special education profiles and emis
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Special Education Profiles and EMIS

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 49

Special Education Profiles and EMIS - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 92 Views
  • Uploaded on

Special Education Profiles and EMIS. May, 2012. Indicator 1: Graduation. Measurement Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma. Previous Calculation # of SWD that received a diploma (including summer graduates) DIVIDED BY

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Special Education Profiles and EMIS' - eadoin


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
indicator 1 graduation
Indicator 1: Graduation

Measurement

Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma.

Previous Calculation

# of SWD that received a diploma

(including summer graduates)

DIVIDED BY

Total # of SWD reported as graduates and/or dropouts from this cohort of students combined (adjusted for returning withdrawals)

indicator 1 graduation1
Indicator 1: Graduation

Measurement

  • Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma within 4 years from entering ninth grade.

New Calculation

Of this year’s SWD:

#  that received a regular diploma this year + summer graduates

DIVIDED BY

# reported as entering ninth grade four years ago (includes those who transferred into the cohort and excludes those who transferred out with the appropriate withdrawal codes).

what is regular diploma
What is “regular diploma?”
  • Under Ohio law, anyone who has met specific requirements for CORE
  • Under IDEA, only those students who received a diploma meeting requirements available to typical students
    • Not exempt from OGT consequences
    • Not taking alternate assessment
    • Not by meeting IEP goals only
  • New reporting element for meeting CORE
indicator 2 dropout
Indicator 2: Dropout

Measurement

Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high school.

Previous Calculation

# of SWD that did NOT receive a diploma

DIVIDED BY

Total # of SWD reported as graduates and/or dropouts from this cohort of students combined (adjusted for returning withdrawals)

indicator 2 dropout1
Indicator 2: Dropout
  • Measurement
  • Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high school.
  • New Calculation in progress
  • Federally required drop-out incident rate
  • Compares counts of students in grades nine through twelve who have left school without evidence of continuing elsewhere to the average annual enrollment in those four grades
dropout rate
Dropout Rate
  • Denominator: Average Annual Enrollment of SWD in grades 9, 10,11, 12, and 23.
  • Numerator:
  • Withdrawal reason of 71,72,73,74,75
    • Truancy
    • Pursued Employment
    • Over 18 years
    • Moved, not known to be continuing
    • Completed course requirements, not OGT, and not exempt from OGT consequences
indicator 3a ayp for swd
Indicator 3A: AYP for SWD

Measurement

Did LEAs meet Adequate Yearly Progress targets for SWD?

Calculation

Data comes from AYP office. We are awaiting additional guidance about how to calculate this if the AYP waiver is granted by US DOE.

indicator 3b participation rate
Indicator 3B: Participation Rate

Measurement

Participation rate for children with IEPs in a regular assessment with no accommodations; regular assessment with accommodations; alternate assessment against grade level standards; alternate assessment against alternate achievement standards.

Calculation

# of SWD enrolled on the test date who took the reading or math assessments

DIVIDED BY

Total # of SWD enrolled on the test date who are required to take the test.

New – OSEP is clarifying whether we must count students at DOR for participation. It has already clarified that an invalid test counts as a non-participant.

indicator 3c proficiency rate
Indicator 3C: Proficiency Rate

Measurement

Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level standards and alternate achievement standards.

Calculation

# of SWD across all grades taking reading or math tests who scored at or above the proficient level

DIVIDED BY

Total # of SWD assessed in reading and math

New – OSEP is clarifying whether we must count students at DOR regardless of student standing.

indicator 4
Indicator 4

Two different measurements

  • 4a
    • compares discipline rates of all SWD to discipline rates of all typical students
    • Subtracts SWD rate from typical rate
  • 4b
    • compares discipline rates of SWD by race to discipline rates of all typical students
    • Risk ratio, similar to Indicator 9 and 10
indicator 4a discipline discrepancies
Indicator 4A: Discipline Discrepancies

Measurement

Significant discrepancies in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities for greater than 10 days in a school year.

Calculation

Percentage of SWD expelled or suspended >10 cumulative days

MINUS

Percentage of typical expelled or suspended >10 cumulative days

indicator 4b discipline disproportionality
Indicator 4B: Discipline Disproportionality

Measurement

Rate of suspension and expulsion for more than 10 cumulative days of SWD by racial subgroup, compared to same rates for all students

