1 / 48

Ohio Confederation of Teacher Education Organizations

Ohio Confederation of Teacher Education Organizations. Fall Conference October 26, 2006 Columbus, Ohio. “We did then what we knew how to do, When we knew better, We did better.”. -Maya Angelou. Today’s Discussion. Federal Historical Perspective Context of Ohio’s Performance Expectations

mikaia
Download Presentation

Ohio Confederation of Teacher Education Organizations

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. Ohio Confederation of Teacher Education Organizations Fall Conference October 26, 2006 Columbus, Ohio

  2. “We did then what we knew how to do,When we knew better,We did better.” -Maya Angelou

  3. Today’s Discussion • Federal Historical Perspective • Context of Ohio’s Performance Expectations • Key Aspects of NCLB and IDEA 04 • The Ohio Integrated System for Academic and Behavior Supports, Response to Intervention, Disproportionality, Early Intervening Services, AYP and Other Topics of Interest • Ohio’s Progress To Date • Questions and Discussion

  4. Legislative Requirements Inform and Support an Integrated Systems Approach Between NCLB & IDEA 04 IDEA 04 108-446 ESEA PL 107-110No Child Left Behind Operating Standards for Ohio’s Schools Serving Children with Disabilities • Academic Content • Standards • Professional Development • Standards • Principal Standards • Teaching Standards OperatingStandards for Ohio’s Schools • Accountability-data based decision making • Progress in the general curriculum for ALL students • Systems of Intervention for ALL students • Scientifically Based Instruction • Increased parental involvement

  5. National Context

  6. Student Problem Behavior: Social Cost • Over 50% of U.S. crime is committed by 5-7% of children between ages of 10-20 • Over 82% of crime is committed by people who have not completed school • 70% of youth viewed as antisocial in school are arrested within 3 years of leaving school • Problem behavior is the single most common reason why students with disabilities are removed from regular schools, work, and house settings (From Kincaid, D. University of South Florida)

  7. Student Problem Behavior: Economic Cost • The average cost of the most highly restrictive placements for students with disabilities is $150,000 • Federal & state governments add 1,500 prison beds every week costing $30 billion/ year • It is projected that soon more Americans will be in prison than will attend the nation’s 4-year colleges (Kincaid, D., University of South Florida) Kincaid, h Florida

  8. Ohio’s Context

  9. Ohio’s 2005-2006 Annual Report Card on Educational Progress • Average of all students’ scores on state tests has increased by 19+ points, from 73.7 to 92.9 • 97% of LEAs have improved their performance index score • 200 LEAs moved up at least one state designation • 8 of 10 Ohio LEAs are either Excellent or Effective • No Ohio LEAs in Academic Emergency; 7 in Academic Watch; 88% of Ohio LEAs in top three designations

  10. Ohio’s 2005-2006 Annual Report Card on Educational Progress(con’t) • Adequate Yearly Progess(AYP) for Ohio’s 610 LEAs • 193 met AYP • 244 missed AYP for one subgroup • 97 missed AYP for two subgroups • 76 missed AYP for three or more subgroups • Percent of Schools and LEAs Meeting AYP • 2003-2004: 83%(schools) 64%(districts) • 2004-2005: 75.7%(schools) 55.5%(districts) • 2005-2006: 60.6%(schools) 31.6%(districts)

  11. Ohio’s 2005-2006 Annual Report Card on Educational Progress(con’t) • Graduation Rates Climb • 1996-1997 (79.8%) • 2004-2005 (86.2%) • Achievement Gap Remains a Challenge

  12. Impact of 491 Office Referrals in an Elementary School in Ohio... Adapted from Barrett et.al. Administrative Time Lost 7,365 minutes 123 hours 20 work days * Based on 15 minutes per referral. Student Instructional Time Lost 22,095 minutes 368 hours 61 school days * Based on 45 minutes out of the classroom. *** $6,500 or more spent per year for an instructional leader to process office referrals. * Based on an average salary of $70,000

  13. Impact of 3057 Office Referrals in a Middle School in Ohio... Adapted from Barrett et.al. Administrative Time Lost 45,855 minutes 764 hours 95 work days * Based on 15 minutes per referral. Student Instructional Time Lost 137,565 minutes 2,292 hours 382 school days * Based on 45 minutes out of the classroom. *** $35,000 or more spent per year for an instructional leader to process office referrals. * Based on an average salary of $70,000

  14. The Ohio Integrated Systems Model for Academic and Behavior Supports The Ohio Integrated Systems Model for Academic and Behavior Supports is a comprehensive school-wide prevention &intervention model that provides support systems which address both academic andbehavioral needs of ALL students.

