State Performance Plan SPP Annual Performance Report APR

1
State Performance Plan (SPP) Annual Performance
Report (APR)

• Dana Colon
• Bureau of Special Education
• Connecticut State Department of Education

Back to School - Directors September 19, 2007
2
CT State Performance Plan

• Six year plan that describes the states
  performance on 20 indicators under Part B of IDEA
  (15 relate directly to LEAs)
• Required by IDEA, more alignment with NCLB
• Establishes baseline data and targets for each
  year with improvement activities at the state and
  local levels
• Submitted to the US Office of Special Education
  Programs (OSEP) in December 2005 we are
  entering the 3rd year of the plan
• Must report state level progress to OSEP every
  year on all indicators 1-20 (Annual Performance
  Report - APR) due February 1, 2008

3
CT State Performance Plan

• There are compliance indicators targets are
  100 or 0 (9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 20)
• There are monitoring indicators we have to
  oversee and investigate on an ongoing basis (9,
  10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 20)
• There are performance indicators targets
  change each year (1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8)
• Some are still new and do not have targets or
  improvement activities (7, 14)
• Developed with broad stakeholder input (local
  school officials, Department personnel, parents,
  other state agencies) to develop targets and
  improvement activities

4
Section 616 Determinations

• In accordance with Section 616 of the
• statute, the Secretary will make determinations
  upon a state
• Meets Requirements
• Needs Assistance
• Needs Intervention
• Needs Substantial Intervention
• Districts data impacts the state determination,
  effects how we are monitored by OSEP, direction
  of funds
• Section 616 also says the state must enforce
  determinations upon LEAs with the same categories
  as above

5
District Annual Performance Report

• Besides our State APR to OSEP in February, we
  must publicly disseminate data for every district
  
• States must also make a determination upon LEAs
  in the same 4 categories that OSEP used
• District Annual Performance Report
• Compares district data against state target
• Will include a determination that triggers
  enforcement actions
• Notify districts about sources of TA
• Develop and implement a corrective action plan
• Withhold or redirect funds
• Designate as a high risk grantee with imposing
  conditions on funds

6
District Annual Performance Report

• Use this data to guide change
• This is about being able to understand where
  there are problematic areas and how to improve
  outcomes for students with disabilities in that
  area

7
District APR 2005-06 data , issued September 2007

• Two parts
• SPP indicators under IDEA
• PJ Goals under the Settlement Agreement
• Two separate determinations processes (but
  similar)

8
District APR 2005-06 data , issued September 2007

• The district level APR displays data for all SPP
  indicators 1 15, 20 (unless not possible to do
  so)
• Some indicators set an increasing target
  (Indicator 11 Evaluation Timelines)
• Some indicators set a decreasing target
  (Indicators 9 10 Disproportionality)
• Refer to the SPP for specific targets

9
District APR 2005-06 data , issued September 2007

• The IDEA determination for 2005-06 data was made
  ONLY on the following SPP compliance indicators
• Indicator 9 Disproportionate representation in
  special education
• Indicator 10 Disproportionate representation in
  special education by disability
• Indicator 11 Evaluation timelines
• Indicator 12 FAPE at 3
• Indicator 15 General Supervision (2 parts)
• 15A Noncompliance corrected within 1 year

10
District APR 2005-06 data , issued September 2007

• In order to Meet Requirements, the districts
  data had to
• Either meet/exceed the state target OR
• Be in substantial compliance (95-99
  performance)
• There cannot be any outstanding noncompliance
  identified through focused monitoring or other
  general supervision activities

11
District APR 2006-07 data , issued February 2008

• Same indicators used for determinations in
  2005-06 (9, 10, 11, 12, 15A)
• Addition of Indicator 13 Secondary Transition
  Goals and Services
• compliance indicator, target 100

12
District APR 2007-08 data , issued December 2008

• Same as used in 2006-07
• Addition of Indicator 15B Significant
  Disproportionality
• Addition of Indicator 20 Timely Accurate Data
  
• This is the year that you can make a
  difference!

13
Significant Disproportionality 15B

• States are required to examine data to determine
  whether significant disproportionality based on
  race or ethnicity is occurring in districts, with
  respect to
• identification, including within disability
  categories
• placement of children in particular educational
  settings
• incidence, duration, and type of disciplinary
  actions, including suspensions and expulsions.

