Docstoc

Population Projections

Document Sample
Population Projections Powered By Docstoc
					     Maine Department of Education
     Plan for the Examination of the
Child Development Services (CDS) System




                                                    Edited Version
                                                       Slide 31

                  A Report Submitted to:
Joint Standing Committee on Appropriations and Financial Affairs
   Joint Standing Committee on Education and Cultural Affairs
    Joint Standing Committee on Health and Human Services
                Wednesday, November 30, 2005                         1
Federal expectations and actions
have changed over the last five years

    Government Performance and Results
     Act (GPRA) drives accountability in all
     federal programs by focusing on performance
     measurement.
     http://interact.uoregon.edu/wrrc/pgi.htm


    Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
     measures performance of all programs
     funded by the federal government (high
     stakes for funding).
     http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/part/2006_part_guidance.pdf


                                                           2
Federal Context
    OSEP’s approach to monitoring of states
     focuses on accountability in order to
     assure compliance and determine if/where
     changes are needed to enhance results for
     children and families.
    Thus, State monitoring of local programs
     must also focus on accountability for
     results.
    OSEP has developed performance
     indicators in response to the need to be
     accountable to Congress.

                                                3
Federal Context
     OSEP’s process of monitoring states for
      compliance and performance has evolved:

     Continuous Improvement Monitoring
      Process (CIMP) included OSEP-established
      compliance and performance indicators on which
      states were required to complete a self
      assessment.

     Annual Performance Report (APR) was
      initiated following CIMP and required states to use
      data to report progress and/or slippage related to
      performance indicators established by OSEP.


                                                        4
Federal Context
    State Performance Plan (SPP) is now required
     under reauthorized IDEA (IDEA 2004) whereby
     states set performance targets for six years and
     report annually via an Annual Performance report on
     the OSEP-designated indicators (Section 616).
    Annual Performance Report (APR) must include
     data on progress and/or slippage on meeting the
     measurable and rigorous targets in the SPP.

    Part C SPP/APR Web Site
        http://www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/capr/index.html

    Part B SPP/APR Web Site
        http://www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/bapr/index.html

                                                               5
Federal Context
     IDEA 2004 statute strengthened
      OSEP’s ability to monitor and ensure
      correction of non-compliance (Section
      616).


     Thus, states need to develop and
      improve effective data systems to
      report on performance on federal
      indicators.

                                          6
State of Maine Work Plan
Commissioner’s Steering Committee


        Child Find
        Timely delivery of services
        Services in Natural Environments
        Transition
        Preschool LRE
        Early Childhood Outcomes
        System of General Supervision

                                        7
Seamless System Context
  PK-16 Task Force Recommendations
  Early Childhood Task Force
         Public private partnerships – “HUBs”
         Early learning guidelines
         Certification standards for OPK personnel
         Establish transition guidelines for children served
          in early care and education settings
    Unification Report (HHS/DOE) – January 31,
     2006
         Collaboration
         Partnership
         Seamless System
         “HUBs”
                                                            8
State of Maine Work Plan

 Demographics declining population
   of young children entering public
               schools




                                   9
                     Population Projections
 (Maine State Planning Office Projections for 2004 through 2017 Issued December 30, 2003)


         1-Jul-02   1-Jul-03   1-Jul-04   1-Jul-05   1-Jul-06   1-Jul-07   1-Jul-08   1-Jul-09   1-Jul-10   1-Jul-17


Age 0    13,573     13,651     13,794     13,989     14,227     14,505     14,789     15,075     15,349


Age 1    13,060     13,079     13,175     13,343     13,550     13,811     14,108     14,414     14,714


Age 2    13,243     12,212     12,245     12,358     12,533     12,754     13,021     13,327     13,634


Age 3    13,219     12,713     11,730     11,787     11,910     12,104     12,338     12,622     12,935


Age 4    13,443     13,473     12,966     11,985     12,057     12,212     12,433     12,700     13,013


