Office of Special Programs WV Department of Education September 8, 2014 Office of Special Programs WV Department of Education September 8, 2014 Results Driven Accountability Assuring Compliance Improving Results Results Driven Accountability Assuring Compliance Improving Results

RDA Results Driven Accountability General Supervision System Day 1

New Initiative In March 2012, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) announced that they would be taking steps to help close the achievement gap for students with disabilities by moving away from a one-size-fits-all, compliance-focused approach to a more balanced system that looks at how well students are being educated. OSEP’s vision for the new Results Driven Accountability (RDA) system is that all components of accountability will be aligned in a manner that best supports States in improving results for infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities, and their families.

Components of RDA The major components of RDA will include: – (1) the State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report (APR) and State Status Determinations (required under section 616 of the IDEA); and – (2) a differentiated system of monitoring and technical assistance (TA) that will support all States but especially those States with the most significant needs for improvement. Performance of States relative to other States and to national data will be determined using data on priority elements, and will be used to determine the appropriate level of monitoring and technical assistance.

Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/ Annual Performance Report (APR) Requirements February 2, 2015  Introduction that includes descriptions of the State’s: – General Supervision System – Technical Assistance System – Professional Development System – Stakeholder Involvement – Reporting to the Public

Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/ Annual Performance Report (APR) Requirements February 2, 2015 General Supervision System The systems that are in place to ensure that IDEA Part B requirements are met, e.g., monitoring, dispute resolution, etc. Technical Assistance System The mechanisms that the state has in place to ensure the delivery of high quality, evidence based technical assistance and support to the LEAs. Professional Development System The mechanisms the State has in place to ensure that service providers have the skills to effectively provide services that improve results for children with disabilities.

Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/ Annual Performance Report (APR) Requirements February 2, 2015 Stakeholder Involvement The mechanism for soliciting broad stakeholder input on targets in the SPP/APR and the development and implementation of Indicator 17: State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP). Reporting to the Public How and where the State reported to the public on the FF2012 performance of each LEA located in the State on targets in the SPP/APR and a description of where, on its Website, a complete copy of the State’s SPP is available.  Targets for Indicators 1-16  Data from FFY 2013 and APR Information

State Performance PlanPolicies, Procedures and Effective Implementation Integrated Monitoring Activities Fiscal Management  Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)  17 Indicators  Compliance/Results Targets  Improvement Activities  Annual Performance Report (APR)  Report to OSEP  Public Reporting  Policy 2419: Regulations for the Education of Students with Exceptionalities  WV Procedures Manual for the Education of Students with Exceptionalities  IDEA 2004  WV Code et. seq. Education of Exceptional Children  West Virginia Advisory Council for the Education of Exceptional Children  Compliance and Results Driven Monitoring of 57 LEAs  4 year Cycle Onsite  Focused Monitoring  Annual Desk Audit (ADA)  District Self-Assessment (DSA)  IDEA Funds  Flow Through to LEAs  Annual LEA Single Audit  Budget Revisions  Private School Proportionate Share  Coordinated Early Intervening Services  Time and Effort  Maintenance of Effort Data on Processes and Results Improvement, Correction, Incentives and Sanctions Effective Dispute ResolutionTargeted Technical Assistance and Professional Development  Data Collection and Verification  Data Examination and Analysis  Public Reporting of Data  SEA Determination  Compliance/Results Driven Targets  LEA Determination  Improvement Activities  Findings of Noncompliance  Improvement Plan  Corrective Action Plan (CAP)  On-Site Review  Continuous Compliance Review (Prong 2)  Sanctions  Facilitated IEPs  Mediation Process  State Complaint Process  Due Process Hearings  Early Resolutions  Technical Assistance Linked to SPP  Targeted Technical Assistance  Professional Development  Regional Education Service Agencies  Technical Assistance Support Specialists  Technical Assistance Network (WVTAN)

State Performance Plan  Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)  17 Indicators  Compliance/Results Targets  Improvement Activities  Annual Performance Report (APR)  Report to OSEP  Public Reporting

State Performance Plan – OSP Updates  Conduct Stakeholder Meeting to propose targets/activities for State Performance Plan (August 19, 2014).  Present proposed targets at Special Education Directors’ Conference (September 8, 2014).  Develop improvement activities based on Stakeholders’ suggestions and Office of Special Programs input (September 2014).  Present proposed targets at WV Advisory Council for the Education of Exceptional Children (September 12, 2014).  Reorganize OSP staff assigned to SPP Indicators.  Office restructuring/repurposing – Reexamine the way we run things – Why do we do it this way?  Reorganize Website to provide Technical Assistance resources matched to each SPP Indicator.

