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

2. Monitoring Priorities 616(a)(3) The Secretary shall monitor States and require each state to monitor its LEAs using quantifiable indicators to measure performance in the following areas: 1. FAPE in the LRE 2. Disproportionality 3. Effective General Supervision

3. State Performance Plan Reporting 616(b)(2)(C) States must annually collect data in these priority areas to analyze the performance of each LEA. Each state must report annually to the Secretary on its performance under its performance plan. States must report annually to the public on the performance of each LEA on the identified targets in the state’s performance plan.

4. Continuous Improvement Performance Plan (CIPP) Buncombe County Schools Data Story 2013

5. Indicator 1:Percentage of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma State Target: 80% 2010-201153.6%2011-201261.9%

6. Indicator 2: Percent of SWD dropping out of high school State Target: 4.7% 2010-20116.8%2011-20125.5%

7. Indicator 3A: District Performance on State Assessments Compared to State AYP 2010-2011 Did not meet AYP 2011-2012 Did not calculate AYP

8. B. State Target-Participation Rate: 95% Did not calculate LEA participation rates C. State Target-Proficiency Reading 3-8: 71.6 % 10: 69.3% Math 3-8: 88.6% 10: 84.2% Indicator 3 B & C : State Assessment Participation and Performance for SWD

9. Indicator 4a: Rate of suspension and expulsions of SWD>10 consecutive days in the school year that is greater than twice the state average. State Target: 5% 2010-2011n/a%2011-2012 < 5 students

10. 4B: Percent of districts identified by the State as having a significant discrepancy in rates of suspensions and expulsions of children with IEPs of greater than 10 days in a school year by race and ethnicity and have policies, procedures or practices that contribute to the significant discrepancy and that do not comply with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive interventions, behavioral supports and procedural safeguards. 2010-2011n/a% 2011-2012n/a%

11. Indicator 5: Percent of SWD aged 6-21 served: Measurement A. Inside the regular class 80% or more of the day State Target: 65.6% 2010-201160.1%2011-201264.1%

12. Indicator 5 B: Percent of SWD aged 6 through 21 served inside the regular class less than 40% of the day State Target: 15.3% 2010-201117.0%2011-2012 16.8 %

13. Indicator 5C: Percent of SWD served in separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements State Target: 2.0% 2010-2011.9 % 2011-2012.7 %

14. Indicator 6: Percent of preschool children with IEPs who received special education and related services in settings with typically developing peers Indicator 6: Percent of preschool children with IEPs who received special education and related services in settings with typically developing peers Not Sampled

15. Indicator 7: Percent of preschool SWD who demonstrate improved: A. Positive social emotional skills; B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and Skills; C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs 2010-2011 A.1. 92.9% 2. 42.2% 2. 42.2% B. 1. 93.2% B. 1. 93.2% 2. 53.3% 2. 53.3% C. 1. 89.3% C. 1. 89.3% 2. 62.2% 2. 62.2%2011-2012 A.1. 81.4% 2. 28.8% 2. 28.8% B.1. 81.9% 2. 40.4% 2. 40.4% C.1. 80.8% C.1. 80.8% 2. 58.7% 2. 58.7%

16. Indicator 8: Percent of parents with a child receiving special education services who report that school facilitates parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities. State Target: 50% 2010-2011 Not sampled 2011-201250%

17. Indicator 9: LEA data indicate the disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification State Target:0% 2010-2011No2011-2012No

18. Indicator 10:LEA data indicate disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification State Target: 0% 2010-2011No2011-2012No

19. Indicator 11: Percent of students referred for whom a referral was received and placement determined in 90 days. State Target: 100% 2010-201192.1%2011-201297.1%

20. Indicator 12: Percent of children referred by Part C prior to age 3, who are found eligible for Part B and who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays State Target: 100% 2010-2011100%2011-2012100%

21. Indicator 13a: Percent of youth with IEPs aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes appropriate measurable postsecondary goals that are annually updated and based upon an age appropriate transition assessment, transition services, including courses of study, that will reasonably enable the student to meet those postsecondary goals, and annual IEP goals related to the student’s transition service needs. There must also be evidence that the student was invited to the IEP team meeting where transition services are to be discussed and evidence that, if appropriate, a representative of any participating agency was invited to the IEP team meeting with the prior consent of the parent or student who has reached the age of majority. State Target:100% 2010-2011100%2011-2012100%

22. Indicator 13b: Percent of noncompliance identified in the previous school year corrected within 1 year State Target: 100% 2010-2011100%2011-2012100%

23. Indicator 14: Percent of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school and were: Enrolled in higher education within one year of leaving high school Enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within one year of leaving high school Enrolled in higher education or in some other postsecondary education or training program; or competitively employed or in some or in some other employment within one year of leaving high school Not Sampled

24. Indicator 15a: Percent of noncompliance identified in the previous school year corrected within 1 year State Target: 100% 2010-2011100%2011-2012100%

25. Indicator 15b: Percent of compliance for the Internal Record Review State Target: 100% 2010-2011100% 2011-2012100%