1 / 57

State of California

State of California. Annual Performance Report Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 Federal Fiscal Year 2012. APR Overview.

howell
Download Presentation

State of California

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. State of California Annual Performance Report Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 Federal Fiscal Year 2012

  2. APR Overview • The Annual Performance Plan (APR) is prepared using instructions from the U.S. Department of Education (ED) and the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) • The APR consists of 20 Indicators • Indicators are categorized as either compliance (10) or performance (10): • Targets for compliance indicators are set by OSEP at either zero percent or one hundred percent • Targets for performance indicators are set in collaboration with the various stakeholder groups

  3. APR Overview-Cont. • Data for the APR indicators are collected from a variety of sources: • California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement System (CALPADS) • California Special Education Management Information System (CASEMIS) • Assessment data base • Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

  4. APR Data Years • The current APR reflects data collected during Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2012, (equivalent to California’s school year 2012–13). • Several indicators are reported in lag years using data from school year 2011−12.

  5. APR Executive Summary • The APR Executive Summary provides a concise overview of California’s annual report to OSEP and includes: • Demographic information of California’s special education population • A description of each indicator • How the indicator is measured • Targets for each indicator • Reported results • Improvement activities

  6. Special Education by Disability2012–13 6

  7. Special Education by Ethnicity 2012–13 7 Data Source: December CASEMIS

  8. Indicator 1 Graduation Rates • Performance Indicator • Target: 74.5 percent of students will graduate from high school with a regular diploma • FFY 2012: 78.13 percent graduated with a regular diploma • FFY 2011: 76.3 percent

  9. Indicator 2 Drop Out Rates • Performance Indicator • Target: Less than 21.1 percent will drop out of school • FFY 2012: 17.9 percent dropped out • FFY 2011 rate: 18.4 percent

  10. Indicator 3Statewide Assessments • Performance Indicator • Three areas are measured: • 3A percent of AYP objectives met • 3B participation rates • 3C percent proficient by school subgroups

  11. Indicator 3A • Percent of districts that meet the AYP objectives for ELA and Mathematics for the disability subgroup • Target: Fifty-eight percent of districts meet AYP for the special education subgroup • FFY 2012 rate: 8.2 percent • FFY 2011 rate: 11.12 percent

  12. Indicator 3B • Rate of participation on statewide assessments • Target: Ninety-five percent of students with IEPs participate in statewide assessments • FFY 2012: 97.4 percent ELA 98.2 percent Math • FFY 2011 rate: 97.8 percent ELA 98.3 percent Math

  13. Indicator 3CProficient by School Subgroup -Elementary 1. Elementary districts • Target: 89.2 percent of students with IEPs score proficient in ELA and 89.5 percent in Math • FFY 2012: 38.7 percent ELA 42.0 percent Math • FFY 2011: 38.7 percent ELA 38.8 percent Math

  14. Indicator 3CProficient by School Subgroup –High School 2. High school districts (grades 9-12 only) • Target: 88.9 percent of students with IEPs score proficient in ELA and 88.7 percent in Math • FFY 2012: 26.1 percent ELA 26.5percent Math • FFY 2011: 18.9 percent ELA 19.8 percent Math

  15. Indicator 3CProficient by School Subgroup – Unified and County Offices 3. Unified districts and county offices of education • Target: 89 percent of students with IEPs score proficient in ELA and 89.1 percent in Math • FFY 2012: 35.6 percent ELA 38.3 percent Math • FFY 2011: 33.3 percent ELA 35.0 percent Math

  16. Indicator 4 Suspension and Expulsion • Performance Indicator • 4A is the percent of districts that have a significant discrepancy overall in the rate of suspension/expulsion of greater than 10 days when compared to the state rate • 4B is the discrepancy in terms of race/ethnicity rates as a result of inappropriate identification

  17. Indicator 4A • Target: No more than 10.1 percent of districts will have a significant discrepancy in 10 day+ suspensions/expulsions overall • FFY 2012: 2.51% overall rate • FFY 2011: 2.7 percent

