Annual Performance Report

Transcription

1 Annual Performance Report February 15, 2013 Submitted May 16, 2013 Clarification

2 Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2011 Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development: The Department of Education (MDE), Office of Special Education (OSE) developed the State Performance Plan (SPP) with input from stakeholders, particularly through the State Special Education Advisory Panel. The State Special Education Advisory Panel consists of 25 members representing parents of children with disabilities, individuals with disabilities, teachers, IHL representatives, State and local officials, administrators of programs for children with disabilities, representatives of other State agencies involved in the financing or delivery of related services to children with disabilities, representatives of private schools, and a representative of a vocational community or business organization concerned with transition services to children with disabilities. The Advisory Panel members are appointed by the State Superintendent of Education and they serve in an advisory capacity to the State Board of Education concerning: unmet needs within the State in the education of Students with Disabilities (SWD), the development of evaluations and reporting of data, the development of improvement plans, and the development and implementation of policies and procedures. The mission of the Special Education Advisory Panel is to promote the education of children and youth with disabilities. The panel provides advice and guidance to the MDE/OSE, regarding the education and related services of children and youth with disabilities in Local Educational Agencies (LEAs). The advice and guidance includes input from citizens and constituent groups. Additional information on the Advisory Panel may be found online at Continuous input is solicited as evidenced by the SPP/APR presentations that were made during three of the State Special Education Advisory Panel public meetings held this past year. One presentation outlined the State s determination of Meets Requirements and the criteria used by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) for the Special Education Authority (SEA) Determinations. Other presentations during the year provided the group with an overview of each individual Indicator, proposed new calculations for some Indicators, and proposed new targets. The panel reviewed the targets and improvement activities and advised the OSE on revisions, if needed. All Advisory Panel meetings are open to the public and opportunities are provided to allow for public comment during each of these meetings. Comments also may be submitted in writing and those comments are also presented during the panel's public meetings. Dates for each meeting are published in advance and public notice of each meeting is disseminated via the MDE/OSE web page, Superintendent s Monday Memo, newspaper advertisements, mass mail-outs to parent advocacy groups, and other interested parties. Agendas for each meeting are also posted to the OSE web site approximately two weeks in advance of each meeting. Additionally, input on the SPP/APR was solicited from LEA personnel during presentations made at each quarterly LEA Special Education Director s Meeting. These meetings also serve to keep the LEAs informed and focused on the 18 Indicators of the Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 2

3 SPP/APR. Discussions were led by OSE staff in order to familiarize the LEAs with the requirements, targets, and calculations for each Indicator. OSE staff requested input from LEA personnel through these meetings and reviewed each suggestion offered. The APR will be disseminated to the public through the constituencies of various stakeholder groups, including the State Advisory Panel and parent advocacy groups in the same manner as previous APRs and the SPP have been distributed. It will be posted, along with the publicly reported LEA data, on the MDE/OSE website for review and downloading once the APR clarification week with OSEP has passed (which is expected to occur during the month of April), The SPP will also be revised and available at the above website. The United States Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) and the Southeast Regional Resource Center (SERRC) provided invaluable technical assistance to the MDE to improve and strengthen the State s APR reporting process. OSE staff participates in all scheduled OSEP conference calls. Additional technical assistance calls were scheduled with OSEP State consultant Jennifer Finch. Kimberly Hartsell with SERRC committed several days to work with MDE/OSE staff on the preparation of the State s data. Their assistance enabled OSE staff to gain a better understanding of the SPP/APR requirements in preparation of this report. Currently, the MDE reports special education data in multiple ways. Data for children with disabilities can be found through the Report Card ( the LEA Data Profiles ( and the Assessment and Accountability Reporting System ( A web page specifically for the SPP/APR that showcases the updated SPP, prior APRs, publicly reported data, and technical assistance documents ( exists on the MDE/OSE website. The MDE/OSE conducted an intensive data review this past year and assisted LEAs in analyses of their data. After pulling data for FFY 2011 (SY ), the Department sent letters and s to those LEAs whose data indicated possible noncompliance with Indicators 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13. The MDE/OSE also contacted LEAs throughout the school year with reminders to enter data in the State database when it appeared data was incomplete. LEAs are putting more stringent data entry and review procedures in place to ensure the continued accuracy and timeliness of the data entered into the State data system. This past school year brought focus by LEAs on the SPP/APR Indicators as well as increased attention on data entry into the State database. This focus has placed an emphasis on the necessity of timely and accurate data entry. Every LEA is striving on a daily basis to ensure that its data is timely and accurate for each individual child. Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 3

4 The Mattie T. Modified Consent Decree, signed in December of 2003, put in place several rigorous goals and targets for LEAs in the State related to identification rates of Emotional Disabilities and Other Health Impairments, disproportionality, and Least Restrictive Environment. On December 10, 2012, the Mattie T. Consent Decree court case was dismissed with prejudice. This was a monumental achievement for the State of and a direct reflection of the hard work of all LEAs in the State. All of the goals and targets in the decree were achieved. Many of the activities in the SPP were closely aligned with efforts related to reaching the goals and targets in the Mattie T. Modified Consent Decree. With its conclusion, MDE s stakeholders have begun to review and revise our activities to align with our new direction. is focusing its efforts to improve outcomes for students with disabilities. As part of the newly introduced Results Driven Accountability (RDA), the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) has presented a model of accountability that moves away from an emphasis on procedural compliance and places the focus on student achievement results and outcomes. This new model will bring changes in the way that OSEP carries out its general supervision requirements, including SEA determinations. In accordance, MDE has begun to hold stakeholder meetings to receive input from the field on how to revise the mechanisms of monitoring LEAs for compliance while making the shift to focus on outcomes. This change will reflect a more service oriented model that will assist the LEAs in reaching the desired results and outcomes. The State Advisory Panel has been very involved in this process and will be providing invaluable input as we move forward with this new initiative. Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 4

5 Summary of Indicator Performance Indicator Target Actual Target Met 1. Graduation No 2. Dropout Baseline N/A 3a. AYP Met for RLA and Math Assessment Baseline N/A 3b. Participation in RLA Assessment Yes 3b. Participation in Math Assessment Yes 3c. Proficiency in RLA Assessment Baseline 22.2 N/A 3c. Proficiency in Math Assessment Baseline 31.1 N/A 4a. Suspension/Expulsion % of LEAs No 4b. Significant Discrepancy Suspension/Expulsion % of LEAs 0% 0% Yes 5a. LRE In Regular Ed 80% or more Yes 5b. LRE In Regular Ed less than 40% Yes 5c. LRE In Separate Schools, Residential, Homebound, Hospital <= No 6a. Preschool LRE Reg. Early Childhood Program Inclusive Baseline N/A 6b. Preschool LRE Separate Class, School, or Residential Facility Baseline N/A 7. Preschool Improved in Outcome A No 7. Preschool Functioning within age expectations in Outcome A No 7. Preschool Improved in Outcome B No 7. Preschool Functioning within age expectations in Outcome B No 7. Preschool Improved in Outcome B No 7. Preschool Functioning within age expectations in Outcome B No 8. Parent Involvement Yes 9. Disproportionate Representation in Child Count 0 0 Yes 10. Disproportionate Representation by Disability SLD 0 0 Yes EmD 0 0 Yes LS 0 0 Yes OHI 0 0 Yes AU 0 0 Yes ID 0 0 Yes 11. Child Find No 12. Part C to B Transition No 13. Secondary Transition with IEP Goals No 14a. Post-School Outcomes Higher Education No 14b. Post-School Outcomes Higher Education or Competitive Employment No 14c. Post-School Outcomes Positively Engaged No 15. Monitoring, Complaints, Hearings No 18. Hearing Requests that went to Resolution Yes 19. Mediations No 20. Timeliness of State Reported Data/Reports Yes Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 5

6 Discussion of Data Indicator 1: Graduation Indicator 2: Dropout. Indicator 3: Assessment.. Indicator 4: Discipline.. Indicator 5: LRE 6 to 21 Year Olds Indicator 6: LRE 3 to 5 Year Olds.. Indicator 7: Pre-School Assessment. Indicator 8: Parental Involvement.. Indicator 9: Disproportionality in Special Education Indicator 10: Disproportionality in Disabilities... Indicator 11: Eligibility within 60 Days (Initial Rulings). Indicator 12: Transition from Part C to Part B Indicator 13: Secondary Transition.. Indicator 14: Post-School Outcomes... Indicator 15: General Supervision Indicator 18: Hearing Requests Indicator 19: Mediations Page Number Indicator 20: Timeliness of State Reported Data and Reports 159 Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 6

7 Acronyms Used in FY 2011 (SY ) APR AMO APR AU BDI-2 CAP CEIS CFA CSPR DB DD EmD ESEA FBA FFY HI ICT ID IEP IP Annual Measurable Objectives Annual Performance Report Autism Battelle Developmental Inventory, 2 nd Edition Corrective Action Plan Coordinated Early Intervening Services Children First Act Consolidated State Performance Report Deaf-Blind Developmentally Delayed Emotional Disability Elementary and Secondary Education Act Functional Behavior Assessment Federal Fiscal Year Hearing Impaired Information and Communication Technology Intellectual Disability Individualized Education Programs Improvement Plan LEA LRE LS MAAECF MCT2 MD MDE MDH Local Education Authority Least Restrictive Environment Language Speech Alternate Assessment of Extended Curriculum Frameworks Curriculum Test, 2 nd Edition Multiple Disabilities Department of Education Department of Health Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 7

8 MDR MDRS MOA MOD MSAS MSIS NDO NGA OHI OI OSA OSE RtI RLA RSC SBE SEA SERRC SLD SPP SWD SY TBI VI Manifestation Determination Review Department of Rehabilitation Services Memorandum Of Agreement Occupational Diploma Student Assessment System Student Information System Non-disabled only National Governor s Association Other Health Impairment Orthopedic Impairment Office of Student Assessment Office of Special Education Response to Intervention Reading Language Assessment Regional Resource Center State Board of Education State Education Authority South East Regional Resource Center Specific Learning Disability State Performance Plan Students with Disabilities School Year Traumatic Brain Injury Visually Impaired Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 8

9 Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2011 (SY ) [based on SY data] Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE Indicator 1: Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma. (20 U.S.C (a)(3)(a)) Measurement: States must report using the adjusted cohort graduation rate required under the ESEA. FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target 2011 ( ) based on SY data 66.00% Actual Target Data for FFY 2011 (SY ) based on SY data: FFY 2011 ( ) based on SY data SWD Graduating with a Regular Diploma 23% Target Not Met Total number of SWD in full cohort: 4,631 Denominator for Graduation/Completion calculation: 3,743 (Full cohort minus transfers and deaths) Number of SWD who graduated with a regular diploma in 4 years: /3743 = 23% Data, measurements, and targets for Indicator 1 are the same as those reported under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 9

10 The State obtained approval from the U.S. Department of Education to report a new fouryear cohort graduation rate beginning with the SY Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR). The graduation requirements in associated with graduating with a standard high school diploma are the same for Students with Disabilities (SWD) as they are for Non-Disabled Only (NDO). Youths in must meet the following requirements for graduation with a standard high school diploma: a) earn a minimum of 21 Carnegie Units; b) take the following required, subject area courses - U.S. History from 1877, English II, Biology I, and Algebra I; and c) pass all end-of-course tests in the required subject areas noted in (b). LEAs have the authority to require additional Carnegie Units to meet local requirements for a standard high school diploma. Some local LEAs who utilize a 4 x 4 block or A/B block schedule require students to earn Carnegie Units in order to receive a standard high school diploma. Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for FFY 2011(SY ): State Performance Plan Improvement Activities The OSE advances its LRE goals through the following activities: Monitoring of LEAs using the focused monitoring process in the area of LRE. The SEA disaggregates LRE data by individual LEAs in the age categories of 6-11 and to more appropriately determine individual LEA performance with LRE data at the secondary level. Such data analysis revealed a need to devote attention to inclusive practices at the secondary level. Through its monitoring process, OSE has made a tremendous effort at the elementary level to maintain students who have been initially identified as eligible for special education services in regular education classrooms. The area of greatest need with regard to LRE appears to be transitioning from elementary school to Improvement Activities FFY 2011 (SY ) Technical assistance staff and contractual personnel provided 16 training opportunities in the following areas related to Least Restrictive Environment (LRE): LRE training, Inclusion, and IEP training. Each of these training opportunities addressed LRE requirements and the procedure for reviewing placement decisions for SWD. The procedure is a four-step process designed to help IEP committees as they develop student IEPs, and make valid decisions regarding placement in the LRE. Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 10

11 State Performance Plan Improvement Activities middle school and from middle school to secondary school. In order to address positive outcomes for SWD by earning a standard high school diploma, professional development and technical assistance will be provided relative to inclusive practices and implementation of LRE requirements at the secondary level. (Ongoing) MDE will provide resources for educational personnel in the State through information on our website, and through the provision of resources to support the graduation initiative. The OSE, in consultation with Dr. Marilyn Friend of The University of North Carolina, Greensboro has developed an instructional toolkit, Toolkit for Success: Professional Development Resources. This toolkit provides resources to support educational personnel in their role of providing instruction to SWD in general education settings. (Distribution to LEAs: February 2006) Improvement Activities FFY 2011 (SY ) Additional items were added to the Toolkit for Success: Professional Development Resources during the school year. Toolkits containing original resources as well as the newly added resources were disseminated to LEAs. A total of 30 additional toolkits were distributed to the 152 LEAs, Regional Resource Centers (RSC), and various offices at MDE. The resources included in the toolkits are designed to provide support to educators by addressing the needs of individual students in the various content areas. The resources will increase SWD success in general education courses, and their ability to earn a standard high school diploma. Three regional technical assistance centers were established by the SEA in 2005 to provide support for LEAs in greatest need of improvement, as identified through focused monitoring. Six full-time professional personnel work with individual LEAs to assist with implementation of improvement plans and Various resources included in the toolkit are frequently featured in regional meetings, regional trainings conducted by the OSE, and quarterly meetings scheduled with the Directors of Special Education. During the school year, staff assigned to the three RSCs continued their provision of technical assistance to LEAs on Plans of Rapid Compliance. The RSC staff worked with many of these LEAs prior to on-site visits to assist them with the LEA self-review. Following the OSE site visit, the RSC staff assisted many of these LEAs in the development Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 11

12 State Performance Plan Improvement Activities school improvement activities. Training is offered and conducted each year by the OSE. Topics include, but are not limited to: LRE Training, Inclusion, and IEP Training. Increasing the graduation rate for SWD is incorporated into many of these training opportunities. Each LEA in the State is required to develop and maintain a Dropout Prevention Plan which includes SWD. Improvement Activities FFY 2011 (SY ) of the LEA improvement plan. In all instances, the RSC staff completed their primary responsibility of supporting the LEA staff in the correction of noncompliance through the implementation of the corrective actions in the approved LEA improvement plans. Training opportunities were provided to LEA personnel related to LRE, Inclusion, and IEPs. Training was provided on the following dates: Vicksburg, MS July 28, 2011 o DeSoto, MS October 26, 2011 o Gulfport, MS November 8, 2011 o Jackson, MS November 14, 2011 o Gulfport, MS November 29, 2011 o Gulfport, MS November 30, 2011 o Starkville, MS December 15, 2011 o Jackson, MS January 9, 2012 o Jackson, MS January 10, 2012 o Jackson, MS January 13, 2012 o DeSoto, MS January 23, 2012 o DeSoto, MS January 24, 2012 o Tupelo, MS February 9, 2012 o Tupelo, MS February 10, 2012 o Jackson, MS February 15, 2012 o Tupelo, MS March 1, 2012 The Office of Dropout Prevention requires each LEA to develop and implement a LEA Dropout Prevention Plan, and to establish a team dedicated to implementing the plan. This team is designed to work as a school-community partnership. The team will include school personnel, representatives from local businesses, faith-based organizations, and the community at large. The Office of Dropout Prevention developed the Roadmap to Success: A Framework for LEA Dropout Prevention Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 12

13 State Performance Plan Improvement Activities Improvement Activities FFY 2011 (SY ) Plans. The LEA dropout prevention plan process required each LEA to complete a needs assessment, describe the implementation of current LEA-level activities related to K-12 dropout prevention, and describe proposed initiatives. The plan is required to include the following components: o LEA Dropout Prevention Plan Cover Sheet and Dropout Prevention Team Signature Page; o Statement of Assurances; o Outcomes of the Needs Assessment; o Details of Current LEA Initiatives; o Proposed Initiatives with Prioritized Actions. Each LEA is required to submit a selfassessment based on the SPP/APR Indicators as part of their annual application process. In reporting on performance of Indicator 1, LEAs will be required to analyze the data provided by the State for post-school outcomes. The State will utilize the data display templates provided by National Post-School Outcomes (NPSO) to provide LEAs with this data. This will provide LEAs with data that will allow them to identify targeted groups of their population for improvement. LEAs submitted self-assessments as part of their annual application that included measurable activities to increase the percentage of SWD graduating with a regular high school diploma. Additional Improvement Activities for FFY 2011 (SY ): On August 30 September 1, 2011 the OSE, in collaboration with Career and Technical Education, Curriculum and Instruction, the Office of Dropout Prevention and Compulsory School Attendance Enforcement hosted its Annual Dropout Prevention Conference. During the school year, the State Board of Education (SBE) updated the State s accountability standards to include a new exit option: the Career Pathways Diploma. This update also included the requirement that all students exiting 8 th Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 13

14 grade must complete an Individual Career and Academic Plan (icap). The Career Pathway Option is a standard diploma that requires the students to complete four career and technical education units and two-and-one-half elective units specified in the student s icap. The icap is a guide for students to help them establish and achieve their career and academic goals for success after high school by (1) providing mentorship and guidance to assist students in career pathway planning, (2) helping students identify correct graduation pathway options, (3) supporting changes to meet student needs and ambitions, and (4) helping students transition into a profession or postsecondary educational major. Training was provided as follows: Indianola, MS September 12, 2011; October 17, 2011 Pearl, MS September 14, 2011; October 13, 2011 Pearl, MS September 16, 2011; October 12, 2011 MS State University, MS September 19, 2011; October 24, 2011 Tupelo, MS - September 23, 2011; November 11, 2011 Perkinston, MS September 26, 2011; November 1, 2011 MS State University, MS September 27, 2011; October 24, 2011 Hattiesburg, MS September 28, 2011; October 31, 2011 Summit, MS - September 29, 2011; November 10, 2011 Tunica, MS October 3, 2011; November 9, 2011 On January 25, 2012, OSE provided superintendents with information on the Career Pathways and icap at the Association State Superintendents (MASS) Winter Conference. Additional information was provided at the March 28, 2012 MASS Spring Conference. The superintendents were provided information about the Occupational Diploma (MOD) and the icap. School administrators at the 2011 Association of School Administrators (MASA) Annual Fall Meeting and Leadership Conference on October 16-18, 2011 received information about the icap. The State Board of Education (SBE) has made a commitment to address its dropout and graduation rates for all students. This commitment has the full support of the Interim State Superintendent of Education and the MDE. The State Dropout Prevention Plan includes the following goal: To increase the graduation rate for 9-12 cohort classes on a systematic basis to 85% by the school year as mandated by Code The MDE hosted the first Destination Graduation Teen Summit, MDE s Statewide dropout prevention awareness campaign on January 15, Since then, the MDE continues to sponsor a variety of forums designed to reach youth and to publicly promote dropout prevention strategies with parents and community partners throughout the State. Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 14

