Welcome to SEAP - MDE...4A. Discipline-SpEd Students MDE/SEAP Compliance 4B. Discipline-SpEd...

W E L C O M E TO S E A P

J a n u a r y 2 4 , 2 0 2 0

State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report

Carolyn J. Cherry | Special Education Supervisor, Results and Improvement

January 24, 2020

Today’s Process

We will provide:

An overview of key points of the SPP/APR

A review the indicator measures Indicators 1-17

Recommended targets for each indicator for FFY 2019

Provide opportunities for questions, dialogue and general feedback

Annual Performance Report (APR)

• Data is reported as Federal Fiscal Year (FFY)• Data reported in February 2020 is for FFY 2018

• Some data reported is ‘lag year’ (2017-18)• Indicators 1, 2, 4

• Some data reported is ‘current year’ (2018-19)• All other indicators

Key Points Continued

• Comparison of this year’s performance to last year’s performance isthe basis for determining progress or slippage for each indicator.

• Comparing this year’s performance to the annual target set in theState Performance Plan is the basis for determining whether thetarget has been met for each indicator.

Key Met Target, No SlippageDid not Meet Target, No SlippageDid not Meet Target, Slippage

Slippage

Definition: A worsening from the previous data AND a failure to meet the target. The worsening also needs to meet certain thresholds to be considered slippage.

• For a “large” percentage (10% or above), it is considered slippage if the worsening is morethan 1 percentage point. For example:

o It is not slippage if the FFY 2018 data for Indicator X are 32% and the FFY 2017 data were 32.9%.

o It is slippage if the FFY 2018 data for Indicator X are 32% and the FFY 2017 data were 33.1%.

• For a “small” percentage (less than 10%), it is considered slippage if the worsening is morethan 0.1 percentage point. For example:

o It is not slippage if the FFY 2018 data for Indicator Y are 5.1% and the FFY 2017 data were 5%.

o It is slippage if the FFY 2018 data for Indicator Y are 5.1% and the FFY 2017 data were 4.9%.

Who Sets the Targets?Indicator Target Setter(s) Indicator Type

1. Graduation ESSA Title I Results2. Dropout MDE/SEAP Results3B. Assessment-Participation ESSA Title I Results3A/3C. Assessment AYP/Proficiency MDE/SEAP Results4A. Discipline-SpEd Students MDE/SEAP Compliance4B. Discipline-SpEd Students by Race/Ethnicity OSEP Compliance5. Educational Environment 6-21 MDE/SEAP Results6. Educational Environments 3-5 MDE/SEAP/ICC Results7. Early Childhood Outcomes MDE/SEAP/ICC Results8. Parent Satisfaction MDE/SEAP Results9. Disproportionate Representation: Race/Ethnicity in SpEd OSEP Compliance10. Disproportionate Representation: Race/Ethnicity in 6 Disabilities OSEP Compliance11. Evaluation Timelines OSEP Compliance12. Part C to Part B Transition OSEP Compliance13. Transition Goals OSEP Compliance14. Post-School Follow-up MDE/SEAP Results15. Hearing Requests to Resolution MDE/SEAP Compliance16. Mediations to Agreement MDE/SEAP Compliance17. State Systemic Improvement Plan MDE/Stakeholders Results

OSEP Changes for FFY 2018 (this year)

• OSEP added one year of reporting to this SPP/APR‘package’—FFY 2019 to be reported February 2021

• OSEP has not yet released the new SPP/APR package

• Final Measurement Table, the ‘rules’ for how states areexpected to report data, was published this fall.

Indicator 1 – Historical Data

FFY(lag yr data)

2011(10-11)

2012(11-12)

2013(12-13)

2014(13-14)

2015(14-15)

2016(15-16)

2017(16-17)

baseline

Target ≥ 85.00% 90.0% 90.0% 90.0% 90.0% 90.0% 90.0%

Data 56.2% 56.7% 58.2% 58.4% 61.1% 60.8% 61.2%

*Baseline changed in 2011 to reflect OSEP direction to use Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR)calculation; baseline changed in FFY 2017 to reflect MN’s updated ESSA graduation calculation.

Minnesota Graduation Rates for Youth with IEPs: 4-Year Cohort2012 to 2018

did not meet target, no slippage

Indicator 1 Targets

FFY(lag yr data)

2013(12-13)

2014(13-14)

2015(14-15)

2016(15-16)

2017(16-17)

2018(17-18)

2019(18-19)

Target ≥ 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%

Indicator 2

Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high school. (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))

• OPTION 1 Data Source:• Same data as used for reporting to the Department under IDEA section 618.• Measurement: States must report a percentage using the number of youth with

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

• OPTION 2 Data Source:• Use same data source and measurement that the State used to report in its FFY

2010 APR that was submitted on February 1, 2012.*lag year data 12

FFY(lag yr data)

2011(10-11)baseline

2012(11-12)

2013(12-13)

2014(13-14)

2015(14-15)

2016(15-16)

2017(16-17)

Target ≤ 4.30% 4.30% 4.30% 4.30% 4.25% 4.25% 4.20%

Data 4.20% 4.40% 4.13% 4.16% 4.34% 4.60% 4.80%

Minnesota Dropout Rates for Youth with IEPs2012 to 2018

Indicator 2 Targets

FFY(lag yr data)

2013(12-13)

2014(13-14)

2015(14-15)

2016(15-16)

2017(16-17)

2018(17-18)

2019(18-19)

Target ≤ 4.30% 4.30% 4.25% 4.25% 4.20% 4.15% 4.15%

Indicator 3

Participation and performance of children with IEPs on statewide assessments:

A. “Reserved”

B. Participation rate for children with IEPs.

C. Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level, modifiedand alternate academic achievement standards. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A))

*current year data16

Indicator 3B Data – FFY 2018

Academic Area

Number of Children with

Number of Children with IEPs

ParticipatingTarget Data

Reading 72,866 69,079 95.00% 94.78%

Math 72,302 68,217 95.00% 94.35%

Indicator 3B—Historical DataParticipation Rates for Students with IEPs-Reading

Indicator 3B—Historical Data Participation Rates for Students with IEPs-Math

Indicator 3B TargetsParticipation Rates for Students with IEPs

FFY 2013(13-14)

2014(14-15)

2015(15-16)

2016(16-17)

2017(17-18)

2018(18-19)

2019(19-20)

