Site Search

Results 22 - 28 of 38

    An IDC Resource

    Format: Quick Reference

    Frequently Used Terms and Acronyms

    Do you confuse your OMB MAX for your EMAPS? Has your SLDS slid into your SSIP? If so, this list is for you. Keep the alphabet soup organized with our handy Frequently Used Acronyms and Terms resource, downloadable for your convenience.

    An IDC Resource

    Format: Guides and Briefs

    FFY 2020–25 Part B SPP/APR Changes at a Glance

    The FFY 2020–25 Part B SPP/APR Changes at a Glance resource is a quick overview for tracking updates to indicators in the new FFY 2020–25 SPP/APR package. For each of the 17 SPP/APR indicators, the table denotes whether there will be no changes, minor changes and/or clarifications, changes to response rates and representativeness, changes to data sources, and new components.  

    An IDC Resource

    Format: Quick Reference

    Templates for Part B SPP/APR Stakeholder Involvement and Target Setting

    States can use the Organizer Template for Part B SPP/APR Target Setting to briefly document information for consideration when setting new SPP/APR targets for all indicators in the FFYs 2020–25 SPP/APR collection. States can supplement this overview template with the Indicator Organizer for Part B SPP/APR Stakeholder Involvement and Target Setting, which is designed to capture more detailed information on stakeholder involvement in setting targets for individual SPP/APR indicators.

    An IDC Resource

    Format: Quick Reference

    FFY 2020-2025 SPP/APR Stakeholder Requirements

    The FFY 2020-2025 SPP/APR shares the stakeholder requirements for the FFY 2020-2025 SPP/APR in a simple one page format. This resource can be used with state staff and other partners when planning for the SPP/APR. 

    An IDC Resource

    Format: Guides and Briefs

    Parent Involvement Data: How to Measure and Improve Representativeness for Indicator B8

    This interactive resource provides states with an overview on how to gather representative parent involvement data for Part B SPP/APR Indicator 8. The resource defines key concepts such as representativeness, sampling, nonresponse bias, response rates, and weighting. It also offers information on how to improve the quality of parent involvement data, including strategies that can help states collect representative data and evaluate and improve the representativeness of their data before, during, and after data collection. 

    An IDC Resource

    Format: Guides and Briefs

    Graduation Rate and Dropout Rate: Indicators 1 and 2 Measurement Changes From FFY 2019 to FFY 2020–2025

    This resource focuses on recent changes in the data source and measurement of Part B Indicators 1 and 2. The resource specifically addresses the treatment of “alternate diploma” in the new calculation. In FFY 2019, the calculation of graduation rate included students receiving an alternate diploma in the numerator. For FFY 2020–2025 the calculation of graduation rate includes students receiving an alternate diploma in the denominator. The calculation for Indicator 2 remains similar from FFY 2019 to FFY 2020–2025; however, it explicitly adds students receiving an alternate diploma in the denominator. 

    An IDC Resource

    Format: Guides and Briefs

    Statewide Assessment: Indicator 3 Measurement Changes From FFY 2019 to FFY 2020–2025

    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.