15 The momentum for dropout prevention continues to build across the State as LEAs develop dropout prevention programs, and partnerships are formed with the business sector and local communities. SWD are included in the redesign plan. The Office of Career and Technical Education oversees the Special Populations program, a Federally-funded program which provides remediation to students in vocational and technical areas, including SWD. Special populations services focus on recruitment, enrollment, instruction, retention, completion, placement, and follow-up of special populations preparing for high-skill, high-wage occupations and/or nontraditional employment in new and emerging careers. The purpose of instructional services rendered by the special population personnel is to enable special population students to experience success in their chosen vocational education programs. Student services personnel may provide instruction for the disadvantaged vocational SWD in areas including mathematics, reading, and writing. The instruction is coordinated with the vocational instructor and services are delivered concurrently with enrollment in a vocational education program. A diverse method of instruction is used in providing services to those identified students. Students receive a variety of instruction ranging from individualized instruction to updated computer remediation programs. This process is to ensure that those students master competencies, and learn employability skills to assist them in becoming successful in the world of work. Vocational education instructors continue to utilize the differentiated instructional strategies listed on each student s IEP to deliver instruction. The special population instructors continue to be available for remediation. OSE will continue to support the SBE goals and strategies to address s dropout rate for all students. This Statewide initiative focuses on all students, while addressing Indicator 1 as OSE works to increase the percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma. MDE, with consensus from stakeholder groups, addresses Indicator 1 through the implementation of inclusive practices and other activities relative to LRE. By increasing access to the general curriculum across all grade levels and providing appropriate accommodations and modifications, more SWD are expected to meet the requirements for a standard high school diploma, thus increasing the graduation rate. With inclusive practices and the supports necessary for successful inclusion of SWD in regular education classrooms, the graduation gap between SWD and their non-disabled peers should close. In order to provide LEAs with data necessary for informed decision-making, the OSE annually produces and publishes Mattie T. Data Trend Charts and SPP/APR Publicly Reported Data OSE staff participated in professional development activities with the School Turnaround Learning Community and the American Youth Policy Forum regarding the development Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 15

16 and use of early warning systems to decrease dropout rates and improve graduation rates and the development of comprehensive systems that support graduation. This information will be incorporated in future trainings and guidance for districts. Explanation of Progress or Slippage that Occurred for FFY 2011 (SY ): Indicator 1 - SWD Graduating with a Regular Diploma Baseline Target Actual Target = 66.00%, Actual = 23% - Target Not Met Data reported in FFY 2011 lags a year, and is based on SY data. The target set by the State for all students is a measure of graduation with a regular diploma within 4 years. Many students with disabilities are able to obtain a regular diploma, but require an extended timeframe of five or six years to do so. Those students are not reflected in this data. The completion rate for SWD (includes those students who exited with a certificate of completion, Occupational Diploma, standard high school diploma, etc.) was 70.7% for SY The SBE goals and strategies will continue to be at the forefront of all educational activities within the State of. These goals and strategies play an important part Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 16

17 of the SPP improvement activities. OSE will continue to strive to address these goals and strategies in order to increase the graduation rate of SWD in the coming years. All SPP improvement activities will continue throughout the next school year. Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2012: None Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 17

18 SPP Template Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) for Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE Indicator 2: Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high school. (20 U.S.C (a)(3)(a)) 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 the numerator and the number of all youth with IEPs who left high school (ages 14-21) in the denominator. Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process: 's procedures for collecting and reporting data related to dropouts and high school graduates are aligned closely with those outlined by the National Center for Education Statistics in the U.S. Department of Education. Annual dropout data are currently collected through the Student Information System (MSIS) using dropout codes entered by district personnel. Data for Indicator 2 lags a year and is based on SY exiting data. New baselines, targets, and activities were re-established in FFY 2011 to align with new measurement instructions provided by OSEP. Baseline Data for FFY 2011 ( ) [based on SY data]: Numerator: Total number of students with disabilities (SWD) (ages 14-21) who dropped out: 359 Denominator: Total number of SWD (ages 14-21) who left high school: 3, /3333 = 10.77% Denominator includes: SWD who graduated with a regular high school diploma: 923 SWD who received a certificate: 2,019 SWD who reached maximum age: 25 SWD who dropped out: 359 SWD who died: 7 Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 18

19 SPP Template Students with IEPs that exited special education due to transferring to regular education or who moved, but are known to be continuing in education are not included in the denominator. The definition of a dropout is the same for SWD and Non-Disabled Only (NDO) students. A dropout is defined as an individual who: Was enrolled in school at some time during the previous school year Was not enrolled at the beginning of the current school year Has not graduated from high school And does not meet any of the following exclusionary conditions: o Transfer to another public school district, private school, or state/district approved educational program o Temporary absence due to suspension or school-approved absence o Death For purposes of reporting dropout data to OSEP through the IDEA 618 data collection, the State uses a single year of data for reporting. The LEAs report dropouts throughout the school year, and the data collection for 618 reporting takes place after the end of the school year. The State also reports a dropout rate for SWD under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). That rate is based on a four-year cohort of students. Though the definition of a dropout remains the same as for IDEA 618 reporting, the number of students who drop out is captured over a four-year period. The dropout rate for SY using ESEA calculations is 22%. is setting new baseline data for FFY 2011, based on SY exiting information reported to OSEP under IDEA section 618. This data is currently submitted through the EDFacts file specification C009. Discussion of Baseline Data: MDE and its stakeholders have decided to retain the previous targets, which are the same targets for all students in the State. The percentage of SWD dropping out of high school met the previously set target statewide target of 15% by nearly 5 percentage points. As evidenced by trend data below, expects to meet the dropout targets set for all students in the State in the future. Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 19

20 SPP Template FFY Dropout Rate % % % FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target 2005 ( ) Baseline 618 data for SWD dropping out of school was 13.74%. The dropout rate for SWD will decrease by 0.5 from 13.74% ( ) The dropout rate for SWD will decrease by 0.5 from 13.74% to 13.24% ( ) The dropout rate for SWD will decrease by 0.5 from 13.24% to 12.74% ( ) The dropout rate for SWD will decrease by 0.5 from 12.74% to 12.24% ( ) based on SY data Baseline ESEA data for SWD dropping out of school was 24% - Target set under Title I of the ESEA is 22% or less. Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 20

21 SPP Template 2010 ( ) based on SY data 18% or less 2011 ( ) based on SY data Baseline data 10.77% 2012 ( ) based on SY data 13% or less Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources: The following activities will be continued and updated through 2012: 's procedures for collecting and reporting data related to dropouts and high school graduates are aligned closely with those outlined by the National Center for Education Statistics in the U.S. Department of Education. Annual dropout data are currently collected through the MSIS using dropout codes entered by Leading Education Authority (LEA) personnel. The definition of dropout is the same for SWD and NDO. As outlined in Indicator 1, the SBE has made a commitment to address the dropout rate for all students. This commitment has the full support of the State Superintendent of Education and the MDE. One of the SBE s bold goals states: Reduce the dropout rate to 13% by Three additional accomplishments that demonstrate s commitment to address dropout prevention include: The State Legislature established the Office of Dropout Prevention ( Code: Title 37 Education ) which is responsible for the administration of 's Statewide dropout prevention program and the recommendation of any regulations or policies that may be adopted by the State Board of Education pertaining to dropout prevention. Additionally, it is the intent of the State that, through the Statewide dropout prevention program and the dropout prevention programs implemented by each school district, the graduation rate for 9 - Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 21

22 SPP Template 12 cohort classes will be increased to eighty-five percent (85%) by the school year. The Office of Dropout Prevention has established graduation rate benchmarks for each two-year period from the school year through the school year. By , initiatives instituted by the Office of Dropout Prevention are expected to reduce the State s grades 9 12 dropout rate by 50%. Similarly, by , the Statewide truancy rate is expected to be reduced by 50% due to the programs being implemented by the Office of Dropout Prevention. Hosting the first Destination Graduation: Teen Summit, the MDE s Statewide dropout prevention awareness campaign on January 15, Hosting the first Destination Graduation: Adult Summit, scheduled for February 28, All three of these accomplishments have been completed and implemented. Code of 1972 Annotated was responsible for the creation of the Office of Dropout Prevention in September This office is responsible for the administration of s Statewide dropout prevention program, and any regulations or policies that may be adopted by the SBE pertaining to dropout prevention. MDE believes the work of dropout prevention is a department-wide coordinated initiative. Various offices within the MDE have programs that address dropout prevention, including the OSE, the former Office of Reading, Early Childhood, and Language Arts (now under the Office of Curriculum and Instruction as of July 1, 2010), the Office of Safe and Orderly Schools, the Office of School Improvement, the Office of Curriculum and Instruction, the Office of Career and Technical Education, and the Office of Federal Programs. The Office of Curriculum and Instruction has several programs in place that aim to help increase the graduation rate of the State of, and create more relevancy and rigor in the overall classroom experience of more students. The Curriculum Frameworks have been revised over the last couple of years to add more rigor and relevance in the instruction of core content, and courses required for graduation. The Office of Curriculum and Instruction and the OSE supports State Board Policy 4300 (Three Tier Model for Intervention) that aims to provide teachers and district administrators support in identifying research-based strategies to help students academically and behaviorally. The Office of Curriculum and Instruction also support credit recovery policies that allow for students to earn credit for courses they were previously unsuccessful without having to take the full course. The programs goals are to help increase the graduation rates that are supported by the Office of Curriculum and Instruction. The programs will create a new learning experience that meet the needs of students and by helping teachers and administrators incorporate more innovative approaches to instruction. Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 22

23 SPP Template The Office of Compulsory School Attendance Enforcement works directly with students who are truant. Truancy is often the first sign that a student is experiencing environmental changes, which derive from school, home, or community issues. School attendance officers address the truancy component of the dropouts in, along with other vital roles such as: Finding the reason for poor attendance Providing assistance that addresses the reason for poor attendance Educating families on the Compulsory School Attendance Law Re-engaging students who are transitioning from youth detention centers Working as liaisons with schools and families to prevent a student from dropping out Motivating students and families about the importance of an education and attending school Filing charges when necessary in enforcing the law SWD are included in the Redesign plan. The Office of Career and Technical Education oversees the Special Populations program, a Federally-funded program which provides remediation to students in vocational and technical areas, including SWD. Special Populations services focus on recruitment, enrollment, instruction, retention, completion, placement, and follow-up of special populations preparing for high skill, high wage occupations and/or nontraditional employment in new and emerging careers. The purpose of instructional services rendered by Special Populations personnel is to enable Special Populations students (including SWD) to experience success in their chosen vocational education programs. Student services personnel may provide instruction for the disadvantaged vocational SWD in areas including mathematics, reading, and writing. The instruction is coordinated with the vocational instructor, and services are delivered concurrently with enrollment in a vocational education program. A diverse method of instruction is used in providing services to those identified students. Students receive a variety of instruction ranging from individualized instruction, to updated computer remediation programs. This process is to ensure that those students master competencies, and learn employability skills to assist them in becoming successful in the world of work. Vocational education instructors continue to utilize the differentiated instructional strategies listed on each student s IEP to deliver instruction. The Special Populations instructor continues to be available for remediation. The OSE will continue to support the SBE goals and strategies to address s dropout rate for all students. This Statewide initiative focuses on all students, and will address Indicator 2 as OSE works to decrease the percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high school. MDE, with consensus from stakeholder groups, will address Indicator 2 through the implementation of inclusive practices and other activities relative to LREs. By increasing access to the general curriculum across all grade levels and providing appropriate Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 23

24 SPP Template accommodations and modifications, more SWD are expected to meet the requirements for a standard high school diploma, thus increasing the graduation rate. With inclusive practices and the supports necessary for successful inclusion of SWD in regular education classrooms, the graduation gap between SWD and their non-disabled peers should close. The OSE advances its LRE goals through the following activities: MDE will provide resources for educational personnel in the State through information on our website and through the provision of resources to support this initiative. The OSE, in consultation with Dr. Marilyn Friend of UNC-Greensboro, has developed an instructional toolkit, Toolkit for Success: Professional Development Resources, which provides resources to support educational personnel in their role of providing instruction to SWD in general education settings. (Distribution to LEAs: February 2006) o Additional items were added to the Toolkit for Success: Professional Development Resources during the school year. Toolkits containing original resources as well as the newly added resources were disseminated to LEAs. A total of 30 additional toolkits were distributed to the 152 LEAs attending training, Regional Resource Centers (RSC), and various offices at MDE. The resources included in the toolkits are designed to provide support to educators by addressing the needs of individual students in the various content areas. The resources will increase SWD success in general education courses, and their ability to earn a standard high school diploma. o Various resources included in the toolkit are frequently featured in regional meetings, regional trainings conducted by the OSE, and quarterly meetings scheduled with the Directors of Special Education. Three regional technical assistance centers were established by the SEA for the purpose of providing support for districts in greatest need of improvement, as identified through focused monitoring. Six full-time professional personnel work with individual districts to assist with implementation of corrective action plans and school improvement activities. (Implementation: Ongoing) o During the school year, staff assigned to the 3 RSCs continued their provision of technical assistance to LEAs that were monitored during the school year. The RSC staff worked with many of these LEAs prior to the on-site visit to assist them with the LEA self-review. Following the OSE site visit, the RSC staff assisted many of these LEAs in the development of the LEA improvement plan. In all instances, the RSC staff completed their primary responsibility of supporting the LEA staff in the correction of noncompliance through the implementation of the corrective actions in the approved LEA improvement plan Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 24

25 SPP Template Training is offered and conducted each year by the Office of Special Education. Topics include, but are not limited to: LRE Training, Inclusion, and IEP Training. Decreasing the dropout rate for SWD is incorporated into many of these training opportunities. During SY , training opportunities were provided to LEA personnel related to LRE, Inclusion, and IEPs. Training was provided on the following dates: Vicksburg, MS July 28, 2011 o DeSoto, MS October 26, o Gulfport, MS November 8, 2011 o Jackson, MS November o Gulfport, MS November 29, 2011 o Gulfport, MS November 30, 2011 o Starkville, MS December 15, 2011 o Jackson, MS January 9, 2012 o Jackson, MS January 10, 2012 o Jackson, MS January 13, 2012 o DeSoto, MS January 23, 2012 o DeSoto, MS January 24, 2012 o Tupelo, MS February 9, 2012 o Tupelo, MS February 10, 2012 o Jackson, MS February 15, 2012 o Tupelo, MS March 1, 2012 Each LEA in the State is required to develop and maintain a Dropout Prevention Plan. SWD are included in these plans. Each LEA is required to submit a self-assessment based on the SPP/APR Indicators as part of their annual application process. In reporting on performance of Indicator 2, LEAs will be required to analyze the data provided by the State for post-school outcomes. The State will utilize the Data Display Templates provided by National Post- School Outcomes (NPSO) to provide districts with this data. This will provide districts with data that will allow them to identify targeted groups of their population for improvement. OSE collaborates annually with Career and Technical Education, Curriculum and Instruction, the Office of Dropout Prevention, and Compulsory School Attendance Enforcement to host the Dropout Prevention Conference. During the school year, the State Board of Education (SBE) updated the State s accountability standards to include a new exit option: the Career Pathways Diploma. This update also included the requirement that all students exiting 8 th grade must complete an Individual Career and Academic Plan (icap). The Career Pathway Option is a standard diploma that requires the students to complete four career Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 25

26 SPP Template and technical education units and two-and-one-half elective units specified in the student s icap. The icap is a guide for students to help them establish and achieve their career and academic goals for success after high school by (1) providing mentorship and guidance to assist students in career pathway planning, (2) helping students identify correct graduation pathway options, (3) supporting changes to meet student needs and ambitions and (4) helping students transition into a profession or postsecondary educational major. Training was provided as follows: Indianola, MS September 12, 2011; October 17, 2011 Pearl, MS September 14, 2011; October 13, 2011 Pearl, MS September 16, 2011; October 12, 2011 MS State, MS September 19, 2011; October 24, 2011 Tupelo, MS - September 23, 2011; November 11, 2011 Perkinston, MS September 26, 2011; November 1, 2011 MS State, MS September 27, 2011; October 24, 2011 Hattiesburg, MS September 28, 2011; October 31, 2011 Summit, MS - September 29, 2011; November 10, 2011 Tunica, MS October 3, 2011; November 9, 2011 School administrators at the 2011 MASA Annual Fall Meeting and Leadership Conference on October 16-18, 2011 received information about the icap. In January 25, 2012, OSE provided superintendents with information on the Career Pathways and icap at the Association State Superintendents (MASS) Winter Conference. Additional information was provided at the March 28, 2012 MASS Spring Conference. The superintendents were provided information about the Occupational Diploma (MOD) and the icap. OSE provides training opportunities via Listserv communication to the Directors of Special Education. This includes webinars such as Building Early Warning Systems to Identify Students with Disabilities at Risk for Dropping out of High School and Monitoring Their Response to Intervention and Transition Planning: Developing a Summary of Performance and Setting Goals. Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 26

27 Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2011 (SY ) Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE Indicator 3: Participation and performance of children with IEPs on Statewide assessments: A. Percent of the LEAs with a disability subgroup that meets the State s minimum n size that meet the State s AYP/AMO targets for the disability subgroup. B. Participation rate for children with IEPs. C. Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level, modified and alternate academic achievement standards. (20 U.S.C (a)(3)(a)) Measurement: A. (choose either A.1 or A.2) A.1 AYP percent = [(# of districts with a disability subgroup that meets the State s minimum n size that meet the State s AYP targets for the disability subgroup) divided by the (total # of districts that have a disability subgroup that meets the State s minimum n size)] times 100. A.2 AMO percent = [(# of districts with a disability subgroup that meets the State s minimum n size that meet the State s AMO targets for the disability subgroup) divided by the (total # of districts that have a disability subgroup that meets the State s minimum n size)] times 100. B. Participation rate percent = [(# of children with IEPs participating in the assessment) divided by the (total # of children with IEPs enrolled during the testing window, calculated separately for reading and math)]. The participation rate is based on all children with IEPs, including both children with IEPs enrolled for a full academic year and those not enrolled for a full academic year. C. Proficiency rate percent = [(#of children with IEPs scoring at or above proficient against grade level, modified and alternate academic achievement standards) divided by the (total # of children with IEPs who received a valid score and for whom a proficiency level was assigned, and, calculated separately for reading and math)]. The proficiency rate includes both children with IEPs enrolled for a full academic year and those not enrolled for a full academic year. Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 27

