## 2015 Part B

**– SPP /A** **PR**

Part B SPP/APR Part B SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table

– Page

- 1 (OMB NO: 1820

- 0624 / Expiration Date: ) **Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) and A nnual Performance Report (**  **APR) Part B Indicator Measurement Table** 

**Monitoring Priorities and Indicators Data Source and Measurement**  **Instructions for Indicators/Measurement Monitoring Priority: F**  **AP E in the LRE** 
1. P ercent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma. (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A)) **Data Source:** Sam e data as used for reporting to the Department under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). **Me asurement:**  State s must report using the adjusted cohort graduation rate required under the ESEA. Sampling is not allowed. Describe the results of the State’s examination of the data for the year before the reporting year (e.g., for the FFY 20 1 3 APR, use data from 20 1 2

- 2 0 1 3 ), and com pare the results to the target. Provide the actual num bers used in the calculation. Provide a narrative that describes the conditions yo uth must meet in order to graduate with a regular diploma and, if different, the conditions that youth wit h IEPs must meet in order to graduate with a regular diploma. If there is a difference, explain why. Targets should be the same as the annual graduation rate targets under Title I of the ESEA.
2. Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high school. (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A)) **Data Source:** Sam e data as used for reporting to the Department under IDEA section 618. **Me asurement:**  States must report a percentage using the number of yo uth 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

. Sampling is not allowed. Use 618 exiting data reported to the Department , and the definitions specified, in the EDFacts file specification C009. **http://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/edfacts/eden/n on**  **- xml/c009**  **- 9**  **- 0.doc**  Include in the denominator the following exiting categories: (a) graduated with a regular high school dip lom a ; (b) received a certificate ; (c) reached maxim um age ; (d) dropped out ; or (e) died. Do not include in the denominator the number of yo uths with IEPs who exited special education due to : (a) transferring to regular education ; or (b) who mo ved, but are known to be continuing in education.

## 2015 Part B

**– SPP /A** **PR**

Part B SPP/APR Part B SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table

– Page

- 2 (OMB NO: 1820

- 0624 / Expiration Date: ) **Monitoring Priorities and Indicators Data Source and Measurement**  **Instructions for Indicators/Measurement**
3. Participation and performance of children with IEPs on statewide assessments: A. Percent of the districts with a disability subgroup that meets the State’s mi nim um “n” size that meet the State’s AYP/AMO targets for the disability subgroup. B. Participation rate for children with IEPs. C. Proficienc y rate for children with IEPs against grade level, modified and alternate academic achievement standards. (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A)) **Data Source:** 3A

. (choose either 3A.1 or 3A. 2) 3A.1 AYP data used for accountability reporting under Title I of the ESEA. 3A.2 AMO data used for accountability reporting under Title I of the ESEA as a result of ESEA flexibility. 3B. Assessment data reported in the Consolidated State Performance Rep ort (CSPR) reporting on ESEA (EDFacts file specifications C185 and 188). 3C. Assessment data reported in the Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR) reporting on ESEA (EDFacts file specifications C175 and 178). **Me asurement:**  A. (choose either A.1 or A.2) A.1 AYP percent = [(# of districts with a disability subgroup that meets the State’s minimum “n” size that meet the State’s AYP targets for the disability subgroup) divided by the (total # of districts that have a disability subgroup that meets the S tate’s mi nim um “n” size)] times 100. A.2 AMO percent = [(# of districts with a disability subgroup that meets the State’s minimum “n” size that meet the State’s AMO targets for the disability subgroup) divided by the (total # of districts that have a disab ility subgroup that meets the State’s minimum “n” size)] times 100. B. 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 sepa rately for reading and ma th)]. 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 Describe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the targets. Pro vide the actual num bers used in the calculation. States are encouraged to present their APR information in summary tables and include multiple ye ars of data for comparison purposes. Include information regarding where to find public reports of assessment results, i.e., link to the W eb site where results are reported. Indicator 3A: The data source and measurement for 3A is dependent on whether the State applied for, and was granted, a waiver of the requirements to determine Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) fo r LEAs and schools as part of requesting ESEA flexibility. States that either did not apply for and receive ESEA flexibility, or applied for and received that flexibility but did not apply for a waiver of determining AYP should choose data source and meas urement 3A.1. States with an approved ESEA flexibility request that includes a waiver of determining AYP should choose data source and measurement 3A.2. Report only on the AYP/AMO assessment targets for reading/language arts and mathematics proficiency, not targets for graduation or other elements of AYP/AMO. Indicator 3B: Provide separate reading/language arts and mathematics participation rates, inclusive of all ESEA grades assessed (3

- 8 and high school), for children with IEPs. Account for ALL chil dren with IEPs, in all grades assessed, including children not participating in assessments and those not enrolled for a full academic year. Only include children with disabilities who had an IEP at the time of testing. Indicator 3C: Proficiency calcula tions in this APR mu st result in proficiency rates for each content area across all ESEA assessments (combining regular

## 2015 Part B

**– SPP /A** **PR**

Part B SPP/APR Part B SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table

– Page

- 3 (OMB NO: 1820

- 0624 / Expiration Date: ) **Monitoring Priorities and Indicators Data Source and Measurement**  **Instructions for Indicators/Measurement** full academic yea r. C. 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 se parately 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 yea r. and all alternates) for children with IEPs, in all grades assessed (3

- 8 and high school), including both children with IEPs enrolled for a full academic year and those not enrolled for a full academic yea r. States are encouraged to report using two rates

– one for reading/language arts covering all assessed grades and one for mathematics covering all assessed grades. Only include children with disabilities who had an IEP at the time of testing.