Reading 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0%

Math 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0%

Indicator 3C Reading Proficiency Data – FFY 2018

GradeChildren with IEPs who

received a valid score and a proficiency was assigned

Number of Children with IEPs Proficient Targets Data

GR 3 10,062 3,225 38.00% 32.05%

GR 4 10,336 3,089 35.00% 29.89%

GR 5 10,359 3,699 40.00% 35.71%

GR 6 9,778 2,979 35.00% 30.47%

GR 7 9,345 2,387 28.00% 25.54%

GR 8 8,937 2,299 27.00% 25.72%

GR 10 7,913 2,207 27.00% 27.89% 21

Indicator 3C Targets-Reading

FFY2013(13-14)

baseline

2014(14-15)

2015(15-16)

2016(16-17)

2017(17-18)

2018(18-19)

2019(19-20)

A ≥Grade 3

34.12% 34.0% 35.0% 36.0% 37.0% 38.0% 38.0%

B ≥Grade 4

31.27% 31.0% 32.0% 33.0% 34.0% 35.0% 35.0%

C ≥Grade 5

40.76% 36.0% 37.0% 38.0% 39.0% 40.0% 40.0%

D ≥Grade 6

33.86% 31.0% 32.0% 33.0% 34.0% 35.0% 35.0%

E ≥Grade 7

32.49% 24.0% 25.0% 26.0% 27.0% 28.0% 28.0%

F ≥Grade 8

31.24% 23.0% 24.0% 25.0% 26.0% 27.0% 27.0%

G ≥HS (10)

30.54% 23.0% 24.0% 25.0% 26.0% 27.0% 27.0% 22

Indicator 3C Math Proficiency Data – FFY 2018

GradeChildren with IEPs who

received a valid score and a proficiency was assigned

Number of Children with IEPs Proficient Targets Data

GR 3 10,056 4,174 50.00% 41.51%

GR 4 10,357 4,022 48.00% 38.83%

GR 5 10,354 2,771 35.00% 26.76%

GR 6 9,772 2,362 32.00% 24.17%

GR 7 9,316 1,881 25.00% 20.19%

GR 8 8,888 1,999 27.00% 22.49%

GR 11 7,131 1,016 22.00% 14.25% 23

Indicator 3C Targets-Math

FFY2013(13-14)

baseline

2014(14-15)

2015(15-16)

2016(16-17)

2017(17-18)

2018(18-19)

2019(19-20)

A ≥Grade 3

48.01% 46.0% 47.0% 48.0% 49.0% 50.0% 50.0%

B ≥Grade 4

44.22% 44.0% 45.0% 46.0% 47.0% 48.0% 48.0%

C ≥Grade 5

33.73% 31.0% 32.0% 33.0% 34.0% 35.0% 35.0%

D ≥Grade 6

28.03% 28.0% 29.0% 30.0% 31.0% 32.0% 32.0%

E ≥Grade 7

24.60% 21.0% 22.0% 23.0% 24.0% 25.0% 25.0%

F ≥Grade 8

25.25% 23.0% 24.0% 25.0% 26.0% 27.0% 27.0%

G ≥HS (11)

16.05% 15.0% 17.0% 19.0% 20.0% 22.0% 22.0%24

Indicator 5

Percent of children with IEPs aged 6 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; andC. In separate schools, residential facilities, or

homebound/hospital placements.(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A))

FFY 2005(05-06)

2010(10-11)

2011(11-12)

2012(12-13)

2013(13-14)

2014(14-15)

2015(15-16)

2016(16-17)

2017(17-18)

ATarget ≥ --- 62.50% 62.50% 62.50% 62.50% 60.52% 61.00% 61.50% 61.50%

Data 60.40% 61.30% 61.60% 62.00% 62.12% 60.52%baseline

60.45% 60.71% 60.91%

BTarget ≤ --- 8.80% 8.80% 8.80% 8.80% 9.50% 9.50% 9.50% 9.50%

Data 9.9%baseline

10.30% 10.30% 10.30% 10.14% 10.09% 10.08% 10.07% 10.04%

C Target ≤ --- 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00%

Data 4.7%baseline

4.20% 4.30% 4.10% 4.24% 4.26% 4.15% 4.11% 4.17%26

Indicator 5 Data – FFY 2018

Number of children with IEPs aged 6-21

served

Total number of children with IEPs

aged 6-21Target Data

A. Regular class 80percent or more 75,291 123,101 62.50% 61.16%

B. Regular class less than40 percent 12,287 123,101 9.50% 9.98%

C. Separate schools,residential facilities, orhomebound/hospitalplacements

5,082 123,101 4.00% 4.13%

Indicator 5 Targets

FFY2013

(13-14)2014

(14-15)2015

(15-16)2016

(16-17)2017

(17-18)2018

(18-19)2019

(19-20)

Target A ≥ 62.5% 60.52% 61.0% 61.5% 62.0% 62.5% 62.5%

Target B ≤ 8.8% 9.5% 9.5% 9.5% 9.5% 9.5% 9.5%

Target C ≤ 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%

Indicator 6

Percent of children aged 3 through 5 with IEP’s attending a:

• Regular early childhood program and receiving themajority of special education and related services in theregular early childhood program; and

• Separate special education class, separate school orresidential facility (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A))

FFY2011

(11-12)baseline

(12-13)

(13-14)

(14-15)

(15-16)

(16-17)

(17-18)

A Target ≥ --- 52.00% 53.00% 53.30% 53.60% 53.90% 54.20%

A Data 51.40% 52.30% 52.98% 55.17% 56.66% 58.20% 59.32%

B Target ≤ --- 19.00% 18.50% 18.40% 18.30% 18.20% 18.10%

B Data 19.90% 18.20% 18.06% 16.87% 16.63% 15.07% 14.42%30

Part B Indicators 6A and 6B: FFY 2011 – FFY 2018

Number of children with IEPs aged 3 through 5

attending

Total number of children with IEPs aged 3 through 5

Target Data

A. A regular early childhood programand receiving the majority of specialeducation and related services in theregular early childhood program.

10,697 18,353 54.50% 58.28%

B. Separate special education class,separate school or residential facility. 2,771 18,353 18.00% 15.10%

Indicator 6: Targets

FFY 2013(13-14)

2014(14-15)

2015(15-16)

2016(16-17)

2017(17-18)

2018(18-19)

2019(19-20)

Target A ≥ 53.0% 53.3% 53.6% 53.9% 54.2% 54.5% 54.5%

Target B ≤ 18.5% 18.4% 18.3% 18.2% 18.1% 18.0% 18.0%

Indicator 7

Percent of preschool children aged 3 through 5 with IEP’s who demonstrate improved:A. Positive social-emotional skills (including social

relationships);B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early

language/communication and early literacy); andC. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs.

