Special Education in the Partner Districts Special School ...graduation. In addition, the dropout rate among students with IEPs in St. Louis County declined to 1.7% in 2016. Eighteen

2016-2017 Data Report

Board Approved: 08/08/2017Special Education in the Partner Districts Page 1 of 22

Special Education in the Partner Districts Special School District 2016-2017 Data Report

Coordinator s Carla Addoh, Assistant Superintendent for Partner Districts Matthew Traughber, Evaluation and Research Administrator

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ………………………………………………………..…….…………… 2

Report Description ………………………………………………..……….…………………. 3

Previous Recommendations …………………………………………..…………..…………... 3

Results

Data/Reporting Element 1: Incidence Rates and Identification Patterns ……..……… 5

Data/Reporting Element 2: Educational Environments (LRE) …….………………… 8

Data/Reporting Element 3: Academic Achievement ………………………………….10

Data/Reporting Element 4: Disciplinary Outcomes ………….……………………….11

Data/Reporting Element 5: Graduation and Dropout Trends ……………….……… 15

Data/Reporting Element 6: Post-Secondary Outcomes …...………………………… 16

Strengths and Opportunities for Improvement ……………………………………………… 17

Recommendations for Action …………………………………..…………………………… 18

Appendix A: Partner District Enrollment and Demographic Data ……….…..……………… 19

Appendix B: Disaggregated State Test Results Over 5 Years ……..………………………….. 20

Appendix C: Rates of OSS and ISS by Student ……………..................……………………… 22

2016-2017 Data Report Board Approved: 08/08/2017

Special Education in the Partner Districts Page 2 of 22

Executive Summary

SSD produces an annual report of the Special Education Part B State Performance Plan results achieved by its partner districts in St. Louis County. SPP Part B Indicators include (1) incidence rates and identification patterns; (2) educational environments (LRE); (3) academic achievement; (4) discipline (suspensions); (5) graduation and dropout trends; and (6) post-secondary placement. A discussion of result trends and implications is provided. In some cases supplemental data (e.g., identification risk ratios) is reported and analyzed.

Key Conclusions

Overall special education incidence has remained stable in St. Louis County districts over 5 years. A substantiallylarger proportion of students in St. Louis County receive special education services (15.7%) than is the case state wide(12.9%). Incidence of the disability categories of Specific Learning Disability, and to a lesser degree LanguageImpairment, has decreased. Incidence of Other Health Impairment and Autism have increased over 5 years; these arenow the second and fourth most common disabilities, respectively, in the county. Incidence has changed markedly(i.e., over 2 percentage points) over 5 years in several partner districts, including Bayless (4.1 percentage pointincrease), Valley Park (3.5 percentage point decrease) and Affton (2.1 percentage point decrease).

Disproportionality in Autism incidence for African-American students has steadily declined (i.e., improved) over 5years. In contrast, disproportionate representation of African-American students in the disability category ofIntellectual Disability remains high and well in excess of the disproportionality rate state wide.

The proportion of students receiving services under the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) category of ≥80% timespent in general education leveled after several years of decline. The ≥80% rate in St. Louis County is 4.4 percentagepoints higher than in the state overall. Only one of SSD’s partner districts failed to achieve the ≥80% SPP target for2016. The proportion of students whose IEP services are categorized under the more restrictive LRE category of<40% has declined (though the rate continues to exceed the rate state-wide). Seven partner districts failed to achievethe SPP target for the LRE category of <40% in 2016.

Year over year, a higher proportion of students in St. Louis County with IEPs have performed in the proficient oradvanced range on the state accountability assessment (in both ELA and math) than have students with IEPs in thestate overall. Academic achievement among students with IEPs varies widely across SSD’s partner districts. Sevenpartner districts failed to achieve the 2016 SPP target for state test performance among students with disabilities.

Rates of suspension, both in-school and out-of-school, have increased for students with disabilities. Rates of out-of-school suspension for students with disabilities are much higher in St. Louis County than they are state wide. Rates ofsuspension in some partner districts are exceedingly high. At the same time, several districts have decreased the use ofout-of-school suspensions among students with disabilities over recent years. Students with IEPs are 2.5 times morelikely to receive a suspension exceeding 10 days than are nondisabled students county wide. African-Americanstudents with IEPs are suspended at a much higher rate than both non-disabled peers and white students who havedisabilities.