4. 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 con tribute to the significant discrepancy and do not com ply with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A); 1412(a)(22) ) **Data Source:** Data collected under section 618 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (Report of Children with Disabilities Subject to Disciplinary Removal). Discrepanc y can be computed by either com paring the rates of suspensions a nd expulsions for children with IEPs to rates for nondisabled children within the LEA or by comparing the rates of suspensions and expulsions for children with IEPs am ong LEAs within the State. **Me asurement:**  A. Percent = [(# of districts that have a signifi cant discrepanc y in the rates of suspensions and expulsions for greater than 10 days in a school ye ar of children with IEPs) divided by the (# of districts in the State)] times 100. B. Percent = [(# of districts that have: (a) a significant discrepancy, by race or ethnicity, in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year of children with IEPs; and (b) policies, procedures or practices that contribute to the significant discrepancy and do not comply with requirements re lating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, Sa mpling from State’ s 618 data is not allowed. Describe the results of the State’s examination of the data for the year before the reporting year (e.g., for the FFY 201 3 APR, use data from 201 2

- 201 3 ), including data disaggregated by race and ethnicity to determine if significant discrepancies are occurring in the rates of long

- term suspensions and expulsions of children with IEPs, as required at 20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(22). The State’s examination must include one of the following comparisons:

 The rates of suspens ions and expulsions for children with IEPs among LEAs within the State; or
 The rates of suspensions and expulsions for children with IEPs to nondisabled children within the LEAs. In the description, specify which method the State used to determine possible discrepancies and explain what constitutes those discrepancies. If the State used a minimum “n” size requirement, report the number of districts excluded from the calculation as a result of this requirement. States have the option of using the “total nu mb er of districts” OR the “number of districts that meet the State’s minimum n size for one or more racial/ethnic group” as the

## 2015 Part B

**– SPP /A** **PR**

Part B SPP/APR Part B SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table

– Page

- 4 (OMB NO: 1820

- 0624 / Expiration Date: ) **Monitoring Priorities and Indicators Data Source and Measurement**  **Instructions for Indicators/Measurement** and procedural safeguards) divided by the (# of districts in the State)] times 100. Include State’s definition of “significant discrepancy.” denom inator in the calculation for B4A or B4B. For 4A, provide the actual numbers used in the calculation and if significant d iscrepancies occurred , describe how the State educational agency reviewed and, if appropriate, revised (or required the affected local educational agenc y to revise) its policies, procedures, and practices relating to the development and implementation of I EPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards, to ensure that such policies, procedures, and practices comply with applicable requirements. For 4B, provide the following: (a) the number of districts that have a significant discrepanc y, b y race or ethnicity, in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs ; and (b) the number of districts in which policies, procedures or practices contribute to the significant discrepancy and do not comply with requirements relating to the development and im plem entation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards. If discrepancies occurred and the district with discrepanc ies had policies, procedures or practices that contributed to the significant discrepancy and that do not comply with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and proced ural safeguards, describe how the State ensured that such policies, procedures, and practices were revised to comply with applicable requirements consistent with OSEP Memorandum 09

- 02, dated October 17, 2008. Targets must be 0% for 4B.
5. Percent of children with IEPs aged 6 **D ata Source:**  For this indicator, report 618 data that were collected

## 2015 Part B

**– SPP /A** **PR**

Part B SPP/APR Part B SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table

– Page

- 5 (OMB NO: 1820

- 0624 / Expiration Date: ) **Monitoring Priorities and Indicators Data Source and Measurement**  **Instructions for Indicators/Measurement** through 21 served: A. Inside the regular class 80% or more of the day; B. Inside the regular class less than 40% of the day; and C. In separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A)) Data collected under IDEA section 618. **Me asurement:**  A. 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. 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. Percent = [(# of children with IEPs served in separate schools, residential facilities, or hom ebo und/hospital placements) divided by the (total # of students aged 6 through 21 with IEPs)] tim es 100. on a date between October 1 and December 1, 201 3 and due on February 1, 201 4 . Sampling from State ’s 618 data is not allowed. Describe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target. If the data reported in this indicator are not the same as the State’s data reported under IDEA section 618, explain.

6. 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 faci lity. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A)) **Data Source:** Data collected under IDEA section 618. **Me asurement:**  A. Percent = [(# of children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs attending a regular early childhood program and receiving the majority of special education and related services in the regular early childhood program) divided by the (total # of children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs)] times 100. B. Percent = [(# of children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs attending a separate special education class, separate school or reside ntial facility) divided by the (total # of children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs)] times 100. For this indicator, report 618 data that were collected on a date between October 1 and December 1, 201 3 and due on February 1, 201 4 . Sampling from State’s 618 data is not allowed. If the data reported in this indicator are not the same as the State’s data reported under IDEA section 618, explain.

