Get documents about "Part BS tate Annual Performance Report (APR) for
Document Sample
STATE OF NEW MEXICO
PUBLIC EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
Annual Performance Report
Submitted to the
United Sates Department of Education
Office of Special Education Programs
New Mexico Public Education Department
Special Education Bureau
www.ped.state.nm.us/SEB/index.html
Federal Fiscal Year 2010
(July 1, 2010 – June 30, 2011)
February 1, 2012
Updated April 17, 2012
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Table of Contents
Indicator Description APR Page Number
1 Cohort Graduation Rates 11
Standard Option
2 Drop Out Rates 15
3 Participation Rates and Proficiency Rates 17
Standards Based Assessment and Alternate Assessment
4 Suspension and Expulsion Rates Greater than 10 days 23
Students with Disabilities and Students with Disabilities by
Race and Ethnicity
5 Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) 33
Students aged 6 - 21
6 Preschool Least Restrictive Environment 36
Students aged 3 - 5
7 Early Childhood Outcomes 37
Students aged 3 – 5
8 Parental Involvement 44
9 Disproportionate Representation – Inappropriate 47
Identification
Race/Ethnicity- all Disabilities
10 Disproportionate Representation – Inappropriate 51
Identification
Race/Ethnicity – Specific Disabilities
11 Initial Evaluation for Special Education and Related Services 62
60 Days from Parental Consent to Evaluation
12 Preschool Transition 66
Part C to Part B
13 Secondary Transition 70
Compliant IEPs Students aged 16 or above
14 Post School Outcomes for High School Leavers 75
15 Timely Correction of Noncompliance 79
16 Timely Resolution of State Level Complaints 91
60 day Timeline or Timeline Extended for Exceptional
Circumstances
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 2 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
17 Timely Adjudication of Due Process Hearing Requests 94
45 day Timeline or a Timeline that is Properly Extended by
the Hearing Officer
18 Resolution Sessions Resolved Through Settlement 96
Agreements
19 Mediations Resulting in Mediation Agreements 98
20 Timely and Accurate Data Reporting 100
Appendices
Appendix Description Page
A Indicator Four Self Assessment 105
B Indicator Four IEP Checklist 110
C Indicator Nine and Ten Self-Assessment 113
D Indicator Eight - Parent Survey 126
E New Mexico’s Levels of Intervention 129
F National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance 132
Center – Checklist
G Tiers of Interventions and Sanctions 137
H Table Seven – Dispute Resolution 140
I Continuum of Alternative Dispute Resolution Options 143
J Indicator 20 Rubric for LEAs 146
K Significant Disproportionality Policy 149
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 3 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Acronyms
ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution
ADS Accountability Data System
APR Annual Performance Report
AYP Adequate Yearly Progress
BIP Behavior Intervention Plan
CAP Corrective Action Plan
CCD Common Core of Data
CIO Chief Information Officer
CrEAG Critical Elements Analysis Guide
CRT Criterion Referenced Test
DOH Department of Health
DPH Due Process Hearing
DVR Division of Vocational Rehabilitation
EIS Early Intervening Services
ELL English Language Learner
EOY End-of-Year
EPICS Education for Parents of Indian Children with Special Needs
EPSS Educational Plan for Student Success
ESEA Elementary and Secondary Education Act
FAPE Free Appropriate Public Education
FBA Functional Behavior Assessment
FFY Federal Fiscal Year
FERPA Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
FIEP Facilitated Individualized Education Program
FIT Family Infant and Toddler Program
FTE Full Time Equivalent
GED General Education Diploma
HIPPA Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
HS High School
IEP Individualized Education Program
IDEA Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
IHO Impartial Hearing Officer
ISEAS Integrated Special Education Accountability System
I.T. Information and Technology
LEA Local Education Agency
JPA Joint Powers Agreement
LRE Least Restrictive Environment
MPRRC Mountain Plains Regional Resource Center
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MRTs Measureable and Rigorous Targets
NA Not Applicable
NCLB No Child Left Behind
NECTAC National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center
NEREC Northeast Regional Education Cooperative
NM New Mexico
NMAA New Mexico Alternate Assessment
NMAC New Mexico Administrative Code
NMPED New Mexico Public Education Department
NMSBA New Mexico Standards Based Assessment
NMTEAM New Mexico Assistance Team Manual
NSTTAC National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 4 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
OBMS Operating Budget Management System
OSEP Office of Special Education Programs
OSERS Office of Special Education Rehabilitative Services
PDSA Plan Do Study Act
PRO Parents Reaching Out
PTI Parent Training Information Center
RCA Root Cause Analysis
REC Regional Education Cooperative
RR Risk Ratio
SEB Special Education Bureau
SEAS Special Education Accountability System
SETAT Special Education Technical Assistance Team
SPP State Performance Plan
SPDG State Personnel Development Grant
STARS Student Teacher Accountability Reporting System
TAESE Technical Assistance for Excellence in Special Education
UCOA Uniform Chart of Accounts
WRR Weighted Risk Ratio
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 5 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Introduction
The Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2010 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part B
Annual Performance Report (APR) reflects data and information gathered on the State
Performance Plan (SPP) indicators and targets from July 1, 2010 – June 30, 2011. This is New
Mexico’s sixth APR highlighting the State’s and Local Education Agencies’ (LEAs’) progress on
meeting the SPP indicators and targets included in the original SPP submitted on December 2,
2005, with subsequent revisions in February 2007 through 2012.
On June 20, 2011 the State received its FFY 2009 annual determination. The U.S. Department of
Education determined that, under IDEA section 616(d)(2)(A)(i), New Mexico meets requirements of
Part B of the IDEA. However, it was noted that New Mexico had not reported the following:
Number of children with disabilities participating in regular assessments, and the number of
those children who were provided accommodations (that did not result in an invalid score)
in order to participate in those assessments at the State, district and/or school levels; and
Performance of children with disabilities on statewide assessments at the district and school
level with the same frequency and in the same detail as it reports on the assessment of
nondisabled children.
Within 90 days of receipt of the APR Response Table, the State was required to provide a web link
that demonstrated it had reported to the public on the statewide assessments of children with
disabilities. The web link was provided to OSEP on September 16, 2011. On October 21, 2011 the
State received a letter from OSEP indicating that the noncompliance was considered corrected.
The Statewide assessment data can be viewed at
http://www.ped.state.nm.us/SEB/data/index.html/.
The State received its letter on February 15, 2012 regarding the results of the Office of Special
Education Program’s (OSEP’s) Continuous Improvement Visit to the New Mexico Public Education
Department during the week of October 3, 2011. Under Required Actions/Next Steps for Critical
Element 4: Data System on page 11 of 12 of the letter, the State was required to provide an
explanation concerning the reporting of noncompliance, during the FFY 2010 SPP/APR clarification
period. The State makes the following assurances:
The data in the FFY 2010 SPP/APR are valid and reliable;
Only data corrected as soon as possible and in no case later than one year after the State’s
identification of noncompliance is considered as timely correction and utilized in the
indicator calculations when determining compliance;
Correction of noncompliance beyond the one year timeline is considered subsequent
correction of noncompliance, not timely correction of noncompliance and is reported as
subsequent correction in the APR. In other words, correction of noncompliance beyond the
one year timeline is considered noncompliance and is reported in the APR as
noncompliance; and
When the State collects or receives data indicating noncompliance, if the LEA has corrected
the noncompliance, the State must verify the correction of noncompliance. If the
noncompliance has been corrected within 90 days, the State is not required to issue written
findings of noncompliance. However, all findings of noncompliance are reported in the
APR.
The FFY 2010 indicator data were presented to the State’s IDEA Advisory Panel on December 8,
2011 and LEA special education, REC and charter school staff on January 12, 2012. Both groups
had the opportunity to provide input on the State’s improvement activities during the presentations
and comments were considered up until January 20, 2012.
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 6 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
The revised State Performance Plan (SPP) and FFY 2010 Annual Performance Report (APR) are
posted on the bureau’s website at http://www.ped.state.nm.us/SEB/index.html. Stakeholders are
sent an email notification and a press release about the APR is completed by the department and
sent out to the public.
Performance of each of the LEAs located in the State on the targets in the SPP are posted annually
on the SEB’s website in accordance with 34 CFR § 300.602(b)(1)(i)(A). The FFY 2010 performance
data along with data from previous years can be viewed at
http://www.ped.state.nm.us/SEB/data/index.html.
The State Performance Plan, which can be accessed on the Special Education Bureau’s homepage
at http://www.ped.state.nm.us/SEB/dl11/New%20Mexico%20SPP%20April%2018.2011.pdf, was
updated to include the following:
Indicator SPP Updates Measure FFY 2010 Updates
Number
Page Number
1 22 Graduation Rates Updated improvement activity
2 Not applicable Drop Out Rates No changes
3 A, B and C 47 AYP, participation Updated improvement activity
rates, and proficiency
rates in reading and
math
4A 56 Long-term Updated definition of significant
Suspension and discrepancy
Expulsion Rates –
students with
disabilities
4B 67 Long-term Updated definition of significant
Suspension and discrepancy
Expulsion Rates –
students with
disabilities by race
and ethnicity
5 A, B and C 78 Least Restrictive Target (5 b) revised
Environment –
students aged 6 – 21
6 Not applicable Least Restrictive Not required to report in FFY
Environment – 2010
students aged 3 – 5
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 7 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Indicator SPP Updates Measure FFY 2010 Updates
Number
Page Number
7 94 Early Childhood Updated improvement activities
Outcomes
8 Not applicable Parental Involvement No changes
9 Not applicable Disproportionate No changes
Representation due
to inappropriate
identification – all
disabilities
10 Not applicable Disproportionate No changes
Representation due
to inappropriate
identification – six
disability categories
11 Not applicable 60 day timeline – No changes
consent to initial
evaluation
12 Not applicable Part C to Part B No changes
transition – preschool
13 Not applicable Secondary Transition No changes
14 Not applicable Post School Outcomes No changes
15 Not applicable Timely Correction of No changes
Noncompliance
16 174 Formal Complaints – 60 Assurance provided and updated
day timeline definition of exceptional
circumstances.
17 Not applicable Due Process Hearings No changes
– 45 day timeline
18 183 Resolution Sessions Baseline and targets
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 8 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Indicator SPP Updates Measure FFY 2010 Updates
Number
Page Number
19 Not applicable Mediations No changes
20 Not applicable Timely and Accurate No changes
Data
The graph below highlights the LEA’s annual determinations for the past six years. The number of
LEAs meeting requirements is consistent. The number of LEAs needing assistance and needing
intervention increased due to the number of findings of noncompliance from audits conducted in the
spring of 2011. The audit findings were considered in the LEA’s FFY 2010 annual determination.
100
90
80
Meets
70
Requirements
60
50 Needs Assistance
40 80 88
30 62 60 Needs Intervention
51 51
20 33
31
22
10 15 77 9 11 1919 8 21 Needs Substantial
0 Intervention
New Mexico participated in a Continuous Improvement Visit during the week of October 3, 2011.
There were two components to the visit:
1. The verification of State systems for implementing key requirements of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA); and
2. A collaborative focus on improving results.
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 9 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
New Mexico chose indicator three (reading proficiency rates) and indicator five (least restrictive
environment – LRE) as the focus areas. These two indicators support Governor Susana
Martinez and Secretary Hanna Skandera’s “Real Accountability. Real Results” initiative signed
into law in March 2011. One of the goals of the initiative was to set up a transparent school
grading system. The system provides tiered support to D and F schools while targeting the
lowest performing 25% of students, including students with disabilities.
The results discussion was held with the stakeholder group on October 6, 2011. The draft results
plan was sent to stakeholders for feedback and a follow up webinar was scheduled for
December 5, 2011 but was cancelled to inclement weather. Stakeholders still had the
opportunity to provide feedback. The State’s IDEA advisory panel voted and accepted the
results plan on December 8, 2011. The State received a letter of support from OSEP on
November 28, 2011. The plan can be reviewed on the SEB’s homepage at
http://ped.state.nm/SEB/index.html.
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 10 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010
Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development:
The data and information for indicator one were gathered through the State’s Student Teacher
Accountability Reporting System (STARS). Once the aggregate for the State was calculated, the
cohort data was disaggregated by each LEA to determine whether or not they met the target.
The indicator data were presented to the State’s IDEA Advisory Panel on December 8, 2011. The
same information was presented to LEA, REC, and Charter School personnel on January 12, 2012.
Both groups had the opportunity to provide input on the measurable improvement activities. The
targets utilized through FFY 2012 are aligned with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA) targets and cannot be changed.
The revised State Performance Plan (SPP) and FFY 2010 Annual Performance Report (APR) are
posted on the bureau’s website at http://www.ped.state.nm.us/SEB/index.html . Stakeholders are sent
an email notification and a press release about the APR is completed by the department and sent out
to the public.
Performance of each of the LEAs located in the State on the targets in the SPP are posted annually on
the SEB’s website in accordance with 34 CFR § 300.602(b)(1)(i)(A). The FFY 2010 performance data
along with data from previous years can be viewed at http://www.ped.state.nm.us/SEB/data/index.html
Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE
Indicator 1: Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma.
(20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))
Measurement: States must report using the graduation rate calculation and timeline
established by the Department under the ESEA.
FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target
FFY 2010 Target = 67%
Actual Target Data for FFY 2010:
Target Not Met. The State did not meet its target of 67% of youth with IEPs graduating from high
school with a regular diploma (standard option).
Measurement
Percent = [(# of youth with IEPs who graduate in 4 years with a regular high school diploma –
standard option)/(# of youth with IEPs who entered high school 4 years earlier (adjusting for transfers
in and out and other factors described below))] times 100.
[(1223.2) the number of youth with IEPs who graduate in 4 years with a regular high school
diploma/(3359.5) the number of youth with IEPs who entered high school 4 years earlier] times 100 =
36.4%
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 11 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that
occurred for FFY 2010:
For this indicator calculation, the State utilized the FFY 2010 data (July 1, 2010 – June 30, 2011) and
the State target set under Title I of the ESEA. Although New Mexico has three diploma options, only
those students on the standard option were included in the indictor calculation. The State
experienced severe slippage of 21.2%. The calculation for graduation changed this year. For the prior
cohort, the State was allowed to reclassify the student’s expected year of graduation based on the
IEP. For example, students expected to graduate in 4 years (2010) but who were allowed extra years
through the IEP process were dismissed from the rate that year, and placed into a subsequent cohort
based on the IEP expectations (5 yrs, 6 yrs, etc). That rule was rescinded in November 2011 by the
U.S. Department of Education. This means that IEPs can no longer exempt students from graduating
in 4-years.
New Mexico’s graduation cohort is explained in detail at
http://www.ped.state.nm.us/Graduation/dl10/Grad%20FAQ%20V1.4.pdf.
Certain students are excluded from the cohort because they meet these criteria:
• Foreign exchange on a “J” visa
• Transferred out to a private, out-of-state, or home school
• Deceased
• Moved outside of the United States and its territories
In general, students cannot be reassigned to a different cohort once they have become a
member. However there are certain conditions that will permit a student extra time to graduate
provided that the reason is documented during high school:
• Incarceration where there are no educational programs
• Student with a disability (SWD)
• English language learner (ELL)
• Pregnancy
• Significant medical emergency
Graduation Requirements:
Youth with IEPs must meet the following conditions in order to graduate with a regular diploma
(Standard Option):
4 units in English
4 units in Mathematics, of which 1 unit shall be equivalent to or higher than the level of
Algebra 2
3 units in Science, 2 units of which shall have a laboratory component
3 ½ units in Social Science; including: U.S History and Geography, World History and
Geography, Government, Economics, and ½ unit of New Mexico History
1 unit in Physical Education
1 unit in one of the following: a career cluster course, workplace readiness or a language
other than English.
7 ½ elective units
Students are also required to earn one credit in an advanced placement or honors course, a dual
credit course or a distance learning course. Honors courses are developed locally to meet the needs
of accelerated students. Honors classes offer the same curriculum that non-honors courses offer, but
are more challenging. Honors courses are generally faster paced and cover topics more in-depth.
However, these courses are not usually considered equivalent to college-level work, see Section 22-
13-1.4 NMSA 1978.
Advanced Placement (AP) courses are taught by high school teachers trained in advanced placement
course delivery provided through the College Board. These courses are more difficult and involve
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 12 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
more work than standard classes. AP courses are considered college-level courses, and may allow a
student to earn college credit depending upon college and university policies for the institution the
student may later attend.
Students are also required to earn one credit in one of the following: a career cluster course,
workplace readiness or a language other than English. A career cluster course is an identified career-
technical education course. These courses are part of an aligned, sequential series of courses within
a related grouping of occupations in a given industry sector. Completing a series of career cluster
courses may result in an industry recognized certification or post-secondary degree and add
relevance to the high school curricula.
A workplace readiness course is designed specifically to address entry-level career skill
requirements, and standards and benchmarks as identified under Career-Technical Education in the
New Mexico “Standards for Excellence.” This does not include courses already identified as meeting
other specified graduation requirements. The Standards for Excellence can be accessed at
http://www.nmcpr.state.nm.us/NMAC/_title06/T06C029.htm.
Students are required to take and pass the graduation examination. Students with an IEP or who are
English Language Learners may receive accommodations which could include: the modification of
content, instruction, and or learning outcomes for diverse student needs.
In New Mexico, students with disabilities have three options to earn a diploma. However, for this
indicator calculation, only students graduating on the standard option were included in the calculation.
The three options are explained in the technical assistance manual located at:
http://www.ped.state.nm.us/SEB/tecnical/GraduationOptionsStudentsWithDisabilities.pdf.
Students who get a GED or a Certificate of Completion (complete course requirements but do not
pass all portions of the New Mexico High School Comprehensive Examination) are considered “non-
graduates” in the computation of the graduation rate. A “Frequently Asked Questions” (FAQ)
document describing the graduation requirements in entirety is located at
http://www.ped.state.nm.us/Graduation/dl10/HS%20Grad%20Requirements%20FAQ%202009%2010
%2016.pdf
Improvement Status Results of Impact of
Activity Report as the the Activity
of Activity
2/1/2012
1.Training for Completed Appropriate LEA staff and
directors on and options more
the ongoing selected by informed
graduation IEP team graduation
options to a on decisions
diploma for students
and parents
2.Provide a Completed Increased Increased
Fact Sheet on and awareness accountability
Graduation updated regarding
Options for annually graduation of
students with as needed students with
disabilities disabilities
State’s reply to OSEP’s FFY 2009 Response Table:
None required.
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 13 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources through FFY 2012:
The State is proposing a new improvement activity for FFY 2011 through FFY 2012, in addition to the
current improvement activities, since the State has not met its target for this indicator.
Revised Improvement Resources Timeline Outcome
Activities/Proposed
Targets APR
February 1, 2012
Streamline the special Collaborate with other Pilot in Fall 2012 and Clearer options and
education Transition NMPED bureaus to continue direction for staff,
Plan with the Next Step align graduation plans students, and parents
Plan for all students with of all graduating
and without disabilities students
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 14 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010
Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development:
Data for indicator two were extracted from the STARS data warehouse. Youth were examined by their
unique identification number to see if they were enrolled in another LEA, withdrew from school properly in
instances such as graduated early, graduated during the summer, enrolled in private school, etc.
The indicator data were presented to the State’s IDEA Advisory Panel on December 8, 2011 and LEA
special education staff on January 12, 2012. Both groups had the opportunity to provide input on the
State’s improvement activities and targets during the presentations and comments were considered up
until January 20, 2012.
The revised State Performance Plan (SPP) and FFY 2010 Annual Performance Report (APR) are posted
on the bureau’s website at http://www.ped.state.nm.us/SEB/index.html . Stakeholders are sent an email
notification and a press release about the APR is completed by the department and sent out to the public.
Performance of each of the LEAs located in the State on the targets in the SPP are posted annually on
the SEB’s website in accordance with 34 CFR § 300.602(b)(1)(i)(A). The FFY 2010 performance data
along with data from previous years can be viewed at http://www.ped.state.nm.us/SEB/data/index.html
Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE
Indicator 2: Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high school.
(20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))
Measurement: States must report using the dropout data used in the ESEA graduation rate
calculation and follow the timeline established by the Department under the ESEA.
[(Number of students with IEPs in grades 9 – 12 dropping out of school) divided by (the number of
students with IEPs enrolled in grades 9 – 12)] times 100.
FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target
FFY 2010 6.15%
Actual Target Data for FFY 2010:
[(894 number of dropouts) divided by (11,894 number of students enrolled)] times 100 = 7.51%
Target Not Met.
New Mexico Drop-out rates Methodology:
Drop-out rates are calculated the same for students with and without disabilities. Dropout rates are
computed using New Mexico specific statistical procedures. The rates are calculated by dividing the
number of dropouts for the LEA between the first and last days of school, plus summer dropouts, (not
th th
including transition grades, e.g., summer dropouts between 8 and 9 grades are not attributed to four-
year high schools), by the school cumulative enrollment between the first and last days of school. The
dropout statistics report the number of students dropping out in a given school year, and students who
attended school throughout the 2010 school year but are “no shows” during the entire 2011 school year.
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 15 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
When calculating indicator 2, the number of students with IEPs who dropped out of high school was
divided by the number of students with IEPs enrolled in grades 9 – 12.
A student is considered a dropout if he or she was enrolled at any time during the previous school year, is
not enrolled at the beginning of the current school year, and does not meet certain exclusionary
conditions. Students dropping out during the regular school term in year one, and who are not enrolled on
the October student count of year two, are reported as a year one dropout on the dropout report in year
two. Example: a student dropping out of eleventh grade in March 2011, who is not enrolled on the
October 2011 student count, is a 2010 eleventh grade dropout.
In New Mexico, youth cannot be identified as a dropout if they meet any one of the following criteria as
identified in the State’s Student Teacher Accountability Reporting System (STARS):
Passed GED;
Home Schooled;
Duplicate student ID within a district;
Duplicate student ID across districts;
Enrolled in a different district at the end-of-the-year;
Enrolled in a different district of the current school year; or
Found to have graduated at the end or during summer of the 2010-2011 school year.
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that
occurred for FFY 2010:
The State did not meet its target of 6.15% youth with IEPs dropping out of high school. The State
experienced slippage of 1.36% from FFY 2009 to FFY 2010.
Improvement Status Report Results of the Impact of
Activity as of 2/1/2012 Activity the Activity
1. Continue to Data collected None None – need
include and reviewed to have LEAs
questions on drill down into
reason for data to
dropping out determine
of school on causes
the post
school
outcomes
survey
2. Provide Completed in None None – need
professional June 2011 to have LEAs
development drill down into
on truancy data to
prevention determine
programs causes
State’s reply to OSEP’s FFY 2009 Response Table:
None required.
Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2011 and 2012
The State is not proposing any revisions at this time and will reassess in fall 2012.
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 16 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010
Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development:
The data and information for indicator three were obtained through the State’s Assessment and
Accountability Division. The division disaggregated the data for students with disabilities who participated
in the New Mexico Standards Based Assessment (NMSBA) and the New Mexico Alternate Performance
Assessment (NMAPA). The data were disaggregated to reflect student performance as well as student
participation rates.
The indicator data were presented to the State’s IDEA Advisory Panel on December 8, 2011 and LEA
special education staff on January 12, 2012. Both groups had the opportunity to provide input on the
State’s improvement activities during the presentations and comments were considered up until January
20, 2012. They were able to provide input on the indicator 3 a target only since the other targets (3 b and
3 c) were the same targets utilized for all students under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA).
Detailed AYP reports by school district and school can be viewed at
http://webapp.ped.state.nm.us/aypdl/DocLibrary.aspx?Year=2011&LibraryType=NMSBA. The IDEA at 34
CFR § 300.160(f) requires States to report assessment data, for participation rates of students with
disabilities and the proficiency rates of students with disabilities at the State, district and/or school level.
The FFY 2010 data can be found at http://www.ped.state.nm.us/SEB/data/index.html and click on 2011
New Mexico Standards Based Assessment and Alternate Assessment Reports.
The revised State Performance Plan (SPP) and FFY 2010 Annual Performance Report (APR) are posted
on the bureau’s website at http://www.ped.state.nm.us/SEB/index.html . Stakeholders are sent an email
notification and a press release about the APR is completed by the department and sent out to the public.
Performance of each of the LEAs located in the State on the targets in the SPP are posted annually on
the SEB’s website in accordance with 34 CFR § 300.602(b)(1)(i)(A). The FFY 2010 performance data
along with data from previous years can be viewed at http://www.ped.state.nm.us/SEB/data/index.html
Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE
Indicator 3: Participation and performance of children with IEPs on statewide assessments:
A. Percent of the districts with a disability subgroup that meets the State’s minimum “n” size that
meet the State’s AYP targets for the disability subgroup.
B. Participation rate for children with IEPs.
C. Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level, modified and alternate academic
achievement standards.
(20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))
Measurement:
A. AYP percent = [(# of districts with a disability subgroup that meets the State’s minimum “n” size
that meet the State’s AYP targets for the disability subgroup) divided by the (total # of districts that
have a disability subgroup that meets the State’s minimum “n” size)] times 100.
B. Participation rate percent = [(# of children with IEPs participating in the assessment) divided by
the (total # of children with IEPs enrolled during the testing window, calculated separately for
reading and math)]. The participation rate is based on all children with IEPs, including both children
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 17 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
with IEPs enrolled for a full academic year and those not enrolled for a full academic year.
C. Proficiency rate percent = ([(# of children with IEPs enrolled for a full academic year scoring at or
above proficient) divided by the (total # of children with IEPs enrolled for a full academic year,
calculated separately for reading and math)].
FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target
FFY 2010 Indicator 3 a (AYP) = 55.5%
FFY 2010 Indicator 3 b (Participation Rates) Math = 95%
Indicator 3 b (Participation Rates) Reading = 95%
FFY 2010 Indicator 3 c (Proficiency Rates) Math = 66%
Indicator 3 c (Proficiency Rates) Reading = 75%
Actual Target Data for FFY 2010:
Indicator 3 a
[(0 number of districts meeting AYP – disability sub-group) divided by (57 number of districts meeting
minimum “n” size – disability subgroup)] times 100 = 0%
Indicator 3 b
Math
[(7,360 number of children participating in the math assessment) divided by (7,440 total number of
children with IEPs enrolled during the testing window)] times 100 = 98.9%
Reading
[(7,364 number of children participating in the reading assessment) divided by (7,446 total number of
children with IEPs enrolled during the testing window)] times 100 = 98.9%
Indicator 3 c
Math
[(2,954 number of children with IEPs enrolled FAY scoring at or above proficiency in math) divided by
(19,087 total number of children with IEPs enrolled for FAY)] times 100 = 15.47%
Reading
[(3,405 number of children with IEPs enrolled FAY scoring at or above proficiency in reading) divided by
(19,114 total number of children with IEPs enrolled for FAY)] times 100 = 17.8%
*Full Academic Year (FAY)
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 18 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that
occurred for FFY 2010:
Indicator 3 a
In order for a LEA to meet indicator 3 a, they must fulfill three criteria:
1. Meet the State’s minimum “n” size of 25 students within a disability subgroup;
2. Meet the State’s AYP target in math for the disability subgroup; and
3. Meet the State’s AYP target in reading for the disability subgroup.
The State experienced slippage from FFY 2009 to FFY 2010. One LEA met AYP for the disability
subgroup last year and zero met it this year. Under the current system, the targets become more
rigorous each year in order for States and LEAs to meet the 100% proficiency rates by the year 2014.
Indicator 3 b
In order for a LEA and the State to meet indicator 3 b, 95% of all students as well as students in each
of the subgroups must participate in the NMSBA or the NMAPA. In FFY 2010, the State experienced
an increase in participation for students with disabilities in both math and reading over the previous
year. The participation rate for math went from 98.77% in FFY 2009 to 98.9% in FFY 2010, an
increase of 0.13%. In reading the participation rate increased from 98.79% in FFY 2009 to 98.9% in
FFY 2010, an increase of 0.11%.
Indicator 3 c
In order for a LEA and the State to meet proficiency rates in reading and math, they must show that
the percentage of students who are enrolled for a full academic year (FAY) meet the State’s ESEA
AMO target for FFY 2010. The State experienced slippage from FFY 2009 to FFY 2010 in both math
and reading. Math slipped 0.86% and Reading slipped 2.04%.
Improvement Activity Status Report as of Results of the Activity Impact of the Activity
2/1/12
1. SEB had Tri-Annual Ongoing Annually LEAs have a more in LEAs have included
meetings with special depth understanding of math and reading
education directors- the NMSBA and its strategies in their
shared NMSBA results results EPSS
and trained on
accommodations
2. Providing training for Ongoing LEAs continue to More training needs
LEAs on how to improve struggle with showing to be provided
math and reading improvement
proficiency for children
with disabilities
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 19 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
3. Provide sub-grants to Ongoing as funding LEAs received No LEAs repeatedly
LEAs that did not meet the is available assistance missed this target
targets to assist them in
meeting the targets in the
future.
Funds to be utilized for
LEA level professional
development
4. LEAs not meeting Activity deleted –
AYP will complete a root change in State
cause analysis to reflect process
current educational
practices related to
indictor 3 and establish
best practices to address
the learning needs of
students with disabilities
5. Require LEAs to Ongoing annually SEB progress LEAs are improving
include researched monitoring of LEA’s efforts to increase
based strategies, EPSS takes place three math and reading
specifically to improve times/year proficiency
math and reading
proficiency for students
with disabilities in their
Educational Plan for
Student Success. SEB
staff will monitor
progress to determine of
progress is being made
in implementing
strategies
6. Ensure the State Requirement This will begin in AYP results and
Regional Education included in IGA summer 2012 increased proficiency
Cooperatives include TA for children with
related to improving disabilities will
math and reading improve
proficiency as part of
their annual contract
scope of work. The TA
will be made available to
LEAs determined by
AYP data to be in the
greatest need of
assistance
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 20 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Additional Information Required by the OSEP APR Response Table for this Indicator (if
applicable):
Statement from the Response Table State’s Response
OSEP looks forward to the State’s data The State did not make progress
demonstrating improvement in performance in
the FFY 2010 APR, due February 1, 2012
The State has not reported the number of children
with disabilities in participating in regular Completed in this year’s APR.
assessments, and the number of those children
who were provided accommodations (that did not
result in an invalid score) in order to participate in
those assessments at the State, district and/or
school levels. The failure to publicly report as
required under 34 CFR §300.160(f) is
noncompliance.
