Least Restrictive Environment Identification of High Percentage Districts

1. Least Restrictive EnvironmentIdentification of High Percentage Districts

2. Presenters • CDE: • Chris Drouin, Associate Director • Patricia Skelton, Administrator • Kathleen Halvorson, Education Programs Consultant • LRE Resources Project: • Dona Meinders • Pam McCabe

3. Poll #1 What is your primary role? • SELPA director • district administrator • site administrator • university instructor • teacher • parent • consultant • related service provider • other

4. Agenda • Introductions and Background • LRE Data Collection • LRE Resource Development Project • Stakeholder Input on Identification of High Percentage LRE Districts

5. Each public agency must ensure that . . . To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are nondisabled; Special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only if the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. 34 CFR 300.114 (a)(2)

6. Improving Special Education Services (ISES) • Targets are established for the federally-mandated State Performance Plan Indicator 5-LRE. • California has not met its LRE targets for several years. • The ISES stakeholders’ group has identified LRE as high priority area.

7. ISES LRE Input • ISES suggested ways to improve LRE data: - Improve the reporting of LRE data statewide. - Analyzed data to identify districts meeting/exceeding the targets. - Utilize data to improve instruction and learning.

8. Data Collection Methodology • CASEMIS Table A Student Data: Field 45 In_REGCLS. - To determine the extent the student is participating in the regular education environment - Observe over time if a student is moving toward a less restrictive environment

9. Data Calculations • K-12 Students: In_REGCLS*= th/sd X 100 th= number of hours the student spends inside the regular ed. classroom sd= total number of hours in the school day • Preschool students: Time per week in regular program Time per week in regular program + time receiving sped/related services outside regular program X100

10. IDEA Part B LRE Indicators Indicator 5: Percent of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21: A. Inside the regular classroom 80% or more of the day; B. Inside the regular classroom less than 40% of the day; C. Served in separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements.

11. California LRE Data

12. Least Restrictive EnvironmentWhat does federal law indicate? “The LRE provision guarantees a student’s right to be educated in the setting most like that for peers without disabilities in which the student can be successful with appropriate supports provided”. Friend & Bursuck (2012) Including Students with Special Needs

13. LRE Resources Project • CDE Contract Monitor: Kathleen Halvorson • Contractor: WestEd Center for Prevention and Early Intervention • WestEd Project Director: Dona Meinders

14. LRE Project Tasks • Identify high percentage LEAs and highlight common practices that produce positive outcomes for students with IEPs • Identify low percentage LEAs and provide technical assistance

15. Three Year Work Plan • Year 1 – Identify 3-5 high percentage LEAs and highlight practices that contribute to their inclusionary status. Develop profiles of each LEA and feature them on the LRE Web site • Year 2 – Monitor cohort 1 for continued progress, identify an additional 3-5 high percentage LEAs and feature on the Web site • Year 3 – Monitor cohorts 1 and 2 and identify a 3rd cohort, utilizing high percentage LEAs for technical assistance to low percentage LEAs

16. Research Says . . . Time in General Education and Access to Core Curriculum Correlate with Achievement University of Massachusetts, 2004 AIR California Schools, 2011

17. Selection CriteriaHigh Percentage LEAs • Met all 3 LRE Targets • Met or exceeded the state average for percent proficient on English language arts • Met or exceeded the state average for percent proficient for Mathematics • 100 or more students with IEPs

18. Applying the Criteria • 227 Districts met all 3 LRE targets • 78 District met all 3 LRE targets and percent proficient in Mathematics • 77 Districts met all 3 LRE targets and percent proficient in English language arts • 26 Districts met all 3 LRE targets, percent proficient in Mathematics, and have at least 100 students with IEPs • 24 Districts met all 3 LRE targets, percent proficient in both ELA and Math, and have at least 100 students with IEPs

19. Applying the Criteria

20. Applying the Criteria

22. Poll #2 To further narrow the field of high percentage LEAs, which factor should be weighted most heavily? • Large enrollment • Low percent of students in special education • High percent of English learners • High percent of free/reduced lunch • High percent proficient in ELA • High percent proficient in math

23. Poll #3 Which LRE indicator target should have the most weight in selecting districts to profile for LRE? 1) 5a – 80% or more in general education 2) 5b – 40% or less in general education 3) 5c – served in separate school

24. Poll #4 What additional factor should be considered in identifying districts to profile for LRE? 1) Location of district 2) Grade spans served 3) Primary ethnicity representation 4) Other

25. Special Education Considerations • Verification Reviews • Self-Reviews • Other SPP Indicators • Written complaints • Dispute Resolution • Disproportionality Status

26. Best Practices from States that made Growth on LRE Webinar presented by the LRE Part B Community of Practice 1-12-12 http://www.tacommunities.org/community/view/id/1027 • Professional Development • Targeted Technical Assistance • Evaluation Activities

27. Poll #5 Which of the following statewide activities should be given priority in improving the determination of the least restrictive environment? • Professional Development • Targeted Technical Assistance • Evaluation Activities • Other

28. Poll #6 What should be districts’ greatest priority to improve outcomes for students with disabilities? • Provide technology that assists in accessing the core curriculum • Provide general education training on differentiating instruction for diverse learners • Provide special educators training on supporting students in the least restrictive environment • Facilitate collaboration between general educators and special educators • Other

29. References Huberman, M. & Parrish, T. (January 2011) Lessons from California Districts Showing Unusually Strong Academic Performance for Students in Special Education. Friend, M. & Bursuck,W. (2012). Including Students with Special Needs, A Practical Guide for Classroom Teachers, 6th Edition, Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ. University of Massachusetts Donahue Institute. (October 2004). A Study of MCAS Achievement and Promising Practices in Urban Special Education.

30. Thank You Direct suggestions/comments to Kathleen Halvorson khalvorson@cde.ca.gov