Annual Desk Audit (ADA) March 31, 2015 Webinar Hello, My name is Renee Ecckles-Hardy and I am the data manager for the Office Of Special Programs. I am accompanied by Executive Director Pat Homberg, and Assistant Directors Ghaski Browning and Susan Beck.

Agenda Purpose/Introduction of the ADA Indicator Reviews With Five-year trends Navigating the ADA Today, we will go over the ADA requirements Review each Indicator included in the ADA, along with the 5 year trends And give guidance on how to navigate aspects of the ADA

Purpose of the Annual Desk Audit (ADA) Districts are required to conduct an annual self-assessment of their special education programs utilizing the Annual Desk Audit or (ADA), which includes State Performance Plan (SPP) targets. The ADA is submitted electronically each year on April 30, and is a review of both compliance and results SPP indicators. Districts with less than 100% or 0% on compliance indicators will receive written notice of noncompliance on or before May 31. Each ADA indicator determined to be Not Met, requires completion of an improvement plan to be reviewed and approved by the Office of Special Programs (OSP). Results Indicator Targets are based on ESEA Flexibility Waiver Targets (trajectories) or Targets set by a stakeholder group and approved by the WV Advisory Counsel for the Education of Exceptional Children (WVACEEC).

Results Indicators Indicator 1 – Graduation (Target 67.08%) Indicator 2 – Dropout (Target 2.45%) Indicator 3B – Assessment Participation Math & Reading (Targets 95%) Indicator 3C – Assessment Proficiency Math (Target 35.7%) RLA (Target 32.9%) Indicator 4A – Long Term Suspensions (State Bar <3.28%) Some Indicators are considered “Results” indicators, while others are considered “Compliance” indicators. Let’s briefly review each of the Indicators and the Target set forth for each

Results Indicators Cont. Indicator 5A – General Ed. Full-Time (Target 62.5%) Indicator 5B – Spec. Ed. Separate Class (Target 9.4%) Indicator 5C – Separate Schools: Residential Facilities or Homebound (Target 1.40%)

Results Indicators Cont. Indicator 6A – Regular Early Childhood Program (Target 29.8%) Indicator 6B – Special Education Separate Class/Separate School/Residential Facility (Target 10.6%)

Results Indicators Cont. Indicator 7A – Early Childhood Outcomes Positive Social-Emotional Skills: A1 – Increased Rate of Growth (Target 78.00%) A2 – Functionality Within Age Expectations (Target 67.00%)

Results Indicators Cont. Indicator 7B: Early Childhood Outcomes Acquisition & Use of Knowledge & Skills: 7B1 – Increased Rate of Growth (Target 78.00%) 7B2 – Functionality Within Age Expectations (Target 63.00%)

Results Indicators Cont. Indicator 7C – Early Childhood Outcomes Use of Appropriate Behaviors: 7C1 – Increased Rate of Growth (Target 79.00%) 7C2 – Functionality Within Age Expectations (Target 78.00%)

Results Indicators Cont. Indicator 8 – Parent Involvement (Target 33.00%) Indicator 14 – Post School Outcomes: 14C – Enrolled in Higher Education or Other Training, Competitively Employed, or Other Employment (Target 65.00%)

Compliance Indicators Indicator 4B – Suspensions (Target 0%) Indicator 9 – Disproportionality – All Disabilities (Target 0%) Indicator 10 – Disproportionality – Specific Disabilities (Target 0%) Indicator 11 – Child Find (Target 100%) Indicator 12 – Early Childhood Transition (Target 100%) Indicator 13 – Secondary Transition (Target 100%) Read Compliance Manual page 26 2nd paragraph: Compliance Indicator Targets of 100% or 0% are set by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). Districts not meeting the compliance indicator targets in the ADA will receive a letter within 30 calendar days of submission identifying each noncompliance.

To view and respond to your ADA results, log onto WOW and click on the Menus link and then the SPE.ADA link under the Special Education Reports heading

Data Workbook You may click on the Data Workbook link to view indicators 1 thru 12&14; for both district and state results. Tomorrow, within the GRADUATION 20/20 folder on the OSP website, we will post data slides of all state and RESA results for your viewing.

