Resource Library

This customizable resource includes a PowerPoint template and presentation notes that provide states with an overview of the Part B SPP/APR reporting changes to Indicator 3, which addresses participation and performance of children with individualize education programs (IEPs) on statewide assessments. The resource reviews the new requirements related to stakeholders, particularly parents, in the SPP/APR and implications for Indicator 3 and shares strategies for engaging stakeholders in the optional baseline and required target setting processes. States are able to customize the information in the PowerPoint to reflect their own contexts and to meet the needs of different audiences.

States are allowed to use sampling for collecting data for select Part B State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report indicators. Sampling can provide an effective means for targeting resources for data collection and improving data quality. However, there are important requirements that states must consider when designing and implementing their sampling plans. States can use this interactive self-assessment tool to determine whether their state’s sampling plan addresses Office of Special Education Programs sampling requirements for best practice and to identify action steps to improve their sampling procedures.

Response rate and representativeness are important terms in survey work.  Consideration of both is necessary to ensure that collected data are valid and generalizable.  This resource briefly defines and compares the terms while also explaining how they relate to nonresponse bias. 

In State Performance Report/Annual Performance Plan (SPP/APR) reports, states are required to identify data quality issues that may have arisen during their Indicator 17 State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) work. Using this checklist can help state staff who are responsible for the SSIP apply the principles of high-quality data to identify any data quality issues that the state should report. The checklist includes questions that states can ask themselves to recognize data quality issues that may exist. It provides potential consequences of the issues and offers suggested actions that states can take to address the issues.