Special Education Annual Performance Report Presented by: Jody A. Fields, Ph.D. 2015 Special Education Data Summit, June 15-16, 2015 Holiday Inn Airport

Special Education Annual Performance Report

Presented by:Jody A. Fields, Ph.D.

2015 Special Education Data Summit, June 15-16, 2015Holiday Inn Airport Conference Center, Little Rock, AR

Trivia 1How many indicators are reported on the local education agency (LEA) Annual Performance Report?

5 points

Section 616 of IDEA

• SEC. 616. <<NOTE: 20 USC 1416.>> MONITORING, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT.

• (b) State Performance Plans.-- (1) Plan.—

(A) …each State shall have in place a performance plan that evaluates that State's efforts to implement the requirements and purposes of this part and describes how the State will improve such implementation.(B) Submission for approval.--Each State shall submit the State's performance plan to the Secretary for approval in accordance with the approval process described in subsection (c).(C) …Review.--Each State shall review its State performance plan at least once every 6 years and submit any amendments to the Secretary.

Section 616 of IDEA

(2) Targets.--(A) In general.--As a part of the State performance plan described under paragraph (1), each State shall establish measurable and rigorous targets for the indicators established under the priority areas described in subsection (a)(3). (B) Data collection.-- (i) In general.--Each State shall collect valid and reliable information as needed to report annually to the Secretary on the priority areas described in subsection (a)(3). (ii) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize the development of a nationwide database of personally identifiable information on individuals involved in studies or other collections of data under this part.

Trivia 1 Answer

1. Graduation 2. Dropout 3. AssessmentA-C

4. DisciplineA-B

5. SA LREA-C

6. EC LREA-B

7. EC OutcomesA-B x 3

8. Family Outcomes

9. Disproportionality - Identification

10. Disproportionality - Disability

11. Child Find 12. C to B Transition

13. Secondary Transition

14. Post-school Outcomes

Timely and Accurate Reporting

Section 616 of IDEA(2) Targets.--

(C) Public reporting and privacy.--(i) In general.--The State shall use the targets established in the plan and priority areas described in subsection (a)(3) to analyze the performance of each local educational agency in the State in implementing this part.(ii) Report.—

(I) Public report.--The State shall report annually to the public on the performance of each local educational agency located in the State on the targets in the State's performance plan. The State shall make the State's performance plan available through public means, including by posting on the website of the State educational agency, distribution to the media, and distribution through public agencies.(II) State performance report.-- The State shall report annually to the Secretary on the performance of the State under the State's performance plan.

(iii) Privacy.--The State shall not report to the public or the Secretary any information on performance that would result in the disclosure of personally identifiable information about individual children or where the available data is insufficient to yield statistically reliable information.

Trivia 2There are four related indicators that when you sum their indicator numbers together they equal 30. What are the name the four indicators (number or name)?

4 points for 4; 3 points for 3; 2 points for 2; 1 point for 1

Indicator 1: GraduationResults indicator: Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma. (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))

Calculation: – The four-year graduation rate follows a cohort, or a group of

students, who begin as first-time 9th graders in a particular school year and who graduate with a regular high school diploma in four years or less.

– The cohort is "adjusted" by adding any students transferring into the cohort and by subtracting any students who transfers out, emigrate to another country, or die during the years covered by the rate.

– All subcategories are identified in their initial 9th grade year except race which identified at 12th grade.

Indicator 1: Graduation

FFY 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Target ≥ 88.00% 89.00% 77.00% 77.00% 85.00% 85.00% 85.00%

Data 87.49% 94.15% 90.18% 81.42% 81.42% 75.76% 75.31% 79.15%

Number of youth with IEPs in the current year's adjusted cohort

graduating with a regular diploma

Number of youth with IEPs in the current year's adjusted cohort eligible to graduate

FFY 2012Data

FFY 2013Target

FFY 2013Data

2,681 3,333 79.15% 85.00% 80.44%

Historical Data

FFY 2013 SPP/APR Data

FFY 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Target ≥ 85.00% 85.00% 85.00% 85.00% 85.00% 85.00%

SPP/APR Targets

Trivia 2 Answer

1. Graduation 2. Dropout 13. Secondary Transition

14. Post-school Outcomes

Indicator 2: DropoutResults indicator: Results indicator: Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high school. (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))

Calculations: • Option 1: States must report a percentage using the number of youth with IEPs

(ages 14-21) who exited special education due to dropping out in the numerator and the number of all youth with IEPs who left high school (ages 14-21) in the denominator. (Cycle 7 Data)

• Option 2: Use the annual event school dropout rate for students leaving a school in a single year determined in accordance with the National Center for Education Statistic's Common Core of Data. Data for this indicator are “lag” data. Describe the results of the State’s examination of the data for the year before the reporting year (e.g., for the FFY 2013 APR, use data from 2012-2013), and compare the results to the target. (Cycle 3 Data)

Indicator 2: Dropout

FFY 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Target ≤ 2.83% 2.87% 4.25% 4.20% 4.20% 4.20%

Data 2.59% 3.51% 3.37% 4.28% 3.66% 3.06% 2.92% 2.62%

Number of youth with IEPs (ages 14-21) who exited special education due to dropping out

Total number of all youth with IEPs who left high school (ages 14-21)

FFY 2012Data

FFY 2013Target

FFY 2013Data

433 22,032 2.62% 2.77% 1.97%

Historical Data


FFY 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Target ≤ 2.77% 2.62% 2.54% 2.29% 2.14% 1.98%

SPP/APR Targets

Trivia 3Early childhood has how many indicators reported in the LEA APR Report?

