CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Special Education State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report Moving To Results-Driven Accountability June 2013

TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction Agenda IDEA Monitoring and Reporting Results-Driven Accountability Revisions to the State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report State Systemic Improvement Plan Timeline 2

TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction Currently, the Office of Special Education Programs’ (OSEP) monitoring requirements focus on whether LEAs are complying with IDEA when serving students with disabilities – often referred to as a “compliance model” IDEA Monitoring and Reporting 3

TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction IDEA Monitoring and Reporting The current requirements for monitoring and reporting compliance with IDEA are identified via the 20 indicators in the State Performance Plan (SPP) and the Annual Performance Report (APR) 4

TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction Monitoring and Reporting OSEP is increasing the emphasis of its monitoring and reporting requirements toward determining whether services being provided to students with disabilities are effective in improving the educational and functional outcomes for students, while still maintaining most of the compliance requirements 5

TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction Monitoring and Reporting OSEP has termed this approach “Results-Driven Accountability” (RDA) OSEP has made significant revisions to the monitoring and reporting process (SPP and APR) in order to align with the new focus on RDA 6

TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction The revisions are guided by the following principles – 1. Align with the principles of Results Driven Accountability (RDA), i.e., focus on those things that are most likely to impact improved educational results and functional outcomes for students with disabilities Revisions to the SPP and APR 7

TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction Revisions to the SPP and APR 2. Reduce reporting burden by only requiring information that is prescribed by statute and regulation, or information that is directly linked to improved educational outcomes and functional results for students with disabilities 3. Maintain data sources and measurements unless absolutely necessary 8

TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction 1. Align with the Principles of RDA The revisions by OSEP to address RDA include: A focus on three results indicators: –Indicator 1: Graduation Rates –Indicator 3: Assessment –Indicator 14: Post Secondary Outcomes The inclusion of a new indicator: –Indicator 17: The State Systemic Improvement Plan 9

TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction Indicator 17: State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) A comprehensive, multi-year plan for improving results for students, which includes three phases: Phase 1: FFY (Reported in February 2015) –Data analysis –Identification of the focus for improvement –Infrastructure to support improvement and build capacity –Theory of Action 10

TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction Indicator 17: SSIP Phase 2: FFY (Reported in February 2016) –Infrastructure development –Support for local agency implementation of evidenced-based practices –Evaluation plan Phase 3: FFY , , , (Reported in February 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 respectively) –Results of ongoing evaluation and revisions to the SPP/APR 11

TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction 2. Reduce Reporting Burden OSEP has designed one report document that includes both SPP and APR information and eliminates the reporting of the following compliance indicators… Indicator 15: Timely Correction of Noncompliance (this a duplication of data reported under indicators 4B, 9, 10, 11,12, and 13) Indicator 16: Complaints (60 day timeline) 12

TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction 2. Reduce Reporting Burden The new SPP/APR also eliminates: Indicator 17: Due Process (45 day timeline) Indicator 20: Timely and Accurate Data (OSEP will evaluate California’s performance on required submissions) 13

TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction New SPP/APR Report The new single document identified as the SPP/APR will include: A detailed introduction that describes the systems designed to drive improved results for students with disabilities –General Supervision System –Technical Assistance System –Professional Development System –Stakeholder involvement –Reporting to the public 14

TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction New SPP/APR Report Targets for each indicator, determined with stakeholder input, which covers the years FFY 2013 through FFY 2018 Data for all indicators Explanation of slippage in indicators The State Systemic Improvement Plan (Indicator 17) 15

TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction 3. Maintain Data Sources Maintains Indicators 1-14 as they currently exist Renumbers Indicators 18 (Mediation) and 19 (Resolution Sessions) to 15 and 16, respectively It is undetermined at this time if Indicator 17, the SSIP, will require any new data sources 16

TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction Timeline The FFY 2012 SPP and APR (Program year ), to be submitted to OSEP on Feb. 1, 2014, will be based on the current SPP and APR format The FFY 2013 SPP/APR (Program year ), to be submitted to OSEP on Feb. 1, 2015, in the new single document format and will include Indicator 17 SSIP Phase 1 requirements 17

TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction Timeline The FFY 2014 SPP/APR (Program year ), to be submitted to OSEP on Feb. 1, 2016 will include Indicator 17 SSIP Phase 2 requirements The FFY 2015 SPP/APR (Program year ), to be submitted to OSEP on Feb. 1, 2017 will include Indicator 17 SSIP Phase 3 requirements The FFY 2016, 2017, and 2018 SPP/APR will include all phases of Indicator 17 18

TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction Questions 19