Nash-Rocky Mount Public SchoolsPrograms 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 Reporting616(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 1Graduation

2007- 2008 DataState Target: 80%

NRMPS: 43.6%

2008– 2009 DataState Target: 80%

NRMPS: 46.7%

Percent of youth with IEPs graduating

from high school with a regular diploma.

Indicator 2Drop Out

2007– 2008 DataState Target: 6.5%

NRMPS: 11.8%

2008 – 2009 DataState Target: 6.0%

NRMPS:Rate not calculated at this

time

Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out

of high school.

Indicator 3Assessment

Participation and performance of children withdisabilities on statewide assessment.

State Target 2007-08 = 25% of LEAs meeting AYP

State Target 2008-09 = 45% of LEAs meeting AYP

NRMPS did not meet AYP.

Indicator 3Assessment Participation/Reading

Grade 07-08

3 99.5

4 98.8

5 97.5

6 86.2

7 94.0

8 95.7

10 100

Grade 08-09

3 95.0

4 95.0

5 95.0

6 95.0

7 95.0

8 95.0

10 95.0

Grade 08-09

3 99.3

4 100

5 100

6 99.3

7 98.5

8 93.1

10 64.5

State Target NRMPS

2007-08 Data

NRMPS

2008-09 Data

Indicator 3

Assessment Participation/Math

Grade 07-08

3 99.5

4 98.8

5 97.5

6 87.4

7 94.7

8 95.8

10 91.7

Grade 08-09

3 95.0

4 95.0

5 95.0

6 95.0

7 95.0

8 95.0

10 95.0

Grade 08-09

3 99.3

4 100

5 100

6 99.3

7 97.8

8 93.1

10 57.4

State Target NRMPS

2007-08 Data

NRMPS

2008-09 Data

Indicator 3Assessment Performance/Reading

Grade 07-08

3 19.5

4 25.5

5 19.5

6 14.3

7 13.5

8 20.9

10 12.2

Grade 08-09

3 43.2

4 43.2

5 43.2

6 43.2

7 43.2

8 43.2

10 38.5

Grade 08-09

3 29.9

4 28.1

5 21.6

6 27.5

7 25.2

8 28.1

10 12.8

State Target NRMPS

2007-08 Data

NRMPS

2008-09 Data

Indicator 3Assessment Performance/Math

Grade 07-08

3 41.3

4 38.7

5 26.8

6 22.4

7 25.5

8 27.0

10 36.0

Grade 08-09

3 77.2

4 77.2

5 77.2

6 77.2

7 77.2

8 77.2

10 68.4

Grade 08-09

3 51.0

4 42.5

5 42.5

6 40.1

7 39.6

8 46.3

10 33.3

State Target NRMPS

2007-08 Data

NRMPS

2008-09 Data

Indicator 4Suspension/Expulsion

Rates of suspension and expulsion ofstudents with disabilities greater than 10days in a school year that is twice thestate average or greater.

State Target 2007-08 = 8% of LEAsState Target 2008-09 = 8%

NRMPS = 0 %

Indicator 5Least Restrictive Environment

Percent of children with IEPs aged 6through 21 served in regular,

separate, or public, private, home or hospitalsettings.

Indicator 5Least Restrictive Environment

2008-09

Regular 63.6%

Separate 16.1%

Public/Private/Home/Hospital

2.1%

State Targets:

2007-08

Regular 62.6%

Separate 16.5%

Public/Private/Home/Hospital

2.1%

Indicator 5Least Restrictive Environment

NRMPS

2007-08 Data 2008-09 Data07-08

Regular 56.8%

Separate 22.0%

Public/Private/Home/Hospital

0.7%

08-09

Regular 53.8%

Separate 20.6%

Public/Private/Home/Hospital

0.5%

Indicator 7Preschool 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 2- 61.0 %

20

Indicator 8Parent 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: 2008-09 = 39.2%

NRMPS Data: Not Sampled

Indicator 9Disproportionality Spec Ed

Percent of districts with disproportionaterepresentation of racial and ethnic groupsin special education and related servicesthat is the result of inappropriate identification.

State Target 0%

State data indicated no LEA has significant disproportionate representation across alldisability categories combined.

Indicator 10Disproportionality by Category

Percent of districts with disproportionaterepresentation of racial and ethnic groupsin specific disability categories that is theresult of inappropriate identification.

State target: 0%NRMPS: 0 %

Indicator 1190 Day Timeline

Percent of children referred for whom areferral was received and placementdetermined within 90 days.

State Target: 100%

NRMPS 2007-2008

82.3 %

NRMPS2008-2009

86.3 %

Indicator 12Part C to Part B

Percent of children referred by Part C prior toage 3 and who are found eligible for Part B who receive special education and relatedservices by their third birthday.

State Target: 100%

NRMPS2007-08 Data

85.0 %

NRMPS2008-09 Data

97.0 %

Indicator 13IEPs 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 13IEPs and Postsecondary Goals

State Target: 100%

NRMPS2007-08 Data

100 % NRMPS

2008-09 Data100 %

Indicator 14Post-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: 2008-09 = 75%

NRMPS Data: Not Sampled

Indicator 15General Supervision Part 1

Percent of noncompliance identified in the

2007-2008 school year corrected within

one year.State Target: 100%

NRMPS 2007-08 Data

100 %

NRMPS2008-09 Data

100 %

Indicator 15General Supervision Part 2

Percent of compliance rate of InternalRecord Review.

State Target: 100%

NRMPS 2007-08 Data

100 %

NRMPS 2008-09 Data

100 %

Questions?