Hawaii State Part B State Performance Plan SPP for by tiffanitheisen

VIEWS: 9 PAGES: 215

									                                                                                                          Hawaii
                                                                                                           State

                       Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2010



 Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE


Indicator 1: Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from public (and public charter) high schools
             with a regular diploma compared to percent of all youth in the State graduating from
             public (and public charter schools) with a regular diploma.

        Measurement:

             A.   Percent of 12th grade students who earn a diploma* = number of students in 12th grade
                  who earn a diploma ÷ by the total number of students in 12th grade X 100.

             B.   Percent of students with IEPs who earn a diploma = number of students with IEPs who
                  earn a regular high school diploma ÷ the total number of students in 12th grade (or
                  currently enrolled in a public high school beyond the 12th grade) with IEPs X by 100.

                  * ”Diploma” refers to a State of Hawaii diploma earned by public high school (including
                    public charter school) students upon successful completion of graduation requirements.


       Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process:

       This is a revision to the Part B State Performance Plan (SPP), Indicator 1, submitted in
       December 2005. The baseline data has been revised to reflect updated information then,
       appropriate adjustments were made in determining the measurable and rigorous targets. In
       addition, the insufficient time between the baseline data of December 2005 SPP and the data being
       reported in the February 2007 Annual Performance Report (APR), also required adjustments to our
       targets. A few revisions were made to the activities.

       Data on Hawaii’s graduation rates are provided by the Hawaii Department of Education’s (HIDOE)
       Information Resources Management Branch (IRMB). Graduation data, gathered from secondary
       schools at the end of each school year (including Extended School Year data), identifies the
       number and status of students at the end of their twelfth (12th) grade year. We have chosen not to
       use the data from No Child Left Behind (NCLB) which reports graduation data based on the number
       of students that graduate from a given “cohort” of students who earn a high school diploma within
       four years entering as first time ninth graders at the same high school. This method would not
       acknowledge Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) students who are entitled to extend
       their secondary education beyond the four (4) years in order to earn a diploma.

       There are several “regular” diplomas that can be earned by graduates of Hawaii’s public high
       schools. In addition to the diploma earned by most students, there are three (3) Hawaii Board of
       Education (BOE) diplomas that can be earned based upon students’ successful completion of
       elective coursework. The BOE diplomas include the: Summa Cum Laude, Magnum Cum Laude,
       and Cum Laude Diploma. For purposes of this report, all of these diplomas will be classified as




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                   Monitoring Priority Indicator 1 - Page 1
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08/31/2009)
                                                                                                             Hawaii
                                                                                                              State

       “regular” diplomas. In addition, Hawaii does not have a “high stakes” exit exam as a prerequisite to
       receive a high school diploma. To earn a regular diploma, students with Individualized Education
       Programs (IEPs) must meet the course requirements as their peers (22 credits, 16 of which are
       specified by content area, and six (6) electives), except that they can continue working toward the
       diploma through their twentieth birthday [Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) Title 8,
       Chapter 56 (Chap.56), (HAR Chap. 56 §8-56-15(3)(B)].

       Students with IEPs have the opportunity to work toward a regular high school diploma or a
       Certificate of Completion of an Individually Prescribed Program (“Certificate”). The “Certificate” is
       not a diploma, but instead represents students’ successful completion of a program specially
       designed to meet that students’ unique needs and cognitive challenges. Data for this report does
       not reflect IDEA students who received a Certificate. In Hawaii, the rate of students with disabilities
       graduating from a pubic high school is NOT comparable to the rate of all students graduating with a
       regular diploma from a public high school.

Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004-2005):

Data for School Year (SY) 2003-2004 was used as baseline while more current data was being gathered
and reported by HIDOE, IRMB. SY 2004-2005 data will be reported in February 2007’s APR.


       Number of students in Grade 12, SY 2003-2004                                    11,260                  ---

       Number of students with IEPs in Grade 12, SY 2003-2004
                                                                                        1,381                  ---
       (including students continuing beyond 4th year of high school)
       Number and percent of all grade 12 students earning a regular high
                                                                                       10,580              93.9%
       school diploma
       Number and percent of students with IEPs earning a regular high
                                                                                        1,100              79.6%
       school diploma

Discussion of Baseline Data:

Currently, Hawaii experiences a high percentage of grade 12 graduates among both non-disabled
students (93.9%) and students with disabilities (79.6%). The absence of “high stakes” examinations is
just one possible explanation for this.

In SY 2006-2007, new course and graduation requirements will be required of incoming ninth graders
who will be members of the class of 2010. All courses that are authorized as credit-earning will be
required to align with specific content standards per the Hawaii Content and Performance
Standards III (HCPSIII). In addition, credit requirements for graduation will increase as two (2) more
credits must be earned in World Languages/Fine Arts/Career and Technical Education. A total of 24
credits will be required for a diploma. In SY 2007-2008, a middle level promotion policy will go into effect
which may impact the graduation rate of all students.


           FFY                                      Measurable and Rigorous Target

           2005              The percent of students with IEPs graduating with regular diplomas will be
        (2005-2006)          79.6%.
           2006              The percent of students with IEPs graduating with regular diplomas will be 80%.
        (2006-2007)

           2007              The percent of students with IEPs graduating with regular diplomas will be 81%.
        (2007-2008)




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                      Monitoring Priority Indicator 1 - Page 2
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08/31/2009)
                                                                                                               Hawaii
                                                                                                                State


           FFY                                      Measurable and Rigorous Target

           2008              The percent of students with IEPs graduating with regular diplomas will be 82%.
        (2008-2009)

           2009              The percent of students with IEPs graduating with regular diplomas will be 83%.
        (2009-2010)

           2010              The percent of students with IEPs graduating with regular diplomas will be 84%.
        (2010-2011)


Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:


                  Improvement Activities                        Timelines                      Resources


 Provide support to secondary schools that are not             Fall 2005 and        Special Education Services
 meeting the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and are              ongoing as         Branch (SESB) State
 requesting assistance in identifying root causes for           schools are         Educational Specialists,
 low student achievement. Provide data that may                 identified or       State Resource Teachers;
 indicate the kinds of supports needed by IDEA                    request           Districts Educational
 students in order to be more successful in working              assistance         Specialists, District
 toward and earning a high school diploma.                                          Resource Teachers


  Conduct data analysis of high schools identified as        Spring 2006 and        IRMB; HIDOE Office of
  having high graduation rates for students with IEPs            ongoing            Human Resources; SESB
  (approximately 79%) to determine reasons for high                                 Educational Specialists,
  rates and provide recommendations, if any, to the                                 Resource Teachers;
  school and complex area administrator for improving                               Complex Area
  the graduation rates of students with IEPs. Activities                            Superintendents, District
  may include:                                                                      Educational Specialists,
    • Survey high schools with high graduation rates                                District Resource Teachers
        (79%+) for students with IEPs. Have schools
        rate their level of implementation of the 15
        effective strategies that positively impact
        student graduation/ dropout rates. (Strategies
        identified by the National Dropout Prevention
        Center)
    • Use information and data obtained from
        Hawaii’s post-secondary transition survey to
        identify indicators of success that include
        supports for students who earned a diploma.
        Use information for future planning efforts.
    • Monitor the hiring and placement of highly
        qualified special education teachers as it
        relates to student success. Ensure that
        instruction in core content areas is provided to
        students by qualified personnel who apply
        research-based practices in the classroom.
    • Encourage and support high schools in
        providing more opportunities for all students,
        including students with IEPs, to earn the
        necessary 24 credits in order to meet the
        requirements of receiving a regular diploma.
        (i.e. expanded master schedules allow for more

Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                        Monitoring Priority Indicator 1 - Page 3
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08/31/2009)
                                                                                                        Hawaii
                                                                                                         State


                  Improvement Activities                 Timelines                      Resources

         than six (6) credits to be earned per school
         year: 7-period schedules, 4-courses/semester
         block scheduling, summer school)


  Upon request, provide professional development for     Ongoing as          SESB State Educational
  regular and special education teachers to ensure the   schools are         Specialists, State Resource
  delivery of curriculum based on the HCPCIII and the    identified or       Teachers;
  use of instructional strategies that challenge all       request           Instructional Services
  students to perform at high levels of expectation.      assistance         Branch State Educational
                                                                             Specialists, State Resource
                                                                             Teachers




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                 Monitoring Priority Indicator 1 - Page 4
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08/31/2009)
                                                                                                                 Hawaii
                                                                                                                  State

                   Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2006



 Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE


Indicator 1: Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from public (and public charter) high school
             with a regular diploma compared to percent of all youth in the State graduating from
             public (and public charter) schools with a regular diploma.

      Measurement:

         A. Percent of 12th grade students who earn a diploma* = number of students in 12th grade who
            earn a diploma ÷ by the total number of students in 12th grade X 100.

         B. Percent of students with IEPs who earn a diploma = number of students with IEPs who earn
            a regular high school diploma ÷ the total number of students with IEPs in 12th grade (or
            currently enrolled in a public high school beyond the 12th grade) X 100.

                 * “Diploma” refers to a State of Hawaii diploma earned by public high school (including public
                 charter school) students upon successful completion of graduation requirements.




      FFY                                           Measurable and Rigorous Target


     2006            The percent of students with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) graduating with
   (2006-2007)       regular diplomas will be 80%.



Actual Target Data for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):

Measurement:                                                                                                    Raw
Percent of 12th grade students who earn a diploma                                                               Data

  A. # of students in 12th grade who earn a diploma                                                            10643

  B. # of students in 12th grade .                                                                             11343

  Percent = (A ÷ B) X 100.]                                                                                    93.8%




Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                                 Monitoring Priority Indicator 1 - Page 1
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                              Hawaii
                                                                                                               State

Measurement:                                                                                                 Raw
Percent of students with IEPs who earn a diploma                                                             Data

  A. # of students with IEPs who earn a regular high school diploma                                          1209


  B. # of students with IEPs in 12th grade (or currently enrolled in a public high school beyond
                                                                                                             1517
     the 12th grade)

  Percent = (A ÷ B) X 100                                                                                   79.6%


In the State Performance Plan (SPP) for Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2005-2006, submitted January 2007, a
revision to the previous SPP (for FFY 2004-2005) identified a new baseline (79.6%) and determined new
Annual Performance Report (APR) targets for improvement using more accurate information that had
become available.

The target for the current reporting period, FFY 2006-2007 is 80%. Table 1 shows the graduation rates for
all students and students with disabilities over three school years—school year (SY) 2003-2004,
SY 2004-2005, and SY 2005-2006. The graduation rate for SY 2005-2006, 79.6%, is short of the target of
80%.

Data on Hawaii’s graduation rates are provided by the Hawaii Department of Education’s (HIDOE)
Information Resources Management Branch (IRMB). Graduation data, gathered from secondary schools at
the end of each school year (including Extended School Year data), identifies the number and status of
students at the end of their twelfth grade year.

There are several “regular” diplomas that can be earned by graduates of Hawaii’s public high schools. In
addition to the diploma earned by most students, there are three Hawaii Board of Education (BOE)
diplomas that can be earned based upon students’ successful completion of elective coursework. The BOE
diplomas include the: Summa Cum Laude, Magnum Cum Laude, and Cum Laude. For purposes of this
report, all of these diplomas will be classified as “regular” diplomas. In addition, Hawaii currently does not
have a “high stakes” exit exam as a prerequisite to receive a high school diploma. To earn a regular
diploma, students with IEPs must meet the course requirements as their peers (22 credits, 16 of which are
specified by content area, and 6 electives), except that they can continue working toward the diploma
through their twentieth birthday [Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) Title 8 Chapter 56 (Chap.56), (HAR
Chap. 56 §8-56-15(3)(B)].

Hawaii will continue to use the event method to determine graduation rates for the purpose of this report.
While this method tends to report higher graduation rates than other methods (i.e., cohort method) it was
felt that maintaining consistency in reporting was important if noting trends through increasing/decreasing
rates is the intent of the annual reports.

Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that
occurred for FFY 2006:

The following table and figure, numerically and graphically illustrating the consistency of graduation rates
over the last three years, displays the rates for all students and the rates for students with IEPs.




Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                              Monitoring Priority Indicator 1 - Page 2
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                                      Hawaii
                                                                                                                       State

                                                 Student Data and Graduation Rates



                                                SY 2003-2004       SY 2004-2005         SY 2005-2006


                                                ALL     SPED      ALL     SPED      ALL      SPED
                                              Students Students Students Students Students Students



                No. of Students
                   Enrolled                    11260    1381     11318      1513      11343           1517
                 In Grade 12




                No. of Students                10580    1100     10569      1200      10645           1209
               Earning a Diploma




              Percent of Students               93.9     79.6     93.3      79.3        93.8          79.6
              Earning a Diploma




                                                 Comparison of Graduation Rates
                                        100
                 Percent of Graduates




                                        90

                                        80
                                               93.9 93.3 93.8
                                        70                               79.6 79.3 79.6

                                        60

                                        50
                                               ALL Students              SPED Students
                                                          SY03-04 SY04-05 SY05-06




While the target for improvement was not met, graduation rates remain stable. Growing emphasis on
achievement of content and performance standards, course/content expectations, and demands of the
state’s benchmarks, make the increase in the graduation rate from SY 2004-2005 (79.3%) to SY 2005-2006
(79.6%) a positive indication.


Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                                      Monitoring Priority Indicator 1 - Page 3
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                           Hawaii
                                                                                                            State


             Improvement Activities                    Timelines                           Status

 A focus group supporting the development of        SY 2006-2007 and   A number of meetings were held with
 Hawaii’s SPP reiterated the need for better        ongoing            teacher, parent, and agency
 communication between family and schools.                             representatives. The need for
 The unique nature of each secondary school                            informational sessions, availability of
 and the changing requirements for earning a                           school and community resources, and a
 diploma were among the concerns surfaced                              preliminary plan was discussed. The
 by parents. A response to concerns regarding                          Community Children’s Council
 parents’ ability to support their child’s                             Office (CCCO) and Secondary
 successful experience in secondary school                             Transition Teachers will be used to
 has resulted in the planning of multi-agency                          identify a few sites where sessions may
 community-based activities to provide parents                         be planned for SY 2007-2008.
 information that should enable them to better
 support their child’s education.                                      Sessions to be planned and conducted
                                                                       during SY 2007-2008.

 Revisions being considered to the graduation       SY 2006-2007 and   Discussions regarding a change in
 data collection/reporting methods that align       ongoing            method of graduation data collection
 with No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and use of                           continue with HIDOE Systems
 “cohort” method of reporting students who                             Accountability Office.
 earn diplomas and graduate.
                                                                       Proposals may be reflected in the APR
                                                                       report for SY 2007-2008.

                                                     Spring 2007 and   A consortium of high schools is working
 As previous reported, fourteen high schools
                                                         ongoing       on issues of equity and opportunities for
 were surveyed on the National Dropout
                                                                       students in inclusive classrooms—with
 Prevention Center’s fifteen indicators of
                                                                       a particular emphasis upon the
 successful secondary schools. Two areas
                                                                       progress of the Individuals with
 that appear to be especially challenging to
                                                                       Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and
 these schools are: cultural sensitivity and
                                                                       English Language Learner (ELL)
 parent involvement. This information
                                                                       students.
 supported the need for additional parent
 involvement/participation activities being                            Informational sessions (mentioned in
 planned.                                                              the first improvement activity above) are
                                                                       being encouraged/supported to
                                                                       increase parent involvement and
                                                                       participation in assisting students with
                                                                       academic and career planning.

                                                     SY 2005-2006,
 Adequate Yearly Progress/Restructuring                                State and complex (high school and
                                                      and ongoing
 Response Teams (AYP/RRT), including State                             feeder schools) personnel continue to
 Educational Specialists and resource teachers                         conduct on-site reviews for schools
 from Special Education Section, observed and                          “planning for restructuring” for
 interviewed personnel, reviewed school and                            consistently not meeting AYP targets.
 student data, and provided recommendations                            A concern is the low performance of the
 regarding the root causes and possible                                subgroup of special education students.
 solutions to low performance of students..
                                                                       Special Education Section will
                                                                       participate, as requested, on AYP/RRT
                                                                       Teams to assist schools planning for
                                                                       restructuring.

Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                           Monitoring Priority Indicator 1 - Page 4
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                      Hawaii
                                                                                                       State



Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources
for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):


                 Improvement Activities                Timelines           Revision/Justification

 None at this time




Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                      Monitoring Priority Indicator 1 - Page 5
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                              Hawaii
                                                                                                               State

                       Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2010



 Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE


Indicator 2: Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high school compared to the percent of
             all youth in the State dropping out of high school.

      Measurement:
      (Measurement for youth with IEPs who are dropping out of school without earning a diploma or
      certificate should be the same measurement as for all youth who are dropping out of school without
      earning a diploma. Explain calculation.)

          A. Percent of students dropping out of high school = number of students in grades 9-12 who
             have dropped out of school ÷ total number of students in grades 9-12 x 100.

          B. Percent of students with IEPs dropping out of high school = number of students in grades 9-
             12 who have IEPs and dropped out of school ÷ total number of students in grades 9-12 who
             have IEPs x 100.


    Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process:

    This is a revision to the Part B State Performance Plan (SPP), Indicator 2, submitted in
    December 2005. Originally, data from secondary/high schools were used; however, due to the great
    variance in the grade level configurations of schools, it was decided that more accurate data would be
    that reflecting specific grades and not schools by levels. In order to be more consistent, data will be
    used that are specific to students in grades 9 through 12.

     Adjustments to the baseline and targets are reflected in this submittal. In addition, the limited time,
    between the baseline data of the December 2005 SPP submittal and the data being used for the
    February 2007 Annual Performance Report (APR), has resulted in adjustment to the targets.
    The dropout rate for students with disabilities is significantly less than that of their non-disabled peers.
    In Hawaii, the dropout rate for non-disabled students in grades 9-12 is 4.7% while the rate for
    students with disabilities is 3.1%.

    Data on Hawaii’s dropouts are provided by the Hawaii Department of Education’s (HIDOE’s)
    Information Resources Management Branch (IRMB). Hawaii calculates and reports an “annual
    dropout rate” (also known as an event rate) as opposed to a “longitudinal” or “cohort” dropout rate.
    For high schools, the dropout data are based on the schools’ enrollment count at the beginning of the
    school year and includes any student who expressed an “intent to return/enroll” the following school
    year. Dropout data are a subset of a larger “Completer/Leaver” report of the number of all students in
    Grades 7 through 12 who “complete, continue, transfer, or dropout” during the school year.
    Completer/Leaver data are collected from school year to school year to capture any movement of
    students following summer breaks.




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                       Monitoring Priority Indicator 2 - Page 1
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                             Hawaii
                                                                                                              State

    According to data collection sources from the HIDOE, students who “dropout” of school are described
    as those who:

           •      Leave school between the ages of 15-18 years old without a diploma;
           •      Are released to work or attend work readiness programs
           •      Join the Armed Services
           •      Are placed in other programs by Family Court.
           •      Are in-flight
           •      Reside on the mainland (and are not verified)
           •      Are married and not returning to school
           •      Do not show up for school as expected and
           •      Have “other” reasons.

Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004-2005):


 Number of students in grade 9-12, SY 2003-2004                               53,549                       --

 Number of students with IEPs in grades 9-12, SY 2003-2004                     7,119                       --

 Number and % of students in grade 9-12 that dropped out, SY
                                                                               2,537                    4.7%
 2003-2004
 Number and % of students with IEPs in grade 9-12 that dropped
                                                                               221                      3.1%
 out, SY 2003-2004

Discussion of Baseline Data:

According to Blackorby & Wagner, in 1996, the dropout rate for student with disabilities was
approximately twice that of general education students. Baseline data from Hawaii’s public schools in
SY 2003-2004 indicated that the dropout rate for students with disabilities in Hawaii was approximately
33% lower than their non-disabled peers. Because it is difficult to make comparisons across states due
to the variations in data collection methods and definitions, Hawaii will continue to gather data through its
current data systems and to increase efforts to address the dropout rate of students with disabilities as
well as their non-disabled peers.


        FFY                                         Measurable and Rigorous Target

       2005
                       The percent of students with IEPs dropping out of high school will be 3.1%.
    (2005-2006)

       2006
                       The percent of students with IEPs dropping out of high school will be 3.1%.
    (2006-2007)

       2007
                       The percent of students with IEPs dropping out of high school will be 3.0%.
    (2007-2008)

       2008
                       The percent of students with IEPs dropping out of high school will be 2.9%.
    (2008-2009)

       2009
                       The percent of students with IEPs dropping out of high school will be 2.8%.
    (2009-2010)

       2010
                       The percent of students with IEPs dropping out of high school will be 2.7%.
    (2010-2011)




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                      Monitoring Priority Indicator 2 - Page 2
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                            Hawaii
                                                                                                             State

Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:


                  Improvement Activities                         Timelines                   Resources


 Use data to identify schools with low dropout rates.      Beginning Fall 2005        IRMB, Special
 Focus on the positive levels of student participation     and ongoing (Data          Education Section
 and engagement and work with schools to increase          review in Fall, contact    and Student Support
 the number of students graduating with a diploma.         and work with school       Services; District
    • Review and identify data from                        through year.)             Support
       schools/complexes with extremely low dropout
       rates. Identify practices that are effective in
       keeping students in school and working toward
       completion of their high school
       program/curriculum. Support the widespread
       implementation of school level practices that
       are effective in keeping students in school and
       working toward their diploma or appropriate
       program/curriculum.


 Monitor and review data from schools (and                 Beginning Fall 2005        IRMB, Special
 complexes) to identify sites with drop out rates that     and ongoing                Education Section
 exceed by 1.5% (or greater) the state’s rate for drop                                and Student Support
 outs among students with IEPs. Provide technical                                     Services; District
 assistance to support the decrease of dropouts and to                                Support
 increase student attendance and promotion/
 completion of school. Activities may include the
 following as appropriate:
     • Provide information, research, and assistance
        to support implementation of school-wide
        policies and/or practices that increase the
        protective factors the lead to more resilient
        students.
     • Increase efforts for early identification and
        intervention with students at risk of dropping
        out, especially students with IEPS who may be
        characterized by multiple risk factors.
     • Involve all feeder schools within a complex in
        the discussion, planning, and actions to
        decrease the number of students who leave
        high school without a diploma.
     • Explore alternative learning opportunities that
        offer students a variety of options to earning a
        diploma.
     • Where indicated, examine disciplinary
        practices (including the reliance on and
        effectiveness of suspensions) and explore
        other consequences for misbehavior (including
        alternatives to suspension).




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                     Monitoring Priority Indicator 2 - Page 3
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                                 Hawaii
                                                                                                                  State

                  Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2006


 Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE


Indicator 2:      Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high school compared to the percent of all
                  youth in the State dropping out of high school.

      Measurement:

         A. Percent of students dropping out of high school = number of students in grades 9-12 who
            have dropped out of school ÷ total number of students in grades 9-12 X 100.

         B. Percent of students with IEPs dropping out of high school = number of students in grades 9-
            12 who have IEPs and dropped out of school ÷ total number of students in grades 9-12 who
            have IEPs X 100.




       FFY                                          Measurable and Rigorous Target


       2006           The percent of students with IEPs dropping out of high school will be 3.1%.
    (2006-2007)



Actual Target Data for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):

 Measurement:                                                                                                Raw
 Percent of students who dropout of high school                                                              Data

    A. # of students in grades 9-12 who have dropped out of school                                           2645

    B. # of students in grades 9-12 .                                                                       55259

    Percent = (A ÷ B) X 100.]                                                                                4.7%



 Measurement:                                                                                                Raw
 Percent of students with IEPs who dropout of high school                                                    Data

    A. # of students in grades 9-12 who have IEPs and have dropped out of school                              218

    B. # of students in grades 9-12 who have IEPs.                                                           7370

    Percent = (A ÷ B) X 100.]                                                                               2.95%



Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                              Monitoring Priority Indicator 2 - Page 1
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                                 Hawaii
                                                                                                                  State



In the State Performance Plan (SPP) for Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2005 submitted on January 2007, a
revision to the previous SPP (FFY 2004) reflected the establishment of a new baseline for Hawaii using
corrected data from school year (SY) 2003-2004 of students in grades 9-12. At the same time, revisions to
the annual targets for improvement were changed to reflect the new baseline of 3.1% and subsequent annual
targets.

As reported in the Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2005, the target for SY 2004-2005 was set at
3.1%; it was not met as the actual dropout rate was 3.2%. The target for SY 2005-2006 remained at 3.1% for
a second year, during which the dropout rate went from 3.2% to 2.9%. This decrease occurred between SY
2004-2005 and SY 2005-2006.

Data on Hawaii’s dropouts are provided by the Hawaii Department of Education’s (HIDOE’s) Information
Resources Management Branch (IRMB). Hawaii calculates and reports an “annual dropout rate” (also known
as an event rate) as opposed to a “longitudinal” or “cohort” dropout rate. For high schools, the dropout data is
based on the schools’ enrollment count at the beginning of the school year and includes any student who
expressed an “intent to return/enroll” the following school year. Dropout data is a subset of a larger
“Completer/Leaver” report of the number of all students in grades 7-12 who “complete, continue, transfer, or
dropout” during the school year. Completer/Leaver data are collected from school year to school year to
capture any movement of students following summer breaks.

According to data collection sources from the HIDOE, students who “dropout” of school are described as
those who:

           •    Leave school between the ages of 15-18 years old without a diploma.
           •    Are released to work or attend work readiness programs.
           •    Join the Armed Services.
           •    Are placed in other programs by Family Court.
           •    Are in-flight.
           •    Reside on the mainland (and not verified).
           •    Are married and not returning to school.
           •    Do not show up for school as expected.
           •    Have “other” reasons.

Hawaii will continue to use the event method to determine the rate of dropouts. While this method tends to
report lower dropout rates than other methods (i.e., cohort method), it was felt that maintaining consistency in
reporting was important if noting trends through improved/decreasing rates is the intent of the annual reports.

The following table and figure show the number of students, both general education and special education,
included in the dropout reports over the past three years. It also shows the difference in dropout rates over
time, between all students and special education students.




Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                              Monitoring Priority Indicator 2 - Page 2
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                                                     Hawaii
                                                                                                                                      State



                                                         Student Data and Dropout Rates



                                                 SY 2003-2004                SY 2004-2005                        SY 2005-2006


                                                            SPED                         SPED                               SPED
                                          All Students                All Students                     All Students
                                                           Students                     Students                           Students


      No. of Students
     Enrolled in Gr. 9-12                   53,549           7119        54,284          7547               55,259           7370



      No. of Students in
       Grade 9-12 that                      2537             221         2378            249                2645             218
           Dropout




     Percent of Students
        that Dropout                        4.7%             3.1%        4.3%            3.2%               4.7%             2.9%




                                                   Comparison of Dropout Rates
                                      5
                Percent of Dropouts




                                      4       4.7             4.7
                                                     4.3
                                      3
                                                                                  3.1      3.2        2.9
                                      2

                                      1

                                      0
                                               ALL Students                          SPED Students
                                                           SY03-04    SY04-05        SY05-06



Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that
occurred for FFY 2006:

Despite increasing difficulty of standards-based coursework, the data appears to indicate that students with
Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) are dropping out of school at a lower rate (percent of dropouts went
from 3.1% to 2.9%) and are continuing to work toward a high school diploma as indicated by the consistent
graduation rate of 79% over the past three years.
Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                                                  Monitoring Priority Indicator 2 - Page 3
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                                  Hawaii
                                                                                                                   State


Other data indicate a slight decrease in the percent of special education students continuing to receive
services after grade 12 and a steady rate of students earning Certificates by successfully completing their
IEP-based Individually Prescribed Program (IPP).

                    Improvement Activities                       Timelines                        Status

 Monitor and review data from school (and complexes) to         Spring 2006      Schools are now being identified
 identify sites with drop out rates that exceed by 1.5% (or     and ongoing      and will be offered follow up
 greater) the state’s rate for dropouts among students with                      support.
 IEPs. Provide technical assistance to support the
                                                                                 Programs for at-risk students are
 identification/development of supports to teachers and
                                                                                 supporting an increasing number
 students in order to decrease the number of dropouts and
                                                                                 of special education students
 increase student attendance and promotion/completion of
                                                                                 who are earning the Curriculum-
 school. Work may include:
                                                                                 Based High School Diploma
 •    focus on student achievement and early intervention                        (CBHSD) and General Education
      practices with students who are experiencing                               Development (GED) diplomas.
      difficulty;                                                                One of three GEDs and seven of
                                                                                 fourteen CBHSD diplomas in
 •    identify barriers to student achievement and success                       SY 2005-2006 were earned by
      in the classroom and address them as a                                     students with IEPs.
      school/complex, as appropriate;
 •    work with all schools in the complex to review policies
      with respect to attendance, discipline, and retention
      practices; and


 •    examine alternative learning opportunities inside and
      outside of the traditional classrooms that offer
      students a variety of options to learning, as well as
      earning a diploma.

 Used data to identify high schools with low dropout rates      Fall 2006        Initial survey information helped
 and high graduation rates. Conducted survey of fourteen        and ongoing      to focus and provide direction of
 high schools on fifteen indicators of successful secondary                      follow up activities.
 schools from the National Dropout Prevention Center.
                                                                                 Special Education Team
 Schools were asked to rate the extent to which the
                                                                                 presented on creating inclusive
 indicator described their school. Administrators were to
                                                                                 classrooms at an Equity
 select a faculty member to respond to the electronic
                                                                                 Conference planned and hosted
 survey.
                                                                                 by a consortium of local high
 Twelve of fourteen schools responded. Areas most                                schools. Information, training,
 challenging to schools were 1) parent involvement and                           and support will continue to be
 participation and 2) addressing needs of increasingly                           offered to schools.
 diverse ethnicity of student body.
 Work to continue with consortium of high schools and
 their goal to create smaller learning communities in order
 to personalize learning for each of their students.

 Provide informational sessions for parents of secondary        Spring 2007      Parents in stakeholder groups
 students (with focus on those with IEPs). Emphasis will        and ongoing      also expressed need for
 be on preparing parents and students for the middle                             informational sessions regarding
 and/or high school environment, structure, activities, and                      programs, graduation
 academic requirements; sessions will be adapted to                              requirements, and concerns
 specific need/requests of the community. Partnerships                           related to post-high school
Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                               Monitoring Priority Indicator 2 - Page 4
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                           Hawaii
                                                                                                            State


                    Improvement Activities                 Timelines                       Status
 will be encouraged between school, community, and                        planning. Secondary transition
 parent organizations to continue the informational                       teachers and the Community
 sessions each year or as needed.                                         Children’s Council are working
                                                                          together to provide more
                                                                          opportunities for parents and
                                                                          school staff to share information
                                                                          pertinent to school and
                                                                          post-school planning.


Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for
FFY 2006 (2006-2007):


                    Improvement Activities                 Timelines            Revision/Justification

 None at this time




Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                        Monitoring Priority Indicator 2 - Page 5
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                            Hawaii
                                                                                                             State


                       Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2010

      Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE


    Indicator 3: Participation and performance of children with disabilities on statewide
                 assessments:

                     A. Percent of districts meeting the State’s AYP objectives for progress for
                        disability subgroup.

                     B. Participation rate for children with IEPs in a regular assessment with no
                        accommodations; regular assessment with accommodations; alternate
                        assessment against grade level standards; alternate assessment against
                        alternate achievement standards.

                     C. Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level standards and
                        alternate achievement standards.

      Measurement:
      A. Percent = # of districts meeting the State’s AYP objectives for progress for the disability
         subgroup (children with IEPs) divided by the total # of districts in the State times 100.
         *This data is not being reported since Hawaii is a unitary school district (refer to C).

      B.   Participation rate =
           a. # of children with IEPs in grades assessed;
           b. # of children with IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations
              (percent = b divided by a times 100);
           c. # of children with IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations
              (percent = c divided by a times 100);
           d. of children with IEPs in alternate assessment against grade level standards
              (percent = d divided by a times 100).

      Account for any children included in a but not included in b, c, or d above.
      Overall Percent = b + c + d divided by a.

      C.  Proficiency rate =
          a. # of children with IEPs in grades assessed;
          b. # of children with IEPs in grades assessed who are proficient or above as measured by the
               regular assessment with no accommodations (percent = b divided by a times 100);
          c. # of children with IEPs in grades assessed who are proficient or above as measured by the
               regular assessment with accommodations (percent = c divided by a times 100);
          d. # of children with IEPs in grades assessed who are proficient or above as measured by the
               alternate assessment against grade level standards (percent = d divided by a times 100).
      Overall Percent = b + c + d divided by a.




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                     Monitoring Priority Indicator 3 – Page 1
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                             Hawaii
                                                                                                              State

    Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process

    All students in grades 3, 5, 8, and 10 participate in the Hawaii State Assessment (HSA) or the
    Alternate Assessment (AA) administered each spring. The assessment results are used to determine
    students’ progress toward meeting selected Hawaii Content Standards. The standards-based
    reading and mathematics sessions include multiple-choice questions and constructed response
    question. The constructed response questions enable students to show what they can do and
    measure their application of knowledge and skills.

    A new AA based on alternate standards was administered in the spring of
    School Year (SY) 2005-2006. These students AA proficiency levels were aggregated with the HSA
    proficiency levels.

    Baseline Data for Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2004 (2004-2005)

    A. Percent
       HIDOE is a unitary school district; therefore, data will not be reported for “A” Percent of districts
       meeting the State’s Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) objectives on statewide assessment.

    B. Participation rate

              Reading
                 a. 6869 students with IEPs in grades assessed.
                 b. 3357 students with IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations.
                 c. 3203 students with IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations.
                 d. 187 students with IEPs in grades assessed in the alternate assessment against
                     grade level standards.
              Math
                 a. 6870 students with IEPs in grades assessed.
                 b. 3343 students with IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations.
                 c. 3203 students with IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations.
                 d. 185 students with IEPs in grades assessed in alternate assessment against grade
                     level standards.

    C. Proficiency

              Reading
                 a. 6869 students with IEPs in grades assessed.
                 b. 329 regular assessment who are proficient or above with no accommodations.
                 c. 161 regular assessment who are proficient or above with accommodations.
                 d. 0 alternate assessment who are proficient or above against grade level standards.

              Math
                 a.    6870 students with IEPs in grades assessed.
                 b.    135 regular assessment who are proficient or above with no accommodations.
                 c.    58 regular assessment who are proficient or above with accommodations.
                 d.    0 alternate assessment who are proficient or above against grade level standards.




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                      Monitoring Priority Indicator 3 – Page 2
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                         Hawaii
                                                                                                          State

    B.    Participation Rate:

      Overall % participation in reading
                                                                                               96%
          (b + c + d divided by a)
          • regular assessment with no accommodations
                                                                                               49%
              (percent = b divided by a times 100)
          • regular assessment with accommodations
                                                                                               47%
              (percent = c divided by a times 100)
          • alternate assessment against grade level standards
                                                                                                3%
              (percent = d divided by a times 100)
      Overall % participation in math                                                          95%
          •    regular assessment with no accommodations
                                                                                               49%
               (percent = b divided by a times 100);
          •    regular assessment with accommodations
                                                                                               47%
               (percent = c divided by a times 100);
          •    alternate assessment against grade level standards
                                                                                                3%
               (percent = d divided by a times 100)

    C. Percent of schools meeting Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for the disability subgroup:

      Overall % proficiency in reading                                                          7%
          •    regular assessment who are proficient or above with no
                                                                                                5%
               accommodations (percent = b divided by a times 100)
          •    regular assessment who are proficient or above with
                                                                                                2%
               accommodations (percent = c divided by a times 100;
          •    alternate assessment who are proficient or above against grade
                                                                                                0%
               level standards (percent = d divided by a times 100)
      Overall % proficiency in math                                                             3%
          •    regular assessment who are proficient or above with no
                                                                                                2%
               accommodations (percent = b divided by a times 100)
          •    regular assessment who are proficient or above with
                                                                                                1%
               accommodations (percent = c divided by a times 100)
          •    alternate assessment who are proficient or above against grade
                                                                                                0%
               level standards (percent = d divided by a times 100)

    Discussion of Baseline Data

    Students taking the Hawaii State Alternate Assessment (HSAA) work on the same content standards
    as all students in his/her grade level. The Individualized Education Program (IEP) goals and
    objectives for each individual student were matched with the required Hawaii content strands and
    related standards for reading and mathematics. Although progress is measured, the overall
    achievement reflects progress that is below grade level expectations. Therefore, when the link is
    made from the HSAA to the HSA Proficiency Levels, all performance levels for the HSAA (No
    progress, Emerging, Progressing and Achieving), fall in the “Well Below Proficiency” level.

    Two percent or one hundred thirty-four (134) of the students who were eligible to take the HSA/AA
    have letters of request to exempt their child’s participation in the statewide assessment. The
    remaining 2-3% was due to absences on test/retest dates or in the case of the AA a few were
    deemed invalid.




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                  Monitoring Priority Indicator 3 – Page 3
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                               Hawaii
                                                                                                                State

    Targets and activities to address Indicator 3 of the SPP were determined at a meeting by stakeholder
    groups on October 14, 2005. The Special Education Advisory Council (SEAC) and the Community
    Children’s Council Office (CCCO) representatives attended. The group had a wide range of
    stakeholder participants that included parents and school, complex, and higher education personnel.


           FFY                                      Measurable and Rigorous Target

                        Students with disabilities will have a 96% participation in reading
           2006         Students with disabilities will have a 95% participation in math
        (2005-2006)
                        7% of students with disabilities will meet proficiency in reading
                        3% of students with disabilities will meet in math
                        Students with disabilities will have a 96.5% participation in reading
           2007         Students with disabilities will have a 95.5% participation in math
        (2006-2007)     9% of students with disabilities will meet proficiency in reading
                        5% of students with disabilities will meet in math
                        Revised February 2008
           2008         Students with disabilities will have a 95% participation in reading
        (2007-2008)     Students with disabilities will have a 95% participation in math
                        16% of students with disabilities will meet proficiency in reading
                        9% of students with disabilities will meet in math

                        Revised February 2008
           2009         Students with disabilities will have a 95% participation in reading
        (2008-2009)     Students with disabilities will have a 95% participation in math
                        18% of students with disabilities will meet proficiency in reading
                        11% of students with disabilities will meet in math
                        Revised February 2008
           2010         Students with disabilities will have a 95% participation in reading
        (2009-2010)     Students with disabilities will have a 95% participation in math
                        20% proficient in reading
                        13% proficient in math

    Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources


                      Improvement Activities                        Timelines                  Resources

      Deleted February 2008                                      SY 2008 - 2009        Instructional Services
      Conduct data analysis to identify schools with high                              Branch and Testing,
      proficiency levels for students with disabilities:                               Evaluation Section, and
      - Determine reasons for their success                                            Special Education
                                                                                       Section

      Provide technical assistance to those schools with         SY 2005 -2006         Instructional Services
      low proficiency levels.                                      Ongoing             Branch and Testing,
                                                                                       Evaluation Section, and
                                                                                       Special Education
                                                                                       Section




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                        Monitoring Priority Indicator 3 – Page 4
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                            Hawaii
                                                                                                             State


                      Improvement Activities                     Timelines                  Resources

      Administer the Pilot Alternate Assessment based on       SY 2005 - 2006       Testing and Evaluation
      alternate standards                                                           Section

      Administer the Alternate Assessment against              SY 2005 - 2006       Testing and Evaluation
      alternate standards.                                        Ongoing           Section


      Provide training for teachers in the administration of   SY 2005 - 2006       Testing and Evaluation
      the new Alternate Assessments                                                 Section

      Deleted February 2008                                    SY 2008 - 2009       Instructional Services
      Analyze HSA and develop materials for teachers to                             Branch and Testing,
      consider in their curriculum plans                                            Evaluation Section, and
                                                                                    Special Education
                                                                                    Section


      Provide training to teachers on the analysis of HSA      SY 2008 - 2009       Instructional Services
      results and the implications for curriculum planning.       Ongoing           Branch and Testing,
                                                                                    Evaluation Section, and
                                                                                    Special Education
                                                                                    Section

      Provide training for teachers on differentiating         SY 2008 - 2009       Instructional Services
      instruction and other strategies relative to                Ongoing           Branch and Special
      standards.                                                                    Education Section

    Improvement Activities added February 2008

    Activities that support the targets of this indicator from Performance Indicator 5 were added.


                      Improvement Activities                     Timelines                  Resources
      NEW
      Meet with partner programs and agencies to               SY 2006 - 2007       Special Education
      increase awareness of least restrictive                     Ongoing           Services Branch
      environments (LRE) and inclusion.

      NEW
      Provide professional development opportunities with      SY 2007-2008         Special Education
      a focus on inclusion & differentiated instruction to       Ongoing            Services Branch
      increase school level including stakeholder
      knowledge.

      NEW
      Conduct a study to determine whether special             January 2008             Special Education
      education staffing positions, as currently allocated,      through                    Section
      are appropriate to support inclusion.                     June 2010




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                     Monitoring Priority Indicator 3 – Page 5
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                       Hawaii
                                                                                                        State


                      Improvement Activities                Timelines                  Resources
      NEW
      Identify schools for HIDOE to use as a model for   February through          Special Education
      inclusion.                                            June 2008                  Section


      NEW
      Host a State Inclusion Conference for all HIDOE       June 2008              Special Education
      employees and parents.                                                           Section




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                Monitoring Priority Indicator 3 – Page 6
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                            Hawaii
                                                                                                             State

                   Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for 2006


 Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE


Indicator 3: Participation and performance of children with disabilities on statewide assessments:

               A. Percent of districts that have a disability subgroup that meets the State’s
                  minimum “n” size meeting the State’s AYP objectives for progress for disability
                  subgroup.

               B. Participation rate for children with IEPs in a regular assessment with no
                  accommodations; regular assessment with accommodations; alternate
                  assessment against grade level standards; alternate assessment against alternate
                  achievement standards.

               C. Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level standards and alternate
                  achievement standards.

       Measurement:
       A. Percent = # of districts meeting the State’s AYP objectives for progress for the disability
          subgroup (children with IEPs) divided by the total # of districts in the State times 100.
          *This data is not being reported since Hawaii is a unitary school district (refer to C).

       B.  Participation rate =
           a. # of children with IEPs in assessed grades;
           b. # of children with IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations
               (percent = [(b) divided by (a)] times 100);
           c. # of children with IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations
               (percent = [(c) divided by (a)] times 100);
           d. # of children with IEPs in alternate assessment against grade level achievement standards
               (percent = [(d) divided by (a)] times 100); and
           e. # of children with IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate achievement standards
               (percent = [(e) divided by (a)] times 100).
       Account for any children included in a but not included in b, c, d, or e above.
       Overall Percent = [(b + c + d + e) divided by (a)].

       C.   Proficiency rate =
          a. # of children with IEPs in assessed grades;
          b. # of children with IEPs in assessed grades who are proficient or above as measured by the
                regular assessment with no accommodations
               (percent = [(b) divided by(a)] times 100);
          c. # of children with IEPs in assessed grades who are proficient or above as measured by the
                regular assessment with accommodations
               (percent = [(c) divided by (a)] times 100);
          d. # of children with IEPs in assessed grades who are proficient or above as measured by the
                alternate assessment against grade level achievement standards
                (percent = [(d) divided by (a)] times 100); and
          e. # of children with IEPs in assessed grades who are proficient or above as measured against
                alternate achievement standards
                (percent = [(e) divided by (a)] times 100).
       Account for any children included in a but not included in b, c, d, or e above.
       Overall Percent = [(b + c + d + e ) divided by (a)].


Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                              Monitoring Priority Indicator 3 - Page 1
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                               Hawaii
                                                                                                                State


         FFY                                        Measurable and Rigorous Target

                         Students with disabilities will have a 96.5% participation in reading
         2007            Students with disabilities will have a 95.5% participation in math
      (2006-2007)
                         9% of students with disabilities will meet proficiency in reading
                         5% of students with disabilities will meet in math

Actual Target Data for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):


                                         Measurement                                                  Raw Data

A.   Percent = # of districts meeting the State’s AYP objectives for progress for the
     disability subgroup (children with IEPs) divided by the total # of districts in the
     State times 100.                                                                                      NA
     *This data is not being reported since Hawaii is a unitary school district.