Policies, Procedures and Effective Implementation  Policy 2419: Regulations for the Education of Students with Exceptionalities  WV Procedures Manual for the Education of Students with Exceptionalities  IDEA 2004  WV Code et. seq. Education of Exceptional Children  West Virginia Advisory Council for the Education of Exceptional Children

Policies, Procedures and Effective Implementation OSP Updates  Revise Policy 2419/WV Procedures Manual (effective September 15, 2014)  Present Policy 2419 at Special Education Director’s Conference (September 9, 2014).  Provide Technical Assistance Training on Policy 2419 and Eligibility to 8 RESAs (September-November).  Develop SLD, Autism, and Speech Team Reports.  Revise forms and Online IEP to reflect changes in  Develop app to document HB 4384 requirement.

Integrated Monitoring Activities  Compliance and Results Driven Monitoring of 57 LEAs  4 year Cycle Onsite  Focused Monitoring  Annual Desk Audit (ADA)  District Self-Assessment (DSA)

Integrated Monitoring Activities OSP Updates  Revise monitoring to include results:  Compliance System Procedures (CSP)  Results System Procedures (RSP)  Develop Focus on Graduation, Reading, and Math.  Provide grants to Monitored Counties to support Stakeholder participation/implementation of infrastructure.  Reorganize Monitoring Teams by RESA composed of both Compliance and Results Monitors.

Fiscal Management  IDEA Funds  Flow Through to LEAs  Annual LEA Single Audit  Budget Revisions  Private School Proportionate Share  Coordinated Early Intervening Services  Time and Effort  Maintenance of Effort

Fiscal Management OSP Updates  Employed CPA as Finance Coordinator.  Focus on Maintenance of Effort  Revised Finance Website to include all applications.

Finance Website

Data on Processes and Results  Data Collection and Verification  Data Examination and Analysis  Public Reporting of Data  SEA Determination  Compliance/Results Driven Targets  LEA Determination  Improvement Activities

Data on Processes and Results OSP Updates  LEA Determinations modeled on SEA Determinations 50% Compliance/50% Results.  Employed Data Management and Analysis Coordinator.  Enabled OSP to access WVEIS data and IEPs.  Employed Research Coordinator.

LEA FY14 Annual Determinations

Improvement, Correction, Incentives and Sanctions  Findings of Noncompliance  Improvement Plan  Corrective Action Plan (CAP)  On-Site Review  Continuous Compliance Review (Prong 2)  Sanctions

Improvement, Correction, Incentives and Sanctions OSP Updates  Correction of noncompliance required to be completed in timely manner.

Effective Dispute Resolution  Facilitated IEPs  Mediation Process  State Complaint Process  Due Process Hearings  Early Resolutions

Effective Dispute Resolution OSP Updates  Developed Facilitated IEP Process managed by OSP.  Employed Compliance Coordinator to manage Dispute Resolution.

Targeted Technical Assistance and Professional Development  Technical Assistance Linked to SPP  Targeted Technical Assistance  Professional Development  Regional Education Service Agencies  Technical Assistance Support Specialists  Technical Assistance Network (WVTAN)

Targeted Technical Assistance and Professional Development OSP Updates  Technical Assistance  Revised website o Resources linked to Graduation o Resources linked to State Performance Plan o Resources linked to Exceptionalities o Resources linked to ESEA Flexibility Waiver  Professional Development tied to ESEA Flexibility Waiver Subgroup Interventions  Technical Assistance Network WVTAN o RESA o Technical Assistance Support Specialists Proficiency o Technical Assistance Support Specialists Graduation

Targeted Technical Assistance and Professional Development OSP Updates  Employed Reading Coordinator  $5, grants to districts to support participation in professional development.  Instructional Resource Center housed at WVSDB changed focus to include Accessible Instructional Materials (AIM) - Instructional Resource Center/Accessible Instructional Materials.  Examine data by RESA.  Pilot Accessible Instructional Materials (AIM) school-wide program.  RESAs develop Improvement Plan on Graduation.  RESAs develop Grant Application on Graduation.

