Skip Navigation

SPP/APR Documents sorted by Indicator

Part B State Performance Plan Indicators:

Part C State Performance Plan Indicators:

1: Graduation Rates

Collecting Post-School Outcome Data: Strategies for Increasing Response Rates
Practice brief prepared by the National Post-School Outcomes Center (NPSO), intended for SEA and LEA personnel responsible for designing systems to collect post-school outcome data. Contains an overview of the requirement to collect post-school outcome data and includes recommendations and strategies that states can use to secure sufficient response rates, particularly with regard to youth that drop out. Dated January 2007.
B 1 Submission Checklist
1.21.09
Technical Assistance for Part B, Indicator 1
Use of the resources included on this site does not guarantee that the State’s performance or determination status under section 616(d), will improve for the next APR reporting period. Please note that State examples have not been vetted by OSEP for legal sufficiency.

Continuing work with each State’s Regional Resource Center (RRC) and the National Dropout Prevention Center for Students with Disabilities (NDPC-SD) is encouraged in order to further determine the nature of the technical assistance required to address areas in which the State needs assistance.

Please note the Measurement and Instructions for this indicator have changed. Updated guidance will be posted as soon as it is available.
  • HTML Content
Indicators B1 and B2 7-09-09

2: Drop-Out Rates

B 2 APR Submission Checklist
01.21.09
Technical Assistance for Part B, Indicator 2
Use of the resources included on this site does not guarantee that the State’s performance or determination status under section 616(d), will improve for the next APR reporting period. Please note that State examples have not been vetted by OSEP for legal sufficiency.

Continuing work with each State’s Regional Resource Center (RRC) and the National Dropout Prevention Center for Students with Disabilities (NDPC-SD) is encouraged in order to further determine the nature of the technical assistance required to address areas in which the State needs assistance.

Please note the Measurement and Instructions for this indicator have changed. Updated guidance will be posted as soon as it is available.
  • HTML Content
Indicators B1 and B2 7-09-09

3: Assessment

B 3 Submission Checklist
01.21.09
Technical Assistance for Part B, Indicator 3
Use of the resources included on this site does not guarantee that the State’s performance or determination status under section 616(d), will improve for the next APR reporting period. Please note that State examples have not been vetted by OSEP for legal sufficiency.

Continuing work with each State’s Regional Resource Center (RRC) and the National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center (NECTAC) is encouraged in order to further determine the nature of the technical assistance required to address areas in which the State needs assistance.

Please note the Measurement and Instructions for this indicator have changed. Updated guidance will be posted as soon as it is available.
  • HTML Content
Optional APR Template For B3 (updated 1.5.10)
Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2008
NCEO Data Viewer
At this site you can view data related to students with disabilities and create individualized reports based on criteria that you can choose. Two major databases are currently available for your use.

4: Suspension/Expulsion

B 4 Submission Checklist
01.21.09
B 4 Analysis of APRs for Suspension/Expulsion and Disproportionality
Technical Assistance for Part B, Indicator 4
Use of the resources included on this site does not guarantee that the State’s performance or determination status under section 616(d), will improve for the next APR reporting period. Please note that State examples have not been vetted by OSEP for legal sufficiency.

Continuing work with each State’s Regional Resource Center (RRC) and the National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center (NECTAC) is encouraged in order to further determine the nature of the technical assistance required to address areas in which the State needs assistance.
  • HTML Content
Optional APR Template for B4

5: School Age LRE

B 5 Submission Checklist
01.21.09
Technical Assistance for Part B, Indicator 5
Use of the resources included on this site does not guarantee that the State’s performance or determination status under section 616(d), will improve for the next APR reporting period. Please note that State examples have not been vetted by OSEP for legal sufficiency.

Continuing work with each State’s Regional Resource Center (RRC) and the National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center (NECTAC) is encouraged in order to further determine the nature of the technical assistance required to address areas in which the State needs assistance.
  • HTML Content

6: Preschool LRE

7: Preschool Outcomes

B 7 Submission Checklist
01.21.09
Technical Assistance for Part B, Indicator 7
Use of the resources included on this site does not guarantee that the State’s performance or determination status under section 616(d), will improve for the next APR reporting period. Please note that State examples have not been vetted by OSEP for legal sufficiency.

Continuing work with each State’s Regional Resource Center (RRC), the National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center (NECTAC) and Early Childhood Outcomes Center is encouraged in order to further determine the nature of the technical assistance required to address areas in which the State needs assistance.

Please note the instructions for this indicator have changed. States must provide baseline and targets in the FFY 2008 APR due February 1, 2010.
  • HTML Content
SPP TA Conference Call- August 13, 2009
  • Event
  • Thursday, August 13, 2009 - Thursday, August 13, 2009
C3 and B7 Call Presentation
B7 Measurement Table
ECO Suggested Guidance for Revised SPP Indicator B7
The ECO Center has developed new guidance for how states might organize their child outcomes indicators. The suggested guidance is for indicators B7. (Posted 11.5.09)

8: Parent Involvement

B C 8 NCSEAM Schools' Efforts to Partner with Parents Scale
10-14-06
Part B, Indicator 8 APR Submission Checklist
01.21.09
B 8 NCSEAM Parent/Family Involvement Measures
11-13-07
B 8 & C 4 Part B Schools' Efforts to Partner with Parents Scale - Item Response Data from Five Sample Respondents
10-14-06
B 8 & C4 Reporting Results from the NCSEAM Survey to Address the SPP Parent / Family Indicators
10-14-06
Technical Assistance for Part B, Indicator 8
Use of the resources included on this site does not guarantee that the State’s performance or determination status under section 616(d), will improve for the next APR reporting period. Please note that State examples have not been vetted by OSEP for legal sufficiency.