  18. Indicator 4B • Target: Zero percent of districts will have a discrepancy in suspension/expulsions by race or ethnicity that is a result of inappropriate identification • FFY 2012: Pending districts completing a review of policies, practices, and procedures • FFY 2011: .87 percent

  19. Indicator 5 Least Restrictive Environment • Performance Indicator • For ages 6 through 21 years, measures time inside the regular education classroom by: • 5A: Eighty percent or more of the day • 5B: Less than forty percent of the day • 5C: In separate school, residential facility, or homebound/hospital

  20. Indicator 5A LRE – 80 Percent or More • Target: Seventy-six percent or more of students with an IEP will be served in the regular classroom eighty percent or more of the day • FFY 2012: 52.6 percent • FFY 2011: 52.3 percent

  21. Indicator 5B LRE – Less than 40 Percent • Target: No more than nine percent of students with an IEP will be served in the regular classroom less than forty percent of the day • FFY 2012: 22.1 percent • FFY 2011: 22.1 percent

  22. Indicator 5C LRE – Separate Schools • Target: No more than 3.8 percent of students are served in separate schools, residential placements, or homebound/hospital • FFY 2012: 4.0 percent • FFY 2011: 4.2 percent

  23. Educational Environment for all Special Education Students 2012–13

  24. Indicator 6Preschool Least Restrictive Environment • Performance Indicator • A: Percent of students aged 3 through 5 receiving the majority of special education in a regular childhood program • B: Percent of students receiving special education in a separate class, school, or residential facility

  25. Indicator 6A - Preschool LREServices in Regular Classroom • Target: This is the base line year for this indicator • FFY 2012: 38.8 percent served in regular childhood program • FFY 2011: 20.2 percent

  26. Indicator 6B - Preschool LREServices in Separate Location • Target: This is the base line year for this indicator • FFY 2012: 35.9 percent served in separate classroom, school, or facility • FFY 2011: 25.6 percent

  27. Indicator 7Preschool Assessment • Performance Indicator • 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

  28. Indicator 7 -Outcome APositive Social/Emotional Skills • Target: Of the children entering below age expectations, 72.7 percent substantially increased their rate of growth, and 82.1 percent are functioning within age expectations • FFY 2011: Pending Pending • FFY 2011: 71.2 percent 76.8 percent

  29. Indicator 7 - Outcome BAcquisition and Use of Knowledge and Skills • Target: Of the children entering below age expectations, 70 percent substantially increased their rate of growth and 82.5 percent are functioning within age expectations • FFY 2012: Pending • Pending • FFY 2011: 71.7 percent 74.4 percent

  30. Indicator 7 - Outcome CUse of Appropriate Behaviors to Meet Their Needs • Target: Of the children entering below age expectations, 75 percent substantially increased their rate of growth and 79 percent are functioning within age expectations • FFY 2012: Pending • FFY 2011: 75 percent 77.2 percent

  31. Indicator 8Parent Involvement • Performance Indicator • Target: Ninety percent of parents report the school facilitated parent involvement • FFY 2012: 98.9 percent • FFY 2011: 98.8 percent

  32. Indicator 9 Disproportionality • Compliance Indicator • Target: Zero percent of districts will have disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups that is a result of inappropriate identification • FFY 2012: Pending districts completing a review of policies, practices, and procedures • FFY 2011: .21 percent

  33. Indicator 10Disproportionality by Race/Ethnicity • Compliance Indicator • Target: Zero percent of districts will have disproportionate representation of racial/ethnic groups within a disability, which are a result of inappropriate identification • FFY 2012: Pending • FFY 2011: .87 percent

  34. Indicator 11Child Find • Compliance Indicator • Target: Eligibility will be completed within 60 days for one hundred percent of students for whom parental consent to evaluate was received • FFY 2011: 97.4 percent • FFY 2010: 95.8 percent