GENERAL SUPERVISION State Performance Plan  Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)  17 Indicators  Compliance/Results Targets  Improvement Activities  Annual Performance Report (APR)  Report to OSEP  Public Reporting

State Performance Plan (SPP)/ Annual Performance Report (APR) SPP in place since 2005 Established measurable rigorous targets for indicators Indicators include both compliance and results indicators Each State submits annually an APR reporting on State’s progress in meeting indicator targets

The First Eight Year Cycle Initial Development of State Performance Plan (SPP) Submitted baseline data to OSEP February 2006 First Annual Performance Report (APR) Submitted to OSEP February 2007 Final APR Submitted to OSEP February 2014

The Next Six Year Cycle Internal Data Analyses Stakeholders Convene (APR) OSEP Progress Check Proposals to WVACEEC Stakeholders Reconvene (SSIP) Produce APR and SSIP / Indicator 17 Final WVACEEC Review Submit APR February 2015 Submit SSIP April 2015 Implement Improvement Activities and SSIP Evaluate and Adjust Report to OSEP and Stakeholders annually through FFY 2019

State Annual Determinations FFY 2013 Data 1.Graduation 2.Dropout 3.Assessment 4.Suspension (4.A and 4.B) 5.Educational Environment (6-21) 6.Educational Environment (3-5) 7.Early Childhood Outcomes 8.Parent Involvement 9.Disproportionality – All Disabilities 10.Disproportionality – Specific Disabilities 11.Child Find 12.Early Childhood Transition 13.Secondary Transition 14.Post School Outcomes 15.Resolution Sessions 16.Mediation 17.State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP)

Local Education Agency Annual Determinations FFY Graduation 2.Dropout 3.Assessment 4.Suspension (4.A and 4.B) 5.Educational Environment (6-21) 6.Educational Environment (3-5) 7.Early Childhood Outcomes 8.Parent Involvement 9.Disproportionality-All Disabilities 10.Disproportionality – Specific Disabilities 11.Child Find 12.Early Childhood Transition 13.Secondary Transition 14.Post School Outcomes 15.Resolution Sessions 16.Mediation 17.State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Results Indicator Determination Compliance Indicator Determination Not Applicable Determination

State Performance Plan (SPP)/ Annual Performance Report (APR) Compliance Indicators Suspension by Race Ethnicity Disproportionality Child Find Early Childhood Transition Secondary Transition Results Indicators Graduation Dropout Assessment – % of districts meeting AYP – Participation in assessments – Proficiency on assessments Suspension Educational Environment 3-5, 6-12 Early Childhood Outcomes Parent Involvement Post School Outcomes Resolution Sessions Mediation

Are young children with disabilities entering kindergarten ready to learn? Indicator 6: Educational Environment Ages 3-5 Indicator 7: Early Childhood Outcomes Indicator 12: Early Childhood Transition from Part C to Part B 1. Early Childhood

Are children with disabilities afforded equal educational opportunity? Indicator 3: Assessment Participation and Performance Indicator 4: Suspensions Indicator 5: Educational Environment Ages 6-12 Indicator 8: Parent Involvement 2. Equal Educational Opportunity

Are youth with disabilities prepared for life, work and postsecondary education? Indicator 1: Graduation Indicator 2: Dropout Indicator 13: Secondary Transition Indicator 14: Post School Outcomes 3. Secondary Transition

Does the district implement IDEA with fidelity? Indicator 4: Suspension Indicator 9: Disproportionality – All Disabilities Indicator 10: Disproportionality – Specific Disabilities Indicator 11: Child Find Indicator 12: Early Childhood Transition from Part C to Part B Indicator 13: Secondary Transition 4. Compliance

1. Graduation

Indicator 1: Graduation School Year 4-Year Adjusted Cohort Rate Actual Data Proposed Results Targets FFY 2013 ( ) 62.1% 63.49% FFY 2014 ( ) 67.08% FFY 2015 ( ) 70.67% FFY 2016 ( ) 74.26% FFY 2017 ( ) 77.85% FFY 2018 ( ) 81.44%

2. Drop Out

Indicator 2: Drop Out School Year Grades 7-12 Event Drop Rate Students with IEPs Actual Data Proposed Results Targets FFY 2013 ( ) 1.9% 2.75% FFY 2014 ( ) 2.45% FFY 2015 ( ) 2.45% FFY 2016 ( ) 2.25% FFY 2017 ( ) 2.25% FFY 2018 ( ) 2.00%

Indicator 3A: Assessment AMO School YearActual Data Proposed Results Targets FFY 2013 ( ) 0% 9 or more FFY 2014 ( ) 9 FFY 2015 ( ) 9 FFY 2016 ( ) 9 FFY 2017 ( ) 9 FFY 2018 ( ) 9

Indicator 3B: Participation School Year Math Actual Data Reading Actual Data Proposed Results Targets FFY 2013 ( ) 97.8%97.9% 100% FFY 2014 ( ) 100% FFY 2015 ( ) 100% FFY 2016 ( ) 100% FFY 2017 ( ) 100% FFY 2018 ( ) 100%