Continuing work with each State’s Regional Resource Center (RRC) and the National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center (NECTAC) is encouraged in order to further determine the nature of the technical assistance required to address areas in which the State needs assistance.
  • HTML Content
Getting Better Results through Parent Involvement: 2 States' Examples of Improvement in Indicator B-8
The Data Accountability Center is presenting a webinar featuring its Technical Assistance Consultant, Dr. Batya Elbaum, and the staff of Alaska and New Hampshire Departments of Education.
  • Event
  • Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Part B Parent Survey Guide
Posted 3/08/10

9: Disproportionality - Child with a Disability

Questions and Answers on Underrepresentation for Indicators 9 & 10
Questions and answers to assist States and LEAs in addressing underrepresentation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services and in specific disability categories that constitute disproportionate representation. (January 2008) Developed by Perry Williams, OSEP.
Side-by-Side: Disproportionate Representation and Significant Disproportionality
This resource highlights the differences between the requirements pursuant to 34 CFR §300.600(d)(3) for Indicators 9 & 10 as they relate to the SPP/APR submission and the separate obligation for States to address the requirements pursuant to 34 CFR §300.646 for significant disproportionality. Dated October 2007. Developed by Perry Williams, OSEP.
Disproportionate Representation: Discussion of SPP/APR Response Table Language
This table provides a range of scenarios that relate to the requirements of both disproportionate representation and significant disproportionality. Each scenario provides a discussion of clarification related to the requirement followed by the action thatStates need to take in order to fully respond to the requirements of Indicators 9 & 10 or significant disproportionality. Developed by Perry Williams, OSEP. Dated October 2007.
OSEP Memorandum 07-09- Disproportionality of Racial and Ethnic Groups in Special Education
This memo provides a discussion of the requirements related to 34 CFR 300.600(d)(3) for disproportionate representation as it relates to Indicators 9 & 10 of the SPP/APR followed by a discussion of the requirements of 34 CFR §300.646 relating to significant disproportionality. A table is attached to the memo which highlights both requirements. Dated October 2007.
B 9 Submission Checklist
01.21.09
Preventing Disproportionality by Strengthening District Policies and Procedures- An Assessment and Strategic Planning Process
A NCCRESt document intended to serve as a self-study tool that assists district teams to examine policies, procedures, and practices in general and special education to prevent disproportionality. Dated February 2006. There are two self-assessment checklists- Form A and Form B.
Technical Assistance for Part B, Indicators 9 and 10
Use of the resources included on this site does not guarantee that the State’s performance or determination status under section 616(d), will improve for the next APR reporting period. Please note that State examples have not been vetted by OSEP for legal sufficiency.

Continuing work with each State’s Regional Resource Center (RRC) is encouraged in order to further determine the nature of the technical assistance required to address areas in which the State needs assistance.
  • HTML Content
Evidence Sources to Determine if Disproportionate Representation is a Result of Inappropriate Identification
This document was developed jointly by OSEP and several TA Centers and States. (Posted 5.29.08) Created by Carol Massanari, Cesar D'Agord and Kathy Chapman (RRC Program)
OSEP Memorandum 08-09- Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS)
Reducing Disproportionality in Special Education: Together We Can!
Webinar Series
  • Event
  • Thursday, February 12, 2009 - Thursday, May 28, 2009
Perry Williams Disproportionality Presentation
Russ Skiba Disproportionality Presentation Part I
Russ Skiba Disproportionality Presentation Part II
Disproportionality Webinar #1- Introduction to the Series- Audio Recording
The Assessment Tool Form A
from NCCRESt
The Assessment Tool Form B
from NCCRESt
Disproportionality Webinar #2- Powerpoint Presentation
Wisconsin Response
Joyce Harris- Presentation
Elizabeth Watkins Presentation
Susan Myers- Presentation
Questions and Answers on Disproportionality
Optional APR Template for B9
Underrepresentation in Special Education Guidance Document
Posted 11.09
Readiness for School: A Sampler of Programs and Practices

