spring 2010 mississippi department of education office of instructional enhancement and internal...

Spring 2010 Mississippi Department of EducationOffice of Instructional Enhancement and Internal Operations/Office of Special Education

1

SPP/APR Update

July 2010


2

SPP/APR

• State Performance Plan (SPP)• Annual Performance Report (APR)

[The State] must annually report to the secretary and the public on the progress of the State, and of children with disabilities in the State, toward meeting the goals established under §300.157(a) for the performance of children with disabilities in the State, that may include elements of the reports required under Section 1111(h) of the ESEA. [34 CFR 300.157(c)] [20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(15)(C)]


3

State Performance Plan (SPP)

• Updates and revisions are due February 1st of each year

• Spans a six year period

• Covers 20 indicators established in IDEA 2004

• Requires baseline data and goals (targets) for the state


4

Annual Performance Report (APR)

• Due each year on February 1st

• Reports progress made on the twenty indicators for the past year

• Must report if state met goal for the year

• If goal was not met, must include explanation for not meeting goal


5

APR FFY 2008 (SY 2008 – 2009)

• Submitted APR to OSEP February 1• Clarification week concluded April 12

• Final APR along with Public Reporting data have been published on the State’s website


6

APR FFY 2008 (SY 2008 – 2009)

• FFY 2008 (SY 2008 – 2009) State Determination received June 3

MEETS REQUIREMENTS


7

APR FFY 2008 (SY 2008 – 2009)

• Meets Requirements – 31 States

• Needs Assistance – 11 States

• 2 Consecutive Years – 5 States



• Needs Intervention – 1 State

• 4 Consecutive Years – 1 State


8

SPP/APR

• We will be monitoring progress during the school year and notifying districts when it appears they have past-due data

• These are courtesy calls and emails so districts can clean up data before the end of the school year


9

Non-Compliance

• Once the school year ends, we will begin to analyze the data for Indicators 11, 12, and 13. The data for these Indicators must be entered before the end of the school year.

• Letters of non-compliance will go out once we analyze the data.

• Compliance for other Indicators will be determined later in the year.


10

Indicator 1

• Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma compared to percent of all youth in the State graduating with a regular diploma.

• Data now lags one year. Data was re-reported from FFY2007

• Target: Increase graduation of SWD with a regular diploma by 0.5 from 22.87% to 23.37%

• Calculations: 23.16% Target Not Met


11

21.8722.37

20.08

22.87 22.8723.37 23.16

1818.5

1919.5

2020.5

2121.5

2222.5

2323.5

2424.5

25

Baseline - 2004 2005 2006 2007

Indicator 1 - SWD Graduating with a Regular Diploma

Target Actual


12

Indicator 2

• Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high school compared to the percent of all youth in the State dropping out of high school.

• Data now lags one year. Data was re-reported from FFY2007

• Target: The dropout rate for SWD will decrease by 0.5 from 12.74% to 12.24%.

• Calculations: 16.76% - Target Not Met


13

13.7413.24

16.99

12.74

17.88

12.24

16.76

1111.5

1212.5

1313.5

1414.5

1515.5

1616.5

1717.5

1818.5

Baseline - 2004 2005 2006 2007

Indicator 2 - SWD Exiting as a Dropout

Target Actual


14

Indicator 3

• Participation and performance of children with disabilities on statewide assessments:

– A. Percent of districts meeting the State’s AYP objectives for progress for disability subgroup.

– B. Participation rate for children with IEPs in a regular assessment with no accommodations; regular assessment with accommodations; alternate assessment against grade level standards; alternate assessment against alternate achievement standards.

– C. Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level standards and alternate achievement standards.

• Targets: A. 40%, B. 95%, C. 49.3/51.7


15

Indicator 3 continued

• Participation and performance of children with disabilities on statewide assessments:

o A. Percent of districts meeting the State’s AYP objectives for progress for disability subgroup.

o B. Participation rate for children with IEPs in a regular assessment with no accommodations; regular assessment with accommodations; alternate assessment against grade level standards; alternate assessment against alternate achievement standards.

o C. Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level standards and alternate achievement standards.