Data Workbook Within the Data Workbook, you can click across the bottom to see and print the data for each indicator

District Data To view your districts results and compliance outcomes, choose the link to your district and click. Once you click on your district, you can review each Indicator and the subsequent required action as needed.

Indicators If your district did not meet the target for any Indicator, you will be prompted to click on “Improvement Plan” in order to complete the improvement plan form. If your district met or exceeded the target for any Indicator, the radio button “Met” will be indicated.

Improvement Plan You will enter your improvement plan per the prompts in each row, considering the Drill Down Questions found in the “Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook”. Be sure to click on the “save” button upon completion.

Toolbook for Drill Down Questions Again, the Drill Down Questions can be found in the 201 4-2015 Integrated Compliance System Procedures Toolbook.

Example of Drill Down Questions This is an example of the drill down questions for Graduation, within the Toolbook

Indicator 1: Graduation School Year 4-Year Adjusted Cohort Rate Actual Data Results Targets FFY 2012 (2011-2012) 59.90%  80.00% FFY 2013 (2012-2013) 62.09%  63.49% FFY 2014 (2013-2014) 70.27%   67.08% FFY 2015 (2014-2015)   70.67% FFY 2016 (2015-2016) 74.26% FFY 2017 (2016-2017) 77.85% FFY 2018 (2017-2018) 81.44% Now let’s take a look at the state level results for each indicator; including future Targets for your information. Indicator 1, Graduation *Zoom WV on ADA Stakeholder Involvement March 17, 2015

Indicator 1: Graduation The gradation rate went from 62.1% in 2013 to 70.3% in 2014. A difference of 8.2%tage points. There has been a slight but gradual increase in graduation rates over the last five years!

Grades 7-12 Event Drop Rate Indicator 2: Drop Out School Year Grades 7-12 Event Drop Rate Students with IEPs Actual Data Results Targets FFY 2012 (2011-2012) 2.20%  2.75% FFY 2013 (2012-2013) FFY 2014 (2013-2014)  1.50% 2.45% FFY 2015 (2014-2015)   FFY 2016 (2015-2016) 2.25% FFY 2017 (2016-2017) FFY 2018 (2017-2018) 2.00% # of SWD dropouts ÷ # of dropouts = 1.93% as of June 30 However, WV considers those who drop out after June 30 and reenroll by October 1. Zoom WV on ADA Stakeholder Involvement March 17, 2015

Indicator 2: Dropout Rate The Dropout percentage continues to decrease; from 3.10% in 2010 to 1.50% in 2014. A difference of 1.60%tage points.

Indicator 3A: Assessment AMO School Year Actual Data Results Targets FFY 2012 (2012-2013) 0% 16.40% FFY 2013 (2013-2014) 0%  FFY 2014 (2014-2015)   FFY 2015 (2015-2016) FFY 2016 (2016-2017) FFY 2017 (2017-2018) FFY 2018 (2018-2019) Assessment Website Portal by School not District Did each school meet its AMO in order to determine if district met goal Zoom WV Stakeholder Involvement March 17, 2015

Indicator 3A: Assessment Districts Meeting AYP/AMO for Disability Subgroup As has been the trend for the last 5 years, No districts met the AYP/AMO for the Disability subgroup in the state for Assessment.

Indicator 3B: Participation School Year Math Actual Data Reading Actual Data Results Targets FFY 2012 (2012-2013) 97.80% 97.90% 95% FFY 2013 (2013-2014) 97.89% FFY 2014 (2014-2015)   FFY 2015 (2015-2016) FFY 2016 (2016-2017) FFY 2017 (2017-2018) FFY 2018 (2018-2019) Stakeholder Involvement March 17, 2015

Indicator 3B: Assessment Participation - Math The Math Assessment participation rate continues to exceed the 95% target

Indicator 3B: Assessment Participation - RLA The RLA Participation rate also continues to exceed the 95% target

Indicator 3C: RLA and Math Proficiency School Year RLA Actual Data Results Targets Math FFY 2012 (2012-2013) 17.80% 25.29% 20.60% 29.1% FFY 2013 (2013-2014) 16.12%  32.90% 17.55% 35.7% FFY 2014 (2014-2015)   39.90% 42.3% FFY 2015 (2015-2016) 46.90% 48.9% FFY 2016 (2016-2017) 53.90% 55.5% FFY 2017 (2017-2018) 60.90% 62.1% FFY 2018 (2018-2019) 67.90% 68.7% Stakeholder Involvement March 17, 2015

Indicator 3C: Assessment Proficiency - Math The Math Proficiency rate dropped by 3.05%tage points in 2014 compared to 2013.

