1 / 168

OEC HOT TOPICS!!!

OEC HOT TOPICS!!!. State Performance Plan Annual Performance Report. Results, Trends, and General Supervision Activities. The SPP and APR. SPP – State Performance Plan that shows baseline data (1 st year of reporting), then rigorous targets for the “life” of the SPP (along 20 Indicators)

dick
Download Presentation

OEC HOT TOPICS!!!

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. OEC HOT TOPICS!!!

  2. State Performance PlanAnnual Performance Report Results, Trends, and General Supervision Activities

  3. The SPP and APR • SPP – State Performance Plan that shows baseline data (1st year of reporting), then rigorous targets for the “life” of the SPP (along 20 Indicators) • APR – Annual Performance Report submitted Feb. 1st that describes whether or not the state achieved/met the targets outlined in the SPP

  4. APR Reporting Years • For Indicators 3, 5-14, 16-19, & 20, the APR is based on data for the preceding school year: • Feb. 1, 2010 (based on FFY08; 08-09 school year) • Feb. 1, 2011 (based on FFY09; 09-10) • Feb. 1, 2012 (based on FFY10; 10-11)

  5. APR Reporting Years, cont’d • Indicators 1-2, & 4A & B are based on the two prior school years: • Feb 1, 2010 (based on FFY07; 07-08 school year) • Feb. 1, 2011 (based on FFY08; 08-09 s.y.) • Feb. 1, 2012 (based on FFY09; 09-10 s.y.) • Ind. 15 is based on 2+ preceding school years

  6. “Performance” vs. “Compliance” • “Performance” indicators are those for which the OSEP is interested in the state setting “rigorous,” measurable targets, based on baseline and historical performance. These percentages range in value. • “Compliance” indicators are those for which the OSEP has mandated either a “0%” or “100%” target for states to meet (Ind. 4B, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 for LEAs and the state; and 20 for the state). These indicators also relate to child-entitlement regulations (i.e., all or none).

  7. “Performance” vs. “Compliance” • “Performance” indicators are those for which the OSEP is interested in the state setting “rigorous,” measurable targets, based on baseline and historical performance. These percentages range in value. • “Compliance” indicators are those for which the OSEP has mandated either a “0%” or “100%” target for states to meet (Ind. 4B, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 for LEAs and the state; and 20 for the state). These indicators also relate to child-entitlement regulations (i.e., all or none).

  8. FFY 2009 SPP Changes • Required to collect data and report for Part B Indicator 4B (Discipline by Race/Ethnicity), using FFY 2008 Data • Required to collect and report data for Part B Indicator 13 (Post-secondary transition services) • Required to collect and report data for Part B Indicator 14 (Post-secondary outcomes) • Required to establish and extend targets for 2 additional years (FFY 2011 and FFY 2012)

  9. Indicator 1 Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma.

  10. Indicator 1FFY 2009 Graduation Rate • State Target: Current year must meet the GOAL of 88.3%, or the current year must meet the TARGET OBJECTIVE of 78%, or the current year is 2 percentage points higher than the previous year, or the current year is 2 percentage points higher than the most recent three-year average (42.67%) including current year. NOT MET • Actual Performance: 42.9% (decrease from 46.1%) • Data Source: NCLB AYP Report for SC

  11. Indicator 2 Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high school.

  12. Indicator 2FFY 2009 Dropout Rate • State Target: 5.6% • Using new data source as required by OSEP, using ESEA • FFY 2008 Baseline was 5.6% • FFY 2009 Actual was 5.2% • MET • Data Source: SCDE Federal Dropout report.

  13. Indicator 3 Participation and performance of children with IEPs on statewide assessments: • A. Percent of the districts with a disability subgroup that meets the State’s minimum “n” size that meet the State’s AYP targets for the disability subgroup.

  14. Indicator 3 cont. • B. Participation rate for children with IEPs • C. Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level, modified and alternate academic achievement standards in ELA and Math

  15. FFY 2009 Indicator 3 A • Districts meeting AYP for students with disabilities • State Target: 66.6% or above • Actual Performance: 2.3% (n=2) NOT MET • Data Source: AYP calculations • Revised targets to use AYP data • Targets not set by subgroup (SC)

  16. FFY 2009 Indicator 3 B • Participation Rate of Students with Disabilities: • State Target: Above 95% • Actual Performance-Math: 98.23% MET • Actual Performance-ELA: 98.31% MET • Data Source: Office of Data Analysis and Mgmt.

  17. FFY 2009 Indicator 3 C • Performance rate of students with disabilities • State Target Math: 58.8% (3-8) and 71.3% (HS) • Actual Performance Math: 58.5% and 54.1% • State Target ELA: 57.8% (3-8) and 70.0% (HS) • Actual Performance ELA: 46.0% and 54.1% • NOT MET ON ALL • Data Source – NCLB AYP Report for SC

  18. Indicators 4A and 4B • For FFY 2009, states were required to collect and report data for Part B Indicator 4B, using data from the 2008-2009 school year. • 4B is a “compliance” indicator • Given this change, and limitations to the old definition of 4A, SC decided to change its definition of “significant discrepancy” for 4A while crafting the new definition of 4B

  19. Regulatory Citation • 34 CFR § 300.170 Suspension and expulsion rates. • (a) General. The SEA must examine data, including data disaggregated by race and ethnicity, to determine if significant discrepancies are occurring in the rate of long-term suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities— • (1) Among LEAs in the State; or • (2) Compared to the rates for nondisabled children within those agencies.

