State Performance Plan Annual Performance Report SPP/APR State Systemic Improvement Plan SSIP / Indicator 17.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Updates in IDEA NCLB is the symbol of the paradigm shift to a new mission of universal high achievement From: All children will have universal access.

Advertisements

State Systemic Improvement Plan: Preparing, Planning, and Staying Informed Presentation to Louisiana ICC July 10, 2013.

Rhode Island State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) Stakeholder Input November 6, 2014.

SPP/APR/SSIP/SiMR Welcome to More Acronyms. Who is here? Introductions – who are you HERE? Your name cards are color coded by which group you represent.

Teaching and Learning Special Education Secondary Programs Transition Services.

OAPSA Fall Conference Sue Zake, Director of OEC September 26, 2014.

IDEA Partnership State – State Meeting March , 2006 Connecting to Data and strategies Connecting to Data and strategies Using Quantitative Data Using.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Title I, Part D—Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children.

Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education Overview of Results Driven Accountability Assuring Compliance and Improving Results August.

State Directors Conference Boise, ID, March 4, 2013 Cesar D’Agord Regional Resource Center Program WRRC – Western Region.

Office of Special Education Services Instructional Leaders Roundtable Oct. 16, 2014 John R. Payne, Director.

RESULTS DRIVEN ACCOUNTABILITY SSIP Implementation Support Activity 1 OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS.

Results-Driven Accountability OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS 1.

Overview of Idaho’s State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) Division of Special Education Dr. Charlie Silva State Director of Special Education 1.

Special Education Data Collection and Reporting Data Collection, Verification, and Reporting Timelines Sara Berscheit / Steve W. Smith 2009 COSA Conference.

Special Ed. Administrator’s Academy, September 24, 2013 Monitoring and Program Effectiveness.

Office for Exceptional Children Updates OAPSA February 6, 2015.

State Systemic Improvement Plan March 18,  All components of an accountability system will be aligned in a manner that best supports States in.

Continuous Improvement Performance Plan (CIPP) New Hanover County Schools Students with Disabilities Data Story.

Systems Performance Review & Improvement (SPR&I) Training Oregon Department of Education Fall 2007.

Office of Special Programs WV Department of Education September 8, 2014 Office of Special Programs WV Department of Education September 8, 2014 Results.

Minnesota Continuous Improvement Process: Program Evaluation Report Writing Post School Outcome and Parent Survey Minnesota Department of Education Conference.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Jack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction State Performance Plan (SPP) & Annual Performance Report.

Accountability for Results State Performance Plan improving educational results and functional outcomes for all children with disabilities…

Presentation to SAC June 3, 2015 Ruth Littlefield.

Using State Data to Inform Parent Center Work. Region 2 Parent Technical Assistance Center (PTAC) Conference Charleston, SC June 25, 2015 Presenter: Terry.

U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs Building the Legacy: IDEA General Supervision.

Overview of the State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP)

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

SHAME FEAR I AM NOT SEEN ACCESS I AM SEEN SYSTEMS CHANGE I AM A SPECIAL CITIZEN ACCOUNTABILITY and BUILD CAPACITY I BELONG AND MEANINGFUL LIFE EFFECTIVENESS.

 Indicator 1 – Graduation  Indicator 2 – Dropout Rates  Indicator 3 – Assessment  Indicator 4 – Suspension/Expulsion  Indicator 5 – School Age LRE.

SPR&I: Changes, New Measures/Targets, and Lessons Learned from Focused Monitoring Visits David Guardino, SPR&I Coordinator Fall 2009 COSA Conference.

Focused Monitoring November 10, 2010 Bureau of Special Education 1.

Results Driven Accountability PRT System Support Grant Targeted Improvement Plan Cole Johnson, NDE.

IDEA & Disproportionality Perry Williams, Ph.D. Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education.

An Introduction to the State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report.

State Performance Plan (SPP) Annual Performance Report (APR) Dana Corriveau Bureau of Special Education Connecticut State Department of Education ConnCASEOctober.

Nash-Rocky Mount Public Schools Programs for Exceptional Children State Performance Plan/ Annual Performance Report/Continuous Improvement Performance.

SSIP Process A Suggested Pathway, Timeline and Gantt Chart WRRC Regional Forum Eugene October 31 and November 1, 2013.

IDEA 2004 Part B Changes to the Indicator Measurement Table.

Texas State Performance Plan Data, Performance, Results TCASE Leadership Academy Fall 2008.

Special Ed Reporting 101 An Introduction to Special Education Data Reporting.

SHERRI YBARRA, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION SUPPORTING SCHOOLS AND STUDENTS TO ACHIEVE.

Spring 2010 Mississippi Department of Education Office of Instructional Enhancement and Internal Operations/Office of Special Education 1 SPP/APR Update.

An Update of One Aspect of Monitoring, Support and Technical Assistance Available Through the State Department of Education, Bureau of Special Education.

National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center Connecting TA for Part B Indicators 1, 2, 13, & 14: Working Together to Support States OSEP Project.

TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction State of California Annual Performance Report Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004.

Connecticut Part C State Performance Plan Indicator 11 State Systemic Improvement Plan Phase II.

In accordance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and Chapters 14 and 15 of the State Board Regulations, PDE provides general supervision.