Indicator 3C: Assessment Proficiency - RLA The RLA Proficiency rate also dropped by 1.68%tage points in 2014 compared to 2013.

Indicator 4A: Long Term Suspensions School Year Actual Data: Percent of LEAs with Significant Discrepancies Results Targets FFY 2012 (2011-2012) 7.0% 0.0% FFY 2013 (2012-2013) 6.5% FFY 2014 (2013-2014)   6.0% FFY 2015 (2014-2015) FFY 2016 (2015-2016) 5.5% FFY 2017 (2016-2017) FFY 2018 (2017-2018) 5.0% *This indicator is Lagged one year: The data is based on year 2012-2013 On Annual Desk Audit Ask Mark Easter Discipline report Stakeholder Involvement March 17, 2015

Indicator 4A: Suspensions/Expulsions As you can see, the Suspensions/Expulsions greater than 10 days has fluctuated over the last 5 years. Read Compliance Manual page 26 4A: Districts that have a significant discrepancy in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year, for students with disabilities, are not in compliance, and an improvement plan will be required. Stakeholder Involvement March 17, 2015

Indicator 4B: Suspension by Race/Ethnicity School Year Actual Data Compliance Targets FFY 2012 (2011-2012) 10.53% 0% FFY 2013 (2012-2013) 3.51% FFY 2014 (2013-2014)   FFY 2015 (2014-2015) FFY 2016 (2015-2016) FFY 2017 (2016-2017) FFY 2018 (2017-2018) Ask mark Easter On ADA Discipline Report Stakeholder Involvement March 17, 2015

Indicator 4B: Suspensions/Expulsions by Race/Ethnicity Suspensions/Expulsions for more than 10 days by Race/Ethnicity has consistently been higher than the target of 0%, over the last 5 years. However, there has been a steady decline over the last 4 years dropping by 17.54%tage points since 2011. Read Compliance Manual page 26 4B: Districts that have a significant discrepancy , by race or ethnicity, in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for students with disabilities, are subject to an on-site or desk review by the OSP. If upon review, the district’s policies, procedures or practices are found to contribute to the significant discrepancy, a finding of noncompliance is issued. The LEA must revise the policies, procedures and practice to comply with applicable requirements that contribute to the significant discrepancy and do not comply with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards. However, if no violation of policy, procedure or practice exists, no finding will be issued. Stakeholder Involvement March 17, 2015

Indicator 4A&B Resources To view the State Review and Review Process Webinar click on the links in the ADA menu. The links are also available here. http://10.76.1.205/osp_annualdeskaudit/files/4a_4b_state_review_form.doc http://wvde.state.wv.us/osp/Lanai-Discipline-Video.mp4

Indicator 5: Educational Environments Ages 6-21 School Year 5A: General Education: Full Time (80% or more) 5B: Special Education: Separate Class (inside regular class less than 40%) 5C: In separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements. Actual Data Results Targets Actual Data FFY 2012 (2012-2013) 63.9% 61.5% 8.7% 8.0% 1.70% 1.0% FFY 2013 (2013-2014) 64.0% 62.5% 8.2% 9.5% 1.84% 1.5% FFY 2014 (2014-2015) 9.4% 1.4% FFY 2015 (2015-2016) 9.3% FFY 2016 (2016-2017) 62.6% 9.2% FFY 2017 (2017-2018) 62.8% 9.1% FFY 2018 (2018-2019) 63.0% 9.0% 1.3% On ADA December 1 Child Count Stakeholder Involvement March 17, 2015

Indicator 5A: General Education Ages 6-21 (80% or more in general education) The Rate of students with disabilities enrolled in the General Education setting 80% or more of the day, slightly increased in 2014; Results have exceeded the Target consistently over the last 5 years, although overall dropping from 68.10% to 64.00% within the same 5 years. Stakeholder Involvement March 17, 2015