Within 90 days of the receipt of this response table,
Completed and submitted on September 16, 2011
the State must provide a Web link that
demonstrates it has reported to the public on the
statewide assessments of children with disabilities
in accordance with 34 CFR §300.160(f). In
addition, OSEP reminds the State that in the FFY
2010 APR, due February 1, 2012, the State must
continue to include a Web link that demonstrates
compliance with 34 CFR § 300.160(f)
OSEP looks forward to the State’s data
The State experienced slippage in proficiency rates
demonstrating improvement in performance in the
FFY 2010 APR, due February
The State did not report publicly on the
Completed and submitted on September 16, 2011
performance of children with disabilities on
statewide assessments at the district and school
level with the same frequency and in the same
detail as it reports on the assessments of
nondisabled children, as required 34 CFR §
300.160(f)
Specifically the State has not reported, compared
Completed and submitted on September 16, 2011
with the achievement of all children, including
children with disabilities, the performance results of
children with disabilities on alternate assessments
based on grade-level academic achievement
standards, alternate assessments based on
modified academic achievement standards, and
alternate assessments based on alternate
academic achievement standards, at the State,
district and/or school levels. The failure to publicly
report as required under 34 CFR §300.160(f) is
noncompliance.
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 21 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Within 90 days of the receipt of this response table,
Completed and submitted on September 16, 2011
the State must provide a Web link that
demonstrates it has reported to the public on the
statewide assessments of children with disabilities
in accordance with 34 CFR §300.160(f). In
addition, OSEP reminds the State that in the FFY
2010 APR, the State must continue to include a
Web link that demonstrates compliance
Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources
for FFY 2011:
The proficiency rates of students with disabilities continue to be low and meeting the target is more difficult
each year due to the changing AMOs. In March 2011, Governor Susanna Martinez signed into law “Real
Accountability, Real Results” which included an easy-to-understand system of grading schools. This
includes targeting the lowest performing 25% of students which includes students with disabilities.
In the spring of 2011, the State was notified by OSEP that in the cycle of verification visits, it was time for
New Mexico to participate in a verification visit. As part of the verification visit, New Mexico was required to
prepare a results action plan that focuses on one or more results indicators. New Mexico selected indicator
3 (reading proficiency rates) and indicator 5 (least restrictive environment). These indicators support “Real
Accountability, Real Results” and the State’s Strategic plan for education “Kids First, New Mexico Wins.”
The results action plan is located on the SEB’s home page at http://ped.state.nm.us/SEB/index/html.
Therefore, the State is proposing an additional improvement activity.
Revised Improvement Resources Timelines Outcomes
Activities APR
February 1, 2012
Implement Results plan Listed in results plan Begin spring 2012 Improved reading
as written and adjust proficiency rates of
yearly as needed after students with disabilities
review
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 22 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010
Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development:
Data for indicator four (a) were gathered from Table 5 of Information Collection 1820-0621 (Report of
Children with Disabilities Subject to Disciplinary Removal) submitted to OSEP on November 1, 2010
(discipline data from the 2009 – 2010 school year). The LEAs were required to submit their discipline data
during the End-of-Year (EOY) data collection that was submitted to the State on June 30, 2010. The
suspension and expulsion data was disaggregated by LEA to determine if the LEA had a significant
discrepancy in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for
children with IEPs. The specific process is described below.
The indicator data were presented to the State’s IDEA Advisory Panel on December 8, 2011 and LEA
special education staff on January 12, 2012. Both groups had the opportunity to provide input on the
State’s improvement activities and targets during the presentations and comments were considered up
until January 20, 2012.
The revised State Performance Plan (SPP) and FFY 2010 Annual Performance Report (APR) are posted
on the bureau’s website at http://www.ped.state.nm.us/SEB/index.html . Stakeholders are sent an email
notification and a press release about the APR is completed by the department and sent out to the public.
Performance of each of the LEAs located in the State on the targets in the SPP are posted annually on
the SEB’s website in accordance with 34 CFR § 300.602(b)(1)(i)(A). The FFY 2010 performance data
along with data from previous years can be viewed at http://www.ped.state.nm.us/SEB/data/index.html
Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE
Indicator 4A: Rates of suspension and expulsion:
A. Percent of districts that have a significant discrepancy in the rate of suspensions and expulsions
of greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A); 1412(a)(22))
Measurement:
Percent = [(# of districts that have a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and
expulsions for greater than 10 days in a school year of children with IEPs) divided by the (# of
districts in the State)] times 100.
Include State’s definition of “significant discrepancy”
In analyzing data for this indicator, the State must:
Use the data collected on Table 5 of Information Collection 1820-0621 (Report of Children with
Disabilities Unilaterally Removed or Suspended/Expelled for More than 10 Days) for the school year
2009-–2010 due November 1, 2010. Sampling from State’s 618 data is not allowed.
Data on the suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities was derived from the IDEA Section
618 data submitted by the LEAs via the STARS data warehouse as part of the annual End-of-Year data
collection. The information was submitted by the student’s unique identification number. The data was
verified through the checks and balances of STARS and validated by SEB staff.
This data was used to populate the Table 5 of Information Collection 1820-0621 (Report of Children with
Disabilities Unilaterally Removed or Suspended/Expelled for More than 10 Days) for the school year
2009-–2010 due November 1, 2010. Table 5 was used to determine significant discrepancy.
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 23 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Definition of Significant Discrepancy and identification of Comparison Methodology
The State must provide a definition of “significant discrepancy” referencing the methodology used and the
measure of how the rates were calculated (e.g. risk ratio, weighted risk ratio, comparison to a State
average, or other).
The State must choose one of the following comparison methodologies to determine whether significant
discrepancies are occurring (34 CFR §300.170(a)):
Compare the rates of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for
children with IEPs among LEAs in the State; or
The rates of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for children
with IEPs in each LEA compared to the rates for nondisabled children in the same LEA.
As indicated in the FFY 2009 APR on pages 33 and 34, the State updated its definition of significant
discrepancy. In FFY 2009, the State compared the rates of suspension and expulsions of greater than 10
days in a school year for children with IEPs among LEAs in the State. The State’s definition was as
follows:
A “n” size of greater than 10 students or more suspended or expelled for greater than 10 days in
a school year; and
The rates of long term suspensions and expulsions in a school year for children with IEPs that
were more than 1% higher than the average rate of suspensions and expulsions greater than 10
days in a school year for children with IEPs among the LEAs in the State.
Actual Target Data for FFY 2010 (using 2009 - 2010 data)
FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target
FFY 2010 1.96% (Two LEAs)
(using 2009-
2010 data)
For this indicator, report data for the year before the reporting year (use 2009-2010 data).
Percent = [(2 LEAs that have a significant discrepancy) divided by (102 LEAs] times 100 = 1.96%
Describe the results of the State examination of the data.
The rates of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for students with and
without an IEP were compared among the LEAs in the State. If the LEA had a “n” size of greater than 10
students and a long term suspension and expulsion rate for students with IEPs that was 1% or higher
than the State average (1.25% or above), they were considered to have a significant discrepancy in the
rates of suspensions and expulsions.
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 24 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
LEAs with Significant Discrepancy in Rates for Suspension and Expulsion
Year Total Number of Number of LEAs that Percent
LEAs have Significant
Discrepancies
FFY 2010 102 2
(using 2009-2010 data) 1.96%
4 LEAs out of 102 met the “n” size of greater than 10 suspensions and expulsions.
Review of Policies, Procedures, and Practices (completed in FFY 2010 using 2009 -2010 data): If any
LEAs are identified with significant discrepancies:
a. Describe how the State reviewed policies, procedures, and practices relating to the development
and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and
procedural safeguards to ensure that these policies, procedures, and practices comply with IDEA.
The State must complete this review by June 30, 2011. The failure of the State to conduct this
review is noncompliance with 34 CFR §300.170(b); and
During FFY 2010 (using 2009 – 2010 data), two of the LEAs in the State were considered to have a
significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions for greater than 10 days in a school
year of children with IEPs among LEAs in the State. When the LEAs were identified, the LEAs were
required to complete the Indicator Four self-assessment located in Appendix A. The self-assessment
included the LEA’s use of positive behavioral interventions and supports and procedural safeguards. The
State also used the self-assessment to review the LEA’s policies, procedures, and practices relating to
the development and implementation of IEP.
b. Report if the State identified any noncompliance with Part B requirements as a result of the
review required by 34 CFR §300.170(b). In addition to conducting the review required by 34 CFR
§170(b), the State must report on the results of its review. The State must complete the review,
and identify any noncompliance by June 30, 2011; and
The LEAs policies, procedures and practices were reviewed in the fall of 2010. Both of the LEA’s policies
and procedures aligned with the IDEA. However, the State discovered problems with the LEA’s practices.
In addition, the IEPs of those students who were long term suspended or expelled were reviewed to
determine if practices were being implemented including the development and implementation of the
IEPs. The IEP checklist is located in Appendix B.
c. Describe how the State, if appropriate, revised (or required the affected LEA(s) to revise) policies,
procedures, and practices relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of
positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards to ensure that these
policies, procedures, and practices comply with IDEA.
When the State identified the noncompliance with Part B requirements, the LEAs were required to revise
policies, procedures, and practices. The revision included any areas of noncompliance (development of
IEPs, implementation of IEPs, use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, procedural
safeguards) which were identified through the self-assessment and verified by the State through a review
of the policies, procedures, and practices. Based upon the self assessment, LEAs were required to
develop a corrective action plan. The corrective action plan was monitored by the SEB and the LEAs met
all the conditions of the corrective action plan in a timely manner. All individual cases of noncompliance
were corrected.
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 25 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Prior to the State considering the LEAs compliant with this indicator, the State completed a subsequent
review of an updated set of data. Based upon this review of data and the correction of the LEA’s
practices, it was determined that the LEAs were correctly implementing the specific regulatory
requirements.
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that
occurred for FFY 2010:
The State met its target of 1.96% for this indicator. As indicated in the FFY 2009 APR on pages 33 and
34, the previous formula utilized by the State was not producing effective results. Zero LEAs were
identified using the risk and weighted risk ratios. The same FFY 2009 data was recalculated and two
LEAs were flagged for significant discrepancy and upon further review were considered to have
significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsion of students with IEPs among the LEAs
in the State.
The number of LEAs increased in the State from 93 to 102. This was due to the increase in the number of
State Chartered Charter Schools considered LEAs under State law. Out of the 102 LEAs in 2009-2010,
four met the “n” size of greater than 10. Out of the four who met the “n” size, two were considered to have
a significant discrepancy and were required to revise their policies, procedures, and practices.
Improvement Status Report as of Results of the Impact of the Activity
Activity 2/1/12 Activity
1. Provide FBA and Ongoing Proper interventions Improved suspension and
BIP Train-the- and supports expulsion rates
Trainer developed for
workshops, students
annually
Correction of FFY 2009 Findings of Noncompliance Do not report on the correction of noncompliance
unless the State identified noncompliance as a result of the review required by 34 CFR §300.170(b).
None identified.
Additional Information Required by the OSEP APR Response Table for this Indicator (if
applicable):
None required
Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2011 through FFY 2012
The State is proposing to update its definition of significant discrepancy so the definition and calculation is
similar to indicator 4 b calculation which compares the rates of suspensions and expulsions in each LEA
to the rates of nondisabled children in the same LEA. The State believes that a comparison of
suspension/expulsion rates of nondisabled children and disabled children in the same LEA will lend itself
to a more accurate picture of the LEA. The proposed definition is as follows:
The State defines a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10
days in a school year for children with IEPs (disabilities) in each LEA compared to the rates for
nondisabled children in the same LEA.
The LEA must have a “n” size of greater than 10 suspensions and expulsions in a school year;
and
The rate of suspensions/expulsions for children with IEPs is more than 1% higher than the
average rate of suspension and expulsions greater than 10 days in a school year for children
without disabilities in the same LEA.
The State is not proposing any changes to the targets for FFY 2011 through FFY 2012.
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 26 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010
Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development:
Data for indicator four (b) were gathered from Table 5 of Information Collection 1820-0621 (Report of
Children with Disabilities Subject to Disciplinary Removal) submitted to OSEP on November 1, 2010
(discipline data from the 2009 – 2010 school year). The LEAs were required to submit their discipline data
during the End-of-Year (EOY) data collection period which was submitted to the State on June 30, 2010.
The suspension and expulsion data was disaggregated by LEA and race and ethnicity to determine if the
LEA had a significant discrepancy, by race and ethnicity, in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of
greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs. In addition the LEA’s policies, procedures,
and practices contributed to the significant discrepancy and/or did not comply with the IDEA. The specific
process is described below.
The indicator data were presented to the State’s IDEA Advisory Panel on December 8, 2011 and LEA
special education staff on January 12, 2012. Both groups had the opportunity to provide input on the
State’s improvement activities during the presentations and comments were considered up until January
20, 2012. They were unable to provide input on the target since this indicator is a 0% compliance target.
The revised State Performance Plan (SPP) and FFY 2010 Annual Performance Report (APR) are posted
on the bureau’s website at http://www.ped.state.nm.us/SEB/index.html . Stakeholders are sent an email
notification and a press release about the APR is completed by the department and sent out to the public.
Performance of each of the LEAs located in the State on the targets in the SPP are posted annually on
the SEB’s website in accordance with 34 CFR § 300.602(b)(1)(i)(A). The FFY 2010 performance data
along with data from previous years can be viewed at http://www.ped.state.nm.us/SEB/data/index.html
Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE
Indicator 4B: Rates of suspension and expulsion:
Percent of districts that have: (a) a significant discrepancy, by race or ethnicity, in the rate of
suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs; and
(b) policies, procedures or practices that contribute to the significant discrepancy and do not comply
with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of
positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A); 1412(a)(22))
Measurement:
Percent = [(# of districts that have: (a) a significant discrepancy, by race or ethnicity, in the rates of
suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year of children with IEPs; and
(b) policies, procedures or practices that contribute to the significant discrepancy and do not
comply with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of
positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards) divided by the (# of
districts in the State)] times 100.
Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process:
The State must provide a definition of “significant discrepancy” referencing the comparison
methodology used and the measure of how the rates were calculated (e.g. rate ratio, rate difference,
comparison to a State average, or other).
The State must choose one of the following comparison methodologies to determine whether
significant discrepancies, by race or ethnicity, are occurring (34 CFR §300.170(a)):
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 27 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Compare the rates of expulsions and suspensions of greater than 10 days in a school year for
children with IEPs among LEAs in the State; or
The rates of expulsions and suspensions of greater than 10 days in a school year for children
with IEPs in each LEA compared to the rates for nondisabled children in the same LEA.
If the State used a minimum “n” size requirement report the number of districts excluded from the
calculation of rates as a result of using the minimum ‘n’ size.
If significant discrepancies, by race or ethnicity, occurred, and the district with discrepancies had
policies, procedures, or practices that contributed to the significant discrepancy and do not comply
with the requirement relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive
behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards, the State must describe how it
ensured that such policies and procedures and practices were revised to comply with applicable
requirements. In reporting on correction of noncompliance, the State must report consistent with
OSEP Memorandum 09-02 dated October 17, 2008.
In analyzing data for this indicator, the State must:
Use the data collected on Table 5 of Information Collection 1820-0621 (Report of Children with
Disabilities Unilaterally Removed or Suspended/Expelled for More than 10 Days) for the school year —
2009-2010 due, November 1, 2010. Sampling from State’s 618 data is not allowed.
Data for indicator four (b) were gathered from Table 5 of Information Collection 1820-0621 (Report of
children with Disabilities Subject to Disciplinary Removal) and submitted to OSEP on November 1, 2010
(2009 – 2010 school year). The LEAs were required to submit their discipline data during the End-of-Year
(EOY) data collection that were submitted to the State on June 30, 2010. The suspension and expulsion
data was disaggregated by LEA, then by race and ethnicity, to determine if the LEA was flagged for a
possible significant discrepancy in the rate of suspensions and expulsions, by race and ethnicity, of
greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs.
Definition of Significant Discrepancy and Methodology
The State must provide a definition of “significant discrepancy” referencing the comparison methodology
used and the measure of how the rates were calculated (e.g. rate ratio, rate difference, comparison to a
State average, or other).
The State must choose one of the following comparison methodologies to determine whether significant
discrepancies are occurring (34 CFR §300.170(a)):
Compare the rates of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for
children with IEPs among LEAs in the State; or
The rates of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for children
with IEPs in each LEA compared to the rates for nondisabled children in the same LEA.
When the State received its Part B FFY 2009 SPP/APR Response Table in June 2011, the OSEP
analysis stated “OSEP will be carefully reviewing each State’s method for indentifying “significant
discrepancy” and will contact the State if there are questions or concerns. The State was contacted by
OSEP during the summer of 2011 regarding the indicator calculation utilized last year. The State was
required to update its definition of significant discrepancy and method of calculation. In addition the State
was required to re-run the significant discrepancy calculation, using 2009 – 2010 data, utilizing the
updated definition and calculation.
The updated definition of significant discrepancy is as follows:
In order for a LEA to be flagged for possible significant discrepancy, by race and ethnicity, in the rate of
suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs, the LEA must
meet the following criteria:
A “n” size of greater than 10 students or more suspended or expelled for greater than 10 days in
a school year; and
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 28 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
A “n” size of greater than 10 students in the race or ethnicity category; and
The rate of suspensions/expulsions, by race and ethnicity, for children with IEPs is more than 1%
higher than the average rate of suspension and expulsions greater than 10 days in a school year
for children without disabilities in the same LEA.
This represents the first stage (flagging) in the significant discrepancy determination process. In order to
determine if the LEA had significant discrepancy, by race and ethnicity, in the rates of suspensions and
expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs, and to determine if the LEA’s
policies, procedures, or practices contributed to the significant discrepancy and do not comply with
requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, use of positive behavioral
interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards, the LEA is required to complete the Indicator 4
self assessment located in Appendix A. The State reviews the self-assessment along with the LEA’s
policies, procedures, and practices, including student data. After that review, it is then determined if the
deficient or noncompliant policies, procedures, and practices contributed to the significant discrepancy in
the rates of suspensions and expulsions by race and ethnicity for children with IEPs.
Actual Target Data for FFY 2010 (using 2009-2010 data)
FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target
FFY 2010 0% (Compliance Indicator)
(using 2009-
2010 data)
For this indicator, report data for the year before the reporting year (use 2009-2010 data).
[(0 LEAs) divided by (102 number of LEAs)] times 100 = 0%
Describe the results of the State examination of the data.
4B(a). Districts with Significant Discrepancy, by Race or Ethnicity*, in Rates of Suspension and
Expulsion:
Year Total Number of Number of Districts Percent**
Districts** that have Significant
Discrepancies by
Race or Ethnicity
FFY 2010 (using 2009-2010 102 0
0.00%
data)
*All States are required to report race and ethnicity data using the new racial and ethnic categories not
later than the data for the 2010-2011 school year. This means that States must report under Indicator 4B
on significant discrepancies of children in the “two or more races” category not later than with the FFY
2011 APR, due February 1, 2013.
States that have chosen to transition to the new standards for collecting and reporting racial and ethnic
categories using school year 2009-10 data, will be required to report on significant discrepancies of
children in the “two or more races” category for Indicator 4B of the FFY 2010 APR, due February 1, 2012.
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 29 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
**States can choose to either: (1) include the total number of districts in the State in the denominator; or
(2) include only the number of districts that meet the minimum n-size in the denominator.
4B(b). Districts with Significant Discrepancy, by Race or Ethnicity, in Rates of Suspensions and
Expulsions; and policies, procedures or practices that contribute to the significant discrepancy
and do not comply with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the
use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards.
Year Total Number of Number of Districts that have Percent**
Districts* Significant Discrepancies, by
Race or Ethnicity, and policies,
procedures or practices that
contribute to the significant
discrepancy and do not comply
with requirements relating to
the development and
implementation of IEPs, the use
of positive behavioral
interventions and supports, and
procedural safeguards.
FFY 2010 (using 102 0
0.00%
2009-2010 data)
*States can choose to either: (1) include the total number of districts in the State in the denominator; or
(2) include only the number of districts that meet the minimum n-size in the denominator.
Out of the 102 LEAs, 14 did not meet the minimum “n” size of greater than 10 in any of the racial/ethnic
group(s).
Review of Policies, Procedures, and Practices (completed in FFY 2010 using 2009-2010 data): If any
districts are identified with significant discrepancies:
a. Describe how the State reviewed policies, procedures, and practices relating to the development
and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and
procedural safeguards. The failure of the State to conduct this review is noncompliance with 34
CFR §300.170(b) and means that the State is not providing valid and reliable data for this
indicator. The State should have completed this review by June 30, 2010;
During FFY 2010 (using 2009 – 2010 data), no LEAs were flagged for possible significant
discrepancy, by race and ethnicity, in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10
days in a school year of children with IEPs in which the policies, procedures, or practices contributed
to the significant discrepancy. If an LEA was identified, the LEA would be required to complete the
Indicator Four self-assessment located in Appendix A. The self-assessment includes the LEA’s use of
positive behavioral interventions and supports and the implementation of the procedural safeguards.
The State would also use the self-assessment to review the LEA’s policies, procedures, and practices
relating to the development and implementation of IEPs. In addition, the IEPs would be reviewed for
all students who were long term suspended or expelled. The IEP checklist is located in Appendix B.
b. Report if the State identified any noncompliance with Part B requirements as a result of the
review required by 34 CFR §170(b) and this indicator. (If no noncompliance is identified, please
indicate); and
Based upon the review of the policies, procedures and practices along with the student’s IEPs, the
State would then determine if the LEA was meeting the requirements of 34 CFR § 300.170(b). If
noncompliance was identified, the LEA would have been notified in accordance with the Integrated
Special Education Accountability System (ISEAS).
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 30 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
c. If the State, through the review of policies, practices, and procedures identified policies, practices,
or procedures that do not comply with the requirements relating to the development and
implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural
safeguards, describe how the State revised (or required the affected district(s) to revise) policies,
procedures, and practices relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of
positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards to ensure that these
policies, procedures, and practices comply with IDEA.
If the State identified any noncompliance with Part B requirements, the LEA would be required to
revise its policies, procedures, and practices. The revision(s) would depend on which area(s) of
noncompliance (development of IEPs, implementation of IEPs, use of positive behavioral
interventions and supports, procedural safeguards) were identified through the self-assessment and
verified by the State through a review of policies, procedures, and practices.
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that
occurred in FFY 2010:
The State met its FFY 2010 compliance target of 0% (using 2009 – 2010 data) utilizing the updated
definition. The State revised its baseline (0%) utilizing the updated calculation. The definition and
calculation methodology were updated after the State received the New Mexico Part B FFY 2009
SPP/APR Response Table. The OSEP analysis stated “OSEP will be carefully reviewing each State’s
method for identifying “significant discrepancy” and will contact the State if there are questions for
concerns. The State was contacted by OSEP during the summer of 2011 regarding the indicator
calculation utilized last year. This was well after the LEA was notified and completed the self assessment.
As a result of the notification by OSEP and the follow up technical assistance, the State has revised its
definition of significant discrepancy and has revised its baseline for FFY 2010 to 0% (using 2009 – 2010
data). The State compared the rates of suspensions and expulsions for children with IEPs to nondisabled
children within the same LEA.
Improvement Activity Status Report as of Results of the Impact of the Activity
2/1/12 Activity
1. Provide IDEA State directed activity Appropriate Improved compliance
funds or direct funds intervention put
Reduced suspension and
funds for LEAs into place for
expulsion rates
students
that have missed
the indicator to
assist them with
compliance
Correction of FFY 2009 Findings of Noncompliance Do not report on the correction of noncompliance
unless the State identified noncompliance as a result of the review required by 34 CFR §300.170(b).
Not applicable
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 31 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Additional Information Required by the OSEP APR Response Table for this Indicator (if
applicable):
Statement from the Response Table State’s Response
OSEP will be carefully reviewing each State’s The State has revised its calculation methodology.
method for identifying “significant discrepancy” and
will contact the State if there are questions or
concerns.
Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2011(if applicable):
Not applicable.
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 32 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010
Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development:
Data for indicator five were gathered through OSEP’s Table Three, The Annual Report of children
Served, Educational Environments, submitted to OSEP on November 1, 2011. All of the raw data were
disaggregated by each of the educational environments. The data were then further disaggregated by
LEA for the purposes of public reporting.
The indicator data were presented to the State’s IDEA Advisory Panel on December 8, 2011 and LEA
special education staff on January 12, 2012. Both groups had the opportunity to provide input on the
State’s improvement activities and targets during the presentations and comments were considered up
until January 20, 2012. They provided changes to targets for indicator 5 b which are discussed below.
The revised State Performance Plan (SPP) and FFY 2010 Annual Performance Report (APR) are posted
on the bureau’s website at http://www.ped.state.nm.us/SEB/index.html . Stakeholders are sent an email
notification and a press release about the APR is completed by the department and sent out to the public.
Performance of each of the LEAs located in the State on the targets in the SPP are posted annually on
the SEB’s website in accordance with 34 CFR § 300.602(b)(1)(i)(A). The FFY 2010 performance data
along with data from previous years can be viewed at http://www.ped.state.nm.us/SEB/data/index.html
Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE
Indicator 5: Percent of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21 served:
A. Inside the regular class 80% or more of the day;
B. Inside the regular class less than 40% of the day; and
C. In separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A))
Measurement:
A. Percent = [(# of children with IEPs served inside the regular class 80% or more of the day)
divided by the (total # of students aged 6 through 21 with IEPs)] times 100.
B. Percent = [(# of children with IEPs served inside the regular class less than 40% of the day)
divided by the (total # of students aged 6 through 21 with IEPs)] times 100.
C. Percent = [(# of children with IEPs served in separate schools, residential facilities, or
homebound/hospital placements) divided by the (total # of students aged 6 through 21 with IEPs)]
times 100.
FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target
FFY 2010 Indicator 5 A = 60%, Indicator 5 B = 15%, Indicator 5 C = 1.97%
Actual Target Data for FFY 2010:
Indicator 5 A - Target Not Met. The State did not meet its target of 60% of students with IEPs aged
6 – 21 served inside the regular class 80% or more of the day.
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 33 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Indicator 5 B - Target Not Met. The State did not meet its target of 15% of students with IEPs aged
6 – 21 served inside the regular class less than 40% of the day.
Indicator 5 C - Target Met. The State exceeded its target of 1.97% of students with IEPs aged 6 –
21 served in private separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements.
Measurement:
A. Percent = [(# of children with IEPs served inside the regular class 80% or more of the day)
divided by the (total # of students aged 6 through 21 with IEPs)] times 100.
[(22,296)/(41,404)] times 100 = 53.84%
B. Percent = [(# of children with IEPs served inside the regular class less than 40% of the day)
divided by the (total # of students aged 6 through 21 with IEPs)] times 100.
[(8,392) /(41,404)] times 100 = 20.26%
C. Percent = [(# of children with IEPs served in separate schools, residential facilities, or
homebound/hospital placements) divided by the (total # of students aged 6 through 21 with
IEPs)] times 100.
[(477) /(41,404)] times 100 = 1.15%
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that
occurred for FFY 2010:
The State did not meet its targets for Indicator 5 A and 5 B. The State showed slippage with Indicator
5 A from FFY 2009 by -1.04%; and Indicator 5 B showed slippage from FFY 2009 by +0.07%. The
State exceeded its target for Indicator 5 C (+ 0.82%) and improved its percentage by - 0.21% from
FFY 2009.
Table 5 – 1
FFY FFY FFY FFY FFY FFY
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2010
Data Data Data Data Target Data
A. # of children with IEPs 51% 52.48% 53.1% 54.89% 60% 53.84%
served inside the regular
class 80% or more of the day.
B. # of children with IEPs 19% 18.8% 19.5% 20.19% 15% 20.26%
served inside the regular
class less than 40% of the
day.
C. # of children with IEPs 2.02% 1.34% 1.5% 1.36% 1.97% 1.15%
served in separate schools,
residential facilities, or
homebound/hospital.
Improvement Activity Status Report as of Results of the Impact of the Activity
2/1/2012 Activity
1. Families as Faculty Activity deleted – grant
Program collaborative ended
between the State’s
PTI and NM Higher
Education.
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 34 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
2. Provide professional Completed and LRE portion of the Some positive results
development for LRE ongoing State IEP form has in LRE settings
on the State’s IEP been updated, and
form, through Directors’ training has been Districts not only
Academy and provided to respond to consider why a more
webinars. the changes restrictive setting is
appropriate, but how to
integrate back into a
less restrictive
environment or general
education setting
3. Work with State Completed and Positive stories on LRE Unknown, approved
IDEA Advisory Panel ongoing have been collected stories will posted on
on gathering and the web
posting successful LRE Increased awareness
stories. of LRE options
4 .Districts sharing Monthly Webinars with Ongoing Increased awareness
successful experiences Special Education of LRE options
in LRE setting with Directors
other districts.
State’s reply to OSEP’s FFY 2009 Response Table:
No response required.
Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2011 through FFY 2012:
The stakeholders suggested a new target for indicator 5 b. Students are moving from separate
settings, residential settings and homebound settings into settings in the public schools. Due to the
needs of the students, they receive services inside the regular class less than 40% of the day.
FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target
FFY 2011 Indicator 5 B = 17%
FFY 2012 Indicator 5 B = 17%
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 35 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
NO REPORTING REQUIRED FOR FFY 2010
Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for __________ (Insert FFY)
Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development:
Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE
Indicator 6: Percent of children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs attending a:
A. Regular early childhood program and receiving the majority of special education and related
services in the regular early childhood program; and
B. Separate special education class, separate school or residential facility.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A))
Measurement:
A. Percent = [(# of children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs attending a regular early childhood program
and receiving the majority of special education and related services in the regular early childhood
program) divided by the (total # of children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs)] times 100.
B. Percent = [(# of children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs attending a separate special education
class, separate school or residential facility) divided by the (total # of children aged 3 through 5 with
IEPs)] times 100.
FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target
(Insert FFY) (Insert Measurable and Rigorous Target.)
Actual Target Data for (Insert FFY):
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that
occurred for (Insert FFY):
Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for (Insert FFY)
[If applicable]
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 36 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010
Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development:
A census of preschool children with IEPs enrolled in the Section 619 Part-B Preschool Programs in the
State was conducted in school year 2010-2011. LEAs were instructed to assess and report all children
who had been in these programs for at least six months before May 30, 2011. The progress data is
reported only on those students who have entry and exit data and who have been in program at least six
months. LEAs submitted the data on the second Wednesday in October (entry data) and during the end
of the year data collection period (exit data).
The indicator data were presented to the State’s IDEA Advisory Panel on December 8, 2011 and LEA
special education staff on January 12, 2012. Both groups had the opportunity to provide input on the
State’s improvement activities and targets during the presentations and comments were considered up
until January 20, 2012.
The revised State Performance Plan (SPP) and FFY 2010 Annual Performance Report (APR) are posted
on the bureau’s website at http://www.ped.state.nm.us/SEB/index.html . Stakeholders are sent an email
notification and a press release about the APR is completed by the department and sent out to the public.
Performance of each of the LEAs located in the State on the targets in the SPP are posted annually on
the SEB’s website in accordance with 34 CFR § 300.602(b)(1)(i)(A). The FFY 2010 performance data
along with data from previous years can be viewed at http://www.ped.state.nm.us/SEB/data/index.html.
Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE
Indicator 7: Percent of preschool children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs who demonstrate improved:
A. Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships);
B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/ communication and early
literacy); and
C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs.
(20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))
Measurement:
Outcomes:
A. Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships);
B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication and early
literacy); and
C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs.
Progress categories for A, B and C:
a. Percent of preschool children who did not improve functioning = [(# of preschool children
who did not improve functioning) divided by (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)]
times 100.
b. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to
functioning comparable to same-aged peers = [(# of preschool children who improved
functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers)
divided by (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100.
c. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged
peers but did not reach it = [(# of preschool children who improved functioning to a level
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 37 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it) divided by (# of preschool children with IEPs
assessed)] times 100.
d. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to
same-aged peers = [(# of preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level
comparable to same-aged peers) divided by (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)]
times 100.
e. Percent of preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-
aged peers = [(# of preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to
same-aged peers) divided by (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100.
Summary Statements for Each of the Three Outcomes (use for FFY 2008-2009 reporting):
Summary Statement 1: Of those preschool children who entered the preschool program below
age expectations in each Outcome, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by
the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program.
Measurement for Summary Statement 1:
Percent = # of preschool children reported in progress category (c) plus # of preschool children
reported in category (d) divided by [# of preschool children reported in progress category (a) plus #
of preschool children reported in progress category (b) plus # of preschool children reported in
progress category (c) plus # of preschool children reported in progress category (d)] times 100.
Summary Statement 2: The percent of preschool children who were functioning within age
expectations in each Outcome by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program.
Measurement for Summary Statement 2: Percent = # of preschool children reported in
progress category (d) plus [# of preschool children reported in progress category (e) divided by the
total # of preschool children reported in progress categories (a) + (b) + (c) + (d) + (e)] times 100.
FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target
Summary Statement One:
FFY 2010
Positive Social and Emotional Skills = 75%
Acquisition and use of Knowledge and Skills = 74.8%
Use of Appropriate Behaviors = 74.5%
Summary Statement Two:
Positive Social and Emotional Skills = 66.2%
Acquisition and use of Knowledge and Skills = 62.9%
Use of Appropriate Behaviors = 72%
Actual Target Data for FFY 2010:
Actual Numbers and Percentages
A. Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships)
[(36)(a) + (366)(b) + (580)(c) + (869)(d) + (1235)(e) = 3086
B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication and early literacy)
[(46)(a) + (445)(b) + (690)(c) + (826)(d) + (1079)(e) = 3086
C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs.
[(49)(a) + (321)(b) + (496)(c) + (698)(d) + (1522)(e) = 3086
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 38 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
A. Positive social- B. Acquisition and C. Use of appropriate
emotional skills use of knowledge and behaviors
skills
a. 36/ 1.2% 46/ 1.5 % 49/ 1.6%
b. 366/ 11.9% 445/ 14.4% 321/ 10.4%
c. 580/ 18.8% 690/ 22.3% 496/ 16.1%
d. 869/ 28.1% 826/ 26.8% 698/ 22.6%
e. 1235/ 40.0% 1079/ 35.0% 1522/ 49.3%
N= 3,086/ 100% 3,086/ 100% 3,086/ 100%
a. Did not improve functioning
b. Improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same aged
peers
c. Improved functioning to a level nearer to same aged peers but did not reach it
d. Improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same aged peers
e. Maintained functioning at a level comparable to same aged peers
Measurement for Summary Statement 1:
(A) Percent = # of preschool children reported in progress category (c)(580) plus # of preschool
children reported in category (d)(869) divided by [# of preschool children reported in progress category
(a)(36) plus # of preschool children reported in progress category (b)(366) plus # of preschool children
reported in progress category (c)(580) plus # of preschool children reported in progress category (d)(869)
times 100 = 78.3%
(B) Percent = # of preschool children reported in progress category (c)(690) plus # of preschool
children reported in category (d)(826) divided by # of preschool children reported in progress category
(a)(46) plus # of preschool children reported in progress category (b)(445) plus # of preschool children
reported in progress category (c)(690) plus # of preschool children reported in progress category (d)(826)
times 100 = 75.6%
(C) Percent = # of preschool children reported in progress category (c)(496) plus # of preschool
children reported in category (d)(698) divided by # of preschool children reported in progress category
(a)(49) plus # of preschool children reported in progress category (b)(321) plus # of preschool children
reported in progress category (c)(496) plus # of preschool children reported in progress category (d)(698)
times 100 = 76.3%
The chart below represents the summary for statement 1 for all three categories. The current year
is (in black), the data from the previous year (in blue), and the target for the current year (in red):
A. Positive social-emotional B. Acquisition and use of C. Use of appropriate
skills knowledge and skills behaviors
78.3% 75.6% 76.3%
71.4% 73.0% 73.4%
75% 74.8% 74.5%
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 39 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Progress Summary Statement 2: The percent of preschool children who were functioning within age
expectations in each outcome by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program.
Measurement for Summary Statement 2:
(A) Percent = # of preschool children reported in progress category (d)(869) plus # of preschool children
reported in progress category(e)(1235) divided by the total # of preschool children reported in progress
categories (a)(36) + (b)(366) + (c)(580) + (d)(869) + (e)(1235) times 100 = 68.2%
(B) Percent = # of preschool children reported in progress category (d)(826) plus # of preschool children
reported in progress category (e)(1079) divided by the total # of preschool children reported in progress
categories (a)(46) + (b)(445) + (c)(690) + (d)(826) + (e)(1079) times 100 = 61.7%
(C)Percent = # of preschool children reported in progress category(d)(698) plus [# of preschool children
reported in progress category (e)(1522) divided by the total # of preschool children reported in progress
categories (a)(49) + (b)(321) + (c)(496) + (d)(698) + (e)(1522) times 100 = 71.9%
The chart below represents the summary for statement 2 for all three categories. The current year
is (in black), the data from the previous year (in blue), and the target for the current year (in red):
A. Positive social-emotional B. Acquisition and use of C. Use of appropriate
skills (Baseline) knowledge and skills behaviors (Baseline)
(Baseline)
68.2% 61.7% 71.9%
59.6% 62.1% 71%
66.2% 62.9% 72%
Census Data Collection Details
Preschool providers were instructed to utilize one of three approved instruments to measure child
progress in the three designated areas. The State approved instruments included: Brigance Diagnostic
Inventory of Early Development II, 2004, Work Sampling System, and Creative Curriculum for Preschool.
Programs were given an option of petitioning the SEB for approval to use another appropriate instrument.
A total of 1459 used the Brigance II, 848 used Creative Curriculum, 53 used Work sampling, 285 used the
New Mexico Pre-K Observational Assessment and 491 petitioned the SEB to utilize other assessments.
Two hundred eighty seven responding programs used the NM Pre K Observational Assessment. Seven
respondents did not report
any instrument used for
Other (725), observation. The chart
23.5% below provides a graphic
representation of the
instruments utilized for the
Brigance II progress data collection.
(1459), 47.3%
Work Sampling
(53), 1.7%
Creative
Curriculum
(848), 27.5%
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 40 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Census Population:
N= 3,086
Age (on May 30, 2010) Female,
1158,
3 Year Olds = 1327/ 43% 37.5%
4 Year Olds = 1759/ 57%
3086 100%
Gender Male,
1928,
Male = 1,928/ 62.5%
62.5%
Female = 1,158/ 37.5%
Race/Ethnicity
N. Asian, 29,
American, 0.9%
Caucasian- 928/ 30.1% Black, 67,
2.2% 257, 8.3%
Hispanic- 1,781/ 57.8%
Black- 67/ 2.2%
Native American- 257/ 8.3%
Asian- 29/.9% Native
Multi Racial 22/.7% American, Hispanic,
Native Hawaiian 2/.06% 288, 12.0% 1781,
57.7%
Native
Hawaiin, 2, Multi
0.1% Racial, 22,
0.7%
IDEA Disability
DD (Developmentally Disabled) 1359/ 44%
SL (Speech Language Impairment) 1435/ 46.5%
AU (Autism) 117/ 3.8%
MD, 34, 1.1%
MD (Multi-Disabled) 4/ 1.1%
OHI (Other Hearing Impairment) 62/ 2.0% Other, 141, 4.5%
HI (Hearing Impaired) 23/ .7%
MR (Mentally Retarded) 11/ .3%
TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury) 3/ .09% AU, 117, 3.7%
SLD (Specific Learning Disability) 10/ .3%
VI (Visually Impaired) 8/.2%
OI (Orthopedic Impairment) 22/ .7%
ED (Emotional Disturbance) 2/.06%
DD, 1359, 43.2%
SL, 1435, 45.6%
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 41 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that
occurred for FFT 2010:
During the State’s verification visit in October 2011, it was determined that the State was converting some
of the progress data incorrectly. The State obtained technical assistance from OSEP and the Early
Childhood Outcomes technical assistance center.
The raw data were reviewed and cross walked to determine the validity. Three of the early childhood
outcomes aligned and four needed further review. Data anomalies were flagged for example: a student
who was reported as an “A” upon entry could not be reported as an “E” when exiting and determining
progress. Since the State requires the use of the Child Outcome Summary Form (COSF) for each
student, LEAs were contacted to determine what number the students were assigned upon exit and the
progress data was reported in the appropriate category.
Since this data was collected in STARS, the STARS fields will have to be updated for next year. LEAs
have been instructed to stop entering indicator seven data in STARS for 2011 – 2012 and were notified
on January 12, 2012. The data will be collected through Excel spreadsheets reflecting the appropriate
progress category and submitted to the SEB during the end-of-year data collection. The approved ECO
calculator will be used to translate the COSF responses to the five OSEP categories.
Of the 4,632 children with IEPs enrolled in preschool programs in New Mexico, data were reported on
3,086, (a rate of 66.7%). There are a total of 93 school districts plus two state supported schools in the
State that have 619 Part B programs. The latter included the School for the Deaf and the School for the
Blind and Visually Impaired. Seventy-two of these districts reported data. It should be noted that selection
bias was determined not to be a factor in the data collected and reported.
When comparing actual numbers and percentages expressed in the progress summary statements, New
Mexico increased performance from FFY 2009 to FFY 2010 in all progress categories summarized in
statements 1 and 2 with two exceptions as follows: Category B in summary statement 2, acquisition and
use of knowledge and skills, decreased slightly and Category C in summary statement 2, use of
appropriate behaviors decreased by 1.5%. Analysis of the data suggested that increases could be related
to training provided on selecting entry and progress categories and the resulting submission of useable
data. Training was conducted during the past year clarifying the entry and progress statements in the
STARS database resulting in better data. Additional analysis will be conducted to determine the impact of
targeted technical assistance and training made available to service providers and the quality of data
submitted in the current year. In addition, New Mexico will begin using the OSEP approved calculator for
next year’s (FFY 2011) data submission, which should further improve the quality of data. It is also
apparent from the increased use of standardized assessment instruments and submission of useable
data that the quality of assessment conducted with rigor and fidelity continues to improve.
Improvement Activity Status Report as of Results of the Impact of the Activity
2/1/2012 Activity
1. Provide training Completed and deleted
and technical
assistance on
assessing and
working with
children with
severe disabilities
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 42 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012:
The State is proposing the following revised improvement activities:
Improvement Activity Resources Timeline Outcome
Continue to provide Webinar materials Spring 2012 Improved data quality
specific guidance and leading to accurate
training on data longitudinal
collection for indicator 7 comparisons
to prevent errors in
reporting and improve
data quality
Modify data collection Webinar materials Spring 2012 Accurate and valid
process to use OSEP data
approved calculator to Update STARS
translate COSF
numerical categories to
OSEP five letter
categories
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 43 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010
Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development:
Data for indicator 8 were collected from the LEAs through a census model with the assistance of the
Technical Assistance for Excellence in Special Education (TAESE) at Utah State University. The State’s
Parent Training Information Center, Parents Reaching Out, also administered the survey on behalf of the
State. Details regarding the census model survey distribution, collection, and analysis are described in
great detail below.
The indicator data were presented to the State’s IDEA Advisory Panel on December 8, 2011 and LEA
special education staff on January 12, 2012. Both groups had the opportunity to provide input on the
State’s improvement activities and target during the presentations and comments were considered up
until January 20, 2012.
The revised State Performance Plan (SPP) and FFY 2010 Annual Performance Report (APR) are posted
on the bureau’s website at http://www.ped.state.nm.us/SEB/index.html. Stakeholders are sent an email
notification and a press release about the APR is completed by the department and sent out to the public.
Performance of each of the LEAs located in the State on the targets in the SPP are posted annually on
the SEB’s website in accordance with 34 CFR § 300.602(b)(1)(i)(A). The FFY 2010 performance data
along with data from previous years can be viewed at http://www.ped.state.nm.us/SEB/data/index.html
Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE
Indicator 8: Percent of parents with a child receiving special education services who report that
schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with
disabilities.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(A))
Measurement: Percent = # of respondent parents who report schools facilitated parent involvement as
a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities divided by the total # of
respondent parents of children with disabilities times 100.
FFY Measurable and Rigorous Targets
FFY 2010
80.8% of parents will report that the school facilitated parent involvement.
Actual Target Data for FFY 2010:
Table 8-1: Percent of Parents Who Report that the School Facilitated Their Involvement
FFY2010
Total number of Parent respondents 1278
Number who reported school 1025
facilitated their involvement
Percentage who reported school 80.2%
facilitated their involvement
The target of 80.8% was not met.
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 44 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Survey Administration
In FFY 2010, the survey was distributed to a stratified, representative number of 9,238 parents of children
receiving special education services. A total of 1,303 surveys were returned for a response rate of 14.1%.
(Twenty-five parents did not answer the survey question used to calculate parent involvement; thus the
parent involvement percentage is based on 1,278 parents.)
The representative number was completed at the LEA level. A group of students with disabilities were
randomly selected from each of the 127 New Mexico LEAs. The number of children chosen was
dependent on the number of total children with disabilities enrolled in the LEA. The group sizes used
ensured as much as possible similar margins of error across the different LEA sizes. For those LEAs in
which a group was chosen, the population was stratified by gender, race/ethnicity, primary disability, and
grade level to ensure representativeness. When calculating the state-level results, responses were
weighted by the students with disability population size (e.g., a LEA that has four times the number of
students with disabilities as another district will receive four times the weight in computing overall state
results).
In order to report out on this indicator, respondents’ answers to the following question was analyzed: The
school facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services for my child(ren). The percent of
parents who agreed, strongly agreed, or very strongly agreed to this item represents the percent of
parents who meet Indicator 8. A copy of the survey is located in Appendix D.
Reliability and Validity
The representativeness of the surveys were assessed by examining the demographic characteristics of
the children of the parents who responded to the survey to the demographic characteristics of all special
education students. This comparison indicates the results are representative (1) by geographic region
where the child attends school; (2) by the race/ethnicity of the child; (3) by the grade level of the child;
and (4) by the primary disability of the child. For example, 29% of the parents who returned a survey
indicated that their children’s primary disability is speech/language impairment, and 27% of special
education students have a speech impairment. Furthermore, 53% of parent respondents indicated that
their student is Hispanic/Latino, and 58% of special education students are Hispanic/Latino. Parent
respondents were representative of all grade levels.
Results were weighted by LEA to take into account differential sampling and differences in response rates
by district.
Explanation of progress or slippage that occurred for FFY 2010:
As indicated in Table 8-2 below, the percentage of parents who reported that the school facilitated their
involvement is about the same as in FFY 2009. However, it is higher than that obtained in FFY 2007. In
FFY 2005 and FFY 2006, a different data collection process was used which was not as representative
as subsequent data collection processes. Thus, the NMPED is confident in the results since FFY 2007
and is encouraged by the high percentage of parents (over 80%) in the most recent three years who have
reported that the school facilitated their involvement. Data were examined to determine if significant
differences existed between FFY 2010 and FFY 2009 for parents of students with a certain race/ethnicity
or parents of students with a certain disability. The primary disability analysis indicated no significant
differences. The analyses by race/ethnicity indicated that parents of Hispanic students were less likely to
report that the school facilitated their involvement in FFY 2010 than in FFY 2009 and that parents of white
students were more likely to report that the school facilitated their involvement in FFY 2010 than in FFY
2009. However, this result was not found in the previous year and may not be a stable finding. Each
LEA will be encouraged to examine their results over time to determine where decreases and increases
in parent involvement have occurred.
As a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities, the SEB is continuing to
provide the LEAs with a detailed report of parent survey results specific to their district. These results are
intended to be used by LEAs to identify areas in need of improvement. Also, the State, in collaboration
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 45 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
with the State’s IDEA Panel, has identified Indicator 8 (Parent Involvement) as central to producing
optimum results for all other indicators.
Table 8-2: Percent of Parents Who Report that the School Facilitated Their Involvement, Results
Over Time
FFY2005* FFY2006* FFY2007 FFY2008 FFY2009 FFY2010
Total number of Parent 641 598 914 1243 1284 1278
respondents
Number who reported school 552 535 688 1043 1031 1025
facilitated their involvement
Percentage who reported school 86.1% 89.5% 75.3% 83.9% 80.29% 80.2%
facilitated their involvement
*Different survey methodology employed these years.
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for FFY2010:
Improvement Status Report as of Results of the Impact of the Activity
Activity 2/1/12 Activity
1. The State’s PTI Continue Training provided Decreased dispute
will continue to
provide training Increased ADR
and information to
NM families.
2. The NMPED will Continue Training provided Decreased dispute
continue to fund
EPICS to provide Increased ADR
training and
information as well
as advocacy skills
for parents of
Native American
Students with
IEPs.
3. PTIs provide Continue Training provided and Increased number of
parent/family materials created parents reporting that
awareness of FBA schools facilitated parent
and BIP for involvement
parents/families
4. PTI will provide Activity deleted –
training for families change in leadership.
by developing a
document to
crosswalk all
Indicators to
Indicator 8.
State’s reply to OSEP’s Response Table:
None required.
Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2010
The State is not proposing any revisions at this time.
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 46 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010
Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development:
In determining the percentage for indicator 9, the State utilized the October 13, 2010 Annual Report of
Children Served aged 6 – 21 (OSEP Table One) to screen out the number of LEAs with possible
disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups that was the result of inappropriate
identification. The raw data, by race and ethnicity, with a sample size of greater than 10 were calculated
using the risk ratio and weighted risk ratio formulas as part of the initial LEA screening process. Those
LEAs with a risk ratio and weighted risk ratio of 3.0 or above (over representation) and .25 or less (under
representation) were required to complete a self-assessment that addressed the LEA’s policies,
procedures, and practices. The process is described in greater detail below.
The indicator data were presented to the State’s IDEA Advisory Panel on December 8, 2011 and LEA
special education staff on January 12, 2012. Both groups had the opportunity to provide input on the
State’s improvement activities during the presentations and comments were considered up until January
20, 2012. They were unable to provide input on the target since this indicator is a 0% compliance target.
The revised State Performance Plan (SPP) and FFY 2010 Annual Performance Report (APR) are posted
on the bureau’s website at http://www.ped.state.nm.us/SEB/index.html . Stakeholders are sent an email
notification and a press release about the APR is completed by the department and sent out to the public.
Performance of each of the LEAs located in the State on the targets in the SPP are posted annually on
the SEB’s website in accordance with 34 CFR § 300.602(b)(1)(i)(A). The FFY 2010 performance data
along with data from previous years can be viewed at http://www.ped.state.nm.us/SEB/data/index.html.
Monitoring Priority: Disproportionality
Indicator 9: Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special
education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(C))
Measurement:
Percent = [(# of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special
education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification) divided by the (# of
districts in the State)] times 100.
In analyzing data for this indicator, the State must:
Use data collected on Table 1 (Child Count) of Information Collection 1820-0043 (Report of Children with
Disabilities Receiving Special Education under Part B of the IDEA, as amended) for all children with
disabilities aged 6 through 21 served under IDEA.
The State used data collected on Table 1 (Child Count) of Information Collection 1820-0043 (Report of
Children with Disabilities Receiving Special Education under Part B of the IDEA, as amended) for all
children with disabilities aged 6 through 21 under IDEA. The annual unduplicated child count for FFY
2010 was taken on October 13, 2010. The data was disaggregated by LEA and by race and ethnicity.
Definition of “Disproportionate Representation” and Methodology
States are instructed to provide their definition of disproportionate representation and include the
method(s) used to calculate disproportionate representation (e.g., risk ratio, weighted risk ratio, E-formula,
etc.).
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 47 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
In order for a LEA to be considered to have disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in
special education and related services that was the result of inappropriate identification, the following
criteria must be met:
A “n” size of greater than 10 students or more in the racial and ethnic groups; and
Risk Ratio (RR) and Weighted Risk Ratio (WRR) of 3.0 or above (over-representation) for
students aged 6 – 21; or
Risk Ratio and Weighted Risk Ratio of .25 or below (under-representation) for students aged 6 –
21; and
Deficient policies, procedures, and/or practices.
This was the first step in screening LEAs for possible disproportionate representation due to inappropriate
identification.
Step One: States must provide the number of districts identified with disproportionate
representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services (see Table below).
Using the criteria established above, the State determined that one LEA was flagged for possible
disproportionate representation. In other words, the LEA had a “n” size of greater than 10 and a risk ratio
and weighted risk ratio of 3.0 or above (over-representation). No LEAs were flagged for under-
representation.
Step Two: Determining if Disproportionate Representation is the Result of Inappropriate
Identification States must report on the percent of districts in which disproportionate representation of
racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services is the result of inappropriate
identification, even if the determination of inappropriate identification was made after the end of the FFY
2009 reporting period, i.e., after June 30, 2010 (See Table below).
The State must describe how it made its annual determination that the disproportionate
representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services was, or was
not, the result of inappropriate identification as required by 34 CFR §§300.600(d)(3) and
300.602(a). The State may use monitoring data; review policies, practices, and procedures, etc.
States must determine whether districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic
groups in special education and related services are in compliance with the child find, evaluation,
and eligibility requirements in 34 CFR §§300.111, 300.201 and 300.301 through 300.311, and
include that information in its APR.
Out of the 122 LEAs, one LEA was flagged for over representation and was required to complete a self-
assessment. The completed self-assessment was submitted to the SEB for review. No LEAs were
flagged for under-representation. The flagged LEA was notified on March 2, 2011. The self-assessment
the LEA was required to complete is located in Appendix C. The SEB also reviewed the LEA’s policies,
procedures, and practices. Desk audits were completed of the self-assessments, policies, procedures,
and practices. The LEA special education directors were interviewed and in some cases on-site visits
were conducted. SEB staff also reviewed the LEA’s STARS data to validate information included in the
interviews and/or self-assessments. For example: if a LEA indicated that many students entered the LEA
for various reasons, the students could be tracked by their unique identification numbers.
Reporting on Identification of Noncompliance
The one LEA flagged for over-representation was required to complete a self-assessment and submit it to
the SEB for review. The self-assessment is located in Appendix C. The SEB also reviewed the LEA’s
policies, procedures, and practices. Desk audits were completed of the self-assessment and policies,
procedures, and practices. The LEA special education director was interviewed. SEB staff also reviewed
the LEA’s STARS data to validate information included in the self-assessment or interview. For example:
if a LEA indicated that many students entered the LEA for various reasons, the students can be tracked
from LEA to LEA based upon the student’s unique identification number.
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 48 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Based upon the findings obtained through the processes listed above, the LEA was found not to have
disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that
is the result of inappropriate identification. The LEA was considered to be correctly implementing the
specific regulatory requirements.
Actual Target Data for FFY 2010:
FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target
FFY 2010 0%
Percent = [(0 LEAs) divided by (122 LEAs)] times 100 = 0%
Provide actual target data.
Compliance Target Met = 0%
Districts with Disproportionate Representation of Racial and Ethnic Groups that was the Result of
Inappropriate Identification
Year Total Number of Districts Number of Districts with Percent of
Number of with Disproportionate Representation Districts
Districts Disproportionate of Racial and Ethnic Groups that
Representation was the Result of Inappropriate
Identification
FFY 2009 122 1 0
(2010-
0.00%
2011)
Out of the 122 LEAs, 32 did not meet the minimum “n” size of greater than 10. In other words, the LEA
did not have greater than 10 students in any of the seven racial/ethnic categories.
The data from the LEA is highlighted in Table 9 – 1 below:
LEA Race/ Risk Weighted Policies Procedures Practices
Ethnicity Ratio Risk Ratio
Review Accept Review Accept Review Accept
1 Hispanic 3.25 3.13 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Table 9 - 1
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that
occurred for FFY 2010:
The State continues to make progress with this indicator and has maintained the 0% target even though
the number of LEAs has increased with the addition of State Chartered Charter Schools under State law.
Improvement Status Report as of Results of the Impact of the Activity
Activity 2/1/12 Activity
1. Train LEAs Completed and LEAs implement Improved LEA compliance
annually on the ongoing regulations
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 49 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
IDEA regulations Reduction in inappropriate
and State Rules identification
regarding the
assessment of
students for
special education
and related
services.
2. Provide annual Training will be as Appropriate Improved LEA compliance
training on the needed, instead of evaluation procedures
NM TEAM annually Reduction in inappropriate
(assessment identification
procedures for all
disability
categories under
the IDEA)
Correction of FFY 2009 Findings of Noncompliance (if State did not report 0%):
Level of compliance (actual target data) State reported for FFY 2009 for this indicator: 0%
Not applicable. The State met the FFY 2009 target.
Additional Information Required by the OSEP APR Response Table for this Indicator (if
applicable):
No response required.
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 50 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010
Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development:
In determining the percentage for indicator 10, the State utilized the October 13, 2010 Annual Report of
Children Served aged 6 – 21 (OSEP Table One) to screen out the number of possible LEAs with possible
disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in the specific disability categories that was
the result of inappropriate identification. The raw data, by race and ethnicity and specific disability
category, with a sample size of greater than 10 were calculated using the risk ratio and weighted risk ratio
formulas as part of the initial LEA screening process. Those LEAs with a risk ratio and weighted risk ratio
of 3.0 or above (over representation) and .25 or less (under representation) were required to complete a
self-assessment that addressed the LEA’s policies, procedures, and practices. The process is described
in greater detail below.
The indicator data were presented to the State’s IDEA Advisory Panel on December 8, 2011 and LEA
special education staff on January 12, 2012. Both groups had the opportunity to provide input on the
State’s improvement activities during the presentations and comments were considered up until January
20, 2012. They were unable to provide input on the target since this indicator is a 0% compliance target.
The revised State Performance Plan (SPP) and FFY 2010 Annual Performance Report (APR) are posted
on the bureau’s website at http://www.ped.state.nm.us/SEB/index.html . Stakeholders are sent an email
notification and a press release about the APR is completed by the department and sent out to the public.
Performance of each of the LEAs located in the State on the targets in the SPP are posted annually on
the SEB’s website in accordance with 34 CFR § 300.602(b)(1)(i)(A). The FFY 2010 performance data
along with data from previous years can be viewed at http://www.ped.state.nm.us/SEB/data/index.html.
Monitoring Priority: Disproportionality
Indicator 10: Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in
specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(C))
Measurement:
Percent = [(# of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific
disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification) divided by the (# of districts in
the State)] times 100.
In analyzing data for this indicator, the State must:
Use data collected on Table 1 (Child Count) of Information Collection 1820-0043 (Report of Children with
Disabilities Receiving Special Education under Part B of the IDEA, as amended) for all children with
disabilities aged 6 through 21 served under IDEA. The State must provide these data at a minimum for
children in the following six disability categories: mental retardation, specific learning disabilities,
emotional disturbance, speech or language impairments, other health impairments, and autism
(see Part B Indicator Measurement Table for additional instructions).
All States are required to report race and ethnicity data using the new racial and ethnic categories not
later than the data for the 2010-2011 school year. This means that States must report under Indicator 10
on disproportionate representation of children in the “two or more races” category with the FFY 2010
APR, due February 1, 2012.
