Nash-Rocky Mount Public Schools Programs for Exceptional Children State Performance Plan/ Annual Performance Report/Continuous Improvement Performance.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Changes to Administrative Rules Impacting Secondary Transition Florida Department of Education Dr. Eric J. Smith, Commissioner.
Advertisements

Disproportionality in Special Education
Erik McCormick Former OSEP Part B Data Manager September 29, 2006 Special Education Data – The Old, the New and the Huh?
Six Year Plan Meeting the state targets Region Meeting August 16, 2007.
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.
Rowan-Salisbury School District Continuous Improvement Performance Plan
B13 Secondary Transition Updates
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.
Continuous Improvement Monitoring System (CIMS) Indicator B13 Secondary Transition January 2015.
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!
Transition and Indicator 13 Writing Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) That Meet the Legal Mandate A Webinar Series Presented by The California Community.
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.
Presentation by Rebecca H. Cort, Deputy Commissioner Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities Statewide Briefing,
State Directors Conference Boise, ID, March 4, 2013 Cesar D’Agord Regional Resource Center Program WRRC – Western Region.
What Is TRANSITION & Transition PLANNING?
1 Early Childhood Special Education Connecticut State Department of Education Early Childhood Special Education Maria Synodi.
Continuous Improvement Performance Plan (CIPP) New Hanover County Schools Students with Disabilities Data Story.
Erin Arango-Escalante & Sandra Parker. EC Indicators At-a-Glance.
Special Education Annual Performance Report Presented by: Jody A. Fields, Ph.D Special Education Data Summit, June 15-16, 2015 Holiday Inn Airport.
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…
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.
1 Results for Students with Disabilities and School Year Data Report for the RSE-TASC Statewide Meeting May 2010.
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.
An Introduction to the State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report.
State Performance Plan (SPP) Annual Performance Report (APR) Dana Corriveau Bureau of Special Education Connecticut State Department of Education ConnCASEOctober.
July 2009 Copyright © 2009 Mississippi Department of Education State Performance Plan Annual Performance Report Indicators 8, 11, 12, 13, and 14 July 2009.
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.
State and Local Processes for Monitoring Educational Benefit
Educational Benefit Review (EBR)
1 Indicator 7 Child Outcomes: Changes & Updates June 2011 Indicator 7 Child Outcomes: Changes & Updates June 2011.
Texas State Performance Plan Data, Performance, Results TCASE Leadership Academy Fall 2008.
Presented by the Early Childhood Transition Program Priority Team August 11, 2010 Updated September 2010.
Special Ed Reporting 101 An Introduction to Special Education Data Reporting.
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.
Board of Education Meeting September 10, Special Education Quality Review - Monitor compliance related to programs and services provided to students.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction California Department of Education California Department of.
Improving Secondary Transition Services: Meeting the Requirements of Indicator 13 National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center.
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.
Cumberland County Schools Transition. Indicator 1 Graduation Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma is.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Monitoring in California Special Education Division California.
Educational Benefit Review (EBR) October Educational Benefit Review (EBR) Purpose Determine if the student’s IEP is reasonably calculated for the.
State Performance Plan ESC-2 Presentation For Superintendents September 19, 2007.
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.
Mission Possible: Planning a Successful Life for Students with Intellectual Disabilities TAC it up! VCU T/TAC May 2010.
STARS Changes In Special Education
Transition Outcomes Project Report Out Meeting
SECN – Transition Role Group Meeting
Presentation transcript:

Nash-Rocky Mount Public Schools Programs for Exceptional Children State Performance Plan/ Annual Performance Report/Continuous Improvement Performance Plan (SPP/APR/CIPP)

Focus “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.

Continuous Improvement Performance Plan (CIPP) Nash-Rocky Mount Data Story

Indicator 1 Graduation Data State Target: 80% NRMPS: 43.6% 2008– 2009 Data State Target: 80% NRMPS: 46.7% Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma.

Indicator 2 Drop Out 2007– 2008 Data State Target: 6.5% NRMPS: 11.8% 2008 – 2009 Data State Target: 6.0% NRMPS: Rate not calculated at this time Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high school.

Indicator 3 Assessment Participation and performance of children with disabilities on statewide assessment. State Target = 25% of LEAs meeting AYP State Target = 45% of LEAs meeting AYP NRMPS did not meet AYP.

Indicator 3 Assessment Participation/Reading Grade Grade Grade State Target NRMPS Data NRMPS Data

Indicator 3 Assessment Participation/Math Grade Grade Grade State Target NRMPS Data NRMPS Data

Indicator 3 Assessment Performance/Reading Grade Grade Grade State Target NRMPS Data NRMPS Data

Indicator 3 Assessment Performance/Math Grade Grade Grade State Target NRMPS Data NRMPS Data

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 = 8% of LEAs State Target = 8% NRMPS = 0 %

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 5 Least Restrictive Environment Regular63.6% Separate16.1% Public/ Private/ Home/ Hospital 2.1% State Targets: Regular62.6% Separate16.5% Public/ Private/ Home/ Hospital 2.1%

Indicator 5 Least Restrictive Environment NRMPS Data Data Regular56.8% Separate22.0% Public/ Private/ Home/ Hospital 0.7% Regular53.8% Separate20.6% Public/ Private/ Home/ Hospital 0.5%

Indicator 7 Preschool Outcomes Percent of preschool children with IEPs who demonstrate improvement in:  Positive social-emotional skills,  Acquisition and use of knowledge, and  Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs.

Indicator 7 Proposed State Targets Positive social- emotional skills SS 1 – 88.0%SS 2 – 57.5% Acquisition of knowledge SS 1 – 87.6%SS 2 – 55.1% Use of appropriate behaviors SS 1 – 87.9%SS 2 – 68.8%

Indicator 7 LEA Data Positive Social- Emotional Skills SS 1 – 77.0 %SS 2 – 54.0 % Acquisition of Knowledge SS 1 – 96.0 %SS 2 – 61.0 % Use of Appropriate Behaviors SS 1 – 71.0 %SS % 20

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: = 39.2% NRMPS Data: Not Sampled

Indicator 9 Disproportionality Spec Ed 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% State data indicated no LEA has significant disproportionate representation across all disability categories combined.

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% NRMPS: 0 %

Indicator Day Timeline Percent of children referred for whom a referral was received and placement determined within 90 days. State Target: 100% NRMPS % NRMPS %

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 Target: 100% NRMPS Data 85.0 % NRMPS Data 97.0 %

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 Target: 100% NRMPS Data 100 % NRMPS Data 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: = 75% NRMPS Data: Not Sampled

Indicator 15 General Supervision Part 1 Percent of noncompliance identified in the school year corrected within one year. State Target: 100% NRMPS Data 100 % NRMPS Data 100 %

Indicator 15 General Supervision Part 2 Percent of compliance rate of Internal Record Review. State Target: 100% NRMPS Data 100 % NRMPS Data 100 %

Questions?