1 / 46

KYCASE Summer Institute

KYCASE Summer Institute. DECS Update July 14, 2009. Agenda. Communication Special Education Coops KCMP Update Autism ARRA CEIS Senate Bill 1 SLD Literacy/Reading/Dyslexia Transition/Record Review Waivers . Commercial. SPLASH 2 Year Teacher Application

jamuna
Download Presentation

KYCASE Summer Institute

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. KYCASE Summer Institute DECS Update July 14, 2009

  2. Agenda • Communication • Special Education Coops • KCMP Update • Autism • ARRA • CEIS • Senate Bill 1 • SLD • Literacy/Reading/Dyslexia • Transition/Record Review • Waivers

  3. Commercial • SPLASH 2 Year Teacher Application • Directors of Special Education will receive email after CASE • Council for Exceptional Children Fall Conference in November

  4. KYCASE Summer Update • Communication • KDE Web site • Special Education Cooperative • Director of Special Education LISTSERV • Professional Organizations

  5. Special Education Cooperatives • Role • Funding

  6. Kentucky Continuous Monitoring Process (KCMP) DECS, Special Education Cooperatives and districts Partnering to improve results

  7. KCMP Highlights • Quarter 2 of KCMP monitoring cycle underway on August 1, 2009 • 2009-2010 School Year Record Review Documents and Directions are posted on KCMP website • DECS will be conducting both Desk Audits and Onsite Monitoring Visits during 2009-10 School Year • DECS has created and posted KCMP Calendar of Events on web • www.education.ky.gov

  8. KYCASE Summer Update • Autism • Current Issues • Autism Grant • State Responsibility • Special Education Cooperative Responsibility • Regional Cadre • District Responsibility

  9. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) • Approvable Expenditures • Maintenance of Fiscal Effort • Reporting and Transparency

  10. Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS) • Required CEIS, 15% of ALL IDEA Funds for the Fiscal Year Required by KDE • Voluntary CEIS, Up to 15% of All IDEA Funds for the Fiscal Year Selected by the Local School District • All CEIS, Track the Performance of Students for 2 Years After the Year Funds are Used

  11. Senate Bill 1 • Senate Bill 1 • NCLB Requirements • IDEA Requirements • Standards Development • Requirements for Program Reviews • Inclusions of Special Populations • Alternate Assessment Based on Grade Level Standards (1%) • Alternate Assessment Based on Modified Grade Level Standards (2% Flexibility)

  12. Kentucky System of Intervention & SLD Eligibility Update Overview of Current Practices&Evolving Trends in intervention and identification

  13. National vs. State SLD Population1999 – 2000 – Children Ages 6 - 21 • 4.5% were identified with a Specific Learning Disability nationwide. • Kentucky has lowest state SLD identification rate - 2.36% • Highest SLD rate is Massachusetts with 7.10% • Nationally, OHI students comprised 9.86% of IDEA • students in 2007. In the same year, 16% of IDEA students were • identified as OHI in Kentucky.

  14. National vs. State IDEA Proportions • During the 2008-2009 school year, approximately 2% of the total student population was identified with a SLD in Kentucky. • Among all students with special needs, 12.6% were identified with a SLD in Kentucky. • SLD students represented 50.5 percent of all IDEA students ages 6-21 making SLD the largest category of students served nationwide.

  15. Trends in SLD Identification • LD first operationalzed in Fed. Regulations in 1977 • Model not sufficiently examined until after implementation in early 1980’s • Nationwide inconsistencies with implementation and diagnostic process in identification of LD students • Response-to-Intervention under IDEA 2004 • IDEA 2004 states “LEA may use a process that determines if the child responds to scientific, research-based intervention as a part of the evaluation procedures”: • Kentucky’s System of Intervention (KSI) is the state’s first steps towards fulfilling IDEA’s RTI requirements in support of LEAs.

