1 / 31

Nash-Rocky Mount Public Schools Programs for Exceptional Children

Nash-Rocky Mount Public Schools Programs for Exceptional Children. State Performance Plan/ Annual Performance Report/Continuous Improvement Performance Plan (SPP/APR/CIPP). Focus.

liang
Télécharger la présentation

Nash-Rocky Mount Public Schools Programs for Exceptional Children

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. Nash-Rocky Mount Public Schools Programs for Exceptional Children State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report/Continuous Improvement Performance Plan (SPP/APR/CIPP)

  2. Focus “The primary focus of Federal and State monitoring activities shall be on improving education results and functional outcomes for all children with disabilities ”

  3. 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

  4. 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.

  5. Continuous Improvement Performance Plan (CIPP)Nash-Rocky Mount Data Story

  6. 2007- 2008 Data State Target: 80% NRMPS: 43.6% Indicator 1Graduation Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma. 2008– 2009 Data State Target: 80% NRMPS: 46.7%

  7. 2007– 2008 Data State Target: 6.5% NRMPS: 11.8% Indicator 2Drop Out Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high school. 2008 – 2009 Data State Target: 6.0% NRMPS: Rate not calculated at this time

  8. Participation and performance of children with disabilities on statewide assessment. State Target 2007-08 = 25% of LEAs meeting AYP State Target 2008-09 = 45% of LEAs meeting AYP NRMPS did not meet AYP. Indicator 3Assessment

  9. Indicator 3Assessment Participation/Reading NRMPS 2007-08 Data NRMPS 2008-09 Data State Target

  10. Indicator 3Assessment Participation/Math NRMPS 2007-08 Data NRMPS 2008-09 Data State Target

  11. Indicator 3Assessment Performance/Reading NRMPS 2007-08 Data NRMPS 2008-09 Data State Target

  12. Indicator 3Assessment Performance/Math NRMPS 2007-08 Data NRMPS 2008-09 Data State Target

  13. Indicator 4Suspension/Expulsion Rates of suspension and expulsion of students with disabilities greater than 10 days in a school year that is twice the state average or greater. State Target 2007-08 = 8%of LEAs State Target 2008-09 = 8% NRMPS =0 %

  14. Indicator 5Least Restrictive Environment Percent of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21 served in regular, separate, or public, private, home or hospital settings.

  15. Indicator 5Least Restrictive Environment State Targets:

  16. Indicator 5Least Restrictive Environment NRMPS 2007-08 Data 2008-09 Data

  17. Indicator 7Preschool Outcomes Percent of preschool children with IEPs who demonstrate improvement in: • Positive social-emotional skills, • Acquisition and use of knowledge, and • Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs.

  18. Indicator 7 Proposed State Targets

  19. Indicator 7 LEA Data

  20. Indicator 8Parent Involvement Percent of parents with a child receiving special education services who report that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving service and results for children with disabilities. State Target: 2008-09 = 39.2% NRMPS Data: Not Sampled

  21. Indicator 9Disproportionality Spec Ed Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification. State Target 0% State data indicated no LEA has significant disproportionate representation across all disability categories combined.

  22. Indicator 10Disproportionality by Category Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification. State target: 0% NRMPS:0 %

  23. Indicator 1190 Day Timeline Percent of children referred for whom a referral was received and placement determined within 90 days. State Target: 100% NRMPS 2007-2008 82.3 % NRMPS 2008-2009 86.3 %

  24. Indicator 12Part C to Part B Percent of children referred by Part C prior to age 3 and who are found eligible for Part B who receive special education and related services by their third birthday. State Target: 100% NRMPS 2007-08 Data 85.0 % NRMPS 2008-09 Data 97.0%

  25. Indicator 13IEPs and Postsecondary Goals 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.

  26. NRMPS 2007-08 Data 100 % Indicator 13IEPs and Postsecondary Goals State Target: 100% NRMPS 2008-09 Data 100 %

  27. Indicator 14Post-School Outcomes • Percent of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school, and were: • 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. State Target: 2008-09 = 75% NRMPS Data: Not Sampled

  28. Indicator 15General Supervision Part 1 Percent of noncompliance identified in the 2007-2008 school year corrected within one year. State Target: 100% NRMPS 2007-08 Data 100 % NRMPS 2008-09 Data 100 %

  29. Indicator 15General Supervision Part 2 Percent of compliance rate of Internal Record Review. State Target: 100% NRMPS 2007-08 Data 100 % NRMPS 2008-09 Data 100 %

  30. Questions?

More Related