 B. Participation rate =
     Reading
   a. 10716 children with IEPs in assessed grades;
   b. 4402 children with IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations                              95.16%
      (percent = [(b) divided by (a)] times 100);
        95.16% = (4402/10716) (100)
   c. 5472 children with IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations                                 41.08%
      (percent = [(c) divided by (a)] times 100);
        41.08% = (5472/10716) (100)
   d. NA children with IEPs in alternate assessment against grade level                                    NA
       achievement standards
       (percent = [(d) divided by (a)] times 100); and
   e. 323 children with IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate achievement                       3.01%
       standards
      (percent = [(e) divided by (a)] times 100).
        3.01% = (323/10716) (100)
Account for any children included in a but not included in b, c, d, or e above.                          95.2%
        114 parental exemption
        402 absent
        3 exempt for other reasons

Overall Percent = [(b + c + d + e) divided by (a)].                                                     41.33%
         95.2% = [(4402 + 5472 + 323)/10716] (100)

      Math
     a. 10716 children with IEPs in assessed grades;                                                    50.71%
     b. 4429 children with IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations
        (percent = [(b) divided by (a)] times 100);
          41.33% = (4429/10716) (100)
     c. 5434 children with IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations
         (percent = [(c) divided by (a)] times 100);
           50.71% = (5434/10716) (100)
     d. NA children with IEPs in alternate assessment against grade level                                  NA
         achievement standards
         (percent = [(d) divided by (a)] times 100); and



Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                                 Monitoring Priority Indicator 3 - Page 2
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                             Hawaii
                                                                                                              State


                                         Measurement                                                Raw Data

    e. 321 children with IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate achievement                    3.00%
        standards
       (percent = [(e) divided by (a)] times 100).
        3.00% = (321/10716 0) (100)
Account for any children included in a but not included in b, c, d, or e above.
          114 parental exemption
          415 absent
          3 exempt for other reasons

Overall Percent = [(b + c + d + e) divided by (a)].                                                     95%
         95% = [(4429 + 5434 + 321)] / 10716] (100)
 C. Proficiency rate =
      Reading
    a. 10716 of children with IEPs in assessed grades;
    b. 783 of children with IEPs in assessed grades who are proficient or above as                     7.31%
        measured by the regular assessment with no accommodations
       (percent = [(b) divided by(a)] times 100);
        7.31% = (783/10716) (100)
    c. 493 children with IEPs in assessed grades who are proficient or above as                         4.6%
        measured by the regular assessment with accommodations
       (percent = [(c) divided by (a)] times 100);
         4.60% = (493/10716) (100)
    d. NA of children with IEPs in assessed grades who are proficient or above as                        NA
        measured by the alternate assessment against grade level achievement
        standards
        (percent = [(d) divided by (a)] times 100); and
    e. 172 children with IEPs in assessed grades who are proficient or above as                        1.61%
        measured against alternate achievement standards
        (percent = [(e) divided by (a)] times 100).
         1.61% = (172/10716) (100)

Account for any children included in a but not included in b, c, d, or e above.
        114 parental exemption
        402 absent
        3 exempt for other reasons

Overall Percent = [(b + c + d + e ) divided by (a)].                                                  13.51%
          13.51% = [(783 + 493 + 172 /10716] (100)
      Math
    a. 10716 children with IEPs in assessed grades;
    b. 334 children with IEPs in assessed grades who are proficient or above as                        3.12%
        measured by the regular assessment with no accommodations
       (percent = [(b) divided by(a)] times 100);
        3.12% = (334/10716) (100)
    c. 224 children with IEPs in assessed grades who are proficient or above as                        2.09%
        measured by the regular assessment with accommodations
        (percent = [(c) divided by (a)] times 100);
        2.09% = (224/10716) (100)
        NA children with IEPs in assessed grades who are proficient or above as

Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                               Monitoring Priority Indicator 3 - Page 3
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                             Hawaii
                                                                                                              State


                                         Measurement                                                Raw Data

       measured by the alternate assessment against grade level achievement
       standards
       (percent = [(d) divided by (a)] times 100); and
    d. 150 children with IEPs in assessed grades who are proficient or above as                        1.40%
       measured against alternate achievement standards
       (percent = [(e) divided by (a)] times 100).
        1.40% = (150/10716) (100)

Account for any children included in a but not included in b, c, d, or e above.
        114 parental exemption
        415 absent
        3 exempt for other reasons

Overall Percent = [(b + c + d + e ) divided by (a)].                                                   6.61%
         6.61% = [(334 + 224 + 150)/10716] (100)




Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                               Monitoring Priority Indicator 3 - Page 4
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                                  Hawaii
                                                                                                                   State

Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that
occurred for FFY 2006:



                                                      Longitudinal Data


                                                                    Reading

                            2003-2004                   2004-2005             2005-2006                  2006-2007
      2003-2007
                             Percent                     Percent               Percent                     Percent

                      Proficient     Tested         Proficient   Tested   Proficient   Tested      Proficient       Tested

 NCLB Targets             30%          95%            30%          95%      44%          95%           44%           95%

 All Students             39%          96%            45%          98%      47%          99%           60%           98%
 Disabled
 (SPED)                    6%          92%             7%          96%        9%         97%           14%           95%
 **
  Alternate
 Assessment                n/a         0.4%            n/a       72.0%      46%        80.0%          2.0%           3.0%




                                                                     Math

                            2003-2004                   2004-2005             2005-2006                  2006-2007
      2003-2007
                             Percent                     Percent               Percent                     Percent

                      Proficient     Tested         Proficient   Tested   Proficient   Tested      Proficient       Tested

 NCLB Targets             10%          95%            10%          95%      28%          95%           28%           95%

 All Students             19%          96%            23%          98%      27%          99%           38%           98%
 Disabled
 (SPED)                    3%          91%             2%          96%        5%         96%            7%           95%
 **
  Alternate
 Assessment                n/a         0.4%            n/a       71.0%      43%        80.0%            1%           3.0%

The stakeholder group met on November 13, 2007 to review data and activities. The targets were
exceeded for proficiency in both reading and math (14% and 9%, respectively). The stakeholders
recommended increasing the targets for School Year (SY) 2007-2008 to 16% and 9% in reading and
math respectively. Subsequent reporting periods are increased by 2% gains per year. Gains in
proficiency in both reading and math were partially attributed to the inclusion of students who met or
exceeded proficiency on the Hawaii State Alternate Assessment (HSAA). The HSAA administered in the
spring of 2006 was scored against alternate achievement standards. Additionally, the Hawaii State
Assessment (HAS) administered in the spring of SY 2006-2007 was based on the revised Hawaii Content
and Performance Standards (HCPS III). The stakeholder group recommended that participation be the
same as the NCLB target of 95%. The targets of 96.5% and 95.5% were not met for reading and math
respectively although the NCLB benchmarks were met. Slippage may in part be attributed to the
shortened testing window from 4 weeks to 2 weeks.



Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                                    Monitoring Priority Indicator 3 - Page 5
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                                Hawaii
                                                                                                                 State


                  Improvement Activities                               Timelines                        Status

 Provide technical assistance to those schools with                    2005-2010                  Ongoing
 low proficiency levels.
 Provide training for teachers on differentiating
 instruction and other strategies relative to                          2005-2010                  Ongoing
 standards.

Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):

Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE) revised its State Performance Plan (SPP) Indicator 3 to reflect
the revised targets for SY 2007-2008 through SY 2009-2010. The targets were exceeded for proficiency
in both reading and math (9% and 5%, respectively). The stakeholders recommended increasing the
targets for SY 2007-2008 to 16% and 9% in reading and math respectively. In addition, the stakeholder
group recommended that participation be adjusted to be the same as the NCLB target of 95% as higher
targets are not required.

Revised Targets


           FFY                                      Measurable and Rigorous Target

                         Students with disabilities will have a 95% participation in reading
          2007           Students with disabilities will have a 95% participation in math
        (2007-2008)
                         16% of students with disabilities will meet proficiency in reading
                          9% of students with disabilities will meet in math

Two activities in the SPP were deleted. Cross-sectional (i.e., same grade but different school year) and
longitudinal (i.e., cohort-type) comparisons of the spring 2007 HSA are not possible at this time. The
spring HSA is based on the third edition of the HCPS III and cannot be compared with spring 2002-2006
HSA scores. The following activities may be more appropriate for the next SPP cycle and are deleted
from the current SPP.

    •      Conduct data analysis to identify schools with high proficiency levels for students with disabilities
    •      Analyze HSA and develop materials for teachers to consider in their curriculum plans

Activities in Performance Indicator 5 support children with disabilities in the participation and performance
on statewide assessments and are added to the SPP for this indicator.

New Improvement Activities


            Improvement Activities                         Timelines                   Revision/Justification


 Meet with partner programs and                          SY 2006-2007              New activity added to assist
 agencies to increase awareness of least                   Ongoing                 in meeting targets
 restrictive environments (LRE) and
 inclusion.




Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                                  Monitoring Priority Indicator 3 - Page 6
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                           Hawaii
                                                                                                            State



          Improvement Activities                         Timelines                Revision/Justification


 Provide professional development                      SY 2007-2008           New activity added to assist
 opportunities with a focus on inclusion &               Ongoing              in meeting targets
 differentiated instruction to increase
 school level including stakeholder
 knowledge.


 Conduct a study to determine whether               January 2008 through      New activity added to assist
 special education staffing positions, as                June 2010            in meeting targets
 currently allocated, are appropriate to
 support inclusion.


 Identify schools for HIDOE to use as a             February 2008 through     New activity added to assist
 model for inclusion.                                    June 2008            in meeting targets


 Host a State Inclusion Conference for all               June 2008            New activity added to assist
 HIDOE employees and parents.                                                 in meeting targets




Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                             Monitoring Priority Indicator 3 - Page 7
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
               STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON STATE ASSESSMENTS



 DATE:           February 1, 2008          STATUS: ORIGINAL SUBMISSION

Data are due February 1, 2008.

Please read the following basic guidelines before completing the Data Transmission System
(DTS) forms:

1. To change the size and appearance of the text on the spreadsheet, select VIEW from the
toolbar, select ZOOM, and then select the percentage increase or decrease.

2. Enter the appropriate data into the YELLOW shaded areas on each page of the form.
Please be sure to read section heading descriptions so data are entered in the correct
section. Also, be sure to enter any State and date information. The two-digit State postal
code should appear on every page of the form. A list is available on PAGE1. Use the scroll
bar or the up or down arrow keys to scroll through the list. Click on the appropriate State
postal code to select it.

3. If you choose to cut and paste data from another area, use the PASTE SPECIAL option
and select VALUES. This will protect the current formats.

4. Any comments regarding the submitted data should be entered on the last page of the
workbook, titled COMMENTS.

5. Save the completed forms. Please be sure that your State postal code appears in the file
name. (Example: Maryland - AS06MD.XLS)


6. Red cells indicate a condition that must hold. Orange cells indicate a condition that should
hold. Please make sure there are NO RED CELLS before saving and submitting data.


7. Print the entire workbook by selecting, FILE, PRINT and then select ENTIRE
WORKBOOK located in the 'PRINT WHAT' section. Send printed copies of the completed
DTS forms to the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) at the following address:

         Patricia J. Guard, Acting Director
         Office of Special Education Programs
         U.S. Department of Education
         Part B Data Reports
         Program Support Services Group
         Mail Stop 2600
         550 12th Street, S.W.
         Washington, D.C. 20202


8. If you received your file by e-mail, please return electronic copies of completed DTS forms
to Westat.
         IDEAData_PartB@WESTAT.COM
         Westat
         1650 Research Blvd.
         RA 1203
         Rockville, MD 20850-3159

If you have any questions or comments, please contact Mary Job at (301) 315-5939.
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION                                                                                                                                                      PAGE 1 OF 18
 OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION                                                                     TABLE 6
 AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES                                                                                                                                                  OMB NO. 1820-0659
 OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION                                REPORT OF THE PARTICIPATION AND PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON STATE
 PROGRAMS                                                              ASSESSMENTS BY CONTENT AREA, GRADE, AND TYPE OF ASSESSMENT                                     FORM EXPIRES: 09/30/2007


                                                                                                2006-2007                                                     STATE: HI - HAWAII




                                                                          SECTION A. ENROLLMENT DATA FOR THE MATH ASSESSMENT1




 GRADE LEVEL                                                                              STUDENTS WITH IEPs (1)                           ALL STUDENTS (2)

 3
                                                                                                                         1322                                 13780
 4
                                                                                                                         1415                                 13496
 5
                                                                                                                         1463                                 13831
 6
                                                                                                                         1515                                 13428
 7
                                                                                                                         1588                                 13338
 8
                                                                                                                         1657                                 13355
 HIGH SCHOOL (SPECIFY GRADE:)                              10
                                                                                                                         1756                                 13472


 1
     At a date as close as possible to the testing date.




ORIGINAL SUBMISSION
CURRENT DATE: February 01, 2008
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION                                                                                                                                                                                       PAGE 2 OF 18
 OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION                                                                                          TABLE 6
 AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES                                                                                                                                                                                  OMB NO. 1820-0659
 OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION                                      REPORT OF THE PARTICIPATION AND PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON STATE
 PROGRAMS                                                                    ASSESSMENTS BY CONTENT AREA, GRADE, AND TYPE OF ASSESSMENT                                                              FORM EXPIRES: 09/30/2007


                                                                                                                     2006-2007                                                 STATE: HI - HAWAII



                                                                         SECTION B. PARTICIPATION OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON MATH ASSESSMENT




                                                                                                         STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES WHO TOOK REGULAR ASSESSMENT
                                                                                                                 ON GRADE LEVEL ACHIEVEMENT STANDARDS

                                                                                                                                                    LEP STUDENTS IN US < 12
                                                                                                          SUBSET (OF 3) WHO TOOK THE                MONTHS WHOSE ENGLISH
                                                                                                             ASSESSMENT WITH                      PROFICIENCY TEST REPLACED                     SUBSET (OF 3) WHOSE
                                                                                                              ACCOMODATIONS                           REGULAR READING                        ASSESSMENT RESULTS WERE
 GRADE LEVEL                                                              TOTAL (3)                                 (3A)                               ASSESSMENT (3B)1                             INVALID2 (3C)

 3
                                                                                               1219                                       843                                                                                 0
 4
                                                                                               1315                                       953                                                                                 0
 5
                                                                                               1359                                       967                                                                                 0
 6
                                                                                               1401                                       896                                                                                 0
 7
                                                                                               1493                                       690                                                                                 0
 8
                                                                                               1528                                       666                                                                                 0

 HIGH SCHOOL :                               10
                                                                                               1548                                       347                                                                                 0
 1
     This column is gray because it does not apply to the math assessment. Do not enter data in this column.

 2
   Invalid results are assessment results that cannot be used for reporting and or aggregation due to problems in the testing process (e.g. students do not take all portions of the assessment, students do not fill out
 the answer sheet correctly) or changes in testing materials that resulted in a score that is not deemed by the State to be comparable to scores received by students who took the assessment
 assessment without these changes.




                                                           Please provide the reason(s) for why column 3A all zero.




CURRENT DATE:
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION                                                                                                                                                                               PAGE 4 OF 18
 OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION                                                                           TABLE 6
 AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES                                                                                                                                                                         OMB NO. 1820-0659
 OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION                       REPORT OF THE PARTICIPATION AND PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON STATE
 PROGRAMS                                                     ASSESSMENTS BY CONTENT AREA, GRADE, AND TYPE OF ASSESSMENT                                                                     FORM EXPIRES: 09/30/2007


                                                                                                      2006-2007                                                                   STATE: HI - HAWAII




                                                                                 SECTION B. PARTICIPATION OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON MATH ASSESSMENT (CONTINUED)




                                                                                                     STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES WHO TOOK ALTERNATE ASSESSMENT



                                                                                               SUBSET (OF 4) WHOSE   SUBSET (OF 4) WHOSE SUBSET (OF 4B) COUNTED
                                                                                                 ALTERNATE WAS     ALTERNATE WAS SCORED      AT THE LOWEST
                                                                                                 SCORED AGAINST       AGAINST ALTERNATE    ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL                                  SUBSET (OF 4) WHOSE
                                                                                                  GRADE LEVEL      ACHIEVEMENT STANDARDS  BECAUSE OF THE NCLB                                 ASSESSMENT RESULTS
 GRADE LEVEL                                                            TOTAL (4)                STANDARDS (4A)              (4B)               CAP1 (4C)                                      WERE INVALID2 (4D)

 3
                                                                                          45                           0                              45                                 0                               0
 4
                                                                                          52                           0                              52                                 0                               0
 5
                                                                                          53                           0                              53                                 0                               0
 6
                                                                                          52                           0                              52                                 0                               0
 7
                                                                                          35                           0                              35                                 0                               0
 8
                                                                                          59                           0                              59                                 0                               0

 HIGH SCHOOL :                              10
                                                                                          25                           0                              25                                 0                               0
 1
  NCLB 1% cap is the limit on the number of scores on an alternate assessment on alternate achievement standards that can be counted as proficient AYP calculations. If in 2006-07 your state had an
 approved exception to the 1% cap as indicated in Section A, use your 2006-07 adjusted cap rather than 1% when determining the number of students that must be counted in the lowest achievement level.
 2
  Invalid results are assessment results that cannot be used for reporting and or aggregation due to problems in the testing process (e.g. students do not take all portions of the assessment or students do not fill
  out the answer sheet correctly) or changes in testing materials that resulted in a score that is not deemed by the State to be comparable to scores received by students who took the assessment
 without these changes.




CURRENT DATE:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION                                                                                                                                                                                           PAGE 5 OF 18
OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION                                                                                                         TABLE 6
AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES                                                                                                                                                                                       OMB NO. 1820-0659
OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION                                                                         REPORT OF THE PARTICIPATION AND PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON STATE
PROGRAMS                                                                                                       ASSESSMENTS BY CONTENT AREA, GRADE, AND TYPE OF ASSESSMENT                                   FORM EXPIRES: 09/30/2007


                                                                                                                                   2006-2007                                           STATE: HI - HAWAII



                                                                                   SECTION B. PARTICIPATION OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON MATH ASSESSMENT (CONTINUED)




                                                                                                                                    STUDENTS WHO DID NOT TAKE AN ASSESSMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH NCLB
                                                                                                                                                     STUDENTS WHO DID NOT TAKE ANY ASSESSMENT




                                                                      STUDENTS WHO TOOK AN
GRADE LEVEL                                                            OUT OF LEVEL TEST (5)                                PARENTAL EXEMPTION (6)                      ABSENT (7)              EXEMPT FOR OTHER REASONS5 (8)

3                                                        0
                                                                                                                                                         17                                40                                     1
4                                                        0
                                                                                                                                                         28                                19                                     1
5                                                        0
                                                                                                                                                         24                                27                                     0
6                                                        0
                                                                                                                                                         23                                38                                     1
7                                                        0
                                                                                                                                                          9                                51                                     0
8                                                        0
                                                                                                                                                          7                                63                                     0

HIGH SCHOOL :                              10            0
                                                                                                                                                          6                               177                                     0

1
    In a separate listing, report the number of students exempted for other reasons by grade and specific reason.




                                                                                                                    Please provide the reason(s) for exemption.




                   CURRENT DATE:
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION                                                                                                                                                                                        PAGE 6 OF 18
 OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION                                                                                                    TABLE 6
 AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES                                                                                                                                                                                   OMB NO. 1820-0659
 OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION                                                   REPORT OF THE PARTICIPATION AND PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON STATE
 PROGRAMS                                                                                 ASSESSMENTS BY CONTENT AREA, GRADE, AND TYPE OF ASSESSMENT                                                     FORM EXPIRES: 09/30/2007

                                                                                                                                                                                                STATE: HI - HAWAII
                                                                                                                               2006-2007



                                                                                      SECTION C. PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON MATH ASSESSMENT



                                                                                                               REGULAR ASSESSMENT ON GRADE LEVEL (9A)

                                                                                 Well Below    Approaches             Meets       Exceeds
                                                                               Achievement     Achievement      Achievement   Achievement      Achievement    Achievement   Achievement   Achievement     Achievement    9A ROW
                                                                                  Level           Level            Level         Level            Level          Level         Level         Level           Level       TOTAL1
 GRADE LEVEL                                             TEST NAME
                                                  Hawaii State
 3
                                                  Assessment                             642            431              99               47              0             0             0              0               0      1219
                                                  Hawaii State
 4
                                                  Assessment                             957            233              94               31              0             0             0              0               0      1315
                                                  Hawaii State
 5
                                                  Assessment                           1182               96             53               28              0             0             0              0               0      1359
                                                  Hawaii State
 6
                                                  Assessment                           1193             139              53               16              0             0             0              0               0      1401
                                                  Hawaii State
 7
                                                  Assessment                           1303             110              65               15              0             0             0              0               0      1493
                                                  Hawaii State
 8
                                                  Assessment                           1396             104              24                4              0             0             0              0               0      1528

 HIGH SCHOOL : 10                                 Hawaii State
                                                  Assessment                           1425               94             24                5              0             0             0              0               0      1548

 LOWEST ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL CONSIDERED PROFICIENT:                              Meets
 1
     The total number of students reported by achievement level in 9A is to equal the number reported in column 3 minus the number reported in columns 3B and 3C.




CURRENT DATE:
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION                                                                                                                                                                                               PAGE 7 OF 18
 OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION                                                                                                   TABLE 6
 AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES                                                                                                                                                                                        OMB NO. 1820-0659
 OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION                                                 REPORT OF THE PARTICIPATION AND PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON STATE
 PROGRAMS                                                                                   ASSESSMENTS BY CONTENT AREA, GRADE, AND TYPE OF ASSESSMENT                                                      FORM EXPIRES: 09/30/2007

                                                                                                                                                                                                   STATE: HI - HAWAII
                                                                                                                              2006-2007



                                                                            SECTION C. PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON MATH ASSESSMENT (CONTINUED)



                                                                                                  ALTERNATE ASSESSMENT ON GRADE LEVEL STANDARDS (9B)

                                                                                        n/a             n/a             n/a             n/a            n/a             n/a             n/a            n/a             n/a                                   Column 4A - column Column 4A should
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             4D should be less be greater than or
                                                                              Achievement     Achievement     Achievement     Achievement     Achievement    Achievement     Achievement     Achievement    Achievement       9B ROW
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Computed          than or equal to equal to computed
                                                                                 Level           Level           Level           Level           Level          Level           Level           Level          Level          TOTAL1
 GRADE LEVEL                                            TEST NAME                                                                                                                                                                           row Total          computed total         total
 3
                                                n/a                                       0               0               0               0              0               0               0              0               0               0               0                    0                  0
 4
                                                n/a                                       0               0               0               0              0               0               0              0               0               0               0                    0                  0
 5
                                                n/a                                       0               0               0               0              0               0               0              0               0               0               0                    0                  0
 6
                                                n/a                                       0               0               0               0              0               0               0              0               0               0               0                    0                  0
 7
                                                n/a                                       0               0               0               0              0               0               0              0               0               0               0                    0                  0
 8
                                                n/a                                       0               0               0               0              0               0               0              0               0               0               0                    0                  0

 HIGH SCHOOL : 10
                                                n/a                                       0               0               0               0              0               0               0              0               0               0               0                    0                  0

 LOWEST ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL CONSIDERED PROFICIENT:                             n/a
 1
     The total number of students reported by achievement level in 9B is equal to the number reported in Column 4A minus that portion of 4D that refers to invalid results from assessments scored against grade level achievement standards.




CURRENT DATE:
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION                                                                                                                                                                                                              PAGE 8 OF 18
 OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION                                                                                                   TABLE 6
 AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES                                                                                                                                                                                                      OMB NO. 1820-0659
 OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION                                                REPORT OF THE PARTICIPATION AND PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON STATE
 PROGRAMS                                                                              ASSESSMENTS BY CONTENT AREA, GRADE, AND TYPE OF ASSESSMENT                                                                          FORM EXPIRES: 09/30/2007

                                                                                                                                                                                                            STATE:      HI - HAWAII
                                                                                                                              2006-2007



                                                                           SECTION C. PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON MATH ASSESSMENT (CONTINUED)



                                                                                             ALTERNATE ASSESSMENT SCORED AGAINST ALTERNATE STANDARDS (9C)

                                                                          Well Below       Approaches              Meets          Exceeds
                                                                        Achievement       Achievement       Achievement       Achievement       Achievement       Achievement       Achievement       Achievement        Achievement        9C ROW
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Computed
                                                                          Level1             Level             Level             Level             Level             Level             Level             Level              Level           TOTAL2
 GRADE LEVEL                                      TEST NAME                                                                                                                                                                                               row Total
                                           Hawaii State
 3
                                           Alternate Assessment                     10                  9              20                   6                 0                 0                 0                 0                  0             45           45
                                           Hawaii State
 4
                                           Alternate Assessment                     10               12                17                 13                  0                 0                 0                 0                  0             52           52
                                           Hawaii State
 5
                                           Alternate Assessment                     19               13                11                 10                  0                 0                 0                 0                  0             53           53
                                           Hawaii State
 6
                                           Alternate Assessment                     21                  8              13                 10                  0                 0                 0                 0                  0             52           52
                                           Hawaii State
 7
                                           Alternate Assessment                     10                  4              14                   7                 0                 0                 0                 0                  0             35           35
                                           Hawaii State
 8
                                           Alternate Assessment                     26               10                12                 11                  0                 0                 0                 0                  0             59           59

 HIGH SCHOOL : 10                          Hawaii State
                                           Alternate Assessment                     12                  7                 1                 5                 0                 0                 0                 0                  0             25           25

 LOWEST ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL CONSIDERED PROFICIENT:                      Meets
 1
     Include all students whose assessment counted in the lowest achievement level because of the NCLB 1% cap.
 2
  The total number of students reported by achievement level in 9C is to equal the number reported in column 4B minus that portion of 4D that refers to invalid results from assessments scored against alternate
 achievement standards.




CURRENT DATE:
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION                                                                                                                                                                           PAGE 9 OF 18
 OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION                                                                           TABLE 6
 AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES                                                                                                                                                                      OMB NO. 1820-0659
 OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION                           REPORT OF THE PARTICIPATION AND PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON STATE
 PROGRAMS                                                         ASSESSMENTS BY CONTENT AREA, GRADE, AND TYPE OF ASSESSMENT                                                              FORM EXPIRES: 09/30/2007


                                                                                                                                                                           STATE: HI - HAWAII
                                                                                                      2006-2007


                                                       SECTION C. PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON MATH ASSESSMENT (CONTINUED)




                                                                 TOTAL FOR COLUMN 9A           TOTAL FOR COLUMN 9B          TOTAL FOR COLUMN 9C
 GRADE LEVEL                                                         (ON PAGE 6)1                  (ON PAGE 7)1                 (ON PAGE 8)1             NO VALID SCORE1,2 (10)               TOTAL1,3 (11)

 3
                                                                                      1219                              0                           45                          58                             1322
 4
                                                                                      1315                              0                           52                          48                             1415
 5
                                                                                      1359                              0                           53                          51                             1463
 6
                                                                                      1401                              0                           52                          62                             1515
 7
                                                                                      1493                              0                           35                          60                             1588
 8
                                                                                      1528                              0                           59                          70                             1657
 HIGH SCHOOL :                                    10
                                                                                      1548                              0                           25                         183                             1756
 1
     STATES SHOULD NOT REPORT DATA ON THIS PAGE. THESE DATA WILL BE CALCULATED FROM THE REPORTED DATA AFTER THE COUNTS ARE SUBMITTED. PLEASE REVIEW FOR
 ERRORS.

 2
     Column 10 is calculated by summing the numbers reported in column 3C plus column 4D plus column 5 plus column 6 plus column 7 plus column 8.

 3
  Column 11 should equal the number of students with IEPs reported in column 1 of Section A. If the number of students is not the same, provide an explanation. Column 11 should always equal the sum of the
 number of students reported in columns 3 plus column 4 plus column 5 plus column 6 plus column 7 plus column 8.
                                                               Please explain the difference between column 11 and the number reported in column 1, Section A.

                Explanation




CURRENT DATE:
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION                                                                                                                                                     PAGE 10 OF 18
 OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION                                                                     TABLE 6
 AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES                                                                                                                                                   OMB NO. 1820-0659
 OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION                                REPORT OF THE PARTICIPATION AND PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON STATE
 PROGRAMS                                                              ASSESSMENTS BY CONTENT AREA, GRADE, AND TYPE OF ASSESSMENT                                     FORM EXPIRES: 09/30/2007


                                                                                                2006-2007                                                 STATE: HI - HAWAII


                                                                         SECTION D. ENROLLMENT DATA FOR THE READING ASSESSMENT1




 GRADE LEVEL                                                                              STUDENTS WITH IEPs (1)                       ALL STUDENTS (2)


 3
                                                                                                                     1322                                 13780
 4
                                                                                                                     1415                                 13496
 5
                                                                                                                     1463                                 13831
 6
                                                                                                                     1515                                 13428
 7
                                                                                                                     1588                                 13338
 8
                                                                                                                     1657                                 13355
 HIGH SCHOOL (SPECIFY GRADE:)                          10
                                                                                                                     1756                                 13472


 1
 At a date as close as possible to the testing date.




CURRENT DATE:
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION                                                                                                                                                                                            PAGE 11 OF 18
 OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION                                                                                           TABLE 6
 AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES                                                                                                                                                                                     OMB NO. 1820-0659
 OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION                                         REPORT OF THE PARTICIPATION AND PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON STATE
 PROGRAMS                                                                       ASSESSMENTS BY CONTENT AREA, GRADE, AND TYPE OF ASSESSMENT                                                               FORM EXPIRES: 09/30/2007


                                                                                                                      2006-2007                                                    STATE: HI - HAWAII



                                                                          SECTION E. PARTICIPATION OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON READING ASSESSMENT




                                                                                                            STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES WHO TOOK REGULAR ASSESSMENT
                                                                                                                    ON GRADE LEVEL ACHIEVEMENT STANDARDS

                                                                                                                                                       LEP STUDENTS IN US < 12
                                                                                                            SUBSET (OF 3) WHO TOOK THE                 MONTHS WHOSE ENGLISH
                                                                                                               ASSESSMENT WITH                       PROFICIENCY TEST REPLACED
                                                                                                                ACCOMODATIONS                            REGULAR READING                      SUBSET (OF 3) WHOSE ASSESSMENT
 GRADE LEVEL                                                                TOTAL (3)                                 (3A)                                ASSESSMENT (3B)1                       RESULTS WERE INVALID2 (3C)

 3
                                                                                                 1218                                       862                                           0                                         0
 4
                                                                                                 1318                                       956                                           0                                         0
 5
                                                                                                 1356                                       973                                           0                                         0
 6
                                                                                                 1401                                       901                                           0                                         0
 7
                                                                                                 1498                                       690                                           0                                         0
 8
                                                                                                 1529                                       670                                           0                                         0

 HIGH SCHOOL :                                10
                                                                                                 1554                                       352                                           0                                         0
 1
     Report those LEP students who, at the time of the reading assessment, were in the United States for less than 12 months and took the English proficiency test in place of the regular reading assessment.

 2
  Invalid results are assessment results that cannot be used for reporting and or aggregation due to problems in the testing process (e.g. students do not take all portions of the assessment or students do not fill
  out the answer sheet correctly) or changes in testing materials that resulted in a score that is not deemed by the State to be comparable to scores received by students who took the assessment
 without these changes.




                                                             Please provide the reason(s) for why column 3A all zero.




CURRENT DATE:
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION                                                                                                                                                                                   PAGE 13 OF 18
 OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION                                                                        TABLE 6
 AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES                                                                                                                                                                               OMB NO. 1820-0659
 OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION                     REPORT OF THE PARTICIPATION AND PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON STATE
 PROGRAMS                                                   ASSESSMENTS BY CONTENT AREA, GRADE, AND TYPE OF ASSESSMENT                                                                             FORM EXPIRES: 09/30/2007


                                                                                                   2006-2007                                                                        STATE: HI - HAWAII



                                               SECTION E. PARTICIPATION OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON READING ASSESSMENT (CONTINUED)




                                                                                                      STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES WHO TOOK ALTERNATE ASSESSMENT



                                                                                                                             SUBSET (OF 4) WHOSE            SUBSET (OF 4B) COUNTED
                                                                                           SUBSET (OF 4) WHOSE             ALTERNATE WAS SCORED                 AT THE LOWEST
                                                                                          ALTERNATE WAS SCORED               AGAINST ALTERNATIVE              ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL                   SUBSET (OF 4) WHOSE
                                                                                           AGAINST GRADE LEVEL             ACHIEVEMENT STANDARDS            BECAUSE OF THE NCLB 1%             ASSESSMENT RESULTS WERE
 GRADE LEVEL                                                       TOTAL (4)                  STANDARDS (4A)                         (4B)                          CAP1 (4C)                          INVALID2 (4D)

 3
                                                                                     46                                0                               46                                  0                               0
 4
                                                                                     52                                0                               52                                  0                               0
 5
                                                                                     53                                0                               53                                  0                               0
 6
                                                                                     51                                0                               51                                  0                               0
 7
                                                                                     36                                0                               36                                  0                               0
 8
                                                                                     60                                0                               60                                  0                               0

 HIGH SCHOOL :                            10
                                                                                     25                                0                               25                                  0                               0
 1
  NCLB 1% cap is the limit on the number of scores on an alternate assessment on alternate achievement standards that can be counted as proficient AYP calculations. If in 2006-07 your state had an
 approved exception to the 1% cap as indicated in Section A, use your 2006-07 adjusted cap rather than 1% when determining the number of students that must be counted in the lowest achievement level.

 2
  Invalid results are assessment results that cannot be used for reporting and or aggregation due to problems in the testing process (e.g. students do not take all portions of the assessment or students do not fill
  out the answer sheet correctly) or changes in testing materials that resulted in a score that is not deemed by the State to be comparable to scores received by students who took the assessment
 without these changes.




CURRENT DATE:
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION                                                                                                                                                                                        PAGE 14 OF 18
 OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION                                                                                                 TABLE 6
 AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES                                                                                                                                                                                     OMB NO. 1820-0659
 OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION                                                                          REPORT OF THE PARTICIPATION AND PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON STATE
 PROGRAMS                                                                                                        ASSESSMENTS BY CONTENT AREA, GRADE, AND TYPE OF ASSESSMENT                                FORM EXPIRES: 09/30/2007


                                                                                                                                                                                      STATE: HI - HAWAII
                                                                                                                             2006-2007


                                                                               SECTION E. PARTICIPATION OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON READING ASSESSMENT (CONTINUED)




                                                                                                    STUDENTS WHO DID NOT TAKE AN ASSESSMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH NCLB
                                                                                                                                                STUDENTS WHO DID NOT TAKE ANY ASSESSMENT




                                                                     STUDENTS WHO TOOK AN
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         5
                      GRADE LEVEL                                     OUT OF LEVEL TEST (5)                           PARENTAL EXEMPTION (6)                       ABSENT (7)                    EXEMPT FOR OTHER REASONS (8)

 3                                                       0
                                                                                                                                                  18                                       39                                    1
 4                                                       0
                                                                                                                                                  27                                       17                                    1
 5                                                       0
                                                                                                                                                  23                                       31                                    0
 6                                                       0
                                                                                                                                                  23                                       39                                    1
 7                                                       0
                                                                                                                                                   9                                       45                                    0
 8                                                       0
                                                                                                                                                   7                                       61                                    0


 HIGH SCHOOL :                              10           0

                                                                                                                                                   6                                       171                                   0

 1
     In a separate listing, report the number of students exempted for other reasons by grade and specific reason.




                                                                                                              Please provide the reason(s) for exemption.




CURRENT DATE:
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION                                                                                                                                                                  PAGE 15 OF 18
 OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION                                                                                              TABLE 6
 AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES                                                                                                                                                            OMB NO. 1820-0659
 OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION                                             REPORT OF THE PARTICIPATION AND PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON STATE
 PROGRAMS                                                                           ASSESSMENTS BY CONTENT AREA, GRADE, AND TYPE OF ASSESSMENT                                   FORM EXPIRES: 09/30/2007

                                                                                                                                                                        STATE:   HI - HAWAII
                                                                                                                         2006-2007



                                                                              SECTION F. PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON READING ASSESSMENT



                                                                                                 REGULAR ASSESSMENT ON GRADE LEVEL (9A)

                                                                             Well Below Approaches              Meets       Exceeds
                                                                            Achievement Achievement Achievement Achievement Achievement Achievement Achievement Achievement Achievement          9A ROW
                                                                               Level       Level       Level       Level       Level       Level       Level       Level       Level             TOTAL1
 GRADE LEVEL                                        TEST NAME
                                          Hawaii State
 3
                                          Assessment                                 792            235           181              10             0             0   0       0              0          1218
                                          Hawaii State
 4
                                          Assessment                                 947            241           127                3            0             0   0       0              0          1318
                                          Hawaii State
 5
                                          Assessment                                1046            144           156              10             0             0   0       0              0          1356
                                          Hawaii State
 6
                                          Assessment                                1019            245           120              17             0             0   0       0              0          1401
                                          Hawaii State
 7
                                          Assessment                                1081            217           185              15             0             0   0       0              0          1498
                                          Hawaii State
 8
                                          Assessment                                1154            189           173              13             0             0   0       0              0          1529

 HIGH SCHOOL : 10                         Hawaii State
                                          Assessment                                1156            132           227              39             0             0   0       0              0          1554

 LOWEST ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL CONSIDERED PROFICIENT:                           Meets
 1
     The total number of students reported by achievement level in 9A is to equal the number reported in column 3 minus the number reported in columns 3B and 3C.




CURRENT DATE:
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION                                                                                                                                                                                          PAGE 16 OF 18
 OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION                                                                                                TABLE 6
 AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES                                                                                                                                                                                  OMB NO. 1820-0659
 OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION                                               REPORT OF THE PARTICIPATION AND PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON STATE
 PROGRAMS                                                                             ASSESSMENTS BY CONTENT AREA, GRADE, AND TYPE OF ASSESSMENT                                                        FORM EXPIRES: 09/30/2007

                                                                                                                                                                                             STATE: HI - HAWAII
                                                                                                                            2006-2007



                                                                        SECTION F. PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON READING ASSESSMENT (CONTINUED)



                                                                                                   ALTERNATE ASSESSMENT ON GRADE LEVEL STANDARDS (9B)


                                                                                        n/a           n/a             n/a            n/a            n/a            n/a            n/a             n/a            n/a

                                                                             Achievement Achievement Achievement Achievement Achievement Achievement Achievement                        Achievement      Achievement      9B ROW
                                                                                Level       Level       Level       Level       Level       Level       Level                              Level            Level         TOTAL1
 GRADE LEVEL                                               TEST NAME

 3
                                                     n/a                                  0             0               0               0             0              0              0               0              0               0
 4
                                                     n/a                                  0             0               0               0             0              0              0               0              0               0
 5
                                                     n/a                                  0             0               0               0             0              0              0               0              0               0
 6
                                                     n/a                                  0             0               0               0             0              0              0               0              0               0
 7
                                                     n/a                                  0             0               0               0             0              0              0               0              0               0
 8
                                                     n/a                                  0             0               0               0             0              0              0               0              0               0

 HIGH SCHOOL : 10
                                                     n/a                                  0             0               0               0             0              0              0               0              0               0

 LOWEST ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL CONSIDERED PROFICIENT:                            n/a
 1
     The total number of students reported by achievement level in 9B is equal to the number reported in Column 4A minus that portion of 4D that refers to invalid results from assessments scored against grade level achievement s




CURRENT DATE:
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION                                                                                                                                                                                                                      PAGE 17 OF 18
 OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION                                                                                                           TABLE 6
 AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES                                                                                                                                                                                                              OMB NO. 1820-0659
 OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION                                                        REPORT OF THE PARTICIPATION AND PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON STATE
 PROGRAMS                                                                                      ASSESSMENTS BY CONTENT AREA, GRADE, AND TYPE OF ASSESSMENT                                                                           FORM EXPIRES: 09/30/2007

                                                                                                                                                                                                                    STATE:      HI - HAWAII
                                                                                                                                      2006-2007



                                                                                  SECTION F. PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON READING ASSESSMENT (CONTINUED)



                                                                                                     ALTERNATE ASSESSMENT SCORED AGAINST ALTERNATE STANDARDS (9C)


                                                                                  Well Below       Approaches              Meets          Exceeds
                                                                                Achievement       Achievement       Achievement       Achievement       Achievement       Achievement       Achievement       Achievement        Achievement         9C ROW
                                                                                  Level1             Level             Level             Level             Level             Level             Level             Level              Level            TOTAL2
 GRADE LEVEL                                             TEST NAME
                                                  Hawaii State
 3
                                                  Alternate Assessment                        9               11               24                   2                 0                 0                 0                 0                  0              46
                                                  Hawaii State
 4
                                                  Alternate Assessment                        9               13               24                   6                 0                 0                 0                 0                  0              52
                                                  Hawaii State
 5
                                                  Alternate Assessment                      15                10               20                   8                 0                 0                 0                 0                  0              53
                                                  Hawaii State
 6
                                                  Alternate Assessment                      17                11               18                   5                 0                 0                 0                 0                  0              51
                                                  Hawaii State
 7
                                                  Alternate Assessment                      10                  4              17                   5                 0                 0                 0                 0                  0              36
                                                  Hawaii State
 8
                                                  Alternate Assessment                      24                  5              25                   6                 0                 0                 0                 0                  0              60

 HIGH SCHOOL : 10                                 Hawaii State
                                                  Alternate Assessment                        8                 5                 8                 4                 0                 0                 0                 0                  0              25

 LOWEST ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL CONSIDERED PROFICIENT:                              Meets
 1
     Include all students whose assessment counted in the lowest achievement level because of the NCLB 1% cap.

 2
  The total number of students reported by achievement level in 9C is to equal the number reported in column 4B minus that portion of 4D that refers to invalid results from assessments scored against alternate
 achievement standards.




CURRENT DATE:
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION                                                                                                                                                      PAGE 18 OF 18
 OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION                                                                TABLE 6
 AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES                                                                                                                                                   OMB NO. 1820-0659
 OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION                REPORT OF THE PARTICIPATION AND PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON STATE
 PROGRAMS                                              ASSESSMENTS BY CONTENT AREA, GRADE, AND TYPE OF ASSESSMENT                                                        FORM EXPIRES: 09/30/2007


                                                                                                                                                              STATE:     HI - HAWAII
                                                                                           2006-2007


                                          SECTION F. PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON READING ASSESSMENT (CONTINUED)




                                                         TOTAL FOR COLUMN 9A TOTAL FOR COLUMN 9B TOTAL FOR COLUMN 9C
 GRADE LEVEL                                                 (ON PAGE 15)        (ON PAGE 16)        (ON PAGE 17)                           NO VALID SCORE2 (10)               TOTAL3 (11)

 3
                                                                             1218                           0                          46                          58                        1322
 4
                                                                             1318                           0                          52                          45                        1415
 5
                                                                             1356                           0                          53                          54                        1463
 6
                                                                             1401                           0                          51                          63                        1515
 7
                                                                             1498                           0                          36                          54                        1588
 8
                                                                             1529                           0                          60                          68                        1657
 HIGH SCHOOL :                            10
                                                                             1554                           0                          25                          177                       1756
 1
  STATES SHOULD NOT REPORT DATA ON THIS PAGE. THESE DATA WILL BE CALCULATED FROM THE REPORTED DATA AFTER THE COUNTS ARE SUBMITTED. PLEASE REVIEW FO
 ERRORS.

 2
     Column 10 is calculated by summing the numbers reported in column 3B plus column 3C plus column 4D plus column 5 plus column 6 plus column 7 plus column 8.

 3
  Column 11 should equal the number of students with IEPs reported in column 1 of Section A. If the number of students is not the same, provide an explanation. Column 11 should always equal the su
 number of students reported in columns 3 plus column 4 plus column 5 plus column 6 plus column 7 plus column 8.




CURRENT DATE:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION                                                TABLE 6                                               COMMENTS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION
AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES
OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION                       REPORT OF THE PARTICIPATION AND PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON STATE
PROGRAMS                                                     ASSESSMENTS BY CONTENT AREA, GRADE, AND TYPE OF ASSESSMENT



             GO BACK

                                                                                                         STATE: HI - HAWAII
                                                                      Reasons for Exception
 Which assessment
                    Grade 3 - one significant medical emergency (reading and math)
                    Grade 4 - one significant medical emergency (reading and math)
                    Grade 6- one significant medical emergency (reading and math)




CURRENT DATE:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION                            TABLE 6                                               COMMENTS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION
AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES
OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION    REPORT OF THE PARTICIPATION AND PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON STATE
PROGRAMS                                  ASSESSMENTS BY CONTENT AREA, GRADE, AND TYPE OF ASSESSMENT



           GO BACK
                                                                                     STATE: HI - HAWAII
                                                      Discrepancies
 Which assessment




CURRENT DATE:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION                                              TABLE 6                                                      COMMENTS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION
AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES
OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION                  REPORT OF THE PARTICIPATION AND PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON STATE
PROGRAMS                                                ASSESSMENTS BY CONTENT AREA, GRADE, AND TYPE OF ASSESSMENT




                                                                                                                  STATE: HI - HAWAII
                                                                        COMMENTS


Date of enrollment count: 4/9/07

Untested, Grade 31* SpEd students by age (as of 12/31/06 for school year 2006-2007)
14 years old - 5 students (chronological age would place student in grade 9, which is not a tested grade)
17 years old - 3 students (chronological age would place student in grade 12, which is not a tested grade)
18 years old - 29 students
19 years old - 35 students
20 years old - 10 students
* Out-of-grade level placement authorized by a student's IEP team or hearings officer, or judge for a terminal grade level student.




CURRENT DATE:
                                                                                                            Hawaii
                                                                                                             State

                       Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2010



 Monitoring Priority: Suspension/Expulsion


Indicator 4: Rates of suspension and expulsion:

                A. Percent of districts (schools, including public charter schools, were used for
                   Hawaii) identified by the State as having a significant discrepancy in the rates of
                   suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities for greater than 10 days
                   in a school year.


      Measurement:

          A. Percent = [(# of schools identified by the State as having significant discrepancies in the
             rates of suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities for greater than 10 days in a
             school year) divided by the (# of schools in the State)] times 100.

          Hawaii will be using the “z” score to determine “significant discrepancy.”


    Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process:

    Because of Hawaii’s single school district and the inability to aggregate the student data into one
    single “z” score for the entire state, with the agreement of Mr. Larry Wexler, Hawaii will identify the
    number and percent of schools (including public charter schools) with significant discrepancies in the
    rates of suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities for greater than 10 days in a school
    year (SY) for Indicator 4.

    Data on the number of unduplicated student suspensions for greater than 10 days are collected and
    analyzed to determine whether there are significant discrepancies in the rates of suspension between
    disabled and non-disabled students. The rate of suspension incidents per hundred students is
    determined and the differences between these rates are calculated. A statistical calculation using
    “z” scores was used to determine whether these differences were significant at the .01 level. To
    ensure the validity of the comparisons, the “z” score was not calculated if there were fewer than five
    suspensions in either group. These “z” scores were applied to each school.