3. Assessment Performance

WESTEST2 RLA 2013

3. Assessment Performance

WESTEST2 Math 2013

Indicator 3C: RLA and Math Proficiency School Year RLA Actual Data Math Actual Data RLA Proposed Performance Targets Math Proposed Performance Targets FFY 2013 ( ) 17.8%20.6% 25.29% 29.1% FFY 2014 ( ) 32.9%35.7% FFY 2015 ( ) 39.9%42.3% FFY 2016 ( ) 46.9%48.9% FFY 2017 ( ) 53.9%55.5% FFY 2018 ( ) 60.9%62.1%

4. Long Term Suspensions

Indicator 4A: Long Term Suspensions School Year Actual Data: Percent of LEAs with Significant Discrepancies Proposed Performance Targets FFY 2012 ( ) 7.0% 0% FFY 2013 ( ) 6.5% FFY 2014 ( ) 6.0% FFY 2015 ( ) 6.0% FFY 2016 ( ) 5.5% FFY 2017 ( ) 5.5% FFY 2018 ( ) 5.0%

Indicator 4B: Suspension by Race/Ethnicity School YearActual Data Compliance Targets FFY 2012 ( ) 10.53% 0% FFY 2013 ( ) 0% FFY 2014 ( ) 0% FFY 2015 ( ) 0% FFY 2016 ( ) 0% FFY 2017 ( ) 0% FFY 2018 ( ) 0%

5. Educational Environment (Ages 6-21)

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. FFY 2012 ( ) Actual Data 63.9% Actual Data 8.7% Actual Data 1.7% FFY 2013 ( ) Proposed Targets 62.5% or higher Proposed Targets 9.5% or less Proposed Targets 1.5% or less FFY 2014 ( )62.5%9.4% 1.5% FFY 2015 ( )62.5%9.3% 1.4% FFY 2016 ( )62.6%9.2% 1.4% FFY 2017 ( )62.8%9.1% 1.4% FFY 2018 ( )63.0%9.0% 1.3%

6. Educational Environment: Ages 3-5

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 FFY 2012 ( ) Actual Data 27.3% Actual Data 10.5% FFY 2013 ( ) Proposed Targets 29.8% or higher Proposed Targets 10.6% or less FFY 2014 ( )29.8%10.6% FFY 2015 ( )31.3%10.5% FFY 2016 ( )31.8%10.4% FFY 2017 ( )32.3%10.3% FFY 2018 ( )32.8%10.2%

7. Early Childhood Outcomes Indicator 7 Summary Statements Outcome A Positive Social Emotional Skills Outcome B Acquisition and Use of Knowledge and Skills Outcome C Use of Appropriate Behaviors to Meet Needs ITEM 1: Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program FFY 2010Targets Actual Data Targets Actual Data Targets Actual Data 75% 77% 68% 69% 73% 75% FFY % 72% 69% 73% 74% 75% FFY % 78% 70% 78% 75% 79% ITEM 2: The percent of children who were functioning within age expectations by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program FFY % 82% 65% 84% 82% FFY % 67% 66% 64% 85% 80% FFY % 67% 64% 86% 78%

7. Early Childhood Outcomes Indicator 7 Summary Statements Outcome A Positive Social Emotional Skills Outcome B Acquisition and Use of Knowledge and Skills Outcome C Use of Appropriate Behaviors to Meet Needs ITEM 1: Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program FFY 2010Targets Actual Data Targets Actual Data Targets Actual Data 75% 77% 68% 69% 73% 75% FFY % 72% 69% 73% 74% 75% FFY % 78% 70% 78% 75% 79% ITEM 2: The percent of children who were functioning within age expectations by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program FFY % 82% 65% 84% 82% FFY % 67% 66% 64% 85% 80% FFY % 67% 64% 86% 78%

Indicator 7: Early Childhood Outcomes Summary Statements Outcome A Positive Social Emotional Skills Outcome B Acquisition and Use of Knowledge and Skills Outcome C Use of Appropriate Behaviors to Meet Needs 1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome domain, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program A one percent increase above baseline year data for each consecutive year through SY The percent of children who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome domain by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program A 0.5 percent increase above baseline year data for each consecutive year through SY

8. Parent Involvement

Indicator 8: Parent Involvement School YearActual Data Proposed Results Targets FFY 2012 ( ) 34.4% 40% FFY 2013 ( ) 32% FFY 2014 ( ) 33% FFY 2015 ( ) 35% FFY 2016 ( ) 36% FFY 2017 ( ) 38% FFY 2018 ( ) 38%

Identification Rates and Disproportionality in FFY 2012 APR CategoryWV 6-21 Nation 6-21 Intellectual Disability Other Health Impairment Specific Learning Disability Speech or Language Impairment Indicator 9 – All Disabilities – 0 of 57 (0%) Indicator 10 – Specific Disabilities – 3 of 57 (5.3%)

