results-driven accountability (rda )

Results-Driven Accountability (RDA)

State Directors ConferenceBoise, ID, March 4, 2013

Cesar D’AgordRegional Resource Center ProgramWRRC – Western Region

What do we know about RDA? How is RDA likely to impact your State?

How will it possibly impact your School district?

RDA…

“ The opinions and information expressed in this presentation do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) or the United States Department of Education (USDOE). No endorsement of OSEP or USDOE should be inferred."

A presentation prepared by OSEP, delivered nationally to all states via webinar on August 27, 2012

OSEP’s Memo 13-6, distributed to states on December 12, 2012 (12/12/12)

IDEA Section 618 Report to Congress data National Center on Educational Outcomes

(NCEO) materials WRRC materials and data calculations IDEA 2004

Data Sources for this Presentation:

improving educational results and functional outcomes for all children with disabilities

ensuring that States meet… the program requirements, with… emphasis on those most related to improving results

20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(2) Sec. 616(a)

The primary focus of Federal and State monitoring activities shall be on-

The Secretary shall monitor the States, and shall require each State to monitor the local educational agencies…using quantifiable indicators in each of the following priority areas…:

Sec. 616(a)

Monitoring Priorities

(A) Provision of a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. (B) State exercise of general supervisory authority, including child find, effective monitoring, the use of resolution sessions, mediation,…and a system of transition services. (C) Disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services to the extent the representation is the result of inappropriate identification. The Secretary shall consider other relevant information and data, including data provided by States under section 618

Monitoring Priorities

14. Post School Outcomes

1. Graduation Rates2. Dropout Rates

13. Post Secondary Transition

4. Suspensions/ Expulsions

3. Participation and Performance on

Statewide Assessments

6. Pre-School Educational Settings

5. Educational Settings

7. Early Childhood Outcomes

8. Parent Involvement

9 and 10. Disproportionalit

y11 and 12. Child Find

16 -

19. D

isput

e Re

solu

tion

20.

Data

15. G

ener

al

Supe

rvisi

on

The Determination ProcessDecember 2005: States submitted State

Performance Plans (SPPs)

February 1st, every year, states submit Annual Performance Reports (APRs) and if

applicable, revised SPPs

June: Secretary releases determinations based on data reported in SPPs/ APRs and

other available data

Secretary takes specific technical assistance or enforcement actions

(as required)

Information obtained through monitoring visits

Other public information made

available

From February to May each year, Secretary reviews SPPs/APRs and considering multiple

additional factors makes determinations

Specialconditions

State single audit

findings

Information obtained through fiscal monitoring

Meets Requirements Needs Assistance

◦Needs Assistance for two consecutive years

Needs Intervention Needs Substantial Intervention

The Determination Process

In regard to SPP/APR Indicators◦ Data: With respect to data, OSEP examines whether

the States provided valid and reliable data for all indicators

◦ Compliance: OSEP examines Indicators 4B, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, and 20 looking for evidence that the State demonstrates substantial compliance.

◦ Meets Requirements: Generally, and absent any other issues OSEP considers a State to “meet requirements” if the State: (1) Provided valid and reliable data; and (2) Demonstrated substantial compliance for compliance Indicators.

Determination Process (Before RDA)

Results Driven Accountability

Based on OSEP’s Presentation of August 2012

OSEP offered opportunities for input, starting on March 23rd, 2012

OSEP staff presented updates on meetings and conference calls

General public input via blog, email, etc. OSEP is working with OSEP Sponsored

Projects on what and how results data can be used for RDA

OSEP Memo 13-6, dated 12/12/12

Steps in OSEP’s RDA Development Process

States Aggregate Performance on Selected Compliance Indicators

12. Transition C to B

16. Complaints timely resolved

11. Timely evaluations

20. Data0

102030405060708090

100

79.24

93.2284.75

95.8996.31 96.72 96.87 97.74FFY 2005 FFY 2010

Data Source: OSEP

Academic Proficiency for Students with Disabilities

Data Source: OSEP

improving educational results and functional outcomes for all children with disabilities

ensuring that States meet… the program requirements, with… emphasis on those most related to improving results

20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(2) Sec. 616(a)

The primary focus of Federal and State monitoring activities shall be on-

SPP/APR – APR Indicators measure results

Determinations – Broadly reflect State performance (not just compliance and accurate data)

Differentiated monitoring and technical assistance based on weighted identification of States

Components of RDA

Memo 13-6 was released to states on 12/12/12 Includes the FFY 2011 SPP/APR Instructions for

the SPP/APR submission that was due Feb 1st

2013 Includes information on how RDA may impact

States Determinations Results indicators may be included in the

determination process! State-to-School District determinations may be

impacted as well.