Indicator 5B: General Education Ages 6-21 (Less than 40% in general education) After resetting the Target for SWDs in the General Education setting Less than 40% of the day to 9.50% or less, the target was exceeded by 1.30%tage points at 8.20%. Stakeholder Involvement March 17, 2015

Indicator 5B Resources To review the 5B File Review and Instructions, click on the link in the ADA menu. The link is also available here. http://10.76.1.205/osp_annualdeskaudit/files/5B_File_Review_and_Instructions.docx

Indicator 5C: Separate Schools, Residential, Homebound, or Hospital Ages 6-21 The number of students in Separate Schools, Residential, Homebound, or Hospital has been consistently slightly higher than expected over the past 5 years, with the exception of 2011 when the target was met. Stakeholder Involvement March 17, 2015

Indicator 6: Educational Environments Ages 3-5 School Year 6A: Regular Early Childhood Program (RECP) and receiving majority of services in RECP 6B: Special Education: Separate Class, Separate School and Residential Facility Actual Data Results Targets Results Targets FFY 2012 (2012-2013) 27.30% 30.3% 10.50% 10.1% FFY 2013 (2013-2014) 29.16% 29.8% 9.45% 10.6% FFY 2014 (2014-2015) FFY 2015 (2015-2016) 31.3% 10.5% FFY 2016 (2016-2017) 31.8% 10.4% FFY 2017 (2017-2018) 32.3% 10.3% FFY 2018 (2018-2019) Stakeholder Involvement March 17, 2015

Indicator 6A: (Ages 3-5) Regular Early Childhood Programs Students Age 3-5 enrolled in Regular Early Childhood Programs has fluctuated in the past 3 years, but has maintained below the Target. Stakeholder Involvement March 17, 2015

Indicator 6B: Special Education:(Ages 3-5) Separate Class, Separate School, Residential There was a slight drop (1.05%tage points) in the number of Students Ages 3-5 in Separate Class, Separate School, or Residential; meeting the Target. Stakeholder Involvement March 17, 2015

Early Childhood Outcomes Indicator 7. Early Childhood Outcomes FFY 2012 FFY 2013 FFY 2014 FFY 2015 FFY 2016 FFY 2017 FFY 2018 A1 Target 77.00% 78.00% 78.50% 79.00% Data 81.68% A2 85.00% 67.00% 67.50% 68.00% 67.70% 67.34% B1 70.00% 79.50% 78.20% 81.55% B2 63.00% 63.50% 64.00% 63.70% 63.49% C1 75.00% 80.00% 79.40% 83.54% C2 86.00% 78.30% 77.90% Outcome A Outcome B Outcome C Positive Social Emotional Skills Acquisition and Use of Knowledge and Skills Use of Appropriate Behaviors to Meet Needs Stakeholder Involvement March 17, 2015

Indicator 7A: Early Childhood Outcomes Positive Social Emotional Skills (Ages 3-5) A1: Increased Rate of Growth The trend for Positive Social Emotional Skills for Increased Rate of Growth for Ages 3-5 has moved steadily upward over the past 3 years. Stakeholder Involvement March 17, 2015

Indicator 7A: Early Childhood Outcomes Positive Social Emotional Skills A2: Functionality Within Age Expectations Functionality Within Age Expectations has been below the Target over the past 4 years, with a very slight increase above the goal in 2014 at 67.34% with a Target of 67.00% Stakeholder Involvement March 17, 2015

Indicator 7B: Early Childhood Outcomes Acquisition & Use of Knowledge/Skills (Ages 3-5) B1: Increased Rate of Growth The trend for Increased Rate of Growth for Ages 3-5 has moved steadily upward over the past 5 years, slightly exceeding the Target in the last 4 years. Stakeholder Involvement March 17, 2015

Indicator 7B: Early Childhood Outcomes Positive Social Emotional Skills B2: Functionality Within Age Expectations Functionality Within Age Expectations has been steadily below the Target goal over the past 4 years, with a very slight increase above the goal in 2014 at 63.49% with a Target of 63.00% Stakeholder Involvement March 17, 2015

Indicator 7C: Early Childhood Outcomes Use of Appropriate Behaviors (Ages 3-5) C1: Increased Rate of Growth Again, the trend for Increased Rate of Growth for Ages 3-5 has moved steadily upward over the past 5 years, slightly exceeding the Target for the last 4 years. Stakeholder Involvement March 17, 2015