28 Targets and Actual Target Data for FFY 2011: The Department of Education submitted s ESEA Flexibility (Waiver) Request to the United States Department of Education (ED) on February 24, MDE s Request was approved by ED on July 19, 2012 and was implemented in schools in the school year. This included the reporting of school year assessment results. As a result of the approved waiver, will be resetting baselines for portions of Indicator 3 for FFY For more information on s ESEA Flexibility Request, please see our website: With the new Annual Measurable Objective (AMO) model, the State has set targets for all students as well as for certain subgroups. One of those subgroups is students with disabilities. The goal for all students is to reduce by half the percentage of students in the all students group and in each subgroup who are not proficient within six years. In prior years, reported on the AYP performance of LEAs in Indicator 3A. With the approval of the ESEA Flexibility Request, AYP calculations will no longer take place in the State and will be replaced with AMO calculations. Therefore, the State will report using the 3A.2 calculation option for Indicator 3. Baselines and targets for Indicator 3A.2 have been reset to reflect this change. In addition, proficiency targets for Indicator 3C have been aligned with the AYP proficiency calculations in the past. In order to remain aligned to the State s goals and to better reflect the subgroup-specific goals for students with disabilities set forth in the ESEA Flexibility Request, the State is also resetting baselines and targets for Indicator 3C. reduced the n-size for accountability purposes from forty to thirty. The n-size applies to all subgroups. FFY 2011 Measurable and Rigorous Targets Targets for FFY 2011 ( ) Districts Meeting AMO for Disability Subgroup (3A.2) Baseline Reset Participation for Students with IEPs (3B) Proficiency for Students with IEPs (3C) Reading Math Reading Math 95% 95% Baseline Reset Baseline Reset Actual Target Data for FFY 2011 ( ) # % # % # % # % # % % Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 28

29 3. A.2 - Actual AMO Target Data for FFY 2011: FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target FFY 2011 (SY ) Baseline data being reset in FFY 2011 due to ESEA Flexibility LEAs with a disability subgroup that met the State s minimum n size and met the State s AMO target for the disability subgroup. Year Total Number of LEAs Number of LEAs Meeting the n size Number of LEAs that meet the minimum n size and met AMO for FFY 2011 Percent of LEAs FFY 2011 ( ) % reset baselines and targets for Indicator 3A.2 for FFY The following targets have been set for FFY 2012: FFY 2012 ( ) Measurable and Rigorous Target 3A.2: 18.3% Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 29

30 3. B Actual Participation Target Data for FFY 2011: FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target FFY 2011 (SY ) Reading 95% Math 95% A B C D E F G Statewide Assessment Children with IEPs IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations IEPs in alternate assessment against gradelevel standards IEPs in alternate assessment against modified standards IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate standards Overall (b+c+d+e+f) Baseline Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Math Assessment Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade HS Total # % Children included in A but not included in the other counts above Account for any children with IEPs that were not participants in the narrative Children with IEPs that did not participate in the assessment include: Students whose assessment results were invalid - 32 students Absent 518 students Medical emergencies - 4 students Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 30

31 A B C D E F G Statewide Assessment Children with IEPs IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations IEPs in alternate assessment against gradelevel standards IEPs in alternate assessment against modified standards IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate standards Overall (b+c+d+e+f) Baseline Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Reading Assessment Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade HS Total # % Children included in A but not included in the other counts above Account for any children with IEPs that were not participants in the narrative Children with IEPs that did not participate in the assessment include: Students whose assessment results were invalid - 46 students Absent 476 students Medical emergencies - 4 students Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 31

32 3. C Actual Performance Target Data for FFY 2011 FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target FFY 2011 (SY ) Reading Baseline data being reset in FFY 2011 due to ESEA Flexibility Math Baseline data being reset in FFY 2011 due to ESEA Flexibility Statewide Assessment Grade 3 Grade 4 Math Assessment Performance Grade Grade Grade Grade 8 Total Grade HS # % A Children with IEPs B C D E F G IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations IEPs in alternate assessment against gradelevel standards IEPs in alternate assessment against modified standards IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate standards Overall (b+c+d+e+f) Baseline Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 32

33 Statewide Assessment Grade 3 Reading Assessment Performance Grade Grade Grade Grade 4 Grade 8 Total Grade HS # % A Children with IEPs B C D E F G IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations IEPs in alternate assessment against grade-level standards IEPs in alternate assessment against modified standards IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate standards Overall (b+c+d+e+f) Baseline reset baselines and targets for Indicator 3C for FFY The following targets have been set for FFY 2012: FFY 2012 ( ) Measurable and Rigorous Target 3C: Reading/Language Arts: 45% Mathematics: 50% Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 33

34 Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for FFY 2011 (SY ): State Performance Plan Improvement Activities The Office of Student Assessment provides support to school personnel related to the assessment of students under the Statewide Assessment System (MSAS). Staff in the OSE and OSA work collaboratively to address the participation of SWD in State and LEA assessments, and have provided trainings statewide with copresenters from the OSE and the OSA. Improvement Activities FFY 2011 (SY ) Training opportunities were provided by the OSA and the OSE during the school year that focused on increasing the participation and performance of children with disabilities on statewide assessments. At the new Special Education Supervisors Training on October 24-25, 2011, special education directors were provided training on statewide testing. Information was presented at the January 2012 MASS Winter Conference. Training was provided regionally to Directors of Special Education on the Alternate Assessment of the Extended Curriculum Frameworks (MAAECF). A number of training opportunities are provided by the OSE and the OSA regarding the participation and performance of SWD in the (MSAS). The resource manual Testing Students w/disabilities Regulations Statewide Assessment System has been developed and provided to LEA personnel. Use the link to find the publication on the MDE website. Pearl, MS September 26, 2011 MAAECF training was provided in regional locations for teachers who administer the MAAECF. Training was provided as noted below: o Pearl, MS August 25, 2011 o Pearl, MS August 26, 2011 o Pearl, MS September 1, 2011 o Pearl, MS September 27, 2011 o Pearl, MS September 28, 2011 o Pearl, MS September 29, 2011 o Gulfport, MS October 3, 2011 o Hattiesburg, MS October 4, 2011 o Jackson, MS October 5, 2011 o Jackson, MS October 6, 2011 o Oxford, MS October 11, 2011 o Desoto, MS October 12, 2011 Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 34

35 State Performance Plan Improvement Activities Improvement Activities FFY 2011 (SY ) Additional webinars were provided regarding MAAECF evidence collection and administration and scoring of the MAAECF. Information was communicated on a regular and ongoing basis through Listservs maintained by the OSA and OSE regarding updates, training opportunities, and pertinent information. Information was presented at the January 2012 MASS Winter Conference. Guidance is provided to school personnel, parents, and students to ensure that informed decisions are being made regarding the MSAS. The guidance is in accordance with IDEA 1997 and IDEA 2004 and the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. Information was presented to New Special Education Directors at the New Special Education Supervisor s Training on October 25, 2011 and January 18, Guidance was provided to school personnel, parents, and students to ensure that informed decisions were being made regarding the MSAS. The guidance was in accordance with IDEA 2004 and the NCLB Act. In accordance with Code , all eligible students enrolled in public schools participate in the MSAS. Superintendents of each LEA certify annually that all eligible students enrolled in designated grades/courses are tested. Information was presented at the January 2012 MASS Winter Conference. The following additional improvement activities occurred during FFY 2011 (SY ): A Listserv was routinely utilized to provide important communication with Directors of Special Education regarding pertinent information. Key supervisory staff in the OSA and OSE worked collaboratively to provide support and guidance to staff in an effort to keep staff informed of updates and share information. Staff from both offices worked together to support the major initiatives. Both offices are under the same Deputy Superintendent, which facilitates support and collaboration. OSE staff assist with the review and collection of information submitted to the OSA. Information obtained Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 35

36 through these collaborative reviews informs staff in these two offices of areas in need of additional guidance and technical assistance to LEA personnel. Joint training was provided to the LEAs by OSA and OSE. The Special Education Advisory Council provided feedback on two separate occasions regarding the State s ESEA Flexibility Request. adopted the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in August 2010 and these will be fully implemented by the school year. is participating in the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) consortium. Implementation for grades K-2 began in school year To prepare for this, training that includes teachers of students with disabilities began in October MDE has a dedicated webpage that houses all training materials regarding the CCSS initiative at As part of this implementation, a supplement to the Response to Intervention manual that focuses on literacy interventions for low-achieving students, students with disabilities, and English Language learners, was developed and disseminated by the Offices of Special Education and Curriculum and Instruction in May and August of MDE OSE offered 12 training opportunities during the school year on the topics of Accommodating Students in the Classroom and LRE: The Decision-Making Process. OSE also co-sponsored a co-teaching mini conference with the Association of Educators (MAE). At the two-day conference, school teams of teachers heard presentations about common core standards, career pathways, co-teaching, inclusion, differentiating instruction, and bullying. OSE also provided professional development on the topic of inclusion throughout the school year, at the request of various school districts. is a governing member of The Dynamic Learning Maps (DLM) Alternate Assessment System Consortium. DLM is a multi-state consortium awarded a grant by OSEP to develop a new alternative assessment system. The Dynamic Learning Maps Alternate Assessment (DLM-AAS), which is based on learning maps, will provide an instructionally embedded assessment integrated into the teaching process, and will incorporate instructionally relevant item types. These characteristics will provide an alternative assessment that is matched to the rigor and challenge of the CCSS. The timeline for administration of DLM is currently aligned with the PARCC implementation. Public Reporting Information: The public reports of assessment results conforming with 34 CFR (f) can be found at: To locate participation results for students with disabilities, click the link for Participation Statistics on the above URL. The direct link for the file is: Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 36

37 Proficiency results for students with disabilities can be found under the heading Student Assessment Data Disaggregated by NCLB Subgroup. The file Spring 2012 Curriculum Test, 2 nd Edition contains columns labeled DOB and DOP. These columns correspond to the percentage of students with disabilities who scored Basic and Above and Proficient and Above on the assessment. The direct link for the file is: Column heading definitions and further file layout information is contained in the document Data Layout and Information for Using Disaggregated Test Data Files, also located under the heading Student Assessment Data Disaggregated by NCLB Subgroup. You can also view data by district and school at the following interactive website that contains the same information as the links above: Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 37

38 Explanation of Progress or Slippage that Occurred for FFY 2011 (SY ): 3A.2 Percent of LEAs that met AMO targets Actual = 17.3% - Baselines reset for FFY Indicator 3B - Participation Rates for SWD RLA MATH Target Actual Reading Target = 95% / Actual = 98% Target Met Math Target = 95% / Actual = 97.9% Target Met The State demonstrated progress for RLA and Math participation and exceeded the 95% target for participation. All SPP Improvement Activities will continue throughout the next school year. 3C Proficiency Reading/Language Arts Actual = 22.2% Baselines reset for FFY 2011 Mathematics Actual = 31.1% Baselines reset for FFY 2011 Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2012: None Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 38

39 Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2011 (SY ) [based on SY data] Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE Indicator 4: Rates of suspension and expulsion: A. Percent of LEAs that have a significant discrepancy in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs; and B. Percent of LEAs that have: (a) a significant discrepancy, by race or ethnicity, in the rate of 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)) Measurement: A. Percent = [(# of districts that have a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions for greater than 10 days in a school year of children with IEPs) divided by the (# of districts in the State)] times 100. B. Percent = [(# of districts that have: (a) a significant discrepancy, by race or ethnicity, in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year of 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) divided by the (# of districts in the State)] times 100. Include State s definition of significant discrepancy. FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target 2011 (using data) 4A: 0% 4B: 0% Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 39

40 Definition of Significant Discrepancy and Identification of Comparison Methodology uses a rate difference calculation for Indicator 4. A significant discrepancy is defined as having students with disabilities (SWD) suspended and expelled at least 2 percentage points greater than the rate of suspension and expulsion for students without disabilities (SWOD). uses the following comparison methodology defined in 34 CFR (a): The rates of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs in each LEA compared to the rates for nondisabled children in the same LEA. For Indicator 4A, an LEA will have a significant discrepancy when its suspension/expulsion rate for children with disabilities is at least 2 percentage points greater than its suspension/expulsion rate for children without disabilities. For Indicator 4B, an LEA will have a significant discrepancy when its suspension/expulsion rate for children with disabilities from a racial/ethnic group is at least 2 percentage points greater than its suspension/expulsion rate for children without disabilities. When significant discrepancy is determined for an LEA, the MDE/OSE will require the LEA to conduct a self-review of policies, procedures, and practices to determine if they contributed to the significant discrepancy. Data on suspensions and expulsions is gathered from the State database. The data pertaining to SWD is taken from the 618 data collection, also reported to EDFacts in the Children with Disabilities (IDEA) Suspensions/Expulsions file submission. The data pertaining to SWOD is taken from the net membership enrollment numbers and the discipline records in the State database. used a minimum n size of 10 for Indicator 4. Indicator 4A LEAs who had less than 10 students with disabilities enrolled in the LEA were excluded from the calculation. o Two LEAs were excluded from the calculation for Indicator 4a due to not meeting the minimum n size of students with disabilities enrolled in the LEA Indicator 4B LEAs who had less than 10 students with disabilities of the specified race/ethnicity enrolled in the LEA were excluded from the calculation for that racial/ethnic subgroup. o Two LEAs were excluded from all calculations for Indicator 4b due to not meeting the minimum n size in any racial/ethnic subgroup. The calculations for Indicator 4 use the total number of LEAs in the State as the denominator. Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 40

41 Actual Target Data for FFY 2011 (using SY data): Indicator 4A: 12.50% Indicator 4B: 0% Indicator 4A LEAs with Significant Discrepancy in Rates for Suspension and Expulsion Year Total Number of LEAs Number of LEAs that have Significant Discrepancies Percent FFY 2011 (using data) % Indicator 4B(a) - LEAs with Significant Discrepancy, by Race or Ethnicity, in Rates of Suspension and Expulsion Number of LEAs that Year Total Number of have Significant LEAs Discrepancies by Percent Race or Ethnicity FFY 2011 (using data) % Indicator 4B(b) - LEAs with Significant Discrepancy, by Race or Ethnicity, in Rates of Suspensions and Expulsions; and 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. Year FFY 2011 (using data) Total Number of LEAs Number of LEAs that have Significant Discrepancies, by Race or Ethnicity, and 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. Percent % Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 41

42 Review of Policies, Procedures, and Practices (completed in FFY 2011 using data): For each LEA identified with a significant discrepancy, the State required the LEA to review its policies, procedures, and practices relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards to ensure that these policies, procedures, and practices comply with IDEA. The LEAs submitted evidence of their review to the State. No noncompliance was identified as a result of the review of policies, procedures, and practices for LEAs identified with a significant discrepancy in both Indicator 4A and 4B. Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for FFY 2011 (SY ): State Performance Plan Improvement Activities Training will be provided annually to LEAs following the annual review of data regarding the development and implementation of IEPs, use of behavioral interventions, including the conducting of the Manifestation Determination Review (MDR) and conducting of a Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA). Improvement Activities FFY 2011 (SY ) The OSE provided technical assistance and discipline training to LEAs on the following dates and locations: o Jackson, MS November 16, 2011 o Starkville, MS January 12, 2012 o Hattiesburg, MS January 17, 2012 o Jackson, MS February 26, 2012 o Oxford, MS March 20, 2012 o Southaven, MS April 5, 2012 The OSE provided technical assistance to LEAs through Listserv communication with the Directors of Special Education and through information shared at the quarterly Directors of Special Education meetings during the school year relative to rates of suspension and expulsion. Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 42

43 Additional Improvement Activities for FFY 2011 (SY ): OSE offered five Response to Intervention regional trainings, with a focus on RtI and the eligibility determination process for SLD eligibility: Hattiesburg, MS November 28, 2011 Tupelo, MS December 24, 2011 Jackson, MS January 24, 2012 Oxford, MS February 7, 2012 Gulfport, MS March 9, 2012 OSE, in collaboration with Association of Educators (MAE), hosted its first two-day co-teaching conference on October 3-4, This conference was designed to provide administrators, special education, directors, and service providers with current research, theory and practice on co-teaching, classroom management, differentiating instruction, effective communication, bullying, and Common Core State Standards. On October 24, 2011, New Special Education Directors were provided training on MDE s policies and procedures on discipline. REACH-MS ( s State Professional Development Grant coordinated through the University of Southern ) provided 2 trainings centered around Positive Behavior Intervention & Supports (PBIS) for new teams. The first training, School-wide PBIS provided information about the process of creating a safer more effective school and a consistent approach to school-wide discipline. The training also focused on how to create the PBIS system, data-based decision-making process, and evidence-based approach to school improvement. This training was held on the following dates and locations: Bolivar County, MS October 26-27, 2011 Tupelo, MS November 11-12, 2011 Gulf Coast, MS January 26-27, 2012 Jackson, MS March 29-30, 2012 McComb, MS June 28-29, 2012 The second training offered by REACH-MS, REACH MS Tier II Intervention, provided additional support for Tier II interventions. This training provided information about Tier II systems and interventions, explained how to create the PBIS system, data-based decision making process, and evidence-based approach to school improvement. The trainings were held on the following dates and locations: Tupelo, MS December 6-7, 2011 Greenwood, MS February 15-16, 2012 OSE staff participated on the State Interagency Coordinating Council for Children and Youth to provide for the development and implementation of a coordinated interagency system of Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 43

44 necessary services and care for children and youth up to age twenty-one with serious emotional/behavioral disorders, including, but not limited to, conduct disorders or mental illness who require services from a multiple services and multiple programs system and who can be successfully diverted from inappropriate institutional placements. OSE staff collaborated with Office of Healthy Schools and Safe and Orderly Schools staff to research recommended policies and practices related to seclusion and restraint to develop State policy and guidance information for districts. This ongoing activity is intended to provide parameters for district staff to ensure that student behavior is addressed appropriately so as to de-escalate conflicts and reduce the use of suspension and expulsion. OSE staff participated in professional development activities with LRP Publications regarding suspensions and expulsions and the USDOE and USDOJ joint training on good discipline practices. This information will be incorporated in future trainings and guidance for districts. OSE staff worked with LEAs on an individual basis to ensure data integrity and completeness for the school year. Correction of FFY 2010 Findings of Noncompliance 1. Number of findings of noncompliance the State made during FFY 2010 (the period from July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011) using data 0 2. Number of FFY 2010 findings the State verified as timely corrected (corrected within one year from the date of notification to the LEA of the finding) 3. Number of FFY 2010 findings not verified as corrected within one year [(1) minus (2)] 0 0 Correction of FFY 2010 Findings of Noncompliance Not Timely Corrected (corrected more than one year from identification of the noncompliance): 4. Number of FFY 2010 findings not timely corrected (same as the number from (3) above) 5. Number of FFY 2010 findings the State has verified as corrected beyond the one-year timeline ( subsequent correction ) 6. Number of FFY 2010 findings not yet verified as corrected [(4) minus (5)] Verification of Correction In accordance with OSEP Memo 09-02, the MDE OSE uses a 2-prong approach to verify the correction of noncompliance. Prong 1 of the verification process ensures that the LEA has corrected the original cases of identified noncompliance as soon as possible, but no later than Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 44