7. Percent of preschool children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs who demonstrate im proved: A. Positive social

- em otional skil ls **Data Source:** State selected data source. **Me asurement:**  Sampling of **children for assessment** is allowed. When sampling is used, submit a description of the sampling methodology outlining how the design will yield valid and reliable estimates. (See Ge neral

## 2015 Part B

**– SPP /A** **PR**

Part B SPP/APR Part B SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table

– Page

- 6 (OMB NO: 1820

- 0624 / Expiration Date: ) **Monitoring Priorities and Indicators Data Source and Measurement**  **Instructions for Indicators/Measurement** (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. (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A)) Outcomes: A. Positive social

- em otional skills (including social relationships); B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication and early literac y); and C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet thei r needs. Progress categories for A, B and C:
a. Percent of preschool children who did not im prove functioning = [(# of preschool children who did not improve functioning) divided by (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100. b. Percent of pre school children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same

- aged peers = [(# of preschool children who im proved functioning but not sufficient to mo ve nearer to functioning comparable to sam e - aged peers) div ided by (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100.
c. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same

- aged peers but did not reach it = [(# of preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to s am e - aged peers but did not reach it) divided by ( # of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100. d. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to sam e - aged peers = [(# of preschool children who improved funct ioning to reach a level com parable to same

- aged peers) divided by ( # of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] Instructions on page 2 for additional instructions on sampling.) Describe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the targets. States will use the progress categories for each of the three Outcomes to calculate and report the two Summary Statements. States have provided targets for the two Summary Statements for the three Outcomes (six numbers for targets for each FFY )

. R eport progress data and calculate Summary Statements to compare against the six targets. Provide the actual num bers and percentages for the five reporting categories for each of the three outcomes. In presenting results, provide the criteria for defining “comparable to same

- aged peers.” If a State is using the Early Childhood Outcomes Center (ECO) Child Outcome s Summary Form (COSF), then the criteria for defining “comparable to same

- aged peers” has been defined as a child who has been assigned a scored of 6 or 7 on the COSF. In addition, list the instruments and procedures used to gather data for this indicator, including if the State is using the ECO COSF.

## 2015 Part B

**– SPP /A** **PR**

Part B SPP/APR Part B SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table

– Page

- 7 (OMB NO: 1820

- 0624 / Expiration Date: ) **Monitoring Priorities and Indicators Data Source and Measurement**  **Instructions for Indicators/Measurement** tim es 100.
e. Percent of preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same

aged peers = [(# of preschool children who ma intained functioning at a level comparable to same

- aged peers) divided by (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] tim es 100. **Summary Statements for Each of the Three Outcomes:**  **Summary Statement 1:** Of those preschool children who entered or exited the preschool program below age expectations in each Outcome, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the tim e they turned 6 years of age or exited the program. **Me asurement for Summary Statement 1:**  Percent = # of preschool children reported in progress category (c) plus # of preschool children reported in category (d) divided by [# of preschool children reported in progress category (a) plus # of preschool children reported in progress category (b) plus # of preschool children report ed in progress category (c) plus # of preschool children reported in progress category (d)] times 100. **Summary Statement 2:** The percent of preschool children who were functioning within age expectations in each Outcome by the time they turned 6 years of a ge or exited the program. **Me asurement for Summary Statement 2:**  Percent = # of preschool children reported in progress category (d) plus # of preschool children reported in progress category (e) divided by [the total # of preschool children reported in progress categories (a) + (b) + (c) + (d) + (e)] times 100.

## 2015 Part B

**– SPP /A** **PR**

Part B SPP/APR Part B SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table

– Page

- 8 (OMB NO: 1820

- 0624 / Expiration Date: ) **Monitoring Priorities and Indicators Data Source and Measurement**  **Instructions for Indicators/Measurement**
8. Percent of parents with a child receiving special education services who report that schools facilitated parent involvement as a me ans of improving services and results for children with disabilities. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A)) **Data Source:** State selected data source. **Me asurement:**  Percent = [(# of respondent parents who report schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of im proving services and results for children with disabilities) divided by the ( total # of respondent parents of children with disabilities)] times 100. Sampling **of parents from whom response is**  **requested** is allowed. When sampling is used, submit a description of the sampling methodology outlining how the design will yield valid and reliable estimates. (See General Instructions on page 2 for additional instructions on sampling.) Describe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target. Include a description of how the State has ensured that the response data are valid and reliable, including how the data represent the demographics of the State. Provide the actual num bers used in the calculation. If the State is using a separate data collection me thodology for preschool children, the State must provide separate baseline data, targets, and actual target data or discuss the procedures used to com bine data from school age and preschool surveys in a manner that is valid and reliable. If States are using a survey and the survey is revised or a new survey is adopted, States must submit a copy with the APR. States are encouraged to work in collaboration with their OSEP