Indicator 7C: Early Childhood Outcomes Use of Appropriate Behaviors C2: Functionality Within Age Expectations Functionality Within Age Expectations has steadily fallen below the Target goal over the past 5 years; slightly missing the target goal in 2014 by only 0.1%tage point. Stakeholder Involvement March 17, 2015

Indicator 8: Parent Involvement School Year Actual Data Results Targets FFY 2012 (2012-2013) 34.40% 40% FFY 2013 (2013-2014) 31.63% 32% FFY 2014 (2014-2015)   33% FFY 2015 (2015-2016) 35% FFY 2016 (2016-2017) 36% FFY 2017 (2017-2018) 38% FFY 2018 (2018-2019) On ADA Betsy – Data from Christine Stakeholder Involvement March 17, 2015

Indicator 8: Parent Involvement - Schools Facilitated Parent Involvement Schools Facilitated Parent Involvement has steadily fallen below the Target goal over the past 5 years; but is only slightly below the target for 2014. Stakeholder Involvement March 17, 2015

Indicator 9: Disproportionality – All Disabilities School Year Actual Data Compliance Targets FFY 2012 (2011-2012) 0% FFY 2013 (2012-2013) FFY 2014 (2013-2014)   FFY 2015 (2014-2015) FFY 2016 (2015-2016) FFY 2017 (2016-2017) FFY 2018 (2017-2018) ADA Race Dec. 1 Stakeholder Involvement March 17, 2015

Indicator 9: Disproportionate Representation – All Disabilities In 2013-14, 2 districts had disproportionate representation for the All Disabilities category within the Race/Ethnicity subgroup. In 2014-15 NO districts have disproportionate representation within the All Disabilities category for this subgroup. *Read Compliance Manual page 27 for Indicator 9: A LEA is identified with disproportionate representation in all disabilities when the data indicate a weighted risk ratio (WRR) of 2.0 or higher with a minimum cell size of 20. Each LEA identified must conduct a review of its policies, practices and procedures to determine if the disproportionate representation is a result of inappropriate identification. Stakeholder Involvement March 17, 2015

Indicator 10: Disproportionality – Specific Disabilities School Year Actual Data Compliance Targets FFY 2012 (2011-2012) 5.3% 0% FFY 2013 (2012-2013) 0.0% FFY 2014 (2013-2014)   FFY 2015 (2014-2015) FFY 2016 (2015-2016) FFY 2017 (2016-2017) FFY 2018 (2017-2018) ADA Disability? Race Stakeholder Involvement March 17, 2015

Indicator 10: Disproportionate Representation – Specific Disabilities In 2013-14, 15 Districts had Disproportionate Representation within the Specific Disabilities category within the Race/Ethnicity subgroup. In 2014-15, only 2 districts have this disproportionate representation; both in the Black race subgroup. *Read Compliance Manual page 27 for Indicator 10: A LEA is identified with disproportionate representation when the data indicate a weighted risk ratio (WRR) of 2.0 or higher with a minimum cell size of 20 in a specific category of disability. Each LEA identified must conduct a review of its policies, practices, and procedures to determine if the disproportionate representation is a result of inappropriate identification. – Statement *IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT DISTRICTS CHOOSE TO DO A SELF-REVIEW OF POLICIES, PRACTICES, and PROCEDURES WHEN THEY HAVE A CELL SIZE LESS THAN BUT CLOSE TO 20 (Example: You have 15 Hispanic students in your district and 5 of them have been identified as students with a specific disability in a given exceptionality) Stakeholder Involvement March 17, 2015

Disproportionality Workbook In order to view the Disproportionality Workbook for Indicators 9 & 10, click on the link with the same name. http://10.76.1.205/osp_annualdeskaudit/DisproportionalityWorkbook2015.htm

Indicators 9 & 10 This Workbook shows the Summary for those districts “out”, as well as the Specific Disabilities categories accessible by clicking on the bottom tabs. Read Compliance Manual page 27 last paragraph: Any LEA identified with overrepresentation by race/ethnicity as designated on the Data Summary Sheet for Indicators 9 & 10 is required to conduct a review for the ADA utilizing the designated form. The purpose of the review checklist is to assist LEAs in determining whether inappropriate identification has occurred through the examination of general and special education policies, procedures and practices pertaining to the identification, evaluation and/or eligibility of students for special education. The OSP provides technical assistance to districts required to complete the review.

