IDEA Partnership State � State Meeting

Document Sample
IDEA Partnership State � State Meeting Powered By Docstoc
					                IDEA Partnership
              State – State Meeting
               March 20 -21, 2006
   Connecting to Data
    and strategies

   Using Quantitative
    Data

   Fredric DeMay
           Who is Fred DeMay?

   35 Years in the Field of Special Education
   25 Years with the New York State
    Education Department
   Coordinator for Program Development and
    Special Education Policy
   SIG Director
   Helped develop NY’s TA infrastructure for
    General and Special Education
     Using Quantitative Data to Guide
        IDEA Partnership Activities
   Connections to OSEP SPP indicators
   Alignment with State Performance Plans
   Creating a “Value-Added” component of
    partnership relationships
   Getting to “Win-Win”
          A quick reality check…

   HMOY are familiar with the 20 (14 LEA)
    OSEP indicators that drive the SPP/APR?
   HMOY have a copy of your State’s SPP?
   HMOY are familiar with your State’s
    baseline data?
   HMOY are familiar with your State’s
    Measurable and Rigorous Targets for each
    indicator?
           A quick reality check…

   HMOY are aware of the Activities/ Timelines/
    and Resources included in the SPP to achieve
    those targets?
   HMOY had significant input into your State’s
    SPP?
   HMOY were directly involved in the development
    of your State’s SPP?
   HMOY can explain the difference between the
    SPP and APR?
State Performance Plan (SPP)

 6-year plan
 3 priority areas

 20 indicators

 Measurable and rigorous targets

 Improvement strategies
            SPP Content
   For each indicator
   Overview of the System or Process
   Baseline data and discussion
   Measurable and Rigorous Targets
   Improvement Activities /Timelines
      /Resources
   How Stakeholder Input Obtained
   Public Dissemination Plan
    Annual Performance Reports
               (APR)

   Valid and reliable information
   Annual reports to USDOE on the
    performance of the State on the SPP
   State reports annually to the public on the
    performance of each LEA Program in the
    State on the targets in the SPP
               APR Content

   Actual performance against the targets
   Improvement activities completed
   Explanation of progress or slippage
   Any revisions to approved targets,
    improvement activities, timelines or
    resources – with justifications
   Public reporting plan
 Monitoring Priority Areas

 FAPE   in the LRE

 Disproportionality



          General
 Effective
 Supervision
Indicators: FAPE in the LRE
 1.   Graduation rate
 2.   Drop out rate
 3.   Participation and Performance on Statewide
      Assessments
 4.   Rates of Suspension and Expulsion
 5.   Least Restrictive Environment placements–
      school age
 6.   LRE - preschool
 7.   Preschool Outcomes (improved social-
      emotional, knowledge and skills, behaviors)
 8.   School facilitation of parent involvement
Indicators: Disproportionality
1.   Disproportionate representation of racial and
     ethnic groups in special education that is the
     result of inappropriate identification
2.   Disproportionate representation of racial and
     ethnic groups in specific disability categories
     that is the result of inappropriate
     identification
 Indicators: General Supervision

1.   Evaluations and eligibility determinations
     within 60 days
2.   Children referred from EI with IEPs
     implemented by their 3rd birthdays
3.   Youth with appropriate IEPs relating to
     transition services
4.   Youth employed or in post secondary school
     within one year after leaving high school
     General Supervision
Responsibility (State reporting only)
1.   Compliance corrected within one year of
     identification
2.   Complaints resolved within 60 day timeline
3.   Impartial hearings adjudicated within 45 days
4.   Hearing requests resolved in resolution
     sessions
5.   Mediations resulting in mediation agreements
6.   State data and reports timely and accurate
          Federal Monitoring
   The Secretary shall monitor the States
       using quantifiable indicators in each of the
        priority areas, and
       using such qualitative indicators as are
        needed to adequately measure
        performance.
           State Monitoring
   The Secretary shall require States to
    -
     Monitor implementation of this part by
      local education agencies
     Enforce this part in accordance with
      IDEA monitoring priorities and
      enforcement actions
                    Enforcement
   Needs assistance: 2 consecutive years
       Technical assistance
       Direct use of funds
       Impose conditions on use of funds
   Needs intervention: 3 or more consecutive years
       Corrective action plan or improvement plan
       Withhold/recover funds
   Needs substantial intervention: at any time
       Recover/withhold funds
       Judicial referral
            and the point is….
   The complexity and depth of the SPP took many
    States by surprise.
   In some cases the infrastructure may not exist
    to leverage change in the indicator areas.
   The SPP may drive some States to emphasize
    increased monitoring or other punitive
    compliance strategies as a fallback position,
    particularly with annual public data-reporting
    requirements.
             and the point is….
   It is probable that the SPP will dominate the
    attention and resources of SEAs.
   Activities, projects and programs that are not
    directly linked to SPPs (although potentially
    valuable), are not likely to be supported.
   SEAs may not yet have a clear set of strategies
    defined.
   The unintended consequence of weakening
    collaborative efforts is possible.
           and the point is….