The State used data collected on Table 1 (Child Count) of information collection 1820-0043 (Report of
Children with Disabilities Receiving Special Education under Part B of the IDEA, as amended), for all
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 51 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
children with disabilities aged 6 through 21 under IDEA. The annual unduplicated child count for FFY
2010 was taken on October 13, 2010. The data was disaggregated by LEA, race and ethnicity, and the
following six disability categories:
Autism
Emotional Disturbance
Intellectual Disability (Mental Retardation)
Other Health Impairment
Specific Learning Disability
Speech or Language Impairment
This was the first step in screening LEAs for possible disproportionate representation due to inappropriate
identification.
Definition of “Disproportionate Representation” and Methodology
States are instructed to provide their definition of disproportionate representation and include the
method(s) used to calculate disproportionate representation (e.g., risk ratio, weighted risk ratio, E-formula,
etc.).
In order for a LEA to be considered to have disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in
a specific disability category that was the result of inappropriate identification, the following criteria must
be met:
A “n” size of greater than 10 students or more in the racial and ethnic groups and the specific
disability category; and
A risk ratio (RR) and weighted risk ratio (WRR) of 3.0 or above (over representation) for students
aged 6 – 21; or
A risk ratio and weighted risk ratio of .25 below (under representation) for students aged 6 – 21;
and
Deficient policies, procedures, and/or practices.
Step One:
States are to provide the number of districts identified with disproportionate representation of racial
and ethnic groups in specific disability categories (see Table below).
Using the criteria established above, the State flagged 13 LEAs for possible disproportionate
representation. In other words, the LEAs had a “n” size of greater than 10 and a risk ratio and weighted
risk ratio of 3.0 or above (over representation). No LEAs were flagged for under representation.
Step Two: Determining if Disproportionate Representation is the Result of Inappropriate
Identification States must report on the percent of districts in which disproportionate representation of
racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories is the result of inappropriate identification, even if
the determination of inappropriate identification was made after the end of the FFY 2010 reporting period,
i.e., after June 30, 2011 (See Table below).
The State must describe how it made its annual determination that the disproportionate
representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories was, or was not, the
result of inappropriate identification as required by 34 CFR §§300.600(d)(3) and 300.602(a). The
State may use monitoring data; review district policies, practices, and procedures, etc. The State
must determine whether districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups
in specific disability categories are in compliance with the child find, evaluation, and eligibility
requirements in 34 CFR §§300.111, 300.201 and 300.301 through 300.311, and include that
information in its APR.
Out of the 122 LEAs, 13 were LEAs flagged for over representation and were required to complete a self-
assessment. The completed self-assessment was submitted to the SEB for review. No LEAs were
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 52 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
flagged for under-representation. The flagged LEAs were notified on March 2, 2011. The self-assessment
the LEAs were required to complete is located in Appendix C. The SEB also reviewed the LEA’s policies,
procedures, and practices. Desk audits were completed of the self-assessments, policies, procedures,
and practices. The LEA special education directors were interviewed and in some cases on-site visits
were conducted. SEB staff also reviewed the LEA’s STARS data to validate information included in the
interviews and/or self-assessments. For example: if a LEA indicated that many students entered the LEA
for various reasons, the students could be tracked by their unique identification numbers.
Based upon the findings obtained through the process described above, three LEAs were found to have
disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories due to
inappropriate identification. Although the LEAs’ policies and procedures were correct and consistent with
the State’s policies and procedures, the LEAs identified were not carrying out appropriate practices. The
specific regulatory requirements that were not being correctly implemented included:
34 CFR § 300.111 (Child Find)
34 CFR § 300.304(b)(4) (use of a variety of assessment tools and strategies)
34 CFR § 300.304(c) (assessments are not discriminatory and administered in the child’s native
language)
34 CFR § 300306(b)(iii) (Limited English Proficiency)
The three LEAs were notified regarding findings of noncompliance on July 19, 2011 and the
noncompliance was considered as part of the LEA’s FFY 2010 annual determination.
One LEA was considered to have disproportionate representation due to inappropriate identification and
significant disproportionality (risk ratio and weighted risk ratio of 5.0 or above) or the over-identification of
students who are Hispanic and identified as having a speech language impairment. The State’s policy
and procedure for significant disproportionality can be located in Appendix K. This is the same LEA
identified as having disproportionate representation in FFY 2009 and FFY 2008. This was not considered
a new finding of noncompliance, but continued noncompliance from the past two previous FFYs (2008
and 2009). This continued noncompliance was discovered when the State completed its subsequent
review of updated data to determine if the LEA met compliance from the previous two FFYs. This LEA
was not reported in the Indicator 15 worksheet in this APR because it was not a new finding of
noncompliance identified in FFY 2009 (7/1/09 to 6/30/10).
When the State identified this LEA as having significant disproportionality in the identification of Hispanic
students with a speech language impairment, the State:
1. Provided for review (and, if appropriate) revision of policies, procedures, and practices;
2. Required the LEA to reserve the maximum amount of funds to be used for early intervening
services; and
3. Required the LEA to publically report on the revision of policies, procedures, and practices.
The LEA was notified of the continued noncompliance in the area of disproportionate representation and
significant disproportionality on April 13, 2011 prior to the approval of the LEA’s IDEA B sub-grant. The
LEA’s Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS) plan was approved and 15% of the IDEA funds
were set aside in fund code 24112 or the CEIS fund code. The policies and procedures met the IDEA
requirements, but the LEA was not implementing them correctly or putting them into practice. The LEA
was required to revise its policies regarding the assessment of students who are English Language
Learners.
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 53 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Actual Target Data for FFY 2010:
FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target
FFY 2010 0%
Percent = [(4 LEAs) divided by (122 LEAs)] times 100 = 3.28%
Provide actual target data.
Districts with Disproportionate Representation of Racial and Ethnic Groups in Specific Disability
categories that was the Result of Inappropriate Identification
Year Total Number of Districts Number of Districts with Percent of
Number of with Disproportionate Representation Districts
Districts Disproportionate of Racial and Ethnic Groups in
Representation specific disability categories that
was the Result of Inappropriate
Identification
FFY 2010 122 13 4
(2010-
3.28%
2011)
Out of the 122 LEAs, 32 did not meet the minimum “n” size of greater than 10. In other words, the LEA
did not have greater than 10 students in any of the seven racial/ethnic categories.
The FFY 2010 data from the specific LEAs are highlighted in Tables 10 – 1 through 10 – 6 below. Those
highlighted were considered to have disproportionate representation due to inappropriate identification
and one LEA (speech language impairment) was considered to have disproportionate representation and
significant disproportionality.
Table 10 – 1 Autism
LEA Race/ Risk Ratio Weighted Policies Procedures Practices
Risk
Ethnicity
Ratio
Review Accept Review Accept Review Accept
1 White 3.72 4.21 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
2 White 3.02 3.31 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
3 White 3.00 3.57 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 54 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Table 10 – 2 Emotional Disturbance
LEA Race/ Risk Ratio Weighted Policies Procedures Practices
Risk
Ethnicity
Ratio
Review Accept Review Accept Review Accept
1 White 3.26 3.95 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Table 10 – 3 Intellectual Disability (Mental Retardation)
LEA Race/ Risk Ratio Weighted Policies Procedures Practices
Risk
Ethnicity
Ratio
Review Accept Review Accept Review Accept
1 Hispanic 3.29 4.88 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Table 10 - 4 Other Health Impairment
LEA Race/ Risk Ratio Weighted Policies Procedures Practices
Risk
Ethnicity
Ratio
Review Accept Review Accept Review Accept
1 White 3.19 3.40 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
2 White 3.07 3.67 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
3 White 3.03 3.65 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Table 10 – 5 Specific Learning Disability
LEA Race/ Risk Ratio Weighted Policies Procedures Practices
Risk
Ethnicity
Ratio
Review Accept Review Accept Review Accept
1 American 3.80 4.85 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Indian
2 Hispanic 3.24 4.85 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
3 American 3.36 3.45 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Indian
4 Hispanic 3.59 5.36 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 55 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Table 10 – 6 Speech Language Impairment (continued noncompliance not a new finding – discovered
during the subsequent review of updated data)
LEA Race/ Risk Ratio Weighted Policies Procedures Practices
Risk
Ethnicity
Ratio
Review Accept Review Accept Review Accept
1 Hispanic 5.91 9.01 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
The LEA highlighted in Table 10 – 6 had disproportionate representation and significant disproportionality.
The LEA was over identifying students who are Hispanic as having a speech language impairment. This
LEA was identified as having disproportionate representation in this area in FFY 2009 and FFY 2008. The
initial finding of noncompliance occurred in FFY 2008 with continued noncompliance in FFY 2009 and
2010. The LEA was not reported in the Indicator 15 worksheet in this APR because it was not a new
finding of noncompliance identified in FFY 2009 (7/1/09 to 6/30/10).
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that
occurred for FFY 2010:
On page 64 of the FFY 2009 APR, the State reported that four out of 102 LEAs or 3.92% were
considered to have disproportionate representation due to inappropriate identification. This calculation
included three LEAs with new findings of noncompliance and one LEA with continued noncompliance that
was initially identified in FFY 2008. The chart reflecting the FFY 2009 correction of FFY 2009 findings of
noncompliance below has been updated to reflect the correct number of LEAs.
The State made progress with this indicator by decreasing the percentage by 0.64% from FFY 2009 to
FFY 2010. Out of the four LEAs reported in this APR as having disproportionate representation due to
inappropriate identification, three of the LEAs missed this indicator for the first time in FFY 2010 (initial
finding). One LEA was considered to have disproportionate representation due to inappropriate
identification in FFY 2008, 2009 and FFY 2010. The initial finding of noncompliance occurred in FFY 2008
with continued noncompliance in FFY 2009 and FFY 2010. In FFY 2009 and FFY 2010, the continued
noncompliance was discovered during the State’s subsequent review of updated data. In addition to
continued noncompliance, this LEA was considered to have significant disproportionality, in the area of
identification of students who are Hispanic with a speech language impairment, in FFY 2010. The State
maintained 0% of LEAs considered as having disproportionate representation due to inappropriate
identification or under-representation.
Improvement Status Report as of Results of the Impact of the Activity
Activity 2/1/12 Activity
1. Train LEAs annually Completed and LEAs implement Improved LEA compliance
on the IDEA ongoing regulations
regulations and Reduction in inappropriate
State rules identification
regarding the
assessment of
students for special
education and
related services
2. Provide annual Modules for each Appropriate Improved LEA compliance
training on the NM disability in process of evaluation procedures
TEAM (assessment being developed Reduction in inappropriate
procedures for all identification
disability categories
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 56 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
under the IDEA)
3. Provide training on Completed Appropriate Improved LEA compliance
SAT and the three evaluation procedures
tier model of Provided annually for Reduction in inappropriate
student those LEAs in need identification
intervention with a
focus on providing
appropriate
interventions for
students who are
English Language
Learners
4. Work with LEAs Funds identified Student and parental Worked with majority of
identified as rights protected LEAs – one moved to
noncompliant on significant disproportionality
identifying
professional
development
and/or technical
assistance needed
to correct the
noncompliance in
a timely manner
Correction of FFY 2009 Findings of Noncompliance (if State reported more than 0% compliance):
Level of compliance (actual target data) State reported for FFY 2009 for this indicator: 3.28% (4 LEAs –
3 new LEAs with initial findings + 1 LEA with repeated noncompliance)
3
1. Number of findings of noncompliance the State made during FFY 2009 (the
period from July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010)
3
2. Number of FFY 2009 findings the State verified as timely corrected (corrected
within one year from the date of notification to the LEA of the finding)
0
3. Number of FFY 2009 findings not verified as corrected within one year [(1) minus
(2)]
Correction of FFY 2009 Findings of Noncompliance Not Timely Corrected (corrected more than
one year from identification of the noncompliance):
0
4. Number of FFY 2009 findings not timely corrected (same as the number from (3)
above)
0
5. Number of FFY 2009 findings the State has verified as corrected beyond the
one-year timeline (“subsequent correction”)
0
6. Number of FFY 2009 findings not yet verified as corrected [(4) minus (5)]
The chart above reflects LEAs identified in FFY 2009 as having initial or new findings of noncompliance. It
does not reflect the one LEA with continued or repeated noncompliance initially identified in FFY 2008.
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 57 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Actions Taken if Noncompliance Not Corrected:
For FFY 2009 findings for which the State has not yet verified correction, explain what the State has done
to identify the root cause(s) of continuing noncompliance, and what the State is doing about the continued
lack of compliance, including, as appropriate, enforcement actions taken against an LEA that continues to
show noncompliance.
None required because the three LEAs identified in FFY 2009 corrected the noncompliance in a timely
manner.
Verification of Correction (either timely or subsequent):
For States that Reported Less than 100% Compliance for FFY 2009 for Indicator 10:
As specified in OSEP’s FFY 2009 SPP/APR Response Table, the State must report on the status of
correction of noncompliance reflected in the data the State reported for this indicator. The State must
demonstrate, in the FFY 2010 APR that the districts identified in FFY 2009 or, if applicable districts
identified in FFY 2009 based on FFY 2008 data, with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic
groups in specific disability categories that was the result of inappropriate identification are in compliance
with the requirements in 34 CFR §§300.111, 300.201, and 300.301 through 300.311, including that the
State verified that each district with noncompliance: (1) is correctly implementing the specific regulatory
requirement(s) (i.e., achieved 100% compliance) based on a review of updated data such as data
subsequently collected through on-site monitoring or a State data system; and (2) has corrected each
individual case of noncompliance, unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the district,
consistent with OSEP Memo 09-02.
The three LEAs considered noncompliant with indicator 10 in FFY 2009 (July 1, 2009 – June 30, 2010)
have corrected the noncompliance in a timely manner, in other words within one year of identification.
This was determined through a subsequent review of updated data from the annual child count taken on
October 13, 2010, review of the LEA’s risk ratio and weighted risk ratio, the correction of any deficient
policies, procedures, and practices and the review of updated STARS data. Any individual cases of
noncompliance have been corrected.
Describe of the specific actions that the State took to verify the correction of findings of
noncompliance identified in FFY 2009:
The State reviewed the LEA’s FFY 2010 data to determine if the LEA corrected the findings of
noncompliance in the area of disproportionate representation due to inappropriate identification. This was
done through the LEA’s annual child count taken on October 13, 2010. The LEA’s data was
disaggregated by race and ethnicity and the six disability categories. The LEA’s risk ratio and weighted
risk ratio were recalculated to determine if the ratios were 3.0 or above. The three LEAs had risk ratios
and weighted risk ratios below 3.0.
SEB staff also reviewed the updated policies, procedures, and practices identified as deficient to
determine if they were corrected. It was concluded that three out of the four LEAs were correctly
implementing the specific regulatory requirements in 34 CFR §§ 300.111, 300.201, and 300.301 through
300.311. Individual student data was also reviewed in STARS.
Correction of Remaining FFY 2008 Findings of Noncompliance (if applicable):
For FFY 2008 findings for which the State has not yet verified correction, explain what the State has done
to identify the root cause(s) of continuing noncompliance, and what the State is doing about the continued
lack of compliance, including, as appropriate, enforcement actions taken against an LEA that continues to
show noncompliance.
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 58 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
1
1. Number of remaining FFY 2008 findings noted in OSEP’s June 2011 FFY 2009
APR response table for this indicator
0
2. Number of remaining FFY 2008 findings the State has verified as corrected
1
3. Number of remaining FFY 2008 findings the State has not verified as corrected
[(1) minus (2)]
Verification of Correction of Remaining FFY 2008 findings:
For States with Finings of Noncompliance identified in FFY 2008 that were not reported as corrected in
the FFY 2009 APR, as specified in OSEP’s FFY 2011 SPP/APR Response Table, the State must
demonstrate, in the FFY 2010 APR, that the districts identified in FFY 2008 with disproportionate
representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that was the result of
inappropriate identification are in compliance with the requirements in 34 CFR §§300.111, 300.201, and
300.301 through 300.311, including that the State verified that each district with remaining
noncompliance: (1) is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirement(s) (i.e., achieved 100%
compliance) based on a review of updated data such as data subsequently collected through on-site
monitoring or a State data system; and (2) has corrected each individual case of noncompliance, unless
the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the district, consistent with OSEP Memo 09-02.
Describe of the specific actions that the State took to verify the correction of findings of
noncompliance identified in FFY 2008:
The one LEA which had continued noncompliance completed an updated self-assessment and
received an updated review of policies, procedures, and practices. No changes were required for the
policies and procedures since there were no changes to IDEA regulations or State rules during that
time period. The updated review of the LEA’s practices indicated that the LEA was not correctly
implementing the specific regulatory requirements regarding the evaluation of students who are
identified as English Language Learners (34 CFR §§ 300.304(c), 300.306(b)(1)(iii)) and the use of a
variety of assessments (34 CFR § 300.304(b)(1)).
The LEA received collaborative and prescriptive technical assistance in accordance with the State’s
Levels of Intervention that is located in Appendix E and the LEA was provided a mini-grant to assist them
with the additional cost of the professional development. Professional development activities included, but
were not limited to:
Training for sped and general education staff on writing measurable, objective present levels of
performance to be used by SAT and IEP team members;
Continuing support and training in Response to Intervention and Student Assistance Team district
wide;
Continuing monthly meetings with sped staff a district level;
Providing optional ways of providing information to special education staff such as Wimba,
Tandberg, time of day etc.;
Researching appropriate use of Developmental Delay vs. Speech Language Impairment disability
categories;
Developing checklist of descriptive, objective behaviors observed in classrooms district wide; and
Providing secondary teachers with strategies that increase oral language development and math
concepts
This LEA’s identification data in FFY 2010 was considered to meet the criteria of significant
disproportionality in accordance with 34 CFR § 300.646. When the State identified this LEA as having
significant disproportionality in the identification of Hispanic students with a speech language impairment,
the State:
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 59 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
1. Provided for review (and, if appropriate) revision of policies, procedures, and practices;
2. Required the LEA to reserve the maximum amount of funds to be used for early intervening
services; and
3. Required the LEA to publically report on the revision of policies, procedures, and practices.
The LEA was notified of the significant disproportionality on April 13, 2011 prior to approval of the LEA’s
sub-grant for the 2011 – 2012 school year. The LEA was required to reserve 15% of the IDEA funds,
during the 2011 – 2012 school year for CEIS to serve students in the LEA, particularly, but not
exclusively, students in those groups that were significantly over-identified. The LEA’s CEIS plan has
been approved by the SEB and is currently being implemented.
This continued noncompliance along with the length of time the problem existed and the LEA’s response
to the problem was considered in the LEA’s FFY 2010 annual determination. The LEA’s determination
moved from Needs Intervention Year One to Needs Intervention Year Two. The LEA was assigned a
Special Education Technical Assistance Team through TAESE and is being monitored by SEB staff. On-
site monitoring and visitations are occurring.
Additional Information Required by the OSEP APR Response Table for this Indicator (if
applicable):
Statement from the Response Table State’s Response
OSEP appreciates the State’s efforts and looks In FFY 2009, four LEAs missed the indicator. Three
forward to reviewing data in the FFY 2010 APR, have corrected the noncompliance in accordance
due February 1, 2012, demonstrating compliance. with the 09-02 OSEP memorandum.
Because the State reported less than 100%
The one remaining LEA was identified as having
compliance for FFY 2009 (greater than 0% actual
disproportionate representation in FFY 2008 and
target data for this indicator), the State must report
2009. In FFY 2010, the LEA was identified as having
on the status of correction of noncompliance
significant disproportionality and disproportionate
reflected in the data the State reported for this
representation in the area of identification in the
indicator. The State must demonstrate, in the FFY
specific disability category of speech language
2010 APR, that the districts identified in FFY 2009
impairment of students who are Hispanic. Sanctions
and the districts identified in FFY 2008 with
have been applied in accordance with 34 CFR §
disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic
300.646 and no changes have been made to the
groups in specific disability categories that was the
improvement activities.
result of inappropriate identification are in
compliance with the requirements in 34 CFR
§§300.111, 300.201, and 300.301 through
300.311, including that the State verified that each
district with noncompliance: (1) is correctly
implementing the specific regulatory requirement(s)
(i.e., achieved 100% compliance) based on a
review of updated data such as data subsequently
collected through on-site monitoring or a State data
system; and (2) has corrected each individual case
of noncompliance, unless the child is no longer
within the jurisdiction of the district, consistent with
OSEP Memorandum 09-02, dated October 17,
2008 (Memo 09-02). In the FFY 2010 APR, the
State must describe the specific actions that were
taken to verify the correction. If the State is unable
to demonstrate compliance with those
requirements in the FFY 2010 APR, the State must
review its improvement activities and revise them,
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 60 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
if necessary to ensure compliance.
Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2011 (if applicable):
The State is not proposing any revisions at this time.
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 61 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010
Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development:
Indicator 11 census data were gathered and monitored through the State’s Student Teacher
Accountability Reporting System (STARS), each reporting period. Data from every student whose parent
consented to an initial evaluation for special education and related services were entered into STARS.
The indicator data along with the reasons for delay were presented to the State’s IDEA Advisory Panel on
December 8, 2011 and LEA special education staff on January 12, 2012. Both groups had the opportunity
to provide input on the State’s improvement activities during the presentations and comments were
considered up until January 20, 2012. They were unable to provide input on the target since this indicator
is a 100% compliance target.
The revised State Performance Plan (SPP) and FFY 2010 Annual Performance Report (APR) are posted
on the bureau’s website at http://www.ped.state.nm.us/SEB/index.html . Stakeholders are sent an email
notification and a press release is completed by the department and sent out to the public.
Performance of each of the LEAs located in the State on the targets in the SPP are posted annually on
the SEB’s website in accordance with 34 CFR § 300.602(b)(1)(i)(A). The FFY 2010 performance data
along with data from previous years can be viewed at http://www.ped.state.nm.us/SEB/data/index.html.
Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / Child Find
Indicator 11: Percent of children who were evaluated within 60 days of receiving parental consent for
initial evaluation or, if the State establishes a timeframe within which the evaluation must be conducted,
within that timeframe.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))
Measurement:
a. # of children for whom parental consent to evaluate was received.
b. # of children whose evaluations were completed within 60 days (or State-established timeline).
Account for children included in a but not included in b. Indicate the range of days beyond the
timeline when the evaluation was completed and any reasons for the delays.
Percent = [(b) divided by (a)] times 100.
FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target
FFY 2010 100%
Actual Target Data for FFY 2010:
[(5,142 (b)) divided by (5,179 (a))] times 100 = 99.2%
Account for children included in (a) but not included in (b):
Out of the 5,179 students for whom parental consent to evaluate was received, 37 of those students’
evaluation were completed, however late because the LEA failed to meet the 60 day timeline.
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 62 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Indicate the range of days beyond the timeline and provide reasons for the delays:
The range of days beyond the timeline ranged from 1 to 119 days. This was due to the LEA missing the
timeline. All of the initial evaluations have been completed, though late.
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that
occurred for FFY 2010:
The FFY 2010 percentage was 99.2% resulting in very slight slippage of 0.1%. Out of the 128 LEAs who
completed initial evaluations, 12 LEAs missed the 100% target for the first time (initial findings of
noncompliance). There were no incidences of continued or repeated noncompliance from FFY 2009 to
FFY 2010.
In the narrative regarding FFY 2009 progress and slippage on page 72 of the FFY 2009 APR, it stated
that 11 of 102 LEAs missed this indicator. Of the 11 LEAs reported, nine LEAs missed the indicator for
the first time in FFY 2009 and had an initial finding of noncompliance. The remaining two LEAs had
repeated or continued noncompliance that was initially identified in FFY 2008. Therefore, only the nine
LEAs were reported in the indicator 15 worksheet, in this APR, which requires states to report the number
of findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2009 (7/1/09 to 6/30/10). The remaining two of the LEAs
included in the narrative were identified in FFY 2008. Those two LEAs subsequently corrected the
noncompliance beyond the one-year timeline and were reported in the chart on page 74 of the FFY 2009
APR.
The nine LEAs completed all of the evaluations, though late and were considered to have met the prong
one criteria. This was verified through STARS data. The State completed a subsequent review of data or
100% of the files in STARS of those students who parents consented for an initial evaluation for special
education and related services. The nine LEAs were found to be correctly implementing the following
specific regulatory requirements:
34 CFR § 300.300
34 CFR § 300.301
34 CFR § 300.304
34 CFR § 300.305
34 CFR § 300.307
34 CFR § 300.309
34 CFR § 300.310
As indicated on page 74 of the FFY 2009 APR, the two LEAs identified in FFY 2008 corrected the
individual cases of noncompliance by completing the evaluation, though late. The two LEAs subsequently
corrected the noncompliance in December 2010 and this was determined through a review of updated
data that was subsequently collected. Based upon that review, it was determined that the LEAs were
correctly implementing 34 CFR § 300.301(c)(1).
LEAs were required to submit data on initial evaluations for special education and related services, each
reporting period, into STARS. In FFY 2010 the reporting periods were the second Wednesdays in
October, December and February and the end-of-year. In addition to the student’s demographic data and
information, LEAs were required to enter the date of parental consent and the date the evaluation was
completed. STARS then automatically calculated the number of days between parental consent and the
initial evaluation. If the number of days was beyond 60, the individual file was “red flagged” and the LEA
was required to enter a code indicating the reason for the delay in the completion of the evaluation. The
only reasons for delay that were considered compliant with the IDEA were those included in 34 CFR §
300.301(d): the parent repeatedly fails or refuses to produce the child for the evaluation or the child
enrolls in a school of another LEA after the timeframe for the initial evaluation has begun. Any other
reason for delay was considered noncompliance with 34 CFR § 300.301 (c)(1)(i).
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 63 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Additional data points were reviewed to assist with the validation. These included following up with
STARS to determine if the LEA’s membership count report increased to account for the new students.
The students’ initial IEP dates were also verified. The STARS templates built by the State allowed the
LEAs to monitor their progress throughout the year in addition to the continuous monitoring by SEB staff.
Improvement Status Report as of Results of the Impact of the Activity
Activity 2/1/12 Activity
1. Provide training at Completed Improved data quality Improved compliance
fall and spring
data conference Ongoing annually
and Directors’
Academy in data
entry fields and
compliance
2. Monitor LEA data Completed Improved data quality Increase in timely
every reporting evaluations
period Ongoing annually
3. Provide sub- Ongoing Systems improvement Increase in timely
grants to LEAs in LEA evaluations
that missed
Indicator 11. Sub-
grants will be
utilized for LEA
technical
assistance and
professional
development
4. Work with RRC to Completed and Improved data quality Improved compliance – no
develop a Root utilized repeated noncompliance
Cause Analysis
for the indicator to
be utilized when
the indicator is
missed
State’s Reply to OSEP’s FFY 2009 Response Table:
Statement from the Response Table State’s Response
All 11 of the LEAs that missed this indicator in
OSEP appreciates the State’s efforts and looks
FFY 2009 corrected the noncompliance. All of the
forward to reviewing in the FFY 2010 APR, due
students received their evaluations, however late.
February 1, 2012, the State’s data demonstrating
All individual cases of noncompliance were
that it is in compliance with the timely initial
corrected.
evaluation requirements in 34
CFR §300.301(c)(1). Because the State reported A subsequent census STARS data collection was
less than 100% compliance for FFY 2009, the reviewed for each of the identified LEAs. 100% of
State must report on the status of correction of the students received their evaluations within 60
noncompliance reflected in the data the State days of parental consent. All of the LEAs were
reported for this indicator. correctly implementing 34 CFR § 300.301(c)(1).
When reporting on the correction of
noncompliance, the State must report, in its FFY
2010 APR, that it has verified that each LEA with
noncompliance reflected in the FFY 2009 data
the State reported for this indicator: (1) is
correctly implementing 34 CFR §300.301(c)(1)
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 64 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
(i.e., achieved 100% compliance) based on a
review of updated data such as data
subsequently collected through on-site
monitoring or a State data system; and (2) has
completed the evaluation, although late, for any
child whose initial evaluation was not timely,
unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction
of the LEA, consistent with OSEP Memo 09-02.
In the FFY 2010 APR, the State must describe
the specific actions that were taken to verify the
correction.
No changes to the improvement activities were
If the State does not report 100% compliance in
recommended by the stakeholder group due to
the FFY 2010 APR, the State must review its
the high percentage of student receiving their
improvement activities and revise them, if
evaluation within 60 days of parental consent.
necessary.
Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2011
The State is not proposing any revisions to the improvement activities. This is a compliance target and
the target must remain at 100%.
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 65 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010
Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development:
Indicator 12 census data were gathered and monitored through the State’s Student Teacher
Accountability Reporting System (STARS), the second Wednesday in December. Data from every
student who was referred by Part C prior to age 3, who was found eligible for Part B, and who had an IEP
developed and implemented by the third birthday was entered into STARS. If students were not
determined eligible or not eligible prior to age three, the LEA was required to enter a compliance or
noncompliance code. The data were extracted to determine the State aggregate and each LEA’s
percentage.
The indicator data were presented to the State’s IDEA Advisory Panel on December 8, 2011 and LEA
special education staff on January 12, 2012. Both groups had the opportunity to provide input on the
State’s improvement activities during the presentations and comments were considered up until January
20, 2012. They were unable to provide input on the target since this indicator is a 100% compliance
target.
The revised State Performance Plan (SPP) and FFY 2010 Annual Performance Report (APR) are posted
on the bureau’s website at http://www.ped.state.nm.us/SEB/index.html . Stakeholders are sent an email
notification and a press release is completed by the department and sent out to the public.
Performance of each of the LEAs located in the State on the targets in the SPP are posted annually on
the SEB’s website in accordance with 34 CFR § 300.602(b)(1)(i)(A). The FFY 2010 performance data
along with data from previous years can be viewed at http://www.ped.state.nm.us/SEB/data/index.html.
Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / Effective Transition
Indicator 12: Percent of children referred by Part C prior to age 3, who are found eligible for Part B, and
who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))
Measurement:
a. # of children who have been served in Part C and referred to Part B for Part B eligibility
determination.
b. # of those referred determined to be NOT eligible and whose eligibility was determined prior to
their third birthdays.
c. # of those found eligible who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays.
d. # of children for whom parent refusal to provide consent caused delays in evaluation or initial
services or whom exceptions under 34 CFR §300.301(d) applied.
e. # of children who were referred to Part C less than 90 days before their third birthdays.