Age 5    13,789     13,392     13,420     12,930     11,962     12,041     12,200     12,429     12,698


Age 6    14,378     13,958     13,551     13,591     13,095     12,121     12,206     12,376     12,611     15,264


Age 7    14,592     14,411     13,986     13,586     13,628     13,137     12,164     12,259     12,434     13,470


Age 8    15,186     14,712     14,525     14,105     13,705     13,750     13,261     12,292     12,391     13,596


Age 9    15,966     15,154     14,674     14,495     14,078     13,681     13,731     13,251     12,288     13,311


Age 10   16,833     16,224     15,392     14,911     14,730     14,308     13,908     13,963     13,479     13,709
               Population Projections for the Past Five Years of Births
            (Maine State Planning Office Projections for 2004 through 2017 Issued December 30, 2003)
16,000




15,000




14,000




13,000




12,000




11,000




10,000
     2000   2001   2002     2003   2004     2005     2006     2007   2008     2009       2010   2011    2012     2013   2014   2015     2016   2017

               2000 Birth Cohort          2001 Birth Cohort          2002 Birth Cohort           2003 Birth Cohort        2004 Birth Cohort
                                      Resident Pupil Counts
                                       1970 to 2003 Actual
                                      2004 to 2017 Projected

              255,000

              245,000

              235,000
Grade Count




              225,000

              215,000

              205,000

              195,000

              185,000

              175,000
                        1970



                               1975



                                       1980



                                              1985



                                                       1990



                                                                 1995



                                                                        2000



                                                                                2005



                                                                                       2010



                                                                                              2015
                    Actual                                                     * Does not include
                    Projected                        Trendline                 unorganized territories
Financial Context
    FY ’07 Budget Reduction
    FY ’08 / ’09 – 55% General Purpose
     Aid / Essential Programs and
     Services
    MaineCare




                                      13
Early Childhood System
       Evolution
CDS Structure 2005-2006

                               DOE
                            Commissioner
       Governing
        Boards
                                                      MACECD
                                                      Birth to 20


   16 CDS Sites
   16 Administrative and
                            Team
   Fiscal Units
                           Leader
   Site Directors           State
   Service Coordinators    Director

   Staff Therapists


                                      Service Providers
 Proposed
                                                            Early Childhood
 Structure          State Board of Education               Special Education
                                                             Program (B-5)
 2006-2007
                                                                 ECSEP

  MACECD                   DOE
Advisory Group
                        Commissioner
                                                    School Boards
 Early Childhood
Special Education            Team
Governing Board             Leader

                            ECSEP
                             State
                            Director
                                               School Administrative
 Regional Early                                Units
                              State
Childhood Special         Intermediate
    Education              Educational         Superintendents
Coordinators and               Unit
                                               Special Educators
  Supervisors
                                               Chapter 101 – Birth to 20
     Service
   Coordinators                                Chapter 115 Certification
                            Service
 Staff Therapists          Providers
New Seamless
Vision                     State Board of Education
2008-2009

                                    DOE
                                 Commissioner

       MACECD                            Team                          School
       Advisory                         Leader                         Boards
        Group
                                        ECSEP
                                         State
                                        Director

                                                   School Administrative Units
              Early Childhood Special
                                                   Superintendents
              Education Coordinators
                                                   Special Educators
              Service Coordinators
                                                   Chapter 101 – Birth to 20
              Staff Therapists
                                                   Chapter 115 Certification


 Service Providers
Guiding Principles
   Children are special and unique
   Families are central to decision making
   Role of early intervention and special
    education
     Service providers value family participate
      and collaboration
     Build on family strength
     Timely, flexible, individualize
     Responsive to changing needs of each child
      and family

                                             18
Reorganization/Budget
      Reduction
  Recommendations
Early Intervention Model
Primary Service Provider Model
                                         $150,000.00
MaineCare
                                         $150,000.00


