1 / 18

State Performance Plan (SPP) Annual Performance Report (APR)

State Performance Plan (SPP) Annual Performance Report (APR). Dana Corriveau Bureau of Special Education Connecticut State Department of Education. ConnCASE October 18, 2007. CT State Performance Plan.

liam
Télécharger la présentation

State Performance Plan (SPP) Annual Performance Report (APR)

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 (SPP) Annual Performance Report (APR) Dana Corriveau Bureau of Special Education Connecticut State Department of Education ConnCASE October 18, 2007

  2. CT State Performance Plan • Six year plan that describes the state’s performance on 20 indicators under Part B of IDEA (15 relate directly to LEAs) • Required by IDEA, more alignment with NCLB • Establishes baseline data and targets for each year with improvement activities at the state and local levels • Submitted to the US Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) in December 2005 – we are entering the 3rd year of the plan • Must report state level progress to OSEP every year on all indicators 1-20 (Annual Performance Report - APR)… due February 1, 2008

  3. CT State Performance Plan • There are “compliance” indicators – targets are 100% or 0% (9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 20) • There are “monitoring” indicators – we have to oversee and investigate on an ongoing basis (9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 20) • There are “performance” indicators – targets change each year (1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8) • Some are still “new” and do not have targets or improvement activities (7, 14) • Developed with broad stakeholder input (local school officials, Department personnel, parents, other state agencies) to develop targets and improvement activities

  4. Section 616 Determinations • In accordance with Section 616 of the statute, the Secretary will make determinations upon a state • Meets Requirements • Needs Assistance • Needs Intervention • Needs Substantial Intervention • District’s data impacts the state determination, effects how we are monitored by OSEP, direction of funds • Section 616 also says the state must enforce determinations upon LEAs with the same categories as above

  5. District Annual Performance Report • Besides our State APR to OSEP in February, we must publicly disseminate data for every district • States must also make a determination upon LEAs in the same 4 categories that OSEP used • District Annual Performance Report • Compares district data against state target • Will include a determination that triggers enforcement actions: • Notify districts about sources of TA • Develop and implement a corrective action plan • Withhold or redirect funds • Designate as a high risk grantee with imposing conditions on funds

  6. District Annual Performance Report • Use this data to guide change • This is about being able to understand where there are problematic areas and how to improve outcomes for students with disabilities in that area

  7. District APR 2005-06 data , issued September 2007 • Two parts: • SPP indicators under IDEA • PJ Goals under the Settlement Agreement • Two separate determinations processes (but similar)

  8. District APR 2005-06 data , issued September 2007 • The district level APR displays data for all SPP indicators 1 – 15, 20 (unless not possible to do so) • Some indicators set an increasing target (Indicator 11 – Evaluation Timelines) • Some indicators set a decreasing target (Indicators 9 & 10 – Disproportionality) • Refer to the SPP for specific targets

  9. District APR 2005-06 data , issued September 2007 • The IDEA determination for 2005-06 data was made ONLY on the following SPP compliance indicators: • Indicator 9 – Disproportionate representation in special education • Indicator 10 – Disproportionate representation in special education by disability • Indicator 11 – Evaluation timelines • Indicator 12 – FAPE at 3 • Indicator 15 – General Supervision (2 parts) • 15A: Noncompliance corrected within 1 year

  10. District APR 2005-06 data , issued September 2007 • In order to Meet Requirements, the district’s data had to • Either meet/exceed the state target OR • Be in substantial compliance (95%-99% performance) • There cannot be any outstanding noncompliance identified through focused monitoring or other general supervision activities

  11. District APR 2006-07 data , issued February 2008 • Same indicators used for determinations in 2005-06 (9, 10, 11, 12, 15A) • Addition of Indicator 13 – Secondary Transition Goals and Services • compliance indicator, target = 100%

  12. District APR 2007-08 data , issued December 2008 • Same as used in 2006-07 • Addition of Indicator 15B – Significant Disproportionality • Addition of Indicator 20 – Timely & Accurate Data (check out the SPP website for the Data Collection Calendar!) This is the year that you can make a difference!

  13. Significant Disproportionality: 15B • States are required to examine data to determine whether significant disproportionality based on race or ethnicity is occurring in districts, with respect to: • identification, including within disability categories • placement of children in particular educational settings • incidence, duration, and type of disciplinary actions, including suspensions and expulsions • See your Appendix A for a more detailed explanation

  14. Significant Disproportionality: 15B • The finding of significant disproportionality is done through an analysis of the data alone (disproportionality in indicators 9 & 10 are determined after a review of policy/procedures/practice to determine if there is inappropriate identification going on) • If significant disproportionality is found, the state will require the LEA to reserve 15% of its IDEA funds for early intervening services (EIS)

  15. Indicator 20 – Timely & Accurate Data • District level data is submitted in a timely and accurate manner, according to state deadlines, which includes the following data collections: SEDAC Oct. 1 Child Count Evaluation Timelines Early Childhood Outcomes PJ Data ED 166 Discipline Data Dispute Resolution Data, Exiters (PSIS and SEDAC) • check out the SPP website for the Data Collection Calendar!

  16. PJ Determinations • Also included on the district level APR document • Separate but similar process • Based ONLY on students with ID (indicator 5 is based on all students with disabilities – two different numbers) • Regular class placement = those students who are in regular classes 80-100% of the day • Mean TWNDP = the average of all your students’ with ID, time with non-disabled peers

  17. More Information • District level APR • Appendix A • Appendix B • SPP website • Bureau of Special Education (860) 713-6910

  18. More Information

More Related