45 12 months from the written notification of the finding. Prong 2 ensures that the LEA is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements (i.e. achieved 100% compliance) based on a review of updated data. There was no noncompliance identified in FFY2010. The verification of correction of prior findings of noncompliance was reported in previous APRs. Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for FFY 2011 (SY ): Indicator 4a Target Actual Baseline A Target = 0 % / Actual = 12.50% - Target Not Met Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 45

46 Indicator 4b Target Actual Baseline B Target = 0% / Actual = 0% - Target Met did not meet its target of 0% for Indicator 4a. The State did meet the target of 0% for Indicator 4b. will continue the intensive training and technical assistance provided to the LEAs to ensure that they are reporting all discipline data accurately. OSE shall continue to participate on the RtI implementation of the State s three tier process. OSE places an emphasis on behavior interventions to deter the ultimate discipline of suspensions or expulsions. All SPP Improvement Activities will continue throughout the next school year. Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2012: None Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 46

47 Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2011 (SY ) Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE 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; and C. In separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A)) Measurement: A. Percent = [(# of children with IEPs served inside the regular class 80% or more of the day) divided by the (total # of students aged 6 through 21 with IEPs)] times 100. B. Percent = [(# of children with IEPs served inside the regular class less than 40% of the day) divided by the (total # of students aged 6 through 21 with IEPs)] times 100. C. Percent = [(# of children with IEPs served in separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements) divided by the (total # of students aged 6 through 21 with IEPs)] times 100. FFY 2011 ( ) Measurable and Rigorous Target The percentage of students with disabilities in a regular education setting will increase 0.5% to 58.47%. The percentage of students in a self-contained setting will decrease 0.5% to 16.98%. The percentage of students in MS who are placed in public or private separate schools, residential placements, or homebound or hospital placements will not increase. Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 47

48 Actual Target Data for FFY 2011 (SY ): A. Percent = # of children with IEPs served inside the regular class 80% or more of the day divided by the total # of students aged 6 through 21 with IEPs times ,667 / 53,836 = 66.25% (Target Met) B. Percent = # of children with IEPs served inside the regular class less than 40% of the day divided by the total # of students aged 6 through 21 with IEPs times ,254 / 53,836 = 13.47% (Target Met) C. Percent = # of children with IEPs served in public or private separate schools, residential placements, or homebound or hospital placements divided by the total # of students aged 6 through 21 with IEPs times ,176 / 53,836 = 2.18% (Target Not Met = 2.17%) Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for FFY 2011 (SY ): Activities to address LRE are specified in the Mattie T. Implementation Plan, which is aligned with the State s improvement plan. MDE staff responsible for data collection, aggregation, analysis, and reporting completed the following activities designed to provide LEAs with the necessary data to make effective, data-driven decisions when designing their local improvement plans: State Performance Plan Improvement Activities Annually calculate and provide to each LEA statewide educational environment data in a special education LEA data profile. [Annually in March] Annually calculate for each LEA the amount of variances from annual targets and provide this information in written form to LEAs. [Annually in March] Improvement Activities FFY 2011 (SY ) District Data Profiles and Mattie T. charts were published on the OSE web site. SPP/APR Public Reported Data was also published on the OSE web site, District Data Profiles and Mattie T. charts were published on the OSE web site. Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 48

49 State Performance Plan Improvement Activities Train and assist staff of LEAs identified as most at variance to conduct data analysis of school level data. [Annually in the Fall] Improvement Activities FFY 2011 (SY ) SPP/APR Public Reported Data was also published on the OSE web site, The OSE has five staff members assigned to the Division of Technical Assistance, all of whom directly support the technical assistance needs of teachers and school administrators. The technical assistance calendar provided multiple training opportunities for LEA personnel to receive training in areas of need. All technical assistance provided by the OSE during the SY focused on activities and guidance to support the inclusion of children with disabilities in the general education classroom to the greatest extent possible. Some specific examples of training with significant impact on this Indicator include: IEP training, accommodations and modifications and co-teaching, inclusion, and the Tool Kit for Success (focus on resources for LRE). At the new Special Education Supervisors Training on October 24, 2012, special education directors were provided training on eligibility and LRE. The MDE continued to utilize the contractual services of independent contractors Joy Connor and Linda Greaux to provide technical assistance to LEAs in the area of LRE and inclusive practices. Ms. Connor provides technical assistance in the areas of LRE, IEP, and inclusive practices, although not Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 49

50 State Performance Plan Improvement Activities Analyze current LEA data, looking at change from the previous year to identify LEAs below the annual target as well as identify LEAs with the greatest change (positive or negative) from the previous year. [Annually in Spring] A protocol for LEA personnel use has been developed to guide decision making for appropriate educational placements for students with disabilities. [Implementation February 2006] Improvement Activities FFY 2011 (SY ) specifically limited to these priority areas. Ms. Greaux also provides technical assistance in the areas of IEP and inclusive practices. Both consultants are working on a regular basis with a small number of LEAs who are under conservatorship. Their primary focus as special education consultants is on the areas noted above. Data was analyzed and compared to the previous year s data for each LEA. The analysis was presented in the Mattie T. charts. LEAs continue to use the Procedure for Reviewing Placement Decisions for SWD, a 4-step procedure designed by Dr. Marilyn Friend of The University of North Carolina, Greensboro to help IEP Committees as they develop student IEPs and make valid decisions regarding placement in the LRE. This 4-step procedure is addressed in the IEP training provided by the OSE annually in regional locations or for those provided for individual LEAs, based upon individual requests and is available on the MDE website and in the toolkit. Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 50

51 Explanation of Progress or Slippage that Occurred for FFY 2011 (SY ): Indicator 5a - % of IEP Served in RegEd 80% or more of Day Baseline Target Actual Target = 58.47% / Actual = 66.25% - Target Met met the target for Indicator 5a, however there was slippage. The numbers show that the State declined to 66.25% in FFY 2011 (SY ) from 66.97% in FFY 2010 (SY ). LEAs continue to move SWD into regular education classrooms to ensure that they are receiving the same instruction as the NDO so that they can participate in the State tests. All SPP Improvement Activities will continue through the next school year. Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 51

52 Indicator 5b - % of IEP Served in RegEd < 40% of Day Baseline Target Actual Target = 16.98% / Actual = 13.47% - Target Met met the target for Indicator 5b, however there was slippage. The State showed a slight increase of SWD in self-contained settings from 12.89% in FFY 2010 (SY ) to 13.47%. All SPP Improvement Activities will continue throughout the next school year. Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 52

53 3 Indicator 5c - % of IEP Served in Public/Private Separate Schools, Residential, Homebound, or Hospital Baseline Target Actual Target = 2.17% or less/ Actual 2.18% - Target Not Met did not meet the target for Indicator 5c. Our goal was to not increase from the previous school year. The chart above bears out s commitment to not increase SWD in public or private separate placement. All SPP Improvement Activities will continue throughout the next school year. Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2012: None Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 53

54 SPP Template Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) for Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE Indicator 6: Percent of children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs attending a: A. Regular early childhood program and receiving the majority of special education and related services in the regular early childhood program; and B. Separate special education class, separate school, or residential facility. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A)) Measurement: A. Percent = [(# of children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs attending a regular early childhood program and receiving the majority of special education and related services in the regular early childhood program) divided by the (total # of children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs)] times 100. B. Percent = [(# of children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs attending a separate special education class, separate school or residential facility) divided by the (total # of children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs)] times 100. Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process: Student data including educational environment are sent to the state student level database, Student Information System (MSIS). For children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs, this data is collected as part of the Child Count data collection that takes place no later than December 1 each year. Beginning with the school year, collected the following educational environments for children aged 3 through 5: Type of Program Setting Permitted Value Children attending a regular early childhood program at least 10 hours a week And receiving the majority of hours of special education and related services in the regular early childhood program And receiving the majority of hours of special education and related services in some other location PI services regular early childhood program (at least 10 hours) PJ other location regular early childhood program (at least 10 hours) Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 54

55 SPP Template Children attending a regular early childhood program less than 10 hours a week Children not attending a regular early childhood program or kindergarten And receiving the majority of hours of special education and related services in the regular early childhood program And receiving the majority of hours of special education and related services in some other location Attending a special education program Not attending a special education program PK services regular early childhood program (less than 10 hours) PL other location regular early childhood program (less than 10 hours) PG Separate Class PF Separate School PE Residential Facility PC - Home PH Service Provider Location It is important to note that does not have a statewide early childhood program. Baseline Data from FFY 2011 (SY ): A. Percent = [(# of children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs attending a regular early childhood program and receiving the majority of special education and related services in the regular early childhood program) divided by the (total # of children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs)] times ,798 / 10,498 = 64.75% B. Percent = [(# of children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs attending a separate special education class, separate school or residential facility) divided by the (total # of children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs)] times ,582 / 10,498 = 15.07% The numerator for 6A is comprised of students who were marked with PI and PK educational environments in MSIS. The numerator for 6B is comprised of students with educational environments coded as PG, PF, and PE. Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 55

56 SPP Template Discussion of Baseline Data: The collection of the current educational environment values have been in place since the school year. From the to the school year, saw an increase in the number of 3 to 5 year olds in separate classes, separate schools, and residential facilities. also saw a decrease in the percentage of 3 to 5 year olds receiving the majority of services in the regular early childhood program. The available trend data was limited to one year. When compared to national 618 data, it is noted that is performing well above the average. Indicator 50 states, D.C., and P.R. (including BIE schools) 6A 64.75% 41.64% 6B 15.07% 26.87% FFY 2011 (SY ) 2012 (SY ) Measurable and Rigorous Target Baseline 6A 64.75% 6B 15.07% 6A No more than 10% decrease over prior year 6B No more than 10% increase over prior year Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources (through 2012): During the school year, OSE staff collaborated with a State team with representatives from the Head Start Collaboration Office, Institute for Disability Studies University Program, Department of Human Services, State Department of Health, and the State Early Childhood Advisory Council to the Governor in the Expanding Opportunities Initiative, a federally-supported initiative. The purpose of the team is to promote inclusive opportunities for young children with disabilities and their families in community and educational settings. The team developed and began implementation of a State plan to increase inclusion of young children with disabilities in programs serving typically-developing children in the community. OSE staff will continue to collaborate with the State Expanding Opportunities (E.O.) Team during the school year. The E.O. Team will focus on conducting a survey of early childhood education providers and families of children with- Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 56

57 SPP Template disabilities to identify barriers to inclusive practices. The results of the surveys will guide future activities of the E.O. Team. Additional planned activities of the E.O. Team include: a. Developing promotional materials (e.g., brochures, posters, and FAQ documents) for a public awareness/outreach campaign; b. Developing training slideshows (e.g., The Benefits of Inclusion and Incorporating Universal Design for Learning in Early Childhood Settings) that will be used in presentations to various community groups and/or Boards or Committees who advise agencies on policies for early childhood; c. Developing talking points for Early Intervention and Local Education Agency staff for discussing inclusion with families. OSE staff will continue to participate on the State Interagency Coordinating Council with representatives from Part C and Part B programs, parent groups, university programs, Head Start, and other disability programs to increase opportunities for inclusive service provision for young children. OSE staff will continue to work with the Office of Curriculum and Instruction in their revision of the State Early Learning Guidelines. The revised standards will promote inclusive practices by incorporating Universal Design for Learning principles. OSE staff will develop materials for a Train-the-Trainer series on early childhood inclusive practices. These materials will allow LEA staff to offer training modules to early childhood providers (e.g., private childcare staff and Head Start staff) in their district to promote inclusive practices. The State 619 Coordinator will continue to collaborate with the Head Start Collaboration office to identify opportunities to support inclusive service provision for young children with disabilities. The OSE will continue to provide regional training on Early Childhood Transition including guidance on inclusive practices during the school year. The training will include Part C service personnel, Part B district personnel, Head Start directors and child care center directors to better facilitate inclusive practices for young children with disabilities. Trainings have or will occur in the following locations on the dates noted below: Jackson, MS October 25, 2012 Tupelo, MS December 11, 2012 Hattiesburg, MS February 5, 2013 Flowood, MS April 11, 2013 OSE staff, including the State 619 Coordinator, will provide additional training on Early Childhood Transition and Inclusive Practices in Early Childhood during the school year. These trainings will be made at the State Head Start Conference, the State Parent Conference, the Early Childhood Association, and additional Head Start or child Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 57

58 SPP Template care meetings. OSE staff will update the state website with information specific to Early Childhood Special Education (ECSE) available to families and LEA staff including information and downloadable content on Least Restrictive Environments in ECSE. Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 58

59 Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2011 (SY ) Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE Indicator 7: Percent of preschool children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs 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); and C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs. (20 U.S.C (a)(3)(a)) Measurement: 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. Progress categories for A, B and C: a. Percent of preschool children who did not improve functioning = [(# of preschool children who did not improve functioning) divided by (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100. b. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers = [(# of preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers) divided by (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100. c. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to sameaged peers but did not reach it = [(# of preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it) divided by (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100. d. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers = [(# of preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers) divided by (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100. e. Percent of preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers = [(# of preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers) divided by (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100. Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 59

60 Summary Statements for Each of the Three Outcomes: Summary Statement 1: Of those preschool children who entered or exited 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 = # of preschool children reported in progress category (c) plus # of preschool children reported in category (d) divided by [# of preschool children reported in progress category (a) plus # of preschool children reported in progress category (b) plus # of preschool children reported in progress category (c) plus # of preschool children reported in progress category (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 = # of preschool children reported in progress category (d) plus # of preschool children reported in progress category (e) divided by [the total # of preschool children reported in progress categories (a) + (b) + (c) + (d) + (e)] times 100. FFY 2011 ( ) Measurable and Rigorous Target Summary Statement 1: Outcome A - 50% Outcome B 52% Outcome C 41% Summary Statement 2: Outcome A 83% Outcome B 71% Outcome C 79% Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 60

61 Actual Target Data for FFY 2011 (SY ): Summary Statements Actual FFY 2011 (% and # children) Outcome A: Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships) 1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome A, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they exited the program. Formula: c+d/ a+b+c+d 48% (n= 866/1,822) Target FFY 2011 (% of children) 50% 2. The percent of children who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome A by the time they exited the program. Formula: d+e/ a+b+c+d+e 79% (n= 4,716/5,947) 83% Outcome B: Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication and early literacy) 1 Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome B, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they exited the program. Formula: c+d/ a+b+c+d 51% (n= 1,485/2,920) 52% 2. The percent of children who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome B by the time they exited the program. Formula: d+e/ a+b+c+d+e 65% (n= 3,893/5,947) 71% Outcome C: Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs 1 Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome C, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they exited the program. Formula: c+d/ a+b+c+d 2. The percent of children who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome C by the time they exited the program. Formula: d+e/ a+b+c+d+e 40% (n= 825/2,041) 74% (n= 4,406/5,947) 41% 79% Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 61

62 Outcome A. Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships): Number of children % of children a. Percent of children who did not improve functioning % b. Percent of children who improved functioning but not sufficient % to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers c. Percent of children who improved functioning to a level nearer % to same-aged peers but did not reach d. Percent of children who improved functioning to reach a level % comparable to same-aged peers e. Percent of children who maintained functioning at a level 4, % comparable to same-aged peers Total N=5, % Outcome B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication and early literacy): Number of children % of children a. Percent of children who did not improve functioning % b. Percent of children who improved functioning but not sufficient 1, % to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers c. Percent of children who improved functioning to a level nearer % to same-aged peers but did not reach d. Percent of children who improved functioning to reach a level % comparable to same-aged peers e. Percent of children who maintained functioning at a level 3, % comparable to same-aged peers Total N=5, % Outcome C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs: Number of % of children children a. Percent of children who did not improve functioning % b. Percent of children who improved functioning but not sufficient % to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers c. Percent of children who improved functioning to a level nearer % to same-aged peers but did not reach d. Percent of children who improved functioning to reach a level % comparable to same-aged peers e. Percent of children who maintained functioning at a level 3, % comparable to same-aged peers Total N=5, % Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 62

63 Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process: The Battelle Developmental Inventory, 2 nd Edition (BDI-2) is a comprehensive assessment that is designed for children from birth through seven years. It was specifically developed for identification of children who may benefit from special services, ongoing progress monitoring, and outcomes assessments. The BDI-2 domains align to the 3 Early Childhood Outcomes (ECO) as follows: ECO Outcome Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships) Acquiring and using knowledge and skills Taking appropriate action to meet needs BDI-2 Domain Personal-social Communication and cognitive Adaptive and motor For the (MAPS) report, children were placed in categories 1-7 based on the z-score for the outcome area. Each raw score was assigned a corresponding z-score. These z-score ranges were obtained from the guidelines posted on ECO s website on July 5, This document was titled "ECO Recommendations on Age-Expected Functioning and 2006 ECO Scale Points." The State is using the ECO Child Outcomes Summary Form (COSF). For the MAPS OSEP Outcome Report, children were placed in categories 1-5 (progress categories a-e in the measurement) based on their performance at Time 1 and Time 2. The category descriptions were taken from ECO Center s website The State defines comparable to same-aged peers as a child who has been assigned a score of 6 or 7 on the COSF. Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for FFY 2011 (SY ): State Performance Plan Improvement Activities Provide webinar training on the Riverside Publishing Company web system each fall. Allow data entry of BDI-2 beginning with the start of school in August through the child count day each year and each spring (April through May). Improvement Activities FFY 2011 (SY ) Riverside provided a URL for users to access training videos and to register for webinars concerning the use of the BDI-2 assessment tool. Webinar training was held, and the recorded sessions were placed on the OSE website. The Riverside system was available to the users beginning in the fall of 2011 to enter entry data for those students that would be 3-5 in the child count. Exit data for the same Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 63

64 State Performance Plan Improvement Activities Use feedback from the Pre- School Skills Assessment to determine identified areas of technical assistance needs for LEA personnel working with pre-school students in the areas of positive social-emotional skills, acquisition and use of knowledge and skills, and use of appropriate behaviors to meet student needs. The OSE will provide technical assistance to LEAs to meet the needs of children with disabilities age 3-5. The OSE has established an Interagency Agreement with the Department of Health to ensure a smooth transition from Part C to B, and to ensure services that provide a FAPE to children with disabilities beginning at age 3. The OSE will continue to evaluate the services and programs offered to children ages 3-5 to ensure a FAPE. The OSE will conduct quarterly meetings with SPED directors and address issues relative to children ages 3-5. The OSE will collaborate with the Department of Health, the lead agency for Part C (early Improvement Activities FFY 2011 (SY ) group of students was entered 6 months later in the spring. Riverside provided technical assistance and one-on-one training to users and OSE based on experiences with the system the previous year. The OSE provided technical assistance to LEAs through Listserv communication with the Directors of Special Education and through information shared at the Quarterly Director's of Special Education meetings during the SY relative to the provision of services and programs provided to children ages 3-5. The interagency agreement continued to be in effect during the SY The OSE continued to communicate via the Listserv for Directors of Special Education regarding the services and programs provided to children ages 3-5 to ensure a FAPE. Quarterly meetings with Directors of Special Education were used to address issues relative to children ages 3-5. OSE provided training on data collected from MDH and loaded into MSIS. Reports produced in MSIS were reviewed and discussed. OSE continued to collaborate with the Department of Health, the lead agency for Part C (Early Intervention) to provide technical Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 64

