Resource Library

A graphic illustrating how different IDEA data collections can span multiple years and how a state may be working simultaneously with data from multiple school years.

Who doesn't love a good calendar? This tool serves as a reference for states as they plan for the timely and accurate submission of their 618 data collections. Simply select a month to view the data collection and corresponding tasks and activities for that month, or select a report to view a monthly breakdown of activities and related resources. 

This resource offers a side-by-side comparison of the SPP/APR Part B indicator measurement tables for FFY 2019 and FFY 2020 to highlight  new SPP/APR reporting requirements and measurement changes to Indicator 3.  The majority of students with disabilities participate in regular statewide assessments, and a small percentage of students with the most significant disabilities participate in alternate assessments. In FFY 2020, OSEP requires states to disaggregate statewide assessment results for these two groups of students with disabilities (i.e., those who participate in the regular assessment and those who participate in the alternate assessment). OSEP also requires states to calculate a “proficiency rate gap” between students with and without disabilities who participate in the regular statewide assessment.   

This video on Assessment details the participation and academic achievement information for students with and without disabilities on statewide assessments. This is one of a series of videos that provide high-level introductions to the data states must report as part of Section 618 of IDEA.

The SPP/APR indicators measure child and family outcomes as well as compliance with the requirements of IDEA. This quick-reference resource from IDC includes a list and brief definition of all the Part B FFY 2020–2025 SPP/APR indicators (including the new Indicator 18!), as well as a list of file specifications associated with each of the seven IDEA 618 data collections, all in one convenient package.

This white paper focuses on considerations that could lead Part C or Part B state agencies to propose a change in their SIMR baselines or targets. It defines baselines and targets in the context of SSIP, illustrates the importance of baselines and targets, and provides reasons for a state to propose changing its baselines or targets.

This white paper focuses on the relationship between SSIP Phases I and II by demonstrating how the theory of action can be used to develop the SSIP evaluation plan and performance indicators that measure progress toward the SIMR.