Account for children included in a but not included in b, c, d or e. Indicate the range of days beyond
the third birthday when eligibility was determined and the IEP developed and the reasons for the
delays.
Percent = [(c) divided by (a - b - d - e)] times 100.
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 66 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target
FFY 2010 100%
Actual Target Data for FFY 2010:
Percent = [(573 (c)) divided by (919(a) – 170 (b) – 22 (d) – 141 (e))] times 100 = 97.7%
Account for students included in a, but not in b, c, d, or e:
13 students had their eligibility determined, IEP developed and implemented by their third birthday. This
was due to the LEAs missing the timelines.
Indicate the range of days beyond the third birthday and the reasons for delays:
The range of days beyond the students third birthday were 29 – 237.
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that
occurred for FFY 2010:
New Mexico did not meet the 100% compliance target for indicator 12. The State had slippage of 1.6%
from FFY 2009 to FFY 2010. In FFY 2009 three LEAs missed indicator 12 and in FFY 2010, five LEAs
missed the indicator. As indicated in the FFY 2009 APR, the two LEAs with the three students who did
not have their eligibility determined and IEP developed and implemented by their third birthday corrected
the individual cases or noncompliance. In FFY 2010, there were no instances of continued
noncompliance. Both LEAs had a subsequent review of data. Through that review, it was determined that
the LEAs were correctly implementing 34 CFR § 300.124(b). This was accomplished through a review of
100% of student records submitted through the STARS data warehouse in FFY 2010. Since this was a
census data collection, 100% of the files were reviewed.
Every preschool student served in Part C and referred for Part B eligibility determination were submitted
into the STARS data warehouse, by LEA. Each LEA is monitored on this Indicator every year. Students
who did not qualify were entered into the Student Template of STARS and students who did qualify were
entered into the Special Education Template of STARS. As part of additional data validation other
important information about the students were required to be entered into the Special Education
Template. This included the date of the transition conference, date of parental consent, evaluation
completion date, date of eligibility determination and the date of the initial IEP. Indicator 11 and 12 were
correlated to determine the accuracy of the data.
All fields must be completed. If data were missing, the LEA was required to correct the data within the
specified period of time. Failure to do so impacted the LEA’s indicator 20 calculation. The LEA was
required to enter compliance or noncompliance codes pertaining to the eligibility determination and IEP
development if it went beyond the student’s third birthday. The STARS template automatically calculated
the number of days beyond the student’s birthday, using the student’s birth date.
Improvement Status Report as Results of the Impact of the Activity
Activity of 2/1/12 Activity
1. Train LEAs on Completed in May Improved data quality Increased Indicator 20 results for
data entry for and September and less errors with the LEAs
how to properly 2011 data submission
enter preschool
data into STARS Ongoing
2. The SEB Contract in place Improved transition Compliance level slipped and
provides fiscal more LEAs identified
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 67 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
support to the Technical
University of New Assistance being
Mexico provided
Preschool
Network to Ongoing as
provide training funding allows
to LEAs and
targeted
technical
assistance for
those LEAs
unable to meet
the State target
3. The SEB will Completed and Improved transition Decrease continued
target all LEAs ongoing noncompliance
not meeting the
State target by
reviewing the
STARS data
4. Work with RRC RCA developed Improve LEA level No continued noncompliance in
to develop a and utilized systems LEAs that completed RCA and
Root Cause developed strategies for
Analysis for the improvement
indicator to be
utilized with
LEAs when
indicator missed
State’s Reply to OSEP’s FFY 2009 Response Table:
Statement from the Response Table State’s Response
The two LEAs identified in FFY 2009 corrected
OSEP appreciates the State’s efforts and looks
the individual cases of noncompliance in a timely
forward to reviewing in the FFY 2010 APR, due
manner and based upon a subsequent review of
February 1, 2012, the State’s data demonstrating
updated data, it was determined that the LEAs
that it is in compliance with the early childhood
were correctly implementing the specific
transition requirements in 34 CFR §300.124(b).
regulations.
Because the State reported less than 100%
compliance for FFY 2009, the State must report
on the status of correction of noncompliance
reflected in the FFY 2009 data the State reported
for this indicator.
Same as above
When reporting on the correction of
noncompliance, the State must report, in its FFY
2010 APR, that it has verified that each LEA with
noncompliance reflected in the data the State
reported for this indicator: (1) is correctly
implementing 34 CFR §300.124(b) (i.e., achieved
100% compliance) based on a review of updated
data such as data subsequently collected through
on-site monitoring or a State data system; and (2)
has developed and implemented the IEP,
although late, for any child for whom
implementation of the IEP was not timely, unless
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 68 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the
LEA, consistent with OSEP Memo 09-02. In the
FFY 2010 APR, the State must describe the
specific actions that were taken to verify the
correction.
The Stakeholder group reviewed the
If the State does not report 100% compliance in
improvement activities and did not recommend
the FFY 2010 APR, the State must review its
any changes since the individual cases of
improvement activities and revise them, if
noncompliance were corrected and the two LEAs
necessary.
did not have continued noncompliance.
Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2011
The State is not proposing any revisions to the improvement activities. This is a compliance target and
the target must remain at 100%.
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 69 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010
Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development:
Data and information for indicator 13 were gathered, tracked, and monitored through the State’s data
warehouse, Student Teacher Accountability Reporting System (STARS). STARS data was validated
through the random selection of a reasonable sample of Individualized Education Programs (IEPs). The
IEPs for each LEA were reviewed utilizing the National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance
Center (NSTTAC). The checklist is located in Appendix F.
The indicator data were presented to the State’s IDEA Advisory Panel on December 8, 2011 and LEA
special education staff on January 12, 2012. Both groups had the opportunity to provide input on the
State’s improvement activities during the presentations and comments were considered up until January
20, 2012. They were unable to provide input on the target since this indicator is a 100% compliance
target.
The revised State Performance Plan (SPP) and FFY 2010 Annual Performance Report (APR) are posted
on the bureau’s website at http://www.ped.state.nm.us/SEB/index.html . Stakeholders are sent an email
notification and a press release about the APR is completed by the department and sent out to the public.
Performance of each of the LEAs located in the State on the targets in the SPP are posted annually on
the SEB’s website in accordance with 34 CFR § 300.602(b)(1)(i)(A). The FFY 2010 performance data
along with data from previous years can be viewed at http://www.ped.state.nm.us/SEB/data/index.html.
Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / Effective Transition
Indicator 13: Percent of youth with IEPs aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes appropriate
measurable postsecondary goals that are annually updated and based upon an age appropriate transition
assessment, transition services, including courses of study, that will reasonably enable the student to
meet those postsecondary goals, and annual IEP goals related to the student’s transition services needs.
There also must be evidence that the student was invited to the IEP Team meeting where transition
services are to be discussed and evidence that, if appropriate, a representative of any participating
agency was invited to the IEP Team meeting with the prior consent of the parent or student who has
reached the age of majority.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))
Measurement:
Percent = [(# of youth with IEPs aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes appropriate
measurable postsecondary goals that are annually updated and based upon an age appropriate
transition assessment, transition services, including courses of study, that will reasonably enable the
student to meet those postsecondary goals, and annual IEP goals related to the student’s transition
services needs. There also must be evidence that the student was invited to the IEP Team meeting
where transition services are to be discussed and evidence that, if appropriate, a representative of
any participating agency was invited to the IEP Team meeting with the prior consent of the parent or
student who has reached the age of majority) divided by the (# of youth with an IEP age 16 and
above)] times 100.
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 70 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Actual Target Data for FFY 2010:
FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target
FFY 2010 100%
[(1,355 IEPs) divided by (1,419 IEPs)] times 100 = 95.48%
Provide actual target data.
Year Total number of youth Total number of youth Percent of youth aged 16
aged 16 and above with aged 16 and above with and above with an IEP that
an IEP an IEP that meets the meets the requirements
requirements
FFY 2010 1,419 1,355
(2010-
95.48%
2011)
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that
occurred in FFY 2010:
In the FFY 2009 APR on pages 91 – 92, the State miscalculated the percentage for indicator 13.
Subsequently corrected IEPs (n = 5) were considered in the numerator but should not have. The adjusted
percentage is 98.24%. The State experienced slippage of 2.7% from FFY 2009 to FFY 2010. In FFY 2010,
13 LEAs missed the indicator for the first time (new finding) and one LEA had continued noncompliance
from FFY 2009. Sixty six IEPs were considered noncompliant.
Improvement Activity Status Report as of Results of Activity Impact of Activity
2/1/12
1. Update data Completed Improved data collection Improved compliance
collections system and monitoring
by including the
indicator
components and
NSTTAC in the
STARS data
warehouse
2. Provide training Completed in May and Improved data collection Improved compliance
annually for spec. September 2011 and monitoring
ed. directors and
STARS
coordinators on the
data collection
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 71 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
3. Provide training on Materials created and Improved IEP quality Improved outcomes for
how to write IEPs training provided via students
that meet the webinar
indicator
requirements
Correction of FFY 2009 Findings of Noncompliance:
Level of compliance (actual target data) State reported for FFY 2009 for this indicator: 98.24%
8
1. Number of findings of noncompliance the State made during FFY 2009 (the
period from July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010)
7
2. Number of FFY 2009 findings the State verified as timely corrected (corrected
within one year from the date of notification to the LEA of the finding)
1
3. Number of FFY 2009 findings not verified as corrected within one year [(1) minus
(2)]
Correction of FFY 2009 Findings of Noncompliance Not Timely Corrected (corrected more than
one year from identification of the noncompliance):
1
4. Number of FFY 2009 findings not timely corrected (same as the number from (3)
above)
0
5. Number of FFY 2009 findings the State has verified as corrected beyond the
one-year timeline (“subsequent correction”)
1
6. Number of FFY 2009 findings not yet verified as corrected [(4) minus (5)]
Actions Taken if Noncompliance Not Corrected:
For FFY 2009 findings for which the State has not yet verified correction, explain what the State has done
to identify the root cause(s) of continuing noncompliance, and what the State is doing about the continued
lack of compliance, including, as appropriate, enforcement actions taken against an LEA that continues to
show noncompliance.
The one LEA that missed indicator 13 in FFY 2009 and FFY 2010 completed a root cause analysis to
determine the cause of the continuing noncompliance. The LEA was placed on a corrective action plan
with specific strategies to address areas found in the root cause analysis. The length of time the problem
existed along with LEA’s response to the issue was considered in the LEA’s annual determination. The
LEA was assigned a Special Education Technical Assistance Team (SETAT) to provide them with intense
technical assistance and professional development.
Verification of Correction (either timely or subsequent):
For those findings for which the State has reported correction, describe the process the State used to
verify that the LEA: 1) is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements (i..e., achieved
100% compliance) based on a review of updated data such as data subsequently collected through on-
site monitoring or a State data system; and (2) has corrected each individual case of noncompliance,
unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the LEA, consistent with OSEP Memorandum 09-02.
Details on the number of IEPs considered noncompliant (n = 42), by LEA, were included in the FFY 2009
APR on pages 91 and 92. Five of the IEPs were corrected in a timely manner. The remaining 37 IEPs, or
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 72 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
individual cases of noncompliance, could not be corrected because the student was no longer in the
jurisdiction of the LEA. In order to ensure that full correction was made and that the LEAs were correctly
implementing specific regulatory requirements, an updated reasonable sample of IEPs were reviewed
using the NSTTAC checklist. The reasonable sample of students aged 16 or above was selected from
STARS. The SEB staff requested the IEPs from the LEAs for review. Based upon that review, it was
determined that seven out of the eight LEAs were in compliance with 34 CFR § 300.320(b).
Additional Information Required by the OSEP APR Response Table for this Indicator (if
applicable):
Statement from the Response Table State’s Response
The correction of 7 out of the 8 LEAs identified in
OSEP appreciates the State’s efforts and looks
FFY 2009 is explained in the section entitled:
forward to reviewing in the FFY 2010 APR, due
Verification of Correction (either timely or
February 1, 2012, the State’s data demonstrating
subsequent).
that it is in compliance with the secondary
transition requirements in 34 CFR §§300.320(b)
and 300.321(b). Because the State reported less
than 100% compliance for FFY 2009, the State
must report on the status of correction of
noncompliance reflected in the data the State
reported for this indicator.
When reporting on the correction of
Same as above
noncompliance, the State must report, in its FFY
2010 APR, that it has verified that each LEA with
noncompliance reflected in the FFY 2009 data the
State reported for this indicator: (1) is correctly
implementing 34 CFR §§300.320(b) and
300.321(b) (i.e., achieved 100% compliance)
based on a review of updated data such as data
subsequently collected through on-site monitoring
or a State data system; and (2) has corrected each
individual case of noncompliance, unless the child
is no longer within the jurisdiction of the LEA,
consistent with OSEP Memo 09-02. In the FFY
2010 APR, the State must describe the specific
actions that were taken to verify the correction.
If the State does not report 100% compliance in the
No revisions are being proposed at this time.
FFY 2010 APR, the State must review its
improvement activities and revise them, if
necessary.
Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2011 (if applicable):
The State is not proposing any revisions at this time.
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 73 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010
Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development:
The New Mexico post-school outcomes survey was designed as a census of former students with
disabilities who received special education services and exited high school in the 2009-2010 school year
including graduates and those who dropped out between grades 9-12. The survey is assembled,
conducted and analyzed through a contract with the Northeast Regional Education Cooperative, (NEREC),
one of nine regional education assistance centers that work closely with the New Mexico Public Education
Department Special Education Bureau and LEAs in New Mexico providing training and technical
assistance. Additional assistance on the survey including statistical modeling and analysis was provided by
New Mexico Highlands University, one of three State universities in New Mexico.
Students who received special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,
(IDEA), had exited in 2009-2010 and had been out of high school for a minimum of one year were
surveyed on or before September 30, 2011. The Tier 2 survey and relevant information for completion of
tasks was posted on a website accessible to all LEAs. Schools were asked to appoint a coordinator for the
survey effort to assume responsibility including assignment of tasks to complete the work required. Staff
assigned by the schools conducted phone and in-person interviews of former students or family members
and entered responses on the online survey form which were then downloaded to a database. A stipend
was paid to interviewers for each completed and entered survey. Contact information collected on previous
year surveys of graduating students was sent to schools to assist them in contacting former students.
The indicator data were presented to the State’s IDEA Advisory Panel on December 8, 2011 and LEA
special education staff on January 12, 2012. Both groups had the opportunity to provide input on the
State’s improvement activities and targets during the presentations and comments were considered up
until January 20, 2012.
The revised State Performance Plan (SPP) and FFY 2010 Annual Performance Report (APR) are posted
on the bureau’s website at http://www.ped.state.nm.us/SEB/index.html . Stakeholders are sent an email
notification and a press release about the APR is completed by the department and sent out to the public.
Performance of each of the LEAs located in the State on the targets in the SPP are posted annually on the
SEB’s website in accordance with 34 CFR § 300.602(b)(1)(i)(A). The FFY 2010 performance data along
with data from previous years can be viewed at http://www.ped.state.nm.us/SEB/data/index.html.
Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / Effective Transition
Indicator 14: Percent of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time
they left school, and were:
A. Enrolled in higher education within one year of leaving high school.
B. Enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within one year of leaving high school.
C. Enrolled in higher education or in some other postsecondary education or training program; or
competitively employed or in some other employment within one year of leaving high school.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))
Measurement:
A. Percent enrolled in higher education = [(# of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had
IEPs in effect at the time they left school and were enrolled in higher education within one year of
leaving high school) divided by the (# of respondent youth who are no longer in secondary school
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 74 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
and had IEPs in effect at the time they left school)] times 100.
B. Percent enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within one year of leaving high
school = [(# of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left
school and were enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within one year of leaving
high school) divided by the (# of respondent youth who are no longer in secondary school and had
IEPs in effect at the time they left school)] times 100.
C. Percent enrolled in higher education, or in some other postsecondary education or training
program; or competitively employed or in some other employment = [(# of youth who are no longer
in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school and were enrolled in higher
education, or in some other postsecondary education or training program; or competitively employed
or in some other employment) divided by the (# of respondent youth who are no longer in secondary
school and had IEPs in effect at the time they left school)] times 100.
FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target
FFY 2010 A. 48.5% enrolled in higher education
B. 75.5% enrolled in higher education or competitively employed
C. 79.5% enrolled in higher education or in some other postsecondary education or
training program or competitively employed or in some other employment
Actual Target Data for FFY 2010:
There were 1367 total respondents. Within one year of leaving high school:
1= 646 respondent leavers were enrolled in “higher education”.
2= 331 respondent leavers were engaged in “competitive employment” (and not counted in 1 above).
3= 41 respondent leavers were enrolled in “some other postsecondary education or training or
employment” (and not counted in 1 or 2 above).
4= 10 respondent leavers were engaged in some other type of employment (and not counted in 1, 2
or 3 above)
Note: 339 leavers were not engaged in competitive employment, some other employment, higher
education, post secondary education or training.
14 A = 646 (#1) divided by 1367 (total respondents) = 47.3% -Target Not Met
14 B = 646 (#1) + 331 (#2) divided by 1367 (total respondents) = 71.5% - Target Not Met
14 C = 646 (#1) + 331 (#2) + 51 (#3) divided by 1367 (total respondents) = 75.2% - Target Not Met
Survey Administration and Disaggregated Data
The State utilized the following definitions as part of the survey:
Competitive employment means that youth have worked for pay at or above the minimum wage in a
setting with others who are nondisabled for a period of 20 hours a week for at least 90 days at any time
in the year since leaving high school. This includes military employment.
Higher Education means youth have been enrolled on a full- or part-time basis in a community college
(2-year program), or college/university (4- or more year program) for at least one complete term, at any
time in the year since leaving high school.
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 75 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Some Other Employment means youth have worked for pay or been self-employed for a period of at
least 90 days at any time in the year since leaving high school. This includes working in a family
business (e.g., farm, store, fishing, ranching, catering services, etc.).
Other Postsecondary Education or Training means youth enrolled on a full- or part-time basis for at
least one complete term at any time in the year since leaving high school in an education or training
program (e.g., Job Corps, adult education, workforce development program, or vocational technical
school which is less than a 2-year program).
Respondents are youth or their designated family member who answer the survey or interview
questions.
Leavers are youth who left school by graduating with a regular or modified diploma, aging out, left
school early (i.e., dropped out), or who were expected to return and did not.
The survey effort also included an in-school component designed to gather contact information and
current school program information for students who are targeted for follow-up outcomes surveying in the
following year. The Tier 1 Survey also collects information on school programs intended to assist schools
in improving the quality of their services. The results of these (Tier 1) surveys are disaggregated annually
and delivered to districts for internal evaluative purposes. The Tier 1 and Tier 2 survey instruments are
available on the NEREC website: www.rec4.com.
Information regarding distribution, administration and processing of the survey was delivered to all
schools beginning in February 2011. Technical assistance on completion of the surveys was available
both on a web-site and via direct phone support by NEREC. Survey data were collected and submitted
electronically for compilation and analysis.
In addition to information required by OSEP for SPP Indicator 14, the survey also collected data on the
quality of employment and post-secondary education as well as participation in transition programs to
establish possible correlations leading to more successful outcomes.
Follow-up interviews of school coordinators for the project are conducted annually to determine how the
process of gathering data on post-school outcomes can be improved.
Of the 3,202 students that received special education services and exited high schools in New Mexico in
the 2009-2010 school year, survey responses were obtained from 1,367 (a return rate of 42.7%). The
number of responses and return rate compared to the previous year, (1411/43%) are essentially
unchanged. The table below demonstrates that the collected data is representative of the sub-groups in
the complete state data in major categories.
STARS data (%) Collected data (%) Difference (%)
Male 65.0 63.2 1.8
Female 35.0 36.7 1.7
Asian .5 .8 0.3
African American 3.4 2.9 0.5
Caucasian 26.1 28.4 2.3
Hispanic 55 52.7 2.3
Native American 14.2 14.9 0.7
Autism 1.6 1.9 0.3
Deaf Blind .06 .08 .02
Intellectual Disability 6.1 7.1 1
Emotional Disturbance 8.9 4.8 4.1
Other Health Impairment 8.9 9.2 0.3
Specific Learning Disability 63.5 64.4 0.9
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 76 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Speech Language Impairment 5.4 5.5 0.1
Multiple Disabilities 2.4 3.8 1.4
Hearing Impairment 1.3 1.2 0.1
Visually Impairment 0.4 0.9 0.5
Orthopedic Impairment 0.2 0.5 0.3
Traumatic Brain Injury 0.6 0.6 0
There are a total of 89 school districts and 73 of the districts submitted data included in this report. Five
districts reported that they had no leaver and eleven failed to report. Three state-supported entities
including the School for the Deaf, the School for the Blind and Visually Impaired, and Juvenile Justice,
reported as well as four State Chartered Charter Schools.
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that
occurred for FFY 2010:
The chart below represents the three measureable categories. The current year (in black), the data from
the previous year (in blue) and the target in red:
14 A. enrolled in Higher Ed 14 B. enrolled in higher 14 C. enrolled in higher
education or competitively education or in some other
employed postsecondary education or
training program or competitively
employed or in some other
employment
47.3% 71.5% 75.2%
48% 75% 79%
48.5% 75.5% 79.5%
The rate of returned and accurately completed surveys, forty-three percent (43%) and the high
participation rate of the LEAs, eighty-eight percent (88%) indicates that the survey process is adequate
and effective. This represents a decline in the participation of LEAs in the survey. It should be noted that
the LEAs that did not report were all small LEAs that may not have had leavers, but failed to notify the
NMPED.
In addition to the three questions required for OSEP SPP Indicator 14, the New Mexico survey includes
thirty questions designed to further assess the quality of postsecondary education and employment
experiences of former students. Detailed analysis of post-school outcome data is included in a final report
that is disseminated to LEAs to provide a basis for State program planning for the next school year.
In the previous year’s survey it was noted that the post-secondary academic enrollment was significantly
higher for females than males. In this year’s survey, those results have moved closer to parity, with males
and females enrolled at similar rates. One factor that impacts academic enrollment is difficulty in finding
well-paid employment. In the past year, the economic downturn has impacted New Mexico to a greater
degree than in the previous year. Employment is down significantly (2.8%) compared to last year. This
decline reflects economic conditions in the State as a whole, with young workers entering the work force
unemployed at an estimated 27%.
The rate of academic enrollment of survey respondents is down slightly (slippage) compared to that of the
past year, with forty-seven percent (47.3%) indicating that they had enrolled in higher education and
completed at least one semester during the year since leaving high school.
The current data, in similarity to last year, demonstrates that few former students, less than (4%)
accessed other types of post-secondary training or employment preparation programs. Most of those who
indicated other employment specified that they had performed odd jobs for family members or were self-
employed on a part time basis. It is clear from the low numbers indicating other training, that there are few
vocational training programs available to students that are not enrolled in academic post-secondary
programs. These findings indicate a serious lack of training options for the majority of students who
received special education services. Current initiatives in the State are beginning to address the lack of
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 77 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
vocational training programs, and it is anticipated that a renewed emphasis at the federal level will
provide resources to expand these narrow options.
Improvement Activity Status Report as of Results of the Activity Impact of the Activity
2/1/12
1. Provide RECs Increased technology Increased success in
collaborative Vocational use academic program
professional Rehabilitation retention for students
development Counselors
seminars utilizing
distance technology
for appropriate staff
2. Work with LEAs, State Transition Undetermined at this Potential added
IHEs, and State Coordinating Council time employment and career
agencies to including employers, training options for
increase vocational school district and IHE students
and career training administrators,
options Vocational
Rehabilitation
administrators
Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2011 - 2012
The State is not proposing any changes at this time.
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 78 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010
Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development:
Data and information for indicator 15 were gathered, tracked, and monitored through the State’s data
warehouse, Student Teacher Accountability Reporting System (STARS), and the State’s database that
includes information on noncompliance gathered through formal complaints, due process hearings, on-
site visits, self-assessments, and other methods such as desk audits and the review of policies,
procedures and practices. The indicator data were calculated using the indicator 15 worksheet which is
included below.
The indicator data were presented to the State’s IDEA Advisory Panel on December 8, 2011 and LEA
special education staff on January 12, 2012. Both groups had the opportunity to provide input on the
State’s improvement activities during the presentations and comments were considered up until January
20, 2012. They were unable to provide input on the target since this indicator is a 0% compliance target.
The revised State Performance Plan (SPP) and FFY 2010 Annual Performance Report (APR) are posted
on the bureau’s website at http://www.ped.state.nm.us/SEB/index.html . Stakeholders are sent an email
notification and a press release about the APR is completed by the department and sent out to the public.
Performance of each of the LEAs located in the State on the targets in the SPP are posted annually on
the SEB’s website in accordance with 34 CFR § 300.602(b)(1)(i)(A). The FFY 2010 performance data
along with data from previous years can be viewed at http://www.ped.state.nm.us/SEB/data/index.html.
Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / General Supervision
Indicator 15: General supervision system (including monitoring, complaints, hearings, etc.) identifies and
corrects noncompliance as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from identification.
(20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(B))
Measurement:
Percent of noncompliance corrected within one year of identification:
a. # of findings of noncompliance.
b. # of corrections completed as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from
identification.
Percent = [(b) divided by (a)] times 100.
States are required to use the “Indicator 15 Worksheet” to report data for this indicator (see
Attachment A).
FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target
FFY 2010 100%
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 79 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Actual Target Data for FFY 2010:
(Target data for FFY 2010 – the percent shown in the last row of the Indicator 15 Worksheet [(column (b)
sum divided by column (a) sum) times 100])
[(column b sum)(40) divided by (column a sum)(41) times 100] = 97.56%
(b) # of
Findings of
(a) # of Findings noncompliance
of from (a) for
General Supervision
# of LEAs noncompliance which
Indicator/Indicator Clusters System
Issued identified in FFY correction was
Components
Findings in 2009 (7/1/09 to verified no
FFY 2009 6/30/10) later than one
(7/1/09 to year from
6/30/10) identification
1. Percent of youth with IEPs Monitoring Activities:
graduating from high school with a Self-Assessment/
regular diploma. Local APR, Data
Review, Desk Audit, 0 0 0
2. Percent of youth with IEPs
dropping out of high school. On-Site Visits, or
Other
14. Percent of youth who had Dispute Resolution:
IEPs, are no longer in secondary Complaints, Hearings
school and who have been
competitively employed, enrolled
0 0 0
in some type of postsecondary
school or training program, or
both, within one year of leaving
high school.
3. Participation and performance Monitoring Activities:
of children with disabilities on Self-Assessment/
statewide assessments. Local APR, Data
0 0 0
Review, Desk Audit,
7. Percent of preschool children
On-Site Visits, or
with IEPs who demonstrated
Other
improved outcomes.
Dispute Resolution:
Complaints, Hearings 0 0 0
4A. Percent of districts identified Monitoring Activities:
as having a significant discrepancy Self-Assessment/
in the rates of suspensions and Local APR, Data
2 2 2
expulsions of children with Review, Desk Audit,
disabilities for greater than 10 On-Site Visits, or
days in a school year. Other
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 80 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
4B. Percent of districts that have: Dispute Resolution:
(a) a significant discrepancy, by Complaints, Hearings
race or ethnicity, in the rate of
suspensions and expulsions of
greater than 10 days in a school
year for children with IEPs; and (b)
policies, procedures or practices
that contribute to the significant 0 0 0
discrepancy and do not comply
with requirements relating to the
development and implementation
of IEPs, the use of positive
behavioral interventions and
supports, and procedural
safeguards.
5. Percent of children with IEPs Monitoring Activities:
aged 6 through 21 -educational Self-Assessment/
placements. Local APR, Data
6. Percent of preschool children Review, Desk Audit,
aged 3 through 5 – early childhood On-Site Visits, or
placement. Other
Dispute Resolution:
Complaints, Hearings 1 1 1
8. Percent of parents with a child Monitoring Activities:
receiving special education Self-Assessment/
services who report that schools Local APR, Data
facilitated parent involvement as a Review, Desk Audit,
means of improving services and On-Site Visits, or
results for children with disabilities. Other
Dispute Resolution:
Complaints, Hearings 3 3 3
9. Percent of districts with Monitoring Activities:
disproportionate representation of Self-Assessment/
racial and ethnic groups in special Local APR, Data
education that is the result of Review, Desk Audit, 0 0 0
inappropriate identification. On-Site Visits, or
Other
10. Percent of districts with Dispute Resolution:
disproportionate representation of Complaints, Hearings
racial and ethnic groups in specific
3 3 3
disability categories that is the
result of inappropriate
identification.
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 81 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
11. Percent of children who were Monitoring Activities:
evaluated within 60 days of Self-Assessment/
receiving parental consent for Local APR, Data
initial evaluation or, if the State Review, Desk Audit,
9 9 9
establishes a timeframe within On-Site Visits, or
which the evaluation must be Other
conducted, within that timeframe.
Dispute Resolution:
Complaints, Hearings
0 0 0
12. Percent of children referred by Monitoring Activities:
Part C prior to age 3, who are Self-Assessment/
found eligible for Part B, and who Local APR, Data
2 2 2
have an IEP developed and Review, Desk Audit,
implemented by their third On-Site Visits, or
birthdays. Other
Dispute Resolution:
Complaints, Hearings
0 0 0
13. Percent of youth aged 16 and Monitoring Activities:
above with IEP that includes Self-Assessment/
appropriate measurable Local APR, Data
postsecondary goals that are Review, Desk Audit, 8 8 7
annually updated and based upon On-Site Visits, or
an age appropriate transition Other
assessment, transition services,
including courses of study, that will Dispute Resolution:
reasonably enable the student to Complaints, Hearings
meet those postsecondary goals,
and annual IEP goals related to 0 0 0
the student’s transition service
needs.
