Document 2055792

 The final submission of the first State Performance Plan
(SPP) for FFY 2005 – FFY 2012 was sent to the Office of
Special Education Programs on January 30, 2014.
 A new SPP FFY 2013 – FFY 2018 will be submitted on
February 1, 2015.
Copies of the SPP and APR are available on the CDE website at:
http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdesped/SPP-APR.asp
2
 “As you know, OSEP is redesigning its accountability system to
more directly support States in improving results for infants,
toddlers, children and youth with disabilities, and their
families. Section 616 of the IDEA requires that the primary
focus of IDEA monitoring must be on improving educational
results and functional outcomes for children with disabilities,
and ensuring that States meet the IDEA program
requirements. The monitoring system implemented between
2004 and 2012 placed a heavy emphasis on compliance and
we are moving towards a more balanced approach that
considers results as well as compliance.”

3
OSEP FFY 2011 Response Letter to the States. Melody Musgrove, Ed.D. Director. (July, 1, 2013). Office of Special Education Programs.
Prior to FFY 2012, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP)
provided a determination for every state based only upon
compliance indicators.
Beginning FFY 2012 (2012-2013 school year), the Office of Special
Education Programs (OSEP) provided a determination for every state
based upon compliance AND assessment results from Indicator 3 in
Reading and Mathematics for grades 4 & 8. Additionally, scores from
the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) were
included.
State determinations can be found online at:
https://www2.ed.gov/fund/data/report/idea/partbspap/allyears.html#co
4
Score for Compliance Only Indicators Compliance Indicator
4B: Significant discrepancy, by race and ethnicity, in the rate of
suspension and expulsion, and policies, procedures, or practices
that contribute to the significant discrepancy and do not comply
with specified requirements.
Indicator 9: Disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic
groups in special education and related services due to
inappropriate identification
Indicator 10: Disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic
groups in specific disability categories due to inappropriate
identification
Indicator 11: Timely initial evaluation
Indicator 12: IEP developed and implemented by third birthday
Indicator 13: Secondary transition
Indicator 15: Timely correction
Indicator 20: Timely and accurate State-reporting data
Timely state complaint decisions
Timely Due process hearings
Longstanding Noncompliance
Total Points Earned
Total Points Possible
Compliance Rating
FFY 2011
Performance
Points Awarded for
this determination
FFY 2012 Performance
cycle
0.00%
2
0.00%
2
3.40%
2
0.00%
2
6.90%
99.00%
99.00%
86.20%
88.00%
100.00%
100.00%
N/A
FFY 2011 State
Determination
5
Points Earned Last
Year
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
N/A
2
17
20
85.00%
Needs Assistance
1.72%
99.00%
99.00%
90.00%
81.12%
99.50%
100.00%
100.00%
FFY 2012 State
Determination for
Compliance Only
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
20
22
90.91%
Meets
Requirements
Colorado received a “Needs Assistance” Determination for FFY 2012. The determination adds the
compliance score (previous slide) with the results score(below) and divided the total by 2. Compliance and
Results each receiving a weighting of 50%.
Part B Results Driven Accountability Matrix: 2014
Reading Components
Performance
Score
Percentage of 4th and 8th grade Children with Disabilities Participating in Regular Statewide Assessments
89%
1
Proficiency Gap for 4th and 8th grade Children with Disabilities on Regular Statewide Assessments
46%
0
Percentage of 4th Grade Children with Disabilities scoring at Basic or Above on the National Assessment of Educational Progress
22%
0
Percentage of 4th grade Children with Disabilities Excluded from Testing on the National Assessment of Educational Progress
12%
1
Percentage of 8th Grade Children with Disabilities scoring at Basic or Above on the National Assessment of Educational Progress
35%
1
9%
Performance
1
Score
Percentage of 4th and 8th grade Children with Disabilities Participating in Regular Statewide Assessments
89%
1
Proficiency Gap for 4th and 8th grade Children with Disabilities on Regular Statewide Assessments
39%
0
Percentage of 4th Grade Children with Disabilities scoring at Basic or Above on the National Assessment of Educational Progress
51%
0
Percentage of 4th grade Children with Disabilities Excluded from Testing on the National Assessment of Educational Progress
10%
1
Percentage of 8th Grade Children with Disabilities scoring at Basic or Above on the National Assessment of Educational Progress
29%
1
Percentage of 8th grade Children with Disabilities Excluded from Testing on the National Assessment of Educational Progress
Math Components
Percentage of 8th grade Children with Disabilities Excluded from Testing on the National Assessment of Educational Progress
Complaince Determination
Results Determination
Results Driven Accountability Percentage and Determination
6
10%
Total Points Earned
Total Points Possible
Results Rating
90.91%
40.00%
65.45%
1
8
20
40.00%
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Graduation
Dropout
Statewide Assessment
Suspension/Expulsion
LRE Placement (6-21)
Preschool LRE Placement
Preschool Skills
Parent Involvement
Disproportionate
Representation in Special
Education
10. Disproportionate Representation
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
in Specific Disability Categories
Child Find
Part C to Part B Transition
Secondary Transition
Post School Outcomes
Hearing Requests that went to
Resolution
Mediation Agreements
State Systemic Improvement Plan
 The State’s SPP/APR must include a State Systemic
Improvement Plan (SSIP, Indicator 17) that is a
comprehensive, ambitious yet achievable plan for
improving results for students with disabilities.
 The basis for this plan is a detailed data and
infrastructure analysis that will guide the development
of the strategies to increase the State’s capacity to
structure and lead meaningful change in LEAs.
8
 Phase I (due April 2015)

will focus on:
1) the collection and analysis of data and other information;
and
2) the identification of evidence-based practices
 Phase II (due February 2016)

implementation plan to:
1) enhance and/or build the State’s infrastructure; and
2) support the implementation of evidence-based practices to
improve results for students with disabilities
9
 Phase III (due February 2017)
 Will include an evaluation of the strategies included in the SSIP
 including the extent to which the State has implemented them
 the extent to which the State has made progress toward and/or met
the established goals
 any revisions the State has made in the SSIP in response to its
evaluation
10
•Initiate Data Analysis
•Conduct broad
Infrastructure Analysis
•Identify problem area (Stateidentified Measurable Result)
•Evaluation of progress annually
•Adjust plan as needed
How well is the
solution working?
What is the
problem?
SSIP Phase III
SSIP Phase I
SSIP
SSIP Phase I & II
•Search/evaluate evidencebased solutions
(Exploration Phase)
•Develop action steps (address
barriers/use leverage points)
•Develop a Theory of Action
•Develop Plan for Improvement
(Implementation Framework)
What shall
we do
about it?
Why is it
happening?
SSIP Phase I
•Conduct root cause analysis
(including infrastructure) to
identify contributing factors
•For each contributing factor,
identify both barriers and
leverage points for improvement
Courtesy of MPRRC
 Data Analysis
 Identification of the Focus for Improvement
 Infrastructure Analysis to Support Improvement
and Build Capacity
 Theory of Action
12
 Identification and analyses of key data
 data from SPP/APR indicators to determine the areas for
improvement
 information about how the data were disaggregated in order to
identify areas for improvement
 concerns about the quality of the data and how the State will
address this
 methods and timelines to collect additional data that may be
needed to inform areas for improvement
 identification of compliance issues that present barriers to
achieving improved results for students with disabilities
13
 Improvement strategies on a which the State will focus, that
will lead to a measurable student-based result
 description how the data analysis led to the identification of the
area on which the State will focus
 demonstrate how addressing this area of focus for improvement
will build LEAs’ capacity to improve the identified result for
students with disabilities
 For example, the State might be working to improve performance on
reading assessments and the focus of improvement strategies would be
implementing evidence-based early literacy practices
14
 The State will analyze the capacity of its current system to
 support improvement to
 build capacity in LEAs to implement, scale up, and sustain
evidence-based practices to
 improve results for students with disabilities
15
 The analysis will include
 strengths of the system
 how components of the system are coordinated
 areas for improvement within and across
components of the system
 initiatives in the State, including initiatives in
general education and other areas beyond special
education, which can have an impact on students
with disabilities
 how decisions are made within the State system and
the representatives (e.g., agencies, positions,
individuals) that must be involved in planning for
systematic improvements in the State system
16
17
 “The Colorado Department of Education’s strategic goals are
based on a theory of action that IF we can help
students (1) start strong through a quality early learning and
school readiness, attain proficiency in (2) reading by the third
grade, (3) meet or exceed core standards in the core content
areas of literacy and mathematics throughout their schooling,
and (4) graduate from high school, THEN students will have
the knowledge, skills and dispositions they need to contribute
to society and successfully participate in postsecondary
education and the workforce. “
 Based on the data analysis and infrastructure analysis
 describe the general improvement strategies that will need to be
carried out and the outcomes that will need to be met to achieve
the State-identified, measurable improvement in results for
students with disabilities
 describe the changes in the State system, LEAs, and school and
provider practices that must occur to achieve the State-identified,
measurable improvement in results for students with disabilities
19
From NASDSE Webinar: Engagement as Strategy: Leading by Convening in the SSIP
“The IDEA Partners have used the work of Etienne Wenger on social learning and communities of
practice ;and Heifetz and Linsky on Technical and Adaptive Change to describe deep interaction that
change the way people behave.”
 Please contact Wendy Sawtell, SPP/APR Coordinator
 [email protected]
 303-866-6749
21