Skip to Content

 

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Special Education Division
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004

State of California Annual Performance Report

Federal Fiscal Year 2010

(Program Year 2010–11)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

February 2012


Special Education in California

The California Department of Education (CDE) provides state leadership and policy direction for school district special education programs and services for students who have disabilities, newborn to twenty-two years of age. Special Education is defined as specially designed instruction and services, at no cost to parents, to meet the unique needs of children with disabilities. Special education services are available in a variety of settings, including daycare settings, preschool, regular classrooms, classrooms that emphasize specially designed instruction, the community, and the work environment.

This leadership includes providing families with information on the education of children with disabilities. The CDE works cooperatively with other state agencies to provide everything from family-centered services for infants and preschool children with disabilities to planned steps for transition from high school to employment and quality adult life. The CDE responds to consumer complaints and administers the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) for students with disabilities in California.

Accountability and Data Collection

In accordance with the IDEA, California is required to report annually to the secretary of the U.S. Department of Education (ED) on the performance and progress under the State Performance Plan (SPP) in its Annual Performance Report (APR). The APR requires the CDE to report on 20 indicators (Table 1) that examine a comprehensive array of compliance and performance requirements relating to the provision of special education and related services. The California Special Education Management Information System (CASEMIS) is the data reporting and retrieval system used at the CDE. The CASEMIS provides the local educational agencies (LEAs) with a statewide standard for maintaining a common core of special education data at the local level that is used for accountability reporting and to meet statutory and programmatic needs in special education. 

The CDE is required to publish the APR for public review. The current APR reflects data collected during Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2010, which is equivalent to California’s school year 2010−11. Please note that there are several indicators that are reported in lag years using data from school year 2009−10. There are 11 performance indicators and 9 compliance indicators. All compliance indicators are set by the ED at either 0 percent or 100 percent. Performance indicator targets were established based on the recommendations of the broad-based stakeholder group, Improving Special Education Services (ISES), and the approval of the State Board of Education (SBE) (Table 5).

Overview of Population and Services

During fiscal year (FY) 2010−11, 680,164 students were enrolled in special education. Compared to the total student enrollment in California, special education students make up about 10 percent of total students. The average age of a special education student in California is approximately eleven years. The median grade level is sixth grade.

As shown in Figure 1, the majority of students with disabilities in California are between six and twelve years of age. The majority of special education students (68 percent) are male. Twenty-nine percent of special education students are English-language learners.

California students diagnosed with at least one disability are eligible for services to meet those needs. There are 13 disability categories as identified in Table 2. The majority (42 percent) of students are identified as having a “Specific Learning Disability” as their primary disability category. The second most common primary disability designation for students (24.7 percent) is a “Speech/Language Impairment.”

Table 2: Enrollment of Special Education Students by Disability Type

 

Intellectual Disability

 

42,897

 

Orthopedic Impairment

 

15,394

 

Hard of Hearing

 

9,301

 

Other Health Impairment

 

53,936

 

Deaf

 

4,154

 

Specific Learning Disability

 

287,773

 

Speech and Language

 

168,046

 

Deaf-Blindness

 

162

 

Visual Impairment

 

4,456

 

Multiple Disability

 

5,201

 

Emotional Disturbance

 

27,314

 

Autism

 

59,690

 

Traumatic Brain Injury

 

1,831

 

 

Of all special education students in California, Hispanic youth represent the greatest number of students in need of services (See Figure 2). However, when compared to total enrollment rates, African American students are the most highly represented single ethnicity in special education (See Figure 3).

The CDE also tracks the type of school or program in which special education students receive the majority of their instructional services. These include public schools, private schools, independent study, charter schools, community schools, correctional programs, higher education, and transition programs. Table 3 shows that the majority (88 percent) of special education students are enrolled in a public day school.

Table 3: Special Education Enrollment by School Type

 

No School (0−5 years)

 

3,872

 

Adult Education Program

 

1,602

 

Public Day School

 

597,559

 

Charter School

 

16,032

 

Public Residential School

 

761

 

Charter School District

 

4,124

 

SpEd Center or Facility

 

11,180

 

Head Start

 

1,861

 

Other Public School

 

5,606

 

Child Development/Care

 

2,509

 

Continuation School

 

5,312

 

State Preschool Program

 

875

 

Alternative Work Education Center/Facility

 

 

349

 

Non Public Residential School

 

 

1,658

 

Independent Study

 

1,372

 

Extended Day Care

 

250

 

Juvenile Court School

 

2,347

 

Non Public Day School

 

12,299

 

Community School

 

3,619

 

Private Preschool

 

830

 

Correctional Institution

 

351

 

Private Day School

 

1,681

 

Home Instruction

 

2,417

 

Private Residential School

 

41

 

Hospital Facility

 

116

 

Non Public Agency

 

253

 

Community College

 

263

 

Parochial School

 

1,025

Special education students in California receive a variety of services to address their unique needs. During 2010−11, there were 1,606,945 services provided to California special education students. Table 4 describes the type of services provided to students. The most common service provided was Specialized Academic Instruction, followed by Language and Speech Services.

Table 4: Services Provided To Special Education Students

 

 

Specialized Services for Ages 0–2 years

 

 

17,815

 

Specialized Services/Low Incidence Disabilities

 

 

7,426

 

 

Specialized Academic Instruction

 

 

652,440

 

Services for Deaf Students

 

 

20,974

 

 

Intensive Individual Services

 

 

12,219

 

Services for Visually Impaired Students

 

 

11,583

 

Individual/Small Group Instruction

 

 

14,786

 

Specialized Orthopedic Services

 

 

3,970

 

Language/Speech

 

377,784

 

Recreation Services

 

566

 

Adapted Physical Education

 

 

49,085

 

Reader and Note Taking Services

 

 

734

 

Health and Nursing

 

16,362

 

College Preparation

 

51,499

 

Assistive Technology

 

8,829

 

Vocational/Career

 

103,963

 

Occupational Therapy

 

63,675

 

Agency Linkages

 

9,634

 

Physical Therapy

 

11,246

 

Travel Training

 

1,160

 

Mental Health Services

 

132,174

 

Other Transition Services

 

21,590

 

Day Treatment

 

1,477

 

Other Special Education Services

 

 

16,053

 

Residential Treatment

 

1,116

    

 

 

2010−11 Annual Performance Report Indicators

During FFY 2010, California met 7 (or 41 percent) of the 17 target indicators (Indicator 6 was not reported for FFY 2010 and Indicators 9 and 10 are still pending). Table 5 identifies each indicator, its target, the FFY 2010 state results, and whether the target was met. The pages following Table 5 provide one-page overviews of each individual indicator, including a description of the indicator, the target, the data measurement, the results, whether the target was met, and a summary of improvement activities.

Table 5: FFY 2010 Indicators, Targets, and Results

Indicators

Target

Results

Met Target

 1-Graduation Rate

Greater than 66.9%

74.4%

Yes

 2-Dropout Rate

No More Than 22.6%

15.4%

Yes

 3-Statewide Assessment

Multiple Targets

--

No

 4-Suspension and Expulsion Rate by Ethnicity

No More Than 10%

2.5%

Yes

  4b-Suspension and Expulsion Rate by Disability

No More than 0%

9.9%

No

 5-Least Restrictive Environment

 

 

 

    5a. Percent Removed from Regular Class Less Than 21% of the Day

76% or More

52.5%

No

    5b. Percent Removed from Regular Class More Than 60% of the Day

No More than 9%

22.4%

No

    5c. Percent served in separate schools

No More than 3.8%

3.7%

Yes

 6-Preschool Least Restrictive Environment

Not Required

--

--

 7-Preschool Assessment

Multiple Targets

 