5 points

Indicator 3: Assessment

Results indicator: Participation and performance of children with IEPs on Statewide assessments:

A. Percent of the districts with a disability subgroup that meets the State’s minimum “n” size that meet the State’s AYP/AMO targets for the disability subgroup.

B. Participation rate for children with IEPs.C. Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade

level, modified and alternate academic achievement standards.

Indicator 3A: Districts Meeting AMO for Disability Subgroup

• Percent of the districts with a disability subgroup that meets the State’s minimum “n” size that meet the State’s AYP/AMO targets for the disability subgroup.

• Calculation: Based on the post-appeal data the Office of Innovation in Education at the UA runs the calculation on behalf of ADE Accountability Office

• State minimum “n” size is 25

Indicator 3A: Districts Meeting AMO for Disability Subgroup

FFY 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Target ≥ 16.95% 17.15% 17.15% 17.15%

Data 16.67% 13.64% 6.25% 19.38% 34.25%

Number of districts in

the State

Number of districts that met the minimum "n"

size

Number of districts that meet the minimum "n" size AND met

AMOFFY 2012

DataFFY 2013

TargetFFY 2013

Data

256 252 4 34.25% 17.16% 1.59%

Historical Data


FFY 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Target ≥ 17.16% 17.65% 18.14% 18.63% 19.12% 19.61%

SPP/APR Targets

Trivia 3 Answer

6. EC LREA-B

7. EC OutcomesA-B x 3

8. Family Outcomes

11. Child Find 12. C to B Transition


Indicator 3B: Participation Rate for Children with IEPs

Percent of the children with IEPs participating in the statewide assessment

• Provide separate reading/language arts and mathematics participation rates, inclusive of all ESEA grades assessed (3-8 and high school), for children with IEPs. Only include children with disabilities who had an IEP at the time of testing.

• Calculation: Participation rate percent = [(# of children with IEPs participating in an assessment) divided by the (total # of children with IEPs enrolled during the testing window, calculated separately for reading and math)].

• The participation rate is based on all children with IEPs, including both children with IEPs enrolled for a full academic year and those not enrolled for a full academic year.

Indicator 3B: Participation Rate for Children with IEPs

FFY 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Targets for Reading and Mathematics ≥ 95.00% 95.00% 95.00% 95.00% 95.00% 95.00% 95.00% 95.00%

State Rate: Reading 96.56% 97.84% 98.62% 98.59% 99.12% 98.78% 98.81% 97.81%

State Rate: Mathematics 96.56% 97.84% 98.62% 98.02% 98.88% 98.61% 98.61% 97.69%

Historical Data

FFY 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Target s for Reading and Mathematics Participation ≥ 95.00% 95.00% 95.00% 95.00% 95.00% 95.00%

SPP/APR Targets

Indicator 3B: Participation Rate for Children with IEPs: Reading

FFY 2013 Assessment Data Groups: ReadingReading assessment participation data by grade

Grade 3 4 5 6 7 8 HS

a. Children with IEPs 4690 4713 4615 4474 4254 4042 3394

b. IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations 1309 987 850 688 650 606 464

c. IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations 2793 3064 3085 3092 2936 2769 2032

f. IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate standards 497 575 597 602 574 571 752

Number of Childrenwith IEPs

Number of Children withIEPs participating

FFY 2012 Data

FFY 2013 Target

FFY 2013 Data

Reading 30,182 29,493 97.81% 95.00% 97.72%

FFY 2013 SPP/APR Data: Reading

Indicator 3B: Participation Rate for Children with IEPs: Mathematics

FFY 2013 Assessment Data Groups: MathematicsMathematics assessment participation data by grade

Grade 3 4 5 6 7 8 HS

a. Children with IEPs 4720 4736 4643 4511 4301 4085 5674

b. IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations

1310

987

850

688

650

606

869

c. IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations

2793

3064

3086

3092

2936

2769

2239

f. IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate standards 497 575 597 602 574 571 2305

Number of Childrenwith IEPs

Number of Children withIEPs participating

FFY 2012 Data

FFY 2013 Target

FFY 2013 Data

Mathematics 32,670 31,660 97.69% 95.00% 96.91%

FFY 2013 SPP/APR Data: Mathematics

Indicator 3C: Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level, modified and alternate academic

achievement standards.

