Indicator #14 SPP/APR

Region VIII Employment Conference

October 17, 2006Dr. Greg Cooch

BHSU

Three Distinct Eras of Special Education

1. Era of Charisma

• Period before 1975/PL 94-142—only reason studentsreceived services was because parents or educationalleaders insisted they be educated in public schools

2. Era of Equity

• Period from about 1975 to 2000—sped focus was ensuring equitable student services and concentratingon “process of sped” e.g., dot “i’s”, cross “t’s”

Special Education Eras--continued

3. Era of Accountability• From approximately 2000 to the present (and

Will probably be with us for some time)

• The focus is on OUTCOMES

• The issues is Acceptable Programmingprocedures and Effectiveness of SpecialEducation (Kukic, Teleconference 4/14/04—MPRRC)

ImpairmentHandicap Disability

Environmental Physiological

-Stairs, Curbs, Attitudes -LD, SL,VI etc

-EHA (1975) -IDEA

-PL’s 94-142 & 99-457 -PL’s 101-476, 105-17,

108-446

-ACCESS FIRST -PEOPLE FIRST Access to Gen

Curr/ OUTCOMES

-”LETTER OF THE LAW” Moving in this direction -”SPIRIT OF THE LAW”

-Goal: Access schools to meet -Goal: Full equal educational minimum requirements of the opportunity in gen curr. and Education for all Handicapped meaningful outcomes/ Children Act Accountability

•Special Education has entered an era of increasing accountability

•Mounting Pressure to document impact of Special education instruction on academic achievement

State Performance Plans (SPP) & Annual Performance Reports (APR)

•States are required to describe in their SPP a 6-year plan to address the 5 monitoring priorities and 20 indicators for students with disabilities

•The APR will be submitted annually to document progress toward addressing those priorities and indicators

Targets---OUTCOMES

• Each state is required to develop measurable and rigorous targets for each of the priorities and indicators

• Purpose for collecting data on measurable and rigorous targets is:

1. Accountability for Sped Program2. Help guide systemic improvement

The State Performance Plan (SPP)

•The SPP (FFY 2005-2010) was submitted Dec. 2, 2005

•The SPP is to be reviewed by the State at least once every six years

•SD SPP was approved by the Secretary of Education

Annual Performance Report

The APR is to be submitted annually

•The first APR will be due February 7, 2007

•The State shall report annually to the public on the performance of each LEA (Local Education Agency) in the State on the targets in the SPP

Statutory Requirements: SPP(State Performance Plan)

•States shall use the targets in the SPP to analyze the performance of each Local Education Agency (School District) in the State

•The State shall report annually to the public on the performance of each LEA Program in the State on the targets in the SPP

SPP Content

•Overview of the System or Process•Baseline Data•Discussion of Baseline Data•Stakeholder Input•Measurable and Rigorous Targets•Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources

The SPP asks how the State

•Obtained broad stakeholder input, and•Will disseminate SPP to the public

APR Content

In APR’s, States will provide the following:

•Actual performance against each target

•Discussion of improvement activities completed and explanation of progress or slippage

•Any revisions to proposed targets, improvement activities, timelines or resources---with justification

Bottom Line

•Improvement activities are designed to meet targets

•Targets are measurable and reflect improvement

•Baseline data is present, clear, and measurable

•Data is valid

•Required information is included

Monitoring Priority Areas: Part B

20 USC 1416(a)(3)

1. FAPE in the LRE

2. Disproportionality

3. Effective General Supervision

• Child Find• Effective Transition• General Supervision

Monitoring Priorities (Indicators)

•FAPE in the LRE8 Indicators

•Disproportionality2 Indicators

•Effective General Supervision10 Indicators

The 5 monitoring Priorities with respective Indicators:The 5 monitoring Priorities with respective Indicators:

Monitoring Priority 1: FAPE in the LRE

•Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 (Indicators 7 & 8 are New)

Monitoring Priority 2: Disproportionality

•Indicators 9 & 10 (both New)

Monitoring Priority 3: Effective General Supervision Part B-Child Find

•Indicator 11 (New)

Monitoring Priority 4: Effective General Supervision Part B-Effective Transition

•Indicators 12, 13, 14 (13 & 14 are New)

•Monitoring Priority 5: Effective General Supervision Part B-General Supervision

•Indicators 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 (18 is New)

HANDOUT-

•Most of the indicators specified in the SPP relate to student performance while they are still in the public school system

•Indicator #14 is different because it requires states to document the post-school outcome experiences (i.e., Competitive Employment and Post-Secondary Education

Indicator #14 reads as follows:

Percent of youth who had IEP’s, are no longer in secondaryschool and who have been competitively employed, enrolledin some type of postsecondary school, or both, within one year of leaving high school

Indicator #14 suggests that employment and postsecondaryexperiences reflect—

The ultimate purpose of our K-12 system—to preparestudents to become contributing citizens in our society

Indicator #14 will present some unique challenges to States.

1. Students to be included in this data collection systemare no longer students and;

2. Reporting designated outcomes cannot be gatheredthrough the completion of a test within the confines of the school building

In order to gather accurate information for Indicator #14it will be necessary to query young people who were onIEP’s after their exit from high school

Only through the survey method asking pertinent questionsrelated to Indicator #14 will states be able to collect thenecessary data on educational and employment experiences

States need to determine whether they will gather sample data from some students and if sampling which students toInclude.

Some states will choose to sample and gather data from all school leavers.

SD has decided to gather data from all school leavers sincethe number of leavers in the state is relatively small.

Larger states will use representative sampling in collecting data.

Statutory Requirements

•Shall be submitted for approval by the Secretary

•Must be reviewed every 6 years

•State must collect valid and reliable information as needed to report every year

•State shall report annually to the Secretary on the performance of the State on the SPP

Source: Ruth Ryder, Director Division of Monitoring and State Improvement Planning OSEP Mar 2006 Portland

IDEA Purpose

(d) (1) (A) to ensure that all children with disabilities haveavailable to them a FAPE that emphasizes special educationand related services designed to meet their unique needsand prepare them for further education, employment andindependent living

Source: Jane Falls, Project Coordinator National Post School Outcomes Center, University of OregonMarch 2006, Portland.

Data Collection Procedures

The Who, What, How, When, and by Whom

The WHO:

Who are data collected on?

•All graduates/completers

•Aged-out of school (age 21)

•Early Leavers/Dropouts

The WHAT?

What data are collected??

In-school•Contact information•Demographic characteristics•Leaving status•Is extant data available

Post-school•1 year out of school•Between April and September

The HOW:

How are data collected??

•Extant data—In SD case because we don’t have access to existing data a secured website was developed

•Survey Methodology•Phone survey•Mail survey•Web-based•Combination

The WHEN:

When are the data collected??

•In-school•During the last year of attendance•Method for capturing early leavers

•Post-school•1 year out of school•Between April and September

By WHOM??

•LEA staff•Former teachers•Support staff

•SEA staff

•Contracted party

SD has opted for the latter

Data Use and Requirements for FederalReporting

Indicator #14 Timelines

•12/02/05 Plan to collect data

•02/01/07 Status report of exiters (Appendix A)

Referred to as the “Anchor Point”

•02/01/08 Progress report of exiters, (Appenix B) including baseline, targets and improvement activities

Source: OSEP/ Ruth Ryder, Portland

Statutory Requirements

•State shall use targets in the SPP to analyze the performance of each LEA in the state

•State shall report annually to the public on the performance of each LEA in the state on the targets in the SPP

Reporting

•Annually on the Performance of the State•To the Secretary•To the Public (N>10)

•Annually on the Performance of the LEA’s in the state

•Each LEA, each year, each indicator

Reporting Questions

• Currently, OSEP doesn’t have a template for design of report

• Questions that have been raised by states include:

1. Format and Mechanism for reporting?2. Will you compare districts to overall state performance?3. Will you compare districts of similar size and location??4. Will you include narrative for qualitative info?5. Tables, Charts, Graphs????

Stakeholders for the GPRA (Gov’t Performance and Results Act) have established the following Focus Areasfor Transition:

1. Promote programs that achieve a balance between academicacademic achievement and participation in employment(this is the “heart of Indicator #14)

2. Develop a broad range of performance measures to assessstudent outcomes (still struggling with this—how do we monitor 3-5 years out)

3. Increase collaboration among stakeholder agencies forlong term success

4. Promote early student and family involvement with Transitionplanning emphasizing self-determination

5. Support and disseminate model programs of evidence-basedsuccess in meeting needs of transition-aged students/families

Source: Marlene Burroughs Assoc. Director, Research to Practice, OSEP

Concern area!!!! Hard-to-find youth

How to increase response rate—

States that have been tracking graduates/leavers say this isthe most difficult group to find

Other groups that are difficult include:•ED•Homeless•DOC•Certain cultural groups•Children in Larger urban areas•Foster Care•Several others as well—Migrant, home school etc.

Strategies to find exiters/leavers

•Multiple methods of contact—phone, letter, email

•Internet sites—some states have set these up

•Know where there friends are—phone #’s, email address(one state reported this was the best way to find this population

•Bottom Line: Most states report they have had a hard time tracking this population

Additional Strategies to find exiters:

•Parent contact (North Dakota)

•Pre-contact letter prior to survey (Idaho)

•Schools that have a good relationship with exiters seem to be easier to find e.g., school personnel know

Bottom Line: Probably will be THE significant problem

Other issue: Districts have an incentive to not findDropouts since data will be publicly reported

References

•MPRRC—John Copenhaver•OSEP—Marlene Simon-Burroughs, Assoc. Director•OSEP—Ruth Ryder, Director•National Post School Outcomes—Deanne Unruh, Project Assoc.•National Post School Outcomes—Jane Falls, Coordinator•National Post School Outcomes—Mike Bullis, Director•Center for Change in Transition Services, University of Seattle— Cinda Johnson, Director •SD Dept of Education—Special Education Office