IDEA Partnership State – State Meeting March 20 -21, 2006

1. IDEA PartnershipState – State Meeting March 20 -21, 2006 • Connecting to Data and strategies • Using Quantitative Data • Fredric DeMay

2. 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

3. 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”

4. 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?

5. 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?

6. State Performance Plan (SPP) • 6-year plan • 3 priority areas • 20 indicators • Measurable and rigorous targets • Improvement strategies

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. Monitoring Priority Areas • FAPE in the LRE • Disproportionality • Effective General Supervision

11. Indicators: FAPE in the LRE • Graduation rate • Drop out rate • Participation and Performance on Statewide Assessments • Rates of Suspension and Expulsion • Least Restrictive Environment placements–school age • LRE - preschool • Preschool Outcomes (improved social-emotional, knowledge and skills, behaviors) • School facilitation of parent involvement

12. Indicators: Disproportionality • Disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education that is the result of inappropriate identification • Disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification

13. Indicators: General Supervision • Evaluations and eligibility determinations within 60 days • Children referred from EI with IEPs implemented by their 3rd birthdays • Youth with appropriate IEPs relating to transition services • Youth employed or in post secondary school within one year after leaving high school

14. General Supervision Responsibility (State reporting only) • Compliance corrected within one year of identification • Complaints resolved within 60 day timeline • Impartial hearings adjudicated within 45 days • Hearing requests resolved in resolution sessions • Mediations resulting in mediation agreements • State data and reports timely and accurate

15. 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.

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. and the point is…. • Any ‘Partnership’ initiative should be integrated into the SPP and demonstrated to support the State’s improvement efforts.

21. 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

22. 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.

23. 2005-06 59% grad rate 2006-70 60% grad rate 2007-08 61% grad rate 2008-09 62% grad rate 2009-10 63% grad rate 2010-11 64% grad rate Less than 18% point gap Less than 17% point gap Less than 17% point gap Less than 16% point gap Less than 16% point gap Less than 15% point gap Measurable and Rigorous Targets

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

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

26. Promote implementation of Positive Behavioral Intervention and Supports (PBIS) in school districts with graduation rates below the State target Increase participation in CTE programs Support Preservice teacher preparation programs to enhance skills of general and special education teachers PBIS project in collaboration with SED, OMH, DOH, Families Together of NYS Regents policy development and various TA programs Numerous provider shortage and IHE initiatives including SIG Sample Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources

27. Connections and AlignmentThe 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)?

28. Connections and AlignmentThe 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?

29. Connections and AlignmentThe 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?

30. Let’s explore how this can play out… The NY IDEA Partnership experience

33. 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.

34. 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.