65 State Performance Plan Improvement Activities interventions) to provide technical assistance and joint training endeavors for children ages 3-5. Improvement Activities FFY 2011 (SY ) assistance and joint training endeavors for those serving children ages 3-5. Additional Improvement Activities: OSE uses annual data collected for Indicator 7 to prioritize areas for continued training and technical assistance. OSE staff collaborated with a state team with representatives from the Head Start Collaboration Office, Institute for Disability Studies University Program, Department of Human Services, State Department of Health, and the State Early Childhood Advisory Council to the Governor in the Expanding Opportunities Initiative, a Federallysupported initiative. The purpose of the team is to promote inclusive opportunities for young children with disabilities and their families in community and educational settings to improve the children s outcomes. The team developed and began implementation of a State plan to increase inclusion of young children with disabilities in programs serving typically-developing children in the community. OSE staff participated on the State Interagency Coordinating Council with representatives from Part C and Part B programs, parent groups, university programs, Head Start, and other disability programs to improve collaborative practice and service delivery that leads to better outcomes for young children with disabilities. A State team attended the Mega Leadership Conference and pre-conference sessions focused on inclusive and high-quality service provision in early childhood special education. In addition OSE staff attended the Southeast Regional Resource Center Conference focused on planning and development of improvement activities in early childhood special education. This information will be incorporated into training, guidance documents, and other interagency efforts at promoting high quality service provision for young children. OSE staff participated in the following professional development activities to incorporate Best Practices and recommendations for improving early childhood outcomes in future trainings and guidance for districts: Understanding the three outcomes and data collection provided by the Early Childhood Outcomes Center; Promoting vocabulary development in Pre-K through third grade provided by the SERVE Center located at the University of North Carolina; Practices for Developing Preschool Language and Literacy co-hosted by multiple Regional Educational Laboratories; Early learning series including topics on structures in Pre-K through third grade, literacy foundations in early learning, and mathematical foundations in early learning provided by the School Turnaround Learning Community; Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 65

66 OSE staff also participated with the BDI Users Learning Community of the Early Childhood Outcomes Center to network with other states on data collection and data analyses to inform improvement activities. Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 66

67 Explanation of Progress or Slippage that Occurred for FFY 2011 (SY ): Indicator 7 Outcome A - % of Preschool Children with IEPs who Demonstrated Improved Positive Social-Emotional Skills Target Summary Statement 1 40 Actual Summary Statement Target Summary Statement 2 10 Actual Summary Statement (baseline) Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 67

68 Indicator 7 Outcome B - % of Preschool Children with IEPs who Demonstrated Improved Acquisition & Use of Knowledge & Skills Target Summary Statement 1 Actual Summary Statement 1 Target Summary Statement 2 Actual Summary Statement (baseline) Indicator 7 Outcome C - % of Preschool Children with IEPs who Demonstrated Improved Use of Appropriate Behaviors To Meet Their Needs Target Summary Statement 1 Actual Summary Statement 1 Target Summary Statement 2 Actual Summary Statement (baseline) Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 68

69 Outcome A: Summary Statement 1: Target 50.00%, Actual 48% - Target Not Met Summary Statement 2: Target 83.00%, Actual 79% - Target Not Met Outcome B: Summary Statement 1: Target 52.00%, Actual 51% - Target Not Met Summary Statement 2: Target 71.00%, Actual 65% - Target Not Met Outcome C: Summary Statement 1: Target 41.00%, Actual 40% - Target Not Met Summary Statement 2: Target 79.00%, Actual 74% - Target Not Met did not meet the targets for FFY2011. Progress was noted in all but one target. To improve the results for 3 to 5-year-olds, MDE OSE s 619 coordinator has implemented the following activities: Providing regional and online training on practices that promote the development of positive social-emotional skills, the acquisition and use of knowledge and skills, and the development of adaptive functioning skills Developing preschool guidance documents to promote best practices in early childhood special education service provision and early childhood outcomes data collection Developing communities of practice for early childhood special education directors and providers to provide ongoing technical assistance and support Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2012: None Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 69

70 Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2011 (SY ) Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE 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)) Measurement: Percent = [(# of respondent parents who report schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities) divided by the (total # of respondent parents of children with disabilities)] times 100. FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target 2011 ( ) Increase the percentage 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 by 2.0 percentage points to 73.46%. Actual Target Data for FFY 2011 (SY ): During the SY , online surveys were completed by parents of students with disabilities at yearly IEP meetings, open houses, or other events scheduled by all 152 LEAs. A total of 35,809 surveys were completed. One question from the ten-question survey was selected that best measured the school s facilitation of parental involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities. The question read, The school gives parents the help they may need to play an active role in their child s education. 34,567 of 35,809 respondents indicated Yes 96.53% - Target Met 708 of 35,809 respondents indicated No 1.98% 534 of 35,809 respondents indicated Not Applicable 1.49% A new web-based, password-protected, census survey method was implemented in SY that enabled the State to have a response group that is representative of the State s population. Increased awareness and understanding of the survey method was achieved through training and technical assistance provided to the LEAs. An emphasis on increasing the response rate has resulted in an increase from 10,481 surveys completed in SY to 35,809 surveys completed in SY The State continues to make great strides to Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 70

71 produce a valid and accurate data set for Indicator 8. The data in the tables below demonstrate the representativeness of respondents compared to the State s population of students with disabilities. Race SWD Respondents Asian 0.4% 0.5% Black 49.1% 47.1% Hispanic 1.8% 1.6% Native American 0.2% 0.3% Two or More Races 0.5% 1.1% White 48.0% 49.4% Gender SWD Respondents Male 67.5% 66.7% Female 32.5% 33.3% Disability SWD Respondents AU 4.3% 5.5% DB 0.02% 0.2% DD 10.8% 12.9% ID 5.5% 5.3% EmD 4.9% 4.3% HI 1.2% 1.1% LS 34.9% 32.8% MD 1.6% 1.5% OHI 11.6% 11.6% OI 0.8% 0.8% SLD 23.6% 22.9% TBI 0.2% 0.3% VI 0.6% 0.8% Parents from 152 LEAs participated in the survey. This represents 100% of the LEAs in the State. A response rate of 56% for the State was achieved using a census approach for Indicator 8. Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 71

72 Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for FFY 2011 (SY ): State Performance Plan Improvement Activities Use results of parent survey to identify areas of technical assistance needs. Provide technical assistance for school LEAs to facilitate greater parental involvement. Continue identifying problems through focused monitoring/parent focus group meetings and discussing issues as part of the on-site monitoring activities. Improvement Activities FFY 2011 (SY ) Parent surveys were completed at annual IEP meetings, open houses, and other events during the SY The results of the parent survey were compiled and available to the OSE monitoring team and OSE technical assistance staff to identify areas of need in LEAs. Results of the parent survey provided useful information to be used by the LEA regarding the programs and services provided to SWDs and the MDE in evaluating the technical assistance needs for parents and LEA personnel. The Division of Parent Outreach in the OSE is actively involved in partnering with parents and parent advocacy organizations in. Staff in both the Division of Parent Outreach and the Division of Technical Assistance have collaboratively made presentations for a number of parent advocacy and disability organizations at annual State conferences and upon request at smaller sessions hosted by the advocacy or disability organizations. Staff presented to parents at various conferences or meetings during the SY These conferences and meetings included those sponsored by the Dropout Prevention and Compulsory School Attendance, ARC of, and The Association for Diabetes. During the SY , staff presentations have been made for ARC, The School for The Deaf and Blind, The National Federation for the Blind, MS Chapter, Speech Hearing Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 72

73 State Performance Plan Improvement Activities Improvement Activities FFY 2011 (SY ) Association, School Nurses, MASS, and the State Advisory Panel. During the SY , monitoring staff led by a contractual team leader conducted on-site investigations of 31 formal state complaints filed by parents or organizations on behalf of children with disabilities. Findings and Decisions were issued associated with these onsite investigations. OSE provided a grant to the Parent Training and Information Center to provide regional trainings for parents of students with disabilities. Additional Improvement Activities for FFY 2011 (SY ): MDE provided public reporting of data for Indicator 8 by LEA for FFY 2010 (SY ) located at The OSE, in collaboration with the Parent Training and Information Center, Disability Rights, and the Center for Education Innovation co-sponsored the parent conference, Building Partnerships Working Together. Topics included, but were not limited to, Assistive Technology, Skills for Effective Parent Advocacy, Transition: High School and Beyond, What s New in Autism Training and the Schools, Collaboration Between Advocacy and School District, and Myths of Dyslexia. Information was disseminated via the Special Education Directors Listserv on multiple occasions regarding each LEA s obligation to collect information from parents via the Parent Survey. Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 73

74 Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for FFY 2011 (SY ): Indicator 8 - % of Parents Who Reported that Schools Facilitated Parental Involvement Baseline Target Actual Target = 73.46% / Actual = 96.53% - Target Met met and exceeded the target for FFY The numbers show that the State demonstrated progress from % in FFY 2010 to 96.53% in FFY All SPP Improvement Activities will continue through the next school year. Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2012 (If applicable) None Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 74

75 Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2011 (SY ) Monitoring Priority: Disproportionality Indicator 9: Percent of LEAs with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(C)) Measurement: Percent = [(# of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification) divided by the (# of districts in the State)] times 100. Include State s definition of disproportionate representation. Based on its review of the 618 data for FFY 2011, describe how the State made its annual determination that the disproportionate overrepresentation it identified of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services was the result of inappropriate identification as required by (d)(3) and (a), e.g., using monitoring data; reviewing policies, practices and procedures, etc. In determining disproportionate representation, analyze data, for each district, for all racial and ethnic groups in the district, or all racial and ethnic groups in the district that meet a minimum 'n' size set by the State. Report on the percent of districts in which disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services is the result of inappropriate identification, even if the determination of inappropriate identification was made after the end of the FFY 2011 reporting period, i.e., after June 30, If inappropriate identification is identified, report on corrective actions taken. FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target 2011 ( ) 0 Definition of Disproportionate Representation and Methodology has defined disproportionate representation as an alternate risk ratio of identification of 4.0 or greater for overrepresentation. conducted data analysis to investigate disproportionate representation of students with disabilities. The alternate risk ratio is calculated only when the number of students in a racial/ethnic group for the LEA is greater than or equal to 10. The equation used to calculate the alternate risk ratio is: Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 75

76 Alternate risk ratio = LEA-level risk for racial/ethnic group for students with disabilities divided by State-level risk for comparison group for students with disabilities The equation used to calculate LEA-level risk is: (The number of students with disabilities of a specific race/ethnicity divided by the total number of students enrolled with the same specific race/ethnicity) times 100 The equation used to calculate State-level risk is: (The number of students with disabilities in all race/ethnicity categories excluding the race/ethnicity being examined divided by the total number of students enrolled in all race/ethnicity categories excluding the race/ethnicity being examined) times 100 For example, to determine if disproportionate representation exists for Black students, the calculation is: (# of Black SWD in LEA / # of Black Students Enrolled in LEA) * 100 (# of Non-Black SWD in the State / # of Non-Black Students Enrolled in the State) * 100 The number of students with disabilities in each race/ethnicity category is taken from the December 1, 2011 Child Count Data, also known as 618 Table 1 data. The enrollment numbers are taken from the Month 1 Net Membership data in the State database. also reviewed the Southeast Equity Assistance Center (SEAC) definition which states that disproportionality exists when a group is represented at a disproportionate rate higher than the group s representation in the population; all groups should be represented in proportion to the make-up of the population being considered. The determination of noncompliance is a two-step process. First, each LEA s data is examined to determine if disproportionate representation is identified in the population of students. The second step is to determine whether or not the disproportionate representation is the result of inappropriate identification. Noncompliance is only existent when inappropriate identification is the cause for the disproportionate representation. Step One: Identify the number of LEAs with disproportionate identification: One LEA was excluded from the calculations for Indicator 9 due to not meeting the minimum n- size of 10 in any race/ethnicity category. All other LEAs in the State met the minimum n-size for at least one race/ethnicity category. The State includes the total number of LEAs in the State in the denominator for Indicator 9. Overrepresentation: Minimum N = 10; Ratio cut point = 4.0 A total of six instances of disproportionate representation were found in SY All instances were found in one race group, resulting in six LEAs identified as having Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 76

77 disproportionate overrepresentation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services. Number of LEAs identified with disproportionate overrepresentation Pacific White Black Asian Hispanic Islander Two or More Native American Step Two: Determine if Disproportionate Representation is the Result of Inappropriate Identification: No disproportionate representation was found due to inappropriate identification during FFY 2011 (SY ). An annual self-assessment is required from all 152 LEAs as part of their Part B Funding Application. The self-review includes a review of the LEA s policies and procedures. An additional review of individual LEA policies and procedures is done by OSE during onsite visits. Upon identification of the disproportionate representation, letters were sent to all six LEAs to notify them of the appearance of noncompliance. LEAs were requested to conduct a selfreview of policies, procedures, and practices to determine if the disproportionate representation was the result of inappropriate identification. All six LEAs reported that the correct policies, procedures, and practices were in place and did not contribute to the disproportionate representation. The State provided LEAs with a checklist to guide the LEAs self-review of policies, procedures, and practices, which was adapted from a checklist provided by OSEP on The Right IDEA website. The completion of this checklist ensures that policies and procedures are in compliance with the requirements of 34 CFR , , and through Therefore, zero LEAs were identified with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification. Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 77

78 Actual Target Data for FFY 2011 (SY ): Districts with Disproportionate Representation of Racial and Ethnic Groups in Specific Disability categories that was the Result of Inappropriate Identification Year FFY 2011 ( ) Total Number of Districts Number of Districts with Disproportionate Representation Number of Districts with Disproportionate Representation of Racial and Ethnic Groups that was the Result of Inappropriate Identification Percent of Districts % Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for FFY 2011 (SY ): State Performance Plan Improvement Activities MDE staff for data collection, aggregation, analysis, and reporting in coordination with the data consultant will conduct annual verification of data collection and entry to determine whether the child find and disproportionality data are accurate, valid, and reliable according to the eligibility determination criteria of. Develop a protocol for use by LEAs that examines procedures, and practices related to the provision, under NCLB and IDEA 2004, appropriate instructional practices, and nondiscriminatory assessment. Improvement Activities FFY 2011 (SY ) An annual review and analysis of data was conducted by the Division of Data Services and compared with the data analysis performed by the data consultant. All calculations were found to be in agreement. The Toolkit for Success: Professional Development Resources are available at the OSE upon request. Toolkits containing original resources as well as the newly added resources were disseminated to LEAs. Over 1000 Toolkits were distributed to the 152 LEAs, Regional Resource Centers, and various offices at MDE. The materials included in the toolkits are designed to provide support to educators by addressing disproportionality. Resources included in the toolkit are frequently featured in various regional meetings, regional trainings conducted by the OSE, and quarterly meetings scheduled Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 78

79 State Performance Plan Improvement Activities Improvement Activities FFY 2011 (SY ) with the Directors of Special Education. During the school year, training was provided on the effective use of the resources included in the toolkit. This training was designed to guide LEA personnel in effective ways to use the resources in the toolkit for professional development at the LEA and school-level. During the school year, additional publications were added to the toolkits in the areas of co-teaching and secondary transition. Additional Improvement Activities for FFY 2011 (SY ): On August 11, 2011, OSE hosted training for selected LEAs on the accurate and appropriate identification of students with intellectual disabilities. The training focused on the ongoing concerns of evaluation and eligibility of students with intellectual disabilities. On October 24-25, 2011, new special education directors were provided training on eligibility, LRE, child find activities, and intervention processes at the New Special Education Supervisors Training. The State also distributed website information, links, and other items related to LRE, child find, and disproportionality, continued to utilize a tool for use by LEAs that examines policies, procedures, and practices related to the provision under IDEA 2004 of nondiscriminatory assessment and the examination of significant disproportionality resulting from inappropriate identification. OSE offered five RtI regional trainings, with a focus on early identification and intervention with students to prevent inappropriate and disproportionate referrals for special education services: Hattiesburg, MS November 28, 2011 Tupelo, MS December 24, 2011 Jackson, MS January 24, 2012 Oxford, MS February 7, 2012 Gulfport, MS March 9, 2012 OSE staff also participated in professional development activities provided by the Early Intervention/Early Childhood Special Interest Group of the Association of University Centers on Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 79

80 Disabilities on the role of primary language in socio-demographic disparities in children with an IFSP or IEP and the National Association of School Psychologists on understanding privilege in the US. This information will be incorporated in future trainings and guidance for districts. Correction of FFY 2010 Findings of Noncompliance: Level of compliance (actual target data) State reported for FFY 2010 for this indicator: 100% The State did not have any identified noncompliance in this area for FFY The State does not have any remaining noncompliance from previous years. s process for verification of the correction of identified noncompliance is consistent with OSEP Memorandum Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for FFY 2011 (SY ): Target = 0 / Actual = 0 Target Met Data for the child count were reviewed to determine if there was disproportionate representation of racial or ethnic groups that was the result of inappropriate identification. No overrepresentation was found in any areas that was the result of inappropriate identification. The results for FFY 2011(SY ) of zero LEAs represents no change from the previous year. All SPP Improvement Activities will continue throughout the next school year. Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2012: None Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 80

81 Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2011 (SY ) Monitoring Priority: Disproportionality Indicator 10: Percent of LEAs with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(C)) Measurement: Percent = [(# of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification) divided by the (# of districts in the State)] times 100. Include State s definition of disproportionate representation. Based on its review of the 618 data for FFY 2011, describe how the State made its annual determination that the disproportionate overrepresentation it identified of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories was the result of inappropriate identification as required by (d)(3) and (a), e.g., using monitoring data; reviewing policies, practices and procedures, etc. In determining disproportionate representation, analyze data, for each district, for all racial and ethnic groups in the district, or all racial and ethnic groups in the district that meet a minimum 'n' size set by the State. Report on the percent of districts in which disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories is the result of inappropriate identification, even if the determination of inappropriate identification was made after the end of the FFY 2011, i.e., after June 30, If inappropriate identification is identified, report on corrective actions taken. FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target 2011 ( ) SLD = 0 EmD = 0 L/S = 0 OHI = 0 AU = 0 ID = 0 Definition of Disproportionate Representation and Methodology has defined disproportionate representation as an alternate risk ratio of identification of 4.0 or greater for overrepresentation. conducted data analysis to investigate disproportionate representation of seven racial/ethnic groups. Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 81

