1 / 46

~ Special Education ~

Welcome New Administrators July 21, July 22 and July 23, 2014 National Center of Excellence Bismarck State College Campus Bismarck, ND. SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS Gerry Teevens, Director of Special Education, DPI MacKenzie Bertsch, Data Coordinator, DPI

cody
Download Presentation

~ Special Education ~

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Welcome New Administrators July 21, July 22 and July 23, 2014 National Center of Excellence Bismarck State College Campus Bismarck, ND SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS Gerry Teevens, Director of Special Education, DPI MacKenzie Bertsch, Data Coordinator, DPI Kevin McDonough, Special Education Coordinator, DPI ~ Special Education ~

  2. Purpose of IDEA Individuals with Disabilities Education Act • To ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a Free Appropriate Public Education(FAPE) that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living • IDEA Regulations §300.1(a)

  3. Purpose of IDEA Individuals with Disabilities Education Act As of the 2012-2013 child count the number of children and youth being served on IEPs is 13, 268 out of a total student enrollment of 112,408 in North Dakota

  4. State Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual Performance Report (APR) • IDEA requirement for State Education Agencies • SPP is our state plan for improving educational results for all children with disabilities • 18 indicators in the plan • baseline data, measurable and rigorous targets and improvement activities • Data is collected from all districts • Data is used to continuously improve state and school district activities • Thus improving results for all children with disabilities.

  5. State Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual Performance Report (APR) • The APR includes the annual results of each of the indicators in the SPP • SPP and the APR appear very similar • SPP is our plan for what we are doing and the APR shows how we are doing • Both APR and SPP are posted on the NDDPI Special Education web site: www.dpi.state.nd.us/speced1/index.shtm.

  6. Indicators Measurements and Targets FFY 2012 Data Trend Data Changes to Indicators ~ Special Education ~

  7. Indicator 1- Graduation Percent of youth with IEPs who graduate with a regular diploma. Please note that the 2012-13 data are the 2012-13 data due to the OSEP “data lag” requirement. This represents the four (4) year cohort rate based on the 2011-12 graduating cohort (2008-09 entering freshman cohort). Trend Data:

  8. Indicator 2- Dropout Percent of youth with IEPs who drop-out. • Starting with 2008-09, the data report is from the preceding Federal Fiscal Year. Please note that the FFY2012 data are the FFY2011 data due to the OSEP “data lag” requirement. Trend Data:

  9. Indicator 3- Statewide Assessment Participation and performance of children with IEP’s on statewide assessments: • A) State AYP Objectives: Percent of the districts with a disability subgroup that meets the State’s minimum “n” size and meet the State’s AYP targets for the disability subgroup. • B) Participation Rate: Participation rate for children with IEP’s. • C) Proficiency Rate: Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level, modified and alternate academic achievement standards. 3A) Percent of the districts with a disability subgroup that meets the State’s minimum “n” size and meet the State’s AYP targets for the disability subgroup.

  10. Indicator 3- Statewide Assessment continued 3B) Participation rate for children with IEP’s.

  11. Indicator 3- Statewide Assessment continued 3C) Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level, modified and alternate academic achievement standards.

  12. Indicator 3- Statewide Assessment continued Trend data:

  13. Indicator 4-Suspension & Expulsion Rates of Suspension & Expulsion: • A) Overall: Percent of districts that have a significant discrepancy in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs; and • B) By Race / Ethnicity: Percent of districts that have: (a) a significant discrepancy, by race or ethnicity, in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs; and (b) policies, procedures or practices that contribute to the significant discrepancy and do not comply with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards.

  14. Indicator 4-Suspension & Expulsion continued 4A) Percent of districts that have a significant discrepancy in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs; and 4B) The percent of LEAs that have: (a) a significant discrepancy, by race or ethnicity, in the rate of suspensions & expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs; and (b) policies, procedures or practices that contribute to the significant discrepancy and do not comply with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards will be 0%.

  15. Indicator 4-Suspension & Expulsion continued Trend Data 4A) 4B)

  16. Indicator 5-Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) Percent of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21 served: • A) Regular classroom: Inside the regular class 80% or more of the day; and • B) Separate Classroom: Inside the regular class less than 40% of the day; and • C) Separate Facilities: In separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements. Trend Data:

  17. Indicator 6-Preschool Settings (LRE) • Percent of preschool children aged 3 -5 with IEPs attending a: • A) Regular Classroom: Regular early childhood program and receiving the majority of special education and related services in the regular early childhood program; and • B) Separate Classroom: Separate special education class, separate school or residential facility. Trend Data:

  18. Indicator 7-Preschool Skills • Percent of preschool children aged 3 -5 with IEPs who demonstrate improved: • A) Social-Emotional Skills: Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships); • B) Acquisition and Use of knowledge and skills: Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication and early literacy); and • C) Use of Appropriate Behaviors: Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs Summary Statement 1: Of those children who entered the program below age expectations, the percent that substantially increased their rate of growth by the time exited. Summary Statement 2: Percent of children who were functioning within age expectations by the time exited.

  19. Indicator 7-Preschool Skills continued

  20. Indicator 7-Preschool Skills continued Trend Data:

  21. Indicator 8-Parent Involvement • Percent of parents with child receiving SPED services who report schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities: Trend Data:

  22. Indicator 9-Racial/Ethnic Disproportionate Representation Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education that is the result of inappropriate identification. Trend Data:

  23. Indicator 10-Racial/Ethnic Disproportionate Representation by Disability Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification. Trend Data:

  24. Indicator 11 – Child Find Percent of children who were evaluated within 60 days of receiving parental consent for initial evaluation or, if the State establishes a timeframe within which the evaluation must be conducted, within that timeframe. Trend Data:

  25. Indicator 12-Part C to B Transition Percent of children referred by Part C prior to age 3, who are found eligible for Part B, and who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays.

  26. Indicator 12-Part C to B Transition continued Trend Data:

  27. Indicator 13 – Secondary Transition with IEP Goals Percent of youth with IEPs aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes appropriate measurable postsecondary goals that are annually updated and based upon an age appropriate transition assessment, transition services, including courses of study, that will reasonably enable the student to meet those postsecondary goals, and annual IEP goals related to the student’s transition services needs. There also must be evidence that the student was invited to the IEP Team meeting where transition services are to be discussed and evidence that, if appropriate, a representative of any participating agency was invited to the IEP Team meeting with the prior consent of the parent or student who has reached the age of majority.

  28. Indicator 13 – Secondary Transition with IEP Goals Trend Data:

  29. Indicator 14 – Secondary Transition/Post School Outcomes – Competitive employment, enrolled in school • Percent of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school, and were: • Post Secondary Outcomes: • A) Education – Enrolled in higher education within one year of leaving high school; and • B) Employment – Enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within one year of leaving high school; and • C) Other Education/Employment – Enrolled in higher education or in some other postsecondary education or training program; or competitively employed or in some other employment within one year of leaving high school.

  30. Indicator 14 – Secondary Transition/Post School Outcomes – Competitive employment, enrolled in school continued Trend Data:

  31. Indicator 15 – Monitoring, Complaints, & Hearings • General supervision system (including monitoring, complaints, hearings, etc.) identifies and corrects noncompliance as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from identification Data from chart 15.4 FFY2012 APR Trend Data:

  32. Indicator 16 – Written Complaints • This indicator was deleted prior to reporting for FFY2012 (submitted February 2013). States reported data on the timeliness of State complaint decisions as part of the data submitted in the 618 data.

  33. Indicator 17 – Due Process Hearings • This indicator was deleted prior to reporting for FFY2012 (submitted February 2013). States reported data on the timeliness of State complaint decisions as part of the data submitted in the 618 data.

  34. Indicator 18 – Hearing Requests that went to Resolution • Percent of hearing requests that went to resolution sessions that were resolved through resolution session settlement agreements. There were no due process hearing requests reported for FFY2012. Accordingly, the target was met.

