Post on 09-Feb-2016
description
transcript
Special Education in Texas
State Performance Plan2005-2010
Hurst-Euless-Bedford ISDJune 16, 2009
Background
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (IDEA 2004), requires each state to develop a six-year performance plan. This State Performance Plan (SPP) evaluates the State’s efforts to implement the requirements and purposes of IDEA and illustrates how the State will continuously improve upon this implementation.
State Performance Plan Indicators1. Graduation Rates
2. Dropout Rates3. Adequate Yearly Progress4. Suspension/Expulsion Rates5. Educational Environment, 6-126. Educational Environment, 3-57. Early Childhood Outcomes8. Parent Participation9. Disproportionality10. Disproportionality11. Timely Initial Evaluations12. Early Childhood Transition13. Secondary Transition14. Post School Outcomes
Indicator 1: Graduation Rate(Calculation for Graduation Rate changed)
2007 Report
2008 Report
2009 Report
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
State TargetState RateLEA Rate
Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma
Indicator 2: Dropout Rate(Calculation for Dropout Rate changed)
2007 Report
2008 Report
2009 Report
0.00%2.00%4.00%6.00%8.00%
10.00%12.00%14.00%16.00%
State TargetState RateLEA Rate
Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high school
Indicator 3A: Adequate Yearly ProgressPercent of districts that have a disability subgroup that meets the State’s
minimum “n” size (50) meeting the State’s AYP objectives for progress for disability subgroup
2007 Report 2008 Report 2009 Report0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
METMET MET
Indicator 3B: Adequate Yearly ProgressParticipation 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
2007 Report 2008 Report 2009 Report90%
92%
94%
96%
98%
100%Reading
Indicator 3B: Adequate Yearly Progress
2007 Report 2008 Report 2009 Report90%
92%
94%
96%
98%
100%Math
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
Indicator 3C: Adequate Yearly ProgressProficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level standards and
alternate achievement standards
2007 Report 2008 Report 2009 Report0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%
Reading
Indicator 3C: Adequate Yearly Progress
2007 Report 2008 Report 2009 Report0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%
Math
Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level standards and alternate achievement standards
Indicator 4A: Suspension and ExpulsionPercent 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
Year State Target State Rate LEA Met Target?
2007 Report
<.49% .49% Yes
2008 Report
0% 4.69% Yes
2009 Report
0% 0.2% Yes
Indicator 5A: Educational Environment,
Ages 6-21Percent of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21, removed from regular class less than 21% of the day
2007 Report 2008 Report 2009 Report0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
State TargetState RateLEA Rate
Indicator 5B: Educational Environment,
Ages 6-21Percent of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21, removed from regular class greater than 60% of the day
2007 Report 2008 Report 2009 Report0.00%2.00%4.00%6.00%8.00%
10.00%12.00%14.00%16.00%
State TargetState RateLEA Rate
Indicator 5C: Educational Environment,
Ages 6-21Percent of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21, served in public or private separate schools, residential placements, or homebound or hospital placements
2007 Report 2008 Report 2009 Report0.00%0.20%0.40%0.60%0.80%1.00%1.20%1.40%1.60%1.80%2.00%
State TargetState RateLEA Rate
Indicator 6: Educational Environment, Ages 3-5
Reporting Timeline To Be Determined by the US Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs
Percent of preschool children with IEPs who received special education and related services in settings with typically developing peers
Indicator 7A: Educational Environment, Ages 3-5
Percent of preschool children with IEPs who demonstrate improved, positive
social-emotional skills (including social relationships)
Reporting Timeline To Be Determined by the US Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs
Indicator 7B: Educational Environment, Ages 3-5
Percent of preschool children with IEPs who demonstrate improved acquisition
and use of knowledge and skills
Reporting Timeline To Be Determined by the US Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs
Indicator 7C: Educational Environment, Ages 3-5
Percent of preschool children with IEPs who demonstrate improved use of
appropriate behaviors to meet their needs
Reporting Timeline To Be Determined by the US Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs
Indicator 8: Parent Involvement Percent of parents with a child receiving special education services who
reportedthat schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving
services andresults for children with disabilities
Year State Target
State Rate LEA Met Target?
2009 Report
72% 72% Yes
Indicator 9: Disproportionate Representation
Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic
groups (African American, Asian, Hispanic, Native American, White) in special
education and related services that is the result of inappropriateidentification
Year State Target
State Rate LEA Met Target?
2008 Report
0% .16% Yes
2009 Report
0% 0% Yes
Indicator 10: Disproportionate Representation
Year State Target
State Rate
LEA Met Target?
2008 Report
0% .16% Yes
2009 Report
0% 0% Yes
Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups (African American, Asian, Hispanic, Native American, White) in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification
Indicator 11: Consent to Evaluate
2009 Report80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
Percent of children with parental consent to evaluate who were evaluated and eligibility determined within 60 days
Indicator 12A: IEPs Developed Before 3rd
Birthday, Referral from ECI
2009 Report50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Percent of children referred by ECI prior to age 3, who are found eligible for services, and who have an IEP developed and implemented by their 3rd birthday
Indicator 12B: IEPs Developed Before 3rd
Birthday, Referral from a source other than ECI
2009 Report50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Percent of children referred by a source other than ECI prior to age 3, who are found eligible for services, and who have an IEP developed and implemented by their 3rd birthday
Indicator 13: Transition
2009 Report0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
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
Indicator 14: Employment
Year State Target
State Rate LEA Met State Rate
2009 Report 82% 82% Due to small numbers, district level data reported at regional level
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
Preschool Partnership
2008-2009 Update
Celebrations!• Successful Quarterly Meetings• Training for preschool families and staff at community sites• District professional development attended by numerous preschool/daycare staff• Parent University• Consultation services provided by special education staff• Regional recognition• Statewide recognition
Celebrations!• Red Apple Partnership
• First United Methodist, Euless Partnership
• Bedford Christian Academy and Montessori Preschool (BCAMP) Partnership