  35. Indicator 12Part B to Part C Transition • Compliance Indicator • Target: One hundred percent of students referred by IDEA Part C to Part B prior to age three, if found eligible, will have an IEP developed by their third birthday • FFY 2012: 98.2 percent • FFY 2011: 97.8 percent

  36. Indicator 13Post-Secondary Transition • Compliance Indicator • Target: One hundred percent of students sixteen years and older have IEPs that include appropriate post-secondary goals • FFY 2012: 87.3 percent • FFY 2011: 80.7 percent

  37. Indicator 14Post Secondary Outcomes • Performance Indicator • Target: Sixty-nine percent of students, one year post secondary, are enrolled in higher education, or competitively employed, or in other employment • FFY 2012: 80.5 percent • FFY 2011: 80.7 percent

  38. Indicator 15General Supervision • Compliance Indicator • Target: One hundred percent of noncompliance were corrected within one year of identification • FFY 2012: Pending • FFY 2011: 97.9 percent

  39. Indicator 16Written Complaints Resolved • Compliance Indicator • Target: One hundred percent of written complaints were resolved within a 60-day time line • FFY 2012: Pending • FFY 2011: 100 percent

  40. Indicator 17Due Process • Compliance Indicator • Target: One hundred percent of due process hearing requests were adjudicated within the 45-day time line • FFY 2012: Pending • FFY 201: 100 percent

  41. Indicator 18Resolution Settlements • Performance Indicator • Target: Fifty-five percent of hearing requests that went to resolution sessions were resolved through settlement agreements • FFY 2012: Pending • FFY 2011: 12.3 percent

  42. Indicator 19Mediation • Performance Indicator • Target: Eighty-five percent of mediation conferences resulted in mediation agreements • FFY 2012: Pending • FFY 2011: 63.1 percent

  43. Indicator 20State Reported Data • Compliance Indicator • Target: One hundred percent of state reported data are on time and accurate • FFY 2012: CDE does not calculate this indicator • FFY 2011: 100 percent

  44. Results Driven Accountability

  45. OSEP’s proposals for RDA are out for review • As we have mentioned, OSEP has been reconceptualizing its accountability system. • Previously, OSEP’s accountability system, including the SPP/APR, was heavily focused on compliance with limited focus on how the requirements impacted results • Results Driven Accountability (RDA), is aligned to support States in improving results for students with disabilities.

  46. Summary of Changes • Combine the SPP and APR into one document • One systems description, inclusive of all of a States systems • States are no longer required to report on Improvement Activities for each indicator • Eliminating Indicators 15, 16,17 and 20 • Adding a new Indicator 17 – Results Driven Accountability • Implemented in three phases • SPP/APR must include a State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) • States must assess the capacity of their infrastructure to increase the capacity of LEAs

  47. Adding a New Indicator 17 • Indicator 17 – Results Driven Accountability • Implemented in three phases • SPP/APR must include a State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) that is a comprehensive, ambitious yet achievable plan for improving results for students with disabilities • States must assess the capacity of their infrastructure to increase the capacity of LEAs to • implement, • scale up, and • sustain evidence-based practices • The primary focus of SSIP is on improvement of student outcomes. • State must also address how the State will use its general supervision systems to improve implementation of the requirements of Part B of the IDEA

  48. Proposed Phase-in of Indicator 17 FFY 2012 Submitted in February 2014 FFY 2013 Submitted in February 2015 FFY 2014 Submitted in February 2016 • Phase I • Data Analysis • Identification of Focus for Improvement • Infrastructure to Support Improvement and Build Capacity • Theory of Action. • Phase II • Infrastructure Development • Support for LEA Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices • Evaluation Plan Indicator 1 Indicator 2 Indicator 3 Indicator 4 Indicator 5 Indicator 6 Indicator 7 Indicator 8 Indicator 9 Indicator 10 Indicator 11 . . . Indicator 20 FFY 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 Submitted in February 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 • Phase III • Results of ongoing evaluation and revisions to the SPP

  49. New Targets Proposed

More Related