Louisiana Tax Topics Index

4481 users shared this document! click

Michigan Part B Annual Performance Report As required by 20 U.S.C. 1416 Sec. 616(b)(1) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 2004






Submitted to the U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs February 1, 2008 (Resubmitted to OSEP on 4/14/08*)





Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services




*For details of changes, please see Michigan APR Amendments, April 14, 2008 document. APR Part B Updated 5/2/08 Michigan Annual Performance Report Table of Contents Page
Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development........................... 1

Indicator 1 Graduation ...................................................................... 7

Indicator 2 Dropout .......................................................................... 18

Indicator 3 AYP - Assessment, Participation & Achievement.................... 29

Indicator 4A - Rates of Suspension and Expulsion ..................................... 45

Indicator 5 Educational Environments ................................................. 53

Indicator 6 Preschool Educational Environments ................................... 64

Indicator 7 Preschool Outcomes ......................................................... 65
Indicator 8 Facilitated Parent Involvement ........................................... 75

Indicator 9 DisproportionalityChild with a Disability ............................ 81

Indicator 10 DisproportionalityEligibility Category ................................ 95

Indicator 11 Part B Child Find .............................................................. 111

Indicator 12 Early Childhood Transition ................................................. 120

Indicator 13 Secondary Transition Services............................................ 126

Indicator 14 Postsecondary Outcomes................................................... 137

Indicator 15 Compliance Findings ......................................................... 145
Indicator 16 Complaints Resolved ........................................................ 160

Indicator 17 Hearings Adjudicated ........................................................ 164

Indicator 18 Hearing Requests Resolved by Resolution Sessions ............... 171

Indicator 19 Mediation Agreements ...................................................... 176

Indicator 20 Timely and Accurate Data.................................................. 181
Acronym List ......................................................................................... 189
APR Part B Updated 5/2/08 Michigan
Appendix A: Continuous Improvement and Monitoring System (CIMS) .......... 192

Appendix B: Michigans Integrated Improvement Initiatives (MI 3) ............... 198

Appendix C: Verification of Suspension and Expulsion Data.......................... 202

Appendix D: Update on Activities Regarding Indicator 7 .............................. 205
Appendix E: Indicator 7 Sampling Plan ..................................................... 208

Appendix F: Disproportionality Business Rules ........................................... 213

Appendix G: Compliance Checklist for Secondary Transition......................... 217
Appendix H: Table 6 Assessment ............................................................. 220

Appendix I: Table 7 Report of Dispute Resolution ....................................... 240

Appendix J: April 2008 Disproportionality Updates...................................... 242




APR Part B Updated 5/2/08 Michigan Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2006 (2006-2007) Overview Page 1 Annual Performance Report (APR) February 2008 Overview
This Annual Performance Report (APR) reflects a summary of Michigans progress
on its State Performance Plan (SPP) during FFY 2006 (2006-2007). The current
versions of the SPP and APR can be found on the Michigan Department of Education
website at www.michigan.gov/ose-eis .
The report addresses data from each of Michigans school districts. The December
1, 2006 School Code Master references 834 school districts: Over 500 traditional Local Education Agencies, Over 200 charter schools, known in Michigan as Public School Academies, 57 Intermediate School Districts and Regional Educational Service Agencies,
and State agencies
Within each Indicator, the number of districts reflected in the calculations varies
depending on the data verifications and the requirements, e.g. not all districts have
a preschool program or students with disabilities and some do not include secondary grade.

Process Used to Develop the APR:
The APR was developed under leadership from the Office of Special Education and
Early Intervention Services (OSE/EIS) at the Michigan Department of Education (MDE). Staff, contractors, grantees, and representatives from key stakeholder
organizations were involved in indicator teams. These teams, with the help of the
Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability, Office of Early Childhood
Education and Family Services, and the Center for Educational Performance and
Information, analyzed data collection strategies, available data, variables that
impact progress and slippage, and improvement strategies/activities.
The SPP/APR core team is organized according to four critical questions: 1. Are children with disabilities entering school ready to learn at high levels?
Indicators 6, 7, 11, & 12 2. Are students with disabilities achieving at high levels? Indicators 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, & 10 3. Are students with disabilities prepared for success beyond high school?
Indicators 1, 2, 13, &14 4. Does the infrastructure support the implementation of IDEA?
Indicators 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
Through on-going communication, the core team: a. supports the indicator leads within each of the four areas b. develops and implements reporting practices c. recommends system-level resources in order to complete indicator activities d. coordinates technical assistance activities across indicators, and e. assures quality in the reports data. APR Part B Updated 5/2/08 Michigan Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2006 (2006-2007) Overview Page 2 On an ongoing basis, the MDE works with federal technical assistance centers for
consultation, and/or resources. The following national centers, networks and
organizations have been utilized: Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) Consortium for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education (CADRE) Early Childhood Outcomes Center (ECO Center) Great Lakes East Comprehensive Center National Association of State Administrators of Special Education - IDEA Partnership (NASDSE) National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) National Center for Special Education Accountability Monitoring (NCSEAM) National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities (NICHCY) National Dropout Prevention Center for Students with Disabilities (NDPC-SD) National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center (NECTAC) NIMAS Development and Technical Assistance Centers (NIMAS-CAST) National Implementation Research Network (NIRN) National Post-School Outcomes Center (NPSOC) National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center (NSTTAC) North Central Regional Resource Center (NCRRC) Technical Assistance in Data Collection, Analysis, and Report Preparation
(Westat)
National center guidance is evident throughout the indicator overview and activity
sections. Staff turned to the centers for guidance in improvement planning which included tasks such as alignment with NCSEAMs eight general supervision
components, monitoring activities to match aspects of the disproportionality rubric,
and use of the post-secondary outcomes checklist. State IDEA funded grantees, as
well as the federally-funded regional and national resource center research and
evaluation specialists, provided expert consultation.

The Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC) 1 provided stakeholder input as did other communities of practice, core teams, partner organizations, and parent
networks. A more complete listing of stakeholder involvement and process
strategies and issues is presented in the Part B State Performance Plan Overview
(February 2008 Update/Revisions).
Data Strengths
The granularity, scope, and quantity of special education related-data helps the
OSE/EIS consider statewide improvements for all students. The data-driven
decision methods are listed below:

Data Collection Improvements: This years Annual Performance Report (APR)
describes improved data entry, collection, cleansing, and analysis practices. These
changes activated several cycles of system advancement. Collaboration with other MDE offices, the Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI), and 1 Michigans IDEA mandated special education State Advisory Panel APR Part B Updated 5/2/08 Michigan Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2006 (2006-2007) Overview Page 3 external data consultants produced improvements in the Single Record Student
Database (SRSD). Changes in the SRSD fields and data resolution processes as well
as the associated technical assistance are likely to increase the data reliability of several indicators such as graduation, dropout, and suspension/expulsion. Public Access to Data and Information
The OSE/EIS consulted with the following data systems experts to increase data
system capacity: Interagency Information Systems (IIS) developed the MDE public reporting
link, and maintained web support to LEAs as they review student subgroup
data. Wayne State Universitys (WSU) Center for Urban Studies designed data
portals for local and state views of both disproportionality and parent
involvement data. Public Sector Consultants (PSC) served the Transition Outcomes Project with
transition and post-secondary data. The Office of Early Childhood Education & Family Services (OECE&FS) worked with
High/Scope Educational Research Foundation to collect and analyze preschool
outcomes data.
Monitoring and Reporting
The OSE/EIS continued the use of an electronic workbook for the Service Provider
Self-Review (SPSR) component of its Continuous Improvement and Monitoring
System (CIMS) (See Appendix A). This creates improved monitoring and effective use of existing data. Sampling Strategies
The OSE/EIS adjusted survey strategies to better align with specific indicators.
External consultants continued to develop, enhance, and/or revise their methods to
further improve the collection of both compliance and results data. For example, WSU and PSC provided guidance for sampling specifications which were inclusive of
steps to assure data were representative, random, and stratified. Improvements in Reporting Demographic Information
All data team members are working together toward consistent implementation of the new Office of Management and Budget (OMB) race/ethnicity codes by 2011.
Meanwhile, they are implementing consistent reporting practices for students
identified as multi-racial. Relationships Among Indicators The OSE/EIS has begun a strategic analysis of which indicators are most likely to
impact the system, i.e., the deep drivers of the system. This approach implies a
systematic analysis within and across the federal clusters of FAPE in the LRE 2 , General Supervision, and Disproportionality. For example, by addressing the
interrelationships among indicators such as Disproportionate Representation, Graduation, Educational Environment, Student Achievement, and Parent 2 Free Appropriate Public Education in the Least Restrictive Environment APR Part B Updated 5/2/08 Michigan Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2006 (2006-2007) Overview Page 4 Involvement, the analysis may provide new opportunities for system success. The
coming year will provide continued opportunities for the OSE/EIS to build effective
connections.
Parent Involvement
A new parent support and involvement initiative, awarded to the Michigan Alliance
for Families (Alliance), is beginning to link families and schools in a stronger
partnership. This work includes the federally-funded Parent Training and Information Center (PTI) as well as other family entities. The work of this initiative
is directly linked to Indicator 8, Family Involvement; in addition, other initiatives
tied to other Indicators work collaboratively with the Alliance, such as the Michigan
Special Education Mediation Program.

Working Relationships Among LEA, ISD, and State Entities New systems of accountability influenced leaders at all levels of the system. This
need for collaboration resulted in increased frequency and quality of coordinated
LEA, Intermediate School District (ISD), and state learning opportunities. The
OSE/EIS has continued to expand communication, information dissemination and
guidance strategies to key stakeholders involved in meeting requirements of the IDEA. For example, monthly conference calls are held with ISD Special Education
Directors and with ISD Monitors. Quarterly meetings are also held with these
important staff. The Michigan IDEA Leadership Institute, initiated in 2005,
continues to provide guidance and information to a broad and inclusive audience of
educators, administrators, advocates and parents. These efforts are tied to improvement in both general supervision and student outcomes.

Public Reporting
Annual public reporting on the required indicators districts is accomplished through
the following: Verification-The OSE/EIS assured that school districts had the opportunity to review the data proposed for posting and gave them an opportunity to
prepare communications for their community about resulting improvement
plans. Posting Individual District Data- The OSE/EIS provided each Districts
performance on the required indicators with comparisons to the state or federal target, and where available, trend data. Posting Overall Indicator Performance- The Indicators and the executive
summaries of the SPP and APR were posted to the Michigan Department of
Education website. Collaboration with Community and Parents- The OSE/EIS works with the parent grantees to promote awareness of the public reporting process; Collaboration with Additional Stakeholders-The OSE/EIS collaborated with
stakeholder groups such as the SEAC to provide input on content and format
of the Public Reports. Shared Leadership with Intermediate School Districts (ISDs)- The OSE/EIS and ISD personnel worked to provide information to staff and the public
regarding improvement activities, responsibilities of LEAs, the State
Education Agency (SEA), and others in the reporting process. APR Part B Updated 5/2/08 Michigan Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2006 (2006-2007) Overview Page 5 Shared Learning-The OSE/EIS first public reporting cycle provided staff with
an additional opportunity to understand Local Educational Agency (LEA)
capacity to reflect and analyze data submissions. As the OSE/EIS identified error patterns in local data entry, LEAs were assisted in making changes to
data collection systems and data entry practices to reduce future data errors
and/or omissions. These in turn impact the quality of the states
accountability processes and are foundational elements to drive better
decision making.
Improving Systems for Effective General Supervision
The OSE/EIS has initiated an assessment of the status and integration of the
components of the general supervision system using the NCSEAM framework. This
began with a full day learning opportunity for all staff and contractors as well as all
state initiative directors. The focus was to expand and enhance the understanding of the components of general supervision and the linkages across the office and
state initiatives. This work is essential to effective implementation of the
requirements of the IDEA. Especially critical are the interrelationships among
monitoring, data collection and analysis, technical assistance and personnel
development, and fiscal management. This will enhance decision-making regarding the nature and scope of future improvement activities.

System Changes in Complaints and Due Process
During FFY 2006, the OSE/EIS initiated the design of a single-tier State Complaint
system. In addition, the OSE/EIS completed the first year of a new single-tier Due Process Hearing System, including utilization of Administrative Law Judges,
pursuant to an Interagency Agreement with the State Office of Administrative
Hearings and Rules (SOAHR).

Michigans Integrated Improvement Initiatives
In order to effectively implement all improvement strategies, the OSE/EIS has created Michigans Integrated Improvement Initiatives (MI 3) (see Appendix B).
MI 3 supports the adoption, coordination and implementation of research-based
strategies. A key component is using research available through the National
Implementation Research Network (NIRN). The data-driven decisions resulting from
the APR require efficacy in the implementation of all improvement strategies to sustain results over time. Working with Dr. Dean Fixsen and staff from NIRN, the
OSE/EIS is building strategies to coordinate and integrate the use of evidence-
based practices to support effective implementation across the state.

State Personnel Development Grant The new State Personnel Development Grant (SPDG) is supporting the scale-up of
Michigans Integrated Behavior and Learning Support Initiative (MiBLSi). This is a
research-based positive behavior support and literacy intervention initiative that
uses a Response to Intervention (RtI) framework. This scale-up will move this
effective initiative from 250 schools to 900 over the next several years. MiBLSi is linked to several indicators in the APR that report on student achievement and
progress.
APR Part B Updated 5/2/08 Michigan Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2006 (2006-2007) Overview Page 6 Michigans Determination Status and OSEPs November 2007 Verification
Visit:
The OSEPs response to last years APR submission and the verification visit led to several adjustments to OSE/EIS process and methods. While the OSE/EIS often
focuses on both compliance and results within an indicator, the OSE/EIS
understands the priority to meet compliance deadlines. For example, LEA correction
of findings of noncompliance found through state complaints, due process, and
monitoring will occur as soon as possible but no later than one year from the date of notification. These compliance findings will be reported separately. When
monitoring reveals a need for systemic improvements that are qualitative and
linked to results, not compliance, these changes may be completed over a longer
period, e.g. within two years through an improvement planning process.