Indicator 9: Disproportionality – All Disabilities School YearActual Data Compliance Targets FFY 2012 ( ) 0 0% FFY 2013 ( ) 0% FFY 2014 ( ) 0% FFY 2015 ( ) 0% FFY 2016 ( ) 0% FFY 2017 ( ) 0% FFY 2018 ( ) 0%

Indicator 10: Disproportionality – Specific Disabilities School YearActual Data Compliance Targets FFY 2012 ( ) 5.3% 0% FFY 2013 ( ) 0% FFY 2014 ( ) 0% FFY 2015 ( ) 0% FFY 2016 ( ) 0% FFY 2017 ( ) 0% FFY 2018 ( ) 0%

11. Child Find

Indicator 11: Child Find School YearActual Data Compliance Targets FFY 2012 ( ) 98.1% 100% FFY 2013 ( ) 100% FFY 2014 ( ) 100% FFY 2015 ( ) 100% FFY 2016 ( ) 100% FFY 2017 ( ) 100% FFY 2018 ( ) 100%

12. Early Childhood Transition

Indicator 12: Early Childhood Transition School YearActual Data Compliance Targets FFY 2013 ( ) 99.84% 100% FFY 2014 ( ) 100% FFY 2015 ( ) 100% FFY 2016 ( ) 100% FFY 2017 ( ) 100% FFY 2018 ( ) 100%

13. Secondary Transition

Indicator 13: Secondary Transition School YearActual Data Compliance Targets FFY 2013 ( ) 90.5% 100% FFY 2014 ( ) 100% FFY 2015 ( ) 100% FFY 2016 ( ) 100% FFY 2017 ( ) 100% FFY 2018 ( ) 100%

14. Post School Outcomes

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 FFY 2012 ( ) 15.0%49.3% 64.7% FFY 2013 ( ) 15.0% or more 49.0% or more 64.0% or more FFY 2014 ( ) 16.0%50.0% 65.0% FFY 2015 ( ) 17.0%51.0% 66.0% FFY 2016 ( ) 18.0%52.0% 67.0% FFY 2017 ( ) 19.0%53.0% 68.0% FFY 2018 ( ) 20.0%54.0% 69.0%

Trend Data Resolution Sessions Data for FFY Resolution Session Held 3.1 Resolution Agreements 3.1(a) % Sessions with Resolution (3.1(a) divided by 3.1) times ( ) 22100% 2007 ( ) 77100% 2008 ( ) 44100% 2009 ( ) 88100% 2010 ( ) 33100% 2011 ( ) % 2012 ( ) % 15. Resolution Sessions

Indicator 15: Resolution Sessions School YearActual Data Proposed Results Targets FFY 2012 ( ) 100% 75% FFY 2013 ( ) 75% FFY 2014 ( ) 75% FFY 2015 ( ) 75% FFY 2016 ( ) 75% FFY 2017 ( ) 75% FFY 2018 ( ) 75%

Baseline Data for FFY 2004 ( ) Total Mediations Mediation Requests28 Mediations Conducted (Total)24 Mediations Resulting in Agreements17 (71%) Hearing-Related Mediations Mediations Conducted4 Mediations Resulting in Agreements2 (50%) Mediations Not Related to Hearing Requests Mediations Conducted20 Mediations Resulting in Agreements15 (75%) Mediations Not held (Withdrawn or Pending)4 Target Targets are no longer required for less than 10 mediations in a year. The following targets, beginning with 75%, will resume at such time West Virginia has 10 mediations. Trend DataFFYMeasurable and Rigorous Target 2005 ( )*75% of mediations held result in mediation agreements ( )*77% of mediations held result in mediation agreements ( )*79% of mediations held result in mediation agreements ( )*81% of mediations held result in mediation agreements ( )*83% of mediations held result in mediation agreements ( )*75% of mediations held result in mediation agreements ( )*75% of mediations held result in mediation agreements ( )*75% of mediations held result in mediation agreements. Indicator 16: Mediation

School YearActual Data Proposed Results Targets FFY 2012 ( ) 100% 75% FFY 2013 ( ) 75% FFY 2014 ( ) 75% FFY 2015 ( ) 75% FFY 2016 ( ) 75% FFY 2017 ( ) 75% FFY 2018 ( ) 75%

State Systemic Improvement Plan The proposed SPP/APR includes a comprehensive, multi-year State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP), focused on improving results for children with disabilities – Instead of multiple small improvement plans for each indicator – Broad strategies with detailed improvement activities

SSIP is a Multi-Year Plan Implemented in Phases to Include: Identification of systemic approaches that will lead to improved results for students with disabilities across key measures: ­ Performance on Assessments (Indicator 3) ­ Graduation with Regular Diploma (Indicator 1) ­ Post-School Outcomes (Indicator 14)

