TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction State of California Annual Performance...

TOM TORLAKSONState Superintendent of Public Instruction

State of California

Annual Performance ReportIndividuals with Disabilities

Education Act of 2004Federal Fiscal Year 2012


APR Overview

• The Annual Performance Plan (APR) is prepared using instructions from the U.S. Department of Education (ED) and the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP)

• The APR consists of 20 Indicators• Indicators are categorized as either

compliance (10) or performance (10):• Targets for compliance indicators are set by OSEP

at either zero percent or one hundred percent• Targets for performance indicators are set in

collaboration with the various stakeholder groups


APR Overview-Cont.• Data for the APR indicators are collected from a

variety of sources:• California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement System

(CALPADS)• California Special Education Management Information

System (CASEMIS)• Assessment data base• Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)


APR Data Years

• The current APR reflects data collected during Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2012, (equivalent to California’s school year 2012–13).

• Several indicators are reported in lag years using data from school year 2011−12.


APR Executive Summary

• The APR Executive Summary provides a concise overview of California’s annual report to OSEP and includes:• Demographic information of California’s

special education population• A description of each indicator

• How the indicator is measured• Targets for each indicator• Reported results • Improvement activities


Special Education by Disability2012–13

6


Special Education by Ethnicity 2012–13

7Data Source: December CASEMIS


Indicator 1 Graduation Rates

• Performance Indicator• Target: 74.5 percent of students will

graduate from high school with a regular diploma

• FFY 2012: 78.13 percent graduated with a regular diploma

–FFY 2011: 76.3 percent


Indicator 2 Drop Out Rates

• Performance Indicator• Target: Less than 21.1 percent will drop

out of school• FFY 2012: 17.9 percent dropped out

–FFY 2011 rate: 18.4 percent


Indicator 3Statewide Assessments

• Performance Indicator• Three areas are measured:

– 3A percent of AYP objectives met– 3B participation rates– 3C percent proficient by school

subgroups


Indicator 3A

• Percent of districts that meet the AYP objectives for ELA and Mathematics for the disability subgroup– Target: Fifty-eight percent of districts

meet AYP for the special education subgroup

– FFY 2012 rate: 8.2 percent

– FFY 2011 rate: 11.12 percent


Indicator 3B

• Rate of participation on statewide assessments– Target: Ninety-five percent of students

with IEPs participate in statewide assessments

– FFY 2012: 97.4 percent ELA 98.2 percent Math

– FFY 2011 rate: 97.8 percent ELA 98.3 percent Math


Indicator 3CProficient by School Subgroup -

Elementary1. Elementary districts

• Target: 89.2 percent of students with IEPs score proficient in ELA and 89.5 percent in Math

• FFY 2012: 38.7 percent ELA 42.0 percent Math

– FFY 2011: 38.7 percent ELA 38.8 percent Math


Indicator 3CProficient by School Subgroup – High

School


Indicator 3CProficient by School Subgroup –

Unified and County Offices

3. Unified districts and county offices of education

• Target: 89 percent of students with IEPs score proficient in ELA and 89.1 percent in Math

• FFY 2012: 35.6 percent ELA 38.3 percent Math–FFY 2011: 33.3 percent ELA

35.0 percent Math


Indicator 4 Suspension and Expulsion

• Performance Indicator– 4A is the percent of districts that have a

significant discrepancy overall in the rate of suspension/expulsion of greater than 10 days when compared to the state rate

– 4B is the discrepancy in terms of race/ethnicity rates as a result of inappropriate identification


Indicator 4A

• Target: No more than 10.1 percent of districts will have a significant discrepancy in 10 day+ suspensions/expulsions overall

• FFY 2012: 2.51% overall rate

– FFY 2011: 2.7 percent


Indicator 4B

• Target: Zero percent of districts will have a discrepancy in suspension/expulsions by race or ethnicity that is a result of inappropriate identification

• FFY 2012: Pending districts completing a review of policies, practices, and procedures

– FFY 2011: .87 percent


Indicator 5 Least Restrictive Environment

• Performance Indicator• For ages 6 through 21 years, measures

time inside the regular education classroom by:– 5A: Eighty percent or more of the day– 5B: Less than forty percent of the day– 5C: In separate school, residential

facility, or homebound/hospital


Indicator 5A LRE – 80 Percent or More

• Target: Seventy-six percent or more of students with an IEP will be served in the regular classroom eighty percent or more of the day

• FFY 2012: 52.6 percent



Indicator 5B LRE – Less than 40 Percent

• Target: No more than nine percent of students with an IEP will be served in the regular classroom less than forty percent of the day




Indicator 5C LRE – Separate Schools

• Target: No more than 3.8 percent of students are served in separate schools, residential placements, or homebound/hospital




23

Educational Environment for all Special Education Students 2012–13


Indicator 6Preschool Least Restrictive Environment

• Performance Indicator• A: Percent of students aged 3

through 5 receiving the majority of special education in a regular childhood program