10: Disproportionality - Eligibility Category

Questions and Answers on Underrepresentation for Indicators 9 & 10
Questions and answers to assist States and LEAs in addressing underrepresentation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services and in specific disability categories that constitute disproportionate representation. (January 2008) Developed by Perry Williams, OSEP.
Side-by-Side: Disproportionate Representation and Significant Disproportionality
This resource highlights the differences between the requirements pursuant to 34 CFR §300.600(d)(3) for Indicators 9 & 10 as they relate to the SPP/APR submission and the separate obligation for States to address the requirements pursuant to 34 CFR §300.646 for significant disproportionality. Dated October 2007. Developed by Perry Williams, OSEP.
Disproportionate Representation: Discussion of SPP/APR Response Table Language
This table provides a range of scenarios that relate to the requirements of both disproportionate representation and significant disproportionality. Each scenario provides a discussion of clarification related to the requirement followed by the action thatStates need to take in order to fully respond to the requirements of Indicators 9 & 10 or significant disproportionality. Developed by Perry Williams, OSEP. Dated October 2007.
OSEP Memorandum 07-09- Disproportionality of Racial and Ethnic Groups in Special Education
This memo provides a discussion of the requirements related to 34 CFR 300.600(d)(3) for disproportionate representation as it relates to Indicators 9 & 10 of the SPP/APR followed by a discussion of the requirements of 34 CFR §300.646 relating to significant disproportionality. A table is attached to the memo which highlights both requirements. Dated October 2007.
Preventing Disproportionality by Strengthening District Policies and Procedures- An Assessment and Strategic Planning Process
A NCCRESt document intended to serve as a self-study tool that assists district teams to examine policies, procedures, and practices in general and special education to prevent disproportionality. Dated February 2006. There are two self-assessment checklists- Form A and Form B.
B 10 Submission Checklist
01.21.09
Technical Assistance for Part B, Indicators 9 and 10
Use of the resources included on this site does not guarantee that the State’s performance or determination status under section 616(d), will improve for the next APR reporting period. Please note that State examples have not been vetted by OSEP for legal sufficiency.

Continuing work with each State’s Regional Resource Center (RRC) is encouraged in order to further determine the nature of the technical assistance required to address areas in which the State needs assistance.
  • HTML Content
Evidence Sources to Determine if Disproportionate Representation is a Result of Inappropriate Identification
This document was developed jointly by OSEP and several TA Centers and States. (Posted 5.29.08) Created by Carol Massanari, Cesar D'Agord and Kathy Chapman (RRC Program)
OSEP Memorandum 08-09- Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS)
Reducing Disproportionality in Special Education: Together We Can!
Webinar Series
  • Event
  • Thursday, February 12, 2009 - Thursday, May 28, 2009
Perry Williams Disproportionality Presentation
Russ Skiba Disproportionality Presentation Part I
Russ Skiba Disproportionality Presentation Part II
Disproportionality Webinar #1- Introduction to the Series- Audio Recording
The Assessment Tool Form A
from NCCRESt
The Assessment Tool Form B
from NCCRESt
Audio DisproSession_4
Disproportionality Webinar #2- Powerpoint Presentation
Wisconsin Response
Joyce Harris- Presentation
Elizabeth Watkins Presentation
Susan Myers- Presentation
Questions and Answers on Disproportionality
Optional APR Template for B10
Underrepresentation in Special Education Guidance Document
Posted 11.09
Readiness for School: A Sampler of Programs and Practices

11: Child Find

Investigative Questions for Part B, Indicator 11
Technical Assistance for Part B, Indicator 11
Use of the resources included on this site does not guarantee that the State’s performance or determination status under section 616(d), will improve for the next APR reporting period. Please note that State examples have not been vetted by OSEP for legal sufficiency.

Continuing work with each State’s Regional Resource Center (RRC) and the National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center (NECTAC) is encouraged in order to further determine the nature of the technical assistance required to address areas in which the State needs assistance.

Please note that the Measurement and Instructions for this indicator have changed.
  • HTML Content
Optional APR Template for B11

12: Early Childhood Transition

B 12 Submisison Checklist
01.21.09
Technical Assistance for Part B, Indicator 12
Use of the resources included on this site does not guarantee that the State’s performance or determination status under section 616(d), will improve for the next APR reporting period. Please note that State examples have not been vetted by OSEP for legal sufficiency.

Continuing work with each State’s Regional Resource Center (RRC) and the National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center (NECTAC) is encouraged in order to further determine the nature of the technical assistance required to address areas in which the State needs assistance.

Please note the measurement for this indicator has changed.
  • HTML Content
Optional APR Template for B12

13: Secondary Transition

B 13 Submission Checklist
01.21.09
Technical Assistance for Part B, Indicator 13
Use of the resources included on this site do not guarantee that the State’s performance or determination status under section 616(d), will improve for the next APR reporting period. Please note that State examples have not been vetted by OSEP for legal sufficiency.

Continuing work with each State’s Regional Resource Center (RRC) and the National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center (NSTTAC) is encouraged in order to further determine the nature of the technical assistance required to address areas in which the State needs assistance.

Please note that States are not required to report data for this indicator in the FFY 2008 APR, due February 1, 2010. However, the State must report on the timely correction of the noncompliance reported under this indicator in the FFY 07 APR.
  • HTML Content
Indicator 13 Checklist 7-9-09
Indicator B13 7-9-09
Optional APR Template for B13