    The data used to complete this indicator comes from the Safe School Information System (SSIS),
    Table A: Number of Suspensions by Program, a database the state uses to collect information on all
    discipline incidents, including suspensions. We were unable to use the data from Section 618,
    Table 5 as this system collects only data on students, and this data are not organized by schools.
    Also, the SSIS Table A collects data for a complete school year and uses the official enrollment count
    for the school year. Ms. Debra Jennings confirmed that using Table A as a data source met with her
    approval.

    Monitoring efforts include monthly reports on the suspension rates of each school, which are sent to
    the school principal, the complex area superintendent (CAS), and the state superintendent. The
    Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE) also has an electronic database which monitors
    suspensions exceeding 10 days (cumulative) for students with disabilities and reminds principals and
    complex area staff to ensure and document that all procedural safeguards are followed. There is also
    a process in place for HIDOE staff to follow up with schools identified as having significant differences
    in their suspension rates.



Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                     Monitoring Priority Indicator 4 - Page 1
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                               Hawaii
                                                                                                                State

Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004-2005):

                                                 Number of schools with
                 Total number of
                                             significant rates of suspensions         Rate (per hundred) (%)
                     schools
                                                       for >10 days
 TOTAL                   258                                 *5                                     2%
*Number includes four high schools and one intermediate/high school

Discussion of Baseline Data:

The data reveals very few schools as having a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions of
greater than 10 days between students with and without disabilities; most of the schools involved were
high schools. There were no elementary schools with significant suspension rates.

Targets:


      FFY                                           Measurable and Rigorous Target


      2005          A.   No more than 5% of all schools will have a significant difference between the rates
   (2005-2006)           of long-term suspensions for students with and without disabilities.



      2006          A.   No more than 4% of all schools will have a significant difference between the rates
   (2006-2007)           of long-term suspensions for students with and without disabilities.



      2007          A.   No more than 4% of all schools will have a significant difference between the rates
   (2007-2008)           of long-term suspensions for students with and without disabilities.



      2008          A.   No more than 3% of all schools will have a significant difference between the rates
   (2008-2009)           of long-term suspensions for students with and without disabilities.



      2009          A.   No more than 2% of all schools will have a significant difference between the rates
   (2009-2010)           of long-term suspensions for students with and without disabilities.



      2010          A.   No more than 1% of all schools will have a significant difference between the rates
   (2010-2011)           of long-term suspensions for students with and without disabilities.




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                        Monitoring Priority Indicator 4 - Page 2
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                            Hawaii
                                                                                                             State

Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:


                   Improvement Activities                         Timeline                   Resources


 1. Continue to examine the disaggregated baseline             School Year (SY)       Special Education
    data to determine whether there are any significant           2006-2010           Services Branch
    differences in the rates of suspension.                                           (SESB)


 2. Continue monthly monitoring of significant                  SY 2006-2010          Special Education
    suspension rates in all schools.                                                  Services Branch
                                                                                      (SESB)

 DELETED (INDICATOR 4B)

 3. Examine the disaggregated baseline data based on             SY 2006-07           Special Education
    ethnicity to determine whether there are any                                      Services Branch
    significant differences in the rates of suspension.                               (SESB)


 4. SESB will continue to track those schools who have          SY 2006-2010          SESB and Student
    significant differences (as identified by “z” scores) in                          Support Services
    their suspension rates based on incidents and report                              Branch (SSSB)
    to their Complex Area Superintendent (CAS). Two
    worksheets will be developed to guide schools as
    they analyze their data:
    • Guiding Questions for the Analysis of School
        Systems (Attachment 1)
    • Guiding Questions for the Analysis of Individual
        Students (Attachment 2)

 NEW

 5. Follow up with identified schools that have                 SY 2006-2010          SESB and Student
    significant differences in their suspension rates.                                Support Services
    These schools are required to complete both                                       Branch (SSSB)
    worksheets (see #4) for the SES staff and the CAS
    to review as the schools examine whether their
    significant suspension rates are due to inappropriate
    practices, policies, or procedures related to the
    development of IEPs, the lack of use of positive
    behavioral supports, or compliance with the
    Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                     Monitoring Priority Indicator 4 - Page 3
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                              Hawaii
                                                                                                               State

                 Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2006



 Monitoring Priority: Suspension/Expulsion


Indicator 4: Rates of suspension and expulsion:
                 A. Percent of districts (schools, including public charter schools were used for
                    Hawaii) identified by the State as having a significant discrepancy in the rates of
                    suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities for greater than 10 days
                    in a school year.


      Measurement:

            A. Percent = [(# of schools identified by the State as having significant discrepancies in the rates
               of suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities for greater than 10 days in a
               school year) divided by the (# of schools in the State)] times 100.

            Hawaii will be using the “z” score to determine “significant discrepancy.”


      FFY                                           Measurable and Rigorous Target


      2006          A. No more than 4% of all schools will have a significant difference between the rates of
   (2006-2007)         long-term suspensions for students with and without disabilities.


Actual Target Data for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):

                                                           Number of schools with
                                                                                             Rate (per hundred)
       SY            Total number of schools           significant rates of suspensions
                                                                                                     (%)
                                                                 for >10 days

                               285
 2006-2007                                                            *2                         2/285 = 0.07%
                    (includes charter schools)

*High schools

Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that
occurred for FFY 2006:

The Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE) met this rigorous target for the third consecutive year. In
2005-2006, based on number of schools, there was a decrease in the rate of suspension from 2% to 1%.
In 2006-2007, the rate of suspension decreased again (from 1% to 0.07%).

Information Required by the OSEP SPP/APR Response Letter
As required by the Response Table submitted by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special
Education Programs (OSEP) for HIDOE’s Annual Performance Report (APR) for federal fiscal
year (FFY) 2005 (2005-2006), HIDOE was to review the state policies, procedures, and practices relating
to discipline to see if there was a relationship between its policies, procedures, and/or practices and the
rates of long-term suspensions (>10 days). A review of HIDOE’s discipline policies revealed that HIDOE

Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                                Monitoring Priority Indicator 4 - Page 1
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                             Hawaii
                                                                                                              State

strictly followed Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) Chapter 56, which exceeds the requirements and
protections of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and applicable rules. For all
suspensions over 10 days (cumulative), procedural safeguards require manifestation determination
meetings, functional behavioral assessments, and the development or review of positive behavioral
interventions and supports. HIDOE has an electronic system which monitors suspensions and reminds
school and complex area administrators to ensure that all procedural safeguards for suspensions greater
that 10 days, cumulative, are followed. In addition to monthly monitoring of the schools by the state staff,
complex area superintendents (CASs) and the state superintendent, two worksheets (Guiding Questions
for the Analysis of School Systems and Guiding Questions for the Analysis of Individual Students) were
developed to provide guidance for all schools. The questions guide schools to encourage the use of
positive behavioral interventions and supports in the development and implementation of the
Individualized Education Program (IEP).

The data was analyzed to specifically follow-up with the identified schools with significant suspension
rates. Schools identified as having significant differences in their suspension rates are required to
complete and submit the two worksheets, as well as an analysis of their own school discipline policies
and procedures to their CAS and the state’s monitoring office. As a result of their investigations, several
schools made revisions to some of their existing policies and practices (attendance, bell schedule,
reorganization of special education (SPED) department, assignment of educational assistants, etc.).
They also made sure that IEP teams routinely discussed positive behavior supports that can be put in
place for appropriate students.

Discussion of Progress or Slippage that Occurred for FFY 2006

It can be speculated that this improvement came as a result of the regular monitoring of the schools by
state personnel, CASs, the state superintendent, as well as the schools’ review of their disciplinary
policies, procedures and practices, and the implementation of positive behavior systems.


                   Improvement Activities                          Timeline                      Status


 1. Continue to examine the disaggregated baseline             School Year (SY)        Ongoing on a
    data to determine whether there are any significant           2006-2010            monthly basis with
    differences in the rates of suspension.                                            feedback given to the
                                                                                       schools, the CAS and
                                                                                       the state
                                                                                       superintendent.


 2. Continue monthly monitoring of significant                  SY 2006-2010           Ongoing
    suspension rates in all schools.

 DELETED (INDICATOR 4B)

 3. Examine the disaggregated baseline data based on            SY 2006-2007           Deleted based on
    ethnicity to determine whether there are any                                       instructions on the
    significant differences in the rates of suspension.                                Response Table from
                                                                                       OSEP.




Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                               Monitoring Priority Indicator 4 - Page 2
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                                Hawaii
                                                                                                                 State



                   Improvement Activities                             Timeline                      Status
 COMPLETED

 4. The Special Education Services Branch (SESB) will              SY 2006-2010           Both worksheets
    continue to track those schools who have significant                                  were developed; the
    differences (as identified by “z” scores) in their                                    tracking of the
    suspension rates based on incidents and report to                                     schools with
    their CAS. Two worksheets will be developed to                                        significant differences
    guide schools as they analyze their data:                                             in their suspension
    • Guiding Questions for the Analysis of School                                        rate will be
        Systems (Attachment 1)                                                            implemented using
    • Guiding Questions for the Analysis of Individual                                    the new indicator.
        Students (Attachment 2)


Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets/Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources for
FFY 2006 (2006-2007):

                                                                                          Justifications for
          Improvement Activities                     Timelines     Resources
                                                                                             Revisions
 DELETED (INDICATOR 4B)

 1. Examine the disaggregated                       SY 2006-2007   SESB             Deleted based on
    baseline data based on ethnicity to                                             instructions on the
    determine whether there are any                                                 Response Table from the
    significant differences in the rates of                                         OSEP.
    suspension.


 NEW

 2. Follow up with identified schools               SY 2007-2010   Student          Required by the OSEP
    that have significant differences in                           Support          Response Table and will
    their suspension rates. These                                  Services         provide closer monitoring of
    schools are required to complete                               Branch           schools with significant
    both worksheets (Guiding                                       personnel        differences in the
    Questions) for the special education                                            suspension rates of
    section staff and the CAS to review                                             disabled and non-disabled
    as the schools examine whether                                                  students.
    their significant suspension rates
    are due to inappropriate practices,
    policies, or procedures related to
    the development of IEPs, the lack of
    use of positive behavioral supports,
    or compliance with the IDEA.




Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                                  Monitoring Priority Indicator 4 - Page 3
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                     GUIDING QUESTIONS FOR ANALYSIS
                                                            School-wide Systems

                    Addressing Significant Differences in the Suspension Rates of Special Education Students
                                        (“Drilling down” or “Getting to the Root Causes”)

                           Question                                                   Findings

Has the school leadership reviewed the discipline data on a
monthly (or regular) basis?


Has the school team analyzed the data trend to determine the
root causes for the data?


Have goals (i.e., SMART goals) been developed for school-
wide action?


Has a school team and/or appropriate personnel monitored the
progress and effectiveness of the discipline plan?


Has the array of services available at the school been analyzed
to determine whether they make a difference for students?


Has there been a review of the school’s academic-financial plan
to determine whether there needs to be any changes to
policies/practices involving the over-all discipline plan based on
the discussions and data analyses?


Has the school considered alternative disciplinary
consequences to suspension?


What steps are being taken to determine the effectiveness of
the policies and practices the school is currently using?



                                                                                                        Indicator 4 – Attachment 1
                                                               FEEDBACK PROCESS
                                                 Guiding Questions for Analysis of Individual Students
                      Addressing Significant Differences in the Suspension Rates of Special Education Students
                                          (“Drilling down” or “Getting to the Root Causes”)
                  Question                                                               Findings
Have the appropriate reports available in
SSIS been generated and analyzed on both
student and system levels?

Has the Individual Student Summary on the
CSSS/SSIS database been reviewed for
events involving the student (history of
incidents, interventions/previous
consequences, personal issues, etc.)?

Have the adults who work with this student
been interviewed for pertinent information? Is
there one significant adult at school the
student can relate to?

Has there been a discussion of services, a
change in present services or providers, or
additional services to prevent future
incidents?

Is the student making academic progress or
having difficulties with a particular class? Has
the student been retained?

Has the impact of the consequences for
suspensions on subsequent student behavior
been analyzed?

For suspensions >10 days, have all required
procedural safeguards been followed?
Manifestation determination, behavior plan
developed and implemented or reviewed for
effectiveness?

What steps could be taken to support this
student which could result in him/her not
being suspended again?




                                                                                                          Indicator 4 – Attachment 2
                                                                                                          Hawaii
                                                                                                           State
                       Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2010



 Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE


Indicator 5:      Percent of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21:

                  A. Removed from regular class less than 21% of the day.
                  B. Removed from regular class greater than 60% of the day.
                  C. Served in public or private separate schools, residential placements, or
                     homebound or hospital placements.


      Measurement:
      A. Percent = # of children with IEPs removed from regular class less than 21% of the day divided by
         the total # of students aged 6 through 21 with IEPs times 100.
      B. Percent = # of children with IEPs removed from regular class greater than 60% 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 public or private separate schools, residential
         placements, or homebound or hospital placements divided by the total # of students aged 6
         through 21 with IEPs times 100.




    Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process:

    Indicator #5 addresses the issue of FAPE in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE).

    According to Hawaii’s Board of Education Policy on Inclusion, Statute #2280 (approved 12/95);

         “All decisions regarding the appropriate education for students with disabilities shall be based
         upon their Individual Education Plan consistent with applicable federal and state laws. The
         appropriate inclusion of students with disabilities in regular classroom environments requires:

                     1. The participation of all members of the child’s educational team.
                     2. Appropriate staffing and adequate planning time.
                     3. The development and dissemination of teaching techniques and strategies that
                        accommodate individual student’s strengths and needs and which promote
                        relevant learning experiences, meaningful relationships and mutual respect.
                     4. Recognition of the needs of all children in the classroom.
                     5. Maximum possible cooperation between the home and the school.”

The appropriate level of inclusion for each child is based on the Individual Education Plan (IEP)
developed for each child. The child’s educational team decides the level of inclusion. For one child, the
LRE may be a fully inclusive setting. For another child, the LRE may be a separate facility.




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                     Monitoring Priority Indicator 5 - Page 1
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                         Hawaii
                                                                                                          State
Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004-2005):

                                                                      % of
                                                    Hawaiis’ # of
                                                                    Students       National
                                                      Students
                                                                      Aged            %             Difference
         Least Restrictive Environment               Aged 6-21
                                                                    6-21 with       (2003)
                                                     with IEPs
                                                                      IEPs

Removed from regular class less than 21% of the         4,785          24%           49.9%           +/-26.36%
day


Removed from regular class greater than 60% of          6,559          32%           18.5%           +/-13.69%
the day

Served in public/private separate schools,
residential placements, homebound/hospital               551           3%             3.9%            +/-0.93%
placements

Total
                                                       20,357

National data from December 2003 count of 50 States, D.C. & P.R. (Source: IDEA Part B Educational
Environment 2003 Table AB2)

Discussion of Baseline Data:

Data comparisons:

•   For students “Removed from the regular class less than 21% of the day,” the National average is
    close to 50%. Hawaii is far removed from the National average at 24%. For this measurement, a
    higher percentage is ideal.
•   When comparing the percent of students “Removed from regular class greater than 60% of the day,”
    Hawaii has a higher percent (32%) than the National average (18.53%). For this measurement, a
    lower percentage is ideal.
•   Only in the category of “Served in public/private separate schools, residential placements,
    homebound/hospital placements,” does the State have a less restrictive environment.

Possible reasons for disparity:

•   It is the Hawaii Department of Education’s (HIDOE’s) Comprehensive Student Support (CSS) policy
    to keep students on a school campus. This may mean that the student receive services in a fully self-
    contained environment, which is an ideal situation when the alternative is for the student to be
    serviced in a separate facility. In other words, the percentage of students removed from regular class
    greater than 60% being inflated could actually be a positive aspect when the percentage for students
    served in separate facilities is also comparatively low.
•   Hawaii’s LRE percentages have stayed consistent over the last two years, even though the data
    show that the number of students aged 6 though 21 with IEPs “Removed from regular class less than
    21% of the day” is up 3% and number of students “Removed from regular class greater than 60% of
    the day” is up 3%. The number of students “Served in public separate schools, private separate
    schools, residential placements, and homebound/hospital placements,” is up 1% from SY 2003-2004.




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                    Monitoring Priority Indicator 5 - Page 2
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                                  Hawaii
                                                                                                                   State
                                                    Longitudinal Data

Comparison of Percentages for School Year (SY) 2003 and SY 2004


 % of Students with IEPs aged 6 through 21:                      SY 2003             SY 2004                Difference

Removed from regular class less than 21% of the
day                                                               24%                  24%                       0%

Removed from regular class greater than 60% of
the day                                                           31%                  32%                       -1%

Served in public/private separate schools,
residential placements, homebound/hospital                         3%                   3%                       0%
placements


Comparison of Total Numbers SY 2003 and SY 2004

                                                                                                               Increase/
            LRE in State Totals                        SY 2003             SY 2004          Difference         Decrease
                                                                                                                 in %
Total # of Students aged 6 through 21
with IEPs                                               20,982             20,357                625                3%

Removed from regular class less than
21% of the day                                           4,943              4,785                158                3%

Removed from regular class greater than
60% of the day                                           6,606              6,559                 47                1%

Served in public/private separate
schools, residential placements,                         567                551                   16                3%
homebound/hospital placements


Measurable and Rigorous Targets

At the stakeholders meeting held on November 13, 2007. It was decided to add three activities and to
adjust the measurable and rigorous targets. This new State Performance Plan reflects the changes.


      FFY                                            Measurable and Rigorous Target


      2005              A. Removed from regular class < 21% - remain at 24%
   (2005-2006)          B. Removed from class > 60% - same at 32%
                        C. Served in separate placements –remain at 3%


      2006              A. Removed from regular class < 21% - increase from 24% to 25%
   (2006-2007)
                        B. Removed from regular class > 60% - decrease from 32% to 29 %
                        C. Served in separate placements – remain at 3%



Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                             Monitoring Priority Indicator 5 - Page 3
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                           Hawaii
                                                                                                            State

                        A. Removed from regular class < 21% - increase from 25% to 30%
       2007
     (2007-2008)
                        B. Removed from regular class > 60% - decrease from 32% to 29%
                        C. Served in separate placements – remain at 3%

                        A. Removed from regular class < 21% - increase from 30% to 35%
       2008             B. Removed from regular class > 60% - decrease from 29% to 26%
     (2008-2009)
                        C. Served in separate placements – remain at 3%

                        A. Remove from regular class < 21% - increase from 35% to 40%
       2009             B. Remove from regular class >60% - decrease from 26% to 23%
     (2009-2010)
                        C. Served in separate placements – remain at 3%

                        A. Removed from regular class < 21% - increase from 40% to 45%
       2010             B. Removed from regular class >60% - decrease from 23% to 19%
     (2010-2011)
                        C. Served in separate placements – remain at 3%

Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:
Additional activities were developed in order to meet or exceed the measurable and rigorous targets in
Hawaii’s SPP, and will be ongoing through the duration of the SPP.


                   Improvement Activities                      Timelines                    Resources


 •      Review and analyze data and target schools for        June 30, 2006     State Educational Officers,
        technical assist through the State’s monitoring                         State Resource Teachers,
        process (See Indicator 15).                                             DOE website


                                                              June 30, 2007     State Educational Officers,
 •      Meet with partner programs and agencies to
                                                               and ongoing      School Administrators, State
        increase awareness of least restrictive
                                                                through         Resource Teachers, school
        environments (LRE) and Inclusion.
                                                                June 2010       administrators at identified
 •      Provide professional development opportunities
                                                                                schools, regular & special
        with a focus on inclusion, to increase school level
                                                                                education teachers at each
        including stakeholder knowledge.
                                                                                identified school, parents if
 •      Implement new electronic Comprehensive                                  need is identified.
        Student Support System (eCSSS) training for
        Individualized Education Programs to ensure
        LRE data is accurately documented.




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                      Monitoring Priority Indicator 5 - Page 4
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                              Hawaii
                                                                                                               State

          Improvement Activities                            Timelines                          Resources


 NEW                                                January 2008 through June      State Educational Officers,
 Conduct a study to determine whether               2010                           State Resource Teachers
 special education staffing positions, as
 currently allocated, are appropriate to
 support inclusion.


 NEW                                                February through June 2008     State Educational Officers
 Identify schools for HIDOE to use as a
 model for inclusion.


 NEW                                                June 2008                      State Educational Officers,
 Host a State Inclusion Conference for all                                         State Resource Teachers
 HIDOE employees and parents.




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                         Monitoring Priority Indicator 5 - Page 5
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                            Hawaii
                                                                                                             State

                 Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2006


 Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE


Indicator 5:      Percent of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21:

                  A. Removed from regular class less than 21% of the day.
                  B. Removed from regular class greater than 60% of the day.
                  C. Served in public or private separate schools, residential placements, or
                     homebound or hospital placements.

 Measurement:
 A. Percent = # of children with IEPs removed from regular class less than 21% of the day divided
    by the total # of students aged 6 through 21 with IEPs times 100.
 B. Percent = # of children with IEPs removed from regular class greater than 60% 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 public or private separate schools, residential
    placements, or homebound or hospital placements divided by the total # of students aged 6
    through 21 with IEPs times 100.



      FFY                                           Measurable and Rigorous Target


      2006           A. Removed from regular class < 21% - increase from 24% to 25%
   (2006-2007)       B. Removed from class > 60% - decrease from 32% to 29%
                     C. Served in separate placements – remain at 3%

Actual Target Data for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):

The December 1, 2006 Child Count reported the number of students aged 6 through 21 with
Individualized Education Programs (IEPs):
        A. Removed from the classroom less than 21% of the day at 21%. This indicates a slippage of
             2% over the federal fiscal year (FFY) 2004 data.
        B. Removed from the class greater than 60% of the day reported at 35%, a slippage of 1%.
        C. Served in separate placements at 2% which exceeded Hawaii’s target of 3%.


 Measurement:                                                                                              Raw Data
 % of Students with IEPs aged 6 through 21

 A. Removed from regular class < 21% - increase from 24% to 25%                                               21%


 B. Removed from class > 60% - decrease from 32% to 29%                                                       35%


 C. Served in separate placements – remain at 3%                                                               2%




Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                              Monitoring Priority Indicator 5 - Page 1
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                             Hawaii
                                                                                                              State

Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that
occurred for FFY 2006:

                                         Longitudinal Data for Indicator 5

                       LRE in State Totals                          SY 2004          SY 2005              SY 2006
 Total # of Students with IEPs aged 6 through 21 with IEPs           20,357            19,540              18,640
 A. Removed from regular class less than 21% of the day               4,785            4,463                3,986
 B. Removed from regular class greater than 60% of the                6,559            6,555                6,564
    day
 C. Served in public/private separate schools, residential             551               503                 410
    placements, homebound/hospital placements




        % of Students with IEPs aged 6 through 21                   SY 2004          SY 2005              SY 2006
 A. Removed from regular class less than 21% of
                                                                      24%               23%                  21%
    the day
 B. Removed from regular class greater than 60% of                    32%               34%                  35%
    the day
 C. Served in public/private separate schools, residential
                                                                       3%                3%                  2%
     placements, homebound/hospital placements

Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed

In-service was provided for over 2,700 administrators, special and general education teachers, as well as
educational assistants and parents. The coursework / workshops were designed to increase the success
of all students. Topics included:
     • Inclusion
     • Differentiated Instruction
     • Access to the General Education through standards-Based IEPs
     • “Everyone’s a Reading Teacher”
     • Differentiation & Assessment
     • Understanding by Design & Differentiated Instruction
     • Access to General Education
     • Universal Design for Learning
     • Access to the General Education Curriculum & Team Teaching
     • Creating Opportunities for Students in Inclusive Settings
     • Supporting Students Through Learning Styles
     • Data Analysis
     • Reading Strategies
     • Multi-Sensory Structured Language I & II
     • Vocabulary in the Content Area
     • Enhancing Vocabulary Instruction

To increase Partner Awareness of LRE and Inclusion, the Community Children’s Council Office (CCCO);
invited an expert from Higher Education to speak at their co-chair meetings statewide. The HIDOE also
presented at the Special Parent Information Network (SPIN) Conference on Inclusion.




Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                               Monitoring Priority Indicator 5 - Page 2
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                               Hawaii
                                                                                                                State

Explanation of Progress or Slippage:

There was a 2% slippage in students removed from regular classes less than 21% of the day and a 1%
slippage in students removed from regular class greater than 60% of the day. The percent of students
served in public/private separate schools, residential placements, homebound/hospital placements,
dropped 1% exceeding the benchmark.

    •    Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE’s) goal is to provide an appropriate environment to meet
         student needs. Per Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the type of setting in which a
         child is served is determined by the Individual Education Plan (IEP) Team according to the unique
         needs of the child.

    •    During statewide staffing audits, though teachers understood how to input data into the HIDOE’s
         Integrated Special Education Database (ISPED), numerous inputting errors were found. Student
         IEPs and class schedules were reviewed to determine if there was a match between the Least
         Restrictive Environment (LRE) in the IEP and the student’s classes. The auditors found that out
         of the 1,237 student records audited, 56% of the LREs on the IEPs did not accurately reflect
         “where” students were receiving their specially designed instruction. If students were receiving
         specially designed instruction in the regular education classroom, teachers often listed the
         “where” as in special education since a special education teacher was present in the classroom.
         This inputting error would adversely affect the number of students removed from regular class
         less than 21% of the day and may account for the slippage.

Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):

Due to the slippage in two out of three targets, it was decided at the stakeholders meeting held on
November 13, 2007, that additional activities will be instituted in order to ensure the measurable and
rigorous targets are met. The targets will remain the same for SY 2006–2007 and SY 2007–2008.
Please note that improvement activities in Indicator 15 will also impact this indicator as technical
assistance is provided to schools.

Additional activities will be added to HIDOE’s State Performance Plan. A study will be conducted to
identify HIDOE schools that demonstrate best practices in inclusion. These identified schools will be
used as a model for other schools to follow. A State Inclusion Conference will also be held to bring
speakers on Inclusion to Hawaii. At the conference, HIDOE Schools will also be showcased.


          Improvement Activities                            Timelines                            Status


 Review and analyze data to target                  June 30, 2006 and ongoing     Completed and ongoing as
 schools for technical assist through the           through June 2010             needed
 State’s monitoring process. (See
 indicator 15)

 Meet with partner programs and                     June 30, 2006 and ongoing     Completed
 agencies to increase awareness of least            through June 2010
 restrictive environments (LRE) and
 inclusion.

 Provide professional development                   June 30, 2007 and ongoing     Completed and ongoing
 opportunities with a focus on inclusion &          through June 2010
 differentiated instruction to increase
 school level including stakeholder
 knowledge.

Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                                 Monitoring Priority Indicator 5 - Page 3
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                                Hawaii
                                                                                                                 State


          Improvement Activities                            Timelines                             Status


 Implement new electronic                           February 2007                  Completed and ongoing as
 Comprehensive Student Support System                                              new teachers are hired
 (eCSSS) training for Individualized
 Education Programs to support schools
 in documenting LRE.


The following Improvement Activities are new and were added to the State Performance Plan.


          Improvement Activities                            Timelines                 Revisions/Justification


 NEW                                                January 2008 through June      New activity added to assist
 Conduct a study to determine whether               2010                           in meeting targets
 special education staffing positions, as
 currently allocated, are appropriate to
 support inclusion.


 NEW                                                February through June 2008     New activity added to assist
 Identify schools for HIDOE to use as a                                            in meeting targets
 model for inclusion.


 NEW                                                June 2008                      New activity added to assist
 Host a State Inclusion Conference for all                                         in meeting targets
 HIDOE employees and parents.




Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                                  Monitoring Priority Indicator 5 - Page 4
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                                           Hawaii
                                                                                                                            State

                        Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2010



 Monitoring Priority: Preschool LRE


Indicator 6:      Percent of preschool children with IEPs who received special education and
                  related services in settings with typically developing peers (e.g., early childhood
                  settings, home, and part-time early childhood/part-time early childhood special
                  education settings).
                                                                               [20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A)]

      Measurement:

           Percent = # of preschool children with IEPs who received all special education services in
           settings with typically developing peers divided by the total # of preschool children with IEPs
           times 100. (Refer to column A in Baseline Data below.)


    Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process

    Since 1980, the Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE) has had full-day preschool services
    available to preschool children with disabilities. Services for each child are based on the
    Individualized Education Program (IEP) developed by the required agency personnel and the
    parent(s). Many students are integrated with non-disabled same-age peers, in accordance with their
    IEPs. This State does not provide universal preschool, so the HIDOE has established partnerships
    with Head Start programs and community preschools to increase the percentage of preschool
    children with IEPs who either receive their special education services in a setting with typically
    developing peers or participate in joint activities with typically developing peers.

    Currently, HIDOE is exploring the establishment of additional partnerships with community preschools
    as well as the creation of itinerant Early Childhood Special Education (ECSE) teachers to provide
    special education and related services for children in settings with non-disabled peers.

Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004-2005):

                        (A)             (B)          (C)           (D)          (E)        (F)         (G)          (H)
                EARLY CHILDHOOD EARLY CHILDHOOD     HOME      PART-TIME EC/ RESIDENTIAL SEPARATE   ITINERANT     REVERSE
                  (EC) SETTING  SPECIAL EDUCATION            PART-TIME ECSE   SETTING    SCHOOL     SERVICE    MAINSTREAM    Total
                                  (ECSE) SETTING                SETTING                             OUTSIDE      SETTING    SPED
                                                                                                   THE HOME     (OPTIONAL) Students
                  #       %     #          %    #    %    #    %    #   %   # % # %                            #      %    Ages 3-5

 STATE TOTALS    229    9.85% 1474       63.40% 11 0.47% 600 25.81% 2 0.09% 9 0.39% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2325
 NATIONAL AVG          33.93%           32.40%      2.93%         16.37%      0.09%      2.74% 10.40%             1.14%
   DIFFERENCE          -24.08%          31.00%      -2.46%         9.44%      0.00%     -2.35% -10.40%           -1.14%

Discussion of Baseline Data:

National 618 Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) data from Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2003-2004 shows
that approximately 50% of children are placed in an EC setting (34%) or in a Part-time EC/Part-time
ECSE setting (16%).

Hawaii 618 LRE data from the December 1, 2004 Child Count shows that approximately 36% of children
are placed in an EC setting (10%) or in a Part-time EC/Part-time ECSE setting (26%).



Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                                 Monitoring Priority Indicator 6 – Page 1
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08/31/2009)
                                                                                                              Hawaii
                                                                                                               State

Possible reasons for disparity include:

    •    Historical availability of full-day preschool special education services and parent expectations that
         all preschool services should be part of a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) instead of
         just the portion that addresses the child’s special education and related services needs.
    •    Lack of ‘universal’, state-run preschools.
    •    Difficulty in setting up partnership programs with Head Start because of funding issues, child
         eligibility issues, space/’slot’ availability, and facilities/licensing requirements.
    •    Difficulty in setting up partnership programs with community preschools because of funding
         issues and availability of slots.
    •    Hawaii currently has no mechanism to provide reverse mainstreaming and limited ability to
         provide itinerant services.


         FFY                                          Measurable and Rigorous Target

        2005              36% of preschool children with IEPs will receive their special education services in the
     (2005-2006)          EC or EC/ECSE settings.

         2006             38% of preschool children with IEPs will receive their special education services in the
     (2006-2007)          EC or EC/ECSE settings.

         2007             40% of preschool children with IEPs will receive their special education services in the
     (2007-2008)          EC or EC/ECSE settings.

         2008             45% of preschool children with IEPs will receive their special education services in the
     (2008-2009)          EC or EC/ECSE settings.

         2009             55% of preschool children with IEPs will receive their special education services in the
     (2009-2010)          EC or EC/ECSE settings.

         2010             60% of preschool children with IEPs will receive their special education services in the
     (2010-2011)          EC or EC/ECSE settings.

Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:


                 Activities                               Timeline                           Resources


 Participation in the National                  November 2005 and on-going     NIPIP staff, school and Head
 Individualizing Preschool Inclusion                                           Start staff, district and state staff.
 Project (NIPIP).


 Develop/increase EC partnerships in                School Year 2007-2008      State, District, and School-level
 targeted areas of the state.                                                  personnel


 Increase utilization of Itinerant ECSE             School Year 2006-2007      State and District staff
 positions to provide special education
 and related services in settings with
 typically developing peers.




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                       Monitoring Priority Indicator 6 – Page 2
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08/31/2009)
                                                                                                            Hawaii
                                                                                                             State


                 Activities                               Timeline                         Resources


 Explore the feasibility of providing                   May 2006-2008        State and District 619 preschool
 available classroom facilities to                                           staff
 private preschools in exchange for
 slots for children with IEPs.


 Explore the feasibility/legality of                March 2006 – Dec. 2006   State 619 preschool staff
 ‘reverse mainstreaming’ within the
 HIDOE system.


 Identify state and federal agency                     December 2006         HIDOE SES/619 preschool staff
 requirements that may be barriers to                                        Relevant community agency
 the provision of special education and                                      representatives
 related services in EC settings by
 convening a workgroup of relevant
 stakeholders. (Possible request for
 technical assistance from NECTAC or
 OSEP.)




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                     Monitoring Priority Indicator 6 – Page 3
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08/31/2009)
                                                                                                           Hawaii
                                                                                                            State

                Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2006


 Monitoring Priority: Preschool LRE



Indicator 6: Percent of preschool children with IEPs who received special education and related
             services in settings with typically developing peers (i.e., early childhood settings,
             home, and part-time early childhood/part-time early childhood settings).

The instructions for collecting preschool least restrictive environment (LRE) data under section 618 State-
reported data requirements were revised for the 2006-2007 school year. The new preschool LRE 618
collection is significantly different from the previous collection, and not consistent with Indicator 6;
therefore, States need not report on Indicator 6 for FFY 2006. OSEP will propose changes to Indicator 6
consistent with the revised 618 State-reported data requirements regarding preschool LRE.

                                                       Part B SPP/APR Instruction Sheet – Section I-1, #2




Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                             Monitoring Priority Indicator 6 - Page 1
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
         Dec. 1, 2004                         Dec. 1, 2005                                            Dec. 2, 2005                                                          Feb. 2007



Data derived     Baseline LRE   Data derived from     FFY 2005 Data to    Submittal of initial                       Activities &          Submittal of APR                             Timing of SPP submittal and
from 618         Data for       618 Child Count       be submitted with   Hawaii SPP                                 strategies are        comparing actual                             requirement for 2005 target
Child Count      12/2/05 SPP                          Feb. '07 APR                                                   carried out through   data to FFY 2005                             data allows for no time to
                                                                                                                     SY 2005-2006.         target                                       implement strategies or
                                                                                     Includes FFY 2005
                                                                                                                                                                                        improve data.
                                                                                     target percentage of
                                                                                     increase from baseline                                       Actual data is from the
                                                                                                                                                  12/1/05 618 data.
                                                                                     Includes activities &
                                                                                     improvement strategies                                       12/1/05 data submitted
                                                                                     to address baseline data.                                    precedes the activities
                                                                                                                                                  described in the SPP.
                                                                                    Initial activities begin in
                                                                                    Nov-Dec. 2005                                                 12/1/05 data submitted
                                                                                                                                                  precedes the submission
                                                                                                                                                  of the initial SPP.




                                Indicator 1-4A,5-6 Timeline (2).mmap - 12/27/2006 -
                                                                                                           Hawaii
                                                                                                            State

                       Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2010



 Monitoring Priority: Preschool Outcomes


Indicator 7:      Percent of preschool children 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.

      Measurement:

          A. Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships):
                a. Percent of preschool children who did not improve functioning = [(# of preschool
                     children who did not improve functioning) divided by the (# 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 the (# 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 nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it) divided by the (# 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 the (# 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 the (# of preschool children with IEPs
                     assessed)] times 100.

      If a + b + c + d + e does not sum to 100%, explain the difference.

          B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication and
             early literacy):
                 a. Percent of preschool children who did not improve functioning = [(# of preschool
                       children who did not improve functioning) divided by the (# 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 the (# 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

Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                    Monitoring Priority Indicator 7 - Page 1
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                           Hawaii
                                                                                                            State

                       to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it) divided by the (# 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 the (# 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 the (# of preschool children with IEPs
                       assessed)] times 100.

      If a + b + c + d + e does not sum to 100%, explain the difference.

          C. Use of appropriate behavior to meet their needs:
                a. Percent of preschool children who did not improve functioning = [(# of preschool
                     children who did not improve functioning) divided by the (# 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 the (# 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 nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it) divided by the (# 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 the (# 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 the (# of preschool children with IEPs
                     assessed)] times 100.

      If a + b + c + d + e does not sum to 100%, explain the difference.



    Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process: (revised to include current updates)

    The Hawaii Department of Education’s (HIDOE) Preschool Outcomes Measurement System (POMS)
    pilot project was carried out in two districts during February through May of 2006. POMS was
    implemented statewide during school year (SY) 2006-2007. The foundation for the POMS is the
    Early Childhood Outcomes Center (ECO) Child Outcomes Summary Form (COSF) based on the
    Division of Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children recommended practices for
    assessment. All early childhood special education (ECSE) teachers were provided training on the
    use and scoring of the Brigance Inventory of Early Development (Brigance) as well as training on the
    POMS. After receiving training, teachers were to rate two children within two months of entry into the
    program. POMS ratings (identical to COSF ratings) are based on three sources of information: the
    Brigance Inventory of Early Development, service provider observations and data, and parent report
    of their child’s skills and behaviors at home and in the community. ECSE teachers are responsible
    for administering the Brigance, obtaining parent input and gathering input from all service providers in
    order to determine the POMS rating. A complete description of the requirements, process, forms and

Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                    Monitoring Priority Indicator 7 - Page 2
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                          Hawaii
                                                                                                           State

    resources is available to the ECSE teachers on the HIDOE’s website “Recommended Practices for
    Early Childhood special Education.” Teachers submit copies of the POMS Summary Form, the
    Family Input form and the Brigance Scoring Sheet to the district 619 Coordinators. The data is
    reviewed for accuracy and quality by the District 619 Coordinator, and then aggregated into an Excel
    file that is forwarded to HIDOE at the end of every school year.

    Brigance and POMS training is provided at the beginning of every school year for new ECSE
    teachers, and technical assistance is available throughout the year from the District 619 Coordinators.
    Implementation of POMS will be expanded during SY 2007-2008 to include a minimum of four
    children per ECSE teacher. Full implementation (POMSs ratings on all children enrolled in an ECSE
    program) will begin during SY 2008-2009.

    Hawaii has elected to conduct a POMS rating for each child annually. The POMS process is to be
    completed within two months prior to each child’s annual IEP conference to facilitate the generation
    and inclusion of current assessment data and family input into the statement of the present levels of
    academic achievement and functional performance in the IEP. Measurement and reporting of
    baseline to OSEP in February 2010, however, will only include exit ratings.

Progress Data for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):

Progress data was obtained for two cohorts of children – those in the pilot group, and those who entered
the preschool program in September 2006. Although exit data was not taken, all progress ratings are
based on participation in the program for at least six months.

Children with ratings of 6 or 7 on the POMS (COSF) Summary Form were considered to be functioning at
a level comparable to their same-age peers. Children with ratings of 5 or below were considered to be
functioning at a level below their same-age peers.

                                       A. Positive Social-Emotional Skills
     OSEP                             Pilot Cohort                         September 2006 Cohort
   Measurement               Number of         Percentage of         Number of          Percentage of
    Category             Children Assessed Children Assessed Children Assessed Children Assessed
        a                         0                 0%                      3                1%
        b                         7                 12%                    76               21%
        c                        26                 43%                   176               48%
        d                        18                 30%                    85               23%
        e                         9                 15%                    25                7%
           Total                 60                100%                   365               100%


                                   B.Acquisition and Use of Knowledge and Skills
     OSEP                             Pilot Cohort                      September 2006 Cohort
   Measurement
                             Number of          Percentage of        Number of       Percentage of
    Category
                         Children Assessed Children Assessed Children Assessed Children Assessed
           a                      0                  0%                  5                1%
           b                      5                  8%                  75              21%
           c                     24                  40%                151              42%
           d                     28                  47%                107              29%
           e                      3                  5%                  26               7%
                Total            60                 100%                365              100%




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                   Monitoring Priority Indicator 7 - Page 3
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                              Hawaii
                                                                                                               State

                                C. Use of Appropriate Behavior to Meet Their Needs
     OSEP                             Pilot Cohort                           September 2006 Cohort
   Measurement               Number of         Percentage of              Number of       Percentage of
    Category             Children Assessed Children Assessed          Children Assessed Children Assessed
        a                         0                 0%                         2                1%
        b                         3                 5%                        81               22%
        c                        17                 28%                      121               33%
        d                        29                 48%                      125               34%
        e                        11                 19%                       36               10%
           Total                 60                100%                      365              100%

Discussion of Baseline Data:

States are not required to report baseline until February 2010.


      FFY                                           Measurable and Rigorous Target
      2005
                    States are not required to report targets until February 2010.
   (2005-2006)
      2006
                    States are not required to report targets until February 2010.
   (2006-2007)
      2007
                    States are not required to report targets until February 2010.
   (2007-2008)
      2008
                    States are not required to report targets until February 2010.
   (2008-2009)
      2009
                    Targets to be determined.
   (2009-2010)
      2010
                    Targets to be determined.
   (2010-2011)


Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:

The following activities pertain to setting up and implementing the outcomes measurement process.
When a baseline is established, activities will also address improvement strategies.

                     Activities                                  Timeline                      Resources
 Measurement system formulation:                           Completed - May 2005         HIDOE/District 619
    • Selection of standardized                                                         Coordinators
       assessment and design of
       professional development roll-out
    • Participation in Part C design team               Completed - September 2006      HIDOE 619 Staff
       for “What Counts.” Selection and
       coordination of child outcomes &
       measurement process.
    • Adoption of ECO Center outcomes                      Completed - May 2006         HIDOE/District 619
       measurement system.                                                              Staff & Stakeholders

 Selection and purchase of the Brigance                   Completed - August 2005       IDEA 619 Funds
 Inventory of Early Development (Early
 Brigance) statewide.




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                       Monitoring Priority Indicator 7 - Page 4
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                             Hawaii
                                                                                                              State

                     Activities                                 Timeline                      Resources
 Training of all ECSE teachers and other            SY 2005-2006: Completed            Contracted Trainer
 interested stakeholders [related service           teacher training.                  and HIDOE Staff
 personnel, Part C, and Parent Groups] on           SY 2006-2007: Completed
 the Early Brigance and the Preschool               teacher training.
 Outcomes Measurement System.


 Annual training of new ECSE teachers and                  SY 2007-2008                Contracted Trainer
 technical assistance provided for all other               SY 2008-2009                and HIDOE Staff
 ECSE teachers and related services                        SY 2009-2010
 providers.                                                SY 2010-2011

 Phase-in and initial data collection
    • Pilot project to assess and collect           Completed                          ECSE teachers
        entry data in at least two districts

      •   Entry data collection                     February-June 2005                 School, district &
                                                                                       HIDOE personnel

      •   Assessment and data collection on         Completed June 2005                School, district &
          entering students to be phased in                                            HIDOE personnel
          over a 3-year period.
     • Assessment and collection of                 SY 2006-2007 - SY 2008-2009        School, district &
          progress data on children from the        Completed June 2007                HIDOE personnel
          pilot project cohort and September
          2006 cohort who have participated
          in the program for at least six
          months.
     • Assessment and collection of exit            June 2008-June 2011                School, district &
          data on all children exiting to                                              HIDOE personnel
          kindergarten and who have
          participated in the program for at
          least six months.
 Explore additional assessment tools to               February-December 2008           HIDOE & District 619
 improve:                                                                              Coordinators
     • Assessment of children with more
          severe disabilities for whom the
          Early Brigance is inappropriate
     • Assessment of social/emotional
          development
 Compare Part C exit ratings with Part B                    October 2009               Early Intervention
 entry ratings on children who transitioned to                                         and HIDOE 619
 Part B from Part C.                                                                   personnel




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                      Monitoring Priority Indicator 7 - Page 5
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                           Hawaii
                                                                                                            State

                       Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2010
Overview of the State Performance Plan Development:


 Monitoring Priority: Parent Involvement


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.

      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.


    Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process:

    All parents of children with disabilities (including parents of pre-school students) in the state were
    mailed the National Center for Special Education Accountability Monitoring Parent Survey- Special
    Education Survey [survey is attached]. Surveys had a self-addressed, postage paid envelope to
    return the survey. The surveys were sent to a private company for analysis and a report was sent
    back to the Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE).

    A notice was placed in the Special Parent Information Network (SPIN) newsletter before the survey
    was sent home to families as pre-mailing publicity.

    The state Community Children’s Council Office (CCCO) also encouraged parents to complete the
    surveys at their monthly meetings between March 2006 and June 2006.

    HIDOE held a stakeholders meeting on October 13, 2006 and November 15, 2006 to analyze the
    data and set measurable rigorous targets, develop improvement activities and discuss refinements to
    the survey and/or distribution of the survey. Members of the stakeholders committee include
    representatives from a foster parenting organization, a private provider, the Department of Health
    Child and Adolescent Mental Health Division, parent advocacy organizations, the Hawaii Special
    Education Advisory Committee, the HIDOE Family Support Educational Specialist, the CCCO, and
    HIDOE State Special Education personnel. At the October 13 meeting, HIDOE did not have
    complete data back from the agency conducting the Rasch analysis; therefore, the stakeholders
    could not fully set the targets and fully develop improvement activities. At the November 15, 2006
    stakeholders meeting, the level of understanding of the complete data hampered the decision-making
    process for the improvement activities. HIDOE has since had lengthy conversations with the agency
    conducting the Rasch analysis and also the Western Regional Resource Center in order to fully
    understand the data analysis.

Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004-2005):

Percent at or above Indicator 8 standard:           34%   (SE of the mean = 0.9%)
Number of Valid Responses:           2,848
Measurement reliability:              0.91
Mean Measure:                          554
Measurement SD:                        143



Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                      Monitoring Priority Indicator 8-Page 1
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                              Hawaii
                                                                                                               State

Discussion of Baseline Data:
In order to meet the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Program’s (OSEP’s) new
reporting requirements, baseline data was collected during the 2005-2006 school year for Indicator 8:
Parent Involvement. The HIDOE utilized the survey developed and validated by the National Center for
Special Education Accountability Monitoring (NCSEAM) to determine the percent of parents with a child
receiving special education services who reported that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means
of improving services and results for children with disabilities. The baseline data collection process gave
every parent of a child identified as Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) eligible in Hawaii the
opportunity to complete the survey and be included in the state’s baseline data. Given the fact that the
first year’s data collection efforts are meant to establish a baseline, HIDOE decided to use all the returned
surveys as each response is so valuable in painting the overall picture.

The HIDOE’s performance on Part B, Indicator #8 was calculated based on data from all parents who
responded to the HIDOE survey. In its SPP, HIDOE proposed a methodology for sample adjustment in
the case of discrepancies in response rates of groups defined by the child’s ethnicity or disability. This
methodology was designed to yield a sample that matched the distribution of respondents in the sample
to the relevant distributions in the state.

Further consideration has led us to revise our data analysis plan in the direction of including all parents
who responded to the survey. The survey was sent to all 20,393 parents whose children were receiving
special education services in HI. A total of 2,848 parents returned the survey, for a response rate of
approximately 14%. To match the distribution of the sample to the 2004 Child Count figures, the
proposed methodology required the random deletion of cases from overrepresented groups. However,
given the particular distribution of cases in the returned sample, following this method would require the
removal of a large number of records form the data set. Our judgment is that this would result in an
inordinate amount of data that would not be utilized, and would be antithetical to our position that the
opinion of each and every respondent is valuable in terms of capturing the perceptions of parents
regarding schools’ efforts to facilitate parent involvement.

Therefore, in an effort to increase our confidence in the data and include the maximum possible amount
of parent input in our baseline data results for this first year, the data analyses utilized the full respondent
data set. For the next round of data collection and analysis, HI will consult with statistician consultants to
find a methodology that will allow every respondent’s opinion to be counted through weight assignments
rather than record removal to obtain a representative sample.

The standard NCSEAM survey was modified slightly, including adding the HIDOE logo to the header and
adding complex areas to the survey (item #102); these changes were implemented in order to customize
the survey with visual cues and information that are familiar to parents. Cover letters as well as postage-
paid business reply envelopes were included with the surveys. To protect student confidentiality, no child
information was tied to the identifiers. Demographic information used in the analyses were taken strictly
from responses provided by parents to the last seven surveys items (items 96-102).

In order to provide every parent of a child with disabilities in the state of Hawaii the opportunity to
participate in the survey, 20,393 English paper-based surveys were distributed. The overall return rate
was 14%, with 2,848 surveys submitted. There 574 undeliverable surveys that were returned due to bad
or missing addresses. Surveys were distributed in June of 2006 and a cut-off of date of August 25, 2006
was made to allow parents sufficient time to respond.

Per the HIDOE’s contractor who analyzed the survey results, normally mailed, paper-based surveys with
no follow-up activities will yield a 10-15% return rate; the overall return rate for Hawaii falls into the upper
end of this range. Interpretation of return rates and survey item results require careful attention to detail.
For example, a state that disseminates only 1,000 surveys to parents may have a higher return rate
(since lower sampling quantities may allow for hand-distribution of surveys) than states that mail surveys
to parents’ homes. This does not mean that a state with a higher return rate will have significant results.
The number of required returned surveys depends on the quantities necessary to get results that reflect

Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                         Monitoring Priority Indicator 8-Page 2
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                           Hawaii
                                                                                                            State

the target population as closely as possible. For a population of 20,393, the number of returned surveys
required to have a high degree of confidence in the results is 377 (confidence interval of 5 and 95%
confidence level) or a return rate of 1.8%. In comparison, a population size of 1,000 requires 278
returned surveys or a 27.8% return rate (confidence interval of 5 and 95% confidence interval). These
required figures vary depending on plans for disaggregating data, but provide a general indication of the
most basic requirements.

The data from the survey has been analyzed using a Rasch analysis to produce a measure for the
HIDOE. The average of these 2,848 individual family Part B Partnership Efforts measures is 554, with a
standard deviation of 143.

The percents reported for indicator 8 in the SPP/APR are calculated as the percent of families whose
measures are at or above a standard cutoff value. In these analyses, the standards applied were those
recommended by a nationally representative stakeholder group convened by NCSEAM. This group
identified items that most closely represented the content of each of the indicators and recommended the
level of agreement that should be required on these items. For Part B indicator 8, the recommended
standard was operationalized as a measure of 600, since this is the calibration of the item chosen by the
stakeholder group as the minimum amount of partnership effort that can reasonably be said to have met
the terms for indicator 8 in the SPP/APR. Thus, the percent reported is the percent of families with
measures on the Partnership Efforts scale that are at or above these levels.



         FFY                                        Measurable and Rigorous Target

        2005           Baseline data gathered. HIDOE results overall are 34%.
      (2005-2006)

        2006           Increase from baseline .4% to 34.4%.
      (2006-2007)

        2007           Increase .4% from 2006 data to 34.8%.
      (2007-2008)

        2008           Increase .4% from 2007 data to 35.2%.
      (2008-2009)

        2009           Increase .4% from 2008 data to 35.6%.
      (2009-2010)

        2010           Increase .4% from 2009 data to 36%.
      (2010-2011)


Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:


             Improvement Activities                             Timelines                    Resources

 1.    Further analysis/understanding of                  February 2007-May 2007           Stakeholder
       baseline data to determine appropriate                                           committee members
       improvement activities. Incorporate
       into FFY 2006 SPP.
 2.    Translate survey into appropriate                  January 2007-June 2007                 State
       languages.

 3.    Investigate the impact of distributing             January 2007-June 2007            State/Schools
       survey at IEP meetings to increase
       return rate.




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                      Monitoring Priority Indicator 8-Page 3
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                            Hawaii
                                                                                                             State


            Improvement Activities                            Timelines                       Resources


 DISCONTINUED                                             DISCONTINUED

 4.    The CCCO area with the highest               July 2007 ongoing to June 2010                State
       percent of returned surveys will receive
       a monetary prize.


 DISCONTINUED                                             DISCONTINUED

 5.    In collaboration with the team                  2006-2007 and ongoing              State and partner
       responsible for Indicators 1 and 2,                                               programs/agencies
       convene meeting with partner
       programs and agencies, including the
       CCCO, the Learning Disability
       Association of Hawaii (LDAH), Special
       Parent Information Network (SPIN),
       Hawaii Families As Allies (HFAA), the
       Developmental Disability Council (DD),
       and the program manager for the
       Comprehensive School Alienation
       Program to develop a mechanism to
       increase the awareness of and
       involvement of parents and families on
       issues involving the post-secondary
       transition plan, graduation, retention,
       and dropout.

 6.    Inform partner programs and agencies             2007-ongoing to 2010                      State
       of the HIDOE’s Parent Community
       Networking Centers email/phone
       number to facilitate dissemination of
       parent workshop/training information

 7.    HIDOE will distribute the parent survey        July 2008-ongoing to 2010             HIDOE/Schools
       at annual IEP meetings.

 8.    Report to the HIDOE Complexes                    2008-ongoing to 2010                     HIDOE
       results of the survey.

 9.    Contract with Learning Disabilities            2008-ongoing to June 2010                  HIDOE
       Association of Hawaii (or other
       appropriate agency) through the state
       CCCO to provide trainings to parents
       of children with special needs, to gain
       the knowledge and skills necessary to
       more effectively participate in their
       child’s education.




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                       Monitoring Priority Indicator 8-Page 4
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                             Hawaii
                                                                                                              State

                 Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2006


 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.

      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 Target

      2006          34.4% (an increase of .4 percentage points from baseline).
   (2006-2007)


Actual Target Data for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):

The Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE) used the Schools’ Efforts to Partner with Parents
Scale (SEPPS), developed and validated by the National Center for Special Education Accountability
Monitoring (NCSEAM). Thirty-three percent (33%) of the parents surveyed reported that schools
facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities.
The following table presents statistical information relevant to the percentage of respondents at or above
the standard of 600.
                                  Percent of Parents at or above the Standard

     Percent at or above the              Standard Error of the Census        95% confidence Interval for
     Standard Value of 600                        Percentage                    Population Percentage

                 33%                                     1.0%                         30.6% - 34.5%

The U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) requires that the
state’s performance be reported at the percent of parents who report that schools facilitated their
involvement. Deriving a percent from a continuous distribution requires application of a standard or cut
score. The HIDOE elected to apply the standard recommended by a nationally representative
stakeholder group convened by NCSEAM. The recommended standard was operationalized as a
measure of 600. Thus, the percent of parents, including parents of pre-schoolers, who report that schools
facilitated their involvement was calculated as the percent of parents with a measure of 600 or above on
the SEPPS.
Batya Elbaum, Ph.D. and Randall D. Penfield, Ph.D. on behalf of Piedra Data Services analyzed HIDOE
data from the rating scale through the Rasch measurement framework. The analysis produced a
measure for each survey respondent (parent) on a scale from 0 to 1,000. Each measure reflects the
extent to which the parent indicated that schools facilitated that parent’s involvement. The measures of
all respondents were averaged to yield a mean measure reflecting the overall performance of the state in
regard to schools’ facilitation of parent involvement.

Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                               Monitoring Priority Indicator 8 - Page 1
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                           Hawaii
                                                                                                            State

The following points represent the major findings related to Indicator 8:
1.     Statewide Mean Measure on the SEPPS
       The state’s mean measure on the SEPPS is 544, with a standard deviation of 156. The standard
       error of the census mean is 3.3. The 95% confidence interval for the sample mean is 537.1-550.1
       indicates there is a 95% likelihood that the true value of the state mean is within this range.
2.     Statewide Percent on Indicator 8
       The percent of parents who reported that schools facilitated parent involvement, including parents
       of preschoolers, was 33%. The standard error of the census percentage is 1.0%. The 95%
       confidence interval for the census percentage is 30.6% - 34.5%. There is a 95% likelihood that the
       true value of the state percentage is between 30.6% and 34.5%.
       Measurement Information:
       The survey administered by the HIDOE consisted of a 25-item rating scale, SEPPS, developed and
       validated by NCSEAM. A survey was sent to the parents of every student in the state receiving
       special education services, including parents of pre-schoolers. This process gave every parent of a
       student receiving special education services the opportunity to complete the survey. In total,
       21,099 surveys were distributed; 2,206 surveys were returned, for a response rate of 10.5%. The
       number of respondents exceeded the minimum number required for an adequate confidence level
       based on established survey sample guidelines (e.g., http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm).
       The surveys were printed on standard 8.5” x 11” paper in English. Translations were available in
       the following languages:
       Cebuano-Visayan, Chinese, Chuukese, Ilokano, Japanese, Korean, Lao, Marshallese, Samoan,
       Spanish, Tagalog, Tongan, and Vietnamese.
       Included with the survey was a cover letter and a postage-paid business reply envelope. Once
       addresses were verified all student information was removed from the mailing database provided to
       the contractor responsible for mailing the surveys. To protect student confidentiality, no child
       information was tied to the identifiers; demographic information used in the analysis was taken
       strictly from responses provided by parents to the last seven surveys items (items 26-32).
       Surveys were distributed in mid-July and parents were given a month to return their completed
       surveys. Parents mailed the surveys in the provided postage-paid business reply envelopes to
       Piedra Data Services; HIDOE’s contracted data analysis company.

Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that
occurred for FFY 2006:

HIDOE’s baseline in FFY 2005 was 34% with a standard error of measurement of .9%. This year’s
results were 33% with a standard error of measurement of 1.0%.
Rasch measurement is a way of using the responses to all of the survey items to determine which
parents are very likely (i.e., 95% likely) to score in the agree categories (Agree, Strongly Agree, Very
Strongly Agree) of the criterion item if they were to be given the survey again. Responses to individual
items are relatively unstable; so a Rasch measurement was used to increase reliability by estimating a
"likelihood" rather than examining what is actually obtained on a given unique occasion.
Therefore, there is a 95% likelihood that the true value of the state percentage is between 30.6% and
34.5% for FFY 2006 in comparison to FFY 2005 where the 95% likelihood that the true value of the state
percentage was between 32.2% and 35.8%. There is an overlap in the 95% confidence values or 95%
“likelihood”, between FFY 2005 and FFY 2006. According to R.D. Penfield, Ph.D., who prepared the
analysis of the parent survey for HIDOE the difference in the percent is not statistically significant;
therefore, the measurement is essentially the same, although there was a drop in the percent.
The NCSEAM stakeholder group came to the consensus that a simple "agree" response was not strong
enough to warrant consideration that the standard was achieved. The stakeholder group wanted to see

Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                             Monitoring Priority Indicator 8 - Page 2
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                                Hawaii
                                                                                                                 State

parents express stronger agreement with the items up to and including the items established as
"threshold items“, which is the standard of 600. The percent calculated through the Rasch model is
based on the number of responses in the very strongly agree and strongly agree categories. The
following table shows the percentage of responses in the Agree, Strongly Agree and Very Strongly Agree
categories and the percentage of responses in the Strongly Agree and Very Strongly Agree categories for
each item number (question) on the survey. The table also includes a value for each item that is referred
to as the item’s calibration. An item’s calibration indexes the amount of the attribute being measured that
is required in order to elicit an agree response. As an example, it takes a greater amount of facilitation of
parent involvement for parents to agree with item #23, “The school gives parents the help they may need
to play and active role in their child’s education”, than it does for parents to agree with item #11,
“Teachers are available to speak with me.” The items with lower calibrations are items that parents tend
to agree with most. The items with higher calibrations are items that parents tend to agree with least.
Because of the consistency of the scale, a parent who agrees with a given item will have a very high
likelihood of agreeing, or agreeing even more strongly, with items having lower calibrations on the scale.
The following table shows that HIDOE schools are facilitating parent involvement at a greater percent per
individual item if the Agree category is included.

  Observed Percentage of Responses in the Strongly Agree/Very Strongly Agree Categories, and
                   Observed Percentage of Responses in Any Agree Category
                      %      %
 Item     Item
                     SA/   A/SA/                                Item
   #   Calibration
                    VSA    VSA
                                  At the IEP meeting, we discussed accommodations and
   4       490      47%   88%
                                  modifications that my child would need.
  11          492         52%      88%       Teachers are available to speak to me.

  16          504         45%      90%       Teachers and administrators respect my cultural heritage.

   9          505         45%      87%       My child’s evaluation report is written in terms I understand.

  10          505         45%      88%       Written information I receive is written in an understandable way.
                                             I am considered an equal partner with teachers and other
   1          507         49%      86%
                                             professionals in planning my child’s program.
  12          511         50%      85%       Teachers treat me as team member.
                                             All of my concerns and recommendations weredocumented on
   5          513         47%      84%
                                             the IEP.
                                             The school has a person on staff who is available to answer
  18          523         43%      86%
                                             parents questions.
                                             Teachers and administrators encourage me to participate in the
  15          526         45%      82%
                                             decision-making process.
                                             Teachers and administrators ensure that I have fully understood
  17          528         47%      87%
                                             the Procedural Safeguards.
                                             Teachers and administrators show sensitivity to the needs of
  14          533         44%      82%
                                             students with disabilities and their families.
  13          544         42%      78%       Teachers and administrators seek out parent input.

                                             The school communicates regularly with me regarding my child’s
  19          550         40%      74%
                                             progress on IEP goals.
                                             The school offers parents a variety of ways to communicate with
  22          561         36%      75%
                                             teachers.
                                             At the IEP meeting, we discussed how my child would
   3          564         35%      72%
                                             participate in statewide assessments.

Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                                  Monitoring Priority Indicator 8 - Page 3
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                            Hawaii
                                                                                                             State

  Observed Percentage of Responses in the Strongly Agree/Very Strongly Agree Categories, and
                   Observed Percentage of Responses in Any Agree Category
                      %      %
 Item     Item
                     SA/   A/SA/                                   Item
    #  Calibration
                    VSA    VSA
                                  The school gives me choices with regard to services that
   20      570      38%   72%
                                  address my child’s needs.
                                  Written justification was given for the extent that my child would
    6      573      32%   72%
                                  not receive services in the regular classroom.
                                  The school gives parents the help they may need to play an
   23      581      37%   73%
                                  active role in their child’s education.
                                  I have been asked for my opinion about how well special
    8      591      36%   69%
                                  education services are meeting my child’s needs.
                                  The school explains what options parents have if they disagree
   25      600      33%   71%
                                  with the decision of the school.
                                  The school provides information on agencies that can assist my
   24      634      28%   55%
                                  child in the transition from school.
                                  I was given information about organizations that offer support for
    7      647      27%   60%
                                  parents of students with disabilities.
                                  The school offers parents training about special education
   21      653      25%   54%
                                  issues.
                                  In preparation for my child’s transition planning meeting I was
    2      663      22%   48%     given information about options my child will have after high
                                  school.

The HIDOE has completed improvement activities as noted in the following table.


             Improvement Activities                       Timelines                         Status


 1.    Further analysis/understanding of              February 2007 to         Completed.
       baseline data to determine appropriate            May 2007              The stakeholder committee
       improvement activities. Incorporate into                                met on November 15, 2006
       FFY 2006 SPP.                                                           and March 16, 2006.

 2.    Translate survey into appropriate               January 2007 to
       languages.                                        June 2007             Completed.

 3.    Investigate the impact of distributing          January 2007 to
       survey at IEP meetings to increase return         June 2007             Completed. The surveys
       rate.                                                                   will be distributed at annual
                                                                               IEP meetings beginning
                                                                               July 2008 for reporting in
                                                                               FFY 2008 and ongoing.

 4.    The Community Children’s Council             July 2007 to June 2010
       Office (CCCO) area with the highest                                     Completed.
       percent of returned surveys will receive a
       monetary prize.




Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                              Monitoring Priority Indicator 8 - Page 4
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                                 Hawaii
                                                                                                                  State


             Improvement Activities                              Timelines                       Status


 5.    In collaboration with the team                     2006-2007 and ongoing     A number of meetings were
       responsible for Indicators 1 and 2,                                          held with teacher, parent,
       convene meeting with partner programs                                        and agency
       and agencies, including the CCCO, the                                        representatives. The need
       Learning Disability Association of                                           for informational sessions,
       Hawaii (LDAH), Special Parent                                                availability of school and
       Information Network (SPIN), Hawaii                                           community resources and
       Families As Allies (HFAA), the                                               preliminary plans were
       Developmental Disability Council (DD),                                       discussed.
       and the program manager for the
       Comprehensive School Alienation
       Program (CSAP), to develop a
       mechanism to increase the awareness of
       and involvement of parents and families
       on issues involving the post-secondary
       transition plan, graduation, retention, and
       dropout.

 6.    Inform partner programs and agencies of                  2007 to 2010        HIDOE will continue this
       the HIDOE’s Parent Community                                                 activity.
       Networking Centers email/phone number
       to facilitate dissemination of parent
       workshop/training information.


Improvement Activities in Indicators 1, 2, 13, 15, 18 and 19 support parental involvement as a means of
improving services and results for children with disabilities.

Indicator #15 had two issues of non-compliance related to Indicator #8. In two hearing decisions the
presiding hearings officer cited that the HIDOE did not adequately consider parent input. The HIDOE
corrected the non-compliance per the hearing decision within one year.

Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):

Stakeholder meetings were held November 13, 2007 and November 30, 2007 to review the data from the
most recent parent survey and to determine the need to revise the improvement activities for Indicator 8.
As a result of the meetings, improvement activities were revised. The SPP for this indicator has been
changed to reflect the decisions of the stakeholders. The following table reflects the changes and
additions.


      Improvement Activities                        Timelines          Resources       Revision / Justification


 1.    Further analysis-                     February 2007 to            HIDOE        The HIDOE stakeholder
       understanding of baseline                May 2007                              committee met on
       data to determine                                                              November 15, 2006 and
       appropriate improvement                                                        March 16, 2006. This
       activities. Incorporate into                                                   activity was completed.
       FFY 2006 SPP.



Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                                   Monitoring Priority Indicator 8 - Page 5
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                          Hawaii
                                                                                                           State


      Improvement Activities                        Timelines    Resources      Revision / Justification


 2.    Translate survey into                 January 2007 to       HIDOE       This activity was
       appropriate languages.                  June 2007                       completed.

 3.    The CCCO area with the               July 2007-ongoing      HIDOE       The HIDOE stakeholder
       highest percent of returned                to 2010                      group for Indicator 8
       surveys will receive a                                                  determined that this
       monetary prize.                                                         activity will be
                                                                               discontinued as it did not
                                                                               increase the response
                                                                               rate.
 4.    In collaboration with the         2006-2007 and ongoing     HIDOE       The HIDOE stakeholder
       team responsible for                     to 2010                        group for Indicator 8
       Indicators 1 and 2,                                                     determined that this
       convene meeting with                                                    activity for this indicator
       partner programs and                                                    only would be
       agencies, including the                                                 discontinued as there are
       CCCO, LDAH, SPIN,                                                       many activities in other
       HFAA, DD, and the                                                       indicators that will support
       program manager for the                                                 parental involvement. To
       CSAP, to develop a                                                      list them as activities in
       mechanism to increase the                                               Indicator 8 would be
       awareness of and                                                        redundant.
       involvement of parents and
       families on issues
       involving the post-
       secondary transition plan,
       graduation, retention, and
       dropout.

 5.    Inform partner programs           2007-ongoing to 2010    HIDOE         HIDOE will continue this
       and agencies of the                                                     activity.
       HIDOE’s Parent
       Community Networking
       Centers email/phone
       number to facilitate
       dissemination of parent
       workshop/training
       information.


 NEW

 6.    HIDOE will distribute the         July 2008 and ongoing   HIDOE/        The HIDOE stakeholder
       parent survey at annual                                   Schools       group determined that
       IEP meetings.                                                           this activity would likely
                                                                               increase the return rate.
                                                                               HIDOE will conduct a
                                                                               mail out of surveys for
                                                                               data collection for
                                                                               FFY 07. In July 2008,
                                                                               surveys will be distributed
                                                                               at annual IEP meetings.
                                                                               Thereafter, data from

Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                            Monitoring Priority Indicator 8 - Page 6
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                          Hawaii
                                                                                                           State


      Improvement Activities                        Timelines   Resources       Revision / Justification
                                                                               surveys will be collected
                                                                               from July 1 to June 31 of
                                                                               each FFY.


 NEW

 7.    Report to complex areas           2008-ongoing to 2010   HIDOE          New activity. In order for
       the results of the survey.                                              schools to facilitate
                                                                               parent involvement they
                                                                               need to be aware of how
                                                                               parents responded to the
                                                                               survey in order to target
                                                                               areas in which
                                                                               improvement is needed.


 NEW

 8.    Contract with Learning            2008-ongoing to 2010   HIDOE          New activity. To help
       Disabilities Association of                                             facilitate parents gaining
       Hawaii (or other                                                        the knowledge and skills
       appropriate agency)                                                     necessary to more
       through the State CCCO to                                               effectively participate in
       provide training sessions                                               their child’s education
       to parents of children with                                             training needs to be
       special needs, to gain the                                              offered.
       knowledge and skills
       necessary to more
       effectively participate in
       their child’s education.

HIDOE has revised its State Performance Plan Indicator 8 to reflect the new activities.

Information Required by the OSEP SPP/APR Response Letter
Attached is the FFY 2005 survey used by HIDOE as requested by OSEP in its letter of June 15, 2007.
Also attached is the FFY 2006 survey used by HIDOE.




Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                            Monitoring Priority Indicator 8 - Page 7
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                   Hawaii
                                                                                    State

FFY 2006 Survey, page 1:




Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006     Monitoring Priority Indicator 8 - Page 8
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                   Hawaii
                                                                                    State

FFY 2006 Survey, page 2:




Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006     Monitoring Priority Indicator 8 - Page 9
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                    Hawaii
                                                                                     State

FFY 2005 survey, page 1:




Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006     Monitoring Priority Indicator 8 - Page 10
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                    Hawaii
                                                                                     State

FFY 2005 survey, page 2:




Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006     Monitoring Priority Indicator 8 - Page 11
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                    Hawaii
                                                                                     State

FFY 2005 survey, page 3:




Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006     Monitoring Priority Indicator 8 - Page 12
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                    Hawaii
                                                                                     State

FFY 2005 survey, page 4:




Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006     Monitoring Priority Indicator 8 - Page 13
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                               Hawaii
                                                                                                                State

                       Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2010



 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.

      Measurement:
      Percent = [(# of districts with disproportionate representation of racial/ethnic group in special
      education and related services due to inappropriate identification) divided by the (# of districts in
      the state)] 1 x 100%.

      (0 districts/1) x 100% = 0 %
       State Definition of disproportionate representation

       Any group whose risk ratio falls outside a 90% confidence interval for its respective disability and
       group size signifies disproportionate representation.

       State description of disproportionality determination:

       A rate of greater than four percent of sampled disproportionally represented racial/ethnic group in
       special education and related services found to be a result of inappropriate identification.



    Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process:

    Hawaii Department of Education (HDOE) is a unitary educational system, therefore the analysis of
    disproportionality will represent the state as a single district. As such, disproportionate representation
    resulting from inappropriate identification is recorded as either 0% or 100%.

    Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE) Process for Identifying Disproportionality

    HIDOE’s definition of disproportionality involves a two-tier method of analysis. The process of
    analysis helps to identify disproportionate representation that may be the result of inappropriate
    identification.

    The first tier is a statistical analysis of disproportionate representation based on racial/ethnic group in
    special education and related services. In the statistical analysis of disproportionate representation,
    risk ratios are calculated based on the racial/ethnic group in a special education and related services
    with respect to all racial/ethnic groups in Hawaii. The risk ratios are then compared to a confidence
    interval based on disability and group size. The second tier is an analysis of state policies,
    procedures and practices used in the identification of students in special education and related
    services.

    Tier I: Confidence Interval and Disproportionate representation

    The first tier is a statistical analysis of disproportionate representation based on risk ratios of
    racial/ethnic group receiving special education and related services. The risk ratios are then
    compared to a confidence interval based on disability and group size.

Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                        Monitoring Priority Indicator 9 - Page 1
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                                Hawaii
                                                                                                                 State



    Risk ratio:

    The equation for the risk ratio is:

    Risk ratio = Risk for racial/ethnic group/ Risk for comparison group.

    Confidence interval:

    Using the Child Count data from School Year (SY) 2003-2004 to SY 2005-2006, the distribution of
    incidence rates for specific disabilities of concern were statistically modeled with the average
    incidence rates used as “expected values of risk” for all racial/ethnic groups.

    Since the three year data indicates that there has been no significant variance in the population size
    by disability, the confidence interval rates established will continue to be utilized for the duration of
    this SPP. The rates will be re-examined and re-calculated if warranted (i.e., due to a significant
    change in the population size of a disability category and/or reviewed after three years to address
    fluctuations in the student population).

    Derived from the incidence rates were the confidence intervals for the disability risk ratios. Hawaii
    has adopted the 90% confidence intervals as the criteria for disproportionate representation. See
    Table 9.2 below.

                      Table 9.2. 90% Confidence Intervals for Disability Risk Ratios

                                                                  Group Size


                                   100                 500          1,000          5,000               10,000


         All Special
         Education            0.51 to 2.05          .75 to 1.33   .82 to 1.22   0.91 to 1.09        0.94 to 1.07
       (14 categories)

    From Determining the Likelihood of Risk Ratios for Disabilities among Racial or Ethnic Groups,
    Appendix 1

    By using the 90% confidence intervals for risk ratios of particular racial/ethnic groups, any groups that
    occur outside the confidence interval are unlikely to have occurred by chance and are “free” from the
    effects of random error. Disproportionate representation is considered to be any group which falls
    outside the 90% confidence interval.

    Tier II: Analysis of Identification Procedures and Practices (AIPP):

    In Tier II, racial/ethnic groups with risk ratios over or under the confidence interval for their respective
    group sizes, are reviewed in greater detail.

    If a specific racial/ethnic group receiving special education and related services was found to be over
    the confidence interval, then a statewide random sample of student files from that school year, based
    on race/ethnicity is selected for analysis to determine if those students were appropriately identified.

    HIDOE designed a disproportionality checklist called AIPP monitoring tool specifically focused on five
    areas of consideration in the determination of eligibility:


Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                         Monitoring Priority Indicator 9 - Page 2
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                                Hawaii
                                                                                                                 State

    1)   the statement of concern and evidence of appropriate instruction,
    2)   assessment procedures,
    3)   variety of assessment tools and strategies,
    4)   cultural/linguistic factors and
    5)   the eligibility determination.

    A rubric is used to rate each of the five areas of consideration, and each file must meet minimum
    score in order to earn an overall rating of appropriate identification. See Appendix 2.

    HIDOE established that no more than 4% of student files reviewed statewide using the AIPP review
    may be rated as inappropriate. If more than 4% of student files reviewed statewide are rated as
    inappropriate or if a cluster of cases in one school or school complex are found to be inappropriate,
    that would be considered disproportionate due to inappropriate identification.

    To investigate under-identification, the HIDOE will compare state risk data with national risk data for
    the same groups relating to ethnicity and eligibility.

    Any noncompliance identified will be corrected. Policies, practices and procedures are reviewed as
    necessary. Identified inappropriate practices will be addressed under HIDOE’s general supervision
    process. (See Indicator 15) All activities are to take place and be completed within one year of the
    identification of noncompliance.

Baseline Data for FFY 2005 (2005-2006):

For the Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2005, the HIDOE utilized the WESTAT method of determining risk ratio
as the criterion for disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and
related services. In 2007, HIDOE revised its process for determining disproportionality and applied it to
FFY 2005.

Using the two-tier process, the baseline data for FFY 2005 was established. In the table below, the
numbers in bold and italics represent disproportionate representation below the 90% confidence interval
for the ethnic group in special education and related services.


            The racial/ethnic disproportionality risk ratio data for all children with disabilities, ages 6-21


                         American
                                              Asian /
                         Indian /                             Black                                      White
      2005-2006                               Pacific                             Hispanic
                         Alaskan                          (Non-Hispanic)                             (Non-Hispanic)
                                             Islander
                         native


  All Disabilities           1.15             0.88              1.08               1.23                    1.10




Discussion of Baseline Data:

SY 2005-2006

The SY 2005-2006 data was reviewed in relation to the 90% Confidence Interval table. All racial/ethnic
groups had risk ratios within the confidence interval based on their group size, with the exception of
Asian/Pacific Islander. The Asian/Pacific Islander risk ratio fell below the confidence interval at 0.88.



Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                         Monitoring Priority Indicator 9 - Page 3
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                             Hawaii
                                                                                                              State

Hawaii’s risk of 9.47% is nearly double the national risk of 4.74. This variance may be due to the state’s
unique racial/ethnic composition of the Asian/Pacific Islander group which is 61.9% of the total population
as compared to the national average of 4.61%. (U.S. Census Bureau 2006: American Community
Survey) As such, the under identification of Asian/Pacific Islanders is not inappropriate. Therefore, for
the SY 2005-2006, HIDOE had 0% disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special
education and related services resulting from inappropriate identification [(0 districts/1) x 100% = 0 %].




      FFY                                           Measurable and Rigorous Target

      2005
   (2005-2006)                                                   0%

      2006
   (2006-2007)                                                   0%

      2007
   (2007-2008)                                                   0%

      2008
   (2008-2009)                                                   0%

      2009
   (2009-2010)                                                   0%

      2010
   (2010-2011)                                                   0%




Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:


       Improvement Activities                             Timelines                     Resources

 Hold SPP stakeholder meetings to             October 2006 − April 2007 and   Special Education Section,
 further analyze disproportionality                     ongoing               Special Education Advisory
 data.                                                                        Council and the Community
                                                                              Children’s Council Office

 Establish workgroup to review                 November 2006 − March 2007     Special Education Section,
 policies and procedures and                          and ongoing             Special Education Advisory
 develop amendments to current                                                Council and the Community
 policies and procedures as                                                   Children’s Council Office
 appropriate.
 Using monitoring data, review                 March 2006 – ongoing to 2011   Special Education Section
 policies, practices and procedures
 to determine if the disproportionality
 could be the result of inappropriate
 identification practices.
Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                      Monitoring Priority Indicator 9 - Page 4
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                              Hawaii
                                                                                                               State


       Improvement Activities                              Timelines                     Resources

 Provide training on evaluation and                   January 2007 – 2011      Special Education Section
 eligibility determination procedures.

 Continue to collect, disaggregate                    January 2007 − 2011      Special Education Section
 618 data.

 Develop evaluation handbook                        January 2007 − June 2008   Special Education Section
 related to eligibility/evaluation/
 related services.

 Provide follow up technical                          January 2007 − 2011      Special Education Section,
 assistance and/or sanctions based                                             district educational
 on identification of policies,                                                specialists, complex area
 procedures and practices that lead                                            superintendents
 to inappropriate identification.
 NEW                                           January 2008-2009; annually     Special Education Section
 Provide professional development                      as needed
 activities statewide on differentiating
 instruction to support diverse
 learner needs prior to consideration
 of referral for special education.

 NEW                                                   January 2008-2009       Special Education Section,
 Investigate feasibility of identifying                                        Student Support Services
 ethnic/racial composition of                                                  Branch
 students receiving CSSS System
 services to enhance data collection
 and improve systems administration
 and monitoring.




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                       Monitoring Priority Indicator 9 - Page 5
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                              Hawaii
                                                                                                               State

                 Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2006


 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.


      Measurement:

       Definition of disproportional representation

       Any group which falls outside a 90% confidence interval for its respective disability and group size.

       Definition of disproportionality

       A rate of greater than four percent of the sampled disproportionally represented racial/ethnic group
       in special education and related services found to be a result of inappropriate identification.

       Percent = [(# of districts with disproportional representation of racial/ethnic group in special
       education and related services due to inappropriate identification) divided by the (# of districts in the
       state)] 1 x 100%.

       (0 districts/1) x 100% = 0 %



      FFY                                           Measurable and Rigorous Target


      2006          By Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2006, the state will have no (0%) disproportionate
   (2006-2007)      representations of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that
                    is the result of inappropriate identification.


Information Required by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) State Performance
Plan (SPP)/APR Response Letter:

Baseline Data for FFY 2005 (2005-2006):

In Hawaii, since the State Education Agency (SEA) and the Local Education Agency (LEA) are the same
entity, the disproportionality analysis and results will represent the state as a single district.

For the School Year (SY) 2005-2006, Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE) had 0% disproportionate
representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services resulting from
inappropriate identification. This process is outlined further in the SPP, Indicator 9.




Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                                Monitoring Priority Indicator 9 – Page 1
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                             Hawaii
                                                                                                              State


                                                                                            % Inappropriately
             Measurement: Disproportionality FFY 2005 (2005-2006)
                                                                                                Identified


 Percent = [(# of districts with disproportional representation of racial/ethnic group
 in special education and related services due to inappropriate identification)                      0%
 divided by the (# of districts in the state)] 1 x 100%.



Information Required for Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2006:

Actual Target Data for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):

Using the two-tier process of determining disproportional representation and review of files, as described
in the SPP, the baseline data for FFY 2006 was established.

As such, a finding of disproportional representation due to inappropriate identification would be recorded
as 0% for the state if that finding was less than four percent of students randomly sampled.

For the SY 2006-2007, HIDOE had no (0%) disproportionate representations of racial and ethnic groups
in special education and related services due to inappropriate identification. This process is outlined
further in the SPP, Indicator 9.


                                                                                             % Inappropriately
              Measurement: Disproportionality FFY 2006 (2006-2007)
                                                                                                 Identified


Percent = [(# of districts with disproportional representation of racial/ethnic group in
special education and related services due to inappropriate identification) divided by                 0%
the (# of districts in the state)] 1 x 100%.


Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that
occurred for FFY 2006:

SY 2006-2007

The SY 2006-2007 data was reviewed in relation to the 90% Confidence Interval table. All ethnic groups
had risk ratios within the confidence interval based on the group size, with the exception of Asian/Pacific
Islander. The Asian/Pacific Islander group risk ratio, at 0.90, was below the confidence interval for its
group size.

The SY 2006-2007 data was consistent with SY 2005-2006 data in that the risk ratios for all ethnic groups
fell within the confidence intervals, except for Asian/Pacific Islanders, which fell below the confidence
interval, possibly suggesting that this is the trend for ethnic groups in Hawaii.


HIDOE schools have a Comprehensive Student Support System (CSSS) which provides a full array of
services to address basic needs of all students. By providing students with preventative services within
the classroom and through school programs, the need for higher-level interventions is decreased.
Asian/Pacific Islanders may be accessing such services to a greater extent suggesting that this may have
influenced the amount of students referred and found eligible for special education and related services.
Further exploration of this activity is ongoing.


Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                               Monitoring Priority Indicator 9 – Page 2
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                                   Hawaii
                                                                                                                    State

Based on the SY 2005-2006 and SY 2006-2007 data, Hawaii is conducting a review of policies, practices
and procedures to address appropriate, as well as inappropriate, identification. This includes a review of
the current eligibility guidelines/checklists used in the state, professional development on determining
eligibility of special education services and training on the appropriate identification of disability
categories.


             Improvement Activities                                     Timelines                          Status


 Determine a standard of significance                           October 2005-December 2005             Completed
 pertaining to disproportionality for Hawaii.


 Apply risk ratio formula to disaggregate 618                          March 2006                      Completed
 data.


 Review and analyze 618 data.                                        May–August 2006                   Completed


 Hold SPP stakeholder meetings to further                         October 2006-April 2007              Completed
 analyze disproportionality data.


Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):

For FFY 2006-2007, HIDOE utilized a two-tier method of analysis to identify disproportionality that may be
the result of inappropriate identification. This process is delineated in the SPP.

As noted in the chart above, many of the activities have been completed as targeted. However, several
of those improvement activities, based on stakeholder recommendations, will be continued.

This ongoing process is also reflected in the chart below. As a result of stakeholder meetings held in
November and December 2007 to review the disproportionality data, additional activities were added.
The SPP for this indicator has been changed to reflect the recommendations of the stakeholders.


       Improvement Activities                       Timelines          Resources            Revision/Justification

 Apply risk ratio formula to                    Ongoing to           Special Education     Critical in the yearly
 disaggregate 618 data.                           2011                   Section           analysis of
                                                                                           disproportionality, this
                                                                                           activity will be ongoing.
 Review and analyze 618 data.                   Ongoing to           Special Education     Critical in the yearly
                                                  2011                   Section           analysis of
                                                                                           disproportionality, this
                                                                                           activity will be ongoing.
 Hold SPP stakeholder meetings                  Ongoing to           Special Education     To promote greater
 quarterly to further analyze                     2011                   Section           stakeholder input, this
 disproportionality data.                                                                  activity will be ongoing.




Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                                     Monitoring Priority Indicator 9 – Page 3
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                              Hawaii
                                                                                                               State


       Improvement Activities                       Timelines      Resources           Revision/Justification

 NEW

 Provide professional development             January 2008-     Special Education     As a result of the
 activities statewide on differentiated       2009; annually        Section           stakeholder meetings,
 instruction to support diverse                 as needed                             this activity was added.
 learner needs prior to consideration
 of referral for special education.
 NEW
                                              January 2008-     Special Education;    As a result of the
 Investigate the feasibility of                   2009           Section; Student     stakeholder meetings,
 identifying ethnic/racial composition                               Support          this activity was added.
 of students receiving CSSS                                      Services Branch
 services--the supports for those
 students prior to referral/eligibility of
 special education.




Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                                Monitoring Priority Indicator 9 – Page 4
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                                Hawaii
                                                                                                                 State

                       Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2010


 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.

      Measurement:

       Percent = [(# of districts with of racial/ethnic group in a specific disability category due to
       inappropriate identification) divided by the (# of districts in the state)] 1 x 100%.

       (0 districts/1) x 100% = 0 %

       State definition of disproportionate representation:

       Any group whose risk ratio falls outside a 90% confidence interval for its respective disability and
       group size signifies disproportionate representation.

       State description of disproportionality determination:

       A rate of greater than four percent of sampled disproportionally represented racial/ethnic group in
       a specific disability category found to be a result of inappropriate identification.



    Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process:

    Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE) is a unitary educational system, therefore the analysis of
    disproportionality will represent the state as a single district. As such, disproportionate representation
    resulting from inappropriate identification is recorded as either 0% or 100%.

    HIDOE Process for Identifying Disproportionality

    HIDOE’s definition of disproportionality involves a two-tier method of analysis. The process of
    analysis helps to identify disproportionate representation that may be the result of inappropriate
    identification.

    The first tier is a statistical analysis of disproportionate representation based on racial/ethnic group by
    disability category. In the statistical analysis of disproportionate representation, risk ratios are
    calculated based on the racial/ethnic group in a specific disability category with respect to all
    racial/ethnic groups in Hawaii. The risk ratios are then compared to a confidence interval based on
    disability and group size. The second tier is an analysis of state policies, procedures and practices
    used in the identification of students in a specific eligibility category.

    Tier I: Confidence Interval and Disproportionate Representation

    The first tier is a statistical analysis of disproportionate representation based on risk ratios of
    racial/ethnic groups receiving special education and related services in a disability category. The risk
    ratios are then compared to a confidence interval based on disability and group size.



Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                    Monitoring Priority Indicator 10 - Page   1
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                                Hawaii
                                                                                                                 State


    Risk ratio:

    The equation for the risk ratio is:

    Risk ratio= Risk for racial/ethnic group for disability category/ Risk for comparison group for disability
                category.

    For more details see:
    https://www.ideadata.org/docs/Disproportionality%20Technical%20Assistance%20Guide.pdf)

    Confidence interval:

    Using the Child Count data from School Year (SY) 2003-2004 to SY 2005-2006, the distribution of
    incidence rates for specific disabilities of concern were statistically modeled with the average
    incidence rates used as “expected values of risk” for all racial/ethnic groups.

    Since the three year data indicates that there has been no significant variance in the population size
    by disability, the confidence interval rates established will continue to be utilized for the duration of
    this SPP. The rates will be re-examined and re-calculated if warranted (i.e., due to a significant
    change in the population size of a disability category and/or reviewed after three years to address
    fluctuations in the student population).

    Derived from the incidence rates were the confidence intervals for the disability risk ratios. Hawaii
    has adopted the 90% confidence intervals as the criteria for disproportionate representation. See
    table below.

                                90% Confidence Intervals for Disability Risk Ratios

                                                                Group Size


            Disability              100             500         1,000             5,000               10,000


     Mental Retardation              n/a            n/a      0.45 to 2.21     0.73 to 1.37         0.79 to 1.27


     Specific Learning
                                     n/a      0.65 to 1.54   0.74 to 1.35     0.87 to 1.15         0.91 to 1.10
     Disabilities


     Emotional
                                     n/a            n/a      0.33 to 3.03     0.77 to 1.31         0.82 to 1.22
     Disturbance


     Speech or Language
                                     n/a            n/a          n/a          0.65 to 1.53         0.73 to 1.38
     Impairments


     Other Health
                                     n/a            n/a      0.52 to 1.96     0.76 to 1.33         0.83 to 1.21
     Impairments


     Autism                          n/a            n/a          n/a          0.56 to 1.70         0.71 to 1.41



Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                    Monitoring Priority Indicator 10 - Page   2
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                                Hawaii
                                                                                                                 State


     All Special Education        0.51 to
                                              0.75 to 1.33   0.82 to 1.22     0.91 to 1.09         0.94 to 1.07
     (14 categories)               2.05


     n/a = not applicable (The expected numbers of cases for these cells are less than 10. No
     probability tests are justified.)

    From Determining the Likelihood of Risk Ratios for Disabilities among Racial or Ethnic Groups,
    Appendix 1

    By using the 90% confidence interval for risk ratios of particular racial/ethnic groups, groups that
    occur outside the confidence interval are unlikely to have occurred by chance and are “free” from the
    effects of random error. Disproportionate representation is considered to be any group which falls
    outside the 90% confidence interval.

    Note that confidence intervals are not used for groups with cases of ten (10) or less since the
    incidence rates and risk ratios become questionable due to their small group size.

    Tier II: Analysis of Identification Procedures and Practices (AIPP):

    Ethnic groups with risk ratios over or under the confidence interval for their respective group sizes are
    reviewed in greater detail as part of the second tier of analysis in order to determine if a group
    identified in Tier I may be the result of inappropriate identification.

    If a specific racial/ethnic group by disability category was found to be over the confidence interval,
    then, a statewide random sample of student files from that school year, based on ethnicity and
    disability, is selected for analysis to determine if those students were appropriately identified.

    HIDOE designed a disproportionality checklist called AIPP monitoring tool specifically focused on five
    areas of consideration in the determination of eligibility:

    1)   the statement of concern and evidence of appropriate instruction,
    2)   assessment procedures,
    3)   variety of assessment tools and strategies,
    4)   cultural/linguistic factors and
    5)   the eligibility determination.

    A rubric is used to rate each of the five areas of consideration, and each file must meet minimum
    score in order to earn an overall rating of appropriate identification. See Appendix 2.

    HIDOE established that no more than 4% of student files reviewed statewide using the AIPP review
    may be rated as inappropriate. If more than 4% of student files reviewed statewide are rated as
    inappropriate or if a cluster of cases in one school or school complex are found to be inappropriate,
    that would be considered disproportionate due to inappropriate identification.