Calculation

Percentage of SWD of a given race expelled or suspended >10 cumulative days

DIVIDED BY

Percentage of typical expelled or suspended >10 cumulative days

indicator 4 common issues
Indicator 4 Common Issues
  • Student special education status changes
  • Intra-district communication – original suspension was written so cumulative days would exceed 10, then reduced. No one let EMIS staff know of reduction.
  • Intra-district communication – instead of expulsion, changed placement or alternative setting (Program code 211001)
who counts
Who counts?
  • Cumulative days calculated from discipline record
  • 0.5 days counts as a day
  • Student disability status, race come from Report Card data
  • District in which discipline occurred
  • Minimum N for denominator is 30; for numerator is 5
enrollment average who is included
Enrollment Average – who is included?
  • STUDENT STATUS = ‘0’, ‘1’, ’2’, ‘3’, ‘4’, ‘5’, ‘7’, ‘8’, ‘9’, ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’, \'L\',’M’, ‘S’, ’W’
  • STUDENT PERCENT OF TIME > 0
  • Resident students attending an ESC, JVS (or contract career-technical), a post-secondary institution, or a MRDD or State Supported School [ATTENDING/HOME IRN INDICATOR = ‘2’, ‘3’, ‘4’, ‘5’].
  • Does not include non-public students, non-resident public students receiving vocational evaluation services only, or students only receiving non-instructional support, supplementary or related services: STUDENT STATUS = ‘6’, ‘F’, ‘I’
  • The ‘Full Academic Year’ criteria does not need to be met in order for a student to be counted
average enrollment
Average Enrollment
  • How can I have 17.8 students?
  • Number of days student was ENROLLED

DIVIDED BY

  • Number of days the LEA was open for students
indicator 5 school age lre
Indicator 5: School-Age LRE
  • Measurement
  • Percent of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21:
  • Calculation
  • # of SWD in each category reported during DCC
  • DIVIDED BY
  • # of SWD aged 6 through 21 for which the LEA reported a setting on December 1 other than “parentally placed” or “correctional facility.”

Removed from the regular class less than 21% of the day;

Removed from the regular class more than 60% of the day; and

Served in separate facilities.

what is a separate facility
What is a “separate facility?”
  • IE16 Public Separate School
  • IE17 Private Separate School
  • IE18 Public Residential Facility
  • IE19 Private Residential Facility
  • IE20 Homebound/Hospital
parentally placed students
Parentally Placed Students
  • How Received = ‘6’,
  • Sent Reason (both) =  ‘NA’,
  • Student Percent of Time = 0
  • Sent To Percent of Time = 0
  • For NEXT YEAR, OEC has requested to re-activate the IE39 code
indicator 6 pre school lre
Indicator 6: Pre-School LRE

Measurement

6a. Percent in regular early childhood program and receiving the majority of special education and related services in the regular early childhood program; and

6b. Percent in separate special education class, separate school or residential facility.

indicator 6 pre school lre1
Indicator 6: Pre-School LRE

Calculation

Denominator:total # of children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs from DCC

Numerators:

6a. # of children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs attending a regular early childhood program and receiving the majority of special education and related services in the regular early childhood program (IE 51, 53, 55, 56)

6b. # of children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs attending a separate special education class, separate school or residential facility (IE60, 62, 64)

indicator 7 pre school outcomes
Indicator 7: Pre-School Outcomes

Calculated by Contractor

A. Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships);

B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication and early literacy); and

C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs.

indicator 7 pre school outcomes1
Indicator 7: Pre-School Outcomes

Denominator: Number of preschool children with IEPs assessed:

Numerators:

  • Percent of preschool children who did not improve functioning:
    • # of preschool children who did not improve functioning
  • Percent of preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers:
    • # of preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers
  • Percent of preschool children who improved functioning to a level near to same-aged peers but did not reach it:
    • # of preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it
  • Percent of preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers
    • # of preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers
indicator 8 parent involvement
Indicator 8: Parent Involvement

Measurement

Percent of parents with a child receiving special education services who report that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities.

Calculation

# of surveys with average scores indicating that schools facilitated parent involvement

DIVIDED BY

Total # of parent surveys received

indicators 9 and 10 disproportionality
Indicators 9 and 10: Disproportionality
  • Measurement
  • Two steps:
  • a. EMIS data shows “significant dispro”
      • b. Investigation shows it is caused by LEA policies and procedures
  • Calculation of Significant Disproportionality
  • Percentage of students in a given race identified as SWD compared to the percentage of students of all other races combined, identified as SWD
disproportionality details
Disproportionality Details
  • Average annual enrollment by race and disability flag from iLRC
  • Calculate percentage by race (e.g., Hispanic SWD

DIVIDED BY

  • All Hispanic average annual enrollment)
  • Calculate percentage by comparison for each race (Non-Hispanic SWD average annual enrollment)

DIVIDED BY

(Total non-Hispanic SWD average annual enrollment)

  • Minimum denominator N is 30; Minimum numerator is 5
indicator 11 initial evaluations within 60 day s
Indicator 11: Initial Evaluations Within 60 Days

Measurement

Percent of children with parental consent to evaluate, who were evaluated within 60 days.

Calculation

# of children with parental consent to evaluate whose initial evaluations were completed within 60 calendar days

DIVIDED BY

Total # of children with parental consent to evaluate

who s in who s out of indicator 11
Who’s in, Who’s Out of Indicator 11?

