Loading in 2 Seconds...
Loading in 2 Seconds...
2011 Special Education Leadership Summer Academy State Performance Plan. July 27, 2011. SPP (2005-12) APR (annually, by February 1) Public Reporting (annually in June) Determinations - OSEP to states; states to LEAs (annually). Overview. State Performance Plan (SPP) Requirements.
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.
July 27, 2011
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.
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.
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.
OSEP issues annual determinations for States.
States issue annual determinations for LEAs.
Determinations are based on Compliance and Performance under IDEA.
Determinations fall into four categories required by IDEA:
Needs Substantial Intervention
Overview of Indicators
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
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
Disproportionality ( 2 Indicators )
Transition from birth - 3 to early intervention (ages 3-5) program
Transition goals students aged 16 – 21 years
Monitoring, state agency complaints, due process, mediation, resolution sessions, data reporting
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.”
Graduation rates for students
Drop-out rates for
students with disabilities
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.
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)
Discrepancy in rates of suspension and expulsion of students with disabilities among LEAs
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
26 school districts had rates 2 times or greater than the overall state rate of 0.78%Baseline (2005-06)
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.
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.
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
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%)
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
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
Students of a particular race were suspended or expelled at least 1.5 times the state suspension/ expulsion rate for that race
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%
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
“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.”
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
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%
*Revised, Fall 2009
Effective transition planning for youth,
age 16 and above
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
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
Data to be taken from State monitoring or State data system.
Report correction of noncompliance
72% compliance with IEP transition requirements
100% compliance with IEP transition requirements
2008 Not reported due to change in measurement
Post-secondary outcomes for students with disabilities
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
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
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%
Required public reporting of LEA performance was accomplished in May, 2011SPP / APR
Sandy Zeleznik, BSE
Jane Sullivan, Consultant
John Cica, Consultant
Jodi Rissinger, BSE (Data Manager)
Carolyn Dumaresq, Deputy Secretary
Bureau of Special Education
John J. Tommasini, Director
Patricia Hozella, Assistant Director
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.
Governor Secretary of Education