OSEP Updates: Memo 13-6

About State Determinations, Memo 13-6 indicates: OSEP is considering how it will use data

from results indicators in making determinations in the spring of 2013.

OSEP is developing a “State Results Matrix” that will be used to examine a variety of results data.

Example included in the Memo was Statewide Assessment, based on Indicator 3 (since this was presented as an example, it indicates other results indicators may be included)

In what Concerns to RDA

State Assessments Participation rate in general statewide

reading and math assessments (similar to 3b),

Proficiency on assessments (similar to 3a), Improvement in proficiency on

assessments, and The gap in proficiency on assessments

between students with disabilities and all students.

Example included in Memo 13-6

Decision Matrix: Reading and math combined

Results Matrix Example

• Element 1: Participation in general assessment• Element 2: Improvement in percent proficient• Element 3: Gap in proficiency between

students with disabilities and students without disabilities• Element 4: Percent proficient or above

Source: NCEO

Source: NCEO

Results Matrix

Source: NCEO

How is Idaho Performing on Selected Results Data?Comparing Idaho to RRC Region 6 (WRRC)

and National Data where available













Disp

ute

Reso

lutio

nDa

taGe

nera

l Su

perv

ision

Slide 47

Indicator 14 OutcomesFFY 200

9

FFY 201

0

FFY 2011

14. A Enrolled in higher education within one year 17% 22%

19%

14. B Enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within one year 31% 41% 38%

14. CEnrolled in higher education, other postsecondary education or training, competitively employed, or in some other employment within one year

71% 78% 73%

Post School Outcomes: Idaho Trend Data

BackSource: Idaho FFY 2011 APR

Graduation RatesData Source: IDEA Section 618, Table 4-1. Students ages 14

through 21 with disabilities served under IDEA, Part B, who exited school

Graduated with DiplomaGrad Rates = X 100

(Graduated with Diploma +Received a Certificate +Reached Maximum Age +Dropped out)

Not included on denominator: - Transferred to Gen Education; - Moved and Known to Continue;- Died

Back

Special Education Graduation Rates 2009-2010

Guam

Hawaii

American

Samoa

Northe

rn Mari

anas

Washing

tonAlas

ka

Californ

iaIda

ho

Oregon

Nevada

U.S. an

d outl

ying a

reas

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70% 65.4%

51.4%

40.7% 38.5%32.5% 30.4% 28.2% 25.8% 24.6%

18.3%

38.0%

BackSource: Section 618 Data

Special Education Graduation Rates

StateSpecial Education Graduation Rates

2009/10National Rank on

Graduation Rates 09/10

Guam 65.4% 3Hawaii 51.4% 12American Samoa 40.7% 30Northern Marianas 38.5% 33Washington 32.5% 39Alaska 30.4% 40California 28.2% 42Idaho 25.8% 48Oregon 24.6% 51Nevada 18.3% 56U.S. and outlying areas 38.0% Lowest rank = 57

Note: Information from RMI, FSM and Palau is not included on 618 data tables.BackSource: Section 618 Data

Special Education Graduation Rate Trends (comparing 2005 to 2009)

Washing

tonGua

mAlas

ka

American

Samoa

Nevada

Oregon

Idaho

Californ

iaHaw

aii

Northe

rn Mari

anas

U.S. an

d outl

ying a

reas

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

32.5%

10.1%

3.6% 3.2% 2.8% 1.8%

-0.5% -1.3% -7.0%

-14.6%

4.9%


Special Education Graduation Rate Trends (comparing 2005 to 2009)

State 5-year trend Graduation Rate Sp. Ed. Students

National Rank 5-year trend

Washington 32.5% 1Guam 10.1% 14Alaska 3.6% 33American Samoa 3.2% 35Nevada 2.8% 36Oregon 1.8% 40Idaho -0.5% 44California -1.3% 46Hawaii -7.0% 52Northern Marianas -14.6% 57U.S. and outlying areas 4.9% Lowest rank = 57