    To investigate under-identification, the HIDOE will compare state risk data with national risk data for
    the same groups relating to ethnicity and eligibility.

    Any noncompliance identified will be corrected. Policies, practices and procedures are reviewed as
    necessary. Identified inappropriate practices will be addressed under HIDOE’s general supervision
    process. (See Indicator 15) All activities are to take place and be completed within one year of the
    identification of noncompliance.




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                    Monitoring Priority Indicator 10 - Page   3
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                                Hawaii
                                                                                                                 State

Baseline Data for FFY 2005 (2005-2006):

In 2007, HIDOE revised its process for determining disproportionality and applied it to FFY 2005.
Using the two-tier process, the baseline data for FFY 2005 was established. In the Tier I analysis below,
risk ratios above the 90% confidence interval are bolded and underlined; risk ratios below the 90%
confidence interval are bolded and italicized.

Tier I analysis revealed the following:


          The racial/ethnic disproportionate risk ratios data for all children with disabilities, ages 6-21
                                                SY 2005-2006


                            American
                                             Asian /                                                       White
 Eligibility/Disability      Indian /                          Black
                                             Pacific                         Hispanic
                             Alaskan                       (Non-Hispanic)
                                            Islander                                                 (Non-Hispanic)
                              Native


 Mental Retardation            0.42            1.68            0.49              0.96                 0.58


 Specific Learning
                               1.11            0.97            0.99              1.41                 0.95
 Disability


 Emotional
                                1.28           0.77            1.06              1.22                 1.32
 Disturbance


 Speech or
 Language                       1.75           0.52            1.70              1.34                 1.89
 Impairment


 Other Health
                                1.63           0.65            1.53              0.91                 1.57
 Impairments


 Autism                         0.00           0.54            1.13             0.87                  2.15



The AIPP review was conducted for the SY 2005-2006 for the groups’ bolded and underlined for the
students that are over identified in the table above. The AIPP review revealed the following:

         Eligibility Category                       Race/Ethnic Group         Percent of files with inappropriate
                                                                               identification procedures &/or
                                                                                           practices
 Mental Retardation                             Asian/Pacific Islander                        24%
 Emotional Disturbance                                 White                                  17%
 Speech/Language Impairment                            White                                   8%
 Other Health Impairments                              White                                  10%
 Autism                                                White                                   7%
 Specific Learning Disability                         Hispanic                                12%


Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                    Monitoring Priority Indicator 10 - Page   4
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                                    Hawaii
                                                                                                                     State

To address the under-identification, the Asian/Pacific Islander group and Whites were compared to
national averages. When compared to the Asian/Pacific Islander national percentage rate based on
ethnicity and eligibility categories, as reported on https://www.ideadata.org/tables29th/ar 1-18.xls,
Hawaii’s Asian/Pacific Islander group was over the national average for Emotional Disturbance and Other
Health Impairments and on par for Autism. The group fell below the national average for Speech or
Language Impairment. Hawaii’s White group was under the national average for Mental Retardation. All
of these variances may be due to the unique cultural composition of Hawaii’s Asian/Pacific group.

                                    Asian/Pacific Islanders
State               Emotional           Speech or        Other Health             Autism
                    disturbance         Language         Impairments              (%)
                    (%)                 Impairments      (%)
Hawaii              1.09                0.38             1.11                     0.34
50 States &         0.20                1.29             0.30                     0.37
D.C.


                                              Whites
               State              Mental Retardation (%)
               Hawaii             0.23
               50 States &        0.65
               D.C.


To address the noncompliance, HIDOE focused with the District Educational Specialists on the
implementation with fidelity of the policies, practices and procedures relating to child find, evaluation and
eligibility and noted checklist concerns.


        FFY                                         Measurable and Rigorous Target

        2005
                                                          Establish baseline.
   (2005-2006)

        2006
                                                                 0%
   (2006-2007)

        2007
                                                                 0%
   (2007-2008)

        2008
                                                                 0%
   (2008-2009)

        2009
                                                                 0%
   (2009-2010)

        2010
                                                                 0%
   (2010-2011)




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                        Monitoring Priority Indicator 10 - Page   5
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                                Hawaii
                                                                                                                 State

Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:


      Improvement Activities                            Timelines                           Resources


 Hold SPP stakeholder meetings              October 2006 − April 2007 and     Special Education Section,
 to further analyze                                   ongoing                 Special Education Advisory
 disproportionality data.                                                     Council and the Community
                                                                              Children’s Council Office


 Establish workgroup to review              November 2006 − March 2007        Special Education Section,
 policies and procedures and                       and ongoing                Special Education Advisory
 develop amendments to current                                                Council and the Community
 policies and procedures as                                                   Children’s Council Office
 appropriate.


 Using monitoring data, review              March 2006 – ongoing to 2011      Special Education Section
 policies, practices and procedures
 to determine if the
 disproportionality could be the
 result of inappropriate
 identification practices.


 Provide training on evaluation                     January 2007 – 2011       Special Education Section
 and eligibility determination
 procedures.


 Continue to collect, disaggregate                  January 2007 − 2011       Special Education Section
 618 data.


 Develop evaluation handbook                  January 2007 − June 2008        Special Education Section
 related to eligibility/evaluation/
 related services.


 Provide follow up technical                        January 2007 − 2011       Special Education Section,
 assistance and/or sanctions,                                                 district educational specialists,
 based on identification of policies,                                         complex area superintendents
 procedures and practices that
 lead to inappropriate
 identification.


 Provide professional development          January 2008 − 2009; annually,     Special Education Section
 activities statewide on                            as needed
 differentiating instruction to
 support diverse learner needs
 prior to consideration of referral
 for special education.




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                    Monitoring Priority Indicator 10 - Page   6
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                               Hawaii
                                                                                                                State


      Improvement Activities                           Timelines                           Resources


 Review 618 data to determine if            January 2008-ongoing to 2011     Special Education Section
 there are any trends/patterns.


 Conduct AIPP review of those                         January 2008           Special Education Section,
 randomly identified students                                                district educational specialists,
 which were the results of                                                   complex area superintendents
 inappropriate identification to
 further assess appropriateness of
 eligibility.


 NEW

 Investigate feasibility of identifying             January 2008-2009        Special Education Section,
 ethnic/racial composition of                                                Student Support Services Branch
 students receiving CSSS services
 to enhance data collection and
 improve systems administration
 and monitoring.




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                   Monitoring Priority Indicator 10 - Page   7
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                                Hawaii
                                                                                                                 State

                 Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2006


 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.

      Measurement:

       Percent = [(# of districts with disproportional representation of racial/ethnic group in a specific
       disability category due to inappropriate identification) divided by the (# of districts in the state)]
       1 x 100%.

       (0 districts/1) x 100% = 0 %

       State definition of disproportionate representation

       Any group which falls outside a 90% confidence interval for its respective disability and group size.

       Description of disproportionality determination

       A rate of greater than four percent (4%) of the sampled disproportionally represented racial/ethnic
       group in a specific disability category found to be a result of inappropriate identification.



      FFY                                           Measurable and Rigorous Target


      2006          By Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2006, the state will have no (0%) disproportionate
   (2006-2007)      representations of racial and ethnic groups in a specific eligibility category due to
                    inappropriate identification.


Information Required by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) State Performance
Plan (SPP)/APR Response Letter:


    Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process:

    Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE) is a unitary educational system, therefore the analysis of
    disproportionality will represent the state as a single district. As such, disproportionate representation
    resulting from inappropriate identification is recorded as either 0% or 100%.

    HIDOE Process for Identifying Disproportionality

    HIDOE’s definition of disproportionality involves a two-tier method of analysis. The process of
    analysis helps to identify disproportionate representation that may be the result of inappropriate
    identification.

    The first tier is a statistical analysis of disproportionate representation based on racial/ethnic group by
    disability category. In the statistical analysis of disproportionate representation, risk ratios are

Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                                 Monitoring Priority Indicator 10 – Page 1
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                             Hawaii
                                                                                                              State

    calculated based on the racial/ethnic group in a specific disability category with respect to all
    racial/ethnic groups in Hawaii. The risk ratios are then compared to a confidence interval based on
    disability and group size. The second tier is an analysis of state policies, procedures and practices
    used in the identification of students in a specific eligibility category.

    Tier I: Confidence Interval and Disproportionate Representation

    The first tier is a statistical analysis of disproportionate representation based on risk ratios of
    racial/ethnic groups receiving special education and related services in a disability category. The risk
    ratios are then compared to a confidence interval based on disability and group size.



    Risk ratio:

    The equation for the risk ratio is:

    Risk ratio= Risk for racial/ethnic group for disability category/ Risk for comparison group for disability
                category.

    For more details see:
    https://www.ideadata.org/docs/Disproportionality%20Technical%20Assistance%20Guide.pdf)

    Confidence interval:

    Using the Child Count data from School Year (SY) 2003-2004 to SY 2005-2006, the distribution of
    incidence rates for specific disabilities of concern were statistically modeled with the average
    incidence rates used as “expected values of risk” for all racial/ethnic groups.

    Since the three year data indicates that there has been no significant variance in the population size
    by disability, the confidence interval rates established will continue to be utilized for the duration of
    this SPP. The rates will be re-examined and re-calculated if warranted (i.e., due to a significant
    change in the population size of a disability category and/or reviewed after three years to address
    fluctuations in the student population).

    Derived from the incidence rates were the confidence intervals for the disability risk ratios. Hawaii
    has adopted the 90% confidence intervals as the criteria for disproportionate representation. See
    table below.


                                90% Confidence Intervals for Disability Risk Ratios

                                                                Group Size


            Disability              100             500         1,000           5,000              10,000


     Mental Retardation              n/a            n/a      0.45 to 2.21    0.73 to 1.37       0.79 to 1.27


     Specific Learning
                                     n/a      0.65 to 1.54   0.74 to 1.35    0.87 to 1.15       0.91 to 1.10
     Disabilities




Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                              Monitoring Priority Indicator 10 – Page 2
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                             Hawaii
                                                                                                              State


                                                                Group Size


     Emotional
                                     n/a            n/a      0.33 to 3.03    0.77 to 1.31       0.82 to 1.22
     Disturbance


     Speech or Language
                                     n/a            n/a          n/a         0.65 to 1.53       0.73 to 1.38
     Impairments


     Other Health
                                     n/a            n/a      0.52 to 1.96    0.76 to 1.33       0.83 to 1.21
     Impairments


     Autism                          n/a            n/a          n/a         0.56 to 1.70       0.71 to 1.41


     All Special Education        0.51 to
                                              0.75 to 1.33   0.82 to 1.22    0.91 to 1.09       0.94 to 1.07
     (14 categories)               2.05


     n/a = not applicable (The expected numbers of cases for these cells are less than 10. No
     probability tests are justified.)

    From Determining the Likelihood of Risk Ratios for Disabilities among Racial or Ethnic Groups,
    Appendix 1

    By using the 90% confidence interval for risk ratios of particular racial/ethnic groups, groups that
    occur outside the confidence interval are unlikely to have occurred by chance and are “free” from the
    effects of random error. Disproportionate representation is considered to be any group which falls
    outside the 90% confidence interval.

    Note that confidence intervals are not used for groups with cases of ten (10) or less since the
    incidence rates and risk ratios become questionable due to their small group size.

    Tier II: Analysis of Identification Procedures and Practices (AIPP):

    Ethnic groups with risk ratios over or under the confidence interval for their respective group sizes are
    reviewed in greater detail as part of the second tier of analysis in order to determine if a group
    identified in Tier I may be the result of inappropriate identification.

    If a specific racial/ethnic group by disability category was found to be over the confidence interval,
    then, a statewide random sample of student files from that school year, based on ethnicity and
    disability, is selected for analysis to determine if those students were appropriately identified.

    HIDOE designed a disproportionality checklist called AIPP monitoring tool specifically focused on five
    areas of consideration in the determination of eligibility:

    1)   the statement of concern and evidence of appropriate instruction,
    2)   assessment procedures,
    3)   variety of assessment tools and strategies,
    4)   cultural/linguistic factors and
    5)   the eligibility determination.


Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                              Monitoring Priority Indicator 10 – Page 3
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                           Hawaii
                                                                                                            State

    A rubric is used to rate each of the five areas of consideration, and each file must meet minimum
    score in order to earn an overall rating of appropriate identification. See Appendix 2.

    HIDOE established that no more than 4% of student files reviewed statewide using the AIPP review
    may be rated as inappropriate. If more than 4% of student files reviewed statewide are rated as
    inappropriate or if a cluster of cases in one school or school complex are found to be inappropriate,
    that would be considered disproportionate due to inappropriate identification.

    To investigate under-identification, the HIDOE will compare state risk data with national risk data for
    the same groups relating to ethnicity and eligibility.

    Any noncompliance identified will be corrected. Policies, practices and procedures are reviewed as
    necessary. Identified inappropriate practices will be addressed under HIDOE’s general supervision
    process. (See Indicator 15) All activities are to take place and be completed within one year of the
    identification of noncompliance.

Baseline Data for FFY 2005 (2005-2006):

In 2007, HIDOE revised its process for determining disproportionality and applied it to FFY 2005.
Using the two-tier process, the baseline data for FFY 2005 was established. In the Tier I analysis below,
risk ratios above the 90% confidence interval are bolded and underlined; risk ratios below the 90%
confidence interval are bolded and italicized. Tier I analysis revealed the following:



          The racial/ethnic disproportionate risk ratios data for all children with disabilities, ages 6-21
                                                SY 2005-2006


                            American
                                             Asian /                                                  White
 Eligibility/Disability      Indian /                      Black
                                             Pacific                      Hispanic
                             Alaskan                   (Non-Hispanic)                           (Non-Hispanic)
                                            Islander
                              Native


 Mental Retardation            0.42            1.68        0.49             0.96                 0.58


 Specific Learning
                               1.11            0.97        0.99             1.41                 0.95
 Disability


 Emotional
                                1.28           0.77        1.06             1.22                 1.32
 Disturbance


 Speech or
 Language                       1.75           0.52        1.70             1.34                 1.89
 Impairment


 Other Health
                                1.63           0.65        1.53             0.91                 1.57
 Impairments


 Autism                         0.00           0.54        1.13             0.87                 2.15



Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                            Monitoring Priority Indicator 10 – Page 4
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                               Hawaii
                                                                                                                State

The AIPP review was conducted for the SY 2005-2006 for the groups’ bolded and underlined for the
students that are over identified in the table above. Tier II analysis revealed the following:

        Eligibility Category                  Race/Ethnic Group         Percent of files with inappropriate
                                                                         identification procedures &/or
                                                                                     practices
 Mental Retardation                         Asian/Pacific Islander                      24%
 Emotional Disturbance                             White                                17%
 Speech/Language Impairment                        White                                 8%
 Other Health Impairments                          White                                10%
 Autism                                            White                                 7%
 Specific Learning Disability                     Hispanic                              12%


                                 Measurement Description                                         Measurement


 Percentage of group receiving special education and related services in a disability
                                                                                                       100 %
 category due to inappropriate identification [(1 districts/1) x 100% = 100%].


Because HIDOE is a unitary system and the identification procedures are similar for all disability
categories, the results are considered as one finding under Indicator 10. (See Indicator 15.) Addressing
the identification practices as a whole will have an impact on all race/ethnic groups by disability category.

To address the under-identification, the Asian/Pacific Islander group and Whites were compared to
national averages. When compared to the Asian/Pacific Islander national percentage rate based on
ethnicity and eligibility categories, as reported on https://www.ideadata.org/tables29th/ar 1-18.xls,
Hawaii’s Asian/Pacific Islander group was over the national average for Emotional Disturbance and Other
Health Impairments and on par for Autism. The group fell below the national average for Speech or
Language Impairment. Hawaii’s White group was under the national average for Mental Retardation. All
of these variances may be due to the unique cultural composition of Hawaii’s Asian/Pacific group.

                                           Asian/Pacific Islanders
                                   Emotional      Speech or        Other Health                 Autism
        State                     disturbance     Language         Impairments                   (%)
                                      (%)        Impairments           (%)
        Hawaii                         1.09               0.38              1.11                  0.34

        50 States & D.C.               0.20               1.29              0.30                  0.37



                                                      Whites
                    State                               Mental Retardation (%)
                    Hawaii                                           0.23

                    50 States & D.C.                                 0.65

S

Actual Target Data for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):

A two-tiered analysis was established and applied to 618 data. As shown in the Tier 1 Table below, the
Tier I analysis indicated the ethnicities by eligibilities that were disproportionately represented. Risk ratios

Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                                Monitoring Priority Indicator 10 – Page 5
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                       Hawaii
                                                                                                        State

above the 90% confidence interval are bolded and underlined; risk ratios below the 90% confidence
interval are bolded and italicized.




Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                        Monitoring Priority Indicator 10 – Page 6
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                                Hawaii
                                                                                                                 State

                                                FFY 2006 Tier I Table

      The racial/ethnic disproportionality risk ratios data for all children with disabilities, ages 6-21
                                          School Year (SY) 2006-2007


                                American
                                 Indian /           Asian /            Black                              White
                                                                                       Hispanic
 Eligibility/ Disability         Alaskan        Pacific Islander   (Non-Hispanic)                     (Non-Hispanic)
                                  Native


 Mental Retardation                0.33              1.71               0.65             0.90                0.56



 Specific Learning
                                   1.07              1.00               1.07             1.31                0.92
 Disability



 Emotional
                                   1.56              0.79               1.14             1.18                1.25
 Disturbance


 Speech or Language
                                   1.92              0.51               1.45             1.66                1.88
 Impairment


 Other Health
                                   1.57              0.66               1.57             1.15                1.46
 Impairments



 Autism                            1.15              0.54               0.85             1.13                2.07


The identified ethnic groups by eligibility category, with risk ratios greater than their respective confidence
intervals, were analyzed for appropriateness by conducting an AIPP review as established in Tier 2 of the
state’s revised process.

These racial/ethnic groups in their specific eligibility categories were found to have an inappropriate
identification rate of greater than 4%. Therefore, in the FFY 2006, HIDOE had a 100% disproportionality
rate for the identified racial/ethnic groups in specific disability categories.




Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                                 Monitoring Priority Indicator 10 – Page 7
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                             Hawaii
                                                                                                              State

                                        FFY 2005 – FFY 2006 Tier II Table
        Eligibility Category               Race/Ethnic Group         Percent of files with inappropriate
                                                                       identification procedures &/or
                                                                                   practices
                                                                         FFY 2005            FFY 2006
 Mental Retardation                       Asian/Pacific Islander           24%                 19%
 Emotional Disturbance                           White                     17%                 12%
 Speech/Language Impairment                      White                      8%                  0%
 Other Health Impairments                        White                     10%                  8%
 Autism                                          White                      7%                 11%
 Specific Learning Disability                   Hispanic                   12%                 N/A


                                    Disproportionality FFY 2006 (2006-2007)

                                 Measurement Description                                       Measurement


 Percentage of group receiving special education and related services in a disability
                                                                                                     100%
 category due to inappropriate identification [(1 districts/1) x 100% = 100%].


Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that
occurred for FFY 2006:

The results from SY 2005-2006 are labeled as a finding in Indicator 15. This noncompliance was not
corrected within one year though some progress has been made as evidenced by the SY 2006-2007
data.

The data from the SY 2005-2006 and SY 2006-2007 both indicated over representation and inappropriate
identification. The FFY 2006 data, however, shows improved percentages in five out of the six
ethnic/eligibility groups. White/Autism was the only category that showed an increase in inappropriate
identification. One reason for this may be the overall national trend in the increase in identification of
children with autism. According to peer reviewed articles, there is a perception that children with autism
receive more services and supports which may lead parents and others to advocate for identification
under this category.

As HIDOE improves its data on inappropriate over-identification, there should be a co-occurring
adjustment in the rates of under identification particularly in the area of white/autism and white/mental
retardation.

To address the area of inappropriate identification, HIDOE focused its training efforts with the District
Educational Specialists for special education on the fidelity of implementation of the policies, practices
and procedures relating to child find, evaluation and eligibility. The District Educational Specialists are
responsible for the special education training efforts at the complex and school level.




Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                              Monitoring Priority Indicator 10 – Page 8
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                            Hawaii
                                                                                                             State



      Improvement Activities                            Timelines                          Status


 Hold SPP stakeholder meetings              October 2006 − April 2007 and       Completed and ongoing
 to further analyze                                   ongoing
 disproportionality data.

 Establish workgroup to review              November 2006 − March 2007          Completed and ongoing
 policies and procedures and                       and ongoing
 develop amendments to current
 policies and procedures as
 appropriate.


 Using monitoring data, review              March 2006 – ongoing to 2011        Completed and ongoing
 policies, practices and procedures
 to determine if the
 disproportionality could be the
 result of inappropriate
 identification practices.


 Provide training on evaluation                     January 2007 – 2011       Special Education Section
 and eligibility determination
 procedures.


 Continue to collect, disaggregate                  January 2007 − 2011         Completed and ongoing
 618 data.


 Develop evaluation handbook                  January 2007 − June 2008        Special Education Section
 related to eligibility/evaluation/
 related services.


 Provide follow up technical                        January 2007 − 2011         Completed and ongoing
 assistance and/or sanctions,
 based on identification of policies,
 procedures and practices that
 lead to inappropriate
 identification.


 Provide professional development          January 2008 − 2009; annually,                 Ongoing
 activities statewide on                            as needed
 differentiating instruction to
 support diverse learner needs
 prior to consideration of referral
 for special education.


 Review 618 data to determine if            January 2008-ongoing to 2011        Completed and ongoing
 there are any trends/patterns.


Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                             Monitoring Priority Indicator 10 – Page 9
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                               Hawaii
                                                                                                                State


      Improvement Activities                             Timelines                            Status


 Conduct AIPP review of those                          January 2008                        Completed
 randomly identified students
 which were the results of
 inappropriate identification to
 further assess appropriateness of
 eligibility.


 NEW: Investigate feasibility of
 identifying ethnic/racial
 composition of students receiving                   January 2008-2009                       Pending
 CSSS services to enhance data
 collection and improve systems
 administration and monitoring.


Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):

As noted in the previous chart, many of the activities have been completed as targeted. However, as
many of those activities are critical, they will remain ongoing for the next few years. See the chart below.

As a result of stakeholder meetings held in November and December 2007 to review disproportionality
data, additional activities were added. The SPP for this indicator has been changed to reflect the
recommendations of the stakeholders.


       Improvement Activities                       Timelines         Resources          Revision/Justification

 NEW

 Provide professional development             January 2008-      Special Education      Due to stakeholder
 activities statewide on differentiated       2009; annually     Section                recommendations, this
 instruction to support diverse               as needed                                 activity was added.
 learner needs prior to consideration
 of referral for special education.
 NEW

 Investigate feasibility of identifying       January 2008-      Special Education      Due to stakeholder
 ethnic/racial composition of                 2009               Section, Student       recommendations, this
 students receiving Comprehensive                                Support Services       activity was added.
 Student Support System services to                              Branch
 enhance data collection and
 improve systems administration and
 monitoring.

 NEW: Incorporate disproportionality
 checklist with the Special Education         January 2008-      Special Education      To increase identification
 Student File Review – Focused                2009               Section                compliance and eligibility
 Checklist.                                                                             determination.




Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                               Monitoring Priority Indicator 10 – Page 10
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                               Hawaii
                                                                                                               State

                       Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2010
Overview of the State Performance Plan Development:

 Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / Child Find (New Indicator)


Indicator 11:      Percent of children with parental consent to evaluate, who were evaluated and
                   eligibility determined within 60 days (or State established timeline).

      Measurement:
      A. Number of children for whom parental consent to evaluate was received.
      B. Number determined not eligible whose evaluations and eligibility determinations were
         completed within 60 days (or State established timeline).
      C. Number determined eligible whose evaluations and eligibility determinations were
         completed within 60 days (or State established timeline).

      Percent = (b) + (c) divided by (a) times 100.

    Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process:
    Timely evaluations has been a monitoring issue for the Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE)
    since 1993 when the Governor, superintendent of education, and the Director of Health were sued in
    federal court for failing to provide adequate mental health services to children and adolescents in
    need of these services in order to benefit from their educational program. The issue of timely
    evaluations and the provision of services were under scrutiny and continue to be monitored closely
    until today. The class action suit resulted in an agreement between the plaintiffs and the State in what
    is now known as the Felix Consent Decree. In 1994 the court approved the terms of the Consent
    Decree and an Implementation Plan was developed. Included in the Implementation Plan, the State
    was required to monitor the evaluation timelines.
    The State was required to meet the terms on the Consent Decree by June 30, 2000. When the State
    failed to meet the requirements of the Consent Decree in 2000, a court monitor was appointed.
    quarterly reports, which included the 60-day timeline report, were submitted to the monitor to
    document the State's progress toward full compliance. In May 2002, the State was found to be in
    substantial compliance with the requirements of the Felix Consent Decree. However, the State was
    still required to submit quarterly reports to monitor the State’s ability to maintain or sustain its actions.
    The timeliness of evaluations continued to be one of the issues for compliance as well as an indicator
    for sustainability.

    In June 2003, the State established benchmarks that schools, districts and complexes had to meet as
    part of the State's effort to demonstrate sustainability. From the beginning, the benchmark for the
    60-day timeline report was set at 90%. Schools and Complexes were expected to complete 90% of
    all evaluations within the 60-day timeline. The monthly report was an excel data sheet that schools
    used to record their evaluation timelines. Districts compiled their school and complex monthly reports
    and submitted the data to the State. The State prepared a monthly summary report of each school,
    complex and district which was then submitted to the court monitor, the superintendent, the complex
    area superintendents and principals. The hand counted data continued to be used until June 2007
    despite the implementation of the State's electronic special education student database system
    known as the Integrated Special Education Database (ISPED) system in 2004. The State's monthly
    60-day timeline reports was also used for compliance monitoring of schools, complex and districts.
    Beginning school year (SY) 2006, the benchmark for the 60 day timeline hand counted data was
    increased to 95%. The state’s target is now 100% because the 60-day timeline report is a compliance
    indicator for the SPP.


Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                       Monitoring Priority Indicator 11 - Page 1
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)]
                                                                                                             Hawaii
                                                                                                             State

    While the monthly hand-counted 60 day timeline data reports focused primarily on the timeliness of
    evaluations to meet the requirements of the Felix Consent Decree, it was insufficient to meet the
    requirements for the SPP. Besides timeliness of reporting, the SPP required the State to include
    student outcomes. The State is required to report on the number of children with parental consent to
    evaluate who were found eligible and not eligible in its SPP. The hand-counted data report does not
    include this outcome, eligible or ineligible and could not be used for the SPP. The ISPED database
    does provide a record of student outcomes, whether the student was eligible or ineligible for Special
    Education services. Therefore for the purposes of the SPP, data from the state’s ISPED database
    was used to determine baseline. The state’s target is 100% because the 60-day timeline report is a
    compliance indicator for the SPP.
    The HIDOE’s current ISPED system can provide data on the number of children for whom parent
    consent was received and for whom evaluations were conducted in the measurement on the table on
    page 1 [measurement (a)]. For example, before an evaluation can be conducted, schools must
    obtain parental consent. The date schools receive parental consent is the beginning of the 60-day
    timeline. The 60-day timeline report in the ISPED also records the number of children whose
    evaluations were completed within the 60-day timeline and who were found either eligible
    (measurement (c)) or not eligible for Special Education services [measurement (b)]. ISPED also
    captures the number of children whose evaluations were not completed within the 60-day timeline.
    However, additional data fields will need to be established in the current ISPED system to account for
    children with parental consent to evaluate was received [measurement (a)] but who are not included
    in measurements (b) or (c). Some evaluations may not be accounted for in the ISPED system as
    either eligible or ineligible and, therefore, may not be accounted for in the total number of evaluations.
    Currently, there is no record of the evaluations that are withdrawn or when a student transfers to
    another school. There seems to be a need to establish additional fields of in the current ISPED
    system to determine the reasons an evaluation went beyond 60-day timeline.
    Currently, the following fields are captured in the ISPED: the child's name, identification (ID) number,
    birth date, grade, the date the 60-day timeline begins, the projected date that ends the 60-day
    timeline, the number of days it took to complete the evaluation, the number of days the evaluation
    went over timeline and the team’s eligibility decision. From this database, reports are then formulated
    to indicate the number of children eligible for special education services. However, some
    adjustments will need to be made in the current ISPED 60-day timeline report for it to become the
    data source for the SPP Indicator 11 Child Find.
    The State Established Timeline
    In Hawaii, the 60-day timeline begins with the receipt of parent consent and ends with the offer of a
    Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). The 60-day timeline for all evaluations is based on the
    State's Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR), Title 8, Chapter 56, "Provision of a Free Appropriate
    Public Education for a Student with a Disability."
         §8-56-32 IEP meetings and timelines. (a) As used in this section, the phrase within a reasonable
         period of time means within 60 days, except when exceptional circumstances cause a delay…
         (c) "The department shall ensure that within a reasonable period of time following the receipt of
             parental consent to the initial assessment under section 8 56-70 (a) (1) or, within a
             reasonable period of time following the date of a determination under section 8-56-7 that no
             additional assessment data is needed:
         (1) The student is assessed, as necessary; and
         (2) If determined eligible under section 8-56-15; special education and related services are made
             available to the student in accordance with an IEP.”

    HAR, Chapter 56, establishes the HIDOE’s timeline for initial evaluations. From the date of receipt of
    the parent's consent to conduct an initial evaluation, schools have 60-days to complete the
    evaluation, determine eligibility, the child's need for special education and/or related services and to
    offer a FAPE. With the 2004 Reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
    or as it is more commonly referred to as, IDEA; there is a change in procedure. Prior to the

Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                     Monitoring Priority Indicator 11 - Page 2
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)]
                                                                                                                                                Hawaii
                                                                                                                                                State

    development of an Individualized Education Program (IEP) or the offer of FAPE, HIDOE requires
    parental consent to continue the process once eligibility is determined. Parental consent must be
    obtained prior to conducting an initial evaluation and after eligibility is determined, prior to the
    development of an IEP.

Baseline Data for FFY 2005 (2005-2006):

For FFY 2005, the total number of children for whom parental consent to evaluate was received was
5743. Of that number, the evaluations completed within the 60 days and determined not eligible was
1807. The number of evaluations completed within the 60 days and determined eligible was 3592. The
total number of evaluations completed within the 60 days was 5399. The number of evaluations that
were overdue was 344. The percentage of evaluations completed within the 60 days for FFY 2005-2006
was 94%.

The baseline data for FFY 2005 is based on the State's ISPED system. The Data Source is the
Referral/Evaluation Student Report for SY 2005-2006. The baseline data for the number of initial
evaluations that were eligible and ineligible are presented in the table below:

                       FFY 2005 Baseline Data Initial Evaluation - Eligible and Ineligible
       SY                         Status                    Total              Within                            Over            Percentages
 2005 - 2006         Eligible                               3783                3592                             191                  95%
 2005 - 2006         Ineligible                             1960                1807                             153                  92%
 2005 - 2006         Total Evaluations                      5743                5399                             344                  94%

The following tables indicate the baseline data for the reasons the initial evaluations went beyond the
60-day timeline and the number of days it took to complete the overdue evaluations.

                                           FFY 2005 Baseline Data Reasons for Delay
                                                                                                  Provider Not
                                                                Student Not




                                                                              Incomplete
                                                   Report Not
                                      Parent Not




                                                                                                                   But Not All
                                                   Provider's




                                                                                                                   Complete




                                                                                                                                                    Unknown
                                       Available



                                                    Available


                                                                 Available




                                                                                                   Available




                                                                                                                   Available
                                                                                                                    Services
                         Status




                                                                                                                                        Other
                                                                                  IEP




                                                                                                                      IEP
        SY




 2005 - 2006        Eligible           62            12             6          13                    4                    1             0          93
 2005 - 2006        Ineligible         46            18             11           9                   1                    0             0          68

                          FFY 2005 Baseline Data Number of Days beyond the 60 days
       SY              Status                      1-5              6 - 10                 11 - 15                16 - 20               20+
 2005 - 2006        Eligible                       53                    34                  21                      16                  67
 2005 - 2006        Ineligible                     48                    32                  17                      12                  44

Discussion of Baseline Data:
Realizing the need for additional fields in the ISPED report, a request was made to the ISPED
administrator for a report on the 60-day timeline that would include such items as the date of parental
consent, and whether the child was found eligible or ineligible and an indicator if the evaluation went past
60 days. With technical support, the 2005 – 2006 baseline data for the 60-day timeline report as reported
here includes the additional field requirements.




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                                                     Monitoring Priority Indicator 11 - Page 3
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)]
                                                                                                                 Hawaii
                                                                                                                 State

In general, some of the reasons evaluations were overdue related to students who transferred out of the
school or state; evaluations that were withdrawn or aborted; or prolonged student absences which made
completion of an evaluation within the 60-day timeline difficult. Rarely were evaluation delays due to staff
shortages. Reasons for the delays are anecdotal data that can be documented in the student's ISPED
record.
The State is currently in the process of developing a new student database system that will combine the
general Student Information System (SIS) and the existing Comprehensive Student Support
System (CSSS) database and the existing ISPED system into a single student database system called
electronic Comprehensive Student Support System (eCSSS). The first phase of the new student
information database is targeted for March 2007. The additional fields to create the 60-day timeline
report for the SPP will be incorporated. There will be subsequent target dates established when the
additional elements for the database are created. The first phase in the refinement of the 60-day timeline
report has begun. Continual technical refinements will be made to the 60-day timeline report to focus on
the outcomes of students in the 60-day timeline report. Also, the State’s monitoring of the 60-day timeline
report using the new eCSSS database will mean a change in emphasis for schools. Schools will need to
use the new eCSSS data system to report their evaluations timelines. In addition to timeliness, schools
will also need to emphasize the accuracy of reporting and the student outcomes in order to meet the
requirement of the SPP.
The data for HIDOE's Child Find will be from the upcoming eCSSS database system targeted for March
2007. The progression from the hand-counted data base system to the ISPED system and then to the
eCSSS system will be a process. Once the eCSSS database is established, there is a need to monitor
the 60-day timeline data for each school to ensure accuracy in reporting. Although the State is no longer
under federal court supervision, meeting the 60-day timeline for all evaluations is a compliance issue and
the State needs to continue monitoring the 60-day timeline data for accuracy and student outcomes.


       FFY                                           Measurable and Rigorous Target

      2005
                                                           Establish baseline.
   (2005-2006)

      2006
                                                                 100%.
   (2006-2007)

      2007
                                                                 100%
   (2007-2008)

      2008
                                                                 100%
   (2008-2009)

      2009
                                                                 100%
   (2009-2010)

      2010                                                       100%
   (20010-2011)




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                         Monitoring Priority Indicator 11 - Page 4
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)]
                                                                                                           Hawaii
                                                                                                           State

Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:


       Improvement Activities                         Timelines                        Resources

 Determine the additional fields            October 2006 - January 2007    Special Education Services
 that need to be included in the                                           Branch
 State's new eCSSS data base
 system for the 60-day timeline
 report.

 Submit requests for the additional         January 2007                   Special Education Services
 data fields to be included in the                                         Branch
 new eCSSS data base system.

 Review and analyze data from the           March 2007                     Special Education Services
 new eCSSS system.                                                         Branch

 Monitor the 60-day timeline report         March 2007 - October 2007      Special Education Services
 monthly to determine training                                             Branch
 needs.

 Review and Analyze 60-day                  October 2007 – February 2008   Special Education Services
 timeline report using the State's                                         Branch
 eCSSS database system.

 Provide training and technical             Ongoing                        Special Education Services
 assist to the field on correct data                                       Branch
 input for the 60-day timeline
 report.

 Continue to monitor the 60-day             2007 – 2010                    Special Education Services
 timeline report monthly.                                                  Branch




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                   Monitoring Priority Indicator 11 - Page 5
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)]
                                                                                                              Hawaii
                                                                                                              State

                 Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2006


 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.

      Measurement:
      A. Number of children for whom parental consent to evaluate was received.
      B. Number determined not eligible whose evaluations and eligibility determinations were
         completed within 60 days (or State established timeline).
      C. Number determined eligible whose evaluations and eligibility determinations were completed
         within 60 days (or State established timeline).

      Percent = (b) + (c) divided by (a) times 100.




      FFY                                           Measurable and Rigorous Target


      2006          By Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2006, 100% of students with parental consent for initial
   (2006-2007)      evaluation will be evaluated and eligibility determined within the state prescribed 60 day
                    timeline.



Actual Target Data for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):

 Measurement:                                                                                                Raw
 Percent of students with parental consent to evaluate and determine IDEA eligible within 60                 Data
 days (or state established timeline).
    A. The number of children for whom parental consent to evaluate was received                              4,969

    B. The number determined not eligible when evaluations and eligibility determination were
                                                                                                               1,517
       completed within 60 days
    C. The number determined eligible when evaluations and eligibility determination were
                                                                                                               3,285
       completed within 60 days

    Percent = (b) + (c) divided by (a) times 100.                                                              97%




Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                               Monitoring Priority Indicator 11 - Page 1
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                                           Hawaii
                                                                                                                           State

Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that
occurred for FFY 2006:

The data source for Indicator 11 – Child Find was the state’s Integrated Special Education
 Database (ISPED) system. In FFY 2006, a total of 4,969 initial evaluations were completed with 4,802
evaluations completed within the state established 60-day timeline, and 167 evaluations were completed
beyond the 60-day timeline. This resulted in a completion rate of 97% within the state established 60-day
timeline.

                      FFY 2006 Initial Evaluations Completed – Eligible and Ineligible

      SY                Status                    Total                 Within              Over            Percentages
 2006-2007        Eligible                        3,388                 3,285               103                   97%
 2006-2007        Ineligible                      1,581                 1,517                64                   96%
 2006-2007        Total Evaluation                4,969                 4,802               167                   97%

Information Required by the OSEP SPP/APR Response Letter

1. Of the 103 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) eligible initial evaluations that went
   beyond the 60-day timeline, the most frequently recorded reason was the unavailability of the parent.
   Other major reasons for the delay were: the student was not available, and the provider’s report was
   not available. There were 97 overdue evaluations with unknown reasons. Part of the problem was
   due to errors in recording the data. When dates are missing, the report that is created will also reflect
   missing information. The following chart indicates the reasons the evaluations were overdue:

                                                 FFY 2006 Reasons for Delay




                                                                                                      But Not All
                                                                 Report Not
                                    Parent Not




                                                                 Provider's
                                                    Incomplete




                                                                                                      Complete




                                                                                                                                  Unknown
                                     Available




                                                                  Available



                                                                              Available



                                                                                          Available




                                                                                                       Available
                                                                                                       Services
                                                                                          Provider
                                                                              Student




                                                                                                                          Other
                                                                                Not



                                                                                            Not


                                                                                                         IEP
                                                        IEP
                        Status
        SY




   2006-2007        Eligible         20                9            6            1           3               1            1       62
   2006-2007        Ineligible       11                6            5            5           0               0            2       35

2. ISPED also calculated the number of days evaluations were overdue beyond the 60-day timeline.
   The intervals were 1–5 days; 6–10 days; 11–15 days; 16–20 days; and 20+ days. There were 24
   IDEA eligible evaluations that were overdue for more than 20 days and 12 IDEA ineligible evaluations
   that were overdue for more than 20 days. The following chart summarizes the interval number of
   days the evaluations were overdue.




Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                                            Monitoring Priority Indicator 11 - Page 2
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                                                              Hawaii
                                                                                                                                              State

                                     FFY 2006 Number of Days Beyond the 60 days


       SY            Status                        1-5            6 - 10                11 - 15                     16 - 20           20+
  2006-2007          Eligible                      36                18                       10                        15             24
  2006-2007         Ineligible                     28                13                       4                          7             12

Explanation of Progress or Slippage that Occurred for FFY 2006

In comparison, in 2005, there were a total of 5,743 initial evaluations completed with 5,399 being
completed within the 60-day timeline and 344 evaluations completed beyond the 60-day timeline. The
resulting completion rate for the 2005 evaluations completed within the state established timeline was
94%. There was a decrease in the total number of initial evaluations completed for FFY 2006 and a
decrease in the number of overdue evaluations. The following table summarizes the number of initial
evaluations with parental consent to evaluate that were completed within the 60-day timeline and the
number of initial evaluations that went beyond the 60-day timeline for FFY 2006 data.

 FFY                                                              Percent of evaluations completed with timeline

             2005 (2005–2006)                                                                            94%

             2006 (2006–2007)                                                                            97%

                     FFY 2005 Baseline Data Initial Evaluation - Eligible and Ineligible

       SY                        Status                   Total                 Within                            Over           Percentages

   2005-2006                 Eligible                     3783                  3592                              191                  95%
   2005-2006               Ineligible                     1960                  1807                              153                  92%
   2005-2006        Total Evaluations                     5743                  5399                              344                  94%

                                      FFY 2005 Baseline Data Reasons for Delay
                                                                                                   Provider Not
                                                                  Student Not




                                                                                 Incomplete
                                                    Report Not




                                                                                                                    But Not All
                                      Parent Not


                                                    Provider's




                                                                                                                    Complete




                                                                                                                                                 Unknown
                                      Available



                                                     Available


                                                                   Available




                                                                                                    Available




                                                                                                                     Available
                                                                                                                     Services
                        Status




                                                                                                                                      Other
                                                                                     IEP




                                                                                                                       IEP
        SY




   2005-2006        Eligible              62             12          6            13                  4                      1         0         93
   2005-2006        Ineligible            46             18         11              9                 1                      0         0         68

                       FFY 2005 Baseline Data Number of Days Beyond the 60 days

       SY             Status                       1-5             6-10                   11-15                     16-20             20+

  2005-2006          Eligible                      53                 34                      21                        16             67
  2005-2006          Ineligible                    48                 32                      17                        12             44


Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                                                             Monitoring Priority Indicator 11 - Page 3
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                          Hawaii
                                                                                                          State


The state office verified the accuracy of the ISPED data for the baseline data (FFY 2005) and the target
measurement for FFY 2006. Individual student files were reviewed to verify the length of time required to
complete the initial evaluation. When student files had missing or incomplete information, schools,
complex areas and districts were notified to supply the missing data. The information was then compiled
and analyzed.

The stakeholder group met on November 13, 2007 to review the data and activities. The stakeholders
recommended that Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE) Special Education Section (SES) work
collaboratively with the Special Education Advisory Council (SEAC) and the Community Children's
Council Office (CCCO) to reduce the number of overdue evaluations that were due to the unavailability of
the parent. The stakeholders also acknowledged that the state established 60-day timeline in the Hawaii
Administrative Rules (HAR), Chapter 56, is different from the federal guidelines. HAR, Chapter 56,
requires the evaluation, eligibility determination and the offer of FAPE be completed within the 60-day
timeline, whereas, the federal guidelines require the evaluation process be completed within 60 days.
There was also concern that the number of cases in the 20+ days interval was too many. The stakeholder
group recommended that HIDOE reduce the number of evaluations that are overdue for more than 20
days.

Although the 60-day Timeline Reports from the ISPED were available, HIDOE continued to use a
hand-counted system that had been in place since 2000 which recorded only overdue evaluations. The
hand-counted data was one of the monthly reports included in HIDOE's monthly reports to the complex
area superintendents. The hand-counted 60-day Timeline Report was also part of HIDOE's state
monitoring process. Compliance with the state established 60-day timeline was emphasized and
principals were held accountable if their school did not meet the expected benchmark each month. In
FFY 2006, the benchmark was changed from 90% to 95%. The benchmark was increased to encourage
schools to self monitor and maintain a higher criterion. Meeting the state established 60 day timeline for
all referrals was one of the benchmarks of the state’s monitoring process. (See General Supervision
Indicator 15)

In June 2007, the state’s ISPED system was integrated into a new electronic student information system
called electronic Comprehensive Student Support System (eCSSS). The migration of data from the
ISPED system to eCSSS occurred in June 2007. There were numerous errors after the initial data
migration that required many hours to correct. The monthly data to schools was resumed in November
2007. The 60-day Timeline Report will now be generated from the new eCSSS database system.
HIDOE will no longer collect the hand-counted data. The monthly 60-day Timeline Report will be based
on the data in eCSSS.

Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):

The baseline data for FFY 2005 was corrected and resubmitted for the State Performance Plan (SPP).
While the original data submitted included both initial evaluations and re-evaluations, the Annual
Performance Report (APR) requirement was for initial evaluations only. The baseline data for FFY 2005
now reflects the total number of initial evaluations only. The target remains at 100% since the 60-day
Timeline Report is a compliance requirement under IDEA.




Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                           Monitoring Priority Indicator 11 - Page 4
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                          Hawaii
                                                                                                          State


                               Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources


     Improvement Activities                          Timelines                      Status

 Determine the additional fields         October 2006-January 2007   Completed
 that need to be included in the
 State's new eCSSS data base
 system for the 60-day Timeline
 Report.

 Submit requests for the                            January 2007     Completed
 additional data fields to be
 included in the new eCSSS
 data base system.




 Monitor the 60-day Timeline               March 2007-October 2007   Special Education Services
 Report monthly to determine                                         Branch continued to monitor the
 training needs.                                                     complex and school performance
                                                                     using the hand-counted 60-day
                                                                     report up until June 2007. The
                                                                     hand-counted data was also used
                                                                     in the state monitoring procedure
                                                                     and shared with each complex
                                                                     area superintendent.

 Review and analyze the 60-day                       July 2007       The use of the eCSSS database
 Timeline Report from the new                                        was postponed to June 2007.
 eCSSS system.                                                       Due to migration problems, the
                                                                     information in the individual
                                                                     student files had to be reviewed
                                                                     and corrected before the new
                                                                     eCSSS system could be
                                                                     implemented. The files were
                                                                     reviewed and corrected from
                                                                     June 2007 to October 2007.




Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                           Monitoring Priority Indicator 11 - Page 5
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                          Hawaii
                                                                                                          State


     Improvement Activities                           Timelines                     Status

 Use the 60-day Timeline Report                     November 2007   Data from eCSSS had to be
 from eCSSS to monitor the                                          corrected, and the correct data
 monthly performance for                                            was not available until November
 schools and complexes.                                             2007. The 60-day Timeline Report
                                                                    from the eCSSS database will
                                                                    continue to be analyzed.

 Provide training and technical                        Ongoing      Based on the findings of the APR,
 assistance to the field on                                         training activities to include
 correct data input for the 60-day                                  technical assistance to the field on
 Timeline Report.                                                   how to improve data collection for
                                                                    the 60-day timeline will commence
                                                                    in 2008.

 Continue to monitor the 60-day                      2007–2010      Monthly 60-day Timeline Reports
 Timeline Report monthly using                                      continue to be submitted to each
 the new eCSSS database                                             complex area superintendent and
 system.                                                            the schools within the complex.

 Inform parents through SEAC                         2008–2010      Propose an agenda item for
 and CCCO about the need to                                         discussion at a regularly
 be available for the                                               scheduled SEAC and CCCO
 evaluation/eligibility conference                                  meeting.
 and the IEP meetings.




Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                           Monitoring Priority Indicator 11 - Page 6
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                            Hawaii
                                                                                                             State

                       Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2010



 Monitoring Priority: Early Childhood Transition


Indicator 12:     Percent of children referred by Part C prior to age 3 and who are found eligible for
                  Part B, and who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays.

      Measurement:

           A. # of children who have been served in Part C and referred to Part B for eligibility
               determination.
           B. # of those referred determined to be NOT eligible and whose eligibilities were 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.
      Account for children included in a, but not included in b, c or d. 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)] times 100.


    Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process:

    If Part C suspects a child may be eligible for Part B services, a Part B representative (District 619
    Coordinator or school staff) is invited and attends the Part C transition meeting to explain the
    evaluation/eligibility/IEP process to the parent(s). Written materials about Operation Search and the
    transition process from Part C to Part B are also provided. The school then awaits a referral for
    evaluation from either the parent or Part C program. [Procedures will change during school
    year (SY) 2005-2006.] When the referral/request for evaluation is received, a team composed of the
    same participants required for an IEP meeting, including the parent, decides whether an evaluation
    will be conducted. If an evaluation is proposed and written consent from the parent is received, the
    evaluation, eligibility, and IEP (if the child is determined to be eligible) are completed and services
    made available within 60 days of receipt of written consent for the evaluation. If a child turns 3
    between the 1st day of the school year and December 31st, he or she may enter school on the first
    day of the school year. If a child turns 3 between January 1st and the beginning of the next school
    year, he or she may begin school on his/her 3rd birthday.

    Hawaii Part C and the Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE) will be implementing new
    procedures during SY 2005-2006. Part C has developed a notification form to invite relevant agency
    representatives, including Part B when appropriate, to the required Part C transition meeting. This is
    intended to increase the frequency of compliance with this requirement for Part C and will enable both
    Part C and HIDOE to track HIDOE’s participation in the Part C transition meetings. Part C will also be
    sending demographic information to a school about each Part C child who may be eligible for Part B
    services within that school’s geographic service area at least 90 days prior to the child’s 3rd birthday.
    Upon receipt of that information the school will send a letter to the parent to invite them to meet with a
    school representative, and, when agreed upon by the parent, begin the referral for evaluation
    process.




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                    Monitoring Priority Indicator 12 - Page 1
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08/31/2009)
                                                                                                            Hawaii
                                                                                                             State


Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004-2005):

Data reported for this indicator was extracted from the ISPED 60-Day Evaluation Timeline Report and
from individual student records to determine prior participation under Part C. Records included for
analysis met the following criteria:

         •    The child received services under Part C, and
         •    The child’s initial eligibility* (end of the evaluation timeline) was determined between
              July 1, 2004 and June 30, 2005, or
         •    The child was referred for an evaluation, but an evaluation was not conducted between
              July 1, 2004 and June 30, 2005.

(In Hawaii, the evaluation timeline [for eligible students] ends when special education and related services
are made available to the student in accordance with the IEP.)

Measurement A:

Eight hundred eighty-six (886) children who turned three during SY 2004-2005 were referred for
evaluation to determine initial eligibility. Five hundred eighty-one (581) of those referred, or 65 percent,
had been served in Part C. Of the 581 children from Part C, evaluations were conducted on 565. For the
other 16 children, the school team and the parent decided that an evaluation was not appropriate, or the
parents withdrew consent for an evaluation. One child died.

                                              Measurements B and C

                                                                                                         #/%
                                                                           #/% Completed              Completed
   Child Status Following             #/% of Total Part C      Indicator       PRIOR                  AFTER 3rd
    Referral/Evaluation               Children Referred      Measurement   to 3rd Birthday             Birthday

 IDEA Ineligible                       86           14.80%       B         44         51.2%           42       48.8%

 IDEA Eligible                         479          82.44%       C         317        66.2%          162       33.8%

 No Evaluation Conducted               16           2.76%                  15         93.8%

See Flowchart A: Early Childhood Transitions and Flowchart B: Impact of Timeliness of Consent for
Evaluation, on the following pages for further details and explanation of the above results.




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                    Monitoring Priority Indicator 12 - Page 2
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08/31/2009)
                                                                                                                Hawaii
                                                                                                                 State

                           FLOW CHART A: Early Childhood Transitions

                                         886 two-year-olds were referred for
                                          evaluation during SY 2004-2005




                 581 children (65%) were served in                     305 children (35%) were
                  Part C prior to referral to HIDOE.                   referred by their parents.
                         [Measurement A]



     In 16 cases (3%) no                        In 565 cases (97%), an
        evaluation was                         evaluation was conducted.
          conducted.



                 86 children (15%) were                                     479 children (82%) were
                 found to be ineligible.                                   found to be IDEA eligible.




  In 44 cases (51%),           In 42 cases (49%),             In 162 cases (34%)          In 317 cases (66%)
    eligibility status         eligibility status was         IEPs were NOT               IEPs were
  was determined by            NOT determined by              implemented by the          implemented by the
      3rd birthday.            3rd birthday.                  3rd birthday.               3rd birthday.
  [Measurement B]                                                                          [Measurement C]




                    A total of 204 (42+162) cases were not completed by the 3rd birthday.
                                    Range of Days Beyond the 3rd Birthday
                                      45 cases      1 – 10 days over
                                      33 cases     11 – 20 days over
                                      98 cases     21 – 100 days over
                                      28 cases     > 100 days over




    In 194 cases (95%) HIDOE received the                             In 19 cases, the evaluation process
    consent for evaluation less than 60 days                                  exceeded 60 days.
    prior to the 3rd birthday.                                    Days Beyond IDEA Eligible Ineligible
                       .                                          1 – 10                6            .4
    Range of days <60 prior to 3rd birthday                       11 – 20               4            .0
    1 – 10 days                15 cases                           20 – 38               5            .0
    11 – 20 days               29 cases
    21 – 100 days             116 cases
    > 100 days                 34 cases



Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                        Monitoring Priority Indicator 12 - Page 3
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08/31/2009)
                                                                                                               Hawaii
                                                                                                                State

             FLOW CHART B: Impact of Timeliness of Consent for Evaluation


                                              565 Evaluations were
                                            conducted for children who
                                              were served in Part C.




             In 303 cases, consent for                               In 262 cases, consent for
            evaluation was received > 60                            evaluation was received < 60
            days prior to the 3rd birthday                          days prior to the 3rd birthday.




  293 children (97%)           10 children (3%) did            194 children (74%)           68 children (26%)
    had services in            NOT have services in               did NOT have              had services in
   place or eligibility          place or eligibility         services in place or          place or eligibility
  determined by the            determined by the 3rd          eligibility determined        determined by the
      3rd birthday.                  birthday.                 by the 3rd birthday.         3rd birthday.




Discussion of Baseline Data:

As the data in the above flow charts demonstrate, HIDOE is able to complete all required evaluation
processes and implement IEPs prior to the 3rd birthday when consent for evaluation is received 60 days
or more prior to the 3rd birthday. Ninety-seven percent of children had services in place or eligibility
determined by the 3rd birthday when consent for evaluation was given 60 days or more prior to the 3rd
birthday. That was true for only twenty-six percent of children when consent for evaluation was given less
than 60 days prior to the 3rd birthday. While a few cases went beyond because the evaluation process
exceeded 60 days, the primary reason children do not have services in place in a timely manner is
because they are not referred early enough to make that possible.




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                       Monitoring Priority Indicator 12 - Page 4
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08/31/2009)
                                                                                                                  Hawaii
                                                                                                                   State

With the implementation of Part C’s new notification system and HIDOE’s earlier access and
communication with parents, it is expected that the percent of timely referrals will increase substantially
during the SY 2005-2006.


      FFY                                           Measurable and Rigorous Target


      2005          100% of eligibility determinations will be completed prior to children’s third birthdays for
   (2005-2006)      children who have been served in Part C and referred to Part B and were determined
                    to be NOT eligible.

                    100% of IEPs will be developed and implemented prior to children’s third birthdays for
                    children who have been served in Part C and referred to Part B and were determined
                    to be eligible.


      2006          Targets are the same as stated above for every year
   (2006-2007)


      2007          Revised February 2008
   (2007-2008)
                    100% of children who have been served in Part C and referred to Part B (except
                    children for whom parent refusal to provide consent caused delays in evaluation or
                    initial services) will have their eligibilities determined and, if eligible for Part B services,
                    their IEPs developed and implemented by their 3rd birthday.


      2008          Targets are the same as stated above for every year
   (2008-2009)


      2009          Targets are the same as stated above for every year
   (2009-2010)


      2010          Targets are the same as stated above for every year
   (2010-2011)


Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources


                 Improvement Activities                              Timelines                    Resources
                                                                    st
 Development and roll-out of a monthly report: Early              1 report to be          HIDOE technical
 Childhood Transitions.                                              available            support personnel
                                                                   January 2006.
 Dissemination of Part C/Part B Transition memo                   November 2005           HIDOE Staff
 with accompanying instructions and supporting
 documents.

 Discontinued:                                                     Discontinued           Not applicable
 Data collection re: Part C Transition Notices and                November 2007
 results to increase the accuracy of data regarding
 the number of children referred to us from Part C.


Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                          Monitoring Priority Indicator 12 - Page 5
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08/31/2009)
                                                                                                            Hawaii
                                                                                                             State


                 Improvement Activities                         Timelines                   Resources
 New:                                                        July 2008-2010         State level Part B,
 State level Part B, Section 619 and Part C, Early                                  Section 619 and Part C,
 Intervention personnel will collaborate to compare                                 Early Intervention
 transition data, procedures, and align training                                    personnel
 content and activities around Part C to Part B
 transition.

 Continued training/information for school staff            Currently available     Provided by HIDOE
 regarding transition requirements and activities for          and ongoing          and district level 619
 children who were served in Part C.                          through 2010.         Coordinators

 HIDOE is in the process of developing a new                 December 2007          HIDOE staff and
 comprehensive electronic data system. There is an                                  contracted providers.
 opportunity to develop enhanced data collection
 around the timeliness of Part C to Part B transition.
 This could include requirements for greater
 specificity regarding referral and evaluation data at
 the school level, and enhanced reporting
 capabilities to facilitate data retrieval at the school,
 district and state level.




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                    Monitoring Priority Indicator 12 - Page 6
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08/31/2009)
                                                                                                                  Hawaii
                                                                                                                   State

                 Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2006


 Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE


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.

      Measurement:
          A. # of children who have been served in Part C and referred to Part B for eligibility
             determination.
          B. # of those referred determined to be NOT eligible and whose eligibilities were 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.
      Account for children included in a, but not included in b, c or d. 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)] times 100.




      FFY                                           Measurable and Rigorous Target


      2006          100% of eligibility determinations will be completed prior to children’s third birthdays for
   (2006-2007)      children who have been served in Part C and referred to Part B and were determined to
                    be NOT eligible.

                    100% of Individual Education Programs (IEPs) will be developed and implemented prior
                    to children’s third birthdays for children who have been served in Part C and referred to
                    Part B and were determined to be eligible.


Actual Target Data for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):

                                  Measurement Description                                               Raw Data
 a. # of children who have been served in Part C and referred to Part B for eligibility
                                                                                                            667
    determination.
 b. # of those referred determined to be NOT eligible and whose eligibilities were
                                                                                                            104
    determined prior to their third birthdays.
 c. # of those found eligible who have an IEP developed and implemented by their
                                                                                                            437
    third birthdays.
 d. # of children for whom parent refusal to provide consent caused delays in
                                                                                                            123
    evaluation or initial services.
                                         Children included in a, but not included in b, c or d                3


Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                                  Monitoring Priority Indicator 12 - Page 1
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                            Hawaii
                                                                                                             State

All three cases that went beyond the third birthday were completed within four days of the children’s third
birthdays. In one case it appears that school did not obtain consent for the evaluation in a timely manner.
In two cases the evaluation took more than 60 days.


                                  Measurement Description                                           Percent


 Percent = [(c) divided by (a – b – d)] times 100.
                                                                                                       99%
     99 = [437 ÷ (667-104-123)] x100


Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that
occurred for FFY 2006:

Information Required by the OSEP SPP/APR Response Letter
There were 14 individual cases of non-compliance found during FY 2005 which comprised 4% of the total
relevant cases that year. The cases were scattered across the state and not clustered in one geographic
area or school complex, therefore noncompliance findings were not issued to any school complex area.
State and district 619 coordinators collaborated with their Early Intervention partners, school personnel
and Sequenced Transition to Education in the Public Schools (STEPS) Teams to address the smooth and
timely transitions from Part C to Part B. The state database also had available a report specifically
addressing the timely transition of three-year olds. Any record that indicates services were not available
by a child’s third birthday is ‘red-flagged’ which enables school, district or state personnel to investigate
the situation to determine the reasons. The data collected during FY 2006 demonstrates that
noncompliance from FY 2005 was corrected within one year. During FY 2006, there were only 3
individual cases of non-compliance found, a reduction of 11 cases despite an increase from the previous
year in the total number of children referred to Part B from Part C from 581 in FY 2005 to 667 in FY 2006.

Explanation of Progress or Slippage
Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE) improved its performance in this indicator by 3% from 96%
during FFY 2005 to 99% in FFY 2006. Although the total number of referrals/evaluations from Part C
increased from the previous year, the number of determinations that occurred after the 3rd birthday
decreased. HIDOE is able to complete all required evaluation processes and implement IEPs prior to the
3rd birthday with few exceptions when consent for evaluation is received at least 60 days prior to the 3rd
birthday. While a few cases went beyond age 3 as a result of delays caused by the schools, the primary
reason children do not have services in place in a timely manner is because they are not referred to
HIDOE early enough to make that possible. [To ensure accuracy of the data, all records were individually
examined for students whose eligibility and/or services were not in place by their third birthday.]

Improvement Activities Status


               Improvement Activities                       Timelines                           Status
 Development and roll-out of a monthly report:           1st report to be       Completed. 1st report was
 Early Childhood Transitions.                                available          available in July 2006.
                                                          January 2006.
 Dissemination of Part C/Part B Transition memo          November 2005          Completed September. 2006.
 with accompanying instructions and supporting
 documents.

 Data collection re: Part C Transition Notices and   Begin November 2005        Not implemented.
 results to increase the accuracy of data                                       (See explanation in the section
 regarding the number of children referred to us                                on revisions to Improvement
 from Part C.                                                                   Activities.)

Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                             Monitoring Priority Indicator 12 - Page 2
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                             Hawaii
                                                                                                              State


               Improvement Activities                        Timelines                           Status
 New electronic Comprehensive Student Support             December 2007           Completed July 2007.
 System (eCSSS) to include a specific field to
 document whether a child received Part C
 services prior to referral to HIDOE.
 Continued training/information for school staff         Currently available      On-going at HIDOE, district
 regarding transition requirements and activities       and on-going through      and school level. Provided by
 for children who were served in Part C.                       2010.              HIDOE and district level 619
                                                                                  Coordinators.

Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):

Gathering data about school level activities pertaining to compliance with Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) is a priority for HIDOE. A comprehensive data system has been constructed and
implemented to facilitate compliance and to collect and analyze relevant data. Part C services are
provided by the Hawaii Department of Health which is a separate state agency from HIDOE. Because of
the high priority of collection of HIDOE data, it was not feasible or appropriate to require school personnel
to collect data on another agency’s activities. The improvement activity involving data collection re: Part
C Transition Notices, therefore, will be replaced with a new activity. Beginning in SY 2008 through 2010,
State level Part B, Section 619 and Part C, Early Intervention personnel will collaborate to compare
transition data, procedures, and align training content and activities around Part C to Part B transition.
Based on SPP stakeholder input, collaborative analysis of data and alignment of training and activities at
the state level will improve results for children by increasing coordination between agencies.


    Improvement Activities                 Timelines        Resources              Revision/Justification
 Discontinued:                         Discontinued      Not applicable        Discontinued.
 Data collection re: Part C            November 2007                           Infeasible and inappropriate to
 Transition Notices and results                                                require school personnel to
 to increase the accuracy of                                                   collect data on another
 data regarding the number of                                                  agency’s activities.
 children referred to us from
 Part C.
 New:                                  July 2008-2010    State level Part      This activity replaces the data
 State level Part B, Section                             B, Section 619        collection activity above.
 619 and Part C, Early                                   and Part C, Early     Based on SPP stakeholder
 Intervention personnel will                             Intervention          input, collaborative analysis of
 collaborate to compare                                  personnel             data and alignment of training
 transition data, procedures,                                                  and activities at the state level
 and align training content and                                                will improve results for children
 activities around Part C to                                                   by increasing coordination
 Part B transition.                                                            between agencies.

The required measurement for Indicator 12 has changed from the original measurement, so the
measurement description on the SPP will be updated to reflect current requirements.

The target descriptions in the SPP will be reworded to align more closely with the amended SPP
measurement description. (See table below.) The targets will remain at 100%.


          2007             100% of children who have been served in Part C and referred to Part B (except
       (2007-2008)         children for whom parent refusal to provide consent caused delays in evaluation

Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                              Monitoring Priority Indicator 12 - Page 3
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                                  Hawaii
                                                                                                                   State

                           or initial services) will have their eligibilities determined and, if eligible for Part B
                           services, their IEPs developed and implemented by their 3rd birthday.




Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                                   Monitoring Priority Indicator 12 - Page 4
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                            Hawaii
                                                                                                             State

                       Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2010



 Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B/Effective Transition


Indicator 13:     Percent of youth aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes coordinated,
                  measurable annual IEP goals, and transition services that will reasonably enable
                  the student to meet the post-secondary goals.


      Measurement:
      Percent of youth aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes coordinated, measurable annual IEP
      goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the student to meet the post-secondary
      goals.


    Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process:

    A Student File Review: Focused Checklist, which involves a detailed review of selected
    Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) on a three-year cycle is used as part of the state’s Continuous
    Improvement Monitoring Implementation Process (CIMIP). All complexes (each complex has a high
    school) are placed in one of three groups: (a) those externally monitored by state personnel, (b)
    those externally monitored by their district personnel, and (c) those who conduct internal self-reviews.
    Annually, the selected IEPs are monitored for the following requirements:

    • For a student aged 16-20, or younger if appropriate, the IEP shall include annual transition
      services for the student, including, if appropriate, a statement of the interagency responsibilities or
      any needed linkages, and
    • By not later than age 16, the IEP shall include appropriate measurable post-secondary goals.

    The groups rotate each year, which means that in one out of every three years, transition plans in the
    selected IEPs are monitored by the state. If, during the state’s external review cycle, compliance
    targets are not met, the complex must submit to the state for approval, a corrective action plan with
    timelines for implementation. If the complex fails to correct the identified areas of non-compliance
    within their timelines, the state then determines whether the complex should continue to be externally
    reviewed during the following year rather than move to a less-stringent cycle. Non-compliance
    problems of a systemic nature are required to be identified and corrected. To address the
    noncompliance at the school level, the Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE) utilizes the following
    process:

    a. Upon identification of noncompliance, a written conclusion informs the school, complex area
       superintendent (CAS), and district education specialist (DES) of the finding and the timeline for
       submittal and implementation of a corrective action plan.
    b. A desk audit and/or site visit is conducted six to nine months after identification of noncompliance
       to verify the correction of noncompliance.
    c. If noncompliance continues, the state will provide technical assistance to the complex leadership
       to identify the root causes for the continued noncompliance. The CAS will submit evidence of the
       correction of the noncompliance in three months.
    d. If the CAS does not submit the documentation of correction, the special education director will
       submit a report to the deputy superintendent for appropriate follow up and the correction of
       noncompliance.




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                    Monitoring Priority Indicator 13 - Page 1
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                             Hawaii
                                                                                                              State

Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004-2005):

For the baseline School Year (SY) 2005-2006, 14 complexes were externally monitored by the state. The
IEPs of randomly selected students age 16 years and older were reviewed for the inclusion of both the
requirements that the IEP include coordinated, measurable annual IEP goals, and transition services that
will reasonably enable the student to meet the post-secondary goals.
As required by the Response Table submitted by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special
Education Programs (OSEP), for HIDOE’s Annual Performance Report (APR) for Federal Fiscal
Year (FFY) 2005 (2005-2006), HIDOE recalculated and is resubmitting the baseline data using
2005-2006 monitoring data and consolidating the findings into one percentage. Examination of the data
revealed that most of the non-compliant records (students’ IEPs) included transition services, but were
lacking the appropriate documentation of measurable post-secondary goals.


                                        Requirement                                                   %

                                                                                                    83.1%
 Percent of youth aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes coordinated,
 measurable annual IEP goals
                                                                                           (74/89 student files)

Discussion of Baseline Data:

Examination of the data revealed that the students’ IEPs included transition services, but were lacking in
the appropriate documentation of appropriate measurable post-secondary goals.


      FFY                                           Measurable and Rigorous Target

                    100% of youth aged 16 and above will have an IEP that includes coordinated,
      2005          measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the
   (2005-2006)
                    student to meet the post-secondary goals.

                    100% of youth aged 16 and above will have an IEP that includes coordinated,
      2006          measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the
   (2006-2007)
                    student to meet the post-secondary goals.

                    100% of youth aged 16 and above will have an IEP that includes coordinated,
      2007          measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the
   (2007-2008)
                    student to meet the post-secondary goals.

                    100% of youth aged 16 and above will have an IEP that includes coordinated,
      2008          measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the
   (2008-2009)
                    student to meet the post-secondary goals.

                    100% of youth aged 16 and above will have an IEP that includes coordinated,
      2009          measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the
   (2009-2010)
                    student to meet the post-secondary goals.

                    100% of youth aged 16 and above will have an IEP that includes coordinated,
      2010
                    measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the
   (2010-2011)
                    student to meet the post-secondary goals.




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                     Monitoring Priority Indicator 13 - Page 2
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                          Hawaii
                                                                                                           State

Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:


                     Improvement Activities                           Timeline               Resources

 1. Provide training for transition teachers and district         SY 2006-2010           Existing Special
    resource personnel on the appropriate method and                                     Education Section
    place to document in the student’s electronic file                                   personnel
    focusing on the inclusion of annual, measurable post-
    secondary goals.


 2. Provide electronic access to reports and summaries to         SY 2006-2010           Existing Special
    all of the students’ teachers, administrators, and district                          Education Section
    personnel. This will allow them to check the status and                              personnel
    quality of the plans and to provide assistance to the
    student, as necessary. This increase in access will
    allow more timely updates to the transition plan as
    student and family needs change.

 REVISED

 3. Work with high school transition teachers and district        November 2007          Existing Special
    staff in the development of coordinated transition plans      and on-going           Education Section
    where there is alignment between the results of the                                  personnel
    transition assessment, the course of study, and the
    provided services that will help the student achieve
    his/her post-secondary goal using the Indicator 13
    checklist. Ensure the inclusion of:
    • Post-secondary outcomes in the areas of training,
       education, vocation, and for appropriate students,
       independent living.
    • At least one annual goal that will support each of the
       post-secondary outcomes (can be a separate goal
       or one that also addresses another outcome, e.g.,
       an academic outcome).
    • Services to be provided that will help the student
       achieve the post-secondary outcomes.
    • A notification of the IEP meeting for any outside
       agency providing services to the student.
    • Documentation of the vocational assessment(s)
       administered to the student.

 NEW

 4. Review the answers to questions on the survey used in         November 2007          Existing Special
    Indicator 14 to determine whether there is any                and on-going           Education Section
    indication that the students felt clarity of the post-                               personnel
    secondary goals in the transition plan of the IEP
    affected the post-secondary outcomes.




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                  Monitoring Priority Indicator 13 - Page 3
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                       Hawaii
                                                                                                        State




                     Improvement Activities                        Timeline               Resources
 NEW

      5. Close monitoring of identified schools that have      November 2007          Existing Special
         non-compliant transition plans to ensure timely       and on-going           Education Section
         corrections as well as the avoidance of repeat non-                          and district
         compliant practices.                                                         support personnel




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                               Monitoring Priority Indicator 13 - Page 4
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                             Hawaii
                                                                                                              State

                 Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2006


  Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B/Effective Transition


Indicator 13:    Percent of youth aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes coordinated,
                 measurable annual IEP goals, and transition services that will reasonably enable
                 the student to meet the post-secondary goals.


      Measurement:
         Percent = # of youth with disabilities aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes coordinated,
         measurable annual IEP goals, and transition services that will reasonably enable the student to
         meet the post-secondary goals, divided by # of youth with an IEP age 16 and above, times 100.



      FFY                                           Measurable and Rigorous Target


      2006          100% of youth aged 16 and above will have an IEP that includes coordinated,
   (2006-2007)      measurable annual IEP goals, and transition services that will reasonably enable the
                    student to meet the post-secondary goals.


Actual Target Data for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):


                                Requirement                                             2006-2007

  Percent of youth aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes
                                                                                           90.3%
  coordinated, measurable annual IEP goals, and transition services
  that will reasonably enable the student to meet the post-secondary
                                                                                 (261/289 student files)
  goals.

Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that
occurred for FFY 2006-2007:

Information Required by the OSEP SPP/APR Response Letter
As required by the Response Table submitted by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special
Education Programs (OSEP) for the Hawaii Department of Education’s (HIDOE) Annual Performance
Report (APR) for federal fiscal year (FFY) 2005 (2-005-2006), the State was required to provide a
composite baseline that reflects the required measurement for this indicator. All identified non-
compliance areas for FFY 2004 and 2005 were corrected.

This recalculated baseline is provided in the Actual Target Data above.

Explanation of Noncompliance in FFY 2005
The results from the Special Education Student File Review-Focused Checklist and compliance
monitoring indicate that the following finding was not corrected within one (1) year of identification: 20
U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B). Percent of youth aged 16 and above with and IEP that includes coordinated,
measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the child to meet the
post-secondary goals.

Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                              Monitoring Priority Indicator 13 - Page 1
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                         Hawaii
                                                                                                          State

HIDOE has corrected the non-compliance, however, the requirement for it to be corrected within one year
was not met. The following additional improvement activity (#5) was added to the Annual Performance
Report (APR) to address the timeliness of any future required corrections: Close monitoring of identified
schools that have non-compliant transition plans to ensure timely corrections as well as the avoidance of
repeat non-compliant practices.

Discussion of Progress or Slippage that Occurred for FFY 2006
Examination of the data revealed that substantial progress was made with files in compliance increasing
from 83.1% to 90.3%. This progress can be attributed to close monitoring (using the state process
described in the State Performance Plan (SPP) to address noncompliance at the school level) and
focused training of transition teachers on the development and documentation of coordinated transition
plans that include annual post-secondary goals and the transition services that will reasonably enable
students to meet these goals.


                     Improvement Activities                         Timeline                   Status

 1. Provide training for transition teachers and district       School Year (SY)        Completed, but
    resource personnel on the appropriate method and               2006-2010            will remain
    place to document in the student’s electronic file                                  ongoing since the
    focusing on the inclusion of annual, measurable post-                               required
    secondary goals.                                                                    compliance rate
                                                                                        has not yet been
                                                                                        achieved.

 2. Provide electronic access to reports and summaries to        SY 2006-2010           Completed
    all of a student’s teachers, administrators, and district
    personnel. This will allow them to check the status and
    quality of the plans and to provide assistance to the
    student, as necessary. This increase in access will allow
    more timely updates to the transition plan as student
    and family needs change.

 REVISED

 3. Work with high school transition teachers and district       November 2007          All personnel have
    staff in the development of coordinated transition plans      and on-going          been initially
    where there is alignment between the results of the                                 trained. Further
    transition assessment, the course of study, and the                                 activities and
    provided services that will help the student achieve                                practice in the
    his/her post-secondary goal using the Indicator 13                                  development of
    checklist. Ensure the inclusion of:                                                 coordinated plans
    • Post-secondary outcomes in the areas of training,                                 are currently being
       education, vocation, and for appropriate students,                               implemented.
       independent living.
    • At least one annual goal that will support each of the
       post-secondary outcomes (can be a separate goal
       or one that also addresses another outcome, e.g.,
       an academic outcome).
    • Services to be provided that will help the student
       achieve the post-secondary outcomes.
    • A notification of the Individualized Education
       Program (IEP) meeting for any outside agency
       providing services to the student.

Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                          Monitoring Priority Indicator 13 - Page 2
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                           Hawaii
                                                                                            State


                     Improvement Activities            Timeline                  Status
     • Documentation of the vocational assessment(s)
       administered to the student.




Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006            Monitoring Priority Indicator 13 - Page 3
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                             Hawaii
                                                                                                              State

Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets/Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources
for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):

The following table represents the revisions and additions, with justifications for the changes, to SPP:

          Improvement Activities                    Timelines   Resources    Justifications for Revisions
 REVISED

 1. Work with high school transition                November    Existing    This activity was revised to focus
    teachers and district staff in the              2007 and    Special     on the development of
    development of coordinated                      on-going    Education   coordinated transition plans
    transition plans where there is                             Section     which will incorporate the use of
    alignment between the results of the                        personnel   the Indicator 13 checklist
    transition assessment, the course of                                    recently developed by the
    study, and the provided services                                        National Secondary Transition
    that will help the student achieve                                      Technical Assistance Center
    his/her post-secondary goal using                                       (NSTTAC) and approved by
    the Indicator 13 checklist. Ensure                                      OSEP. This checklist, with
    the inclusion of:                                                       accompanying documents, will
    • Post-secondary outcomes in the                                        be used in training in the
        areas of training, education,                                       development and documentation
        vocation, and for appropriate                                       of post-secondary goals; a
        students, independent living.                                       number of examples of
    • At least one annual goal that will                                    measurable, post-secondary
        support each of the post-                                           goals in education/training,
        secondary outcomes (can be a                                        employment, and independent
        separate goal or one that also                                      living are given.
        addresses another outcome,
        e.g., an academic outcome).
    • Services to be provided that will
        help the student achieve the
        post-secondary outcomes.
    • A notification of the IEP meeting
        for any outside agency providing
        services to the student.
    • Documentation of the vocational
        assessment(s) administered to
        the student.

 NEW

      2. Review the answers to                      November    Existing    This activity was added to
         questions on the survey used in            2007 and    Special     determine whether the
         Indicator 14 to determine                  on-going    Education   responses may impact this
         whether there is any indication                        Section     indicator.
         that the students felt clarity of                      personnel
         the post-secondary goals in the
         transition plan of the IEP
         affected the post-secondary
         outcomes.




Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                              Monitoring Priority Indicator 13 - Page 4
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                               Hawaii
                                                                                                                State



          Improvement Activities                    Timelines   Resources      Justifications for Revisions
 NEW

 3. Close monitoring of identified                  November    Existing      This activity was added to
    schools that have non-compliant                 2007 and    Special       ensure timely correction of all
    transition plans to ensure timely               on-going    Education     identified areas of non-
    corrections as well as the avoidance                        Section and   compliance.
    of repeat non-compliant practices.                          district
                                                                support
                                                                personnel




Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                                Monitoring Priority Indicator 13 - Page 5
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                           Hawaii
                                                                                                            State

                       Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2010



 Monitoring Priority: Post School Outcomes (New Indicator)


Indicator 14:     Percent of youth who had IEPs, are no longer in secondary school and have been
                  competitively employed, are enrolled in some type of post-secondary school, or
                  both, within one year of leaving high school.


      Measurement:

          A. Percent = # of youth who had IEPs, who are no longer in secondary school and who have
             been competitively employed, enrolled in some type of post-secondary school, or both,
             within one year of leaving high school: divided by the # of youth assessed who had IEPs and
             are no longer in secondary school; times 100.


    Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process

    During the month of March, a letter is sent to all high school students with Individualized Education
    Programs (IEPs) who exited the education system the previous year, to inform them about a phone
    call they will receive between April and May. Included in this letter is a form requesting a written
    survey should the student prefer to respond in writing rather than participate in the phone survey. A
    self-addressed stamped envelope is provided with the form. A phone survey of all “leavers” who had
    IEPs including those who graduated with a diploma, aged out, dropped out during the school year,
    or did not return to school, are the subjects of this survey. The responses are recorded into an
    electronic database and compiled to create a report which includes the required information on the
    number and percentage of youth who are (or have been) employed, enrolled in some type of post-
    secondary school, or both, between the time they leave high school and the date of the survey. No
    personally identifiable information is included in the report; only aggregate numbers and percentages
    are displayed.

    Description of the current post-secondary data collection process:

    Phone interviews are conducted for all “leavers” with disabilities, including those students graduating
    with diplomas, receiving certificates of completion, or aging out from high school. Also included are
    those who dropout during the school year or those who reach the age of majority and could return but
    choose not to. The questions reflect all of the post-secondary areas addressed in a student’s
    transition plan in the IEP. Once the reports are generated, the results are shared with transition
    teachers in the high schools. The teachers analyze the results, determine areas that may need more
    or less emphasis, and identify topics or services they need assistance with or more information about,
    resulting in more effective transition services for students and their families.

    The data collected are analyzed based both on total numbers, as well as proportionally, based on the
    ethnic and disability categories. Therefore, the results can be generalized to the entire population of
    Hawaii’s “leavers”.

    Mechanism to address potential discrepancies in the response rates based on ethnicities:

    To ensure that the data was representative of the ethnic populations of the students with disabilities,
    the following methodology was used after the responses were obtained:

    a. Determined the total number of students with disabilities, 16 years and older (n size).

Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                   Monitoring Priority Indicator 14 – Page 1
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                             Hawaii
                                                                                                              State

    b. Disaggregated by ethnicity and determined the percentage of each ethnicity in the population.
       The Native American ethnic group represented a tiny percentage of our disabled student
       population (1 percent) and was not used in these calculations.
    c. Using the total number of respondents, determined the percentage of expected respondents
       there should have been for each ethnicity (# per ethnicity/total population) then determined the
       actual number and percentage of respondents of each ethnicity.
    d. If the response percentage for any of the ethnic groups was lower than what it should have been
       in the population:
       • Determined the ethnicity with the lowest response numbers.
       • Using that number of respondents, determined the n size of the expected population which
           reflects that percentage.
       • Used the percentages of the population in (b) to determine the number of respondents that
           needed to be included to maintain the correct proportion in the population.
    e. If the response percentage for any one of the ethnic groups is higher than what it should be in the
       population:
       • Conduct random sampling of the respondents to reduce the n size for that ethnicity to achieve
           the desired percentage of the survey responses.
       • Repeat for all ethnic groups whose response numbers exceed those expected.
    f. Repeated this process for the various disability categories. Low incidence disabilities
       (< 2 percent), including visual impairments, hearing impairments, orthopedic impairments,
       deaf/blindness, multiple disabilities, and traumatic brain injury were not included.

Baseline Data: The results discussed below represent responses from students from the Class of
2004, one year after they left high school.

As required by the Response Table submitted by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special
Education Programs (OSEP), the Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE) recalculated and
consolidated the findings of employment and education enrollment and is resubmitting the baseline data
in the table below.


               Total              Respondents          % who are Competitively Employed and/or Attend a
 Class
           SPED “leavers”          to survey                Post-Secondary Educational Program



  2004            1326                  529                             420/529 = 79.4%



Discussion of Baseline Data:

Of those responding to the survey, the percentage of students competitively employed and attending a
post-secondary educational program was 79.4% (420 out of the 529 respondents). This represents the
baseline percentage for this indicator.

Targets for 2006-2010:


         FFY                                        Measurable and Rigorous Target


       2005           Baseline calculated to be 79.4% (Class of 2004)
    (2005-2006)




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                     Monitoring Priority Indicator 14 – Page 2
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                            Hawaii
                                                                                                             State


        FFY                                         Measurable and Rigorous Target


       2006           The percentage of students competitively employed and/or attending a post-
    (2006-2007)       secondary educational program will increase to 82.4%.


       2007           The percentage of students competitively employed and/or attending a post-
    (2007-2008)       secondary educational program will increase to 84.4%.


       2008           The percentage of students competitively employed and/or attending a post-
    (2008-2009)       secondary educational program will increase to 86.4%.


       2009           The percentage of students competitively employed and/or attending a post-
    (2009-2010)       secondary educational program will increase to 87.4%.


       2010           The percentage of students competitively employed and/or attending a post-
    (2010-2011)       secondary educational program will be maintained at the 2009 level at 87.4%.


Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:


                        Improvement Activities                             Timelines              Resources


 1. Continue the technical assistance, dialogue, and training of        School Year (SY)       State Secondary
    school and district personnel as the post-secondary data is            2006-2010           Transition
    examined.                                                                                  program
                                                                                               personnel in
                                                                                               partnership with
                                                                                               assigned district
                                                                                               staff.


 2. In collaboration with the team responsible for Indicators 1          SY 2006-2010          State Secondary
    and 2 which address graduation and dropout rates, develop                                  Transition and
    and include questions on the post-secondary survey to                                      Professional
    gather information from students on the school factors which                               Development
    kept them in school and addressed/met their needs.                                         personnel.




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                    Monitoring Priority Indicator 14 – Page 3
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                        Hawaii
                                                                                                         State



                        Improvement Activities                         Timelines              Resources
 REVISED

 3. In collaboration with the team responsible for Indicators 1       SY 2006-2010         State Secondary
    and 2 which addresses graduation and dropout rates, a                                  Transition and
    meeting will be convened with partner programs and                                     Professional
    agencies, including the Community Children’s Council                                   Development
    Office (CCCO), the Learning Disability Association of Hawaii                           personnel.
    (LDAH), Special Parent Information Network (SPIN), Hawaii
    Families As Allies (HFAA), the Developmental Disability
    Council (DD), and the program manager from the
    Comprehensive School Alienation Program (CSAP) to
    develop a mechanism to increase the awareness and
    involvement of parents and families on issues involving the
    post-secondary transition plan, graduation, retention, and
    dropout.

 NEW

 4. Work with high school transition teachers and district staff in   SY 2007-2010         State Secondary
    the development of coordinated transition plans where there                            Transition
    is alignment between the results of the transition                                     program
    assessment, the course of study, and the provided services                             personnel in
    that will help the student achieve his/her post-secondary                              partnership with
    goal (Indicator 13).                                                                   assigned district
                                                                                           staff.

 NEW

 5. Gather information from school transition teachers about the      SY 2007-2010         State Secondary
    kinds of programs or presentations the school provides to all                          Transition
    parents about post-secondary options and how students                                  program
    must prepare, depending on their area of choice.                                       personnel in
                                                                                           partnership with
                                                                                           assigned district
                                                                                           staff.




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                Monitoring Priority Indicator 14 – Page 4
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                              Hawaii
                                                                                                               State

                 Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2006


 Monitoring Priority: Post School Outcomes


Indicator 14:     Percent of youth who had IEPs, are no longer in secondary school and who have
                  been competitively employed, enrolled in some type of post-secondary school, or
                  both, within one year of leaving high school.


      Measurement:
         Percent = # of youth who had IEPs, who are no longer in secondary school and who have been
         competitively employed, enrolled in some type of post-secondary school, or both, within one
         year of leaving high school: divided by the # of youth assessed who had IEPs and are no longer
         in secondary school times 100.



      FFY                                            Measurable and Rigorous Target


      2006          The percentage of students competitively employed and/or attending a post-secondary
   (2006-2007)      educational program will increase to 82.4%


Actual Target Data for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):


                                                                 % who are Competitively Employed and/or
                     Total SPED          Respondents to
      Class                                                      Attending a Post-Secondary Educational
                      “leavers”              survey
                                                                                Program

       2005              1419                       653                      561/653 = 85.9%

Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that
occurred for 2006-2007:

Information Required by the OSEP SPP/APR Response Letter
As required by the Response Table submitted by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special
Education Programs (OSEP) for the Hawaii Department of Education’s (HIDOE) Annual Performance
Report (APR) for federal fiscal year (FFY) 2005 (2005-2006), the state was required to:
    • provide a composite baseline according to the measurement required for this indicator,
    • include the definition of competitive employment, and
    • include the definition of post-secondary school settings.

The composite baseline was recalculated and is presented in the Actual Target Data above.

Participants represent the totals from several post-high school educational programs including those
receiving a Competency Based diploma (C-Based), attending a two-year community college, a four-year
college/university or vocational/technical school, returning to high school to earn a high school diploma, or
participating in other programs such as Job Corps. Attendance in a post-secondary program was
considered to be full-time if the student was enrolled for 12 credits or more. The survey did not include a
question on full-time vs. part-time attendance for the class of 2004.

Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                               Monitoring Priority Indicator 14 - Page 1
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                         Hawaii
                                                                                                          State

The state used the Rehabilitation Act definition of competitive employment which reads: Competitive
employment means work (i) In the competitive labor market that is performed on a full-time or part-time
basis in an integrated setting; and (ii) For which an individual is compensated at or above the minimum
wage but not less than the customary wage and level of benefits paid by the employer for the same or
similar work performed by individuals who are not disabled. (Authority: Sections 7(11) and 12c of the Act;
29 U.S.C. 705(11) and 709(c). The state has defined full time employment as working for 20 hours or
more.

Discussion of Progress or Slippage that Occurred for FFY 2006

                        Improvement Activities                          Timelines                 Status

 1. Continue the technical assistance, dialogue, and training of    School Year (SY)        Ongoing through
    school and district personnel as the post-secondary data is        2006-2010            2010.
    examined.


 2. In collaboration with the team responsible for Indicators 1       SY 2006-2010          Questions are
    and 2 which address graduation and dropout rates, develop                               still in the
    and include questions on the post-secondary survey to                                   process of being
    gather information from students on the school factors which                            developed.
    kept them in school and addressed/met their needs.

 REVISED

 3. In collaboration with the team responsible for Indicators 1       SY 2006-2010          One meeting
    and 2 which addresses graduation and dropout rates, a                                   was held and a
    meeting will be convened with partner programs and                                      follow-up
    agencies, including the Community Children’s Council                                    meeting will be
    Office (CCCO), the Learning Disability Association of Hawaii                            scheduled to
    (LDAH), Special Parent Information Network (SPIN), Hawaii                               address the
    Families As Allies (HFAA), the Developmental Disability                                 logistics and
    Council (DD), and the program manager from the                                          topics of
    Comprehensive School Alienation Program (CSAP) to                                       regional parent
    develop a mechanism to increase the awareness and                                       meetings.
    involvement of parents and families on issues involving the
    post-secondary transition plan, graduation, retention, and
    dropout.


Technical assistance, dialogue, and training of school and district personnel were provided over the
school year. A meeting was held with partner programs and agencies to discuss a mechanism to
increase the awareness and involvement of parents and families on the post-secondary transition
planning process as well as concerns about dropout and retention. There was agreement that the CCCO
group would help with handling the logistics and the publicity of parent and student meetings in their
regions. There was also agreement that the state would develop a listing of possible questions or topics
that would be of interest to parents. However, because there was acknowledgement that each high
school provided information in a different way, this data should be known prior to the partnership doing
any planning and is currently being gathered. In collaboration with the team responsible for Indicators 1
and 2, questions to be added to the phone survey are being developed that would gather information
about factors which encouraged students to remain in school and whether the post-secondary planning
process and information provided in their school was helpful as they moved to post-secondary settings.
These questions may be included in the survey that will be conducted in the spring of 2008 (Class of
2007).


Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                          Monitoring Priority Indicator 14 - Page 2
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                             Hawaii
                                                                                                              State

Upon comparing the data from all respondents from the Class of 2005 to the baseline data from the
Class of 2004, there was an increase in the percentage of students who were competitively employed
and attending a post-secondary educational program from 79.4 to 85.9%, a 6.5% increase. This
percentage exceeds the target of 82.4%.

As the employment data is more fully examined, the percentage of graduates that were employed on a
part-time basis increased from 11.34% in 2004 to 16.23% in 2005. Examination of full-time employment
(working 20 or more hours per week) percentages reveal that there was an increase from 46.69% for the
class of 2004 to 55.44% for the Class of 2005. The survey question on enrollment in post-secondary
settings include part-time and full-time designations for only four-year and community college enrollment,
not for the other settings. Data reveals that full-time attendance at the college setting decreased slightly
when comparing the results from the Class of 2005 (12.1%) with the Class of 2004 (12.4%). When
comparing part-time attendance at the college setting, there is also a decrease in attendance (4.5% for
the Class of 2004 compared to 2.3% for the Class of 2005). However, overall attendance at all post-
secondary educational settings increased from 24.06% for the Class of 2004 to 28.33% for the Class of
2005.

The proportional percentages for ethnicity and disability were considered and although there were minor
differences from the overall respondent population, there was still an overall increase in the percentage of
“leavers” that were competitively employed and attend a post-secondary educational program for the
Class of 2005.