  20. Regulatory Citation • (b) Review and revision of policies. If the discrepancies described in paragraph (a) of this section are occurring, the SEA must review and, if appropriate, revise (or require the affected State agency or LEA to revise) its policies, procedures, and practices relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards, to ensure that these policies, procedures, and practices comply with the Act.

  21. Data Source • Data collected on Table 5 of Information Collection 1820-0621 (Report of Children with Disabilities Unilaterally Removed or Suspended/Expelled for More than 10 Days). Discrepancy can be computed by either comparing the rates of suspensions and expulsions for children with IEPs to rates for nondisabled children within the LEA or by comparing the rates of suspensions and expulsions for children with IEPs among LEAs within the State. • Sampling from State’s 618 data is not allowed.

  22. Table 5

  23. 4A Measurement Percent = [A divided by B] times 100 A = # of districts that have a significant discrepancy in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year of children with IEPs divided by the B= # of districts in the State times 100

  24. 4B Measurement Percent = [(# of districts that have: (a) a significant discrepancy, by race or ethnicity, in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year of 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) divided by the (# of districts in the State)] times 100.

  25. 4A Target & Reporting Year • FFY 2009 SPP (due 2/1/11) – use FFY 2008 (2008-2009) data • establish baseline, targets, and review/revise improvement activities • FFY 2010 APR (due 2/1/12) – use FFY 2009 (2009-2010) data

  26. 4B Target & Reporting Year • Target is 0% (Compliance Indicator) • FFY 2009 SPP (due 2/1/11) – use FFY 2008 (2008-2009) data • establish baseline, targets, and review/revise improvement activities • FFY 2010 APR (due 2/1/12) – use FFY 2009 (2009-2010) data

  27. SPP/APR Reporting • If discrepancies occurred and the district with discrepancies had policies, procedures or practices that contributed to the significant discrepancy and that do not comply with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards, describe how the State ensured that such policies, procedures, and practices were revised to comply with applicable requirements.

  28. Indicator 4

  29. Relative Risk Ratio (4A) • Calculates the risk for ONE LEA • Calculates the risk for all other LEAs • Divide the ONE LEA by all other LEAs • Compares the risk for one LEA to the risks of all other LEAs within the state. • If the relative risk is greater than 2.50, then the district is identified as having “significant discrepancy” for Part B 4A and must review policies, procedures and practices (i.e., the Indicator 4 Self-Assessment Rubric)

  30. Weighted Risk (4B) • WRR adjusts for district variability in race/ethnic groups so that districts came be compared equally by accounting for variability among ethnic-makeup of districts • Compares the risk for one race ethnicity to that of all other ethnicities within the LEA, and weighted for cross LEA comparability • Must have subgroup size of 10

  31. 4B Issue • Keep in mind that 4B is two-fold: • A numerical “trigger” defined by the WRR (with n-size applied). If the LEA has a WRR greater than 2.50, then the LEA is defined as having “significant discrepancy” for Part B 4B, and must review Policies, Procedures, & Practices (i.e., Indicator 4 Self-Assessment Rubric) • Only if they meet the trigger & their P/P/P do not comply do they get a “finding”

  32. Indicator 4 Follow-Up • If an LEA is found to have “significant discrepancy for Indicator 4A or 4B, they must complete a comprehensive rubric identifying whether or not they followed specific regulatory requirements and provide information about where the evidence could be found. • If an LEA indicates that it has failed to correctly implement the regulatory requirements, it would be issued a finding of noncompliance and must ensure both systemic and individual correction.

  33. FFY 2009 Indicator 4A • Rates of suspension and expulsion: Percent of districts that have a significant discrepancy in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs; and • SC Baseline: 5.68% (n=5) • Data Source: Table 5, FFY 2008 and Self Assessment Rubric

  34. Indicator 4B • Percent of districts that have: • 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 • 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.

  35. FFY 2009 Indicator 4B • State Compliance Target: 0% • SC Actual 2.27% (n=2) NOT MET • Data Source: FFY 2008 Table 5 and District Self Assessment Rubric

  36. Indicator 5 Percent of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21 served: • Inside the regular class 80% or more of the day; • Inside the regular class less than 40% of the day; and • In separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements.

  37. FFY 2009 Indicator 5 LRE A • Inside the regular class 80% or more of the day • State Target: 53% • Actual Performance: 56.2% MET • Data Source: Table 3

  38. FFY 2009 Indicator 5 LRE B • Inside the regular class less than 40% of the day • State Target:14.45% • Actual Performance: 19.9% NOT MET • Data Source: Table 3

  39. FFY 2009 Indicator 5 LRE C The percent of children with IEPs served in separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements • State Target: 2.19% or below • Actual Performance: 1.73% MET • Data Source: Table 3

  40. FFY 2009 Indicator 6 Percent of children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs attending a: • A. Regular early childhood program and receiving the majority of special education and related services in the regular early childhood program; and • B. Separate special education class, separate school or residential facility.

  41. Indicator 6 • OSEP continues to not require states to report on this indicator.

  42. Indicator 7 Percent of preschool children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs who demonstrate improved: • Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships); • Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/ communication and early literacy); and • Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs • Reported baseline data for FFY 2008

  43. FFY 2009 Indicator 7Preschool Outcomes

  44. FFY 2009 Indicator 7Preschool Outcomes

  45. FFY 2009 Indicator 7Preschool Outcomes

  46. FFY 2009 Indicator 8 Parents 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 • State Target: 30.83% • Actual Performance: 38% MET • Data Source: Parent Survey

More Related