• B: Percent of students receiving special education in a separate class, school, or residential facility


Indicator 6A - Preschool LREServices in Regular Classroom

• Target: This is the base line year for this indicator

• FFY 2012: 38.8 percent served in regular childhood program



Indicator 6B - Preschool LREServices in Separate Location

• Target: This is the base line year for this indicator

• FFY 2012: 35.9 percent served in separate classroom, school, or facility



Indicator 7Preschool Assessment

• Performance Indicator• Outcome A: Positive social-emotional

skills• Outcome B: Acquisition and use of

knowledge and skills• Outcome C: Use of appropriate

behaviors to meet their needs


Indicator 7 - Outcome APositive Social/Emotional Skills


Indicator 7 - Outcome BAcquisition and Use of Knowledge

and Skills• Target: Of the children entering below age

expectations, 70 percent substantially increased their rate of growth and 82.5 percent are functioning within age expectations

• FFY 2012: Pending• Pending

– FFY 2011: 71.7 percent 74.4 percent


Indicator 7 - Outcome CUse of Appropriate Behaviors to Meet

Their Needs• Target: Of the children entering below

age expectations, 75 percent substantially increased their rate of growth and 79 percent are functioning within age expectations

• FFY 2012: Pending

– FFY 2011: 75 percent 77.2 percent


Indicator 8Parent Involvement

• Performance Indicator• Target: Ninety percent of parents

report the school facilitated parent involvement




Indicator 9 Disproportionality

• Compliance Indicator• Target: Zero percent of districts will

have disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups that is a result of inappropriate identification

• FFY 2012: Pending districts completing a review of policies, practices, and procedures



Indicator 10Disproportionality by Race/Ethnicity

• Compliance Indicator• Target: Zero percent of districts will have

disproportionate representation of racial/ethnic groups within a disability, which are a result of inappropriate identification




Indicator 11Child Find

• Compliance Indicator• Target: Eligibility will be completed

within 60 days for one hundred percent of students for whom parental consent to evaluate was received




Indicator 12Part B to Part C Transition

• Compliance Indicator• Target: One hundred percent of

students referred by IDEA Part C to Part B prior to age three, if found eligible, will have an IEP developed by their third birthday




Indicator 13Post-Secondary Transition


students sixteen years and older have IEPs that include appropriate post-secondary goals




Indicator 14Post Secondary Outcomes

• Performance Indicator• Target: Sixty-nine percent of students,

one year post secondary, are enrolled in higher education, or competitively employed, or in other employment




Indicator 15General Supervision


noncompliance were corrected within one year of identification




Indicator 16Written Complaints Resolved


written complaints were resolved within a 60-day time line


– FFY 2011: 100 percent


Indicator 17Due Process

• Compliance Indicator• Target: One hundred percent of due

process hearing requests were adjudicated within the 45-day time line




Indicator 18Resolution Settlements

• Performance Indicator• Target: Fifty-five percent of hearing

requests that went to resolution sessions were resolved through settlement agreements




Indicator 19Mediation

• Performance Indicator• Target: Eighty-five percent of

mediation conferences resulted in mediation agreements




Indicator 20State Reported Data

• Compliance Indicator• Target: One hundred percent of state

reported data are on time and accurate• FFY 2012: CDE does not calculate this

indicator


TOM TORLAKSONState Superintendent of Public Instruction Results Driven

Accountability


OSEP’s proposals for RDA are out for review

• As we have mentioned, OSEP has been reconceptualizing its accountability system.

• Previously, OSEP’s accountability system, including the SPP/APR, was heavily focused on compliance with limited focus on how the requirements impacted results

• Results Driven Accountability (RDA), is aligned to support States in improving results for students with disabilities.


Summary of Changes• Combine the SPP and APR into one

document • One systems description, inclusive of all of a

States systems• States are no longer required to report on

Improvement Activities for each indicator• Eliminating Indicators 15, 16,17 and 20• Adding a new Indicator 17 – Results Driven

Accountability– Implemented in three phases– SPP/APR must include a State Systemic Improvement

Plan (SSIP) – States must assess the capacity of their infrastructure to

increase the capacity of LEAs


Adding a New Indicator 17• Indicator 17 – Results Driven Accountability• Implemented in three phases• SPP/APR must include a State Systemic Improvement

Plan (SSIP) that is a comprehensive, ambitious yet achievable plan for improving results for students with disabilities

• States must assess the capacity of their infrastructure to increase the capacity of LEAs to – implement, – scale up, and – sustain evidence-based practices

• The primary focus of SSIP is on improvement of student outcomes.

