1 Accountability Conference Education Service Center, Region 20 September 16, 2009.

SPECIAL EDUCATIONSTATE PERFORMANCE PLAN/

ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT

1

Accountability ConferenceEducation Service Center, Region 20

September 16, 2009

SPP/APR: OVERVIEW

State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report

IDEA 2004 requires each State to develop a six-year performance plan (2005-2010).

• The 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.

• States will submit on an annual basis to the USDE Office of Special Education Programs an annual performance report (APR) and report publicly the performance of districts against the targets in the APR

• Performance on compliance indicators used in LEA Determinations

For more information on this subject, visit the TEA Website at:http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/special.ed/spp/index.html

SPP/APRIN for FFY 2008 APR due Feb 2010

Indicator 1: Graduation

Indicator 2: Dropout

Indicator 3A-C: Adequate Yearly Progress

Indicator 4A: Suspension/Expulsion

Indicator 5: LRE, 6-21

Indicator 7: Early Childhood Outcomes

Indicator 8: Parent Participation

Indicator 9/10: Disproportionate Representation

Indicator 11: Timely Initial Evaluation

Indicator 12: Early Childhood Transition

SPP/APR

Out for FFY 2008 APR due Feb 2010

Indicator 4B: Suspension/Expulsion (Race/Ethnicity)

Indicator 6: LRE, 3-5

Indicator 13: Secondary Transition

Indicator 14: Post School Outcomes

SPP/APR:LOOKING FORWARD

STATE PERFORMANCE PLAN/ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT

Indicator 1: % graduating with a regular diploma

• Must use graduation rate calculation established by USDE under Title 1 of the ESEA, as reported to the Department of Education under Title 1.

• Must use annual graduation rate targets under Title 1 of the ESEA FFY 2008 (2008-09) due Feb 2010

Note: Title 1 adjusted cohort graduation rate goes into effect in 2010-11

Report in FFY 2008 APR due Feb 1, 2010

No change in PEIMS data collection


Indicator 2: % dropping out of high school

• Must use the dropout data used in the ESEA graduation rate calculation, as reported to the Department of Education under Title 1.

Note: Title 1 adjusted cohort graduation rate goes into effect in 2010-11




Indicator 3: Participation and Proficiency on statewide assessments

A. Meet State’s AYP Targets

B. Participation Rate

C. Proficiency Rate


No change in assessment data collection


Indicator 4A: Rate of Suspension and Expulsion

Change to methodology on determining a ‘significant discrepancy’ in the rate of suspension and expulsion of greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs.




Indicator 4B: Rate of Suspension and Expulsion (by Race/Ethnicity)

Report in FFY 2009 SPP due Feb 1, 2011

No change in PEIMS data collectionNo APR reporting in Feb 2010


Indicator 5: % of children with IEPs aged 6-21 served:

A. Inside the regular class 80% or more of the day;

B. Inside the regular class less than 40% of the day; and

C. In separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/ hospital placements.




Indicator 6: % of children with IEPs aged 3-5 attending: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.


No change in PEIMS data collection (yet)No APR reporting in 2010


Indicator 7: % of preschool children with IEPs aged 3-5 who demonstrate:

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.

Report Baseline and Targets inFFY 2008 SPP due Feb 1, 2010

No change in SPP7 data collection


Indicator 8: % of parents who report that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for students with disabilities.

• Increased number of surveys distributed

• Public reporting on district performance


No change in SPP8 data collection process for 2008-09


COMPLIANCE INDICATORS


Indicator 9: % of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification.• Change in methodology for identifying over

and under representation

• Required review of policies, procedures and practices (self assessment)

• Implement new race/ethn. reporting req. by 2010-11




Indicator 10: % of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification.



• Change in methodology for identifying overand under representation




Indicator 11: % of children who were evaluated within 60 days of receiving parental consent for initial evaluation or, if the State establishes a timeframe within which the evaluation must be conducted, within that timeline.• Indicator change

• Potential changes to the data collection procedures for 2009-10

• Noncompliance correction ASAPBNLTOY


No change in SPP11 data collection for 2008-09


Indicator 12: % 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.

• Noncompliance correction ASAPBNLTOY


No change in SPP12 data collection for 2008-09


Indicator 13: % 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.

OLD INDICATOR


NEW INDICATOR


Indicator 13: % of youth with IEPs aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes appropriate measurable postsecondary goals that are annually updated and based upon an age appropriate transition assessment, transition services, including courses of study, that will reasonably enable the student to meet those postsecondary goals, and annual IEP goals related to student’s transition services needs. There also must be evidence that the student was invited to the IEP Team meeting where transition services are to be discussed and evidence that, if appropriate, a representative of any participating agency was invited to the IEP Team meeting with the prior consent of the parent or student who has reached the age of majority.


Indicator 13: % 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.

• District will submit data, State will not report it

• Noncompliance correction ASAPBNLTOY!


No change in SPP13 data collection for 2008-09No APR Reporting in 2010


Indicator 14: % of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school, and were:

A. Enrolled in higher education within one year of leaving high school.

B. Enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within one year of leaving high school.

C. Enrolled in higher education or in some other postsecondary education or training program; or competitively employed or in some other employment within one year of leaving high school.


No change in SPP14 data collection process for 2008-09No APR Reporting in 2010

DISPROPORTIONATE REPRESENTATION

Indicator 9: % of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification.


Indicator 10: % of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification.


• Indicators 9 and 10 are Compliance Indicators

• Analysis identifies over and under representation for the reporting year

• No Comparisons of Race/Ethnicity Categories/ Use of Minimum “N” Size




LEA DETERMINATION LEVELS

LEA Determinations/ 2009 Determination Criteria

1. State Performance Plan (SPP) Compliance (SPP 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13)

2. Valid, Reliable, and Timely Data

3. Status of Uncorrected Noncompliance

4. Financial Audits

5. Program Effectiveness (PBMAS Results)

http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/special.ed/spp/09determin.pdf

30



Federally Required Element

Description Rating Points

1) SPP Compliance Indicators (SPP 9-13)

All five indicators in compliance 0 Points

One or more indicators out of compliance

1 Point

2) Valid, Reliable, and Timely Data within the Person Identification Database (PID) for the fall and summer collection

Both collections met the PID Error Rate Standard

0 Points

Both collections exceeded the PID Error Rate Standard

1 Point

3) Status of Uncorrected Noncompliance No uncorrected noncompliance 0 Points

Uncorrected Noncompliance 1 Point

4) Financial Audits (School FIRST status rating for two consecutive years)

Superior, Above Standard, or Standard Achievement

0 Points

Substandard Achievement 1 Point

5) Overall Program Effectiveness in Performance-Based Monitoring System (PBM)

•Not Staged•Stage 1A or 1B•Stage 2•Stage 3•Stage 4

•0 Points•1 Point•2 Points•3 Points•4 Points

32

Determination Level Ratings

Determination Level Total Points

Meets Requirements 0 Points

Needs Assistance 1-2 Points

Needs Intervention 3 Points

Needs Substantial Intervention 4 or More Points

33

FOR MORE INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT:

Sherry MarshEducation Service Center, Region 20

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Date post:	31-Dec-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	kelly-fox
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

1 Accountability Conference Education Service Center, Region 20 September 16, 2009.

Documents