  15. “Ohio Integrated Systems Model for Academic & Behavior Supports” • Big Ideas in Beginning Reading • DIBELS • Florida Center for Reading Research • Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement • National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems • North Central Regional Educational Laboratory • Oregon Reading First • Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports • School Wide Information Systems (SWIS) • What Works Clearinghouse

  16. Ohio Integrated Systems Model • Whole School Systems • Comprehensive • Prevention • Intervention • Continuum of Supports • Academic and Behavior • All Students

  17. Ohio Integrated Systems Model for Academic and Behavior Supports Academic System Behavioral System 1-5% Intensive Individualized Interventions Tier Three 1-5% Intensive Individualized Interventions Tier Three 5-10% Targeted Interventions Tier Two 5-10% Targeted Interventions Tier Two 80-90% School-Wide Interventions Tier One 80-90% School-Wide Interventions Tier One Decisions about tiers of support are data-based Adapted from OSEP Effective School-Wide Interventions

  18. Academic & Behavior Supports Across 3-tiers Administrative Leadership Collaborative Strategic Planning (CPS) Culturally Responsive Practices Data-Based Decision Making Scientifically-Based Research Key Features of an Effective Integrated Model

  19. R B R B R B Summative Effects of an Integrated Model Significance BL Shephard Kellam, Johns Hopkins University ReadingInstruction Reading & Behavior Instruction Behavior Instruction

  20. Research Foundations • Based on longitudinal research, achievement is strongly and reciprocally linked to behavior and psychological well being. • School wide prevention/intervention efforts in early grades promote academic achievement, prevent school failure and drop out. • School wide prevention/intervention efforts promote emotional and behavioral well-being; prevent drug abuse, aggression, and mental disorders.

  21. Research Foundations Supporting OISM • Proven relationship between academic and social behavior skill development (Kellam,1998) • Effectiveness of a system wide, 3 tiered model of intervention with increasing intensity to infuse behavior and academic support across a school for all students in need of assistance (Sugai, Horner,Kame’enui, Simmons, 2002) • Established efficacy of educational systems change as a means to improve schools, and consequently, student achievement (Fullan, 2003)

  22. Ohio Integrated System for Academic and Behavior Supports (OISM) and… • Response to Intervention (RtI) • Disproportionality • Early Intervening Services • Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) • Association with School Improvement

  23. Progress of Schools and Districts Involved with the Ohio Integrated Systems Model for Academic and Behavior Supports

  24. State Improvement Grant Outcomes • Characteristics of the sample • Evidence of accuracy of implementation • Literacy outcome data • Stakeholder satisfaction with the model • State Evaluation Coordinator for Ohio SIG: Francis E. Lentz Ph.D. University of Cincinnati

  25. Characteristics of the Sample • Two cohorts 59 buildings 2004-05 78 buildings 2005-06 137 total buildings • Geographically distributed across state • Similar proportions of at-risk students in NCLB subgroups compared to other OH schools OISM buildings were lower performing on OH report card than OH norm • OISM buildings were significantly lower in reading performance than overall OH schools

  26. Implementation Accuracy • SET data for PBS implementation (75% implemented) • Building action plans (65% accuracy for use of strategic planning process) • SWIS/DIBELS implementation & use of web data systems (123 buildings) use of data to make decisions across tiers of support

  27. Literacy Outcome Data • Both cohorts significantly improved fall to spring outcomes for measures analyzed (ORF, NWF, LNF ) • 22,000 students in DIBELS database • Cohort one better improvement than cohort two(one with more experience than two ) may speak to effect of level of implementation)

  28. Stakeholder Satisfaction • Belief about the effectiveness of OISM components for teachers, principals, and regional coaches. • All groups indicated strong belief that OISM will be effective in improving outcomes with coach and principal ratings being highest • Overall, participants believed that OISM will improve outcomes, skills related to OISM are good, but there are some concerns about knowledge and commitment of their peers.

  29. Regional Evaluation Small Sample Size Outcomes: • Positive correlation between schools’ self -assessments of implementation and independent raters • Low implementing schools vs. High implementing schools • Both high and low implementer schools made overall achievement gains • High implementers demonstrated higher subgroup student performance. These schools were more successful in closing achievement gaps for SWD and other at-risk students.

  30. Questions and Discussion

More Related