1 / 39

Richard Henderson Evelyn S. Johnson

Annual Performance Report Update. Richard Henderson Evelyn S. Johnson. Richard O’Dell Division of Special Education Idaho State Department of Education. Indicators. Indicator 1: Graduation Rate Indicator 2: Dropout Rate Indicator 3: AYP and ISAT Indicator 4: Suspensions and Expulsions

maja
Download Presentation

Richard Henderson Evelyn S. Johnson

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. Annual Performance Report Update Richard Henderson Evelyn S. Johnson Richard O’Dell Division of Special Education Idaho State Department of Education

  2. Indicators • Indicator 1: Graduation Rate • Indicator 2: Dropout Rate • Indicator 3: AYP and ISAT • Indicator 4: Suspensions and Expulsions • Indicator 5: Educational Environments for Ages 6-21 • Indicator 6: Educational Environments for Ages 3-5 • Indicator 7: Early Childhood Outcomes • Indicator 8: Parent Involvement • Indicator 9: Disproportionality in Special Education • Indicator 10: Disproportionality by Disability • Indicator 11: Initial Eligibility 60-day Timeline • Indicator 12: Early Childhood Transition • Indicator 13: Secondary Transition • Indicator 14: Post School Outcomes • Indicator 15: Monitoring Correction of Noncompliance • Indicator 16: Complaints • Indicator 17: Hearings • Indicator 18: Resolution Sessions • Indicator 19: Mediation • Indicator 20: Timely and Accurate Reporting

  3. Our Past Performance • There are ~146 districts in Idaho. • There are ~ 282,000 students in Idaho (showing steady increase over last five years). • We educate ~ 26,800 students with disabilities (showing a steady decrease over the last five years). • That is about 9.5% of the student (ages 6 -12) population(compare to 10.1% in 2009-2010)

  4. Exceptionalities Increases Decreases Deaf/Blind –40.0% TBI –12.0% SLD – 9.7% OI –6.7% Language –5.3% VI –5.0% DD –2.6% Speech –2.0% HI –0.8% • Deaf +13.0% • OHI +10.7% • CI +5.2% • Autism +3.6% • Multiple Disabilities +2.4% • ED +0.1%

  5. The Trends

  6. Indicator 1: Graduation RateIndicator 2: Dropout Rate • 89.2% SWD graduated in 2010 up from 88.8% in 2009 • 1.2% Dropout Rate in 2010 was an improvement over the 1.4% in 2009

  7. Indicator 3: AYP and ISAT • Participation • 98.2% participated in the math assessment (drop from 99.0% in 2009) • 98.3% participated in the reading assessment (drop from 100% in 2009) • Performance • Math …. 40.37% proficient or better (drop from 41.66%) • Reading …. 50.68% proficient or better (improvement from 49.49%)

  8. Indicator 3: AYP and ISATPublic Reporting http://apps.sde.idaho.gov/AYP/Home/Select • (Note: use your arrow keys if clicking won’t work and type the first few letters, arrow down and hit enter twice)

  9. Indicator 4: Suspensions and Expulsions 2009 - 2010 2010 - 2011 • 140 students suspended/expelled in 2009-2010 • 96 suspended/expelled more than 10 days • NO districts identified as having a significant discrepancy in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities based on race/ethnicity • 95 students suspended/expelled in 2010-2011 • 45 students suspended/expelled more than 10 days • NO districts identified as having a significant discrepancy in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities based on race/ethnicity

  10. Discussion • The data for suspension & expulsion are due June 30th of each year by each school in the district including alternative schools, charters, and non-traditional (evening). • We (SDE) had some data retrieval problems this year – change in data collection platform (ISEE) • Race/Ethnicity coding • Determination findings • Change in calculation formula

  11. Indicator 5: Educational Environments for Ages 6-21

  12. Placements

  13. Indicator 7: Early Childhood Outcomes

  14. Indicator 7: Early Childhood Outcomes

  15. Indicator 7: Early Childhood Outcomes

  16. Indicator 8: Parent Involvement

  17. Parent Involvement Considerations • How do we increase parent response within the budget we currently have? • How does the SDE and Districts increase “gold standard” with parents?

  18. Indicator 9: Disproportionality in Special Education • 146 districts reviewed (up 9 from 2009) • 23 findings of over-/under- representation • Addition of “two or more” category appears to be problematic

  19. Indicator 9: Disproportionality in Special Education • Almost direct correlation between under- reporting of Hispanic to over- reporting of “two or more” • It IS a data coding problem. No district is non-compliant.

  20. Indicator 10: Disproportionality by Disability • The SDE examined data for every disability in every district (146) for all races and ethnicities, including both over- and under-representation. • Twenty-one (21) districts were found to have over- or under-representation as described in the definition.

  21. Indicator 10: Disproportionality by Disability • Almost direct correlation between under- reporting of Hispanic to over- reporting of “two or more” across all disability categories. • A data coding problem.

  22. Discussion • Correlation between Attendance Report (October) and Child Count – very much off for 2010. Appears to be better for 2011. • Importance of reporting consistent race/ethnicity across the various data collections. • Data verification will be made with EUDID codes.

  23. Indicator 11: Initial Eligibility 60-day Timeline 18% decrease from 2009

  24. Discussion • Rebuilding the data collection platform • Due date ____________

  25. Indicator 12: Early Childhood Transition • 98.35% of children referred by Part C were found eligible for Part B and had IEPs developed/implemented by their 3rd birthday • 9 student eligibilities were late (down from 15 in 2009) but corrected before initial analysis of the data.

  26. Indicator 13: Secondary Transition Note: the percent of compliance reported in the 2010 APR was incorrect and should have been reported as 36% as the baseline for Indictor 13 not 63%.

  27. Indicator 14: Post School Outcomes

  28. Indicator 14: Post School Outcomes

  29. Indicator 15: Monitoring Correction of Noncompliance

  30. Correction of Noncompliance • Discussion – March 9, 2012 OSEP Letter

  31. Indicator 16: Complaints

  32. Indicator 17: Hearings

  33. Indicator 18: Resolution Sessions • 100% (2 of 2) of hearing requests that went to resolution sessions were resolved through resolution sessions or settlement agreements.

  34. Indicator 19: Mediation • 88% (16 of 18) of mediations held resulted in mediation agreements (revision)

  35. Indicator 20: Timely and Accurate Reporting The SDE experienced technical problems with a number of data collection and processing programs. In an audit of data for indicator 4, it was discovered that coding errors resulted in the reporting of erroneous data in the 618 Table 5 submission. These errors were corrected and 618 Table 5 was revised and resubmitted.

  36. Overall • No major slippage in any indicator! • Changes in Monitoring & Compliance Verifications (‘subsequent’ correction v. ‘timely’ correction) • Adding “Prong II” in the process

More Related