators are : 1 & 2 ~ Graduation and Dropout Rates 3 ~ Performance/Participation on state & district assessments 4 ~ Suspension and Expulsion Rates 5 ~ LRE Placement 6 ~ Preschool Settings 7 ~ Preschool Skills 8 ~ Parent Involvement 14 ~ Post-school Outcomes 18 ~ Due Process Complaints Resolved 19 ~ Mediation Outcomes

Compliance Indicators

Indicator 15: Correction of noncompliance General supervision system identifies and corrects noncompliance within specified timeline, but no later than one year from identification Strategies to verify correction will align with strategies used to identify noncompliance 15 Correction of noncompliance

Indicator 20: Data Data is submitted in a timely manner and is both valid and reliable Includes December 1, End of Year, and other data sources and data requests 20 Data are valid, reliable, and timely

Indicator 9: Disproportionate Representation Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification. 9 Disproportionate representation in Special Ed

Indicator 9 Data Source AU submits December 1 count 20 Data are valid, reliable, and timely 9 Disproportionate representation in Special Ed

Indicator 10: Disproportionality Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification. Disproportionate representation in SpEd disability categories 10

Indicator 10 Data Source AU submits December 1 count 20 Data are valid, reliable, and timely Disproportionate representation in SpEd disability categories 10

Indicator 11: Initial Evaluation Timeline Percent of children who were evaluated within 60 days of receiving written parental consent for initial evaluation. Timeline starts when AU receives consent Timeline ends when AU completes evaluation report(s) 11 Child Find timeline

Indicator 11 Data Source AU submits End of Year Report 11 Child Find timeline 20 Data are valid, reliable, and timely

Indicator 12: Part C to Part B Transition 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 birthday. 12 Part C to Part B Transition

Indicator 12 Data Source AU submits End of Year Report 2 Drop out rate 12 Part C to Part B Transition 20 Data are valid, reliable, and timely

Indicator 13: Transition Requirements Percent of youth with IEPs aged 16 & above with an IEP that includes: Appropriate measurable postsecondary goals that are annually updated and based upon a transition assessment; Transition services, including courses of study that will reasonably enable the student to meet those postsecondary goals to 13 Secondary Transition

Indicator 13: Transition Requirements Percent of youth with IEPs aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes:  Annual IEP goals related to the student’s transition services needs;  Evidence that the student was invited to the IEP Team meeting where transition services are to be discussed 13 Secondary Transition

Indicator 13: Transition Requirements 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. 13 Secondary Transition

Indicator 13 Data Source CDE collects data through targeted student record review 20 Data are valid, reliable, and timely 13 Secondary Transition

Indicator 13 Correction CDE verifies correction of noncompliance within specified timeline, but no later than one year from identification 13 Secondary Transition 15 Compliance corrected

Performance Indicators

Indicator 1: Graduation Percentage of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular high school diploma 1 Graduation rate

Indicator 1 Data Source AU submits End of Year Report 1 Graduation rate 20 Data are valid, reliable, and timely

Indicator 2: Drop out rate Percent of youth with IEPs who ‘dropped- out,’ and includes those who ‘transferred, not known to be continuing’ 2 Drop out rate

Indicator 2 Data Source AU submits End of Year Report 2 Drop out rate 20 Data are valid, reliable, and timely

Indicator 3: Assessment Participation and Performance Participation and performance of children with disabilities on statewide assessments Percent of districts meeting AYP for progress for disability subgroup Participation rate for children with IEPs Proficiency rates for children with IEPs 3 Participation and Performance on statewide and district assessment

Indicator 3 Data Source CSAP and CSAPA data are used along with AYP calculations 7 Preschool Skills 20 Data are valid, reliable, and timely 3 Participation and Performance on statewide and district assessment

Indicator 4: Suspension and Expulsion Rates Percent of districts having significant discrepancy in the rates of expulsions and of suspensions greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs Percent of districts that have a significant discrepancy by race or ethnicity 4 Suspension and expulsion rates

Indicator 4 Data Source AU submits Suspension/Expulsion Report 4 Suspension and expulsion rates 20 Data are valid, reliable, and timely

Indicator 5: LRE Placement Percent of children age 6 through 21 with IEPs served in the general education classroom greater than 80% of the time; served inside the general education classroom less than 40% of the time; served in public or private separate schools, residential placements, or homebound or hospital placements 5 LRE Placement

Indicator 5 Data Source AU submits December 1 count 5 LRE Placement 20 Data are valid, reliable, and timely

Indicator 6: Preschool Settings Indicator 6 has not been clearly defined by OSEP. It will not be reported for the 2008 school year. 6 Preschool Settings

Indicator 7: Preschool Skills Percent of preschool children with IEPs who demonstrate improved:  Positive social/emotional skills  Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills  Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs 7 Preschool Skills

Indicator 7 Data Source Results Matter data 20 Data are valid, reliable, and timely 2 Drop out rate 7 Preschool Skills

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 services and results for children with disabilities. 8 Parent Involvement

Indicator 8 Data Source Parent Survey conducted by CDE 20 Data are valid, reliable, and timely 7 Preschool Skills 8 Parent Involvement

Indicator 14: Post School Outcomes Percent of students who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school and who have been employed, enrolled in postsecondary education, or both, within one year of leaving high school 14 Post School Outcomes

Indicator 14 Data Source AU collects and reports student contact information in the End of Year Report CDE conducts phone interviews with students one year following exit from high school 20 Data are valid, reliable, and timely 14 Post School Outcomes

Indicator 16: State Level Complaint Timelines Percent of signed written complaints with reports issued that were resolved within 60 day timeline Indicator 16 is a State-level compliance Indicator. 16 State level complaint timelines

Indicator 16 Data Source CDE maintains Dispute Resolution Database 20 Data are valid, reliable, and timely 16 State level complaint timelines

Indicator 17: Due Process Hearing Timelines Percent of fully adjudicated due process hearing requests that were fully adjudicated within the 45 day timeline Indicator 17 is a State-level compliance Indicator. 17 Due Process Hearing timelines

Indicator 17 Data Source CDE maintains Dispute Resolution Data Base 20 Data are valid, reliable, and timely 17 Due Process Hearing timelines

Indicator 18: Due Process Complaints Resolved Percent of hearing requests that went to resolution sessions, which were resolved through resolution session settlement agreements 18 Due Process complaints resolved

Indicator 18 Data Source CDE maintains Dispute Resolution Database 20 Data are valid, reliable, and timely 18 Due Process complaints resolved

Indicator 19: Mediation Outcomes Percent of mediations held that resulted in mediation agreements 19 Mediation outcomes

Indicator 19 Data Source CDE maintains Dispute Resolution Data Base 20 Data are valid, reliable, and timely 19 Mediation outcomes

34 CFR (b) requires that the State “report annually to the public on the performance of each LEA located in the State on the targets in the State Performance Plan.” Public reports for each AU’s/SOP’s performance on Indicators 1 through 14 can be found at: formanceprofiles.asp

Contact Information Sarah Cannon SPP/APR Coordinator Mary Greenwood Supervisor