Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report ( APR): The Next Generation

1. Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR):The Next Generation G-CASE Fall Conference November 14, 2013 Savannah, Ga

2. History: State Performance Plan • In accordance with 20 U.S.C. 1416(b)(1), each state is required to have in place a performance plan evaluating the state's implementation of Part B and describing how the state would improve such implementation. • This plan, called the Part B State Performance Plan (SPP), had several indicators for which the state set targets and planned improvement activities.

3. History: Annual Performance Report • In accordance with 20 U.S.C. 1416(2)(C)(ii) each state reports annually to the public and the Secretary on the performance of each of its LEAs according to the targets in its SPP. • This report, called the Part B Annual Performance Report (APR), provides data and descriptions for the improvement activities for each indicator in the SPP and outlines the progress the state is making in each area.

4. History: Public Reporting • The state reports annually to the public on the performance of each LEA on the targets in the SPP on the GaDOE website. • The SPP and APR are posted on the Special Education Services and Supports website. • The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) responds to the state’s SPP and APR and posts the APR and response letter’s on its website.

5. History: Determinations • Used compliance data and percentage criteria for meeting specific compliance indicators. • Determinations: • Meets Requirements • Needs Assistance • Needs Intervention • Needs Substantial Intervention

6. OSEP Implements RDA(Results Driven Accountability) • Move from HEAVY emphasis on compliance to a balance approach that considers results as well as compliance. • Determinations based on compliance AND RESULTS • New SPP/APR (FFY 2013-2018) • Reduces data collection and reporting burden • Focus = educational results and functional outcomes • Uses a compliance matrix • State used similar for determinations • Results data used in Determinations

7. Baseline Year: Submitted 2015(2013-2014 SY) • Remove Reporting for Indicators 15, 16, 17 and 20 • Report only on slippage when the State did not meet its target • No requirement to report on progress • Online submission system • Adding NEW Indicator 17

8. Indicator 17: State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) • INDICATOR: The State’s SPP/APR includes a State Systemic Improvement Plan that meets the requirements set forth for this indicator. • MEASUREMENT: The State’s SPP/APR includes a comprehensive, multi-year State Systemic Improvement Plan, focused on improving results for children and youth with disabilities and their families.

9. State Systemic Improvement Plan • Basis for this plan is a detailed data and infrastructure analysis that will guide the development of the strategies to increase the State’s capacity to structure and lead meaningful change in LEA's

10. State Systemic Improvement Plan • While the primary focus of SSIP is on improvement of children and youth outcomes, the State must also address in its SSIP how the State will use its general supervision systems to improve implementation of the requirements of Part B of the IDEA.

11. Why SSIP? Why Now? • The focus has shifted to improving outcomes for all children and youth and accountability is intensifying at multiple levels

12. The Good News…. • For over 30 years, there has been a strong focus on regulatory compliance with the IDEA and Federal regulations for early intervention and special education • OSEP • States • Districts/Programs • As a result, compliance has improved!

13. But… • States are not seeing improved results for children and youth with disabilities: • Young children are not coming to Kindergarten prepared to learn • In many locations, a significant achievement gap exists between students with disabilities and their general education peers • Students are dropping out of school • Many students who do graduate with a regular education diploma are not college and career ready Michael Yudin, Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services

14. 4 Areas of February 2015 Submission State Systemic Improvement Plan Phase I Components

15. Data Analysis Component • Description of process for identifying and analyzing key data, including data from SPP/APR indicators, to determine the areas for improvement. • The description must: • include information about how the data were disaggregated in order to identify areas for improvement.

16. Data Analysis Component • The description must: • include any concerns about the quality of the data and how the State will address this, as well as methods and timelines to collect additional data that may be needed to inform areas for improvement.

17. Data Analysis Component • As part of its data analysis, the State must determine if there are any compliance issues that present barriers to achieving improved results for children and youth with disabilities.

19. Infrastructure Analysis • A description of how the State analyzed the capacity of its current system to support improvement and build capacity in LEA's and local programs to implement, scale up, and sustain evidence-based practices to improve results for children and youth with disabilities, and the results of this analysis.

20. Infrastructure Analysis • The description must include • the strengths of the system, • how components of the system are coordinated, and • areas for improvement within and across components of the system.

21. Infrastructure Analysis • The description must also include an analysis of initiatives in the State, including • initiatives in general education and other areas beyond special education, which can have an impact on children and youth with disabilities. • how decisions are made within the State system and the representatives (e.g., agencies, positions, individuals) that must be involved in planning for systematic improvements in the State system.

22. Focus for Improvement • Description of improvement strategies on which the State will focus, that will lead to a measurable child-based result. • The State must include in the description how the data analysis led to the identification of the area on which the State will focus.

23. Focus for Improvement • The State must demonstrate how addressing this area of focus for improvement will build LEA's and local programs’ capacity to improve the identified result for children and youth with disabilities.

24. Theory of Action • Based on the data analysis and infrastructure analysis, the State must describe the general improvement strategies that will need to be carried out and the outcomes that will need to be met to achieve the State-identified, measurable improvement in results for children and youth with disabilities.

25. Theory of Action • Based The State must include in the description the changes in the State system, LEA's and local programs, and school and provider practices that must occur to achieve the State-identified, measurable improvement in results for children and youth with disabilities. • States should consider developing a logic model that shows the relationship between the activities and the outcomes that the State expects to achieve over a multi-year period.

26. The Task At Hand • The development and implementation of the SSIP will require strong collaboration with internal and external partners. • The SSIP will be submitted in three phases described below.

27. Proposed SSIP Activities by Phase Source: Western Regional Resource Center.

28. Slide Contributions/Resources • Kim Hartsell, Southeast Regional Resource Center (SERCC), • Western Regional Resource Center

29. Contact Information for SPP/APR: K. Elise James Program Specialist Program Evaluation and Development Georgia Department of Education 404-657-0309 ejames@doe.k12.ga.us http://www.gadoe.org