Dropout RatesData Source: IDEA Section 618, Table 4-1. Students ages 14 through 21 with disabilities

served under IDEA, Part B, who exited school

# 14-21 Dropped outDropout Rates = X 100

(#14-21 Graduated with Diploma +Received a Certificate +Reached Maximum Age +Dropped out +Transferred to General Education +Moved, Known to Continue +Died)

Special Education Dropout Rates 2009-2010

American

Samoa

Northe

rn Mari

anas

Guam

Idaho

Californ

iaHaw

aii

Oregon

Washing

tonAlas

ka

Nevada

U.S. an

d outl

ying a

reas

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

0.0% 0.0%

5.1%

10.3% 10.5%12.2% 13.2%

16.5%

22.8%26.3%

12.7%


Special Education Dropout Rates 2009-2010

StateSpecial Education

Dropout Rates 2009/10

National Rank on Dropout Rates

2009/10American Samoa 0.0% 1Northern Marianas 0.0% 2Guam 5.1% 4Idaho 10.3% 14California 10.5% 16Hawaii 12.2% 26Oregon 13.2% 34Washington 16.5% 44Alaska 22.8% 50Nevada 26.3% 52U.S. and outlying areas 12.7% Lowest rank = 57

Note: Information from RMI, FSM and Palau is not included on 618 data tables. BackSource: Section 618 Data

Special Education Dropout Rate Trends (comparing 2005 to 2009)

Guam

North

ern M

arian

as

America

n Samoa

Califo

rnia

Idah

o

Oregon

Alaska

Nevad

a

Hawaii

Was

hington

U.S. a

nd outly

ing area

s

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

-32.6%-30.3%

-13.9%

-5.6% -4.9% -3.6%-1.1% -0.3%

12.2%16.5%

-2.6%

Note: Information from RMI, FSM and Palau is not included on 618 data tables.


Special Education Dropout Rate Trends (comparing 2005 to 2009)

State5-year trend Sp. Ed.

Dropout RatesNational Rank 5-year Dropout Rate trend

Guam -32.6% 1Northern Marianas -30.3% 3American Samoa -13.9% 5California -5.6% 14Idaho -4.9% 18Oregon -3.6% 26Alaska -1.1% 36Nevada -0.3% 40Hawaii 12.2% 54Washington 16.5% 56U.S. and outlying areas -2.6% Lowest rank = 57


Participation for Students with IEPs (Indicator 3.B)

Targets forFFY 2011

Reading Math95% 95%

Actual Target Data for

FFY 2010(SY2010-2011)

# % # %

13,189out of13,421

98.3%13,178out of13,419

98.2%

Actual Target Data for

FY 2011(SY 2011-2012

14,066 out of 14,302 98.3% 14,079 out

of 14,314 98.4%


Performance of Students with IEPs (Indicator 3.C)

Targets forFFY 2011

Reading Math66.04% 61.28%

Actual Target Data for FFY 2010(SY2010-

2011)

# % # %6,245out of12,323

50.7%4,972out of12,317

40.4%

Actual Target Data forFY 2011

(SY 2011-2012

10,870 out of 14,066 77.2% 9,399 out

of 14,079 66.8%

Back

Source: Idaho FFY 2011 APR

The Idaho SDE received an ESEA waiver in 2012

Idaho will be using an Achievement Annual Measureable Objective (AMO) with the following targets:

Subject Current AMO for AYP

2011-2012 Goal

2012-2013 Goal

2013-2014 Goal

Reading 85% 85% 86% 88%

Mathematics 83% 83% 84% 86%


Statewide Assessment, Reading, Grade 4 (NAEP Data, 2005 and 2011)

State

2005 Average scale score (all

students)

2011 Average scale score

(all students)

2011 Average scale score (sp ed students)

Gap All Students and Sp

Ed Students

Gap as % of All

StudentsWashington 223 221 183 38 17%California 207 211 174 37 18%Oregon 217 216 177 39 18%Nevada 207 213 174 39 18%Alaska 211 208 169 39 19%Idaho 222 221 176 45 20%Hawaii 210 214 159 55 26%

Scale Score: A score, derived from student responses to assessment items, that summarizes the overall level of performance attained by that student. While NAEP does not produce scale scores for individual students, NAEP does produce summary statistics describing scale scores for groups of students. NAEP subject area scales typically range from 0 to 500 (reading, mathematics, U.S. history, and geography) or from 0 to 300 (science, writing, and civics).

