Michigan Department of Education, Office of Special Education Michigan s State Performance Plan Annual Public Reporting

Transcription

1 Michigan Department of Education, Office of Special Education Michigan s State Performance Plan Annual Public Reporting All data reported are from Michigan s Annual Performance Report, submitted 2/1/2012. These data typically reflect the school year (July 1, 2010-June 30, 2011) except where noted. Indicator 1: Graduation (Results Indicator) The Indicator 1 data are from because the US Department of Education prescribed a one-year data lag for this indicator. All states are required to collect and report data on: the percent of youth with an Individualized Education Program (IEP) graduating from high school with a regular diploma. The state target: 80.0% The state performance on the target: 57.4%. The state target was. Source: Michigan Student Data System, Graduation/Dropout Review and Comment Application, and Student Record Maintenance The state and district performance are calculated to align with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) using the number of youth with IEPs who entered ninth grade in one school year and received a regular diploma within four years (a cohort) divided by the total number of youth with IEPs in the cohort times 100. Additional district graduation data for the ESEA are available at the Center for Education Performance and Information website at See Cohort Graduation and Dropout Reports. More information about this indicator is found in the Special Education Facts from the Indicator 2: Dropout (Results Indicator) The Indicator 2 data are from because the US Department of Education prescribed a one-year data lag for this indicator. All states are required to collect and report data on: the percent of youth with an Individualized Education Program dropping out of high school. The state target: less than or equal to 9.0% The state performance on the target: 6.1%. The state target was met. Source: Michigan Student Data System, Graduation and Dropout Review and Comment Application, and Student Record Maintenance The state and district performance are calculated using an event snapshot rate of students with an IEP ages The dropout event snapshot rate calculates the number of students with an IEP who dropped out in one school year divided by the number of students with an IEP ages who were enrolled in school that year.

2 Additional district dropout data for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act are available at the Center for Education Performance and Information (CEPI) website at See Cohort Graduation and Dropout Report. More information about this indicator is found in the one page Special Education Facts from the Office of Special Education at Indicator 3: Statewide Assessment (Results Indicator) All states are required to collect and report data on: Participation and performance of children with individualized education programs (IEPs) on statewide assessments: A. Percent of the districts with a sufficient disability subgroup that meets the state s minimum n size that meet the state s AYP targets for the disability subgroup. The state target: 98.0% The state performance on the target: 96.6%. The state target was. B. Participation rate for children with IEPs.. The state target: 95.0% The State Performance on the Reading : Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 11 Actual 98.6% 98.9% 98.9% 98.9% 98.7% 98.5% 92.6% Status met met met met met met The State Performance on the Mathematics : Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 11 Actual 98.2% 98.8% 98.9% 98.8% 98.4% 98.1% 91.9% Status met met met met met met C. Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level, modified and alternate academic achievement standards. (20 U.S.C (a)(3)(a)) The State Performance on the Reading : Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade % 77.0% 76.0% 75.0% 74.0% 73.0% 79.0% Actual 64.5% 58.0% 57.2% 54.8% 45.7% 51.2% 36.4% Status The State Performance on the Mathematics : Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade % 74.0% 71.0% 70.0% 67.0% 66.0% 67.0% Actual 86.4% 78.0% 53.9% 58.6% 55.1% 49.9% 23.7% Status met met Source: Bureau of Assessment and Accountability (same source for A, B & C parts of the indicator) The state and district performance are calculated for participation and performance of children with individualized education programs (IEPs) on statewide assessments.

3 Assessment results are available to the public at: _ ,00.html. More information about this indicator is found in the one page Special Education Facts from the Office of Special Education at: Indicator 4A: Suspension/Expulsion (Results Indicator) The Indicator 4A data are from because the US Department of Education prescribed a one-year data lag for this indicator. All states are required to collect and report data on: suspensions/expulsions greater than 10 Days, for student with an Individualized Education Program (IEP) whether in one incident, or an accumulation throughout the school year. Michigan counts out-of-school suspensions/expulsions for this indicator. The state target: 5.0% or less of all districts will have a significant discrepancy in their suspensions/expulsions rates of among students with an IEP. The state performance on the target: 2.8%. The state target was met. Source: Michigan Student Data System District performance is calculated by identifying a significant discrepancy if more than 5% of its students with an IEP received out-of-school suspensions/expulsions for greater than ten cumulative days. Districts with fewer than five students with an IEP suspended/ expelled for more than ten days were exempt from significant discrepancy calculations. Indicator 4B: Suspension/Expulsion by Race/Ethnicity (Compliance Indicator) The Indicator 4B data are from because the US Department of Education prescribed a one-year data lag for this indicator. All states are required to collect and report data on: suspensions/expulsions greater than 10 days by race/ethnicity, for students with an Individualized Education Program (IEP). The suspensions/expulsions may be from one incident, or an accumulation throughout the school year. In Michigan these are out-of-school suspensions/expulsions. The state target : 0% The state performance on the target: 5.9%. The state target was. Source: Michigan Student Data System (MSDS),