   Steering Committee Assessment Work Group
     Research on Evidence-Based Practices
     National Early Childhood Technical Assistance
      Center (NECTAC) and Northeast Regional
      Resource Center (NERRC)
                                                      20
Natural Environments
It’s Required
Part C of IDEA Federal regulations indicate
  that:

   “To the maximum extent appropriate to the needs
    of the child, early intervention services must be
    provided in natural environments, including the
    home and community settings in which children
    without disabilities participate.”
                                           34 CFR 303.12(b)


   “Natural environments means settings that are
    natural or normal for the child’s same- age peers
    who have no disabilities.”
                                             34 CFR 303.18
                                                        21
Family-Centered Services
   Parents prefer interventions that are easy to
    do, fit into their daily lives, and support their
    child in learning skills that help them be a
    part of family and community life
            (Dunst & Bruder, 1999; Dunst, Bruder, Trivette, Hamby,
              Raab & McLean, 2001; Dunst, Bruder, Trivette, Raab &
       McLean, 2001; Dunst, Hamby, Trivette, Raab & Bruder, 2002;)


   Learning opportunities facilitated within the
    context of family and community life have
    greater impact on child progress than
    intervention sessions
                         (Jung,2003; Hanft, Rush & Sheldon, 2004)
                                                              22
Family-Centered Services
   Discipline specific research indicates that
    therapy services are family-centered
    when they are time-limited, focus on
    specific challenges that impact the child’s
    functional participation in everyday
    activities and routines, and support the
    family in facilitating their child’s learning
    and their family’s involvement in
    community life

               (Darrah, Law & Pollock, 2001; Jung, 2003; Hanft,
                                         Rush & Sheldon, 2004)

                                                             23
How Children Learn
   Children with disabilities often have difficulty
    generalizing and maintaining new skills

   Mastery of functional skills occurs through
    high-frequency, naturally occurring activities
    in a variety of settings that are consistent
    with family and community life


       (Sheldon & Rush, 2001; Dunst & Bruder, 1999; Dunst, Bruder,
              Trivette, Hamby, Raab & McLean, 2001; Dunst, Bruder,
             Trivette, Raab & McLean, 2001; Dunst, Hamby,Trivette,
                             Raab & Bruder, 2002; McWilliam, 2004)

                                                              24
How Children Learn
   Hands-on, neurodevelopmental treatment
    (NDT), adult initiated instruction, directive
    intervention approaches, and pull-out
    intervention techniques are not
    substantiated by research as ensuring
    children’s mastery of functional skills or
    enhancing their attainment of functional,
    contextualized outcomes
   Rather, children learn best through child
    initiated instruction, activity-based
    approaches, and integrated intervention
           (Darrah, Law & Pollock, 2001; Jung, 2003; Sheldon & Rush, 2001)

                                                                   25
Service Providers’ Roles
     Early interventionists’/therapists’ roles
      have shifted from the practitioner as
      the expert to the practitioner as
      sharing his/her knowledge and
      resources with a child’s key caregivers
      through adult-to-adult relationships in
      which family members are supported
      in their day-to-day responsibilities of
      caring for their child

                                     (Hanft, 2004)
                                                 26
Service Providers’ Roles
     Early interventionists/therapists
      assume many roles including
      collaborator, coach, advisor,
      counselor, and purveyor of
      information. Practitioners need to
      be flexible in assuming these roles
      based on individual needs and
      circumstances of children and
      families

               (Darrah, Law & Pollock, 2001; Sheldon &
                 Rush, 2001; Hanft & Pilkington, 2001)

                                                    27
Service Providers’ Roles
   Since intervention is most effective when
    provided through the parent(s) and the
    caregiver(s), the practitioner’s role is not
    to turn parent(s) and caregiver(s) into
    the interventionist or therapist – but to
    build confidence and competence in
    promoting their child’s learning through
    functional participation in everyday
    activities for achieving IFSP outcomes
                                        (Jung, 2003)