Phase I AnalysisPhase II PlanPhase III Implementation and Evaluation Data AnalysisInfrastructure DevelopmentAssess and report on Progress Analysis of State Infrastructure to Support Improvement and Build Capacity Support for local education agency (LEA) Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices State-identified Measureable Result(s) for Children with Disabilities Evaluation Selection of Coherent Improvement Strategies Theory of Action

SSIP: Phase 1 - Analysis Phase I Analysis – Due April 1, 2015 Data Analysis Analysis of State Infrastructure to Support Improvement and Build Capacity State-identified Measureable Result(s) for Children with Disabilities Selection of Coherent Improvement Strategies; and Theory of Action

Data Analysis How State identified and analyzed data to: 1.Select the State-identified Measureable Result(s) for Children with Disabilities 2.Identify root causes contributing to low performance

Analysis of State Infrastructure to Support Improvement and Build Capacity How State analyzed the capacity of its current infrastructure to: 1.Support improvement in LEAs to implement, scale up and sustain the use of evidence-based practices to improve results for students with disabilities 2.Build capacity in LEAs to implement, scale up and sustain the use of evidence-based practices to improve results for students with disabilities

State-Identified Measureable Result(s) for Children with Disabilities Statement of result(s) State intends to achieve through the implementation of the SSIP  May be SPP/APR indicator  May be component of SPP/APR

Selection of Coherent Improvement Strategies Explanation of how improvement strategies were selected Explanation of why improvement strategies are sound, logical and aligned Explanation of how improvement strategies will lead to a measureable improvement in the State-identified result(s) for students with disabilities

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 in LEAs – Achieve improvement in the State- Identified result(s) for children with disabilities

OSEP Theory of Action

Phase I AnalysisPhase II PlanPhase III Implementation and Evaluation Data AnalysisInfrastructure DevelopmentAssess and report on Progress Analysis of State Infrastructure to Support Improvement and Build Capacity Support for local education agency (LEA) Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices State-identified Measureable Result(s) for Children with Disabilities Evaluation Selection of Coherent Improvement Strategies Theory of Action

SSIP: Phase 2 - Plan Phase 2 (submitted in 2016 with SPP/APR for ) Infrastructure Development; Support for LEA Program Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices; and Evaluation Plan

Infrastructure Development Specify improvements that will be made to the State Infrastructure to better support LEAs to implement and scale up evidence-based practices to improve the State-identified measureable result(s) for children with disabilities

Infrastructure Development A plan to implement needed State system improvements to enable the State to build the capacity of LEA programs to implement and scale up evidence-based practices Align improvement work with other initiatives in the State Improvement activities and timelines

Support for LEA Program Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices Specify how State will support LEAs in implementing the evidence-based practices to achieve the State-identified Measureable Result(s) for children with Disabilities that will: – Result in changes in LEA practices – Result in changes in school practices – Result in changes in provider practices

Support for LEA Implementation of EBPs A plan to support LEAs in identifying and implementing the evidence-based practices (EBPs) that will result in changes in school/local provider practices to advance the State-identified, measureable improvement in results for children with disabilities Improvement activities, resources, responsibilities and timelines

Identify steps and specific activities needed to implement coherent improvement strategies including: Communication strategies Stakeholder involvement How identified barriers will be addressed Who will be in charge of implementing How the activities will be implemented with fidelity Resources that will be used to implement them How the expected outcomes of the improvement strategies will be measured Timelines for completion

Evaluation Plan A description of how the State will evaluate the implementation of its SSIP – Methods for collecting and analyzing data related to SSIP activities and outcomes – How the State will use evaluation results to examine the Effectiveness of the implementation plan Progress toward achieving intended outcomes

Include objectives to measure implementation of the SSIP and its impact on achieving measureable improvement in State-identified result(s) for children with disabilities Short-term objectives Long-term objectives Evaluation Plan

Phase I AnalysisPhase II PlanPhase III Implementation and Evaluation Data AnalysisInfrastructure DevelopmentAssess and report on Progress Analysis of State Infrastructure to Support Improvement and Build Capacity Support for local education agency (LEA) Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices State-identified Measureable Result(s) for Children with Disabilities Evaluation Selection of Coherent Improvement Strategies Theory of Action

SSIP: Phase 3 - Evaluation Phase 3 (submitted in 2017 with SPP/APR for ) Results of ongoing evaluation of strategies in the SSIP Extent of implementation of strategies Progress toward established goals Any revisions made to the SSIP in response to the evaluation

Assess and Report on State’s Progress in Implementing SSIP Include – Data and analysis on extent to which State has made progress toward and/or met the State-established short-term and long- term objectives for implementation of the SSIP – Progress in achieving the State-identified Measurable Result(s) for Children with Disabilities

Next Steps for West Virginia in 2014 Engage stakeholders in developing the State Performance Plan (SPP) and State Systematic Improvement Plan (SSIP). Revise State procedures to: –incorporate the RDA model, and –establish a differentiated system of monitoring and technical assistance (TA) based on the results indicator data. Redesign internal work processes to better support local education agencies (LEAs) in improving results.

