1. G-CASE Fall Conference November 14, 2013 Savannah, Ga
Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR): The Next Generation
G-CASE Fall Conference
November 14, 2013
Savannah, Ga
11/23/2018

2. History: State Performance Plan
In accordance with 20 U.S.C. 1416(b)(1), each state is required to have in place a performance plan evaluating the state's implementation of Part B and describing how the state would improve such implementation.
This plan, called the Part B State Performance Plan (SPP), had several indicators for which the state set targets and planned improvement activities.
11/23/2018

3. History: Annual Performance Report
In accordance with 20 U.S.C. 1416(2)(C)(ii) each state reports annually to the public and the Secretary on the performance of each of its LEAs according to the targets in its SPP.
This report, called the Part B Annual Performance Report (APR), provides data and descriptions for the improvement activities for each indicator in the SPP and outlines the progress the state is making in each area.
11/23/2018

4. History: Public Reporting
The state reports annually to the public on the performance of each LEA on the targets in the SPP on the GaDOE website.
The SPP and APR are posted on the Special Education Services and Supports website.
The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) responds to the state’s SPP and APR and posts the APR and response letter’s on its website.
11/23/2018

5. History: Determinations
Used compliance data and percentage criteria for meeting specific compliance indicators.
Determinations:
Meets Requirements
Needs Assistance
Needs Intervention
Needs Substantial Intervention
11/23/2018

6. OSEP Implements RDA (Results Driven Accountability)
Move from HEAVY emphasis on compliance to a balance approach that considers results as well as compliance.
Determinations based on compliance AND RESULTS
New SPP/APR (FFY )
Reduces data collection and reporting burden
Focus = educational results and functional outcomes
Uses a compliance matrix
State used similar for determinations
Results data used in Determinations
11/23/2018

7. Baseline Year: Submitted 2015 (2013-2014 SY)
Remove Reporting for Indicators 15, 16, 17 and 20
Report only on slippage when the State did not meet its target
No requirement to report on progress
Online submission system
Adding NEW Indicator 17
11/23/2018

8. Indicator 17: State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP)
INDICATOR: The State’s SPP/APR includes a State Systemic Improvement Plan that meets the requirements set forth for this indicator.
 MEASUREMENT: The State’s SPP/APR includes a comprehensive, multi-year State Systemic Improvement Plan, focused on improving results for children and youth with disabilities and their families.

9. State Systemic Improvement Plan
Basis for this plan is a detailed data and infrastructure analysis that will guide the development of the strategies to increase the State’s capacity to structure and lead meaningful change in LEA's

10. State Systemic Improvement Plan
While the primary focus of SSIP is on improvement of children and youth outcomes, the State must also address in its SSIP how the State will use its general supervision systems to improve implementation of the requirements of Part B of the IDEA.

11. Why SSIP? Why Now?
The focus has shifted to improving outcomes for all children and youth and accountability is intensifying at multiple levels
National
State
Regional
Local

12. The Good News….
For over 30 years, there has been a strong focus on regulatory compliance with the IDEA and Federal regulations for early intervention and special education
OSEP
States
Districts/Programs
As a result, compliance has improved!

13. But…
States are not seeing improved results for children and youth with disabilities:
Young children are not coming to Kindergarten prepared to learn
In many locations, a significant achievement gap exists between students with disabilities and their general education peers
Students are dropping out of school
Many students who do graduate with a regular education diploma are not college and career ready
Michael Yudin, Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services

14. State Systemic Improvement Plan
4 Areas of
February 2015 Submission
State Systemic Improvement Plan
Phase I Components

15. Data Analysis Component
Description of process for identifying and analyzing key data, including data from SPP/APR indicators, to determine the areas for improvement.
The description must:
include information about how the data were disaggregated in order to identify areas for improvement.

16. Data Analysis Component
The description must:
include any concerns about the quality of the data and how the State will address this, as well as methods and timelines to collect additional data that may be needed to inform areas for improvement.

17. Data Analysis Component
As part of its data analysis, the State must determine if there are any compliance issues that present barriers to achieving improved results for children and youth with disabilities.

18. Infrastructure Analysis Professional Development
Broad
Infrastructure Analysis
Governance
Fiscal
Quality Standards
Professional Development
Data
Technical Assistance
Accountability
11/23/2018

19. Infrastructure Analysis
A description of how the State analyzed the capacity of its current system to support improvement and build capacity in LEA's and local programs to implement, scale up, and sustain evidence-based practices to improve results for children and youth with disabilities, and the results of this analysis.

20. Infrastructure Analysis
The description must include
the strengths of the system,
how components of the system are coordinated, and
areas for improvement within and across components of the system.

21. Infrastructure Analysis
The description must also include an analysis of initiatives in the State, including
initiatives in general education and other areas beyond special education, which can have an impact on children and youth with disabilities.
how decisions are made within the State system and the representatives (e.g., agencies, positions, individuals) that must be involved in planning for systematic improvements in the State system.

22. Focus for Improvement
Description of improvement strategies on which the State will focus, that will lead to a measurable child-based result.
The State must include in the description how the data analysis led to the identification of the area on which the State will focus.

23. Focus for Improvement
The State must demonstrate how addressing this area of focus for improvement will build LEA's and local programs’ capacity to improve the identified result for children and youth with disabilities.

24. Theory of Action
Based on the data analysis and infrastructure analysis, the State must describe the general improvement strategies that will need to be carried out and the outcomes that will need to be met to achieve the State-identified, measurable improvement in results for children and youth with disabilities.

25. Theory of Action
Based The State must include in the description the changes in the State system, LEA's and local programs, and school and provider practices that must occur to achieve the State-identified, measurable improvement in results for children and youth with disabilities.
States should consider developing a logic model that shows the relationship between the activities and the outcomes that the State expects to achieve over a multi-year period.

26. The Task At Hand
The development and implementation of the SSIP will require strong collaboration with internal and external partners.
The SSIP will be submitted in three phases described below.
11/23/2018

27. Proposed SSIP Activities by Phase
Year 1 - FFY 2013
Delivered by Feb 2015
Year 2 - FFY 2014
Delivered by Feb 2016
Years 3-6
FFY
Feb Feb 2020
Phase I
Analysis
Phase II
Planning
Phase III
Evaluation
Implementation
Data Analysis;
Identification of the Focus for Improvement;
Infrastructure to Support Improvement and Build Capacity;
Theory of Action
Infrastructure Development;
Support for EIS Program/LEA in Implementing Evidence-Based Practices;
Evaluation Plan
Results of Ongoing Evaluation
Extent of Progress
Revisions to the SPP
Source: Western Regional Resource Center.

28. Slide Contributions/Resources
Kim Hartsell, Southeast Regional Resource Center (SERCC),
Western Regional Resource Center
11/23/2018

29. Contact Information for SPP/APR:
K. Elise James
Program Specialist
Program Evaluation and Development
Georgia Department of Education
11/23/2018