1. 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

2. Indicators Indicator 1: Graduation Rate Indicator 2: Dropout Rate Indicator 3: AYP and ISAT Indicator 4: Suspensions and Expulsions Indicator 5: Educational Environments for Ages 6-21 Indicator 6: Educational Environments for Ages 3-5 Indicator 7: Early Childhood Outcomes Indicator 8: Parent Involvement Indicator 9: Disproportionality in Special Education Indicator 10: Disproportionality by Disability Indicator 11: Initial Eligibility 60- day Timeline Indicator 12: Early Childhood Transition Indicator 13: Secondary Transition Indicator 14: Post School Outcomes Indicator 15: Monitoring Correction of Noncompliance Indicator 16: Complaints Indicator 17: Hearings Indicator 18: Resolution Sessions Indicator 19: Mediation Indicator 20: Timely and Accurate Reporting

3. Our Past Performance There are ~146 districts in Idaho. There are ~ 282,000 students in Idaho (showing steady increase over last five years). We educate ~ 26,800 students with disabilities (showing a steady decrease over the last five years). That is about 9.5% of the student (ages 6 -12) population (compare to 10.1% in 2009-2010)

4. Exceptionalities Increases Deaf +13.0% OHI +10.7% CI +5.2% Autism +3.6% Multiple Disabilities +2.4% ED +0.1% Decreases Deaf/Blind – 40.0% TBI – 12.0% SLD – 9.7% OI – 6.7% Language – 5.3% VI – 5.0% DD – 2.6% Speech – 2.0% HI – 0.8%

5. The Trends

8. Indicator 1: Graduation Rate Indicator 2: Dropout Rate 89.2% SWD graduated in 2010 up from 88.8% in 2009 1.2% Dropout Rate in 2010 was an improvement over the 1.4% in 2009

9. Indicator 3: AYP and ISAT Participation –98.2% participated in the math assessment (drop from 99.0% in 2009) –98.3% participated in the reading assessment (drop from 100% in 2009) Performance –Math …. 40.37% proficient or better (drop from 41.66%) –Reading …. 50.68% proficient or better (improvement from 49.49%)

10. Indicator 3: AYP and ISAT Public Reporting http://apps.sde.idaho.gov/AYP/Home/Select (Note: use your arrow keys if clicking won’t work and type the first few letters, arrow down and hit enter twice)

11. Indicator 4: Suspensions and Expulsions 2010 - 2011 95 students suspended/expelled in 2010-2011 45 students suspended/expelled more than 10 days NO districts identified as having a significant discrepancy in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities based on race/ethnicity 2009 - 2010 140 students suspended/expelled in 2009-2010 96 suspended/expelled more than 10 days NO districts identified as having a significant discrepancy in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities based on race/ethnicity

12. Discussion The data for suspension & expulsion are due June 30 th of each year by each school in the district including alternative schools, charters, and non-traditional (evening). We (SDE) had some data retrieval problems this year – change in data collection platform (ISEE) Race/Ethnicity coding Determination findings Change in calculation formula

13. Indicator 5: Educational Environments for Ages 6-21 Education Environment Educational Placement Percent Served inside the Regular Class >= 80% of the day 62.3% Served inside the Regular Class < 40% of the day 10.8% Served in Separate Facilities1.7%

14. Placements

15. Indicator 7: Early Childhood Outcomes

17. Targets FFY 2009 (% of children) Actual FFY 2010 (% of children) Outcome C: Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome C, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they exited the program 91.2%91.5% The percent of children who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome C by the time they exited the program 67%68.8%

18. Indicator 8: Parent Involvement Percent of Parents at or above the Gold Standard Score by Exceptionality Student’s Primary Exceptionality Total ## Meeting Gold Standard % Meeting Gold Standard Learning Disability1033332%* (+1%) Cognitive Impairment381129% (-2%) Emotional Disturbance18317% (-18%) Speech or Language Impairment 843036%* (+1%) Autism Spectrum Disorder281036% (-3%) All other disabilities1124238%* (+5%)

19. Parent Involvement Considerations How do we increase parent response within the budget we currently have? How does the SDE and Districts increase “gold standard” with parents?