November 14, 2014 Emanuel Baptist Church Charleston, West Virginia

Indicator 1: Graduation School Year 4-Year Adjusted Cohort Rate Actual Data Proposed Results Targets FFY 2013 ( ) 62.1% 63.49% FFY 2014 ( ) 67.08% FFY 2015 ( ) 70.67% FFY 2016 ( ) 74.26% FFY 2017 ( ) 77.85% FFY 2018 ( ) 81.44%

Indicator 2: Drop Out School Year Grades 7-12 Event Drop Rate Students with IEPs Actual Data Proposed Results Targets FFY 2013 ( ) 1.9% 2.75% FFY 2014 ( ) 2.45% FFY 2015 ( ) 2.45% FFY 2016 ( ) 2.25% FFY 2017 ( ) 2.25% FFY 2018 ( ) 2.00%

Indicator 3A: Assessment AMO School YearActual Data Proposed Results Targets FFY 2013 ( ) 0% 9 or more FFY 2014 ( ) 9 FFY 2015 ( ) 9 FFY 2016 ( ) 9 FFY 2017 ( ) 9 FFY 2018 ( ) 9

Indicator 3B: Participation School Year Math Actual Data Reading Actual Data Proposed Results Targets FFY 2013 ( ) 97.8%97.9% 100% FFY 2014 ( ) 100% FFY 2015 ( ) 100% FFY 2016 ( ) 100% FFY 2017 ( ) 100% FFY 2018 ( ) 100%

Indicator 3C: RLA and Math Proficiency School Year RLA Actual Data Math Actual Data RLA Proposed Performance Targets Math Proposed Performance Targets FFY 2013 ( ) 17.8%20.6% 25.29% 29.1% FFY 2014 ( ) 32.9%35.7% FFY 2015 ( ) 39.9%42.3% FFY 2016 ( ) 46.9%48.9% FFY 2017 ( ) 53.9%55.5% FFY 2018 ( ) 60.9%62.1%

Indicator 4A: Long Term Suspensions School Year Actual Data: Percent of LEAs with Significant Discrepancies Proposed Performance Targets FFY 2012 ( ) 7.0% 0% FFY 2013 ( ) 6.5% FFY 2014 ( ) 6.0% FFY 2015 ( ) 6.0% FFY 2016 ( ) 5.5% FFY 2017 ( ) 5.5% FFY 2018 ( ) 5.0%

Indicator 4B: Suspension by Race/Ethnicity School YearActual Data Compliance Targets FFY 2012 ( ) 10.53% 0% FFY 2013 ( ) 0% FFY 2014 ( ) 0% FFY 2015 ( ) 0% FFY 2016 ( ) 0% FFY 2017 ( ) 0% FFY 2018 ( ) 0%

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. FFY 2012 ( ) Actual Data 63.9% Actual Data 8.7% Actual Data 1.7% FFY 2013 ( ) Proposed Targets 62.5% or higher Proposed Targets 9.5% or less Proposed Targets 1.5% or less FFY 2014 ( )62.5%9.4% 1.5% FFY 2015 ( )62.5%9.3% 1.4% FFY 2016 ( )62.6%9.2% 1.4% FFY 2017 ( )62.8%9.1% 1.4% FFY 2018 ( )63.0%9.0% 1.3%

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 FFY 2012 ( ) Actual Data 27.3% Actual Data 10.5% FFY 2013 ( ) Proposed Targets 29.8% or higher Proposed Targets 10.6% or less FFY 2014 ( )29.8%10.6% FFY 2015 ( )31.3%10.5% FFY 2016 ( )31.8%10.4% FFY 2017 ( )32.3%10.3% FFY 2018 ( )32.8%10.2%

Indicator 7: Early Childhood Outcomes Summary Statements Outcome A Positive Social Emotional Skills Outcome B Acquisition and Use of Knowledge and Skills Outcome C Use of Appropriate Behaviors to Meet Needs 1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome domain, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program A one percent increase above baseline year data for each consecutive year through SY The percent of children who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome domain by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program A 0.5 percent increase above baseline year data for each consecutive year through SY