The graduation rate for students in St. Louis County increased to 78% in 2016, which is comparable to the state-widerate of 77% and exceeds the 2016 SPP target of 73%. All partner districts but four achieved the 2016 SPP target forgraduation. In addition, the dropout rate among students with IEPs in St. Louis County declined to 1.7% in 2016.

Eighteen of twenty-two partner districts met the SPP target for post-secondary outcomes. The positive post-secondary outcome rate decreased 5.5 percentage points in 2016 to 63.7%, which fell below the state-wide rate of65.9%.

In many cases, SPP Part B Indicator results vary considerably across SSD’s 22 partner districts. These discrepanciesevince clear equity concerns that have implications for SSD’s partnerships, service delivery, and resource allocation.



Description

The SSD Mission Statement reads, In collaboration with partner districts, we provide technical education and a wide variety of individualized educational and support services designed for each student’s successful contribution to our community. This report highlights SSD-partner district collaboration through a review of special education process and outcome data, focusing on results of the State Performance Plan (SPP) Indicators (Part B).

The majority of data used in this report is taken from the “Special Education District Profiles” generated by DESE for each district in the state. These profiles are typically made available in the late fall of each school year. They provide data on the performance of each Local Education Agency (LEA) in relation to the targets established in the SPP.

Special education delivery in St. Louis County is unique in that SSD collaborates with 22 partner districts to provide services and supports. Service delivery occurs through the coordination of many “programs” and departments. Collectively these efforts result in the provision of high quality special education services to a large number of students attending a range of independent school districts, each of which possesses unique curriculum, programs, systems of student support, technology infrastructure, financial resources, etc. SSD services include eligibility evaluation, direct and collaborative instruction, related services, and administration of stand-alone programs housed in partner district buildings. SSD also provides county-wide programs for students who are Deaf and Hard of Hearing, and early childhood special education services for 14 of its 22 partner districts. In addition, many SSD educators offer consultative services and/or contribute to school-wide planning and programming for students both with and without disabilities.

This report focuses on students attending K-12 public schools who receive special education, of whom there were 21,769 in St. Louis County as of December 1, 2015 (an additional 2,174 students were receiving early childhood special education services). District enrollment and demographic summaries are provided in Appendix A.

CSIP Objectives and PCF Elements relevant to this report:

CSIP Objective 1.1 Ensure achievement for all students CSIP Objective 1.2 Ensure that all students are ready to participate in college, career or community programs CSIP Goal Area 5 Promote, facilitate and enhance parent, student, and community collaboration to meet the needs of all students

PCF Process 2.0 Develop, deliver, and assess curriculum, assessment, and instruction PCF Process 3.0 Design and deliver special education services PCF Process 5.0 Manage student and stakeholder relationship & engagement PCF Process 14.0 Manage partner district relationships & operations

An annual report of the SPP results is required under Board Policy IM. The last evaluation report was approved by the Board on 4/12/16.

Recommendations From Most Recent Data Report

Recommendation 1: Distribute this report to SSD administrators and partner district special education liaisons. It is recommended that directors and area coordinators review data trends for their assigned districts and consider cross-year and county/state comparisons in the development of continuous improvement goals connected to SPP metrics. For example, a district-level team might devise a discipline-related continuous improvement goal whose target is based on the county-wide rate for out-of-school suspensions. Results should be considered in prioritizing objectives for the next cycle CSIP.

Status of Recommendation: Districts share both SPP and region plans with Partner District liaisons. Partner Districts determine who their comparable districts are in St. Louis County. For instance, Clayton, Ladue, and Brentwood may compare themselves to each other, and likewise Kirkwood to Lindbergh, Mehlville, etc. Goals are identified and set according to SPP as well as Partnership Agreement goals/action steps.