  35. Indicator 19 – Mediations • Percent of mediations resulting in mediation agreements.

  36. Indicator 20 – Timeliness of State Reported Data and Reports • State reported data (618 and State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report) are timely and accurate. Table 1: Child Count Table 5: Discipline Table 2: Personnel Table 6: Assessment Table 3: Educational Environments Table 7: Dispute Resolution Table 4: Exiting Table 8: MOE CIS According to the FFY2012 Part B SPP/APR Measurement Table provided by OSEP, States may, but are not required, to report data for this indicator. OSEP will use the Indicator 20 Rubric to calculate the State’s data for this indicator. States will have an opportunity to review and respond to OSEP’s calculation of the State’s data. North Dakota’s FFY2012 Indicator 20 data and Scoring Rubric will be provided to the State by OSEP after submittal on February 2nd, 2014. Upon receiving this Indicator from OSEP, North Dakota will include all data and scoring in the updated version of this Annual Performance Report.

  37. Indicator changes beginning FFY 2013 (Reported February 2015) Indicator15: Monitoring, Complaints, and Hearings has been removed and OSEP will be reviewing 618 data for reporting purposes Indicator16: Written Complaints has been removed and OSEP will be reviewing 618 data for reporting purposes Indicator17: Due Process Hearings Indicator 20: Timeliness of State Reported Data and Reports has been removed and OSEP will be reviewing 618 data for reporting purposes ***In place of the removed indicators, redefined monitoring priorities/indicators have been created and are numbered as Indicators 15-17*** (following slides)

  38. Indicator 15 – Correction of Noncompliance Percent of hearing requests that went to resolution sessions that were resolved through resolution session settlement agreements. Monitoring, Complaints, and Hearings has been removed and OSEP will be reviewing 618 data for reporting purposes

  39. Indicator 16 – Mediations Percent of mediations held that resulted in mediation agreements. Written Complaints has been removed and OSEP will be reviewing 618 data for reporting purposes

  40. State Systemic Improvement Plan “SSIP” (The new Indicator 17) ~ Special Education ~

  41. Indicator 17 – State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) The SSIP requirement is viewed as a Continuous Improvement Planning (CIP) process with its application to a large system. The intent is to bring about a systems adjustment and improve results for students with disabilities • What that means for us here in North Dakota: • Develop a clear understanding of the “big picture” Define how we do and what we do; • We have seen our state data reach plateaus and believe we can move forward with a statewide planning process that is meaningful and sustainable - not an OSEP requirement • Utilize a 3 phase plan- Analyze, Plan, Implement & Evaluate. Critical Element: • Collaboration of stakeholders in developing, implementing, evaluating, and revising the plan.

  42. Phase 1: Analysis • Does not have to be included within the February 2, 2015 SPP/APR submission. Extension for this piece to April 1, 2015. • Data Analysis • Analysis of State Infrastructure to Support Improvement and Build Capacity • State-Identified Measurable Result(s) for Children with Disabilities • Selection of Coherent Improvement Strategies; and • Theory of Action

  43. Phase 2: Plan • Must be included within the February 1, 2016 SPP/APR for FFY 2014 • Infrastructure Development • Support for local educational agency (LEA) Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices; and • Evaluation

  44. Phase 3: Implementation and Evaluation • Must be included within the February 1, 2017 SPP/APR for FFY 2015 (and update in 2018, 2019, 2020) • Infrastructure Development • Support for local educational agency (LEA) Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices; and • Evaluation

  45. Needing Stakeholders from Administration Please contact: Gerry Teevens Director of Special Education, DPI 701-328-2277 gteevens@nd.gov Kevin McDonough Regional Special Education Coordinator, DPI, 701-328-2277 kcmcdonough@nd.gov MacKenzie Bertsch Special Education Data Coordinator, DPI 701-328-2277 mmbertsch@nd.gov

More Related