Indicator 8: Parent Involvement School YearActual Data Proposed Results Targets FFY 2012 ( ) 34.4% 40% FFY 2013 ( ) 32% FFY 2014 ( ) 33% FFY 2015 ( ) 35% FFY 2016 ( ) 36% FFY 2017 ( ) 38% FFY 2018 ( ) 38%

Indicator 9: Disproportionality – All Disabilities School YearActual Data Compliance Targets FFY 2012 ( ) 0 0% FFY 2013 ( ) 0% FFY 2014 ( ) 0% FFY 2015 ( ) 0% FFY 2016 ( ) 0% FFY 2017 ( ) 0% FFY 2018 ( ) 0%

Indicator 10: Disproportionality – Specific Disabilities School YearActual Data Compliance Targets FFY 2012 ( ) 5.3% 0% FFY 2013 ( ) 0% FFY 2014 ( ) 0% FFY 2015 ( ) 0% FFY 2016 ( ) 0% FFY 2017 ( ) 0% FFY 2018 ( ) 0%

Indicator 11: Child Find School YearActual Data Compliance Targets FFY 2012 ( ) 98.1% 100% FFY 2013 ( ) 100% FFY 2014 ( ) 100% FFY 2015 ( ) 100% FFY 2016 ( ) 100% FFY 2017 ( ) 100% FFY 2018 ( ) 100%

Indicator 12: Early Childhood Transition School YearActual Data Compliance Targets FFY 2013 ( ) 99.84% 100% FFY 2014 ( ) 100% FFY 2015 ( ) 100% FFY 2016 ( ) 100% FFY 2017 ( ) 100% FFY 2018 ( ) 100%

Indicator 13: Secondary Transition School YearActual Data Compliance Targets FFY 2013 ( ) 90.5% 100% FFY 2014 ( ) 100% FFY 2015 ( ) 100% FFY 2016 ( ) 100% FFY 2017 ( ) 100% FFY 2018 ( ) 100%

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 FFY 2012 ( ) 15.0%49.3% 64.7% FFY 2013 ( ) 15.0% or more 49.0% or more 64.0% or more FFY 2014 ( ) 16.0%50.0% 65.0% FFY 2015 ( ) 17.0%51.0% 66.0% FFY 2016 ( ) 18.0%52.0% 67.0% FFY 2017 ( ) 19.0%53.0% 68.0% FFY 2018 ( ) 20.0%54.0% 69.0%

Indicator 15: Resolution Sessions School YearActual Data Proposed Results Targets FFY 2012 ( ) 100% 75% FFY 2013 ( ) 75% FFY 2014 ( ) 75% FFY 2015 ( ) 75% FFY 2016 ( ) 75% FFY 2017 ( ) 75% FFY 2018 ( ) 75%

Indicator 16: Mediation School YearActual Data Proposed Results Targets FFY 2012 ( ) 100% 75% FFY 2013 ( ) 75% FFY 2014 ( ) 75% FFY 2015 ( ) 75% FFY 2016 ( ) 75% FFY 2017 ( ) 75% FFY 2018 ( ) 75%

GENERAL SUPERVISION Data on Processes and Results  Data Collection and Verification  Data Examination and Analysis  Public Reporting of Data  SEA Determination  Compliance/Results Driven Targets  LEA Determination  Improvement Activities

Components of RDA The major components of RDA will include: – (1) the State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report (APR) and State Status Determinations (required under section 616 of the IDEA); and – (2) a differentiated system of monitoring and technical assistance (TA) that will support all States but especially those States with the most significant needs for improvement. Performance of States relative to other States and to national data will be determined using data on priority elements, and will be used to determine the appropriate level of monitoring and technical assistance.

OSEP is considering using the following results data in making determinations, including examining a State’s progress over time: Participation in and proficiency on assessments (reported publicly through either statewide assessments or the National Assessment of Educational Progress) in reading/language arts and math Rates of students graduating with a regular diploma and/or Post school outcomes Results Data – Federal Register 146

Indicator 11: Child Find School YearActual Data Compliance Targets FFY 2012 ( ) 98.1% 100% FFY 2013 ( ) 100% FFY 2014 ( ) 100% FFY 2015 ( ) 100% FFY 2016 ( ) 100% FFY 2017 ( ) 100% FFY 2018 ( ) 100%

NAEP 8 th Grade Reading (2013)

NAEP 8 th Grade Mathematics (2013)

LEA FY14 Annual Determinations

GENERAL SUPERVISION Fiscal Management  IDEA Funds  Flow Through to LEAs  Annual LEA Single Audit  Budget Revisions  Private School Proportionate Share  Coordinated Early Intervening Services  Time and Effort  Maintenance of Effort