State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report and Requirements

Each state is required to develop a six-year performance plan that evaluates the state's efforts to implement the requirements and purposes of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (IDEA 2004), Section 616(b). This State Performance Plan (SPP) illustrates how the state will continuously improve upon this implementation, and includes updates through the Annual Performance Report (APR) submitted annually each February.

About the SPP and APR 

In alignment with IDEA, the US Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs (USDE/OSEP) identifies five monitoring priorities within the SPP and 20 indicators associated with these monitoring priorities.

 

  • Monitoring Priority: Free Appropriate Public Education in the Least Restrictive Environment Graduation (Indicator 1) 
    • Dropout (Indicator 2)
    • Participation and Performance on Statewide Assessment (Indicator 3A-C)-Longitudinal Statewide Assessment Participation Rates (115KB) 
    • Suspension/Expulsion (Indicator 4A-C)
    • Educational Environment, Ages 6-21 (Indicator 5A-C)
    •  Educational Environment, Ages 3-5 (Indicator 6A-B)
    • Early Childhood Outcomes (Indicator 7A-C)
    •  Parent Participation (Indicator 8)     
    • Monitoring Priority: Disproportionality
      • Disproportionality in the special education program (Indicator 9)
      • Disproportionality by specific disability (Indicator 10)        
    • Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B/Child Find
      • Child Find  (Indicator 11)     
    • Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B/Effective Transition
      • Early Childhood Transition (Indicator 12)
      • Secondary Transition (Indicator 13)  
      • Post-School Outcomes (Indicator 14A-C)          
    • Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B/General Supervision
      • Effective General Supervision (Indicator 15)
      • Complaint Investigation Timeline (Indicator 16)  
      • Hearing Officer Decision Timeline (Indicator 17)  
      • Resolution Sessions (Indicator 18)  
      • Mediation (Indicator 19)  
      • State Reporting (Indicator 20)    

    State Sampling Overview 

    Sampling approaches to data collection are indicated when there are limited resources (financial and staff) and many sampling units (schools, students, and parents). With more than 435,000 students receiving special education services in over 8,400 campuses in Texas, a sampling approach is essential to examine indicators within the SPP.

    Importantly, the sampling approach must still provide valid and reliable information. Texas embodies extreme variance in district and student characteristics that change from region to region and by age grouping. Purposive sampling (selected based on the knowledge of a population and the purpose of the study), in addition to a stratified random sampling approach (divides a population by characteristic into smaller groups then sampled), is applied to increase validity of the sample.

    The Texas sampling plan for SPP indicators has approval by the federal Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). The current plan considers prior experience with sampling within the special education program in Texas.  

    District Sampling

    There are over 1,200 school districts in Texas ranging in size from 20 to over 200,000 students. TEA follows the OSEP-approved sampling plan, including districts in the sampling for the various indicators once every sixth year. Considerations of geographic region and student demographics to yield representative findings determine the choice of districts each year. Large districts, with over 50,000 total number of students, are included each year.

    Campus Sampling 

    As previously already noted, there are over 8,400 campuses within Texas with some districts having over 100 separate campuses. As with district sampling, there is an established framework for including campuses based on grade span (e.g., elementary, secondary) and type of population served (e.g., early childhood). This framework is based on a three-year cycle within the original six-year district sample framework. 

    For campus sampling to be employed there must be at least six campuses of the same grade span within the district. This means that while there are many districts with sampling allowable at the elementary level, there are far fewer that have at least six high schools. Thus there may be a combination of campus-level sampling at the elementary level and a district-wide sample at the high school level. Again, the intent of sampling is, while maintaining an acceptable level of validity, to reduce the burden on individual campuses to the greatest extent possible.

    Student Sampling 

    Following the stated purpose for sampling, a certain number of students (or student’s parents) are selected each year. In general, the number of students selected is far greater than necessary to establish acceptable levels of statistical representation at the state level. For example, the parent involvement survey includes forms for 18,000 parents statewide. Statistical bounds are, of course, somewhat lower at the regional level and the district level. In many cases, there are simply too few students to be included in reporting due to FERPA considerations.

    Purposive Sampling 

    In order to increase return rates and up the representation of information, certain groups are included at a higher than expected (based on population) ratios. For example, there are relatively few deaf-blind students so their proportion of the sample is greater than in the population in general. Likewise, prior history indicates that certain other groups have lower return rates. Increasing percentages from these eligibility categories and groups will tend to increase the validity of the sample.

    Monitoring Return Rates

    TEA monitors the survey return rates to determine if reasonable efforts are being made by district staff to encourage returns. While it is understood that the district cannot directly force survey returns, the historic range of response rates indicates that some districts are likely making a good faith effort in this regard while others are, perhaps, not as attentive. Consideration is given to historic return rates among various groups already noted in purposive sampling. 

    State Determination 

    Section 616(d)of the IDEA requires the USDE/OSEP to review each state’s APR annually. Based on the information provided in the APR, information obtained through monitoring visits, and any other public information, the USDE/OSEP will issue one of four possible State Determinations:  Meets Requirements, Needs Assistance, Needs Intervention, or Needs Substantial Intervention.

    Longitudinal determination status

    Federal Fiscal Year (data year reported)  

    Texas Determination Status

    FFY 2005 (2005-06)

    Needs Assistance (June 2007)

    FFY 2006 (2006-07)

    Needs Intervention (June 2008)

    FFY 2007 (2007-08)

    Needs Assistance (June 2009)

    FFY 2008 (2008-09)

    Needs Assistance (June 2010)

    FFY 2009 (2009-10)

    Needs Assistance (June 2011)

    FFY 2010 (2010-11)

    Needs Intervention (July 2012)

    FFY 2011 (2011-12)

    Needs Assistance (July 2013)

    FFY 2012 (2012-13)

    Needs Intervention (June 2014)

    USDE Issued Document Resources 

    Below are USDE letters to the state on determination statuses and how the determinations were made.

     Letter to the State on its FFY 2012 Determination Status (pdf 29KB)

    How the FFY 2012 Determinations were made (pdf 53KB)