14: Post-School Outcomes

B 14 Submission Checklist
1/25/09
B 14 Post-School Outcomes (Timelines, State Activities and Resources)
Month by month Indicator 14 activities with hot links to related NPSO tools(6/1/08)
PSO Data Collection Guide: Training Interviewers
Data Collection Activities: Suggestions to Train Interviewers. (12/06)
PSO Data Collection and Use: Teachers as Partners
Data Collection Activities: Training Teachers as Interviewers. (06/07)
Measuring Transition Success: Focus on Youth and Family Participation
Data Collection Activity: This document by NPSO and PACER informs exiting students and families about coming surveys. (07/06)
PSO Survey: Coming Soon to a Student Near You!
Data Collection Activity: This document by NPSO and PACER informs exiting students and families about coming surveys. (06/07)
Response Calculator- Part B, Indicator 14
Data Analysis Activity: This downloadable Excel file allows you to check to see how representative your respondents are with this simple tool. (01/07)
PSO: Response Rates and Nonresponse Bias
Data Analysis Activity: This document by NPSO and Westat describes the response rates and representativeness. (10/07)
Data Display Template
This downloadable Excel file creates statewide graphic displays of Indicator 14 data. 12/01/07
Strategies for Increasing Response Rates
This document by NPSO and NDPC-SD suggests strategies for survey design, administration, and locating hard to find youth. (01/07)
Technical Assistance for Part B, Indicator 14
Use of the resources included on this site does not guarantee that the State’s performance or determination status under section 616(d), will improve for the next APR reporting period. Please note that State examples have not been vetted by OSEP for legal sufficiency.

Continuing work with each State’s Regional Resource Center (RRC) and the National Post-School Outcomes Center (NPSO) is encouraged in order to further determine the nature of the technical assistance required to address areas in which the State needs assistance.

Please note that States are not required to report data for this indicator in the FFY 2008 APR, due February 1, 2010. Updated guidance will be posted as soon as it is available.
  • HTML Content
Part B, Indicator 14, APR Writing Suggestions and Examples
The purpose of this document is to provide States with suggestions and examples for completing Part B Indicator 14 in the Annual Progress Report (APR) due February 1, 2009 (FFY 2007). OSEP approved October 2008
FAQ Indicator 14 Final July 7, 2009
Indicator B14 7-9-09
Indicator 14 - New Resources available from NPSO
New from the National Post-School Outcomes Center (NPSO) a set of resources to help states respond to the Indicator 14 changes available here

15: Identification and Correction of Noncompliance

Issues of General Supervision and the Annual Performance Report
A PowerPoint presentation prepared by NCSEAM describing key components of a system of general supervision. The presentation address the following questions: “What are the minimum components for general supervision?”, “How do the components form a system?”, and “What are the processes operating within the system?”
Definitions
Definitions of terms commonly used in monitoring, e.g., finding, correction, enforcement. Dated 8/23/07

NOTE: An updated definition of a "finding" is available in the OSEP FAQ Document on Identification and Correction (9/03/08)
Indicator 15 Worksheet (Word document)
This worksheet must be used to report on this indicator in the FFY 2008 APR due February 1, 2010. Dated 5/8/09
B 15 Submission Checklist
01.25.09
Technical Assistance for Part B, Indicator 15
Use of the resources included on this site does not guarantee that the State’s performance or determination status under section 616(d), will improve for the next APR reporting period. Please note that State examples have not been vetted by OSEP for legal sufficiency.

Continuing work with each State’s Regional Resource Center (RRC) and the National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center (NECTAC) is encouraged in order to further determine the nature of the technical assistance required to address areas in which the State needs assistance.

Please note that the Instructions for this indicator have changed.
  • HTML Content
Big 8: General Supervision
A series of documents and pdf documents and PowerPoint presentations that provide information about effective general supervision, particularly the 8 “puzzle pieces” that comprise the key components of general supervision. Information is available for Part B and Part C audiences. Includes the NCSEAM document “Developing and Implementing an Effective System of General Supervision.” Dated January 2007.
OSEP FAQ on Identification and Correction (9.03.08)
Part B Indicator 15 Self Calculating Worksheet
Part B, Indicator 15 Worksheet (Posted 05.12.09)
Optional APR Template for B15
B15 Worksheet for 2-10 submission
B-15 Self-calculing worksheet 1-12-2010

16: Complaint Timelines

B 16 Submission Checklist
01.21.09
B 16, 17, 18, & 19 the 2004-2005 Part B SPP Attachment 1 Dispute Resolution Data
11-09-06
B 16, 17, 18, & 19 Summary Statistical Data
Technical Assistance for Part B, Indicator 16
Use of the resources included on this site does not guarantee that the State’s performance or determination status under section 616(d), will improve for the next APR reporting period. Please note that State examples have not been vetted by OSEP for legal sufficiency.

Continuing work with each State’s Regional Resource Center (RRC) and the National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center (NECTAC) is encouraged in order to further determine the nature of the technical assistance required to address areas in which the State needs assistance.

States may want to contact the Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education (CADRE), an OSEP funded center, for additional technical assistance on this indicator.
  • HTML Content
Part B Table 7 Error Checker
This is an error checking spreadsheet file for states to use when completing Table 7 (Part B) for the four dispute resolution indicators. Update will be posted as soon as it is available.

17: Due Process Timelines

B 16, 17, 18, & 19 the 2004-2005 Part B SPP Attachment 1 Dispute Resolution Data
11-09-06
B 16, 17, 18, & 19 Summary Statistical Data
B 17 Submission Checklist
01.21.09
Technical Assistance for Part B, Indicator 17
Use of the resources included on this site does not guarantee that the State’s performance or determination status under section 616(d), will improve for the next APR reporting period. Please note that State examples have not been vetted by OSEP for legal sufficiency.

Continuing work with each State’s Regional Resource Center (RRC) and the National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center (NECTAC) is encouraged in order to further determine the nature of the technical assistance required to address areas in which the State needs assistance.