20. Indicator 9: Disproportionality in Special Education 146 districts reviewed (up 9 from 2009) 23 findings of over-/under- representation Addition of “two or more” category appears to be problematic

21. Indicator 9: Disproportionality in Special Education Almost direct correlation between under- reporting of Hispanic to over- reporting of “two or more” It IS a data coding problem. No district is non-compliant.

22. Indicator 10: Disproportionality by Disability The SDE examined data for every disability in every district (146) for all races and ethnicities, including both over- and under-representation. Twenty-one (21) districts were found to have over- or under-representation as described in the definition.

23. Indicator 10: Disproportionality by Disability Almost direct correlation between under- reporting of Hispanic to over- reporting of “two or more” across all disability categories. A data coding problem.

24. Discussion Correlation between Attendance Report (October) and Child Count – very much off for 2010. Appears to be better for 2011. Importance of reporting consistent race/ethnicity across the various data collections. Data verification will be made with EUDID codes.

25. Indicator 11: Initial Eligibility 60-day Timeline Number of children for whom parental consent to evaluate was received 4045 * Number of children whose evaluations were completed within 60 days (or State-established timeline) 3839 Percent of children with parental consent to evaluate, who were evaluated within 60 days (Percent = [(b) divided by (a)] times 100) 95% (94.907%) 18% decrease from 2009

26. Discussion Rebuilding the data collection platform Due date ____________

27. Indicator 12: Early Childhood Transition 98.35% of children referred by Part C were found eligible for Part B and had IEPs developed/implemented by their 3 rd birthday 9 student eligibilities were late (down from 15 in 2009) but corrected before initial analysis of the data.

28. Indicator 13: Secondary Transition Year Total number of youth aged 16 and above with an IEP Total number of youth aged 16 and above with an IEP that meets the requirements Percent of youth aged 16 and above with an IEP that meets the requirements FFY 2010 300 109 36% Note: the percent of compliance reported in the 2010 APR was incorrect and should have been reported as 36% as the baseline for Indictor 13 not 63%.

30. Indicator 14: Post School Outcomes Data taken for leavers during the 2009-2010 school year (486 Surveys)#% 1. Enrolled in higher education within one year of leaving high school10722% 2. Competitively employed within one year of leaving high school (but not enrolled in higher education) 9419% 3. 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 316% 4. 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) 14930% Total Engaged38178%

31. Indicator 14: Post School Outcomes Questions FFY 2009 FFY 2010 14. A Enrolled in higher education within one year17%22% 14. B Enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within one year 31%41% 14. C Enrolled in higher education, other postsecondary education or training, competitively employed, or in some other employment within one year 71%78%

32. Indicator 15: Monitoring Correction of Noncompliance FFYTargetActual 2005100 %93.0 % 2006100 %87.8 % 2007100 % 2008100 % 2009100% 2010100%___%

33. Correction of Noncompliance Discussion – March 9, 2012 OSEP Letter

34. Indicator 16: Complaints Complaints#% Complaints with reports issued14 Reports with findings of noncompliance 1393% Reports within timeline 1393% Reports within extended timelines 00% Total timely reports 1393%

35. Indicator 17: Hearings Hearings#% Number of hearings fully adjudicated4 Number of decisions within 45 days250% Number of decisions with extend timeline250% Number withdrawn or dismissed4 Number resolved with a resolution meeting agreement 2 Total number of hearings filed 8

36. Indicator 18: Resolution Sessions 100% (2 of 2) of hearing requests that went to resolution sessions were resolved through resolution sessions or settlement agreements.

37. Indicator 19: Mediation 88% (16 of 18) of mediations held resulted in mediation agreements (revision)

38. Indicator 20: Timely and Accurate Reporting FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target Actual Target Data for FFY 2010 2010 100% timely & accurate ____% The SDE experienced technical problems with a number of data collection and processing programs. In an audit of data for indicator 4, it was discovered that coding errors resulted in the reporting of erroneous data in the 618 Table 5 submission. These errors were corrected and 618 Table 5 was revised and resubmitted.

39. Overall No major slippage in any indicator! Changes in Monitoring & Compliance Verifications (‘subsequent’ correction v. ‘timely’ correction) Adding “Prong II” in the process