Consents at LEA level:

  • Latest consent reported
  • In same district as IETR reported
  • Consent granted (outcome is CNGT or CNGI)
    • This will change in 2013, only CNGI code)
  • Attending home status of 10 or 1M
indicator 11 initial evaluations within 60 days
Indicator 11: Initial Evaluations Within 60 Days

Delay between the date the parent signs the consent form and the date the LEA receives it:

  • The parental consent form does not have a blank to fill in for district receipt of the form. The assumed receipt date will be the signature of the parent.
  • However, if the district can document that the form was received by the district at a later date, report date received as CNST
who s in who s out of indicator 111
Who’s in, Who’s Out of Indicator 11?

Initial ETRs (IETR) at LEA level

  • In- Same district as CNST
  • In- Earliest IETR
  • In - Non-compliance reason **, 01, 02, 03, 04
  • In- Attending home status I0 or 1M
  • In-Enrolled longer than preceding 60 days
  • Out – Consent date within 60 days of end of school year
indicator 11 initial evaluations within 60 days1
Indicator 11: Initial Evaluations Within 60 Days

EMIS codes for accepted reasons for not completing evaluation within 60 days:

  • 05 - Parent Choice (If using RtI must have documentation that the parent and district mutually agreed that more time is needed)
  • 06 - Parent refusal to participate (Must have documentation of attempts to involve parent)
  • 07 - Incarceration of student with written documentation
  • 08 - Child’s health with written documentation
  • 09 - Compliant with procedure but previous data error cannot be corrected
indicator 12 early childhood transition
Indicator 12: Early Childhood Transition

Measurement

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.

Calculation

# children found eligible for Part B who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays

÷

Total # of children found eligible for Part B

who s in who s out of indicator 12
Who’s In, Who’s Out of Indicator 12
  • PSTC reported ONLY for children eligible for Part B
  • Those NOT eligible are reported in aggregate
    • “DR-740, Preschool Transition Conferences Held By 3rd Birthday No Disability Suspected”
who s in who s out of indicator 121
Who’s In, Who’s Out of Indicator 12?
  • All students with PSTC prior to age 3
    • Reminder, only Part C/Help Me Grow participants
  • Same rules as Indicator 11, except enrollment time
  • IETR outcome is not ETNE
  • IETR non-compliance is not **, 01, 02, 03, 04
  • Counts of PSTC are compared to counts from Department of Health
indicator 13 secondary transition
Indicator 13: Secondary Transition

Measurement

Percent of youth aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes coordinated, measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the student to meet the post-secondary goals.

Calculation

# SWD aged 16 and above with transition plans in place

DIVIDED BY

Total # of SWD aged 16 and above

who s in who s out for indicator 13
Who’s In, Who’s Out for Indicator 13
  • In - Students with disability category who turned 16 prior to June 1
  • In - Students not withdrawn prior to 16th birthday
  • Out- Students with a existing IEP, missing transition plan and enrolled less than 60 days prior to 16th birthday (Hint, district can’t adopt TIEP because it is out of compliance.)
  • Out – CIEP or ETEX prior to 16th birthday
indicator 13 transition planning for students 16 and above
Indicator 13: Transition Planning for Students 16 and Above

Be careful when accepting IEPs for students from other LEAs. Make sure there is a transition plan on the IEP. If not, the IEP cannot be accepted as it exists, as it is non-compliant. So, your LEA must write a transition plan, and report the event type as an RIEP.

indicator 20 data accuracy
Indicator 20: Data Accuracy
  • Results of on-site comparison between EMIS data and Special Education Records
  • Results of desk audits of compliance
  • EMIS CAP that is related to special education
reporting timelines adjusted for special ed events
Reporting Timelines Adjusted for Special Ed Events
  • June 1 deadline for special ed events gives six weeks leeway for reporting events that occur late in the year
  • Year-end reporting is final the last week in July. There are two months in which to report events that occurred through the end of May.
new data verification process possible
New Data Verification Process Possible
  • OEC hopes to distribute student-level reports through our Profile site
  • Special Education staff will have responsibility for checking these, communicating to EMIS staff of needed changes
  • SSIDs of students included in calculations for Indicators 4, 11, 12, and 13
  • Three opportunities to view: late May, mid June, and last week of reporting period
consent outcomes
Consent Outcomes
  • CNGI - Consent granted for initial evaluation (IETR)
  • CNGO - Consent Granted for Other Special Education Activity (Neither IETR nor RETR)
  • CNGR - Consent Granted for a Reviewed Evaluation (RETR)
special education graduation requirement record
Special Education Graduation Requirement Record
  • Assessment Area Code
  • Assessment Type Code
  • Exemption Flag
  • IEP date
  • IEP date type
individual questions
Individual Questions?
  • Data manager and OEC policy expert will be available all day at the ODE table for individual questions, consultations
  • Email [email protected]
ad