• State must also address how the State will use its general supervision systems to improve implementation of the requirements of Part B of the IDEA


Proposed Phase-in of Indicator 17

FFY 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018Submitted in February 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020

Phase III

•Results of ongoing evaluation and revisions to the SPP

Indicator 1Indicator 2Indicator 3Indicator 4Indicator 5Indicator 6Indicator 7Indicator 8Indicator 9Indicator 10Indicator 11...Indicator 20

FFY 2012Submitted in February 2014



Phase I

•Data Analysis •Identification of Focus for Improvement

•Infrastructure to Support Improvement and Build Capacity

•Theory of Action.

Phase II

•Infrastructure Development

•Support for LEA Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices

•Evaluation Plan

TOM TORLAKSONState Superintendent of Public Instruction New Targets Proposed


Comparison of Large State Performance Indicator Targets


5 Minute Exercise

• Turn to a neighbor or friend• Review the chart comparing the

large state targets• What occurs to you as a result of

your review of this information?


Summary of Performance Indicators 2005 - 2011


Least Restrictive Environment Dec12 Indicator 5 - Breakout by District of Accountability - Children with IEPs, ages 6 through 21 only

District of Accountability (DOA) Type

Inside Regular Class 80% of

the time or more


the time or less

Separate Schools, Residential Facilities, Homebound/Hospital

Placement

Inside Regular Class 41%

through 79% of the time

DOA Type Total

Charter School as LEAs 7,813 373 138 548 8,872County Office of Education 969 179 318 105 1,571Elementary 63,368 25,920 1,986 17,256 108,530High 25,741 17,599 2,983 16,807 63,130Other 0 0 35 0 35Unified 223,798 96,253 19,533 85,378 424,962

Totals 321,689 140,324 24,993 120,094 607,100

District of Accountability (DOA) Type


the time or more


the time or less

Separate Schools, Residential Facilities,

or Homebound/ Hospital Placement

Inside Regular Class 41%

through 79% of the time

DOA Type of the Total Students with IEPs and

ages 6-21

Charter School as LEAs 88.06 4.20 1.56 6.18 1.46County Office of Education 61.68 11.39 20.24 6.68 0.26Elementary 58.39 23.88 1.83 15.90 17.88High 40.77 27.88 4.73 26.62 10.40Other 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.01Unified 52.66 22.65 4.60 20.09 70.00

Totals 52.99 23.11 4.12 19.78 100.00

Denominator Total Students with IEPs and ages 6-21 607,100

Number of Students

Percent of Students

LRE Indicator Comparison by District Type 2012-13


ElementaryInside Regular Class

80% of the time or more

Inside Regular Class 40% of the time or

less



2012 58.4 23.9 1.82011 58.6 23.2 1.82010 59.2 23.1 1.8

High SchoolInside Regular Class



less



2012 40.8 27.9 4.72011 40.5 27.9 5.02010 39.7 27.7 5.3

UnifiedInside Regular Class



less



2012 52.7 22.6 4.62011 52.4 22.6 4.72010 53.1 23.7 4.8

StatewideInside Regular Class



less



2012 53.0 23.1 4.12011 52.7 23.0 4.22010 52.8 23.9 4.3

LRE Indicator Comparison by District Type


DOA LRE 80% or More of the

Time

DOA Data Population

Percent Of DOA

Population at 80% or More

Percentile Range

Percentile cut point

3768338 8304 12836 64.69 >75th 95.74 100th1964725 4383 7819 56.06 50 to 75th 64.43 75th1062166 3685 6690 55.08 50 to 75th 55.03 50th3467314 3229 6036 53.50 25 to 50th 46.18 25th3868478 3782 5832 64.85 >75th 25.09 0th3367033 2567 5302 48.42 25 to 50th3066670 2536 5275 48.08 25 to 50th3467439 2968 5177 57.33 50 to 75th3467447 2346 4933 47.56 25 to 50th3667876 2693 4857 55.45 50 to 75th3667710 1747 4577 38.17 <25th0161259 2473 4466 55.37 50 to 75th3066522 2137 4460 47.91 25 to 50th3367215 1720 4331 39.71 <25th3066464 2208 4285 51.53 25 to 50th3367124 1742 3893 44.75 <25th3667678 1959 3773 51.92 25 to 50th0761796 2105 3441 61.17 50 to 75th0761754 2003 3406 58.81 50 to 75th3375192 1822 3353 54.34 25 to 50th3768296 1717 3331 51.55 25 to 50th3476505 1880 3287 57.20 50 to 75th3968676 1472 3118 47.21 25 to 50th4369666 1945 3070 63.36 50 to 75th3968585 1630 3016 54.05 25 to 50th3768452 1404 2947 47.64 25 to 50th3073635 1030 2878 35.79 <25th1964808 1413 2833 49.88 25 to 50th

Selected Large Unified Districts Percentile Rank in LRE Indicator 80% or More in Regular Class


Comments?

57

TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction State of California Annual Performance...

Documents

Transcript of TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction State of California Annual Performance...