OSERS-- IDEA: Special Education Grants to States (MS Word)



|IDEA: Special Education Grants to States (OSERS) |

|FY 2008 Program Performance Report (System Print Out) |

|Strategic Goal 1 |

|Formula |

|IDEA, Part B, Section 611 |

|Document Year 2008 Appropriation: $10,947,511 |

|CFDA |84.027: Special Education_Grants to States |

|Program Goal: |Ensure all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education to help them |

| |meet challenging standards and prepare them for postsecondary education and/or competitive employment and |

| |independent living by assisting state and local educational agencies and families. |

|[pic] |

|Objective 1 of 3: |All children with disabilities will meet challenging standards as determined by national and state assessments |

| |with accommodations as appropriate. |

|Measure 1.1 of 8: The percentage of fourth-grade students with disabilities scoring at or above Basic on the National Assessment |

|of Educational Progress (NAEP) in reading.   (Desired direction: increase)   1521 |

|Year |Target |Actual |Status |

| | |(or date expected) | |

|2000 |  |22 |Measure not in place |

|2002 |24 |29 |Target Exceeded |

|2003 |25 |29 |Target Exceeded |

|2005 |35 |33 |Made Progress From Prior Year |

|2007 |35 |36 |Target Exceeded |

|2009 |37 |(November 2009) |Pending |

|2011 |39 |Undefined |Pending |

|2013 |40 |Undefined |Pending |

Source. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).

Frequency of Data Collection. Biennial

Data Quality. 

Results of the NAEP scores for students with disabilities from this sample cannot be generalized to the total population of students with disabilities. Some students who are included in the NAEP sample are excluded from testing. Also, the NAEP sample does not include schools specifically for students with disabilities.

Explanation. The next NAEP will be administered in 2009.

|Measure 1.2 of 8: The percentage of fourth-grade students with disabilities who were included in the National Assessment of |

|Educational Progress (NAEP) reading sample, but excluded from the testing due to their disabilities.   (Desired direction: |

|decrease)   1522 |

|Year |Target |Actual |Status |

| | |(or date expected) | |

|1998 |  |41 |Measure not in place |

|2002 |  |39 |Measure not in place |

|2003 |  |33 |Measure not in place |

|2005 |  |35 |Measure not in place |

|2007 |33 |36 |Did Not Meet Target |

|2009 |31 |(November 2009) |Pending |

|2011 |29 |Undefined |Pending |

|2013 |28 |Undefined |Pending |

Source. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).

Frequency of Data Collection. Biennial

Data Quality. 

The measure does not represent all students with disabilities excluded from testing, since the NAEP sample does not include schools specifically for students with disabilities.

Explanation. This measure was changed in 2006 to better focus on the percentage of children with disabilities who are excluded from NAEP testing. Previous years' data were recalculated accordingly.

|Measure 1.3 of 8: The percentage of eighth-grade students with disabilities scoring at or above Basic on the National Assessment |

|of Education Progress (NAEP) in mathematics.   (Desired direction: increase)   1523 |

|Year |Target |Actual |Status |

| | |(or date expected) | |

|2000 |  |20 |Measure not in place |

|2003 |23 |29 |Target Exceeded |

|2005 |32 |31 |Made Progress From Prior Year |

|2007 |33 |33 |Target Met |

|2009 |35 |(November 2009) |Pending |

|2011 |37 |Undefined |Pending |

|2013 |38 |Undefined |Pending |

Source. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress.

Frequency of Data Collection. Biennial

Data Quality. 

Results of the NAEP scores for students with disabilities from this sample cannot be generalized to the total population of students with disabilities. Some students who are included in the NAEP sample are excluded from testing. Also, the NAEP sample does not include schools specifically for students with disabilities.

|Measure 1.4 of 8: The percentage of eighth-grade students with disabilities who were included in the National Assessment of |

|Educational Progress (NAEP) mathematics sample, but excluded from testing due to their disabilities.   (Desired direction: |

|decrease)   1524 |

|Year |Target |Actual |Status |

| | |(or date expected) | |

|2000 |  |32 |Measure not in place |

|2003 |  |22 |Measure not in place |

|2005 |  |24 |Measure not in place |

|2007 |23 |31 |Did Not Meet Target |

|2009 |21 |(November 2009) |Pending |

|2011 |19 |Undefined |Pending |

|2013 |18 |Undefined |Pending |

Source. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress.

Frequency of Data Collection. Biennial

Data Quality. 

The measure does not represent all students with disabilities excluded from testing, since the NAEP sample does not include schools specifically for students with disabilities.

Explanation. This measure was changed in 2006 to better focus on the percentage of children with disabilities who are excluded from NAEP testing. Previous years' data were recalculated accordingly.

|Measure 1.5 of 8: The percentage of students with disabilities in grades 3-8 scoring at the proficient or advanced levels on |

|state reading assessments.   (Desired direction: increase)   00000000000001i |

|Year |Target |Actual |Status |

| | |(or date expected) | |

|2005 |  |38 |Measure not in place |

|2006 |  |38.7 |Measure not in place |

|2007 |51.8 |41.5 |Made Progress From Prior Year |

|2008 |54 |(September 2009) |Pending |

|2009 |61.7 |(September 2010) |Pending |

|2010 |69.4 |(September 2011) |Pending |

|2011 |77 |(September 2012) |Pending |

|2012 |84.7 |(September 2013) |Pending |

|2013 |92.4 |(September 2014) |Pending |

|2014 |100 |Undefined |Pending |

Source. U.S. Department of Education, Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR) data submitted through EDEN/EDFACTS.

Frequency of Data Collection. Annual

Data Quality. States report these data on the performance of students with disabilities as part of the reporting requirements for the CSPR. The CSPR is the data collection instrument administered by the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) at the US Department of Education. States electronically submit the data through ED’s Education Data Exchange Network (EDEN). Edit checks within the EDEN system alert states to data that are outside a specific range of numbers or otherwise incompatible with the data request. Once states have submitted data through EDEN, the ED program offices review the data and compile a list of questions, corrections, or edits that the state needs to address. OESE sends these comments to the states and the states are allowed to edit, revise, and update the CSPR data previously submitted to EDEN. Additionally, the CSPR is pre-populated with the data submitted through EDEN. The states review the pre-populated CSPR and have the opportunity to make additional updates, changes, or revisions to the data. Once the CSPR has been submitted to ED, EDFACTS analyzes the data to determine congruency between the data states submitted through the CSPR and the CSPR data submitted through EDEN. This process allows for multiple cross-checks and evaluation of the CSPR data reported in this indicator. States also received technical assistance on data-related topics through WebEx’s and Webinars conducted by ED staff.

Target Context. Targets were set to incrementally increase the percent of students with disabilities scoring at proficient or advanced levels on state reading assessments in order to achieve 100% of students with disabilities proficient in reading by 2014. The 2014 goal is aligned with provisions in the ESEA/ No Child Left Behind Act.

Explanation. In 2007, 41.5% of students with disabilities in grades 3-8 scored at the proficient or advanced levels on state reading assessments. The percent proficient increased by 2.8 percentage points from data reported in 2006.

|Measure 1.6 of 8: The difference between the percentage of students with disabilities in grades 3-8 scoring at the proficient or |

|advanced levels on state reading assessments and the percentage of all students in grades 3-8 scoring at the proficient or |

|advanced levels on state reading assessments.   (Desired direction: decrease)   00000000000001q |

|Year |Target |Actual |Status |

| | |(or date expected) | |

|2005 |  |27.8 |Measure not in place |

|2006 |  |29.6 |Measure not in place |

|2007 |21.6 |28.7 |Made Progress From Prior Year |

|2008 |22.2 |(September 2009) |Pending |

|2009 |18.5 |(September 2010) |Pending |

|2010 |14.8 |(September 2011) |Pending |

|2011 |11.1 |(September 2012) |Pending |

|2012 |7.4 |(September 2013) |Pending |

|2013 |3.6 |(September 2014) |Pending |

|2014 |0 |Undefined |Pending |

Source. U.S. Department of Education, Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR) data submitted through EDEN/EDFACTS.

Frequency of Data Collection. Annual

Data Quality. States report these data on the performance of students with disabilities as part of the reporting requirements for the CSPR. The CSPR is the data collection instrument administered by the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) at the US Department of Education. States electronically submit the data through ED’s Education Data Exchange Network (EDEN). Edit checks within the EDEN system alert states to data that are outside a specific range of numbers or otherwise incompatible with the data request. Once states have submitted data through EDEN, the ED program offices review the data and compile a list of questions, corrections, or edits that the state needs to address. OESE sends these comments to the states and the states are allowed to edit, revise, and update the CSPR data previously submitted to EDEN. Additionally, the CSPR is pre-populated with the data submitted through EDEN. The states review the pre-populated CSPR and have the opportunity to make additional updates, changes, or revisions to the data. Once the CSPR has been submitted to ED, EDFACTS analyzes the data to determine congruency between the data states submitted through the CSPR and the CSPR data submitted through EDEN. This process allows for multiple cross-checks and evaluation of the CSPR data reported in this indicator. States also received technical assistance on data-related topics through WebEx’s and Webinars conducted by ED staff.

Target Context. Targets were set to incrementally decrease the gap between the percent of students with disabilities scoring at proficient or advanced levels on state reading assessments and the percent of all students scoring at the proficient or advanced levels on state reading assessments in order to achieve the ultimate goal of no gap (0%) between the percent proficient in reading for these two groups by 2014. The 2014 goal is aligned with provisions to close the achievement gap in the ESEA/ No Child Left Behind Act.

Explanation. In 2007, there was a 28.7 percentage point difference between the percentage of students with disabilities in grades 3-8 scoring at the proficient or advanced levels on state reading assessments and the percentage of all students in grades 3-8 scoring at the same levels on state reading assessments. The difference represents a .9 percentage point decrease in the proficiency gap from data reported in 2006, which is an improvement.

|Measure 1.7 of 8: The percentage of students with disabilities in grades 3-8 scoring at the proficient or advanced levels on |

|state mathematics assessments.   (Desired direction: increase)   00000000000001r |

|Year |Target |Actual |Status |

| | |(or date expected) | |

|2005 |  |38.5 |Measure not in place |

|2006 |  |37.8 |Measure not in place |

|2007 |52.2 |41.9 |Made Progress From Prior Year |

|2008 |53.3 |(September 2009) |Pending |

|2009 |61.1 |(September 2010) |Pending |

|2010 |68.9 |(September 2011) |Pending |

|2011 |76.7 |(September 2012) |Pending |

|2012 |84.4 |(September 2013) |Pending |

|2013 |92.2 |(September 2014) |Pending |

|2014 |100 |Undefined |Pending |

Source. U.S. Department of Education, Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR) data submitted through EDEN/EDFACTS.

Frequency of Data Collection. Annual

Data Quality. States report these data on the performance of students with disabilities as part of the reporting requirements for the CSPR. The CSPR is the data collection instrument administered by the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) at the US Department of Education. States electronically submit the data through ED’s Education Data Exchange Network (EDEN). Edit checks within the EDEN system alert states to data that are outside a specific range of numbers or otherwise incompatible with the data request. Once states have submitted data through EDEN, the ED program offices review the data and compile a list of questions, corrections, or edits that the state needs to address. OESE sends these comments to the states and the states are allowed to edit, revise, and update the CSPR data previously submitted to EDEN. Additionally, the CSPR is pre-populated with the data submitted through EDEN. The states review the pre-populated CSPR and have the opportunity to make additional updates, changes, or revisions to the data. Once the CSPR has been submitted to ED, EDFACTS analyzes the data to determine congruency between the data states submitted through the CSPR and the CSPR data submitted through EDEN. This process allows for multiple cross-checks and evaluation of the CSPR data reported in this indicator. States also received technical assistance on data-related topics through WebEx’s and Webinars conducted by ED staff.

Target Context. Targets were set to incrementally increase the percent of students with disabilities scoring at proficient or advanced levels on state mathematic assessments in order to achieve 100% of students with disabilities proficient in mathematics by 2014. The 2014 goal is aligned with provisions in the ESEA/ No Child Left Behind Act.

Explanation. 

In 2007, 41.9% of students with disabilities in grades 3-8 scored at the proficient or advanced levels on state mathematics assessments. The percent proficient increased by 4.1 percentage points from 2006.

|Measure 1.8 of 8: The difference between the percentage of students with disabilities in grades 3-8 scoring at the proficient or |

|advanced levels on state mathematics assessments and the percentage of all students in grades 3-8 scoring at the proficient or |

|advanced levels on state mathematics assessments.   (Desired direction: decrease)   00000000000001s |

|Year |Target |Actual |Status |

| | |(or date expected) | |

|2005 |  |24.9 |Measure not in place |

|2006 |  |27.2 |Measure not in place |

|2007 |19.4 |26.1 |Made Progress From Prior Year |

|2008 |20.5 |(September 2009) |Pending |

|2009 |17 |(September 2010) |Pending |

|2010 |13.6 |(September 2011) |Pending |

|2011 |10.2 |(September 2012) |Pending |

|2012 |6.9 |(September 2013) |Pending |

|2013 |3.4 |(September 2014) |Pending |

|2014 |0 |Undefined |Pending |

Source. U.S. Department of Education, Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR) data submitted through EDEN/EDFACTS.

Frequency of Data Collection. Annual

Data Quality. States report these data on the performance of students with disabilities as part of the reporting requirements for the CSPR. The CSPR is the data collection instrument administered by the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) at the US Department of Education. States electronically submit the data through ED’s Education Data Exchange Network (EDEN). Edit checks within the EDEN system alert states to data that are outside a specific range of numbers or otherwise incompatible with the data request. Once states have submitted data through EDEN, the ED program offices review the data and compile a list of questions, corrections, or edits that the state needs to address. OESE sends these comments to the states and the states are allowed to edit, revise, and update the CSPR data previously submitted to EDEN. Additionally, the CSPR is pre-populated with the data submitted through EDEN. The states review the pre-populated CSPR and have the opportunity to make additional updates, changes, or revisions to the data. Once the CSPR has been submitted to ED, EDFACTS analyzes the data to determine congruency between the data states submitted through the CSPR and the CSPR data submitted through EDEN. This process allows for multiple cross-checks and evaluation of the CSPR data reported in this indicator. States also received technical assistance on data-related topics through WebEx’s and Webinars conducted by ED staff.

Target Context. Targets were set to incrementally decrease the gap between the percent of students with disabilities scoring at proficient or advanced levels on state mathematic assessments and the percent of all students scoring at the proficient or advanced levels on state mathematic assessments in order to achieve the ultimate goal of no gap (0%) between the percent proficient in mathematics for these two groups by 2014. The 2014 goal is aligned with provisions to close the achievement gap in the ESEA/ No Child Left Behind Act.

Explanation. 

In 2007, there was a 26.1 percentage point difference between the percentage of students with disabilities in grades 3-8 at the proficient or advanced levels on state mathematics assessments and the percentage of all students in grades 3-8 at the proficient and advanced levels on state mathematics assessments. The percentage point difference reports a 1.1 percent point decrease in the gap from 2006, which is an improvement.

|[pic] |

|Objective 2 of 3: |Secondary school students will complete high school prepared for postsecondary education and/or competitive |

| |employment. |

|Measure 2.1 of 3: The percentage of students with disabilities with individualized education programs (IEPs) who graduate from |

|high school with a regular high school diploma.   (Desired direction: increase)   1527 |

|Year |Target |Actual |Status |

| | |(or date expected) | |

|1996 |  |42 |Measure not in place |

|1997 |  |43 |Measure not in place |

|1998 |  |45 |Measure not in place |

|1999 |  |47 |Measure not in place |

|2000 |  |46 |Measure not in place |

|2001 |  |48 |Measure not in place |

|2002 |  |51 |Measure not in place |

|2003 |  |52 |Measure not in place |

|2004 |  |54 |Measure not in place |

|2005 |54 |54 |Target Met |

|2006 |56 |56.5 |Target Exceeded |

|2007 |57 |56.1 |Did Not Meet Target |

|2008 |58 |(October 2009) |Pending |

|2009 |59 |(October 2010) |Pending |

|2010 |60 |(October 2011) |Pending |

|2011 |61 |(October 2012) |Pending |

|2012 |62 |(October 2013) |Pending |

|2013 |63 |(October 2014) |Pending |

Source. U.S. Department of Education, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Section 618 data submitted through DANS/ EDFACTS. Publicly available at

Frequency of Data Collection. Annual

Data Quality. These national figures are derived from state reported data on students with disabilities, ages 14-21, who leave special education between July 1 and June 30 within a specified school year. State IDEA data managers and/or EDFACTS coordinators complete the necessary data collection instruments and submit the data to the DANS and/or EDEN systems. ED is currently transitioning from agency-specific data collection systems (e.g., DANS for OSEP) to a department based system (i.e., EDEN). EDFACTS and OSEP are ensuring a smooth transition that results in accurate data through multiple methods (e.g., OSEP and EDFACTS provide technical assistance to states, WebEx’s, Webinars, congruency analyses between data submitted through both systems). Extensive measures are taken to ensure the accuracy of the data. OSEP provides technical assistance to states on data-related matters through their Data Accountability Center (DAC) via phone calls, emails, and on-site visits. OSEP also provides numerous technical assistance documents to help states collect and report data related to IDEA (i.e., question and answer documents, a data history document which outlines any changes in data collection instruments from year to year, fact sheets, and online training modules). OSEP and DAC present material on the data collection process at numerous national conferences which state IDEA data managers attend. OSEP participates in Webinar and WebEx presentations attended by state data managers as well. The Monitoring & State Improvement Planning Division conducts on-site monitoring visits with states to ensure that the reported data are valid and reliable.

Target Context. Trend data were used to project appropriate targets for this indicator. The research base and a stakeholder group of policy and research professionals informed the decisions around target levels by estimating appropriate expectations for improvement.

Explanation. 

In 2007, 56.1% of students with disabilities leaving high school graduated with a regular high school diploma. The percent of students with disabilities graduating with a regular high school diploma was calculated in the following way: the total number of students with disabilities, ages 14-21, who left special education during the 2006-07 school year by receiving a regular diploma, receiving a certificate, dropping out, reaching the maximum age for services, dying, or moving, but not known to be continuing in another school/ school district was divided by the students with disabilities, ages 14-21, who left special education during the 2006-07 school year by receiving a regular diploma. Data from the following states and entities were used to calculate the national percentage: the 50 states, DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, Virgin Islands, Northern Marianas, and BIA.

|Measure 2.2 of 3: The percentage of students with disabilities who drop out of school.   (Desired direction: decrease)   1528 |

|Year |Target |Actual |Status |

| | |(or date expected) | |

|1996 |  |47 |Measure not in place |

|1997 |  |46 |Measure not in place |

|1998 |  |44 |Measure not in place |

|1999 |  |42 |Measure not in place |

|2000 |  |42 |Measure not in place |

|2001 |  |41 |Measure not in place |

|2002 |  |38 |Measure not in place |

|2003 |  |34 |Measure not in place |

|2004 |  |31 |Measure not in place |

|2005 |34 |28 |Did Better Than Target |

|2006 |29 |26.2 |Did Better Than Target |

|2007 |28 |25.5 |Did Better Than Target |

|2008 |27 |(October 2009) |Pending |

|2009 |26 |(October 2010) |Pending |

|2010 |25 |(October 2011) |Pending |

|2011 |24 |(October 2012) |Pending |

|2012 |23 |(October 2013) |Pending |

|2013 |22 |(October 2014) |Pending |

Source. U.S. Department of Education, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Section 618 data submitted through DANS/ EDFACTS. Publicly available at

Frequency of Data Collection. Annual

Data Quality. These national figures are derived from state reported data on students with disabilities, ages 14-21, who leave special education between July 1 and June 30 within a specified school year. State IDEA data managers and/or EDFACTS coordinators complete the necessary data collection instruments and submit the data to the DANS and/or EDEN systems. ED is currently transitioning from agency-specific data collection systems (e.g., DANS for OSEP) to a department based system (i.e., EDEN). EDFACTS and OSEP are ensuring a smooth transition that results in accurate data through multiple methods (e.g., OSEP and EDFACTS provide technical assistance to states, WebEx’s, Webinars, congruency analyses between data submitted through both systems). Extensive measures are taken to ensure the accuracy of the data. OSEP provides technical assistance to states on data-related matters through their Data Accountability Center (DAC) via phone calls, emails, and on-site visits. OSEP also provides numerous technical assistance documents to help states collect and report data related to IDEA (i.e., question and answer documents, a data history document which outlines any changes in data collection instruments from year to year, fact sheets, and online training modules). OSEP and DAC present material on the data collection process at numerous national conferences which state IDEA data managers attend. OSEP participates in Webinar and WebEx presentations attended by state data managers as well. The Monitoring & State Improvement Planning Division (MSIP) conducts on-site monitoring visits with states to ensure that the reported data are valid and reliable.

Target Context. Trend data were used to project appropriate targets for this indicator. The research base and a stakeholder group of policy and research professionals informed the decisions around target levels by estimating appropriate expectations for improvement.

Explanation. 

In 2007, 25.5% of students with disabilities leaving school dropped out. This percentage represents a .7 percentage point decrease from 2006 and exceeded the target measure (28%) by 2.5 percent points. The percent of students with disabilities dropping out of school was calculated in the following way: the total number of students with disabilities, ages 14-21, who left special education during the 2006-07 school year by receiving a regular diploma, receiving a certificate, dropping out, reaching the maximum age for services, dying, or moving, but not known to be continuing in another school/ school district was divided by the students with disabilities, ages 14-21, who left special education during the 2006-07 school year by dropping out. Data from the following states and entities were used to calculate the national percentage: the 50 states, DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, Virgin Islands, Northern Marianas, and BIA.

|Measure 2.3 of 3: The percentage of youth with disabilities who are no longer in secondary school and who are either |

|competitively employed, enrolled in some type of postsecondary school, or both, within two years of leaving high school. |

|  (Desired direction: increase)   1529 |

|Year |Target |Actual |Status |

| | |(or date expected) | |

|2004 |  |59 |Measure not in place |

|2005 |59.5 |75 |Target Exceeded |

|2006 |60 |Undefined |Pending |

|2007 |60.5 |Undefined |Pending |

|2011 |Set a Baseline |Undefined |Pending |

Frequency of Data Collection. Annual

Explanation. Data for this indicator were previously collected through the National Longitudinal Transition Study 2 (NLTS2). NLTS2 has been completed. Therefore data for this indicator are not available for the 2008 report. However, OSEP will be able to report on this indicator again beginning in 2011 as this indicator is the focus of Indicator 14 in the Part B State Performance Plan and its corresponding annual performance report.

|[pic] |

|Objective 3 of 3: |Improve the administration of IDEA. |

|Measure 3.1 of 1: The average number of workdays between the completion of a site visit and the Office of Special Education |

|Program's (OSEP) response to the state.   (Desired direction: decrease)   1536 |

|Year |Target |Actual |Status |

| | |(or date expected) | |

|2004 |  |123 |Measure not in place |

|2005 |  |107 |Measure not in place |

|2006 |113 |50 |Did Better Than Target |

|2007 |100 |92.2 |Did Better Than Target |

|2008 |95 |(April 2009) |Pending |

|2009 |90 |Undefined |Pending |

|2010 |88 |Undefined |Pending |

Source. Data are collected through an internal-only Monitoring and State Improvement Planning Division  tracking database.

Frequency of Data Collection. Annual

Target Context. Projected target values were established based upon 2005 data and demonstrate increased efficiency over time.

Explanation. 

A complete data set for 2008 will be available in April 2009.  20 verification visits (10 Part B and 10 Part C) were scheduled for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008.  All but two visits have been conducted as of November 19, 2008 and some letters have been issued.  MSIP has established a 120 calendar day issuance timeline for verification visit letters.  The data set is currently incomplete as the 120 calendar day timeline has not yet expired for many of the letters.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download