4 District performance is calculated by: identifying both 1) a significant discrepancy by race/ethnicity in rates of suspensions and expulsions greater than ten days, and 2) policies, procedures, or practices that contribute to the significant discrepancy. Michigan defines significant discrepancy as 3.6% or more of a district s students with an IEP within a racial/ethnic group are suspended/expelled greater than 10 days. Indicator 5: Educational Environments (Results Indicator) All states are required to collect and report data on: the percent of students with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) aged 6-21 that receive their education A. Inside the regular class 80% or more of the day; B. Inside the regular class less than 40% of the day; C. In public or private separate schools, residential placements, or homebound or hospital placements. The state targets: A. Increase the percentage of students served inside the regular classroom 80% or more of the day to 63.0%. B. Decrease the percentage of students served inside the regular class less than 40% of the day to 11.9%. C. Maintain the percentage of students served in separate facilities at less than or equal to 4.8%. The state performance on the targets: A. 62.8%. The state target was. B. 12.7%. The state target was. C. 5.3%. The state target was. Source: Michigan Student Data System

5 Indicator 7: Preschool Outcomes (Results Indicator) All states are required to collect and report data on: the percent of children who a) did not improve, b) improved functioning but not sufficient comparable to same-aged peers, c) improved to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it, d) improved to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers, or e) maintained at a level comparable to same-aged peers on the following 3 outcomes: A. Positive social-emotional skills (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. The state performance is calculated using Summary Statements for each of the 3 outcomes. Summary Statement 1: Of those preschool children who entered the preschool program below age expectations in each Outcome, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program. Measurement for Summary Statement 1: Percent = number of preschool children reported in progress categories: c + d divided by a + b + c + 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 age or exited the program. Measurement for Summary Statement 2: Percent = number of preschool children reported in progress categories: d + e divided by a + b + c + d + e times 100. Data reflect all children with an IEP enrolled in this district, both resident and nonresident. Outcome Areas State Actual Performance Status Outcome A: Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships) Summary Statement % 81.1% Not Met Summary Statement % 56.5% Not Met Outcome B: Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication and early literacy) Summary Statement % 82.2% Not Met Summary Statement % 56.6% Not Met Outcome C: Use of appropriate behaviors to meet this needs Summary Statement % 80.6% Not Met Summary Statement % 62.5% Not Met Source: Michigan Student Data System, HighScope

6 Indicator 8: Facilitated Parent Involvement (Results Indicator) All states are required to collect and report data on: the 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 an IEP. The state targets: Children ages 3-5: 35.5% of families will rate their school at or above the 600 standard score. Students ages 6-21: 22.0% of families will rate their school at or above the 600 standard score. The state performance on the targets: Children ages 3-5: 58.7%. The state target was met. Students ages 6-21: 25.9%. The state target was met. Source: National Center for Special Education Accountability Monitoring (NCSEAM) Survey State and district performance are calculated using a survey of all parents of children receiving special education services ages three through five years and one-third of all parents of school age children receiving special education services ages six through twenty-one. The NCSEAM set a national standard score of 600. More information about this indicator is found in the one page Special Education Facts from the Office of Special Education at Materials are also available at the Wayne State University website: Indicator 9: Disproportionate Representation - Child with a Disability (Compliance Indicator) The Indicator 9 data are from and because a two-year pattern is required in Michigan. All states are required to collect and report data on: the percent of districts with a higher or lower than expected number of students with an Individualized Education Program (IEP) of any racial and ethnic groups that is the result of inappropriate identification policies, procedures or practices. The state and district target: 0% The state performance on the target: 0.2%. The state target was. Source: Michigan Compliance Information System and the Michigan Student Data System The state and district performance are calculated by identifying districts that have a two-year pattern of disproportionate representation by race/ethnicity. Michigan s definition of districts with disproportionate representation includes both: a. A verified risk ratio for over-representation greater than 2.5 or under-representation less than 0.4. b. An analysis of policies, procedures and practices through state monitoring to identify whether the disproportionate representation is the result of inappropriate identification.