• Proficiency rate percent = ([(# of children with IEPs scoring at or above proficient against grade level, modified and alternate academic achievement standards) divided by the (total # of children with IEPs who received a valid score and for whom a proficiency level was assigned, and, calculated separately for reading and math)]. The proficiency rate includes both children with IEPs enrolled for a full academic year and those not enrolled for a full academic year.

Indicator 3C: Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level, modified and alternate academic achievement standards.

FFY 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Targets for Reading ≥ 13.17% 19.58% 25.99% 32.40% 38.81% 45.22% 45.22%

State Rate: Reading 14.62% 16.49% 19.95% 24.99% 27.20% 31.49% 36.06% 33.23%

Targets for Mathematics ≥ 18.54% 25.06% 31.58% 38.10% 44.62% 51.14% 51.14%

State Rate: Mathematics 18.98% 24.81% 30.86% 38.29% 42.56% 44.86% 45.42% 42.09%

Historical Data

FFY 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Target s for Reading ≥

31.27%

30.29%

32.27%

34.23%

36.19%

38.15%

Targets for Mathematics ≥

40.13%

38.17%

37.19%

39.15%

41.11%

43.07%

SPP/APR Targets



Reading proficiency data by gradeGrade 3 4 5 6 7 8 HS

a. Children with IEPs who received a valid score and a proficiency was assigned 4,599 4,626 4,532 4,382 4,160 3,946 3,248

b. IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations scored at or above proficient against grade level 835 717 557 289 264 201 93

c. IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations scored at or above proficient against grade level 522 828 750 329 558 559 262

f. IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate standards scored at or above proficient against grade level

331 372 393 399 359 281 616

FFY 2013 Assessment Data Groups: Reading

Children with IEPs who received a valid score and a proficiency was assigned

Number of Children with IEPs Proficient

FFY 2012 Data

FFY 2013 Target

FFY 2013 Data

Reading 9,515 29,493 33.23% 31.27% 32.26%

FFY 2013 SPP/APR Data: Reading



Reading proficiency data by gradeGrade 3 4 5 6 7 8 HS

a. Children with IEPs who received a valid score and a proficiency was assigned 4,599 4,626 4,532 4,382 4,160 3,946 3,248

b. IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations scored at or above proficient against grade level 835 717 557 289 264 201 93

c. IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations scored at or above proficient against grade level 522 828 750 329 558 559 262

f. IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate standards scored at or above proficient against grade level 331 372 393 399 359 281 616

FFY 2013 Assessment Data Groups: Mathematics

Children with IEPs who received a valid score and a proficiency was assigned

Number of Children with IEPs Proficient

FFY 2012 Data

FFY 2013 Target

FFY 2013 Data

Mathematics 12,842 31,600 42.09% 40.13% 40.56%

FFY 2013 SPP/APR Data: Mathematics

Indicator 4: Suspension and ExpulsionResults/compliance indicator: Rates of suspension and expulsion: A. Percent of districts that have a significant discrepancy in the rate of

suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs; and

B. 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 or practices that contribute to the significant discrepancy and do not comply with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards.

Note: This measurement is for all students in K-12.

4A: Suspension and ExpulsionMeasurement: Percent = [(# of districts that have a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions for greater than 10 days in a school year of children with IEPs) divided by the (# of districts in the State)] times 100

This is a hybrid indicator. Part I: Identify districts as having a significant discrepancy. Rate of students receiving out-of-school suspensions/expulsion totaling greater than 10 days.

Rate of special education – Rate of general education

If special education’s rate is 1.36 percentage points higher than general education’s rate then the district is identified as having a significant discrepancy.

4A: Suspension and Expulsion

Part II: Compliance…If the district is identified as having a significant discrepancy they…• Must complete a review of their policies, procedures,

and practices via the Special Education Disproportionality Self-Assessment tool

• Submit the tool the their ADE Special Education Area Supervisor

• District will receive notification of acceptance or non-acceptance of self-assessment content.

Indicator 4A: Percent of districts that have a significant discrepancy in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of

greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs

FFY 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Target ≤ 7.59% 7.11% 7.11% 7.00% 6.23% 6.23% 6.23%

Data 9.06% 7.57% 11.76% 11.76% 7.86% 6.91% 10.26% 3.69%

Number of districts that have a significant discrepancy Number of districts in the State FFY 2012

DataFFY 2013

TargetFFY 2013

Data

12 258 3.69% 5.77% 4.65%

Historical Data


FFY 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Target ≤ 5.77% 5.43% 5.11% 4.78% 4.45% 4.12%

SPP/APR Targets

Trivia 4There are 3.5 indicators that address disproportionality; What are the indicator numbers and names of at least two of the indicators. (Number and name)

4 points for 3.5; 2 points for 2; 1 point for 1

Indicator 4B: Disproportionality in Suspension and Expulsion

Compliance indicator: Rates of suspension and expulsion:

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 or practices that contribute to the significant discrepancy and do not comply with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards.