Recommendation 2: This report provides a range of comparative analyses, including several designed to identify districts with anomalous performance trends. District administrators (along with relevant CSIP goal teams) are encouraged to further investigate these data. Studying atypical or exceptional trends that are present over several years may provide insight into effective practices unique to a partner district that could be emulated/replicated. Alternately, districts demonstrating undesirable trends may be logical targets for additional strategizing and support.

Status of Recommendation: Progressing. Directors and area coordinators together with their liaisons review and study the data. Directors consult with one another related to strategies being used in their respective districts to garner student progress.



Results

Data/Reporting Element 1: Incidence Rates and Identification Patterns

Performance/Effectiveness Question(s) These Data Inform: How have incidence rates changed over time? Incidence of which disability categories are increasing or decreasing? What are patterns in incidence rate trends across individual partner districts? Where is disproportionality in incidence/identification a concern?

The figure below displays trends in incidence over 5 years for each of SSD’s partner districts as well as St. Louis County and the state of Missouri as a whole. The incidence rate refers to the proportion of students who receive special education among all students in a district. Total special education incidence rate along with the incidence rates for each of the seven most common disability categories are displayed. In the figure, districts are ordered top to bottom by average total incidence rate in 2016. Columns corresponding to individual disability categories are ordered left to right by the overall 2016 St. Louis County incidence rate. Lines that trend upward to the right indicate an incidence increase, while lines that trend downward indicate an incidence decrease. Note that, for districts with smaller enrollment, the addition or subtraction of a relatively small number of students from a disability category can impact incidence rate.

Results Summary (Incidence):

Overall incidence in St. Louis County has remained stable over 5 years (15.6% in 2013 vs. 15.7% in 2016).

A substantially larger proportion of students in St. Louis County receive special education services (15.7%) thanis the case state wide (12.9%).

Clear trends have emerged with respect to incidence rate changes within a number of individual disabilitycategories. The incidence of Specific Learning Disability (SLD) has decreased nearly a percentage point over fiveyears in St. Louis County (from 4.2% to 3.3%), though state wide the rate has decreased only 0.3%. Nearly all ofSSD’s partner districts experienced a decline in SLD rate.

The rate of Language Impairment (LI) also decreased over 5 years, though less markedly (from 1.6% to 1.3%County-wide) than SLD. The LI criteria are scheduled to change beginning in 2018-19, which could impactincidence rates under this disability category.

Incidence of autism (AU) and Other Health Impairment (OHI) have both increased over 5 years. County wide,AU increased from 1.6% to 2.3%, while OHI increased from 2.6% to 3.2%. As of the 2016 school year, OHI andAU were the second and fourth, respectively, most common disability categories under which students are servedin St. Louis County.

Several individual districts experienced notable changes in incidence over 5 years. Most prominent among theseare:

o Total incidence in Bayless increased 4.1 percentage points. Bayless now has the highest incidence of anypartner district. The largest increase occurred in the category of OHI (2.0 percentage points). Bayless hasthe highest incidence of OHI in the County. OHI is also the most common disability category amongstudents with IEPs who attend that district.

o Other districts that have experienced a substantial increase in total incidence over 5 years includeRitenour (+1.9 percentage points), Ferguson-Florissant (+1.3), and Hazelwood (+1.3).

o Several districts have experienced sizable decreases in total incidence over 5 years, including Valley Park(-3.5 percentage points), Affton (-2.1), Webster (-1.9), and Jennings (-1.6). In most cases, these declinescan be attributed largely to change in the SLD incidence rate.



Note. Sorted top to bottom by 2016 total incidence and left to right by County-wide 2016 incidence for each disability category. Clayton 2014-15 ID and SI rates as reported on profile (and here) appear to be in error. County-wide includes SSD Schools.