  16. Response-to-Intervention • Effective RTI system has four components: • Efficient direct measures of student performance to screen a multitude of problems • “Is our current curriculum and instruction resulting in high levels of learning for at least 80% of our students?” • “Is it a group problem or an individual problem?” • Diagnostic measures to identify areas in need of further academic skills instruction • Align research base on effective instruction with the learning needs demonstrated by students. Source: Evaluating Evidence-Based Practice in Response-to Intervention Systems by Martin J. Ikeda, Alecia Rahn-Blakeslee, Bradley C. Niebling, Randy Allison, NCSP, & James Stumme

  17. Response-to-Intervention • Research-supported strategies implemented with fidelity Methods to monitor effective implementation may include: • Walk-throughs or other structured observations • Implementation checklists • Portfolio samples • Continual assessment of student performance • For students whose teachers monitor progress and modify instruction based on data, achievement goes up an average effect size of .7. An effect of .7 would raise math achievement among U.S. students from “average” to within the top five in the world. When combined with reinforcement of goal attainment, formative evaluation results in effect sizes of over one standard deviation (enough to raise achievement from the 16th to the 50th percentile) Source: Evaluating Evidence-Based Practice in Response-to Intervention Systems by Martin J. Ikeda, Alecia Rahn-Blakeslee, Bradley C. Niebling, Randy Allison, NCSP, & James Stumme

  18. SLD Evaluation – Interim Guidance • Continue to use KSI resources/ RTI systems. • Use of aptitude/achievement discrepancies is optional. • Existing tables appear to under-identify SLD students based current prevalence rate in Kentucky. • Use of a 22 point discrepancy is not statistically sound and therefore must not be a procedure utilized to determine eligibility. • Standard Error of Measurement has been included in the table development, therefore can not be applied after the calculations have been completed using the SLD tables. • Monitor SLD population – stay within the 4% identification rate.

  19. Next Steps • DECS has identified an advisory group to develop technical assistance on identification and eligibility of students with SLDs. • Research and development will occur during the 2009-2010 school year. • Published guidance available for Fall 2010 or sooner if possible.

  20. Reading/Literacy/Dyslexia • Regulatory Requirements • 707 KAR 1:002 • Reading First, Literacy Coach • White Paper Development

  21. Secondary Transition Requirements Indicator 1 Indicator 2 Indicator 13 Indicator 14

  22. Indicator 1 Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma 2007-2008 State Target: 71.3% 2007-2008 Actual Data: 67.34%

  23. Indicator 1 • # of districts that met or exceeded the state target: 88 • # of districts that did not meet thestate target: 84 • # of districts that did not meet the state target but made significant improvement: 28 • # of districts that did not meet the state target and made no improvement: 5 • # of districts that did not meet the state target and reported slippage: 51

  24. Indicator 2 Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high school State Target: decrease by .4% 2007-2008 Actual Data: decreased by .76% (from 5.00% to 4.24%)

  25. Indicator 2 • # of districts that met or exceeded the state target: 116 • # of districts that did not meet the state target: 55 • # of districts that did not meet the state target but made significant improvement: 16 • # of districts that did not meet the state target and made no improvement: 0 • # of districts that did not meet the state target and reported slippage: 39

  26. Mandatory Training Districts not meeting state targets for Indicators 1 or 2, or districts out of compliance with Indicator 13 were required to participate in a webinar on May 27, 2009 One hundred eighteen (118) districts required to participate One hundred thirty-four (134) districts participated Includes nineteen (19) districts that were not among those required to participate

  27. Critical Interrelationships Staying in School Quality IEPs Positive post-school outcomes Graduating P. Kohler, 2006

  28. Indicator 13 Percent of youth aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes coordinated, measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the student to meet the postsecondary goals • 2007-2008 State Target: 100% • 2007-2008 Actual State Target: 86.98%

  29. Indicator 13 As of the January 2009 (SY 2007-2008) submission of the KCMP: Thirty-nine (39) districts were identified as being out of compliance with I-13 for the second consecutive year (i.e., out of compliance for SY 2006-2007 and did not document correction of noncompliance with SY 2007-2008 submission) Sixteen (16) of those districts were identified as being out of compliance for the third consecutive year.