-funded parent centers in collecting data and implementing improvement activities for this indicator. **Monitoring Priority: Disproportionate Representa tion**  9. Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(C)) **Data Source:** Data collected under IDEA section 618 (Report of Children with Disabilities Receiving Special Education Under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, As Amended) and the State’s analysis to determine if the disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services was the result of Provide racial/ethnic disproportionality data for children aged 6 thro ugh 21 served under IDEA. Provide these data for all children with disabilities. States are not required to report on underrepresentation. Provide the number of districts identified with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in spe cial education and related services and

## 2015 Part B

**– SPP /A** **PR**

Part B SPP/APR Part B SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table

– Page

- 9 (OMB NO: 1820

- 0624 / Expiration Date: ) **Monitoring Priorities and Indicators Data Source and Measurement**  **Instructions for Indicators/Measurement** inappropriate identification. **Me asurement:**  Percent = [(# of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification) divided by the (# of districts in the State)] times 100. Include State’s definition of “disproportionate representation.” Based on its review of the 618 data for FFY 201 3 , describe how the State made its annual determinati on that the disproportionate over representation it identified of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services was the result of inappropriate identification as required by §§300.600(d)(3) and 300.602(a), e.g., using mo nitoring data; reviewing policies, practices and procedures, etc. In determining disproportionate representation, analyze data, for each district, for all racial and ethnic groups in the district, or all racial and ethnic groups in the district that meet a minimum 'n' si ze set by the State. Report on the percent of districts in which disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services is the result of inappropriate identification, even if the determination of inappropriate identification was made after the end of the FFY 201 3 reporting period, i.e., after June 30, 201 4 . If inappropriate identification is identified, report on corrective actions taken. the number of districts identified with disproportionate representation that is the result of inappropriate identification. Consider using multiple methods in calculating disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups to reduce the risk of overlooking potential problems. Describe the method(s) used to calculate disproportionate representation. If the State used a mi nim um “n” size requirement, report the number of districts totally excluded from the cal culation as a result of this requirement because the district did not me et the minimum “n” size for any racial/ethnic group. States have the option of using the “total num ber of districts” OR the “number of districts that me et the State’s minimum “ n ” size for one or more racial/ethnic group ” as the denominator in the calculation. Targets must be 0%. Provide detailed information about the timely correction of noncompliance as noted in OSEP’s response table for the previous APR. If the State did not ensure timely

correction of the previous noncompliance, provide information on the extent to which noncompliance was subsequently corrected (m ore than one year after identification). In addition, provide information regarding the nature of any continuing noncom pliance, improvement activities com pleted (e.g., review of policies and procedures, technical assistance, training, etc.) and any enforcement actions that were taken.
10. Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic grou ps in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification. **Data Source:** Data collected under IDEA section 618 (Report of Children with Disabilities Receiving Special Education Under Part B of the Individu als with Provide racial/ethnic disproportionality data for children aged 6 through 21 served under IDEA. Provide these data at a minimum for children in the following six disability categories: mental retardation, specific learning disabilities, emotional disturbance,

## 2015 Part B

**– SPP /A** **PR**

Part B SPP/APR Part B SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table

– Page

- 10 (OMB NO: 1820

- 0624 / Expiration Date: ) **Monitoring Priorities and Indicators Data Source and Measurement**  **Instructions for Indicators/Measurement** (21 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(C)) Disabilities Education Act, As Amended) and the State’s analysis to determine if the disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories was the result of inappropriate identification. **Me asurement:**  Percent = [(# of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification) divided by the (# of districts in the State)] times 100. Include State’s definition of “disproportionate representation.” Based on its review of the 618 data for FFY 201 3 , describe how the State made its annual determination that the disproportionate overrepresentation it identified of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability catego ries was the result of inappropriate identification as required by §§300.600(d)(3) and 300.602(a), e.g., using mo nitoring data; reviewing policies, practices and procedures, etc. In determining disproportionate representation, analyze data, for each distr ict, for all racial and ethnic groups in the district, or all racial and ethnic groups in the district that meet a minimum 'n' size set by the State. Report on the percent of districts in which disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups i n specific disability categories is the result of inappropriate identification, even if the determination of inappropriate identification was made after the end of the FFY 201 3 , i.e., after June 30, 201 4 . If inappropriate identification is identified, rep ort on corrective actions taken. speech or language impairments, other health im pairm ents, and autism. If a State has identified disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories other than these six disabi lity

categories, the State must include these data and report on whether the State determined that the disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories was the result of inappropriate identification. States are not required to report on underrepresentation. Provide the number of districts identified with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories and the num ber of districts identified with disproportionate repre sentation that is the result of inappropriate identification. If the State used a minimum “n” size requirement, report the number of districts totally excluded from the calculation as a result of this requirement because the district did not meet the mi ni mu m “n” size for any racial/ethnic group. States have the option of using the “total number of districts” OR the “number of districts that meet the State’s mi nim um n size for one or more racial/ethnic group” as the denominator in the calculation. Conside r using multiple methods in calculating disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups to reduce the risk of overlooking potential problems. Describe the method(s) used to calculate disproportionate representation. Targets must be 0%. Provide detailed information about the timely correction of noncompliance as noted in OSEP’s response table for the previous APR. If the State did not ensure timely correction of the previous noncompliance, provide information on the extent to