No

 8-Percent of Parent Reporting the Schools Facilitated Parental Involvement

90% or More

81.1%

No

 9-Overall Disproportional Racial or Ethnic Groups in  

      Special Education

No More Than 0%

Pending

Pending

10-Disproportional Racial or Ethnic Groups in Disability Categories

No More than 0%

Pending

Pending

11-Eligibility Evaluation Completed within 60 Days of  Parental Consent

No Less than 100%

95.8%

No

12-Part C to Part B Transition by Third Birthday

No Less than 100%

95.3%

No

13-Secondary Transition Goals and Services

No Less than 100%

45.9%

No

14-Post-School Employment or Enrollment in Post-Secondary Education

No Less than 69%

74.4%

Yes

15-General Supervision System Corrects    

       Noncompliance Within in One Year

No Less than 100%

99.9%

No

16-General Supervision: Written Complaints Resolved in 60 Days

No Less than 100%

100%

Yes

17-General Supervision: Due Process Hearings

No Less than 100%

100%

Yes

18-General Supervision

No Less than 67%

27.3%

No

19-General Supervision: Number of Mediation  

     Agreements

No Less than 80%

67.2%

No

20-General Supervision: Timely and Accurate    

       Reports

No Less than 100%

97.8%

No

back to top

Indicator 1: Graduation

Description:
This is a performance indicator that measures the percent of youth with Individual Education Programs (IEPs) graduating from high school with a regular diploma (20 U.S.C 1416[a] [3][A]). The Calculation methods for this indicator were revised in 2008-09 and again in 2009-10 to align with reporting criteria under Title 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). A new reporting methodology was implemented for the Federa Fiscal Year (FFY) 2009 Annual Performance Report (APR). All California students are required to pass the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) to earn a public high school diploma. State law provides an exemption for from this testing requirement for students with disabilities who otherwise meet the district requirement for graduation.

Target for 2010-11:

 

Measurement

For this indicator, the data are reported in lag years using the California Longitudal Pupil Achievement Data System (CAKPADS) from the FFY 2009 (2009-10). The calculation is based on data from the California’s ESEA reporting.  The methods for calculating the graduation rate for students receiving special education are the same methods used by general education.

Target Met: Yes

Results for FFY 2010 (2010-11)

For FFY 2010 (using date from 2009-10), 74.4 percent of students with disabilities graduated with a high school diploma. The data show that there was a significant increase in the graduation rate for students with disabilities from 64.8 percent in 2008-09 to 74.4 percent in 2009-10. This 74.4 percent graduation rate meets the fixed growth target and the variable growth target.

Summary of Improvement Activities

back to top

Indicator 2: Dropouts

Description:
This is a performance indicator that measures the percent of youth with Individual Education Programs (IEPs) dropping out of high school (20 U.S.C 1416[a] [3] [A]). The calculation methods for this indicator were revised in 2009-10 to create a more rigorous target and were approved by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) in April 2010. Dropout rate are calculated from data reported for grades 9 through 12. The California Department of Education (CDE) uses the annual (one-year) dropout rate and the four  year derived dropout rate. The 4-year derived dropout rate is an estimate of the percent of students who would dropout in a four-year period based n data collected for a single year. California does not currently have a benchmark for dropout rates for the ESEA. Annul benchmarks are not required by the ESEA.

Target for 2010-11:

Less than 22.6 percent of students with disabilities will drop out of high school.

Measurement

The data are reported in lag years using the CALPADS data from the FFY 2009 (2009-10). The calculation is based on data from the California ESEA reporting.

Target Met: Yes

Results for FFY 2010 (2010-

For FFY 2010 (the drop out rate using data from 2008-09) the 4-year Derived Rate Formula was 15.4 percent.

Summary of Improvement Activities

back to top

Indicator 3A: Statewide Assessments

Description:
This indicator overall measures the participation and performance of children with IEPS on statewide assessments. Indicator 3A measure the percentage of districts with a disability subgroup that meets the State’s minimum “n” size and meets the State’s AYP English Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics targets for the disability subgroup (20 U.S.C 1416 [a] [3] [A]).

Target for 2010-11

Fifty-eight percent of districts will meet the annual benchmarks and six-year target for the State’s AYP objectives for progress for the disability subgroup.

Measurement

The number 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 number of districts that have a disability subgroup that meets the Stat’s minimum “n” size.
The AYP target is continuously increased every year by the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and the yearly percentages of districts meeting AYP is not directly comparable to previous years percentages.