With the OSEP guidance, the OSE/EIS staff clarified the action items and deadlines of the monitoring, findings, enforcement, and improvement steps in the Continuous
Improvement and Monitoring System (CIMS) work cycle. Issuance of a monitoring
report will now explicitly address the comprehensive set of expectations and
deadlines associated with findings and corrective action. These steps will raise a
shared sense of urgency for correction and improvement and result in clear expectations for compliance.

Indicators 16, 17, and 18 (State Complaints, Due Process Complaints and Hearings,
and Resolution Sessions) did not require responses to the OSEP Determination.
However, the OSE/EIS identified actions for improvement, which are included under new/changed activities within each indicator.

APR Part B Updated 5/2/08 Michigan Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2006 (2006-2007) Indicator 1 Page 7 Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2006 (2006-2007) Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development: 1. See General Overview pages 1-6. 2. Data used to calculate graduation and dropout rates came from the Single Record
Student Database (SRSD), maintained by the Center for Educational Performance
and Information (CEPI). As students with disabilities leave their school district, school district personnel report in the SRSD the exit status of each student (e.g.
graduated, dropped out, moved to a new district) 3. Michigan is changing its calculation methodology for exiting students. A discussion of the implementation of the National Governors Association (NGA) cohort method
for calculating graduation and its potential impact of graduation rates and the
setting of performance targets will follow. 4. In January 2007 Michigan passed final legislation outlining the Michigan Merit
Curriculum, a comprehensive set of graduation requirements intended to provide all
Michigan students with a challenging curriculum that will prepare them for
postsecondary success in education and/or employment. Students who are expected to graduate as the class of 2011 are subject to these graduation requirements.
Prior to this, only Civics was a state mandated credit. All other graduation
requirements were determined at a local education agency (LEA) level. Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE 3 /Graduation ( Results Indicator) Indicator 1: Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular
diploma compared to percent of all youth in the State graduating with a regular diploma. (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))
Measurement: Measurement for youth with IEPs should be the same measurement as for all youth. Explain calculation. 3 Free Appropriate Public Education in the Least Restrictive Environment APR Part B Updated 5/2/08 Michigan Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2006 (2006-2007) Indicator 1 Page 8 Measurable and Rigorous Targets Indicator Components FFY 2005 Data FFY 2006 Target FFY 2006 Data FFY 2006 Target Status Percent of youth with disabilities
graduating with a regular
diploma 70.6% n=5578 80% 69.0% n=9408 Target Not Met Number of students with IEPs who graduated with a regular high school diploma Number of students with IEPs who Graduated with a regular high school diploma + Number who received a certificate/GED + Dropped out + Aged out 4 + Deceased 9408 9408 + 237 + 3946 + 0 + 49 X 100 Source: Single Record Student Database

Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed Timelines Activities Discussion 2006-2007 1. Convene a referent group to reset
graduation targets to be
reported in the 2008
SPP/APR, because of
the new graduation requirements and the
new NGA cohort
calculation. A referent group of key stakeholders was convened to examine the state target in light
of Michigans new graduation requirements
and the National Governors Association
(NGA) cohort calculation approved by the US
Department of Education. The recommended targets were reviewed by the Special
Education Advisory Committee 5 (SEAC) and reset to match Education YES! targets,
Michigans accountability target under No
Child Left Behind (NCLB). This was completed in conjunction with the FFY 2005 submission. 2005-2011 2. Continue collaboration with the
National Dropout
Prevention Center
(NDPC). Receive
technical assistance from the NDPC. Michigan Department of Education (MDE) leadership from the Office of School
Improvement and Office of Special Education
and Early Intervention Services (OSE/EIS)
presented at and participated in the 2007
NDPC conference and conceptualized state strategies to address improving dropout rates
for students of diverse learning needs. 4 Michigan serves students with disabilities through age 25. The US Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) formula reflects students through age 21. Therefore, the category
Aged Out is zero in Michigan. 5 Michigans IDEA mandated special education State Advisory Panel APR Part B Updated 5/2/08 Michigan Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2006 (2006-2007) Indicator 1 Page 9 Timelines Activities Discussion

Michigan deployed enhanced components of this conceptual model into its year long
initiative Reach and Teach for Learning
within which building teams developed locally
applicable strategies for improving
performance and decreasing dropout
amongst students. 2005-2011 3. Continue to disseminate local
educational agency
(LEA) data reports on
graduation rates by
disability and ethnicity. The OSE/EIS posted LEA-level graduation data on the IDEA Public Reporting webpage.
As a result of IDEA public reporting feedback,
the OSE/EIS sent a memo to the field in
summer, 2007 detailing common reporting
errors and providing access to technical
assistance for correctly reporting exit data for students with disabilities.
Michigan continued to expand Intermediate
School District (ISD) and LEA level data
reports in the form of data portraits that
disaggregate data by factors such as disability and ethnicity.
The OSE/EIS assessed and improved the
processing of exit data. The OSE/EIS
developed business rules that delineated how
exit data are downloaded, cleaned, summarized and analyzed. 2006-2008 4. Disseminate statewide information
and training on high
school reform, including
the Michigan Merit
Curriculum (enacted April 2006), to inform
educators about the
SPP targets and
available resources. Michigan convened the High School Student Support and Intervention Action Team which
identified key identification and intervention
strategies for students, school personnel and
community members that address students
at risk of failure and dropout. The team also developed models of a series of 5-year
"hypothetical" course of study plans for
students with various barriers to learning and
achievement. The resulting document was
presented to the Deputy Superintendent and
disseminated to the field in the winter 2007. The information in this document has been
used to guide and influence both the Reach
and Teach for Learning project and the
Michigan Transition Outcomes Project
(MI TOP). APR Part B Updated 5/2/08 Michigan Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2006 (2006-2007) Indicator 1 Page 10 Timelines Activities Discussion The OSE/EIS worked collaboratively with the
Office of School Improvement and key education stakeholders to develop guidance,
training and supporting documents,
information, resources and training on the
requirements of the Michigan Merit
Curriculum and how students with diverse
abilities might achieve this rigorous graduation standard. Michigan has begun
the process of raising field awareness
through presentations at the MI TOP
workshops, the Michigan Idea Leadership
Institute, the Michigan Association of Administrators of Special Education, and the
Michigan Association of Intermediate School
Administrators regional meetings, and
individually to the field. 2006-2011 5. Work through the Continuous
Improvement and Monitoring System
(CIMS), using Focused
Monitoring, to
determine LEAs that
need technical assistance to improve
graduation rates. For the second consecutive year, the CIMS
Focused Monitoring process utilized data on
drop-out and graduation rates as one of the three targeted indicators in selecting
LEAs/PSAs for site visitation. The other two
factors were Educational Setting and
Identification Rate data. This resulted in
a statistical rating for every Michigan district. Following a data validation
procedure, districts whose combined ratings
were in the lowest quartile of all districts
were identified. Through a multi-faceted
review of data, interviews, and student record reviews, the OSE/EIS team examined
district policies, procedures, practices,
supervision, and infrastructure related to
their past and current data. If districts
were found to have non-compliant practices
leading to excessive drop-out rates and poor graduation rates, districts were offered
technical assistance in the development of a
mandatory improvement plan, and were
required to provide documentation of
corrective action within one year.
Michigan has incorporated aspects of both
quality and compliant elements of transition
into the CIMS. Michigan continued to
evaluate both the feasibility and practicality APR Part B Updated 5/2/08 Michigan Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2006 (2006-2007) Indicator 1 Page 11 Timelines Activities Discussion of further incorporation of these requirements
into CIMS.
Graduation rate work was also included into
the LEA determination process which drives
the CIMS site selection for the 2007-2008
school year. 2006-2011 6. Develop and implement best
practices leading to graduation and
successful transition to
post secondary roles. The OSE/EIS initiated collaboration with the
National Secondary Technical Assistance
Center (NSTTAC) and received technical assistance from the NSTTAC.
A Michigan team attended the NSTTAC State
Planning Institute. Team members
developed state strategies to address
improving transition practices for youth with
disabilities, thought to be a key intervention for improving graduation and dropout rates
for students with diverse learning needs.
Michigan deployed components of this
conceptual model into the Transition
Outcomes Project and is integrating this learning into the secondary redesign
initiative.

Michigan convened two Summits for Model
High Schools attended by over 1000 school personnel from across the state, for the
purpose of modeling collaborative
general/special education practices in high
performing schools. This was done in
partnership with the Office of School Improvement, the International Center for
Leadership in Education, Michigan Education
Association, Michigan Association of
Secondary School Principals, and the
Michigan Association of Administrators of
Special Education.
Michigan convened three workshops for
secondary transition and special education
personnel for the purpose of disseminating
best practices leading to graduation and successful transition to postsecondary roles.

In collaboration with the International Center
for Leadership in Education (ICLE) and the APR Part B Updated 5/2/08 Michigan Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2006 (2006-2007) Indicator 1 Page 12 Timelines Activities Discussion Great Lakes East Comprehensive Center
(GLECC), Michigan is continuing and enhancing the Reach and Teach for Learning
design as a Model Schools initiative by adding
key components of the Model Schools
framework. This collaborative design aligns
with the Michigan School Improvement
Framework as part of the general/special education shared work.
2006-2007 7. Target improved performance of special
education students at
the middle school level
in mathematics and English language arts
(ELA). The MI-Illuminations toolkit design emerged
from a State Improvement Grant (SIG)
general education/special education
collaboration using a root cause mapping
process initiated among English Language Arts (ELA) stakeholders in 2005. The MI-
Illuminations Toolkit has been refined and is
in the final stages of development. The SIGs Math initiative, Michigan
Mathematics Program Improvement (MMPI), has addressed two of five Grade Level
Content Expectations (GLCEs) strands in the
School Improvement Framework. MMPI
offered support to both special and general
education teachers through product and personnel development regarding
instructional sequencing, diagnostic
inventories and instructional planning.
Two types of personnel development sessions
have been developed. The Number Strand
workshop, six full days, is conducted over three to four months. The Geometry
Strand is comprised of three full days of
training spread over one to two months. As
of June 30, 2007, three ISDs participated in
the 6-Series Number Strand Workshop. One ISD completed the 3 Series Geometry
Stand. That ISD was awarded a sub-grant to
continue to build capacity and sustainability
for the project.
Michigan began the scale up process for the Michigan Integrated Behavior and Literacy
Support Initiative (MiBLSi). MiBLSi is a
statewide initiative that combines intensive APR Part B Updated 5/2/08 Michigan Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2006 (2006-2007) Indicator 1 Page 13 Timelines Activities Discussion literacy instruction and support with School-
wide Positive Behavior Support for the purpose of improving reading and school
culture. MiBLSi currently serves a total of
239 schools including 5 middle schools who
have been participating for 2 years. Each of
these schools have a leadership team that
have attended three data review sessions for the purpose of analysis and action planning.
Local coaches for these teams have attended
coaches meetings and local staff participated
in focused Behavior Management training.
Staff from these local teams also attended the state MiBLSi conference. An additional
15 middle schools began participating in this
initiative in June 2007. They have received
training in: The foundations of Positive Behavior Support (PBS) parts one, two and three Assessment and scoring of Reading
curriculum-based measures Foundations of school wide reading Targeted behavior interventions and support Strategic reading interventions and
support Training in data management systems Three high schools joined the initiative in May, 2007 as pilot sites. Presentations were
provided on school wide positive behavior
support and are focusing on the
implementation of PBS. They have received
five full days of training on Foundations for school wide behavior support. Staff from
each school have been trained in the
behavior management data system. Coaches
have attended coaches meetings.
Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for FFY 2006:
Michigan did not meet its FFY 2006 graduation target of 80% for students with
disabilities.
Graduation rates amongst students with disabilities slipped for the first time in three years. However, the discrepancy does not represent a statistically significant APR Part B Updated 5/2/08 Michigan Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2006 (2006-2007) Indicator 1 Page 14 change, essentially indicating that graduation rates for students with disabilities
was flat between the FFY 2005 and FFY 2006 reporting periods. It is anticipated
that rates will begin to demonstrate incremental improvement in coming years as a result of the State Performance Plan focus.

Data Reporting Issues
During the 2005-2006 school year (FFY2005) Michigan initiated the use of the
CEPIs Single Record Student Database (SRSD) for collecting data used to calculate graduation rates because of OSEPs requirement to move from a December
graduation calculation to a summer calculation. A critical factor in the
determination of exit status (and hence accurate and complete data) on students
with disabilities is the accuracy of reporting from local education agencies. Despite
Michigans multiple technical assistance (TA) efforts on this topic, challenges still
exist. For example, during the 2005-2006 (FFY 2005) reporting cycle, the largest local education agency in the state reported only 236 students as exiting (in the
category returned to general education). They reported no other students in any
of the exit categories (e.g., graduated). Following SEA guidance regarding the
accurate coding of exit status, that district then reported to the SEA all of its exit
data for the 2006-2007 school year (FFY2006). This contributed to the higher statewide total of 9,498 students reported as graduated. This improvement in
the accuracy of data reporting reflects improvement in appropriate data collection.
The result, while appearing to be an decrease in the graduation rate, is a more
accurate picture of graduation rates for Michigan.
Legislative Changes
In addition, Michigan has initiated a legislative requirement as part of the 2007
State School Aid Act, which requires Intermediate School Districts to employ a
person knowledgeable in reporting graduation and dropout data. The pupil auditing
manual establishes procedures for ISDs to audit the data used for computing
graduation and dropout rates, especially exit codes. This is expected to significantly
improve the quality of data being submitted by districts and eliminate changes made to data through the appeals process.
Changes in Calculation
For current reporting purposes, Michigan has continued to use an event method of
calculating graduation which provides a snapshot of the graduation rate for a
particular year amongst the current year seniors. This method does not account for students who drop out between ninth and eleventh grade, however, and tends to
over-represent the graduation rate in that it includes all graduates regardless of the
number of years taken to graduate. The consolidated state performance report,
which will be submitted in December 2008, will use the cohort methodology of
calculating graduation rates for the graduating class of 2007. In this report, graduates will be reportable by subgroup for the first time.
Beginning with the graduating class of 2007, Michigan will change to an
accountability system for high schools in which a graduation rates include only on-
time graduates who earn diplomas in four years. The state will use a four-year
adjusted cohort graduation rate calculated by tracking individual students from the APR Part B Updated 5/2/08 Michigan Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2006 (2006-2007) Indicator 1 Page 15 time they were enrolled as first-time ninth-graders, with a four-year expected
completion rate. This calculation aligns with the guidelines provided by the National
Governors Association Graduation Counts Compact. The new rate will replace the estimated four-year graduation rate (event rate) that was not fully compliant with
NCLB and will provide a more accurate description of the number of students who
graduate within four years of high school. In the summer of 2007, Michigan applied
for and was granted an amendment to the Accountability Workbook to allow some
students to use five years as the standard number of years to graduate with a regular diploma. On a case by case basis, students with disabilities can be given a
fifth year to finish high school credits and be recorded as an on-time graduate.
The graduation rate reported by the CEPI for 2004-2005 was 87.7. The formula
used to calculate that rate was an estimate based on the number of students that
enrolled and dropped out in each grade during the school year (event method).
Once finalized, the cohort graduation rate of the class of 2007 is expected to be around 77%. The target for making Adequate Yearly Progress for high schools is a
graduation rate of 80%. After examining graduation data for two consecutive years
under the cohort model (2007 and 2008), the Michigan Department of Education
will reassess targets and determine if new ones should be established. When this
information becomes available, the OSE/EIS will also reexamine targets and determine if they need to be reset to be consistent with NCLB requirements. Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets/Improvement Activities
Timelines/Resources for FFY 2006 Timelines New and Revised Activities Justification 2009-2010 1. Change in #1: Convene a referent group to reset graduation
targets to be reported in
the 2010 SPP/APR.
To maintain consistency within SEA
objectives: The current SPP targets are set to the Ed YES/NCLB target (actually higher
because the ED YES has a static target of
80%, and the SPP target rises to 85% in the
last year of this SPP). Summer 2008 2006-2007 the SRSD graduation rate will be finalized based on
the NGA cohort method. Summer 2009 2007-2008 the SRSD
graduation rate will be finalized and will
include the first group of potential 5
year successful leavers. During FFY 2009 Michigan will reset Ed
YES/NCLB targets based on these two
data points. Once those targets are reestablished the
OSE/EIS will want to reexamine SPP targets and reset for consistency.

Input from the SEAC will be part of this
process. The reset targets will be reported APR Part B Updated 5/2/08 Michigan Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2006 (2006-2007) Indicator 1 Page 16 Timelines New and Revised Activities Justification in the FFY 2008 APR submitted 2010. 2008-2011 2. New: Initiate collaborative work with
the Office of School
Improvement and key education stakeholders to
integrate special
education practices
developed for students
receiving special education services known
to support school
completion into common
educational practice
across the state. This would include continued work on
guidance, supporting materials and training
related to the Michigan Merit curriculum
graduation requirements and the Personal Curriculum option and the Educational
Development Plan process mandated by
state law for all students. 2008-2011 New: Develop and
implement a more integrated set of General
Supervision activities
across The general
supervision SPP indicators Michigans Integrated
Improvement
Initiatives (MI 3) Michigans emerging
work with the NCSEAM 6 General Supervision
Framework The OSE/EIS has determined that increased
coordination among the work within these indicator clusters is critical to achieving
positive outcomes for students and meeting
indicator targets. In conjunction with
Michigans State Personnel Development
Grant, the Michigan Integrated Improvement Initiatives (MI 3), the
OSE/EIS reorganized the work of the
Transition Outcomes Project and Reach and
Teach for Learning project into a combined
effort. This action links and provides a
platform for aligning improvement activities that prepare students for post-school
success. Michigan plans to develop a
statewide, deliverable performance
improvement system for Effective Transition
Practices. Drawing on evidence-based practices for successful transition and
effective implementation this effort is
aligned with the School Improvement
Framework and the Reaching And Teaching
Struggling Learners project. 6 National Center for Special Education Accountability Monitoring APR Part B Updated 5/2/08 Michigan Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2006 (2006-2007) Indicator 1 Page 17 Michigan Part B FFY 2005 SPP/APR Response Table from OSEP Indicator Status OSEP Analysis and Next Steps Michigan Response Michigans FFY
2005 reported
data for this indicator are
70.6%. This
represents
progress from
FFY 2004 data
of 69.7%. Michigan did
not meet its
FFY 2005
target of 80%. Michigan revised the
baseline, targets and
improvement activities for this indicator in its
SPP and OSEP accepts
those revisions.
OSEP looks forward to
Michigans data
demonstrating improvement in
performance in the
FFY 2006 APR, due
February 1, 2008.

Response to Identified Concerns: Increased data analysis led to the
identification of LEA errors in coding exiting students. This analysis
prompted the OSE/EIS to increase
guidance and technical assistance
(TA) specifically targeted at the
proper coding of exiting students. The MDE convened an inter- departmental team to develop, in
collaboration with key stakeholders,
guidance and technical assistance
materials and trainings to assist LEA
and ISD personnel in their understanding of and ability to help
students meet Michigans new
graduation requirements. In
addition to comprehensive support
documents describing the graduation credit requirements and
content expectations, the team
produced initial guidance on the
Personal Curriculum, a tool intended
to allow students to individualize the graduation requirements based on
disability and individualized need. APR Part B Updated 5/2/08 Michigan Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2006 (2006-2007) Indicator 2 Page 18 Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2006 (2006-2007) Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development:
1. See General Overview pages 1-6. 2. Data used to calculate graduation and dropout rates came from the Single
Record Student Database (SRSD), maintained by the Center for Educational
Performance and Information (CEPI). As students with disabilities leave their
school district, school district personnel report in the SRSD the exit status of
each student (e.g. graduated, dropped out, moved to a new district) 3. Michigan is changing its calculation methodology for exiting students. A
discussion of the implementation of the National Governors Association (NGA)
cohort method for calculating graduation and its potential impact of graduation
rates and the setting of performance targets will follow. 4. In January 2007 Michigan passed final legislation outlining the Michigan Merit Curriculum, a comprehensive set of graduation requirements intended to provide all
Michigan students with a challenging curriculum that will prepare them for
postsecondary success in education and/or employment. Students who are expected to graduate as the class of 2011 are subject to these graduation requirements.
Prior to this, only Civics was a state mandated credit. All other graduation
requirements were determined at a local education agency (LEA) level.
Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE 7 /Dropout (Results Indicator)
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 should be the same measurement as for all youth. Explain calculation. 7 Free Appropriate Public Education in the Least Restrictive Environment APR Part B Updated 5/2/08 Michigan Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2006 (2006-2007) Indicator 2 Page 19 Measurable and Rigorous Targets Indicator Components FFY 2005 Data FFY 2006 Target FFY 2006 Data FFY 2006 Target Status Percent of youth with IEPs
dropping-out 25.2% n=2,017 (unaudited 9/06 SRSD) 11.5% 28.9% n=3946 (unaudited 9/07 SRSD) Target Not Met Number of students with IEPs who dropped out Number with IEPs who graduated with a regular high school diploma + Number received a certificate/GED + Dropped out + Aged out 8 + Deceased 3946 9408 + 237 + 3946 + 0 + 49 X 100 Source: Single Record Student Database
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed Timelines Activities Discussion 2006-2007 1. Target improved performance of special
education students at
the middle school level in mathematics and
English language arts
(ELA). The MI-Illuminations toolkit design emerged
from a State Improvement Grant (SIG)
general education/special education
collaboration using a root cause mapping process initiated among English Language
Arts (ELA) stakeholders in 2005. The MI-
Illuminations Toolkit has been refined and is
in the final stages of development. The SIGs Math initiative, Michigan Mathematics Program Improvement (MMPI),
has addressed two of five Grade Level
Content Expectations (GLCEs) strands in the
School Improvement Framework. MMPI
offered support to both special and general education teachers through product and
personnel development regarding
instructional sequencing, diagnostic
inventories and instructional planning.
Two types of personnel development sessions
have been developed. The Number Strand workshop, six full days, is conducted over 8 Michigan serves students with disabilities through age 25. The US Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) formula reflects students through age 21. Therefore, the category Aged Out is zero in Michigan. APR Part B Updated 5/2/08 Michigan Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2006 (2006-2007) Indicator 2 Page 20 Timelines Activities Discussion three to four months. The Geometry
Strand is comprised of three full days of training spread over one to two months. As
of June 30, 2007, three Intermediate School
District (ISDs) participated in the 6-Series
Number Strand Workshop. One ISD
completed the 3 Series Geometry Stand.
That ISD was awarded a sub-grant to continue to build capacity and sustainability
for the project.
Michigan began the scale up process for the
Michigan Integrated Behavior and Literacy
Support Initiative (MiBLSi). MiBLSi is a statewide initiative that combines intensive
literacy instruction and support with School-
wide Positive Behavior Support for the
purpose of improving reading and school
culture. MiBLSi currently serves a total of 239 schools including 5 middle schools who
have been participating for 2 years. Each of
these schools have a leadership team that
have attended three data review sessions for
the purpose of analysis and action planning. Local coaches for these teams have attended
coaches meetings and local staff participated
in focused Behavior Management training.
Staff from these local teams also attended
the state MiBLSi conference. An additional
15 middle schools began participating in this initiative in June 2007. They have received
training in: The foundations of Positive Behavior
Support (PBS) parts one, two and three Assessment and scoring of Reading curriculum-based measures Foundations of school wide reading Targeted behavior interventions and
support Strategic reading interventions and support Training in data management systems
Three high schools joined the initiative in
May, 2007 as pilot sites. Presentations were
provided on school wide positive behavior support and are focusing on the APR Part B Updated 5/2/08 Michigan Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2006 (2006-2007) Indicator 2 Page 21 Timelines Activities Discussion implementation of PBS. They have received
five full days of training on Foundations for school wide behavior support. Staff from
each school have been trained in the
behavior management data system. Coaches
have attended coaches meetings. 2006-2011 2. Continue collaboration with the
National Dropout Prevention Center
(NDPC). Receive
technical assistance
from the NDPC. Michigan Department of Education leadership
from the Office of Special Education and Early
Intervention Services (OSE/EIS) presented at and participated in the 2007 NDPC
conference and conceptualized state
strategies to address improving dropout rates
for students of diverse learning needs.

Michigan deployed enhanced components of this conceptual model into its year long
initiative Reach and Teach for Learning
within which building teams developed locally
applicable strategies for improving
performance and decreasing dropout amongst students. 2006-2007 3. Convene a referent group to reset
graduation targets to
be reported in the
2008 SPP/APR,
because of the new graduation
requirements and the
new NGA cohort
calculation. A referent group of key stakeholders was convened to examine the state target in light
of Michigans new graduation requirements
and the National Governors Association
(NGA) cohort calculation approved by the US
Department of Education. The recommended targets were reviewed by the Special
Education Advisory Committee 9 (SEAC) and reset to match Education YES! targets,
Michigans accountability target under No
Child Left Behind (NCLB). This was completed in conjunction with the FFY 2005 submission. 2005-2011 4. Continue to disseminate local
educational agency
(LEA) data reports on
graduation rates by
disability and ethnicity The OSE/EIS posted LEA-level graduation data on the IDEA Public Reporting webpage.
As a result of IDEA public reporting feedback,
the OSE/EIS sent a memo to the field in
summer, 2007 detailing common reporting
errors and providing access to technical assistance for correctly reporting exit data for
students with disabilities.
Michigan continued to expand Intermediate
School District (ISD) and LEA level data 9 Michigans IDEA mandated special education State Advisory Panel APR Part B Updated 5/2/08 Michigan Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2006 (2006-2007) Indicator 2 Page 22 Timelines Activities Discussion reports in the form of data portraits that
disaggregate data by factors such as disability and ethnicity.
The OSE/EIS assessed and improved the
processing of exit data. The OSE/EIS
developed business rules that delineated how
exit data are downloaded, cleaned,
summarized and analyzed. 2006-2008 5. Disseminate statewide information
and training on high
school reform, including
the Michigan Merit
Curriculum (enacted
April 2006), to inform educators about the
SPP targets and
available resources.
Michigan convened the High School Student Support and Intervention Action Team which
identified key identification and intervention
strategies for students, school personnel and
community members that address students
at risk of failure and dropout. The team also
developed models of a series of 5-year "hypothetical" course of study plans for
students with various barriers to learning and
achievement. The resulting document was
presented to the Deputy Superintendent and
disseminated to the field in the winter 2007. The information in this document has been
used to guide and influence both the Reach
and Teach for Learning project and the
Michigan Transition Outcomes Project (MI
TOP).
The OSE/EIS worked collaboratively with the
Office of School Improvement and key
education stakeholders to develop guidance,
training and supporting documents,
information, resources and training on the requirements of the Michigan Merit
Curriculum and how students with diverse
abilities might achieve this rigorous
graduation standard. Michigan has begun
the process of raising field awareness
through presentations at the MI TOP workshops, the Michigan Idea Leadership
Institute, the Michigan Association of
Administrators of Special Education, and the
Michigan Association of Intermediate School
Administrators regional meetings, and individually to the field. APR Part B Updated 5/2/08 Michigan Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2006 (2006-2007) Indicator 2 Page 23 Timelines Activities Discussion 2006-2011 6. Work through the Continuous Improvement and
Monitoring System
(CIMS), using Focused
Monitoring, to
determine LEAs that
need technical assistance to improve
graduation rates. For the second consecutive year, the CIMS
Focused Monitoring process utilized data on drop-out and graduation rates as one of the
three targeted indicators in selecting
LEAs/PSAs for site visitation. The other two
factors were Educational Setting and
Identification Rate data. This resulted in
a statistical rating for every Michigan district. Following a data validation
procedure, districts whose combined ratings
were in the lowest quartile of all districts
were identified. Through a multi-faceted
review of data, interviews, and student record reviews, the OSE/EIS team examined
district policies, procedures, practices,
supervision, and infrastructure related to
their past and current data. If districts
were found to have non-compliant practices leading to excessive drop-out rates and poor
graduation rates, districts were offered
technical assistance in the development of a
mandatory improvement plan, and were
required to provide documentation of corrective action within one year.
Michigan has incorporated aspects of both
quality and compliant elements of transition
into the CIMS. Michigan continued to
evaluate both the feasibility and practicality
of further incorporation of these requirements into CIMS.
Graduation rate work was also included into
the LEA determination process which drives
the CIMS site selection for the 2007-2008
school year. 2006-2011 7. Develop and implement best practices leading to
graduation and
successful transition to
post secondary roles. The OSE/EIS initiated collaboration with the
National Secondary Technical Assistance Center (NSTTAC) and received technical
assistance from the NSTTAC.
A Michigan team attended the NSTTAC State
Planning Institute. Team members
developed state strategies to address improving transition practices for youth with
disabilities, thought to be a key intervention
for improving graduation and dropout rates
for students with diverse learning needs. APR Part B Updated 5/2/08 Michigan Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2006 (2006-2007) Indicator 2 Page 24 Timelines Activities Discussion Michigan deployed components of this
conceptual model into the Transition Outcomes Project and is integrating this
learning into the secondary redesign
initiative.
Michigan convened two Summits for Model
High Schools attended by over 1000 school
personnel from across the state, for the purpose of modeling collaborative
general/special education practices in high
performing schools. This was done in
partnership with the Office of School
Improvement, the International Center for Leadership in Education, Michigan Education
Association, Michigan Association of
Secondary School Principals, and the
Michigan Association of Administrators of
Special Education.
Michigan convened three workshops for
secondary transition and special education
personnel for the purpose of disseminating
best practices leading to graduation and
successful transition to postsecondary roles.
In collaboration with the International Center
for Leadership in Education (ICLE) and the
Great Lakes East Comprehensive Center
(GLECC), Michigan is continuing and
enhancing the Reach and Teach for
Learning design as a Model Schools initiative by adding key components of the Model
Schools framework. This collaborative design
aligns with the Michigan School Improvement
Framework as part of the general/special
education shared work. 2006-2011 8. Develop strategic initiatives through the Parent Involvement
grant that focus on
reducing dropout rates There was no formal action on this activity
for 2006-2007.
Beginning in the Fall of 2007 the MI TOP
initiated the development of a system
improvement strategy designed to improve
both the quality of the Individualized
Education Program (IEP) process and the states compliance to IDEA 04 requirements.
The development of this strategy is being
done in partnership with the Parent APR Part B Updated 5/2/08 Michigan Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2006 (2006-2007) Indicator 2 Page 25 Timelines Activities Discussion Involvement grantees and other
stakeholders.
Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for FFY 2006: Michigan did not meet its FFY 2006 dropout target of 11.5%. The percentage of students with disabilities reported as dropping out of high school rose following
three years of declining percentages of students with disabilities reported as
dropping out. Michigan is now using the OSEP formula with Single Record Student Database (SRSD) data (first used in the July 1, 2006 reporting system) to calculate
dropout rates. Data Reporting Issues
During the 2005-2006 school year (FFY 2005) the OSE/EIS initiated the use of its
SRSD to comply with the federal requirement to move from December 1 data to
July 1 data. A critical factor in the determination of exit status for students is the
accuracy of reporting from the local education agency. Despite Michigans multiple technical assistance (TA) efforts on this topic challenges still exist. During the
2005-2006 (FFY 2005) reporting cycle the largest local education agency in the
state reported 239 students in the category returned to general education.
Following guidance from the SEA regarding the accurate coding of student status,
that district reported to the SEA its entire exit file for the 2006-2007 school year (FFY 2006) totaling 1,311 students in the category dropped out. This error in
reporting nearly doubled the number of students reported as dropouts for the entire
state (1,935 students reported as dropouts for FFY 2005 vs. 3,946 for FFY 2006).
This improvement in the accuracy of data reporting reflects improvements in
appropriate data collection. The result, while appearing to be an increase in the dropout rate, is a more accurate picture of dropout rates for Michigan.
Technical Assistance
Since the end of FFY 2006, the SEA has continued to provide added technical
assistance on this issue. The OSE/EIS sent a memo to the field on July 7, 2007
detailing common reporting errors and providing access to technical assistance for correctly reporting exit data for students with disabilities.
The OSE/EIS and CEPI continue to provide follow up technical assistance to the field
for correctly reporting exit data for students with disabilities.
Working with data consultants and grantees, the OSE/EIS assessed and improved
(October, 2007) the handling and processing of exit data. The OSE/EIS has
developed business rules that delineate how exit data are downloaded, cleaned, summarized and analyzed.

APR Part B Updated 5/2/08 Michigan Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2006 (2006-2007) Indicator 2 Page 26 Changes in Calculation
For current reporting purposes, Michigan has continued to use an event method of
calculating graduation which provides a snapshot of the graduation rate for a particular year amongst the current year seniors. This method does not account for
students who drop out between ninth and eleventh grade, however, and tends to
over-represent the graduation rate. The consolidated state performance report
which will be submitted in December 2008 will use the event method of calculating
graduation rates and will reflect the graduating class of 2007. In this report, graduates will be reportable by subgroup for the first time. This report will use the
cohort methodology in 2009. A more detailed accounting of the cohort
methodology can be found in the report for Indicator 1 (Graduation). Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets/Improvement Activities
Timelines/Resources for FFY 2006 Timelines New and Revised Activities Justification 2006-2007
1. Convene a referent group
to reset graduation targets to be reported in the 2008
SPP/APR (submitted in 2010).

Change: Timeline to 2008-
2010 To maintain consistency within SEA
objectives: The current SPP targets are set to the Ed YES/NCLB target
(actually higher because the ED YES
has a static target of 80%, and the
SPP target rises to 85% in the last
year of this SPP). Summer 2008 2006-2007 the SRSD graduation rate will be
finalized based on the NGA cohort
method. Summer 2009 2007-2008 the
SRSD graduation rate will be finalized and will include the first
group of potential 5 year
successful leavers. During FFY 2009 Michigan will
reset Ed YES/NCLB targets based on these two data points. Once those targets are reestablished
the OSE/EIS will want to reexamine
SPP targets and reset for consistency.

Input from the SEAC will be part of this process. The reset targets will be
reported in the FFY 2008 APR
submitted 2010. 2006-2011 2. Continue to work through the Continuous Improvement
and Monitoring System
(CIMS), using Focused Michigan is updating the language of
the activity for this indicator to create
consistency with the language in APR Part B Updated 5/2/08 Michigan Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2006 (2006-2007) Indicator 2 Page 27 Timelines New and Revised Activities Justification Monitoring, to determine LEAs
that need technical assistance
to improve graduation rates.
Change: update language
from SPP 2005 Indicator 1. 2006-2008 3. Utilize statewide dissemination of information and training on high school
reform, including the Michigan
Merit Curriculum, to inform
education practitioners about
the SPP targets and available resources.
Change: update language
(See Activity 4 above) Michigan is updating the language of
the activity for this indicator to create consistency with the language in
Indicator 1. 2008-2011 New: Develop and implement
a more integrated set of
General Supervision activities
across The general supervision
SPP indicators Michigans Integrated
Improvement Initiatives
(MI 3) Michigans emerging work
with the NCSEAM 10 General Supervision Framework The OSE/EIS has determined that
increased coordination among the
work within these indicator clusters is
critical to achieving positive outcomes for students and meeting indicator
targets. In conjunction with
Michigans State Personnel
Development Grant, the Michigan
Integrated Improvement Initiatives (MI 3), the OSE/EIS reorganized the
work of the Transition Outcomes
Project and Reach and Teach for
Learning project into a combined
effort. This action links and provides
a platform for aligning improvement activities that prepare students for
post-school success. Michigan plans
to develop a statewide, deliverable
performance improvement system for
Effective Transition Practices. Drawing on evidence based practices
for successful transition and effective
implementation this effort is aligned
with the School Improvement
Framework and the Reaching and Teaching Struggling Learners
initiative. 10 National Center for Special Education Accountability Monitoring APR Part B Updated 5/2/08 Michigan Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2006 (2006-2007) Indicator 2 Page 28 Michigan Part B FFY 2005 SPP/APR Response Table from OSEP Indicator Status OSEP Analysis and Next Steps Michigan Response Michigans FFY
2005 reported
data for this indicator are
25.2%. This
represents
progress from
FFY 2004 data
of 25.5%. Michigan did
not meet its
FFY 2005
target of 13%.
Michigan revised the
baseline and
improvement activities for this indicator in its
SPP and OSEP accepts
those revisions.

OSEP looks forward to
Michigans data demonstrating
improvement in
performance in the
FFY 2006 APR, due
February 1, 2008. Response to Identified Concerns: Continue Technical
Assistance/Personnel Development to analyze data as
the data calculation requirements
shift per statutory /regulatory
changes Transition Outcomes Project
(TOP) work APR Part B Updated 5/2/08 Michigan Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2006 (2006-2007) Indicator 3 Page 29 Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2006 (2006-2007) Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development:
1. See General Overview pages 1-6. 2. In FFY 2005, the US Department of Education did not permit the scores from the
MI-Access Supported Independence and Participation assessments (two of
Michigans three alternate assessments based on alternate achievement
standards) to be used in Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) proficiency calculations, since they did not meet all of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
criteria. For FFY 2006, the Michigan Department of Education (MDE) developed
new MI-Access Participation and Supported Independence assessments that
meet the NCLB criteria. Therefore, the scores from these assessments have
been included, and Michigan anticipates this will be reported consistently in
future APRs. 3. Michigan also administered a new high school (grade 11) assessment, the
Michigan Merit Examination (MME), in spring 2006. As part of the U.S.
Department of Educations peer review process for approving state assessments,
the MDE applied an equating methodology in order to link the scales of the
previous grade 11 assessment and the new MME. This provided a common scale to compare student performance across years at the achievement category level
(Not Proficient, Partially Proficient, Proficient, Advanced). Comparisons of
student performance at any other level are not appropriate due to the
differences in the assessments.
Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE 11 /Assessment (Results Indicator)
Indicator 3: Participation and performance of children with disabilities on
statewide assessments: A. Percent of districts that have a disability subgroup that meets the States minimum n size meeting the States 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 alternate achievement standards. (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A)) 11 Free Appropriate Public Education in the Least Restrictive Environment APR Part B Updated 5/2/08 Michigan Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2006 (2006-2007) Indicator 3 Page 30 Measurement: A. Percent = [(# of districts meeting the States AYP objectives for progress for the disability subgroup (children with IEPs)) divided by the (total # of districts
that have a disability subgroup that meets the States minimum n size in the
State)] times 100. B. Participation rate = a. # of children with IEPs in assessed grades; 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
achievement standards (percent = [(d) divided by (a)] times 100); and e. # of children with IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate
achievement standards (percent = [(e) divided by (a)] times 100). 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)]. C. Proficiency rate = a. # of children with IEPs in assessed grades; b. # of children with IEPs in assessed grades 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 assessed grades 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 assessed grades who are proficient or above as measured by the alternate assessment against grade level achievement
standards (percent = [(d) divided by (a)] times 100); and e. # of children with IEPs in assessed grades who are proficient or above as measured against alternate achievement standards (percent = [(e)
divided by (a)] times 100). 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)]. APR Part B Updated 5/2/08 Michigan Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2006 (2006-2007) Indicator 3 Page 31 Measurable and Rigorous Targets Indicator Components FFY 2005 Data 12 FFY 2006 Target FFY 2006 Data FFY 2006 Target A: Percent of districts meeting the States AYP objectives for progress
for the disability subgroup 100% a 88% 99.70% b Target met a 399 of 399 districts meeting the States AYP objectives for progress for disability subgroup for at least one grade range b 386 of 387 districts meeting the States AYP objectives for progress for disability subgroup for at least one grade range Table 1: Students with Disabilities Subgroup Number of Districts with a
Grade Range that Did Not Make AYP Academic Year Grade Range English Language Arts Mathematics 2006-2007 Elementary (3-5) 27 5 Middle School (6-8) 70 36 High School (11) 36 33
12 The number of Districts with AYP determinations being reported for 2005-2006 has been amended from what was reported in last years SPP/APR to include only those districts that have enough students
with disabilities to have a subgroup calculation. It is being provided with the APR for 2006-2007 in order
to appropriately compare the data across the two years. APR Part B Updated 5/2/08 Michigan Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2006 (2006-2007) Indicator 3 Page 32 Table 2: B(a-e) 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. 13 13 This data was generated to complete Table 6 (see Appendix H) 14 English Language Arts 15 Students included in a, but not b-e above are the result of MI enrollment data being gathered on 9/26/06 and the assessment windows occurring from 10/9/06- 11/17/06 (grades 3-8) and 2/19/07-4/6/07 (grade 11). In addition, MI does not count students with invalid scores as assessed. 16 The bottom row represents the total #s and rates of students with disabilities who participated in state assessment. Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 11 Participation Rate ELA 14 Math ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math a. # of Children with IEPs
in assessed grades 15 15803 15803 17308 17308 17352 17352 17597 17597 17836 17836 17931 17931 13892 13892 b. # and % of Children with
IEPs in regular assessment
with no accommodations 9142 57.8% 8080 51.1% 9616 55.6% 7999 46.2% 9013 51.9% 7235 41.7% 9670 55.0% 7378 41.9% 10615 59.5% 8739 49.0% 10687 59.6% 8587 47.9% 3969 28.6% 3476 25.0% c. # and % of Children with
IEPs in regular assessment
with accommodations 3164 20.0% 4590 29.0% 4102 23.7% 6157 35.6% 4623 26.6% 6792 39.1% 4032 22.9% 6546 37.2% 3442 19.3% 5400 30.3% 3297 18.4% 5425 30.3% 6541 47.1% 7009 50.5% d. # and % of Children with
IEPs in alt. assessment
against grade level
standards Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable e. # and % of Children with
IEPs in alt. assessment
against alt. achievement
standards 3387 21.4% 2999 19.0% 3530 20.4% 3082 17.8% 3587 20.7% 3209 18.5% 3769 21.4% 3520 20.0% 3633 20.4% 3514 19.7% 3758 21.0% 3706 20.7% 2907 20.9% 2907 20.9% Total # and Overall
Participation Rate 16 15693 99.3% 15669
99.2% 17248
99.7% 17238
99.6% 17223
99.3% 17236
99.3% 17471
99.3% 17444 99.1% 17690 99.2% 17653
99.0% 17742 98.9% 17718 98.8%

Comments