Measurement:Special Education by race the rate of student with IEPs suspended/ expelled for greater than 10 days

General Education overall: the rate of general education students suspended suspended/expelled for greater than 10 days (not by race)

Rate = Special education rate for Hispanic - General education rate for all

races

If the special education rate 4 percentage points higher than general education for a particular race then the district is identified as having a significant discrepancy in discipline for that race.

Trivia 4 Answer

4. DisciplineA-B

9. Disproportionality - Identification

10. Disproportionality - Disability


FFY 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Target 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Data 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Number of districts that have a significant discrepancy, by race or

ethnicity

Number of those districts that have policies, procedures, or practices that

contribute to the significant discrepancy and do not comply with requirements

Number of districts in the

StateFFY 2012

DataFFY 2013

TargetFFY 2013

Data

11 0 258 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Historical Data


FFY 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Target 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SPP/APR Targets

Indicator 5: Education Environments (Children 6-21)

Result Indicator: Percent of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21 served:A. Inside the regular class 80% or more of the day;

Percent = [(# of children with IEPs served inside the regular class 80% or more of the day) divided by the (total # of students aged 6 through 21 with IEPs)] times 100.

B. Inside the regular class less than 40% of the day; and Percent = [(# of children with IEPs served inside the regular class less than 40% of the day) divided by the (total # of students aged 6 through 21 with IEPs)] times 100.

C. In separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A))

Percent = [(# of children with IEPs served in separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements) divided by the (total # of students aged 6 through 21 with IEPs)] times 100.

FFY 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

5A

Target ≥ 48.91% 51.49% 54.29% 56.93% 59.77% 59.77% 59.77%

Data 48.33% 51.05% 51.80% 52.15% 53.10% 53.87% 53.26% 52.88%

5B

Target ≤ 12.52% 12.52% 12.52% 12.51% 12.51% 12.51% 12.51%

Data 12.11% 12.02% 12.65% 13.60% 12.49% 12.42% 12.52% 13.18%

5C

Target ≤ 2.58% 2.57% 2.57% 2.56% 2.56% 2.56% 2.56%

Data 2.60% 2.69% 2.76% 2.82% 2.82% 2.80% 2.70% 2.57%

Historical Data

FFY 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Target A ≥ 53.97% 55.93% 57.89% 59.85% 61.81% 63.77%Target B ≤ 12.99% 13.62% 13.03% 12.64% 12.16% 12.00%Target C ≤ 2.55% 2.53% 2.49% 2.46% 2.43% 2.40%

SPP/APR Targets


Number of children with IEPs aged 6 - 21 served

Total number of children with IEPs aged

6 - 21 FFY 2012

Data FFY 2013

Target FFY 2013

DataA. Number of children with IEPs aged 6

through 21 inside the regular class 80% or more of the day

27,844 52,637 52.88% 53.97% 52.90%

B. Number of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21 inside the regular class less than 40% of the day

7,049 52,637 13.18% 12.99% 13.39%

C. Number of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21 inside separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/ hospital placements

1,247 52,637 2.57% 2.55% 2.37%



Trivia 5True or FalseA review of policies, procedures, and practices is required if an LEA was identified as having too many students in other educational settings.

3 points

Indicator 6: Preschool Environments

Results indicator: Percent of children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs attending a: A. Regular early childhood program and receiving

the majority of special education and related services in the regular early childhood program; and

B. Separate special education class, separate school or residential facility. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A))

Indicator 6: Preschool EnvironmentsColumn 1 Column 2

Row set (A) CHILDREN ATTENDING A REGULAR EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAM AT LEAST 10 HRS PER WEEK, …

(A1) … and RECEIVING the majority of hours of SPECIAL EDUCATION and related SERVICES in the REGULAR EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAM

(A2) … and RECEIVING the majority of hours of SPECIAL EDUCATION and related SERVICES in some OTHER LOCATION

Row Set (B)

CHILDREN ATTENDING A REGULAR EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAM LESS THAN 10 HRS PER WEEK, …

(B1) …and RECEIVING the majority of hours of SPECIAL EDUCATION and related SERVICES in the REGULAR EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAM

(B2) …and RECEIVING the majority of hours of SPECIAL EDUCATION and related SERVICES in some OTHER LOCATION

Row Set (C)

CHILDREN ATTENDING A SPECIAL EDUCATION program (NOT in any regular early childhood program),...

