LRE Resources Project ISES Meeting June 2012

1. LRE Resources Project ISES MeetingJune 2012

2. Agenda • Background • LRE Data Collection • LRE Resource Development Project • Identification of High Percentage LRE Districts • LRE Best Practices

3. 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.

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

5. 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.

6. California LRE Data

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

8. LRE Resources Project Tasks • Task 1 - Identify high and low % LRE Districts • Task 2 - Infuse LRE -Educational Benefit Process • Task 3 - Guidance for data collection for LRE • Task 4 - LRE Technical Assistance Providers • Task 5 - LRE Web site

9. Educational Benefit Process “Within the Board of Education v. Rowley decision, the threshold used was the provision of sufficient supportive services to permit the child to benefit from the instruction. Instruction should be reasonably calculated to enable the child to achieve passing marks and advance from grade to grade.” • from the opinion issued by Justice William H. Rehnquist

10. Educational Benefit Process • Planned services in the IEP will support the student’s: • Progress towards all identified goals • Participation in general education environment • Progress in the general education curriculum • Education with other typically developing peers

11. Ed Benefit Student Summary Seven Questions • Are assessments complete and do they identify the student’s needs? • Does the present levels of performance identify all the needs indicated by the assessment? • Are all of the student’s needs addressed by appropriate goals? • Do the services support the goals?

12. Ed Benefit Student Summary Seven Questions (cont.) • Did the student make yearly progress • If no progress, were the IEP goals changed to assist the student to make progress? • To assess for overall compliance: considering the answers to the previous question, was the IEP reasonably calculated to result in educational benefit?

13. Discussion • Have you ever participated in the Ed Benefit Review Process? • What could be added to the process to highlight LRE data?

14. LRE Data Collection

15. 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) 15

16. 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

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

18. 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

19. Discussion • What would make the calculation of minutes more easily understood?

20. Process for Selecting LEAs with High Percentages

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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. Applying the Criteria

27. Applying the Criteria

29. Poll #1 • What is your primary role? 40% District Administrator 20% SELPA Director 20% Site Administrator

30. Poll #2 To further narrow the field of high percentage LEAs, which factor should be weighted most heavily? 56% Low percent of students in special education 21% High percent of free/reduced lunch 13% Large enrollment 08% High percent of English learners

31. Poll #3 Which LRE indicator target should have the most weight in selecting districts to profile for LRE? 63% 5a – 80% or more in general education 27% 5b – 40% or less in general education 10% 5c – served in separate school

32. Poll #4 What additional factor should be considered in identifying districts to profile for LRE? 40% Grade spans served 40% Primary ethnicity representation 12% Location of district 8% Other

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

34. 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

35. Poll #5 Which of the following statewide activities should be given priority in improving the determination of the least restrictive environment? 64% Professional Development 24% Targeted Technical Assistance 8% Evaluation Activities 4% Other

36. Poll #6 What should be districts’ greatest priority to improve outcomes for students with disabilities? 45% Provide general education training on differentiating instruction for diverse learners 45% Facilitate collaboration between general educators and special educators 4% Provide technology that assists in accessing the core curriculum 4% Provide special educators training on supporting students in the least restrictive environment

37. Discussion • What other data points should be used in the selection of high percentage LEA’s? • How should districts (LEA’s) be recognized for doing well?

38. LUNCH

39. Research-based Practices

40. Promising Practices in Urban Special Education • A Pervasive Emphasis on Curriculum Alignment with the MA Frameworks • Effective Systems to Support Curriculum Alignment • Emphasis on Inclusion and Access to the Curriculum • Culture and Practices that Support High Standards and Student Achievement • A Well Disciplined Academic and Social Environment • Use of Student Assessment Data to Inform Decision-Making • Unified Practice Supported by Targeted Professional Development • Access to Resources to Support Key Initiatives • Effective Staff Recruitment, Retention, and Deployment • Flexible Leaders and Staff that Work Effectively in a Dynamic Environment • Effective Leadership is Essential to Success University of Massachusetts Donahue Institute. (October 2004). A Study of MCAS Achievement and Promising Practices in Urban Special Education.

41. Lessons From CA Districts • Inclusion and access to the core curriculum • Collaboration between special education and general education teachers • Continuous assessment and use of RtI • Targeted Professional Development • The use of explicit direction instruction *Huberman, M. & Parrish, T. (January 2011) Lessons from California Districts Showing Unusually Strong Academic Performance for Students in Special Education.

42. Preliminary Trends • Emphasis on inclusion and access to the core curriculum • Culture and practices that support high standards and student achievement • Unified practice supported by targeted professional development • Effective leadership • Collaboration between special and general education teachers.

44. Next Steps Recommendations? • How will all of the Project tasks work together to help LEA’s implement LRE? • Are there other areas & resources that we could highlight in our Project?

45. 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.

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