(20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))

Indicator 7A-Positive Social Emotional Skills: Historical Data

blank FFY 2011(11-12)

2012(12-13)

2013(13-14)

baseline

2014(14-15)

2015(15-16)

2016(16-17)

2017(17-18)

A1 Target ≥ 80.00% 81.00% 71.35% 71.40% 71.50% 71.40% 71.80%

A1 Data 75.50% 71.90% 71.35% 69.58% 68.84% 69.58% 69.08%

A2 Target ≥ 51.50% 52.00% 56.93% 58.00% 59.00% 58.00% 61.00%

A2 Data 55.60% 54.70% 56.93% 55.32% 55.46% 55.32% 53.19%35

Indicator 7B-Acquire and Use Knowledge and Skills: Historical Data

blank FFY 2011

(11-12)2012

(12-13)

2013(13-14)

baseline

2014(14-15)

2015(15-16)

2016(16-17)

2017(17-18)

B1 Target ≥ 81.50% 82.00% 71.73% 71.80% 71.90% 71.80% 72.20%

B1 Data 75.20% 72.90% 71.73% 72.51% 71.96% 72.51% 69.54%

B2 Target ≥ 53.50% 54.00% 54.76% 54.90% 55.10% 54.90% 55.50%

B2 Data 55.70% 53.80% 54.76% 55.04% 54.70% 55.04% 51.94%36

Indicator 7C-Take Action to Meet Needs: Historical Data

blank FFY 2011

(11-12)2012

(12-13)

2013(13-14)

baseline

2014(14-15)

2015(15-16)

2016(16-17)

2017(17-18)

C1 Target ≥ 81.50% 82.00% 72.56% 72.60% 72.60% 72.60% 73.00 %

C1 Data 75.00% 73.10% 72.56% 70.98% 70.98% 70.98% 70.06%

C2 Target ≥ 69.50% 70.00% 66.46% 66.50% 66.50% 66.50% 66.80%

C2 Data 65.70% 65.10% 66.46% 64.34% 64.34% 64.34% 62.78%37

Child Outcomes Data for 2018-2019

• Developmental of children who entered or exited Part C or Preschoolspecial education between 7/1/2018 – 6/30/2019

• Allowable reporting methods

• Child Outcome Summary Ratings (COSF)

• Child by child

• Batch Upload

• Item level assessment data through batch upload

Benefits of item-level assessment submission option

• Assessment data measures progress on three federal child outcomes andthe Minnesota Early Childhood Indicators of Progress (ECIPs)

• Same methodology used by Voluntary Prekindergarten and SchoolReadiness Plus

• Less subjective than COSF ratings

• Can measure progress of IEP goals that are aligned to ECIPs

• Data can be used to strengthen local programs

• Included in dashboards that monitor the state’s investment for childrenwith high needs

Statewide shift to item-level requirement

• 2019-2020: Item level data is supported and encouraged for Preschool and Part C

• 2020-2021: Item level data will be supported and encouraged for Part C and stronglyencouraged for Preschool

• 2021-2022:

o Item level data will be encouraged for Part C

o Item level data will be required for most preschool students

o Exceptions: preschoolers with significant delays such that progress can not bemeasured using one of the KEP tools or children participating in inclusive settingsthat use a Parent Aware approved tool that is not also a KEP tool

Impact on Minnesota’s reported performance

• Data included 6,493 children who exited preschool special education in FFY 2018.

• Outcome data for 618 of those children was reported using the item level option.

Outcome 1Summary 1

Outcome 1Summary 2

Outcome 2Summary 1

Outcome 2Summary 2

Outcome 3Summary 1

Outcome 3Summary 2

COSF 66.8% 53.4% 69.2% 52.1% 67.0% 60.9%

Item-Level 58.9% 32.5% 44.3% 2.1% 73.1% 68.7%

B-7A Summary Statements: Positive Social Relationships

Results Target

1. The percent of preschool children whosubstantially increased their rate of growthby the time they turned 6 years of age orexited the program.

65.9%Slippage

72.0%Not Met

2. The percent of preschool children who werefunctioning within age expectations by thetime they turned 6 years of age or exited theprogram.

51.4%Slippage

62.0%Not Met

B-7A: Positive Social Emotional Skills by Federal Fiscal Year

B-7B Summary Statements: Acquire & Use Knowledge and Skills

Results Target

1. The percent of preschool children whosubstantially increased their rate of growth bythe time they turned 6 years of age or exitedthe program.

67.8%Slippage

72.4%Not Met

2. The percent of preschool children who werefunctioning within age expectations in by thetime they turned 6 years of age or exited theprogram.

49.9%Slippage

55.7%Not Met

B-7B: Acquisition and Use of Knowledge and Skills by Federal Fiscal Year

B-7C Summary Statements: Taking Action to Meet Needs

Results Target

1. The percent of preschool children whosubstantially increased their rate of growth bythe time they turned 6 years of age or exited theprogram.

67.6%Slippage

73.2%Not Met

2. The percent of preschool children who werefunctioning within age expectations by the timethey turned 6 years of age or exited theprogram.

61.7%Slippage

66.9%Not Met

B-7C: Action to Meet Needs by Federal Fiscal Year

IndicatorsIndicator Measure Target Level Indicator Progress Target Data

Target A1 ≥ Greater Than Expected Progress 72.0% 65.93%

Target A2 ≥ Exit At Age Level 62.0% 51.38%

Target B1 ≥ Greater Than Expected Progress 72.4% 67.84%

Target B2 ≥ Exit At Age Level 55.7% 49.85%

Target C1 ≥ Greater Than Expected Progress 73.2% 67.64%

Target C2 ≥ Exit At Age Level 66.9% 61.65%

Indicator 7 –Targets

Indicator Measure Target FFY

2013(13-14)

baseline

2014(14-15)

2015(15-16)

2016(16-17)

2017(17-18)

2018(18-19)

2019(19-20)

s Target A1 ≥Greater Than

Expected Progress71.4% 71.4% 71.5% 71.6% 71.8% 72.0% 72.0%

Target A2 ≥ Exit At Age Level 58.0% 58.0% 59.0% 60.0% 61.0% 62.0% 62.0%

Target B1 ≥Greater Than

Target B2 ≥ Exit At Age Level 54.9% 54.9% 55.1% 55.3% 55.5% 55.7% 55.7%

Target C1 ≥Greater Than

Target C2 ≥ Exit At Age Level 66.5% 66.5% 66.6% 66.7% 66.8% 66.9% 66.9%

Indicator 8

Percent of parents with a child receiving special education services who report that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities.