States may want to contact the Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education (CADRE), an OSEP funded center, for additional technical assistance on this indicator.
  • HTML Content
Part B Table 7 Error Checker
This is an error checking spreadsheet file for states to use when completing Table 7 (Part B) for the four dispute resolution indicators. Update will be posted as soon as it is available.

18: Hearing Requests Resolved by Resolution Sessions

B 16, 17, 18, & 19 the 2004-2005 Part B SPP Attachment 1 Dispute Resolution Data
11-09-06
B 16, 17, 18, & 19 Summary Statistical Data
B 18 Submission Checklist
01.25.09
Part B Table 7 Error Checker
This is an error checking spreadsheet file for states to use when completing Table 7 (Part B) for the four dispute resolution indicators. Update will be posted as soon as it is available.
Technical Assistance for Part B, Indicator 18
Use of the resources included on this site does not guarantee that the State’s performance or determination status under section 616(d), will improve for the next APR reporting period. Please note that State examples have not been vetted by OSEP for legal sufficiency.

Continuing work with each State’s Regional Resource Center (RRC) and the National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center (NECTAC) is encouraged in order to further determine the nature of the technical assistance required to address areas in which the State needs assistance.

States may want to contact the Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education (CADRE), an OSEP funded center, for additional technical assistance on this indicator.
  • HTML Content

19: Mediation Agreements

B 16, 17, 18, & 19 the 2004-2005 Part B SPP Attachment 1 Dispute Resolution Data
11-09-06
B 16, 17, 18, & 19 Summary Statistical Data
B 19 Submission Checklist
01.25.09
Part B Table 7 Error Checker
This is an error checking spreadsheet file for states to use when completing Table 7 (Part B) for the four dispute resolution indicators. Update will be posted as soon as it is available.
Technical Assistance for Part B, Indicator 19
Use of the resources included on this site does not guarantee that the State’s performance or determination status under section 616(d), will improve for the next APR reporting period. Please note that State examples have not been vetted by OSEP for legal sufficiency.

Continuing work with each State’s Regional Resource Center (RRC) and the National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center (NECTAC) is encouraged in order to further determine the nature of the technical assistance required to address areas in which the State needs assistance.

States may want to contact the Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education (CADRE), an OSEP funded center, for additional technical assistance on this indicator.
  • HTML Content

20: State Reported Data

B 20 Submission Checklist
01.25.09
B 20 C 14 Data Accuracy - Critical Elements for Review of SPPs
11-08-06
B 20 C 14 Reporting Section 618 Data to the Public - Q&As
7-13-06
Technical Assistance for Part B, Indicator 20
Use of the resources included on this site does not guarantee that the State’s performance or determination status under section 616(d), will improve for the next APR reporting period. Please note that State examples have not been vetted by OSEP for legal sufficiency.

Continuing work with each State’s Regional Resource Center (RRC) and the National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center (NECTAC) is encouraged in order to further determine the nature of the technical assistance required to address areas in which the State needs assistance.

Please note that the Instructions for this indicator have changed.
  • HTML Content
Methods for Collecting District-level Data to Improve a State's Existing Data Collection System- Webinar
The Regional Resource Center Program hosted a webinar on December 4, 2008 at 2pm Eastern on methods for collecting district-level data to improve a state’s existing data collection system. The selected states shared their current and/or planned practices include Florida and Georgia. Additionally, Oklahoma shared how they use Part C data collection systems to meet APR reporting requirements. The Data Accountability Center (DAC) provided information as to the data requirements for both Part B & Part C.
  • Event
  • Thursday, December 4, 2008 - Thursday, December 4, 2008
Taking Your Data to the Laundry: How to Improve Data Accuracy (Word)
The purpose of this document is to help those who collect IDEA data improve the accuracy and quality of the data. The document was revised in December 2008. Click here to view this document in PDF.
B 20 Rubric
10.21.09
B20 Rubric use for 2-10 submission

1: Early Intervention Services in a Timely Manner

C 1 Submission Checklist
01.25.09
Technical Assistance for Part C, Indicator 1
Use of the resources included on this site does not guarantee that the State’s performance or determination status under section 616(d), will improve for the next APR reporting period. Please note that State examples have not been vetted by OSEP for legal sufficiency.

Continuing work with each State’s Regional Resource Center (RRC) and the National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center (NECTAC) is encouraged in order to further determine the nature of the technical assistance required to address areas in which the State needs assistance.
  • HTML Content
Investigative Questions for Part C, Indicator 1
Part C, Indicator 1 Guidance Suggestions- Technical Assistance Document
Updated 1.27.10
State Activities to Increase Staff Capacity
Issue Brief Prep Program Partnerships
Enhancing Services in Natural Environments
Cost Models in Early Intervention
Statewide Personnel Data Management
Optional Template C1

2: Settings

C 2 Submission Checklist
01.25.09
Technical Assistance for Part C, Indicator 2
Use of the resources included on this site does not guarantee that the State’s performance or determination status under section 616(d), will improve for the next APR reporting period. Please note that State examples have not been vetted by OSEP for legal sufficiency.

