Anne Louise Thompson Heather Levitt-Doucette Connecticut State Department of Education

1. Rural Districts and Districts with Low Incidence of Students with an Intellectual Disability:Implications and Expectations PJ et al. v. State of Connecticut et al.Settlement Agreement Anne Louise Thompson Heather Levitt-Doucette Connecticut State Department of Education Sarah Barzee Special Education Resource Center December 1, 2004 Radisson Hotel, Cromwell, CT

2. Today’s Purpose • To create the conditions for rural districts and districts with a low incidence of students with an intellectual disability to knowledgeably and responsibly educate an increased number of students with an intellectual disability in their home school and in regular classes.

3. Today’s Session • Identify Implications of the Settlement Agreement for Rural and Low Incidence Districts • Clarify Expectations of the CSDE • Promote the Value of Data for Planning and Assessment • Illustrate Successes in Rural and Low Incidence Districts • Provide Opportunities to Share Ideas

4. PJ ET AL.vState of Connecticut, State Board of Education, ET AL.Implications of the Settlement Agreement

5. Implications-Findings Class Action’ lawsuit affects every child with an intellectual disability, his/her family and his/her school staff. Class Membership – All school-age children with the label mental retardation/intellectual disability on or after February 20, 1991 who are not educated in regular classrooms.

6. Implications-Findings • 80 of the 129 districts sent attestations to the CSDE about plans and implementation, 49 districts did not. • 1/3 of class members are in 129 rural and low incidence districts of the total 169 districts in the state.

7. Implications-Findings • The aggregated data for the 145 districts (129 of which are rural or low incidence) not specifically targeted for intervention (24 districts have been targeted) are not changing with respect to the goals of the Settlement Agreement.

10. Implications-Findings Therefore the CSDE concludes: Planned interventions by the CSDE to impact district data changes, statewide, on the goals of the Settlement Agreement have not had noticeable effect on the 145 non-targeted districts.

11. Implications- Interventions • All district availability of trainings that provide skills for responsible inclusive practices for school personnel • All district availability of Step By Step and School Based Practices Profile training • All district availability of BOE presentations • All district availability of parent trainings

12. Implications- Interventions • All district availability to visit Spotlight Schools • All district receipt of LRE Newsletter • Focused Monitoring on LRE and overrepresentation that transcends district size • Review of complaints and due process decisions related to LRE/class members (on-site visits; investigation in light of PJ Settlement Agreement)

13. PJ ET AL.vState of Connecticut, State Board of Education, ET AL.Expectations of the State Department of Education

14. Expectations of the SDE Use Data forReflection and Future Planning

15. Color Coded District Data REGIONAL DISTRICT

17. Color Coded District Data Willington: Mean TWNDP for In-District Students Greater than 80% = Region #19: Ashford: Mean TWNDP for In-District Students Less than 75% = Mean TWNDP for In-District Students 75%-80% = Mansfield: Mean TWNDP for In-District Students Less than 75% =

18. Expectations of the SDE The general education class with support is theFIRSToption considered,regardless of disability type or severity.

19. Expectations of the SDE Systematic Decision Making Process to Determine IEP Supports in the General Education Curriculum and Environment

21. Accommodations and Modifications

22. Accommodation: A change made to the teaching or testing procedures in order to provide a student with access to information and to create an EQUAL OPPORTUNITY to demonstrate knowledge and skills(HOW)

23. Accommodations do not change the instructional level, content, or performance criteria for meeting standards; they do not alter the big idea or major learning outcomes expected of the instruction.

24. Modification: A change in what the student is expected to learn and/or demonstrate (WHAT) While a student may be working on modified course content, the subject area remains the same as for the rest of the class.

25. Modifications may alter the subject matter or the expected performance of the student.

26. Best Practice Best practices to facilitate inclusion are identical to best practices for educating all students.

27. Best Practice • Differentiation of Instruction, Practice and Assessment • Peer Supported Instruction (e.g.; cooperative learning, peer partners) • Positive Behavioral Supports • Well trained paraprofessional support to enhance, not hinder, academic, social, emotional and behavioral gains

28. School Based Practices Profile Dimensions of Effective (Inclusive) Education Effective Instruction Collaboration Social relationships and advocacy early and effective interventions Family Involvement Services in Inclusive Settings Accountability for Student Outcomes

29. PJ ET AL.vState of Connecticut, State Board of Education, ET AL.Recognizing the Challenges

30. Challenges to Rural Districts and Districts with Low Incidence of Students with an ID • Be aware Challenges exist • Legitimize that these are Challenges • Recognize Challenges are not necessarily unique to your district • Acknowledge that somewhere another district has overcome these Challenges

31. Illustrations of Success New Fairfield- Christine Gantor and Marie Hopkins (Easton) East Hampton- George Culp Coventry- Judith Richard Suffield- Anne Loughrain Mary Bruno-Formerly of Shelton

32. For Further Information Sarah Barzee (860) 632-1485 ext 370 Barzee@ctserc.org Anne Louise Thompson (860) 713-6936 Annelouise.thompson@po.state.ct.us Heather Levitt Doucette (860) 713-6867 Heather.levitt@po.state.ct.us