((20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A))

FFY2007

(07-08)baseline

2008(08-09)

2009(09-10)

2010(10-11)

2011(11-12)

2012(12-13)

2013(13-14)

2014(14-15)

2015(15-16)

2016(16-17)

2017(17-18)

Target ≥ 68.0% 69.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 71.0% 71.0% 71.5% 71.5%

Data 71.3% 67.6% 64.3% 66.0% 66.3% 70.6% 64.3% 69.3% 64.5% 71.9% 70.2%

• Number of sampled parents = 2,481• Total number of respondent parents of children with

disabilities = 503• Number of respondent parents who report schools facilitated

parent involvement = 354=70.38% (did not meet target, no slippage)

• Response rate = 20.27%• Districts included in the survey = 151

Indicator 8 Targets

FFY2013

(13-14)2014

(14-15)2015

(15-16)2016

(16-17)2017

(17-18)2018

(18-19)2019

(19-20)

Target ≥ 70.0% 70.0% 71.0% 71.5% 72.0% 72.0% 72.0%

Indicator 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 education within one year of leaving high school.

B. Enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within oneyear of leaving high school.

C. Enrolled in higher education or in some other postsecondaryeducation or training program; or competitively employed or in someother employment within one year of leaving high school.

((20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))

blank FFY 2009(09-10)

2010(10-11)

2011(11-12)

2012(12-13)

2013(13-14)

2014(14-15)

2015(15-16)

2016(16-17)

2017(17-18)

ATarget ≥ 29.10% 31.10% 32.10% 23.39% 25.00% 25.40% 25.80% 26.2%

AData 29.1% 33.00% 26.70% 32.40% 23.39%

baseline29.31% 24.86% 23.24% 27.14%

BTarget ≥ 61.90% 62.90% 63.90% 66.00% 66.00% 66.40% 66.80% 67.2%

BData 61.90%

baseline62.80% 65.80% 66.00% 66.63% 70.53% 69.25% 61.71% 65.67%

CTarget ≥ 77.70% 77.90% 77.90% 77.90% 78.30% 78.70% 79.10% 79.5%

CData 77.60%

baseline79.70% 79.50% 84.80% 80.67% 84.54% 86.78% 81.14% 80.05%

Indicator 14 – FFY 2018 Data

blank 2018-19 Data

A Enrolled in higher education within one year of leaving high school.

A 24.49% (did not meet target, slippage)

B Enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within one year of leaving high school.

B (A) 24.5% + 34.2% = 58.75% (did not meet target, slippage)

Enrolled in higher education or in some other postsecondary education or training program; or competitively employed or in some other employment within one year of leaving high school.

(A) 24.5% + 34.2% = (B) 58.7% + 14.9% = 73.62% (C)(did not met target, slippage)

Indicator 14 Targets

FFY 2013(13-14)

2014(14-15)

2015(15-16)

2016(16-17)

2017(17-18)

2018(18-19)

2019(19-20)

Target A ≥ 23.39% 25.0% 25.4% 25.8% 26.2% 26.6% 26.6%

Target B ≥ 66.0% 66.0% 66.4% 66.8% 67.2% 67.6% 67.6%

Target C ≥ 77.9% 78.3% 78.7% 79.1% 79.5% 79.9% 79.9%

Indicator 4A

Rates of suspension and expulsion:

• 4A: Percent of districts that have a significant discrepancy inthe rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10days in a school year for children with IEPs…

Data is lagged by one year per OSEP’s directiveDiscipline data for the 2016-17 school year is reported for

indicators 4A and 4B for FFY 2017 (this year)

*lag year data58

Indicator 4A Minimum N-size and Threshold

• Minimum N-size• At least 10 students with IEPsNo longer consider number of disciplinary incidents to be

in the ‘pool’ of districtsAny district that disciplines one or more students for a

total of 10 or more days is included in the calculation• Threshold

• 1.75 SD ≥ the state rate of 0.6% (stays the same)59

Indicator 4A – Historical Data

FFY* 2005old baseline

2010(09-10)

2011(10-11)

2012 (11-12)

2013 (12-13)

2014 (13-14)

2015 (14-15)

2016 (15-16)new baseline

2017 (16-17)

Target ≤ --- 1.40% 1.40% 1.40% 1.40% 1.40% 1.35% 4.43% 4.20%

Data 1.30% 1.00% 1.90% 1.20% .83% 1.46% 1.01% 4.43% 5.01%

*lag year data60

Indicator 4A Data – FFY 2018

• Number of districts in the State = 494

• Number of districts in the State with the minimum N-size of atleast 10 Students with IEPs = 476

• Number of districts that have a significant discrepancy = 26

26/476= 5.5% (did not meet target, no slippage)

16 metro area districts, 10 districts outside metro14 Charters (throughout the state)23 of the 26 districts also meet data threshold for indicator 4B

Indicator 4A Targets

FFY(lag year data)

2013(12-13)

2014(13-14)

2015(14-15)

2016(15-16)

2017(16-17)

2018(17-18)

2019(18-19)

Target ≤ 1.40% 1.40% 1.40% 4.43% 4.20% 4.00% 4.00%

Indicator 4B

Rates of suspension and expulsion:

Percent of districts that have: (a) a significant discrepancy, by race or ethnicity, in the rate or suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs; and (b) policies, procedures or practices that contribute to the significant discrepancy and do not comply with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports and procedural safeguards.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A); 1412(a)(22))

*lag year data

Indicator 4B – Historical Data

FFY(lag yr data)

2010(09-10)

2011(10-11)

2012 (11-12)

2013 (12-13)

2014 (13-14)

2015 (14-15)

2016 (15-16)

baseline

2017 (16-17)

Target 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Data 0.40% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Indicator 4B Data Breakdown FFY 2018

• Of the 54, 8 were ChartersThe majority of charter schools were identified for only one area

10 districts met threshold for multiple racial/ethnic groups

• 28 metro districts, 26 outside metro/greater Minnesota• Number of Districts identified for discipline by race:

• 12 for American Indian students• 22 for Black students• 12 for Hispanic students• 11 for Two or More Races students• 11 for White students• 0 for Asian and Native Pacific Islander students

