Analysis of State Performance Plans for Indicator 13 (Spring, 2007)

Indicator 13 requires states to report data on "the percent of youth aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes coordinated, measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the child to meet the postsecondary goals." Baseline data were reported by February 1, 2007. The sections below summarize states' data for Indicator 13 for 2005-2006, which was the baseline year.

Baseline Data

Of the 60 states and territories, 57 (95%) reported baseline data for Indicator 13. Of the 57 that reported data, 54 (94.7%) provided data at the individual student level and 3 (5.2%) provided data at the local education agency (LEA) level. Finally 4 (7.0%) of the 57 reported data on individual checklist items, but did not report an overall percentage.

Individual student baseline data ranged from 0% to 100%, with a median of 60% and 52% of states and territories reporting baseline data between 51% and 100%. LEA baseline data ranged from 78% to 99.8% and the item x item baseline data ranged from 63.5% to 94.3%. As a result, it is impossible to calculate a single baseline percentage across all states and territories.

Improvement Activities

Of the 60 states and territories, 58 (96.6%) included improvement activities. Table 1 provides a summary of the improvement activities stated in the reports.

Table 1. Summary of Improvement Activities (n = 57)

Improvement Activity

Number (Percent)

(A) Improve data collection and reporting & (E)Clarify/examine/develop policies and procedures

53 (92.9%)

(B) Improve systems administration and monitoring

15 (25.8%)

(C) Provide training/professional development &
(D) Provide technical assistance

56 (96.5%)

(F) Program development

19 (33.3%)

(G) Collaboration/coordination

31 (32.6%)

(H) Evaluation

5 (8.8%)

(I) Increase/Adjust FTE

4 (7.0%)

TA Center Consulted with State

Of the 60 states and territories, NSTTAC provided various levels of consultation to 53 (88.3%). Table 2 summarizes the types of consultation provided.

Table 2. Summary of NSTTAC Consultation to States and Territories (n = 60)

Type of Consultation

Number (Percent)

(A) Information only

11 (18.3%)

(B) Conference only

1 (1.7%)

(AB) Information and Conference

35 (58.3%)

(ABC) Information, Conference, and Regional or State Group Assistance

4 (6.7%)

(ABD) Information, Conference, and Consultation

1 (1.7%)

(ABCD) Information, Conference, Regional/State Group Assistance, and Consultation

1 (1.7%)

(E) No Contact

7 (11.7%)

TA Centers Mentioned in Improvement Activity

Of the 60 states and territories, 30 (50%) mentioned one or more TA Centers in their list of improvement activities. Of these 30, 23 (76.6%) mentioned NSTTAC only and 7 (14.3%) mentioned NSTTAC plus another TA center. Other TA Centers included the National Postschool Outcomes Center (n = 5; 16.7%), the National Dropout Prevention Center for Students with Disabilities (n = 3; 10%), and NCSEAM (n = 3; 10%).

Numbers Used to Calculate Percentage

Only 42 (70%) of the states and territories provided the numbers (i.e., numerators and denominators) that they used to calculate their baseline score. The numbers used to calculate baseline scores reported ranged from 8/39 to 22,042/89,970. Based on the 42 sets of numerators and denominators that were provided for individual student IEPs, we calculated an overall baseline percentage of 49.4% (126,744 ¸ 256,268) compliance with I-13.

Quality of Instrument Used

The 57 states and territories that reported baseline data for Indicator 13 used a variety of instruments to collect their data. The majority (n =45; 78.9%) use a state-developed checklist, 9 (15.8%) used the NSTTAC I-13 Checklist, and 4 (7%) used the Transition Requirements Checklist. The NSTTAC I-13 Checklist has been approved by MSIP and the Transition Requirements Checklist is almost identical to the NSTTAC Checklist, so data from the 13 states and territories that used either of these two checklists would be valid.

Of the 45 that used a state-developed instrument, 15 provided their checklist items in their reports and 30 provided no information on the items they used to collect their baseline data. Of the 15 that included the items on their state-developed I-13 checklists in their report, none met the minimal requirements as listed in the NSTTAC I-13 Checklist. Table 3 summarizes the missing requirements for the 15 states that provided the items in their checklists.

Table 3. Summary of Missing Requirements in State-Developed I-13 Checklists (n = 15)

Item Missing

Number (Percent)

(A) Measurable Postschool Goals

4 (28.6%)

(B) Related Annual IEP goals

4 (28.6%)

(C) Related Transition Services

3 (20%)

(D) Parent/Student Consent for Interagency Collaboration

13 (86.6%)

(E) Age-Appropriate Transition Assessment

9 (60%)

(F) Course of Study

6 (40%)

Summary of I-13 Baseline Data

  • 57 of 60 states and territories provided baseline data
  • 50 of 57 states and territories provided baseline data on individual student IEPs; baseline data ranged from 0% to 100% with a median score of 60%
  • Based on the 42 sets of numerators and denominators that were provided for individual student IEPs, we calculated a baseline average percentage of 49.4% (126,744 ¸ 256,268) compliance with I-13
  • 3 of 56 states and territories provided baseline data for LEAs; baseline data ranged from 78% to 99.8%
  • 4 of 56 states and territories provided item x item scores, but not an overall score.
  • 53 of 60 states and territories have received some level of consultative services from NSTTAC
  • 30 of 60 states and territories mentioned a TA Center in their improvement activities.
  • 42 of 60 states and territories provided the number of student IEPs used to calculate their baseline data
  • 13 of 60 states and territories collected data with a checklist that met the minimal requirements

Recommendations for Collecting I-13 Data

  • Clarify need to provide numbers used to calculate I-13 percentage (numerators and denominators).
  • Clarify need to provide I-13 percentages for individual IEPs, not LEAs.
  • Require states and territories to include a copy of their checklist in their SPP/APR.
  • Require states to provide an item x item summary of checklist, in addition to an overall percentage.
  • Provide states and territories with list of possible Improvement Activity categories. 
Rate this page: 

Add new comment

CAPTCHA
This is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent spam submissions.