District Annual Determinations 2015. IDEA Part B Sections 616(a) and (e) A State must consider the following four factors: 1.Performance on compliance.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Preschool Special Education A Review of State Performance Indicators and The Child Outreach Network.
Advertisements

Six Year Plan Meeting the state targets Region Meeting August 16, 2007.
(Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act) and
Self Assessments February FY14 Annual IDEA and Preschool Project Application Self Assessments Winter 2013 Office of Instructional Enhancement and.
A Multi-Year Improvement System and Schedule
IDEA and NCLB Accountability and Instruction for Students with Disabilities SCDN Presentation 9/06 Candace Shyer.
Special Education Director’s Conference Sept. 29, 2006 Prepared by Sharon Schumacher.
Final Determinations. Secretary’s Determinations Secretary annually reviews the APR and, based on the information provided in the report, information.
Presentation by Rebecca H. Cort, Deputy Commissioner Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities Statewide Briefing,
Disproportionality of Racial and Ethnic Groups in Special Education Significant Disproportionality and EIS versus Disproportionate Representation due to.
State Directors Conference Boise, ID, March 4, 2013 Cesar D’Agord Regional Resource Center Program WRRC – Western Region.
Indicator 4A & 4B Rates of Suspension & Expulsion Revised Methodology Identification of Significant Discrepancy DE-PBS Cadre December 1, 2011.
Office for Exceptional Children Updates OAPSA February 6, 2015.
Continuous Improvement Performance Plan (CIPP) New Hanover County Schools Students with Disabilities Data Story.
Office of Special Programs WV Department of Education September 8, 2014 Office of Special Programs WV Department of Education September 8, 2014 Results.
SPP Indicators B-7 and B-8: Overview and Results to Date for the Florida Prekindergarten Program for Children with Disabilities PreK Coordinators Meeting.
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…
Welcome to the Regional SPR&I trainings Be sure to sign in Be sure to sign in You should have one school age OR EI/ECSE packet of handouts You.
Early Childhood Education for ALL Young Children: A Look at the IDEA Six-Year State Performance Plan Susan Crowther IDEA, Part B, Section 619 Coordinator.
1 Accountability Conference Education Service Center, Region 20 September 16, 2009.
 Indicator 1 – Graduation  Indicator 2 – Dropout Rates  Indicator 3 – Assessment  Indicator 4 – Suspension/Expulsion  Indicator 5 – School Age LRE.
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.
Letter of Explanation Copy of Data Disproportionality Initial Eligibility 60-day Timeline Early Childhood Transition Secondary Transition Corrected and.
Nash-Rocky Mount Public Schools Programs for Exceptional Children State Performance Plan/ Annual Performance Report/Continuous Improvement Performance.
SPP/APR Updates June SPP – State Performance Plan –Establishes baseline data and sets targets through school year for 20 Indicators APR.
Richard Henderson Evelyn S. Johnson A NNUAL P ERFORMANCE R EPORT U PDATE Richard O’Dell Division of Special Education Idaho State Department of Education.
IDEA 2004 Part B Changes to the Indicator Measurement Table.
Texas State Performance Plan Data, Performance, Results TCASE Leadership Academy Fall 2008.
Kentucky Continuous Monitoring Process Spring 2012.
Special Ed Reporting 101 An Introduction to Special Education Data Reporting.
KETTLE MORAINE (KM) SCHOOL DISTRICT: Ryan Meyer.
Special Education Data Review February February –APR submitted February 15 –Indicator 4 (Discipline) review of policies, procedures, and practices.
YEAR #2 DETERMINATIONS ISD Special Education Directors’ Meeting September 18, 2008.
Spring 2010 Mississippi Department of Education Office of Instructional Enhancement and Internal Operations/Office of Special Education 1 SPP/APR Update.
Board of Education Meeting September 10, Special Education Quality Review - Monitor compliance related to programs and services provided to students.
TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction State of California Annual Performance Report Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004.
Annual Desk Audit (ADA) March 31, 2015 Webinar. Agenda  Purpose/Introduction of the ADA  Indicator Reviews  With Five-year trends  Navigating the.
JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction Improving Special Education Services November 2010 Sacramento, CA SPP/APR Update.
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.
Special Education Performance Profiles and SPP Compliance Indicator Reviews Office for Exceptional Children.
LEA Self-Assessment LEASA: Presentations:
State Performance Plan ESC-2 Presentation For Superintendents September 19, 2007.
Understanding the Data on Preschool Child Find and Transition Annual Performance Report Indicator 12 February, 2016
March 23, SPECIAL EDUCATION ACCOUNTABILITY REVIEWS.
NYSED Policy Update Pat Geary Statewide RSE-TASC Meeting May 2013.
THE APR AND SPP--LINKING SPECIAL EDUCATION DATA TO ACCOUNTABILITY FOR EDUCATION RESULTS Building a Brighter Tomorrow through Positive and Progressive Leadership.
Continuous Improvement Performance Plan (CIPP) New Hanover County Schools Students with Disabilities Data Story.
Special Education School District Profile Slinger School District Lynda McTrusty.
Special Education General Supervision, Support and Compliance
Special Education District Profile:
What is “Annual Determination?”
Appleton Area School District
Disproportionality: Tier Two Monitoring Activities
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004
Special Education Reviews: A new paradigm for LEAs
Milwaukee School District
Randall Consolidated School District
Compliance Monitoring
Agenda 3:00 Introductions and ZOOM Webinar reminders
Guam Department of Education
Annual Desk Audit (ADA)
Assessment, Evaluation and Support
SPR&I Regional Training
Early Childhood Transition APR Indicators and National Trends
YEAR #4 (2010) DETERMINATIONS
Special Ed. Administrator’s Academy, September 24, 2013
Presentation transcript:

