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.
- Accessible Current State Performance Plan / Annual Performance Report (2.5MB)
- State Sampling
- State Determinations
- LEA Reports and Requirements
Archived SPP/APR Reports
About the SPP and APRIn 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)
- 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
- Resolution Sessions (Indicator 15)
- Mediation (Indicator 16)
- State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) (Indicator 17)
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 450,000 students receiving special education services in over 9,000 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.
As previously noted, there are over 9,000 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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
|FFY 2013 (2013-14)||Needs Intervention (June 2015)|
|FFY 2014 (2014-15)||Needs Assistance (June 2016)|
|FFY 2015 (2015-16)||Needs Assistance (June 2017)|
|FFY 2016 (2016-17)||Needs Assistance (June 2018)|
|FFY 2017 (2017-18)||Needs Assistance (July 2019)|
USDE Issued Document Resources
Below is a link to the USDE letters and information to the state on its determination status and how the determination were made.