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 82 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Other areas of noncompliance: Monitoring Activities:
IEPs - follow rules and regulations Self-Assessment/
on timeliness, membership on Local APR, Data
team and proper implementation Review, Desk Audit, 0 0 0
of the IEP. On-Site Visits, or
Other
Dispute Resolution:
Complaints, Hearings
3 4 4
Other areas of noncompliance: Monitoring Activities:
Related Services considered, Self-Assessment/
offered or provided properly. Local APR, Data
Review, Desk Audit, 0 0 0
On-Site Visits, or
Other
Dispute Resolution:
Complaints, Hearings 1 2 2
Other areas of noncompliance: Monitoring Activities:
Denial of FAPE Self-Assessment/
Local APR, Data
Review, Desk Audit, 0 0 0
On-Site Visits, or
Other
Dispute Resolution:
Complaints, Hearings 3 7 7
Sum the numbers down Column a and Column b 41 40
Percent of noncompliance corrected within one year of identification = (b) / (a) X 100 = 97.56%
(column (b) sum divided by column (a) sum) times 100.
The indicator 15 worksheet includes only findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2009 (7/1/09 to
6/30/10) and does not include initial findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2008 or repeated or
continued noncompliance.
Describe the process for selecting LEAs for Monitoring:
According to the State’s Integrated Special Education Accountability System (ISEAS), every LEA is
monitored each year. All LEAs are desk top monitored through the STARS data warehouse on the SPP
indicators. Data were submitted by the LEAs on the second Wednesdays of October, December and
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 83 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
February and at the end of year. Desk top monitoring also occurs for noncompliance identified through
formal complaints and due process hearings.
Indicator 13 data were submitted into STARS and data was validated through a random selection of a
reasonable sample of IEPs for each LEA. On-site monitoring occurs for LEAs assigned the determination
of needs intervention. The State also completes on-site visits and monitoring when issues brought to the
State’s attention warrant it. LEAs’ compliance were tracked and monitored through the Educational Plan
for Student Success or a Corrective Action Plan. See Appendix E for the Levels of Intervention matrix.
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that
Occurred for FFY 2010:
Indicator 15 measures the timely correction of noncompliance. Timely correction is defined in accordance
with 34 CFR § 300.600(e), noncompliance must be corrected as soon as possible and in no case later
than one year after the State’s identification of noncompliance. All compliance must be corrected to 100%
and the use of thresholds is prohibited.
A finding is defined as follows: a written conclusion that includes the citation of the regulation/requirement
and a description of the quantitative and/or qualitative data supporting a decision of compliance or
noncompliance with that regulation/requirement. All noncompliance must be identified regardless of the
source of data.
In accordance with the OSEP 09-02 Memorandum, there are two prongs to verifying the correction of
noncompliance. In order for a LEA to be considered compliant, both prongs must be met. Chart 15 – 1
below provides an illustration of full correction.
Chart 15 - 1
The State made progress with this indicator from FFY 2008 to FFY 2009. In FFY 2009 (July 1, 2009 –
June 30, 2010) the State identified 41 findings of noncompliance and 40 or 97.56% were corrected no
later than one year from identification. This is an increase of 3.02% in one FFY.
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 84 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Indicator 4 a
When the State identified the noncompliance with Part B requirements, the LEAs were required to revise
policies, procedures, and practices. The revision included any areas of noncompliance (development of
IEPs, implementation of IEPs, use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, procedural
safeguards) which were identified through the self-assessment and verified by the State through a review
of the policies, procedures, and practices. Based upon the self assessment, LEAs were required to
develop a corrective action plan. The corrective action plan was monitored by the SEB and the LEAs met
all the conditions of the corrective action plan in a timely manner. All individual cases of noncompliance
were corrected.
Prior to the State considering the LEAs compliant with this indicator, the State completed a subsequent
review of an updated set of data. Based upon this review of data and the correction of the LEA’s
practices, it was determined that the LEAs were correctly implementing the specific regulatory
requirements.
Indicator 10
As reported in the FFY 2009 APR on page 64, four LEAs were considered to have disproportionate
representation due to inappropriate identification (indicator 10). In three of the LEAs, this was considered
a new finding of noncompliance. With the remaining LEA, this was considered continued noncompliance
with this indicator since FFY 2008. Therefore, the indicator 15 worksheet above reflects the three LEAs
identified initially in FFY 2009. All four LEAs had a review of their policies, procedures and practices and
were required to correct the deficient practices. All individual cases of noncompliance were corrected in
the three LEAs identified in FFY 2009. The State reviewed subsequent data that was collected through
the State’s data system. Based upon that review, the three LEAs, with initial findings of noncompliance
identified in FFY 2009, corrected the noncompliance and were correctly implementing the specific
regulatory requirements and were in compliance with the requirements in 34 CFR §§ 300.111, 300.201,
and 300.301 through 300.111.
Indicator 11
In FFY 2009, eleven LEAs were considered noncompliant with indicator 11 (page 72 of FFY 2009 APR).
In nine of the LEAs, this was considered a new finding of noncompliance. The two remaining LEAs
included in the FFY 2009 narrative were identified in FFY 2008 and had continued or repeated
noncompliance. Those two LEAs subsequently corrected the noncompliance beyond the one-year
timeline and were reported in the chart on page 74 of the FFY 2009 APR.
The nine LEAs identified in FFY 2009 completed all of the evaluations, though late and were considered
to have met the prong one criteria. This was verified through STARS data. The State completed a
subsequent review of data or 100% of the files in STARS of those students who parents consented for an
initial evaluation for special education and related services. The nine LEAs were found to be correctly
implementing the following specific regulatory requirements:
34 CFR § 300.300
34 CFR § 300.301
34 CFR § 300.304
34 CFR § 300.305
34 CFR § 300.307
34 CFR § 300.309
34 CFR § 300.310
Indicator 12
In FFY 2009, two LEAs were considered noncompliant with indicator 12 (page 82 of the FFY 2009 APR).
The preschool students received their evaluations, had their eligibility determined and an IEP developed,
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 85 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
though late. The LEAs met the prong one criteria. A subsequent review of updated was completed. The
two LEAs were found to be correctly implementing the following specific regulatory requirements:
34 CFR § 300.124(b)
Indicator 13
In FFY 2009, eight LEAs were considered noncompliant with this indicator (pages 91 – 92 of the FFY
2009 APR). Forty two IEPs were considered noncompliant. Five of the IEPs, involving two of the LEAs,
were corrected in a timely manner. The remaining 37 individual cases of noncompliance could not be
corrected because the students were no longer in the jurisdiction of the LEA.
A subsequent review of a reasonable sample of updated data (IEPs) was completed. Based upon that
review, seven of those LEAs were found to be correctly implementing the following specific regulatory
requirements:
34 CFR § 300.320(b)
34 CFR § 300.321(b)
Improvement Status Report as of Results of the Impact of the Activity
Activity 2/1/12 Activity
1. Provide annual Completed and LEAs able to monitor Improved overall
training to LEAs ongoing annually themselves compliance with LEAs and
on findings and the State
corrections of
noncompliance,
the State’s
process for
identification,
monitoring, and
correction of
noncompliance
2. Provide annual Completed in May Improved data quality Increased percentages for
training to LEAs and September 2011 Indicators 11, 12 13 and
(special education and ongoing 15
directors and
STARS
coordinators) on
compliance
indicators
3. Provide specific Completed in April Compliant IEPs Improved compliance
training to LEAs and October 2011
on how to write
compliant IEPs Ongoing annually
that meet
Indicator 13
compliance
4. Work with RRC Completed Reduce repeated Improved compliance
and utilize noncompliance
SPP/APR
calendar to
develop Root
Cause Analysis
for compliance
indicators 11, 12,
13 and 15
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 86 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Note: For this indicator, report data on the correction of findings of noncompliance the State
identified in FFY 2009 (July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010) and verified as corrected as soon as
possible and in no case later than one year from identification.
Timely Correction of FFY 2009 Findings of Noncompliance (corrected within one year from
identification of the noncompliance):
41
1. Number of findings of noncompliance the State identified in FFY 2009 (the
period from July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010) (Sum of Column a on the
Indicator B15 Worksheet)
40
2. Number of findings the State verified as timely corrected (corrected within one
year from the date of notification to the LEA of the finding) (Sum of Column b
on the Indicator B15 Worksheet)
1
3. Number of findings not verified as corrected within one year [(1) minus (2)]
FFY 2009 Findings of Noncompliance Not Timely Corrected (corrected more than one year from
identification of the noncompliance and/or Not Corrected):
1
4. Number of FFY 2009 findings not timely corrected (same as the number from (3)
above)
0
5. Number of FFY 2009 findings the State has verified as corrected beyond the
one-year timeline (“subsequent correction”)
1
6. Number of FFY 2009 findings not yet verified as corrected [(4) minus (5)]
Verification of Correction for findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2009
(either timely or subsequent):
As specified in OSEP’s FFY 2009 SPP/APR Response Table, the State must, when reporting the
correction of noncompliance for Indicator 15, report that it verified that each LEA with noncompliance
identified in FFY 2009: (1) is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements, (i.e., achieved
100% compliance) based on a review of updated data such as data subsequently collected through on-
site monitoring or a State data system; and (2) has corrected each individual case of noncompliance,
unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the LEA, consistent with OSEP Memo 09-02, dated
October 17, 2008.
The verification of findings of noncompliance by indicator is described in detail above in section
entitled Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage
that Occurred for FFY 2010.
Verification of correction for findings of noncompliance for indicator 4 a was determined after the State
completed a subsequent review of an updated set of data. Based upon this review of data and the
correction of the LEA’s practices, it was determined that the LEAs were correctly implementing the
specific regulatory requirements. All individual cases of noncompliance were corrected.
The verification of correction for findings of non compliance for indicator 10 were completed through a
subsequent review of data from the STARS data warehouse and the calculation of the successive risk
ratios and weighted risk ratio. All the LEAs revised their policies, procedures, and practices which were
approved by the State. This verified the correct implementation of the specific regulatory requirements
regarding child find, identification, evaluation and eligibility determination, 34 CFR §§ 300.111, 300.201,
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 87 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
and 300.301 through 300.311, along with them meeting the 0% target. All individual cases of
noncompliance were corrected.
Verification of correction for findings of noncompliance for indicator 11 were determined through a
subsequent review of data through the STARS data warehouse. The subsequent data review, in June
2011, consisted of a census data and information review of a new census group of students whose
parents consented to an initial evaluation for special education that was completed within 60 days. The
LEAs had 100% of the evaluations completed within 60 days unless the parent of the child repeatedly
failed or refused to produce the child for the evaluation or the child enrolled in a school in another public
agency. It was concluded that the LEAs were correctly implementing 34 CFR § 300.301(c)(1). As
indicated in the FFY 2009 APR, all of the students received their evaluation, though late. This was verified
through the STARS data warehouse with the review of additional data points such as eligibility
determination dates and the date of the initial IEP.
Verification of correction for findings of noncompliance for indicator 12 were determined through a
subsequent review of data from the STARS data warehouse. The review consisted of a census data and
information review of a new census group review of 100% of the files. The individual cases of
noncompliance were corrected as indicated in the FFY 2009 APR. This was verified through the STARS
data warehouse with the review of additional data points such as LEA membership, IEP date, etc. It was
determined that the LEAs were correctly implementing 34 CFR § 300.124(b).
Verification of correction for findings of noncompliance for indicator 13 were determined through a review
of the corrected IEPs for those students whose IEPs were considered noncompliant to determine if the
individual cases of noncompliance were corrected. A subsequent review of updated data that consisted of
a reasonable sample of IEPs, were reviewed. Based upon that review, it was determined that the LEAs
were correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements 34 CFR §§ 300.320(b) and 300.321(b).
Correction of findings of noncompliance identified through formal complaints consisted of a subsequent
review of data and information to determine if the individual cases of noncompliance were corrected. This
included compensatory services which were tracked through logs, contracts, and requests for
reimbursements. STARS data were reviewed to determine if the IEP was updated and/or services were
added as ordered. Other correction of noncompliance consisted of document and IEP reviews to
determine if the LEA was correctly implementing specific regulatory requirements.
The corrections for findings of noncompliance identified through the due process hearing were similar to
the formal complaints. Subsequent data and information were reviewed. The LEAs were required to
provide information, for the State to validate, proving that the hearing officer’s orders have been complied
with, and the individual cases of noncompliance were corrected.
Describe the specific actions that the State took to verify the correction of findings of
noncompliance identified in FFY 2009 (including any revisions to general supervision procedures,
technical assistance provided and/or any enforcement actions that were taken):
Actions Taken if Noncompliance Not Corrected
For findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2009 for which the State has not yet verified correction,
explain the actions the State is undertaking to revise its system of general supervision to ensure timely
correction of noncompliance or to identify the root cause(s) of continuing noncompliance within LEAs, and
what the State is doing about the continued lack of compliance, including, as appropriate, enforcement
actions taken against LEAs that continue to show noncompliance.
All of the specific actions the State took to verify the correction of findings of noncompliance identified in
FFY 2009 are described in the section above. The State updated the Integrated Special Education
Accountability System manual to include worksheets for each compliance indicator. This assisted SEB
staff with the prong one and two validations so that the criteria were being applied consistently. It also
provided transparency to the LEAs so they were aware of exactly what actions they needed to take in
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 88 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
order to correct the noncompliance. Using data and information regarding missed indicators, monthly
webinars were designed to provide technical assistance in these areas to improve compliance.
One LEA did not timely correct the indicator 13 findings identified in FFY 2009. In addition to the repeated
noncompliance, the length of time of the noncompliance and the LEA’s response were considered in the
LEA’s annual determination. The district was assigned the determination of needs intervention and a
prescriptive corrective action plan was put into place in accordance with the State’s Level of Intervention
matrix which is located in Appendix E. The LEA was assigned the support of a Special Education
Technical Assistance Team (SETAT) to provide them with intensive training in the area of secondary
transition.
Correction of Remaining FFY 2008 Findings of Noncompliance (if applicable)
If the State reported <100% for this indicator in its FFY 2009 APR and did not report in the FFY 2009 APR
that the remaining FFY 2008 findings were subsequently corrected, provide the information below:
1
1. Number of remaining FFY 2008 findings noted in OSEP’s FFY 2009 APR
response table for this indicator
0
2. Number of remaining FFY 2008 findings the State has verified as corrected
1
3. Number of remaining FFY 2008 findings the State has NOT verified as corrected
[(1) minus (2)]
For FFY 2008 findings for which the State has not yet verified correction (these are findings of
noncompliance identified in FFY 2008 and were not reported as corrected in the FFY 2009 APR and that
remain uncorrected), explain the actions the State completed to revise its system of general supervision
to ensure timely correction of noncompliance or to identify the root cause(s) of continuing noncompliance
within LEAs, and what the State is doing about the continued lack of compliance, including, as
appropriate, enforcement actions taken against LEAs that continue to show noncompliance.
The one LEA with initial findings of noncompliance for indicator 10 in FFY 2008 and repeated or
continued noncompliance in FFY 2009 failed to correct the noncompliance for FFY 2010 based upon a
subsequent review of updated data. The risk ratios and weighted risk ratios of the district were considered
to be at the levels of significant disproportionality in the area of identification of students who are Hispanic
with speech language impairments.
When the State identified this LEA as having significant disproportionality in the identification of Hispanic
students with a speech language impairment, the State:
1. Provided for review (and, if appropriate) revision of policies, procedures, and practices;
2. Required the LEA to reserve the maximum amount of funds to be used for early intervening
services; and
3. Required the LEA to publically report on the revision of policies, procedures, and practices.
The LEA was notified of the significant disproportionality on April 13, 2011 prior to the approval of the
LEA’s IDEA B sub-grant. The LEA’s Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS) plan was approved
and 15% of the IDEA funds were set aside in fund code 24112 or the CEIS fund code. The policies and
procedures met the IDEA requirements, but the LEA was not implementing them correctly or putting them
into practice. The LEA was required to revise its policies regarding the assessment of students who are
English Language Learners.
The uncorrected noncompliance, the length of time the problem existed and the LEA’s response were
considered in the LEA’s annual determination. The missed indicator and strategies for completion were
included in the LEA’s corrective action plan.
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 89 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Additional Information Required by the OSEP FFY 2009 APR Response Table for this Indicator (if
applicable):
Statement from the Response Table State’s Response
OSEP appreciates the State’s efforts and looks
forward to reviewing in the FFY 2010 APR, due The State improved its data demonstrating timely
February 1, 2012, the State’s data demonstrating correction of noncompliance.
that the State
timely corrected noncompliance identified in FFY
2009 in accordance with 20 U.S.C. 1232d(b)(3)(E),
34 CFR §§300.149 and 300.600(e), and OSEP
memo 09-02
In reporting on correction of findings of The correction of findings of noncompliance in
noncompliance in the FFY 2010 APR, the State accordance with the 09-02 memorandum are
must report that it verified that each LEA with described in the section entitled: Verification of
noncompliance identified in FFY 2009: (1) is Correction for findings of noncompliance identified in
correctly implementing the specific regulatory FFY 2009 (either timely or subsequent),
requirements (i.e., achieved 100% compliance)
based on a review of updated data such as data
subsequently collected through on-site monitoring
or a State data system; and (2) has corrected each
individual case of noncompliance, unless the child
is no longer within the jurisdiction of the LEA,
consistent with OSEP Memo 09-02. In the FFY
2010 APR, the State must describe the specific
actions that were taken to verify the correction.
The State must demonstrate, in the FFY 2010 The one remaining finding from FFY 2008 and FFY
APR, that the one remaining finding of 2009 remains. Sanctions were applied in
noncompliance identified in FFY 2008 that was not accordance with the State’s ISEAS. Details are
reported as corrected in the FFY 2009 APR was provided under section Correction of Remaining
corrected. FFY 2008 Findings of Noncompliance (if applicable)
In reporting on Indicator 15 in the FFY 2010 APR,
the State must use the indicator 15 worksheet The State utilized the indicator 15 worksheet.
In addition, in responding to Indicators 10, 11, 12
and 13 in the FFY 2010 APR, the State must report The correction of noncompliance from FFY 2009 is
on correction of the noncompliance described in reported under indicators 10, 11, 12 and 13.
this table under those indicators.
Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2011 (if applicable):
The State is not proposing any revisions at this time.
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 90 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010
Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development:
Data for this indicator were gathered and monitored through the State’s dispute resolution data base.
Data for this indicator were submitted to the U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education
Programs (OSEP) as part of the required data submission under Section 618 of the IDEA. The data were
compiled on Table 7, Report of Dispute Resolution Under Part B, of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act 2010 – 2011 and submitted on November 1, 2011. Table 7 is located in Appendix H.
The data were presented to the State’s IDEA Advisory Panel on December 8, 2011 and LEA special
education staff on January 12, 2012. Both groups had the opportunity to provide input on the State’s
improvement activities during the presentations and comments were considered up until January 20,
2012. They could not provide input on the targets since this is a 100% compliance target.
The revised State Performance Plan (SPP) and FFY 2010 Annual Performance Report (APR) are posted
on the bureau’s website at http://www.ped.state.nm.us/SEB/index.html . Stakeholders are sent an email
notification and a press release is completed by the department and sent out to the public.
Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / General Supervision
Indicator 16: Percent of signed written complaints with reports issued that were resolved within 60-day
timeline or a timeline extended for exceptional circumstances with respect to a particular complaint, or
because the parent (or individual or organization) and the public agency agree to extend the time to
engage in mediation or other alternative means of dispute resolution, if available in the State.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))
Measurement: Percent = [(1.1(b) + 1.1(c)) divided by 1.1] times 100.
FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target
FFY 2010 100%
Actual Target Data for FFY 2010:
Compliance Target Met New Mexico met the target of 100% of the signed written complaints with
reports issued that were resolved within the 60 day timeline of a timeline extended for exceptional
circumstances.
Percent = [(21 (1.1(b)) + 0(1.1(c)) divided by 22 (1.1)] times 100 = 95.45%
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that
occurred for FFY 2010:
The State experienced slippage with this indicator from 100% to 95.45%. One complaint report was
extended due to a sudden and uncontrollable illness of the complaint investigator. However, a sudden
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 91 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
and uncontrollable illness is not considered a valid reason to extend the complaint timeline. Therefore,
this particular complaint was considered late.
The State received its letter on February 15, 2012 regarding the results of the Office of Special
Education Program’s (OSEP’s) Continuous Improvement Visit to the New Mexico Public Education
Department during the week of October 3, 2011. Under Required Actions/Next Steps for Critical
Element 3: Dispute Resolution on page 9 of 12 of the letter, the State was required to provide a
written assurance within 90 days of the date of the letter that extensions of the 60 day timeline for
complaints will only be permitted if exceptional circumstances exist with respect to a particular
complaint in accordance with 34 CFR § 300.152(b). The State makes the following assurances:
Pursuant to 34 CFR § 300.152(a) all complaints must be investigated and resolved within sixty days of
the New Mexico Public Education Department’s receipt of the complaint.
An extension of time to complete the investigation may only be granted if:
The parties agree to engage in mediation (or some other form of alternative dispute
resolution) and request, in writing sent to the complaint investigator, an extension of the
deadline to permit these settlement discussions, or
If exceptional circumstances exist.
A total of 37 complaints were filed in FFY 2010. Twenty one of the 22 reports were within the 60 day
timeline and one was late as discussed above. Table 16 – 1 below highlights the formal complaint data.
Number Complaint Status
17 Reports issued with findings of noncompliance
5 Reports issued without findings of noncompliance
0 Complaints pending as of August 30, 2011
15 Complaints withdrawn or dismissed
37 Total
Table 16 - 1
In FFY 2009, 23 formal complaints were filed. In FFY 2010, 37 formal complaints were filed. This
represents an increase of 14 formal complaints. Of those, 40.5% or 15 of the complaints were resolved
through Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). This included Facilitated IEPs and mediation. The full
continuum of ADR options can be found in Appendix I. Table 16 – 2 below illustrates the success of the
ADR options in resolving disputes.
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 92 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Table 16 - 2
Improvement Status Report as of Results of the Impact of the
Activity 2/1/12 Activity Activity
1. Promote ADR Completed and Increase in the ADR Disputes resolved in a
activities ongoing requests less formal manner
and in a timelier
fashion
Increased compliance
2. Provide yearly Completed and Increase in the ADR Disputes resolved in a
training to ongoing requests less formal manner
directors in ADR and a timelier manner
options Increased compliance
3. Provide State Completed and Increase in FIEP Disputes resolved in a
trained facilitators ongoing requests less formal manner
for FIEP meetings and a timelier manner
Increased compliance
State’s Reply to OSEP’s FFY 2009 Response Table:
None required.
Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2011
The State is not proposing any revisions for FFY 2011.
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 93 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010
Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development:
Data for this indicator were gathered and monitored through the State’s dispute resolution data base.
Data for this indicator were submitted to the U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education
Programs (OSEP) as part of the required data submission under Section 618 of the IDEA. The data were
compiled on Table 7, Report of Dispute Resolution Under Part B, of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act 2010 – 2011 and submitted on November 1, 2011. Table 7 is located in Appendix H.
The data were presented to the State’s IDEA Advisory Panel on December 8, 2011 and LEA special
education staff on January 12, 2012. Both groups had the opportunity to provide input on the State’s
improvement activities during the presentations and comments were considered up until January 20,
2012. They could not provide input on the targets since this is a 100% compliance target.
The revised State Performance Plan (SPP) and FFY 2010 Annual Performance Report (APR) are posted
on the bureau’s website at http://www.ped.state.nm.us/SEB/index.html . Stakeholders are sent an email
notification and a press release is completed by the department and sent out to the public.
Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / General Supervision
Indicator 17: Percent of adjudicated due process hearing requests that were adjudicated within the 45-
day timeline or a timeline that is properly extended by the hearing officer at the request of either party or
in the case of an expedited hearing, within the required timelines.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))
Measurement: Percent = [(3.2(a) + 3.2(b)) divided by 3.2] times 100.
FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target
FFY 2010 100%
Actual Target Data for FFY 2010:
Compliance Target Met – New Mexico met the target of 100% of the due process hearings fully
adjudicated within the 45 – day timeline or a timeline that is properly extended by the hearing officer at
the request of either party.
Percent = [(0(3.2(a)) + (2(3.2(b)) divided by (2 (3.2))] times 100 = 100%
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that
occurred for FFY 2010:
The State continues to maintain a rate of 100% compliance for this indicator. Resolving dispute through
an alternative dispute resolution process continues to be effective in New Mexico. In FFY 2010, the State
received 44 requests for due process hearings. Two were fully adjudicated and were properly extended
by the hearing officer at the request of the parties and the letter granting the extension included the date
by which a final decision would be reached. This was confirmed by a subsequent file review performed by
the department in response to the State’s February 15, 2012 verification letter.
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 94 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Eleven were pending. Out of the 31 withdrawn, 17 disputes were settled through resolution sessions, 10
through mediation, and four were withdrawn. New Mexico’s continuum of alternative dispute resolution
options, located in Appendix I and Table 17 – 1 below, illustrates the number of due process hearing
requests being resolved through alternative means.
Table 17 - 1
Improvement Status Report as of Results of the Impact of the
Activity 2/1/12 Activity Activity
1. Annual training Completed Continued compliance Timely decisions
for Due Process Continue annually
Hearing Officers
State’s reply to OSEP’s FFY 2009 Response Table
None required
Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2012
The State is not proposing any revisions for FFY 2012.
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 95 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010
Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development:
Data for this indicator were gathered and monitored through the State’s dispute resolution data base.
Data for this indicator were submitted to the U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education
Programs (OSEP) as part of the required data submission under Section 618 of the IDEA. The data were
compiled on Table 7, Report of Dispute Resolution Under Part B, of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act 2010 – 2011 and submitted on November 1, 2011. Table 7 is located in Appendix H.
The data were presented to the State’s IDEA Advisory Panel on December 8, 2011 and LEA special
education staff on January 12, 2012. Both groups had the opportunity to provide input on the State’s
improvement activities and target during the presentations and comments were considered up until
January 20, 2012.
The revised State Performance Plan (SPP) and FFY 2010 Annual Performance Report (APR) are posted
on the bureau’s website at http://www.ped.state.nm.us/SEB/index.html . Stakeholders are sent an email
notification and a press release is completed by the department and sent out to the public.
Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / General Supervision
Indicator 18: Percent of hearing requests that went to resolution sessions that were resolved through
resolution session settlement agreements.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))
Measurement: Percent = (3.1(a) divided by 3.1) times 100.
FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target
2010 To be determined after greater than 10 resolution sessions are held.
FFY 2010 Baseline year = 100%
Actual Target Data for FFY 2010:
The State did not establish targets for FFY 2010 because the FFY 2009 “n” was less than 10. In FFY 2010,
17 resolution meetings were held and 17 or 100% had reached written settlement agreements through
resolution meetings.
Percent = [(17(3.1(a)) divided by (17(3.1) times 100] = 100%
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that
occurred for FFY 2010:
In FFY 2010, the State reported 17 resolution meetings that resulted in written settlement agreements.
This was an increase of ten resolution sessions since FFY 2009.
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 96 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Improvement Status Report as of Results of the Impact of the Activity
Activity 2/1/12 Activity
1. Provide training to Activity completed Increase in resolution Improved alternative
LEAs and and continued sessions and dispute resolution
parents/families decrease in due
on the Resolution process hearings
Session process
and its potential
benefits.
State’s Reply to OSEP’s FFY 2009 Response Table:
None required.
Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012
2011 75 – 85% of resolution sessions will result in written settlement agreements
(2011-2012)
2012 75 – 85% of resolution sessions will result in written settlement agreements
(2012-2013)
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 97 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010
Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development:
Data for this indicator were gathered and monitored through the State’s dispute resolution data base.
Data for this indicator were submitted to the U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education
Programs (OSEP) as part of the required data submission under Section 618 of the IDEA. The data were
compiled on Table 7, Report of Dispute Resolution Under Part B, of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act 2010 – 2011 and submitted on November 1, 2011. Table 7 is located in Appendix H.
The data were presented to the State’s IDEA Advisory Panel on December 8, 2011 and LEA special
education staff on January 12, 2012. Both groups had the opportunity to provide input on the State’s
improvement activities and target during the presentations and comments were considered up until
January 20, 2012.
The revised State Performance Plan (SPP) and FFY 2010 Annual Performance Report (APR) are posted
on the bureau’s website at http://www.ped.state.nm.us/SEB/index.html . Stakeholders are sent an email
notification and a press release is completed by the department and sent out to the public.
Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / General Supervision
Indicator 19: Percent of mediations held that resulted in mediation agreements.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))
Measurement:
Percent = [(2.1(a)(i) + 2.1(b)(i)) divided by 2.1] times 100.
FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target
FFY 2010 Range 75 – 80%
Actual Target Data for FFY 2010:
Target Met – New Mexico met its target range of 75 – 80% of mediations held that resulted in mediations
agreements.
Percent = [(10(2.1(a)(i) + 15 (2.1)(b)(i)) divided by (32 (2.1))] times 100 = 78.1%
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that
occurred for FFY 2010:
The State met its target range for this indicator. The State did have slippage in the percentage of
mediations resulting in a mediation agreement from FFY 2009 to FFY 2010, 80.6% to 78.1%. However,
the number of requests for mediation increased from 34 to 36. In FFY 2010, 32 mediations were held and
25 resulted in mediation agreements. The results are summarized in the Table 19 – 1 below.
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 98 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Number Status
16 Mediations held related to due process complaints
16 Mediations held not related to due process complaints
2 Reported as pending due to spanning two FFYs
2 Withdrawn
36 Total
Table 19 - 1
11111
The State has been promoting Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) options for families and LEAs. The
State’s Parent Training Information Centers have also been promoting ADR for families. This allows the
parties to resolve their dispute at a lower level and in a timelier manner.
