Annual Desk Audit (ADA) March 31, 2015 Webinar. Agenda  Purpose/Introduction of the ADA  Indicator Reviews  With Five-year trends  Navigating the.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
New Eligibility and Individualized Educational Program (IEP) Forms 2007 Illinois State Board of Education June 2007.
Advertisements

Preschool Special Education A Review of State Performance Indicators and The Child Outreach Network.
Erik McCormick Former OSEP Part B Data Manager September 29, 2006 Special Education Data – The Old, the New and the Huh?
Six Year Plan Meeting the state targets Region Meeting August 16, 2007.
Navigating the SPR&I Database Oregon Department of Education Fall
OF ECSE COMPLIANCE PRESENTATION FOR THE 2014 MO-CASE CONFERENCE Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education September 23, 2014.
Continuous Improvement Monitoring System (CIMS) Indicator B13 Secondary Transition January 2015.
This document was developed by the National Post-School Outcomes Center, Eugene, Oregon, (funded by Cooperative Agreement Number H326U090001) with the.
Each Year, nationwide, 1.2 million students fail to graduate from high school!
Teaching and Learning Special Education Secondary Programs Transition Services.
Pre-test Please come in and complete your pre-test.
From Here to Here Transition from Infant and Toddler Connection Programs to ECSE School Division Programs.
Special Education Director’s Conference Sept. 29, 2006 Prepared by Sharon Schumacher.
Presentation by Rebecca H. Cort, Deputy Commissioner Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities Statewide Briefing,
State Directors Conference Boise, ID, March 4, 2013 Cesar D’Agord Regional Resource Center Program WRRC – Western Region.
What Is TRANSITION & Transition PLANNING?
Office for Exceptional Children Updates OAPSA February 6, 2015.
Continuous Improvement Performance Plan (CIPP) New Hanover County Schools Students with Disabilities Data Story.
Erin Arango-Escalante & Sandra Parker. EC Indicators At-a-Glance.
Office of Special Programs WV Department of Education September 8, 2014 Office of Special Programs WV Department of Education September 8, 2014 Results.
Special Education Annual Performance Report Presented by: Jody A. Fields, Ph.D Special Education Data Summit, June 15-16, 2015 Holiday Inn Airport.
MSDS Report: Student Count by Primary Ed Setting Sample Report Center for Educational Performance and Information - Michigan Student Data System Student.
Accountability for Results State Performance Plan improving educational results and functional outcomes for all children with disabilities…
Using State Data to Inform Parent Center Work. Region 2 Parent Technical Assistance Center (PTAC) Conference Charleston, SC June 25, 2015 Presenter: Terry.
1 Results for Students with Disabilities and School Year Data Report for the RSE-TASC Statewide Meeting May 2010.
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.
B-1: Graduation Percent of youth with an IEP graduating from high school with a regular diploma Measurement – Michigan identified >80% as the target for.
Data Slides for Children & Students with IEPs in 2010 Michigan Department of Education Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services.
An Introduction to the State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report.
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.
July 2009 Copyright © 2009 Mississippi Department of Education State Performance Plan Annual Performance Report Indicators 8, 11, 12, 13, and 14 July 2009.
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.
Navigating System Performance Review and Improvement (SPR&I) Oregon Department of Education Fall
1 Indicator 7 Child Outcomes: Changes & Updates June 2011 Indicator 7 Child Outcomes: Changes & Updates June 2011.
Texas State Performance Plan Data, Performance, Results TCASE Leadership Academy Fall 2008.
Special Ed Reporting 101 An Introduction to Special Education Data Reporting.
School for Early Development and Achievement Kim Johnsen SPE 644.
District Annual Determinations IDEA Part B Sections 616(a) and (e) A State must consider the following four factors: 1.Performance on compliance.
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.
INDICATORS 11 AND 13 Bureau of Indian Education Division of Performance and Accountability WebEx March 22, 2011 DESK AUDIT.
1 State Performance Plan (SPP) Indicator # Measurement 1Graduation 2Dropout 3Statewide Assessments 4Suspension and Expulsion 5Least Restrictive Environment.
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.
JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction Improving Special Education Services November 2010 Sacramento, CA SPP/APR Update.
July 2008 Copyright © 2008 Mississippi Department of Education SPP/APR MSIS Updates July 2008.
State Performance Plan/ Annual Performance Report/Continuous Improvement Performance Plan (SPP/APR/CIPP) Buncombe County Schools 2013.
Cumberland County Schools Transition. Indicator 1 Graduation Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma is.
Special Education Procedures Information from Illinois Rules and Regulations Part 226 Special Education
State Performance Plan ESC-2 Presentation For Superintendents September 19, 2007.
Special Ed Reporting 101 An Introduction to Special Education Data Reporting Greg Hess / Candice Schuld.
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.
4/21/2014 Indicator Review 2016 June 2016.
Special Education District Profile:
What is “Annual Determination?”
Appleton Area School District
Milwaukee School District
Hartford Jt. 1 School District
Annual Desk Audit (ADA)
Mission Possible: Planning a Successful Life for Students with Intellectual Disabilities TAC it up! VCU T/TAC May 2010.
Ohio Longitudinal Transition Study (OLTS)
IMS Data Summary Third in a series November 2010
STARS Changes In Special Education
Presentation transcript:

Annual Desk Audit (ADA) March 31, 2015 Webinar

Agenda  Purpose/Introduction of the ADA  Indicator Reviews  With Five-year trends  Navigating the ADA

Purpose of the Annual Desk Audit (ADA)

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%)

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

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

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

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%)

Data Workbook

District Data

Indicators

Improvement Plan

Toolbook for Drill Down Questions

Example of Drill Down Questions

Indicator 1: Graduation School Year 4-Year Adjusted Cohort Rate Actual Data Results Targets FFY 2012 ( ) 59.90% 80.00% FFY 2013 ( ) 62.09% 63.49% FFY 2014 ( ) 70.27% 67.08% FFY 2015 ( ) 70.67% FFY 2016 ( ) 74.26% FFY 2017 ( ) 77.85% FFY 2018 ( ) 81.44%

Indicator 1: Graduation

Indicator 2: Drop Out School Year Grades 7-12 Event Drop Rate Students with IEPs Actual Data Results Targets FFY 2012 ( ) 2.20% 2.75% FFY 2013 ( ) 2.20% 2.75% FFY 2014 ( ) 1.50% 2.45% FFY 2015 ( ) 2.45% FFY 2016 ( ) 2.25% FFY 2017 ( ) 2.25% FFY 2018 ( ) 2.00%

Indicator 2: Dropout Rate

Indicator 3A: Assessment AMO School YearActual Data Results Targets FFY 2012 ( ) 0% 16.40% FFY 2013 ( ) 0% 16.40% FFY 2014 ( ) 16.40% FFY 2015 ( ) 16.40% FFY 2016 ( ) 16.40% FFY 2017 ( ) 16.40% FFY 2018 ( ) 16.40%

Indicator 3A: Assessment Districts Meeting AYP/AMO for Disability Subgroup

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

Indicator 3B: Assessment Participation - Math

Indicator 3B: Assessment Participation - RLA

Indicator 3C: RLA and Math Proficiency School Year RLA Actual Data RLA Results Targets Math Actual Data Math Results Targets FFY 2012 ( ) 17.80%25.29%20.60%29.1% FFY 2013 ( ) 16.12% 32.90%17.56%35.7% FFY 2014 ( ) 39.90%42.3% FFY 2015 ( ) 46.90%48.9% FFY 2016 ( ) 53.90%55.5% FFY 2017 ( ) 60.90%62.1% FFY 2018 ( ) 67.90%68.7%

Indicator 3C: Assessment Proficiency - Math

Indicator 3C: Assessment Proficiency - RLA

Indicator 4A: Long Term Suspensions School Year Actual Data: Percent of LEAs with Significant Discrepancies Results Targets FFY 2012 ( ) 7.0% 0.0% FFY 2013 ( ) 0.0% 6.5% FFY 2014 ( ) 6.0% FFY 2015 ( ) 6.0% FFY 2016 ( ) 5.5% FFY 2017 ( ) 5.5% FFY 2018 ( ) 5.0%

Indicator 4A: Suspensions/Expulsions

Indicator 4B: Suspension by Race/Ethnicity School YearActual Data Compliance Targets FFY 2012 ( ) 10.53% 0% FFY 2013 ( ) 3.51% 0% FFY 2014 ( ) 0% FFY 2015 ( ) 0% FFY 2016 ( ) 0% FFY 2017 ( ) 0% FFY 2018 ( ) 0%

Indicator 4B: Suspensions/Expulsions by Race/Ethnicity

Indicator 4A&B Resources

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 Results Targets Actual Data Results Targets FFY 2012 ( ) 63.9%61.5%8.7%8.0% 1.70%1.0% FFY 2013 ( )64.0%62.5%8.2%8.9% 1.84%1.5% FFY 2014 ( )62.5%8.9% 1.4% FFY 2015 ( )62.5%8.9% 1.4% FFY 2016 ( )62.6%8.9% 1.4% FFY 2017 ( )62.8%8.9% 1.4% FFY 2018 ( )63.0%8.89% 1.3%

Indicator 5A: General Education Ages 6-21 (80% or more in general education)

Indicator 5B: General Education Ages 6-21 (Less than 40% in general education)

Indicator 5B Resources

Indicator 5C: Separate Schools, Residential, Homebound, or Hospital Ages 6-21

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 Actual Data Results Targets FFY 2012 ( ) 27.30% 30.3%10.50%10.1% FFY 2013 ( ) 29.16%29.8% 9.45% 10.6% 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 ( ) 32.3%10.3%

Indicator 6A: (Ages 3-5) Regular Early Childhood Programs

Indicator 6B: Special Education:(Ages 3-5) Separate Class, Separate School, Residential

