September 2006: Topic: Setting New Standards — The State Performance Plan

Director's Message, by John Copenhaver

Keeping Our Eye on the Ball

We are living in interesting times.  For those of you who are old enough to remember, it wasn't long ago, we were fighting to gain physical access in public schools for children with disabilities.  Thousands of children with disabilities were sent to State residential facilities-this was considered normal practice.  I started my career in such a place; the work was rewarding and at the same time depressing.

P.L. 94-142 and Section 504 brought forth many changes, including FAPE, IEP, and LRE.  Suddenly, we experienced a period of deinstitutionalization and public schools gearing up to provide necessary services for children with disabilities.  Now, it is almost a sin to utter the word “residential” or “institutionalization.”

The central most influential process that caused this change in thinking was the Individualized Education Program (IEP) developed by a group of people called the IEP Team.  “Never doubt what a small group of committed individuals can do to change the world” (Margaret Mead).  Individual IEP Teams, one by one, changed the direction of special education.

Let's now fast forward to 2004; a new process emerges in special education, only on a grander scale-the State Performance Plan (SPP).  We have gone from individual performance to State performance.  The SPP is a six-year IEP for the State, developed with the imput of stakeholders throughout the State.  The Annual Performance Report (APR) becomes the annual review for the SPP.  The 20 SPP Indicators for Part B and 14 Indicators for Part C have become high-stakes measures for every State and school district in the country because unlike the IEP where individual children are not compared with each other, the SPP provides a mechanism to compare and contrast States and school districts on their Indicators.

We have lived and breathed the SPP for the past two years.  We are now living the APR as the first submission is due in February 2007. The SEAs and LAs in our region have reorganized their efforts and priorities around the SPP/APR.  The collection and analysis of accurate data is critical to the process.

General supervision and the SPP are central processes at the SEA/LA level. The IEP and IEP team are critical at the LEA level. Together they can make a difference for individual children with disabilities.  The notion of holding States and school districts accountable is a good thing, but it is my hope that we don’t take our “eye off the ball.”  We can’t forget or neglect what makes special education special—the IEP and IEP Team—one child at a time.

Articles

What Do We Need to Know about the State Performance Plan?

A Quick Guide to Sampling

State Experiences with the SPP — Part B Programs Respond

IDEA Regulations and Updates

State Experiences with the SPP — Part C Programs Respond

Part C SPP Indicators

State Special Education Advisory Panel — State Interagency Coordinating Council Parent Involvement in the SPP — Parts B & C

NIMAS in IDEA — Resources

Conference and Teleconference Updates