Target Met: No

Results for FFY 2010 (2010-11)

For FFY 2010 )2010-11), the state did not meet its AYP target of 58 percent. The percentage of districts meeting AYP objectives was 14.7 percent.

Summary of Improvement Activities

back to top

Indicator 3B: Statewide Assessments

Description:
This indicator overall measure the participation and performance of children with IEP’s on statewide assessments and 3B more specifically measures the participation rate for children with IEPs on statewide assessments (20 U.S.C 1416 [a] [3] [A]).

Target for 2010-11:

ESEA established the annual benchmark and target for participation on statewide assessments in ELA and Math to be 95 percent (rounded to the nearest whole number).

Measurement

Number of children with IEPs participating in the assessment (California Standard Test, California Modified Assessment, California High School Exit Exam) divided by the total number of children with IEP enrolled on the first day of testing, calculated separately for reading and math. 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.

Target Met: Yes

Results for FFY 2010 (2010-11)

For FFY 2010 (2010-11), the participation rate for students with IEPs in ELS was 97 percent and the participation rate for students with IEPs in Math was 95 percent. California met both target for this year.

Summary of improvement Activities

 

back to top

Indicator 3 C: Statewide Assessments

Description:
This indicator overall measures the participation and performances of children with IEPs on statewide assessments and 3C more specifically measures the proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level, modified, and alternate academic achievement standards (20 U.S.C 1416 [a] [3] [A]).

Target for 2010-11

Consistent with the ESEA accountability framework, the 2005-11 Annual Measureable Objectives (benchmarks) for the percent proficient on statewide assessments are broken down by the following school subgroups.

 

 

School Subgroups

Target ELA

Target Math

Elementary Schools, Middle Schools, Elementary School District

67.6%

68.5%

High Schools, High School Districts

66.7%

66.1%

Unified School Districts, High School Districts, County Office of Education

67%

67.3%

Measurement

Number of children with IEPs enrolled for a full academic year scoring at or above proficient divided by the total number of children with IEPs enrolled for a full academic year, calculated separately for ELA and Math.

Target Met: No

Results for FFY 2010 (2010-11)

For FFY 2010 (2010-11), California did not meet any of its targets. Below are the actual percentages of students with IEPs scoring proficient or advanced in ELA and Math by district types.

 

School Subgroups

Actual ELA

Actual Math

Elementary Schools, Middle Schools, Elementary School Districts

39.8

35.7

High Schools, High School Districts

15.5

15

Unified School Districts, High School Districts, County Office of Educations

22.9

17.3

Summary of Improvement Activities

 

back to top

Indicator 4A: Suspension and Expulsion by Ethnicity

Description:
This is a performance indicator that measures percent of districts 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 (20 U.S.C 1416 [a] [3] [A]; 14129[a] [22]). A district is considered to have a significant discrepancy if the district-wide average for suspension and expulsion exceeds the state bar (state average plus two percent) for suspension and expulsion. Districts identified to have a significant discrepancy are required to review their policies, procedures, and practices related to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports and procedural safeguards. The data is reported in lag years (using 2009-10 data).

Target for 2010-11:

No more than 10.0 percent of districts will have rates of suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities for greater than 10 days in a school year.

Measurement

The data are reported in lag years using the CALPADS data from FFY 2009 (2009-10). The percentage is calculated by the number of districts that have a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions for greater than 10 days compared to the state bar.

In 2009-10, the state bar for the number of students with disabilities suspended of expelled for greater than 10 days was 2.64 percent. This was the percentage that was used to identify districts in the target data calculations above.

Target Met: Yes

Results for FFY 2010 (2009-10 data)

In FFY 2010, there were 19 districts (2.5 percent) whose rates of suspension and expulsion were greater than the statewide rate. California did not meet its target.

Summary of Improvement Activities

 

back to top

Indicator 4B: Suspension and Expulsion by Disability

Description:
This is a compliance indicator that measures percent of districts that have: (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 IEPsl 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]).