Back

Statewide Assessment Grade 4 – Reading (Trend from 2005 to 2011)

Nevada California Hawaii Oregon Idaho Washington Alaska

-2%

-1%

0%

1%

2%

3%2.6%

2.3%1.9%

-0.2%

-0.5%

-1.3% -1.5%


American

Samoa

Northern

Mari

anas

Oregon

Nevad

aIda

hoAlas

ka

Californ

ia

Washington

GuamHaw

aii

U.S. and

outly

ing area

s0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%89.4% 84.8%

70.8%64.7% 61.9% 58.8%

52.5% 50.8%40.3%

21.0%

60.5%

LRE: Regular Classroom > 80% Fall 2010



LRE: Regular Classroom > 80% Fall 2010State

Percent of Students >80%

Rank Performance Fall 2010

American Samoa 89.4% 1Northern Marianas 84.8% 2Oregon 70.8% 14Nevada 64.7% 24Idaho 61.9% 29Alaska 58.8% 36California 52.5% 48Washington 50.8% 52Guam 40.3% 55Hawaii 21.0% 56U.S. and outlying areas 60.5% Lowest rank = 57


LRE: Regular Classroom > 80% 5-Year Trend (from 2006 to 2010)

Northe

rn Mari

anas

Nevad

aAlas

kaGuam

Californ

ia

Oregon

Washington Ida

hoHaw

aii

American

Samoa

U.S. and ou

tlying ar

eas

-4%

-2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%10.8%

5.8%

3.5% 3.1% 2.9%1.9%

0.7% 0.5% 0.4%

-3.0%

6.8%


LRE: Regular Classroom > 80% 5-Year Trend (from 2006 to 2010)

State 5-year trend Rank 5-year trendNorthern Marianas 10.8% 7Nevada 5.8% 22Alaska 3.5% 34Guam 3.1% 37California 2.9% 39Oregon 1.9% 44Washington 0.7% 48Idaho 0.5% 49Hawaii 0.4% 50American Samoa -3.0% 54

U.S. and outlying areas 6.8% Lowest rank = 57


LRE: Regular Classroom < 40% Fall 2010

Northern

Mari

anas

American

Samoa

Oregon

Idaho

Alaska

Washingto

n

Nevad

a

Californ

iaHaw

aiiGuam

U.S. and ou

tlying ar

eas

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

2.1%4.0%

10.7% 10.9% 11.5%13.5% 13.5%

22.4%

26.2%

32.2%

14.2%


Source: Section 618 Data

LRE: Regular Classroom < 40% Fall 2010State Performance Rank of Performance

Northern Marianas 2.1% 1American Samoa 4.0% 3Oregon 10.7% 23Idaho 10.9% 25Alaska 11.5% 26Washington 13.5% 36Nevada 13.5% 37California 22.4% 53Hawaii 26.2% 55Guam 32.2% 56U.S. and outlying areas 14.2% Lowest rank = 57

Note: Information from RMI, FSM and Palau is not included on 618 data tables.Source: Section 618 Data

LRE: Regular Classroom < 40% 5-Year Trend (from 2006 to 2010)

Hawaii

Northern

Mari

anas

Californ

iaAlas

ka

Oregon

Washingto

n

Nevad

a

American

Samoa

Idaho

Guam

U.S. and ou

tlying ar

eas

-10%

-8%

-6%

-4%

-2%

0%

2%

4%

-8.9%

-6.3%

-3.2%

-1.8%-0.2%

0.0% 0.3% 0.7%

2.1%

3.2%

-3.3%



LRE: Regular Classroom < 40% 5-Year Trend (from 2006 to 2010)

State 5-year trend Rank 5-year trendHawaii -8.9% 2Northern Marianas -6.3% 5California -3.2% 13Alaska -1.8% 22Oregon -0.2% 38Washington 0.0% 40Nevada 0.3% 44American Samoa 0.7% 49Idaho 2.1% 52Guam 3.2% 53U.S. and outlying areas -3.3% Lowest rank = 57














Disp

ute

Reso

lutio

nDa

taGe

nera

l Su

perv

ision

Questions?

results-driven accountability (rda )

Documents

higher education

postsecondary education

available data secretary

educational results

data calculationsidea

data sources

state monitoring activities

educational settings7