It is important to mention that consideration should be given to the possibility that it may take longer than
a year for students with disabilities to decide, plan, and act on their post-secondary goals. Also, over the
past few years, the Hawaii economy has been growing tremendously, with substantial increases in the
employment opportunities in all areas, including the travel, building and construction, food service, and
retail industries as well as government (both state and federal) employment. It is not surprising that the
employment data has improved so much. It is speculated that the large percentage of students working
may have had an effect on the decreasing percentage of students attending post-secondary educational
programs.

Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets/Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources
for 2006-2007:
The follow table reflects the revisions and additions as well as the justifications for the changes to the
Improvement Activities described in the State Performance Plan (SPP):

                                                                                        Justifications for
          Improvement Activities                     Timelines     Resources
                                                                                           Revisions
 REVISED

 1. In collaboration with the team                  SY 2006-2010   State          This activity was revised to
    responsible for Indicators 1 and 2                             Secondary      reflect the next steps to be
    which addresses graduation and                                 Transition     taken with the partnership
    dropout rates, a meeting will be                               and            organizations.
    convened with partner programs                                 Professional
    and agencies, including the CCCO,                              Development
    LDAH, SPIN, HFAA, the DD, and                                  personnel.
    the program manager from the
    CSAP to develop a mechanism to
    increase the awareness and
    involvement of parents and families
    on issues involving the post-
    secondary transition plan,
    graduation, retention, and dropout.



Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                              Monitoring Priority Indicator 14 - Page 3
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                                 Hawaii
                                                                                                                  State

                                                                                            Justifications for
          Improvement Activities                     Timelines      Resources
                                                                                               Revisions
 NEW

 2. Gather information from school                  SY 2007-2010   State              This activity was added to
    transition teachers about the kinds                            Secondary          determine what information
    of programs or presentations the                               Transition         is already being shared by
    school provides to all parents about                           and                school personnel; this
    post-secondary options and how                                 Professional       information will be used by
    students must prepare, depending                               Development        the partner agencies in
    on their area of choice.                                       personnel.         planning parent-information
                                                                                      sessions.

 NEW

 3. In collaboration with the team                  SY 2007-2010   State              This activity was added to
    responsible for Indicators 1 and 2                             Secondary          ensure the alignment
    which address graduation and                                   Transition         between the development
    dropout rates, develop and include                             program            of coordinated transition
    questions on the post-secondary                                personnel in       plans (Indicator 13) and
    survey to gather information from                              partnership        successful post-secondary
    students on the school factors                                 with               outcomes. The Indicator 13
    which kept them in school and                                  assigned           checklist, recently
    addressed/met their needs.                                     district staff.    developed by National
                                                                                      Secondary Transition
                                                                                      Technical Assistance
                                                                                      Center and approved by the
                                                                                      OSEP will be used.




Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                                  Monitoring Priority Indicator 14 - Page 4
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                          Hawaii
                                                                                                           State



                       Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2010


 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.

      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.

      For any noncompliance not corrected within one year of identification, describe what actions,
      including technical assistance and enforcement actions that the State has taken.


    Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process:

    The Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE) is resubmitting our baseline data for FFY 2004.
    HIDOE misunderstood the Measurement indicators, as described in the original State Performance
    Plan (SPP), and, therefore, used data for the FFY 2004, which did not allow the one year for
    correction of the noncompliance. HIDOE is submitting the correct baseline data for FFY 2004 using
    the revised SPP template. HIDOE is also submitting revised activities to reflect a new monitoring
    process. The measurable and rigorous targets remain the same.

Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004-2005):

 Measurement:
 Percent of noncompliance corrected within one year of identification
 a. # of findings of noncompliance                                                                            37
 b. # of corrections completed as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from
                                                                                                              33
    identification
 Percent = [(b) divided by (a)] times 100                                                                    89%

Discussion of Baseline Data:
In the School Year (SY) 2003-2004, there were four (4) written complaints and 29 due process hearing
requests that involved noncompliance. All 33 findings of noncompliance were corrected within one year
of identification.

In SY 2003-2004, 20 out of 41 complexes submitted the results of their Student File Review-Focused
Checklist. The complexes and districts were not provided training or state support in the administration of
the Student File Review-Focused Checklist. Therefore, the methodology for completion varied from
complex to complex. This inconsistency affected the validity and integrity of the results. Also, there was
no established benchmark set that would require follow up actions. This issue was resolved in
SY 2005-2006 by having the Special Education Services Branch conduct all the reviews using the
checklist in selected complexes (including charter schools). Nevertheless, the aggregated data from the


Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                  Monitoring Priority Indicator 15 – Page 1
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                           Hawaii
                                                                                                            State

Student File Review-Focused Checklist for SY 2003-2004 indicated the following systemic issues of
noncompliance:

       1. HAR Chapter 56, §8-56-8(c). For the initial evaluation only, at least one member of the team of
          qualified professionals required by §8-56-10 on the determination of eligibility, other than the
          student’s teacher, shall observe the student during an activity relevant to the area of suspected
          disability.
       2. HAR Chapter 56, §8-56-12(a). For a student suspected of having a specific learning disability,
          at least one team member other than the student’s regular education teacher shall observe the
          student’s academic performance in the regular classroom setting.
       3. HAR Chapter 56, §8-56-34(a)(2). The Department shall ensure that the IEP team for each
          student with a disability includes at least one regular education teacher of the student (if the
          student is, or may be, participating in the regular education environment).
       4. HAR Chapter 56 §8-56-35(c)(d). The Department shall…invite a representative of any other
          agency that is likely to be responsible for providing or paying for transition services. If an
          agency is invited to send a representative to a meeting does not do so, the department shall
          take other steps to obtain participation of the other agency in the planning of any transition
          services.

Discussion of Process to Correct Noncompliance:

Beginning in SY 2005-2006, the HIDOE Special Education Services Branch (SESB) implemented a
multifaceted approach to monitoring for all schools on a three-year cycle. To ensure the consistency of
methodology and the validity of the data, the administration of the Special Education Student File
Review–Focused Checklist was conducted by a trained state level team and monitored by an educational
specialist in the SESB.

       1. The administration of the Special Education Student File Review–Focused Checklist to
          approximately 5% of the special education student records in a complex. Charter schools are
          included in a complex by geographical location. The checklist covers the evaluation/eligibility
          process, the Individualized Education Program, and procedural safeguards.
       2. The completion of the case-based reviews in all complexes annually. The case-based review
          process selects 2% of the special education population in each complex, with no less than 12
          and no more than 20 per complex. Each case is rated on indicators for current student status
          and current system performance. The benchmark is a complex average of 85% for overall
          student status and system performance.
       3. A report generated by the SESB will be sent to the complexes within 30 school days after the
          completion of the internal review. Various sources of data will be analyzed, including the
          results of the case-based reviews, the results of the Special Education Student File
          Review–Focused Checklist and performance data. The report will include the identification of
          noncompliance and the timeline for submittal of documentation of correction of the
          noncompliance to the SESB. A review of the documentation, an on-site visit, and/or a desk
          audit will be conducted within, but no later than, six months to verify the correction of the
          noncompliance. If the noncompliance was not corrected, the SESB will work collaboratively
          with the district special education staff and the complex area superintendent to provide targeted
          technical assistance to the school(s) and/or complex to correct the noncompliance. If the
          targeted technical assistance does not result correction of the noncompliance within three
          months, SESB will submit a report of noncompliance to the state deputy superintendent (DS).
          The DS will then direct the school or complex to immediately correct any areas of
          noncompliance. SESB will conduct a follow-up visit 60 days after the DS mandate to the
          schools or complex to verify correction of noncompliance. The information regarding
          noncompliance found will be flagged for review in the next scheduled monitoring of the agency.




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                   Monitoring Priority Indicator 15 – Page 2
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                            Hawaii
                                                                                                             State

       4. Any noncompliance issues raised by anyone in the school community (parents, school and/or
          district personnel, the superintendent, the Attorney General’s office, community, etc.) will be
          initiate further investigations by the SESB. The investigations may include, but is not limited to,
          interviews, records reviews, on-site visitations, and desk audits. The SESB will inform the
          school, DES and CAS of any systemic findings of noncompliance and the timeline for submittal
          of documentation of correction of the noncompliance to the SESB. A review of the
          documentation, an on-site visit, and/or a desk audit will be conducted within, but no later than,
          six months to verify the correction of the noncompliance. If the noncompliance was not
          corrected, the SESB will work collaboratively with the DES and CAS and provide technical
          assistance to the school(s) and/or complex to correct the noncompliance. If the targeted
          assistance does not result in correction of the noncompliance within three months, the SESB
          will submit a report of the noncompliance to the Deputy Superintendent for appropriate follow
          up within two months of the submittal of the report to ensure correction of the noncompliance.

In the SY 2006-2007, the HIDOE refined its previous monitoring process to include additional sources of
data. The data collected on four areas are targeted to determine the level of state oversight for a
complex. These four areas and the benchmarks are:
       1. Results of the case-based reviews with a benchmark of 85% or better for overall student status
          and system performance;
       2. Results from the Student File Review-Focused Checklist with a benchmark of 90% or better on
          IEP Identification (evaluation and eligibility), and Procedural Safeguards;
       3. Monthly special education data for the complex with established benchmarks for IEPs current,
          60-day timeline, service gaps, and 3 year re-evaluations in 8 out of 10 months (August 2006
          through May 2007) or the last 5 consecutive reporting periods (January 2007 through May
          2007);
       4. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) participation benchmark (95%) for special education students in
          reading and math for SY 2005-2006.
       The data from SY 2006-2007 will be used by the HIDOE to determine the level of oversight
       according to the following criteria:
                  Level 3: Meets benchmarks in four (4) areas
                  Level 2: Meets benchmarks in 3 areas
                  Level 1: Meets benchmarks in 2 or less areas

    Complexes in Level 3 will be responsible for evaluating their own performance, creating and
    implementing improvement plans, and monitoring the results for students with disabilities on a regular
    basis. The complex will submit an annual Sustainability Report at the end of the SY 2007-2008 to the
    Director of the Student Support Services Branch (SSSB), with evidence and an explanation of any
    progress and/or slippage on their monthly special education data, participation rate for NCLB, and
    implementation of improvement activities after the Case-Based Review and Student File Review-
    Focused Checklist. District and state assistance will be provided if the complex demonstrates the
    inability to meet any benchmark. The complex will be scheduled for an external monitoring in
    SY 2010-2011 which will include an external Case-Based Review and Student File Review-Focused
    Checklist.

    Complexes in Level 2 will have a focused monitoring, depending on the following need areas:
            If the need area is the Case-Based Review, there will an internal Case-Based Review
            conducted in SY 2007-2008;
            If the need area is the Student File Review-Focused Checklist, the complex will randomly
            select IEPs to be reviewed using the checklist;
            If the need area is the monthly special education data, the complex will submit evidence
            that the data benchmarks are being met or identify the cause(s) and strategic action(s) to
            address the issue(s); and



Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                    Monitoring Priority Indicator 15 – Page 3
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                                                                                                                     Hawaii
                                                                                                                                                                                                      State

                        If the need area is the participation rate for NCLB, the complex will submit evidence that the
                        participation rate for has met the benchmark or identifies the cause(s) and strategic
                        action(s) to address the issue.

    District and state assistance will be provided if the complex demonstrates the inability to meet the
    benchmark in any of the areas. The complex will be required to submit an annual Sustainability
    Report at the end of the SY 2007-2008 to the Director of SSSB with evidence and an explanation of
    any progress and/or slippage on their monthly special education data, participation rate for NCLB,
    and implementation of improvement activities after the Case-Based Review and Student File Review-
    Focused Checklist. The complex will be scheduled for an external monitoring in SY 2009-2010 which
    will include an external Case-Based Review and Student File Review-Focused Checklist.

    Complexes in Level 1 will receive district and state assistance to determine the causes and actions
    for improvement. The complex will submit a plan of action to the Director of SSSB by September 30,
    2007. The complex will be scheduled for an external monitoring in SY 2007-2008 which will include
    an external Case-Based Review and Student File Review-Focused Checklist.
                                                             Continuous Integrated Monitoring & Improvement Process Cycle
                                                                                    Special Education Services Evaluation
                                                                    -    Case-based Reviews (85% Benchmark)
                                                                    -    Student File Review- Focused Checklist (90% Benchmark)
                                                                    -    Monthly Special Education Data (Meet benchmarks 8 out of 10 months or 5 final consecutive months)
                                                                    -    Hawai'i State Assessment: Participation (95% participation SPED students in reading & math)



                                                     LEVEL 3                                                                           LEVEL 2                                                 LEVEL 1
                                              Passed all 4 components                                                             Passed 3 components                                 Passed 2 or less components


                                                          Level 3.1                                                                          Level 2.1                                                LEVEL 1
                                                 Monitor SPED & HSA Data                                                             - District Tech Assist                               - Joint District & State Tech Assist
                                                   Sustainability Report
                                                                                                                                    Focused Monitoring                                         External CIMIP"
                                                                                                                                                                                          - Action Plan
                                                                                                                                     - Actions to Correct
                                                                                                                                        Write Report
                                                                                                                                     - Focused Monitoring
                                                                                                                                       - Sustainability Report
                                                                             SPED &/or HSA Data doesn't
                       Maintained Performance                                      meet benchmark
                                                                                                                               Improve                    No improvement or               SES EVALUATION
                                                                                                                                                              correction



                                                                                     Level 3.2.B                               Level 2.2.A                  Level 2.2.B
                          Level 3.2.A
                                                                              -   District Tech Assist                   - Monitor:                    - State Tech Assist
                  - Monitor: SPED Data & HSA
                                                                              -   Actions to Correct                       SPED Data & HSA             - Actions to Correct
                    - Sustainability Report
                                                                              -   Monitor Data                           - Sustainability Report       - Focused Monitoring
                                                                              -   Sustainability Report                                                - Sustainability Report
                                                                                                                                                                                 • Each row of the chart represents one
                                                                                                                                                                                   school year.
             Maintained           SPED &/or HSA Data doesn't         Improved or                No improvement or                                                                • SES Evaluation returns to the top to
            Performance                 meet benchmark                 corrected                    correction
                                                                                                                                                                                   determine new level.


           Level 3.3.A.1                  Level 3.3.A.2                 Level 3.3.B.1             Level 3.3.B.2                   SES EVALUATION
        - Monitor:                   -   District Tech Assist    - Monitor:                    - State Tech Assist
          SPED Data & HSA            -   Actions to Correct        SPED Data & HSA             - Actions to correct
        - Sustainability Report      -   Monitor Data            - Sustainability Report       - Focused monitoring
                                     -   Sustainability Report                                 - Sustainability Report




                                               SES EVALUATION




       Any noncompliance issues raised by anyone in the school community (parents, school and/or
       district personnel, the superintendent, the Attorney General’s office, community, etc.) will initiate
       further investigations by the Special Education Section. The investigations may include, but is not
       limited to, interviews, records reviews, on-site visitations, and desk audits. The SES will inform the
       school, DES and CAS of any systemic findings of noncompliance and the timeline for submittal of
       evidence to demonstrate correction of the noncompliance. A review of the evidence, an on-site
       visit, and/or a desk audit will be conducted within, but not later than, six months to verify the
       correction of the noncompliance. If the noncompliance is not corrected, the Special Education
       Section will collaborate with the DES and the CAS to provide the necessary technical assistance to


Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                                                                                                 Monitoring Priority Indicator 15 – Page 4
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                       Hawaii
                                                                                                        State

       correct the noncompliance. If the targeted assistance does not result in correction of the
       noncompliance within three months, the Director of SSSB will submit a report to the DS for
       appropriate follow up to ensure correction of the noncompliance. SSSB will again review the
       evidence by conducting a desk audit in two months. If the noncompliance is not corrected, SSSB
       will direct and monitor the use of monies to address and correct the noncompliance issue(s).




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                               Monitoring Priority Indicator 15 – Page 5
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                    Hawaii
                                                                                     State




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010            Monitoring Priority Indicator 15 – Page 6
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                                  Hawaii
                                                                                                                   State


       FFY                                          Measurable and Rigorous Target

     2005           100% of identified noncompliance will be corrected as soon as possible but within one
  (2005-2006)       year.
     2006           100% of identified noncompliance will be corrected as soon as possible but within one
  (2006-2007)       year.
     2007           100% of identified noncompliance will be corrected as soon as possible but within one
  (2007-2008)       year.
     2008           100% of identified noncompliance will be corrected as soon as possible but within one
  (2008-2009)       year.
     2009           100% of identified noncompliance will be corrected as soon as possible but within one
  (2009-2010)       year.
     2010           100% of identified noncompliance will be corrected as soon as possible but within one
  (2010-2011)       year.

Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:

        Improvement Activities                              Timelines                           Resources
SSSB personnel will select 5% of the                September 2005 – April 2006      SSSB
IEPs from one-third of the complexes,
including charter schools. These
selected IEPs will be reviewed using
the Special Education Student File
Review-Focused Checklist.

SSSB personnel will select 5% of the                September 2006 – April 2007
IEPs from two-thirds of the complexes,
including charter schools. These
selected IEPs will be reviewed using
the Special Education Student File
Review-Focused Checklist.

SSSB personnel will select 5% of the                September 2007 – April 2008
IEPs from complexes in Level 1.                     September 2008 – April 2009
These selected IEPs will be reviewed                September 2009 – April 2010
using the Special Education Student                 September 2010 – April 2011
File Review–Focused Checklist.
The completion of the case-based                    September 2007 – April 2008      SSSB; Contracted HIDOE
reviews by external reviewers in                    September 2008 – April 2009      reviewers/mentors;
complexes in Level 1, including charter             September 2009 – April 2010      partnership with Hawaii
schools, and an internal case-based                 September 2010 – April 2011      Department of Health (Child
review in complexes in Level 2 who did                                               and Adolescent Mental
meet the benchmark in the previous                                                   Health Section and Early
school year will be completed.                                                       Intervention Section)
A report from the SESB will be sent to              September 2005 – April 2006      State SSSB
the districts, complexes, and schools               September 2006 – April 2007
within 30 school days following the end             September 2007 – April 2008
of the external review. Any                         September 2008 – April 2009
noncompliance identified during the                 September 2009 – April 2010
application of the Special Education                September 2010 – April 2011
Student File Review–Focused


Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                          Monitoring Priority Indicator 15 – Page 7
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                                  Hawaii
                                                                                                                   State


        Improvement Activities                              Timelines                           Resources
Checklist and the corrective actions
and timelines will included in the report.
SSSB will correct noncompliance                     September 2005 – April 2006      SSSB; District Special
identified during the file reviews and              September 2006 – April 2007      Education personnel;
the investigation of issues raised by the           September 2007 – April 2008      Complex Area
school community. The school(s)                     September 2008 – April 2009      Superintendent
and/or complex(es) will submit to                   September 2009 – April 2010
SSSB documentation of correction of                 September 2010 – April 2011
the noncompliance. SSSB will conduct
a verification of the documentation
submitted. If the noncompliance is not
corrected, SSSB will work
collaboratively with the DES staff and
the CAS to provide targeted technical
assistance. If the targeted technical
assistance does not produce correction
of the noncompliance, SSSB will
submit a report to the DS for
appropriate follow up actions. SSSB
will again review the evidence by
conducting a desk audit in one month.
If the noncompliance is not corrected,
SSSB will direct and monitor the use of
monies to address and correct the
noncompliance issue(s).
Develop a plan to include State                        January 2007 – 2008           SSSB, SPP Focus Group
Performance Plan (SPP) indicators in
our general supervision process.
Publish a list of complexes on the                        SY 2008 – 2009             SSSB
Special Education website that have                       SY 2009 – 2010
been identified as having
noncompliance and correcting within
one (1) year.
Provide technical assistance to district                  SY 2008 – 2009             SSSB
staff for areas of noncompliance and                      SY 2009 – 2010
correction.
Enhance procedures for notification                       SY 2008 – 2009             SSSB
and correction of findings of                             SY 2009 – 2010
noncompliance.




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                          Monitoring Priority Indicator 15 – Page 8
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                         Hawaii
                                                                                                     State

                 Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2006


 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 (1) year from identification.



      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 (1) year from
              identification.

      Percent = [(b) divided by (a) times 100.]

      For any noncompliance not corrected within one (1) year of identification, describe what actions,
      including technical assistance and enforcement actions that the State has taken.




       FFY                                           Measurable and Rigorous Target


      2006           100% of identified noncompliance will be corrected as soon as possible but within one
   (2006-2007)       (1) year.




Actual Target Data for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):

 Measurement:
 Percent of noncompliance corrected within one (1) year of identification:
    A. # of findings of noncompliance.                                                                 96

     B. # of corrections completed as soon as possible but in no case later than one (1) year          92
        from identification.
                                                                                                      96%
 Percent = [(b) divided by (a) times 100.]




Part B State Annual Performance Report for (Insert FFY)                                             Page 1__
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
[Use this document for the February 1, 2008 Submission]
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                          Hawaii
                                                                                                      State




                                          Indicator B-15 Worksheet (8/2/07)
                                                                                (a) # of        (b) # of
                                                                                Findings of     Findings from
                                                                                non-            (a) for which
                                                                                compliance      correction
                                             General                            identified in   was verified
                                             Supervision              # of      FFY 2005        no later than
                                             System                   Programs (7/1/05 –        one year from
Indicator                                    Components               Monitored 6/30/06)        identification
    1. Percent of youth with IEPs            Monitoring: On-site
  graduating from high school with a regular visits, self-
  diploma.                                   assessment, local
                                             APR, desk audit,
    2. Percent of youth with IEPs dropping etc.
  out of high school.
                                                                          1            1              0
     13. Percent of youth aged 16 and above
  with IEP that includes coordinated,
  measurable, annual IEP goals and
  transition services that will reasonably
  enable student to meet the post-
  secondary goals.
                                              Dispute Resolution          1            1              1
    14. Percent of youth who had IEPs, are Other: Specify
  no longer in secondary school and who
  have been competitively employed,
  enrolled in some type of postsecondary
  school, or both, within one year of leaving
  high school.
    3. Participation and performance of       Monitoring: On-site
  children with disabilities on statewide     visits, self-
  assessments.                                assessment, local
                                              APR, desk audit,
                                              etc.
    7.     Percent of preschool children with Dispute Resolution
  IEPs who demonstrated improved
  outcomes.
                                              Other: Specify


    5. Percent of children with IEPs aged 6 Monitoring: On-site
  through 21 -educational placements.       visits, self-
                                            assessment, local             1            4              2
                                            APR, desk audit,
                                            etc.
                                            Dispute Resolution            1           86              86

Part B State Annual Performance Report for (Insert FFY)                                              Page 2__
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
[Use this document for the February 1, 2008 Submission]
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                            Hawaii
                                                                                      State

    6. Percent of preschool children aged 3 Other: Specify
  through 5 – early childhood placement.

    8.      Percent of parents with a child           Monitoring: On-site
  receiving special education services who            visits, self-
  report that schools facilitated parent              assessment, local
  involvement as a means of improving                 APR, desk audit,
  services and results for children with              etc.
  disabilities.

                                                      Dispute Resolution    1   2      2
                                                      Other: Specify


    9. Percent of districts with                      Monitoring: On-site
  disproportionate representation of racial           visits, self-
  and ethnic groups in special education              assessment, local
  that is the result of inappropriate                 APR, desk audit,
  identification.                                     etc.
                                                      Dispute Resolution
    10. Percent of districts with                     Other: Specify
  disproportionate representation of racial
  and ethnic groups in specific disability
                                                                            1   1      0
  categories that is the result of
  inappropriate identification.

    11. Percent of children who were                  Monitoring: On-site
  evaluated within 60 days of receiving               visits, self-
  parental consent for initial evaluation or, if      assessment, local
  the State establishes a timeframe within            APR, desk audit,      1   1      1
  which the evaluation must be conducted,             etc.
  within that timeframe.
                                                      Dispute Resolution
                                                      Other: Specify


    12. Percent of children referred by Part          Monitoring: On-site
  C prior to age 3, who are found eligible for        visits, self-
  Part B, and who have an IEP developed               assessment, local
  and implemented by their third birthdays.           APR, desk audit,
                                                      etc.

                                                      Dispute Resolution
                                                      Other: Specify
Sum the numbers down Column a and
                                                                                96    92
Column b
Percent of noncompliance corrected within
one year of identification = (column (b) sum                                         95.8%
divided by column (a) sum) times 100




Part B State Annual Performance Report for (Insert FFY)                               Page 3__
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
[Use this document for the February 1, 2008 Submission]
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                           Hawaii
                                                                                                       State
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that
occurred for FFY 2006:

Information Required by the OSEP SPP/APR Response Letter
The noncompliance findings identified in the State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2004 were:

       1. HAR Chapter 56, §8-56-8 (c) For the initial evaluation only, at least one (1) member of the team
          of qualified professionals required by §8-56-10 on the determination of eligibility, other than the
          student’s teacher, shall observe the student during an activity relevant to the area of suspected
          disability.
       2. HAR Chapter 56, §8-56-12 (a) For a student suspected of having a specific learning disability, at
          least one team member other than the student’s regular education teacher shall observe the
          student’s academic performance in the regular classroom setting.
       3. HAR Chapter 56, §8-56-34 (a)(2) The department shall ensure that the IEP team for each student
          with a disability includes at least one (1) regular education teacher of the student (if the student
          is, or may be, participating in the regular education environment).

    These findings were identified through a self-assessment procedure. Although the State provided
    training on the Special Education Student File Review – Focused Checklist to school, complex, and
    district personnel, the application of the instrument was inconsistent. There was no quality assurance
    procedure at State level to validate the results submitted; therefore, the validity of the findings was
    subject to the level of understanding of the school and district personnel.

    HIDOE has corrected the noncompliance for HAR Chapter 56, §8-56-8 (c), HAR Chapter 56, §8-56-
    12 (a) and HAR Chapter 56, §8-56-34 (a) (2), however beyond the one (1) year of identification.

Discussion of Noncompliance in FFY 2005

The results from the Special Education Student File Review – Focused Checklist and compliance
monitoring indicate ninety-six (96) findings of noncompliance in School Year 2005-2006. Ninety-two (92)
have been corrected within one (1) year of identification. Four findings were not corrected within one (1)
year of identification. They are the following:

    1. HAR Chapter 56, §8-56-38 (a)(7)(B) The student’s parent will be regularly informed, at least as
       often as parents of students without a disability, of the student’s progress toward the annual goals
    2. HAR Chapter 56, §8-56-34 (a)(2) The department shall ensure that the IEP team for each student
       with a disability includes at least one (1) regular education teacher of the student (if the student is,
       or may be, participating in the regular education environment).
    3. 20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B) Percent of youth aged 16 and above with and IEP that includes
       coordinated, measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the
       child to meet the post-secondary goals.
    4. 20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(C) Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and
       ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification.


HIDOE has corrected the noncompliance for HAR Chapter 56, §8-56-38 (a)(7)(B), however correction
exceeded one (1) year from identification of the noncompliance. HIDOE identified noncompliance for
HAR Chapter 56, §56-8-56-34 (a)(2) in new complexes from the previous year FFY 2004. Complexes
have received technical assistance from State Special Education Section to correct the noncompliance.
Although the complexes have made progress in addressing noncompliance, it is not sufficient to be
considered as corrected. A report has been submitted to the Deputy Superintendent on the complexes
exhibiting noncompliance for appropriate follow up and correction of the noncompliance. For 20 U.S.C.
1416(a)(3)(B), HIDOE has made significant progress in addressing this noncompliance as exhibited in the
data showing progress from 83% to 90%. This is explained further in Indicator 13. Based on the data
from 20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(C), HIDOE focused on training the District Educational Specialists on the
implementation with fidelity of the policies, practices and procedures relating to child find, evaluation and

Part B State Annual Performance Report for (Insert FFY)                                               Page 4__
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
[Use this document for the February 1, 2008 Submission]
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                         Hawaii
                                                                                                     State
eligibility. HIDOE has made some progress in addressing this noncompliance as exhibited in the data
showing a decrease in inappropriate identification in Asian/Pacific Islander Mental Retardation, White
Emotional Disturbance, White Speech/Language Impairment, and White Other Health Impaired. This is
further explained in Indicator 10.


Discussion of Progress or Slippage that Occurred for FFY 2006

Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE) recognized that our process to address noncompliance was
inadequate. Therefore, in School Year 2005-2006, HIDOE implemented a cyclical general supervision
process titled the Continuous Integrated Monitoring and Improvement Process (CIMIP). The process
included quantitative data on meeting the program requirements of the law and qualitative data on
education results and functional outcomes for students with disabilities by utilizing:

    a.   The administration of the Special Education Student File Review – Focused Checklist to
         approximately 5% of the special education student records in a complex. Charter schools are
         included in a complex by geographic location. The checklist covers the IEP (Individual Education
         Program), evaluation/eligibility process, and procedural safeguards.
    b.   The completion of the case-based reviews in all complexes annually. The case-based review
         process selects 2% of the special education population in each complex, with no less than 12 and
         no more than 20 per complex. Each case is rated on indicators for current student status and
         current system performance.
    c.   Monthly monitoring of relevant special education data. The performance data benchmarks
         include: IEPs current > 99%; Evaluation timeline > 95%; Three-year reevaluations > 99%;
         Service gaps > 0%.

To ensure the integrity of the data, a State level team, who received extensive training, had a common
understanding of all instruments used and was under the supervision of four (4) Educational Specialists
implemented the CIMIP. The Educational Specialists review the data for accuracy and are responsible
for the quality control of implementation.




Discussion of the Monitoring Process to Address Identified Noncompliance for FFY 2006

HIDOE will address these noncompliance findings on two (2) levels:

         Correction of noncompliance at the school level; and
         Prevention of the reoccurrence of the noncompliance systemically.

To address the noncompliance at the school level, HIDOE utilizes the following process:

   a.    Upon identification of noncompliance, a written conclusion informs the school, Complex Area
         Superintendent, and District Education Specialist of the finding and the timeline for submittal and
         implementation of a corrective action plan.
   b.    A desk audit and/or site visit is conducted 6 – 9 months after identification of noncompliance to
         verify the correction of noncompliance.
   c.    If noncompliance continues, State will provide technical assistance to the complex leadership to
         identify the root causes for the continued noncompliance. The Complex Area Superintendent will
         submit evidence of the correction of the noncompliance in 3 months.
   d.    If the Complex Area Superintendent does not submit the documentation of correction, the
         Director of Special Education will submit a report to the Deputy Superintendent for appropriate
         follow up and the correction of noncompliance.



Part B State Annual Performance Report for (Insert FFY)                                             Page 5__
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
[Use this document for the February 1, 2008 Submission]
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                           Hawaii
                                                                                                     State
Once the noncompliance has been corrected, written notification from the State Special Education
Section will be provided to the school and Complex Area Superintendent


Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):

To prevent a reoccurrence of any systemic issues, HIDOE is revising its improvement plan for School
Year 2007-2008.
    1. Publish a list of complexes on the Special Education website that have been identified as having
       corrected any noncompliance within one (1) year.
    2. Provide technical assistance to district staff for areas of noncompliance and correction
    3. Enhance procedures for notification and correction of findings of noncompliance statewide.

                                       Longitudinal Data for Indicator 15
                                   FFY                      Percent of noncompliance
                                                           corrected within one (1) year
                                   2004                                 89%
                              (2004 – 2005)
                                   2005                                 94%
                               (2005 – 2006
                                   2006                                 96%
                              (2006 – 2007)


                                              Improvement Activities

                  Activities                                 Timeline                      Status

SESB personnel will select 5% of the                September 2005 – April 2006   Completed
IEPs from one-third of the complexes,
including charter schools. These
selected IEPs will be reviewed using the
Special Education Student File Review -
Focused Checklist.

SESB personnel will select 5% of the
IEPs from two-thirds of the complexes,
including charter schools. These
selected IEPs will be reviewed using the
Special Education Student File Review -
Focused Checklist.                                  September 2006 – April 2007   Completed



SESB personnel will select 5% of the
IEPs from complexes in Level 1. These
selected IEPs will be reviewed using the
Special Education Student File Review –
Focused Checklist.                                  September 2007 – April 2008

                                                    September 2008 – April 2009   Progressing

                                                    September 2009 – April 2010

Part B State Annual Performance Report for (Insert FFY)                                              Page 6__
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
[Use this document for the February 1, 2008 Submission]
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                           Hawaii
                                                                                                     State


                  Activities                                 Timeline                      Status

                                                    September 2010 – April 2011

The completion of the case-based                    September 2007 –April 2008    Progressing
reviews by external reviewers in
complexes in Level 1, including charter             September 2008 – April 2009
schools, and an internal case-based
review in complexes in Level 2 who did              September 2009 – April 2010
meet the benchmark in the previous
school year.                                        September 2010 – April 2011

A report from the SESB will be sent to              September 2005 – April 2006   Completed
the districts, complexes, and schools
within 30 school days following the end             September 2006 – April 2007
of the external review. Any
noncompliance identified during the                 September 2007 – April 2008   Completed
application of the Special Education
Student File Review – Focused Checklist             September 2008 – April 2009   Progressing
and the corrective actions and timelines
will included in the report.                        September 2009 – April 2010

                                                    September 2010 – April 2011

SESB will correct noncompliance
                                                    September 2005 – April 2006   Completed
identified during the file reviews and the
investigation of issues raised by the
school community. The school(s) and/or              September 2006 – April 2007
complex(es) will submit to SESB
documentation of correction of the                  September 2007 – April 2008   Completed
noncompliance. SESB will conduct a
verification of the documentation                   September 2008 – April 2009   Progressing
submitted. If the noncompliance is not
corrected, SESB will work collaboratively           September 2009 – April 2010
with the District Special Education staff
and the Complex Area Superintendent to              September 2010 – April 2011
provide targeted technical assistance. If
the targeted technical assistance does
not produce correction of the
noncompliance, SESB will submit a
report to the Deputy Superintendent for
appropriate follow up actions. SESB will
again review the evidence by conducting
a desk audit in one month. If the
noncompliance is not corrected, SESB
will direct and monitor the use of monies
to address and correct the
noncompliance issue(s).

Develop a plan to include State                     January 2007 - 2008           Progressing
Performance Plan (SPP) indicators in our
general supervision process.

Part B State Annual Performance Report for (Insert FFY)                                              Page 7__
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
[Use this document for the February 1, 2008 Submission]
APR Template – Part B (4)                                 Hawaii
                                                           State




Part B State Annual Performance Report for (Insert FFY)    Page 8__
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
[Use this document for the February 1, 2008 Submission]
                                                                                                             Hawaii
                                                                                                              State

                       Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2010



 Monitoring Priority: 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. [Compliance target=100%]

      Measurement:

      A.     Percent of complaints reports issued within timelines or allowable extensions.

      B.     Percent = [1.1(b) + 1.1(c)] divided by (1.1) times 100.



    Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process

    The Complaints Management Program (CMP), Office of Curriculum, Instruction, and Student Support,
    accepts signed written complaints from parents, third parties, or organizations that allege individual or
    systemic violations of Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA). CMP
    investigates the allegations and issues Findings of Fact, a Decision and Order in a Complaints
    Investigative Report within 60 days of the receipt of the written complaint. Should the investigative
    report uncover violations of IDEA, a corrective action plan is ordered. Within 60 days of the
    acceptance of a corrective action plan, the CMP conducts an on-site visit to verify the implementation
    of the corrective action plan. A verification report is issued and the case is monitored until all actions
    are completed, usually within a year. There have been a few cases in which corrective action may
    not be completed within a year, such as compensatory education.

Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004-2005):

Measurement B:

           100% = 9 + 0 x 100 = 100% compliance
                    9

Discussion of Baseline Data:

The Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE) reported 100% compliance for written complaints issued
with findings within timelines. All complaints were investigated and findings were issued within 60 days
without extensions. The targets are consistent with U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special
Educaton Programs (OSEP) requirements of 100% compliance. All targets are set for 100% compliance.
Based on the past two FFY of data, the HIDOE is confident that the targets will be met. The activities
below improve current practices while maintaining 100% compliance.


           FFY                                      Measurable and Rigorous Target


           2005                                            100% compliance
      (2005-2006)




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                     Monitoring Priority Indicator 16 – Page 1
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                                Hawaii
                                                                                                                 State


         FFY                                        Measurable and Rigorous Target


        2006                                                  100% compliance
      (2006-2007)



        2007                                                  100% compliance
      (2007-2008)



        2008                                                  100% compliance
      (2008-2009)



        2009                                                  100% compliance
      (2009-2010)



        2010                                                  100% compliance
      (2010-2011)



Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:


     Improvement Activities                     Timelines                          Resources


 Develop and adhere to strict                  July 1, 2006        Special Education Section, Complaints
 internal timelines through a                                      Management Program
 checklist to meet the 60-day
 timeline.


 Develop and maintain an                       July 1, 2007        Special Education Section, Complaints
 integrated computer log which                                     Management Program
 automatically calculates written
 complaint investigative reports,
 their status and the percent
 issued within timelines.


 Develop and improve                           July 1, 2008        Special Education Section, Complaints
 investigation skills and writing                                  Management Program
 skills of the educational
 specialist and resource
 teachers who write the findings
 of fact through professional
 development.


 Improve, develop and expand                   July 1, 2009        Special Education Section, Complaints
 the current electronic data                                       Management Program
 collection system to ensure
 accurate trend analyses and
 integrate other data systems to


Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                        Monitoring Priority Indicator 16 – Page 2
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                                      Hawaii
                                                                                                                       State


           Improvement Activities                    Timelines                           Resources

      give schools a complete picture
      of the kinds of complaints filed
      against their schools for use to
      develop corrective action plans
      to avoid written complaints.

      Conduct on-site visits at                     July 1, 2010       Special Education Section, Complaints
      schools with many written                                        Management Program; school
      complaints to employ early                                       administrators; district educational
      resolution practices and                                         specialists; complex area superintendents
      develop a corrective action plan
      to correct system
      noncompliance.

      Conduct a comprehensive                       July 1, 2011       Special Education Section, Complaints
      analysis and corrective action                                   Management Program; school
      system to detect and correct                                     administrators; district educational
      system occurrences of                                            specialists; complex area superintendents
      noncompliance in districts.



Response to OSEP’s letter dated October 13, 2005 Conclusion #2 which reads:

“ . . .In the State’s Performance Plan, due December 2, 2005, Hawaii must submit to OSEP: 2. data on the number of
complaints filed during the APR reporting period and delete any targets that are inconsistent with its responsibility to
ensure that 100 percent of decisions in Part B complaints are issued within the 60-day timeline or within allowable
extensions (34 CFR §300.661(a)(1) and (b) . . .)”

FFY 2003 (2003-2004) complaints data were reported electronically in different windows in the APR. HIDOE reported
12 written complaints in the FFY 2003. The other numbers were reported erroneously due to technical electronic
confusion. FFY 2003 written complaints data are as follows:
                 12 complaints
                  9 written complaints with findings in a final decision within timelines
                  3 complaints suspended (pending) because a due process hearing was requested on the same
issues. At the time of the APR submission, the hearing process was not completed thus the complaint process could not
proceed.
                 100% compliance

           FFY 2003 (2003-2004) complaints targets indicated less than 100% compliance.            This SPP reports as
follows:
                All targets in this SPP for Indicator 16 are set at 100% compliance, every year. Indicator 16 requires
                complete and comprehensive compliance annually.




     Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                         Monitoring Priority Indicator 16 – Page 3
     (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                             Hawaii
                                                                                                              State

                 Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2006


 Monitoring Priority: 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.

      Measurement:
         A. Percent of complaints reports issued within timelines or allowable extensions.
         B. Percent = (1.1(b) + 1.1(c) divided by (1.1) times 100.



      FFY                                           Measurable and Rigorous Target

      2006                                                 100% compliance
   (2006-2007)


Actual Target Data for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):

Data collected from Table 7 as follows:

Measurement:                                                                                           Raw Data
Percent of written complaint reports issued within timelines or allowable extensions.

A. Number of written complaint reports within timelines without extensions                                 23

B. Number of written complaint reports with extended timelines                                              0

C. Number of written complaints with reports issued                                                        23
23 + 0 x 100 = 100% compliance
                                                                                                         100%
 23

Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that
occurred for FFY 2006:

Twenty-three (23) written complaints were filed. All complaints were issued with findings within timelines
without extensions. There was 100% compliance for FFY 2006 (2006-2007). Targets were met.


           Improvement Activities                       Timelines                      Status

 Develop and adhere to strict internal                 July 1, 2006                  Completed
 timelines through a checklist to meet the
 60-day timeline.




Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                              Monitoring Priority Indicator 16 - Page 1
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                             Hawaii
                                                                                                              State


          Improvement Activities                    Timelines                        Status

Develop and adhere to strict internal               July 1, 2006                   Completed
timelines through a checklist to meet the
60-day timeline.

Develop and maintain an integrated                  July 1, 2007                   Completed
computer log which automatically
calculates written complaint investigative
reports, their status and the percent
issued within timelines.

Activities were conducted and completed. No slippage occurred. For the last three school years, Hawaii
Department of Education reported 100% compliance. All efforts will be made to continue the targets and
activities for the next school year to maintain 100% compliance.

                                        Longitudinal Data for Indicator 16


                           FFY                             Percent of written complaints within timelines

                           2004                                                  100%
                       (2004–2005)

                           2005                                                  100%
                        (2005-2006)

                           2006                                                  100%
                        (2006-2007)


Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):

No changes to targets, activities or timelines.




Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                              Monitoring Priority Indicator 16 - Page 2
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                             Hawaii
                                                                                                              State

                       Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2010



 Monitoring Priority: General Supervision


Indicator 17:       Percent of fully adjudicated due process hearing requests that were fully
                    adjudicated within the 45-day timeline or a timeline that is properly extended by the
                    hearing officer at the request of either party. [Compliance target = 100%]

      Measurement:

      A.     Percent of fully adjudicated decisions within timelines and/or extensions.

      B.     Percent = (3.2(a) + 3.2(b)) divided by (3.2) times 100.


    Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process

    The Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE) executed a Memorandum of Agreement with another
    state agency to conduct the due process impartial hearings. The Department of Commerce and
    Consumer Affairs (DCCA) employs licensed attorneys as administrative hearings officers to conduct
    the due process hearings. HIDOE is a single statewide educational agency with a unitary system of
    due process hearing requests. All due process hearing requests rise to the state level and are
    reported. Due process hearings were filed at the rate of 1% of the total special education population
    annually. Approximately half of the decisions find HIDOE in compliance with Individuals with
    Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and no corrective action is ordered. HIDOE employs effective
    dispute resolution interventions and as a result more than 75% of the hearing requests are resolved
    before a hearing. If a hearing decision issues an order requiring HIDOE action, the Complaints
    Management Program (CMP) conducts an onsite visit within 60 days to verify the implementation of
    the decision. A debriefing session occurs to detect and correct noncompliance, if any. A verification
    report is issued to document the implementation. If corrective action is ordered, the corrective action
    is implemented within a few months and no later than one year.

Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004-2005):

               100% = 1 + 38 x 100 100% compliance
                       39

Discussion of Baseline Data:

The HIDOE reported 100% compliance for the baseline data in FFY 2004 (2004-2005). All fully
adjudicated due process hearing decisions were issued within the 45-day timeline or allowable
extensions. The HIDOE previously reported less than 100% compliance in the FFY 2003 (2003-2004)
but has since improved to meet the compliance indicator. All targets reflect the mandatory 100%
compliance. All activities support practices to continue meeting the 100% compliance target.


           FFY                                     Measurable and Rigorous Target


           2005                                           100% compliance
      (2005-2006)




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                     Monitoring Priority Indicator 17 – Page 1
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009
                                                                                                               Hawaii
                                                                                                                State


         FFY                                        Measurable and Rigorous Target


        2006                                                 100% compliance
      (2006-2007)



        2007                                                 100% compliance
      (2007-2008)



        2008                                                 100% compliance
      (2008-2009)



        2009                                                 100% compliance
      (2009-2010)



        2010                                                 100% compliance
      (2010-2011)



Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:



      Improvement Activities                       Timelines                         Resources

 Encourage parties to use the                      July 1, 2006      DCCA; Office of Administrative
 dismissal/withdrawal forms as                                       Hearings; Department of the Attorney
 soon as the parties come to an                                      General, Education Division; District
 agreement to complete the                                           Educational Specialists; Special
 hearing process within timelines.                                   Education Section, educational
 A dismissal and withdrawal form                                     specialist and resource teachers; school
 was developed by the HIDOE and                                      administrators.
 distributed. Continue to make the
 form available to the parties.


 Improve and develop data                          July 1, 2007      DCCA; Office of Administrative
 collection of the extension orders.                                 Hearings; Department of the Attorney
 Continue to maintain data on the                                    General, Education Division; District
 reasons for the extensions.                                         Educational Specialists; Special
 Continue to keep data on the                                        Education Section, educational
 timelines for the extensions and                                    specialist and resource teachers; school
 the issuance of a decision within                                   administrators.
 the timelines.




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                       Monitoring Priority Indicator 17 – Page 2
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009
                                                                                                                 Hawaii
                                                                                                                  State


      Improvement Activities                       Timelines                           Resources

 Improve and develop the                           July 1, 2008        DCCA; Office of Administrative
 hearings officer’s log. Ensure                                        Hearings; Department of the Attorney
 accurate information on the                                           General, Education Division; District
 number of hearings, timelines and                                     Educational Specialists; Special
 disposition of all cases.                                             Education Section, educational
                                                                       specialist and resource teachers; school
                                                                       administrators.


 Continue to verify the                            July 1, 2009        District Educational Specialists; Special
 implementation of hearing                                             Education Section, educational
 decisions expeditiously and no                                        specialist and resource teachers; school
 later than one year from the                                          administrators.
 decision date.


