Overview of Michigan's State Performance Plan

Overview | Indicators

Download a complete version of the State Performance Plan
Michigan Part B State Performance Plan 2005-2010 (February 2007) [PDF]

Michigan Part B Annual Performance Report (February 2007 [PDF]

General Overview of the State Performance Plan Development and Revisions for 2007 Reporting

Preparation:

Preparation for the development of the SPP began in early summer 2005. Staff from the Michigan Department of Education (MDE), Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services (OSE/EIS) reviewed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 2004 to better understand what the U.S. Department of Education (USDoE), Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) would likely require. By the time of the OSEP Summer Institute in August 2005, a plan for developing this SPP had been generated. Several staff attended the OSEP Summer Institute to assure a reasonable understanding of the expectations for the development of the SPP.

Given that some SPP Indicators were due to have baselines established for the 2007 Report, these Indicators and respective baselines are reported in this SPP Updated Report. Further, given that some calculations were revised either at the request of the OSEP or due to calculation changes at the State Education Agency (SEA), these revisions are reported in the SPP template for the 2007 Report.

On-going Capacity Building:

In order to build capacity within the SEA and among grantees and contractors for the implementation of the SPP, significant activities have been initiated since 2005. The OSE/EIS has been re-organized to better implement a focused structure on the performance indicators. Staff, grantees and contractors are all involved in targeted activities to address data collection and analysis, improvement activities, and integrated implementation of accountability and improvement.

Strategic use of federally-funded resource centers (regional and national) has been implemented. During 2005-06, staff, contractors and grantees accessed information from: the North Central Regional Resource Center; the Great Lakes East Comprehensive Center; the American Institutes for Research; the National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems; the National Center on Post-School Outcomes; the National Center on Special Education Accountability Monitoring; and the National Drop-Out Prevention Center, among others. In addition, the OSE/EIS has benefited from the work of, and networking provided through, the National Association of State Directors of Special Education.

Stakeholder Teams:

In 2005 and in 2006, teams of stakeholders were identified to work on the indicators; some were responsible for managing multiple indicators. For example, in 2005, graduation, dropout and suspension/expulsion were clustered to facilitate understanding the relationship and mutual influence among these indicators. In 2007, team leaders, either OSE/EIS staff or grantees, were assigned to specific indicators. For example, the team leader for Indicators 13 (Secondary Transition) and 14 (Post-School Outcomes) was the Deputy Director of OSE/EIS and the team included grantees and field staff who have constituted the “core team” for the Michigan Transition Outcomes Project (MI TOP). In the case of Indicators 9 and 10, the team leader was a contracted staff person and the team included OSE/EIS staff, grantees, and others from the field. In both examples, the work of the teams was connected to Disproportionality Community of Practice (DisCoP) specific to these areas of focus.

In other cases, stakeholder teams included:

• The OSE/EIS staff
• (MDE) Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability (OEAA)
• (MDE) Office of Early Childhood Education & Family Services (ECE & FS)
• (MDE) Office of School Improvement (OSI)
• Grantees and contractors involved with various statewide initiatives
• Parents
• Practitioners and administrators
• State Advisory Panel (Special Education Advisory Committee or “SEAC”)

Teams were given the following tasks:

• Analyze the indicators to understand intent and meaning
• Review relevant data (state, LEA, National, similar states, etc.)
• Determine the current baseline, if applicable
• Analyze existing baselines in relation to changes in formulae and calculations
• Analyze the efficacy and impact of using various formulae and calculations
• Recommend data collection approaches, if applicable
• Identify measurable and rigorous targets
• Determine improvement activities
• Identify resources to implement improvement activities

The process for determining targets was applied consistently for those indicators where the state had latitude in setting measurable and rigorous targets. Team members reviewed multiple sources of data, clarified key issues that may influence achieving targets and recommended targets based on the comparisons to national data, state trends, standard deviations, or other data deemed appropriate. Input from the Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC, Michigan’s State Advisory Panel) as well as input from the field through web-based surveys influenced final target setting.

In 2005, each stakeholder team had an assigned “data person”, and a team leader who was responsible for convening the meetings, obtaining access to technical support, and compiling the results of their deliberations. In 2006, data analysis was completed by the teams with assistance and technical consultation from grantees and contractors with expertise in research and evaluation. In addition, some indicators were tied to OSEP recommended data collection tools and analysis using national centers and recommended vendors (for example, Indicator 8, Parent Involvement, where the parent survey base was developed by the National Center on Special Education Monitoring and the analysis was completed by Avatar International, Inc.).

Stakeholder Input and Involvement:

In 2005 and in 2006, the key mechanisms used for obtaining additional stakeholder input were through ongoing work with districts and groups from the field, the Special Education Advisory Committee, and web-based surveys.

Given the short timeline and intensive work necessary to develop the SPP in 2005, the OSE/EIS used existing opportunities to obtain input on the indicators from the broader stakeholder community including:

• Involving stakeholders on the stakeholder teams that reviewed data and developed the indicator specific plans, Convening a structured dialogue session during the Michigan IDEA Leadership Institute1 in June, 2005.
• Conducting a presentation during the Michigan Association of Administrators of Special Education Summer Institute in August 2005.
• Conducting a presentation for the State Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC) in October, 2005 and a full day of substantial input in November 2005.
• Conducting a structured feedback session with Michigan’s IDEA Partnership in November, 2005.
• Using the web based Zoomerang Survey process to gather additional input.

In 2006, timelines for target setting for new indicators were again compressed. The requisite information regarding the intent of the indicators, the requirements for data collection, and the specifics of the reporting were disseminated over the year through national conferences, technical assistance (TA) phone calls from OSEP and through networking with other states. In some cases, changes or clarifications in technical assistance were received in the fall of 2006, or later, impacting the time available to finalize the work necessary for target setting.

In one case, final technical assistance for data analysis through Westat was obtained very late in the report preparation period, and only upon special request. Specifically, the WRR (weighted risk ratio) for determining disproportionality, the formula appeared to yield unanticipated results relative to white students for some districts. The grantee working with the OSE/EIS made adjustments for variables such as group size (total special education students and disability sub-groups) upon recommendation by OSE/EIS, and for district variables such as “resident district” and “operating district” (recommended by administrators in the field). Each time a new data “run” was completed the indicator team would be convened to review the data. Discussions and consultation were had with a variety of resources, including the Great Lakes East Comprehensive Center (which provided onsite consultation from the American Institutes for Research) and consultation with other states using the WRR, where the same concerns were voiced. The calculations, variables, and findings were discussed. This happened several times over a period of months. The Team was not confident that the data findings were valid. Since this was a high priority indicator for monitoring, it was imperative that the data be valid and credible. Late in this ongoing analysis and series of re-calculations, the grantee assisting the OSE/EIS sought input from Westat. Westat indicated that this issue had been noted with the WRR and that a separate calculation for any districts with small numbers of minority populations, the ARR (alternate risk ratio), should be used. This appeared to improve the internal reliability of the calculations, which were completed in mid-January, 2007.

This example illustrates both the imperative for timely and accurate TA to states, as well as the model the OSE/EIS has used to do the work of the SPP; i.e., the teams were deeply involved, as were grantees and contractors, in ongoing analysis of the methods of data collection and the analysis of the data and findings. In this case, the work could have been completed several months earlier if the information regarding the design anomalies of the WRR had been provided to the states.

Facilitated Input from the Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC):

In 2005, the SEAC was provided an overview of the SPP in October as a preparation for a full day of facilitated input. In November a full day session was conducted whereby SEAC members were given the task of reviewing data to understand how we arrived at the baseline, discussing proposed targets and making recommendations to set new targets, modify proposed targets or acknowledge agreement with proposed targets. Overall, the SEAC was supportive of the targets and eager to assist in the on-going evaluation of the implementation of the Plan.

In 2006, the SEAC was provided a forecast of the SPP work at the September Retreat. In November, December and January, presentations by team leaders on Indicators 4B, 5, 8, and 18 were followed by facilitated discussion that resulted in recommendations from the SEAC regarding targets. The recommendations are reflected in the overviews of each of these indicators.

Web-Based Input:

In both 2005 AND 2006, structured, web-based Zoomerang surveys were constructed and disseminated to multiple listservs and stakeholder organizations announcing the opportunity to review the indicators and provide input on the targets. Stakeholders gained access to the Zoomerang surveys through a link on the MDE and the OSE/EIS websites. Survey users were able to review descriptions of indicators, respond as to the rigor of proposed targets (not rigorous, rigorous, too rigorous). If stakeholders were not in agreement with proposed targets, they could propose new targets and make general comments about the SPP.

Field-Based Input:

Ongoing input opportunities from the field and from organizations have been provided through invited presentations by OSE/EIS staff as well as through targeted agendas of the Michigan IDEA Leadership Institute, the IDEA Partnership and parent and education organizations. Presentations on the SPP and annual performance reports will continue to create the basis for all public presentations by staff and others as our work to achieve improved outcomes continues.

Dissemination of the SPP to the Public and On-going Public Reporting:

The SPP was placed on the MDE website as a permanent document. The 2007 updates/revisions will be placed on the website upon submission of the documents to the OSEP. Reporting to the media will occur as determined by the Superintendent of Public Instruction in conjunction with other reports under No Child Left Behind (NCLB). The goal is to align public reporting and present special education information at the same time general education information is promoted. To address requirements for disseminating information to the public on the SEA and LEA performance toward meeting the SPP targets, the OSE/EIS proposes to:

• Post annually, a copy of the SPP and APR to the MDE website.
• Create an executive summary (“one-pagers”) of the SPP and APR indicators to post to the website, making hard copies available upon request.
• Publish information regarding the annual ISD and LEA “Data Portraits” where data on required Indicators are reported.
• Disseminate information about the Education YES! Report Cards, where sub-group performance and participation on state assessments is reported.
• Begin to use an information toolkit including a PowerPoint presentation and related materials that can be used by staff and stakeholder groups for conducting presentations on state and local performance and how improvement activities can be completed at the local level to address SPP indicators. This is being facilitated by the North Central Regional Resource Center.
• Incorporate performance reports and updates into monthly conference calls with ISD directors and the on-going Michigan IDEA Leadership Institute sessions.
• Convene sessions at quarterly and annual meetings of various organizations, parent groups, advocacy groups, etc. to facilitate broad-based dissemination of performance information.
• Work with the SEAC on a regular basis to review performance on key indicators.

On-going Development:

Time restrictions for the current and on-going development process, including predicted and unpredicted changes to data collection requirements and systems, anticipated and unanticipated policy changes in the immediate and longer-range, as well as inevitable modifications to plan requirements, will require on-going development and modification of the SPP. For example, the new High School Graduation Requirements adopted by the State Legislature have already impacted discussions regarding graduation and dropout rates, as well as student performance. This policy change, and others, will be reflected in on-going stakeholder input regarding performance targets.

Baseline data (Indicator 1 for example) will need to be re-established and/or discussed in light of changes made to Michigan’s current data collection systems. If baseline changes are not made when data collection changes are made, then extensive analysis of variances in performance data will be required. The OSE/EIS anticipates several data challenges that will result from implementing the SPP. Incorporating several new data collection fields that address the Monitoring Priority indicators into the Michigan Compliance Information System (MICIS) will require ongoing stakeholder involvement, field testing and training for the field. Based on new and revised data, several targets may need to be adjusted as systems improve. Also, stakeholder input on an on-going basis may result in further adjustments.

The OSE/EIS efforts to align with the State Board of Education requirements for all children will be influenced by Michigan’s ongoing work on high school redesign as well as the National Governor’s Association recommendations for the cohort methodology of calculating high school graduation and dropout rates.

Implementation:

Developing and revising the SPP itself are steps in systems improvement. Implementing the activities described in the SPP has begun with aligning and integrating the activities across indicators.

Emphasis is first on activities that require new or modified data collection. Implementing new data collection systems or modifying current systems are both costly and time consuming and require intensive design, testing and training to assure accuracy. These activities are necessary to the foundation of the SPP and subsequent Annual Performance Reports (APR).

Improvement activities are ongoing. Expanded and re-energized partnerships with organizations such as the Michigan Association of Secondary School Principals, the Michigan Association of Intermediate School Administrators, the Michigan Association of Administrators of Special Education, the Michigan Education Association, the American Federation of Teachers-Michigan and others are notable. A newly funded parent support system, the Alliance for Families, along with the CAUSE2, creates a reconstituted foundation for parent involvement.

Activities that require the development of requests for proposals, new contracts, or modifications to existing grants or contracts will also be prioritized and integrated and aligned as much as possible with ongoing statewide initiatives. These activities help implement systemic improvements.

Both the SPP and the full implementation of the IDEA 2004 will require modification to the Continuous Improvement and Monitoring System (CIMS). This activity supports ongoing measurement of the impact of SPP implementation. In 2007-08, revisions will be developed to fully align the CIMS with the key performance indicators of the SPP. In addition, SPP indicators will be utilized, as appropriate, in making determinations regarding LEA performance as required under the IDEA and by OSEP.

Indicators

A description of each indicator is below. Select the Indicator number to open a PDF of the section of the State Performance Plan related to the indicator.

Top of Page