1 / 36

We Lead in an Age of Effectiveness

We Lead in an Age of Effectiveness. History of Change in Special Education. 1990 to 2010. NOW. 1970 to 1990. 1960’s. Before 1950. (Mark Wolak Ed.D, President, Board of School Superintendents, History of Change in Special Education). RESULTS DRIVEN ACCOUNTABILITY IN SPECIAL EDUCATION .

renate
Download Presentation

We Lead in an Age of Effectiveness

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. We Lead in an Age of Effectiveness History of Change in Special Education 1990 to 2010 NOW 1970 to 1990 1960’s Before 1950 (Mark Wolak Ed.D, President, Board of School Superintendents, History of Change in Special Education)

  2. RESULTS DRIVEN ACCOUNTABILITY IN SPECIAL EDUCATION Office of Special Education (OSE) June 2013

  3. What Is IDEA? • The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) • Federal law that guarantees a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) to each child with a disability • Governs how states and public agencies provide early intervention, special education, and related services • Approximately 7 million infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities across the nation are eligible under IDEA Office of Special Education

  4. IDEA 2004 When the IDEA was reauthorized in 2004, each state was required to have in place a performance plan to evaluate the state's implementation of Part B and to describe how the state will improve such implementation. • Based upon these regulations, OSEP established 20 indicators to guide State Education Agencies (SEAs) in their implementation of the IDEA and how SEAs report progress and performance • The Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) is submitted to OSEP annually and is required to be posted on the state's Web site • This reporting process also allows OSEP to monitor and supervise state implementation in specific areas as well as report concrete data back to Congress Office of Special Education

  5. U.S. Department of Education The U.S. Department of Education recognized that the educational outcomes of children and youth with disabilities have not improved as much as expected even with intensive Federal regulatory oversight and significant funding provided to address closing achievement gaps through programs such as No Child Left Behind and IDEA. Office of Special Education

  6. U.S. Department of Education and OSEP • In spring of 2011, OSEP began making plans to include a review of selected results indicators as part of the Verification Visits to States • In fall 2011 our Verification Visit with OSEP included a day to focus on results with stakeholders • These first attempts to focus on results and outcomes went through several changes as OSEP visited a number of states with scheduled Verification Visits Office of Special Education

  7. Other National and State Initiatives • The recent OSEP initiative is aligned with other current changes being implemented at the State and national level, including the ESEA Flexibility Waivers • The academic rigor and expectations for all students has been increased with the adoption of the Common Core State Standards. • Currently, our State accountability system is under intensive review with stakeholders and is being revised to focus on improving results for all students and implementing accountability measures for states, local districts, and schools • Mississippi is designing a new educator evaluation system that will include accountability measures for student achievement and growth for all school instructional personnel and administrative leaders • Mississippi is implementing a Statewide System of Support System of Recognition, Accountability and Support Office of Special Education

  8. Redesigning the IDEA Accountability System • During the past year, OSEP has been working closely with stakeholder groups to redesign its accountability system to shift the balance from a system that has focused primarily on compliance to one that puts more emphasis on results and outcomes • The new Federal directives from OSEP will guide states in the direction of focusing their efforts and resources through a Results-Driven Accountability (RDA) model to improve educational results and functional outcomes for students with disabilities and their families Office of Special Education

  9. Results-Driven Accountability (RDA) A New Model to Strengthen Accountability for Students with Disabilities • Moving from a Regulatory Emphasis on Procedural Compliance to aResults Driven Accountability (RDA) Model • Focusing on Improving Educational Results and Functional Outcomes for Children and Youth with Disabilities Office of Special Education

  10. Core Principles of RDA • A system that is developed in partnership with our stakeholders • A system that is transparent and understandable to states and the general public, especially individuals with disabilities and their families • A system that drives improved outcomes for all children and youth with disabilities regardless of their age, disability, race/ethnicity, language, gender, socioeconomic status, or location Office of Special Education

  11. Core Principles of RDA • A system that ensures the protection of the individual rights of each child or youth with a disability and their families, regardless of his/her age, disability, race/ethnicity, language, gender, socioeconomic status, or location • A system that provides differentiated incentives, supports, and interventions based on each state’s unique strengths, progress, challenges, and needs Office of Special Education

  12. Core Principles of RDA • A system that encourages states to direct their resources to where they can have the greatest positive impacton outcomes • and the protection of individual rights for all children and youth with disabilities • and minimizes state burden and duplication of effort 7. A system that is responsive to the needs and expectations of the ultimate consumers (i.e., children and youth with disabilities and their families) as they identify them Office of Special Education

  13. NEW RDA MODEL A more balanced approach for determining program effectiveness in special education will be implemented in 2013. • An annual review of all indicator data for both compliance and results from the State Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual Performance Report (APR) will be required • The state as well as local districts will be held accountable jointly to improve results and demonstrate growth over time This new focus on joint responsibility for accountability will require states and local districts to establish collaborative models that will address improving educational results and student learning outcomes. Office of Special Education

  14. Monitoring and Compliance • All school districts will be monitored through ongoing review of the required data reports, including fiscal data reports • The Office of Special Education will continue to investigate Formal State Complaints, as required by the IDEA regulations, and protect the rights of students with disabilities and their families Office of Special Education

  15. Monitoring and Technical Assistance • A differentiated system of monitoring and technical assistance will be developed and implemented to support LEAs with the most significant needs for improvement • Performance data will be used to determine the appropriate level of monitoring, technical assistance, and additional support for districts that do not receive an annual designation of Meets Requirements Office of Special Education

  16. Monitoring and Technical Assistance Using data on priority indicators, districts with identified needs may receive an on-site visit that will be designed to provide targeted technical assistance and supports • utilizing a collaborative approach to analyze data, and • jointly planning strategies for program improvement Office of Special Education