In addition to incidence, DESE also reviews data pertaining to disproportional representation of minority students in special education disability categories. A district’s “risk ratio” for a given disability category serves as an indicator of disproportionality. The risk ratio represents the extent to which students in one racial/ethnic group are more or less likely to be identified for special education (or under a specific special education disability category) than students in other racial/ethnic groups. For example, a risk ratio of 2.0 for a given racial group in a disability category would indicate that students from that group are twice as likely to be receiving services under that category than are students in all other groups; a risk ratio of 1.0 indicates that the risk of identification for students in a given racial group is the same as that for students in other groups. DESE has conducted reviews when districts experienced a risk ratio beyond 2.5 in two consecutive years (though districts with lower enrollment were often exempt). These reviews investigate whether the disproportionality identified is due to inappropriate identification practices. Per recent DESE guidance, the threshold for disproportionality will change to a risk ratio of 3.5 over three consecutive years beginning in 2018. A chart of risk ratio data over six years for African-American students, across six disability categories, appears below.

Results Summary (Disproportionate Representation):

The county-wide risk ratio for the disability category of Intellectual Disability (ID) continues to fall above theoriginal DESE threshold of 2.5 and well in excess of the state-wide rate. The risk ratio of 2.95 for 2016 indicatesthat, county-wide, African-American students are approximately three times more likely to be identified with IDthan are students in all other racial groups. Ten of SSD’s partner districts had ID risk ratios exceeding 2.5 forAfrican-American students in 2016 (eight of these exceeded 2.5 in consecutive years).

In contrast to ID, African-American children are less likely to be identified under the category of AU (and assuch, the risk ratio shown in the chart is ‘reversed,’ representing the likelihood of identification for all others vs.that for African-American students). However, the risk ratio for Autism (AU) continues to decline in St. LouisCounty, meaning that African-American students’ likelihood of being identified with AU is nearing that ofstudents in other groups. Decreasing disproportionality in AU incidence has been the target of work undertakenby the SSD Disproportionate Representation Identification of Minority Students committee over several years.

Risk ratios for African-American students are relatively close to 1.0 in disability categories other than ID. African-American students are just moderately more likely to be identified under the categories of Emotional Disability(ED) and SLD. The risk ratio for ED in St. Louis County (1.41 in 2016) lies below that state-wide (1.79 in 2016).

Note. Ratios compare “risk index” for a disability among African-American students to the risk index for students in all other race categories. The AU calculation is "reversed” (representing the ratio of non-black to black). Speech Impairment and Language Impairment disability categories are combined.



Data/Reporting Element 2: Educational Environments (LRE)

Performance and Effectiveness Question(s) These Data Inform: As indicated by LRE, how inclusive are SSD services in the partner districts? What proportion of students are being served in each LRE category across districts and county-wide? How are patterns in LRE changing over time?

Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) refers to the percentage of the school day that students with disabilities spend in settings alongside nondisabled peers. Though some students require more restrictive placements to be successful, in most cases maximizing LRE is preferable. The DESE State Plan sets yearly LRE targets for districts with respect to the proportion of students whose placements fall in the categories of ≥80% of the school day (the target for 2016 was 56.0%), <40% of the school day (10.2% target in 2016), and placement in separate settings (3.7% target in 2016). Results are summarized below and depicted in the figure on the following page.

Results Summary:

The proportion of students in the ≥80% LRE category county-wide stabilized in 2016 after decreasing every yearsince 2010. However the proportion of students in the more restrictive <40% category has simultaneouslydecreased in each of the last three years, with a growing percentage of students in the moderately restrictive “<80but >40” category.

The percentage of students in St. Louis County that fall in the least restrictive LRE category of ≥80% (62.8% in2016) exceeds the state-wide percentage (58.4%), which means that more students in St. Louis County receive thelarge majority of their instruction in the general education setting. In contrast, the percentage of students whospend the majority of their day outside the general education setting (including the <40% and separate placementcategories) is higher in St. Louis County (16.5% in 2016) than it is state wide (14.5%). Thus special educationservices provided to students in partner districts might be characterized as simultaneously more inclusive and lessinclusive than is the case state-wide.

Of SSD’s 22 partner districts, only Bayless failed to achieve the ≥80% SPP target of 56.0% in 2016.

Districts that failed to achieve the <40% SPP target of 10.2% in 2016 included Normandy (15.7%), Ritenour(14.6%), Valley Park (12.5%), Affton (11.8%), Pattonville (10.8%), Riverview Gardens (10.5%), and Ferguson-Florissant (10.4%). Note that separate placements are not included in these percentages.