Continuing work with each State’s Regional Resource Center (RRC) and the National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center (NECTAC) is encouraged in order to further determine the nature of the technical assistance required to address areas in which the State needs assistance.
  • HTML Content
Service Delivery Models

3: Infant & Toddler Outcomes

C 3 Submission Checklist
01.25.09
C 3 Timelines for Reporting Child Outcome Data to OSEP
9-21-05
Technical Assistance for Part C, Indicator 3
Use of the resources included on this site does not guarantee that the State’s performance or determination status under section 616(d), will improve for the next APR reporting period. Please note that State examples have not been vetted by OSEP for legal sufficiency.

Continuing work with each State’s Regional Resource Center (RRC) and the National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center (NECTAC) is encouraged in order to further determine the nature of the technical assistance required to address areas in which the State needs assistance.

States may want to contact the Early Childhood Outcomes Center, an OSEP funded center, for additional technical assistance on this indicator.
  • HTML Content
SPP TA Conference Call- August 13, 2009
  • Event
  • Thursday, August 13, 2009 - Thursday, August 13, 2009
C3 and B7 Call Presentation
ECO Suggested Guidance for Revised SPP Indicator C3
Indicator C3 has two documents. This one is for states that do not serve at-risk infants and toddlers. (Posted 11.5.09)
ECO Suggested Guidance for Revised SPP Indicator C3 At Risk
Indicator C3 has two documents. This one is for states that serve at-risk infants and toddlers. (Posted 11.5.09)

4: Family Outcomes

B C 8 NCSEAM Schools' Efforts to Partner with Parents Scale
10-14-06
B 8 & C 4 Part B Schools' Efforts to Partner with Parents Scale - Item Response Data from Five Sample Respondents
10-14-06
B 8 & C4 Reporting Results from the NCSEAM Survey to Address the SPP Parent / Family Indicators
10-14-06
C 4 Submission Checklist
01.25.09
Analyze Results of Family Capacity Survey Data and Prepare Draft for Indicator 4 (Family Capacity)
Prepare a draft of the results that were found based on data obtained from parent surveys.
Technical Assistance for Part C, Indicator 4
Use of the resources included on this site does not guarantee that the State’s performance or determination status under section 616(d), will improve for the next APR reporting period. Please note that State examples have not been vetted by OSEP for legal sufficiency.

Continuing work with each State’s Regional Resource Center (RRC) and the National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center (NECTAC) is encouraged in order to further determine the nature of the technical assistance required to address areas in which the State needs assistance.
  • HTML Content
Part C Family Survey Guide
Posted 3/08/10

5: Child Find Birth to One

C 5 & 6 The percent of infants and toddlers receiving early intervention services under IDEA Part C by age and state
C 5 & 6 The Part C Eligibility Criteria Rankings
(Applicable to the December 1, 2006 Child Count) are to be used for the February 1, 2008 APR Submission for Part C Indicators 5A and 6A. [Posted 10/07]
C 5 Submission Checklist
01.25.09
Technical Assistance for Part C, Indicators 5 and 6
Use of the resources included on this site does not guarantee that the State’s performance or determination status under section 616(d), will improve for the next APR reporting period. Please note that State examples have not been vetted by OSEP for legal sufficiency.

Continuing work with each State’s Regional Resource Center (RRC) and the National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center (NECTAC) is encouraged in order to further determine the nature of the technical assistance required to address areas in which the State needs assistance.
  • HTML Content
Part C Eligibility Criteria Rankings for Part C Indicators 5A and 6A Backup
The Part C Eligibility Criteria Rankings, applicable to the December 1, 2007 Child Count, are to be used for the February 2, 2009 APR submission for Part C Indicators 5A and 6A. In the APR, each State must compare itself to other States with similar (narrow, moderate, or broad) eligibility categories. Please note that OSEP considered all possible eligibility definitions in developing these Criteria; therefore, States should use the Child Count Tables that include States that serve similar populations including “at-risk” infants and toddlers in comparing themselves to other States. Additional tables, related to these rankings, will be forthcoming.
Part C Eligibility Criteria Rankings for Part C Indicators 5A and 6A
The Part C Eligibility Criteria Rankings, applicable to the December 1, 2007 Child Count, are to be used for the February 2, 2009 APR submission for Part C Indicators 5A and 6A. In the APR, each State must compare itself to other States with similar (narrow, moderate, or broad) eligibility categories. Please note that OSEP considered all possible eligibility definitions in developing these Criteria; therefore, States should use the Child Count Tables that include States that serve similar populations including “at-risk” infants and toddlers in comparing themselves to other States.
  • HTML Content
C 5 & 6 Percent of Infants and Toddlers by State 2007
Percent of infants and toddlers receiving early intervention services under IDEA, Part C, by state: 2007
C 5 & 6 Infants and toddlers birth to one year and birth through 2 by eligibility category
Infants and toddlers birth to one year and birth through 2 by eligibility category in alphabetical order 2007
C 5 & 6 Infants and toddlers birth to one year by eligibility criteria in descending order 2007
Infants and toddlers birth to one year by eligibility criteria in descending order 2007
C 5 & 6 Infants and toddlers birth through 2 by eligibility criteria in descending order 2007
Infants and toddlers birth through 2 by eligibility criteria in descending order 2007
C 5 & 6 Instructions for using Spreadsheets for Part C
Instructions for using Spreadsheets for Part C Indicators 5 & 6
Eligibility categories Dec 1 2007
Eligibility categories Dec 1 2007
Part C Eligibility Scoring Matrix (Posted 1.7.09)
Data for C5 and C6
Percent of infants and toddlers receiving early intervention services under IDEA, Part C, by age and state: Fall 2008 (Posted 11.17.09)