FFY 2012 FFY 2013 FFY 2014 FFY 2015 FFY 2016 FFY 2017 FFY 2018 A1Target77.00%78.00% 78.50%79.00% Data78.50%81.68% A2Target85.00%67.00% 67.50%68.00% Data67.70%67.34% B1Target70.00%78.00% 78.50%79.50% Data78.20%81.55% B2Target67.00%63.00% 63.50%64.00% Data63.70%63.49% C1Target75.00%79.00% 79.50%80.00% Data79.40%83.54% C2Target86.00%78.00% 78.50%79.00% Data78.30%77.90% Outcome AOutcome BOutcome C Positive Social Emotional Skills Acquisition and Use of Knowledge and Skills Use of Appropriate Behaviors to Meet Needs Indicator 7. Early Childhood Outcomes

Indicator 7A: Early Childhood Outcomes Positive Social Emotional Skills (Ages 3-5) A1: Increased Rate of Growth

Indicator 7A: Early Childhood Outcomes Positive Social Emotional Skills A2: Functionality Within Age Expectations

Indicator 7B: Early Childhood Outcomes Acquisition & Use of Knowledge/Skills (Ages 3-5) B1: Increased Rate of Growth

Indicator 7B: Early Childhood Outcomes Positive Social Emotional Skills B2: Functionality Within Age Expectations

Indicator 7C: Early Childhood Outcomes Use of Appropriate Behaviors (Ages 3-5) C1: Increased Rate of Growth

Indicator 7C: Early Childhood Outcomes Use of Appropriate Behaviors C2: Functionality Within Age Expectations

Indicator 8: Parent Involvement School YearActual Data Results Targets FFY 2012 ( ) 34.40% 40% FFY 2013 ( ) 31.63% 32% FFY 2014 ( ) 33% FFY 2015 ( ) 35% FFY 2016 ( ) 36% FFY 2017 ( ) 38% FFY 2018 ( ) 38%

Indicator 8: Parent Involvement - Schools Facilitated Parent Involvement

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

Indicator 9: Disproportionate Representation – All Disabilities

Indicator 10: Disproportionality – Specific Disabilities School Year Actual Data Compliance Targets FFY 2012 ( ) 5.3% 0% FFY 2013 ( ) 0.0% 0% FFY 2014 ( ) 0% FFY 2015 ( ) 0% FFY 2016 ( ) 0% FFY 2017 ( ) 0% FFY 2018 ( ) 0%

Indicator 10: Disproportionate Representation – Specific Disabilities

Disproportionality Workbook

Indicators 9 & 10

SLD Example of Disproportionality

Indicator 11: Child Find School Year Actual Data Compliance Targets FFY 2012 ( ) 98.10% 100% FFY 2013 ( ) 97.28% 100% FFY 2014 ( ) 100% FFY 2015 ( ) 100% FFY 2016 ( ) 100% FFY 2017 ( ) 100% FFY 2018 ( ) 100%

Indicator 11: Child Find Evaluations Complete Within 80 Days

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

Indicator 11 Common Clerical Errors 1.Reversed Referral and Consent Date 2.Wrong Date Year (Example: Eval. consent date 11/4/2014, eligibility date 1/3/2013) 3.No Eligibility Date 4.No IEP Completion Date 5.No Eligibility Status Code 6.No E/R Code 7.An E/R Code when the student was found Not Eligible 8.No Reason Late Code OR A Reason Late Code when the referral was not late 9.Marks or letters in a code cell (Example: L0, ‘, Io, etc. in the Reason Late cell)

10. Wrong Reason Late Code format (Ex. 01, 02, 03, etc.) Indicator 11 Common Clerical Errors Cont.

Indicator 12: Early Childhood Transition School Year Actual Data Compliance Targets FFY 2012 ( ) 99.84% 100% FFY 2013 ( ) 100% FFY 2014 ( ) 100% FFY 2015 ( ) 100% FFY 2016 ( ) 100% FFY 2017 ( ) 100% FFY 2018 ( ) 100%

Indicator 12: Early Childhood Transition IEP Implemented by 3 rd Birthday

Indicator 13: Secondary Transition School Year Actual Data Compliance Targets FFY 2012 ( ) 90.50% 100% FFY 2013 ( ) 98.41% 100% FFY 2014 ( ) 100% FFY 2015 ( ) 100% FFY 2016 ( ) 100% FFY 2017 ( ) 100% FFY 2018 ( ) 100%

Indicator 13: Secondary Transition

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 Actual Data Results Targets FFY 2012 ( ) 15.00%24.0% 53.30% 49.5% 68.10% 64.7% FFY 2013 ( ) 15.59%15.0% 52.85% 49.0% 64.89% 64.0% 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 14: Post School Outcomes Within 1-Year of Leaving High School 14A: Enrolled in Higher Education

Indicator 14: Post School Outcomes Within 1-Year of Leaving High School 14B: Enrolled in Higher Education or Competitively Employed

Indicator 14: Post School Outcomes Within 1-Year of Leaving High School 14C: Enrolled in Higher Education, Postsecondary Training, Competitively Employed, or Other Employment

Questions?

ADA Instructional Video Available at either of the following links for your convenience: Annual Desk Audit Navigational Introduction

Contact Information Renee Ecckles-Hardy Coordinator, Data Manager Office of Special Programs