Special Education in Texas

State Performance Plan2005-2010

Hurst-Euless-Bedford ISDJune 16, 2009

Background

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (IDEA 2004), requires each state to develop a six-year performance plan. This State Performance Plan (SPP) evaluates the State’s efforts to implement the requirements and purposes of IDEA and illustrates how the State will continuously improve upon this implementation.

State Performance Plan Indicators1. Graduation Rates

2. Dropout Rates3. Adequate Yearly Progress4. Suspension/Expulsion Rates5. Educational Environment, 6-126. Educational Environment, 3-57. Early Childhood Outcomes8. Parent Participation9. Disproportionality10. Disproportionality11. Timely Initial Evaluations12. Early Childhood Transition13. Secondary Transition14. Post School Outcomes

Indicator 1: Graduation Rate(Calculation for Graduation Rate changed)

2007 Report

2008 Report

2009 Report

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

State TargetState RateLEA Rate

Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma

Indicator 2: Dropout Rate(Calculation for Dropout Rate changed)

2007 Report

2008 Report

2009 Report

0.00%2.00%4.00%6.00%8.00%

10.00%12.00%14.00%16.00%

State TargetState RateLEA Rate

Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high school

Indicator 3A: Adequate Yearly ProgressPercent of districts that have a disability subgroup that meets the State’s

minimum “n” size (50) meeting the State’s AYP objectives for progress for disability subgroup

2007 Report 2008 Report 2009 Report0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

METMET MET

Indicator 3B: Adequate Yearly ProgressParticipation rate for children with IEPs in a regular assessment with no

accommodations; regular assessment with accommodations; alternate assessment against grade level standards; alternate assessment against alternate achievement

2007 Report 2008 Report 2009 Report90%

92%

94%

96%

98%

100%Reading

Indicator 3B: Adequate Yearly Progress

2007 Report 2008 Report 2009 Report90%

92%

94%

96%

98%

100%Math

Participation rate for children with IEPs in a regular assessment with no accommodations; regular assessment with accommodations; alternate assessment against grade level standards; alternate assessment against alternate achievement

Indicator 3C: Adequate Yearly ProgressProficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level standards and

alternate achievement standards

2007 Report 2008 Report 2009 Report0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%

Reading

Indicator 3C: Adequate Yearly Progress

2007 Report 2008 Report 2009 Report0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%

Math

Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level standards and alternate achievement standards

Indicator 4A: Suspension and ExpulsionPercent 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

Year State Target State Rate LEA Met Target?

2007 Report

<.49% .49% Yes

2008 Report

0% 4.69% Yes

2009 Report

0% 0.2% Yes

Indicator 5A: Educational Environment,

Ages 6-21Percent of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21, removed from regular class less than 21% of the day

2007 Report 2008 Report 2009 Report0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

State TargetState RateLEA Rate

Indicator 5B: Educational Environment,

Ages 6-21Percent of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21, removed from regular class greater than 60% of the day

2007 Report 2008 Report 2009 Report0.00%2.00%4.00%6.00%8.00%

10.00%12.00%14.00%16.00%

State TargetState RateLEA Rate

Indicator 5C: Educational Environment,

Ages 6-21Percent of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21, served in public or private separate schools, residential placements, or homebound or hospital placements

2007 Report 2008 Report 2009 Report0.00%0.20%0.40%0.60%0.80%1.00%1.20%1.40%1.60%1.80%2.00%

State TargetState RateLEA Rate

Indicator 6: Educational Environment, Ages 3-5

Reporting Timeline To Be Determined by the US Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs

Percent of preschool children with IEPs who received special education and related services in settings with typically developing peers

Indicator 7A: Educational Environment, Ages 3-5

Percent of preschool children with IEPs who demonstrate improved, positive

social-emotional skills (including social relationships)

Reporting Timeline To Be Determined by the US Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs

Indicator 7B: Educational Environment, Ages 3-5

Percent of preschool children with IEPs who demonstrate improved acquisition

and use of knowledge and skills

Reporting Timeline To Be Determined by the US Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs

Indicator 7C: Educational Environment, Ages 3-5

Percent of preschool children with IEPs who demonstrate improved use of

appropriate behaviors to meet their needs

Reporting Timeline To Be Determined by the US Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs

Indicator 8: Parent Involvement Percent of parents with a child receiving special education services who

reportedthat schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving

services andresults for children with disabilities

Year State Target

State Rate LEA Met Target?

2009 Report

72% 72% Yes

Indicator 9: Disproportionate Representation

Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic

groups (African American, Asian, Hispanic, Native American, White) in special

education and related services that is the result of inappropriateidentification

Year State Target

State Rate LEA Met Target?

2008 Report

0% .16% Yes

2009 Report

0% 0% Yes

Indicator 10: Disproportionate Representation

Year State Target

State Rate

LEA Met Target?

2008 Report

0% .16% Yes

2009 Report

0% 0% Yes

Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups (African American, Asian, Hispanic, Native American, White) in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification

Indicator 11: Consent to Evaluate

2009 Report80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

Percent of children with parental consent to evaluate who were evaluated and eligibility determined within 60 days

Indicator 12A: IEPs Developed Before 3rd

Birthday, Referral from ECI

2009 Report50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Percent of children referred by ECI prior to age 3, who are found eligible for services, and who have an IEP developed and implemented by their 3rd birthday

Indicator 12B: IEPs Developed Before 3rd

Birthday, Referral from a source other than ECI

2009 Report50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Percent of children referred by a source other than ECI prior to age 3, who are found eligible for services, and who have an IEP developed and implemented by their 3rd birthday

Indicator 13: Transition

2009 Report0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Percent of youth aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes coordinated, measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the student to meet the post-secondary goals

Indicator 14: Employment

Year State Target

State Rate LEA Met State Rate

2009 Report 82% 82% Due to small numbers, district level data reported at regional level

Percent of youth who had IEPs, 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

Preschool Partnership

2008-2009 Update

Celebrations!• Successful Quarterly Meetings• Training for preschool families and staff at community sites• District professional development attended by numerous preschool/daycare staff• Parent University• Consultation services provided by special education staff• Regional recognition• Statewide recognition

Celebrations!• Red Apple Partnership

• First United Methodist, Euless Partnership

• Bedford Christian Academy and Montessori Preschool (BCAMP) Partnership