Michigan's State Performance Plan/
Annual Performance Report

Special Education in Michigan

State Performance Plan
Section 616 of IDEA 2004

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services

OVERVIEW | IDEA 2004 Requirements | Monitoring Priorities and Indicators

Local Implications | Four Critical Questions

IDEA 2004 – Monitoring Priorities and State Performance Plan

Under Section 616 of IDEA 2004 - MONITORING, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT the legislation conveys that states shall develop a performance plan to evaluate the State's efforts to implement the requirements and purposes of IDEA priorities and describe how the State will improve such implementation. The following monitoring priorities and performance plan instructions are described in this section of IDEA 2004:

(a) FEDERAL AND STATE MONITORING-

(3) MONITORING PRIORITIES
(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, voluntary binding arbitration, and a system of transition services as defined in sections 602(34) and 637(a)(9).
(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.

(b) STATE PERFORMANCE PLANS

(1) PLAN
(A) IN GENERAL- Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, each State shall have in place a performance plan that evaluates that State's efforts to implement the requirements and purposes of this part and describes how the State will improve such implementation.
(B) SUBMISSION FOR APPROVAL- Each State shall submit the State's performance plan to the Secretary for approval in accordance with the approval process described in subsection (c).
(C) REVIEW- Each State shall review its State performance plan at least once every 6 years and submit any amendments to the Secretary.
(2) TARGETS-

(A) IN GENERAL- As a part of the State performance plan described under paragraph (1), each State shall establish measurable and rigorous targets for the indicators established under the priority areas described in subsection (a)(3).

Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) Perspective on Priorities and Performance Plan

The OSEP designed a model for SPPs for all states based on the priorities of IDEA 2004, submitted to OSEP on December 2nd, 2005. The report addressed the states performance on three (3) monitoring priorities and twenty (20) indicators. The following identifies the monitoring priorities and respective indicators reported in the Michigan’s 2005 State Performance Plan.

1. Graduation: Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma compared to percent of all youth in the State graduating with a regular diploma. (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))
2. Dropout: Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high school compared to the percent of all youth in the State dropping out of high school. (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))
3. AYP/Assessments: Participation and performance of children with disabilities on statewide assessments:
   1. Percent of districts meeting the State’s AYP objectives for progress for disability subgroup.
   2. 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 standards.
   3. Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level standards and alternate achievement standards. (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))
4. Rates of suspension and expulsion:
   1. Percent 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; and
   2. Percent of districts identified by the State as having a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year of children with disabilities by race and ethnicity. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A); 1412(a)22))
5. Percent of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21:
   1. Removed from regular class less than 21% of the day;
   2. B. Removed from regular class greater than 60% of the day; or
   3. C. Served in public or private separate schools, residential placements, or homebound or hospital placements. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A))
6. Preschool LRE: Percent of preschool children with IEPs who received special education and related services in settings with typically developing peers (e.g., early childhood settings, home, and part-time early childhood/part-time early childhood special education settings). (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A))
7. Preschool Outcomes: Percent of preschool children with IEPs who demonstrate improved:
   1. Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships);
   2. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/ communication and early literacy); and
   3. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs. (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))
8. Facilitated Parent Involvement: Percent of parents with a child receiving special education services who report that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A))

9. Disproportionate representation in Special Education: Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(C))
10. Disproportionate representation by disability category: Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(C))

11. Child Find: Percent of children with parental consent to evaluate, who were evaluated and eligibility determined within 60 days (or State established timeline). (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))

12. Early Childhood Transition: 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. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))
13. Secondary Transition: 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. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))
14. Post School Outcomes: 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. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))

15. Monitoring: General supervision system (including monitoring, complaints, hearings, etc.) identifies and corrects noncompliance as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from identification. (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(B))
16. Complaint Investigation: Percent of signed written complaints with reports issued that were resolved within 60-day timeline or a timeline extended for exceptional circumstances with respect to a particular complaint. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))
17. Hearings Adjudicated within timelines: Percent of fully adjudicated due process hearing requests that were fully adjudicated within the 45-day timeline or a timeline that is properly extended by the hearing officer at the request of either party. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))
18. Hearings Resolved: Percent of hearing requests that went to resolution sessions that were resolved through resolution session settlement agreements. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3(B))
19. Mediation Agreements: Percent of mediations held that resulted in mediation agreements. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))
20. Timely Reporting of Data: State reported data (618 and State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report) are timely and accurate. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B)).

Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) submit a variety of data to the Michigan Department of Education’s Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services (OSE/EIS) through MICIS, CEPI, SRSD and other data collection processes. Data is also collected from several offices within MDE including the Office of School Improvement and the Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability so that OSE/EIS can address the measurement requirements for each indicator. (See indicator measurements table).

IDEA 2004 requires that states report their progress toward achieving the measurable targets set forth in the 2005 SPP through an Annual Performance Report (APR). IDEA states:

(I) PUBLIC REPORT- The State shall report annually to the public on the performance of each local educational agency located in the State on the targets in the State's performance plan. The State shall make the State's performance plan available through public means, including by posting on the website of the State educational agency, distribution to the media, and distribution through public agencies. 616(b)(2)(C)(ii)(I).

The APR report must:

• illustrate the state’s performance through the analysis of data;
• describe the state’s progress toward implementing activities outlined in the SPP and provide and explanation of progress or slippage;
• recommend revisions to targets, improvement activities, timelines or resources that will facilitate the state’s improved progress; and
• report the state’s performance and the performance of local educational agencies to the public on achieving the SPP targets. These performance reports should be made available on the Department’s web site.

Four Critical Questions

In an effort to make data in the SPP/APR meaningful to schools and families alike, OSE/EIS has adopted Four Critical Questions that the indicators, collectively, should be able to answer and to assist the state in evaluating it’s progress. The following framework highlights these questions.

1. Are students with disabilities entering school ready to learn at high levels?
   Indicators:
   #6 Preschool LRE
   #7 Preschool Outcomes
   #11 Child Find
   #12 Early Childhood Transition
2. Are students with disabilities achieving at high levels?
   Indicators:
   #3 Participation and Performance on Statewide Assessments (AYP)
   # 4 Suspensions/expulsions:
   # 5 Least Restrictive Environment
   #8 Parent Involvement;
   # 9/10 disproportionality
3. Are students with disabilities prepared for success beyond high school?
   Indicators:
   # 1 Graduation
   # 2 Dropout
   # 13 Secondary Transition
   # 14 Post school Outcomes
4. Does the infrastructure support the implementation of IDEA?
   Indicators:
   # 15 monitoring
   # 16 Complaints
   # 17 Due Process Hearings
   # 18 Dispute resolution
   # 19 mediations
   # 20 data reporting

While all indicators and their results are interrelated in systemic ways, three indicators, listed under question two (indicators: #8: Parent Involvement; # 9/10 disproportionality) illustrate a programmatic theme that cuts across the four questions. It is important for all aspects of programs and services to ensure that all ethnicities are appropriately identified and receiving a Free Appropriate Education (FAPE) in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) and that children with disabilities and their parents/families are supported within special education.

The implication of the SPP/APR for local education agencies (LEA) is significant and will support local school districts in a variety of ways.

• Implementation of the requirements as outlined in IDEA 2004 will allow LEAs in Michigan to communicate to parents, educators and the community, the progress of their respective school districts toward achieving positive outcomes for infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities and their families.
• Districts will be able to identify other districts that are successfully achieving positive outcomes for students in order to learn from their success, and
• Districts will be able to engage more successfully in data based decision-making and planning.