2011 Special Education Leadership Summer Academy State Performance Plan

1. 2011 Special Education Leadership Summer AcademyState Performance Plan July 27, 2011

2. SPP (2005-12) APR (annually, by February 1) Public Reporting (annually in June) Determinations - OSEP to states; states to LEAs (annually) Overview

3. State Performance Plan (SPP) Requirements IDEA 2004 required every state to develop a State Performance Plan to improve services for students with disabilities. The SPP now covers FFY 2005 though FFY 2012 (2012-13 school year). SPPs were first submitted to OSEP in December 2005. The SPP is updated annually, as needed.

4. Annual Performance Report (APR) Requirements States are required to submit an “Annual Performance Report” to OSEP describing progress in meeting SPP targets. APRs are submitted to OSEP for review each February. The February, 2011 APR submission was for the 2009-10 school year.

5. Public Reporting Requirements States are required to publicly report the performance of every LEA in meeting our SPP targets. PA uses the Special Education Data Reports on the PennData website to meet this requirement.

6. Determinations Requirement OSEP issues annual determinations for States. States issue annual determinations for LEAs. Determinations are based on Compliance and Performance under IDEA.

7. Determinations Requirement Determinations fall into four categories required by IDEA: Meets Requirements Needs Assistance Needs Intervention Needs Substantial Intervention

8. The State Performance Plan Overview of Indicators and Targets

9. The Framework The SPP is built around 20 federally required Indicators of compliance and performance For each of the Indicators, the SPP includes baseline performance data, annual targets and a description of improvement activities Each state sets its own targets for improvement

10. SPP: 20 Indicators Graduation Drop-Out Participation and performance on statewide assessments Suspension and Expulsion LRE school age students (age 6-21) LRE early intervention (age 3-5) Early intervention improvement goals Parent involvement Disproportionality ( 2 Indicators ) Evaluation timelines Transition from birth - 3 to early intervention (ages 3-5) program Transition goals students aged 16 – 21 years Post-school outcomes General Supervision 6 Indicators Monitoring, state agency complaints, due process, mediation, resolution sessions, data reporting

11. OSEP’s Determination of PA’s FFY 2009 APR On June 20, 2011, PA received it’s determination for FFY 2009 from OSEP. OSEP determined that “Pennsylvania meets the requirements of Part B of IDEA.” 11

12. Indicator 1 Graduation rates for students with disabilities

13. Indicator 2 Drop-out rates for students with disabilities

14. Indicators 1 & 2 State must use data and graduation/drop out calculation and timeline established under ESEA. Each year’s targets will be the same as the targets under Title 1 of the ESEA.

15. Indicators 1 & 2 ESEA Target for Indicator 1:   LEA/school must reach a graduation rate of at least 82.5% or improve at least 10% from the distance they are from the 85% goal Target for Indicator 2:  Pennsylvania will decrease the dropout rate for students with disabilities to 11.33% (Currently there are no ESEA targets for dropout rate, therefore we are using the original SPP targets)

16. Indicator 4 Discrepancy in rates of suspension and expulsion of students with disabilities among LEAs

17. Indicator 4 Data for Indicator 4 are derived from 618 data submitted to Penn Data Section 618 of IDEA specifies data that states must collect and report that measure results for children and families served through state Part B and Part C programs 618 data includes Child Count, LRE, Assessment, Exiting, Discipline, Dispute Resolution

18. Baseline (2005-06) 26 school districts had rates 2 times or greater than the overall state rate of 0.78%Baseline (2005-06) 2008-09 25 school districts had rates 2 times or greater than the overall state rate of 0.78% * For this indicator OSEP instructed states to use 2008-09 data for the FFY2009 APR. Indicator 4

19. Indicator 4A YearTargetsPerformance 2006-07 5 districts at 4 X 0.78% 11 2007-08 0 districts at 4 X 0.78% 11 2008-09 10 districts at 3 X 0.78% 14 2009-10 5 districts at 3 X 0.78% * 2010-11 10 districts at 2 X 0.78% 2011-12 10 districts at 2 X 0.78% 2012-13 10 districts at 2 X 0.78% *To be reported in the February, 2012 APR submission, as per OSEP instructions.

20. Indicator 4A Requires state to review each LEA with a significant discrepancy in 09-10 and correct noncompliance for reporting out in the February 2012 APR There are 17 LEAs in this group for 09-10 The state’s review must encompass review/revision and, if required, correction of the LEA’s policies, procedures and practices

21. Indicator 4AHow LEAs are identified: 1.) Suspended or expelled at least 10 students for 10 days or more 2.) LEA rate 2 times or greater than state baseline rate of 0.78% (greater than 1.56%)

22. Indicator 4B Percent of districts that have a.) a significant discrepancy by race or ethnicity, in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs; and b.) policies, procedures and practices that contribute to the significant discrepancy and do no comply with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports and procedural safeguards

23. Indicator 4B Target Maintain 0% discrepancy in the rates of suspension and expulsion of greater than 10 days in a school year of children with disabilities by race and ethnicity

24. Indicator 4BHow LEAs are identified: Students of a particular race were suspended or expelled at least 1.5 times the state suspension/ expulsion rate for that race

25. Indicator 4 Section B of this indicator is new for FFY 2009. Required state to establish baseline and improvement activities in the February 2011 SPP. Targets must be 0% for 4B under federal requirements. State baseline was 0%

26. 2008-2009 data were reported in the APR submitted in February 2011 If significant discrepancies are identified, review and revise procedures and practices related to development and implementation of IEPs, the use of PBIS, and procedural safeguards 2009-10 data will be reported in the APR due February 2012 Indicator 4B

27. Indicator 8 “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.”

28. Indicator 8 PDE uses a survey developed by the National Center for Special Education Accountability Monitoring (NCSEAM) to measure school-facilitated parent involvement The survey is scaled in a way to enforce the premise that there is a continuum of lower involvement to higher involvement with increased levels in difficulty to obtain The results reflect the percent of parents who indicated that their schools rose to the threshold recommended by SEAP and adopted by PDE (score of 600) for adequate school-facilitated parent involvement Other states using the NCSEAM survey and scoring system are reporting similar levels of performance

29. Indicator 8 Baseline The 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 is 35.08%. Year Target Performance 2006-07 35.76% 35.12% 2007-08 36.52% 34.00% 2008-09 34.13%* 34.50% 2009-10 34.89%* 34.30% 2010-11 35.65%* *Revised, Fall 2009

30. Indicator 13 Effective transition planning for youth, age 16 and above

31. IEP that includes appropriate measurable postsecondary goals 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 services needs. Indicator 13

32. 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. Indicator 13

33. Indicator 13 Data to be taken from State monitoring or State data system. Report correction of noncompliance

34. Indicator 13 Baseline 72% compliance with IEP transition requirements Improvement target 100% compliance with IEP transition requirements Performance 2006 69% 2007 75.1% 2008 Not reported due to change in measurement 2009 76.1%

35. Indicator 14 Post-secondary outcomes for students with disabilities

36. Percent of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school, and were: a.) enrolled in higher education within one year of leaving high school. b.) enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within one year of leaving high school. c.) enrolled in higher education or in some other postsecondary education or training program; or competitively employed or in some other employment within one year of leaving high school. Indicator 14

37. Data come from the PaPOS survey conducted with the student within one year of leaving school (one year after taking the exit survey). OSEP has approved a sampling plan which allows PA to survey 20% of the LEAs and 20% of the secondary schools in Philadelphia each year. One of the important outcomes of the survey is to inform schools about effective transition planning. IU and PaTTAN transition consultants monitor the districts' progress and assist as needed with the exit and post-school survey procedure.  Indicator 14

38. Indicator 14 New Baseline (2009-10) 14A: Percent of school leavers enrolled in higher education within one year of leaving high school 28.0% 14B: Percent of school leavers enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within one year of leaving high school 49.0% 14C: Percent of school leavers enrolled in higher education , or in some other postsecondary education or training program; or competitively employed or in some other employment 66.0%

39. New Targets YearIndicatorTarget 2010-11 14A 28.1% 14B 49.1% 14C 66.0% 2011-12 14A 28.2% 14B 49.2% 14C 66.0% 2012-13 14A 28.3% 14B 49.3% 14C 66.0% Indicator 14

40. PA’s updated SPP and FFY 2009 APR are posted on the PDE and PaTTAN websites Required public reporting of LEA performance was accomplished in May, 2011 SPP / APR

41. Contact Information Sandy Zeleznik, BSE szeleznik@state.pa.us Jane Sullivan, Consultant c-jsullivan@state.pa.us John Cica, Consultant c-jcica@state.pa.us Jodi Rissinger, BSE (Data Manager) jrissinger@state.pa.us 41

42. Office for Elementary and Secondary Education Carolyn Dumaresq, Deputy Secretary Bureau of Special Education John J. Tommasini, Director Patricia Hozella, Assistant Director

43. The mission of the Pennsylvania Department of Education is to lead and serve the educational community, to enable each individual to grow into an inspired, productive, fulfilled lifelong learner.

44. Tom Corbett Ronald J. Tomalis Governor Secretary of Education