District of Columbia Part B FFY 2007 SPP/APR Response Table

Monitoring Priorities and Indicators / Status of APR Data/SPP Revision Issues / OSEP Analysis/Next Steps /
Status of Public Reporting on LEA Performance: The State has not publicly reported on the FFY 2006 performance of each local educational agency (LEA) located in the State on the targets in the State’s performance plan as required by section 616(b)(2)(C)(ii)(I) of IDEA.
1.  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.
[Results Indicator] / The State revised the improvement activities for this indicator and OSEP accepts those revisions.
The State’s FFY 2007 reported data for this indicator are 53.2%. These data represent progress from the FFY 2006 data of 39%.
The State met its FFY 2007 target of 43%. / OSEP appreciates the State’s efforts to improve performance.
2.  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.
[Results Indicator] / The State revised the improvement activities for this indicator and OSEP accepts those revisions.
The State’s FFY 2007 reported data for this indicator are 2.9%. These data represent progress from the FFY 2006 data of 9.4%.
The State met its FFY 2007 target of 6.8%. / OSEP appreciates the State’s efforts to improve performance.
3. Participation and performance of children with disabilities on statewide assessments:
A. Percent of districts that have a disability subgroup that meets the State’s minimum “n” size meeting the State’s AYP objectives for progress for disability subgroup.
[Results Indicator] / The State revised the improvement activities for this indicator and OSEP accepts those revisions.
The State’s FFY 2007 reported data for this indicator are 0%. These data remain unchanged from the State’s FFY 2006 data of 0%.
OSEP’s June 17, 2008 FFY 2006 SPP/APR response table required the State to include in the FFY 2007 APR, data for FFY 2005 and FFY 2006. The State reported recalculated FFY 2006 data of 0% and stated that “valid and reliable FFY 2005 data are unavailable for this indicator.”
The FFY 2006 SPP/APR response table also informed the State that OSEP could not determine whether the State’s targets reflect the requirements for this indicator (i.e., percent of districts that have a disability subgroup that meets the State’s minimum “n” size that meet the State’s AYP objectives for progress for the disability subgroup) and encouraged the State to review its targets and revise them, as appropriate. OSEP required the State to provide documentation of any revisions to the targets with the FFY 2007 APR.
The SPP posted on the State’s website identifies the following targets for FFY 2007 for this indicator: “NCLB targets for reading: elementary, 65.16%; secondary 56.84%; NCLB targets for mathematics: elementary 69.21%; secondary 59.91%.” The State did not specify an FFY 2007 target in its FFY 2007 APR and reported that “[d]ue to the lack of a prior established baseline with the SPP, the OSSE intends to update the baseline and targets for this indicator for FFY 2008 APR/SPP submission.” Therefore, OSEP is unable to determine whether the State met its target. / OSEP looks forward to the State’s data demonstrating improvement in performance in the FFY 2008 APR, due February 1, 2010.
3. Participation and performance of children with disabilities on statewide assessments:
B. 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.
[Results Indicator] / The State’s FFY 2007 reported data for this indicator are 95.6%. The State provided a copy of Table 6 for the FFY 2006 reporting period with its FFY 2007 APR. Based on the data included in Table 6, OSEP recalculated the State’s FFY 2006 data to be 88.31%. The State’s FFY 2007 data represent progress from the FFY 2006 data.
The State met its FFY 2007 target of 95%.
OSEP’s June 17, 2008 FFY 2006 SPP/APR response table required the State to include in the FFY 2007 APR a copy of Table 6 for the correct reporting period. The State provided the required information. / OSEP appreciates the State’s efforts to improve performance.
3.  Participation and performance of children with disabilities on statewide assessments:
C. Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level standards and alternate achievement standards.
[Results Indicator] / The State revised the improvement activities for this indicator and OSEP accepts those revisions.
The State’s FFY 2007 reported data for this indicator are 21.3% for reading and 16.8% for mathematics. The State reported that the data submitted in the FFY 2006 APR were calculated and reported incompletely. Because the State did not provide valid and reliable FFY 2006 data for this indicator, OSEP cannot determine whether there was progress or slippage.
The State did not meet its FFY 2007 targets of 38%.
OSEP’s June 17, 2008 FFY 2006 SPP/APR response table required the State to include in the FFY 2007 APR, FFY 2007 progress data in a manner consistent with the required measurement (i.e., a statewide percentage) and a copy of Table 6 for the correct reporting period. The State provided the required information. / OSEP looks forward to the State’s data demonstrating improvement in performance in the FFY 2008 APR, due February 1, 2010.
4. Rates of suspension and expulsion:
A. 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
[Results Indicator] / The State revised the improvement activities for this indicator and OSEP accepts those revisions.
The State did not report any data and stated that “valid and reliable data are not currently available for this indicator for FFY 2007.”
The State reported that its current definition of significant discrepancy is "suspension and expulsion of children with disabilities for greater than 10 days in a school year at a rate that is 5% or greater than [the] suspension rate for general education students in this category." The State further reported that it is considering redefining significant discrepancy as “the suspension and expulsion of any child with a disability for 10 or more cumulative days in a school year by an LEA with a qualifying subgroup at a rate that is higher than the equivalent rate for non-disabled peers.” The State indicated that its definition, baseline data, and targets will be revised with stakeholder input prior to submission of the FFY 2008 APR.
OSEP’s June 17, 2008 FFY 2006 SPP/APR response table required the State to include in the FFY 2007 APR: (1) FFY 2005 data; (2) FFY 2006 progress data; (3) and a description of the review, and if appropriate, revision of policies, procedures, and practices relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards to ensure compliance with IDEA for any LEAs identified as having significant discrepancies in FFY 2005 and FFY 2006. The State reported in the FFY 2007 APR that it “has determined that valid and reliable FFY 2005 and FFY 2006 data do not exist for this indicator.”
The State did not provide any data for this indicator. Because the State provided no data for this indicator, OSEP could not determine whether there was progress or slippage or whether the State met its target. / The State did not submit FFY 2007 data for this indicator. The State has not provided valid and reliable data for this indicator, although required, for four years. This raises concerns about the State’s compliance with the requirements in 34 CFR §76.720(c).
The State provided a plan to collect and report the required data beginning with the FFY 2008 APR. The State must provide the required data in the FFY 2008 APR, due February 1, 2010.
As noted in the revised Part B Indicator Measurement Table, in reporting on this indicator in the FFY 2008 APR, due February 1, 2010, the State must describe the results of the State’s examination of data from FFY 2007 (2007-2008).
In addition, the State must describe the review, and if appropriate, revision of policies, procedures and practices relating to the development and implementation of the IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards to ensure compliance with the IDEA for LEAs identified with significant discrepancies based on the FFY 2007 data, as required by 34 CFR §300.170(b).
4. Rates of suspension and expulsion:
B. 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.
[Results Indicator] / States were not required to report on this indicator for FFY 2007. / The State is not required to report on this indicator in the FFY 2008 APR, due February 1, 2010.
5. Percent of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21:
A. Removed from regular class less than 21% of the day;
B. Removed from regular class greater than 60% of the day; or
C. Served in public or private separate schools, residential placements, or homebound or hospital placements.
[Results Indicator] / The State revised the improvement activities for this indicator and OSEP accepts those revisions.
The State reported in the FFY 2007 APR that the data submitted in the FFY 2006 APR incorrectly included some children aged 3-5 and therefore, are inaccurate. The State recalculated its FFY 2006 data and the revised data are reflected in the table below.
The State’s reported data for this indicator are:
FFY 2006 Data / FFY 2007 Data / FFY 2007 Target / Progress
A. % Removed from regular class less than 21% of the day / 14.4 / 17.34 / 12.5 / 2.94%
B. % Removed from regular class greater than 60% of the day / 27.2 / 19.49 / 14.0 / 7.71%
C. % Served in public or private separate schools, residential placements, or homebound or hospital placements. / 21.7 / 12.15 / 28.0 / 9.55%
These data represent progress from the FFY 2006 data.
The State met its FFY 2007 targets for 5A and 5C and did not meet its target for 5B. / OSEP appreciates the State’s efforts to improve performance and looks forward to the State’s data demonstrating improvement in performance in the FFY 2008 APR, due February 1, 2010.
6. Percent of preschool children with IEPs who received special education and related services in settings with typically developing peers (i.e., early childhood settings, home, and part-time early childhood/part-time early childhood special education settings).
[Results Indicator] / States were not required to report on this indicator for FFY 2007. / The State is not required to report on this indicator in the FFY 2008 APR, due February 1, 2010.
7. Percent of preschool children with IEPs who demonstrate improved:
A.  Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships);
B.  Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/ communication and early literacy); and
C.  Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs.
[Results Indicator] / The State did not provide any data for this indicator.
The State reported that entry data will be collected in FFY 2009 (SY 2009-2010).
Because the State did not provide entry data in its FFY 2005 or FFY 2006 APR, OSEP’s June 17, 2008 FFY 2006 SPP/APR response table required the State to provide entry data in the FFY 2007 APR. The State did not provide the required information. / The State did not report the required progress data. While States are required to provide baseline data and establish targets with the FFY 2008 APR, the State has not provided entry data and reports it will not begin collecting these data until FFY 2009. Therefore, the State will be unable to establish baseline data and targets as required in the FFY 2008 SPP/APR.
The State must report entry data and improvement activities with the FFY 2008 APR, due February 1, 2010. The State must review its improvement activities and revise them, if appropriate, to ensure they will enable the State to provide the required information in the FFY 2008 APR.
8. 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.
[Results Indicator] / The State revised the improvement activities for this indicator and OSEP accepts those revisions.
The State did not provide any data for this indicator. Because the State provided no data for this indicator, OSEP could not determine whether there was progress or slippage or whether the State met its target. / The State provided a plan to collect and report the required data beginning with the FFY 2008 APR. The State must provide the required data in the FFY 2008 APR, due February 1, 2010.
9. Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification.
[Compliance Indicator] / The State revised the improvement activities for this indicator and OSEP accepts those revisions.
The State did not report the actual number of districts determined in FFY 2007 to have disproportionate representation of racial or ethnic groups in special education and related services that was the result of inappropriate identification. The State reported that it “is unable to report on the number of districts in FFY 2007 that may have had disproportionate representation due to the lack of valid and reliable data that would allow the State to determine whether there was in fact disproportionate representation. Because this foundational information is unavailable, the [State] is unable to make any determinations related to potentially inappropriate identification practices.”