State Performance Plan (SPP) Synopsis 2006 Monitoring Priorities and Indicators

Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) In the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)

Indicator #1 Graduation

Indicator #2 Dropout

Indicator #3 Statewide Assessment

Indicator # 4 Suspension and Expulsion

Indicator #5 Least Restrictive Environment

Indicator #6 Preschool Least Restrictive Environment

Indicator #7 Preschool Assessment

Indicator #8 Parent Involvement

Disproportionality

Indicator #9 Disproportionality Overall

Indicator #10 Disproportionality Disability

Child Find

Indicator #11 Eligibility Evaluation

Effective Transition

Indicator #12 Part C to Part B

Indicator #13 Transition Secondary Transition Goals and Services

Indicator #14 Post School

Effective General Supervision Part B

Indicator #15 General Supervision

Indicator #16 Complaints

Indicator #17 Due Process

Indicator #18 Hearing Requests

Indicator #19 Mediation

Indicator #20 State-Reported Data

Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) In the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)

Indicator #1 Graduation
Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma compared to percent of all youth in the State graduating with a regular diploma.

Indicator #2 Dropout
Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high school compared to the percent of all youth in the State dropping out of high school.

Indicator #3 Statewide Assessment
Participation and performance of children with disabilities on statewide assessments.

1. Percent of districts that have a disability subgroup that meets the State’s minimum “n” size meeting the State’s Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for progress for disability subgroup.
2. Participation rate for children with IEPs in a regular assessment; alternate assessment against grade level standards; alternative assessment against alternate achievement standards.
3. Proficiency rates for children with IEPs against grade level standards and alternate achievement standards.

Indicator #4 Suspension and Expulsion

1. Percent of districts identified by the state as having a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities for greater than 10 days in a school year.
2. Percent of districts identified by the state as having a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspension and expulsion of greater than 10 days in a school year of children with disabilities by race and ethnicity.

Indicator #5 Least Restrictive Environment
Percent of children with IEPs aged 6-21:

1. Removed from regular class less than 21 percent of the day;
2. Removed from regular class greater than 60 percent of the day; or A. Served in public or private separate schools, residential placements, or homebound or hospital placements.  

Indicator #6 Preschool Least Restrictive Environment
Percent of preschool children with IEPs who received special education and related services in settings with typically developing peers (e.g., early childhood settings, home, and part-time early childhood/part-time early childhood special education settings).

Indicator #7 Preschool Assessment
Percent of preschool children with IEPs who demonstrate improved:

1. Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships);
2. .Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication and early literacy); and
3. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs.

Indicator #8 Parent Involvement
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.

Disproportionality Indicator #9
Disproportionality Overall Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is a result of inappropriate identification.

Indicator #10
Disproportionality Disability Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification.

Child Find

Indicator #11 Eligibility Evaluation
Percent of children with parental consent to evaluate, who were evaluated and eligibility determined within 60 days. Effective Transition

Indicator #12 Part C to Part B Transition
Percent of children referred by Part C prior to age 3, who are found eligible for Part B, and who have an Individualized Education Program (IEP) developed and implemented by their third birthdays.

Indicator #13 Secondary Transition Goals and Services
Percent of youth aged 16 and above with an Individualized Education Program (IEP) that includes coordinated, measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the student to meet the postsecondary goals.

Indicator #14 Post-school
Percent of youth, who had Individualized Education Programs (IEP), are no longer in secondary school and who have been competitively employed, enrolled in some type of postsecondary school, or both, within one year of leaving high school. Effective General Supervision Part B

Indicator #15 General Supervision
General supervision system (including monitoring, complaints, hearings, etc.) identifies and corrects noncompliance as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from identification.

Indicator #16 Complaints
Percent of signed written complaints with reports issued that were resolved within 60- day timeline or a timeline extended for exceptional circumstances with respect to a particular complaint.

Indicator #17 Due Process
Percent of fully adjudicated due process hearing requests that were fully adjudicated within the 45-day timeline or a timeline that is properly extended by the hearing officer at the request of either party.

Indicator #18 Hearing Requests
Percent of hearing request that went to resolution sessions that were resolved through resolution session settlement agreements.

Indicator #19 Mediation Percent of mediations held that resulted in mediation agreements.

Indicator #20 State-Reported Data
State-reported data (618 and State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Plan Report) are timely and accurate.

 

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.