in column (a). If the number in column (b) exceeds column (a) the column (b) cell will turn red. This worksheet calculates the percent of noncompliance corrected within one year of identification. The self-calculating cells are highlighted in gray. Be careful not to enter data into these cells because the calculations will not work properly. (b) # of Findings of (a) # of Findings of noncompliance General noncompliance from (a) for which Supervision Indicator/Indicator Clusters # of LEAs identified in FFY correction was System Issued 2011 (7/1/11 to verified no later Components Findings in FFY 6/30/12) than one year 2011 (7/1/11 to from 6/30/12) identification 1. Percent of with IEPs Monitoring graduating from high school with Activities: a regular diploma. Local APR, 2. Percent of youth with IEPs Data Review, dropping out of high school. Desk Audit, Visits, or Other 14. Percent of youth who had Dispute IEPs, are no longer in secondary Resolution: school and who have been Complaints, competitively employed, enrolled Hearings in some type of postsecondary school or training program, or both, within one year of leaving high school. 3. Participation and Monitoring performance of children with Activities: disabilities on statewide assessments. Local APR, 6 6 6 Data Review, 7. Percent of preschool children Desk Audit, with IEPs who demonstrated Visits, or improved outcomes. Other
in column (a). If the number in column (b) exceeds column (a) the column (b) cell will turn red. This worksheet calculates the percent of noncompliance corrected within one year of identification. The self-calculating cells are highlighted in gray. Be careful not to enter data into these cells because the calculations will not work properly. Indicator/Indicator Clusters General Supervision System Components # of LEAs Issued Findings in FFY 2011 (7/1/11 to 6/30/12) (a) # of Findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2011 (7/1/11 to 6/30/12) (b) # of Findings of noncompliance from (a) for which correction was verified no later than one year from identification 1. Percent of with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma. Monitoring Activities: Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, Visits, or Other 2. Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high school. 14. Percent of youth who had IEPs, are no longer in secondary school and who have been competitively employed, enrolled in some type of postsecondary school or training program, or both, within one year of leaving high school. Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings 3. Participation and performance of children with disabilities on statewide assessments. Monitoring Activities: Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, Visits, or Other 6 6 6 7. Percent of preschool children with IEPs who demonstrated improved outcomes.
FFY2012.docx