82 The alternate risk ratio is calculated only when the number of students in the racial/ethnic group for the LEA is greater than or equal to 10. The equation used to calculate the alternate risk ratio is: Alternate risk ratio = LEA-level risk for racial/ethnic group for disability or educational environment category divided by State-level risk for comparison group for disability or educational environment category The equation used to calculate LEA-level risk is: (The number of students in a specific race/ethnicity and disability category divided by the total number of students enrolled with the same specific race/ethnicity) times 100 The equation used to calculate State-level risk is: (The number of students in all race/ethnicity categories excluding the race/ethnicity being examined and a specific disability category divided by the total number of students enrolled in all race/ethnicity categories excluding the race/ethnicity being examined) times 100 For example, to determine if disproportionate representation exists for Black students in the disability category of ID, the calculation is: (# of Black ID students in LEA / # of Black students enrolled in LEA) * 100 (# of non-black ID students in the State / # of non-black students enrolled in the State) * 100 The number of students in each disability and race/ethnicity category is taken from the December 1, 2011 Child Count Data, also known as 618 Table 1 data. The enrollment numbers are taken from the Month 1 Net Membership data in the State database. also reviewed the Southeast Equity Assistance Center definition which states that disproportionality exists when a group is represented at a disproportionate rate higher than the group s representation in the population; all groups should be represented in proportion to the make-up of the population being considered. The determination of noncompliance as it relates to disproportionate representation is a twostep process. First, each LEA s data is examined to determine if disproportionate representation is identified in the population of students. The second step is to determine whether or not the disproportionate representation is the result of inappropriate identification. Noncompliance is only existent when inappropriate identification is the cause for the disproportionate representation. Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 82

83 Step One: Identify the number of LEAs with disproportionate identification. One LEA was excluded from the calculations for Indicator 10 due to not meeting the minimum n size in any disability category. The State includes the total number of LEAs in the State in the denominator for Indicator 10. Overrepresentation: Minimum N = 10; Ratio cut point = 4.0 A total of 25 instances of disproportionate overrepresentation were found in SY One LEA was identified in two different disability categories, resulting in 24 distinct LEAs identified as having disproportionate overrepresentation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories. Number of LEAs identified with disproportionate overrepresentation Pacific White Black Asian Hispanic Islander Two or More Native American AU L/S SLD OHI ID EmD Step Two: Determine if Disproportionate Representation is the Result of Inappropriate Identification No disproportionate representation was found due to inappropriate identification during FFY 2011 (SY ). An annual self-assessment is required from all 152 LEAs as part of their Part B Funding Application. The self-review includes a review of the LEA s policies and procedures. An additional review of individual LEA policies and procedures is done by OSE during onsite visits. Upon identification of the disproportionate representation, letters were sent to all 24 LEAs to notify them of the appearance of noncompliance during the data review. LEAs were requested to conduct a self-review of policies, procedures, and practices to determine if the disproportionate representation was the result of inappropriate identification. All 24 LEAs reported that the correct policies, procedures, and practices were in place and did not contribute to the disproportionate representation. Several LEAs voluntarily conducted individual record reviews and increased training and awareness within the LEA. The State provided LEAs with a checklist to guide the LEAs self-review of policies, procedures, and practices, which was adapted from a checklist provided by OSEP on The Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 83

84 Right IDEA website. The completion of this checklist ensures that policies and procedures are in compliance with the requirements of 34 CFR , , and through Therefore, zero LEAs were identified with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification. Actual Target Data for FFY 2011 (SY ): Districts with Disproportionate Representation of Racial and Ethnic Groups in Specific Disability categories that was the Result of Inappropriate Identification Year FFY 2011 ( ) Total Number of Districts Number of Districts with Disproportionate Representation Number of Districts with Disproportionate Representation of Racial and Ethnic Groups in specific disability categories that was the Result of Inappropriate Identification Percent of Districts % Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed FFY 2011 (SY ): State Performance Plan Improvement Activities MDE staff for data collection, aggregation, analysis, and reporting in coordination with the data consultant will conduct annual verification of data collection and entry to determine whether the child find and disproportionality data are accurate, valid, and reliable according to the eligibility determination criteria of. Developed and maintained a website of information, links, and other items related to LRE, child find, and disproportionality. Improvement Activities FFY 2011 (SY ) Staff in the Division of Data Services reviewed and analyzed data relative to the disproportionality of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that may have been the result of inappropriate identification. Continued to maintain a website of information, links, and other items related to LRE, child find, and disproportionality, OSE offered five RtI regional trainings, with a focus on early identification and intervention with students to prevent inappropriate and disproportionate referrals for special education services: Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 84

85 Hattiesburg, MS November 28, 2011 Tupelo, MS December 24, 2011 Jackson, MS January 24, 2012 Oxford, MS February 7, 2012 Gulfport, MS March 9, 2012 OSE staff also participated in professional development activities provided by the Early Intervention/Early Childhood Special Interest Group of the Association of University Centers on Disabilities on the role of primary language in socio-demographic disparities in children with an IFSP or IEP and the National Association of School Psychologists on understanding privilege in the US. This information will be incorporated in future trainings and guidance for districts. Correction of FFY 2010 Findings of Noncompliance: Level of compliance (actual target data) State reported for FFY 2010 for this indicator: 100% The State did not have any identified noncompliance in this area for FFY The State does not have any remaining noncompliance from previous years. s process for verification of the correction of identified noncompliance is consistent with OSEP Memorandum Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for FFY 2011 (SY ): Target= 0/ Actual = 0 Target Met Data for the child count were reviewed to determine if there was disproportionate representation of racial or ethnic groups in specific disability categories that was the result of inappropriate identification. No overrepresentation was found in any areas that was the result of inappropriate identification. The results for FFY 2011 (SY ) of zero LEAs represent no change from the previous year. Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2012: None Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 85

86 Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2011 (SY ) Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / Child Find 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)) Measurement: a. # of children for whom parental consent to evaluate was received. b. # of children whose evaluations were completed within 60 days (or State-established timeline). Account for children included in a but not included in b. Indicate the range of days beyond the timeline when the evaluation was completed and any reasons for the delays. Percent = [(b) divided by (a)] times 100. FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target 2011 ( ) 100% Actual Target Data for FFY 2011 (SY ) Children Evaluated Within 60 Days (or State-established timeline): a. Number of children for whom parental consent to evaluate was received b. Number of children whose evaluations were completed within 60 days (or State-established timelines) Percent of children with parental consent to evaluate, who were evaluated within 60 days (or State-established timeline) (Percent = [(b) divided by (a)] times 100) 10,793 10, % Data for Indicator 11 were obtained from the State database, MSIS. Data were collected and analyzed for the period from July 1, 2011 to June 30, Data for children for whom consent Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 86

87 to conduct an initial evaluation was received during FFY 2011, but the timeline for completing the evaluation elapsed after the end of FFY 2011 were not included in the FFY 2011 data analysis and will be included in the FFY 2012 APR data collection. Steps for data collection, determination of noncompliance, and issuance of findings: Step 1: Gather data from the State database after the end of the school year. All records are reviewed. Step 2: Identify LEAs who appear noncompliant and give them the opportunity to clarify their data and/or provide allowable exceptions. Step 3: Review the responses and identify noncompliance (missed timelines that did not meet one of the allowable exceptions). Step 4: Determine if LEAs with identified noncompliance have met both prongs of verification of correction of noncompliance, consistent with OSEP Memorandum Step 4a: Determine if the LEA has corrected original cases of noncompliance by completing the evaluations and eligibility determinations, although outside of the 60-day timeframe. (Prong 1) Step 4b: Gather data from the State database for the school year to determine if LEA is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements and has achieved 100% compliance based on the review of this updated data. (Prong 2) Step 5: Issue findings to those LEAs who were identified with noncompliance for the school year and who did not meet both prongs of verification of correction of noncompliance prior to the findings being issued. Number of LEAs who appeared noncompliant in database (Step 2) 30 Number of LEAs who provided allowable exceptions to the timeline (Step 3) 20 Number of LEAs with identified noncompliance (Step 3) 10 Number of LEAs whose noncompliance was corrected (both prongs) prior to the issuance of findings (Step 4) 9 Number of LEAs who were issued findings of noncompliance (Step 5) 1 After an initial review of data, LEAs who appeared noncompliant were given an opportunity to clarify their data. The State database does not allow LEAs to indicate whether or not a missed timeline was due to one of the allowable exceptions under IDEA 34 CFR (d). The opportunity to provide this information was conducted by sending the affected LEAs a letter which required their response and any necessary documentation of the allowable exceptions. Upon review of the LEA responses, it was determined that 44 individual student cases exceeded the 60-day timeline. The 44 cases of missed timelines belonged to 10 separate LEAs. At the time of the data review, all LEAs had corrected the individual cases of identified noncompliance by completing the evaluations and eligibility determinations, although outside of the 60-day timeframe. Three of the LEAs were previously on Improvement Plans for noncompliance identified in FFY 2010, and have since demonstrated correction of the noncompliance. One (1) LEA was currently on Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 87

88 an Improvement Plan for noncompliance identified in FFY 2010 and has corrected the original cases of noncompliance, but has not demonstrated correction based on reviews of updated data. That LEA has since entered into a Compliance Agreement with MDE to address several outstanding areas of noncompliance. For the other six LEAs, the OSE then reviewed updated data from the school year to determine if the LEAs were correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements and had achieved 100% compliance. It was determined that five LEAs satisfied the 2-pronged approach of verified correction of noncompliance in accordance with OSEP Memo prior to the OSE s issuance of written notifications of findings. Therefore, those five LEAs were not issued findings. The remaining LEA was issued a finding of noncompliance for Indicator 11. LEAs are issued a single finding regardless of the number of student records that were found out of compliance in each LEA. The LEA has corrected the individual cases of identified noncompliance by completing the evaluations and eligibility determinations, although outside of the 60-day timeframe. However, the LEA could not demonstrate 100% compliance based upon a review of SY data prior to the issuance of findings. The LEA has submitted an Improvement Plan with activities to ensure the correction of noncompliance and future adherence to the 60- day timeline. A monthly data review is also required for each LEA who was issued a finding. LEAs will be monitored to ensure that correction takes place as soon as possible, but no later than 12 months from the date of the written notification of the finding. In summation, of the 10 LEAs with identified noncompliance for FFY 2011: One LEA has outstanding noncompliance from FFY 2010 and the FFY 2011 noncompliance is being addressed through a Compliance Agreement; Two LEAs were previously on Improvement Plans for FFY 2010 and the FFY 2011 noncompliance was addressed and corrected while under those Improvement Plans; Five LEAs were able to demonstrate correction of noncompliance based on reviews of updated data prior to the issuance of findings; and One LEA was issued a finding of noncompliance for FFY 2011 noncompliance. Children included in (a) but not included in (b): All 44 children included in (a) but not included in (b) had received eligibility determinations, although outside of the 60-day timeframe, at the time of the data review. Range of days beyond the timeline and reasons for delays: The range of days for those LEAs that had dates beyond the allowed 60 days ranged from 1 to 172 days. Reasons cited by LEAs included delays in receipt of medical records or other paperwork, medical delays, staff did not follow established procedures, miscalculations of the timeline, staff unavailability, additional testing needed, etc. Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 88

89 Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for FFY 2011 (SY ): State Performance Plan Improvement Activities MDE staff in the Data Division will generate reports indicating the number and percentage of students in each LEA and Statewide that were evaluated in accordance with timelines. Staff in the Data Division annually will conduct desktop audits by reviewing and analyzing LEA and State reports to determine compliance with this Indicator. LEAs that are not compliant with this Indicator will be notified in writing and are required to develop and implement corrective actions to demonstrate compliance with this requirement. Reports will be generated quarterly for any LEA found to be noncompliant to track compliance with this Indicator following the OSE s notification to the LEA of noncompliance with the established timelines. Training will be provided on an annual basis following the review and analysis of the LEA and State reports and incorporates issues or concerns obtained through feedback provided by the MSIS users. Improvement Activities FFY 2011 (SY ) The SPP/APR staff conducted an analysis of the data to determine if timelines were met by LEAs. Results of the data analysis for Indicator 11 were provided to the LEAs. LEAs whose data appeared to be noncompliant were contacted and/or were offered technical assistance concerning data entry. A review and analysis of data by staff in the Division of SPP/APR during the school year was conducted and findings of noncompliance were issued to LEAs. LEAs found to be noncompliant must submit monthly data reports to track compliance with this Indicator following the OSE s notification to the LEA of noncompliance with the established timelines. The Evaluation and Eligibility trainings continued to be provided through OSE offered five sessions at the following locations: o Jackson, MS October 27-28, 2011 o Oxford, MS November 7-8, 2011 o Jackson, MS November 29-30, 2011 o DeSoto, MS January 29-30, 2012 o Gulfport, MS February 28-29, 2012 At the New Special Education Directors training, on October 24, 2012, new Special Education Directors were provided training on evaluation and eligibility and Child Find. Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 89

90 State Performance Plan Improvement Activities Eligibility timelines will be monitored by monitoring staff conducting on-site focused monitoring visits when reviewing eligibility records. Findings of noncompliance must be corrected as soon as possible, but in no case later than 12 months from identification of noncompliance. Information will be disseminated via the OSE Listserv regarding data entry in MSIS relative to Indicator 11 and the requirement to conduct initial evaluations and make an initial eligibility determination within 60 days of a child s referral by the LSC for a comprehensive assessment. OSE will add a component in MSIS to ensure timelines for instructional interventions, assessment and eligibility were conducted in accordance with established timelines. Specifically, with regard to the initial evaluation and determination of eligibility, all students referred for an initial comprehensive assessment were assessed and a determination of eligibility made within 60 days of the date of referral by the Local Survey Committee for a comprehensive assessment. MSIS tracks the established timelines for each step and OSE has the capability to generate reports indicating the number and percentage of students in each LEA and Statewide that were evaluated in accordance with timelines. OSE staff will monitor LEA data in the Improvement Activities FFY 2011 (SY ) Eligibility timelines are monitored during on-site visits conducted by the OSE monitoring teams annually. Any findings of noncompliance with eligibility timelines are addressed through written findings in the Evaluation Report provided to the monitored LEAs. Findings of noncompliance must be corrected as soon as possible, but in no case later than 12 months from the identification of noncompliance. Information is disseminated via the OSE Listserv regarding data entry in MSIS relative to Indicator 11 and the requirement to conduct initial evaluations and make an initial eligibility determination within 60 days of a child s referral by the LSC for a comprehensive assessment. During the SY , OSE added a component in MSIS to ensure timelines for instructional interventions, assessment, and eligibility were conducted in accordance with established timelines. Specifically, with regard to the initial evaluation and determination of eligibility, all students referred for an initial comprehensive assessment were assessed and a determination of eligibility made within 60 days of the date of referral by the Multidisciplinary Evaluation Team for a comprehensive assessment. Reports in MSIS were used for training for LEAs concerning data entry into MSIS. LEAs were trained how to use the reports to ensure compliance with Indicator 11. OSE staff monitored data and contacted LEAs about approaching Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 90

91 State Performance Plan Improvement Activities State database and alert LEAs to approaching deadlines when necessary. In an effort to address concerns from LEAs on technical difficulties with the current method of data collection, OSE will develop a new screen in the State database application that streamlines data entry for initial evaluation data. Improvement Activities FFY 2011 (SY ) deadlines during FFY OSE developed a new screen for the State database application to collect initial ruling data. The screen was operational during the FFY 2011 (SY ). One-on-one technical assistance was offered to LEAs via telephone and to assist with their data entry. All training materials are posted on the OSE web site to allow LEAs twentyfour-hour-a-day access. The data screen used to capture data for Indicator 11 is examined and tested each year. OSE reviews all requests from LEA users to update the data screen and reports generated from the data entered in order to offer a better data environment for the users. OSE, in collaboration with The Office of Curriculum and Instruction offered five RtI regional trainings, with a focus on early identification and intervention with students to differentiate students who respond to interventions in general education and students suspected of having a disability who should be located, identified, and evaluated for special education and related services per Child Find regulations: Hattiesburg, MS November 28,2011 Tupelo, MS December 24, 2011 Jackson, MS January 24, 2012 Oxford, MS February 7, 2012 Gulfport, MS March 9, 2012 A new interagency agreement was drafted to reflect the new Part C regulations to be approved and implemented in covering joint Child Find responsibilities and outlining new efforts to collaborate on developing Statewide promotional materials and guidance documents to be used across agencies. OSE staff participated on the State Interagency Coordinating Council with representatives from Part C and Part B programs, parent groups, university programs, Head Start, and other disability programs to support joint Child Find responsibilities. OSE staff participated on the Advisory Council on Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders with representatives other State agencies and disability groups/programs to ensure Child Find responsibilities are addressed. Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 91

92 A State team attended the Mega Leadership Conference and pre-conference sessions focused on Child Find responsibilities and inclusive, high-quality service provision in special education. In addition OSE staff attended the Southeast Regional Resource Center Conference focused on planning and development of improvement activities in special education. This information will be incorporated into training, guidance documents, and other interagency efforts at promoting Child Find responsibilities. The State 619 Coordinator met with staff from the Head Start Collaboration office to identify opportunities to ensure that Child Find responsibilities were appropriately addressed. OSE staff collaborated with Office of Curriculum and Instruction to review proposals to address students suspected of having dyslexia/reading learning disabilities to ensure that Child Find responsibilities were appropriately addressed. OSE staff participated in professional development activities with the School Turnaround Learning Community regarding the development and use of early warning systems to identify students suspected of having a disability who should be located, identified, and evaluated for special education and related services per Child Find regulations. This information will be incorporated in future trainings and guidance for districts. Correction of FFY 2010 Findings of Noncompliance (if State reported less than 100% compliance): Level of compliance (actual target data) State reported for FFY 2010 for this Indicator: 99.09% 1. Number of findings of noncompliance the State made during FFY 2010 (the period from July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011) 2. Number of FFY 2010 findings the State verified as timely corrected (corrected within one year from the date of notification to the LEA of the finding) 3. Number of FFY 2010 findings not verified as corrected within one year [(1) minus (2)] Correction of FFY 2010 Findings of Noncompliance Not Timely Corrected (corrected more than one year from identification of the noncompliance): 4. Number of FFY 2010 findings not timely corrected (same as the number from (3) above) 1 5. Number of FFY 2010 findings the State has verified as corrected 0 Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 92