7 For details about the calculation and identification process, refer to the APR pp and the APR Appendix B Disproportionate Representation Business Rules pp More information about this indicator is found in the one page Special Education Facts from the Office of Special Education at Indicator 10: Disproportionate Representation Eligibility Categories (Compliance Indicator). The Indicator 10 data are from and because a two-year pattern is required in Michigan. All states are required to collect and report data on: the percent of districts with a higher or lower than expected number of students with an Individualized Education Program (IEP) of any racial and ethnic groups in specific eligibility categories that is the result of inappropriate identification policies, procedures or practices. The state and district target: 0% The state performance on the target: 0.9%. The state target was. Source: Michigan Compliance Information System and the Michigan Student Data System The state and district performance are calculated by identifying districts that have a two-year pattern of disproportionate representation by race/ethnicity. Michigan s definition of districts with disproportionate representation includes both: a. A verified risk ratio for over-representation greater than 2.5, or under-representation less than 0.4. b. An analysis of policies, procedures and practices through state monitoring to identify whether the disproportionate representation is the result of inappropriate identification. For details about the calculation and identification process, refer to the APR pp and the APR Appendix B Disproportionate Representation Business Rules pp More information about this indicator is found in the one page Special Education Facts from the Office of Special Education at Indicator 11: Child Find (Compliance Indicator) All states are required to collect and report data on: the percent of initial special education evaluations completed within 60 days or a state established timeframe (for children ages 2 ½ through age 21 with parental consent to evaluate). The Michigan timeframe is 30 school days or an agreed upon written extension for completion of the evaluation and IEP, whether the student is found eligible or ineligible for special education. The state and district target: 100% The state performance on the target: 99.4%. The state target was. Source: Michigan Student Data System The state and district performance are calculated by: [(The number of children whose evaluations and IEPs were completed within the 30 school days or agreed upon extension) (the number of children for whom parental consent to evaluate was received)] times 100.

8 Indicator 12: Early Childhood Transition (Compliance Indicator) All states are required to collect and report data on: the percent of children who are referred by Part C (Early On in Michigan) prior to age 3, are found eligible for special education programs and services, and have an Individualized Education Program (IEP) developed and implemented by their third birthday The state and district target: 100% The state performance on the target: 98.6%. The state target was. Source: Michigan Compliance Information Service, data verification survey The state and district performance are calculated by [(The number of children found eligible who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays) (the number of children served birth through age 2 and referred to special education for eligibility determination minus the number of children NOT eligible whose eligibility was determined prior to their third birthdays minus the number for whom parent refusal caused delays in evaluation or initial services minus the number of children who were referred to Part C less than 90 days before their third birthdays)] times 100. See Cohort Graduation and Dropout Report. More information about this indicator is found in the one page Special Education Facts from the Office of Special Education at Indicator 13: Secondary Transition (Compliance Indicator) All states are required to collect and report data on: the percent of youth aged 16 and above whose Individualized Education Program (IEP) includes: goals that are: o appropriate measurable o annually updated and o based upon age appropriate transition assessment, transition services, including courses of study, that: o reasonably enable the student to meet those postsecondary goals, o relate to the student s transition services needs 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. The state and district target: 100% The state performance on the target: 99.2% The state target was. Source: National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center, Secondary Transition Checklist

9 The state and district performance are calculated by: The 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 service 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) divided by the (# of youth with an IEP age 16 and above)] times 100. Indicator 14: Postsecondary Outcomes (Results Indicator) All states are required to collect and report data on: the percent of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had an Individualized Education Program (IEP) 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 one year of leaving high school. C. Enrolled in higher education or some other postsecondary education training program; or competitively employed or in some other employment within one year of leaving high school. The state targets: The percent of students with an IEP: A. Enrolled in higher education is at least 34.3% B. Enrolled in higher education or competitively employed is at least 58.4% C. Enrolled in higher education or in some other postsecondary education or training program; or competitively employed or in some other employment is at least 71.4% The state performance on the target: A. 31.7% in higher education B. 53.0% in higher education or competitively employed C. 67.1% in higher education or in some other postsecondary education or training program; or competitively employed or in some other employment Source: National Post-School Outcomes Center Survey The state and district performance are calculated by using: the National Post-School Outcomes Center s Postsecondary Outcomes Survey to collect information from former students who had exited school (graduated, dropped out, or received a certificate of completion) in the previous academic year. Number of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had an IEP in effect at the time they left school and: A. 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 an IEP in effect at the time they left school. B. were enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within one year of leaving high school divided by the # of respondent youth who are no longer in secondary school and had an IEP in effect at the time they left school.

10 C. were 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 divided by the # of respondent youth who are no longer in secondary school and had IEPs in effect at the time they left school. Intermediate School District (ISD) combined data and additional details are available at: