State Directors Conference
Boise, ID, March 4, 2013
Cesar D’Agord
Regional Resource Center Program
WRRC – Western Region
What do we know about RDA?
 How is RDA likely to impact your
State?
 How will it possibly impact your
School district?

“ The opinions and information
expressed in this presentation do not
necessarily reflect the position or policy
of the Office of Special Education
Programs (OSEP) or the United States
Department of Education (USDOE). No
endorsement of OSEP or USDOE should
be inferred."






A presentation prepared by OSEP, delivered
nationally to all states via webinar on August
27, 2012
OSEP’s Memo 13-6, distributed to states on
December 12, 2012 (12/12/12)
IDEA Section 618 Report to Congress data
National Center on Educational Outcomes
(NCEO) materials
WRRC materials and data calculations
IDEA 2004


improving educational results and functional
outcomes for all children with disabilities
ensuring that States meet… the program
requirements, with… emphasis on those most
related to improving results
20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(2)
Sec. 616(a)
The Secretary shall monitor the States, and shall
require each State to monitor the local
educational agencies…using quantifiable
indicators in each of the following priority
areas…:
Sec. 616(a)
(A) Provision of a free appropriate public education in the
least restrictive environment.
(B) State exercise of general supervisory authority,
including child find, effective monitoring, the use of
resolution sessions, mediation,…and a system of
transition services.
(C) Disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic
groups in special education and related services to the
extent the representation is the result of inappropriate
identification.
The Secretary shall consider other relevant information
and data, including data provided by States under section
618
16 - 19. Dispute
Resolution
20. Data
14. Post School Outcomes
2. Dropout Rates
1. Graduation Rates
4. Suspensions/
Expulsions
13. Post Secondary
Transition
3. Participation and
Performance on Statewide
Assessments
5. Educational Settings
15. General
Supervision
7. Early Childhood
Outcomes
9 and 10.
Disproportionality
6. Pre-School
Educational Settings
8. Parent
Involvement
11 and 12.
Child Find
December 2005: States submitted State
Performance Plans (SPPs)
Special
conditions
State single
audit findings
February 1st, every year, states submit
Annual Performance Reports (APRs) and if
applicable, revised SPPs
Information
obtained through
monitoring visits
From February to May each year, Secretary
reviews SPPs/APRs and considering multiple
additional factors makes determinations
Information
obtained through
fiscal monitoring
June: Secretary releases determinations
based on data reported in SPPs/ APRs and
other available data
Secretary takes specific technical assistance
or enforcement actions
(as required)
Other public
information made
available
Meets Requirements
 Needs Assistance

◦ Needs Assistance for two consecutive
years
Needs Intervention
 Needs Substantial Intervention


In regard to SPP/APR Indicators
◦ Data: With respect to data, OSEP examines
whether the States provided valid and reliable data
for all indicators
◦ Compliance: OSEP examines Indicators 4B, 9,
10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, and 20 looking for
evidence that the State demonstrates substantial
compliance.
◦ Meets Requirements: Generally, and absent any
other issues OSEP considers a State to “meet
requirements” if the State: (1) Provided valid and
reliable data; and (2) Demonstrated substantial
compliance for compliance Indicators.
Based on OSEP’s Presentation of August 2012





OSEP offered opportunities for input,
starting on March 23rd, 2012
OSEP staff presented updates on meetings
and conference calls
General public input via blog, email, etc.
OSEP is working with OSEP Sponsored
Projects on what and how results data can
be used for RDA
OSEP Memo 13-6, dated 12/12/12
FFY 2005
96.31
100
80
93.22
FFY 2010
96.87
96.72
95.89 97.74
84.75
79.24
60
40
20
0
12. Transition C
16. Complaints
11. Timely
to B
timely resolved
evaluations
20. Data
Data Source: OSEP
Data Source: OSEP


improving educational results and functional
outcomes for all children with disabilities
ensuring that States meet… the program
requirements, with… emphasis on those most
related to improving results
20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(2)
Sec. 616(a)
SPP/APR – APR Indicators measure
results
 Determinations – Broadly reflect State
performance (not just compliance and
accurate data)
 Differentiated monitoring and
technical assistance based on
weighted identification of States






Memo 13-6 was released to states on
12/12/12
Includes the FFY 2011 SPP/APR Instructions
for the SPP/APR submission that was due
Feb 1st 2013
Includes information on how RDA may
impact States Determinations
Results indicators may be included in the
determination process!
State-to-School District determinations may
be impacted as well.
About State Determinations, Memo 136 indicates:



OSEP is considering how it will use data
from results indicators in making
determinations in the spring of 2013.
OSEP is developing a “State Results Matrix”
that will be used to examine a variety of
results data.
Example included in the Memo was
Statewide Assessment, based on Indicator 3
(since this was presented as an example, it
indicates other results indicators may be included)
State Assessments
 Participation rate in general statewide
reading and math assessments (similar to
3b),
 Proficiency on assessments (similar to 3a),
 Improvement in proficiency on
assessments, and
 The gap in proficiency on assessments
between students with disabilities and all
students.
Results Matrix Example
Decision Matrix: Reading and math combined
• Element 1: Participation in general assessment
• Element 2: Improvement in percent proficient
• Element 3: Gap in proficiency between
students with disabilities and students without
disabilities
• Element 4: Percent proficient or above
Source: NCEO
Source: NCEO
Results Matrix
Source: NCEO
Comparing Idaho to RRC Region 6 (WRRC)
and National Data where available
General
Supervision
Data
Dispute
Resolution
14. Post School Outcomes
2. Dropout Rates
1. Graduation Rates
4. Suspensions/
Expulsions
13. Post Secondary
Transition
3. Participation and
Performance on Statewide
Assessments
5. Educational Settings
7. Early Childhood
Outcomes
9 and 10.
Disproportionality
6. Pre-School
Educational Settings
8. Parent
Involvement
11 and 12.
Child Find
Slide 47
Indicator 14 Outcomes
FFY
FFY
2009 2010
FFY
2011
14. A
Enrolled in higher education within one year
17%
22%
19%
14. B
Enrolled in higher education or competitively
employed within one year
31%
41%
38%
14. C
Enrolled in higher education, other
postsecondary education or training,
competitively employed, or in some other
employment within one year
71%
78%
73%
Source: Idaho FFY 2011 APR
Back
Data Source: IDEA Section 618, Table 4-1. Students ages 14
through 21 with disabilities served under IDEA, Part B,
who exited school
Graduated with Diploma
Grad Rates =
X 100
(Graduated with Diploma +
Received a Certificate +
Reached Maximum Age +
Dropped out)
Not included on denominator:
- Transferred to Gen Education;
- Moved and Known to Continue;
- Died
Back
70%
65.4%
60%
51.4%
50%
40.7%
40%
38.5%
38.0%
32.5%
30%
30.4%
28.2%
25.8%
24.6%
18.3%
20%
10%
0%
Source: Section 618 Data
Back
State
Special Education
Graduation Rates
2009/10
National Rank on
Graduation Rates 09/10
Guam
65.4%
3
Hawaii
51.4%
12
American Samoa
40.7%
30
Northern Marianas
38.5%
33
Washington
32.5%
39
Alaska
30.4%
40
California
28.2%
42
Idaho
25.8%
48
Oregon
24.6%
51
Nevada
18.3%
56
U.S. and outlying areas
38.0%
Lowest rank = 57
Note: Information from RMI, FSM and Palau is not included on 618 data tables.
Source: Section 618 Data
Back
40%
32.5%
30%
20%
10%
10.1%
3.6%
0%
-10%
-20%
3.2%
2.8%
1.8%
4.9%
-0.5%
-1.3%
-7.0%
-14.6%
Source: Section 618 Data
Back
5-year trend Graduation
Rate Sp. Ed. Students
National Rank 5-year
trend
Washington
32.5%
1
Guam
10.1%
14
Alaska
3.6%
33
American Samoa
3.2%
35
Nevada
2.8%
36
Oregon
1.8%
40
Idaho
-0.5%
44
California
-1.3%
46
Hawaii
-7.0%
52
-14.6%
57
4.9%
Lowest rank = 57
State
Northern Marianas
U.S. and outlying areas
Note: Information from RMI, FSM and Palau is not included on 618 data tables.
Source: Section 618 Data
Back
Data Source: IDEA Section 618, Table 4-1. Students ages 14 through 21
with disabilities served under IDEA, Part B, who exited school
# 14-21
Dropout Rates =
(#14-21
Dropped out
X 100
Graduated with Diploma +
Received a Certificate +
Reached Maximum Age +
Dropped out +
Transferred to General Education +
Moved, Known to Continue +
Died)
30%
26.3%
25%
22.8%
20%
16.5%
15%
10.3% 10.5%
12.2%
13.2%
12.7%
10%
5.1%
5%
0%
0.0%
0.0%
Source: Section 618 Data
Back
Special Education
Dropout Rates 2009/10
National Rank on
Dropout Rates
2009/10
American Samoa
0.0%
1
Northern Marianas
0.0%
2
Guam
5.1%
4
Idaho
10.3%
14
California
10.5%
16
Hawaii
12.2%
26
Oregon
13.2%
34
Washington
16.5%
44
Alaska
22.8%
50
Nevada
26.3%
52
U.S. and outlying areas
12.7%
Lowest rank = 57
State
Note: Information from RMI, FSM and Palau is not included on 618 data tables.
Source: Section 618 Data
Back
20%
16.5%
12.2%
10%
-1.1%
0%
-5.6%
-10%
-4.9%
-0.3%
-2.6%
-3.6%
-13.9%
-20%
-30%
-32.6%
-30.3%
-40%
Note: Information from RMI, FSM and Palau is not included on 618 data tables.
Source: Section 618 Data
Back
State
5-year trend Sp. Ed.
Dropout Rates
National Rank 5-year
Dropout Rate trend
Guam
-32.6%
1
Northern Marianas
-30.3%
3
American Samoa
-13.9%
5
California
-5.6%
14
Idaho
-4.9%
18
Oregon
-3.6%
26
Alaska
-1.1%
36
Nevada
-0.3%
40
Hawaii
12.2%
54
Washington
16.5%
56
U.S. and outlying areas
-2.6%
Lowest rank = 57
Note: Information from RMI, FSM and Palau is not included on 618 data tables.
Source: Section 618 Data
Back
Targets for
FFY 2011
Reading
Math
95%
95%
#
Actual Target Data for
FFY 2010
(SY2010-2011)
%
13,189
out of
#
%
13,178
98.3%
13,421
out of
98.2%
13,419
Actual Target Data for
FY 2011
14,066 out
of 14,302
98.3%
14,079 out
of 14,314
98.4%
(SY 2011-2012
Source: Idaho FFY 2011 APR
Back
Reading
66.04%
Targets for
FFY 2011
#
Actual Target
Data for
FFY 2010
out of
(SY2010-2011)
12,323
Actual Target
Data for
FY 2011
Math
61.28%
%
6,245
10,870 out
of 14,066
#
%
4,972
50.7%
out of
40.4%
12,317
77.2%
9,399 out
of 14,079
66.8%
(SY 2011-2012
Source: Idaho FFY 2011 APR
Back


The Idaho SDE received an ESEA waiver in
2012
Idaho will be using an Achievement Annual
Measureable Objective (AMO) with the
following targets:
Subject
Current AMO
for AYP
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
Goal
Goal
Goal
Reading
85%
85%
86%
88%
Mathematics
83%
83%
84%
86%
Source: Idaho FFY 2011 APR
Back
State
Gap All
2005 Average 2011 Average 2011 Average Students
scale score (all
scale score scale score (sp and Sp Ed Gap as % of
students)
(all students)
ed students) Students All Students
Washington
223
221
183
38
17%
California
207
211
174
37
18%
Oregon
217
216
177
39
18%
Nevada
207
213
174
39
18%
Alaska
211
208
169
39
19%
Idaho
222
221
176
45
20%
Hawaii
210
214
159
55
26%
Scale Score: A score, derived from student responses to assessment items, that summarizes the overall
level of performance attained by that student. While NAEP does not produce scale scores for individual
students, NAEP does produce summary statistics describing scale scores for groups of students. NAEP
subject area scales typically range from 0 to 500 (reading, mathematics, U.S. history, and geography)
or from 0 to 300 (science, writing, and civics).
Back
3%
2.6%
3%
2.3%
1.9%
2%
2%
1%
1%
-0.2%
0%
-1%
Nevada
California
Hawaii
Oregon
Idaho
Washington
Alaska
-0.5%
-1%
-2%
-1.3%
-1.5%
-2%
Source: Section 618 Data
Back
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
89.4%
84.8%
70.8%
64.7%
61.9%
58.8%
60.5%
52.5%
50.8%
40.3%
21.0%
20%
10%
0%
Note: Information from RMI, FSM and Palau is not included on 618 data tables.
Source: Section 618 Data
Back
Percent of Students
>80%
Rank Performance
Fall 2010
American Samoa
89.4%
1
Northern Marianas
84.8%
2
Oregon
70.8%
14
Nevada
64.7%
24
Idaho
61.9%
29
Alaska
58.8%
36
California
52.5%
48
Washington
50.8%
52
Guam
40.3%
55
Hawaii
21.0%
56
U.S. and outlying areas
60.5%
Lowest rank = 57
State
Note: Information from RMI, FSM and Palau is not included on 618 data tables.
Source: Section 618 Data
Back
12%
10.8%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
6.8%
5.8%
3.5%
3.1%
2.9%
1.9%
0.7%
0.5%
0.4%
0%
-2%
-4%
-3.0%
Note: Information from RMI, FSM and Palau is not included on 618 data tables.
Source: Section 618 Data
Back
State
5-year trend
Rank 5-year trend
10.8%
7
Nevada
5.8%
22
Alaska
3.5%
34
Guam
3.1%
37
California
2.9%
39
Oregon
1.9%
44
Washington
0.7%
48
Idaho
0.5%
49
Hawaii
0.4%
50
American Samoa
-3.0%
54
U.S. and outlying areas
6.8%
Lowest rank = 57
Northern Marianas
Note: Information from RMI, FSM and Palau is not included on 618 data tables.
35%
32.2%
30%
26.2%
25%
22.4%
20%
15%
10.7%
10.9%
11.5%
13.5%
13.5%
14.2%
10%
5%
2.1%
4.0%
0%
Note: Information from RMI, FSM and Palau is not included on 618 data tables.
Source: Section 618 Data
State
Performance
Rank of Performance
Northern Marianas
2.1%
1
American Samoa
4.0%
3
Oregon
10.7%
23
Idaho
10.9%
25
Alaska
11.5%
26
Washington
13.5%
36
Nevada
13.5%
37
California
22.4%
53
Hawaii
26.2%
55
Guam
32.2%
56
U.S. and outlying areas
14.2%
Lowest rank = 57
Note: Information from RMI, FSM and Palau is not included on 618 data tables.
Source: Section 618 Data
4%
3.2%
2.1%
2%
-0.2%
0%
-2%
0.0%
0.3%
0.7%
-1.8%
-3.2%
-4%
-3.3%
-6%
-6.3%
-8%
-10%
-8.9%
Source: Section 618 Data
Back
Note: Information from RMI, FSM and Palau is not included on 618 data tables.
State
5-year trend
Rank 5-year trend
Hawaii
-8.9%
2
Northern Marianas
-6.3%
5
California
-3.2%
13
Alaska
-1.8%
22
Oregon
-0.2%
38
Washington
0.0%
40
Nevada
0.3%
44
American Samoa
0.7%
49
Idaho
2.1%
52
Guam
3.2%
53
U.S. and outlying areas
-3.3%
Lowest rank = 57
Note: Information from RMI, FSM and Palau is not included on 618 data tables.
Source: Section 618 Data
Back
General
Supervision
Data
Dispute
Resolution
14. Post School Outcomes
2. Dropout Rates
1. Graduation Rates
4. Suspensions/
Expulsions
13. Post Secondary
Transition
3. Participation and
Performance on Statewide
Assessments
5. Educational Settings
7. Early Childhood
Outcomes
9 and 10.
Disproportionality
6. Pre-School
Educational Settings
8. Parent
Involvement
11 and 12.
Child Find
General
Supervision
Data
Dispute
Resolution
14. Post School Outcomes
2. Dropout Rates
1. Graduation Rates
4. Suspensions/
Expulsions
13. Post Secondary
Transition
3. Participation and
Performance on Statewide
Assessments
5. Educational Settings
7. Early Childhood
Outcomes
9 and 10.
Disproportionality
6. Pre-School
Educational Settings
8. Parent
Involvement
11 and 12.
Child Find
General
Supervision
Data
Dispute
Resolution
14. Post School Outcomes
2. Dropout Rates
1. Graduation Rates
4. Suspensions/
Expulsions
13. Post Secondary
Transition
3. Participation and
Performance on Statewide
Assessments
5. Educational Settings
7. Early Childhood
Outcomes
9 and 10.
Disproportionality
6. Pre-School
Educational Settings
8. Parent
Involvement
11 and 12.
Child Find