14
Significant Disproportionality 15B

• The finding of significant disproportionality is
  done through an analysis of the data alone
• If significant disproportionality is found, the
  state will require the LEA to reserve 15 of its
  IDEA funds for early intervening services (EIS)

15
PJ Determinations

• Also included on the district level APR document
• Anne Louise Thompson will provide an update

16
More Information

• District level APR
• Appendix A
• Appendix B
• Bureau of Special Education
• [phone]
• Dana Colon, Associate Education Consultant
• [phone]
• dana.colon_at_ct.gov

17
More Information
18
2007-2008FOCUSED MONITORING

• SUSPENSION AND EXPULSION

Patricia Staszko-Kozik
19
WHO?

• All districts except the 8 already working with
  the State on this issue will receive a letter
• Please look at your data and explain
• Please look at your data and be aware of
  potential problems
• We recognize that you have had few if any
  suspensions and expulsions and no discrepant
  patterns

20
What is being analyzed?

• Suspension exclusion from regular class
  activities beyond 90 minutes CGS Section
  10-233a(b)
• Expulsion 10 or more days removal

21
Four Data Points (data from district submissions
2005-2006)

• The non-duplicated number of students without
  disabilities suspended or expelled
• The non-duplicated number of students with
  disabilities suspended or expelled
• The difference between the two
• The non-duplicated number of students with
  disabilities suspended or expelled for 10 days

22
What are the discrepancy ranges

• RED
• 10 general education students suspended or
  expelled
• 10 students with disabilities suspended or
  expelled
• 10 difference in the suspension rates for
  students with and without disabilities
• 2 students with disabilities suspended or
  expelled 10 days

23
What are the discrepancy ranges

• YELLOW
• 5-10 general education students suspended or
  expelled
• 5-10 students with disabilities suspended or
  expelled
• Difference of 5-10 between the two
• 1-2 students with disabilities suspended or
  expelled for 10 days

24
What are the discrepancy ranges

• GREEN
• Fewer than 5 general education students
  suspended or expelled
• Fewer than 5 students with disabilities
  suspended or expelled
• Less than a 5 difference between the two
• Fewer than 1 of students with disabilities
  suspended or expelled

25
TIMELINES

• September All letters out
• September 24 Technical Assistance for districts
  required to respond
• October 15 Responses due to SDE
• October 22 Letters setting up visits sent
• Visits December, January, February, April

26
Focused Monitoring Visit

• Team including
• DOE Consultants
• Peer Special Education Directors
• Parents

27
Activities

• Activities
• File Review
• Interviews with administrative staff
• Interviews with general education teachers
• Interviews with special education teachers
• Interviews with related services staff
• Interviews with students
• An evening parent forum

28
Purpose

• Purpose
• To examine the policies, procedures and practices
  of the district to determine if patterns of
  suspension and expulsion are resulting from
  non-compliance with IDEA

29
QUESTIONS

• Patricia Staszko-Kozik
• Consultant
• Bureau of Special Education
• Patricia.Staszko-Kozik_at_ct.gov
• 860-713-6917

30
AND ONE MORE THING BEFORE YOU GO .
31
USE OF RESTRAINTS AND SECLUSION ROOMS

• Public Act No. 07-147
• An Act Concerning Restraints and Seclusion in
  Public Schools
• EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 2007

32
Permitted Uses

• In an emergency to prevent immediate and imminent
  harm to the person or others
• Or
• As a specific provision of an IEP

33
PARENT NOTIFICATION

• EACH incident in which their child is placed in
  physical restraint or seclusion

34
Mandatory Data

• Each instance of the use of physical restraint
  and seclusion including the nature of the
  emergency
• Documentation of parental notification
• Annual compilation to be submitted to State
  Department of Education

35
The Department of Education Must

• Review the annual data submission and analysis
  frequency of use of restraint and seclusion
• Report and incidence of serious injury or death
  to the Director of Protection and Advocacy
• Propose regulations to the State Board of
  Education concerning the use of physical
  restraint and seclusion for adoption

36
Thank you.

• Pay attention to your monthly BLOGS for updates
  and new information