                                                 28
Operationalizing Key Elements /
Strategies
   Although national experts would probably
    differ in emphasis and priorities and each
    might add more outcomes, all support
    these outcomes:
     Support family confidence and competence in
      enhancing their child’s development
     Enhance/increase child’s participation in family and
      community activities
     Promote mutual enjoyment of family activities

                     (Bruder, 2004; Woods, 2004; Woodruff, 2004;
                  Sheldon & Rush, 2004; Hanft, 2004; Dunst, 2004;
                                 McWilliam, 2004; Edelman, 2004)
                                                           29
A Final Agreement Among
National Experts
 More is better* –
 BUT this means more learning opportunities,
  NOT more services
 Learning is what happens between visits of
  the professionals
      Throughout   the child’s day
      In everyday routines and activities
      Through multiple repetitions and lots of
       practice
      The way all young children learn and
       participate with families and friends in their
       communities
                          *(thanks to Lee Ann Jung, 2003)
                                                      30
Eligibility Criteria / Evaluation / Service
Delivery for Developmental Delay

 CDS General Fund                      $1,650,000.00

 MaineCare General Fund                 $726,000.00


    Adherence to current eligibility criteria
     approximately 1.5 in two areas of
     development or approximately 2.0 in
     one area of development
     (Chapter 180 VIII.2.A) (pg. 17)
                                                  31
Utilizatiuon of Services

Extended School Year Services
                           $400,000.00

   Adherence to language in 180 and
    parent preference for modified
    programming (pg. 15)



                                       32
Enrollment Decline
 Reduction of approximately
   350 children (pg. 18)
                         $1,762,821.00

 MaineCare
                          $368,098.00



                                    33
Fiscal / Data Management
Reorganization
   Centralization of fiscal
    management FY ’07
    (10 months) (pg. 22)       $418,228.00

    FY ’08                      $80,000.00

Data Management Reorganization
Centralization of data management FY ’08
(approximately $700,000.00)


                                       34
Administration reduction
16 to 15 Directors (pg. 22)
                               $65,000.00

Placement of 4 year old special
education children within public school
programs (pg. 30)
                           $500,000.00

Family Cost Participation
                              $100,000.00
                                       35
  Work collaboratively with
  public/private partners to establish
  programs for autistic children.
  (Cumberland CDS-REACH- program was used as a model to
  identify cost savings) (pg. 34)


               FY ’07                      FY ’08
               $300,000.00               $300,000.00

MaineCare      $100,000.00               $100,000.00

                                                          36
Implementation of Tiered Rates

  Ended the hold harmless provision
  provided when the tiered rates were
  introduced

    FY ’06               FY ’07
    $300,000.00          $300,000.00



                                        37
    Phase V Implementation Steps of the
             Benchmark Plan
Legislative Action
 Repeal 20-A MRSA Ch.307-A [Request Completed by 2/06]
 Refine 20-A MRSA Ch. 301 & 303 transition period 7/06 – 7/08
    [Request Completed by 2/06]

Department of Education Action
   Create Commission to Study Early Childhood Special Education B-8 to
    plan the CDS jurisdiction transition to public schools by FY ‘09
   Move current CDS child data to web-based format [July , 2006]
   Repeal DOE Regulations Ch.180 & 181
   Refine DOE Reg.101 to serve as seamless special education reg. B-20
   Refine DOE Reg. 182 – Funding Formula
   Refinement of the State Intermediate Educational Unit (IEU)
     -   Refine Personnel Policies to encompass all current regional CDS system
         staff
     -   Refine Benefit Plan for all regional employees to be of the IEU effective
         7/1/06
     -   Centralize fiscal operations for the transition period of 7/1/06-08
Concurrent Activities
 Finalize proposal about the relationship of the CDS system to the
  new DHHS and DOE in response to the Unification Report [1/06]38

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:5
posted:8/28/2012
language:English
pages:38