Districts demonstrating the most notable improvements over 3 years in LRE include Kirkwood, Mehlville,Hazelwood, Jennings, and Normandy. Districts where LRE ≥80% has decreased the most include Brentwood,Affton, Lindbergh, Webster, Valley Park, Ferguson-Florissant, and Bayless (though representation in the morerestrictive <40% category has declined in some of these districts as well).



Note. Sorted top to bottom by 2016 percentage in the 80% or more LRE category. Partner district rates exclude students attending SSD schools.



Data/Reporting Element 3: Academic Achievement

Performance and Effectiveness Question(s) These Data Inform: How well are students with IEPs performing on state accountability assessments overall and across partner districts? Where has performance improved or declined?

The proportion of students with IEPs across St. Louis County who scored Proficient or Advanced on the state assessment in the content areas of ELA and math over 7 years appears in the figure immediately below. Results by district for 2016 appear on the following page. Proficiency rates for all students in the respective partner district are also pictured in order to provide context for the performance of students with disabilities. Results over multiple years disaggregated by grades 3-5, 6-8, and high school are provided in Appendix B. Note that some grade levels of students have been administered different accountability test versions in each of the last three years, and thus interpretations of year-to-year changes since 2014 should be made with caution.

Results Summary:

Since 2010, a higher proportion of students in St.Louis County with disabilities have performed in theproficient or advanced range in ELA and math thanhave students with disabilities in the state overall.

The SPP targets for 2016 were 27% for ELA and18% for math. Overall, students with IEPs in St.Louis County surpassed each of these.

The state test performance of students with IEPsvaries markedly across individual partner districts.Partner district ELA proficiency rates for IEPstudents in 2016 ranged from 8.0% (Riverview) to57.2% (Kirkwood); math proficiency rates rangedfrom 2.6% (Riverview) to 40.6% (Clayton).Generally proficiency rates of IEP students parallelthose of overall partner district rates.

Students with IEPs in some districts achieved proficiency rates that were “closer” to that district’s overallproficiency rates than did others (i.e., when the IEP rate is calculated as a proportion of the overall rate). Districtswith IEP students who had lower proficiency rates seemed to score less well in relationship to overall districtproficiency rates when making comparisons using such proportional calculations.

Furthermore, students with IEPs in some higher-performing districts performed proficient at a higher rate thanstudents overall in several low-performing districts.

All districts had higher proficiency rates in ELA than math.

Districts scoring below the 2016 SPP targets in both ELA and math included Riverview, Normandy, Jennings,University City, Ferguson-Florissant, Ritenour, and Hazelwood.

County wide, the lowest proficiency rates are found among students in grades 6-8, particularly in the area of math(see Appendix B).



Data/Reporting Element 4: Disciplinary Outcomes

Performance and Effectiveness Question(s) These Data Inform: What are the rates of exclusionary discipline for students with IEPs? Where is exclusionary discipline more problematic? Where are rates of exclusionary discipline increasing or decreasing? How equitable are exclusionary discipline outcomes?

The figure below displays in-school suspension (ISS) and out-of-school suspension (OSS) incident data for students with IEPs by district over 4 years. Districts are sorted from highest to lowest by combined ISS/OSS suspension rate (not shown in the figure) average over 4 years. Discipline rates by student (rather than by incident) appear in Appendix C.

Two metrics are displayed in the figure immediately below: Incidents of suspension per 100 students (indicated by horizontal bars in the figure), and the ratio of suspension rates among students with disabilities to that among students without disabilities (indicated by circles in the figure). The ratio metric is calculated by dividing the rate for IEP students by that for students who do not receive special education; an OSS ratio of 2.0 would indicate that students with disabilities in a district were twice as likely to have received an OSS as were students without disabilities that school year. DESE recently provided guidance that a ratio of 3.5 or greater in 3 consecutive years would be used to identify the presence of discipline disproportionality. Several partner districts exceeded this threshold from 2014-16.



A separate chart displays data on incidents of suspension exceeding 10 days for students with disabilities. The chart includes rates and ratios of >10 day suspension for African-American students with IEPs. Note that these ratios are based on a very small number of long term suspensions in some cases (e.g., disproportionalities in Maplewood appear alarming but are based upon only 3 OSS exceeding 10 days among students with IEPs the entire 2016 school year). Thus interpretations of these data should be made in light of overall counts.

Results Summary:

Overall ISS rates for students with disabilities in St. Louis County (35.5 incidents per 100 students) were verysimilar to those state wide (35.7 incidents per 100 students) in 2016. In contrast, the OSS rate was much higher inSt. Louis County (29.2, vs. 19.8 state wide).

County-wide rates of ISS have increased each of the last 3 years. The OSS rate increased in 2016 following asmall decline the prior year. Rates have increased state wide as well.

Ratio data indicate that students with IEPs in St. Louis County have ISS and OSS incident rates that are morecomparable to general education peers than is the case state-wide. At the same time, ISS and OSS incident ratioshave increased (i.e., trended in an undesirable direction) each of the last three years. Somewhat paradoxically,disproportionalities in discipline as indicated by the ratio metric tend to be more prevalent in partner districtswhere ISS and OSS incident rates for IEP students are lower (this seems at least in part a function of the lowerrates of ISS/OSS among general education students in those districts). A prime example of this is the Parkwaydistrict, which has the third lowest IEP suspension incident rate in the county over 4 years but also IEP to non-IEP ratios exceeding 4.0 every year over that same span.

Rates of suspension are quite high in some districts. For example, in Hazelwood in 2016, there were 71 incidentsof OSS per 100 students with IEPs. Generally partner districts that suspend the most are continuing to do soyear-in and year-out.

It is commonly perceived that ISS, under which condition students attend school and can complete work orcontinue to receive instruction in some form under supervision, is a preferable disciplinary response to OSS, acompletely exclusionary consequence. Trends suggest that partner districts vary in their use of ISS or OSS as adisciplinary response. For example, whereas Hancock utilized ISS approximately twice as often as OSS,Riverview’s pattern – an OSS rate over three times that of the ISS rate in 2016 – has been the opposite.

In addition, some districts have evolved in their use of one or the other response type over time. In Jennings, forexample, although the ISS rate has remained stable, the OSS rate decreased over 4 years. Normandy utilized ISSmore frequently, and OSS less frequently, in 2016. University City demonstrated a similar pattern.

Districts that suspend students with disabilities at high rates also tend to perform less well on other SPP metrics,particularly academic achievement.

Examining the second chart below, data on suspensions exceeding 10 days indicate that students with disabilitiescounty wide were 2.55 times more likely than nondisabled students to receive such long-term suspensions in 2016(see column heading, “Ratio Incident OSS >10”).

Several partner districts had concerning rates of suspensions exceeding 10 days in 2016. Hazelwood had thehighest rate at 8.73 per 100 students (this rate might be alternately framed as there being an 8.7% chance that astudent with a disability received a suspension exceeding 10 days).

County wide in 2016, African-American students with disabilities were 5.33 times more likely to receive asuspension exceeding 10 days that were nondisabled students in all race categories combined (see column labelled“Ratio Black”). African-American students with IEPs were 6.48 times more likely to receive a suspensionexceeding 10 days than were white students with IEPs (see column “Black/White IEP Ratio”).

Though in many cases a partner district’s yearly total of discipline incidents for students with IEPs that resultedin a suspension exceeding 10 days was relatively small (e.g., around 10 or fewer), the greater frequency with whichAfrican-American students receive this severity of disciplinary response in some districts is concerning. Forexample, in 2016, African-American students with IEPs in Rockwood (37 >10 suspensions total) were 20.82times more likely than their nondisabled peers to have received a suspension exceeding 10 days; in Kirkwood (11>10 day suspensions total), African-American students were 18.95 times as likely to receive a long-termsuspension.



Note. Sorted top to bottom by total OSS and ISS incident rate (not pictured) in 2016.



Note. Sorted top to bottom by total district rate of > 10 OSS for IEP students in 2016. Ratios by race represent the ratio of the rate of >10 day suspension incidents for students with IEPs of that race compared to the >10 day suspension rate for all nondisabled students. Black/White IEP ratio represents the rate of >10 day suspensions for African-American students with IEPs compared to the rate for white students with IEPs. Ratios can be interpreted as the factor by which students in one group are more likely to receive a >10 day suspension than students in another group. For example, county wide, African-American students with IEPs were 5.33 times as likely to receive a >10 day suspension as were students of all races in the general education population. Rates and ratios for students in other race categories were excluded based on low student counts and few indicators of discipline disproportionality among those groups.



Data/Reporting Element 5: Graduation and Dropout Trends

Performance and Effectiveness Question(s) These Data Inform: Across partner districts and St. Louis County, what proportion of students that have an IEP graduate in four years? What proportion drop out of school?

Graduation and dropout rates from 2013 to 2016 for students with IEPs are shown in the figure at right. Partner districts are sorted top to bottom by average IEP graduation rate over 4 years. Though not displayed in the figure, the SPP target for dropout rate in 2016 was 4.8% (all partner districts met this target).

Results Summary:

The graduation rate for students in St. LouisCounty increased to 78% in 2016. This iscomparable to the 2016 state-wide rate of 77%.The county-wide IEP graduation rate exceeds the2016 SPP target rate of 73%.

The County IEP drop-out rate (1.7%) decreasedin 2016 and fell below that state-wide (2.5%).

Four districts failed to achieve the SPP graduationtarget of 73% in 2016 (Pattonville, Maplewood,Hazelwood, Ferguson Florissant).

In 2016, three districts – Clayton, Brentwood, andHancock – reported that 100% of students withIEPs graduated. Several other districts haveexperienced rates exceeding 90% in each of thelast 4 years.

IEP graduation rates within individual partnerdistricts tend to be somewhat variable from yearto year. The most evident increases over 4 yearshave occurred in Normandy and Riverview. Nodistricts have shown a clear pattern of multi-yeardecline (though several districts did experience asingle year decline in 2016).



Data/Reporting Element 6: Post-secondary Outcomes

Performance and Effectiveness Question(s) These Data Inform: What proportion of students who were receiving special education services at the time of graduation (or dropout) reported education or employment status that meets DESE standards?

Post-secondary outcomes are displayed in the chart at left. Districts are sorted top to bottom by 4-year average. The data represent the results of follow-up inquiries partner districts conduct with students approximately 6 months following their graduation cohort’s exit. 2016 rates pertain to the cohort of students who graduated in spring of 2015. In general, post-secondary activities that meet the DESE criteria include college (including completion of one term), greater than half-time competitive employment, and the military. Students whom districts are unable to locate and whose whereabouts are unknown contribute to the calculation as a negative outcome. Thus rates for this SPP indicator in part represent a district’s capacity to successfully locate and survey graduates. DESE relies on districts to apply the criteria for successful IEP post-graduate outcomes correctly in the classification of students via this metric.

Results Summary:

County wide, the positive post-secondary outcome rate of 63.7%in 2016 represents a 5.5 percentage point decrease from the prioryear. The 2016 rate also fell below the state-wide rate of 65.9%.

All partner districts met the SPP target of 51.3% in 2016 with theexception of University City (5.4%), Normandy (6.9%), andHazelwood (21.7%).

Similar to graduation rates, partner district post-secondaryoutcome rates can be variable from year to year. Some districtshave experienced clear/consistent improvements over four yearsin the percent of graduates reported to have met successful post-secondary outcome criteria. These include Riverview, Rockwood,Jennings, Lindbergh, and Ferguson-Florissant. Those experiencingfairly discernable declines over 4 years include Normandy andHazelwood (University City’s low 2016 rate is anomalous to prioryears’ data).

As is the case with other SPP outcome metrics, the successfulpursuit of post-secondary education and/or employment amongstudents with disabilities in the relative short term followinggraduation varies fairly widely across SSD’s partner districts.



Strengths and Opportunities for improvement

Positive Trends/Strengths:

Overall incidence has remained stable over 5 years. Several districts have seen considerable declines inincidence.

The level of disproportionality in Autism eligibility for African-American students has steadilydeclined/improved over 5 years.

The proportion of students receiving services in the least restrictive category of ≥80% leveled after severalyears of decline. The rate in St. Louis County is 4.4 percentage points higher than in the state overall. Only onedistrict failed to achieve the ≥ 80% SPP target.

The proportion of students in the more restrictive LRE category of <40% has declined (though the ratecontinues to exceed the rate state-wide).

Year over year, a higher proportion of students in St. Louis County with IEPs have performed in the proficientor advanced range on the state accountability assessment (in both ELA and math) than have students withIEPs in the state overall.

Most districts exceeded the SPP targets for academic achievement. In over half of SSD’s partner districts, 40%or more of students with IEPs demonstrated proficiency in ELA on the state test. Ten districts’ studentsdemonstrated proficiency rates exceeding 30% on the math assessment (which has lower pass rates overall).

Several districts have decreased the rate of out-of-school suspensions among students with disabilities.

The graduation rate for students in St. Louis County increased to 78% in 2016, comparable to the state-widerate of 77%. The county-wide IEP graduation rate exceeds the 2016 SPP target rate of 73%. All districts butfour achieved the SPP target for graduation. At the same time, the dropout rate among students with IEPs inSt. Louis County declined to 1.7%.

Eighteen of twenty-two partner districts met the SPP target for post-secondary outcomes.

Trends of Concern and/or Opportunities for Improvement:

The disability incidence rate in St. Louis County remains much higher than in the state overall.

Sharp increases in incidence have occurred in several partner districts (most notably Bayless).

The incidence of OHI is increasing.

Disproportionate representation of African-American students in the eligibility category of IntellectualDisability remains high and well in excess of the state-wide rate.

Seven districts failed to achieve the SPP target for the LRE category of <40%.

Academic achievement among students with IEPs as evidenced by state test results varies widely across SSD’spartner districts. Seven districts failed to achieve the SPP target for state test performance. Students in grades 6-8 met proficiency standards for state assessments at a lower rate than did students in grades 3-5 and highschool.

The rates of suspension, both in-school and out-of-school, for IEP students have increased. Rates of OSS forstudents with disabilities are much higher in St. Louis County than they are state wide. Rates of suspension insome districts are exceedingly high. Students with IEPs are 2.5 times more likely to receive a suspensionexceeding 10 days than are nondisabled students. African-American students with IEPs are suspended at amuch higher rate than non-disabled peers, as well as white students with disabilities.

The positive post-secondary outcome rate decreased 5.5 percentage points in 2016 to 63.7%, which falls belowthe state-wide rate. The percentage of students with a positive outcome fell below 25% in some districts.



Recommendations For Action

Further study increases in incidence, particularly that observed in Bayless, in order to better understand and address contributing factors.

Implement strategies aimed at reducing disproportionality among African-American students in the disability category of Intellectual Disability (work in this regard is currently in progress).

Work collaboratively with select partner districts to reduce the use of exclusionary discipline as well as inequities in discipline for students with disabilities.

Continue to utilize SPP data to identify key opportunities for improvement. There may be benefit in setting individualized performance targets for partner districts in reference to the comparative benchmarks (e.g., state-wide results, count-wide results, results of demographically similar districts, historical performance, etc.) that appear in this report.

Dissemination Plan

The report will be disseminated to instructional directors via email and to partner district liaisons through the liaison advisory committee. The report will be posted on the District website and on the Evaluation and Research subsite of SSD Life. h



Appendix A Partner District Enrollment and Demographic Data

Note: IEP enrollment is indicated by the blue line/label.

Note: DESE obscures counts/percentages by race in publically-available data files when cell count is very low (typically less than 10) and thus the chart may omit data for some smaller districts. Likewise, percentages presented will not total 100% in some cases.



Appendix B Disaggregated State Test Results Over 5 Years (ELA and Math)





APPENDIX C Rates of OSS and ISS by Student

Note. Sorted top to bottom by combined OSS and ISS rate over 4 years.

Documents

Special Education in the Partner Districts Special School ...graduation. In addition, the dropout rate among students with IEPs in St. Louis County declined to 1.7% in 2016. Eighteen