(2005-2010) Overview (20 - Hawaii State Department of Education

Transcription

Hawaii Department of Education
Special Education Services Branch
Part B Six-Year State Performance Plan (2005-2010)
Overview (2005-2006)
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA), signed on
December 3, 2004, became Public Law 108-446. In accordance with the law, not later than
one (1) year after the date of enactment of the IDEA, each State must have in place a
performance plan that evaluates the State’s efforts to implement the requirements and purposes
of Part B and describe how the State will improve such implementation. This plan is called
Part B State Performance Plan (Part B – SPP). In addition to Part B – SPP, states are required
to report annually to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) on the
performance and progress of the State under the State’s performance plan. This report is called
the Part B Annual Performance Report (Part B – APR). The following due dates pertain to the
submission of the Part B – SPP and Part B – APR:
•
•
Part B – SPP submission date – December 2, 2005
Part B – APR submission dates – Annually on February 1, 2007 through 2012
Each State must report annually to the public on the performance of the State on the 20
indicators and the targets set forth in the State’s performance plan. On October 15, 2006 the
Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE) met with representatives from various stakeholder
groups to obtain input on the Part B – SPP indicators. In addition to obtaining broad
stakeholder input, the HIDOE will post the complete Part B – SPP on its HIDOE public website.
The final completed Part B – SPP will be posted on the HIDOE Special Education website at:
http://doe.k12.hi.us/specialeducation/index.htm
Hawaii is unique in that the State Education Agency (SEA) and the Local Education
Agency (LEA) function as one unitary system. For the Part B – SPP, Hawaii will be reporting as
one SEA and LEA. Public charter schools are included in the Part B – SPP.
The results reported in this Part B – SPP reflect data from School Year (SY) 2005-2006. The
actions and activities that are proposed will take place during SY 2006-2007.
Much of the data used in setting baselines and targets for the indicators are based on 618 data,
which is required by law in IDEA and is collected by the USDOE, Office of Special Education
Programs (OSEP). The 618 data currently consist of six (6) reports which include:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
Child Count
Personnel
Educational Environments
Exits
Discipline
Statewide Assessment
Data for the Part B – SPP and Part B – APR were taken from 618 data reports unless otherwise
specified. States are required to submit all six (6) reports in a timely manner as noted in
Indicator 20.
Part B State Performance Plan
Page 2
Indicators for the Six-Year Part B – SPP are listed below along with the citations from IDEA. All
compliance targets are either zero (0%) or one hundred percent (100%). New indicators are
also identified at the beginning of the appropriate indicator. Baseline data for new indicators
were not required last year as part of the Part B – SPP, but are required this year. The new
indicators are Indicators 4B, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 18.
Hawaii
State
Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for 2005-2006
Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE
Indicator 1: Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from public (and public charter) high with a
regular diploma compared to percent of all youth in the State graduating from public
(and public charter schools) with a regular diploma.
[20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A)]
Measurement:
(Measurement of youth with IEPs earning a regular diploma should be the same measurement as
for all youth who earn a diploma. Explain calculation.)
A. Percent of 12th grade students who earn a diploma* = number of students in 12th grade
who earn a diploma ÷ by the total number of students in 12th grade X 100.
B. Percent of students with IEPs who earn a diploma = number of students with IEPs who
earn a regular high school diploma ÷ the total number of students in 12th grade (or
currently enrolled in a public high school beyond the 12th grade) with IEPs X by 100.
*“ Diploma” refers to a State of Hawaii diploma earned by public high school (including
public charter school) students upon successful completion of graduation requirements.
FFY
2005
(2005-2006)
Measurable and Rigorous Target
The percent of students with IEPs graduating with regular diplomas will be 79.6%.
Actual Target Data for 2005:
The target of 79.6% graduation rate for students with IEPs was not maintained as the data indicates that
79.3% of students with IEPs earned a high school diploma in school year (SY) 2004-2005. The goal of
maintaining the graduation rate of 79.6% for students with IEPs was not achieved.
Indicator 1: Graduation Rates
2003-2004 (baseline)
2004-2005
All Students
SPED
Students
ALL Students
SPED
Students
11,260
1,381
11,318
1,513
10,580
1,100
10,569
1,200
93.9
79.6
93.3
79.3
No. of Students enrolled in Gr. 12
No. of Students earning a
Diploma
Percent of Student learning a
Diploma
Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2005
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08/31/2009)
Monitoring Priority Indicator 1 - Page 1
Hawaii
State
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that
occurred for 2005:
(Following activities occurred after the SY 2004-2005 data was provided by IRMB in December 2005.
Impact of these activities may be seen in the SY 2005-2006 data to be reported in future APR reports.)
Activities
Timeline
During the SY 2005-2006, twenty six (26)
low performing schools throughout the
State received support in their planning
for restructuring efforts. Of those,
eight (8) were middle and high schools.
Teams of State and district-level
educational specialists and resource
teachers observed and interviewed
personnel and reviewed school and
student data to identify then make
recommendations as to the root causes
and possible solutions. None of the
eight (8) schools met Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) during the SY 2005-2006,
however, their progress and the
achievements of their students will
continue to be followed to determine the
usefulness of the recommendations
provided them.
SY 2005-2006
Graduation data from school year
SY 2003-2004 were reviewed to identify
schools with graduation rates at or above
the average graduation rate of schools in
Hawaii. These schools (14 of 45 high
schools in the state) were then surveyed
on the National Dropout Prevention
Center’s fifteen indicators of successful
secondary schools. Two (2) areas that
appear to be especially challenging to
these schools are: cultural sensitivity and
parent involvement. This information
supported the need for an additional
activity that is being planned for parents.
Spring–Fall 2006
Maintaining the baseline goal of 79.6% (in
SY 2003-2004) was not achieved,
graduation rate for IDEA students slipped
to 79.3% (in SY 2004-2005)
SY 2004-2005
Status
Additional survey items may be
included in the post-secondary
school survey of recent
graduates. Items will attempt to
gain information on students’
perception of school factors that
contributed to their successful
completion of graduation
requirements or meeting of
Individually Prescribed
Program (IPP) goals.
No significant activities took place
between reporting of SY 20032004 data as baseline in
December 2005 and report for SY
2004-2005 received in January
2006.
Hawaii
State
Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines
Revisions To Proposed Targets
Timelines
Justification
Re-submittal of SPP reflects revisions to
previously proposed targets.
SY2005-2010
Because of the limited time
between the submission of the
SPP in December 2005, the
Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2005
Target, and the 2004-2005 data
used for (this) APR 2007, Hawaii
has adjusted its targets. There
was insufficient time to implement
activities to impact the 2004-2005
outcomes.
A focus group supporting the
development of Hawaii’s SPP reiterated
the need for better communication
between family and schools. The unique
nature of each secondary school and the
changing requirements for earning a
diploma were among the concerns
surfaced by parents. A response to
concerns regarding parents’ ability to
support their child’s successful
experience in secondary school has
resulted in the planning of multi-agency
community-based activities to provide
parents information that should enable
them to better support their child’s
education.
SY 2007 and ongoing
Based on survey indications and
discussion among SPP focus
group members, parent
involvement in secondary
education (and transition)
planning is an area needing more
support.
Future improvement activities may include
revisions to graduation data collection
systems that align closer to the No Child
Left Behind (NCLB) method of
determining graduation rates, yet allow
IDEA students to “be counted” even when
taking longer than four (4) years to
complete their graduation requirements.
SY 2007 and ongoing
Alignment with NCLB data will
offer more consistent and
accurate reporting of graduation
rates of all students who enter
high school and those who earn a
diploma.
Hawaii
State
Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2010
Indicator 1: Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from public (and public charter) high schools
with a regular diploma compared to percent of all youth in the State graduating from
public (and public charter schools) with a regular diploma.
[20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A)]
Measurement:
(Measurement of youth with IEPs earning a regular diploma should be the same measurement as
for all youth who earn a diploma. Explain calculation.)
A.
Percent of 12th grade students who earn a diploma* = number of students in 12th grade
who earn a diploma ÷ by the total number of students in 12th grade X 100.
B.
Percent of students with IEPs who earn a diploma = number of students with IEPs who
earn a regular high school diploma ÷ the total number of students in 12th grade (or
currently enrolled in a public high school beyond the 12th grade) with IEPs X by 100.
* ”Diploma” refers to a State of Hawaii diploma earned by public high school (including
public charter school) students upon successful completion of graduation requirements.
Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process:
This is a revision to the Part B State Performance Plan, Indicator 1, submitted in December 2005.
The baseline data has been revised to reflect updated information then, appropriate adjustments
were made in determining the measurable and rigorous targets. In addition, the insufficient time
between the baseline data of December 2005 SPP and the data being reported in the February
2007 Annual Performance Report (APR), also required adjustments to our targets. A few revisions
were made to the activities.
Data on Hawaii’s graduation rates are provided by the Hawaii Department of Education’s (HIDOE)
Information Resources Management Branch (IRMB). Graduation data, gathered from secondary
schools at the end of each school year (including Extended School Year data), identifies the
number and status of students at the end of their twelfth (12th) grade year. We have chosen not to
use the data from No Child Left Behind (NCLB) which reports graduation data based on the number
of students that graduate from a given “cohort” of students who earn a high school diploma within
four years entering as first time ninth graders at the same high school. This method would not
acknowledge Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA) students who
are entitled to extend their secondary education beyond the four (4) years in order to earn a
diploma.
There are several “regular” diplomas that can be earned by graduates of Hawaii’s public high
schools. In addition to the diploma earned by most students, there are three (3) Hawaii Board of
Education (BOE) diplomas that can be earned based upon students’ successful completion of
elective coursework. The BOE diplomas include the: Summa Cum Laude, Magnum Cum Laude,
and Cum Laude Diploma. For purposes of this report, all of these diplomas will be classified as
Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010
Hawaii
State
“regular” diplomas. In addition, Hawaii does not have a “high stakes” exit exam as a prerequisite to
receive a high school diploma. To earn a regular diploma, students with Individualized Education
Programs (IEPs) must meet the course requirements as their peers (22 credits, 16 of which are
specified by content area, and six (6) electives), except that they can continue working toward the
diploma through their twentieth birthday (Hawaii Administrative Rules [HAR] Title 8,
Chapter 56 [Chap.56], [HAR Chap. 56 §8-56-15(3)(B)]).
Students with IEPs have the opportunity to work toward a regular high school diploma or a
Certificate of Completion of an Individually Prescribed Program (“Certificate”). The “Certificate” is
not a diploma, but instead represents students’ successful completion of a program specially
designed to meet that students’ unique needs and cognitive challenges. Data for this report does
not reflect IDEA students who received a Certificate. In Hawaii, the rate of students with disabilities
graduating from a pubic high school is NOT comparable to the rate of all students graduating with a
regular diploma from a public high school.
Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004-2005):
Data for School Year (SY) 2003-2004 was used as baseline while more current data was being gathered
and reported by HIDOE IRMB. SY 2004-05 data will be reported in February 2007’s APR.
Number of students in Grade 12, SY 2003-2004
11,260
---
Number of students with IEPs in Grade 12, SY 2003-2004
(including students continuing beyond 4th year of high school)
1,381
---
Number and percent of all grade 12 students earning a regular high
school diploma
10,580
93.9%
Number and percent of students with IEPs earning a regular high
school diploma
1,100
79.6%
Discussion of Baseline Data:
Currently, Hawaii experiences a high percentage of grade 12 graduates among both non-disabled
students (93.9%) and students with disabilities (79.6%). The absence of “high stakes” examinations is
just one possible explanation for this.
In SY 2006-2007, new course and graduation requirements will be required of incoming ninth graders
who will be members of the class of 2010. All courses that are authorized as credit-earning will be
required to align with specific content standards per the Hawaii Content and Performance
Standards III (HCPSIII). In addition, credit requirements for graduation will increase as two (2) more
credits must be earned in World Languages/Fine Arts/Career and Technical Education. A total of 24
credits will be required for a diploma. In SY 2007-2008, a middle level promotion policy will go into effect
which may impact the graduation rate of all students.
FFY
2005
(2005-2006)
2006
(2006-2007)
2007
(2007-2008)
The percent of students with IEPs graduating with regular diplomas will be
79.6%.
The percent of students with IEPs graduating with regular diplomas will be 80%.
Hawaii
State
FFY
2008
(2008-2009)
2009
(2009-2010)
2010
(2010-2011)
Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:
Activities
Timeline
Resources
Provide support to secondary schools that are not
meeting the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and are
requesting assistance in identifying root causes for
low student achievement. Provide data that may
indicate the kinds of supports needed by IDEA
students in order to be more successful in working
toward and earning a high school diploma.
Fall 2005 and
ongoing as
schools are
identified or
request
assistance
Special Education Services
Branch -- State Educational
Specialists, State Resource
Teachers;
Districts -- Educational
Specialists, District
Resource Teachers
Spring 2006 and
ongoing
IRMB; HIDOE Office of
Human Resources; Special
Education Services Branch
--Educational Specialists,
Resource Teachers;
Complex Area
Superintendents, District
Educational Specialists,
District Resource Teachers
Conduct data analysis of high schools identified as
having high graduation rates for students with IEPs
(approximately 79%) to determine reasons for high
rates and provide recommendations, if any, to the
school and complex area administrator for improving
the graduation rates of students with IEPs. Activities
may include:
• Survey high schools with high graduation rates
(79%+) for students with IEPs. Have schools
rate their level of implementation of the
fifteen (15) effective strategies that positively
impact student graduation/ dropout rates.
(Strategies identified by the National Dropout
Prevention Center)
• Use information and data obtained from
Hawaii’s post-secondary transition survey to
identify indicators of success that include
supports for students who earned a diploma.
Use information for future planning efforts.
• Monitor the hiring and placement of highly
qualified special education teachers as it
relates to student success. Ensure that
instruction in core content areas is provided to
students by qualified personnel who apply
research-based practices in the classroom.
• Encourage and support high schools in
providing more opportunities for all students,
including students with IEPs, to earn the
necessary 24 credits in order to meet the
requirements of receiving a regular diploma.
(i.e. expanded master schedules allow for more
Hawaii
State
Activities
Timeline
Resources
Ongoing as
schools are
identified or
request
assistance
Teachers;
Instructional Services
Teachers
than six (6) credits to be earned per school
year: 7-period schedules, 4-courses/semester
block scheduling, summer school)
Upon request, provide professional development for
regular and special education teachers to ensure the
delivery of curriculum based on the HCPCIII and the
use of instructional strategies that challenge all
students to perform at high levels of expectation.
Hawaii
State
Indicator 2:
Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high school compared to the percent of
all youth in the State (public schools) dropping out of high school.
[20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A)]
Measurement:
(Measurement for youth with IEPs who are dropping out of school without earning a diploma or
certificate should be the same measurement as for all youth who are dropping out of school without
earning a diploma. Explain calculation.)
A. Percent of students dropping out of high school = number of students in grades 9-12 who
have drop out of school ÷ total number of students in grades 9-12 x 100.
B. Percent of students with IEPs dropping out of high school = number of students in
grades 9-12 who have IEPs and dropped out of school ÷ total number of students in
grades 9-12 who have IEPs x 100.
FFY
2005
(2005-06)
The percent of students with IEPs dropping out of high school will be 3.1%.
Actual Target Data for 2005:
The target of 3.1% dropout rate for youth with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) in grades 9-12
was not maintained as data indicates that 3.2% of students with IEPs dropped out in School
Year (SY) 2004-2005.
Indicator 2: Dropout Rates
2003-2004
2004-2005
All
SpEd
All
SpEd
Students Enrolled,
Gr. 9-12
53,549
7,119
54,284
7,547
Dropouts, Gr. 9-12
2,537
221
2,378
249
Dropout Rate
4.7%
3.1%
4.3%
3.2%
Hawaii
State
occurred for 2005:
Activities
Three schools with “high” dropout rates among
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement
Act of 2004 (IDEA) students were provided
assistance through efforts of Title I and Student
Support Services. These schools were among the
low performing schools that received technical
assistance as they anticipate restructuring under No
Child Left Behind (NCLB).
Timeline
Beginning
Spring 2006
and ongoing
Status
Schools that received assistance
will have data reviewed
periodically and will be offered
follow up support if need is
indicated.
Schools with high dropout rates among IDEA
students for two (2) consecutive years will be
identified and a determination made as to whether
assistance is needed or if school is already
addressing situations through other school
improvement activities.
Focus primarily on regular
education students, however,
not necessarily limited to that
population.
Non-traditional/Extended learning opportunities
being explored for secondary students via the
Comprehensive Student Alienation
Program (CSAP). Models of various programs
being shared with interested high schools.
Used data to identify high schools with low dropout
rates and high graduation rates. Conducted survey
of fourteen (14) high schools on fifteen indicators of
successful secondary schools from the National
Dropout Prevention Center. Schools were asked
rate the extent to which the indicator described their
school. Administrators were to select a faculty
member to respond to the electronic survey.
Fall 2006
Survey was conducted using
SY 2004-2005 data to identify
schools. Areas of parental
involvement and cultural
sensitivity appeared to be where
school may need technical
assistance and/or support.
Feedback will be provided
schools that asked for any
information, actions that resulted
from the survey.
Twelve (12) of fourteen (14) schools responded.
Data was tallied and provided some insight as to
what some schools perceived as possible areas of
need. It showed areas in which we might be able to
assist schools in being more successful.
Survey information helped to
guide direction and focus of
subsequent activities, see below.
Maintaining the baseline goal of 3.1% (in SY 20032004) was not achieved; the dropout rate for IDEA
students increased to 3.2% (SY 2004-2005)
SY 2004-2005
No significant activities took
place between reporting of SY
2003-2004 data as baseline in
December 2005 and report for
SY 2004-2005 received in
January 2006.
Hawaii
State
Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines
Revisions To Proposed Targets
Re-submittal of State Performance Plan reflects
revisions to previously proposed targets.
Timelines
Justification
SY 2005-2010
Use of data more appropriate to
measure grade 9-12 dropout
rates.
Limited time between submittal
of original (2003-2004) baseline
data and current APR (20042005) data did not provide
sufficient time for implementation
of activities in SY 2005-2006.
Revisions To Improvement Activities
Timeline
Justification
Provide informational sessions for parents of
secondary students (with focus on those with
IEPs). Emphasis will be on preparing parents and
students for the middle and/or high school
environment, structure, activities, and academic
requirements. Sessions will be adapted to
specific need/requests of the community.
Partnerships will be encouraged between school,
community, and parent organizations to continue
the informational sessions each year or as
needed.
SY 2007 and
ongoing
Recommendation for activity
surfaced in discussion with focus
group and stakeholders
Based on survey indications and
discussion among SPP focus
group members, parent
involvement in secondary
education (and transition)
planning is an area needing
more support.
Hawaii
State
Indicator 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.
[20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A)]
Measurement:
(Measurement for youth with IEPs who are dropping out of school without earning a diploma or
certificate should be the same measurement as for all youth who are dropping out of school without
earning a diploma. Explain calculation.)
A. Percent of students dropping out of high school = number of students in grades 9-12 who
have dropped out of school ÷ total number of students in grades 9-12 x 100.
B. Percent of students with IEPs dropping out of high school = number of students in grades 912 who have IEPs and dropped out of school ÷ total number of students in grades 9-12 who
have IEPs x 100.
This is a revision to the Part B State Performance Plan (SPP), Indicator 2, submitted in
December 2005. Originally, data from secondary/high schools were used, however, due to the great
variance in the grade level configurations of schools, it was decided that more accurate data would be
that reflecting specific grades and not schools by levels. In order to be more consistent, data will be
used that are specific to students in grades 9 through 12.
Adjustments to the baseline and targets are reflected in this submittal. In addition, the limited time
between the baseline data of the December 2005 SPP submittal and the data being used for the
February 2007 Annual Performance Report (APR), has resulted in adjustment to the targets.
The dropout rate for students with disabilities is significantly less than that of their non-disabled peers.
In Hawaii, the dropout rate for non-disabled students in grades 9-12 is 4.7% while the rate for
students with disabilities is 3.1%.
Data on Hawaii’s dropouts are provided by the Hawaii Department of Education’s (HIDOE’s)
Information Resources Management Branch (IRMB). Hawaii calculates and reports an “annual
dropout rate” (also known as an event rate) as opposed to a “longitudinal” or “cohort” dropout rate.
For high schools, the dropout data are based on the schools’ enrollment count at the beginning of the
school year and includes any student who expressed an “intent to return/enroll” the following school
year. Dropout data are a subset of a larger “Completer/Leaver” report of the number of all students in
Grades 7 through 12 who “complete”, “continue”, “transfer”, or “dropout” during the school year.
Completer/Leaver data are collected from school year to school year to capture any movement of
students following summer breaks.
Hawaii
State
According to data collection sources from the HIDOE, students who “dropout” of school are described
as those who:
• Leave school between the ages of 15-18 years old without a diploma.
• Are released to work or attend work readiness programs.
• Join the Armed Services.
• Are placed in other programs by Family Court.
• In-flight.
• Residing on the mainland (and not verified).
• Are married and not returning to school.
• Do not show up for school as expected.
• “Other” reasons.
Number of students in grade 9-12, SY 2003-2004
53,549
--
Number of students with IEPs in grades 9-12, SY 2003-2004
7,119
--
Number and % of students in grade 9-12 that dropped out, SY
2003-2004
2,537
4.7%
221
3.1%
Number and % of students with IEPs in grade 9-12 that dropped
out, SY 2003-2004
According to Blackorby & Wagner, in 1996, the dropout rate for student with disabilities was
approximately twice that of general education students. Baseline data from Hawaii’s public schools in
SY 2003-2004 indicated that the dropout rate for students with disabilities in Hawaii was approximately
33% lower than their non-disabled peers. Because it is difficult to make comparisons across states due
to the variations in data collection methods and definitions, Hawaii will continue to gather data through its
current data systems and to increase efforts to address the dropout rate of students with disabilities as
well as their non-disabled peers.
FFY
2005
(2005-2006)
2006
(2006-2007)
2007
(2007-2008)
2008
(2008-2009)
2009
(2009-2010)
2010
(2010-2011)
Hawaii
State
Activities
Timeline
Resources
Use data to identify schools with low dropout rates.
Focus on the positive levels of student participation
and engagement and work with schools to increase
the number of students graduating with a diploma.
• Review and identify data from
schools/complexes with extremely low dropout
rates. Identify practices that are effective in
keeping students in school and working toward
completion of their high school
program/curriculum. Support the widespread
implementation of school level practices that
are effective in keeping students in school and
working toward their diploma or appropriate
program/curriculum.
Beginning Fall 2005
and ongoing (Data
review in Fall, contact
and work with school
through year.)
IRMB, Student
Support Services
Branch: Special
Education Section
and Student Support
Services; District
Support
Monitor and review data from schools (and
complexes) to identify sites with drop out rates that
exceed by 1.5% (or greater) the state’s rate for drop
outs among students with IEPs. Provide technical
assistance to support the decrease of dropouts and to
increase student attendance and promotion/
completion of school. Activities may include the
following as appropriate:
• Provide information, research, and assistance
to support implementation of school-wide
policies and/or practices that increase the
protective factors the lead to more resilient
students.
• Increase efforts for early identification and
intervention with students at risk of dropping
out, especially students with IEPS who may be
characterized by multiple risk factors.
• Involve all feeder schools within a complex in
the discussion, planning, and actions to
decrease the number of students who leave
high school without a diploma.
• Explore alternative learning opportunities that
offer students a variety of options to earning a
diploma.
• Where indicated, examine disciplinary
practices (including the reliance on and
effectiveness of suspensions) and explore
other consequences for misbehavior (including
alternatives to suspension).
Beginning Fall 2005
and ongoing
IRMB, Student
Support Services
Branch: Special
Education Section
and Student Support
Services; District
Support
Hawaii
State
Indicator 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.
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.
C. Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level standards and
[20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A)]
Measurement:
A. Percent
*This data is not being reported since Hawaii is a unitary school district (refer to C).
B. Participation rate
Reading
a. 11,107 of children with IEPs in assessed grades;
b. 4,419 of children with IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations;
c. 5,944 of children with IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations
d. 0 of children with IEPs in alternate assessment against grade level achievement standards
e. 368 of children with IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate achievement standards
Account for any children included in a, but not included in b, c, d, or e above.
Overall Percent = [(b + c + d + e) divided by (a)].
• regular assessment with no accommodations
(percent = [(b) divided by (a)] times 100)
• regular assessment with accommodations
(percent = [(c) divided by (a)] times 100)
• alternate assessment against grade level achievement standards
(percent = [(d) divided by (a)] times 100)
• alternate assessment against alternate achievement standards
(percent = [(e) divided by (a)] times 100).
96.61
39.79
53.52
0
3.31
Math
b. 4,493 of children with IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations
c. 5,854 of children with IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations
d. 0 of children with IEPs in alternate assessment against grade level achievement standards
(percent = [(d) divided by (a)] times 100); and
e. 368 of children with IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate achievement standards
Hawaii
State
•
96.45
40.44
52.7
0
3.31
C. Proficiency rate
Reading
b. 498 of children with IEPs in assessed grades who are proficient or above as measured by
the regular assessment with no accommodations;
c. 275 of children with IEPs in assessed grades who are proficient or above as measured by
the regular assessment with accommodations;
d. 0 of children with IEPs in assessed grades who are proficient or above as measured by the
alternate assessment against grade level achievement standards; and
e. 170 of children with IEPs in assessed grades who are proficient or above as measured
against alternate achievement standards
• 2 significant medical emergency
• 142 retained grade 10 students
8.5
4
2
0
1.5
Math
b. 238 of children with IEPs in assessed grades who are proficient or above as measured by
the regular assessment with no accommodations;
c. 119 of children with IEPs in assessed grades who are proficient or above as measured by
the regular assessment with accommodations;
d. 0 of children with IEPs in assessed grades who are proficient or above as measured by the
alternate assessment against grade level achievement standards; and
e. 154 of children with IEPs in assessed grades who are proficient or above as measured
against alternate achievement standards
• 2 significant medical emergency
• 140 retained grade 10 students
Hawaii
State
• proficient or above as measured by the regular assessment
with no accommodations
• proficient or above as measured by the regular assessment
with accommodations
• proficient or above as measured by the alternate assessment
against grade level achievement standards
• proficient or above as measured against alternate achievement standards
FFY
4.6
2
1
0
1.4
2006
(2005-2006)
Students with disabilities will have a 96% participation in reading
Students with disabilities will have a 95% participation in math
7% of students with disabilities will meet proficiency in reading
3% of students with disabilities will meet in math
Actual Target Data for 2005-2006:
Students with disabilities had a 96.61% participation in reading
Students with disabilities had a 96.45% participation in math
8.5% of students with disabilities met proficiency in reading
4.6% of students with disabilities met proficiency in math
occurred for 2005-2006:
Activities
Provide technical assistance to
those schools with low
proficiency levels.
Timeline
Status
SY 2006-2007
The timeline was moved up to SY 2005-2006 to
address 27 schools identified as not meeting AYP
and preparing for restructuring. Teams composed
of state (instructional services and special
education) and complex area personnel (e.g.
school renewal specialists, assessment liaisons),
reviewed school data, observed classrooms, and
interviewed school personnel and students.
Findings and recommendations were shared with
the respective schools and superintendents.
• See Attachment PI 3a
Hawaii
State
Activities
Timeline
Status
Administer the Pilot Alternate
Assessment based on alternate
standards
SY 2005-2006
Completed September 19 through October 14,
2005
Administer the Alternate
Assessment against alternate
standards.
SY 2005-2006
Completed March 2006
Provide training for teachers in
the administration of the new
Alternate Assessments
Provide training for teachers on
differentiating instruction and
other strategies relative to
standards.
SY 2005-2006
SY 2005-2006
and ongoing
Completed January 23 to February 15, 2006
Workshop and training activities on differentiated
instruction and inclusive practices by state special
education personnel:
Workshop and training activities on literacy
occurred monthly throughout the state by special
education personnel:
• See Attachment PI 3b
The stakeholder group met on October 13, 2006 to review data and activities. Although the targets were
exceeded for participation and proficiency, the stakeholders decided to maintain the targets for
SY 2006-2007 reporting period (See Attachment PI 3c). Gains in proficiency in both reading and math
were partially attributed to the inclusion of students who met or exceeded proficiency on the Hawaii State
Alternate Assessment (HSAA). The HSAA administered in the spring of 2006 was scored against
alternate achievement standards. In the prior administrations of the HSAA, scores were reported in the
well below range and scored against grade level standards. Additionally, the Hawaii State Assessment
administered in the spring of SY 2006-2007 will be based on the revised Hawaii Content and
Performance Standards (HCPS III).
Participation exceeded the state benchmark of 95% for both reading (96.7%) and math (96%). An
upward trend in reading was noted:
Reading
Math
SY 2003-2004
92%
91%
SY 2004-2005
96%
96%
SY 2005-2007
97%
96%
Reading
Math
SY 2003-2004
6%
3%
SY 2004-2005
7%
2%
SY 2005-2007
9%
5%
Proficiency scores also were on an upward trend in reading:
Hawaii
State
Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources
Activities
Timeline
Resources
Status
Conduct data analysis
to identify schools with
high proficiency levels
for students with
disabilities:
• Determine reasons
for their success
SY 2008-2009 Instructional Services
(revised from Branch and Testing,
SY 2005-2006) Evaluation Section, and
Special Education
Services Branch
Although a few were identified
and observed, the activity was
discontinued. It was determined
to be premature as content
standards/benchmarks were
being refined and new tools were
being developed.
Analyze HSA and
develop materials for
teachers to consider in
their curriculum plans
SY 2008-2009 Instructional Services
(revised from Branch and Testing,
SY 2005-2006) Evaluation Section, and
Special Education
Services Branch
These two activities were deemed
premature. In addition to the
content standards/ benchmarks
being refined and new tools being
developed, the Hawaii State
Assessment was being refined
and a new testing vendor has
been selected.
Provide training to
teachers on the
analysis of HSA results
and the implications for
curriculum planning.
SY 2008-2009
(revised from
SY 2005-2006)
Branch and Testing,
Evaluation Section, and
Special Education
Services Branch
Hawaii
State
Indicator 3: Participation and performance of children with disabilities on statewide
assessments:
A. Percent of districts meeting the State’s AYP objectives for progress for disability
subgroup.
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
C. Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level standards and
[20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A)]
Measurement:
A. Percent = # of districts meeting the State’s AYP objectives for progress for the disability
subgroup (children with IEPs) divided by the total # of districts in the State times 100.
*This data is not being reported since Hawaii is a unitary school district (refer to C).
B. Participation rate =
a. # of children with IEPs in grades assessed;
b. # of children with IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations
(percent = b divided by a times 100);
c. # of children with IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations
(percent = c divided by a times 100);
d. # of children with IEPs in alternate assessment against grade level standards
(percent = d divided by a times 100).
Account for any children included in a but not included in b, c, or d above.
Overall Percent = b + c + d divided by a.
C. Proficiency rate =
a. # of children with IEPs in grades assessed;
b. # of children with IEPs in grades assessed who are proficient or above as measured by
the regular assessment with no accommodations (percent = b divided by a times 100);
c. # of children with IEPs in grades assessed who are proficient or above as measured by
the regular assessment with accommodations (percent = c divided by a times 100);
d. # of children with IEPs in grades assessed who are proficient or above as measured by
the alternate assessment against grade level standards (percent = d divided by a times
100).
Account for any children included in a but not included in b, c, or d above.
Overall Percent = b + c + d divided by a.
Monitoring Priority Indicator 3 – Page 1
Hawaii
State
Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process
All students in grades 3, 5, 8, and 10 participate in the Hawaii State Assessment (HSA) or the Alternate
Assessment (HAA) administered each spring. The assessment results are used to determine students’
progress toward meeting selected Hawaii Content Standards. The standards-based reading and
mathematics sessions include multiple-choice questions and constructed response question. The
constructed response questions enable students to show what they can do and measure their application
of knowledge and skills.
A new Alternate Assessment based on alternate standards was administered in the spring of SY 2005-06.
These students’ HAA proficiency levels were aggregated with the HSA proficiency levels.
Baseline Data for Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2004 (2004-05)
A. Percent
Hawaii Department of Education is a unitary school district; therefore, data will not be reported for “A”,
Percent of districts meeting the State’s Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) objectives on statewide
assessment”.
B. Participation Rate
Reading
a. 6,869 students with IEPs in grades assessed.
b. 3,357 students with IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations.
c. 3,203 students with IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations.
d. 187 students with IEPs in grades assessed in the alternate assessment against grade level
standards.
Math
b. 3,343 students with IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations.
c. 3,203 students with IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations.
d. 185 students with IEPs in grades assessed in alternate assessment against grade level
standards.
Proficiency Rate:
Reading
b. 329 regular assessment who are proficient or above with no accommodations.
c. 161 regular assessment who are proficient or above with accommodations.
d. 0 alternate assessment who are proficient or above against grade level standards.
Math
b. 135 regular assessment who are proficient or above with no accommodations.
c. 58 regular assessment who are proficient or above with accommodations.
d. 0 alternate assessment who are proficient or above against grade level standards.
Hawaii
State
Overall % participation in reading
(b + c + d divided by a)
96%
•
regular assessment with no accommodations
(percent = b divided by a times 100)
49%
•
regular assessment with accommodations
(percent = c divided by a times 100)
47%
•
alternate assessment against grade level standards
(percent = d divided by a times 100)
3%
Overall % participation in math
95%
•
regular assessment with no accommodations
(percent = b divided by a times 100);
49%
•
regular assessment with accommodations
(percent = c divided by a times 100);
47%
•
alternate assessment against grade level standards
(percent = d divided by a times 100)
3%
C. Percent of schools meeting AYP for the disability subgroup:
Overall % proficiency in reading
7%
•
regular assessment who are proficient or above with no
accommodations (percent = b divided by a times 100)
5%
•
regular assessment who are proficient or above with accommodations
(percent = c divided by a times 100;
2%
•
alternate assessment who are proficient or above against grade level
standards (percent = d divided by a times 100)
0%
Overall % proficiency in math
3%
•
regular assessment who are proficient or above with no
accommodations (percent = b divided by a times 100)
2%
•
regular assessment who are proficient or above with accommodations
(percent = c divided by a times 100)
1%
•
alternate assessment who are proficient or above against grade level
standards (percent = d divided by a times 100)
0%
Discussion of Baseline Data
Students taking the HAA work on the same content standards as all students in his/her grade level. IEP
goals and objectives for each individual student were matched with the required Hawaii content strands
and related standards for reading and mathematics. Although progress is measured, the overall
achievement reflects progress that is below grade level expectations. Therefore, when the link is made
from the HAA to the HSA Proficiency Levels, all performance levels for the HAA (No progress, Emerging,
Progressing and Achieving), fall in the “Well Below Proficiency” level.
Hawaii
State
Two (2)% or one hundred thirty-four (134) of the students who were eligible to take the HSA/HAA have
letters of request to exempt their child’s participation in the statewide assessment. The remaining 2-3%
was due to absences on test/retest dates or in the case of the HAA a few were deemed invalid.
Targets and activities to address Indicator 3 of the SPP were determined at a meeting by stakeholder
groups on October 14, 2005. The Special Education Advisory Council (SEAC) and the Community
Children’s Councils’ (CCC) representatives attended. The group had a wide range of stakeholder
participants that included parents and school, complex, and higher education personnel.
FFY
2006
(2005-06)
2007
(2006-07)
2008
(2007-08)
2009
(2008-09)
2010
(2009-10)
Students with disabilities will have a 96.5% participation in reading
Students with disabilities will have a 95.5% participation in math
Students with disabilities will have a 97.5% participation in reading
Students with disabilities will have a 96.5% participation in math
15% proficient in reading
11% proficient in math
Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources
Activities
Timeline
Resources
Conduct data analysis to identify schools with high
proficiency levels for students with disabilities:
- Determine reasons for their success
SY 2008-09
Branch and Testing,
Branch
- Provide technical assistance to those schools with low
proficiency levels.
SY 2005-06
and ongoing
Branch and Testing,
Branch
Hawaii
State
Activities
Timeline
Resources
Administer the Pilot Alternate Assessment based on
alternate standards
SY 2005-06
Testing and Evaluation
Section
Administer the Alternate Assessment against alternate
standards.
SY 2005-06
and ongoing
Section
Provide training for teachers in the administration of the
new Alternate Assessments
SY 2005-06
Section
Analyze HSA and develop materials for teachers to
consider in their curriculum plans
SY 2008-09
Branch and Testing,
Branch
Provide training to teachers on the analysis of HSA
results and the implications for curriculum planning.
SY 2008-09
and ongoing
Branch and Testing,
Branch
Provide training for teachers on differentiating instruction
and other strategies relative to standards.
SY 2008-09
and ongoing
Instructional Services and
Branch
Attachment PI 3b
Teacher Training Workshops on Reading on Differentiating Instruction
70
64
65
63
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
30
27
26
25
20
18
19
15
12
10
5
0
Central
Hawaii
Honolulu
Kauai
Leeward
Maui
Windward
Other
Attachment PI 3c
Trend data
Reading
2003-2006
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
Percent
Percent
Percent
Percent
Percent
Percent
Proficient
NCLB Targets
Math
30%
Tested Proficient
95%
30%
All Students
39%
96%
45%
Disadvantaged
27%
95%
32%
Disabled (SPED)
Alternate
Assessment
6%
92%
n/a
0.4%
Tested Proficient Tested Proficient Tested Proficient Tested Proficient Tested
95%
P2
98%
44%
95%
10%
95%
10%
95%
P2
98%
28%
95%
27%
99%
47%
99%
19%
96%
23%
98%
35%
99%
10%
96%
13%
98%
18%
99%
7%
96%
9%
97%
3%
91%
2%
96%
5%
96%
n/a
72.0%
46%
80.0%
n/a
0.4%
n/a
71.0%
43%
80.0%
**
Attachment PI 3a
AYP Restructuring Response Team
2005-2006
√ Target Schools
o Honolulu
o Central
o Leeward
o Windward
o Hawaii
o Maui
o Kauai
3 schools
3 schools
5 schools
3 schools
7 schools
4 schools
2 schools
√ School Priorities
o Reading (e.g. comprehension and response)
o Math (e.g. higher level thinking/process skills, constructive response,
geometry)
o English as a Second Language (ESL)
o Transience
o Special Education (SPED)
o Comprehensive Student Support System (CSSS)
√ Team Members to Address Priority Areas
o Team Leader
o Educational Officer Member
o Language Arts
o Mathematics
o ESL
o SPED/CSSS
o Hawaiian Immersion
o Others
√ Technical assistance provided—Fall 2005
Satisfaction
Interviewed
but Did not
answer % Satisfied %
Dissatisfied %
Unknown %
2002
28.42%
65.73%
5.21%
0.65%
2003
14.07%
78.52%
7.41%
0.00%
2004
14.74%
68.05%
9.83%
7.37%
School Name
2002
School Name
2003
School Name
2004
Total
SPED
Grads
1197
Total
SPED
Grads
# Unable to # Unwilling to
interview
be interviewed
702
34
interview
be interviewed
# of
Interviewed
SPED
Students
755
39
Satisfied % Dissatisfied Dissatisfied % Unknown
461
0.38512949
131 0.2841649
303 0.65726681
24
0.052060738
# of
Interviewed
Interviewed Interviewed
SPED
but Did not but Did not
Students
% Interviewed
answer
answer % Satisfied Satisfied % Dissatisfied Dissatisfied %
1521
953
41
526
Total # of
SPED
Grads
Interview be Interviewed # Interviewed
1326
but Did not but Did not
% Interviewed
answer
answer % Satisfied
529
0.345825115
Response
Rate
0.398944193
74
Interviewed
but did not
answer
78
0.1406844
413 0.7851711
39
0.074144487
Interviewed
but did not
answer % Satisfied Satisfied % Dissatisfied Dissatisfied %
0.147448
360
0.6805293
52
0.098298677
3
I don't
know
39
Unknown %
0.006507592
I don't know %
0.073724008
Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for 2005–2006
Monitoring Priority: Suspension/Expulsion
Indicator 4: Rates of suspension and expulsion:
A. Percent of districts (Hawaii used schools, including public charter schools),
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
B. 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.
[20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A); 1412(a)(22)]
Measurement:
A. Percent = [(# of schools identified by the State as having significant discrepancies in the
rates of suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities for greater than 10 days in a
school year) divided by the (# of schools in the State)] times 100.
B. Percent = [(# of districts identified by the State as having significant discrepancies in the
rates of suspensions and expulsions for greater than 10 days in a school year of children
with disabilities by race ethnicity) divided by the (# of districts in the State)] times 100.
Hawaii will be using the “z” score to determine “significant discrepancy.”
FFY
2004
2004-2005
A.
B.
No more than 5% of all schools will have a significant difference between the rates
of long-term suspensions for students with and without disabilities.
New indicator
Total number of schools
TOTAL
Number of schools w/
significant rates of
suspensions
Rate (per hundred)
(%)
2004-2005
2005-2006
(includes
charter
schools)
2004-2005
2005-2006
2004-2005
2005-2006
258
285
*5
**3
2%
1%
*4 high schools, 1 intermediate/high school
**3 high schools
Indicator A: The target of having less than 5% of schools with a significant difference in the
suspension rates for longer than 10 days of students with disabilities as compared to students without
disabilities was exceeded. In SY 2005-2006, there was a decrease in the rates of suspension as well
as the number of schools that suspended students with disabilities at a significantly higher rate as
compared to the rate for students without disabilities, even with the addition of 27 public charter
schools. It can be speculated that this improvement came as the result of the monthly monitoring of
the schools.
Indicator B: A new indicator so no APR is being done.
Resources for 2006- 2007:
No changes recommended at this time.
Hawaii
State
Monitoring Priority: Suspension/Expulsion
Indicator 4: Rates of suspension and expulsion:
A. Percent of districts (Hawaii used schools, including public charter schools)
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
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.
[20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A); 1412(a)(22)]
Measurement:
A. Percent = [(# of schools identified by the State as having significant discrepancies in the
rates of suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities for greater than 10 days in a
school year) divided by the (# of schools in the State)] times 100.
B. Percent = [(# of districts identified by the State as having significant discrepancies in the
rates of suspensions and expulsions for greater than 10 days in a school year of children
with disabilities by race ethnicity) divided by the (# of districts in the State)] times 100.
Hawaii will be using the “z” score to determine “significant discrepancy.”
Because of Hawaii’s single school district and the inability of the aggregation of the student data into one
single “z” score for the entire state, with the agreement of Mr. Larry Wexler, Hawaii will identify the
number and percent of schools (including public charter schools) with significant discrepancies in the
rates of suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities for greater than 10 days in a school year
for Indicator 4A. For Indicator 4B, Hawaii will identify significant discrepancies in the suspensions over 10
days for students in each ethnic group, statewide; these numbers will not be aggregated into a single “z”
score.
Data on the number of unduplicated student suspensions for greater than 10 days were collected and
analyzed to determine whether there were discrepancies in the rates of suspension between disabled and
non-disabled students. The rate of suspension incidents per hundred students was determined and the
differences between these rates were calculated. A statistical calculation using “z” scores was used to
determine whether these differences were significant at the .01 level. To ensure the validity of the
comparisons, the “z” score was not calculated if there were fewer than 5 suspensions in either group.
These “z” scores were applied to each school and then to each ethnicity.
The data used to complete this indicator came from the Safe School Information System (SSIS), Table A:
Number of Suspensions by Program, a database the state uses to collect information on all discipline
incidents, including suspensions. We were unable to use the data from Section 618, Table 5 as this
system collects only data on students, not by schools. Also, the SSIS Table A collects data from the
beginning to the end of the school year and uses the official enrollment count for the school year. Debra
Jennings saw no problem in using this data source.
Hawaii
State
Indicator A: (this data did not include public charter schools)
TOTAL
Total number of
schools
Number of schools
significant rates of
suspensions
Rate (per
hundred)
(%)
258
*5
2%
*Number includes 4 high schools and 1 intermediate/high school
Discussion of Baseline Data: Indicator A for FFY 2004-2005 (includes public charter schools)
The data reveals very few schools as having a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions of
greater than 10 days between students with and without disabilities; most of the school involved were
high schools. There were no elementary schools with significant suspension rates.
Indicator B for FFY 2005 (2005-2006): Baseline (includes public charter schools)
An examination was done on statewide totals of suspension rates by ethnicity. This data reflects the
cumulative unduplicated suspensions for the state for each ethnic group, based on their numbers within
the state. The total numbers cannot be aggregated as the “z” score is only valid for each population,
hence the “not applicable” label for the total population.
Ethnicity
Enrollment
Reg
Unduplicated #
of children
Suspended >
10 days
Suspensions >10
days
Per 100 students
“z” score for
difference
(> -2.33 will be
considered
significant at the
0.01 level)
Sped
Reg
Sped
Reg
Sped
142
4
5
0.00425
0.0352
0.015611664
16,348
428
172
0.00335
0.0105
0.000814209
Am. Indian
or
Alaskan
Native
942
Asian/
Pacific
Islander
127,762
Black, not
Hispanic
3,780
537
9
2
0.00238
0.00372
0.002745562
Hispanic
6,877
1,279
20
8
0.00291
0.00625
0.002298157
White, not
Hispanic
22,200
2,820
81
24
0.00365
0.00851
0.001776521
TOTAL
161,561
21,126
542
211
0.00335
0.00998
Not applicable
Hawaii
State
Discussion of Baseline Data (Indicator B):
The data reveals no significant discrepancy in the rates of suspension for more than 10 days between
students with and without disabilities when disaggregated by ethnicity. The “z” score is only applicable to
each individual ethnicity. In addition, all rates of suspension for more than 10 days for both students with
and without disabilities for each ethnicity were less than 1%.
FFY
A.
2005
(2005-2006)
B.
A.
2006
(2006-2007)
B.
A.
2007
(2007-2008)
B.
A.
2008
(2008-2009)
B.
A.
2009
(2009-2010)
B.
A.
2010
(2010-2011)
B.
No more than 5% of all schools will have a significant difference between the
rates of long-term suspensions for students with and without disabilities.
The difference between the rates of long-term suspensions for students with and
without disabilities will not be significant when disaggregated by ethnicity.
rates of long-term suspensions for students with and without disabilities
Activities
Timeline
Continue to examine the disaggregated baseline data to
determine whether there are any significant differences in
the rates of suspension.
SY 2006-2010
Special Education
Services Branch
(SESB)
Examine the disaggregated baseline data based on
ethnicity to determine whether there are any significant
differences in the rates of suspension.
SY 2006-2007
Special Education
Services Branch
(SESB)
Resources
Hawaii
State
Activities
SESB will continue to track those schools who have
significant differences (as identified by “z” scores) in their
suspension rates based on incidents and report to their
Timeline
Resources
SY 2006-2010
SESB and Student
Support Services
Branch (SSSB)
SY 2006-2010
SESB and Student
Support Services
Branch (SSSB)
Complex Area Superintendent (CAS). Two worksheets will
be developed to guide schools as they analyze their data:
• Guiding Questions for the Analysis of School
Systems (see attached)
• Guiding Questions for the Analysis of Individual
Students (see attached)
Continue monthly monitoring of significant suspension
rates in all schools
FEEDBACK PROCESS
Guiding Questions for Analysis of Individual Students
Addressing Significant Differences in the Suspension Rates of Special Education Students
(“Drilling down” or “Getting to the Root Causes”)
Question
Have the appropriate reports available in
SSIS been generated and analyzed on
both student and system levels?
Has the Individual Student Summary on
the CSSS/SSIS database been reviewed
for events involving the student (history
of incidents, interventions/previous
consequences, personal issues, etc.?)
Have the adults who work with this
student been interviewed for pertinent
information? Is there 1 significant adult
at school the student can relate to?
Has there been a discussion of services,
a change in present services or providers
or additional services to prevent future
incidents?
Is the student making academic progress
or having difficulties with a particular
class? Has the student been retained?
Has the impact of the consequences for
suspensions on subsequent student
behavior been analyzed?
For suspensions >10 days, have all
required procedural safeguards been
followed? Manifestation determination,
behavior plan developed and
implemented or reviewed for
effectiveness?
Findings
What steps could be taken to support students which
would result in the decrease of suspensions?
GUIDING QUESTIONS FOR ANALYSIS
School-wide Systems
Addressing Significant Differences in the Suspension Rates of Special Education Students
(“Drilling down” or “Getting to the Root Causes”)
Question
Does the school leadership review the discipline data on a
monthly (or regular) basis?
Does the school team analyze the data trend to determine the
root causes for the data?
Have goals (i.e., SMART goals) been developed for schoolwide action?
Does a school team and/or appropriate personnel monitor the
progress and effectiveness of the discipline plan?
Has the array of services available at the school has been
analyzed?
Has there been a review of the school’s academic plan to
determine whether there needs to be any changes to
polices/practices involving the over-all discipline plan based on
the discussions and data analyses?
Has the school considered alternative disciplinary
consequences to suspension?
What steps are being taken to determine the effectiveness of the
policies and practices the school is currently using?
Hawaii
State
Indicator 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.
C. Served in public or private separate schools, residential placements, or
homebound or hospital placements.
[20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A)]
Measurement:
A. Percent = # of children with IEPs removed from regular class less than 21% of the day
divided by the total # of students aged 6 through 21 with IEPs times 100.
B. Percent = # of children with IEPs removed from regular class greater than 60% of the day
C. Percent = # of children with IEPs served in public or private separate schools, residential
placements, or homebound or hospital placements divided by the total # of students aged
6 through 21 with IEPs times 100.
FFY
2005
(2005-2006)
A.
B.
C.
Removed from regular class < 21% - increase 24% to remain at 24%.
Removed from class > 60% - remain at 32%.
Served in separate placements – remain at 3%.
Actual Target Data for 2005
The December 1, 2005 Child Count reported the number of students aged 6 through 21 with
Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) removed from the classroom less than 21% of the day at 23%.
This indicates slippage of 1% over the Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2004 data. For students removed from
the class greater than 60% of the day, the December 1, 2005 Child Count reported 34%, a slippage of
2%. The 2005 data shows the number of students served in separate placements remained the same at
3%, which met Hawaii’s target.
Number of Students School Year (SY) 2003-2004, SY 2004-2005, and SY 2005-2006
LRE in State Totals
SY 2003-2004
SY 2004-2005
SY 2005-2006
Total # of Students aged 6 through 21 with IEPs
(The higher the better)
20,982
20,357
19,540
4,943
4,785
4,463
A.
Removed from regular class less than 21%
of the day (The lower the better).
Hawaii
State
LRE in State Totals
SY 2003-2004
SY 2004-2005
SY 2005-2006
B.
Removed from regular class greater than
60% of the day (The lower the better).
6,606
6,559
6,555
C.
Served in public/private separate schools,
residential placements,
homebound/hospital placements.
567
551
503
Percentages of Students SY 2003-2004, SY 2004-2005, and SY 2005-2006
% of Students with IEPs aged 6 through 21:
SY 2003-2004
SY 2004-2005
SY 2005-2006
A.
Removed from regular class less than
21% of the day
24%
24%
23%
B.
Removed from regular class greater than
60% of the day
31%
32%
34%
C.
residential placements,
homebound/hospital placements
3%
3%
3%
Justification for Revisions in Improvement Activities
Due to slippage in two out of three targets, it was decided at the stakeholders meeting that additional
activities are instituted in order to ensure the measurable and rigorous targets are met.
Improvement Activities
Activities
Timeline
Status
Review and analyze data to
target schools for technical assist
through the State’s monitoring
process (See Indicator 15).
June 30, 2005 and ongoing
through June 2010
The Hawaii Department of
Education (HIDOE), Office of
Curriculum Instruction Services,
Student Support, Special
Education Section, provided
many activities to increase the
number of students served in the
least restrictive environment. Inservice was provided for
administrators, special and
general education teachers, as
well as educational assistants
and parents.
Hawaii
State
Activities
Timeline
Status
Workshops were provided in:
• Inclusion,
• Differentiated Instruction,
• Access to the General
Education through
Standards-Based IEPs,
and
• “Everyone’s a Reading
Teacher”
In addition, the State Special
Education Literacy Section
conducted over 115 workshops
and Professional Development
courses for 1,531 HIDOE
personnel (administrators,
special education and general
education teachers, state and
district resource teachers,
educational assistants and
parents)
• New Teacher Workshops
• IEP and Literacy
• Data Analysis
• Reading Strategies
• Multi-sensory Structured
Language I & II
• Read to Me
• Reading Response
Meet with partner programs and
agencies to increase awareness
of least restrictive
environments (LRE) and Inclusion
June 30. 2006 and ongoing
through June 2010
Provide professional development
opportunities with a focus on
inclusion, to increase school level
including stakeholder knowledge.
Implement new electronic
Comprehensive Student Support
System (eCSSS) training for
Individualized Education
Programs to support schools in
documenting LRE
February 2007
In an effort to give parents a
better understanding of inclusion,
the Children’s Community
Council (CCC) sponsored a
University of Hawaii Instructor to
speak at CCC meetings
statewide.
Developed and ready to roll out
in February 2007
Hawaii
State
Explanation of Progress / Slippage
There was a 1% slippage in students removed from regular classes less than 21% of the day and also in
removed from regular class greater than 60% of the day. The percent of students served in public/private
separate schools, residential placements, homebound/hospital placements, stayed the same.
•
HIDOE’s Comprehensive Student Support (CSS) goal is to provide an appropriate environment to
meet student needs. This may mean that the student receive services in a fully self-contained
environment, which is an ideal situation when the alternative is for the student to be serviced in a
separate facility. In other words, the percentage of students removed from regular class greater than
60% being inflated could actually be a good thing when the percentage for students served in
separate facilities is also comparatively low.
•
During statewide staffing audits, it was found that though teachers understood how to input data into
the State’s Integrated Special Education Database (ISPED), there continued to be input errors. At
times, even though the IEP LRE Statement changed the student’s program of services, teachers did
not go back to change the LRE profile in ISPED, so the 618 data would not reflect the change.
•
Parent groups and surveys report that not all parents understand inclusion and the benefit for their
children to have access to the general education curriculum (Community Children’s Council).
•
School Improvement Plans (SIPs) indicate that an area of need is assisting general education
teachers with differentiating instruction for all learners. Providing assistance with instructional
strategies may increase the % of students removed from regular classes less than 21% of the day.
The Stakeholders for Indicator 5, in addition to the October 13, 2006 meeting, met again on
November 14, 2006. During these meetings, it was determined that the State Performance Plan Targets
would stand. Even though the benchmark was not reached this school year, it was determined that the
State would strive to attain next year’s benchmark as planned.
Resources
Because of the discrepancy between the data of submission of the SPP, the FY 2005 Target, and the
date the data for FY 2005 was obtained, Hawaii will be moving its targets back one year. The adjusted
targets are as follows:
FFY
2005
(2005-2006)
2006
(2006-2007)
2007
(2007-2008)
A. Removed from regular class < 21% - remain at 24%
B. Removed from class > 60% - remain at 32%
C. Served in separate placements – remain at 3%
A. Removed from regular class < 21% - increase 24% to 25%
A. Removed from regular class < 21% - increase from 25% to 30%
B. Removed from regular class > 60% - decrease from 32 to 29%
Hawaii
State
FFY
2008
(2008-2009)
2009
(2009-2010)
2010
(2010-2011)
A. Removed from regular class < 21% - increase from 45 to 50%
B. Removed from regular class >60% - decrease from 19 to 15%
Hawaii
State
Indicator 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.
[20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)A)]
Measurement:
A. Percent = # of children with IEPs removed from regular class less than 21% of the day
B. Percent = # of children with IEPs removed from regular class greater than 60% of the day
C. Percent = # of children with IEPs served in public or private separate schools, residential
placements, or homebound or hospital placements divided by the total # of students aged 6
through 21 with IEPs times 100.
Indicator #5 addresses the issue of FAPE in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE).
According to Hawaii’s Board of Education Policy on Inclusion, Statute #2280 (approved 12/95;
Amended 2/16/2006):
“The Board of Education believes that all students can and want to learn. Therefore, the
Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE) shall establish a system of inclusive schools.
Inclusive schools strive to ensure that all students are educated in general education
classrooms to the maximum extent possible. Students of all ability levels learn together
in the same classroom with necessary services, having their unique needs met, with
teachers receiving appropriate support. This requires:
1. The participation of all members of the child’s educational team.
2. Appropriate staffing and adequate planning time.
3. The development and dissemination of teaching techniques and strategies that
accommodate individual student’s strengths and needs and which promote relevant learning
experiences, meaningful relationships and mutual respect.
4. Recognition of the needs of all children in the classroom
5. Maximum possible cooperation between the home and the school.”
The appropriate level of inclusion for each child is based on the IEP developed for each individual
child. The child’s educational team decides the level of inclusion. For one child, the LRE may be a
fully inclusive setting. For another child, the LRE may be a separate facility.
Hawaii
State
Least Restrictive Environment
HI # of
Students
Aged
6-21 with
IEPs
% of
Students
Aged
6-21 with
IEPs
National
%
(2003)
Difference
Total
20,357
Removed from regular class less than 21% of
the day
4,785
24%
49.9%
+/-26.36%
Removed from regular class greater than 60%
of the day
6,559
32%
18.5%
/-13.69%
551
3%
3.9%
+/-0.93%
residential placements, homebound/hospital
placements
National data from December 2003 count of 50 States, D.C. & P.R. (Source: IDEA, Part B, Educational
Environment 2003 Table AB2)
Data comparisons:
•
•
•
For students “Removed from the regular class less than 21% of the day,” the National average is
close to 50%. Hawaii is far removed from the National average at 24%. For this measurement, a
higher percentage is ideal.
When comparing the percent of students “Removed from regular class greater than 60% of the
day,” Hawaii has a higher percent (32%) than the National average (18.53%). For this
measurement, a lower percentage is ideal.
Only in the category of “Served in public/private separate schools, residential placements,
homebound/hospital placements,” does the State have a less restrictive environment.
Possible reasons for disparity:
•
•
It is HIDOE’s Comprehensive Student Support (CSS) policy to keep students on a school
campus. This may mean that the student receives services in a fully self-contained environment,
which is an ideal situation when the alternative is for the student to be serviced in a separate
facility. In other words, the percentage of students removed from regular class greater than 60%
being inflated could actually be a good thing when the percentage for students served in separate
facilities is also comparatively low.
Hawaii’s LRE percentages have stayed consistent over the last two (2) years, even though the
number of students have increased in number of students aged 6 though 21 with IEPs “Removed
from regular class less than 21% of the day” (up 3%) and number of students “Removed from
regular class greater than 60% of the day” (up 3%). The number of students “Served in public
separate schools, private separate schools, residential placements, and homebound/hospital
placements,” is up 1% from SY 2003-2004.
Hawaii
State
Comparison of Percentages SY 2003-04 and SY 2004-05
% of Students with IEPs aged 6 through 21:
SY 2003-2004
SY 2004-2005
Difference
Removed from regular class less than 21% of the
day
24%
24%
0%
Removed from regular class greater than 60% of
the day
31%
32%
-1%
residential placements, homebound/hospital
placements
3%
3%
0%
Comparison of Total Numbers SY 2003-2004 and SY 2004-2005
LRE in State Totals
SY 2003-2004
SY 2004-2005
Difference
Increase/
Decrease
in %
Total # of Students aged 6 through 21
with IEPs
20,982
20,357
625
3%
Removed from regular class less than
21% of the day
4,943
4,785
158
3%
Removed from regular class greater
than 60% of the day
6,606
6,559
47
1%
567
551
16
3%
Served in public/private separate
schools, residential placements,
homebound/hospital placements
Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /Resources
for SY 2006-2007
Because of the discrepancy between the data of submission of the SPP, the FY 2005 Target, and the
FFY
2005
(2005-2006)
2006
(2006-07)
A. Removed from regular class < 21% - remain at 24%
A. Removed from regular class < 21% - increase 24% to 25%
Hawaii
State
FFY
2007
(2007-08)
2008
(2008-09)
2009
(2009-10)
2010
(2010-2011)
A. Removed from regular class < 21% - increase from 45 to 50%
B. Removed from regular class >60% - decrease from 19 to 15%
The targets were initially set at the stakeholders meeting held on October 14, 2005. The group of
students served in public/private separate schools, residential placements, homebound/hospital
placements, was left as is. The stakeholder group determined that the percent of students served in
these restrictive placements was satisfactory, and that a continuum of services needed to continue to be
available.
Additional activities were developed in order to meet or exceed the measurable and rigorous targets in
Hawaii’s SPP, and will be ongoing through the duration of the SPP.
Activities
Timeline
Resources
Review and analyze data to target schools for
technical assist through the State’s monitoring
process (See Indicator 15).
June 30, 2006
State Educational Officers,
State Resource Teachers,
DOE website
Meet with partner programs and agencies to
increase awareness of least restrictive
environments (LRE) and Inclusion.
June 30, 2007
and ongoing
through June
2010
State Educational Officers,
School Administrators, State
Resource Teachers, school
administrators at identified
schools, regular & special
education teachers at each
identified school, parents if
need is identified.
Provide professional development opportunities with
a focus on inclusion, to increase school level
including stakeholder knowledge.
Implement new electronic Comprehensive Student
Support System (eCSSS) training for Individualized
Education Programs to ensure LRE data is
accurately documented.
Hawaii
State
Monitoring Priority: Pre-school LRE
Indicator 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).
[20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A)]
Measurement:
Percent = [(# of preschool children with IEPs who received special education services in settings
with typically developing peers) divided by the (total# of preschool children with IEPs)] times
100.
FFY
2005
(2005-2006)
38% of preschool children with IEPs will receive their special education services in the
early childhood (EC) or part-time early childhood/part-time early childhood special
education (EC/ECSE) settings.
The December 1, 2005 Child Count reported the number of preschool children as 2,423. Of that number,
869, or 35.86% received their special education and related services in a setting with typically developing
peers. This is an increase of 0.21% over FFY 2004 data. The 2005 data shows an increase from the
previous year of 98 children overall and an increase of 40 children who received services in settings with
typically developing peers.
LRE Profile for FFY2004 – FFY2005
FFY
2004
(2004-2005)
2005
(2005-2006)
Total Number
of Children
Number of Children in Settings
with Typical Peers
Percent of Children in
Settings with Typical
Peers
2325
829
35.65%
2434
869
35.86%
OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08/31/2009)
Hawaii
State
The data from 2005 is consistent with previous years’ data as illustrated by the following table and chart:
Percent of Children in EC and EC/ECSE Settings
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
34.08%
14.35%
31.11%
37.48%
35.66%
35.86%
Percent in EC & EC/ECSE settings
100
90
80
70
60
50
% in EC &
EC/ECSE
settings
40
30
20
10
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
occurred for (2005-2006):
Activities
Timeline
Status
Participation in the National
Individualizing Preschool
Inclusion Project (NIPIP)
November 2005 and on-going
Hawaii was able to implement the first
activity listed in our SPP: “Participation in
the National Individualizing Preschool
Inclusion Project (NIPIP).” Robin
McWilliam, Ph.D. and Peggy Freund,
Ph.D. from Vanderbilt University came in
November 2005 to provide training to
teachers, related services providers and
university partners, and to facilitate the
creation of a pilot project site. The
information and strategies they presented
were enthusiastically received by all
participants.
In June 2006, Hawaii sent two (2) districtlevel 619 Coordinators to the National
Preschool Inclusion Conference in North
Carolina to investigate how other states
are reaching their early childhood LRE
targets. The participants came away with
Hawaii
State
Activities
Timeline
Status
information and ideas for improvement
and the realization that their adoption and
implementation would require a system
wide change, which falls in line with the
objectives of Hawaii’s Early Learning
Educational Task Force (Task Force).
[See below.]
Develop/increase EC
partnerships in targeted
areas of the State.
School Year 2007-2008
In 2006, the Twenty-Third Legislature of
the State of Hawaii passed Act 259,
establishing the Task Force, attached for
administrative purposes to the
Department of Education. The Task Force
is charged with developing a five-year
plan with annual increments for a
coherent, comprehensive, and
sustainable early learning system to
ensure early learning opportunities for all
of Hawaii’s young children. The Early
Learning Educational Task Force goal is
to develop a five-year plan for a
comprehensive early learning system,
develop a pathway to maximize public
and private resources and develop a
framework for early childhood
professional competency and
compensation. One of the Task Force’s
first steps was to establish the
Interdepartmental Resources Workgroup
and the Program and Workforce
Development Workgroup. Both volunteer
groups provide input into funding and
implement of the comprehensive early
learning services for all children,
beginning with 4-year olds, ensuring
cross-sector interdepartmental
collaborations and public-private
partnerships, creating a continuum for
professional recruitment and development
and engaging families, policymakers,
businesses, and the public in promoting
early learning in the state of Hawaii. The
provision of services to children with
disabilities in EC settings is included in
the scope of what the task force is
exploring. State and district-level 619
Coordinators are participating in the Task
Force.
Increase utilization of
Itinerant ECSE positions to
The option of extending Part C services
for 3-5 year old children with disabilities
Hawaii
State
Activities
Timeline
provide special education
and related services in
settings with typically
developing peers.
Explore the feasibility of
providing available
classroom facilities to
private preschools in
exchange for slots for
children with IEPs.
Status
became a possibility with the
reauthorization of IDEA. A committee
under the Hawaii Early Intervention
Coordinating Council (HEICC) under
Part C (with Part B participation) is
exploring the possibilities of expanding
service options for this group in early
childhood settings. There is a concerted
effort by Hawaii’s Part C agency, the
Department of Health, and the
Department of Education, Section 619 to
enable state legislation that will benefit
families of children with disabilities to
have more options available to meet the
individualized needs of their children.
May 2006 -2008
Explore the
feasibility/legality of
‘reverse mainstreaming’
within the HIDOE system.
March 2006 – December 2006
Identify State and Federal
agency requirements that
may be barriers to the
provision of special
education and related
services in EC settings by
convening a workgroup of
relevant stakeholders.
(Possible request for
technical assistance from
National Early Childhood
Technical Assistance
Center or Office of Special
Education Programs.)
December 2006
Explanation of Progress/Slippage
Hawaii’s target for FY 2005 was that 38% of preschool children with IEPs would receive their special
education services in the EC or EC/ECSE settings. While the data improved by 0.21% to 35.86%, the
state did not reach the target set. Unfortunately, when the SPP was developed, it was not apparent that
while the SPP required the state to set a target for FY 2005, the data for the FY 2005 target was actually
obtained on 12/1/05, the day before the SPP was submitted. The activities described in the SPP were
Hawaii
State
designed to begin in November 2005 and would have no effect on the 12/1/05 data. [See attached
timeline.]
As the data shows, Hawaii has made little progress in recent years towards providing special education
services in early childhood settings. Since 1980, Hawaii has provided full-day early childhood special
education (ECSE) services. This has fueled a public perception that all preschool services should be part
of a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) instead of just the portion that addresses the child’s
special education and related services needs. At this time Hawaii does not provide preschool services to
non-disabled children of any age, so the only available early childhood programs are Head Start, private
community preschools or group day care. Head Start now has a policy that their programs must begin
the year with a full enrollment – further limiting the ability of our schools to include children with disabilities
who become eligible mid-year.
The districts are still pursuing the utilization of itinerant ECSE positions to provide special education
services and consultation in EC settings. This is particularly difficult in rural environments where there are
very few EC programs of any kind and programs are not in close proximity to each other. The
establishment of these positions will have to occur simultaneously with the placement of children in EC
settings as no district can afford to support an itinerant teacher with too few children on his/her caseload.
Resources for 2006-2007:
Because of the discrepancy between the date of submission of the SPP, the FY 2005 Target, and the
FY 2005:
EC or EC/ECSE settings.
FY 2006:
FY 2007:
FY 2008:
FY 2009:
FY 2010:
Please note that it may be appropriate to revise the proposed targets and activities once again in the
2008 APR based on data obtained 12/1/06 using the new LRE definitions for 3-5 year olds.
6
Hawaii
State
Monitoring Priority: Preschool LRE
Indicator 6:
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)]
Measurement:
Percent = # of preschool children with IEPs who received all special education services in
settings with typically developing peers divided by the total # of preschool children with IEPs
times 100. (Refer to column A in Baseline Data below.)
Since 1980, the Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE) has had full-day preschool services
available to preschool children with disabilities. Services for each child are based on the
Individualized Education Program (IEP) developed by the required agency personnel and the
parent(s). Many students are integrated with non-disabled same-age peers, in accordance with their
IEPs. This State does not provide universal preschool, so the HIDOE has established partnerships
with Head Start programs and community preschools to increase the percentage of preschool
children with IEPs who either receive their special education services in a setting with typically
developing peers or participate in joint activities with typically developing peers.
Currently, HIDOE is exploring the establishment of additional partnerships with community preschools
as well as the creation of itinerant Early Childhood Special Education (ECSE) teachers to provide
special education and related services for children in settings with non-disabled peers.
(A)
(B)
EARLY CHILDHOOD EARLY CHILDHOOD
(EC) SETTING
SPECIAL EDUCATION
(ECSE) SETTING
STATE TOTALS
#
229
%
#
9.85% 1474
(C)
HOME
(D)
(E)
(F)
PART-TIME EC/ RESIDENTIAL SEPARATE
PART-TIME ECSE
SETTING
SCHOOL
SETTING
(G)
ITINERANT
SERVICE
OUTSIDE
THE HOME
(H)
REVERSE
MAINSTREAM
Total
SETTING
SPED
(OPTIONAL) Students
Ages 3-5
#
%
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
# % # %
63.40% 11 0.47% 600 25.81% 2 0.09% 9 0.39% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2325
NATIONAL AVG
33.93%
32.40%
2.93%
16.37%
0.09%
2.74% 10.40%
1.14%
DIFFERENCE
-24.08%
31.00%
-2.46%
9.44%
0.00%
-2.35% -10.40%
-1.14%
National 618 Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) data from Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2003-2004 shows
that approximately 50% of children are placed in an EC setting (34%) or in a Part-time EC/Part-time
ECSE setting (16%).
Hawaii 618 LRE data from the December 1, 2004 Child Count shows that approximately 36% of children
are placed in an EC setting (10%) or in a Part-time EC/Part-time ECSE setting (26%).
Hawaii
State
Possible reasons for disparity include:
•
•
•
•
•
Historical availability of full-day preschool special education services and parent expectations that
all preschool services should be part of a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) instead of
just the portion that addresses the child’s special education and related services needs.
Lack of ‘universal’, state-run preschools.
Difficulty in setting up partnership programs with Head Start because of funding issues, child
eligibility issues, space/’slot’ availability, and facilities/licensing requirements.
Difficulty in setting up partnership programs with community preschools because of funding
issues and availability of slots.
Hawaii currently has no mechanism to provide reverse mainstreaming and limited ability to
provide itinerant services.
FFY
2005
(2005-2006)
2006
(2006-2007)
2007
(2007-2008)
2008
(2008-2009)
2009
(2009-2010)
2010
(2010-2011)
Activities
Participation in the National
Individualizing Preschool Inclusion
Project (NIPIP).
Timeline
Resources
November 2005 and on-going
NIPIP staff, school and Head
Start staff, district and state staff.
Develop/increase EC partnerships in
targeted areas of the state.
State, District, and School-level
personnel
Increase utilization of Itinerant ECSE
positions to provide special education
and related services in settings with
typically developing peers.
State and District staff
Hawaii
State
Activities
Timeline
Explore the feasibility of providing
available classroom facilities to
private preschools in exchange for
slots for children with IEPs.
May 2006-2008
Explore the feasibility/legality of
‘reverse mainstreaming’ within the
HIDOE system.
March 2006 – Dec. 2006
Identify state and federal agency
requirements that may be barriers to
the provision of special education and
related services in EC settings by
convening a workgroup of relevant
stakeholders. (Possible request for
technical assistance from NECTAC or
OSEP.)
December 2006
Resources
State and District 619 preschool
staff
State 619 preschool staff
HIDOE SES/619 preschool staff
Relevant community agency
representatives
Dec. 1, 2004
Data derived
from 618
Child Count
Baseline LRE
Data for
12/2/05 SPP
Data derived from
618 Child Count
FFY 2005 Data to
be submitted with
Feb. '07 APR
Feb. 2007
Dec. 2, 2005
Dec. 1, 2005
Submittal of initial
Hawaii SPP
Includes FFY 2005
target percentage of
increase from baseline
Activities &
strategies are
carried out through
SY 2005-2006.
Includes activities &
improvement strategies
to address baseline data.
Initial activities begin in
Nov-Dec. 2005
Indicator 1-4A,5-6 Timeline (2).mmap - 12/27/2006 -
Submittal of APR
comparing actual
data to FFY 2005
target
Actual data is from the
12/1/05 618 data.
12/1/05 data submitted
precedes the activities
described in the SPP.
12/1/05 data submitted
precedes the submission
of the initial SPP.
Timing of SPP submittal and
requirement for 2005 target
data allows for no time to
implement strategies or
improve data.
Type of Post-High School Education
80.00%
Interviewed but Did Not
Answer %
70.00%
C-based program %
60.00%
Community college %
50.00%
Percentage
Four-year college/university
%
40.00%
Vocational/
technical %
30.00%
Returned to school to earn a
diploma %
Other (such as Job Corps) %
20.00%
Not enrolled in any
educational program at this
time %
10.00%
0.00%
Interviewed but Did Not Answer %
2002
2003
2004
19.52%
3.23%
1.32%
C-based program %
0.43%
0.00%
0.00%
Community college %
14.75%
20.53%
16.82%
Four-year college/university %
0.87%
1.33%
0.95%
Vocational/
technical %
3.04%
3.80%
4.35%
Returned to school to earn a diploma
%
0.65%
0.38%
0.00%
Other (such as Job Corps) %
8.46%
3.04%
2.84%
Not enrolled in any educational
program at this time %
52.28%
67.68%
73.72%
Year
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON STATE ASSESSMENTS
DATE:
December 29, 2006
STATUS: ORIGINAL SUBMISSION
Data are due February 1, 2007.
Please read the following basic guidelines before completing the Data Transmission
System (DTS) forms:
1. To change the size and appearance of the text on the spreadsheet, select VIEW from
the toolbar, select ZOOM, and then select the percentage increase or decrease.
2. Enter the appropriate data into the YELLOW shaded areas on each page of the form.
Please be sure to read section heading descriptions so data are entered in the correct
section. Also, be sure to enter any State and date information. The two-digit State postal
code should appear on every page of the form. A list is available on PAGE1. Use the
scroll bar or the up or down arrow keys to scroll through the list. Click on the appropriate
State postal code to select it.
3. If you choose to cut and paste data from another area, use the PASTE SPECIAL option
and select VALUES. This will protect the current formats.
4. Any comments regarding the submitted data should be entered on the last page of the
workbook, titled COMMENTS.
5. Save the completed forms. Please be sure that your State postal code appears in the
file name. (Example: Maryland - AS05MD.XLS)
6. Red cells indicate a condition that must hold. Orange cells indicate a condition that
should hold. Please make sure there are NO RED CELLS before saving and
submitting data.
7. Print the entire workbook by selecting, FILE, PRINT and then select ENTIRE
WORKBOOK located in the 'PRINT WHAT' section. Send printed copies of the completed
DTS forms to the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) at the following address:
Alexa Posney, Director
Office of Special Education Programs
U.S. Department of Education
Part B Data Reports
Program Support Services Group
Mail Stop 2600
550 12th Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20202-2600
Attn: Cheryl Broady
8. If you received your file by e-mail, please return electronic copies of completed DTS
forms to Danielle Crain at Westat
[email protected]
Westat
1650 Research Blvd
RA 1205
Rockville, MD 20850-3159
9. If you have any questions or comments, please contact Danielle Crain at (301) 610-8805
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON STATE ASSESSMENTS
DATE:
December 29, 2006
STATUS: ORIGINAL SUBMISSION
Data are due February 1, 2007.
Please read the following basic guidelines before completing the Data Transmission
System (DTS) forms:
1. To change the size and appearance of the text on the spreadsheet, select VIEW from
the toolbar, select ZOOM, and then select the percentage increase or decrease.
2. Enter the appropriate data into the YELLOW shaded areas on each page of the form.
Please be sure to read section heading descriptions so data are entered in the correct
section. Also, be sure to enter any State and date information. The two-digit State postal
code should appear on every page of the form. A list is available on PAGE1. Use the
scroll bar or the up or down arrow keys to scroll through the list. Click on the appropriate
State postal code to select it.
3. If you choose to cut and paste data from another area, use the PASTE SPECIAL option
and select VALUES. This will protect the current formats.
4. Any comments regarding the submitted data should be entered on the last page of the
workbook, titled COMMENTS.
5. Save the completed forms. Please be sure that your State postal code appears in the
file name. (Example: Maryland - AS05MD.XLS)
6. Red cells indicate a condition that must hold. Orange cells indicate a condition that
should hold. Please make sure there are NO RED CELLS before saving and
submitting data.
7. Print the entire workbook by selecting, FILE, PRINT and then select ENTIRE
WORKBOOK located in the 'PRINT WHAT' section. Send printed copies of the completed
DTS forms to the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) at the following address:
Alexa Posney, Director
Office of Special Education Programs
U.S. Department of Education
Part B Data Reports
Program Support Services Group
Mail Stop 2600
550 12th Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20202-2600
Attn: Cheryl Broady
8. If you received your file by e-mail, please return electronic copies of completed DTS
forms to Danielle Crain at Westat
[email protected]
Westat
1650 Research Blvd
RA 1205
Rockville, MD 20850-3159
9. If you have any questions or comments, please contact Danielle Crain at (301) 610-8805
Hawaii
State
Monitoring Priority: Pre-school Outcomes
Indicator 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.
[20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A)]
Measurement:
A.
Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships):
a. Percent of preschool children who did not improve functioning = [(# of preschool children
b.
c.
d.
e.
who did not improve functioning) divided by the (# of preschool children with IEPs
assessed)] times 100.
Percent of preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to
functioning comparable to same-aged peers = [(# of preschool children who improved
functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged
peers) divided by the (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100.
Percent of preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged
peers but did not reach it = [(# of preschool children who improved functioning to a level
nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it) divided by the (# of preschool children with
IEPs assessed)] times 100.
Percent of preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to
same-aged peers = [(# of preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level
comparable to same-aged peers) divided by the (# of preschool children with IEPs
Percent of preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to sameaged peers = [(# of preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to
same-aged peers) divided by the (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100.
If a + b + c + d + e does not sum to 100%, explain the difference.
B.
Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication and
early literacy):
b. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to
c. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged
d. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to
Hawaii
State
e. Percent of preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to sameaged peers = [(# of preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to
C.
Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs:
b. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to
c. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged
d. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to
e. Percent of preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to sameaged peers = [(# of preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to
Hawai’i‘s Preschool Outcomes Measurement System (POMS) pilot project was carried out in two
districts during February through May of 2006. The foundation for the POMS is the Early Childhood
Outcomes Center (ECO) rubric and the Division of Early Childhood (DEC), Council for Exceptional
Children recommended practices for assessment. All preschool special education teachers in the
pilot districts were provided training on the use and scoring of the Brigance Inventory of Early
Development as well as training on the POMS. After receiving training, teachers were asked to rate
two children who entered their programs during second semester. Ratings were based on three
sources of information: the Brigance Inventory of Early Development, service provider observations
and data, and parent report of their child’s skills and behaviors at home and in the community. A total
of 98 children who received special education preschool services in rural and urban settings across
the districts were included. Early Childhood Special Education (ECSE) teachers were responsible for
administering the Brigance, obtaining parent input and gathering input from all service providers in
order to determine the rating. A complete description of the requirements, process, forms and
resources is available to the ECSE teachers on the state’s website “Recommended Practices for
Early Childhood Special Education.” Teachers submit copies of the POMS Summary Form, the
Family Input form and the Brigance Scoring Sheet to the district 619 coordinators. The data is
reviewed for accuracy and quality by the district 619 Coordinator, and then aggregated in an Excel file
that is forwarded to the state office.
Hawai’i has elected to conduct a POMS rating for each child annually. The POMS process is to be
completed within two months prior to each child’s annual Individualized Educational Program (IEP)
Hawaii
State
conference to facilitate the generation and inclusion of current assessment data and family input into
the statement of the present levels of academic achievement and functional performance in the IEP.
Entry Data: February – May 2006
Social/Emotional
Skills
Knowledge & Skills
Appropriate
Behavior to Meet
Needs
% functioning at a level
comparable to same
aged peers.
17%
12%
27%
% functioning below
same aged peers
83%
88%
73%
Functioning Level
Children with ratings of 6 or 7 were considered to be functioning at a level comparable to their same-age
peers. Children with ratings of 5 or below were considered to be functioning at a level below their
same-age peers.
The entry data indicates that more than one quarter of our children demonstrate age-expected behavior
to meet their needs. The other two outcome areas show a significantly lower percentage of children with
age-expected behaviors and skills. This initial measurement cannot be used to draw any conclusions at
this time because the true baseline is a measurement of improvement and can only be established after
subsequent POMS measurements have been obtained for each of these children. The subsequent
measurements will be obtained during School Year (SY) 2006–2007 and will be used to calculate the
measurement of improvement according to the SPP measurement requirements for the 2008 Annual
Performance Report (APR).
Baseline data are not available at this time.
FFY
2005
N/A
(2005-2006)
2006
N/A
(2006-2007)
2007
(2007-2008)
2008
(2008-2009)
2009
(2009-2010)
2010
(2010-2011)
Targets will be set once baseline data are available.
Hawaii
State
Activities
Measurement system formulation:
• 619 Coordinators: selection of
standardized assessment and design of
professional development roll-out
• Participation in Part C design team for
“What Counts”: selection/coordination of
child outcomes & measurement process
• Adaptation of ECO Center outcomes
measurement system
Selection and purchase of the Brigance Inventory
of Early Development (Early Brigance) statewide.
Training of all ECSE teachers and other interested
stakeholders [diagnostic team personnel, Part C,
and Parent Groups in the training.] on the
Preschool Outcomes Measurement system and
the Early Brigance
Phase-in and initial data collection
• Pilot project to assess and collect entry
data in at least two districts.
Timeline
Resources
Completed – May 2005
State/District 619
Coordinators
Completed – Sept. 2006
State 619 staff
Completed – May 2006
State/District 619
staff & stakeholders
Completed - August 2005
SY 2005-2006 Completed
teacher
training
SY 2006-2007 Completed
teacher
training
SY 2007-2008
IDEA 619 Funds
Contracted Trainer
and HDOE staff
Completed
February – June 2006
ECSE teachers
•
Entry data collection
Completed – June 2005
School, district,
state personnel
•
Assessment and data collection on
entering students to be phased in over a
3-year period.
August 2006 - May 2009
(Initial implementation
began in August 2006)
ECSE teachers
•
Assessment and data collection on any
students who exit (to Kindergarten) and
who have participated in the program for
at least six months.
May 2007
School, district,
state personnel
Hawaii
State
Monitoring Priority: Parent Involvement
Indicator 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.
[20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A)]
Measurement:
Percent = [(# of respondent parents who report schools facilitated parent involvement as a
means of improving services and results for children with disabilities) divided by the (total # of
respondent parents of children with disabilities)] times 100.
All parents of children with disabilities (including parents of pre-school students) in the state were
mailed the National Center for Special Education Accountability Monitoring Parent Survey- Special
Education Survey [survey is attached]. Surveys had a self-addressed, postage paid envelope to
return the survey. The surveys were sent to a private company for analysis and a report was sent
back to the Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE).
A notice was placed in the Special Parent Information Network (SPIN) newsletter before the survey
was sent home to families as pre-mailing publicity.
The State Community Children’s Councils (CCC) also encouraged parents to complete the surveys at
their monthly meetings between March 2006 and June 2006.
HIDOE held a stakeholders meeting on October 13, 2006 and November 15, 2006 to analyze the
data and set measurable rigorous targets, develop improvement activities and discuss refinements to
the survey and/or distribution of the survey. Members of the stakeholders committee include
representatives from a foster parenting organization, a private provider, the Department of Health
Child and Adolescent Mental Health Division, parent advocacy organizations, the Hawaii Special
Education Advisory Committee, the HIDOE Family Support Educational Specialist, the Community
Children’s Council, and HIDOE State Special Education personnel. At the October 13 meeting,
HIDOE did not have complete data back from the agency conducting the Rasch analysis; therefore,
the stakeholders could not fully set the targets and fully develop improvement activities. At the
November 15, 2006 stakeholders meeting, the level of understanding of the complete data hampered
the decision-making process for the improvement activities. HIDOE has since had lengthy
conversations with the agency conducting the Rasch analysis and technical assistance from the
Western Regional Resource Center in order to fully understand the data analysis.
Part B State Performance Plan Indicator: 2005-2010
Hawaii
State
Percent at or above Indicator 8 standard
Number of Valid Responses
Measurement Reliability
Mean Measure
Measurement SD
34% (SE of the mean = 0.9%)
2,848
0.91
554
143
In order to meet the Office of Special Education Program’s new reporting requirements, baseline data
was collected during the 2005-06 school year for Indicator 8: Parent Involvement. The HIDOE utilized the
survey developed and validated by the National Center for Special Education Accountability
Monitoring (NCSEAM) to determine the percent of parents with a child receiving special education
services who reported that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and
results for children with disabilities. The baseline data collection process gave every parent of a child
identified as IDEA eligible in Hawaii the opportunity to complete the survey and be included in the State’s
baseline data. Given the fact that the first year’s data collection efforts are meant to establish a baseline,
HIDOE decided to use all the returned surveys as each response is so valuable in painting the overall
picture.
The HIDOE’s performance on Part B Indicator #8 was calculated based on data from all parents who
responded to the HIDOE survey. In its SPP, HIDOE proposed a methodology for sample adjustment in
the case of discrepancies in response rates of groups defined by the child’s ethnicity or disability. This
methodology was designed to yield a sample that matched the distribution of respondents in the sample
to the relevant distributions in the state.
Further consideration has led us to revise our data analysis plan in the direction of including all parents
who responded to the survey. The survey was sent to all 20,393 parents whose children were receiving
special education services in Hawaii. A total of 2,848 parents returned the survey, for a response rate of
approximately 14%. To match the distribution of the sample to the 2004 Child Count figures, the
proposed methodology required the random deletion of cases from overrepresented groups. However,
given the particular distribution of cases in the returned sample, following this method would require the
removal of a large number of records form the data set. Our judgment is that this would result in an
inordinate amount of data that would not be utilized, and would be antithetical to our position that the
opinion of each and every respondent is valuable in terms of capturing the perceptions of parents
regarding schools’ efforts to facilitate parent involvement. HIDOE found that the returned surveys
represented a cross section of islands.
Therefore, in an effort to increase our confidence in the data and include the maximum possible amount
of parent input in our baseline data results for this first year, the data analyses utilized the full respondent
data set. For the next round of data collection and analysis, HI will consult with statistician consultants to
find a methodology that will allow every respondent’s opinion to be counted through weight assignments
rather than record removal to obtain a representative sample.
The standard NCSEAM survey was modified slightly, including adding the HIDOE logo to the header and
adding complex areas to the survey (item #102); these changes were implemented in order to customize
the survey with visual cues and information that are familiar to parents. Cover letters as well as postagepaid business reply envelopes were included with the surveys. To protect student confidentiality, no child
information was tied to the identifiers. Demographic information used in the analyses was taken strictly
from responses provided by parents to the last seven surveys items (items 96-102).
Hawaii
State
In order to provide every parent of a child with disabilities in the state of Hawaii the opportunity to
participate in the survey, 20,393 English paper-based surveys were distributed. The overall return rate
was 14%, with 2,848 surveys submitted. There were 574 undeliverable surveys that were returned due to
incorrect addresses, for example, families had moved with no forwarding address. Surveys were
distributed in June of 2006 and a cut-off of date of August 25, 2006 was made to allow parents sufficient
time to respond.
Per the HIDOE’s contractor who analyzed the survey results, normally mailed, paper-based surveys with
no follow-up activities will yield a 10-15% return rate; the overall return rate for Hawaii falls into the upper
end of this range. Interpretation of return rates and survey item results require careful attention to detail.
For example, a state that disseminates only 1,000 surveys to parents may have a higher return rate
(since lower sampling quantities may allow for hand-distribution of surveys) than states that mail surveys
to parents’ homes. This does not mean that a state with a higher return rate will have significant results.
The number of required returned surveys depends on the quantities necessary to get results that reflect
the target population as closely as possible. For a population of 20,393, the number of returned surveys
required to have a high degree of confidence in the results is 377 (confidence interval of 5 and 95%
confidence level) or a return rate of 1.8%. In comparison, a population size of 1,000 requires 278
returned surveys or a 27.8% return rate (confidence interval of 5 and 95% confidence interval). These
required figures vary depending on plans for disaggregating data, but provide a general indication of the
most basic requirements.
The data from the survey has been analyzed using a Rasch analysis to produce a measure for the
HIDOE. The average of these 2,848 individual family Part B Partnership Efforts measures is 554, with a
standard deviation of 143.
The percents reported for indicator 8 in the SPP/APR are calculated as the percent of families whose
measures are at or above a standard cutoff value. In these analyses, the standards applied were those
recommended by a nationally representative stakeholder group convened by NCSEAM. This group
identified items that most closely represented the content of each of the indicators and recommended the
level of agreement that should be required on these items. For Part B indicator 8, the recommended
standard was operationalized as a measure of 600, since this is the calibration of the item chosen by the
stakeholder group as the minimum amount of partnership effort that can reasonably be said to have met
the terms of SPP/APR indicator 8. Thus, the percent reported is the percent of families with measures on
the Partnership Efforts scale that are at or above these levels.
FFY
2005
(2005-2006)
2006
(2006-2007)
2007
(2007-2008)
2008
(2008-2009)
2009
(2009-2010)
2010
(2010-2011)
Baseline data gathered. HIDOE results overall are 34%.
Increase from baseline .4% to 34.4%.
Increase .4% from 2006 data to 34.8%.
Increase .4% from 2009 data to 36%.
Hawaii
State
Activities
Timeline
Resources
February 2007 to May 2007
Stakeholder
committee members
2. Translate survey into appropriate
languages.
January 2007- June 2007
State
3. Investigate the impact of distributing
survey at IEP meetings to increase
return rate.
January 2007- June 2007
State/Schools
July 2007 ongoing to June 2010
State
5. In collaboration with the team
responsible for Indicators 1 and 2,
convene meeting with partner programs
and agencies, including the Community
Children’s Councils (CCC), the Learning
Disability Association of Hawaii (LDAH),
Special Parent Information
Network (SPIN), Hawaii Families As
Allies (HFAA), the Developmental
Disability Council (DD), and the program
manager for the Comprehensive School
Alienation Program to develop a
mechanism to increase the awareness of
and involvement of parents and families
on issues involving the post-secondary
transition plan, graduation, retention, and
dropout.
2006-2007 and ongoing
State and partner
programs/agencies
6. Inform partner programs and agencies of
the HIDOE’s Parent Community
Networking Centers email/phone number
to facilitate dissemination of parent
workshop/training information
July 2007 ongoing to June 2010
State
1. Further analysis/understanding of
baseline data to determine appropriate
improvement activities. Incorporate into
FFY 2006 SPP.
4. The CCC area with the highest percent
of returned surveys will receive a
monetary prize.
Hawaii
State
Monitoring Priority: Disproportionality (New Indicator)
Indicator 9: Percent of students with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic
groups in specific special education and related services categories that is the
result of inappropriate identification.
[20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(C)]
Measurement:
To begin to address the question of whether risk is disproportionate, the State will compare
the risk for a specific racial/ethnic group receiving special education and related services to a
comparison group based on racial/ethnic proportionate composition.
As racial and ethnic groups composition contribute to the risk for error of when comparing
groups in proportion to size relative to the entire comparison group, an alternate risk formula
will be used to address this limitation.
An alternate risk ratio will be used to determine the disproportionate representation of
racial/ethnic groups that are receiving special education and related services.
The equation for the alternate risk ratio is:
alternate risk ratio =
(state-level risk) / (state-level risk for comparison group)
The state-level risk for a particular racial/ethnic group receiving special education and related
services = [(The number of students for a specific racial/ethnic group receiving special
education and related services in a district) / (State total number of student in a specific
racial/ethnic group with disabilities)] * 100 %
The state-level risk for comparison group for disability =
[The state total number of all students receiving special education and related services
excluding the specific racial/ethnic group being considered) / (the state total number of all
students excluding the specific racial/ethnic group being considered)]* 100 %
The state’s definition of “disproportionate representation” is stated as a risk ratio of 1.0.
Racial/ethnic disproportionality in special education has been an important topic of concern for many
years. According to Part B of Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act or 2004 (IDEA)
states are required to collect and examine data to determine if significant disproportionality based on
race/ethnicity groups in special education and related services is occurring with respect to students
with disabilities.
Data from the Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE) special education child count and data from
the state student information system are to be compared to determine significant disproportional
representation of students receiving special education and related services based on race/ethnicity in
relation to the overall student population.
Hawaii
State
In order to determine if the disproportional data is a result of inappropriate identification, the State will
disaggregate the data to determine if significant disproportionality exists. If significant
disproportionality exists, the State will review the data and, if appropriate, revise policies, procedures
and practices used in the identification or placement to ensure that the policies, procedures and
practices comply with the requirements in Part B of the IDEIA. The State will monitor the data and
determine if systemic changes (i.e., review policies, procedures and practices around identification
and eligibility) or targeted technical assistance and training are warranted.
As a new indicator, no baseline data are currently available for disproportional representation based on
inappropriate identification for FFY 2004.
Racial/ethnic disproportionality risk ratios data for all children with disabilities, ages 6-21, school
year (SY) 2005-2006:
State Risk Ratio
American Indian
/ Alaskan native
Asian /
Pacific
Islander
Black
(Non-Hispanic)
Hispanic
White
(Non-Hispanic)
1.16
0.88
1.09
1.24
1.11
For SY 2005-2006 data, risk ratios above the set criteria of 1.0 were evident in all ethnic groups, with the
exception of Asian/Pacific Islander. One explanation for the risk ratios above 1.0 within the ethnic
categories may be due to the fact that, as a proportion of the statewide ethnic totals, the relatively small
numbers in some ethnic/racial groups may be affecting the entire group. Nonetheless, the risk ratio for
FFY 2005 will be the baseline for FFY 2006 and used as a basis for further comparison and analysis.
The SY 2005-2006 data was reviewed and statistically analyzed by the State, in consultation with a
statistician to determine if the risk ratio above the criteria of 1.0 was adequate. The results were statistically
inconclusive. However, the data reveals a significant proportion of ethnic/racial groups receiving special
education and related services above the 1.0 set criterion. This may indicate that the weighted risk ratio
criterion of 1.0 used to determine disproportionality may possibly be set too low to yield meaningful results.
Discussions with statewide stakeholders regarding the SY 2005-2006 data and the appropriateness of
raising the weighted risk ratio criterion are ongoing. Without further data and subsequent analysis, it would
be difficult to determine if the aforementioned groups are over or under represented. Further analysis is
needed to determine the extent, which racial and ethnic groups are over or under represented.
Additionally, the statistician reviewed the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP)/Westat
disproportionality formula/methodology. Based upon the statistician’s recommendation and stakeholder
input, HIDOE is considering moving away from the OSEP/Westat disproportionality formula/methodology
and developing its own disproportionality formula/methodology. Moreover, the State is in the process of
reviewing its policies, procedures and practices in the referral, evaluation and identification process to
ensure they are educationally appropriate and race neutral. As part of the review of policies and
procedures, HIDOE is developing a workgroup consisting of relevant stakeholders to consider amendment
of existing policies and procedures, with regard to inappropriate identification and determination of eligibility
for special education and related services, as appropriate. Further, HIDOE is developing an evaluation
handbook to ensure appropriateness of eligibility and evaluation of students receiving special education and
Hawaii
State
related services. In addition, training on eligibility requirements, evaluation processes and appropriateness
in determining related services will be conducted.
FFY
2005
(2005-2006)
2006
(2006-2007)
2007
(2007-2008)
2008
(2008-2009)
2009
(2009-2010)
2010
(2010-2011)
Establish baseline data
By FFY 2006, 0% of the State will have disproportionate representation of racial and
ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate
identification.
identification.
identification.
identification
identification.
Activities
Determine a standard of significance
pertaining to disproportionality for Hawaii.
Apply risk ratio formula to disaggregate 618
data.
Review and analyze disaggregated 618
data.
Timeline
Resources
October-December 2005
Student Support Services
Branch
March 2006
Branch, ISPED, IRMB
May-August 2006
Branch, ISPED, IRMB
Hawaii
State
Activities
Timelines
Resources
Hold State Performance Plan stakeholder
meetings to further analyze
disproportionality data.
October 2006–April 2007
Branch, District special
education staff, community
groups
Establish workgroup to review policies and
procedures and develop amendments to
current policies and procedures as
appropriate.
November 2006–March
2007
education staff
Using monitoring data, review policies,
practices and procedures to determine if the
disproportionality could be the result of
inappropriate identification practices.
March 2006-ongoing
education staff
Provide training on evaluation and eligibility
January 2007-2011
education staff
Continue to collect, disaggregate and
compare 618 data.
January 2007-2011
Branch, ISPED, IRMB
Develop evaluation handbook on or related
to eligibility/ evaluation/related services.
January 2007-June 2008
Branch
Provide follow up technical assistance
and/or sanctions, based on identification of
policies, procedures and practices that lead
to inappropriate identification.
January 2007-2011
education staff
Hawaii
State
Monitoring Priority: Disproportionality (New Indicator)
Indicator 10:
Percent of students 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)]
Measurement:
To determine whether there is a disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups
in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification, the State will
compare the risk for a specific racial/ethnic group for a specific disability category to a
comparison group based on racial/ethnic proportionate composition.
As racial and ethnic groups composition contribute to the risk for error of when comparing
groups, in proportion to size relative to the entire comparison group, a weighted risk
formula will be used to address this limitation.
Data is to be analyzed in terms of weighted risk ratios, using the Westat template’s
weighted risk ratio formula, the numerator will be substituted from a district-level enrollment
to a state level enrollment.
A weighted risk ratio will be used to determine the disproportionate representation of
racial/ethnic groups that are in a specific disability category.
[ (1 - pi) Ri ]
The equation for the weighted risk ratio is: weighted risk ratio =
Where:
∑ j ≠ i [ p j Rj ]
Ri = The state-level risk for a particular racial/ethnic group in a specific disability category =
(The number of students for a specific racial/ethnic group in a specific disability
category in the State) /
(Total number of student in a specific racial/ethnic group statewide)
pi = The state-level proportionate composition of students from a particular racial/ethnic
group=
(total number of students in a specific racial/ethnic group) /
(Total number of student statewide)
Rj = The state-level risk for a particular racial/ethnic groups in a specific disability category
other than Ri =
(The number of students for a specific racial/ethnic group in a specific disability
category in the State) /
(Total number of student in a specific racial/ethnic group statewide)
pj = The state-level proportionate composition of students from a particular racial/ethnic
group other than pi =
(total number of students in a specific racial/ethnic group) /
(Total number of student statewide)
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08/31/2009
Deleted: Monitoring Priority Indicator
10
Deleted: )
Hawaii
State
Where:
The state-level risk for a particular racial/ethnic group in a specific disability category =
[(The number of students for a specific racial/ethnic group in a specific disability
category in a State) /
(Total number of student in a specific racial/ethnic group statewide)] * 100
The state-level risk for comparison group for disability =
[(the state total number of all students within a disability category excluding the specific
racial/ethnic group being considered) /
(the state total number of all students excluding the specific racial/ethnic group being
considered)] * 100
The Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE) definition of “disproportionate representation” is
when the ratio of students in a specific racial/ethnic group within a disability category is higher
than the total number of students in a specific racial/ethnic group statewide, with a weighted risk
ratio greater than 1.0.
Racial/ethnic disproportionality in special education has been an important topic of concern for
many years. According to Part B of Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of
2004 (IDEA), states are required to collect and examine data to determine if significant
disproportionality based on race is occurring with respect to the identification of students in
specific disability categories.
A risk ratio criterion of 1.0 is used to determine disproportional representation. The data is to be
reported in terms of weighted risk ratios for the following disability categories: mental retardation,
specific learning disabilities, emotional disturbance, speech or language impairments, other
health impairments and autism.
Low incidence disabilities, which include: hearing impaired, visually impaired, orthopedic
impaired, deaf-blind, multiple disabilities and traumatic brain injury will be combined as each
represents 2 percent or less of the disability population.
Data from the state special education child count and data from the state student information
system are to be compared to determine significant disproportional representation of students in
specific disability categories based on race/ethnicity in relation to the overall student population.
In order to determine if the disproportional data is a result of inappropriate identification, the State
will disaggregate the data to determine if significant disproportionality exists. If significant
disproportionality exists, the State will review the data and, if appropriate, revise policies,
procedures and practices used in the identification or placement to ensure that the policies,
procedures and practices comply with the requirements in Part B of the IDEA. The State will
monitor the data and determine if systemic changes (i.e., review policies, procedures and
practices around identification and eligibility) or targeted technical assistance and training are
warranted.
Deleted: Federal Fiscal Year (
As a new indicator, no baseline data is currently available for disproportionality representation based on
inappropriate identification.
Deleted: )
10
Deleted: )
Hawaii
State
Risk Ratios for All Children with Disabilities, Ages 6-21 Risk Ratio = 2005-2006
American
Indian /
Alaskan
native
Asian/
Pacific
Islander
Black
(Non-Hispanic)
Hispanic
White
(Non-Hispanic)
Mental Retardation
0.42
1.68
0.49
0.96
0.58
Specific Learning
Disability
1.11
0.97
0.99
1.41
0.95
Emotional Disturbance
1.28
0.77
1.06
1.22
1.32
Speech or Language
Impairment
1.75
0.52
1.70
1.34
1.89
Other Health Impairments
1.63
0.65
1.53
0.91
1.57
Autism
0.00
0.54
1.13
0.87
2.15
For school year (SY) 2005-2006 data, risk ratios above the set criteria of 1.0 were evident in all ethnic
groups. Specifically, within the disability categories: Asian/Pacific Islanders were above the 1.0 set
criteria for mental retardation; American Indian and Hispanic were above the 1.0 set criteria for specific
learning disability; all ethnic categories, except for Asian/Pacific Islander were above the 1.0 set criteria
for emotional disturbance and speech or language impairment; all ethnic categories except for Asian
Pacific Islander and Hispanic, were above the 1.0 set criteria for other health impairments; both Black and
White (non-Hispanic) categories were above the 1.0 set criteria for autism. The risk ratio for Federal
Fiscal Year (FFY) 2005 will be the baseline for FFY 2006 and used as a basis for further comparison and
analysis.
The SY 2005-2006 data was reviewed and statistically analyzed by the state, in consultation with a
statistician to determine if the risk ratio above the criteria of 1.0 was adequate. The results were
statistically inconclusive. However, the data reveals a significant proportion of ethnic/racial groups within
specific disability categories above the 1.0 set criterion. This may indicate that the weighted risk ratio
criterion of 1.0 used to determine disproportionality may possibly be set too low to yield meaningful
results. Discussions with statewide stakeholders regarding the SY 2005-2006 data and the
appropriateness of raising the weighted risk ratio criterion are ongoing. Without further data and
analysis, it would be difficult to determine if the aforementioned groups are over or under represented.
Further analysis is needed to determine the extent which racial and ethnic groups are over or under
represented.
Additionally, the statistician reviewed the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP)/Westat
disproportionality formula/methodology. Based upon the statistician’s recommendation and stakeholder
input, HIDOE is considering moving away from the OSEP/Westat disproportionality formula/methodology
and developing its own disproportionality formula/methodology. Moreover, the state is in the process of
reviewing its policies, procedures and practices in the referral, evaluation and identification process to
ensure they are educationally appropriate and race neutral. As part of the review of policies and
procedures, HIDOE is developing a workgroup consisting of relevant stakeholders to consider
10
Deleted: )
Hawaii
State
amendment of existing policies and procedures, with regard to inappropriate identification and
determination of eligibility for special education and related services, as appropriate. Further, HIDOE is
developing an evaluation handbook to ensure appropriateness of eligibility and evaluation of students
receiving special education and related services. In addition, training on eligibility requirements,
evaluation processes and appropriateness in determining related services will be conducted.
FFY
2001
(2005-2006)
2006
(2006-2007)
2007
(2007-2008)
2008
(2008-2009)
2009
(2009-2010)
2010
(2010-2011)
Determine Baseline
identification.
identification.
identification.
identification.
identification.
Activities
Timeline
Determine a standard of significance
pertaining to disproportionality for Hawaii.
October–December 2005
Branch
Apply risk ratio formula to disaggregate
618 data.
March 2006
Branch, ISPED, IRMB
Review and analyze disaggregated 618
data
May-August 2006
Branch, ISPED, IRMB
October 2006–April 2007
education staff, community
groups
Hold State Performance Plan stakeholder
meetings to further analyze
disproportionality data.
Resources
10
Deleted: )
Hawaii
State
Activities
Establish workgroup to review policies
and procedures and develop
amendments to current policies and
procedures as appropriate.
Timeline
Resources
November 2006–March 2007
education staff
Using monitoring data, review policies,
practices and procedures to determine if
the disproportionality could be the result
of inappropriate identification practices.
March 2006-ongoing
education staff
Provide training on evaluation and
eligibility determination procedures.
January 2007-2011
education staff
Continue to collect, disaggregate and
compare 618 data.
January 2007-2011
Branch, ISPED, IRMB
Develop evaluation handbook on related
to eligibility/ evaluation/related services.
January 2007-June 2008
Branch
Provide follow up technical assistance
and/or sanctions, based on identification
of policies, procedures and practices that
lead to inappropriate identification.
January 2007-2011
education staff
10
Deleted: )
Hawaii
State
Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / Child Find (New Indicator)
Indicator 11: – 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)]
Measurement:
A. # of children for whom parental consent to evaluate was received.
B. # determined not eligible whose evaluations and eligibility determinations were completed
within 60 days (or State established timeline).
C. # determined eligible whose evaluations and eligibility determinations were completed
within 60 days (or State established timeline).
Account for children included in a but not included in b or c. Indicate the range of days beyond
the timeline when the evaluation was completed and any reasons for the delays.
Percent = (b) + (c) divided by (a) times 100.
State Established Timeline - In Hawaii, the 60-day timeline begins with the receipt of parent consent
and ends with the offer of a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). The 60-day timeline for
all evaluations is based on the state's Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) Title 8, Chapter 56,
"Provision of a Free Appropriate Public Education for a Student with a Disability."
§8-56-32 IEP meetings and timelines. (a) As used in this section, the phrase within a reasonable
period of time means within 60 days, except when exceptional circumstances cause a delay…
(c) "The department shall ensure that within a reasonable period of time following the receipt of
parental consent to the initial assessment under section 8 56-70 (a) (1) or, within a
reasonable period of time following the date of a determination under section 8-56-7 that no
additional assessment data is needed:
(1) The student is assessed, as necessary; and
(2) If determined eligible under section 8-56-15; special education and related services are made
available to the student in accordance with an IEP.”
HAR Chapter 56 establishes the Hawaii Department of Education’s (HIDOE) timeline for initial
evaluations. From the date of receipt of the parent's consent to conduct an initial evaluation, schools
have 60 days to complete the evaluation, determine eligibility, the child's need for special education
and/or related services and to offer a FAPE. With the 2004 Reauthorization of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA) or as it is more commonly referred to as,
IDEA; there is a change in procedure. Prior to the development of an Individualized Education
Program (IEP) or the offer of FAPE, HIDOE requires parental consent to continue the process once
eligibility is determined. Parental consent must be obtained prior to conducting an initial evaluation
and after eligibility is determined, prior to the development of an IEP.
Overview of Issue - Timely evaluations has been a monitoring issue for the HIDOE since 1993 when
the Governor, Superintendent of Education, and the Director of Health were sued in federal court for
failing to provide adequate mental health services to children and adolescents in need of these
services in order to benefit from their educational program. The issue of timely evaluations and the
Monitoring Priority Indicator 11-Page 1
Hawaii
State
provision of services were under scrutiny and continue to be monitored closely until today. The class
action suit resulted in an agreement between the plaintiffs and the State in what is now known as the
Felix Consent Decree. In 1994 the Court approved the terms of the Consent decree and an
Implementation Plan was developed. Included in the implementation plan, the State was required to
monitor the evaluation timelines.
In May 2002, the State was found to be in substantial compliance with the requirements of the Felix
Consent Decree. However, the State was still required to monitor schools, complexes and districts in
a few areas including the timeliness of evaluations or the 60-day timeline.
The State continues to monitor the 60-day Timeline Report with the hand-counted reports submitted
monthly to the State despite the adoption of the State's electronic special education student database
system known as the Integrated Special Education Database (ISPED) system. The monthly
hand-counted 60-day Timeline Reports are also used for the State's compliance monitoring of
schools, complexes and districts. The following tables are examples of the hand counted 60-day
Timeline Report. The data summarizes the percentage of evaluations that were completed within the
60-day timeline and the percentage of evaluations that were overdue.
Hand-counted IDEA Evaluations Conducted from 7/1/2004 – 6/30/2005
EVALUATION
Total number of evaluations
Total %
OVER 60 DAYS
WITHIN 60
DAYS
TOTAL
1,100
11,597
12,663
8.42%
91.58%
100.0%
Hand-counted IDEA Evaluations Conducted from 7/1/2005 - 6/30/2006
EVALUATION
Total number of evaluations
Total %
OVER 60 DAYS
WITHIN 60
DAYS
TOTAL
556
11,157
11,713
4.75%
95.25%
100.0%
Description of System or Process - While the monthly hand-counted 60-day timeline data reports
focused primarily on the timeliness of evaluations to meet the requirements of the Felix Consent
Decree, it was insufficient to meet the requirements for the SPP. Besides timeliness of reporting, the
SPP also requires the State to include the student outcomes. The State is required to report on the
number of children with parental consent to evaluate who were found eligible for special education
services. The hand counted data report does not account for the number of students with parental
consent who were found eligible.
The ISPED data was able to account for the number of children with parental consent to evaluate
who were eligible for special education services. Despite some adjustments that need to be made in
order for the current ISPED 60-day Timeline Report to collect the required information for the SPP
indicator #11 Child Find, for the purpose of the SPP, data from the ISPED database system was
chosen as the source of information.
Hawaii
State
Baseline Data for FY 2004 (2004-2005):
The baseline data for Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2004-2005 was available through the State's existing
ISPED system.
IDEA Evaluations Conducted from 7/1/2004 – 6/30/2005
OVER 60
DAYS
WITHIN 60
DAYS
TOTAL
Number of children who were IDEA eligible
929
8,598
9,527
Number of children who were not IDEA eligible
249
2,650
2,899
Total
1,178
11,248
12,426
Total %
9.41%
90.50%
100.00%
EVALUATION STATUS
Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2005-2006)
The baseline data for FFY 2005–2006 is based on the State's ISPED system. The Data Source is the
Referral/Evaluation Student Report for SY 2005–2006.
IDEA Evaluations Conducted from 7/1/2005 - 6/30/2006
OVER 60
DAYS
WITHIN 60
DAYS
TOTAL
Number of children who were IDEA eligible
210
8,793
3,148
Number of children who were not IDEA eligible
570
2,938
9,363
780
11,731
12,511
6.23%
93.77%
100.00%
EVALUATION STATUS
Total
Total %
To document the transitional state of the student data base system and the 60-day Timeline Report, both
the 2004-2005 and the 2005–2006 baselines from the ISPED database are reported. In the process of
gathering the data for this report, it became obvious that some of the data requirements for the SPP were
not explicitly available in the existing ISPED system. The additional fields needed to be created and
infused into the ISPED system to meet the requirements of the SPP. Therefore, the baseline data for
FY 2005–2006 is also included to indicate the capability of the ISPED database system to capture the
60- Timeline Report and the requirements of the SPP.
Realizing the need for additional fields in the ISPED report, a request was made to the ISPED
administrator for a report on the 60-day timeline that would include such items as the date of parental
consent, and whether the child was found eligible or ineligible and an indicator if the evaluation went past
60 days. With technical support, the 2005–2006 baseline data for the 60-day Timeline report as reported
here includes the additional field requirements.
In general, some of the reasons evaluations were overdue related to students who transferred out of the
school or state; evaluations that were withdrawn or aborted; or prolonged student absences, which made
completion of an evaluation impossible. Rarely were evaluation delays due to staff shortages. Reasons
for the delays are anecdotal data that can be documented in the student's ISPED record. For this report,
Hawaii
State
the reasons for the delay were obtained from the comments section of the monthly Felix Hand Counted
60-day timeline reports.
The State is currently in the process of developing a new student database system that will combine the
general Student Information System (SIS) and the existing Comprehensive Student Support
Services (CSSS) database system and the existing ISPED system into a single student database system
called eCSSS. The first phase of the new student information database is targeted for March 2007. The
additional fields to create the 60-day timeline report for the SPP will be incorporated. There will be
subsequent target dates established when the additional elements for the database are created. The first
phase in the refinement of the 60-day timeline report has begun. Continual technical refinements will be
made to the 60-day timeline report to focus on the outcomes of students in the 60-day timeline report.
Also, the state monitoring of the 60-day timeline report using the ISPED database will mean a change in
emphasis for schools. Schools will need to use the new eCSSS data system to report the evaluation
timelines. In addition to timeliness, schools will also need to emphasize the accuracy of reporting and on
the outcomes for students in order to meet the requirement of the SPP.
The progression from the hand counted data base system to the ISPED system and then to the eCSSS
system will be a process. A comparison of the ISPED data for SY 2004-2005 and the data for
SY 2005-2006 indicates the need for consistency and accuracy in the data input as well as the data
fields. Once the eCSSS database is established, the state will need to monitor the data for accuracy as
well as analyze the data for its significance for student outcomes.
FFY
2005
(2005-2006)
2006
(2006-2007)
2007
(2007-2008)
2008
(2008-2009)
2009
(2009-2010)
2010
(2009-2010)
Establish baseline.
By FFY 2006, 100% of students with parental consent to evaluate will be evaluated
and eligibility determined within the state prescribed 60-day timeline.
Improvement Activities//Timelines/Resources:
Determine the additional fields
that need to be included in the
State's new eCSSS data base
system for the 60-day Timeline
report.
Timeline
October 2006 - January 2007
Resources
Branch
Hawaii
State
Improvement Activities//Timelines/Resources:
Timelines
Submit requests for the additional
data fields to be included in the
new eCSSS data base system.
January 2007
Branch
Review and analyze data from the
new eCSSS system.
March 2007
Branch
Monitor the 60-day timeline data
report monthly to determine
training needs.
March 2007 and ongoing
Branch
Review and Analyze 60-day
Timeline Report using the State's
eCSSS database system.
October 2007
Branch
Provide training and technical
assist to the field to ensure
accuracy and consistency of data
input for the 60-day timeline
report.
Ongoing
Branch
Continue to review and analyze
the 60-day Timeline Report for
accuracy and to determine need
for technical assist.
Ongoing
Branch
Continue to monitor the 60-day
timeline report monthly.
SY 2007–2011
Branch
Resources
Hawaii
State
Monitoring Priority: Early Childhood Transition
Indicator 12: Percent of children referred by Part C prior to age 3 and 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)]
Measurement:
A. # of children who have been served in Part C and referred to Part B for eligibility
determination.
B. # of those referred determined to be NOT eligible and whose eligibilities were determined
prior to their third birthdays.
C. # of those found eligible who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third
birthdays.
Account for children included in a, but not included in b or c. Indicate the range of days beyond the
third birthday when eligibility was determined and reasons for delays.
Percent = [(c) divided by (a – b – d)] times 100.
If Part C suspects a child may be eligible for Part B services, a Part B representative (District 619
Coordinator or school staff) is invited and attends the Part C transition meeting to explain the
evaluation/eligibility/Individualized Education Program (IEP) process to the parent(s). Written
materials about Operation Search and the transition process from Part C to Part B are also provided.
The school then awaits a referral for evaluation from either the parent or Part C program.
(Procedures will change during School Year (SY) 2005-06.) When the referral/request for evaluation
is received, a team composed of the same participants required for an IEP meeting, including the
parent, decides whether an evaluation will be conducted. If an evaluation is proposed and written
consent from the parent is received, the evaluation, eligibility, and IEP (if the child is determined to be
eligible) are completed and services made available within 60 days of receipt of written consent for
the evaluation. If a child turns 3 between the 1st day of the school year and December 31st, he or she
may enter school on the first day of the school year. If a child turns age three (3) between January 1st
and the beginning of the next school year, he or she may begin school on his/her third (3rd) birthday.
Hawaii Part C and the Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE) will be implementing new
procedures during SY 2005-2006. Part C has developed a notification form to invite relevant agency
representatives, including Part B when appropriate, to the required Part C transition meeting. This is
intended to increase the frequency of compliance with this requirement for Part C and will enable both
Part C and HIDOE to track HIDOE’s participation in the Part C transition meetings. Part C will also be
sending demographic information to a school about each Part C child who may be eligible for Part B
services within that school’s geographic service area at least 90 days prior to the child’s third (3rd)
birthday. Upon receipt of that information the school will send a letter to the parent to invite them to
meet with a school representative, and, when agreed upon by the parent, begin the referral for
evaluation process.
Hawaii
State
Data reported for this indicator was extracted from the ISPED 60-Day Evaluation Timeline Report and
from individual student records to determine prior participation under Part C. Records included for
analysis met the following criteria:
•
•
•
The child received services under Part C, and
The child’s initial eligibility* (end of the evaluation timeline) was determined between July 1, 2004
and June 30, 2005, or
The child was referred for an evaluation, but an evaluation was not conducted between July 1,
2004 and June 30, 2005.
[In Hawaii, the evaluation timeline (for eligible students) ends when special education and related
services are made available to the student in accordance with the IEP.]
Measurement A:
Eight hundred eighty-six (886) children who turned three during SY 2004-2005 were referred for
evaluation to determine initial eligibility. Five hundred eighty-one (581) of those referred, or 65 percent,
had been served in Part C. Of the 581 children from Part C, evaluations were conducted on 565. For the
other 16 children, the school team and the parent decided that an evaluation was not appropriate, or the
parents withdrew consent for an evaluation. One child died.
Measurements B and C
Child Status Following
Referral/Evaluation
#/% of Total Part C
Children Referred
Indicator
Measurement
#/% Completed
PRIOR
to 3rd Birthday
#/% Completed
AFTER 3rd
Birthday
IDEA Ineligible
86
14.80%
B
44
51.2%
42
48.8%
IDEA Eligible
479
82.44%
C
317
66.2%
162
33.8%
No Evaluation Conducted
16
2.76%
15
93.8%
See Flowchart A: Early Childhood Transitions and Flowchart B: Impact of Timeliness of Consent for
Evaluation, on the following pages for further details and explanation of the above results.
Hawaii
State
FLOW CHART A: Early Childhood Transitions
886 two-year-olds were referred for
evaluation during SY 2004-2005
581 children (65%) were served in
Part C prior to referral to HIDOE.
[Measurement A]
In 16 cases (3%) no