Nancy T. Johnson, Ed.D. Exceptional Children Division, North Carolina Department of Public Instruction Data Analyses for Indicator 17/

State Performance Plan/ Annual Performance Report/Continuous Improvement Performance Plan (SPP/APR/CIPP) Buncombe County Schools 2013.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Special Education State Performance Plan and Annual Performance.

MDE Office of Special Education Teri L. Chapman, Ed.S., Director February 17, 2016 MAASE.

 Board of Education Member, Elizabeth Daugherty In-House Counsel, Philip Stern SPECIAL EDUCATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2015.

Arizona State Systemic Improvement Plan Update State Performance Plan / Annual Performance Report  All indicators are still significant and will be.

LEA Self-Assessment LEASA: Presentations:

INVOLVING STAKEHOLDERS Heather Ouzts, NC DPI Parent Liaison Beverly Roberts, ECAC NC SIP Project Coordinator.

OSEP-Funded TA and Data Centers David Guardino, Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education.

State Performance Plan ESC-2 Presentation For Superintendents September 19, 2007.

NYSED Policy Update Pat Geary Statewide RSE-TASC Meeting May 2013.

Continuous Improvement Performance Plan (CIPP) New Hanover County Schools Students with Disabilities Data Story.

MADSEC June 22, 2016 Janice E. Breton State Director of Special Services.

What is “Annual Determination?”

Kristin Reedy, Co-Director June 24, 2016

OSEP Project Directors Meeting

Guam Department of Education

G-CASE Fall Conference November 14, 2013 Savannah, Ga

SPR&I Regional Training

Transition Outcomes Project Report Out Meeting

Special Ed. Administrator’s Academy, September 24, 2013

Presentation transcript:

State Performance Plan Annual Performance Report SPP/APR State Systemic Improvement Plan SSIP / Indicator 17

Monitoring Priority #1: FAPE in the LRE Indicator 1: Graduation Indicator 1 Indicator 2: Dropout Indicator 2 Indicator 3: Participation and Performance on Statewide Assessments Indicator 3 Indicator 4: Suspension and Expulsion (B) Indicator 4 Indicator 5: Regular Class Placement (LRE) Indicator 5 Indicator 6: Preschool Settings (LRE) Indicator 6 Indicator 7: Preschool Outcomes Indicator 7 Indicator 8: Parent Involvement Indicator 8 2

Monitoring Priority #2: Disproportionality Indicator 9: Disproportionate Representation in Special Education and Related Services due to inappropriate identification Indicator 9 Indicator 10: Disproportionate Representation in Specific Disability Categories due to inappropriate identification Indicator 10 3

Monitoring Priority #3: Effective General Supervision Indicator 11: Evaluation Timelines Indicator 11 Indicator 12: IEPs Implemented at age 3 Indicator 12 Indicator 13: Secondary Transition with IEP Goals Indicator 13 Indicator 14: Postsecondary Outcomes Indicator 14 Indicator 15: Resolution Session Agreements Indicator 1 Indicator 16: Mediation Agreements 4

State Systemic Improvement Plan “Indicator 17”

Overview -Alignment with Results Driven Accountability -To improve results for children with disabilities by improving educational services, including special education and related services -Stakeholder input: parents, local educational agencies, State Advisory Panel

Phase I ANALYSIS Submission date: April 1, 2015

Data Analysis -How the state identified/analyzed key data; -Description of disaggregation (LEA, region, race/ethnicity, gender, disability category); -Consideration of compliance data as potential barriers to improvement; -Is additional data needed?

Analysis of Infrastructure to Support Improvement and Build Capacity - Governance, Fiscal, Quality Standards, Professional Development, Data, Technical Assistance, Accountability/Monitoring; - Alignment with current state-level improvement plans and initiatives (in both regular and special education); - Identification of offices, agencies, positions, individuals involved in SSIP development

State-Identified Measurable Result(s) for Children with Disabilities - State-identified result must be aligned to an SPP/APR indicator - Child-level outcome

Selection of Coherent Improvement Strategies -How were the improvement strategies selected? -Strategies needed to improve infrastructure; -Strategies to address root causes for low performance

Theory of Action Graphic illustration that shows the rationale of how implementing the coherent set of improvement strategies selected will increase the State’s capacity to lead meaningful change and achieve improvement

Phase II Plan Submission date: February 2016 Infrastructure Development Support for LEA Implementation of Evidence-based Practices Evaluation

Phase III Implementation and Evaluation Submission date: February 2017

SDE Participants: Jim Moriarty, Mike Tavernier, Jay Brown, Bureau of Special Education Diane Murphy, Stephanie O’Day Bureau of Data Collection, Research & Evaluation Iris White Turnaround Office Joe Amenta Academic Office

External Stakeholders: Kathie Gabrielson, Ansonia Carl Gross, Region 1 Trish Lustila, Woodstock Aimee Martin, Granby Shelly Matfess, Manchester Pauline Smith, Trumbull Vanessa Taragowski, ACES Kathy Vallone, Waterford Lisa Wheeler, Norwich Free Academy Ruth Levy, Supt. Region 4 Cathy Forker, SERC Nancy Prescott, CT Parent Advocacy Center Christine Murphy & Michelle Bidwell, State Advisory Council on Special Education Colin Milne, Office of Protection and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities Kim Greene, African Caribbean American Parents of Children with Disabilities

Jim Moriarty Education Consultant Bureau of Special Education