SLD Example of Disproportionality This is an Example of what the Specific Disability Workbook for SLD looks like

To review Indicators 9 & 10 District Review Checklists, as well as the Review Process Webinar, click on the links in the ADA menu. The links are also available here. http://10.76.1.205/osp_annualdeskaudit/files/9_10_District_File_Review_Checklists.doc http://wvde.state.wv.us/osp/Indicators9-10-Review-Process.mp4

Indicator 11: Child Find School Year Actual Data Compliance Targets FFY 2012 (2012-2013) 98.10% 100% FFY 2013 (2013-2014) 97.28%  FFY 2014 (2014-2015)   FFY 2015 (2015-2016) FFY 2016 (2016-2017) FFY 2017 (2017-2018) FFY 2018 (2018-2019) 80 Day Timeline WOW WVEIS Stakeholder Involvement March 17, 2015

Indicator 11: Child Find Evaluations Complete Within 80 Days The last 5 years shows a trend of below 100% results for the 80 Days Timeline. Read page 28 paragraph for this year: Indicator 11 is the percent of children who were evaluated within 80 days of written receipt of parental consent for initial evaluation. The OSP collects data entered by each LEA from the West Virginia Education Information System (WVEIS) database. Data is analyzed to determine possible data entry errors. The OSP notifies each LEA of specific student records with missing and/or error data requiring correction. This process occurred three (3) times per year giving the LEAs an opportunity to correct data entry errors. Final compliance status is based on a data pull following the last correction window. Stakeholder Involvement March 17, 2015

Indicator 11 Cont. The data was sorted to remove the following: Entries which have been duplicated Entries outside the specified federal fiscal year (FFY) Entries containing documented parental refusal to evaluate Entries with no parent consent and no EC data; and Entries with error data A program is currently being developed to allow district directors or designee to view and update the 80 day timeline data, with the requirement to verify this data 3 times a year for accuracy. Additional information and training will be conducted by OSP once the program is complete. This should eliminate data entry clerical errors and allow directors to maintain their own data. Additionally, we will soon provide guidelines about how to document school cancellations due to inclement weather, state of emergency, or summer break in order to align this indicator with the new WV Policy 2419 regulations. Until then, continue to use Code 1 and document school closings in order to justify any timeline issues specifically because of school closure(s).

Indicator 11 Common Clerical Errors Reversed Referral and Consent Date Wrong Date Year (Example: Eval. consent date 11/4/2014, eligibility date 1/3/2013) No Eligibility Date No IEP Completion Date No Eligibility Status Code No E/R Code An E/R Code when the student was found Not Eligible No Reason Late Code OR A Reason Late Code when the referral was not late Marks or letters in a code cell (Example: L0, ‘, Io, etc. in the Reason Late cell) In reviewing the timeline data, there were common errors across all districts that you will want to pay closer attention to: Date of referral or date of consent is sometimes entered as the date the data entry was put into WVEIS, instead of the date the student was referred or the date the parent signed the MDET form giving permission for testing Consent date cannot be after the eligibility date Although there was a status code (1=eligible, 2= not eligible) Although the student was made eligible, no IEP Completion date was entered Although there was an eligibility date, there was no status code The status code is entered as 1 = for eligible, but there is no exceptionality code to show what the student was made eligible for Keep in mind, that there should only be an E/R code when the student was found eligible. The E/R code cell is not to be used to indicate the reason you referred the student for testing. Therefore, if the student was found Not Eligible or Code 2, then the E/R field will remain empty when a student leaves the district, there still needs to be a code entered if they do not return and evaluations exceed 80 days; (Code 8 = Student transferred out of the district)

Indicator 11 Common Clerical Errors Cont. 10. Wrong Reason Late Code format (Ex. 01, 02, 03, etc.) Keep in mind that the Reason Late codes do not require a zero in front of the number.