Improvement Status Report as of Results of the Impact of the Activity
Activity 2/1/12 Activity
1. Promotion of ADR Completed and Increase in the Dispute resolved at a
activities ongoing number of mediation lower level
requests
2. Provide training Completed and Increase in the Dispute resolved at a
for LEAs and ongoing by the State’s number of mediation lower level
parents annually PTICs requests
State’s Reply to OSEP’s FFY 2009 Response Table:
None required
Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2011
No proposed revisions at this time.
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 99 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010
Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development:
The data for Indicator 20 were gathered from the State’s Section 618 data submissions and the FFY
2010 State Performance Plan Indicators that included data extracted from the STARS data
warehouse and the State’s general supervision system.
The indicator data were presented to the State’s IDEA Advisory Panel on December 8, 2011 and LEA
special education staff on January 12, 2012. Both groups had the opportunity to provide input on the
State’s improvement activities during the presentations and comments were considered up until
January 20, 2012. They were able to provide input on the improvement activities. But could not
provide input on the target since this was a 100% compliance target.
The revised State Performance Plan (SPP) and FFY 2010 Annual Performance Report (APR) are
posted on the bureau’s website at http://www.ped.state.nm.us/SEB/index.html . Stakeholders are sent
an email notification and a press release about the APR is completed by the department and sent out
to the public.
Performance of each of the LEAs located in the State on the targets in the SPP are posted annually
on the SEB’s website in accordance with 34 CFR § 300.602(b)(1)(i)(A). The FFY 2010 performance
data along with data from previous years can be viewed at
http://www.ped.state.nm.us/SEB/data/index.html
Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / General Supervision
Indicator 20: State reported data (618 and State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report)
are timely and accurate.
Measurement:
State reported data, including 618 data, State Performance Plan, and Annual Performance
Reports, are:
a. Submitted on or before due dates (February 1 for child count, including race and ethnicity;
placement; November 1 for exiting, discipline, personnel and dispute resolution; and
February 1 for Annual Performance Reports and assessment); and
b. Accurate, including covering the correct year and following the correct measurement.
States are required to use the “Indicator 20 Scoring Rubric” for reporting data for this
indicator (see Attachment B).
FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target
FFY 2010 100%
Actual Target Data for FFY 2010: Compliance Target Met. New Mexico met its target of 100%,
according to the self-scoring rubric for Part B.
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 100 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
SPP/APR Data - Indicator 20
Valid and Correct
APR Indicator Total
Reliable Calculation
1 1 1
2 1 1
3A 1 1 2
3B 1 1 2
3C 1 1 2
4A 1 1 2
4B 1 1 2
5 1 1 2
7 1 1 2
8 1 1 2
9 1 1 2
10 1 1 2
11 1 1 2
2
12 1 1
2
13 1 1
14 1 1 2
15 1 1 2
16 1 1 2
17 1 1 2
18 1 1 2
19 1 1 2
Subtotal 40
Timely Submission Points - If the
FFY 2010 APR was submitted on-
5
APR Score time, place the number 5 in the cell on
Calculation the right.
Grand Total - (Sum of subtotal and
45.00
Timely Submission Points) =
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 101 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
618 Data - Indicator 20
Responded
Complete
Table Timely Passed Edit Check to Data Note Total
Data
Requests
Table 1 - Child
Count 1 1 1 N/A 3
Due Date: 2/2/11
Table 2 -
Personnel 1 1 1 N/A 3
Due Date: 11/2/11
Table 3 - Ed.
Environments 1 1 1 N/A 3
Due Date: 2/2/11
Table 4 - Exiting
Due Date: 11/2/11 1 1 1 N/A 3
Table 5 -
Discipline 1 1 1 N/A 3
Due Date: 11/2/11
Table 6 - State
Assessment 1 N/A N/A N/A 1
Due Date: 12/15/11
Table 7 - Dispute
Resolution 1 1 1 N/A 3
Due Date: 11/2/11
Table 8 -
MOE/CEIS Due 1 N/A N/A N/A 1
Date: 5/1/11
Subtotal 20
Grand Total (Subtotal X 2.045)
618 Score Calculation = 40.91
Indicator #20 Calculation
A. APR Grand Total 45.00
B. 618 Grand Total 40.91
C. APR Grand Total (A) + 618 Grand Total (B)
= 85.91
Total N/A in APR 0
Total N/A in 618 4.0908
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 102 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Base 85.91
D. Subtotal (C divided by Base*) = 1.000
E. Indicator Score (Subtotal D x 100) = 100.00
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage
that occurred for FFY 2010
The State maintained its percentage of 100% compliance with indicator 20. All indicator data were valid
and reliable, and utilized the correct calculation. The Section 618 data was considered timely, complete
and passed the edit checks at EDEN.
Improvement Activity Status Report as of Results of the Impact of the Activity
2/1/12 Activity
1. Implementation of the Implemented annually LEAs improved data APR data more
Indicator 20 rubric to accurate and timely
monitor the accuracy,
timeliness, and
reliability of all STARS
data that LEAs submit
(See Appendix J)
2. Cross train staff on Completed – training LEAs improved data APR data more
data access, reporting, provided as needed accurate and timely
and submission
3. Provide training at Completed in May LEAs improved data APR data more
least annually to and September 2011 accurate and timely
Special Education
Directors and STARS Ongoing as changes
coordinators on the made
importance of
accurate, timely, and
reliable data. Training
to include the
appropriate STARS
templates
4. The SEB will work with SEB data coordinator Spring 2012 to Meet Indicator
I.T. to develop a plan and critical I.T. staff prepare for FFY 2011
for the timely and (programmers) submissions
accurate submission of
EDEN data
State’s reply to OSEP’s FFY 2009 Response Table:
The State utilized the scoring rubric for FFY 2010.
Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2011 through 2012:
The State is not proposing any changes at this time.
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 103 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Appendix A
Indicator Four Self-Assessment
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 104 of 152
New Mexico Public Education Department
Self-Assessment Tool
Long-Term Suspension/Expulsion Rates
State Performance Plan (SPP) Indicator 4 A and 4 B
Significant Discrepancy
Local Education Agency (LEA)
Name:
LEA Contact Name:
LEA Contact Email:
LEA Contact Phone:
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Definitions and Process
Indicator 4: Significant discrepancy in the rates of suspension and expulsions for students with IEPs and/or a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspension and expulsions by
race or ethnicity for students with IEPs.
Non-flagged LEA: Any district not flagged with significant discrepancy of suspension and expulsion rates for
students with IEPs and/or based on students with disabilities by race and ethnicity is encouraged to complete the
Self-Assessment Tool.
a. Identify potential areas in need of improvement related to significant discrepancy of suspension and expulsion
rates for students with IEPs, and revise policies, practices and procedures as necessary to reflect compliance.
b. No submittal of information to NMPED is required at this time.
Flagged LEA: All districts flagged with significant discrepancy of suspension and expulsion rates for students with
Self Assessment Tool
disabilities and/or significant discrepancy rates of suspension and expulsion of students with IEPs based on race and
Completion
ethnicity with respect to eligibility must complete the Self-Assessment Tool.
Step 1
Flagged
Flagged for Significant Discrepancy – Complete the following sections:
Local Education Agencies (LEA)
Behavioral management and discipline (Behavioral Planning in the IEP)
Disciplinary Removals of Students with Disabilities (including procedural safeguards re:
discipline)
Procedural Safeguards and IEP Implementation
a. Review district policies, procedures and practices specific to the identified disability and/or racial/ethnic
group to determine if the identified practices within the self assessment occur.
b. Answer Yes if the practice does occur and is defined within district policies.
Provide the specific section/page within district policies, practices and procedures in which the
practice is defined.
c. Answer NO if the practice does not occur and is not defined within district policies.
Identify the Improvement Plan activities that will target the specific practice and Include timelines
for completion.
a. Flagged LEA - All practices occur and are documented within policies:
Submit an electronic copy of the completed Self Assessment tool and a copy of the specific
district practices that have been identified in the Self Assessment Tool. Please highlight/color code
Self Assessment Tool and identify each specific practice.
Submittal and Review b. Flagged LEA – Some practices do not occur and are not documented within policies:
Step 2 Submit an electronic copy of the completed Self Assessment tool and the Improvement Plan activities.
Flagged The district is responsible for implementing and completing the EPSS or CAP
Local Education Agencies (LEA) activities within one year upon written receipt of notification of review of the EPSS or CAP by
only NMPED.
A summary report will be required at the end of the year to document progress of Improvement Plan activities, if not
provided in the EPSS or CAP documentation.
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 106 of 152
Flagged Categories: State Average, Risk Ratios and Weighted Risk Ratios
LEA: ______________________ Date submitted via email to NMPED _______________
Indicator 4A: Indicator 4 A Flagged All Disabilities State Average LEA Average
Significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and Significant
expulsions of students with IEPs for greater than 10 days in a Discrepancy
school year.
(Out of school
If any category is flagged, completion of Self-Assessment suspensions
Tool, which begins on the next page, is required. and expulsions
> 10 days)
*Flagged for Significant Discrepancy – Complete Behavioral
Management and Discipline, Disciplinary Removals of
Students with Disabilities, IEP Implementation and Procedural
Safeguards.
Indicator 4B
Significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and
expulsions of students with IEPs for greater than 10 days in a Ethnicity/Race
Flagged WRR RR
Category
school year by race and ethnicity.
Hispanic/Latino
If any category is flagged, completion of Self-Assessment American Indian or
Tool, which begins on the next page, is required. Indicator #4B Alaska Native
Significant Discrepancy (Out Asian
of school suspensions or Black or African
expulsions > 10 days by race American
and ethnicity) Native Hawaiian or
RR = Risk Ratio Other Pacific
WRR = Weighted Risk Ratio islander
White
Two or more races
Note:
To complete the following Self-Assessment Tool, keep in mind each flagged ethnicity and race and/or disability category to determine if district policies,
procedures and practices reflect their specific academic, cultural and personal needs – both within the general education classroom as well as special education
and related services.
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Self-Assessment for Significant Discrepancy in the Rates Long Term Suspensions/Expulsions of Students with IEPs
State Performance Plan (SPP) Indicator 4
Policies, Procedures, and Practices
YES - Provide specific reference (section, page)
Practice Occurs within district policies, practices and
Behavioral Management and Discipline Y/N procedures document in which this practice is
defined.
Subsection (F)(1) of 6.31.2.11 NMAC
Behavioral planning in the IEP. Pursuant to 34 CFR Sec. 324(a)(2)(i), the IEP team for a child with a
disability whose behavior impedes his or her learning or that of others shall consider, if appropriate,
strategies to address that behavior, including the development of behavioral goals and objectives and
the use of positive behavioral interventions, strategies and supports to be used in pursuit of those
goals and objectives. Public agencies are strongly encouraged to conduct functional behavioral
assessments (FBAs) and integrate behavioral intervention plans (BIPs) into the IEPs for students who
exhibit problem behaviors well before the behaviors result in proposed disciplinary actions for which
FBAs and BIPs are required under the federal regulations.
Subsection (F)(2) of 6.31.2.11 NMAC
Suspensions, expulsions and disciplinary changes of placement. Suspensions, expulsions and other
disciplinary changes of placement for children with disabilities shall be carried out in compliance
with all applicable requirements of 34 CFR Secs. 300.530-300.536, and these or other department
rules and standards, including particularly 6.11.2.11 NMAC, governing interim disciplinary
placements and long-term suspensions or expulsions of students with disabilities.
Subsection (F)(3) of 6.31.2.11 NMAC
FAPE for children removed from current placement for more than 10 school days in a school year.
FAPE shall be provided in compliance with all applicable requirements of 34 CFR Sec. 300.530(d)
and these or other department rules and standards for all children with disabilities who have been
removed from their current educational placements for disciplinary reasons for more than 10 school
days during a school year, as defined in 34 CFR Sec. 300.536.
Subsection (F)(4) of 6.31.2.11 NMAC
LEAs must keep an accurate accounting of suspension and expulsion rates for children with
disabilities as compared to children without disabilities to ensure that children with disabilities are not
being expelled or suspended at a significantly higher rate than children without disabilities.
NO – Provide Improvement Plan Activities in the EPSS or CAP
Activities must be included if the district has been identified as having a disproportionate Anticipated
representation of students AND a practice has been identified as not occurring. Activities need to be Completion Date
completed within 1 year from date of NMPED final notification.
Subsection (F)(1) of 6.31.2.11 NMAC –
Subsection (F)(2) of 6.31.2.11 NMAC –
Subsection (F)(3) of 6.31.2.11 NMAC –
Subsection (F)(4) of 6.31.2.11 NMAC
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 108 of 152
Appendix B
IEP Checklist
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Indicator Four
Individualized Education Program (IEP) Checklist
School District Name: _____________________ Date of IEP Review: __________________
Staff Reviewer: __________________________ Student ID: _________________________
Development and Implementation of IEPs
1. Is the IEP current and complete? Yes No
Comments: _______________________________________________________________
2. Is there evidence of a properly constituted IEP team? Yes No
Comments: _______________________________________________________________
3. Was the IEP in place at the beginning of the school year? Yes No
Comments: _______________________________________________________________
4. If an initial IEP, was it developed within 30 days of eligibility? Yes No
Comments: _______________________________________________________________
5. How long after the IEP was developed were services made available? ______________
_________________________________________________________________________
6. If a transfer student from another district in the State, how was FAPE provided? _______
______________________________________________________________________
7. If a transfer student from another State, how were FAPE and comparable services provided?
______________________________________________________________
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 110 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports
1. If the student’s behavior impedes his/her learning or that of others, is there evidence of the
consideration of special factors such as the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and
other strategies to address the behavior? Yes No
Comments: ____________________________________________________________
2. If behavioral concerns are discussed in the present levels of academic achievement and functional
performance, are there goals to address this area? Yes No
Comments: ____________________________________________________________
3. If the student exhibited problem behaviors, is there evidence that a Functional Behavioral
Assessment was completed? Yes No
Comments: ____________________________________________________________
4. Does the student have a Behavioral Intervention Plan (BIP) and is there evidence of it being
followed? Yes No
Comments: ____________________________________________________________
Procedural Safeguards
1. Is there evidence that the parent(s) received a copy of the “Parent and Child Rights in Special
Education” and the information was presented to the parent(s) in an understandable manner?
Yes No
Comments: _______________________________________________________________
2. Is there evidence that a manifestation determination was conducted? Yes No
Comments: _______________________________________________________________
3. If during the manifestation determination, the conduct in question was caused by the school district’s
failure to implement the IEP, what immediate steps did the school district take to remedy those
deficiencies?
Comments: _______________________________________________________________
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 111 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Appendix C
Indicator 9 and 10 Self-Assessment
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 112 of 152
New Mexico Public Education Department
Self-Assessment Tool
Disproportionate Representation
State Performance Plan (SPP) Indicators 9 and 10
Local Education Agency
(LEA) Name:
LEA Contact Name:
LEA Contact Email:
LEA Contact Phone:
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Definitions and Process
Indicator 9: Disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education that is the result of inappropriate identification.
Indicator 10: Disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification.
Non-flagged LEA: Any district not flagged with disproportionate over-representation and/or under-
representation based on race and ethnicity is encouraged to complete the Self-Assessment Tool.
a. Identify potential areas in need of improvement related to disproportionate representation of
students and revise policies, practices and procedures as necessary to reflect compliance.
b. No submittal of information to NMPED is required at this time.
Self Assessment Tool
Completion Flagged LEA: All districts flagged with disproportionate over-representation and/or under-representation
based on race and ethnicity with respect to eligibility must complete the Self-Assessment Tool.
Step 1
Flagged Flagged for Over Representation – Complete Child Find/Three-tier model of student intervention,
Local Education Agencies (LEA) Evaluation and Eligibility sections.
Flagged for Under Representation – Complete Child Find/Three-tier model of student intervention,
section only.
a. Review district policies, procedures and practices specific to the identified racial/ethnic group to
determine if the identified practices within the self assessment occur.
b. Answer Yes if the practice does occur and is defined within district policies.
Provide the specific section/page within district policies, practices and procedures in which the
practice is defined.
c. Answer NO if the practice does not occur and is not defined within district policies.
Identify the Improvement Plan activities that will target the specific practice and Include timelines
for completion.
a. Flagged LEA - All practices occur and are documented within policies:
Submit an electronic copy of the completed Self Assessment tool and a copy of the specific
district practices that have been identified in the Self Assessment Tool. Please highlight/color
Self Assessment Tool code and identify each specific practice.
Submittal and Review
Step 2 b. Flagged LEA – Some practices do not occur and are not documented within policies:
Flagged Submit an electronic copy of the completed Self Assessment tool and the Improvement Plan
Local Education Agencies (LEA) activities. The district is responsible for implementing and completing the EPSS or CAP
only activities within one year upon written receipt of notification of review of the EPSS or CAP
by NMPED.
A summary report will be required at the end of the year to document progress of Improvement
Plan activities.
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 114 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Flagged Categories: Risk Ratios and Weighted Risk Ratios
LEA: ______________________ Date submitted via email to NMPED _______________
Indicator 9: Ethnicity/Race
Disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in Flagged WRR RR
Category
special education that is the result of inappropriate
identification. Hispanic/Latino
American Indian or
If any category is flagged, completion of Self-Assessment Indicator #9 Alaska Native
Tool, which begins on the next page, is required. *Over Asian
Representation Black or African
*Flagged for Over Representation – Complete Child American
Find/Three-tier Model of Student Intervention, Evaluation and Native Hawaiian or
Eligibility sections. (Pages 3, 4 and 5) Other Pacific islander
White
*Flagged for Under Representation – Complete Child/ Three- Two or more races
tier Model of Student Intervention Find/section only.
Ethnicity/Race
Flagged WRR RR
Category
Hispanic/Latino
American Indian or
Indicator #9 Alaska Native
*Under Asian
Representation Black or African
American
Native Hawaiian or
Other Pacific islander
White
Two or more races
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 115 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Indicator 10:
Disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in
specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate Ethnicity/Race Disability
Flagged WRR RR
identification. Category Category
If any category is flagged, completion of Self-Assessment Hispanic/Latino AU
Tool, which begins on the next page, is required. American Indian or
Indicator #10 ED
*Flagged for Over Representation – Complete Child Find/ Alaska Native
*Over
Three-tier Student Model of Student Intervention, Evaluation Asian MR
Representation
and Eligibility sections. (Pages 3, 4 and 5) Black or African
OHI
*Flagged for Under Representation – Complete Child Find/ American
3.0 or above
Three-tier Student Model of Student Intervention, section only. Native Hawaiian or
(Page 3) Other Pacific SLD
islander
As defined in Subsection (B)(2) 6.31.2.7 NMAC White
AU – Autism Two or more races SL
ED – Emotional Disturbance
Ethnicity/Race Disability
MR – Mental Retardation Flagged WRR RR
Category Category
OHI – Other Health Impairment
SLD – Specific Learning Disability Hispanic/Latino AU
SL – Speech/Language Impairment Indicator #10 American Indian or
ED
*Under Alaska Native
Representation Asian MR
Black or African
OHI
.25 or below American
Native Hawaiian or
Other Pacific SLD
islander
White SL
Two or more races
WRR = Weighted Risk Ratio
RR = Risk Ratio
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 116 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Note:
To complete the following Self-Assessment Tool, keep in mind each flagged ethnicity and race and/or disability category to determine if district
policies, procedures and practices reflect their specific academic, cultural and personal needs – both within the general education classroom
as well as supplemental special education services.
Self-Assessment for Disproportionate Representation of Students
State Performance Plan (SPP) Indicators 9 and 10
CHILD FIND/THREE-TIER MODEL OF STUDENT INTERVENTION
YES - Provide specific reference (section,
Practice Occurs page) within district policies, practices and
Policies, Procedures, and Practices
Y/N procedures document in which this practice
is defined.
Subsection A 6.31.2.10 NMAC
Child Find
A. Each public agency shall adopt and implement policies and procedures to ensure that
all children with disabilities that reside within the agency’s education jurisdiction, including
children with disabilities attending private schools or facilities such as residential treatment
centers, day treatment centers, hospitals, mental health institutions, detention and
correctional facilities, children who are schooled at home, highly mobile children and
children who are advancing grade to grade, regardless of the severity of their disability,
and who are in need of special education and related services, are located, evaluated and
identified in compliance with 34 CFR Secs. 300.111. 300.131, 300.301-306.
Subsection (B) of 6.31.2.10 NMAC
B. The public agency shall follow a three tier model of student intervention as a proactive
system for early intervention for students who demonstrate a need for educational support
for learning.
Subsection (B)(1) of 6.31.2.10 NMAC
In tier I, the public agency must ensure that adequate universal screening in the areas of
general health and well-being, language proficiency status, and academic levels of
proficiency has been completed for each student enrolled. If universal screening, a
referral from a parent, a school staff member, or other information available to a public
agency suggests that a particular student needs educational support for learning, then the
student shall be referred to the student assistance team (SAT) for consideration of
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 117 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
interventions at the tier II level.
Subsection (B)(2) of 6.31.2.10 NMAC
In tier II, a properly constituted SAT at each school, which includes the student’s parents
and student, as appropriate, must conduct the child study process and consider,
implement and document the effectiveness of appropriate research-based intervention
utilizing curriculum-based measures. In addition, the SAT must address culture and
acculturation, socio-economic status, possible lack of appropriate instruction in reading or
math, teaching and learning styles in order to rule out other possible causes of the
student’s educational difficulties. When it is determined that a student has an obvious
disability or a serious urgent problem, the SAT shall address the student’s needs promptly
on an individualized basis which may include a referral for a multidisciplinary evaluation to
determine possible eligibility for special education and related services consistent with the
requirements of 34 CFR 300.300.
Subsection (B)(3) of 6.31.2.10 NMAC
In tier III, a student has been identified as a student with a disability and deemed eligible
for special education and related services, and an IEP is developed by a properly
constituted IEP team pursuant to 34 CFR Sec. 300.321.
For LEAs with disproportionate representation in learning disabilities, only
Subsection (C)(1) of 6.31.2.10 NMAC
Criteria for identifying children with specific learning disabilities, the public agency may
use the dual discrepancy model as defined and described in the New Mexico T.E.A.M. or
the severe discrepancy model as defined and described in New Mexico T.E.A.M.
Subsection (C)(2) of 6.31.2.10 NMAC
Effective July 1, 2009, public agencies must implement the dual discrepancy model in
kindergarten through third grade.
NO: Provide Improvement Plan Activities in the EPSS or CAP
Activities must be included if the district has been identified as having a disproportionate representation of students AND a Anticipated
practice has been identified as not occurring. Activities need to be completed within 1 year from date of NMPED notification in Completion Date
order for the LEA to be considered to be compliant.
Subsection A of 6.31.2.10 NMAC -
Subsection (B) of 6.31.2.10 NMAC -
Subsection (B)(1) of 6.31.2.10 NMAC -
Subsection (B)(2) of 6.31.2.10 NMAC -
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 118 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Subsection (B)(3) of 6.31.2.10 NMAC -
Subsection (C)(1) of 6.31.2.10 NMAC
Subsection (C)(2) of 6.31.2.10 NMAC
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 119 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Self-Assessment for Disproportionate Representation of Students
State Performance Plan (SPP) Indicators 9 and 10
EVALUATION PROCEDURES
YES - Provide specific reference (section,
Practice Occurs page) within district policies, practices and
Policies, Procedures, and Practices
Y/N procedures document in which this practice
is defined.
Subsection (D)(1)(a) of 6.31.2.10 NMAC
Each public agency must conduct a full and individual initial evaluation, at no cost to the
parent, and in compliance with requirements of 34 CFR Secs. 300.305 and 300.306 and
other department rules and standards before the initial provision of special education and
related services to a child with a disability.
Subsection (D)(1)(b) of 6.31.2.10 NMAC
Request for initial evaluation. Consistent with the consent requirement in 34 CFR Sec.
300.300, either a parent of a child or a public agency may initiate a request for an initial
evaluation to determine if the child is a child with a disability.
Subsection (D)(1)(c)(i) of 6.31.2.10 NMAC
Procedures for initial evaluation.
The initial evaluation must be conducted within 60 calendar days of receiving parental
consent for evaluation.
Subsection (D)(1)(c)(ii) of 6.31.2.10 NMAC
Each public agency must follow the evaluation procedures in compliance with applicable
requirements of 34 CFR Sec. 300.304 and other department rules and standards to
determine: (1) if the child is a child with a disability under 34 CFR Sec. 300.8; and (2) if
the child requires special education and related services to benefit from their educational
program.
Subsection (D)(1)(c)(iii) of 6.31.2.10 NMAC
Each public agency shall maintain a record of the receipt, processing and disposition of
any referral for an individualized evaluation. All appropriate evaluation data, including
complete SAT file documentation and summary reports from all individuals evaluating the
child shall be reported in writing for presentation to the multidisciplinary team or IEP team.
Subsection (E)(1) of 6.31.2.10 NMAC
Procedural requirements for the assessment and evaluation of culturally and linguistically
diverse children.
Each public agency must ensure that tests and other evaluation materials used to assess
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 120 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
children are selected, provided and administered so as not to be discriminatory on a racial
or cultural basis and are provided and administered in the child’s native language or other
mode of communication, such as American Sign Language, and in the form most likely to
yield accurate information, on what the child knows and can do academically,
developmentally and functionally, unless it is clearly not feasible to select, provide or
administer pursuant to 34 CFR Sec. 300.304(C)1).
Subsection (E)(2) of 6.31.2.10 NMAC
Each public agency must ensure that selected assessments and measures are valid and
reliable and are administered in accordance with instructions provided by the assessment
producer and are administered by trained and knowledgeable personnel.
Subsection (E)(3) of 6.31.2.10 NMAC
Each public agency must consider information about a child’s language proficiency in
determining how to conduct the evaluation of the child to prevent misidentification. A child
may not be determined to be a child with a disability if the determinant factor for that
eligibility determination is limited English proficiency. Comparing academic achievement
results with grade level peers in the public agency with similar cultural and linguistic
backgrounds should guide this determination process and ensure that the child is
exhibiting the characteristics of a disability and not merely language difference in
accordance with 34 CFR Sec. 300.306(b)(1).
Subsection (E)(4) of 6.31.2.10 NMAC
Each public agency must ensure that the child is assessed in all areas related to the
suspected disability.
Subsection (E)(5) of 6.31.2.10 NMAC
Policies for public agency selection of assessment instruments include:
(a) assessment and evaluation materials that are tailored to assess specific areas of
educational need; and
(b) assessments that are selected ensure that results accurately reflect the child’s
aptitude or achievement level.
Subsection (E)(6) of 6.31.2.10 NMAC
Public agencies in New Mexico shall devote particular attention to the foregoing
requirements in light of the state’s cultural and linguistic diversity. Persons assessing
culturally or linguistically diverse children shall consult appropriate professional standards
to ensure that their evaluations are not discriminatory and should include appropriate
references to such standards and concerns in their written reports.
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 121 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
NO: Provide Improvement Plan Activities in the EPSS or CAP
Activities must be included if the district has been identified as having a disproportionate representation of students AND Anticipated
a practice has been identified as not occurring. Activities need to be completed within 1 year from date of NMPED final Completion Date
notification.
Subsection (D)(1)(a) of 6.31.2.10 NMAC -
Subsection (D)(1)(b) of 6.31.2.10 NMAC -
Subsection (D)(1)(c)(i) of 6.31.2.10 NMAC -
Subsection (D)(1)(c)(ii) of 6.31.2.10 NMAC -
Subsection (D)(1)(c)(iii) of 6.31.2.10 NMAC -
Subsection (E)(1) of 6.31.2.10 NMAC -
Subsection (E)(2) of 6.31.2.10 NMAC -
Subsection (E)(3) of 6.31.2.10 NMAC
Subsection (E)(4) of 6.31.2.10 NMAC
Subsection (E)(5)(a) of 6.31.2.10 NMAC
Subsection (E)(5)(b) of 6.31.2.10 NMAC
Subsection (E)(5) of 6.31.2.10 NMAC
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 122 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Self-Assessment for Disproportionate Representation of Students
State Performance Plan (SPP) Indicators 9 and 10
ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION
YES - Provide specific reference (section,
Practice Occurs page) within district policies, practices and
Policies, Procedures, and Practices
Y/N procedures document in which this practice
is defined.
Subsection (F)(1) of 6.31.2.10 NMAC
General rules regarding eligibility determination
(a) Upon completing the administration of tests and other evaluation materials, a
group of qualified professionals and the parent of the child must determine
whether the child is a child with a disability, as defined in 34 CFR Sec. 300.8 and
Paragraph (2) of Subsection B of 6.31.2.7 NMAC. The determination shall be
made in compliance with all applicable requirements of 34 CFR Sec. 300.306 and
these or other department rules and standards and, for a child suspected of
having a specific learning disability, in compliance with the additional procedures
of 34 CFR Secs. 300.307-300.311, and these or other department rules, policies
and standards.
(b) The public agency must provide a copy of the evaluation report and the
documentation of determination of eligibility to the parent.
NO – Provide Improvement Plan Activities in the EPSS or CAP
Activities must be included if the district has been identified as having a disproportionate representation of students AND Anticipated
a practice has been identified as not occurring. Activities need to be completed within 1 year from date of NMPED final Completion Date
notification.
Subsection (F)(1)(a) of 6.31.2.10 NMAC -
Subsection (F)(1)(b)of 6.31.2.10 NMAC -
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 123 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Self-Assessment for Disproportionate Representation of Students
State Performance Plan (SPP) Indicators 9 and 10
NMPED USE ONLY - REVIEW
Self Assessment Tool Review
Date: Self Assessment Tool Emailed to the LEA
Date: Completed Self Assessment Tool returned to
NMPED
Date: NMPED Compliance Notification sent to the
LEA
COMPLIANT Comments:
NON-COMPLIANT
Final Compliance Determination
Improvement Plan
Required
(EPSS or CAP)
Improvement Plan Review
Date: Improvement Plan Review by NMPED
Date: NMPED Final Notification sent to LEA
Activities need to be completed within 1 year.