(C1) …specifically, a SEPARATE SPECIAL EDUCATION CLASS

(C2) …specifically, a SEPARATE SCHOOL

(C3) …specifically, a RESIDENTIAL FACILITY

ROW Set (D)

CHILDREN ATTENDING NEITHER A REGULAR EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAM NOR A SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAM (NOT INCLUDED IN ROW SETS A, B OR C)

(D1) …and RECEIVING the majority of hours ofSPECIAL EDUCATION and related SERVICES atHOME

(D2) …and RECEIVING the majority of hours ofSPECIAL EDUCATION and related SERVICES atthe SERVICE PROVIDER LOCATION or someOTHER LOCATION not in any other category

Trivia 5

FALSE: In the APR, only Indicators 4A, 4B, 9 & 10 require a review of Policies, Procedures, and Practices


FFY 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

6 ATarget ≥ 31.50%

Data 31.00% 30.03%

6 BTarget ≤ 27.13%

Data 27.63% 28.82%

FFY 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Target A ≥ 31.01% 31.99% 32.97% 33.95% 34.93% 35.94%

Target B ≤ 29.80% 30.78% 30.30% 29.83% 28.61% 26.65%

Historical Data

SPP/APR Targets


Number of children with IEPs aged 3 through 5 attending

Total number of children with IEPs aged 3 through 5

FFY 2012Data

FFY 2013Target

FFY 2013Data

A. A regular early childhood program and receiving the majority of special education and related services in the regular early childhood program

3,622 12,529 30.03% 31.01% 28.91%

B. Separate special education class, separate school or residential facility

3,579 12,529 28.82% 29.80% 28.57%


Trivia 6

What indicators use data collected in the referral tracking module?

4 points Number and Name; 2 points for Number or Name; 1 point for Number or Name for one

Indicator 7: Preschool Outcomes

Results indicator: Percent of preschool children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs who demonstrate improved:

A. Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships);

B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/ communication and early literacy); and

C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs.

Indicator 7: Preschool OutcomesIndicator Measurement for Each Outcome AreaA1. Of those preschool children who entered or exited the preschool program below age expectations in Outcome A, the

percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program. (c+d)/(a+b+c+d)

A2. The percent of preschool children who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome A by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program. (d+e)/(a+b+c+d+e)

B1. Of those preschool children who entered or exited the preschool program below age expectations in Outcome A, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program. (c+d)/(a+b+c+d)

B2. The percent of preschool children who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome A by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program. (d+e)/(a+b+c+d+e)

C1. Of those preschool children who entered or exited the preschool program below age expectations in Outcome A, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program. (c+d)/(a+b+c+d)

C2. The percent of preschool children who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome A by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program. (d+e)/(a+b+c+d+e)

Indicator 7: Preschool Outcomes FFY 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 A1

Target ≥ 90.00% 90.50% 90.50% 90.50%Data 89.56% 89.68% 89.61% 89.20% 90.17%

A2

Target ≥ 69.00% 69.50% 69.50% 69.50%Data 68.61% 66.74% 66.58% 68.25% 64.56%

B1

Target ≥ 90.00% 90.50% 90.50% 90.50%Data 89.64% 91.34% 90.31% 89.81% 90.80%

B2

Target ≥ 60.00% 60.50% 60.50% 60.50%Data 59.74% 57.67% 57.43% 57.68% 55.87%

C1

Target ≥ 92.00% 92.50% 92.50% 92.50%Data 91.68% 90.32% 90.82% 91.00% 91.40%

C2

Target ≥ 78.00% 78.50% 78.50% 78.50%Data 77.81% 76.23% 76.69% 78.03% 74.09%

Historical Data

FFY 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Target A1 ≥ 89.16% 89.64% 90.12% 90.60% 91.08% 91.56%Target A2 ≥ 66.32% 66.80% 67.28% 67.76% 68.24% 68.72%Target B1 ≥ 89.98% 90.46% 90.64% 91.42% 91.90% 92.38%Target B2 ≥ 57.17% 56.21% 57.19% 58.17% 59.64% 61.11%Target C1 ≥ 90.71% 89.73% 90.21% 91.17% 91.65% 92.13%Target C2 ≥ 75.95% 74.97% 73.99% 75.46% 76.93% 78.40%

FFY 2013 - FFY 2018 Targets

Trivia 6 Answer

11. Child Find – Timely Evaluation 12. C to B Transition


Outcome A: Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships)Number of Children

a. Preschool children who did not improve functioning 132b. Preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable

to same-aged peers359

c. Preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it 1,378d. Preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers 1,840e. Preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers 1,367

Numerator Denominator

FFY 2012Data

FFY 2013 Target

FFY 2013Data

A1. Of those preschool children who entered or exited the preschool program below age expectations in Outcome A, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program. (c+d)/(a+b+c+d)

3,218

3,709

90.17%

89.16%

86.76%

A2. The percent of preschool children who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome A by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program. (d+e)/(a+b+c+d+e)

3,207

5,076

64.56%

66.32%

63.18%



Outcome B: Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language and communication)

Number of Children

a. Preschool children who did not improve functioning 110b. Preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to

same-aged peers419

c. Preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it 1,773d. Preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers 2,181e. Preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers 593

Numerator Denominator

FFY 2012Data

FFY 2013 Target

FFY 2013Data

B1. Of those preschool children who entered or exited the preschool program below age expectations in Outcome A, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program. (c+d)/(a+b+c+d)

3,954

4,483

90.80%

89.98%

88.20%

B2. The percent of preschool children who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome A by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program. (d+e)/(a+b+c+d+e)

2,774

5,076

55.87%

57.17%

54.65%



Outcome C: Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needsNumber of

Childrena. Preschool children who did not improve functioning 90b. Preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable

to same-aged peers282

c. Preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it 1,005d. Preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers 2,020e. Preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers 1,679

Numerator Denominator FFY 2012Data*

FFY 2013 Target*

FFY 2013Data

C1. Of those preschool children who entered or exited the preschool program below age expectations in Outcome A, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program. (c+d)/(a+b+c+d)

3,025

3,397

91.40%

90.71%

89.05%

C2. The percent of preschool children who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome A by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program. (d+e)/(a+b+c+d+e)

3,699

5,076

74.09%

75.95%

72.87%


Indicator 8: Parent Involvement

Results Indicator: 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.