District Annual Determinations 2015

IDEA Part B Sections 616(a) and (e) A State must consider the following four factors: 1.Performance on compliance indicators; 2.Valid and reliable data; 3.Correction of identified noncompliance; 4.And other data available to the State about the LEA’s compliance, including relevant audit findings. In addition, States may consider results on performance indicators and other information.

Part B Results Matrix Part B Results Indicators State Performance Plan (SPP) Target SWD State Average LEA Percentage Score Indicator 1: Graduation67.08%70.25%71.32%1 Indicator 2: Drop Out2.45%1.47%1.14%1 Indicator 3b: Participation Rate/Reading95.00%97.89%98.27%1 Indicator 3b: Participation Rate/Math95.00%97.80%98.14%1 Indicator 3c: Assessment Data/Reading Proficiency32.90%16.12%23.80%1 Indicator 3c: Assessment Data/Math Proficiency35.70%17.56%24.34%1 Indicator 4a: Suspension/Expulsion (more than 10 days) < 3.28% 0.24%1 Indicator 5a: Educational Environment General Education Full Time (6-21) 62.50%64.00%56.50%0 Indicator 5b: Educational Environment Separate Class (6-21)8.90%8.20%11.68%0 Indicator 5c: Educational Environment1.40%1.74%2.62%0 Indicator 6a: Preschool Environments (Regular Early Childhood Program) 29.80%26.16%4.82%0 Indicator 6b: Preschool Environments (Separate Special Education) 10.60%9.45%19.28%0 Indicator 7a: Preschool Outcomes (Social-Emotional Skills) A %81.68%88.68%½ ½ A %67.34%53.13%0 Indicator 7b: Preschool Outcomes (Knowledge & Skills) B %81.55%88.24%½ ½ B %63.49%51.13%0 Indicator 7c: Preschool Outcomes (Appropriate Behavior) C %83.54%91.49%½ ½ C %77.90%67.19%0 Indicator 8: Parent Involvement33.00%31.63% Indicator 14c: Higher Education/Post- Secondary/Competitively Employed 64.00%64.89%72.97%1 Results Points AvailableResults Points EarnedResults Performance % Needs Assistance Part B Compliance Matrix Part B Compliance Indicators 0% or 100% State Performance Plan (SPP) Target SWD State Average LEA Percentage Correction of Findings Score Indicator 4b: Suspension by Race/Ethnicity0.00%3.51%MetN/A2 Indicator 9: Disproportionality/All Disabilities0.00% Met N/A 2 Indicator 10: Disproportionality/Specific Disabilities0.00% Met N/A 2 Indicator 11:Initial Evaluation Timelines100.00%97.28%96.85% N/A 2 Indicator 12: Preschool Transition100.00% N/A 2 Indicator 13: Secondary Transition100.00%98.41% %N/A 2 Correction of Noncompliance100.00% 2 Timely and Accurate Data100.00% 2 Compliance Points Available Compliance Points EarnedCompliance Performance % Meets Requirements Results Driven Accountability Percentage and Determination % Meets Requirements