  30. Indicator 13 Mandatory Training Districts out of compliance with I-13 for more than one year were required to participate in a teleconference training on March 27, 2009 (repeated on April 15, 2009) Districts out of compliance with I-13 for more than one year were given the opportunity to document correction of noncompliance for any year in which they were not at 100%.

  31. Indicator 13 As of the April 30, 2009 deadline to submit to DECS documentation of correction of noncompliance: Thirty-seven (37) districts out of compliance for more than one year with I-13 submitted documentation of correction of noncompliance for SY 2007-2008 Thirty-four (34) districts out of compliance for more than one year with I-13 also submitted documentation of correction of noncompliance for SY 2006-2007.

  32. Indicator 13 May 8, 2009 - Twenty-one (21) districts were newly cited fornoncompliance with I-13 requirements for SY 2007-2008 based on their January 2009 KCMP submission These districts were advised that they may choose now to submit documentation of correction of noncompliance to DECS for SY 2007-2008 – even though they have up to one year to do so To date, nine (9) districts newly cited for noncompliance with with I-13 requirements for SY 2007-2008 have submitted documentation of correction of noncompliance and are now in compliance with this Indicator

  33. Indicator 13 One hundred fifty-four (154) districts are currently in compliance with Indicator 13!

  34. Indicator 14 Percent of youth who had IEPs, are no longer in school and who have been competitively employed, enrolled in some type of postsecondary school, or both, within one year of leaving high school

  35. Indicator 14 Exited 2006-2007 Interviewed Spring 2008

  36. Indicator 14 2007 and 2008 data reports are available at www.kypso.org The current, 2008-2009, data for both the KISTS and YOYO were due 6/30/09. Kentucky Post School Outcome Study (KyPSO) currently cleaning and beginning to analyze 2008-2009 KISTS and YOYO data. We expect to be able to begin reporting on 2008-2009 results in late August/early September.

  37. Indicator 14 • Based upon feedback from DOSE, Special Education Cooperatives, and KyPSO Advisory Group, KyPSO is developing a system which will allow LEAs to access their own KISTS and YOYO data via www.kypso.org • Such a system will ideally allow the LEA to: • independently confirm that they have submitted their data • edit/add/delete records entered up to a certain closing date • access their own completed data set

  38. Indicator 14 If you have questions about the Kentucky Post School Outcome Study, please contact: Beth Harrison, Ph.D. b.harrison@uky.edu 859.519.7375 Tony, LoBianco, Ph.D. tflobi1@uky.edu 859.257.7379

  39. Training/ Technical Assistance/ Resources Kentucky again sent a team to Charlotte, NC on May 12-14, 2009 to participate in the Secondary Transition Planning Institute Kentucky hosted its own Regional Interagency Transition Teams (RITT) Planning Institute in Lexington on June 3-5, 2009

  40. Training/ Technical Assistance/ Resources A work group is currently updating the ACCESS to Postsecondary Education manual first produced several years ago KDE/DECS new transition page along with Transition One Stop are being managed and updated at least weekly in order to provide helpful transition resources for students, parents, teachers and districts

  41. Training/ Technical Assistance/ Resources • Kathy Eversole and the Special Education Cooperatives Transition Consultants have developed a Power Point presentation on Indicator 13 requirements which will soon be posted on both the KDE/DECS transition page and on Transition One Stop • In addition, the team has revised the ARC Responsibilities – Transition Checklist which will soon be posted on both the KDE/DECS transition page and on Transition One Stop

  42. Training/ Technical Assistance/ Resources KDE/DECS Transition Page http://www.education.ky.gov/KDE/Instructional+Resources/Exceptional+Children/Transition/ Transition One Stop http://www.transitiononestop.org/ Kentucky Post School Outcome Center www.kypso.org Johnny W. Collett johnny.collett@education.ky.gov (502) 564-4970

  43. WAIVERS • http://www.education.ky.gov/KDE/Instructional+Resources/Exceptional+Children/Forms+and+Documents/Waiver+Process.htm

  44. Closing I appreciate what you do everyday, and in the evenings, and on weekends, and during the holidays... See you in November at Fall CEC!

More Related