## 2015 Part B

**– SPP /A** **PR**

Part B SPP/APR Part B SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table

– Page

- 11 (OMB NO: 1820

- 0624 / Expiration Date: ) **Monitoring Priorities and Indicators Data Source and Measurement**  **Instructions for Indicators/Measurement** which noncomplianc e was subsequently corrected (m ore than one year after identification). In addition, provide information regarding the nature of any continuing noncompliance, improvement activities com pleted (e.g., review of policies and procedures, technical assistance, training, etc.) and any enforcement actions that were taken

. **Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B Effective General Supervision Part B / Child Find** 
11. Percent of children who were evaluated within 60 days of receiving parental c onsent for initial evaluation or, if the State establishes a timeframe within which the evaluation must be conducted, within that tim efram e. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B)) **Data Source:** Data to be taken from State monitoring or State data system and must be base d on actual, not an average, number of days. Indicate if the State has established a timeline and, if so, what is the State’s tim eline for initial evaluations. **Me asurement:** 
a. # of children for whom parental consent to evaluate was received. b. # of children wh ose 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. Pe rcent = [(b) divided by (a)] times 100. If data are from State monitoring, describe the method used to select LEAs for monitoring. If data are from a State database, include data for the entire reporting year. Describe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target. Describe the method used to collect these data , and if data are from the State’s mo nitoring, describe the procedures used to collect these data. Provide the actual numbers used in the calculation. Note that under 34 CF R §300.301(d) , the timeframe set for initial evaluation does not apply to a public agenc y if: (1) The parent of a child repeatedly fails or refuses to produce the child for the evaluation; or (2) A child enrolls in a school of another public agenc y after t he timeframe for initial evaluations has begun, and prior to a determination by the child’s previous public agenc y as to whether the child is a child with a disability. States should not report these exceptions in either the numerator (b) or denominator ( a). If the State

- established timeframe provides for exceptions through State regulation or policy, describe cases falling within those exceptions and include in b. Targets must be 100%. Provide detailed information about the timely

## 2015 Part B

**– SPP /A** **PR**

Part B SPP/APR Part B SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table

– Page

- 12 (OMB NO: 1820

- 0624 / Expiration Date: ) **Monitoring Priorities and Indicators Data Source and Measurement**  **Instructions for Indicators/Measurement** correction of noncompli ance as noted in OSEP’s response table for the previous APR. If the State did not ensure timely correction of the previous noncompliance, provide information on the extent to which noncompliance was subsequently corrected (m ore than one year after identification). In addition, provide information regarding the nature of any continuing noncompliance, improvement activities com pleted (e.g., review of policies and procedures, technical assistance, training, etc.) and any enforcement actions that were taken. **Effective General Supervision Part B / Effective Transition**
12. 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. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B)) **Da ta Source:**  Data to be taken from State monitoring or State data system. **Me asurement:** 
a. # of children who have been served in Part C and referred to Part B for Part B eligibility determination. b. # of those referred determined to be NOT eligible and whose eligi bility was determined prior to their third birthdays. c. # of those found eligible who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays. d. # of children for whom parent refusal to provide consent caused delays in evaluation or initial services or to whom exceptions under 34 CFR §300.301(d) applied. e. # of children determined to be eligible for early intervention services under Part C less than 90 days before their third birthdays. 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 If data are from State monitoring, describe the method use d to select LEAs for monitoring. If data are from a State database, include data for the entire reporting year. Describe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target. Describe the method used to collect these data and if data are from the State’s mo nitoring, describe the procedures used to collect these data. Provide the actual numbers used in the calculation. Targets must be 100%. Provide detailed information about the timely correction of noncompliance as noted in OSEP’s resp onse table for the previous APR. If the State did not ensure timely correction of the previous noncompliance, provide information on the extent to which noncompliance was subsequently corrected (m ore than one year after identification). In addition, prov ide information regarding the nature of any continuing noncompliance, improvement activities com pleted (e.g., review of policies and procedures, technical assistance, training, etc.) and any enforcement actions that were taken.

## 2015 Part B

**– SPP /A** **PR**

Part B SPP/APR Part B SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table

– Page

- 13 (OMB NO: 1820

- 0624 / Expiration Date: ) **Monitoring Priorities and Indicators Data Source and Measurement**  **Instructions for Indicators/Measurement** IEP developed , and the reasons for the delays. Percent = [(c) divided by (a