MDE Process

• Calculates ratios based uponyear-end discipline rates

• List of districts that meetdata thresholds is forwardedto the Division ofCompliance and Assistance

Division of Special Education

Division of Compliance and Assistance

• Reviews monitoring compliancedata to determine whetherdistricts are using inappropriatepractices

Indicators 9 and 10

• Indicator 9: Percent of districts with disproportionate representationof racial and ethnic groups in special education and related servicesthat is the result of inappropriate identification.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(C))

• Indicator 10: Percent of districts with disproportionaterepresentation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disabilitycategories that is the result of inappropriate identification.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(C))

Indicators 9 and 10 Overview

• Racial Proportions in Special Ed due to inappropriate practices

• Quantitative data + compliance data

• Comparisons

Each racial/ethnic group is compared with the subtotal of all other races

• Calculations• Risk ratios• Alternate risk ratios• Weighted risk ratios

Indicators 9 and 10 Comparison

• Minimum N-size of 20students with IEPs in theracial/ethnic group of interest

• Risk ratio and weighted riskratio are both greater than orequal to 2.8

• Alternate ratio used if districtdoes not meet minimum cellsize

Indicator 9 Indicator 10• Minimum N-size of 20 students with

IEPs in the racial/ethnic group ofinterest

• The N-size for each racial/ethnicgroup applies in each of thecategories: ASD, DCD, E/BD, OHD,SLD, SLI

• Risk ratio and weighted risk ratio areboth greater than or equal to 3.0

• Alternate ratio used if district doesnot meet minimum cell size

MDE Processes

Division of Special Education

• Calculates ratios based uponDec. 1 child count and fallenrollment, usingrace/ethnicity as reported inMARSS

• List of districts that meet datathresholds is forwarded to theDivision of Compliance andAssistance

• Reviews monitoring compliancedata to determine whetherdistricts are using inappropriatepractices

Definition of RiskWhat percentage of students from a specific racial/ethnic group receive

special education for a particular disability?

Risk Ratio

Definition of Risk RatioWhat is a specific racial/ethnic group’s risk of receiving special education

for a particular disability as compared to the risk for all other students?

Calculating the Risk Ratio

Risk Ratio

Risk Group ARisk Group Non-A

Risk Ratio Example: White ASD

White Students

• 140 white students with AutismSpectrum Disorders (ASD)

• 6282 white total studentenrollment

• Risk = 140/6282 = .0223

Comparison Group

• 39 “other race” students withAutism Spectrum Disorders (ASD)

• 5309 “other race” total studentenrollment

• Risk = 39/5309 = .0073

Risk Ratio: .0223/.0073 = 3.05

Interpretation

• White students are 3.06 times more likely to beidentified as having ASD than students of all otherraces

Ratio of 2.0 = group is 2 times more likely

Ratio of 0.5 = group is half as likely

Other Ratios

• Weighted Risk Ratio: adjusts for statewidedemographics

• Alternate Risk Ratio: used when there are not enoughstudents of other races within a district to make acomparison

• Statewide data used for comparison

Indicator 9 and 10 – Historical Data

Indicator 9FFY

2005(05-06)

baseline

2010(10-11)

2011(11-12)

2012 (12-13)

2013 (13-14)

2014 (14-15)

2015 (15-16)

2016 (16-17)

2017 (17-18)

Target 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Data 1.3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Indicator 10FFY

2005(05-06)

baseline

2010(10-11)

2011(11-12)

2012 (12-13)

2013 (13-14)

2014 (14-15)

2015(15-16)

2016 (16-17)

2017 (17-18)

Target 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Data 4.3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%77

Indicator 9 – FFY 2018 Results

• 4 districts met data threshold in 2018-19

4 in Greater Minnesota3 Traditional Districts, 1 CharterAll 4 met the rate threshold for only Overall IdentificationNo districts identified as having inappropriate practices

(met target, no slippage)

Indicator 10 – FFY 2018 Results

• 18 districts met data threshold 11 Traditional Districts, 7 Charter Schools 1 Charter met for more than 1 category

• No districts had inappropriate practices(met target, no slippage)

Disability # of Districts

ASD 5DCD 1EBD 2OHD 2SLD 10

Race/Ethnicity # of DistrictsAmerican Indian 1

Asian 0Black 4

Hawaiian/Pac. Is. 0Hispanic 8

Multiracial 0White 7 79

Indicators 4B, 9 and 10 Targets

• Remains at 0%• Set by OSEP

FFY2013

(13-14)2014

(14-15)2015

(15-16)2016

(16-17)2017

(17-18)2018

(18-19)2019

(19-20)

Target ≥ 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Indicator 11

Percent of children who were evaluated within 60 days of receiving parental consent for initial evaluation or, if the State establishes a timeframe within which the evaluation must be conducted, within that timeframe.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))

FFY2006

(06-07)baseline

2010(10-11)

2011(11-12)

2012(12-13)

2013(13-14)

2014(14-15)

2015(15-16)

2016(16-17)

2017(17-18)

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

Data 94.9% 94.4% 95.2% 95.4% 96.3% 97.4% 97.5% 98.14% 96.28%

• Number of children for whom parental consent toevaluate was received: 515

• Number of children whose evaluations werecompleted within 60 days (or state-establishedtimeline): 496

=96.31% (did not meet target, no slippage)

Indicator 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))

*current year data

FFY2009

(09-10)baseline

2010(10-11)

2011(11-12)

2012(12-13)

2013(13-14)

2014(14-15)

2015(15-16)

2016(16-17)

2017(17-18)

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

Data 96.1% 95.7% 99.1% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

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.

Expected calculation: c/(a-b-d-e)

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.

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.

