Table 3.4: Participation Rate for Students with IEPs by Grade Level (Indicator 3B): FFY2012 FFY2012 (2012-2013) Grades 3-5 Grades 6-8 Grades 9-12 Total # # # # a # of Students with IEPs Enrolled in Assessed Grades ELA 39,043 39,939 11,758 90,740 Math 39,055 39,972 11,772 90,799 b # of Students with IEPs Assessed ELA 38,701 39,320 11,100 89,121 Math 38,769 39,383 11,196 89,348 c # of Students with IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations ELA 4,675 3,775 926 9,376 Math 4,182 3,649 999 8,830 d # of Students with IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations ELA 29,977 31,805 9,277 71,059 Math 30,545 31,874 9,291 71,710 e # of Students with IEPs in alternate assessment against grade-level standards ELA 5 9 5 19 Math 3 13 6 22 f # of Students with IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate academic achievement standards ELA 3,971 3,648 883 8,502 Math 3,954 3,748 881 8,583 Source: Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS).
# of Students with IEPs Scoring Proficient or Above in Alternate Assessment N/A 0 0 N/A 2 2 Total # of Students with IEPs Scoring Proficient or Above 21,772 4,745 26,517 15,872 4,019 19,891 Total # of Students with IEPs Assessed 71,059 17,897 165 89,121 71,710 17,483 155 89,348 % of Students with IEPs Scoring Proficient or Above on Statewide Assessment 30.6% 26.5% 29.8% 22.1% 23.0% 22.3% CPI 63.4 80.4 66.8 52.7 76.9 57.4 Source: Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) and Massachusetts Student Information Management System (SIMS). 3.8: Proficiency Rate for Students with IEPs in Statewide Assessments: FFY2012 FFY2012 (2012-2013) Grades 3-5 Grades 6-8 Grades 9-12 Total # # # # a # of Students with IEPs Scoring Proficient or Above in Regular Assessment with Accommodations ELA 5,486 9,733 6,553 21,772 Math 7,003 4,974 3,895 15,872 b # of Students with IEPs Scoring Proficient or in Regular Assessment without Accommodations ELA 1,867 2,104 774 4,745 Math 2,030 1,350 630 4,010 c # of Students with IEPs Scoring Proficient or Above in Alternate Assessment against Grade Level Standards ELA 0 0 0 0 Math 0 0 0 0 d # of Students with IEPs Scoring Proficient or Above in Alternate Assessment against Alternate Academic Achievement Standards ELA 0 0 0 0 Math 0 0 0 0 e Total # of Students with IEPs Scoring Proficient or Above ELA 7,353 11,837 7,327 26,517 Math 9,036 6,327 4,528 19,891
FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target 2012 (2012-2013) 0% Actual Target Data for FFY2012 (2012-2013): Actual Target Data for FFY2012 Total Number of Districts Number of Districts with Disproportionate Representation Number of Districts with Disproportionate Representation of Racial and Ethnic Groups that was the Result of Inappropriate Identification Percent of Districts 2012 (2012-2013) 400 0 0 0% District level data for Indicator 9 are reported at . Discussion of Improvement Activities and Explanation of Slippage, if the State did not meet its target, that occurred for FFY2012 (2012-2013): Massachusetts used the October 1, 2012 enrollment and child count data to calculate disproportionality in the FFY2012 APR. In this reporting period, one out of 400 districts were excluded from the numerator as a result of the minimum n size requirement; all districts were included in the denominator. Using the measurement criteria establish above, MASSDE determined that zero districts met the data threshold for disproportionate over-representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services. MASSDE was therefore, not required to engage in the second step of the analysis and did not review any district’s policies, practices, and procedures to assess possible inappropriate identification. In FFY2012, MASSDE met its measurable and rigorous target. For the past four reporting cycles, MASSDE has identified an average of approximately one district each year as meeting the threshold for disproportionate over-representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and services. Looking longitudinally, MASSDE reached its measurable and rigorous target each year. Table 9.1: Data Results for Disproportionate Representation of Racial and Ethnic Groups in Special Education That Was the Result of Inappropriate Identification: FFY2009-FFY2012 Fiscal Year Number of Districts with Disproportionate Representation of Racial and Ethnic Groups in Special Education Number of Districts with Disproportionate Representation of Racial and Ethnic Groups in Special Education That Was the Result of Inappropriate Identification Percent of Districts 2012 0 0 0% 2011 2 0 0% 2010 0 0 0% 2009 1 0 0% Improvement Activities
in column (a). If the number in column (b) exceeds column (a) the column (b) cell will turn red. This worksheet calculates the percent of noncompliance corrected within one year of identification. The self-calculating cells are highlighted in gray. Be careful not to enter data into these cells because the calculations will not work properly. Indicator/Indicator Clusters General Supervision System Components # of LEAs Issued Findings in FFY 2011 (7/1/11 to 6/30/12) (a) # of Findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2011 (7/1/11 to 6/30/12) (b) # of Findings of noncompliance from (a) for which correction was verified no later than one year from identification 1. Percent of with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma. Monitoring Activities: Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, Visits, or Other 2. Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high school. 14. Percent of youth who had IEPs, are no longer in secondary school and who have been competitively employed, enrolled in some type of postsecondary school or training program, or both, within one year of leaving high school. Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings 3. Participation and performance of children with disabilities on statewide assessments. Monitoring Activities: Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, Visits, or Other 6 6 6 7. Percent of preschool children with IEPs who demonstrated improved outcomes.
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. Monitoring Activities: Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, Visits, or Other 6 6 5 Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings 13. Percent of youth aged 16 and above with 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 service needs. Monitoring Activities: APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other 11 11 11 Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings 1 1 1 Other areas of noncompliance: Faculty, staff and administration Monitoring Activities: Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, Visits, or Other 10 10 8 Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings 1 1 1