- b

- d

- e)] times 100.
13. Percent of youth with IEPs aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes appropriate measurable postsecondary goals that are annually updated and based upon an age appropriate transition assessment, transition services, including courses of study, that will reasonably enable the student to meet those postsecondary goals, and annual IEP goals related to the student’s transition services needs. There also must be evidence that the student was invited to the IEP Team meeting where transition services are to be discussed and evidence that, if appropriate, a representative of any participating agency was invited to the IEP Team meeting with the prior consent of the parent or student who has reached the age of majority. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B)) **Data Source:** Data to be taken from State monitoring or State data system. **Me asurement:**  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, trans ition 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 agenc y was invited to the IEP Team meeting with the prior consent of the parent or student who has reached the age of ma

jority) divided by the (# of yo uth with an IEP age 16 and above)] times 100. If data are from State monitoring, describe the method used to select LEAs for monitoring. If data are from a State database, include data for the entire reporting year. Describ e the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target. Describe the method used to collect these data and if data are from the State’s mo nitoring, describe the procedures used to collect these data. Provide the actual numbers used in th e calculation. Targets must be 100%. Provide detailed information about the timely correction of noncompliance as noted in OSEP’s response table for the previous APR. If the State did not ensure timely correction of the previous noncompliance, provide information on the extent to which noncompliance was subsequently corrected (m ore than one year after identification). In addition, provide information regarding the nature of any continuing noncompliance, improvement activities com pleted (e.g., review of po licies and procedures, technical assistance, training, etc.) and any enforcement actions that were taken.
14. 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 educati on within one ye ar of leaving high school. B. Enrolled in higher education or com petitively employed within one year of leaving high school. C. Enrolled in higher education or in some **Data Source:** State selected data source. **Me asurement:**  A. Percent enrolled in higher education = [(# of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had I EPs 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 Samplin g **of youth who had IEPs and are no longer in secondary school**  is allowed. When sampling is used, submit a description of the sampling methodology outlining how the design will yield valid and reliable estimates of the target population. (See General Instru ctions on page 2 for additional instructions on sampling.) Collect data by September 201 4 on students who left school during 201 2

- 201 3 , timing the data collection so that at least one year has passed since the

## 2015 Part B

**– SPP /A** **PR**

Part B SPP/APR Part B SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table

– Page

- 14 (OMB NO: 1820

- 0624 / Expiration Date: ) **Monitoring Priorities and Indicators Data Source and Measurement**  **Instructions for Indicators/Measurement** other postsecondary education or training program; or competitively em ployed or in som e other employme nt within one year of leaving high school. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B)) effect at the time they left school)] times 100. B. Percent enrolled in higher education or com petitively 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 com petitively 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 em ployme nt = [(# 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 som e other postsecondary education or training program; or competitively employed or in some other em ployme nt) 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. students left school. Include students who dropped out during 201 2

- 201 3 or who were expected to return but did not return for the current school year. This includes all youth who had an IEP in effect at the time they left school, including those who graduated with a regular diploma or some other cred ential, dropped out, or aged out. **I . Definitions**  Enrolled in higher education as used in measures A, B , and C means youth have been enrolled on a full

or part

- tim e basis in a community college (two year program) or college/university (four or more year program) for at least one complete term, at any tim e in the year since leaving high school. Competitive employ me nt as used in measures B and C me ans that youth have worked for pay at or above the minimum wage in a setting with others who are nondisabled for a period of 20 hours a week for at least 90 days at any time in the year since leaving high school. This includes military employ me nt. Enrolled in other postsecondary education or training as used in measure C, means youth have been enrolled on a ful l

- or part

- time basis for at least 1 com plete term at any time in the year since leaving high school in an education or training program (e.g., Job Corps, adult education, workforce development program, vocational technical school which is less than a two ye ar program). Som e other employme nt as used in measure C me ans youth have worked for pay or been self

em ployed for a period of at least 90 days at any time in the year since leaving high school. This includes working in a family business (e.g., farm, sto re, fishing, ranching, catering services, etc.). **II. Data Reporting** Provide the actual numbers for each of the following

## 2015 Part B

**– SPP /A** **PR**

Part B SPP/APR Part B SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table

– Page

- 15 (OMB NO: 1820

- 0624 / Expiration Date: ) **Monitoring Priorities and Indicators Data Source and Measurement**  **Instructions for Indicators/Measurement**
mu tually exclusive categories. The actual number of “leavers” who are: 1. Enrolled in higher education within one year of leaving high school; 2. Competitively employed within one year of leaving high school (but not enrolled in higher education); 3. Enrolled in some other postsecondary education or training program within one year of leaving high school (but not enrolled in higher educa tion or com petitively employed); 4. 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). “Leavers” should only be counted in one of the above categories, and the categories are organized hierarchically. So, for example, “leavers” who are enrolled in full

- or part

- tim e higher education within one ye ar of leaving high school should only be reported in category 1, even if they also happen to be employed. Likewise, “leavers” who are not enrolled in either part

- or full

- tim e higher education, but who are competitively employed, should only be reported under category 2, even if they happen to be enrolled in some other postsecondary education or training program. **III. Reporting On the Measures/Indicators** Targets must be established for measures A, B, and C. Measure A: For purposes of reporting on the me asures/indicators, please note that any youth enrolled in an institution o f higher education (that me ets any definition of this term in the Higher Education Act ( HEA ) ) within one year of leaving high school must be reported under measure A. This

## 2015 Part B

**– SPP /A** **PR**

Part B SPP/APR Part B SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table