Numerator(c)

Denominator(a-b-d-e)

Target Data

51 53 100% 96.23%

(did not meet target, slippage)86

Indicator 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))

FFY2009

(09-10)baseline

2010(10-11)

2011(11-12)

2012(12-13)

2013(13-14)

2014(14-15)

2015(15-16)

2016(16-17)

2017(17-18)

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

Data 58.80% 57.30% 74.50% 79.10% 89.38% 88.30% 88.40% 88.53% 79.73%

• Number of youth aged 16 and above with IEPs thatcontain each of the required components forsecondary transition: 356

• Number of youth with IEPs aged 16 and above: 387

=91.99% (did not meet target, no slippage)

Indicators 11/12/13 Targets

FFY2013

(13-14)2014

(14-15)2015

(15-16)2016

(16-17)2017

(17-18)2018

(18-19)2019

(19-20)

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

Targets set by OSEP90

Indicator 15

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))

*current year data

Indicator 15 – Historical Data and Targets

FFY 2010(10-11)

2011(11-12)

2012(12-13)

2013(13-14)baseline

2014 (14-15)

2015 (15-16)

2016 (16-17)

2017 (17-18)

Target ≥ 65% 65% 65% 9.09% 5-10% 15-20% 15-20% 15-20%

Data 0% 3.6% 15.4% 9.09% 9.09% 9.09% 9.09% 9.09%

Targets

FFY 2014(14-15)

2015(15-16)

2016(16-17)

2017(17-18)

2018(18-19)

2019(19-20)

Target ≥(may be in a range)

5-10% 15-20% 15-20% 15-20% 20-25% 20-25%92

Indicator 15 – Data FFY 2018

• 3 resolution sessions held

• 1 resulted in a settlement agreement=33.33% (met target, no slippage)*

*States are not required to establish baseline or targets if the number of resolutionsessions is less than 10

FFY 2017: • 6 resolution sessions held• 2 resulted in settlement agreement

= 33.33 %93

Indicator 16

Percent of mediations held that resulted in mediation agreements.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))

*current year data

FFY 2010(10-11)

2011(11-12)

2012(12-13)

2013(13-14)

baseline

2014(14-15)

2015(15-16)

2016(16-17)

2017(17-18)

Target ≥ 80%-90% 80%-90% 80%-90% 70%-75% 75%-80% 75%-80% 80%-90% 80%-90%

Data 93.0% 91.0% 88.9% 71.4% 81.25% 96.88% 92.68% 84.62%

Targets

FFY 2014(14-15)

2015(15-16)

2016(16-17)

2017(17-18)

2018(18-19)

2019(19-20)

Target ≥ 75%-80% 75-80% 80-90% 80-90% 80-90% 80-90%95

• Mediation agreements related to due processcomplaints = 1

• Mediation agreements not related to due processcomplaints = 32

• Number of mediations held = 36

=91.67% agreement rate(met target)

Questions?Comments?Thank you!

Early Childhood Indicators in the Part B Annual Performance Report

Special Education Advisory Panel

January 2020

Part B-6A: 3-5 Federal SettingsFAPE in the LRE

Percent of children aged 3 - 5 with IEPs attending and receiving the majority of special education and related services in a regular early childhood program.

Statewide performance: 59.32%

Target 54.2 %

Target Met/No Slippage

99education.state.mn.us

Part B-6B: 3-5 Federal SettingsFAPE in the LRE

Percent of children aged 3 - 5 with IEPs attending a separate special education class, separate school or residential facility.

Statewide performance: 14.42%Target: 18.1%

Target Met/No Slippage

Part B Indicators 6A and 6B: FFY 2011 – FFY 2018

C-3 & B-7: Child Outcomes

Percent of infants and toddlers with IFSPs and preschoolers with IEPs who demonstrate improved:

a. Positive social and emotional skills

b. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills

c. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs

Child Outcomes Data for 2018-2019

• Developmental of children who entered or exited Part C or Preschoolspecial education between 7/1/2018 – 6/30/2019

• Allowable reporting methods

• Child Outcome Summary Ratings (COSF)

• Child by child

• Batch Upload

• Item level assessment data through batch upload

1/23/2020 103Leading for educational excellence and equity, every day for every one. | education.mn.gov

Benefits of item-level assessment submission option

• Assessment data measures progress on 3 federal child outcomes and the MNEarly Childhood Indicators of Progress (ECIPs)

• Same methodology used by Voluntary Prekindergarten and School Readiness Plus

• Less subjective than COSF ratings

• Can measure progress of IEP goals that are aligned to ECIPs

• Data can be used to strengthen local programs

• Included in dashboards that monitor the state’s investment for children with highneeds

Statewide shift to item-level requirement

2019-2020: Item level data is supported and encouraged for Preschool and Part C

2020-2021: Item level data will be supported and encouraged for Part C and strongly encouraged for Preschool

2021-2022:

• Item level data will be encouraged for Part C

• Item level data will be required for most Preschool Students

• Exceptions: preschoolers with significant delays such that progress can not bemeasured using one of the KEP tools or children participating in inclusive settingsthat use a Parent Aware approved tool that is not also a KEP tool

Impact on Minnesota’s reported performance

• Data included 6,493 children who exited preschool special education in FFY 2018.

• Outcome data for 618 of those children was reported using the item level option.

Outcome 1Summary 1

Outcome 1Summary 2

Outcome 2Summary 1

Outcome 2Summary 2

Outcome 3Summary 1

Outcome 3Summary 2

COSF 66.8% 53.4% 69.2% 52.1% 67.0% 60.9%

Item-Level 58.9% 32.5% 44.3% 2.1% 73.1% 68.7%

Part B Summary Statements: Positive Social Relationships

Results Target

1. The percent of preschool children whosubstantially increased their rate of growthby the time they turned 6 years of age orexited the program.

65.9%Slippage

71.8%Not Met

2. The percent of preschool children who werefunctioning within age expectations by thetime they turned 6 years of age or exited theprogram.

51.4%Slippage

61.0%Not Met

B-7: Positive Social Emotional Skills by Federal Fiscal Year

Part B Summary Statements: Acquire & Use Knowledge and Skills

Results Target

1. The percent of preschool children whosubstantially increased their rate of growth bythe time they turned 6 years of age or exitedthe program.

67.8%Slippage

72.2%Not Met

2. The percent of preschool children who werefunctioning within age expectations in by thetime they turned 6 years of age or exited theprogram.

49.6%Slippage

55.5%Not Met

B-7: Acquisition and Use of Knowledge and Skills by Federal Fiscal Year

Part B Summary Statements: Taking Action to Meet Needs

Results Target

1. The percent of preschool children whosubstantially increased their rate of growth bythe time they turned 6 years of age or exited theprogram.

67.6%Slippage

73.0%Not Met

2. The percent of preschool children who werefunctioning within age expectations by the timethey turned 6 years of age or exited theprogram.

61.7%Slippage

66.8%Not Met

B-7: Action to Meet Needs by Federal Fiscal Year

Minnesota Child Welfare Training Academy

Listening SessionsSpecial Education Advisory Panel

January 24, 2020

Background• Governor’s Task Force on Child Protection• 93 recommendations to improve child protection• Ongoing Legislative Task Force on Child Protection• Professional Development Workgroup

• Appointed members• Drafted competencies• Developed recommendations for training framework

Legislation Passed May 2019:

Child Welfare Training Academy Leadership

Liz Snyder, MSWCo-Director, CWTA

Tracy Crudo,MSWCo- Director, CWTA

Traci LaLiberte, Ph.DPrincipal Investigator, CWTAExecutive Director, CASCW

Year One:• Planning and renovating

”Central” Academy space• Expanded New Worker

“Foundations” Training• New ICWA training with

partnership with UMD• Preparing RFPs for 4

Regional Learning Centers

Next Steps: Regional Learning Center RFP

Next Steps: Listening Sessions

Discussion

Thank youSarah Knoph, Child Welfare Training System Supervisor

Diana Miller, Training Program Operations Specialist

Compliance and Assistance Updates

Marikay Canaga Litzau

Director of Compliance and Assistance

1/24/20 122Leading for educational excellence and equity, every day for every one. | education.state.mn.us

Compliance and Assistance Organization Chart

Workgroup/Projects

• Restrictive Procedures Workgroup (meets quarterly)

• Olmstead - Positive Supports and Prevention of Abuse and Neglect Goals

• Functional Behavior Assessment (FBA) Workgroup: Will shareresults/resources at the break out session.

• Reading Level Workgroup: Stakeholder feedback completed. Will sharemodel due process forms at the break out session.

• Results Driven Accountability (RDA) - Risk Assessment

• Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) and Student Discipline Data

Special Education Dispute Resolution

Special Education Dispute Resolution Updates

Kim Cooper, J.D.

Dispute Resolution Team

Kimberly.Cooper@state.mn.us

651-582-8306

Technical Assistance in Fiscal Year (FY) 19

• Provided responses to close to 2,400 technical assistance phonecalls and emails.

• Provided 24 trainings throughout the state, training nearly 1,700district staff.

• Our most popular training topics were the Legal Framework of StudentDiscipline, Special Education Law for General Educators, and RestrictiveProcedures.

Special Education Complaints FY19

FY19 FY18

122 complaints received by Minnesota Department of Education (MDE)

116 complaints received by MDE

98 decisions issued through August 29, 2019 87 decisions issued through August 29, 2018

78 decisions (80 percent) with findings of noncompliance

55 decisions (63 percent) with findings of noncompliance

8 systemic complaints 8 systemic complaints

0 decisions appealed 0 decisions appealed

Top Areas of Non-Compliance in Special Education Complaints FY19

• prior written notice.

• provision of services in conformity with a student’s IndividualizedEducation Program (IEP).

• conciliation conferences.

• evaluation procedures.

• review and revision of a student’s IEP.

Due Process Complaints FY19

FY19 FY18

16 due process complaints received by MDE 19 due process complaints received by MDE

3 resolution meetings held 6 resolution meetings held

1 written settlement agreement reached through a resolution meeting

2 written settlement agreements reached through resolution meetings

3 hearings fully adjudicated 2 hearings fully adjudicated

0 hearing decisions appealed 2 hearing decision appealed

Expedited Due Process Complaints FY19

FY19 FY18

0 expedited due process complaints received by MDE 3 expedited due process complaints received by MDE

0 expedited resolution meetings held 2 expedited resolution meetings held

0 expedited hearings fully adjudicated 0 expedited hearings fully adjudicated

Top Issues Raised in Due Process Complaints FY19

• whether the District properly identified and evaluated the Student.

• whether the Student is entitled to an independent educational evaluation atpublic expense.

• whether the District developed, reviewed, and revised an appropriate IEP.

• whether the District considered the Student's need for ESY services.

• whether the District implemented the services provided in Student's IEP.

Posted Decisions

Special education complaint decisions and due process hearing decisions for FY19 forward may be found at:

https://education.mn.gov/MDE/dse/sped/conf/rec/

Mediations FY19

FY19 FY18

69 mediation requests received by MDE 61 mediation requests received by MDE

36 mediations held 39 mediations held

33 partial or full agreements reached 33 partial or full agreements reached

92% agreement rate 85% agreement rate

Top Issues Raised in Mediation Sessions FY19

• provision of services in conformity with the student’s IEP.

• annual goals and objectives.

• paraprofessional services.

• service time.

• accommodations and modifications.

Facilitated Team Meetings FY19

FY19 FY18

50 facilitated team meeting requests received by MDE 46 facilitated team meeting requests received by MDE

33 facilitated team meetings held 24 facilitated team meetings held

30 full or partial agreements reached 22 full or partial agreements reached

91% agreement rate 92% agreement rate

Top Issues Raised in Facilitated Team Meetings FY19

• provision of services in conformity with the Student’s IEP.

• present level of educational performance.

• annual goals and objectives

• service time.

• accommodations and modifications.

Special Education Fiscal Monitoring

Special Education Fiscal Monitoring Updates

Bridgette Ramaley

Fiscal Monitoring Supervisor

Bridgette.Ramaley@state.mn.us

651-582-8479

Summary Data of Findings

Training Opportunities

• No training currently scheduled

• Looking at alternative methods for those with corrective action plans (CAPs) tocomplete the CAP requirement.

• Considering shorter webinars done periodically on a specific topic.

• Working with other federal program teams to develop more resources to share andexploring options to have joint training for all federal programs.

• We want your input

• If you have specific training ideas or methods you think work especially well for thefield, please share them.

Monitoring Changes

• Changes to be implemented in FY19 (18-19 school year)

• No more five year cycle

• Monitoring based on risk assessment only

• Agency wide risk assessment on sub-recipients

• Federal risk assessment completed by US Department of Education Risk Management Services

• Additional special education only items our team will apply

Monitoring Changes Continued

• Three tiers of monitoring and assistance

• Universal/Low – Lowest risk, training available to you, assistance available upon request

• Targeted/Medium – Monitoring done only on a targeted area

• Intensive/High – Many flags in the risk assessment, concerns in multiple areas

• Time spent on site observing processes, reviewing data, and interviewing staff (interviews will primarily beonline, on site will be clarifications of information)

• Hands on during the CAP completion, CAPs could be very individual to the local education agency (LEA) orspecific depending on what the issue is

• Goal to be less general overall, more specific in finding the process break downs

• Monitoring is not the outcome, monitoring is the TOOL to reach a positive outcome, leaving you in a betterposition

Monitoring Schedule

• This year:• Monitoring this year will be limited to Group D (last time a cycle group is used)

• A smaller monitoring group than normal will be used due to time/personnelconstraints

• Hoping to have notifications out by end of calendar year

• Future years:• All entities are in the mix and eligible to be monitored unless in CAP status

• Notifications out at beginning of year

• Rolling report and CAP dates

Reports and Assistance Requested

• Fiscal monitoring reports are now online:

• https://public.education.mn.gov/MDEAnalytics/Data.jsp

• Scroll to special education section: “Special Education Fiscal ComplianceReview”

• Online interview testers:

• Individuals in various positions to test the online interview process

• Evaluate for functionality – does it work?

• Evaluate for clear and concise questions – do they make sense?

New Staff

• Discipline Incident Reporting System (DIRS) Program Coordinator

• Carly Lykes

• carly.lykes.frostman@state.mn.us

• Central contact for DIRS questions, training on how/what to report in DIRS, review data for completion and fidelity

• Assist special education monitoring teams and special education division as results based accountability (RBA) data analysis needs are determined

Special Education Program Monitoring

Special Education Program Monitoring Updates

Erin Levin, J.D.

Program Monitoring Supervisor

Erin.Levin@state.mn.us

651-582-8710

What’s new?

• MNCIMP--Preparing contract for new online system toreplace Minnesota Continuous Improvement MonitoringProcess (MNCIMP).

• Results-based accountability—Looking to add more districtresults to our monitoring process, exploring data we alreadyhave for indicators, early childhood and ESSA.

• Streamlining some program monitoring now in preparation.

Who’s new?

Personnel changes • Ken Kalamaha on medical leave— contact Melissa Janssen or me

instead

• New monitor: Melissa Janssen!

Training

Record review training done• Only sessions were in August (“Fast and Furious” training) for special

education leadership

• Focus on New Leaders (also done) and Sped 101

Sped 101• Reminder: designed for special education teachers/related service providers

• Two days long, very interactive

Record Review Training

Sped 101 Schedule• October 8-9 (Rochester)• October 29-30 (MDE)• November 6-7 (Detroit Lakes)• November 19-20 (MDE)• December 11-12 (MDE)• February 25-26 (MDE)• April 22-23 (MDE)

Record Review Stats

Noncompliance: Part B 2018-19

1/24/20 Leading for educational excellence and equity, every day for every one. | education.state.mn.us 151

Noncompliance: Part C 2018-19

Record Review Stats

Drum Roll…

Congratulations to…

Districts with NO FINDINGS in record review:• Academia Cesar Chavez Charter School #4073• Ada-Borup Public School District #2854• AFSA High School #4074• Aitkin Public School District #0001• Ashby Public School District #0261• Barnum Public School District #0091• Battle Lake Public School District #0542• Braham Public School District #0314• Brainerd Public School District #0181• Breckenridge Public School District #0846

Districts with NO FINDINGS in record review:• Browns Valley Public School District #0801• Campbell-Tintah Public School District #0852• Clarkfield Charter School #4172• Climax-Shelly Public Schools #0592• Clinton-Graceville-Beardsley Public School District #0592• Cromwell-Wright Public Schools #0095• Crosby-Ironton Public School District #0182• Crosslake Community Charter School #4059• Dilworth-Glyndon-Felton #2164• Discovery Woods Montessori School #4198

Districts with NO FINDINGS in record review:• E.C.H.O. Charter School #4026• East Grand Forks Public School District #0595• Excell Academy Charter #4068• Fergus Falls Public School District #0544• Fisher Public School District #0600• Fosston Public School District #0601• Granada Huntley-East Chain #2536• Hancock Public School District #0768• Hermantown Public School District #0700• High School for Recording Arts #4039

Districts with NO FINDINGS in record review:• La Crescent Montessori and STEM School #4054• Litchfield Public School District #0465• Martin County West Public School District #2448• Natural Science Academy #4187• Nerstrand Charter School #4055• New Heights School, Inc. #4003• Norman County West School District #2527• Ogilvie Public School District #0333• Orono Public School District #0278• Partnership Academy, Inc. #4097

Districts with NO FINDINGS in record review:• Pine River-Backus School District #2174• Princeton Public School District #0477• Red Lake County Central Public School District #2906• Red Lake Falls Public School District #0630• Renville County West Public School District #2890• Richfield Public School District #0280• Rothsay Public School District #0850• Rum River Special Education Cooperative #6079• Sebeka Public School District #0820• St. Anthony-New Brighton Schools #0282

Districts with NO FINDINGS in record review:• Stephen-Argyle Central Schools #2856• Truman Public School District #0458• Upper Mississippi Academy #4210• Wadena-Deer Creek School District #2155• Warren-Alvarado-Oslo School District #2176• West Central Area #2342• Westonka Public School District #0277• Willow River Public School District #0577• Win-E-Mac School District #2609• Yellow Medicine East School District #2190

That’s all folks…

Very best wishes for a

wonderful school year!

Welcome to SEAP - MDE...4A. Discipline-SpEd Students MDE/SEAP Compliance 4B. Discipline-SpEd...

Documents

Transcript of Welcome to SEAP - MDE...4A. Discipline-SpEd Students MDE/SEAP Compliance 4B. Discipline-SpEd...

LINFOMAS B AGRESIVOS - SEAP

7. seap + en ms atisae

Balotario Mde

Linfoma de Hodgkin - SEAP

ADENDUM I - SEAP

TRIPTICO MDE

R del c n seap

SEAP User Guide

(SEAP) 2014 Program Evaluation Report

BeRock by SEAP

MDE-LIO Tri Fold Brochure · 2020-03-28 · MDE-LIO Tri Fold Brochure Author: MDE - Low Incidence Outreach Subject: MDE-LIO Tri Fold Brochure Keywords: MDE-LIO Tri Fold Brochure Created

SEAP Sant'Ambrogio Di Valpolicella

SEAP Guj prsntn Aug 03

Sped Guide

SEAP Template (PDF)

(SEAP) 2013 Program Evaluation Report

Create an SEAP SAW Account for eServicesand …media.wpc.wa.gov/.../creating-seap-saw-eServices-account.pdfCreate an SEAP SAW Account for eServicesand Other Help Self-Guide to assist

DECEMBER 2020 SEAP: YEAR TWO

Lista Participanti SEAP

Education Specialist Credential Programs Master of Science ...ed.fullerton.edu/sped/_resources/pdfs/special... · SPED 322: 10 Hours Required SPED 371: 5 Hours Required SPED 425: