Archived Resources

The report presents a national quantitative picture of the implementation of Part B of IDEA based on a review of FFY 2012 APRs for the 50 states, commonwealths, territories, and the BIE.

The 2015 SPP/APR Indicator Analyses for Part C presents a national quantitative picture of the implementation of Part C of IDEA based on a review of information 56 states and jurisdictions reported in their FFY 2013 Annual APRs. For the purposes of the report, the term “state” is used for both states and territories. The report, which covers Part C Indicators 1 through 11, can be downloaded in Word format.

Montana and Arkansas Part B Data Managers presented how they conduct their post-school outcomes (Indicator B14) surveys and how they have been able to increase their response rates over four years. They discussed what has worked for them, what they have learned along the way, and how they can now use these data as a part of their SSIP analysis.

The 2015 SPP/APR Indicator Analyses for Part B presents a national quantitative picture of the implementation of Part B of IDEA based on a review of information 60 states and jurisdictions reported in their FFY 2013 Annual APRs. For the purposes of the report, the term “state” is used for both states and territories. The report, which covers Part B Indicators 1 through 17, can be downloaded in Word format.

The required measurements for APR Indicators B3, B4, B5, B6, B9, and B10 (the assessment, discipline, LRE, and disproportionality indicators) are based on Section 618 data. This session focused on selected section 618 data submissions and how the data can be explored to provide more in-depth information for use in discussion with state’s APR stakeholders. Presenters demonstrated some practical methods for taking a deeper look at data in the IDEA EDFacts file submissions using readily available data analysis tools (Microsoft Excel).

This interactive role-alike presentation for SPP/APR Coordinators engaged states in discussion and dialogue around their experiences with select APR Indicators that address student outcomes. The session included one state's experiences with capturing and using high-quality data and how the data are used to inform the APR and drive decisions for selecting and implementing strategies to improve student outcomes. Participants were encouraged to share their state's examples to improve the APR and student outcomes.

This role-alike presentation was a facilitated discussion by Part B Data Managers to explore strategies and solutions for meeting common challenges, such as working with LEAs to improve data quality, cross walking EDFacts data to SPP/APR indicators, and verifying that requirements for making data available to the public are fully met.