6: Child Find Birth to Three

C 5 & 6 The percent of infants and toddlers receiving early intervention services under IDEA Part C by age and state
C 5 & 6 The Part C Eligibility Criteria Rankings
(Applicable to the December 1, 2006 Child Count) are to be used for the February 1, 2008 APR Submission for Part C Indicators 5A and 6A. [Posted 10/07]
C 6 Submission Checklist
01.25.09
Technical Assistance for Part C, Indicators 5 and 6
Use of the resources included on this site does not guarantee that the State’s performance or determination status under section 616(d), will improve for the next APR reporting period. Please note that State examples have not been vetted by OSEP for legal sufficiency.

Continuing work with each State’s Regional Resource Center (RRC) and the National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center (NECTAC) is encouraged in order to further determine the nature of the technical assistance required to address areas in which the State needs assistance.
  • HTML Content
Part C Eligibility Criteria Rankings for Part C Indicators 5A and 6A Backup
The Part C Eligibility Criteria Rankings, applicable to the December 1, 2007 Child Count, are to be used for the February 2, 2009 APR submission for Part C Indicators 5A and 6A. In the APR, each State must compare itself to other States with similar (narrow, moderate, or broad) eligibility categories. Please note that OSEP considered all possible eligibility definitions in developing these Criteria; therefore, States should use the Child Count Tables that include States that serve similar populations including “at-risk” infants and toddlers in comparing themselves to other States. Additional tables, related to these rankings, will be forthcoming.
Part C Eligibility Criteria Rankings for Part C Indicators 5A and 6A
The Part C Eligibility Criteria Rankings, applicable to the December 1, 2007 Child Count, are to be used for the February 2, 2009 APR submission for Part C Indicators 5A and 6A. In the APR, each State must compare itself to other States with similar (narrow, moderate, or broad) eligibility categories. Please note that OSEP considered all possible eligibility definitions in developing these Criteria; therefore, States should use the Child Count Tables that include States that serve similar populations including “at-risk” infants and toddlers in comparing themselves to other States.
  • HTML Content
C 5 & 6 Percent of Infants and Toddlers by State 2007
Percent of infants and toddlers receiving early intervention services under IDEA, Part C, by state: 2007
C 5 & 6 Infants and toddlers birth to one year and birth through 2 by eligibility category
Infants and toddlers birth to one year and birth through 2 by eligibility category in alphabetical order 2007
C 5 & 6 Infants and toddlers birth to one year by eligibility criteria in descending order 2007
Infants and toddlers birth to one year by eligibility criteria in descending order 2007
C 5 & 6 Infants and toddlers birth through 2 by eligibility criteria in descending order 2007
Infants and toddlers birth through 2 by eligibility criteria in descending order 2007
C 5 & 6 Instructions for using Spreadsheets for Part C
Instructions for using Spreadsheets for Part C Indicators 5 & 6
Eligibility categories Dec 1 2007
Eligibility categories Dec 1 2007
Part C Eligibility Scoring Matrix (Posted 1.7.09)
Data for C5 and C6
Percent of infants and toddlers receiving early intervention services under IDEA, Part C, by age and state: Fall 2008 (Posted 11.17.09)

7: 45-Day Timeline

Technical Assistance for Part C, Indicator 7
Use of the resources included on this site does not guarantee that the State’s performance or determination status under section 616(d), will improve for the next APR reporting period. Please note that State examples have not been vetted by OSEP for legal sufficiency.

Continuing work with each State’s Regional Resource Center (RRC) and the National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center (NECTAC) is encouraged in order to further determine the nature of the technical assistance required to address areas in which the State needs assistance.
  • HTML Content
Part C, Indicator 7 Guidance Suggestions- Technical Assistance Document
Updated 1.26.10
Statewide Personnel Data Management
Optional Template C7

8: Early Childhood Transition

C 8 Submission Checklist
01.25.09
Technical Assistance for Part C, Indicator 8
Use of the resources included on this site does not guarantee that the State’s performance or determination status under section 616(d), will improve for the next APR reporting period. Please note that State examples have not been vetted by OSEP for legal sufficiency.

Continuing work with each State’s Regional Resource Center (RRC) and the National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center (NECTAC) is encouraged in order to further determine the nature of the technical assistance required to address areas in which the State needs assistance.
  • HTML Content
Optional Template C8c
Early Childhood Transition FAQs FINAL 12-01-09

9: Identification and Correction of Noncompliance

Issues of General Supervision and the Annual Performance Report
A PowerPoint presentation prepared by NCSEAM describing key components of a system of general supervision. The presentation address the following questions: “What are the minimum components for general supervision?”, “How do the components form a system?”, and “What are the processes operating within the system?”
Definitions
Definitions of terms commonly used in monitoring, e.g., finding, correction, enforcement. Dated 8/23/07

NOTE: An updated definition of a "finding" is available in the OSEP FAQ Document on Identification and Correction (9/03/08)
C 9 Submission Checklist
01.25.09
Technical Assistance for Part C, Indicator 9
Use of the resources included on this site does not guarantee that the State’s performance or determination status under section 616(d), will improve for the next APR reporting period. Please note that State examples have not been vetted by OSEP for legal sufficiency.