Indicator 12: Early Childhood Transition School Year Actual Data Compliance Targets FFY 2012 (2012-2013) 99.84%  100% FFY 2013 (2013-2014)  100% FFY 2014 (2014-2015)   FFY 2015 (2015-2016) FFY 2016 (2016-2017) FFY 2017 (2017-2018) FFY 2018 (2018-2019) Ginger works with Pam Roush Birth-to-3 Part C Stakeholder Involvement March 17, 2015

Indicator 12: Early Childhood Transition IEP Implemented by 3rd Birthday Early Childhood Transition, IEP implemented by 3rd birthday, has been on a steady climb over the past 5 years; with a 100% success rate last year. Stakeholder Involvement March 17, 2015

Indicator 13: Secondary Transition School Year Actual Data Compliance Targets FFY 2012 (2012-2013) 90.50%  100% FFY 2013 (2013-2014) 98.41%  FFY 2014 (2014-2015)   FFY 2015 (2015-2016) FFY 2016 (2016-2017) FFY 2017 (2017-2018) FFY 2018 (2018-2019) ADA Monitoring 13-14 Self Assessment on ADA Stakeholder Involvement March 17, 2015

Indicator 13: Secondary Transition Secondary Transition data has been consistently slightly below the Target of 100% over the past 5 years; with the exception of 2012. The trend line shows hopeful results for future goals; with 2014 only 1.59%tage points below the target. Read Compliance Manual page 29 highlighted: Data for this Indicator are collected through the ADA process and the on-site monitoring review. For the districts self-review, the OSP draws a random sample of students from the most recent December Child Count file posted for LEA access within the ADA system and includes approximately 10 percent (minimum of 5 per district/maximum of 25 per district). The LEA completes the transition file review and determines compliance. For the LEAs that are scheduled for an on-site monitoring review, the OSP draws a random sample of students from the most recent December Child Count and conducts the transition file review and the OSP determines compliance. Stakeholder Involvement March 17, 2015

Indicator 14: Post School Outcomes School Year 14A: Enrolled in Higher Education 14B: Enrolled in Higher Education or Competitively Employed 14C: Enrolled in Higher Education or Other Training, Competitively Employed or Other Employment Actual Data Results Targets Actual Data Results Targets FFY 2012 (2012-2013) 15.00% 24.0% 53.30% 49.5% 68.10% 64.7% FFY 2013 (2013-2014) 15.59% 15.0% 52.85% 49.0% 64.89% 64.0% FFY 2014 (2014-2015) 16.0% 50.0% 65.0% FFY 2015 (2015-2016) 17.0% 51.0% 66.0% FFY 2016 (2016-2017) 18.0% 52.0% 67.0% FFY 2017 (2017-2018) 19.0% 53.0% 68.0% FFY 2018 (2018-2019) 20.0% 54.0% 69.0% Stakeholder Involvement March 17, 2015

Indicator 14: Post School Outcomes Within 1-Year of Leaving High School 14A: Enrolled in Higher Education One-Year follow-up surveys for graduates enrolled in Higher Education has historically been below the Target. Last year, the Target was exceeded by .50%tage points and appears to be on an upward trend. Stakeholder Involvement March 17, 2015

Indicator 14: Post School Outcomes Within 1-Year of Leaving High School 14B: Enrolled in Higher Education or Competitively Employed One-Year follow-up survey for Enrolled in Higher Education or Competitively Employed is on the up rise, after a dip below expected outcomes in prior years. Last year exceeded the Target goal by 3.85%tage points; with an increase of 3.35%tage points over the previous year. Stakeholder Involvement March 17, 2015

Indicator 14: Post School Outcomes Within 1-Year of Leaving High School 14C: Enrolled in Higher Education, Postsecondary Training, Competitively Employed, or Other Employment One-year follow-up surveys for Enrolled in Higher Education, Postsecondary Training, Competitively Employed, or Other Employment also exceeded the 64.00% Target by .89%tage points, slightly higher than the previous year. Stakeholder Involvement March 17, 2015

Questions?

ADA Instructional Video Available at either of the following links for your convenience: http://wvde.state.wv.us/osp/datareports.html Annual Desk Audit Navigational Introduction

Contact Information Renee Ecckles-Hardy Coordinator, Data Manager Office of Special Programs renee.ecckleshardy@k12.wv.us 304.558.2696