-------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------
  **IDEA: Special Education  
  Personnel                  
  Preparation (OSERS)**      

  **FY 2008 Program          
  Performance Report (System 
  Print Out)**               

  Strategic Goal 1           

  Discretionary              

  IDEA, Part D-2, Sections   
  662                        

  Document                   
  Year 2008 Appropriation:   
  \$88,153                   

  CFDA                       84.325: Special Education_Personnel Preparation to Improve
                             Services and Results for Children with Disabilities
  -------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------

  -------------- --------------------------------------------------------
  **Program      **To prepare service providers and leadership personnel
  Goal:**        in areas of critical need who are highly qualified to
                 improve outcomes for children with disabilities.**

  -------------- --------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  ------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------
  ***Objective 1 of 3:***   *Improve the curricula of IDEA training programs to
                            ensure that personnel preparing to serve children with
                            disabilities are knowledgeable and skilled in practices
                            that reflect the current knowledge base.*

  ------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------

  ----------------------- ---------------- ------------------ --------------------------
  **Measure 1.1 of 2:**                                       
  The percentage of                                           
  Special Education                                           
  Personnel Preparation                                       
  projects that                                               
  incorporate                                                 
  scientifically- or                                          
  evidence-based                                              
  practices into their                                        
  curricula.   (Desired                                       
  direction: increase)                                        
    1944                                                      

  **Year**                **Target**       **Actual\          **Status**
                                           (or date           
                                           expected)**        

  2005                                     68                 Measure not in place

  2006                    Set a Baseline   41.5               Target Met

  2007                    BL+1%            55.53              Target Exceeded

  2008                    BL+2%            (October 2009)     Pending

  2009                    BL+10%           (October 2010)     Pending
  ----------------------- ---------------- ------------------ --------------------------

**Source**. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs, Special Education Personnel Development Expert Panel Review.

**Frequency of Data Collection**. Annual

**Data Quality**. OSEP worked in 2006 to refine the operational
definition of this measure.

**Target Context**. 

Baseline was established in 2007 (41.5). Targets should read as follows:

 2008: 50

2009: 60

2010: 70

2011: 80

 

**Explanation**. A panel of 6 nationally-recognized experts in the field
of Special Education review a 50% sample (n=36) of FY 2007 grantee
syllabi for leadership, early childhood, low incidence, and minority
programs. Each syllabus is reviewed and scored on up to seven (7)
dimensions (assessment, behavior, inclusive practices, instructional
strategies, literacy, transition, and early-childhood, as appropriate)
of evidence-based practices. The total score is the sum of the
evidence-based practices dimension sub-scores.\
\
Scoring Calculation:\
PD Measure 1.1 =Sum \[the average program score x number of syllabi
scored for the program\] divided by total number of syllabi.\
\
Average Early Childhood Program Score=33.3; 12 syllabi scored\
Average Low Incidence Program Score=71.4; 7 syllabi scored\
Average Minority Program Score=44.4; 9 syllabi scored\
Average Leadership Program Score=87.5; 8 syllabi scored\
\
PD Measure 1.1 = (33.3 x 12) + (71.4 x 7) + (44.4 x 9) + (87.5 x 8)/36 =
1999.0/36 = 55.528

  ----------------------- ----------------- ------------------ --------------------------
  **Measure 1.2 of 2:**                                        
  The percentage of                                            
  scholars completing                                          
  Special Education                                            
  Personnel Preparation                                        
  funded training                                              
  programs who are                                             
  knowledgeable and                                            
  skilled in                                                   
  evidence-based                                               
  practices for infants,                                       
  toddlers, children, and                                      
  youth with                                                   
  disabilities.                                                
    (Desired direction:                                        
  increase)   1945                                             

  **Year**                **Target**        **Actual\          **Status**
                                            (or date           
                                            expected)**        