93 beyond the one-year timeline ( subsequent correction ) 6. Number of FFY 2010 findings not verified as corrected [(4) minus (5)] 1 Verification of Correction of FFY 2010 noncompliance (either timely or subsequent): The OSE has verified that all but one LEA with noncompliance in FFY 2010: (Prong 1) has completed the evaluation, although late, for any child whose initial evaluation was not timely, unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the LEA; and (Prong 2) is correctly implementing 34 CFR (c)(1) (i.e. achieved 100% compliance) based on a review of updated data collected through the State data system, MSIS, consistent with OSEP Memorandum 09-02, dated October 17, The OSE required each LEA that was issued a finding of noncompliance in FFY 2010 to develop and implement an Improvement Plan which included activities to ensure that timelines were met. At the time of the issuance of the findings, all evaluations had been completed, although late. The LEAs were required to submit to OSE a monthly data review of current evaluations to ensure that timelines were being monitored. Upon a review of SY data in the State database approximately 6 months after the issuance of the findings, all but one LEA demonstrated 100% compliance at that time. Thus, the correction of noncompliance for 9 LEAs from FFY 2010 was verified within 12 months in accordance with OSEP Memo The remaining district has not yet shown 100% compliance due to continued missed timelines. The MDE OSE is working closely with the LEA to correct this noncompliance. The LEA has also not demonstrated correction of noncompliance identified in FFY 2010 in areas related to Indicator 12, discipline, least restrictive environment, transition services, FAPE, ESY, IEP development, manifestation determinations, and meaningful educational benefit. On or about November 2, 2012 MDE and the LEA entered into a Compliance Agreement/Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) regarding the LEA s failure to achieve compliance within the one year timeline. On January 17, 2013, the administrators of the Corrective Action Plan (CAP) presented a recommended revision of the plan to the SBE that details the plan for the LEA to achieve compliance by the June 30, 2013 deadline specified in the Compliance Agreement. The recommended revisions were approved by the SBE on January 18, Please see Indicator 15 for further details of the Compliance Agreement and MDE s general supervision activities related to this case. Correction of Any Remaining Findings of Noncompliance from FFY 2009 or Earlier: All previous noncompliance has been verified as corrected and was reported as such in prior Annual Performance Reports. Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 93

94 Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for FFY 2011 (SY ): Indicator 11 - % of SWD who were evaluated within 60 days Target Actual Target = 100%/Actual = 99.59% - Target not met While did not meet the 100% target for FFY 2011 (SY ), it did show progress from the FFY 2010(SY ) data of 99.09%. All SPP Improvement Activities will continue throughout the next school year. OSE will continue to work with LEAs to ensure correct data entry in the State database. Additional Information Required by the OSEP APR Response Table for this Indicator: Statement from the Response Table State s Response OSEP appreciates the State s efforts and looks forward to reviewing in the FFY 2011 APR, the State s data demonstrating that it is in compliance with the timely initial evaluation requirements in 34 CFR (c)(1). Because the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2010, the State must report on the status of correction of noncompliance identified in FFY2010 for this indicator. When reporting on the correction of noncompliance, the State must report, in its The State reported on the status of correction of noncompliance for this indicator under the appropriate headings of the Indicator 11 FFY 2011 APR. The State reported that all but one LEA with noncompliance identified in FFY 2010 for this indicator: (1) is correctly implementing 34 CFR (c)(1) (i.e., achieved 100% compliance) based on a review of updated data such as data subsequently collected through on-site monitoring or a State data system; and (2) has completed the evaluation, although late, for any child whose initial evaluation was not timely, unless the child is no longer within the Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 94

95 FFY 2011 APR, that it has verified that each LEA with noncompliance identified in FFY 2010 for this indicator: (1) is correctly implementing 34 CFR (c)(1) (i.e., achieved 100% compliance) based on a review of updated data such as data subsequently collected through on-site monitoring or a State data system; and (2) has completed the evaluation, although late, for any child whose initial evaluation was not timely, unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the LEA, consistent with OSEP Memorandum 09-02, dated October 17, 2008 (OSEP Memo 09-02). In the FFY 2011 APR, the State must describe the specific actions that were taken to verify the correction. jurisdiction of the LEA, consistent with OSEP Memo The State described the specific actions that were taken to verify the correction. The State also reported on the actions being taken to ensure correction of noncompliance for the LEA that has not yet demonstrated compliance. If the State does not report 100% compliance in the FFY 2011 APR, the State must review its improvement activities and revise them, if necessary to ensure compliance. The State reviewed its improvement activities and will continue with the current activities due to its continued progress towards meeting the target. Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2012: None Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 95

96 Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2011 (SY ) Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / Effective Transition 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)) Measurement: a. # of children who have been served in Part C and referred to Part B for Part B eligibility determination. b. # of those referred determined to be NOT eligible and whose eligibility was determined prior to their third birthdays. c. # of those found eligible who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays. d. # of children for whom parent refusal to provide consent caused delays in evaluation or initial services or to whom exceptions under 34 CFR (d) applied. e. # of children determined to be eligible for early intervention services under Part C less than 90 days before their third birthdays. Account for children included in a but not included in b, c, d or e. Indicate the range of days beyond the third birthday when eligibility was determined and the IEP developed and the reasons for the delays. Percent = [(c) divided by (a - b - d - e)] times 100. FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target 2011 ( ) will increase the number of eligible children transitioning from Part C to Part B, receiving services at age 3 to 100%. Actual Target Data for FFY 2011: 97.59% Data for Indicator 12 were obtained from the State database, MSIS. Data was collected and analyzed for the period from July 1, 2011 to June 30, OSE continuously works with the Lead Agency for Part C, Department of Health (MDH) to coordinate the electronic Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 96

97 data systems in order to collect accurate information relative to this Indicator. Monthly files were submitted from MDH that allowed OSE to load the files into MSIS and run a matching procedure to determine how many students being served under Part C were now being served under Part B. The OSE was able to provide data to LEAs that included a listing of eligible students receiving services at age 3 and those children currently being served by Part C who were referred to Part B. The LEAs in turn reported to OSE the status of each student in the reports. Once all the data was reported, OSE ran a process to pull data to indicate if all the students had IEPs developed and implemented by their third birthdays. Steps for data collection, determination of noncompliance, and issuance of findings: Step 1: Gather data from the State database after the end of the school year. All records are reviewed. Step 2: Identify LEAs who appear noncompliant and give them the opportunity to clarify their data and/or provide allowable exceptions. Step 3: Review the responses and identify noncompliance (missed timelines that did not meet one of the allowable exceptions). Step 4: Determine if LEAs with identified noncompliance have met both prongs of verification of correction of noncompliance, consistent with OSEP Memorandum Step 4a: Determine if the LEA has corrected original cases of noncompliance by developing and implementing the IEP, although after the third birthday. (Prong 1) Step 4b: Gather data from the State database for the school year to determine if LEA is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements and has achieved 100% compliance based on the review of this updated data. (Prong 2) Step 5: Issue findings to those LEAs who were identified with noncompliance for the school year and who did not meet both prongs of verification of correction of noncompliance prior to the findings being issued. Number of LEAs who appeared noncompliant in database (Step 2) 67 Number of LEAs who provided allowable exceptions to the timeline (Step 3) 57 Number of LEAs with identified noncompliance (Step 3) 10 Number of LEAs whose noncompliance was corrected (both prongs) prior to the issuance of findings (Step 4) 5 Number of LEAs who were issued findings of noncompliance (Step 5) 5 After an initial review of data, LEAs who appeared noncompliant were given an opportunity to clarify their data. The State database does not allow LEAs to indicate whether or not a missed timeline was due to one of the allowable exceptions under IDEA 34 CFR (d). The opportunity to provide this information was conducted by sending the affected LEAs a letter which required their response and any necessary documentation of the allowable exceptions. Upon review of the LEA responses, it was determined that 19 individual children who were referred by Part C and found eligible for Part B, did not have IEPs developed and implemented by their third birthdays. Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 97

98 The 19 cases of missed timelines belonged to 10 separate LEAs. At the time of the data review, all 10 LEAs had corrected the individual cases of identified noncompliance by developing and implementing the IEP, although after the third birthday. One of the LEAs was on an Improvement Plan for noncompliance identified in FFY 2010, and has since demonstrated correction of the noncompliance. One LEA was on an Improvement Plan for noncompliance identified in FFY 2010 and has corrected the original cases of noncompliance, but has not demonstrated correction based on reviews of updated data. That LEA has since entered into a Compliance Agreement with MDE to address several outstanding areas of noncompliance. For the other eight LEAs, the OSE reviewed updated data from the school year to determine if the LEAs were correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements and had achieved 100% compliance. It was determined that three LEAs satisfied the 2-pronged approach of verified correction of noncompliance in accordance with OSEP Memo prior to the OSE s issuance of written notifications of findings. Therefore, those three LEAs were not issued findings. The remaining five LEAs were issued findings of noncompliance for Indicator 12. LEAs were issued a single finding regardless of the number of student records that were found out of compliance in each LEA. All five LEAs have corrected the individual cases of identified noncompliance by developing and implementing the IEP, although after the third birthday. However, these five LEAs could not demonstrate 100% compliance based upon a review of SY data prior to the issuance of findings. All five LEAs have submitted an Improvement Plan with activities to ensure the correction of noncompliance and future adherence to the timeline. A monthly data review is also required for each LEA who was issued a finding. LEAs will be monitored to ensure that correction takes place as soon as possible, but no later than 12 months from the date of the written notification of the finding. In summation, of the 10 LEAs with identified noncompliance for FFY 2011: One LEA has outstanding noncompliance from FFY 2010 and the FFY 2011 noncompliance is being addressed through a Compliance Agreement; One LEA was previously on Improvement Plans for FFY 2010 and the FFY 2011 noncompliance was addressed and corrected while under those Improvement Plans; Three LEAs were able to demonstrate correction of noncompliance based on reviews of updated data prior to the issuance of findings; and Five LEAs were issued findings of noncompliance for FFY 2011 noncompliance. Actual State Data (Numbers) a. # of children who have been served in Part C and referred to Part B for Part B eligibility determination b. # of those referred determined to be NOT eligible and whose eligibility was determined prior to third birthday c. # of those found eligible who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays 1, Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 98

99 d. # for whom parent refusals to provide consent caused delays in evaluation or initial services or to whom exceptions under 34 CFR (d) applied e. # of children determined to be eligible for early intervention services under Part C less than 90 days before their third birthdays # in a but not in b, c, d, or e 17 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 97.59% Percent = [(c) / (a-b-d-e)] * 100 Children included in (a) but not in (b), (c), (d), or (e): Nineteen children were included in (a) but not in (b), (c), (d), or (e). All of the 19 children have been evaluated, determined eligible, and had IEPs developed and implemented, although after their third birthdays. The range of days beyond the third birthday ranged from 2 to 135 days. Reasons for the delays included staff or scheduling issues, medical delays, lack of parent availability for IEP meetings, and lack of communication with service coordinators for Part C. Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for FFY 2011 (SY ): State Performance Plan Improvement Activities MDE and the Lead Agency for Part C, MDH will coordinate electronic data systems in order to collect accurate information relative to this Indicator. The MDE will provide data to LEAs that include the percentage of eligible students receiving services at age 3. MDE will provide professional materials and training activities to LEAs on effective service delivery options for serving children ages 3-5. The MDE and the MDH will continue to collect and analyze data relative to Part C and Part B outcomes and to collaborate on the implementation of a Improvement Activities FFY 2011 (SY ) A monthly file from MDH system was established to load the file into MSIS. LEAs check reports in MSIS at the beginning of each month for a listing of any students that will turn 30 months during that month. This timeframe will allow LEAs six months to prepare and test these students moving from Part C to Part B. A monthly file from MDH and system was established to load the file into MSIS for LEAs to use. Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 99

100 State Performance Plan Improvement Activities statewide Child Find campaign to identify, locate, and evaluate children with disabilities ages birth through 21. The MDE and the MDH will establish an Interagency Agreement which addresses responsibility between the two lead agencies for Part C and B respectively in the areas of Child Find and Transition. MDE staff will continue to annually review the Interagency Agreement in an effort to determine current compliance status of the Agreement between MDE and MDH. If problems are identified, a report specifying problems, solutions, and timelines for implementation will be developed cooperatively with agency personnel. MDE personnel will provide technical assistance as needed to help resolve any problems noted through the annual review of the Interagency Agreement. The MDE will support the training activities provided by the MDH, lead agency for Part C, and to work collaboratively with the Part C service providers to ensure a smooth transition from Part C to Part B. The MDE will be responsible for the Statewide coordination of the planning and implementation of the Child Find identification, location, and evaluation effort. The MDE will evaluate the implementation of policies and procedures that promote a smooth transition of children from Part C to Part B, most specifically, the requirement that children eligible for Part C services who also are found to be eligible for Improvement Activities FFY 2011 (SY ) The Interagency Agreement between MDE and MDH remained in place during SY The Interagency Agreement was implemented in SY The review did not reveal any problems with the compliance of the Agreement. OSE personnel worked with MDH to provide technical assistance in pulling the data needed by OSE. A secure site was created to allow MDH to deposit the file each month. The MDE worked collaboratively with the MDH to support training efforts of the MDH as the lead agency for Part C. The MDE also supported training efforts of the MDH related to transition requirements from Part C to B. Child Find is conducted annually and reports are submitted to the Office of Program Management for verification. The OSE has developed training for LEA personnel who are responsible for the oversight and provision of IDEA Part B services to preschool children with IEPs. This training was developed and implemented by the former Director of Part C, who was employed by the MDE. This training was implemented Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 100

101 State Performance Plan Improvement Activities Part B services, have a transition planning conference no later than 33 months of age. The MDE will provide funding for teachers of children with disabilities birth through two years of age to LEAs that voluntarily choose to provide educational services to this age group. The MDE will provide Parent Awareness Trainings collaboratively with various State agencies, specifically, the MDH and the Department of Mental Health (MDMH), utilizing staff from these two offices to address requirements of these agencies as they relate to and impact the transition from Part C to Part B. Improvement Activities FFY 2011 (SY ) during the SY , and focused entirely on Early Childhood Transition: Part C (Early Intervention) to Part B (Special Education). Permissive State legislation allows MDE to provide teacher units annually for those LEAs that provide services to SWD from birth to two. Parent Conference was provided on March 5-6, The OSE has developed training for LEA personnel who are responsible for the oversight and provision of IDEA Part B services to preschool children with IEPs. This training was developed and implemented by the 619 Coordinator employed by the MDE. This training was implemented during the SY and focused entirely on Early Childhood Transition: Part C (Early Intervention) to Part B (Special Education). It has been well received by the participants as a much needed technical assistance activity. Key members of the MDE/OSE staff were involved in the training, including Technical Assistance/Training staff and Policy staff. The OSE continued providing training on Early Childhood Transition: Part C to B during the school year. This year the training was extended to include not only Part C service personnel, Part B district personnel, and regular education teachers, but also Head Start directors and child care center directors to promote collaborative practice to ensure smooth and effective transitions from Part C to Part B programs for young children with disabilities. Trainings were provided in the following locations on the dates noted below: Gulfport, MS November 18, 2011 DeSoto, MS December 13, 2011 Starkville, MS January 18, 2012 Jackson, MS January 25, 2012 Jackson, MS February 13, 2012 Hattiesburg, MS March 7, 2012 Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 101

102 During the SY , the OSE began to revise the Part C to B training to implement in the SY The revisions address the collaboration, roles, and responsibilities of Part B and Part C personnel. OSE staff monitored LEA data in the State database throughout the SY and alerted LEAs to approaching deadlines when necessary. OSE continues to utilize the SPED Directors Listserv to provide important information and updates regarding Indicator 12. The SPED Directors Listserv is a closed list, limited to district SPED Directors and staff the District SPED Director has chosen to add. The list s function is to allow MDE to disseminate important information in a timely manner. OSE staff participated on the State Interagency Coordinating Council with representatives from Part C and Part B programs, parent groups, university programs, Head Start, and other disability programs to support joint early childhood transition responsibilities. The State 619 Coordinator met with staff from the Head Start Collaboration office to identify opportunities to support smooth and effective transitions from Part C to Part B programs for young children with disabilities. A State team attended the Mega Leadership Conference and pre-conference sessions focused high-quality service provision in early intervention and early childhood special education. In addition OSE staff attended the Southeast Regional Resource Center Conference focused on planning and development of improvement activities in special education. This information will be incorporated into training, guidance documents, and other interagency efforts at promoting joint early childhood transition responsibilities. Correction of FFY 2010 Findings of Noncompliance (if State reported less than 100% compliance) Level of compliance (actual target data) State reported for FFY 2010 for this Indicator: 93.94% 1. Number of findings of noncompliance the State made during FFY 2010 (the period from July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011) 2. Number of FFY 2010 findings the State verified as timely corrected (corrected within one year from the date of notification to the LEA of the finding) 3.Number of FFY 2010 findings not verified as corrected within one year [(1) minus (2)] Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 102

103 Correction of FFY 2010 Findings of Noncompliance Not Timely Corrected (corrected more than one year from identification of the noncompliance): 4.Number of FFY 2010 findings not timely corrected (same as the number from (3) above) 5.Number of FFY 2010 findings the State has verified as corrected beyond the one-year timeline ( subsequent correction ) 6.Number of FFY 2010 findings not yet verified as corrected [(4) minus (5)] Verification of Correction of FFY 2010 noncompliance (either timely or subsequent): The OSE has verified that all but one LEA with noncompliance in FFY 2010: (Prong 1) has developed and implemented the IEP, although late, for any child for whom implementation of the IEP was not timely, unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the LEA; and (Prong 2) is correctly implementing 34 CFR (b) (i.e. achieved 100% compliance) based on a review of updated data collected through the State data system, MSIS, consistent with OSEP Memorandum 09-02, dated October 17, The OSE required each LEA that was issued a finding of noncompliance in FFY 2010 to develop and implement an Improvement Plan which included activities to ensure that timelines were met. All original cases of noncompliance have been corrected. The IEPs have been developed and implemented, although late. The LEAs were required to submit to OSE a monthly data review of current referrals to ensure that timelines were being monitored. Upon a review of SY data in the State database approximately 6 months after the issuance of the findings, all but one LEA demonstrated 100% compliance at that time. Thus, the correction of noncompliance from FFY 2010 was verified for 11 LEAs within 12 months in accordance with OSEP Memo The remaining district has not yet shown 100% compliance due to continued missed timelines. The MDE OSE is working closely with the LEA to correct this noncompliance. The LEA has also not demonstrated correction of noncompliance identified in FFY 2010 in areas related to Indicator 11, discipline, least restrictive environment, transition services, FAPE, ESY, IEP development, manifestation determinations, and meaningful educational benefit. On or about November 2, 2012 MDE and the LEA entered into a Compliance Agreement/Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) regarding the LEA s failure to achieve compliance within the one year timeline. On January 17, 2013, the administrators of the Corrective Action Plan (CAP) presented a recommended revision of the plan to the SBE that details the plan for the LEA to achieve compliance by the June 30, 2013 deadline specified in the Compliance Agreement. The recommended revisions were approved by the SBE on January 18, Please see Indicator 15 for further details of the Compliance Agreement and MDE s general supervision activities related to this case. Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 103

104 Correction of Any Remaining Findings of Noncompliance from FFY 2009 or Earlier: All previous noncompliance has been verified as corrected and was reported as such in prior Annual Performance Reports. Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 104