– Page

- 16 (OMB NO: 1820

- 0624 / Expiration Date: ) **Monitoring Priorities and Indicators Data Source and Measurement**  **Instructions for Indicators/Measurement** could include youth who also happen to be com petitively employed, or in some other training program; however, the key outcome we are interested in here is enrollment in higher education. Measure B: All youth reported under measure A should also be reported under measure B, in addition to all youth that obtain competitive em ployme nt with in one year of leaving high school. Measure C: All youth reported under measures A and B should also be reported under measure C, in addition to youth that are enrolled in some other postsecondary education or training program , or in som e other employme nt

. Describe the calculations and results using actual num bers and compare these results to the targets. Include a description of how the State has ensured that survey data are valid and reliable, including how the data represent the demographics of the Stat e. **Effective General Supervision Part B / General Supervision**
1 5

. Percent of hearing requests that went to resolution sessions that were resolved through resolution session settlement agreements. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3(B)) **Data Source:** Data collected under IDEA section 618. **Me asurement:**  Percent = (3.1(a) divided by 3.1) times 100. Sampling is not allowed. Describe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target. States are not required to establish baseline or targets if the number of resolution sessions is less than 10. In a reporting period when the number of resolution sessions reaches 10 or greater, develop baseline, targets and improvement activities, and report on them in the corresponding APR. States may

express their targets in a range, e.g., 75

- 85%. If the data reported in this indicator are not the same as the State’s data under IDEA section 618, explain. States are not required to report data at the LEA

## 2015 Part B

**– SPP /A** **PR**

Part B SPP/APR Part B SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table

– Page

- 17 (OMB NO: 1820

- 0624 / Expiration Date: ) **Monitoring Priorities and Indicators Data Source and Measurement**  **Instructions for Indicators/Measurement** level.
1 6

. Percent of mediations held that resulted in me diation ag reements. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3(B)) **Data Source:** Data collected under IDEA section 618. **Me asurement:**  Percent = [(2.1(a)(i) + 2.1(b)(i)) divided by 2.1] times 100. Sampling is not allowed. Describe the results of the calculations and compare the results to t he target. States are not required to establish baseline or targets if the number of mediations is less than 10. In a reporting period when the number of mediations reaches ten or greater, develop baseline, targets and im provement activities, and report on them in the corresponding APR. States may

express their targets in a range, e.g., 75

- 85%. If the data reported in this indicator are not the same as the State’s data under IDEA section 618, explain. States are not required to report data at the LEA l evel.

## 2015 Part B

**– SPP /A** **PR**

Part B SPP/APR Part B SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table

– Page

- 18 (OMB NO: 1820

- 0624 / Expiration Date: ) INDICATOR 17

– STATE SYSTEMIC IMPROVEMENT PLAN

MONITORING PRIORITY

– GENERAL SUPERVISION

INDICATOR: The State’s SPP/APR includes a State Systemic Improvement Plan that meets the requirements set forth for this indicator.

MEASUREMENT: The St ate’s SPP/APR includes a comprehensive, multi

- ye ar State Systemic Improvement Plan, focused on improving results for student with disabilities, that includes the following components, as further defined below:
Phase I (which the State must include with its 2015 submission of its SPP/APR for FFY 2013):

a. Data Analysis; b. Identification of the Focus for Improvement;
c. Infrastructure to Support Improvement and Build Capacity; and d. Theory of Action.
Phase II (which, in addition to the Phase 1 content outlined above , the State must include with its 2016 submission of its SPP/APR for FFY 2014):

e. Infrastructure Development; f. Support for local educational agenc y ( LEA ) Implementation of Evidence

- Based Practices; and g. Evaluation Plan.
Phase III (which, in addition to the P hase I and Phase II content outlined above, the State must include with its 2017 submission of its SPP/APR for FFY 2015, its 2018 submission of its SPP/APR for FFY 2016, its 2019 submission of its SPP/APR for FFY 2017, and its 2020 submission of its SPP/AP R for FFY 2018):

h. Results of Ongoing Evaluation and Revisions to the SPP.
The State’s SPP/APR must include a State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) that is a comprehensive, am bitious yet achievable plan for improving results for students with disabilitie s. The SSIP must be a multi

- ye ar plan that the State develops in the two phases described below. The basis for this plan is a detailed data and infrastructure analysis that will guide the development of the strategies to increase the State’s capacity to structure and lead meaningful change in LEAs. In order to improve results, States must assess the capacity of their current infrastructure systems and their ability to enhance this infrastructure to increase the capacity of LEAs to implement, scale up, an d sustain evidence

- based practices that will result in improved student outcomes. The data and infrastructure analysis should use multiple data sources, including SPP/APR indicators and 618 State

- reported data, to identify systemic approaches that will le ad to improved results for students with disabilities across key

measures: performance on assessment, graduation with a regular diploma, and post

school outcomes. Wh ile the primary focus of SSIP is on improvement of student outcomes, the State must also address in its SSIP how the State will use its general supervision systems to improve implementation of the requirements of Part B of the IDEA. Phase I must focus on: 1) the collection and analysis of data and other information ; and 2) the identificatio n of evidence

- based practices. Phase II is an implementation plan to : 1) enhance and/or build the State’s infrastructure ; and 2) support the implementation of evidence

- based practices to improve results for students with disabilities.

## 2015 Part B

**– SPP /A** **PR**

Part B SPP/APR Part B SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table

– Page

- 19 (OMB NO: 1820

- 0624 / Expiration Date: ) For a suggested format and the evaluation criteria see www.W EBLINK

. Phase I: The SSIP submitted by States in the FFY 2013 SPP/APR, due February 2, 2015, must include detailed descriptions of these four key areas:
a. Data Analysis: A descri ption of how the State identified and analyzed key data, including data from SPP/APR indicators, to determine the areas for improvement. The description must include information about how the data were disaggregated in order to identify areas for improvem ent. In addition, the description must include any concerns about the quality of the data and how the State will address this, as well as methods and timelines to collect additional data that may be needed to inform areas for im provement. As part of its data analysis, the State should determine if there are any compliance issues that present barriers to achieving improved results for students with disabilities. b. Identification of the Focus for Improvement: A description of improvement strategies on whic h the State will focus, that will lead to a measurable student

- based result. The State must include in the description how the data analysis led to the identification of the area on which the State will focus . The State must demonstrate how addressing th is area of focus for improvement will build LEAs’ capacity to im prove the identified result for students with disabilities. (For example, the State might be working to im prove performance on reading assessments and the focus of improvement strategies woul d be im plem enting evidence

- based early literac y practices.)
c. Infrastructure to Support Improvement and Build Capacity: A description of how the State analyzed the capacity of its current system to support improvement and build capacity in LEAs to impleme nt, scale up, and sustain evidence

- based practices to improve results for students with disabilities, and the results of this analysis. State system components include: governance, fiscal, quality standards, professional development, data, technical ass istance, and accountability. The description must include the strengths of the system, how components of the s ystem are coordinated, and areas for improvement within and across components of the system. The description must also include an analysis of in itiatives in the State, including initiatives in general education and other areas beyond special education, which can have an impact on students with disabilities. The State must include in the description how decisions are made within the State system a nd the representatives (e.g. , agencies, positions, individuals) that must be involved in planning for systematic improvements in the State system. d. Theory of Action: Based on the data analysis and infrastructure analysis, the State must describe the genera l improvement strategies that will need to be carried out and the outcomes that will need to be me t to achieve the State

- identified, measurable improvement in results for students with disabilities. The State must include in the description the changes in the State system, LEAs, and school and provider practices that must occur to achieve the State

- identified, measurable improvement in results for students with disabilities. States should consider developing a logic model that shows the relationship betwe en the activities and the outcomes that the State expects to achieve over a multi

- year period. Phase II: The multi

- ye ar plan submitted by the State in the FFY 2014 APR, due no later than February 1, 2016, must, in addition to the content described above for Phase I, include the steps needed to implement the SSIP, including identification of the improvement strategies, mechanisms and resources for implementing the improvement activities, and the timelines for beginning and completing the improvement strate gies. Finally, ongoing formative evaluation must be addressed so the plan can be adjusted as necessary. In addition to submitting the item s below, the State may also amend previously

- submitted information to improve its accuracy. e. Infrastructure Dev elopment: The SSIP must include a plan to implement needed State system im provements to enable the State to build the capacity of LEAs to implement and scale up evidence

based practices to advance the State

- identified, measurable improvement in results fo r students with disabilities. The plan must include how the State will align its improvement work with other initiatives in the State, including initiatives in general education and other areas beyond special education, and leverage resources from these i nitiatives. The plan must also include improvement activities that will be taken, who will implement the activities and the resources that will be used to implement them, how the expected outcomes of these activities will be measured, and timelines for co mp leting the activities.

## 2015 Part B

**– SPP /A** **PR**

Part B SPP/APR Part B SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table

– Page

- 20 (OMB NO: 1820

- 0624 / Expiration Date: ) f. Support for LEA Implementation of Evidence

- Based Practices: The SSIP must include a plan to support LEAs in identifying and implementing the evidence

- based practices that will result in changes in school and provider pract ices to advance the State

- identified, measurable improvement in results for students with disabilities. The plan must describe how the State will align its support for LEAs with other initiatives in the State, including initiatives in general education an d other areas beyond special education, and leverage resources from these initiatives. The plan must also include activities that will be taken, who will implement the activities and the resources that will be used to implement them, how the expected outc om es of these activities will be measured, and timelines for completing the activities. The State must include in the plan how the State will support LEAs in scaling up and sustaining the im plem entation of the evidence

- based practices once they have been im plem ented with fidelity. g. Evaluation Plan: A description of how the State will evaluate the implementation of its SSIP. The plan mu st include the methods that the State will use to collect and analyze data related to specific activities and outcomes of the SSIP. The description must also include how the State will use the results of the evaluation to examine the effectiveness of the implementation of the plan and the progress toward achieving intended outcomes, and make modifications to the SSIP as necessary. Phase III: The multi

- ye ar plan must include t he results of its ongoing evaluation of the strategies included in the SSIP, including the extent to which the State has implemented them, the extent to which the State has made progress toward and/or me t the established goals, and any revisions the State has made in the SSIP in response to its evaluation.