• Calculations: – A. 5.15% - Target Not Met– B. 95.7% - Target Met R/LA

96.4% - Target Met Math– C. 16.8% - Target Not Met R/LA

23.6% - Target Not Met Math


16

• AYP Targets increased in RLA an average of 17 percentage points and an average of 15 percentage points in Math from the previous year. These increases had a major impact on many districts meeting AYP for SY 2008-2009.


17

Indicator 4a

• Rates of suspension and expulsion:Percent of districts identified by the State as having a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities for greater than 10 days in a school year.

• Data now lags one year. FFY 2007 data was re-reported in FFY 2008.

• Target: 0 LEAs will suspend/expel students with disabilities at a higher rate than students without disabilities.


Spring 2010


18

100 100 100 100

96.71

100

98.68

95

95.596

96.5

9797.5

98

98.599

99.5

100

Baseline 2005 2006 2007

Target

% Met Target

Indicator 4a


19

Indicator 4b

• Rates of suspension and expulsion:Percent of districts that have (a) a significant discrepancy, by race or ethnicity, in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs; and (b) policies, procedures or practices that contribute to the significant discrepancy and do not comply with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards.

• Will report baseline data in FFY2009 APR.

Spring 2010


20

Indicator 5

• Percent of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21: A. Inside the regular class 80% or more of the day; B. Inside the regular class less than 40% of the day; or C. In separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital

placements.• Target:

A. The percentage of students with disabilities in a regular education setting will increase 1% to 56.47%.

B. The percentage of students in a self contained setting will decrease 1% to 18.48 %.

C. The percentage of students in MS who are placed in public or private separate schools, residential placements, or homebound or hospital placements will not increase.

• Calculations: A. 65.19% - Target Met B. 12.46% - Target Met C. 2.09% - Target Met (2007-2008 = 2.13%)


21

Indicator 5a


22

Indicator 5b


23

Indicator 5c


24

Indicator 6 – LRE 3 to 5

• Will not report in FFY 2009

• Begin reporting FFY 2010 (SY 2010 – 2011)


25

Indicator 7

• Percent of preschool children with IEPs who demonstrate improved:

– A. Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships);– B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early

language/communication and early literacy); and– C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs.

• Measurement has changed and is now grouped by 2 summary statements for each outcome.

• Baseline Data reported in FFY 2008.


26


• Summary Statement 1: Of those preschool children who entered the preschool program below age expectations in each Outcome, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program.

• Calculations: Positive social-emotional skills: 47% Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills: 49% Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs: 38%


27


• Summary Statement 2: The percent of preschool children who were functioning within age expectations in each Outcome by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program.

• Calculations: Positive social-emotional skills: 80% Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills: 68% Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs: 76%


28


• New targets were set for FFY 2009 and FFY 2010 Outcome A: Positive social-emotional skills Outcome B: Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills Outcome C: Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs

• FFY 2009 Summary Statement 1:

– Outcome A: 48%– Outcome B: 50%– Outcome C: 39%

Summary Statement 2:– Outcome A: 81%– Outcome B: 69%– Outcome C: 77%

• FFY 2010 Summary Statement 1:


Summary Statement 2:– Outcome A: 82%– Outcome B: 70%– Outcome C: 78%


29

Indicator 8

• Percent of parents with a child receiving special education services who report that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities.

• Target: Increase the percentage of parents with a child receiving special education services who report that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities by 2.0 percentage points to 67.46.

• Calculations: 94.75% – Target Met


30

Parent Survey Ideas from Districts:

• Ask Parents to complete surveys at:

IEP meetings Parent Informational night held in computer lab Parent/Teacher Conference Day Annual Parent Meeting Tied indicator performance to budget and job performance to

stress importance

Making sure computers or laptops are available at IEP meeting location

Parent Survey Ideas from Districts

Ask Parents to complete surveys at: Fun ‘thank you’ to teachers who reach 100%

Positive follow-up during year

Reluctant parents contacted by principal or sped director to support and assist

Stress importance to teachers throughout the year

ESY


33

Indicator 9

• Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification. (Indicator 1, 2, 4a, and Child Count)

• Target: 0

• Calculations: Indicator 1: 8 Districts – Target Not Met Indicator 2: 0 Districts – Target Met Indicator 4a: 23 Districts – Target Not Met (Data re-reported) Child Count: 0 Districts – Target Met


34

Indicator 10

• Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification.

Target Calc

SLD 0 0

EmD 0 0

LS 0 0

OHI 0 3

AU 0 0

MR 0 11


35

Indicator 11

• Percent of children with parental consent to evaluate, who were evaluated and eligibility determined within 60 days (or State established timeline).

• Target: 100%



36

Indicator 11


37

Indicator 12

• Percent of children referred by Part C prior to age 3, who are found eligible for Part B, and who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays.

• Target: 100%



38

Indicator 12


39

Indicator 13

• Percent of youth aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes coordinated, measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the student to meet the post-secondary goals.

• Target: 100%



40

Indicator 13


41

Indicator 14

• Percent of youth who had IEPs, are no longer in secondary school and who have been competitively employed, enrolled in some type of postsecondary school, or both, within one year of leaving high school.

• Target: Increase the number of competitively employed, enrolled in some type of postsecondary school, or both, within one year of leaving high school by 1.0, from 59.97 to 60.97%.

• Calculations: 62.67% - Target Met


42

Indicator 14


43

Indicator 15

• General supervision system (including monitoring, complaints, hearings, etc.) identifies and corrects non-compliance as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from identification.

• Target: 100% of non-compliance related to monitoring priority area and indicators will be corrected within one year of identification.



44

Indicator 15


45

Indicator 16

• Percent of signed written complaints with reports issued that were resolved within 60-day timeline or a timeline extended for exceptional circumstances with respect to a particular complaint.

• Target: 100 % of parent complaints will be resolved within 60 days from receipt of written signed complaint.

• Calculations: 100% - Target Met


46

Indicator 17

• Percent of fully adjudicated due process hearing requests that were fully adjudicated within the 45-day timeline or a timeline that is properly extended by the hearing officer at the request of either party.

• Target: 100% of due process hearings will be adjudicated within required timeline.



47

Indicator 18

• Percent of hearing requests that went to resolution sessions that were resolved through resolution session settlement agreements.

• Target: 50% of hearing requests that go to resolution sessions will be resolved through resolution agreements.

• Calculations: 100% Target Met


48

Indicator 19

• Percent of mediations held that resulted in mediation agreements.

• Target: 75% of mediations held will result in mediation agreements.

• Calculations: 76.92% - Target Met


49

Indicator 20

• State reported data (618 and State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report) are timely and accurate.

• Target: 100% of statewide data will be accurately reported by established deadlines.



50

2009-10 Submission Targets

• Indicator 1 Target – 24.37%


• Indicator 3 Target 3A – 45% 3B – 95% 3C – 49.3%/51.7%


51


• Indicator 4a Target – 0 Districts• Indicator 4b – New Indicator. Will report

baseline data in 2011. Target is 0%• Indicator 5 Target

5A – 57.47% 5B – 17.98% 5C – less than or equal to 2.09%

• Indicator 6 – New Indicator. Will report baseline data in 2012.


52


• Indicator 7 Target Summary Statement 1


Summary Statement 2– Outcome A: 81%– Outcome B: 69%– Outcome C: 77%


53



• Indicator 9 Target – 0 Districts

• Indicator 10 Target – 0 Districts

• Indicator 11 Target – 100%




54










55

What’s New

• The measurement for Indicator 14 is changing for next APR submission. The Post Secondary Screen in MSIS has been updated for the SY 2008-2009 data collection. The categories have changed.


56

Indicator 14New Categories

• Enrolled in Higher Education

• Competitive Employment

• Some other Postsecondary Education or Training Program

• Some other Employment


57

Ellen Davis BurnhamBureau Director

[email protected]

Deborah DonovanSPP/APR Division Director

[email protected]

601-359-3498http://www.mde.k12.ms.us/special_education/

spring 2010 mississippi department of education office of instructional enhancement and internal...

Documents

instructional enhancement

state determination

performance of children

states2 consecutive

states3 consecutive

states4 consecutive

state4 consecutive years

past yearmust report