   Any ‘Partnership’ initiative should be
    integrated into the SPP and demonstrated
    to support the State’s improvement
    efforts.
              Case Study - NYS

   IDEA Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE
   Indicator #1: % of youth with IEPs
    graduating from HS with a regular diploma
    compared to all students
               Case Study - NYS

   Baseline data: 55% (1998 cohort) and 58%
    (1999 cohort) of SWD graduated with a regular
    diploma within 4 years compared to 77% of all
    students.
        Measurable and Rigorous Targets

   2005-06   59%   grad   rate      Less   than   18%   point   gap
   2006-70   60%   grad   rate      Less   than   17%   point   gap
   2007-08   61%   grad   rate      Less   than   17%   point   gap
   2008-09   62%   grad   rate      Less   than   16%   point   gap
   2009-10   63%   grad   rate      Less   than   16%   point   gap
   2010-11   64%   grad   rate      Less   than   15%   point   gap
     Sample Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources


   Conduct focused                Special Education Quality
    “Exiting/Transition”            Assurance (SEQA)
    monitoring reviews of           Regional Offices, SETRC,
    districts with graduation       RSSCs
    rates below State targets
   Conduct focused                Special Education Quality
    monitoring reviews of           Assurance (SEQA)
    BOCES to review student         Regional Offices, SETRC,
    access to general               RSSCs
    curriculum
     Sample Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources


   Partner with other State              Task Force on School and
    Agencies to leverage local and         Community Collaboration
    State interagency funding to
    implement school-based
    collaborative efforts to improve
    results for students with
    disabilities
   Use a data-driven strategic           Urban Initiative
    planning model to develop
    annual improvement plans
    with Big Four Cities
     Sample Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources


   Promote implementation of            PBIS project in collaboration
    Positive Behavioral                   with SED, OMH, DOH, Families
    Intervention and Supports             Together of NYS
    (PBIS) in school districts with
    graduation rates below the
    State target
                                         Regents policy development
   Increase participation in CTE         and various TA programs
    programs
                                         Numerous provider shortage
   Support Preservice teacher            and IHE initiatives including
    preparation programs to               SIG
    enhance skills of general and
    special education teachers
      Connections and Alignment
The Emerging Role of the IDEA Partnership

   At the State Level – help define primary strategies
    partners will use to improve graduation rate.
       Research and Analysis – Why does the gap exist? What are the
        key factors that contribute to the high dropout rates and low
        graduation rates for SWD? What are the policy implications for
        legislation, Board of Regents, Regulations, local policy? Are
        there areas in the country or State where the gap does not
        exist? If so, why? What worked? How can partners work with
        SED and LEAs to move best practices to the field?
       What can National and State partners do specifically to support
        SED efforts as outlined in the SPP?
       What are the most critical needs (from SPP) that individual
        partners can assist with (value-added)?
      Connections and Alignment
The Emerging Role of the IDEA Partnership

   At the Regional or Intermediate level (County, BOCES,
    major city) – engage directly with regional TA and school
    improvement efforts to support and enhance school
    improvement strategies.
       How are regional TA initiatives addressing graduation rate gaps?
       What role does or can the partner organizations play in
        improving graduation rates?
       What are the expected outcomes from the partner’s
        participation?
       What data will be needed to document outcomes?
      Connections and Alignment
The Emerging Role of the IDEA Partnership

   At the LEA level – engage directly with individual districts
    and schools to address specific graduation gap issues.
       What role does or can the partner organization play in improving
        graduation rates?
       What are the expected outcomes from the partner’s
        participation?
       What data will be needed to document outcomes?
Let’s explore how this can play out…


       The NY IDEA Partnership
             experience
   1. Identify appropriate IDEA Partners for each SPP indicator;
   2. Then discuss appropriate strategies and activities to support attainment of those indicators at the levels identified below.
   3. Be sure to include measurable, data-driven indicators of outcomes that can be communicated to stakeholders.



SPP Indicator/Targets/Gap             State Level Partnership         Regional Level                   Local Level Partnership
                                      Activities and Expected         Partnership Activities and       Activities and Expected
                                      Outcomes                        Expected Outcomes                Outcomes
IDEA Partner:

Date:



SPP Indicator/Targets/Gap            State Level Partnership   Regional Level               Local Level Partnership
                                     Activities and Expected   Partnership Activities and   Activities and Expected
                                     Outcomes                  Expected Outcomes            Outcomes

1. % of Students with disabilities
graduating with a HS diploma.

2005        59%         < 18% pts


2006        60%         < 17% pts


2007        61%         < 17% pts


2008        62%         < 16% pts


2009        63%         < 16% pts


2010        64%         < 15% pts
What does ‘Value-Added’ mean?
   Every partner plays a key role in
    supporting improvement efforts.
   That role is defined in context with the
    State’s Performance Plan.
   That role may have multiple dimensions.
   That role has measurable impact.
   That role continually contributes to
    positive progress.
           Getting to Win - Win
   SEAs win because they can’t do this on their
    own,
   Partners win because they have a clearly defined
    role that contributes to improved results,
   Schools win because they have additional
    resources through partners, and most
    importantly
   Students win if the SPP has the intended impact.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:5
posted:8/7/2012
language:Latin
pages:34