• Do you use a separate data collection methodology for preschool children? Yes

• Will you be providing the data for preschool children separately?

Yes


FFY

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Preschool

Target ≥ 84.00% 85.00% 86.00% 87.00% 88.00% 88.00% 88.00%

Data 82.92% 88.50% 87.60% 90.90% 84.90% 90.50% 92.71% 92.57%

School Age

Target ≥ 93.00% 94.50% 94.50% 95.00% 96.00% 96.00% 96.00%

Data 95.35% 93.50% 94.40% 95.10% 93.60% 95.10% 95.18% 95.00%

Historical Data

FFY 2013 - FFY 2018 TargetsFFY 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Preschool Target ≥ 89.94% 90.92% 91.90% 92.88% 93.86% 94.84%

School-age Target ≥ 94.05% 94.53% 95.01% 95.49% 95.97% 96.45%


Number of respondent parents who report schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving

services and results for children with disabilities

Total number of respondent parents of

children with disabilities FY 2012

DataFY 2013Target

FFY 2013Data

Preschool 4,554 5,059 92.57% 89.94% 90.02%

School Age 17,195 18,376 95.00% 94.05% 93.57%


Also required to determine if the survey responses are representative of child count by race and disability by race

For information on completing and submitting family surveys check out the February IDEA Data & Research Newsletter at https://arksped.k12.ar.us/DataAndResearch/NewsletterArchives.html

Join the newsletter notification listserve@https://lists.ualr.edu/scripts/wa?SUBED1=idea&A=1

https://arksped.k12.ar.us/DataAndResearch/NewsletterArchives.html

https://arksped.k12.ar.us/DataAndResearch/NewsletterArchives.html

mailto:listserve@https://lists.ualr.edu/scripts/wa?SUBED1=idea&A=1





Trivia 7

What two indicators require an analysis of representativeness?

4 points for Number and Name of both; 2 points for Number or Name of both; 1 point for number or name of 1

Indicator 9: Disproportionate Representation

Compliance indicator: Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification.

This indicator has two components: Identification and Clearance via a review of policies, procedures, and practices.

Indicator 9: Disproportionate RepresentationHow you get identified for Over-Representation

• A risk ratio methodology was used to determine if a district has disproportionate representation. District enrollment and special education child count data were examined and adjusted according to the following criteria.

• Students receiving services in a private residential treatment program are removed

from the special education child count numbers and the district October 1 enrollment numbers for the selected year. Students in private residential treatment facilities are excluded because the State rules governing private residential treatment facilities state that a student belongs to the district where the facility is located; therefore, enrollment of such students would artificially increase the district’s special education child count and district wide enrollment.

• After the October 1 enrollment and December 1 child count is adjusted for students in

private residential treatment facilities, weighted risk ratios are generated. Both risk ratios and weighted risk ratios are examined and the lowest value is selected as the districts risk for identifying students of a particular race for special education.

Trivia 7 Answer

8. Family Outcomes 14. Post-School Outcomes


How you get identified? (cont)

• Risk ratios are considered invalid if (1) the district enrollment of a racial or ethnic group is less than 5% or (2) the number of students in a disability category is below 40.

• Once adjusted, Disproportionate Representation is defined as a district that has risk ratios greater than 4.00 for over-representation.

• In 2013-14, 16 districts with an “N” size less than 40 were excluded from being identified for this indicator. Additionally, numerous districts were excluded using the 5% criteria for specific racial or ethnic categories. Zero districts were excluded from all categories.

FFY 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Target 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Data 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Historical Data


Target 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%


Number of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special

education and related services

Number of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is

the result of inappropriate identification

Number of districts that met the State’s

minimum n-size FFY 2012

Data FFY 2013

Target FFY 2013

Data0 0 242 0% 0% 0%


Indicator 10: Disproportionate Representation in Specific Disability Categories

Compliance indicator: Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification.

This indicator has two components: Identification and Clearance via a review of policies, procedures, and practices.


How you get identified for Over-Representation

• There are six disability categories that must be examined under Indicator 10: Autism, Emotional Disturbance, Intellectual Disability, Other Health Impairments, Specific Learning Disabilities, and Speech Language Impairment. A risk ratio methodology was used to determine if a district had disproportionate representation within the six disabilities. However, the district enrollment and special education child count data were examined and adjusted according to the following criteria.

