Transcript State Performance Plan/ Annual Performance Report

State Performance Plan/
Annual Performance
Report/Continuous Improvement
Performance Plan
(SPP/APR/CIPP)
Buncombe County Schools
2013
Monitoring Priorities
616(a)(3)
The Secretary shall monitor States and
require each state to monitor its LEAs using
quantifiable indicators to measure
performance in the following areas:
1. FAPE in the LRE
2. Disproportionality
3. Effective General Supervision
State Performance Plan Reporting
616(b)(2)(C)
States must annually collect data in these priority
areas to analyze the performance of each LEA.
Each state must report annually to the Secretary
on its performance under its performance plan.
States must report annually to the public on the
performance of each LEA on the identified targets
in the state’s performance plan.
Continuous Improvement
Performance Plan (CIPP)
Buncombe County Schools
Data Story
2013
Indicator 1:Percentage of youth with IEPs graduating from high
school with a regular diploma
State Target: 80%
2010-2011
2011-2012
53.6%
61.9%
Indicator 2: Percent of SWD dropping out of high school
State Target: 4.7%
2010-2011
2011-2012
6.8%
5.5%
Indicator 3A: District Performance on State Assessments Compared to
State AYP
2010-2011
2011-2012
Did not meet AYP
Did not calculate AYP
Indicator 3 B & C : State Assessment Participation and
Performance for SWD
B. State Target-Participation Rate: 95%
Did not calculate LEA participation rates
C. State Target-Proficiency
Reading 3-8: 71.6 %
10: 69.3%
Math
3-8: 88.6%
10: 84.2%
Indicator 4a: Rate of suspension and expulsions of SWD>10
consecutive days in the school year that is greater than twice the
state average.
State Target: 5%
2010-2011
2011-2012
n/a%
< 5 students
4B:
Percent of districts identified by the State as having a significant
discrepancy in rates of suspensions and expulsions of children with
IEPs of greater than 10 days in a school year by race and ethnicity and
have policies, procedures or practices that contribute to the significant
discrepancy and that do not comply with requirements relating to the
development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive
interventions, behavioral supports and procedural safeguards.
2010-2011
2011-2012
n/a%
n/a%
Indicator 5: Percent of SWD aged 6-21 served:
Measurement A. Inside the regular class 80% or more of the day
State Target: 65.6%
2010-2011
2011-2012
60.1%
64.1%
Indicator 5 B: Percent of SWD aged 6 through 21 served inside the
regular class less than 40% of the day
State Target: 15.3%
2010-2011
2011-2012
17.0%
16.8 %
Indicator 5C: Percent of SWD served in separate schools, residential
facilities, or homebound/hospital placements
State Target: 2.0%
2010-2011
2011-2012
.9 %
.7 %
Indicator 6: Percent of preschool children with IEPs who received
special education and related services in settings with typically
developing peers
Not Sampled
Indicator 7: Percent of preschool SWD who demonstrate improved:
A. Positive social emotional skills;
B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and Skills;
C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs
2010-2011
A.1.
2.
B. 1.
2.
C. 1.
2.
92.9%
42.2%
93.2%
53.3%
89.3%
62.2%
2011-2012
A.1.
2.
B.1.
2.
C.1.
2.
81.4%
28.8%
81.9%
40.4%
80.8%
58.7%
Indicator 8: Percent of parents with a child receiving special education
services who report that school facilitates parent involvement as a
means of improving services and results for children with disabilities.
State Target: 50%
2010-2011
2011-2012
Not sampled
50%
Indicator 9: LEA data indicate the disproportionate representation of
racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that
is the result of inappropriate identification
State Target:0%
2010-2011
2011-2012
No
No
Indicator 10:LEA data indicate disproportionate representation of racial and
ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate
identification
State Target: 0%
2010-2011
2011-2012
No
No
Indicator 11: Percent of students referred for whom a referral was
received and placement determined in 90 days.
State Target: 100%
2010-2011
2011-2012
92.1%
97.1%
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
State Target: 100%
2010-2011
2011-2012
100%
100%
Indicator 13a: Percent of youth with IEPs aged 16 and above with an IEP that
includes appropriate measurable postsecondary goals that are annually
updated and based upon an age appropriate transition assessment, transition
services, including courses of study, that will reasonably enable the student to
meet those postsecondary goals, and annual IEP goals related to the student’s
transition service needs. There must also 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.
State Target:100%
2010-2011
2011-2012
100%
100%
Indicator 13b: Percent of noncompliance identified in the previous
school year corrected within 1 year
State Target: 100%
2010-2011
2011-2012
100%
100%
Indicator 14: Percent 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
Enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within one year
of leaving high school
Enrolled in higher education or in some other postsecondary education
or training program; or competitively employed or in some or in some
other employment within one year of leaving high school
Not Sampled
Indicator 15a: Percent of noncompliance identified in the previous
school year corrected within 1 year
State Target: 100%
2010-2011
2011-2012
100%
100%
Indicator 15b: Percent of compliance for the Internal Record Review
State Target: 100%
2010-2011
2011-2012
100%
100%