 Continue to conduct on-site visits                July 1, 2010        Department of the Attorney General,
 with the school to debrief staff on                                   Education Division; District Educational
 the results of the hearing decision                                   Specialists; Special Education Section;
 and the implications to the                                           educational specialist and resource
 individual student’s education                                        teachers; school administrators.
 and/or systemic corrections
 necessary to avoid other due
 process hearings.


 Develop and implement a                           July 1, 2011        Department of the Attorney General,
 corrective action system to                                           Education Division; District Educational
 correct systemic recurring issues                                     Specialists; Special Education Section;
 through a corrective action plan                                      educational specialist and resource
 with the school and district                                          teachers; school administrators.
 personnel.




 Response to OSEP’s letter October 13, 2005, Conclusion #3 which reads:

      “. . .In the State’s Performance Plan, due December 2, 2005, Hawaii must submit to OSEP: 3. either data
      and analysis demonstrating compliance with the due process hearing timelines or a plan for ensuring that all
      due process hearing decisions are issued within the 45-day timeline or within allowable extensions, with a
      report to OSEP not later than thirty days following one year from the date that OSEP accepts the plan (34
      CFR §300.511). The State also must revise to 100 percent its targets for issuance of timely hearing
      decisions and timely implementation of hearing decisions and settlement agreements; . . .”

                •   In FFY 2004 (2004-2005), the Department reported 100% compliance. Indicator 17 reports
                    100% compliance which meets the compliance indicator.
                •   Activities include a plan to maintain the practices of FFY 2004 which reported 100% compliance
                    and perfect current practices to ensure 100% compliance in subsequent years.
                •   All targets in the SPP are set at 100% compliance.




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                         Monitoring Priority Indicator 17 – Page 3
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009
                                                                                                             Hawaii
                                                                                                              State

                 Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2006


 Monitoring Priority: General Supervision


Indicator 17:     Percent of fully adjudicated due process hearing requests that were fully
                  adjudicated within the 45-day timeline or a timeline that is properly extended by the
                  hearing officer at the request of either party.

      Measurement:
         A. Percent of fully adjudicated decisions within timelines and/or extensions.
         B. Percent = (3.2(a) + 3.2(b)) divided by (3.2) times 100.



      FFY                                           Measurable and Rigorous Target

      2006                                                 100% compliance
   (2006-2007)


Actual Target Data for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):

Data collected from Table 7 as follows:

 Measurement:
 Percent of fully adjudicated hearing decisions within timelines and/or extensions.                     Raw Data
 A. Number of fully adjudicated hearing decisions within timelines
                                                                                                              2
 B. Number of fully adjudicated hearing decisions with extended timelines
                                                                                                             26
 C. Number of fully adjudicated hearings
                                                                                                             28
 2+ 26 x 100 = 100% compliance
  28                                                                                                       100%


Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that
occurred for FFY 2006:

As of October 12, 2007, two (2) fully adjudicated hearings were conducted within timelines without
extensions and twenty-six (26) fully adjudicated hearings were conducted within timelines with allowable
extensions. There was 100% compliance for FFY 2006 (2006-2007). Targets were met.




Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                              Monitoring Priority Indicator 17 - Page 1
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                             Hawaii
                                                                                                              State



             Improvement Activities                          Timelines                       Status


Encourage parties to use the                                July 1, 2006                   Completed
dismissal/withdrawal forms as soon as the
parties come to an agreement to complete the
hearing process within timelines. A dismissal
and withdrawal form was developed by the
Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE) and
distributed. Continue to make the form
available to the parties.

Improve and develop data collection of the                  July 1, 2007                   Completed
extension orders. Continue to maintain data on
the reasons for the extensions. Continue to
keep data on the timelines for the extensions
and the issuance of a decision within the
timelines.

Activities were conducted and completed. No slippage occurred. The HIDOE has been compliant for at
least three (3) consecutive school years performing the same activities. All efforts will be made to
continue the targets and activities for the next school year to maintain 100% compliance.

                                        Longitudinal Data for Indicator 17

                                                           Percent of fully adjudicated hearing decisions
                            FFY                                            within timelines
                           2004
                        (2004–2005)                                              100%
                           2005
                        (2005-2006)                                              100%
                           2006
                        (2006-2007)                                              100%


Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):

No changes to targets, activities or timelines.




Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                              Monitoring Priority Indicator 17 - Page 2
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                             Hawaii
                                                                                                              State

                         Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2010



 Monitoring Priority: General Supervision


Indicator 18:         Percent of hearing requests that went to resolution sessions that were resolved
                      through resolution session settlement agreements.

      Measurement:

      A.       Number and percentage of settlement agreements resulting from a resolution session.

      B.       Percent = 3.1(a) divided by (3.1) times 100.


    Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process

    Resolution sessions were a new requirement of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
    beginning July 1, 2005. Prior to a due process hearing, the Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE)
    conducted a resolution session within 15 days of the request for hearing unless both parties waive the
    resolution session. At the resolution session, the parties were encouraged to resolve the issues, in
    whole or in part. If a resolution was achieved, a legally binding written document, signed by the parent
    and the HIDOE was executed, barring a revocation. Data was collected during the Federal Fiscal
    Year (FFY) 2005 (2005-2006) which reported the number and percentage of settlement agreements
    resulting from a resolution session. The following activities were instigated to implement resolution
    sessions in the due process hearing procedures:

           •     Developed and distributed resolution session forms to be used as tools.
           •     Provided IDEA training for a cadre of school personnel, district educational specialists, and
                 state educational specialists explaining the resolution session and its requirements.
           •     Recommended use of facilitators at the resolution sessions to ensure efficacy.
           •     Offer facilitation training to state, district, and school personnel.
           •     Develop and maintain an electronic log to collect resolution session data.

Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004-2005):

               26 x100 = 16% resolved through resolution session
                160

Discussion of Baseline Data:

In FFY 2005 (2005-2006), the HIDOE collected baseline data on the number of resolution sessions
conducted. Of the 160 resolution sessions conducted, the HIDOE executed 26 settlement agreements as
a result of a resolution session which calculated to 16% of the cases. As a result, the parties were able to
avoid a hearing where the case resulted in a settlement agreement.


           FFY                                      Measurable and Rigorous Target


           2006           The HIDOE will execute a settlement agreement as a result of a resolution session
      (2006-2007)         18% of the time.



Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                     Monitoring Priority Indicator 18 – Page 1
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                             Hawaii
                                                                                                              State


         FFY                                         Measurable and Rigorous Target


        2007            The HIDOE will execute a settlement agreement as a result of a resolution session
      (2007-2008)       20% of the time.


        2008            The HIDOE will execute a settlement agreement as a result of a resolution session
      (2008-2009)       22% of the time.


        2009            The HIDOE will execute a settlement agreement as a result of a resolution session
      (2009-2010)       24% of the time.


        2010            The HIDOE will execute a settlement agreement as a result of a resolution session
      (2010-2011)       26% of the time.


Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:


        Improvement Activities                      Timelines                     Resources


 Special Education Section,                         July 1, 2007   Complaints Management Program
 Complaints Management Program                                     Educational Specialist; Complaints
 will assemble district personnel to                               Management Program Resource
 facilitate resolution sessions                                    Teachers; Judiciary’s Center for
                                                                   Alternative Dispute Resolution;
                                                                   Consortium for Appropriate Dispute
                                                                   Resolution in Special Education


 Special Education Section,                         July 1, 2008   Complaints Management Program
 Complaints Management Program                                     Educational Specialist; Complaints
 will offer mediation, facilitation,                               Management Program Resource
 conciliation training to district                                 Teachers; Judiciary’s Center for
 personnel                                                         Alternative Dispute Resolution;
                                                                   Consortium for Appropriate Dispute
                                                                   Resolution in Special Education,
                                                                   Mediation Center of the Pacific


 Special Education Section,                         July 1, 2009   Complaints Management Program
 Complaints Management Program                                     Educational Specialist; Complaints
 will establish training for district                              Management Program Resource
 personnel to be facilitators.                                     Teachers; Judiciary’s Center for
                                                                   Alternative Dispute Resolution;
                                                                   Consortium for Appropriate Dispute
                                                                   Resolution in Special Education,
                                                                   Mediation Center of the Pacific




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                     Monitoring Priority Indicator 18 – Page 2
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                             Hawaii
                                                                                                              State


        Improvement Activities                      Timelines                     Resources


 Special Education Section,                         July 1, 2010   Complaints Management Program
 Complaints Management Program                                     Educational Specialist; Complaints
 will offer training for incoming                                  Management Program Resource
 administrators in the area of                                     Teachers; Judiciary’s Center for
 facilitation and effective                                        Alternative Dispute Resolution;
 communication skills.                                             Consortium for Appropriate Dispute
                                                                   Resolution in Special Education,
                                                                   Mediation Center of the Pacific.




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                     Monitoring Priority Indicator 18 – Page 3
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                              Hawaii
                                                                                                               State

                 Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2006


 Monitoring Priority: General Supervision


Indicator 18:     Percent of hearing requests that went to resolution sessions that were resolved
                  through resolution session settlement agreements.

      Measurement:

          A. Number and percentage of settlement agreements resulting from a resolution session.
          B. Percent = 3.1(a) divided by (3.1) times 100.



      FFY                                           Measurable and Rigorous Target

      2006          The Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE) will execute a settlement agreement as a
   (2006-2007)      result of a resolution session 18% of the time.

Actual Target Data for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):

Data collected from Table 7 as follows:

 Measurement:
                                                                                                         Raw Data
 Number and percentage of settlement agreements resulting from a resolution session.
 A. Number of settlement agreements executed as a result of a resolution session                               8

 B. Number of resolution sessions                                                                            128
  8 x 100 = 100% compliance
                                                                                                             6%
 128

Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that
occurred for FFY 2006:

As of October 12, 2007, 128 resolution sessions were conducted. Eight (8) settlement agreements were
executed as a result of a resolution session conducted. Six percent (6%) of the resolution sessions
resulted in a settlement agreement. HIDOE missed the target of 18%.


               Improvement Activities                          Timelines                        Status


 Special Education Section, Complaints                         July 1, 2007                  Completed
 Management Program will assemble district
 personnel to facilitate resolution sessions.




Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                               Monitoring Priority Indicator 18 - Page 1
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                             Hawaii
                                                                                                              State

Activities were conducted and completed. Baseline was 16%. Slippage occurred in the amount of 10%.
This is the first year reporting after baseline data were established. Although not required, HIDOE
provided facilitators at the resolution sessions to encourage resolution. However, the number of
settlement agreements did not increase. HIDOE collected additional data about the hearing requests to
thoroughly examine the reasons for the slippage. The data revealed the following:

    •    95% of all parents requesting hearings were represented by attorneys. Consequently, HIDOE is
         represented by counsel on cases with attorneys.
    •    Parents represented by attorneys have expressed uncertainty discussing the issues at the
         resolution session without their attorneys present.
    •    Pursuant to Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), attorneys are not reimbursed for
         time spent at a resolution session, which discourages attorneys from attending and ultimately
         agreeing to the provisions of a tentative settlement agreement drafted at the resolution session.
         Parties settle cases approximately 66% of the time, but most of the settlements occur outside the
         resolution session or resolution period.
    •    67% of all hearing requests addressed issues of private school placement and tuition
         reimbursement. Parties were unwilling to compromise on this issue.
    •    Although parties have the authority to settle, usually neither had their attorney present.
         Whenever the parties agreed, they both consulted their attorneys for advice on the settlement
         agreement and there was usually no resolution. IDEA allows the parties to void the settlement
         agreement within 3 business days.
    •    Although participation in the resolution session is required, the parties are not required to resolve
         the issues through a settlement agreement. Although the parties convened as required, HIDOE
         was unable to facilitate a settlement agreement.
    •    Although not a requirement, HIDOE provided mandatory dispute resolution training for school
         administrators to develop skills to avoid conflicts and resolve issues before litigation. The trained
         administrators were often present at the resolution sessions.
    •    Although mediation is an alternative to a resolution session, mediation was requested in 2% of
         the cases. Mediation was underutilized as seen in the small “N” size in Indicator 19.

Although the targets are rigorous, HIDOE would like to continue on the rigorous path to resolve cases
through the resolution session and resolution period to avoid a hearing. Because this year’s APR was the
first year following the baseline data, we would like to analyze the long-term data before making any
changes to the goals or activities. There may be a possibility that the baseline data do not align with the
data of subsequent years. All efforts will be made to continue the targets and activities for the next school
year to meet the targets.

Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):

No changes to targets, activities or timelines.




Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                              Monitoring Priority Indicator 18 - Page 2
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                             Hawaii
                                                                                                              State

                       Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2010



 Monitoring Priority: General Supervision


Indicator 19:       Percent of mediations held that resulted in mediation agreements.

                                                                                     [20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B)]

      Measurement:
         A. Percent of mediation agreements executed related to a due process hearing or not related
            to a due process hearing.

          B. Percent = (2.1(a)(i) + 2.1(b)(i)) divided by (2.1) times 100.


    Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process:

    Mediation is encouraged at all levels with or without a due process hearing request. As required by
    Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE)
    contracts with an impartial contractor to provide mediation services for any school, statewide, without
    cost to the parent. Mediation agreements are executed and enforced with the same force and effect
    as a settlement agreement. Schools may use mediation services for any stage of the special
    education process.

Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004-2005):

           72% = 5 + 8 x 100         72% mediation agreements executed
                   18

Discussion of Baseline Data:

Mediation agreements are executed 72% of the time if a mediation session is conducted. This indicates
the mediation process is successful. Although the numbers are small, the program is efficient. The
targets increase per year to achieve a 90% efficacy in 2011. The activities reflect the HIDOE’s
commitment to increasing the number of mediations per year.


         FFY                                        Measurable and Rigorous Target


        2005             75% mediation agreements per mediation sessions held.
      (2005-2006)



        2006             78% mediation agreements per mediation sessions held.
      (2006-2007)


        2007             81% mediation agreements per mediation sessions held.
      (2007-2008)




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                     Monitoring Priority Indicator 19 – Page 1
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08/31/2009)
                                                                                                               Hawaii
                                                                                                                State


         FFY                                          Measurable and Rigorous Target


        2008             84% mediation agreements per mediation sessions held.
      (2008-2009)


        2009             87% mediation agreements per mediation sessions held.
      (2009-2010)


        2010             90% mediation agreements per mediation sessions held.
      (2010-2011)


Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:


      Improvement Activities                        Timelines                     Resources


 The HIDOE will improve school                  July 1, 2006      Complaints Management Program
 administration and special                                       educational specialist and resource
 education awareness of the                                       teachers; Statewide school administrators
 mediation services by distributing                               and/or special education department;
 flyers biannually to all schools.                                Mediation contractor; Reprographics section
                                                                  for duplication


 The HIDOE will establish dispute               July 1, 2007      Complaints Management Program
 resolution training for                                          educational specialist and resource
 administrators at the state and                                  teachers; Statewide school administrators
 district levels to build capacity                                and/or special education department;
 and develop skills to avoid                                      Mediation contractor; Judiciary’s Center for
 conflicts at the school level.                                   Alternative Dispute Resolution; Consortium
                                                                  For Appropriate Dispute Resolution in
                                                                  Special Education

 The HIDOE will contact and                     July 1, 2007      Complaints Management Program
 inform seventeen (17)                                            educational specialist and resource
 Community Children’s Council                                     teachers; Statewide school administrators
 Chairs and members to inform                                     and/or special education department;
 them of the dispute resolution                                   Mediation contractor; Judiciary’s Center for
 options available.                                               Alternative Dispute Resolution; Consortium
                                                                  For Appropriate Dispute Resolution in
                                                                  Special Education, Mediation Center of the
                                                                  Pacific




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                       Monitoring Priority Indicator 19 – Page 2
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08/31/2009)
                                                                                                             Hawaii
                                                                                                              State


      Improvement Activities                        Timelines                   Resources


 The HIDOE will develop or obtain               July 1, 2008    Complaints Management Program
 a training videotape, CD, video                                educational specialist and resource
 streaming for school personnel to                              teachers; Statewide school administrators
 build mediator capacity at the                                 and/or special education department;
 school level.                                                  Mediation contractor; Judiciary’s Center for
                                                                Alternative Dispute Resolution; Consortium
                                                                For Appropriate Dispute Resolution in
                                                                Special Education; Teleschools Branch of
                                                                the HIDOE


 The HIDOE will develop or obtain               July 1, 2009    Complaints Management Program
 a videotape, CD, video streaming                               educational specialist and resource
 for parents and school personnel                               teachers; Statewide school administrators
 about effective communication                                  and/or special education department;
 and nonverbal communication.                                   Mediation contractor; Judiciary’s Center for
                                                                Alternative Dispute Resolution; Consortium
                                                                For Appropriate Dispute Resolution in
                                                                Special Education; Teleschools Branch of
                                                                the HIDOE; parent organizations


 The HIDOE will conduct on-site                 July 1, 2010    Complaints Management Program
 visits to schools with high due                                educational specialist and resource
 process rates and low mediation                                teachers; Statewide school administrators
 session usage to explain the                                   and/or special education department;
 advantages of mediation.                                       Mediation contractor; Judiciary’s Center for
                                                                Alternative Dispute Resolution; Consortium
                                                                For Appropriate Dispute Resolution in
                                                                Special Education; Teleschools Branch of
                                                                the HIDOE; parent organizations


 The HIDOE will redistribute a                  July 1, 2011    Complaints Management Program
 mediation video with updates to                                educational specialist and resource
 all schools.                                                   teachers; Statewide school administrators
                                                                and/or special education department;
                                                                Mediation contractor; Judiciary’s Center for
                                                                Alternative Dispute Resolution; Consortium
                                                                For Appropriate Dispute Resolution in
                                                                Special Education; Teleschools Branch of
                                                                the HIDOE; parent organizations




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                     Monitoring Priority Indicator 19 – Page 3
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08/31/2009)
                                                                                                              Hawaii
                                                                                                               State

                 Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2006


 Monitoring Priority: General Supervision


Indicator 19:     Percent of mediations held that resulted in mediation agreements.

      Measurement:
         A. Percent of mediation agreements executed related to a due process hearing or not related
            to a due process hearing.

          B. Percent = (2.1(a)(i) + 2.1(b)(i)) divided by (2.1) times 100.



      FFY                                           Measurable and Rigorous Target

      2006          78% mediation agreements per mediation sessions held.
   (2006-2007)


Actual Target Data for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):

 Measurement:
 Percent of mediation agreements executed related to a due process hearing or not related                Raw Data
 to a due process hearing.
 A. Number of mediation agreements related to a due process hearing request                                    0

 B. Number of mediation agreements not related to a due process hearing request                                3

 C. Number of mediations conducted                                                                             5

 (2.1(a)(i) + 2.1(b)(i)) divided by (2.1) times 100                                                          NA


Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that
occurred for FFY 2006:

In FFY 2006 (2006-2007), five (5) mediations were conducted. Pursuant to U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) instructions, Hawaii Department of
Education (HIDOE) is not required to report data less than 10. The data are less than 10. Therefore,
HIDOE is not required to provide an analysis of the data because the data were less than 10.


               Improvement Activities                          Timelines                        Status


 The HIDOE will improve school administration                  July 1, 2006                  Completed
 and special education awareness of the
 mediation services by distributing flyers
 biannually to all schools.




Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                               Monitoring Priority Indicator 19 - Page 1
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                             Hawaii
                                                                                                              State


               Improvement Activities                         Timelines                        Status


 The HIDOE will establish dispute resolution                 July 1, 2007                   Completed
 training for administrators at the state and
 district levels to build capacity and develop skills
 to avoid conflicts at the school level.

 The HIDOE will contact and inform                           July 1, 2007                   Completed
 17 Community Children’s Council Office chairs
 and members to inform them of the dispute
 resolution options available.

Activities were conducted and completed. Last year, HIDOE amended the SPP to include additional
activities to increase participation in mediation statewide. HIDOE augmented activities to encourage
participation in mediation. Because mediation is voluntary, HIDOE was unable to increase the level of
participation through direct activities. However, HIDOE is committed to resolving conflicts through
mediation or other early dispute resolution practices and we are not discouraged from continuing our
efforts to increase the number of participants in mediation. All efforts will be made to continue the targets
and activities for the next school year to meet the targets.

                                        Longitudinal Data for Indicator 19


                            FFY                             Percent of mediation agreements executed

                           2004                                                  72%
                        (2004–2005)

                           2005                                                  NA
                        (2005-2006)                                (data less than 10, no analysis)
                           2006                                                  NA
                        (2006-2007)                                (data less than 10, no analysis)

Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):

No changes to targets, activities or timelines.




Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2006                              Monitoring Priority Indicator 19 - Page 2
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                            Hawaii
                                                                                                             State



                       Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2010



 Monitoring Priority: General Supervision


Indicator 20:     State reported data (618 and State Performance Plan and Annual Performance
                  Report) are timely and accurate.

      Measurement:

          A. Number and Percentage of 618 Data Reports submitted to OSEP in a timely manner.
          B. Number and Percentage of records verified for Child Count.
          C. Number and Percentage of 618 Data Reports verified.


    Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process:

    There are five (5) reports required under Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of
    2004 (IDEA) for 2004-2005 Annual Performance Report (APR), Tables 1-5. The State has developed
    verification procedures for all five reports. An electronic verification process for Child Count (Table 1)
    was initiated during the December 1, 2002 Child Count. This single change has significantly
    improved the Hawaii Special Education Section’s ability to verify records of students with disabilities.

    Up until the 2001 Child Count, schools were required to hand verify their respective list of IDEA
    students. Beginning with the 2002 Child Count, with the help of the new Integrated Special Education
    Database (ISPED), the Special Education Section (SES) was able to verify online each school’s Child
    Count as well as other state annual performance data. Schools, districts and the state office, view
    and verify online the number of students with current Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) to be
    counted or not to be counted for Child Count. School personnel are given access to an ISPED online
    report so changes, corrections and updates to any record can be made in a timely manner. Because
    district and state level personnel are able to view records online, schools are much more responsive
    at entering student data for Child Count, as well as, exit and discipline data. In addition, each
    complex area superintendent (CAS) confirms that all schools have submitted their verified data. Any
    corrections are reported in the final school submittals and further hand-verified by the SES. Once all
    records are verified, the reports are routed for the superintendent’s signature and then forwarded to
    the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP).

    Each student in the Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE) is assigned a unique student identifier
    to prevent duplication. Records are also crosschecked for duplicate records again prior to submittal
    of the December Annual Child Count that is submitted to OSEP on February 1 (Tables 1 and 3).
    Recently, in 2005, this same electronic verification process has become a reality for verifying the exit
    data (Table 4), as well as the discipline data (Table 5).

    To encourage schools to maintain current and accurate records, a monetary incentive award was
    initiated in 2002 and will continue through the 2005 Child Count. Schools that have no errors are
    eligible to receive up to $1,000. This incentive has had a considerable positive impact on improving
    the quality of data for HIDOE.

    The new electronic Comprehensive Student Support System (eCSSS) is scheduled for
    implementation on October 2006. This new database will integrate three separate stand-alone
    systems – ISPED, the current Comprehensive Student Support System (CSSS) database, and the
    Safe Schools Information System (Discipline). Because many students who are at risk are originally


Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                    Monitoring Priority Indicator 20 – Page 1
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                            Hawaii
                                                                                                             State

    referred for other student support services and inputted into the current CSSS database, the new
    eCSSS will eliminate duplicate inputting when being referred under IDEA.

Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004-2005):

    •      100% of reports verified by districts and schools for all OSEP required federal tables
    •      All 22,711 special education records (100%) were verified via the online reports in ISPED
    •      100% of reports to be submitted to OSEP on time.

Discussion of Baseline Data:

As stated in the overview, all records are verified by districts and schools for Tables 1 and 3 via ISPED
prior to 618 data submittals. This is a unique system that has added much to the integrity of the
verification process.

This year, verification reports for Tables 4 and 5 have also been added to the ISPED online reports so
districts and schools are able to do further verification online for these reports.

The online verification process facilitates the timely submission of the reports. Table 2 still remains the
only report that districts have to consult with their personnel specialist to hand verify due to many
changes. Table 6 (State Assessment Report) will be verified by the Hawaii State Testing Office.


           FFY                                      Measurable and Rigorous Target


                        100% of 618 Data Reports and the State APR are submitted to OSEP in a timely
                        manner.
                        100% of student records for Child Count are verified.
          2005          100% of 618 Data reports are verified by districts either by ISPED online
        (2005-2006)
                        verification process or by hand. For the APR, the SES utilizes data from verified
                        618 Data Reports. The APR is further reviewed and scrutinized by SES
                        Specialists for data accuracy.



                        100% of 618 Data Reports and the State APR are submitted to OSEP in a timely
                        manner.
                        100% of student records for Child Count are verified.
          2006          100% of 618 Data reports are verified by districts either by ISPED online
        (2006-2007)
                        verification process or by hand. For the APR, the SES utilizes data from verified
                        618 Data Reports. The APR is further reviewed and scrutinized by SES
                        Specialists for data accuracy.
                        100% on OSEP Scoring rubic.

                        100% of 618 Data Reports and the State APR are 100% of 618 Data Reports and
                        the State APR are submitted to OSEP in a timely manner.
                        100% of student records for Child Count are verified.
          2007          100% of 618 Data reports are verified by districts either by ISPED online
        (2007-2008)
                        verification process or by hand. For the APR, the SES utilizes data from verified
                        618 Data Reports. The APR is further reviewed and scrutinized by SES
                        Specialists for data accuracy.
                        100% on OSEP Scoring rubic.




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                    Monitoring Priority Indicator 20 – Page 2
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                              Hawaii
                                                                                                               State


         FFY                                        Measurable and Rigorous Target


                        100% of 618 Data Reports and the State APR are submitted to OSEP in a timely
                        manner.
                        100% of student records for Child Count are verified.
        2009
                        100% of 618 Data reports are verified by districts either by ISPED online
      (2009-2010)
                        verification process or by hand. For the APR, the SES utilizes data from verified
                        618 Data Reports. The APR is further reviewed and scrutinized by SES
                        Specialists for data accuracy.
                        100% on OSEP Scoring rubics.

                        100% of 618 Data Reports and the State APR are 100% of 618 Data Reports and
                        the State APR are submitted to OSEP in a timely manner.
                        100% of student records for Child Count are verified.
        2010            100% of 618 Data reports are verified by districts either by ISPED online
      (2010-2011)
                        verification process or by hand. For the APR, the SES utilizes data from verified
                        618 Data Reports. The APR is further reviewed and scrutinized by SES
                        Specialists for data accuracy.
                        100% on OSEP Scoring rubic.


Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:


  Improvement Activities                 Timelines                             Resources


 All 618 Data Reports and           February 1, 2006       State Educational Officers, State Resource
 the State APR verified for         November 1, 2006       Teachers, District Educational Specialist, District
 accuracy and submitted                                    Educational Resource Teachers, State and
 in a timely manner.                                       District Personnel Specialist, School Special
                                                           Services Coordinators, ISPED



 Meet with Information                March 30, 2006       IRMB, Student Information Database Personnel,
 Resource Management                                       ISPED Resource Teachers.
 Branch (IRMB) to discuss
 Student Information
 concerns including
 inputting of ethnicity.


 Implementation of the                February, 2007       State Educational Officers, State Resource
 eCSSS database.                                           Teachers, District Educational Specialist, District
                                                           Educational Resource Teachers, State and
                                                           District Personnel Specialist, School Special
                                                           Services Coordinators, ISPED, IRMB, Contractor
                                                           for the CSSS Database.


 Implementation of                  July, 2006 through     State Educational Officers, State Resource
 enhancements to eCSSS                  June 2010          Teachers, District Educational Specialist, District
 database                                                  Educational Resource Teachers, State and
                                                           District Personnel Specialist, School Special


Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                      Monitoring Priority Indicator 20 – Page 3
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                            Hawaii
                                                                                                             State


  Improvement Activities                 Timelines                           Resources
                                                         Services Coordinators, ISPED, IRMB, Contractor
                                                         for the CSSS Database.




 All 618 Data Reports and           February 1, 2007     State Educational Officers, State Resource
 the State APR verified for         November 1, 2007     Teachers, District Educational Specialist, District
 accuracy and submitted                                  Educational Resource Teachers, State and
 in a timely manner.                                     District Personnel Specialist, School Special
                                                         Services Coordinators, ISPED

 NEW                                 July 2007 through   SES Educational Specialists
 Implementation and                      June 2010
 application of OSEP
 Scoring Rubric to assess
 the accuracy (valid and
 reliable) of data for 618
 data and APR Indicators.


 All 618 Data Reports and           February 1, 2008     State Educational Officers, State Resource
 the State APR verified for         November 1, 2008     Teachers, District Educational Specialist, District
 accuracy and submitted                                  Educational Resource Teachers, State and
 in a timely manner.                                     District Personnel Specialist, School Special
                                                         Services Coordinators, ISPED

 All 618 Data Reports and           February 1, 2009     State Educational Officers, State Resource
 the State APR verified for         November 1, 2009     Teachers, District Educational Specialist, District
 accuracy and submitted                                  Educational Resource Teachers, State and
 in a timely manner.                                     District Personnel Specialist, School Special
                                                         Services Coordinators, ISPED

 All 618 Data Reports and           February 1, 2010     State Educational Officers, State Resource
 the State APR and the              November 1, 2010     Teachers, District Educational Specialist, District
 new updated 6-Year SPP                                  Educational Resource Teachers, State and
 verified for accuracy and                               District Personnel Specialist, School Special
 submitted in a timely                                   Services Coordinators, ISPED
 manner.




Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010                                    Monitoring Priority Indicator 20 – Page 4
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08-31-2009)
                                                                                                            Hawaii
                                                                                                             State

                    Part B Annual Performance Report (APR) for 2006-2007


 Monitoring Priority: 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 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 February 1 for Annual
              Performance Reports); and

           b. Accurate (describe mechanisms for ensuring error free, consistent, valid and reliable data and
              evidence that these standards are met).



        FFY                                         Measurable and Rigorous Target

       2006            •    100% of 618 Annual Performance Data Reports (618 data), Annual Performance
     (2006-07)              Report (APR), the State Performance Plan (SPP) are submitted to the Office of
                            Special Education Programs (OSEP) in a timely manner.
                       •    100% of student records for the 2006 Child Count are verified via the Integrated
                            Special Education Database (ISPED).
                       •    100% of 618 Data reports are verified by districts either via ISPED online
                            verification, the new eCSSS online verification or by manual verification.
                       •    100% of APR indicators will use accurate data
                       •    APR/SPP will be submitted in a timely manner.


Actual Target Data for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):

      4 out of 6 618 data reports were submitted to OSEP on time (Refer to Discussion of                      67%
      Improvement Activities Completed below) 4 divided by 6 x 100 = 67%
      All 21,099 special education records (100%) were verified via the online reports in                    100%
      ISPED. 21,099 divided by 21,099 x 100 = 100%
      100% of reports were verified by districts and schools or other branches of HiDOE for all              100%
      OSEP required 618 data. Tables 4 (Exit) and 5 (Discipline) were reverified, revised and
      resubmitted. 7 divided by 7 x 100 = 100%
      100% of APR indicator used accurate data (Refer to Scoring Rubric)                                     100%
      APR/SPP was submitted in a timely manner, February 1, 2008.




Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2005                             Monitoring Priority Indicator 20 – Page 1
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08/31/2009)
                                                                                                          Hawaii
                                                                                                           State

Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that
occurred for FFY 2006:

Information Required by the OSEP SPP/APR Response Letter

For Indicator 13, (Secondary Transition), monitoring data was used to recalculate the baseline as one
composite number for the SPP. This addressed the concern in the Hawaii 2005 APR Response Letter of
using inaccurate data.

Discussion of Activities, Progress, Slippage

All 618 data tables were submitted on time. However, for the 2006 Table 4 (Exits) and 5 (Discipline), due
to the postponement of the electronic Comprehensive Student Support System (eCSSS) implementation
date, verification of these two 618 data reports were delayed. Updated data for Tables 4 and 5 were
submitted in January.

For FFY (2006-2007), seven reports were required. An electronic online verification process for Table 1
(Child Count) and Table 3 (Educational Environments) were in place for the 2006 December Child Count.
Records that needed further verification, were verified manually. Due to the new changes to Table 3
(Environments), the preschool LRE data was collected and verified by schools and then submitted to their
respective 619 coordinators. The 619 coordinators then submitted their data to the Hawaii Department of
Education (HIDOE) Special Education Section (SPED). HIDOE then compiled the data and submitted it
as part of Table 3.

For Table 2 (Personnel), SPED distributed spreadsheets with unverified counts to all districts for
verification. The Office of Human Resources does not yet have an electronic system to verify personnel
data. Districts then proceeded to hand-verify these counts before returning the completed and revised
spreadsheets to SPED.

Table 6 (Statewide Assessments) 2006-2007 was collected and verified by HIDOE’s Systems
Accountability Branch. This data is directly submitted to the Special Education Section. In FFY 2006,
Table 6 will be submitted again as planned. There may be a chance that an error in scoring by the
contractor might cause a delay in submitting Table 6. Refer to the write up for Indicator 3.

Table 7 is a new report and that information is hand-counted and verified by the Dispute Resolution staff
of SPED. This table was submitted on November 1, 2007 along with Tables 2, 4, 5.

The 100% Award incentive was again implemented and this award continues to instill pride and
motivation for all schools to continue accurate inputting of data in eCSSS.

The new electronic Comprehensive Student Support System (eCSSS) replaces the ISPED system.
eCSSS integrates three separate systems: 1) Integrated Special Education Database (ISPED), 2) the
Comprehensive Student Support System (CSSS) and 3) Safe Schools Information System (SSIS). The
Comprehensive Student Support Section of eCSSS was the first system to be implemented in March
2007, but the special education module was again postponed until July 2007. On July 11, 2007 the
special education module of eCSSS was finally implemented along with the SSIS (discipline database).




Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2005                           Monitoring Priority Indicator 20 – Page 2
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08/31/2009)
                                                                                                             Hawaii
                                                                                                              State

The new eCSSS eliminates duplicate inputting for all referrals statewide. Although eCSSS has had its
challenges, most of them have been rectified. Over the next two phases of development, more
enhancements will address concerns from the field.



        Activities                           Timeline                                  Status

 100% Award of               October 2007                           Completed. Award is for the December
 Excellence                                                         2006 Child Count delivered at November
 Certificates                                                       DES meeting.
 distributed to districts.

 Implementation of           March 2007                             Completed. Postponed and implemented
 eCSSS.                                                             on July 2007.


 All 618 Data Reports        November 1, 2007                       All 618 data reports were submitted on
 and the State Annual        February 1, 2008                       time. However, due to delays with the
 Performance Report                                                 publishing of electronic eCSSS reports,
 verified for accuracy                                              Tables 4 & 5 were reverified after the
 and submitted in a                                                 November 1 deadline and resubmitted.
 timely manner.

 Child Count to use          December 3, 2007                       Completed.
 data from eCSSS.


 Implementation of           July 2007 to June of 2010              Completed. More reports in the process
 eCSSS online                                                       of being developed.
 reports.


Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):



        Activities                    Timeline                  Resources                        Justication

 REVISED
 Complete                           July 2007 to         Information Resource           DataHouse is meeting
 enhancements for                   March 2008           Management Branch,             with various program
 Phase 2B of eCSSS                                       Contractor/DataHouse,          managers as needed to
 Project                                                 Special Education Section.     identify and clarify
                                                                                        eCSSS design,
                                                                                        specifications and
                                                                                        functions to begin
                                                                                        development of
                                                                                        enhancements and
                                                                                        improvement changes to
                                                                                        eCSSS Phase 1 and
                                                                                        Phase 2A.



Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2005                              Monitoring Priority Indicator 20 – Page 3
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08/31/2009)
                                                                                                          Hawaii
                                                                                                           State


        Activities                    Timeline               Resources                        Justication

 NEW
 Exchange of                      December 2007      Educational Specialists,        Recommended by
 Indicators internally             through 2010      Special Education Section       Western Regional
 by Special Education                                                                Resource Center and
 Specialist to verify                                                                OSEP.
 calculations and
 accuracy of data.

 NEW
 Utilize OSEP Scoring            APR submittal for   Special Education Section       Implemented during
 Rubric. Target 100%             FFY 2006 – 2010     Data Manager                    FFY 2006 (2006-2007)
 (noted in the SPP              (February 1, 2008)                                   and recommended by
 improvement                                                                         OSEP.
 activities).


The implementation of eCSSS was postponed until July 11, 2007. Although it was anticipated that
reports would be available at the time of cutover, none were available until a couple of months later. This
had an effect on the timeliness of the verification of Table 4 (Discipline) and Table 5 (Exits). Although
data was submitted on time, revised tables were resubmitted. The online verification for the December 3,
2007 Child Count (Tables 1 & 3) proceeded as scheduled with procedures being very similar to 2006-
2007.

The OSEP Indicator 20 Scoring Rubric was implemented for the first time to quantify the timeliness and
accuracy of the 618 data and APR indicators. This Scoring Rubric was recently introduced at the OSEP
2007 Annual Data Conference and is noted in the SPP as a revision activity.

Data SPP/APR Indicators

As stated in the improvement activities, SPED has developed higher standards of data accuracy by
exchanging indicators between Educational Specialists within SPED. Staff members were each assigned
two indicators other than their own to exchange and read. Comments and recommendations were made
to the original authors as appropriate. In addition, readers checked calculations and ensured that
directions were followed. This is documented in the Rubric Review sheets which are on file and available
upon request. The Rubric Review was completed in collaboration with Western Regional Resource
Center and the OSEP liaison.

In addition to the Rubic Review, the OSEP Scoring Rubric was used to quantify the timeliness and
accuracy (valid and reliable) as part of Indicator 20.

For Indicator 1, 2, 3 internal HIDOE resources were used as data sources (refer to Scoring Rubric).

For Indicator 4A (Discipline), data was taken from the Safe Schools Information System (SSIS). Schools
were able to verify their data through online reports. In addition, any suspect records are identified by
Special Education Section and sent to schools for further review and revision. Although SSIS is now
integrated into the new eCSSS system, the z score will still be used as a means of determining whether
special education students are being disciplined disproportionately when compared to students in regular
education. HIDOE is a unitary system that does not have Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) and is
unable to calculate a single meaningful z square score and analysis for the entire state. However, HIDOE
is able to identify the number and percent of schools including public charter schools with significant
discrepancies in the rates of long-term suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities.

For Indicator 5 (Educational Environment), data was taken from 618 data (Table 1).

Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2005                           Monitoring Priority Indicator 20 – Page 4
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08/31/2009)
                                                                                                             Hawaii
                                                                                                              State


For Indicator 6, there is no data required to be submitted at this time.

For Indicators 9 and 10, disproportionate representation, the data source for both indicators was the 618
data (Table 1), ages 6 through 21. Consultation with and guidance from Western Regional Resource
Center and OSEP help to clarify the needed actions for Indicators 9 and 10. The process is two-fold: 1)
identification of disproportionate representation that exist in any of the disability categories and 2) whether
the disproportionate representation is due to inappropriate identification. A consultant was used to obtain
a three year average incidence rates for various disabilities in Hawaii. He also used 618 data to identify
90% confidence intervals for disability risk ratios. Once the incidence levels and confidence levels were
determined, Hawaii then proceeded to identify disproportionate representation among disabilities. A
consultant developed a spreadsheet where data could be entered and automatically calculated. Specific
ethnicities by disability groups could then be easily identified as disproportionate or not. The results are
included in the write up for Indicator 9.

HIDOE then proceeded to audit records to investigate if current practices and procedures were the cause
of overidentification in specific disability categories where disproportionate representation had been
identified.

A new baseline was submitted to meet the data requirements of Indicator 11 (Evaluation timelines).
“Initial evaluations” are to be used in this indicator, but Hawaii included all evaluations in the 2005 SPP
baseline. A recalculation of a new baseline was done for 2005-2006.

A team comprised of various individuals from the Special Education Section proceeded to review the
2005-2006 and 2006-2007 data in ISPED and in eCSSS. Also included as part of the follow up to
HIDOE’s response letter are the data indicating the number of evaluations with the range of days beyond
60 days as required by the instructions for this indicator.

For Indicator 13, (Secondary Transition), monitoring data was used to recalculate the baseline as one
composite number for the SPP. This addressed the concern in the Hawaii 2005 APR Response Letter of
using inaccurate data.

For Indicator 14 (Post School Outcomes), a single composite baseline is provided in the write up for
Indicator 14.

For Indicator 15 (General Supervision), the OSEP Indicator 15 data table is included as part of Indicator
15 write up. Data was disaggregated by APR indicator (number of findings during the FFY 2005) and the
status and timely correction of the noncompliance findings for the 2005-2006. In responding to Indicators
11, 12, 13 HIDOE specifically identified and addressed the noncompliance identified in this table under
those indicators.




Part B State Annual Performance Report for 2005                              Monitoring Priority Indicator 20 – Page 5
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 08/31/2009)
                                    Scoring Rubric (8/3/07)
                            Part B - Indicator #20 (FFY 2006 APR)

                                                  APR Data

             APR         Valid and            Correct           Followed
                                                                                  Total
           Indicator    Reliable Data        Calculation      Instructions
              1        Information
                       Resource
                       Management
                                                             Yes             2
                       Branch
              2        Information
                       Resource
                       Management
                                                             Yes             2
                       Branch
              3A       Evaluation Branch,
                       Hawaii DOE
                                            Yes              Yes             3

              3B       Evaluation Branch,
                       Hawaii DOE
                                            Yes              Yes             3

              3C       Evaluation Branch,
                       Hawaii DOE
                                            Yes              Yes             3

              4A       Safe Schools
                       Information          Yes              Yes             3
                       System
              4B
              5        ISPED Data
                       system, Table 3
                                            Yes              Yes             3

              6        ISPED Data
                       system, Table 3
                                            Yes              Yes             NA

              7        ECO Center, Child
                       Outcomes             Yes              Yes             3
                       Summary Forms
              8        NCSEAM Survey        Yes              Yes             3
              9        618 data (Table 1)   Yes              Yes             3
              10       618 data (Table 1)   Yes              Yes             3
              11       ISPED Data
                       system
                                            Yes              Yes             3

              12       ISPED Data
                       system, Individual   Yes              Yes             3
                       Record Checks
              13       State Monitoring
                       data
                                            Yes              Yes             3

              14       State Monitoring
                       data
                                            Yes              Yes             3


8/3/2007                                                                                  Page 1 of 4
           15      State Monitoring
                   Data
                                      Yes               Yes                 3

           16      Complaints
                   Section Annual     Yes               Yes                 3
                   Report
           17      Complaints
                   Section Annual     Yes               Yes                 3
                   Report
           18      Complaints
                   Section Annual     Yes               Yes                 3
                   Report
           19      Complaints
                   Section Annual     Yes               Yes                 3
                   Report
                                                                 Subtotal 58
       APR Score Calculation           Timely Submission Points - If
                                       the FFY 2006 APR was
                                                                            5
                                       submitted on-time, place the
                                       number 5 in the cell on the right.
                                       Grand Total (Sum of subtotal
                                                                            63
                                       and Timely Submission Points) =




8/3/2007                                                                         Page 2 of 4
                                   618 State-Reported Data

                                                               Responded to
                                 Complete     Passed Edit
           Table        Timely                                  Data Note         Total
                                   Data         Check
                                                                 Requests

    Table 1– Child        Yes      Yes            Yes               Yes            4
        Count

   Due Date: 2/1/07

       Table 2-           Yes      Yes            Yes               Yes            4
      Personnel

   Due Date: 11/1/07

     Table 3– Ed.         Yes      Yes            Yes               Yes            4
    Environments

   Due Date: 2/1/07

   Table 4– Exiting       No       Yes            Yes               Yes            3

   Due Date: 11/1/07

  Table 5- Discipline     No       Yes            Yes               Yes            3

   Due Date: 11/1/07

    Table 6- State        Yes      Yes            Yes               Yes            4
     Assessment

   Due Date: 2/1/07

   Table 7- Dispute       Yes      Yes            Yes               Yes            4
     Resolution

   Due Date: 11/1/07

                                                                      Subtotal     26

  618 Score Calculation                            Grand Total (Subtotal x 2) =    52




8/3/2007                                                                          Page 3 of 4
Indicator #20 Calculation

A. APR Grand Total =                                                63

B. 618 Grand Total =                                                52

C. APR Grand Total (A) + 618 Grand Total (B) =                      115

D. Subtotal (C divided by 119)* =                                   115 divided by 119 = 1

E. Indicator Score (Subtotal (D) x 100) =                           96.6%

* Note: Any cells marked with N/A will decrease the denominator by 1 for APR and 2 for 618 data.


Definitions

Timely – All data for the APR are submitted on or before February 1, 2008. Data for tables for 618 are
submitted on or before each tables’ due date. NO extensions.

Valid and Reliable Data - Data provided are from the correct time period, are consistent with 618 (when
appropriate) and the measurement, and are consistent with previous indicator data (unless explained).

Correct Calculation - Result produced follows the required calculation in the instructions for the indicator.

Instructions Followed - APR provides information required in the instructions for the indicator. For
example, when required, explanation provided, raw data and/or definitions given, or response provided
to previous OSEP APR analysis.

Complete Data – No missing sections. No placeholder data. Data submitted from all districts or
agencies. For example, when the instructions for an indicator require data broken down into subparts,
data for all subparts are provided.

Passed Edit Check - Tables submitted to Westat do not have missing cells or internal inconsistencies.
(See https://www.ideadata.org/TAMaterial.asp regarding Westat edit checks.)

Responded to Data Note Requested - Provided written explanation to Westat in response to data note
requests.


Calculation

(Number of cells checked for APR) plus (2 X Number of cells checked for 618 data) /
119 X 100 = percentage.




8/3/2007                                                                                          Page 4 of 4

								
To top