• Students receiving services in a private residential treatment program are removed from the

special education child count numbers and the district October 1 enrollment numbers for the selected year. Students in private residential treatment facilities are excluded because the State rules governing private residential treatment facilities state that a student belongs to the district where the facility is located; therefore, enrollment of such students would artificially increase the district’s special education child count and district wide enrollment.

• After the October 1 enrollment and December 1 child count are adjusted for students in

private residential treatment facilities, risk ratios are generated for each of the six disability categories.

FFY

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Target 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Data 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Historical Data


Target 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%


Number of districts with disproportionate

representation of racial and ethnic groups in special

education and related services

Number of districts with disproportionate representation of racial

and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of

inappropriate identification

Number of districts that met the State’s

minimum n-size FFY 2012

Data FFY 2013

Target FFY 2013

Data0 0 242 0% 0% 0%


Trivia 8What are the two types of indicators in the APR?

4 points for 2 of 21 point for 1 of 2

Indicator 11: Child Find

Compliance indicator: 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.

Data Source: Referral Tracking


A. # of children for whom parental consent to evaluate was received.

B. # of children whose evaluations were completed within 60 days (or State-established timeline).

Account for children included in (a), but not included in (b). Indicate the range of days beyond the timeline when the evaluation was completed and any reasons for the delays.Percent = [(b) divided by (a)] times 100.

Trivia 8 Answer

Result indicators Compliance Indicators

FFY

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Target 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Data 91.91% 98.93% 97.69% 98.50% 99.00% 99.41% 99.42% 99.60%

Historical Data


FFY 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Target 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%


(a) Number of children for whom parental consent to evaluate was

received

(b) Number of children whose evaluations were completed within 60 days (or State- established

timeline)FFY 2012

DataFFY 2013

TargetFFY 2013

Data17,034 16,969 99.60% 100% 99.62%


Indicator 12: Early Childhood TransitionCompliance indicator: Percent of children referred by Part C prior to age 3, who are found eligible for Part B, and who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays.

Data Source: Referral Tracking

Trivia 9The measurement for Indicator 11 states, children are to be 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.

Does Arkansas have a state established timeframe? Y/NIf yes, what is the timeframe?

3 points if correct

FFY

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Target 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Data 75.91% 97.58% 97.38% 99.27% 99.14% 99.21% 99.53% 99.15%

Historical Data


Target 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

Indicator 12: Early Childhood Transition

Indicator 12: Early Childhood TransitionFFY 2013 SPP/APR Data

a. Number of children who have been served in Part C and referred to Part B for Part B eligibility determination. 834

b. Number of those referred determined to be NOT eligible and whose eligibility was determined prior to third birthday. 106

c. Number of those found eligible who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays. 696

d. Number for whom parent refusals to provide consent caused delays in evaluation or initial services or to whom exceptions under 34 CFR §300.301(d) applied. 21

e. Number of children who were referred to Part C less than 90 days before their third birthdays. 10

Numerator (c) Denominator (a-

b-d-e)FFY 2012

DataFFY 2013

TargetFFY 2013

DataPercent of children referred by Part C prior to age 3 who are found eligible for Part B, and who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays. [c/(a-b-d-e)]x 100

696

697

99.15%

100%

99.86%

Number of children who have been served in Part C and referred to Part B for eligibility determination that are not included in b, c, d, e 1

Account for children included in (a), but not included in b, c, d, or e. Indicate the range of days beyond the third birthday when eligibility was determined and the IEP developed, and the reasons for the delays.

One (1) Part C to B referral did not have eligibility determined prior to the third birthday and the child was found to be not eligible for services. The number of days beyond the third birthday was 12. A root cause analysis found that the eligibility determination delay was due to LEA error.

Trivia 9 Answer

Yes, 60 days same as the federal timeline

Indicator 13: Secondary TransitionCompliance indicator: 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.

Indicator 13: Secondary TransitionHistorical Data


FFY 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Target 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%Data 96.34% 96.19% 96.51% 89.07%

FFY 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Target 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%


Number of youth aged 16 and above with IEPs that contain each of the required components for secondary transition

Number of youth with IEPs aged 16 and above

FFY 2012Data

FFY 2013Target

FFY 2013 Data

209 212 89.07% 100% 98.58%

Indicator 14: Post-school Outcomes

Results indicator: 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.

Indicator 14: Post-school OutcomesMeasurement:A. Percent enrolled in higher education = [(# of youth who are no longer in

secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school and were enrolled in higher education within one year of leaving high school) divided by the (# of respondent youth who are no longer in secondary school and had IEPs in effect at the time they left school)] times 100.

B. Percent enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within one year of leaving high school = [(# of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school and were enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within one year of leaving high school) divided by the (# of respondent youth who are no longer in secondary school and had IEPs in effect at the time they left school)] times 100.

C. Percent enrolled in higher education, or in some other postsecondary education or training program; or competitively employed or in some other employment = [(# of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school and were enrolled in higher education, or in some other postsecondary education or training program; or competitively employed or in some other employment) divided by the (# of respondent youth who are no longer in secondary school and had IEPs in effect at the time they left school)] times 100.