Date: Performance Summary Report due to NMPED
Due one year from date of final notification.
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 124 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Appendix D
Indicator Eight – Parent Survey
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 125 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
2010-11 New Mexico Parent Involvement Survey – Special Education
This is a survey for families of children receiving special education services. Your responses will help
guide efforts to improve services and results for children and families. You may skip any item that you feel
does not apply to you or your child.
Very Very
Strongly Strongly Strongly Strongly
Questions Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree
School’s Efforts to Partner with Parents:
1. The school facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services
for my child(ren). 1 2 3 4 5 6
2. I am considered an equal partner with teachers and other professionals in
planning my child’s program. 1 2 3 4 5 6
3. All of my concerns and recommendations were documented on the IEP. 1 2 3 4 5 6
4. At the IEP meeting, we discussed accommodations and modifications that
my child would need. 1 2 3 4 5 6
5. At the IEP meeting, we discussed how my child would participate in
statewide assessments. 1 2 3 4 5 6
6. I have been asked for my opinion about how well special education
services are meeting my child’s needs. 1 2 3 4 5 6
7. Teachers are available to speak with me. 1 2 3 4 5 6
8. Teachers treat me as a team member. 1 2 3 4 5 6
9. I was given information about organizations that offer support for parents of
students with disabilities. 1 2 3 4 5 6
10. Teachers expect my child to succeed. 1 2 3 4 5 6
11. General education and special education teachers work together to
assure that my child’s IEP is being implemented. 1 2 3 4 5 6
12. The principal does everything possible to support appropriate special
education services in the school. 1 2 3 4 5 6
13. My child is taught in regular classes, with supports, to the maximum
extent appropriate. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Teachers and Administrators:
14. Ensure that I have fully understood the Procedural Safeguards
[the rules in federal law that protect the rights of parents]. 1 2 3 4 5 6
15. Encourage me to participate in the decision-making process. 1 2 3 4 5 6
16. Show sensitivity to the needs of students with disabilities and their
families. 1 2 3 4 5 6
My Child's School:
17. Communicates regularly with me regarding my child’s progress on IEP
goals. 1 2 3 4 5 6
18. Provides information on agencies that can assist my child in the transition
from school. 1 2 3 4 5 6
19. Explains what options parents have if they disagree with a decision of the
school. 1 2 3 4 5 6
20. Provides my child with all the services documented on my child’s IEP. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Other:
21. As a result of Special Education Services, I've made changes in family
routines that will benefit my child with special needs. 1 2 3 4 5 6
22. I engage in learning activities with my child at home. 1 2 3 4 5 6
23. I communicate to my child that it is important to do well in school. 1 2 3 4 5 6
24. I discuss my child's needs and progress with my child's teacher(s). 1 2 3 4 5 6
25. I let school staff know right away if I have a concern about my child. 1 2 3 4 5 6
26. My Child’s Grade (circle one): Preschool K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12
27. My child’s gender (circle one): Female Male
28. My child’s race/ethnicity (circle one)
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 126 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
1 White 3 American Indian or Alaskan Native 5 Asian
2 Hispanic or Latino 4 Black or African American 6 Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
7 Other
29. My Child’s Primary Disability (circle one)
1 Autism 6 Mental Retardation 10 Speech/Language Impairment
2 Deaf-blindness 7 Orthopedic Impairment 11 Traumatic Brain Injury
3 Deafness 8 Other Health Impairment 12 Visual Impairment Including
Blindness
4 Emotional Disturbance 9 Specific Learning Disability 13 Developmental Delay
5 Hearing Impairment 9a Dyslexia 14 Multiple Disabilities
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 127 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Appendix E
Levels of Intervention
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 128 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Levels of Intervention
Desk Top Monitoring Invite *Sub- Technical Professional Collaborative Mandatory **On site **LEA **Prescribed Optional ***CAP *** ****Direct
Monitoring through LEA grant Assistance Development Profess. Dev. Webinar visits/ staffing profess. Dev. Corrective prescribed SETAT Funds
EPSS to SEB to LEA on at LEA T.A., and on- Training support review and T.A. Action
trainings to meet Missed Level on site (SEB and SEB and Plan (CAP)
and Targets Targets at Missed TAESE) contractor (collaborative)
webinars LEA Targets
Level
Meets
Requirements
Needs
Assistance
Year One
Needs
Assistance
Year Two
Needs
Assistance
Year Three
plus
Needs
Intervention
Year One
Needs Some
Intervention prescription
Year Two
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 129 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Needs
Intervention
Year Three
plus
*** TAESE (Utah State University – Technical Assistance for Excellence in
****Depends on magnitude, length of time, and LEA Response
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 130 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Appendix F
NSTTAC Checklist
(Indicator 13)
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 131 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
NSTTAC Indicator 13 Checklist Form A
(Meets Minimum SPP/APR Requirements)
Percent of youth with IEPs aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes appropriate measurable postsecondary goals that are
annually updated and based upon an age appropriate transition assessment, transition services, including courses of study, that
will reasonably enable the student to meet those postsecondary goals, and annual IEP goals related to the student’s transition
services needs. There also must be evidence that the student was invited to the IEP Team meeting where transition services are to
be discussed and evidence that, if appropriate, a representative of any participating agency was invited to the IEP Team meeting
with the prior consent of the parent or student who has reached the age of majority. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))
1. Is there an appropriate measurable postsecondary goal or goals that covers education or training, Y or N
employment, and, as needed, independent living?
Can the goal(s) be counted?
Will the goal(s) occur after the student graduates from school?
Based on the information available about this student, does (do) the postsecondary goal(s) seem appropriate for this student?
• If yes to all three, then circle Y OR if a postsecondary goal(s) is (are) not stated, circle N
2. Is (are) the postsecondary goal(s) updated annually? Y or N
Was (were) the postsecondary goal(s) addressed/ updated in conjunction with the development of the current IEP?
• If yes, then circle Y OR If the postsecondary goal(s) was (were) not updated with the current IEP, circle N
3. Is there evidence that the measurable postsecondary goal(s) were based on Y or N
age appropriate transition assessment?
Is the use of transition assessment(s) for the postsecondary goal(s) mentioned in the IEP or evident in the student’s file?
• If yes, then circle Y OR if no, then circle N
4. Are there transition services in the IEP that will reasonably enable the Y or N
student to meet his or her postsecondary goal(s)?
Is a type of instruction, related service, community experience, or development of employment and other post-school adult living
objectives, and if appropriate, acquisition of daily living skills, and provision of a functional vocational evaluation listed in
association with meeting the post-secondary goal(s)?
• If yes, then circle Y OR if no, then circle N
5. Do the transition services include courses of study that will reasonably Y or N
enable the student to meet his or her postsecondary goal(s)?
Do the transition services include courses of study that align with the student’s postsecondary goal(s)?
• If yes, then circle Y OR if no, then circle N
6. Is (are) there annual IEP goal(s) related to the student’s transition services Y or N
needs?
Is (are) an annual goal(s) included in the IEP that is/are related to the student’s transition services needs?
• If yes, then circle Y OR if no, then circle N
7. Is there evidence that the student was invited to the IEP Team meeting Y or N
where transition services were discussed?
For the current year, is there documented evidence in the IEP or cumulative folder that the student was invited to attend
the IEP
Team meeting?
• If yes, then circle Y OR if no, then circle N
8. If appropriate, is there evidence that a representative of any participating Y or N
agency was invited to the IEP Team meeting with the prior consent of the
parent or student who has reached the age of majority?
For the current year, is there evidence in the IEP that representatives of any of the following agencies/services were invited to
participate in the IEP development including but not limited to: postsecondary education, vocational education, integrated
employment (including supported employment), continuing and adult education, adult services, independent living or
community
participation for this post-secondary goal?
Was consent obtained from the parent (or student, for a student the age of majority)?
• If yes to both, then circle Y
• If no invitation is evident and a participating agency is likely to be responsible for providing or paying for transition
services and there was consent to invite them to the IEP meeting, then circle N
• If it is too early to determine if the student will need outside agency involvement, or no agency is likely to provide or
pay for transition services, circle NA
• If parent or individual student consent (when appropriate) was not provided, circle NA
Does the IEP meet the requirements of Indicator 13? (Circle one)
Yes (all Ys or NAs for each item (1 – 8) on the Checklist or No (one or more Ns circled)
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 132 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Instructions for Completing NSTTAC Indicator 13 Checklist
1. Is there an appropriate measurable postsecondary goal or goals that covers education or
training, employment, and, as needed, independent living?
• Find the postsecondary goal(s) for this student
• If there are appropriate measurable postsecondary goals that address Education or Training
after high school, Employment after high school, and (if applicable) Independent Living after
high school and if the identified postsecondary goal(s) in Education or Training,
Employment, and (if applicable) Independent Living appear to be appropriate for the student,
based on the other information regarding Present Level of Academic and Functional
Performance and / or the student’s strengths, preferences, and interests, circle Y
• If there are postsecondary goals that address Education or Training after high school,
Employment after high school, and (if applicable) Independent Living after high school, but
are not measurable, circle N
• If there is misalignment between the student’s postsecondary goal(s), based on the
information available (e.g., present level of performance, student interests, student
preferences), circle N
• If there is not a postsecondary goal that addresses Education or Training after high school,
circle N
• If there is not a postsecondary goal that addresses Employment after high school, circle N
• If there is one postsecondary goal that addresses Education or Training, Employment, and (if
applicable) Independent Living after high school, but it is not measurable, circle N
2. Is the postsecondary goal(s) updated annually?
• If the postsecondary goal(s) for Education or Training, Employment, and as needed
Independent Living, is (are) documented in the student’s current IEP, circle Y
• If the postsecondary goal(s) for Education or Training, Employment, and as needed
Independent Living, is (are) not documented in the student’s current IEP, circle N
• If this is the student’s first IEP that addresses secondary transition services because they just
turned 16, this is considered an update, so circle Y
3. Is there evidence that the measurable postsecondary goals were based on age appropriate
transition assessment?
• Find where information relates to assessment and the transition component on the IEP (either
in the IEP or the student’s file)
• For each postsecondary goal, if there is evidence that at least one age appropriate transition
assessment was used to provide information on the student's needs, strengths, preferences, and
interests regarding the postsecondary goal(s), circle Y
• For each postsecondary goal, if there is no evidence that age appropriate transition assessment
provided information on the student’s needs, taking into account strengths, preferences, and
interests regarding the postsecondary goal(s), circle N
• If a postsecondary goal area was addressed in item #1, but was not measurable and if there is
age appropriate transition assessment information, from one or more sources, provided
regarding the student’s needs, taking into account strengths, preferences, and interests
regarding this postsecondary goal, circle Y
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 133 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
• If a postsecondary goal area was addressed in item #1, but was not measurable and if there is
not age appropriate transition assessment information provided on the student’s needs, taking
into account strengths, preferences, and interests regarding this postsecondary goal, circle N
4. Are there transition services in the IEP that will reasonably enable the student to meet his or her
Postsecondary goal(s)?
• Find where transition services/activities are listed on the IEP
• For each postsecondary goal, if there is a type of instruction, related service, community
experience, or development of employment and other post-school adult living objectives, and
if appropriate, acquisition of daily living skill(s), and provision of a functional vocational
evaluation listed in association with meeting the postsecondary goal, circle Y
• For each postsecondary goal, if there is no (a) type of instruction, (b) related service, (c)
community experience, (d) development of employment and other post-school adult living
objective, (e) if appropriate, acquisition of a daily living skill, or (f) if appropriate, provision
of a functional vocational evaluation listed in association with meeting the postsecondary
goal, circle N
• If a postsecondary goal area was addressed in item #1, but was not measurable and there is a
type of transition services listed in association with meeting that postsecondary goal, circle Y
• If a postsecondary goal area was addressed in item #1, but was not measurable and there is no
type of transition service listed in association with meeting that postsecondary goal, circle N
5. Do the transition services include courses of study that will reasonably enable the student to meet
his or her postsecondary goal(s)?
• Locate the course of study (instructional program of study) or list of courses of study in the
student’s IEP
• Are the courses of study a multi-year description of coursework from the student’s current to
anticipated exit year that is designed to help achieve the student’s desired post-school goal(s)?
If yes, go to next instruction bullet. If no, circle N
• Do the courses of study align with the student’s identified postsecondary goal(s)? If yes,
circle Y. If no, circle N
6. Is (are) there annual IEP goal(s) that are related to the student’s transition services needs?
• Find the annual goals, or, for students working toward alternative achievement standards, or
States in which short-term objectives are included in the IEP, short-term objectives on the IEP
• For each of the postsecondary goal areas circled Y in question #1, if there is an annual goal or
short-term objective included in the IEP related to the student’s transition services needs,
circle Y
• For each of the postsecondary goal areas circled Y in question #1, if there is no annual goal or
short-term objective included in the IEP related to the student’s transition services needs,
circle N
• If a postsecondary goal area was addressed in #1, but was not measurable, and an annual goal
is included in the IEP related to the student’s transition services needs, circle Y
• If a postsecondary goal area was addressed in #1, but was not measurable, and there is no
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 134 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
annual goal included the IEP related to the student’s transition services needs, circle N
7. Is there evidence that the student was invited to the IEP Team meeting where transition services
were discussed?
• Locate the documentation of the invitation to the IEP conference for the student.
• Was the student invitation signed (by the LEA) and dated prior to the date of the IEP
conference. If yes, circle Y. If no, circle N
8. If appropriate, is there evidence that a representative of any participating agency was invited to
the IEP Team meeting with the prior consent of the parent or student who has reached the age of
majority?
• Find where persons responsible and/or agencies are listed on the IEP
• Are there transition services listed on the IEP that are likely to be provided or paid for by an
outside agency? If yes, continue with next instruction bullet. If no, circle NA.
• Was parent consent or student consent (once student has reached the age of majority) to invite
an outside agency(ies) obtained? If yes, continue with next instruction bullet. If no, circle NA
• If a postsecondary goal area was addressed in item #1, but was not measurable and there is
evidence that agency(ies) for which parent/student had given their consent to invite, were
invited to the IEP meeting to discuss transition, circle Y
• If a postsecondary goal area was addressed in item #1, but was not measurable and there is no
evidence that agency(ies) for which parent/student had given their consent to invite, were
invited to the IEP meeting to discuss transition, circle N
• If it is too early to determine if this student will need outside agency involvement, circle NA
Does the IEP meet the requirements of Indicator 13?
• If all Ys or NAs for each item (1 – 8) on the Checklist, then circle Yes
• If one or more Ns are circled, then circle No
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 135 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Appendix G
Tiers of Interventions
Tiers of Sanctions
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 136 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Tiers of Intervention
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 137 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Tiers of Sanctions
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 138 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Appendix H
Table 7
Report of Dispute Resolution Under Part B
of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act 2010-2011
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 139 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
TABLE 7
REPORT OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION UNDER PART B, OF THE
INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT
2010-11
Each cell s-9 or another number.
SECTION A: Written, Signed Complaints
(1) Total number of written, signed complaints filed 37
(1.1) Complaints with reports issued 22
(a) Reports with findings of noncompliance 17
(b) Reports within timeline 21
(c) Reports within extended timelines 0
(1.2) Complaints pending 0
(a) Complaints pending a due process hearing 0
(1.3) Complaints withdrawn or dismissed 15
SECTION B: Mediation Requests
(2) Total number of mediation requests received through all dispute resolution
36
processes
(2.1) Mediations held 32
(a) Mediations held related to due process complaints 16
(i) Mediation agreements related to due process complaints 10
(b) Mediations held not related to due process complaints 16
(i) Mediation agreements not related to due process
15
complaints
(2.2) Mediations pending 2
(2.3) Mediations withdrawn or not held 2
SECTION C: Due Process Complaints
(3) Total number of due process complaints filed 44
(3.1) Resolution meetings 17
(a) Written Settlement agreements reached through resolution
17
meetings
(3.2) Hearings fully adjudicated 2
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 140 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
(a) Decisions within timeline (include expedited) 0
(b) Decisions within extended timeline 2
(3.3) Due process complaints pending 11
(3.4) Due process complaints withdrawn or dismissed (including
31
resolved without a hearing)
SECTION D: Expedited Due Process Complaints (Related to Disciplinary Decision)
(4) Total number of expedited due process complaints filed 0
(4.1) Resolution meetings 0
(a) Written settlement agreements 0
(4.2) Expedited hearings fully adjudicated 0
(a) Change of placement ordered 0
(4.3) Expedited due process complaints pending 0
(4.4) Expedited due process complaints withdrawn or dismissed 0
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 141 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Appendix I
Continuum of Alternative Dispute Resolution
Options
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 142 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Continuum of Dispute Resolution Options
In Special Education
Stage I Stage II Stage III Stage IV Stage V Stages of Conflict
Capacity Early Dispute Informal State Higher Legal
Building & Assistance Resolution Review Review Levels of Intervention
Prevention via IEP
Process
Due Process Hearing (with or
Litigation in Supreme Court
Litigation in District/Circuit
Parent-to-Parent Assistance
Telephone Intermediary at
Participant & Stakeholder
Technical Assistance &
New IEP Meeting with
Professional Mediator)
Guidance Publications
State-level Complaint
Resolution Session or
Opinion/Consultation
without Mediation)
Collaboration with
Facilitation (with
Assistance/
Stakeholders
Third-Party
Legislation
Intervention Options
Mediation
Training
Court
State
Third-Party Assistance → → → →
Third-Party Intervention
Decision Making by Parties → → → Dimensions that help clarify
Decision Making by Third Party options along the continuum
Interest based → → → →
Rights based
Informal & Flexible → → → →
Formal & Fixed
Less Cost/Less Time → → → →
More Cost/More Time
Less Adversarial → → → →
More Adversarial
Based on mutually acceptable solutions → → Based on
legally defined rights
Definitions
Facilitated IEP (FIEP) meeting means an IEP meeting that utilizes an independent, state-approved,
state-funded, trained mediator as an IEP facilitator to assist the IEP team to communicate openly and
effectively, in order to resolve conflicts related to a student’s IEP. It is intended to result in the
development of a revised IEP for the student which resolves the parties’ concerns. As with any IEP
meeting, discussion between IEP team members at a FIEP meeting may be used as evidence in any
subsequent due process hearing or civil proceeding.
Mediation means a meeting that utilizes an independent, state-approved, state-funded, trained mediator
to assist parties to reconcile disputed matters related to a student’s IEP or other educational, non-IEP-
related issues. It is intended to result in the development of a legally binding written agreement (not an
IEP) that describes the settlement reached by the parties. Please note that if the parents and the district
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 143 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
reach agreement on any IEP-related matters through mediation, it will then be necessary to subsequently
convene an IEP meeting to inform the student’s service providers of their responsibilities under that
agreement, and revise the student’s IEP accordingly or develop and IEP Addendum. Discussion that
occurs during mediation must be confidential and may not be used as evidence in any subsequent due
process hearing or civil proceeding.
Resolution Session means a meeting that occurs before the opportunity for an impartial due process
hearing and includes the parents and the relevant member or members of the IEP team who have
specific knowledge of the facts identified in the due process request. The resolution session provides an
opportunity for the parents and the public agency to discuss the disputed issue(s) in order to attempt to
resolve the dispute. If an agreement is reached following a resolution session, the parties shall execute a
legally binding agreement (not an IEP) that is signed by both the parent and a representative of the
agency who has the authority to bind that agency. Please note that if the parents and the district reach
agreement on any IEP-related matters through the resolution session, it will then be necessary to
subsequently convene an IEP meeting to inform the student’s service providers of their responsibilities
under that agreement, and revise the student’s IEP accordingly or develop an IEP Addendum
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 144 of 152
APR Template – Part B New Mexico
State
Appendix J
Indicator 20 Rubric for LEAs
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 Page 145 of 152
New Mexico Special Education Bureau
Scoring Rubric for SPP Indicator 20
District Name: ______________________________________
Timeliness and Accuracy of State Reported Data and Reports
Definition of Timely:
Submission – Data is submitted by the deadline date
Data Complete – All discrepancies are completed and verifications complete by the deadline date
Definition of Accurate:
Following Instructions – Data sources comply with the STARS standards and data entry methods and follow directions of staff and Users Guides
Data Verification Checks – District responded to requests to verify and/or correct data
STARS Training:
Participation in annual STARS data training (fall and spring)
Points Possible:
SPP Indicators 1 point for each category
STARS Training 1 point for each time LEA attends in fall and/or spring
End
1st 2nd 2nd
Timely Data Verification Followed Of
Data Source Total Wednesday Wednesday Wednesday
Submission Complete Checks Instructions Year
October December February
(EOY)
SPP Indicators
Indicator 1 X
(Look at graduation
options report)
Indicator 1 EOY X
(Look at 12th grade
student roster report)
Page 146 of 152
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010
APR Template – Part B (4) New Mexico
State
End
2nd 2nd
Timely Data Verification Followed 2nd of Of
Data Source Total Wednesday Wednesday
Submission Complete Checks Instructions December Year
October February
(EOY)
Indicator 4 X
(Discipline report)
Indicator 5 X
Indicator 6 X
Indicator 7 (1st) X
Indicator 7 (last) X
Indicator 8
Indicator 9 X
Indicator 10 X
Indicator 11 (1st) X
Indicator 11 (2nd) X
Indicator 11(3rd) X
Indicator 11(last) X
Indicator 12 X
Indicator 13 (1st) X
Indicator 13(last) X
Subtotal
Total /69
STARS Training Fall Spring /69
(one point/each
training)
Grand Total /69
Percentage %
Date Rubric Completed: ______________ Completed by __________________ Date District Notified by SEB staff ____________________________
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010
Page 147 of 152
Appendix K
Significant Disproportionality
Policy
Page 148 of 152
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010
APR Template – Part B (4) New Mexico
State
Significant Disproportionality Procedure
34 CFR § 300.646
New Mexico’s Definition of Significant Disproportionality
In New Mexico, a Local Education Agency (LEA) is considered to have Significant Disproportionality
based on race and ethnicity if the LEA has a Westat Risk Ratio and Weighted Risk Ratio of 5.0 or above
and a sample size of 10 or greater in:
1. The identification of children as children with disabilities, including the identification of children in
accordance with a particular impairment (Autism, Emotional Disturbance, Mental Retardation,
Other Health Impairment, Specific Learning Disabilities, Speech Language Impairment) (Section
618 OSEP Table One); or
2. The placement in particular educational settings of these children (Section 618 OSEP Table 3); or
3. The incidence, duration, and type of disciplinary actions, including suspensions and expulsions
(Section 618 OSEP Table 5).
Identification Procedure
1. Annually in the spring, the Special Education Bureau (SEB) will calculate the Risk Ratio and
Weighted Risk Ratio in all disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
and the six specific disability categories to determine if significant disproportionality, on the basis
of identification, based on race and ethnicity is occurring in the State and the Local Education
Agencies (LEAs) of the State. The SEB will use the State and LEA’s count taken on the Second
Wednesday in October.
2. As part of the State’s General Supervision responsibility, all data will be examined annually
regardless of the sample size. In other words, the State will review data from LEAs with less than
ten students in the all disability categories and the six specific disability categories. This data will
be compared to the previous year’s data and will be monitored over time to determine if any
patterns or irregularities exist.
Placement in Particular Educational Settings Procedure
1. Annually in the spring, the SEB will calculate the Risk Ratio and Weighted Risk Ratio in all
disabilities under the IDEA to determine if significant disproportionality, on the basis of placement
in a particular educational setting, based on race and ethnicity is occurring in the State and the
Local Education Agencies (LEAs) of the State. The SEB will use the State and LEA’s current
Educational Environments Count taken on the Second Wednesday in October.
2. Data will be examined annually by race and ethnicity, for every LEA, regardless of sample size, in
the following areas:
Children who receive educational and related services in the regular class no more than 79
percent of the day and no less than 40 percent of the day;
Children who receive special education and related services in the regular class for less than
40% of the day; and
Children who receive special education and related services in separate schools and
residential facilities.
3. In regards to residential treatment centers or similar facilities within the LEA’s educational
jurisdiction, the annual examination of the data will consider how the student was placed in the
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010
Page 149 of 152
APR Template – Part B (4) New Mexico
State
facility (placed by the courts or a due process hearing officer, parental placement, or IEP
placement).
a. If upon annual examination of the data it is determined that the significant
disproportionality based on race and ethnicity was due to a residential treatment center or
a similar facility within the LEA’s educational jurisdiction and the placements were made
by the courts, a due process hearing officer, or the child’s parent, the LEA will not be
considered to have significant disproportionality for that year.
b. In regards to students placed through the IEP process, the annual examination of data
will determine which LEAs placed students in the residential treatment. The number of
students placed will be calculated in the sending LEA’s significant disproportionality
calculation. If the sending LEA meets the criteria for significant disproportionality, the
sending LEA will be considered to have significant disproportionality; not the LEA where
the residential treatment center is located.
4. As part of the State’s General Supervision responsibility, all data will be examined annually
regardless of the sample size. In other words, the State will review data from LEAs with less than
ten students by race and ethnicity in the all disability categories. This data will be compared to
previous year’s data and will be monitored over time to determine if any patterns or irregularities
exist.
Disciplinary Actions Procedure
1. Annually at the End-of-Year (EOY), the SEB will calculate the Risk Ratio and Weighted Risk
Ratio in all disabilities under the IDEA to determine if significant disproportionality, on the basis of
the incidence, duration, and type of disciplinary action, based on race and ethnicity is occurring in
the State and the Local Education Agencies (LEAs) of the State. The SEB will use the State and
LEA’s current data for Table 5, Disciplinary Removal.
2. Data will be examined annually by race and ethnicity, for every LEA, regardless of sample size, in
the following areas:
the number of out-of-school suspensions of 10 days or less;
the number of out-of-school suspensions (including expulsions) of greater than 10 days;
the number of in-school suspensions of 10 days or less;
the number of in-school suspensions of greater than 10 days; and
the total number of disciplinary removals.
3. As part of the State’s General Supervision responsibility, all data will be examined annually
regardless of the sample size. In other words, the State will review data from LEAs with less than
ten students by race and ethnicity in the all disability categories. This data will be compared to
previous year’s data and will be monitored over time to determine if any patterns or irregularities
exist.
Implementation Procedure
1. After the LEA is notified in writing that it has significant disproportionality based on race and
ethnicity in the identification of children with disabilities, including the identification of children as
children with disabilities with a particular impairment, the placement in particular educational
settings, or in the incidence, duration, and type of disciplinary actions, the SEB will review the
LEA’s policies, procedures, and practices related to:
Identification of children with disabilities, including children with disabilities with particular
impairments;
Placement in educational settings; or
Incidence and duration of disciplinary actions.
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010
Page 150 of 152
APR Template – Part B (4) New Mexico
State
2. The SEB will review the LEA’s policies, procedures, and practices.
3. The LEA will be notified in writing by the SEB that the Policies, Procedures, and/or Practices must
be revised. The LEA will be required to publicly report on any revisions following the same
protocol (including translations, if necessary) it utilizes for posting public announcements such as
Board of Education meetings. If the LEA has a website, the LEA will be required to publicly report
any revisions on the LEA’s website, as well. If a website is not an option, suggested venues can
include newspapers, newsletters, radio, or Board of Education meetings.
4. The notice will remain on the LEA’s website until it has determined by the State that the policies,
procedures, and practices have been revised and that the above mentioned that attributed to the
significant disproportionality have been eliminated and when the LEA’s data reflects that the
significant disproportionality is no longer occurring.
Fiscal Procedure
1. If the LEA is found to have significant disproportionality, the LEA will be directed to reserve not
more than the maximum amount of flow-through entitlement funds (Part B = 15%) in accordance
with 34 CFR § 300.646(b)(2).
2. The LEA must indicate on its annual IDEA Sub-grant application that it is mandated to reserve
15% of their Part B funds to provide comprehensive Coordinated Early Intervening Services
(CEIS) to serve children in the LEA, particularly, but not exclusively, children in those groups that
were significantly over-identified. The LEA will include its budget and plan as part of the local
IDEA Sub-grant application. The plan must include specific student measures with detailed
outcomes. The statute does not authorize LEAs to use these funds for any other purpose.
3. The budget and plan will be reviewed to determine if it meets the criteria set forth in 34 CFR
300.226(b). The LEA will be notified in writing if the plan is accepted or if any revisions are
necessary. The LEA will be unable to spend the EIS dollars until it receives written confirmation
from the State.
4. The budget must include specific components aligned with the Uniform Chart of Account (UCOA).
The UCOA will track expenditures in areas such as professional development, evaluations, and
the purchase of items such as scientifically based literacy programs.
5. Once the plan is approved, the LEA will send the Requests For Reimbursements (RFRs) to the
SEB. The SEB will verify whether or not the RFRs support the EIS program. If the RFRs do not
support the EIS plan and program, the RFRs will not be approved and the LEA will not be
reimbursed.
6. The SEB will request detailed ledgers to validate costs.
Data Procedure
1. The LEA’s data will be monitored throughout the year by the SEB.
2. Students participating in the CEIS program will be reported in the Student Teacher Accountability
Reporting System (STARS) by the LEA to the State in accordance with 34 CFR 300.226(d).
Students will be reported by their unique student identification number.
3. After one year, if the LEA is no longer considered to have significant disproportionality based
upon a data review by the SEB, the LEA will no longer be required to reserve 15% of its IDEA
funds. However, if the LEA continues to have significant disproportionality, the LEA will be
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010
Page 151 of 152
APR Template – Part B (4) New Mexico
State
required to reserve 15% of its IDEA funds for Coordinated Early Intervening Services. The LEA
will be notified in writing by the State.
4. If the LEA continues to be considered to have significant disproportionality, the State will consider
this when making the LEA’s Annual Determination in addition to the implementation of this policy.
All Technical Assistance and Professional Development as described in the Special Education
Accountability System (SEAS) will be provided so the New Mexico Public Education Department
will be assured the issue will be corrected.
5. The State and LEA data will be reported annually to the State’s IDEA Advisory Panel Stakeholder
Group.
Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010
Page 152 of 152
