1 / 25

Buncombe County Schools 2013

State Performance Plan/ Annual Performance Report/Continuous Improvement Performance Plan (SPP/APR/CIPP). Buncombe County Schools 2013. Monitoring Priorities 616(a)(3)

jeneva
Download Presentation

Buncombe County Schools 2013

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  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. 2010-2011 53.6% 2011-2012 61.9% Indicator 1:Percentage of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diplomaState Target: 80%

  6. 2010-2011 6.8% 2011-2012 5.5% Indicator 2: Percent of SWD dropping out of high schoolState Target: 4.7%

  7. 2010-2011 Did not meet AYP 2011-2012 Did not calculate AYP Indicator 3A: District Performance on State Assessments Compared to State 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. 2010-2011 n/a% 2011-2012 < 5 students 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%

  10. 2010-2011 n/a% 2011-2012 n/a% 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.

  11. 2010-2011 60.1% 2011-2012 64.1% Indicator 5: Percent of SWD aged 6-21 served: Measurement A. Inside the regular class 80% or more of the dayState Target: 65.6%

  12. 2010-2011 17.0% 2011-2012 16.8 % Indicator 5 B: Percent of SWD aged 6 through 21 served inside the regular class less than 40% of the dayState Target: 15.3%

  13. 2010-2011 .9 % 2011-2012 .7 % Indicator 5C: Percent of SWD served in separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placementsState Target: 2.0%

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

  15. 2010-2011 A.1. 92.9% 2. 42.2% B. 1. 93.2% 2. 53.3% C. 1. 89.3% 2. 62.2% 2011-2012 A.1. 81.4% 2. 28.8% B.1. 81.9% 2. 40.4% C.1. 80.8% 2. 58.7% 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

  16. 2010-2011 Not sampled 2011-2012 50% 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%

  17. 2010-2011 No 2011-2012 No 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 identificationState Target:0%

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

  19. 2010-2011 92.1% 2011-2012 97.1% Indicator 11: Percent of students referred for whom a referral was received and placement determined in 90 days.State Target: 100%

  20. 2010-2011 100% 2011-2012 100% 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 birthdaysState Target: 100%

  21. 2010-2011 100% 2011-2012 100% 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%

  22. 2010-2011 100% 2011-2012 100% Indicator 13b: Percent of noncompliance identified in the previous school year corrected within 1 yearState Target: 100%

  23. 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 Indicator 14: Percent of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school and were:

  24. 2010-2011 100% 2011-2012 100% Indicator 15a: Percent of noncompliance identified in the previous school year corrected within 1 yearState Target: 100%

  25. 2010-2011 100% 2011-2012 100% Indicator 15b: Percent of compliance for the Internal Record ReviewState Target: 100%

More Related