Target for 2010-11:

Zero percent of districts will have a significant discrepancy on the rates of suspensions and expulsions for greater than 10 days in a school year for children with disabilities by race of ethnicity.

Measurement

The data are reported in lag years using the CALPADS data from the FFY 2009 (2009-10). This percent is calculated by the number of districts that have: (a) significant discrepancy by race or ethnicity, in the rates of suspension and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year of children with IEPsl 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 number of districts in the state times 100.

In 2009-10, the state bar for the number of students with disabilities suspended or expelled for greater than 10 days was 2.64 percent. This was the percentage that was used to identify districts in the target data calculation above.

Target Met: No

Results for 2010-11

In FFY 2010, there were 75 districts (9.86 percent) with significant discrepancies, by race or ethnicity, in the rates of suspension or expulsion of greater than 10 days of students with IEPs. The review of the policies, procedures, and practices of the 75 districts is in process.

Summary of Improvement Activities

 

back to top

Indicator 5: Least Restrictive Environment

Description:
This is a performance indicator that measures the percent of children with Individual Education Plan (IEPs), aged 6 through 21, served inside the regular class 80 percent or more of the day; inside the regular class 40 percent or less of the day; and those who are served in separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements.

Target for 2010-11:

5A. Seventy-six percent or more of students with IEPs will be served inside regular class 80 percent of more of the day;

5B. No more than 9 percent of students with IEPs will be inside regular class less than 40 percent of the day; and

5C. No more than 3.8 percent are served in public or private separate schools, residential placements, or homebound/hospital placements.

Measurement

Target Met: No

Results for 2010-11

For FFY 2010 (2010-11), California did not meet the targets for 5A and 5B but did meet the target for 5C.

5A       52.5 percent of students were served in regular class 80 percent or more  of the day.

5B       22.4 percent of students were served inside regular class less than 40 percent of the day.]

5C       3.7 percent were served in separate schools and facilities

 

Summary of Improvement Activities

 

back to top

Indicator 7a: Preschool Assessment

Description:
Percent of preschool children with Individual Education Programs (IEPs) who demonstrate improvement in positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships) by the time they turned six years of age or older or exited the program (20 U.S.C 1416[a] [3] [A]).

Target for 2010-11:

Measurement

Target Met: No

Results for 2010-11

For FFY 2010 (2010-11), the actual percentage of children who entered of exited the program below age expectations and substantially increased their rate of growth was 6702 percent/ The actual percentage of children who were functioning within age expectations by the time they exited the program was 77.9 percent. California did not meet this target.

Summary of Improvement Activities

 

back to top

Indicator 7b: Preschool Assessment

Description:
Percent of preschool children with Individual Education Programs (IEPs) who demonstrate improvement in acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication and early literacy) by the time they turned six years of age or exited the program (20 U.S.C. 1416[a] [3] [A]).

Target for 2010-11

Measurement

Target Met: No

Results for 2010-11

For FFY 2010 (2010-11), the actual percentage of children who entered or exited the program below age expectations and substantially increased their rate of growth was 66.4 percent. The actual percentage of children who were functioning within age expectations by the time they exited the program was 76.3 percent.  California did not meet this target.

Summary of Improvement Activities

 

back to top

Indicator 7c: Preschool Assessment

Description:
Percent of preschool children with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) who demonstrate improvement in use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs by the time they turn 6 years of age or exited the program (20 U.S.C. 1416[a][3][A]).

Target for 2010-11:

Measurement

Target Met: No

Results for 2010-11

For FFY 2010 (2010-11), the actual percentage of children who entered of exited the program below age expectations and substantially increased their rate of growth was 69.4 percent. The actual percentage of children who were functioning within age expectations by the time they exited the program was 78.4 percent. California did not meet this target.

Summary of Improvement Activities

 

back to top

Indicator 8: Parent Involvement

Description:
This is a performance indicator that measures the percent of parents with a child receiving special education services who report that schools facilitate parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities (20 U.S.C. 1416[a][3][A]). This data is one question in a survey distributed, collected, and reported by the SELPAs. The measure is the percentage of parents responding “yes” to the question: “Did the school district facilitate parent involvement as  a means of improving services and results for your child?”

