1 / 29

ThE APR and SPP--Linking special education Data to accountability for education results

ThE APR and SPP--Linking special education Data to accountability for education results. Building a Brighter Tomorrow through Positive and Progressive Leadership 2012 BIE Summer Learning Institute Colorado Convention Center Denver, Colorado June 12 & 13, 2012.

stevie
Download Presentation

ThE APR and SPP--Linking special education Data to accountability for education results

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. ThE APR and SPP--Linking special education Data to accountability for education results Building a Brighter Tomorrow through Positive and Progressive Leadership 2012 BIE Summer Learning Institute Colorado Convention Center Denver, Colorado June 12& 13, 2012

  2. The APR and SPP—Linking Special Education Data to Accountability for Education Results Presented by: Gloria J. Yepa and Dr. Eugene Thompson Division of Performance and Accountability Bureau of Indian Education

  3. BIE Annual Performance Report • Report on BIE’s progress on the BIE State Performance Plan • Indicators applicable to the BIE are: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 • Submitted 2/1/2012 to Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) • Based on 2010-2011 data

  4. Indicator 1: Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma (results indicator). The BIE met its 2010 target of reducing the gap in the graduation rate between students with disabilities and all students by .5% over the previous year.

  5. Indicator 2: Percent of Youth with IEPs dropping out of high school (results indicator). The BIE did not meetits target that the drop-out rate of students with disabilities attending BIE operated high schools will not exceed 9.0%.

  6. Indicator 3: Participation and performance of children with IEPs on statewide assessments (results indicator): 3A: Percent of schools with a disability subgroup that meets the State’s minimum “n” size that meet the State’s AYP targets for the disability subgroup. Of the schools with sufficient “n” size for calculation, increase the amount of SWD subgroup achieving AYP by 3% over the previous year’s percentage (9%). The BIE metits target of the schools with sufficient “n” for calculation.

  7. 3B: Participation rate for children with IEPs3B: Participation rate for children with IEPs.The BIE did meet its target of 96% participation rate forReading/LA and not met for Math.

  8. 3C: Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level, modified and alternate academic achievement standards. The BIE did not meet its target in Reading/LA by reducing the gap by 20% (gap = 22.93%), results showed the gap increased by 0.55%; and the BIE did meet its target in Math by reducing the gap by 20% (gap = 13.64%), results showed the gap decreased by 4.27 %.

  9. Indicator 4: Rates of suspension and expulsion:4: Rates of Suspension and expulsion (results indicator):4A: Percent of schools identified as having a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of children with IEPs for greater than 10 days in a school year. The BIE did not meetits target of no more than 2 of the BIE High Schools or 5 BIE elementary schools will report suspensions and expulsion rates greater than two times the BIE average for that group of schools.

  10. Indicator 5: Percent of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21 served (results indicator): • Inside the regular class 80% or more of the day; • Inside the regular class less than 40% of the day; and • In separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements

  11. 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 (results indicator).

  12. Indicator 11: Percent of children who were evaluated within 60 days of receiving parental consent for initial evaluation or, if the State establishes a timeframe within which the evaluation must be conducted, within that timeframe (compliance indicator).

  13. Indicator 13: 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 services needs. There also must 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 (compliance indicator).

  14. Indicator 14: Percent of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school, and were (results indicator): • Enrolled in high education within one year of leaving high school. • Enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within one year of leaving high school. • Enrolled in high education or in some other postsecondary education or training program; or competitively employed or in some other employment within one year of leafing high school.

  15. Indicator 15: General supervision system identifies and corrects noncompliance as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from identification (compliance indicator).

  16. Indicator 16: Percent of signed written complaints with reports issued that were resolved within 60-day timeline or a timeline extended for exceptional circumstances with respect to a particular complaint, or because the parent (or individual or organization) and the public agency agree to extend the time to engage in mediation or other alternative means of dispute resolution, if available in the State (compliance indicator).

  17. Indicator 17: Percent of adjudicated due process hearing requests that were adjudicated within the 45-day timeline or a timeline that is properly extended by the hearing officer at the request of either party or in the case of an expedited hearing, within the required timelines (compliance indicator).

  18. Indicator 18: Percent of hearing request that went to resolution sessions that were resolved through resolution session settlement agreements (compliance indicator). Indicator 19: Percent of mediations held that resulted in mediation agreements (results indicator).

  19. Indicator 20: State reported data (618 and State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report) are timely and accurate (compliance indicator). This was recalculated but have not been informed.

  20. BIEs Determination of Schools for 2012 Based on specific criteria: • Meets the requirements and purposes of IDEA • Needs Assistance in implementing IDEA requirements • Needs Intervention in implementing IDEA requirements • Needs Substantial Intervention in implementing IDEA requirements

  21. The BIE Picture(Based on SY 2010-11 data)

  22. 2012 Levels of Determination(based on SY 2010-11 data)

  23. 2012 Levels of Determination(based on SY 2010-11 data)

  24. 2012 Levels of Determination(based on SY 2010-11 data)

More Related