  17. Next Steps for Mississippi in 2013 • Engage stakeholders in developing the State’s RDA model • Revise State policies to: • incorporate the RDA model, and • establish a differentiated system of monitoring and technical assistance (TA) based on the performance indicator data • Redesign internal work processes to better support local districts in improving results Office of Special Education

  18. Next Steps for Mississippi in 2013 • Develop service models to better support local school districts in improving results and outcomes • Establish and train service teams to implement a differentiated system of monitoring, technical assistance, and support for local school districts • Provide targeted technical assistance and supports to districts and schools with the most significant needs for improvement Office of Special Education

  19. References • For more information about the work of the U.S. Department's Office of Special Education Programs, see http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/osep/index.html • For more information on the 20 Part B Indicators, see http://www.nichcy.org • Bartlett, John C., Attitudes for Excellence, Principal Leadership, September 2012 • Mark Wolak Ed.D, President, Board of School Superintendents, History of Change in Special Education Office of Special Education

  20. SPP/APR • State Performance Plan (SPP) • Annual Performance Report (APR) [The State] must annually report to the secretary and the public on the progress of the State, and of children with disabilities in the State, toward meeting the goals established under §300.157(a) for the performance of children with disabilities in the State, that may include elements of the reports required under Section 1111(h) of the ESEA. [34 CFR 300.157(c)] [20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(15)(C)] Office of Special Education

  21. State Performance Plan (SPP) • Updates and revisions are due February 1st of each year • Spans a six year period • Covers 18 indicators established in IDEA 2004 • Requires baseline data and goals (targets) for the state Office of Special Education

  22. Results vs. Compliance • Compliance Indicators: • Disproportionality and Significant Discrepancy (Indicators 4b, 9 and 10) • Timelines (Indicators 11 and 12) • Transition Services (Indicator 13) Office of Special Education

  23. Results vs. Compliance • Results Indicators: • Transition (Indicators 1, 2 and 14) • Discipline (Indicator 4a) • LRE/Placement (Indicators 5 and 6) • Assessment (Indicators 3 and 7) • Parent Involvement (Indicator 8) Office of Special Education

  24. FFY 2011 APR (SY 2011-12) • Indicator 1 Graduation • Target – 66%/Actual 23% • Indicator 2 Drop Out • Reset Baseline - Actual 10.77% • Indicator 3 - Assessment • Target/Actual • 3A – Reset Baseline/17.30% of Districts met AMO • 3B – 95%/98% Reading, 97.9% Math • 3C – Reset Baseline/22.2% Reading, 31.1% Math Office of Special Education

  25. FFY 2011 APR (SY 2011-12) • Indicator 4a – Suspensions and Expulsions % LEAs • Target – 0 Districts/Actual 12.5% • Indicator 4b – Significant Discrepancy • Target – 0%/Actual 0% Office of Special Education

  26. FFY 2011 APR (SY 2011-12) • Indicator 5 – Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) • Target/Actual • 5A – 58.47%/66.25% • 5B – 16.98%/13.47% • 5C – 2.17%/2.18% • Indicator 6 – Preschool LRE • Set Baselines • 6A – 64.75% • 6B – 15.07% Office of Special Education

  27. FFY 2011 APR (SY 2011-12) • Indicator 7 – Preschool Assessment • Target/Actual • Summary Statement 1 • Outcome A: 50%/48% • Outcome B: 52%/51% • Outcome C: 41%/40% • Summary Statement 2 • Outcome A: 83%/79% • Outcome B: 71%/65% • Outcome C: 79%/74% Office of Special Education

  28. FFY 2011 APR (SY 2011-12) • Indicator 8 – Parent Survey • Target – 73.46%/Actual 96.53% • Indicator 9 – Disproportionate Representation by Child Count • Target – 0 Districts/Actual 0 • Indicator 10 – Disproportionate Representation by Disability • Target – 0 Districts/Actual 0 Office of Special Education

  29. FFY 2011 APR (SY 2011-12) • Indicator 11 – Child Find • Target – 100%/Actual 99.59% • Indicator 12 – C to B Transition • Target – 100%/Actual 97.59% • Indicator 13 – Secondary Transition with IEP Goals • Target – 100%/Actual 99.48% Office of Special Education

  30. FFY 2011 APR (SY 2011-12) • Indicator 14 – Post-Secondary • Target/Actual • 14a – 28%/25% • 14b – 65%/59% • 14c – 82%/78% • Indicator 15 – Monitoring, Complaints, Hearings • Target – 100%/Actual 89.09% Office of Special Education

  31. FFY 2011 APR (SY 2011-12) • Indicator 18 – Hearing Requests • Target – 50%/Actual 50% • Indicator 19 • Target – 75%/Actual 58.50% • Indicator 20 – Timelines for State Submitted Data/Reports • Target – 100%/Actual 100% Office of Special Education

  32. SPP/APR Web Page SPP and APRs along with Public Reporting data for each district have been published on the State’s website: http://www.mde.k12.ms.us/special-education/special-education-spp-apr Office of Special Education

  33. LEA Determinations • LEA Determinations, similar to State Determinations, will be based on a combination of compliance and results indicators under RDA • Activities in the district should be focused on improving results • Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Time-Based Office of Special Education

  34. LEA Determinations • Determinations, along with other data gathered by the State, will be used for monitoring and technical assistance needs assessment Office of Special Education

  35. SPP/APR Changes • OSEP changes currently out for Public Comment (not yet adopted) include: • Combination of SPP and APR into one document and streamlined reporting • Elimination of Indicators 15 and 20 • Creation of new Indicator 17 – State Systemic Improvement Plan • Comprehensive, multi-year plan focused on improving results for students with disabilities Office of Special Education

  36. Questions? Office of Special Education

More Related