Target for 2010-11:

Ninety percent of parents or more will report that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities.

Measurement

The number of respondents parents who reported schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities divided by the total number of respondent parents of children with disabilities.

Target Met: No

Results for 2010-11

For FFY (2010-11), 81.1 percent of parents responded “yes” to the question “Did the school district facilitate parent involvement as  a means of improving services and results for your child?” California did not meet its target.

Summary of Improvement Activities

 

back to top

Indicator 9: Disproportionality Overall

Description:
This is a compliance indicator that measures the percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the results of inappropriate identification (20 U.S.C. 1416[a][3][C]). California used an alternate risk ration with the E-formula in a race-neutral approach to identifying which districts are disproportionate

Target for 2010-11:

Zero percent of districts will have disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification.

Measurement

The number 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 number of districts in the State.

The methodology for indicator 9 used the E-formula and alternate risk ratio. The E-formula, which falls under the broad category of measures known as Composition, has, among others, the following unique properties: (1) it is based on statistical principles of sampling theory (2) it is sensitive to the size of districts; (3) it allows proportionately more tolerance for disproportionality for smaller districts than larger districts; (4) it has the lowest number of exclusions of cells from disproportionality calculations; (5) its results are not affected by external factors, such as state demographics; (6) it is least affected by smaller fluctuations of enrollments; and (7) it is applicable to racially homogenous as well as heterogeneous districts.

The Alternate Risk Ratio, which falls under the broad category of measures know as Risk.  Has the following properties: (1) its results are comparable across the districts in a state; (2) it is sensitive to very high or very low district rate of disability, compared to the state rate.  

Target Met: Pending

Results for 2010-11

For FFY 2010 (2010-11), there were 34 districts identified as having disproportionate representation The review of the policies, practices, and procedures by the 34 districts is still in progress.

Summary of Improvement Activities

 

back to top

Indicator 10: Disproportionality Overall

Description:
This is a compliance indicator that measures the percent of districts 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]). California used an alternate risk ration with the E-formula in a race-neutral approach to identifying which districts are disproportionate.

Target for 2010-11:

Zero percent of districts will have disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that are the results of inappropriate identification.

Measurement

The number of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the results of inappropriate identification divided by the number of districts in the State.

The methodology for indicator 9 used the E-formula and alternate risk ratio. The E-formula, which falls under the broad category of measures known as Composition, has, among others, the following unique properties: (1) it is based on statistical principles of sampling theory (2) it is sensitive to the size of districts; (3) it allows proportionately more tolerance for disproportionality for smaller districts than larger districts; (4) it has the lowest number of exclusions of cells from disproportionality calculations; (5) its results are not affected by external factors, such as state demographics; (6) it is least affected by smaller fluctuations of enrollments; and (7) it is applicable to racially homogenous as well as heterogeneous districts.

The Alternate Risk Ratio, which falls under the broad category of measures know as Risk.  Has the following properties: (1) its results are comparable across the districts in a state; (2) it is sensitive to very high or very low district rate of disability, compared to the state rate. 

Target Met: Pending

Results for 2010-11

In FFY 2010 (2010-11), there were 101 districts identified as having disproportionate representation. The review of the policies, practices, and procedures by these districts is in process.

Summary of Improvement Activities

 

back to topv

Indicator 11: Eligibility Evaluation

Description:
This is a compliance indicator that measures the 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]). These data were calculated using CASEMIS data fields related to parental consent date and initial evaluation date. Determination of eligibility was made using the Plan Type field which includes the type of plan a student is eligible or no plan if the student is determined ineligible. If the parent of a child repeatedly failed or refused to bring the child for the evaluation, or a child enrolled in a school of another public agency after the timeframe for initial evaluations had begun, and prior to a determination by the child’s previous public agency as to whether the child is a child with a disability, then the child was eliminated from both the numerator and denominator.

Target for 2010-11:

Eligibility determinations will be completed within 60 days for 100 percent of children for whom parental consent to evaluate was received.