District Annual Determinations 50% Results (16 points available) 50% Compliance (16 points available) 32 points total

District Annual Determinations 80% and above Meets Requirements Below 80% Needs Assistance Districts will receive a Letter of Findings for Compliance Indicators below 100%

Scoring for Results Indicators Part B Results Indicators 1, 2, 3b, 3c, 4a, 5a, 5b, 5c, 6a, 6b, 7a, 7b, 7c and 14c *Indicator 8 will have the LEA’s percentage listed for those included in the Parent Survey; however, no score will be given 1 point for meeting the State Average and/or the State Target 0 points if the percentage does not meet the State Average or State Target

Scoring of Compliance Matrix Indicators Part B Compliance Indicators 4b, 9 and 10 Two Points: The LEA’s data were valid and reliable and no significant discrepancy or no disproportionate representation was identified (indicating “Met” in the box); or The LEA’s data reflect a significant discrepancy or disproportionate representation; however, the mandatory review revealed no noncompliance of policies, procedures and practices (indicating “Met” in the box). Zero Points: The LEA’s data reflects a significant discrepancy or disproportionate representation and the mandatory review revealed noncompliance of policies, procedures and practices (indicating “Not Met” in the box).

Scoring of Compliance Matrix Indicators Part B Compliance Indicators 11, 12 and 13 2 points if percentage is at 95% or above 2 points if percentage is at 90% or above and correction of findings were made from the prior year indicating a “Yes” in the Correction of Findings box 1 point if percentage is at 90%-95% and no prior findings were identified indicating a “NA” in the Correction of Findings box 0 points if percentage is below 90%

Scoring of Correction of Noncompliance Two Points: If the LEA corrected all noncompliance no later than one year from the date of identification. One Point: If the LEA corrected all but one indicator with noncompliance no later than one year from the date of identification. Zero Points: If the LEA continues to have more than one indicator with noncompliance that has not been corrected within one year from the date of identification.

Scoring of Timely and Accurate Data Two Points: If the LEA reports (All 618 and SPP/APR Reports; LEA Application, ADA Submission and Second Month Report) were valid and reliable and within the specified timeline. One Point: If the LEA submitted all but one report that was valid and reliable within the specified timeline. Zero Points: If the LEA did not submit two or more reports within the specified timelines.

Letters to Superintendents Annual Determination letters and scored rubric will be mailed May 30, Letters of Findings on Compliance Indicators will be mailed May 30, Correction of Findings for Compliance Indicators must be corrected on or before May 30, 2016.

ADA Improvement Plan Rubric CriteriaCompliantReviewer Comments 1.The SPP Indicator identified, as not met is listed. Yes / No 2.The explanation of slippage including trend data provides a clear description/reason for the slippage. Yes / No 3.Areas for improvement have a logical sequence of events/activities including action steps necessary to correct noncompliance and/or improve results. Yes / No 4.The improvement plan clearly identifies who will be responsible for each activity. Yes / No 5. The plan includes an evaluation component which specifies methods to measure and verify the effectiveness of the activities. Yes / No

Please direct questions regarding Annual Determinations to Pat Homberg or Susan Beck Thank You!