evaluation was
conducted.
In 565 cases (97%), an
evaluation was conducted.
86 children (15%) were
found to be ineligible.
In 44 cases (51%),
eligibility status
was determined by
3rd birthday.
[Measurement B]
referred by their parents.
In 42 cases (49%),
eligibility status was
NOT determined by
3rd birthday.
found to be IDEA eligible.
In 162 cases (34%)
IEPs were NOT
implemented by the
3rd birthday.
In 317 cases (66%)
IEPs were
implemented by the
3rd birthday.
[Measurement C]
A total of 204 (42+162) cases were not completed by the 3rd birthday.
Range of Days Beyond the 3rd Birthday
45 cases
1 – 10 days over
33 cases
11 – 20 days over
98 cases
21 – 100 days over
28 cases
> 100 days over
In 194 cases (95%) HIDOE received the
consent for evaluation less than 60 days
prior to the 3rd birthday.
.
Range of days <60 prior to 3rd birthday
1 – 10 days
15 cases
11 – 20 days
29 cases
21 – 100 days
116 cases
> 100 days
34 cases
In 19 cases, the evaluation process
exceeded 60 days.
Days Beyond IDEA Eligible Ineligible
1 – 10
6
.4
11 – 20
4
.0
20 – 38
5
.0
Hawaii
State
FLOW CHART B: Impact of Timeliness of Consent for Evaluation
565 Evaluations were
conducted for children who
were served in Part C.
In 303 cases, consent for
evaluation was received > 60
days prior to the 3rd birthday
293 children (97%)
had services in
place or eligibility
determined by the
3rd birthday.
10 children (3%) did
NOT have services in
determined by the 3rd
birthday.
evaluation was received < 60
days prior to the 3rd birthday.
194 children (74%)
did NOT have
services in place or
eligibility determined
by the 3rd birthday.
68 children (26%)
had services in
determined by the
3rd birthday.
As the data in the above flow charts demonstrate, HIDOE is able to complete all required evaluation
processes and implement IEPs prior to the 3rd birthday when consent for evaluation is received 60 days
or more prior to the 3rd birthday. Ninety-seven percent of children had services in place or eligibility
determined by the 3rd birthday when consent for evaluation was given 60 days or more prior to the 3rd
birthday. That was true for only twenty-six percent of children when consent for evaluation was given less
than 60 days prior to the 3rd birthday. While a few cases went beyond because the evaluation process
exceeded 60 days, the primary reason children do not have services in place in a timely manner is
because they are not referred early enough to make that possible.
Hawaii
State
With the implementation of Part C’s new notification system and HIDOE’s earlier access and
communication with parents, it is expected that the percent of timely referrals will increase substantially
during the SY 2005-2006.
FFY
2005
(200520-06)
2006
(2006-2007)
2007
(2007-2008)
2008
(2008-2009)
2009
(2009-2010)
2010
(2010-2011)
100% of eligibility determinations will be completed prior to children’s third
birthdays for children who have been served in Part C and referred to Part B and
were determined to be NOT eligible.
100% of IEPs will be developed and implemented prior to children’s third birthdays
for children who have been served in Part C and referred to Part B and were
determined to be eligible.
Targets are the same as stated above for every year
Activities
Timeline
Development and rollout of a
monthly report: Early Childhood
Transitions.
1st report to be available Jan.
2006.
Dissemination of Part C/Part B
Transition memo with
accompanying instructions and
supporting documents.
November 2005
Data collection re: Part C
Transition Notices and results to
increase the accuracy of data
regarding the number of
children referred to us from Part
C.
Begin November 2005
Continued training/information
for school staff regarding
transition requirements and
activities for children who were
served in Part C.
Currently available and on-going.
Resources
HIDOE technical support
personnel
SESB Staff
State, District and School
personnel
State and District 619
Coordinators
Hawaii
State
Activities
Timeline
HIDOE is in the process of developing a new
comprehensive electronic data system. There is an
opportunity to develop enhanced data collection
around the timeliness of Part C to Part B transition.
This could include requirements for greater
specificity regarding referral and evaluation data at
the school level, and enhanced reporting
capabilities to facilitate data retrieval at the school,
district and state level.
December 2007
Resources
State staff and
contracted providers.
Hawaii
State
Monitoring Priority: Early Childhood Transition
Indicator 12:
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)]
Measurement:
A. # of children who have been served in Part C and referred to Part B for eligibility
determination.
B. # of those referred determined to be NOT eligible and whose eligibilities were determined
prior to their third birthdays.
C. # of those found eligible who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third
birthdays.
D. # of children for whom parent refusal to provide consent caused delays in evaluation or
initial services.
Account for children included in a, but not included in b, c or d. Indicate the range of days
beyond the third birthday when eligibility was determined and the IEP developed and the
reasons for the delays.
Percent = [(c) divided by (a – b – d)] times 100.
FFY
2005
(2005-2006)
100% of eligibility determinations will be completed prior to children’s third birthdays for
children who have been served in Part C and referred to Part B and were determined
to be NOT eligible.
100% of IEPs will be developed and implemented prior to children’s third birthdays for
children who have been served in Part C and referred to Part B and were determined
to be eligible.
Hawaii
State
Actual Target Data for (2005-2006):
a. 582 children were served in Part C and referred to Part B for eligibility determination. 20 of those
referred were not evaluated as a result of either a team decision or parent withdrawal or lack of
consent. A total of 562 children were evaluated for Part B eligibility.
b. 67 (out of 97) children found not eligible, had completed eligibility determinations by their third
birthday.
c. 340 (out of 466) children found eligible, had an IEP developed and implemented by their third
birthday.
d. 141 children, whose parents refused to provide timely consent for evaluation, experienced
delayed evaluations and/or initial services.
Indicator 12 Measurement = 96%
[(c) divided by (a – b – d)] times 100.
This APR and the measurement above (96%) constitute Hawaii’s final progress report demonstrating
compliance with the requirement at 34 CFR §300.132(b) as sited in the letter from Troy Justesen, former
Acting Director of OSEP, to Superintendent Patricia Hamamoto, received March 28, 2006.
Hawaii
State
FLOWCHART: Early Childhood Transitions
582 children were served in Part C prior to referral to
HIDOE.
[Measurement A]
In 562 cases, an
evaluation was conducted.
In 20 cases no
evaluation was
conducted.
found to be IDEA eligible.
In 68 cases (70%),
determined by 3rd
birthday.
[Measurement B]
In 29 cases (30%),
NOT determined by
3rd birthday.
In 126 cases (27%)
IEPs were NOT
implemented by the
3rd birthday.
In 339 cases (73%),
IEPs were implemented
[Measurement C]
A total of 155 cases were not completed by the 3rd birthday.
Range of Days Beyond the 3rd Birthday
43 cases 1 – 10 days over
19 cases > 100 days over
In 141 of the cases not completed by the 3rd birthday,
parents did not provide timely consent for evaluation.
[Measurement D]
In 14 cases, schools were responsible
for the delay in eligibility/services.
Hawaii
State
FLOWCHART B: Impact of Timeliness of Consent for Evaluation
562 Evaluations were
conducted for children who
were served in Part C.
evaluation was received > 60
days prior to the 3rd birthday
353 of these
children (99%) had
eligibility had been
determined by the
3rd birthday.
evaluation was received < 60
days prior to the 3rd birthday.
53 of these children
(26%) had services
in place or eligibility
determined by the
3rd birthday.
3 of these children
(1%) did NOT have
153 of these children
(74%) did NOT have
SY 2005 - 2006: Timeliness of Referrals for
Evaluation
37%
Timely Referrals
Delayed Referrals
63%
Hawaii
State
Timely Referrals: Percent of Children with
Eligibility/Services by Age 3
1%
Services by Age 3
Services after Age 3
99%
Delayed Referrals: Percent of Children with
Eligbility/Services by Age 3
26%
Services by Age 3
Services after Age 3
74%
Hawaii
State
Activities
Development and rollout of a monthly
report: Early Childhood Transitions.
Timeline
Status
1st report to be
available January 2006.
Completed. 1st report was
available in July 2006.
Dissemination of Part C/Part B Transition
memo with accompanying instructions
and supporting documents.
November 2005
Completed
September 2006
Data collection re: Part C Transition
Notices and results to increase the
accuracy of data regarding the number of
children referred to us from Part C.
Begin November 2005
Seeking data from Part C
agency.
Continued training/information for school
staff regarding transition requirements
and activities for children who were
served in Part C.
Currently available and
ongoing.
Ongoing.
As the data in the above flow charts and pie charts demonstrate, HIDOE is able to complete all
required evaluation processes and implement IEPs prior to the 3rd birthday with few exceptions when
consent for evaluation is received 60 days or more prior to the 3rd birthday. Ninety-nine percent of
children had services in place or eligibility determined by the 3rd birthday when consent for evaluation
was given 60 days or more prior to the 3rd birthday. That was true for only twenty-six percent of
children when consent for evaluation was given less than 60 days prior to the 3rd birthday. While a
few cases went beyond age 3 as a result of delays caused by the schools, the primary reason
children do not have services in place in a timely manner is because they are not referred early
enough to make that possible. [To ensure accuracy of the data, all records were individually
examined for students whose eligibility and/or services were not in place by their third birthday.]
HIDOE is in the process of developing a new comprehensive electronic data system. There is an
opportunity to develop enhanced data collection procedures to address the timeliness of Part C to
Part B transition. This could include requirements for greater specificity regarding referral and
evaluation data at the school level, and enhanced reporting capabilities to facilitate data retrieval at
the school, district and state level. Enhancements may be implemented by December 2007.
Hawaii
State
Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / Effective Transition
Indicator 13:
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)]
Measurement:
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 postsecondary goals.
The transition plan in the Individualized Education Program (IEP) consists of three sections: (a) the
students’ desired post-secondary outcomes/goals in the educational, vocational/career, community
participation, daily living skills, and related services domains, (b) the services that are to be provided
annually to the student based on these outcomes, and (c) the identification of any agencies that
provide services or resources to the student to help him/her meet the post-secondary outcomes. As
part of the state’s performance, the Integrated Special Education Database (ISPED) generates a
report, updated daily, with the numbers and percentages of students 16 years or older (using their
date of birth) that have transition plans with all three sections completed. This report identifies the
percentage of students 16 years and older who have IEPs with the necessary goals and services
provided by identified team members or other individuals as well as agencies other than the Hawaii
Department of Education during the IEP year to help the student meet the outcomes. The school,
district, and state special education staff have access to this report and follow-up is done with those
schools that have less than a 100% compliance rate.
The student’s IEP also includes all the annual goals, including those that address the student’s postsecondary outcomes. To ensure that the services identified will reasonably enable the student to
meet the post-secondary outcomes, a Student File Review: Focused Checklist will involve a detailed
review of selected IEPs on a three-year cycle. All complexes with a high school in each were placed
in one of three groups. Annually, the selected IEPs will be examined by external reviewers from the
state office and will be monitored for the following requirements:
•
For a student aged 16-20, or younger if appropriate, the IEP shall include annual transition
services, which enable the student to reach his/her post-secondary outcomes. By not later
than age 16, the IEP shall include appropriate measurable IEP goals that can reasonably
enable the student to meet his/her post-secondary goals.
The groups will rotate each year, which means that in two out of every three years, transition plans in
the selected IEPs will be monitored by the state. If, during the state’s external review cycle,
compliance targets are not met, the complex must submit a corrective action plan with timelines for
implementation to the state for approval. If the complex fails to correct the identified areas of
non-compliance within their timelines, the state would then make the determination as to whether this
complex should continue to be externally reviewed during the following year rather than move to a
less-stringent cycle. Non-compliance problems of a systemic nature are required to be identified and
Hawaii
State
corrected. (Refer to Indicator 15, General Supervision: Identification/Correction of Non-Compliance,
for the process of addressing problems of a systemic nature.)
Requirement
%
Percent of youth aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes coordinated,
measurable, annual IEP goals
82%
Percent of youth aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes transition services
that will reasonably enable the student to meet the post-secondary goals.
85%
FFY
2005
(2005-2006)
2006
(2006-2007)
2007
(2007-2008)
2008
(2008-2009)
2009
(2009-2010)
2010
(2010-2011)
100% of youth aged 16 and above will have IEP that includes coordinated,
measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the
student to meet the post-secondary goals.
Activities
Timeline
Revise and implement training for transition teachers and district
resource personnel on the transition requirements
November, 2006
thru June, 2007
Provide training for transition teachers and district resource
personnel on the appropriate method and place to document in
the student’s electronic file.
November, 2006
thru June, 2007
Resources
Hawaii
State
Activities
Timeline
Provide electronic access to reports and summaries to all of a
student’s teachers, administrators, and district personnel. This will
allow them to check the status and quality of the plans and to
provide assistance to the student, as necessary. This increase in
access will allow more timely updates to the transition plan as
student and family needs change.
Done
Continue to monitor, via electronic student file reviews and reports:
• Post-secondary outcomes in the areas of training,
education, vocation, and, for appropriate students,
independent living
• At least one annual goal that will support each of the postsecondary outcomes (can be a separate goal or one that
also addresses another outcome, e.g., an academic
outcome)
• Services to be provided that will help the student achieve
the post-secondary outcomes
• For any outside agency providing services to the student,
a notification of the IEP meeting
• Documentation of the vocational assessment(s)
administered to the student.
• Schools below a 90% compliance rate must make
corrections within 6 months.
•
August, 2006 thru
June, 2010
Continue to provide assistance to schools who are having difficulty
in the development and documentation of the requirements of this
indicator.
August, 2006 thru
June, 2010
Resources
Have A Job
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
Percentage
50.00%
Interviewed but Did Not Answer %
Yes %
No %
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
2002
2003
2004
Interviewed but Did Not
Answer %
21.69%
4.75%
3.59%
Yes %
46.85%
62.74%
66.92%
No %
31.45%
32.51%
29.49%
Year
Interviewed
but did not
answer %
1-10 hrs
(%)
11-20 hrs More than 20
(%)
hrs (%)
2002
62.91%
0.87%
8.24%
27.98%
2003
41.83%
0.95%
11.03%
46.20%
2004
41.97%
1.32%
10.02%
46.69%
District
School
Code
School
Name
2002
District
School
Code
School
Name
2003
District
School
Code
School
Name
2004
Total
SPED
Grads
1197
# Unable to
interview
702
# of
# unwilling Interview
Interviewed
to be
ed SPED
but Did Not
interviewed Grads % Interviewed
Answer
34
461
0.38512949
1326
755
# Unwilling
#
to be
Interview
Interviewed
ed
39
529
Response
Rate
0.398944193
12
14
15
16
18
2
2
4
1
1
2
290 0.629067245
4
0.0087
38
0.0824
129
0.2798
# of
# unwilling Interview
Interviewed
# Unable to
to be
ed SPED
but Did Not
interview
interviewed Grads % Interviewed
Answer
1521
953
41
526 0.345825115
220
# Unable to
Interview
10
290
Total
SPED
Grads
Total # of
SPED
Grads
8
220 0.418250951
but did not but did not
answer %
answer
222 0.419659735
4
7
8
10
12
15
1
1
1
2
1
5
0.0095
58
0.1103
243
0.1002
247
1-10
1-10 %
7
0.0132
11-20
53
20
2
16
6
0.462
More
More than 20
11-20 % than 20
%
0.4669
22
28
17_5
2
24
1
19
2
25
3
20
2
26
10
24
45
28
1
25
3
30
1
28
23
32
35
30
4
35
2
31
22
36
8
32
1
2
35
5
PartFullTime % Time %
40
66
36
17
3
0.2278
0.1432
PartFullTime % Time %
40
165 0.2681 0.3137
Statewide Post-Secondary Survey Results
Class of 2002 (n=1197)
Class of 2003 n=1521)
Class of 2004 (n=1329)
Response Rate
Satisfaction w/ Transition Plan
• Yes
• No
• Don’t know
Have a job
• Yes
• No
Hours worked
• <20 hours
• 20 or more
Participation in post-secondary education
• Community college: full-time
• Community college: part-time
• 4-year college: full-time
• Voc-Tech school
• Other
• Not enrolled
39.80
Proportional
to Disability
(c/o 2004)
n=126*
(%)
9.50
Proportional
to Ethnicity
(c/o 2004)
n=350*
(%)
26.40
78.5
7.4
68.05
9.83
7.37
63.49
6.35
12.70
67.71
9.43
8.00
46.9
31.5
62.7
32.5
66.92
29.49
68.25
29.37
63.71
32.86
9.2
28.0
12.0
46.2
11.34
46.69
7.94*
46.83
10.57
44.57
14.8
20.5
19.05
3.17
.87
3.1
8.5
52.2
1.3
3.8
3.1
67.7
12.29
4.54
0.95
4.35
2.84
73.72
13.43
4.86
1.14
4.29
3.14
72.00
Class of
2002
n=461
(%)
Class of
2003
n=526
(%)
Class of 2004
n=529
(%)
38.5
34.6
65.7
5.2
0.7
2.38
2.38
73.02
*Low incident groups (<2%) not considered in calculations (Deaf-Blindness, Deafness, Orthopedic impairment, Traumatic brain
injury, Visual impairment including blindness)
Response Rate
41.00%
40.00%
39.00%
38.00%
Percentage
37.00%
36.00%
Response Rate
35.00%
34.00%
33.00%
32.00%
31.00%
Response Rate
2002
2003
2004
38.51%
34.58%
39.89%
Year
Hawaii
State
Monitoring Priority: Post School Outcomes (New Indicator)
Indicator 14:
Percent of youth, who had IEPs, are no longer in secondary school and who have
been competitively employed, enrolled in some type of post-secondary school, or
both, within one year of leaving high school.
[20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B)]
Measurement:
A. Percent = # of youth who had IEPs, who 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: divided by the # of youth assessed who had IEPs and are
no longer in secondary school; times 100.
During the month of March 2005, a letter was sent to students (1,329 students from 43 high schools
statewide) who exited the education system in 2004, informing them about a phone call that they will
receive between April and June. Included in this letter was a card asking that if they would prefer to
respond to a written survey instead of a phone survey, to return the card and a survey, with a selfaddressed stamped envelope will be sent to them. A phone survey of all leavers who had
Individualized Education Programs (IEP’s) including those who graduated with a diploma, aged out,
dropped out during the school year, or did not return to school were the subjects of this survey. The
responses were inputted into an electronic database and compiled to create a report which included
the required information on the number and percentage of youth who are (or have been) employed,
enrolled in some type of post-secondary school, or both between they time they left high school and
the date of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be included in the report; only
aggregate numbers and percentages will be displayed.
The survey did not include a question on whether the student earned at least the minimum wage;
hence the data does not include the percentage of students who were competitively employed. That
question was added for the survey for the Class of 2005, but the data from that survey are not
completed.
Description of the current post-secondary data collection process:
The state completed the development and administration of the Post-School Secondary Transition
Survey which attempted to contact by phone all special education (SPED) "leavers" from the HIDOE
Classes of 2002, 2003, and 2004, transferred the contents of the survey and results to an electronic
format, and developed reports displaying the results of the survey. Phone interviews were conducted
of all “leavers” with disabilities, including those students graduating with diplomas, receiving
certificates of completion, or aging out. Also included were those who dropped out during the school
year or those who reached the age of majority and could have returned but chose not to. These
interviews were conducted during the summer after they exited, one year after the students had been
out of school. The questions reflected all of the post-secondary areas addressed in a student’s
transition plan in the IEP. The results were shared with transition teachers in the high schools. The
Hawaii
State
results were disaggregated by school. The teachers analyzed the results, determined areas that may
have needed more or less emphasis, and finally identified topics or services that they needed
assistance with or more information on, resulting in more effective transition services for students and
their families.
For the Class of 2004, the data collected was analyzed based both on total numbers (as was done with
the Classes of 2002 and 2003) as well as proportionally, based on the ethnic and disability categories.
Therefore, the results for only this class can be generalized to the entire population of Hawaii’s “leavers”.
Mechanism to address potential discrepancies in the response rates based on ethnicities:
To ensure that the data was representative of the ethnic populations of the students with disabilities, the
following methodology was used after the responses were obtained:
a. Determined the total number of students with disabilities, 16 years and older (n size)
b. Disaggregated by ethnicity and determined the percentage of each ethnicity in the population.
The Native American ethnic group represented a tiny percentage of our disabled student
population (1 percent) and was not used in these calculations.
c. Using the total number of respondents, found the percentage of expected respondents there
should have been for each ethnicity (# per ethnicity/total population), determined the actual
number and percentage of respondents of each ethnicity.
d. If the response percentage for any of the ethnic groups was lower than what it should have been
in the population:
• Determined the ethnicity with the lowest response numbers.
• Using that number of respondents, determined the n size of the expected population which
reflects that percentage
• Used the percentages of the population in (b) to determine the number of respondents that
needed to be included to maintain the correct proportion in the population
e. If the response percentage for any one of the ethnic groups is higher than what it should be in the
population:
• Do random sampling of the respondents to reduce the n size for that ethnicity to achieve the
desired percentage of the survey responses
• Repeat for all ethnic groups whose response numbers exceed those expected
f. Repeated this process for the various disability categories. Low incidence disabilities (< 2
percent), including visual impairments, hearing impairments, orthopedic impairments, deafblindness, multiple disabilities, and traumatic brain injury were not included.
See Attached Charts (6)
Discussion of Baseline Data: The results discussed below represent responses from students
one year after they left high school.
Participation in a Post-High School Educational Program:
The percentage of students participating in some kind of post-high school educational program was 24.96
percent (Class of 2004), which decreased from the 27.27 percent from the Class of 2002. These
percentages represent the totals from several post-high school educational programs, including those
receiving a Competency-Based diploma (C-Based), attending a community college, a four-year
college/university, or vocational/technical school, returning to high school to earn a high school diploma,
or participation in other programs such as Job Corps. The percentage not enrolled in any educational
program increased from 52.3 percent (Class of 2002) to 73.7 percent (Class of 2004).
The baseline data for the Class of 2004 that is representative of ethnic and disability groups was very
similar to the data representing the responses of all students.
Hawaii
State
Employment: The percentage of students employed increased from 46.9 percent (Class of 2002) to
66.9 percent (Class of 2004). Also increasing was the percentage of students who had both part-time
(increasing from 9.2 percent to 11.34 percent) and full time (increasing from 28.0 percent to 46.7 percent)
jobs.
The baseline data that is representative of ethnic and disability groups for the Class of 2004 again, was
very similar to the data representing the responses of all students, except for the disability data describing
the part-time job status, which is lower than either the percentages representing the total number and
ethnicity.
Discussion: It is important to mention that consideration should be given to the possibility that it may
take longer than a year for students with disabilities to decide, plan, and act on their post-secondary
goals.
Over the past few years, the Hawaii economy has been growing tremendously, with substantial increases
in the employment opportunities in all areas, including the travel, building and construction, food service,
and retail industries as well as government (both state and federal) employment. It is not surprising that
the employment data has improved so much. It is speculated that the large percentage of students
working may have had an effect on the decreasing percentage of students attending post-secondary
educational programs.
Targets for 2006-2010:
FFY
2006
(2006-2007)
2007
(2007-2008)
2008
(2008-2009)
2009
(2009-2010)
2010
(2010-2011)
There will be an increase of 3% in the percentage of students competitively
employed and attending a post-secondary educational program.
The percentage of students competitively employed and attending a post-secondary
educational program will be maintained at the 2009 level.
Activities
Timeline
In collaboration with the team responsible for Indicators 1 and 2
which address graduation and dropout, will convene a meeting
with partner programs and agencies, including the Children
Community Councils (CCC), the Learning Disability Association
of Hawaii (LDAH), (SPIN), Hawaii Families As Allies (HFAA), the
Developmental Disability Council (DD), and the program
manager from the Comprehensive School Alienation
Program (CSAP) to develop a mechanism to increase the
awareness of and involvement parents and families on issues
involving the post-secondary transition plan, graduation,
retention, and dropout.
SY 2006-2010
Resources
Hawaii
State
Activities
Timeline
In collaboration with the team responsible for Indicators 1 and 2
which address graduation and dropout, develop and include
questions on the post-secondary survey to gather information
from students on what school factors kept them in school and
addressed/met their needs.
SY 2006-2010
Continue the technical assistance, dialogue, and training of
school and district transition personnel as the post-secondary
data are examined.
SY 2006-2010
Resources
Hawaii
State
Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / General Supervision
Indicator 15:
General supervision system (including monitoring, complaints, hearings, etc.)
identifies and corrects noncompliance as soon as possible but in no case later
than one (1) year from identification.
[20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(B)]
Measurement:
Percent of noncompliance corrected within one year of identification:
A. # of findings of noncompliance.
B. # of corrections completed as soon as possible but in no case later than one (1) year from
identification.
Percent = [(b) divided by (a)] times 100.
For any noncompliance not corrected within one (1) year of identification, describe what actions,
including technical assistance and enforcement actions that the State has taken.
FFY
2004
(2004-2005)
100% of identified noncompliance will be corrected as soon as possible but within
one (1) year.
Measurement:
Percent of noncompliance corrected within one (1) year of identification:
53
identification.
50
94%
The baseline data that Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE) submitted in its revised State
Performance Plan (SPP) indicates that there were four (4) findings of noncompliance that were not
corrected in one (1) year. Of the four (4) findings, HAR Chapter 56, §8-56-35(c)(d)…the department shall
invite a representative of any other agency that is likely to be responsible for providing or paying for
transition services. If an agency is invited to send a representative to a meeting does not do so, the
Hawaii
State
department shall take other steps to obtain participation of the other agency in the planning of any
transition services is no longer required by IDEA as a result of the 2004 amendments.
In School Year (SY) 2004-2005, there were 53 findings of noncompliance. There were 44 findings of
noncompliance in due process hearing decisions and six (6) findings of noncompliance in written
complaints. All 50 findings were corrected within the year.
All complexes received training on the revised Student File Review – Focused Checklist and were given
tools for the administration of the instrument. The Student File Review – Focused Checklist was
completed on randomly selected Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) by the district and school
personnel. The results improved from the previous year; however, the reliability of the results was still
subject to the level of understanding of the district and school personnel. There was no quality control
and assurance of the validity of the results. Nevertheless, there were three (3) findings of noncompliance
from the administration of the Student File Review – Focused Checklist. The three (3) findings of
noncompliance were:
1. HAR Chapter 56, §8-56-8 (c) For the initial evaluation only, at least one (1) member of the team
of qualified professionals required by section 8-56-10 on the determination of eligibility, other than
the student’s teacher, shall observe the student during an activity relevant to the area of
suspected disability.
2. HAR Chapter 56, §8-56-12 (a) For a student suspected of having a specific learning disability, at
least one team member other than the student’s regular education teacher shall observe the
student’s academic performance in the regular classroom setting.
3. HAR Chapter 56, §8-56-34(a)(2) The department shall ensure that the IEP team for each student
with a disability includes at least one (1) regular education teacher of the student (if the student is,
or may be, participating in the regular education environment).
Although the HIDOE did not meet its target of 100% correction of identified noncompliance, the
percentage of corrected noncompliance improved from FFY 2004.
FFY
Percent of noncompliance corrected within
one (1) year
2004
(2004-2005)
2005
(2005-2006)
89%
94%
HIDOE recognized that the process to address noncompliance was inadequate. Therefore, HIDOE
developed and implemented a cyclic monitoring process in SY 2005-2006. HIDOE used both quantitative
and qualitative indicators to measure its performance and the monitoring was done by a state level team.
The three (3) noncompliance issues mentioned above were reviewed during the administration of the
Student File Review-Focused Checklist.
During the SY 2005-2006, the general supervision process included:
1. The administration of the Special Education Student File Review – Focused Checklist to
approximately 5% of the special education student records in a complex. Charter schools are
included in a complex by geographical location. The checklist covers the evaluation/eligibility
process, the Individualized Education Program, and procedural safeguards.
2. The completion of the case-based reviews in all complexes annually. The case-based review
process selects 2% of the special education population in each complex, with no less than 12 and
no more than 20 per complex. Each case is rated on indicators for current student status and
Hawaii
State
current system performance. The benchmark is a complex average of 85% for overall student
status and system performance.
The results from the randomly selected IEPs in 14 complexes are:
No. of
complexes in
compliance
No. of complexes
in noncompliance
No. of complexes that
submitted acceptable
action plans to correct
noncompliance
0
14
14
0
14
14
7
7
7
For the initial evaluation only, at least one
member of the team of qualified
professionals required by section 8-56-10
on the determination of eligibility, other
than the student’s teacher, shall observe
the student during an activity relevant to
the area of suspected disability.
For a student suspected of having a
specific learning disability, at least one (1)
team member other than the student’s
regular education teacher shall observe
the student’s academic performance in the
regular classroom setting.
The HIDOE shall ensure that the IEP team
for each student with a disability includes
at least one (1) regular education teacher
of the student (if the student is, or may be,
participating in the regular education
environment).
The HIDOE Special Education Services Branch is currently conducting desk audits to verify the correction
of the noncompliance.
In response to compliance with 34 CFR §300.342(b)(2), relating to the accessibility of the child’s IEP to
the child’s regular education teacher, HIDOE has addressed and corrected the issue during its
implementation of the case-based reviews. Annually, case-based reviews have been conducted in all
schools, including charter schools. The case-based review process involves a records review, interviews
of key IEP members (including the student, when appropriate), and a classroom observation of the
student. One of the indicators is “Functioning Service Team”. In order to assess this indicator,
information is obtained on the team members’ scope and depth of their knowledge base and
understanding of the child’s situation, knowledge of strategies that work/do not work for the child, and the
sharing of this information.
School Year
Number of case-based
reviews
Functioning Service Team – % of acceptable
ratings
2003-2004
611
92%
2004-2005
565
96%
2005-2006
601
96%
Hawaii
State
During the interviews the general education teacher is asked, “How do you access information on the
student?” If the general education teacher is not given access to the IEP, a recommendation is made to
the team to provide access to the IEP. If this is identified as a systemic issue for the complex, a
corrective action plan is required by the complex to correct the noncompliance.
Hawaii
State
Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / General Supervision
Indicator 15:
General supervision system (including monitoring, complaints, hearings, etc.)
identifies and corrects noncompliance as soon as possible but in no case later
than one (1) year from identification.
[20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(B)]
Measurement:
identification.
For any noncompliance not corrected within one year of identification, describe what actions,
including technical assistance and enforcement actions that the State has taken.
The Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE) is resubmitting our baseline data for Federal Fiscal
Year (FFY) 2004. HIDOE misunderstand the Measurement indicators, as described in the original
State Performance Plan (SPP), and, therefore, used data for the FFY 2004, which did not allow the
one (1) year for correction of the noncompliance. HIDOE is submitting the correct baseline data for
FFY 2004 using the revised SPP template. HIDOE is also submitting revised activities to reflect a
new monitoring process. The measurable and rigorous targets remain the same.
Measurement:
37
identification.
33
89%
In the School Year (SY) 2003-2004, there were four (4) written complaints and 29 due process hearing
decisions that involved noncompliance. All 33 findings of noncompliance were corrected within one (1)
year of identification.
Hawaii
State
In SY 2003-2004, 20 out of 41 complexes submitted the results of their Student File Review-Focused
Checklist. The complexes and districts were not provided training or state support in the administration of
the Student File Review-Focused Checklist. Therefore, the methodology for completion varied from
complex to complex. This inconsistency affected the validity and integrity of the results. Also, there was
no established benchmark set that would require follow up actions. This issue was resolved in
SY 2005-2006 by having the Special Education Services Branch conduct all the reviews using the
checklist in selected complexes (including charter schools). Nevertheless, the aggregated data from the
Student File Review-Focused Checklist for SY 2003-2004 indicated the following systemic issues of
noncompliance:
1. HAR Chapter 56, §8-56-8(c): For the initial evaluation only, at least one (1) member of the team
of qualified professionals required by §8-56-10 on the determination of eligibility, other than the
student’s teacher, shall observe the student during an activity relevant to the area of suspected
disability.
2. HAR Chapter 56, §8-56-12(a): For a student suspected of having a specific learning disability, at
least one team member other than the student’s regular education teacher shall observe the
student’s academic performance in the regular classroom setting.
3. HAR Chapter 56, §8-56-34(a)(2): The HIDOE shall ensure that the IEP team for each student
with a disability includes at least one (1) regular education teacher of the student (if the student is,
or may be, participating in the regular education environment).
4. HAR Chapter 56 §8-56-35(c)(d): The HIDOE shall invite a representative of any other agency
that is likely to be responsible for providing or paying for transition services. If an agency is
invited to send a representative to a meeting does not do so, the HIDOE shall take other steps to
obtain participation of the other agency in the planning of any transition services.
Discussion of Process to Correct Noncompliance:
Beginning in SY 2005-2006, the HIDOE Special Education Services Branch (SESB) implemented a
multifaceted approach to monitoring for all schools on a three-year cycle. To ensure the consistency of
methodology and the validity of the data, the administration of the Special Education Student File
Review – Focused Checklist was conducted by a trained state level team and monitored by an
Educational Specialist in the SESB.
1. The administration of the Special Education Student File Review – Focused Checklist to
approximately 5% of the special education student records in a complex. Charter schools are
included in a complex by geographical location. The checklist covers the evaluation/eligibility
process, the Individualized Education Program, and procedural safeguards.
2. The completion of the case-based reviews in all complexes annually. The case-based review
process selects 2% of the special education population in each complex, with no less than 12 and
no more than 20 per complex. Each case is rated on indicators for current student status and
current system performance. The benchmark is a complex average of 85% for overall student
status and system performance.
3. A report generated by the SESB will be sent to the complexes within 30 school days after the
completion of the internal review. Various sources of data will be analyzed, including the results
of the case-based reviews, the results of the Special Education Student File Review – Focused
Checklist and performance data. The report will include the identification of noncompliance and
the timeline for submittal of documentation of correction of the noncompliance to the SESB. A
review of the documentation, an on-site visit, and/or a desk audit will be conducted within but no
later than six (6) months to verify the correction of the noncompliance. If the noncompliance was
not corrected, the SESB will work collaboratively with the District Special Education staff and the
Complex Area Superintendent to provide targeted technical assistance to the school(s) and/or
Hawaii
State
complex to correct the noncompliance. If the targeted technical assistance does not result
correction of the noncompliance within three months, SESB will submit a report of noncompliance
to the State Deputy Superintendent. The State Deputy Superintendent will then direct the school
or complex to immediately correct any areas of noncompliance. SESB will conduct a follow-up
visit 60 days after the State Deputy Superintendent’s mandate to the schools or complex to verify
correction of noncompliance. The information regarding noncompliance found will be flagged for
review in the next scheduled monitoring of the agency.
4. Any noncompliance issues raised by anyone in the school community (parents, school and/or
district personnel, the Superintendent, the Attorney General’s office, community, etc.) will be
initiate further investigations by the SESB. The investigations may include, but is not limited to,
interviews, records reviews, on-site visitations, and desk audits. The SESB will inform the school,
District Educational Specialist and Complex Area Superintendent of any systemic findings of
noncompliance and the timeline for submittal of documentation of correction of the
noncompliance to the SESB. A review of the documentation, an on-site visit, and/or a desk audit
will be conducted within, but no later than, six (6) months to verify the correction of the
noncompliance. If the noncompliance was not corrected, the SESB will work collaboratively with
the District Educational Specialist and Complex Area Superintendent and provide technical
assistance to the school(s) and/or complex to correct the noncompliance. If the targeted
assistance does not result in correction of the noncompliance within three months, the SESB will
submit a report of the noncompliance to the Deputy Superintendent for appropriate follow up
within two months of the submittal of the report to ensure correction of the noncompliance.
In the SY 2006-2007, the HIDOE refined its previous monitoring process to include additional sources of
data. The data collected on four areas are targeted to determine the level of state oversight for a
complex. These four areas and the benchmarks are:
1. Results of the case-based reviews with a benchmark of 85% or better for overall student status
and system performance;
2. Results from the Student File Review-Focused Checklist with a benchmark of 90% or better on
Individualized Education Program (IEP), Identification (evaluation and eligibility), and Procedural
Safeguards;
3. Monthly special education data for the complex with established benchmarks for IEPs current,
60-day timeline, service gaps, and three (3) year re-evaluations in eight (8) out of 10 months
(August 2006 through May 2007) or the last five (5) consecutive reporting periods (January 2007
through May 2007);
4. No Child Left Behind participation benchmark (95%) for special education students in reading and
math for School Year 2005-2006.
The data from SY 2006-2007 will be used by the HIDOE to determine the level of oversight according to
the following criteria:
Level 3:
Level 2:
Level 1:
Meets benchmarks in 4 areas
Meets benchmarks in 3 areas
Meets benchmarks in 2 or less areas
Complexes in Level 3 will be responsible for evaluating their own performance, creating and
implementing improvement plans, and monitoring the results for students with disabilities on a regular
basis. The complex will submit an annual Sustainability Report at the end of the SY 2007-2008 to the
Director of Special Education, with evidence and an explanation of any progress and/or slippage on their
monthly special education data, participation rate for the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), and
implementation of improvement activities after the Case-Based Review and Student File Review-Focused
Checklist. District and state assistance will be provided if the complex demonstrates the inability to meet
any benchmark. The complex will be scheduled for an external monitoring in SY 2010-2011 which will
include an external Case-Based Review and Student File Review-Focused Checklist.
Hawaii
State
Complexes in Level 2 will have a focused monitoring, depending on the following need areas:
¾
¾
¾
¾
If the need area is the Case-Based Review, there will be an internal Case-Based Review
conducted in SY 2007-2008;
If the need area is the Student File Review-Focused Checklist, the complex will randomly select
IEPs to be reviewed using the checklist;
If the need area is the monthly special education data, the complex will submit evidence that the
data benchmarks are being met or identify the cause(s) and strategic action(s) to address the
issue(s); and
If the need area is the participation rate for NCLB, the complex will submit evidence that the
participation rate for has met the benchmark or identifies the cause(s) and strategic action(s) to
address the issue.
District and state assistance will be provided if the complex demonstrates the inability to meet the
benchmark in any of the areas. The complex will be required to submit an annual Sustainability Report at
the end of the SY 2007-2008 to the Director of Special Education, with evidence and an explanation of
any progress and/or slippage on their monthly special education data, participation rate for NCLB, and
implementation of improvement activities after the Case-Based Review and Student File Review-Focused
Checklist. The complex will be scheduled for an external monitoring in SY 2009-2010 which will include
an external Case-Based Review and Student File Review-Focused Checklist.
Complexes in Level 1 will receive district and state assistance to determine the causes and actions for
improvement. The complex will submit a plan of action to the Director of Special Education by
September 30, 2007. The complex will be scheduled for an external monitoring in SY 2007-2008 which
will include an external Case-Based Review and Student File Review-Focused Checklist.
Continuous Integrated Monitoring & Improvement Process Cycle
Special Education Services Evaluation
-
Case-based Reviews (85% Benchmark)
Student File Review- Focused Checklist (90% Benchmark)
Monthly Special Education Data (Meet benchmarks 8 out of 10 months or 5 final consecutive months)
Hawai'i State Assessment: Participation (95% participation SPED students in reading & math)
LEVEL 1
Passed 2 or less components
LEVEL 2
Passed 3 components
LEVEL 3
Passed all 4 components
Level 3.1
Monitor SPED & HSA Data
Sustainability Report
LEVEL 1
Level 2.1
- Joint District & State Tech Assist
External CIMIP"
- Action Plan
- District Tech
Assist
Focused
Monitoring
- Actions to Correct
Write Monitoring
Report
- Focused
- Sustainability Report
Maintained Performance
SPED &/or HSA Data doesn't
meet benchmark
Improve
Level 3.2.B
Level 3.2.A
- Monitor: SPED Data & HSA
Maintained
Performance
SPED &/or HSA Data doesn't
meet benchmark
Level 3.3.A.2
Level 3.3.A.1
- Monitor:
SPED Data & HSA
-
District Tech Assist
Actions to Correct
Monitor Data
-
District Tech Assist
Actions to Correct
Monitor Data
Improved or
corrected
Level 3.3.B.1
- Monitor:
SPED Data & HSA
Level 2.2.A
- Monitor:
SPED Data & HSA
No improvement or
correction
Level 2.2.B
- State Tech Assist
- Actions to Correct
- Focused Monitoring
• Each row of the chart represents one
school year.
• SES Evaluation returns to the top to
determine new level.
No improvement or
correction
Level 3.3.B.2
SES EVALUATION
SES EVALUATION
- State Tech Assist
- Actions to correct
- Focused monitoring
SES EVALUATION
Hawaii
State
Any noncompliance issues raised by anyone in the school community (parents, school and/or district
personnel, the Superintendent, the Attorney General’s office, community, etc.) will initiate further
investigations by the Special Education Services Branch. The investigations may include, but is not
limited to, interviews, records reviews, on-site visitations, and desk audits. The Special Education
Services Branch will inform the school, District Education Specialist, and Complex Area Superintendent of
any systemic findings of noncompliance and the timeline for submittal of evidence to demonstrate
correction of the noncompliance. A review of the evidence, an on-site visit, and/or a desk audit will be
conducted within, but not later than, six (6) months to verify the correction of the noncompliance. If the
noncompliance is not corrected, the Special Education Services Branch (SESB) will collaborate with the
District Educational Specialist and Complex Area Superintendent to provide the necessary technical
assistance to correct the noncompliance. If the targeted assistance does not result in correction of the
noncompliance within three (3) months, the Director of Special Education will submit a report to the
Deputy Superintendent for appropriate follow up to ensure correction of the noncompliance. SESB will
again review the evidence by conducting a desk audit in two months. If the noncompliance is not
corrected, SESB will direct and monitor the use of monies to address and correct the noncompliance
issue(s).
Hawaii
State
Hawaii
State
FFY
2005
(2005-2006)
2006
(2006-2007)
2007
(2007-2008)
2008
(2008-2009)
2009
(2009-2010)
2010
(2010-2011)
one (1) year.
one (1) year.
one (1) year.
one (1) year.
one (1) year.
one (1) year.
Activities
Timeline
SESB personnel will select 5% of the IEPs
from one-third of the complexes, including
charter schools. These selected IEPs will be
reviewed using the Special Education Student
File Review - Focused Checklist.
September 2005 –
April 2006
from two-thirds of the complexes, including
charter schools. These selected IEPs will be
reviewed using the Special Education Student
File Review - Focused Checklist.
September 2006 –
April 2007
from complexes in Level 1. These selected
IEPs will be reviewed using the Special
Education Student File Review – Focused
Checklist.
September 2007 –
April 2008
September 2008 –
April 2009
September 2009 –
April 2010
September 2010 –
April 2011
Resources
SESB
Hawaii
State
Activities
Timeline
Resources
The completion of the case-based reviews by
external reviewers in complexes in Level 1,
including charter schools, and an internal
case-based review in complexes in Level 2
who did meet the benchmark in the previous
school year.
September 2007 –
April 2008
September 2008 –
April 2009
September 2009 –
April 2010
September 2010 –
April 2011
SESB
Contracted HIDOE
reviewers/mentors
Partnership with Hawaii
Department of Health (Child
and Adolescent Mental
Health Section and Early
Intervention Section)
A report from the SESB will be sent to the
districts, complexes, and schools within 30
school days following the end of the external
review. Any noncompliance identified during
the application of the Special Education
Student File Review – Focused Checklist and
the corrective actions and timelines will be
included in the report.
September 2005 –
April 2006
September 2006 –
April 2007
September 2007 –
April 2008
September 2008 –
April 2009
September 2009 –
April 2010
September 2010 –
April 2011
State SESB
SESB will correct noncompliance identified
during the file reviews and the investigation of
issues raised by the school community. The
school(s) and/or complex(es) will submit to
SESB documentation of correction of the
noncompliance. SESB will conduct a
verification of the documentation submitted.
If the noncompliance is not corrected, SESB
will work collaboratively with the District
Special Education staff and the Complex Area
Superintendent to provide targeted technical
assistance. If the targeted technical
assistance does not produce correction of the
noncompliance, SESB will submit a report to
the Deputy Superintendent for appropriate
follow up actions.
SESB will again review the evidence by
conducting a desk audit in one (1) month. If
the noncompliance is not corrected, SESB will
direct and monitor the use of monies to
address and correct the noncompliance
issue(s).
Hawaii
State
Activities
Develop a plan to include State Performance
Plan (SPP) indicators in our general
supervision process.
Timeline
January 2007 –
June 2008
Resources
SESB, SPP Focus Group
Hawaii
State
Monitoring Priority: General Supervision
Indicator 16:
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. (Compliance target=100%)
[20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A)]
Measurement:
A. Percent of complaints reports issued within timelines or allowable extensions.
11 + 0 x 100 = 100% compliance
11
FFY
2005
(2005-2006)
100% compliance
Eleven (11) written complaints were filed. All complaints were issued with findings within timelines
without extensions. There was 100% compliance for 2005-2006. Targets were met.
Activities were conducted and completed. No slippage occurred. Last school year the State reported
100% compliance, therefore, the State met the target for two consecutive years performing the same
activities. All efforts will be made to continue the targets and activities for the next school year to
maintain 100% compliance.
No changes to targets, activities or timelines, . Amendment to SPP: (See revised SPP submitted)
Measurement: B. Percent = [(1.1)(b) + 1.1(c) divided by 1.1] times 100. Amendment in bold.
Minority Priority Indicator 16 - Page 1
Hawaii
State
Indicator 16:
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. [Compliance target=100%]
[20 U.S.C.1416(a)(3)(B)]
Measurement:
A. Percent of complaints reports issued within timelines or allowable extensions.
B. Percent = (1.1(b) + 1.1(c)) divided by (1.1) times 100.
The Complaints Management Program (CMP), Office of Curriculum, Instruction, and Student Support,
accepts signed written complaints from parents, third parties, or organizations that allege individual or
systemic violations of Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA). CMP
investigates the allegations and issues Findings of Fact, a Decision and Order in a Complaints
Investigative Report within 60 days of the receipt of the written complaint. Should the investigative
report uncover violations of IDEA, a corrective action plan is ordered. Within 60 days of the
acceptance of a corrective action plan, the CMP conducts an on-site visit to verify the implementation
of the corrective action plan. A verification report is issued and the case is monitored until all actions
are completed, usually within a year. There have been a few cases in which corrective action may
not be completed within a year, such as compensatory education.
Measurement B:
100% = 9 + 0 x 100 = 100% compliance
9
The Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE) reported 100% compliance for written complaints issued
with findings within timelines. All complaints were investigated and findings were issued within 60 days
without extensions. The targets are consistent with OSEP requirements of 100% compliance. All targets
are set for 100% compliance. Based on the past two FFY of data, the HIDOE is confident that the targets
will be met. The activities below improve current practices while maintaining 100% compliance.
FFY
2005
(2005-2006)
2006
(2006-2007)
100% compliance
100% compliance
Hawaii
State
FFY
2007
100% compliance
(2007-2008)
2008
100% compliance
(2008-2009)
2009
100% compliance
(2009-2010)
2010
100% compliance
(2010-2011)
Activities
Timeline
Resources
Develop and adhere to strict
internal timelines through a
checklist to meet the 60-day
timeline.
July 1, 2006
Special Education Section, Complaints
Management Program
Develop and maintain an
integrated computer log which
automatically calculates written
complaint investigative reports,
their status and the percent
issued within timelines.
July 1, 2007
Management Program
Develop and improve
investigation skills and writing
skills of the educational
specialist and resource
teachers who write the findings
of fact through professional
development.
July 1, 2008
Management Program
Improve, develop and expand
the current electronic data
collection system to ensure
accurate trend analyses and
integrate other data systems to
give schools a complete picture
of the kinds of complaints filed
against their schools for use to
develop corrective action plans
to avoid written complaints.
July 1, 2009
Management Program
Hawaii
State
Activities
Timeline
Resources
Conduct on-site visits at
schools with many written
complaints to employ early
resolution practices and
develop a corrective action plan
to correct system
noncompliance.
July 1, 2010
Management Program; school
administrators; district educational
specialists; complex area superintendents
Conduct a comprehensive
analysis and corrective action
system to detect and correct
system occurrences of
noncompliance in districts.
July 1, 2011
Management Program; school
administrators; district educational
specialists; complex area superintendents
Response to OSEP’s letter dated October 13, 2005 Conclusion #2 which reads:
“ . . .In the State’s Performance Plan, due December 2, 2005, Hawaii must submit to OSEP: 2. data on the
number of complaints filed during the APR reporting period and delete any targets that are inconsistent with its
responsibility to ensure that 100 percent of decisions in Part B complaints are issued within the 60-day timeline
or within allowable extensions (34 CFR §300.661(a)(1) and (b) . . .)”
•
•
•
•
FFY 2003 (2003-2004) complaints data were reported electronically in different windows in the APR. HIDOE
reported 12 written complaints in the FFY 2003. The other numbers were reported erroneously due to technical
electronic confusion. FFY 2003 written complaints data are as follows:
12 complaints
9 written complaints with findings in a final decision within timelines
3 complaints suspended (pending) because a due process hearing was requested on the same
issues. At the time of the APR submission, the hearing process was not completed thus the complaint process
could not proceed.
100% compliance
FFY 2003 (2003-2004) complaints targets indicated less than 100% compliance. This SPP reports as follows:
•
All targets in this SPP for Indicator 16 are set at 100% compliance, every year. Indicator 16
requires complete and comprehensive compliance annually.
Hawaii
State
Indicator 17:
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)]
Measurement:
A. Percent of fully adjudicated decisions within timelines and/or extensions.
50 x 100 = 100% compliance
50
FFY
2005
(2005-2006)
100% compliance
As of January 1, 2007, fifty hearings were fully adjudicated. Five (5) hearing decisions were issued within the
45-day timeline. Forty-five (45) hearing decisions were issued within allowable extensions. The State met its
target of 100% compliance.
Activities were conducted and completed. No slippage occurred. Last school year the State reported 100%
compliance, therefore, the State met the target for two consecutive years performing the same activities. All
efforts will be made to continue the targets and activities for the next school year to maintain 100%
compliance.
Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for
2006-2007:
No changes to targets, activities or timelines.
Hawaii
State
Indicator 17:
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. [Compliance target = 100%]
[20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B)]
Measurement:
A. Percent of fully adjudicated decisions within timelines and/or extensions.
B. Percent = (3.2(a) + 3.2(b)) divided by (3.2) times 100.
The Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE) executed a Memorandum of Agreement with another
state agency to conduct the due process impartial hearings. The Department of Commerce and
Consumer Affairs (DCCA) employs licensed attorneys as administrative hearings officers to conduct
the due process hearings. HIDOE is a single statewide educational agency with a unitary system of
due process hearing requests. All due process hearing requests rise to the state level and are
reported. Due process hearings were filed at the rate of 1% of the total special education population
annually. Approximately half of the decisions find HIDOE in compliance with Individuals with
Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA) and no corrective action is ordered. HIDOE
employs effective dispute resolution interventions and as a result more than 75% of the hearing
requests are resolved before a hearing. If a hearing decision issues an order requiring HIDOE action,
the Complaints Management Program (CMP) conducts an onsite visit within 60 days to verify the
implementation of the decision. A debriefing session occurs to detect and correct noncompliance, if
any. A verification report is issued to document the implementation. If corrective action is ordered,
the corrective action is implemented within a few months and no later than one year.
100% = 1 + 38 x 100 100% compliance
39
The HIDOE reported 100% compliance for the baseline data in Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2004 (20042005). All fully adjudicated due process hearing decisions were issued within the 45-day timeline or
allowable extensions. The HIDOE previously reported less than 100% compliance in the FFY 2003
(2003-2004) but has since improved to meet the compliance indicator. All targets reflect the mandatory
100% compliance. All activities support practices to continue meeting the 100% compliance target.
FFY
2005
(2005-2006)
2006
(2006-2007)
100% compliance
100% compliance
Hawaii
State
FFY
2007
100% compliance
(2007-2008)
2008
100% compliance
(2008-2009)
2009
100% compliance
(2009-2010)
2010
100% compliance
(2010-2011)
Activities
Timeline
Resources
Encourage parties to use the
dismissal/withdrawal forms as
soon as the parties come to an
agreement to complete the
hearing process within timelines.
A dismissal and withdrawal form
was developed by the HIDOE and
distributed. Continue to make the
form available to the parties.
July 1, 2006
Department of Commerce and
Consumer Affairs, Office of
Administrative Hearings; Department of
the Attorney General, Education
Division; District Educational
Specialists; Special Education Section,
educational specialist and resource
teachers; school administrators.
Improve and develop data
collection of the extension orders.
Continue to maintain data on the
reasons for the extensions.
Continue to keep data on the
timelines for the extensions and
the issuance of a decision within
the timelines.
July 1, 2007
Improve and develop the
hearings officer’s log. Ensure
accurate information on the
number of hearings, timelines and
disposition of all cases.
July 1, 2008
Continue to verify the
implementation of hearing
decisions expeditiously and no
later than one year from the
decision date.
July 1, 2009
District Educational Specialists; Special
Education Section, educational
specialist and resource teachers; school
administrators.
Hawaii
State
Activities
Timeline
Resources
Continue to conduct on-site visits
with the school to debrief staff on
the results of the hearing decision
and the implications to the
individual student’s education
and/or systemic corrections
necessary to avoid other due
process hearings.
July 1, 2010
Department of the Attorney General,
Education Division; District Educational
Develop and implement a
corrective action system to
correct systemic recurring issues
through a corrective action plan
with the school and district
personnel.
July 1, 2011
Department of the Attorney General,
Education Division; District Educational
Response to OSEP’s letter October 13, 2005, Conclusion #3 which reads:
“. . .In the State’s Performance Plan, due December 2, 2005, Hawaii must submit to OSEP: 3. either data
and analysis demonstrating compliance with the due process hearing timelines or a plan for ensuring that all
due process hearing decisions are issued within the 45-day timeline or within allowable extensions, with a
report to OSEP not later than thirty days following one year from the date that OSEP accepts the plan (34
CFR §300.511). The State also must revise to 100 percent its targets for issuance of timely hearing
decisions and timely implementation of hearing decisions and settlement agreements; . . .”
•
•
•
In FFY 2004 (2004-2005), the Department reported 100% compliance. Indicator 17 reports
100% compliance which meets the compliance indicator.
Activities include a plan to maintain the practices of FFY 2004 which reported 100% compliance
and perfect current practices to ensure 100% compliance in subsequent years.
All targets in the SPP are set at 100% compliance.
Hawaii
State
Indicator 18:
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)]
Measurement:
A. Number and percentage of settlement agreements resulting from a resolution session.
B. Percent = 3.1(a) divided by (3.1) times 100.
Resolution sessions were a new requirement of Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement
Act of 2004 (IDEA) beginning July 1, 2005. Prior to a due process hearing, the Hawaii Department of
Education (HIDOE) conducted a resolution session within 15 days of the request for hearing unless
both parties waive the resolution session. At the resolution session, the parties were encouraged to
resolve the issues, in whole or in part. If a resolution was achieved, a legally binding written
document, signed by the parent and the HIDOE was executed, barring a revocation. Data was
collected during the Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2005 (2005-2006) which reported the number and
percentage of settlement agreements resulting from a resolution session. The following activities
were instigated to implement resolution sessions in the due process hearing procedures:
•
•
•
•
•
Developed and distributed resolution session forms to be used as tools.
Provided IDEA training for a cadre of school personnel, district educational specialists, and
state educational specialists explaining the resolution session and its requirements.
Recommended use of facilitators at the resolution sessions to ensure efficacy.
Offer facilitation training to state, district, and school personnel.
Develop and maintain an electronic log to collect resolution session data.
26 x100 = 16% resolved through resolution session
160
In FFY 2005 (2005-2006), the HIDOE collected baseline data on the number of resolution sessions
conducted. Of the 160 resolution sessions conducted, the HIDOE executed 26 settlement agreements as
a result of a resolution session which calculated to 16% of the cases. As a result, the parties were able to
avoid a hearing where the case resulted in a settlement agreement.
FFY
2006
The HIDOE will execute a settlement agreement as a result of a resolution session
18% of the time.
(2006-2007)
Hawaii
State
FFY
2007
20% of the time.
(2007-2008)
2008
(2008-2009)
2009
(2009-2010)
2010
(2010-2011)
22% of the time.
24% of the time.
26% of the time.
Activities
Timeline
Resources
Special Education Section,
Complaints Management Program
will assemble district personnel to
facilitate resolution sessions
July 1, 2007
Educational Specialist; Complaints
Management Program Resource
Teachers; Judiciary’s Center for
Alternative Dispute Resolution;
Consortium for Appropriate Dispute
Resolution in Special Education
will offer mediation, facilitation,
conciliation training to district
personnel
July 1, 2008
Resolution in Special Education,
Mediation Center of the Pacific
will establish training for district
personnel to be facilitators.
July 1, 2009
Mediation Center of the Pacific
will offer training for incoming
administrators in the area of
facilitation and effective
communication skills.
July 1, 2010
Mediation Center of the Pacific.
Hawaii
State
Indicator 19: Percent of mediations held that resulted in mediation agreements.
[20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B)]
Measurement:
A. Percent of mediation agreements executed related to a due process hearing or not related
to a due process hearing.
(Measurement is not applicable because the “N” size is smaller than 10.)
FFY
2005
(2005-2006)
75% mediation agreements per mediation sessions held
In Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2005, the State reported less than 10 mediations conducted. Pursuant to U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP’s) instructions, the State is not
required to report data less than 10.
Activities were completed. The State Performance Plan (SPP) was amended to include additional activities
to increase the number of mediations statewide. FFY 2004 reported a 72% rate of mediation agreements
per mediations conducted. In FFY 2005, no data was reported since the “N” size was less than 10. The
State recognized that an increase in participation in mediation would decrease the number of cases
adjudicated at hearing. The State augmented activities to encourage participation in mediation.
Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources
for 2006-2007:
In light of the low participation, the State is improving the activities to address the low participation and to
improve the number of mediations and their efficacy. The targets will remain rigorous. The targets will
increase the percentage of settlement agreements executed. The activities will be increased to include
more activities to educate the public (parents and community groups) about mediation, facilitation and
conciliation services offered free of charge to resolve issues relating to students with disabilities. (Please
see SPP for details)
Minority Priority Indicator 19 - Page 1
Hawaii
State
Indicator 19:
Percent of mediations held that resulted in mediation agreements.
[20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B)]
Measurement:
A. Percent of mediation agreements executed related to a due process hearing or not related
to a due process hearing.
B. Percent = (2.1(a)(i) + 2.1(b)(i)) divided by (2.1) times 100.
Mediation is encouraged at all levels with or without a due process hearing request. As required by
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA), the Hawaii Department of
Education (HIDOE) contracts with an impartial contractor to provide mediation services for any
school, statewide, without cost to the parent. Mediation agreements are executed and enforced with
the same force and effect as a settlement agreement. Schools may use mediation services for any
stage of the special education process.
72% = 5 + 8 x 100
18
72% mediation agreements executed
Mediation agreements are executed 72% of the time if a mediation session is conducted. This indicates
the mediation process is successful. Although the numbers are small, the program is efficient. The
targets increase per year to achieve a 90% efficacy in 2011. The activities reflect the HIDOE’s
commitment to increasing the number of mediations per year.
FFY
2005
(2005-2006)
2006
(2006-2007)
2007
(2007-2008)
2008
(2008-2009)
75% mediation agreements per mediation sessions held.
Hawaii
State
FFY
2009
(2009-2010)
2010
(2010-2011)
Activities
Timeline
Resources
The HIDOE will improve school
administration and special
education awareness of the
mediation services by distributing
flyers biannually to all schools.
July 1, 2006
teachers; Statewide school administrators
and/or special education department;
Mediation contractor; Reprographics section
for duplication
The HIDOE will establish dispute
resolution training for
administrators at the state and
district levels to build capacity
and develop skills to avoid
conflicts at the school level.
July 1, 2007
Mediation contractor; Judiciary’s Center for
Alternative Dispute Resolution; Consortium
For Appropriate Dispute Resolution in
Special Education
The HIDOE will contact and
inform seventeen (17)
Community Children’s Council
Chairs and members to inform
them of the dispute resolution
options available.
July 1, 2007
Special Education, Mediation Center of the
Pacific
The HIDOE will develop or obtain
a training videotape, CD, video
streaming for school personnel to
build mediator capacity at the
school level.
July 1, 2008
Special Education; Teleschools Branch of
the HIDOE
Hawaii
State
Activities
Timeline
Resources
The HIDOE will develop or obtain
a videotape, CD, video streaming
for parents and school personnel
about effective communication
and nonverbal communication.
July 1, 2009
the HIDOE; parent organizations
The HIDOE will conduct on-site
visits to schools with high due
process rates and low mediation
session usage to explain the
advantages of mediation.
July 1, 2010
The HIDOE will redistribute a
mediation video with updates to
all schools.
July 1, 2011
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION
AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES
OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION
PROGRAMS
TABLE 7
REPORT OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION UNDER PART B, OF THE
INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT
2005-06
PAGE 1 OF 1
OMB NO.: 1820-0677
FORM EXPIRES: 08/31/2009
STATE: Hawaii
SECTION A: Written, signed complaints
11
(1) Written, signed complaints total
(1.1) Complaints with reports issued
11
(a) Reports with findings
11
(b) Reports within timeline
11
(c) Reports within extended timelines
0
(1.2) Complaints withdrawn or dismissed
0
(1.3) Complaints pending
0
(a) Complaint pending a due process hearing
0
SECTION B: Mediation requests
(2) Mediation requests total
12
(2.1) Mediations
9
(a) Mediations related to due process
5
(i) Mediation agreements
3
(b) Mediations not related to due process
(i) Mediation agreements
(2.2) Mediations not held (including pending)
4
3
3
SECTION C: Hearing requests
(3) Hearing requests total
(3.1) Resolution sessions
(a) Settlement agreements
(3.2) Hearings (fully adjudicated)
(a) Decisions within timeline
(b) Decisions within extended timeline
(3.3) Resolved without a hearing
187
160
26
50
5
45
137
SECTION D: Expedited hearing requests (related to disciplinary decision)
(4) Expedited hearing requests total
1
(4.1) Resolution sessions
1
(a) Settlement agreements
0
(4.2) Expedited hearings (fully adjudicated)
1
(a) Change of placement ordered
0
Hawaii
State
Part B Annual Performance Report (APR) for 2005-2006
Indicator 20:
State reported data (618 and State Performance Plan and Annual Performance
Report) are timely and accurate.
[20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B)]
Measurement:
A. Number and Percentage of 618 Data Reports submitted to OSEP in a timely manner.
B. Number and Percentage of records verified for Child Count.
C. Number and Percentage of 618 Data Reports verified.
FFY
•
2005
(2005-06)
•
•
100% of 618 Data Reports and the State Annual Performance Report are submitted
to OSEP in a timely manner.
All student records for the 2005 Child Count (21,963) were verified either by the
Integrated Special Education Database (ISPED) online verification process or by
manual follow up verification.
100% of 618 Data reports are verified by districts either by ISPED online verification
process or by manual verification. For the Annual Performance Report, the Special
Education Section utilizes data from verified 618 Data Reports. The Annual
Performance Report is further reviewed and scrutinized by Special Education
Section Specialists for data accuracy.
Target Data for Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2005 (2005-06)
•
•
•
100% of reports verified by districts and schools for all U.S. Department of Education, Office
of Special Education Programs (OSEP) required federal tables
All 21,963 special education records (100%) were verified via the online reports in ISPED.
100% of reports to be submitted to OSEP on time.
Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources for Fiscal Year (FFY) 2005 (2005-06)
Activities
Timeline
Resources
Status
All 618 Data Reports
and the State Annual
Performance Report
verified for accuracy
and submitted in a
timely manner.
February 1, 2006
November 1, 2006
State Educational Officers, State
Resource Teachers, District
Educational Specialist, District
Educational resource teachers,
State and District Personnel
specialist, School Special Services
Coordinators, ISPED.
All 618 data reports
were submitted on
time. All districts were
trained in August 2006
to facilitate verification
of data through ISPED
online reports. Only
Table 2 is hand
verified due to the
complexity and
Hawaii
State
Activities
Timeline
Resources
Status
dynamic nature of the
allocation and use of
positions at the district
and schools.
Meet with Information
Resource
Management Branch
to discuss Student
Information concerns
including inputting of
ethnicity.
March 30, 2006
Information Resource Management
Branch, Student Information
Database personnel, ISPED
Resource Teachers.
Meeting discussed
other topics such as
conversion of ISPED
ids to SIS ids.
Ethnicity should not
be a problem with
electronic
Comprehensive
Student Support
System (eCSSS)
database since the
source of ethnicity
field will be from one
source. Currently,
ethnicity is entered in
both Student
Information System
and ISPED.
Implementation of the
new ICSSS
Database.
October, 2006
State Educational Officers, State
Resource Teachers, District
Educational Specialist, District
Educational resource teachers,
State and District Personnel
specialist, School Special Services
Coordinators, ISPED, Information
Resource Management Branch,
Contractor for the CSSS Database.
DataHouse met with
various program
managers as needed
to identify and clarify
eCSSS design,
specifications and
functions to meet
program needs.
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanations of Progress or Slippage that
occurred for 2005-2006
All targets were achieved and maintained for 2005-2006. There are six (6) reports required under
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA) for 2005-06 Annual Performance
Report Tables 1-5. The State has developed verification procedures for all six (6) reports. An electronic
online verification process for Child Count (Table 1) is currently in place for Child Count. Electronic online
verification is also available for Tables 3, 4, 5. Districts manually verify Table 2 as the Office of Human
Resources do not have an electronic system that is verified.
Table 6 is a new report and is collected and verified by the Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE) of
Education Testing Section. This data was given to the Special Education Section in September 2005 by
the Testing Section.
Hawaii
State
With the new change to Table 3, the preschool LRE data will be submitted to the Special Education
Section and was compiled manually. The Special Education Data Management Section is working
closely with the statewide preschool 619 coordinator to collect the data on the new environment
categories.
The new Integrated eCSSS was originally scheduled for implementation in October 2006, but is now
rescheduled for February 2007. The new database will integrate three separate stand-alone systems –
ISPED, the current CSSS database, and the Safe Schools Information System (Discipline). The new
eCSSS will eliminate duplicate inputting when being referred under IDEA.
Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets/Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources
for 2005-2006
The only revision for the 2005-2006 fiscal year was the implementation date of the eCSSS system. This
change was due to the withdrawal of the original contractor from the project. HIDOE went to a second
bidding process as required by state procurement laws and procedures. The current implementation date
is February 27, 2007.
Hawaii
State
Indicator 20:
State reported data (618 and State Performance Plan and Annual Performance
Report) are timely and accurate.
[20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B)]
Measurement:
A. Number and Percentage of 618 Data Reports submitted to OSEP in a timely manner.
B. Number and Percentage of records verified for Child Count.
C. Number and Percentage of 618 Data Reports verified.
There are five (5) reports required under Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of
2004 (IDEA) for 2004-2005 Annual Performance Report Tables 1-5. The State has developed
verification procedures for all five reports. An electronic verification process for Child Count (Table 1)
was initiated during the December 1 2002 Child Count. This single change has significantly improved
the Hawaii Special Education Section’s ability to verify records of students with disabilities.
Up until the 2001 Child Count, schools were required to hand verify their respective list of IDEA
students. Beginning with the 2002 Child Count, with the help of the new Integrated Special Education
Database (ISPED), the Special Education Section (SES) was able to verify online each school’s Child
Count as well as other State Annual Performance data. Schools, districts and the State office, view
and verify online the number of students with current Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) to be
counted or not to be counted for Child Count. School personnel are given access to an ISPED online
report so changes, corrections and updates to any record can be made in a timely manner. Because
district and State level personnel are able to view records online, schools are much more responsive
at entering student data for Child Count, as well as, exit and discipline data. In addition, each
Complex Area Superintendent (CAS) confirms that all schools have submitted their verified data. Any
corrections are reported in the final school submittals and further hand-verified by the SES. Once all
records are verified, the reports are routed for the Superintendent’s signature and then forwarded to
the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP).
Each student in the Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE) is assigned a unique student identifier
to prevent duplication. Records are also crosschecked for duplicate records again prior to submittal
of the December Annual Child Count that is submitted to the U.S., Department of Education, OSEP
on February 1 (Tables 1 and 3). Recently, in 2005, this same electronic verification process has
become a reality for verifying the exit data (Table 4), as well as, the discipline data (Table 5).
To encourage schools to maintain current and accurate records, a monetary incentive award was
initiated in 2002 and will continue through the 2005 Child Count. Schools that have no errors are
eligible to receive up to $1,000. This incentive has had a considerable positive impact on improving
the quality of data for HIDOE.
The new Integrated Comprehensive Student Support Database (ICSSS) is scheduled for
implementation on October 2006. This new database will integrate three separate stand-alone
systems – ISPED, the current CSSS database, and the Safe Schools Information System (Discipline).
Hawaii
State
Because many students who are at risk are originally referred for other student support services and
inputted into the current CSSS database, the new ICSSS will eliminate duplicate inputting when being
referred under IDEA.
Baseline Data for Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2004 (2004-2005)
Baseline data for 2004-05:
• 100% of reports verified by districts and schools for all OSEP required federal tables
• All 22,711 special education records (100%) were verified via the online reports in ISPED
• 100% of reports to be submitted to OSEP on time.
Discussion of Baseline Data
As stated in the overview, all records are verified by districts and schools for Tables 1 and 3 via ISPED
prior to 618 data submittals. This is a unique system that has added much to the integrity of the
verification process.
This year, verification reports for Tables 4 and 5 have also been added to the ISPED online reports so
districts and schools are able to do further verification online for these reports.
The online verification process facilitates the timely submission of the reports. Table 2 still remains the
only report that districts have to consult with their personnel specialist to hand verify due to many
changes. Table 6 (State Assessment Report) will be verified by the Hawaii State Testing Office).
FFY
2005
(2005-2006)
2006
(2006-2007)
2007
(2007-2008)
100% of 618 Data Reports and the State Annual Performance Report are
submitted to OSEP in a timely manner.
100% of student records for Child Count are verified.
100% of 618 Data reports are verified by districts either by ISPED online
verification process or by hand. For the Annual Performance Report, the Special
100% of 618 Data Reports and the State Annual Performance Report are 100% of
618 Data Reports and the State Annual Performance Report are submitted to
OSEP in a timely manner.
Hawaii
State
FFY
2009
(2009-10)
2010
(2010-11)
100% of 618 Data Reports and the State Annual Performance Report are 100% of
618 Data Reports and the State Annual Performance Report are submitted to
OSEP in a timely manner.
Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources
Activities
Timeline
Resources
All 618 Data Reports and
the State Annual
Performance Report
verified for accuracy and
submitted in a timely
manner.
February 1, 2006
November 1, 2006
State Educational Officers, State Resource
Teachers, District Educational Specialist, District
Educational resource teachers, State and District
Personnel specialist, School Special Services
Coordinators, ISPED
March 30, 2006
Information Resource Management Branch,
Student Information Database personnel, ISPED
Resource Teachers.
Meet with Information
Resource Management
Branch to discuss
Student Information
concerns including
inputting of ethnicity.
Hawaii
State
Activities
Timeline
Resources
Implementation of the
new electronic
Comprehensive Student
Support System (eCSSS)
Database.
February, 2007
Coordinators, ISPED, Information Resource
Management Branch, Contractor for the CSSS
Database.
the State Annual
Performance Report
manner.
February 1, 2007
November 1, 2007
Coordinators, ISPED
the State Annual
Performance Report
manner.
February 1, 2008
November 1, 2008
Coordinators, ISPED
the State Annual
Performance Report
manner.
February 1, 2009
November 1, 2009
Coordinators, ISPED
the State Annual
Performance Report and
the new updated 6-Year
State Performance Plan
manner.
February 1, 2010
November 1, 2010
Coordinators, ISPED

(2005-2010) Overview (20 - Hawaii State Department of Education

Transcription

Similar documents

Winter 2012 - American Red Cross

Hawaii Swordfish - Hawaii

hawaii by small ship

education update - Hawaii State Department of Education

Midweek article - Senior Move Managers

Wedding Favors - Joy Kawai Consulting

At Home (Feb 2007) - GM Construction, Inc.

Fall 2007 - Honolulu Association of Insurance Professionals

Bobbie Noonan`s Child Care Information

Honolulu Star-Bulletin est. 1882