Measurement

The number of children in group B divided by the number of children in group A (Children must be in both groups).

Target Met: No

Results for 2010-11

For FFY 2010 (2010-11), 95.8 percent compliance was reported. California did not meet its target.

Summary of Improvement Activities

 

back to top

Indicator 12: Part C to Part B Transition

Description:
This is a compliance indicator. Percent of children referred by Part C prior to age three (3), who are found eligible for Part B, and who have an IEP development and implemented by their third birthdays (20 U.S.C 14116[a][3][B]). These data were collected through CASEMIS and data from the Department of Developmental Services.

Target for 2010-11:

One hundred percent of children referred by IDEA Part C prior to age three and who are found eligible for the IDEA Part B will have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays.

 

Measurement

Actual target data is the number of children in group C above divided by the difference (Number in group A minus the number in group B minus the number in group D minus the number in group E) times 100.

Target Met: No

Results for 2010-11

For FFY 2010 (2010-11), the percentage of children referred by the IDEA Part C prior to age three and who are found eligible for Part B that will have an IEP developed and Implemented by their third birthday was 95.3 percent. California did not meet its target.

Summary of Improvement Activities

 

  back to top   

Indicator 13: Secondary Transition Goals and Services

Description:
This is a compliance indicator. 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 and 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  of student who has reached the age of majority (20 U.S.C. 1416[a][3][B]).

Target for 2010-11:

One hundred percent of youth 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 and transition services.

Measurement

Number 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 and transition services that will reasonably enable the student to meet those post-secondary goals and annual IEP goals realted to their needs. There also must be evidence that the student was invited to the IEP Team meetings 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 number of youth with an IEP age 16 and above.

Target Met: No

Results for 2010-11

In FFY 2010 (2010-11), the CDE reported that the percentage if IEPs for students 16 years of older meeting all the required transition elements was 45.9 percent. California did not meet its target.

Summary of Improvement Activities

 

back to top

Indicator 14: Post-School Measurement

Description:
This is a performance indicator. Percent of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school, and were:

Target for 2010-11:
Sixty-nine percent of youth who had Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) who had Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) who are no longer in secondary school will be reported to have been competitively employed, enrolled in some type of postsecondary school, or both, within one year of leaving high school.

Measurement

Target Met: Yes

Results for 2010-11

For FFY 2010 (2010-11), the percentage of youth who had IEPs who are no longer in secondary school that were reported to be competitively employed, enrolled on some type of postsecondary school, or both, within one year of leaving high school was 74.4 percent. California did not meet its target.

Summary of Improvement Activities

 

back to top

Indicator 15: Effective General Part B Supervision

Description:
This is a compliance indicator. General supervision system (including monitoring, complaints, hearing, etc) identifies and corrects noncompliance as soon as possible, but in no case later that one year from identification (20 U.S.C. 1416[a][3][B]). The state also verified that each LEA with noncompliance corrected in FFY 2009: (1) has corrected each individual case of noncompliance, 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); and (2) has ensured that (from last year’s APR) a more stringent level of follow-up review and reporting is required of districts that have previously corrected noncompliance related to this indicator. This is to ensure that LEAs are correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements.

Target for 2010-11:

One hundred percent of noncompliance will be corrected within one year of identification.

Measurement

Percent of noncompliance corrected within one year of identification:

Number of findings of noncompliance.

Number of corrections completed as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from identification.

Percent = (b) divided by (a) times 100. States are required to use the “Indicator 15 Worksheet” to report data for this indicator.

Target Met: No

Results for 2010-11

In FFY 2010 (2010-11), the CDE reported 99.9 percent non compliance was corrected within one year of identification. California did not meet its target.

Summary of Improvement Activities

 

back to top

Indicator 16: Written Complaints Resolved Within 60 Days

Description:
Percent of signed written complaints with reports issued that were resolved within 60-day time line or a time line extended for exceptional circumstances with respect to a particular complaint, or because the parent (or individual or organization) and the public agency agree to extend the time to engage in mediation or other alternative means of dispute resolution, if available in the state (20 U.S.C 1416[a][3][B]). The CDE monitors the completion of each step in this process.