105 Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for FFY 2011 (SY ): Indicator 12 - Part C to B, IEP developed by 3rd birthday Target Actual Target = 100%/Actual = 97.59% - Target Not Met OSE did not meet the 100% target for FFY 2011 (SY ). Progress was seen from the 93.94% rate reported in FFY 2010 (SY ). All SPP Improvement Activities will continue throughout the next school year. Additional Information Required by the OSEP APR Response Table for this Indicator: Statement from the Response Table State s Response The State must demonstrate, in the FFY 2011 APR, that the State is in compliance with the early childhood transition requirements in 34 CFR (b). Because the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2009, the State must report on the status of correction of The State reported on the status of correction of noncompliance for this indicator under the appropriate headings of the Indicator 12 FFY 2011 APR. The State reported that all but one LEA with noncompliance identified in FFY 2010 for this indicator: (1) is correctly implementing Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 105

106 noncompliance identified in FFY 2010 for this indicator. When reporting on the correction of noncompliance, the State must report, in its FFY 2011 APR, that it has verified that each LEA with noncompliance identified in FFY 2010 for this indicator: (1) is correctly implementing 34 CFR (B) (i.e., achieved 100% compliance) based on a review of updated data such as data subsequently collected through on-site monitoring or a State data system; and (2) has developed and implemented the IEP, although late, for any child for whom implementation of the IEP was not timely, unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the LEA, consistent with OSEP Memo In the FFY 2011APR, the State must describe the specific actions that were taken to verify the correction. If the State does not report 100% compliance in the FFY 2011 APR, the State must review its improvement activities and revise them, if necessary to ensure compliance. 34 CFR (b) (i.e., achieved 100% compliance) based on a review of updated data such as data subsequently collected through on-site monitoring or a State data system; and (2) has developed and implemented the IEP, although late, for any child for whom implementation of the IEP was not timely, unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the LEA, consistent with OSEP Memo The State described the specific actions that were taken to verify the correction. The State also reported on the actions being taken to ensure correction of noncompliance for the LEA that has not yet demonstrated compliance. The State reviewed its improvement activities and will continue with the current activities. Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2012: None Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 106

107 Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2011 (SY ) Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / Effective Transition 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)) Measurement: 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) divided by the (# of youth with an IEP age 16 and above)] times 100. Actual Target Data for FFY 2011 (SY ): FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target 2011 ( ) 100% Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 107

108 Year FFY 2011 ( ) Total number of youth aged 16 and above with an IEP Total number of youth aged 16 and above with an IEP that meets the requirements 10,539 10,484 Percent of youth aged 16 and above with an IEP that meets the requirements 99.48% 10,484 / 10,539 = 99.48% - Target Not Met OSE staff monitored the data in the Statewide student information system closely throughout the school year and notified LEAs by phone when it appeared that the LEA failed to indicate compliance with Indicator 13 in the database. The OSE asked the LEA to review the IEPs in question and make appropriate updates to the database. At the time data was collected for the purpose of determination of noncompliance, 6 LEAs had data that appeared noncompliant. The LEAs submitted the IEPs and Written Prior Notice forms to the MDE OSE for review. Upon review of those documents, it was determined that 32 of the student files belonging to 5 of the LEAs were not in compliance and findings were issued. In addition, 23 cases of noncompliance were identified in 4 LEAs through investigations of formal State complaints, on-site investigative audits, and audits of non-public agencies. The LEAs are currently in the process of correcting the noncompliance. They have submitted Improvement Plans to the MDE OSE and will receive on-site visits where additional files will be reviewed to determine correction of compliance. In all cases, transition services were addressed on the IEPs, but did not meet all of the criteria specified in IDEA and State policies. Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for FFY 2011 (SY ): State Performance Plan Improvement Activities Training will continue to be provided annually regarding the requirement for LEAs to develop and implement IEPs, in accordance with all of the requirements of 34 C.F.R , including transition services beginning no later than the first IEP to be in effect when a student turns 16, or younger if Improvement Activities FFY 2011 (SY ) Training was provided regarding the requirement for LEAs to develop and implement IEPs, in accordance with all of the requirements of 34 CFR , including transition services beginning no later than the first IEP to be in effect when a student turns 16, or younger if deemed appropriate by the IEP Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 108

109 State Performance Plan Improvement Activities deemed appropriate by the IEP committee. The staff member responsible for Secondary Transition is also responsible for the provision of training related to transition components of the IEP and transition services. These training opportunities, provided annually to LEA personnel include specific information related to transition components of the IEP, the Occupational Diploma, and the transitional portfolio. Improvement Activities FFY 2011 (SY ) committee. The Division of Technical Assistance has five staff members who provide technical assistance in the area of Secondary Transition, with one staff member having primary responsibility for this area. Training opportunities were provided to LEA personnel including specific information related to transition components of the IEP, Occupational Diploma, and the Transition Portfolio. IEP training (including IEP, Extended School Year, Transition Portfolio, and Occupational Diploma Requirements) or technical assistance focused on improving transition services for students with disabilities through a well developed IEP was provided on the following dates: o Meridian/Lauderdale August 3, 2011 o Lee County August 12, 2011 o Jackson, MS October 28, 2011 o Tupelo, MS December 2, 2011 o Jackson, MS November 17, 2011 o Starkville, MS January 5, 2012 o Jackson, MS January 19, 2012 o Jackson, MS February 17, 2012 o DeSoto, MS February 29, 2012 o Gulfport, MS March 12, 2012 o Greenwood, MS March 23, 2012 o DeSoto, MS April 2, 2012 Regional training sessions were also provided through a collaborative effort between the MDE and the Department of Rehabilitative Services (MDRS) with a focus on preparing personnel working with the secondary- Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 109

110 State Performance Plan Improvement Activities Improvement Activities FFY 2011 (SY ) aged student to enable the student to meet postsecondary goals and annual IEP goals related to the student s transition services needs. Training was provided in the following locations on the dates noted below: o Jackson, MS November 28, 2011 o Starkville, MS January 5, 2012 o Jackson, MS February 17, 2012 o Gulfport, MS March 12, 2012 o Greenwood, MS March 23, 2012 o DeSoto, MS April 2, 2012 The training provided by the OSE addresses the requirement that IEPs of students ages 16 and above (or younger if deemed appropriate by the IEP committee) will include appropriate measurable postsecondary goals based upon age appropriate transition assessments related to the areas of training, education, employment, and, where appropriate, independent living skills and the transition services, including the courses of study needed to assist the child in reaching those goals. A joint conference was held in the fall of 2006 with the Department of Rehabilitation Services. Training will also be done annually by OSE data staff relative to the collection of data (new data elements have been added to address this Indicator) and The training provided by the OSE during SY addressed the requirement that IEPs of students ages 14 and above (as required by State policy) will include appropriate measurable postsecondary goals based upon age- appropriate transition assessments related to the areas of training, education, employment, and, where appropriate, independent living skills and the transition services, including the courses of study needed to assist the child in reaching those goals. OSE, in collaboration with MS Department of Rehabilitation Services, hosted a three-day secondary transition conference on November 2-4, The focus of the conference was building partnership for youth transitions. Training was provided for the Special Education Directors during the June 2012 Special Education Summer Institute. Directors of Special Education were updated on s current Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 110

111 State Performance Plan Improvement Activities analysis of data collected. A review of IEPs will be completed by monitoring staff conducting on-site visits. IEPs of students ages 16 and above will be reviewed to determine whether the annual goals are coordinated and measurable. Also a review is made to determine if transition services are reasonable to enable students to meet postsecondary goals. Information will be disseminated to LEAs via the OSE listserv regarding the transition requirements addressed in 34 C.F.R Findings of noncompliance related to Indicator 13 will be issued to LEAs in written monitoring reports and require corrective actions (implementation of an improvement plan) as soon as possible, but in no case, later than 12 months from identification. Improvement Activities FFY 2011 (SY ) progress towards the State s target and were provided a variety of information on secondary transition, including model programs within. One-on-one technical assistance was provided as individual LEAs requested support. A review of IEPs was completed by monitoring staff conducting on-site visits during the SY IEPs of students ages 14 and above (as required by State policy) are reviewed to determine whether the annual goals are coordinated and measurable. Also a review was made to determine if transition services are reasonable to enable students to meet postsecondary goals. s were posted to the OSE listserv updating LEAs on the transitional data and reports in MSIS. Reminders were also posted as to when the reports should be run to review the data at the LEA level. Individual LEAs were contacted when data appeared incomplete. In the SY, Eight (8) districts were issued findings of noncompliance and required to implement corrective actions to resolve the identified noncompliance. Additional Improvement Activities for FFY 2011 (SY ): During the school year, the State Board of Education (SBE) updated the State s accountability standards to include a new exit option: the Career Pathways Diploma. This update also included the requirement that all students exiting 8 th grade must complete an Individual Career and Academic Plan (icap). The Career Pathway Option is a standard diploma that requires the students to complete four career and technical education units and two-andone-half elective units specified in the student s icap. The icap is a guide for students to help them establish and achieve their career and academic goals for success after high school by (1) Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 111

112 providing mentorship and guidance to assist students in career pathway planning, (2) helping students identify correct graduation pathway options, (3) supporting changes to meet student needs and ambitions and (4) helping students transition into a profession or postsecondary educational major. Training was provided as follows: Indianola, MS September 12, 2011; October 17, 2011 Pearl, MS September 14, 2011; October 13, 2011 Pearl, MS September 16, 2011; October 12, 2011 MS State, MS September 19, 2011; October 24, 2011 Tupelo, MS - September 23, 2011; November 11, 2011 Perkinston, MS September 26, 2011; November 1, 2011 MS State, MS September 27, 2011; October 24, 2011 Hattiesburg, MS September 28, 2011; October 31, 2011 Summit, MS - September 29, 2011; November 10, 2011 Tunica, MS October 3, 2011; November 9, 2011 OSE staff participated on the State Council on Developmental Disabilities with representatives from other agencies, parent groups, university programs, and other disability programs to support effective secondary transitions for students with developmental and intellectual disabilities. Correction of FFY 2010 Findings of Noncompliance: Level of compliance (actual target data) State reported for FFY 2010 for this Indicator: 99.95% 1.Number of findings of noncompliance the State made for FFY 2010 data (the period from July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011) 2.Number of FFY 2010 findings the State verified as timely corrected (corrected within one year from the date of notification to the LEA of the finding) 3.Number of FFY 2010 findings not verified as corrected within one year [(1) minus (2)] Correction of FFY 2010 Findings of Noncompliance Not Timely Corrected (corrected more than one year from identification of the noncompliance): 4.Number of FFY 2010 findings not timely corrected (same as the number from (3) above) 1 5.Number of FFY 2010 findings the State has verified as corrected beyond the one-year timeline ( subsequent correction ) 0 Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 112

113 6.Number of FFY 2010 findings not yet verified as corrected [(4) minus (5)] 1 Verification of Correction (either timely or subsequent): The OSE has verified that all but one LEA with noncompliance in FFY 2010: (Prong 1) has reviewed and revised the IEP for each child identified in the original finding of noncompliance, unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the LEA; and (Prong 2) is correctly implementing 34 CFR (b) and (b) (i.e. achieved 100% compliance) based on a review of updated data, consistent with OSEP Memorandum 09-02, dated October 17, The OSE required each LEA that was issued a finding of noncompliance in FFY 2010 to develop and implement a Corrective Action Plan which included activities to ensure that noncompliance was corrected. Multiple follow-up visits were conducted to assist the LEAs with the correction of noncompliance and provide technical assistance. The correction of the original cases of noncompliance was verified during the first follow-up visit in 2 of the 3 LEAs. In the same 2 LEAs, during each of the follow-up visits, additional records were reviewed and were found to be 100% compliant. Thus, the correction of noncompliance for 2 LEAs from FFY 2010 was verified within 12 months in accordance with OSEP Memo The remaining district has not yet shown 100% compliance. The MDE OSE is working closely with the LEA to correct this noncompliance. The LEA has also not demonstrated correction of noncompliance identified in FFY 2010 in areas related to Indicator 11, Indicator 12, discipline, least restrictive environment, FAPE, ESY, IEP development, manifestation determinations, and meaningful educational benefit. On or about November 2, 2012 MDE and the LEA entered into a Compliance Agreement/Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) regarding the LEA s failure to achieve compliance within the one year timeline. On January 17, 2013, the administrators of the Corrective Action Plan (CAP) presented a recommended revision of the plan to the SBE that details the plan for the LEA to achieve compliance by the June 30, 2013 deadline specified in the Compliance Agreement. The recommended revisions were approved by the SBE on January 18, Please see Indicator 15 for further details of the Compliance Agreement and MDE s general supervision activities related to this case. Correction of Remaining Findings of Noncompliance for previous years: There are no remaining findings of noncompliance for previous reporting periods. All previous findings were corrected and verified within one year of notification. Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 113

114 Additional Information Required by the OSEP APR Response Table for this Indicator (if applicable): Statement from the Response Table State s Response OSEP appreciates the State s efforts and looks forward to reviewing in the FFY 2011 APR, the State s data demonstrating that it is in compliance with the secondary transition requirements in 34 CFR (b) and (b). Because the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2010, the State must report on the status of correction of noncompliance identified in FFY2010 for this indicator. When reporting on the correction of noncompliance, the State must report, in its FFY 2011 APR, that it has verified that each LEA with noncompliance identified in FFY 2010 for this indicator: (1) is correctly implementing 34 CFR (b) and (b) (i.e., achieved 100% compliance) based on a review of updated data such as data subsequently collected through on-site monitoring or a State data system; and (2) has corrected each individual case of noncompliance, unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the LEA, consistent with OSEP Memorandum In the FFY 2011 APR, the State must describe the specific actions that were taken to verify the correction. If the State does not report 100% compliance in the FFY 2011 APR, the State must review its improvement activities and revise them, if necessary to ensure compliance. The State reported on the status of correction of noncompliance for this indicator under the appropriate headings of the Indicator 13 FFY 2011 APR. The State reported that all but one LEA with noncompliance identified in FFY 2010 for this indicator: (1) is correctly implementing 34 CFR (b) and (b) (i.e., achieved 100% compliance) based on a review of updated data such as data subsequently collected through on-site monitoring or a State data system; and (2) has corrected each individual case of noncompliance, unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the LEA, consistent with OSEP Memo The State described the specific actions that were taken to verify the correction. The State also reported on the actions being taken to ensure correction of noncompliance for the LEA that has not yet demonstrated compliance. The State reviewed its improvement activities and will continue with the current activities due to its continued progress towards meeting the target. Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 114

115 Explanation of Progress or Slippage that Occurred for FFY 2011 (SY ): Indicator 13 - % Secondary Transition w/iep Goals Target % SWD with Measurable IEP Target = 100% / Actual = 99.48% - Target Not Met did not meet the 100% target for FFY 2011 (SY ). There was slight slippage from the FFY 2010 (SY ) data. All SPP Improvement Activities will continue throughout the next school year. Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2012: None Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 115

116 Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2011 (SY ) Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / Effective Transition 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 one year of leaving high school. C. 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. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B)) Measurement: A. Percent enrolled in higher education = [(# of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school and 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 IEPs in effect at the time they left school)] times 100. B. Percent enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within one year of leaving high school = [(# of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school and 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 IEPs in effect at the time they left school)] times 100. C. Percent enrolled in higher education, or in some other postsecondary education or training program; or competitively employed or in some other employment = [(# of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school and were enrolled in higher education, or in some other postsecondary education or training program; or competitively employed or in some other employment) divided by the (# of respondent youth who are no longer in secondary school and had IEPs in effect at the time they left school)] times 100. Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 116

117 FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target 2011 ( ) A % B % C % Actual Target Data for FFY 2011 (SY ): Total number of respondent students who left school in the school year: 2,770 Measurement # of Students % of Students 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 in some other postsecondary education or training program; or competitively employed or in some other employment within one year of leaving high school % 1,628 59% 2,165 78% FFY 2011 Outcomes There were 2,770 total respondents to the survey conducted by the LEAs. Each leaver is counted only once in the highest category: 1 = 696 respondent leavers were enrolled in higher education. 2 = 932 respondent leavers were engaged in competitive employment (and not counted in 1 above). 3 = 215 respondent leavers were enrolled in some other postsecondary education or training (and not counted in 1 or 2 above). 4 = 322 respondent leavers were engaged in some other employment (and not counted in 1, 2, or 3 above). Thus, A = 696 (#1) divided by 2,770 (total respondents) = 25% B = 696 (#1) (#2) divided by 2,770 (total respondents) = 59% C = 696 (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) divided by 2,770 (total respondents) = 78% Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 117

118 uses the following definitions when collecting data: Enrolled in Higher Education - Enrolled in a community college, college/university, or other Institute of Higher Education: in an educational program to earn a degree or other recognized credential; OR in a training program that lasts at least one academic year to prepare for gainful employment. i.e. completed a term at a 2 or 4 year college/university. Competitive Employment - Worked for pay at or above the minimum wage in a setting with others who are nondisabled for a period of 20 hours a week for at least 90 days at any time in the year since leaving high school. This includes military employment. Some other postsecondary education or training program - Postsecondary education or training programs including, but not limited, to: Compensatory education programs, GED, Job Corps, Workforce development, Workforce Investment Act, Adult education, or Vocational technical school which is less than a two-year program. Some other employment - Worked for pay or been self-employed for a period of at least 90 days at any time in the year since leaving high school, including working in a family business or working for room and board. Other options include Re-enrolled in Secondary, Deceased, Unknown, or Not Engaged (Includes incarceration, hospitalization, and stay-at-home parents). See the MSIS Special Education Manual ( for expanded definitions. For the school year, data collection was moved to the State database through an update to the State s online student data collection interface. In previous years, information was collected by sending LEAs a spreadsheet with a list of students who exited the previous year. Changes to the reporting categories for the school year were reflected in the online data collection. A Postsecondary Update screen exists in the Student Information System (MSIS) to collect data for Indicator 14. The screen automatically populates a list of students who exited the prior year for each LEA. Demographic information as well as the exit type (Graduated with Regular High School Diploma, Graduated with Occupational Diploma, etc.) is displayed for each student. LEAs are required to indicate the status of each student. A comment field is also available to the LEAs to document special circumstances and contact attempts. A Postsecondary Update report was also created to enable LEAs to view all of the information from the update screen on one localized report. The LEAs surveyed the students listed on the screen and reports and entered the results on the Postsecondary Screen. Collecting data through the State database allowed for a more centralized, complete, and accurate data collection process. There was a 100% LEA participation rate and an 87% response rate for the target leaver group. The target leaver Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 118

119 group was all students who left school during the school year. A total of 2,770 students responded to the survey conducted by the LEAs. The pie chart on the next page shows the outcome categories, including the not engaged category, the number of leavers in each category, and the percentage of leavers in each outcome category. The table below the chart shows the percentages for each measure A, B, & C. As seen in the chart, the largest percentage of leavers was in the outcome category competitive employment with 34% of leavers counted in this category. The second largest percentage of leavers were the outcome categories of enrolled in higher education and not engaged with 22% each. The remaining categories, in order of largest percentage, were: some other employment, 17%; and enrolled in other postsecondary education or training, 8%. Part B State Annual Performance Report for (FFY 2011) Page 119