  2006                    Set a Baseline    91                 Target Met

  2007                    BL+1%             94.1               Target Exceeded

  2008                    BL+2%             (October 2009)     Pending

  2009                    BL+10%            (October 2010)     Pending
  ----------------------- ----------------- ------------------ --------------------------

**Source**. OSEP Annual Student Data Report (SDR)

**Data Quality**. OSEP worked in 2006 to refine the operational
definition of this measure.

**Target Context**. Targets and calculations established on the basis of
FY2007 data. Targets are as follows:\
2007: establish baseline (91)\
2008: 92\
2009: 94\
2010: 95

**Explanation**. The SDR provides annual data on students supported
through OSEP personnel development grants across personnel categories
including special education teachers, related service personnel,
preschool service providers, and paraprofessionals. This indicator
represents the percentage of scholars completing Special Education
Personnel Preparation programs who passed a Praxis II exam on the first
attempt.\
\
The numerator is based on SDR Section E, Items 4 through 9. The
numerator is the number of students who passed an exam demonstrating
knowledge and skills in FY2006 on the first attempt. The denominator is 
the number of students that exited the training program through program
completion for whom testing data was available. Students enrolled in
Leadership grants are not included in this analysis. \
\
Numerator = 952 students who exited through program completion and
passed an exam demonstrating knowledge and skills in FY2006 on the first
attempt .\
\
Denominator: "Percentage of completing scholars" would include all
students who left grant-supported training in FY2006 through program
completion (2,739) minus students who were enrolled in Leadership grants
(98) minus students for whom testing data was missing, not known, or not
applicable (1,629) for a total of 1,012 students.\
\
(952 / 1,012) \*100 = 94.1%

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  ------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------
  ***Objective 2 of 3:***   *Increase the supply of teachers and service providers
                            who are highly qualified for and serve in positions for
                            which they are trained.*

  ------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------

  ----------------------- ----------------- ------------------ --------------------------
  **Measure 2.1 of 5:**                                        
  The percentage of                                            
  Special Education                                            
  Personnel Preparation                                        
  funded scholars who                                          
  exit training programs                                       
  prior to completion due                                      
  to poor academic                                             
  performance.   (Desired                                      
  direction: decrease)                                         
    1783                                                       

  **Year**                **Target**        **Actual\          **Status**
                                            (or date           
                                            expected)**        

  2005                    Set a Baseline    1.3                Target Met

  2006                    0.99              1.7                Did Not Meet Target

  2007                    0.99              2.02               Did Not Meet Target

  2008                    0.99              (October 2009)     Pending

  2009                    0.99              (October 2010)     Pending
  ----------------------- ----------------- ------------------ --------------------------

**Frequency of Data Collection**. Annual

**Explanation**. The numerator for this percentage is  the number of
students who exited training prior to completion due to poor academic
performance. This includes students who exited for poor academic or
field-based performance alone or in combination with another exit
reason. The denominator is the number of students that exited the
training program. This number includes all students who completed the
training program plus students who exited prior to completion.\
\
Numerator = 63 students who exited training prior to completion due to
poor academic performance. This includes students who exited for poor
academic or field-based performance alone or in combination with another
exit reason.\
\
Denominator: "Percentage of exiting scholars" would include all students
who left grant-supported training in FY2006. This would include all
students who completed the training program (2,739) plus students who
exited prior to completion (386) for a total of 3,125 students.\
\
(63 / 3,125) \*100 = 2.02%. (The method used to determine the results on
this measure is consistent with the method used in prior years of data
collection and can be compared to the results from prior years.)\
\
\
OSEP initially anticipated that the performance target for this measure
would be to achieve decreases in the rate over time. However, because
baseline data were better than anticipated (e.g., less than 1 percent),
instead of expecting even further decreases in outyears, OSEP believes
that maintaining a rate of 2 percent is desirable.

  ----------------------- ----------------- ------------------ ---------------------------
  **Measure 2.2 of 5:**                                        
  The percentage of low                                        
  incidence positions                                          
  that are filled by                                           
  personnel who are fully                                      
  qualified under IDEA.                                        
    (Desired direction:                                        
  increase)   2084                                             

  **Year**                **Target**        **Actual\          **Status**
                                            (or date           
                                            expected)**        

  2007                    BL+1              (October 2008)     Pending

  2008                    BL+2              (October 2009)     Pending

  2009                    BL+10%            (October 2010)     Pending

  2010                    BL+10%            (October 2011)     Pending
  ----------------------- ----------------- ------------------ ---------------------------

**Source**. OSEP Personnel Development Survey of Identified States

**Frequency of Data Collection**. Other

**Data Quality**. OSEP developed the measure in 2008 and has begun the
data collection. Many States currently lack the capacity to track HQT
Status of low-incidence personnel.

**Target Context**. Targets will be established over a two-year period,
beginning in 2009. Pending the magnitude and stability of baseline data,
target refinements may be made.\
\
Targets are currently set as follows: \
                       2009: set a basline\
                       2010: BL +10%\
                       2011: BL + 10%

**Explanation**. State data systems for five states collect data on
Highly Qualified Teacher (HQT) status of low-Incidence teachers. The
DANS system collects the HQT status of all special education teachers in
States with capacity for reporting. The Center on Recruitment and
Retention identifies states with capacity to report the data, and OSEP
collects the data from these states. Numerator: Number of low-incidence
teacher positions in identified states filled by HQT. Denominator:
Number of low-incidence teacher positions in identified states.

  ----------------------- ---------------- ------------------- ---------------------------
  **Measure 2.3 of 5:**                                        
  The percentage of                                            
  Special Education                                            
  Personnel Preparation                                        
  funded                                                       
  degree/certification                                         
  program recipients who                                       
  are working in the                                           
  area(s) in which they                                        
  were trained upon                                            
  program completion.                                          
    (Desired direction:                                        
  increase)   000100                                           

  **Year**                **Target**       **Actual\           **Status**
                                           (or date            
                                           expected)**         

  2005                                     63.1                Measure not in place

  2006                                     59.1                Measure not in place

  2007                    69               84.3                Target Exceeded

  2008                    72               (October 2009)      Pending

  2009                    75               (October 2010)      Pending

  2010                    78               (October 2011)      Pending
  ----------------------- ---------------- ------------------- ---------------------------

**Source**. OSEP Personnel Development Student Data Report

**Data Quality**. OSEP has worked in 2007 to refine the operational
definition of this measure in anticipation of data collection in 2009.
The Method was refined in 2008 to broaden the definition of "in the
area(s) for which they were trained". Data for 2005 and 2006 will be
re-calculated according to the revised criteria.

**Target Context**. 

Targets established on the basis of two years of data, 2006 and 2007.
Targets are set as follows:

2006: Measure developed (63.1)

2007: Set a baseline (59.1)

2008: 69

2009: 72

2010: 75

2011: 78

 

**Explanation**. Data for this indicator come from the Student Data
Report (SDR). In 2008 a broader definition of "in the area(s) for which
they were trained" was applied. This broader definition was developed by
OSEP and indicates whether graduate works in a teaching specialty
directly related to their training.\
\
**Strict definition of "employed in the area of training\
**\
Numerator = 1,522 students who received degrees and state certificates
upon completing training and worked in their area of training.\
\
Denominator: "Percentage of degree/certification recipients employed at
program completion" would limit the analysis to only those students who
were employed at program completion. (This would still exclude students
who received a lower-level degree and continued training). This is 2,115
students. (There are a total of 2,739 students who completed training in
FY2006, minus 399 who were not employed or who's employment status was
not known, minus 5 who are missing data on degree received, minus 220
who received grantee endorsements/courses only = 2,115).\
\
1,522 / 2,115\*100 = 71.96%.\
\
**Broad definition of "employed in the area of training**"\
\
Employed in area of training/# "Yes" responses on item Section F, Item
1\
\
Numerator = 1,782 students who received degrees and state certificates
upon completing training and worked in their area of training.\
\
Denominator: "Percentage of degree/certification recipients employed at
program completion" would limit the analysis to only those students who
were employed at program completion. (This analysis excludes students
who received a lower-level degree and continued training). The
denominator is 2,115 students. (There are a total of 2,739 students who
completed training in FY2006, minus 399 who were not employed or who's
employment status was not known, minus 5 who are missing data on degree
received, minus 220 who received grantee endorsements/courses only =
2,115).\
\
1,782 / 2,115\*100 = 84.26%. 

  ----------------------- ----------------- ------------------- -------------------------
  **Measure 2.4 of 5:**                                         
  The percentage of                                             
  Special Education                                             
  Personnel Preparation                                         
  funded                                                        
  degree/certification                                          
  recipients who are                                            
  working in the area(s)                                        
  for which they were                                           
  trained upon program                                          
  completion and who are                                        
  fully qualified under                                         
  IDEA.   (Desired                                              
  direction: increase)                                          
    000101                                                      

  **Year**                **Target**        **Actual\           **Status**
                                            (or date            
                                            expected)**         

  2007                    Set a Baseline    77.26               Target Met

  2008                    BL+1%             (October 2009)      Pending

  2009                    BL+5%             (October 2010)      Pending

  2010                    BL+10%            (October 2011)      Pending
  ----------------------- ----------------- ------------------- -------------------------

**Source**. For 2007, 14 grantees submitted data and reported a figure
of 94percent.  Because the anticipated data source in 2008 will not be
comparable, the 94 percent was not officially entered. In 2008, Data was
derived from the OSEP Personnel Development Student Data Report

**Frequency of Data Collection**. Annual

**Data Quality**. OSEP worked in 2007 to refine the operational
definition of this measure.

**Target Context**. Targets were established on the basis of 2008
results. Targets should read as follows:\
2007: Measure developed\
2008: Set a Baseline 77.3)\
2009: BL + 1%\
2010: BL + 2%\
2011: BL + 5%

**Explanation**. Data for this indicator come from the Student Data
Report (SDR). In FY 2007 a letter was sent to all FY04 grantees (n=53)
asking for the percentage of program completers who were working in the
areas in which they were trained. For FY 2007 this information was
gathered via the SDR. The same broader definition was used for this
indicator as was used for Measure 2.3 (000100). \
\
The denominator is the number of students currently employed or under
contract for the upcoming school year in positions for which the state
has requirements for certification/licensure. This year, OSEP will use
two different denominators for each analysis. The first denominator is
students who are currently employed (grantee checks "Yes" on Section F,
Item 1). The second denominator is students who are currently employed
as well as students who the grantee does not know if they are employed
(grantee checks "Yes" or "Don't know" on Section F, Item 1).\
\
Students participating in Leadership grants as well as students who
received a grantee-issued endorsement or course completion only were
excluded from ALL analyses. \
\
\
Broad definition of "employed in the area of training"\
\
Employed in area of training/# "Yes" responses on item Section F, Item
1\
\
Numerator = 1,573 students who received degrees and state certificates
upon completing training, worked in their area of training and were
fully qualified for their positions (There are 1,708 non-Leadership
students who received degrees and state certificates upon completing
training and worked in their area of training, minus 20 who are missing
data on credential status (FQ7), minus 50 who were not fully qualified,
minus 65 who were employed in positions in which the state did not have
requirements for certification/licensure = 1,573).\
\
Denominator: "Percentage of degree/certification recipients employed at
program completion" would limit the analysis to only those students who
were employed at program completion. (This would still exclude students
who received a lower-level degree and continued training). This is 2,036
students. (There are a total of 2,739 students who completed training in
FY2006, minus 399 who were not employed or who's employment status was
not known, minus 5 who are missing data on degree received, minus 220
who received grantee endorsements/courses only, minus 19 who are missing
data on credential status (FQ7), minus 60 working in positions for which
the state does not have requirements for certification/licensure =
2,036).\
\
1,573 / 2,036\*100 = 77.26%.

  ----------------------- ----------------- ------------------- --------------------------
  **Measure 2.5 of 5:**                                         
  The percentage of                                             
  degree/certification                                          
  recipients who maintain                                       
  employment in the                                             
  area(s) for which they                                        
  were trained for 3 or                                         
  more years and who are                                        
  fully qualified under                                         
  IDEA.   (Desired                                              
  direction: increase)                                          
    00000000000002j                                             

  **Year**                **Target**        **Actual\           **Status**
                                            (or date            
                                            expected)**         

  2007                    Set a Baseline    90.1                Target Met

  2008                    BL+1%             (October 2009)      Pending

  2009                    BL+5%             (October 2010)      Pending

  2010                    BL+10%            (October 2011)      Pending
  ----------------------- ----------------- ------------------- --------------------------

**Source**. 

OSEP Annual Survey of top 9 Personnel Development Grant Funded
Institutions (Note. Data source for 2009 will change-see data quality
section)

**Frequency of Data Collection**. Annual

**Data Quality**. OSEP developed the operational definition of the
measure in 2007 based on a sampling procedure. In 2008 the measure is
being revised to draw on data collected through the National Center for
Service Obligation (NCSO), rather than through the 'top 9' sampling
method.

**Target Context**. Targets were established on the basis of 2008
sampled results. Pending the stability of data under the revised method
(NCSO database), targets may be adjusted.

**Explanation**. In 2008 a survey was sent to the nine highest funded
Personnel Development grant award recipients for information about
graduate area of employment and HQT status ( 2008 data pertains to
graduates of FY 2004)\
\
Scoring Calculation\
PD Measure 2.5 = Sum \[number of degree/certification recipients who
report maintaining employment for 3 or more years in the area(s) for
which they were trained and fully qualified under IDEA for each
institution surveyed\] divided by Sum \[total number of
degree/certification recipients for each institution\] x 100%.\
\
= 323/356 x 100% = .907 x 100%= 90.7%

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  ------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------
  ***Objective 3 of 3:***   *Enhance the efficiency of the expenditure of Federal
                            dollars under this program.*

  ------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------

  ----------------------- ----------------- ------------------ --------------------------
  **Measure 3.1 of 1:**                                        
  The percentage of funds                                      
  expended on scholars                                         
  who drop out of                                              
  programs because of                                          
  poor academic                                                
  performance   (Desired                                       
  direction: decrease)                                         
    00000000000001c                                            

  **Year**                **Target**        **Actual\          **Status**
                                            (or date           
                                            expected)**        

  2007                    Set a Baseline    13.2               Target Met

  2008                    BL+1              2.7                Made Progress From Prior
                                                               Year

  2009                    Maintain a        (October 2010)     Pending
                          Baseline                             

  2010                    Maintain a        (October 2011)     Pending
                          Baseline                             
  ----------------------- ----------------- ------------------ --------------------------

**Source**. Source: OSEP Personnel Development Student Data Report

**Frequency of Data Collection**. Annual

**Data Quality**. OSEP worked in 2007 to refine the operational
definition of this measure.

**Target Context**. Targets were established on the basis of 2008
results. Targets should read as follows:\
\
2007: Measure not in place\
2008: Set a Baseline (2.7)\
2009: Target = 2.5 \
2010: Target = 2.0

**Explanation**. Data from the SDR on percentages of students exiting
funded program due to: poor academic performance:\
Total number of students exiting in FY2006 due to poor academic
performance : 63 \
  Amount spent on students exiting in FY2006 due to poor academic
performance:\$424,786\
Total amount spent on grant funds for all program years \$15,631,367 \
\
\$424,786/\$15,631,367= 2.7%\
\
This represents thepercentage of funds for all years of the program
expended on 63 students who exited the program due to poor performance.