IDEA: Special Education Grants to States (OSERS) FY 2010 Program Performance Report (MS Word)

Source. Data are accessed through the Main NAEP Data Explorer available at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/dataset.aspx .

Frequency of Data Collection: Biennial

Data Quality. These data represent the performance of students with disabilities identified by their school as having a having an IEP as well as students identified as having 504 plans. The 2009 NAEP data were the first time the performance of students with disabilities identified as having an IEP could be disaggregated out of the performance data for students with disabilities having either an IEP or a 504 plan. The “National Public” NAEP data are reported for this measure. The “National Public” data include students from public schools only. Charter schools are included in these data; however, the Bureau of Indian Education schools and Department of Defense Education Activity schools are excluded from these data.

Target Context. See Data Quality explanation

Explanation. See Data Quality explanation

Source. Data are posted online under the topic “Inclusion Rates” which are available at http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_2009/inclusion.asp?subtab_id=Tab_2&tab_id=tab2#tabsContainer . The “Nation (public)” rate was reported for this measure.

Frequency of Data Collection: Biennial

Explanation. The percentage of 4th grade children with disabilities who were included in the NAEP reading sample, but excluded from the testing decreased from 34% in 2007 to 29% in 2009.

Source. The percentage of 8th grade children with disabilities scoring at or above Bsic on the NAEP in math increased from 33% in 2007 to 36% in 2009.
Data are accessed through the Main NAEP Data Explorer available at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/dataset.aspx .

Frequency of Data Collection: Biennial

Data Quality. These data represent the performance of students with disabilities identified by their school as having a having an IEP as well as students identified as having 504 plans. The 2009 NAEP data were the first time the performance of students with disabilities identified as having an IEP could be disaggregated out of the performance data for students with disabilities having either an IEP or a 504 plan. The “National Public” NAEP data are reported for this measure. The “National Public” data include students from public schools only. Charter schools are included in these data; however, the Bureau of Indian Education schools and Department of Defense Education Activity schools are excluded from these data.

Target Context. See Data Quality

Explanation. See Data Quality

Source. Data are posted online under the topic “Inclusion Rates” which are available at http://nationsreportcard.gov/math_2009/inclusion.asp?tab_id=tab5&subtab_id=Tab_2#chart . The “Nation (public)” rate was reported for this measure.

Frequency of Data Collection: Biennial

Explanation. The percentage of 8th grade children with disabilities who were included in the NAEP math sample, but excluded from the testing decreased from 29% in 2007 to 22% in 2009.

Source. CSPR data from SY 2008-09 was obtained through the EDFacts Ad Hoc environment – CSPR Prompted Report (CSPR017).
50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico are included in this measure.

Frequency of Data Collection: Annual

Data Quality. *Reading - National CWD only
Total # >= Proficient 3-8 CWD
1,302,503
Total # Assessed 3-8 CWD
2,972,633
National % >=Prof 3-8 CWD
.4381 = 43.8%

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 2008-09, 43.8% of CWDs in grades 3-8 scored at proficient or advanced levels on the state reading assessments. This is an increase from the 2007-08 data (40.8%).

Source. CSPR data from SY 2008-09 was obtained through the EDFacts Ad Hoc environment – CSPR Prompted Report (CSPR017).
“State” is defined in this measure as 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico.

Frequency of Data Collection: Annual

Data Quality. Note: There appears to be an error in the language in 1.6 in the GPRA Program Performance Measures for IDEA Programs (11/19/07). Current language notes that an increasing trend is desired. We believe a decreasing trend in the gap between CWD and all students is the desired trend.
*Reading - National (all 3-8) Reading - National CWD only
Total # >= Proficient 3-8 (all) Total # >= Proficient 3-8 CWD
16,046,169 1,302,503
Total # Assessed 3-8 (all) Total # Assessed 3-8 CWD
22,098,868 2,972,633
National % >= Proficient 3-8 (all) National % >=Prof 3-8 CWD
0.7261 =
72.6
% 0.4381 =
43.8
%
GAP
0.7261-0.4381 = 0.2880
28.8 percentage points

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 2008-09, there was a 29.7 percentage point difference between students with disabilities and all students, grades 3-8, scoring at proficient or advanced levels on the state reading assessments.
The gap (difference) between CWDs and all students scoring proficient or advanced on state reading assessments for 2008-09 data decreased from 29.7 percentage points in 2007-08, trending in the desired direction to decrease the gap/ difference.

Source. CSPR data from SY 2008-09 was obtained through the EDFacts Ad Hoc environment – CSPR Prompted Report (CSPR017).
“State” is defined in this measure as 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico.

Frequency of Data Collection: Annual

Data Quality. Note: There appears to be an error in the language in 1.7 in BPI – Data Transparency Initiative table (09.22.08) and GPRA Program Performance Measures for IDEA Programs (11/19/07). Current language is for all students. We believe the intention is to report the performance data for CWDs – consistent with 1.5 (reading).
*Math - National CWD only
Total # >= Proficient 3-8 CWD
1,341,686
Total # Assessed 3-8 CWD
2,969,942
National % >=Prof 3-8 CWD
0.4518 = 45.2%

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 2008-09, 45.2% of CWDs, grades 3-8, scored at proficient or advanced levels on the state mathematics assessments. This is an increase since 2007-08 (42.1%).

Source. CSPR data from SY 2008-09 was obtained through the EDFacts Ad Hoc environment – CSPR Prompted Report (CSPR017).
“State” is defined in this measure as 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico.

Frequency of Data Collection: Annual

Data Quality. Note: There appears to be an error in the language in 1.8 in the GPRA Program Performance Measures for IDEA Programs (11/19/07). Current language notes that an increasing trend is desired. We believe a decreasing trend in the gap between CWD and all students is the desired trend.
*Math - National (all 3-8) Math - National CWD only
Total # >= Proficient 3-8 (all) Total # >= Proficient 3-8 CWD
15,776,071 1,341,686
Total # Assessed 3-8 (all) Total # Assessed 3-8 CWD
22,064,577 2,969,942
National % >= Proficient 3-8 (all) National % >=Prof 3-8 CWD
0.7130 = 71.3% 0.4518 = 45.2%
GAP
0. 7130-0.4518 = .2612
26.1 percentage points

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 2008-09, there was a 26.1 percentage point difference between the percentage of students with disabilities and all students, grades 3-8, scoring at proficient or advanced levels on state mathematic assessments.
The gap (difference) between CWDs and all students scoring proficient or advanced on state mathematics assessments in 2008-09 increased from 27.5 percentage points in 2007-08, trending in the desired direction to decrease the gap/ difference.

Source. Data are drawn from Table 4-1, collected by states between July 1, 2008 and June 30, 2009 and submitted to OSEP by November 1, 2009. This table will be posted on ideadata.org in the Fall 2010.
The data elements used in the calculations of the percentage of students with disabilities graduating from high school with a regular high school diploma and the percentage of students with disabilities dropping out of school are submitted to OSEP via Part B, Table 4 (1820-0521), Section B. For states that report via EDEN (EDFacts), the exiting data are reported via file specification N/X009. EDEN data are downloaded by OSEP’s data grantee and Table 4-1 is generated.

Frequency of Data Collection: Annual

Data Quality. Graduation percentage calculation:
Graduated with a regular high school diploma /
(graduated with a regular high school diploma + received a certificate + reached maximum age + died + dropped out) * 100
“State” is defined in this measure as all reporting entities (50 states, DC, Puerto Rico, BIE, Guam, American Samoa, Northern Marianas, and Virgin Islands).

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.

The percentage of CWDs who left high school due to graduating with a regular diploma increased from 59.0% in SY 2007-08 to 60.6% in SY 2008-09, trending in the desired direction.

Source. Data are drawn from Table 4-1, collected by states between July 1, 2008 and June 30, 2009 and submitted to OSEP by November 1, 2009. This table will be posted on ideadata.org in the Fall 2010.
The data elements used in the calculations of the percentage of students with disabilities graduating from high school with a regular high school diploma and the percentage of students with disabilities dropping out of school are submitted to OSEP via Part B, Table 4 (1820-0521), Section B. For states that report via EDEN (EDFacts), the exiting data are reported via file specification N/X009. EDEN data are downloaded by OSEP’s data grantee and Table 4-1 is generated.

Frequency of Data Collection: Annual

Data Quality. Dropout percentage calculation:
Dropped out /
(graduated with a regular high school diploma + received a certificate + reached maximum age + died + dropped out) * 100
“State” is defined in this measure as all reporting entities (50 states, DC, Puerto Rico, BIE, Guam, American Samoa, Northern Marianas, and Virgin Islands).

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.

The percentage of CWDs who left high school due to dropping out declined from 24.6% in SY 2007-08 to 22.4% in SY 2008-09, trending in the desired direction.

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.

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