Indicator 14: Post-school OutcomesData Collection: A dual collection of phone survey and administrative databases.

• Phone survey is contracted with LifeTrack Services, Inc. via Great River Education Cooperative

• Administrative data was provided by the Arkansas Department of Higher Education and Arkansas Department of Workforce Services for matching.

• The administrative data process is conducted by the Division of Research and Technology at the ADE.

• Additional MOUs are being developed to expand agency partnerships which could provide more post-school student information, as well as increases in response rate and representativeness.

Trivia 10

What indicator does the school district have zero responsibility in the data collection process?

4 points


FFY 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 201214A Target ≥ 13.00% 13.00% 13.15%

Data 12.86% 14.54% 15.88% 18.42%14 B Target ≥ 49.00% 49.00% 49.15%

Data 48.55% 49.52% 42.95% 43.88%14 C Target ≥ 60.00% 60.00% 60.15%

Data 59.34% 61.05% 55.92% 58.13%

Historical Data


Target A ≥ 13.35% 13.84% 14.33% 14.82% 15.31% 15.80%Target B ≥ 49.04% 49.53% 50.02% 50.51% 51.00% 51.49%Target C ≥ 59.36% 60.14% 60.92% 61.70% 62.48% 63.26%

Indicator 14: Post-school OutcomesFFY 2013 SPP/APR Data

Number of respondent youth who are no longer in secondary school and had IEPs in effect at the time they left school 732

1. Number of respondent youth who enrolled in higher education within one year of leaving high school 133

2. Number of respondent youth who competitively employed within one year of leaving high school 249

3. Number of respondent youth enrolled in some other postsecondary education or training program within one year of leaving high school (but not enrolled in higher education or competitively employed)

13

4. Number of respondent youth who are in some other employment within one year of leaving high school (but not enrolled in higher education, some other postsecondary education or training program, or competitively employed).

5

Number of respondent

youth

Number of respondent youth who are no longer in secondary school and had

IEPs in effect at the time they left schoolFFY 2012

DataFFY 2013

TargetFFY 2013

DataA. Enrolled in higher education (1) 133 732 18.42% 13.35% 18.17%

B. Enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within one year of leaving high school (1 +2)

382 732 43.88% 49.04% 52.19%

C. Enrolled in higher education, or in some other postsecondary education or training program; or competitively employed or in some other employment (1+2+3+4)

400 732 58.13% 59.36% 54.64%

Trivia 10 Answer



Other Requirements: Representativeness

American Indian/

Alaskan Native Asian Black

(non-Hispanic) Hispanic Hawaiian/

Pacific Islander White

(non-Hispanic) Two or More

RacesLeavers 0.41% 0.41% 37.98% 7.38% 0.14% 53.01% 0.68%Responders 0.58% 0.38% 36.47% 6.53% 0.00% 55.47% 0.58%Difference 0.17% -0.03% -1.51% -0.85% -0.14% 2.46% -0.11%

Racial/Ethnic Representativeness of Responders by Percentage

Reason of Exit Representativeness of Responders by Percentage

Graduated with a Regular Diploma

Graduated with a Certificate Dropped Out Reached Maximum Age

Leavers 86.89% 1.09% 11.89% 0.14%Responders 89.64% 0.58% 9.60% 0.19%Difference 2.75% -0.52% -2.29% 0.06%

Indicator 14: Post-school OutcomesOther Requirements: Representativeness

Disability Representativeness of Survey Responders by Percentages

AutismEmotional

Disturbance Deaf-Blindness Hearing ImpairedMultiple

DisabilitiesMental

RetardationLeavers 4.64% 2.60% 0.00% 0.96% 3.28% 13.39%

Responders 4.61% 1.73% 0.00% 0.77% 2.11% 8.83%

Difference -0.04% -0.87% 0.00% -0.19% -1.17% -4.56%

Other Health Impairment

Orthopedic Impairment

Speech/ Language Impairment

Specific Learning Disability

Traumatic Brain Injury

Visual Impairment

Leavers 20.77% 0.96% 1.64% 51.50% 0.27% 0.00%

Responders 22.07% 0.96% 1.92% 56.81% 0.19% 0.00%

Difference 1.31% 0.00% 0.28% 5.31% -0.08% 0.00%


Includes:• Cycle 4 Data:

– Child Count– Educational Environment

• Cycle 7: – School Age Exits– EC Exits/Kindergarten

Conference – EC Outcomes– Referral Tracking– Discipline

• Does not include:• Cycle 4 Data:

– Special Education Employees

• Cycle 7: – Coordinated Early

Intervening Services (CEIS)

Compliance Indicator: District submitted required data elements on or before due dates; made revisions within the allotted review periods.

Who won!

Documents

Special Education Annual Performance Report Presented by: Jody A. Fields, Ph.D. 2015 Special Education Data Summit, June 15-16, 2015 Holiday Inn Airport