Target for 2010-11:

One hundred percent of written complaints resolved within 60-day time line, including a time line extended for exceptional circumstances with respect to a particular complaint.

Measurement

The number of signed written complaints with reports within the timeline added to the number of signed written complaints with reports that have extended timelines divided by the total number of complaints with reports issued.

Target Met: Yes

Results for 2010-11

For FFY 2010 (2010-11), the CDE reported 100 percent of written complaints resolved with a 60-day time line and/or extended time lines. California did meet its target.

Summary of Improvement Activities

 

back to top

Indicator 17: Due Process Hearings

Description:
Percent of adjudicated due process hearing requests that were adjudicated within 45-day time line or a time line that is properly extended by the hearing officer at the request of either party or in the case of an expedited hearing, within the require time lines (20 U.S.C. 1416[a][3][B]).

Target for 2010-11:

One hundred percent of due process hearing requests will be fully adjudicated within the 45-day time line that is properly extended by the hearing officer at the request of either party.

Measurement

The sum of the number of hearing fully adjudicated that had a decision within the timeline and the number of hearings fully adjudicated that had a decision with an extended timeline divided by the total number of hearings fully adjudicated.

Target Met: Yes

Results for 2010-11

For FFY 2010 (2010-11), the CDE reported 100 percent of due hearing requests were fully adjudicated within the 45 day timeline and/or extended time line. California did meet its target.

Summary of Improvement Activities

 

back to top

Indicator 18: Hearing Requests Resolved Through Settlement

Description:
Percent of hearing requests that went to resolution sessions that were resolved through resolution session settlement agreements (20. U.S.C 1416[a][3][B]).

Target for 2010-11:

Sixty-seven percent of hearings requests that went to resolution sessions were resolved through resolution session settlement agreements.

Measurement

The number of written settlement agreements (a category of due process complaints) divided by the number of resolution meetings.

Target Met: No

Results for 2010-11

For FFY 2010 (2010-11), the CDE reported the percentage of hearing requests that went to resolution meeting and were settled through resolution settlement agreements was 27.3 percent. California did not meet its target.

Summary of Improvement Activities

 

back to top

Indicator 19: Number of Mediation Agreements

Description:
Percent of mediation held that resulted in mediation agreements (20 U.S.C 1416[a][3][B]).

Target for 2010-11:

At least 80 percent of mediation conferences will result in mediation agreements.

Measurement

The sum of the number of mediation agreements related to due process complaints and the number of mediation agreements not related to due process complaints divided by the total number of mediations held times 100.

Target Met: No

Results for 2010-11

In FFY 2010 (2010-11), the CDE reported 67.2 percent of mediation conferences resulted in mediation agreements. California did not meet its target.

Summary of Improvement Activities

 

back to top

Indicator 20: Timely and Accurate Reports

Description:

State reported data (618 and State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report) are timely and accurate (20 U.S.C. 1416 [a][3][B]).

Target for 2010-11:

20.A One hundred percent of state-reported data, including 618 data and APRs , are submitted on time and are accurate.

20B. One hundred percent of the SELPAs will submit accurate data to the CDE in a timely manner.

Measurement

State reported data, including 618 data, State Performance Plan, and Annual Performance Reports are submitted on or before due dates (February 1 for  child count, including race and ethnicity, and placement; November 1 for exiting, discipline, personnel and dispute resolutions; and February 1 for Annual Performance Reports and assessment); and are accurate, including covering the correct year and following the correct measurement.

States are required to use the “indicator 20 Scoring Rubric: for reporting data for this indicator.

Target Met: No

Results for 2010-11

For FFY 2010 (2010-11), the CDE reported 97.83 percent of data was reported on time and accurate. California did not meet its target.

Summary of Improvement Activities

 

 

 


IDEAS that Work!

Project READ is a California Department of Education, Special Education Division project funded through a federal competitively-awarded State Personnel Development Grant to California (#H323A120019) provided from the U.S. Department of Education Part D of the Individuals with Disabilities Education act (IDEA), Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). Opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the position of the U.S. Department of Education.