Continuing work with each State’s Regional Resource Center (RRC) and the National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center (NECTAC) is encouraged in order to further determine the nature of the technical assistance required to address areas in which the State needs assistance.
  • HTML Content
Big 8: General Supervision
A series of documents and pdf documents and PowerPoint presentations that provide information about effective general supervision, particularly the 8 “puzzle pieces” that comprise the key components of general supervision. Information is available for Part B and Part C audiences. Includes the NCSEAM document “Developing and Implementing an Effective System of General Supervision.” Dated January 2007.
OSEP FAQ on Identification and Correction (9.03.08)
Part C Indicator 9 Self Calculating Worksheet
Optional Template C9
C9 Worksheet
Indicator C9 Worksheet Expires 11-30-12
C-9 Self-calculating worksheet 1-12-2010

10: Complaint Timelines

C 10 Submission Checklist
01.25.09
Technical Assistance for Part C, Indicator 10
Use of the resources included on this site does not guarantee that the State’s performance or determination status under section 616(d), will improve for the next APR reporting period. Please note that State examples have not been vetted by OSEP for legal sufficiency.

Continuing work with each State’s Regional Resource Center (RRC) and the National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center (NECTAC) is encouraged in order to further determine the nature of the technical assistance required to address areas in which the State needs assistance.

States may want to contact the Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education (CADRE), an OSEP funded center, for additional technical assistance on this indicator.
  • HTML Content
Investigative Questions for Part C, Indicator 10

11: Due Process Timelines

C 11 Submission Checklist
01.25.09
Technical Assistance for Part C, Indicator 11
Use of the resources included on this site does not guarantee that the State’s performance or determination status under section 616(d), will improve for the next APR reporting period. Please note that State examples have not been vetted by OSEP for legal sufficiency.

Continuing work with each State’s Regional Resource Center (RRC) and the National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center (NECTAC) is encouraged in order to further determine the nature of the technical assistance required to address areas in which the State needs assistance.

States may want to contact the Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education (CADRE), an OSEP funded center, for additional technical assistance on this indicator.
  • HTML Content
Investigative Questions for Part C, Indicator 11

12: Hearing Requests Resolved by Resolution Sessions

C 12 Submission Checklist
01.25.09
Technical Assistance for Part C, Indicator 12
Use of the resources included on this site does not guarantee that the State’s performance or determination status under section 616(d), will improve for the next APR reporting period. Please note that State examples have not been vetted by OSEP for legal sufficiency.

Continuing work with each State’s Regional Resource Center (RRC) and the National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center (NECTAC) is encouraged in order to further determine the nature of the technical assistance required to address areas in which the State needs assistance.

States may want to contact the Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education (CADRE), an OSEP funded center, for additional technical assistance on this indicator.
  • HTML Content

13: Mediation Agreements

C 13 Submission Checklist
01.25.09
Technical Assistance for Part C, Indicator 13
Use of the resources included on this site does not guarantee that the State’s performance or determination status under section 616(d), will improve for the next APR reporting period. Please note that State examples have not been vetted by OSEP for legal sufficiency.

Continuing work with each State’s Regional Resource Center (RRC) and the National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center (NECTAC) is encouraged in order to further determine the nature of the technical assistance required to address areas in which the State needs assistance.

States may want to contact the Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education (CADRE), an OSEP funded center, for additional technical assistance on this indicator.
  • HTML Content

14: State Reported Data

B 20 C 14 Data Accuracy - Critical Elements for Review of SPPs
11-08-06
B 20 C 14 Reporting Section 618 Data to the Public - Q&As
7-13-06
C 14 Submission Checklist
01.25.09
Technical Assistance for Part C, Indicator 14
Use of the resources included on this site does not guarantee that the State’s performance or determination status under section 616(d), will improve for the next APR reporting period. Please note that State examples have not been vetted by OSEP for legal sufficiency.

Continuing work with each State’s Regional Resource Center (RRC) and the National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center (NECTAC) is encouraged in order to further determine the nature of the technical assistance required to address areas in which the State needs assistance.
  • HTML Content
Methods for Collecting District-level Data to Improve a State's Existing Data Collection System- Webinar
The Regional Resource Center Program hosted a webinar on December 4, 2008 at 2pm Eastern on methods for collecting district-level data to improve a state’s existing data collection system. The selected states shared their current and/or planned practices include Florida and Georgia. Additionally, Oklahoma shared how they use Part C data collection systems to meet APR reporting requirements. The Data Accountability Center (DAC) provided information as to the data requirements for both Part B & Part C.
  • Event
  • Thursday, December 4, 2008 - Thursday, December 4, 2008
Taking Your Data to the Laundry: How to Improve Data Accuracy (Word)
The purpose of this document is to help those who collect IDEA data improve the accuracy and quality of the data. The document was revised in December 2008. Click here to view this document in PDF.
C14
C14 Data Rubric
Indicator C14 Data Rubric Expires 11-30-12
Part C Indicator 14 Self-Calculating Rubric for FFY 2008 APR