office for exceptional children updates oapsa february 6, 2015
Post on 26-Dec-2015
213 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Office for Exceptional Children UpdatesOAPSA
February 6, 2015
The Federal Agenda
USDOE, Office of Elementary and
Secondary Education
USDOE, Office of Special Education
Programs1 ESEAWaiver@education.ohio.gov
How states focus, support and measure student learning outcomes
RDA is framed to Impact …
Comprehensive Monitoring – Focus on Results TA/Support
2014-15 Onsite Monitoring Districts
Bucyrus City Canfield LocalCoshocton City North Dayton School Of Science &
Discovery
Parkway Local Plain Local
Schnee Learning Center Sylvania City
Wellington Ex. Village West Geauga Local
Wilmington City
SPP Indicator Monitoring - ALL
Selective Reviews – A few
State Systemic Improvement Plan
Year 1Delivered byApril 2015
Year 2Delivered by
February 2016
Years 3-6DeliveredFeb 2017-
2020
Phase I – Analysis Phase II – Plan Phase III – Evaluation
1) Data analysis2) Infrastructure
analysis3) Focus area4) Improvement
strategies5) Theory of action
1) Infrastructure development
2) Support for LEA implementation of EBPs
3) Evaluation
Report progress on SSIP implementation
RDA
Increase capacity to implement, scale up, and sustain evidence-based practices.
Improve results for children with disabilities (and their families).
The Purpose of the SSIP:Shared Learning, Partnerships, and
Innovative Practice
Ohio’s SSIP: Process and ActionStrategic Focus Area: Early Literacy
Improving results for children and youth with disabilities and other diverse learners
Strategies that address:
• the role of parents;• early identification and intervention;• phonemic awareness, phonics, and good literature in reading ;• clear, objective, and scientifically based information on the
effectiveness of different types of reading instruction;• the role of teachers, their professional development, and their
interactions and collaborations ;• the role of higher education and other collaborative partners.
Ohio’s Annual Performance
Report (APR)
Submitted Feb. 2, 2015
SAPEC: indicator target setting
ComplianceIndicators
Indicator 4BIndicator: Percent of districts that have a significant discrepancy, by race or ethnicity, in the rate of suspensions or expulsions for greater than 10 days for children with IEPs; and policies, procedures or practices that do not comply with IDEA requirements.
09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14
-1%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
0.0%
2.7%
0.8% 0.7%0.2%
TargetActual
Indicator 11Indicator: Percent of children who were evaluated within 60 calendar days of receiving parental consent for initial evaluation.
09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-1493%
94%
95%
96%
97%
98%
99%
100%100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
96.0%
97.3%97.7% 97.5%
98.3%
TargetActual
Indicator 12Indicator: Percent of children referred by Part C, who are found eligible for Part B, and who have an IEP developed and implemented by their 3rd birthdays.
09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-1495%
96%
97%
98%
99%
100%100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
98.9%99.2%
98.9%99.1% 99.2%
TargetActual
Indicator 13Indicator: Percent of youth aged 16 and above with compliant transition plans in their IEPs.
09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-1495%
96%
97%
98%
99%
100%99.5% 99.6%
97.9%
99.5%99.3%
TargetActual
Complaint TimelinesTimely Resolution of State Complaints: Percent of signed written complaints with reports issued that were resolved within 60-day timeline.
09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-1495%
96%
97%
98%
99%
100%100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
97.2%
100.0%
TargetActual
Due Process TimelinesTimely Adjudication of Due Process Hearing Requests: Percent of adjudicated due process hearing requests that were adjudicated within the 45-day timeline or a timeline that is properly extended by the hearing officer.
09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-1495%
96%
97%
98%
99%
100%100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
TargetActual
OEC Dispute Resolution
• Significant increase in the number of mediations and facilitations
• Updated Complaint Procedures
ResultsIndicators
Indicator 1Indicator: Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma.
*Four-year graduation rate required beginning 11-1211-12 12-13 13-14
50.0%
55.0%
60.0%
65.0%
70.0%
75.0%
80.0%
85.0%
90.0% 87.5%
75.9%78.2%
66.9% 68.1% 68.9% TargetActual
Indicator 2Indicator: Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high school.
11-12 12-13 13-140.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%12.5% 12.5%
5.3%4.7%5.5% 5.2%
TargetActual
Indicator 3C MathIndicator: Percent of students with disabilities who scored at or above the proficient level on statewide math assessments.
09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-140.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
70.0% 72.7%
81.8%
90.9%45.6%
39.2%45.7% 46.8%
43.1% 44.1%TargetActual
Indicator 3C ReadingIndicator: Percent of students with disabilities who scored at or above the proficient level on statewide reading assessments.
09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-140.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
76.0%82.1%
88.0%94.0%
55.9%
44.3%
54.3% 54.6% 54.6% 55.1%TargetActual
Indicator 5AIndicator: Percent of children with IEPs ages 6 through 21 served inside the regular class 80% or more of the day.
09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-1440.0%
45.0%
50.0%
55.0%
60.0%
65.0%
49.4%
59.8%61.5% 62.3% 62.5%
57.4%58.5%
60.3%62.0% 62.8%
TargetActual
Indicator 6Indicator: Percent of children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs attending: A) Regular early childhood program; or B) Separate special education class, school or facility.
11-12 12-13 13-140.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%50.6% 52.2% 55.0%
39.6% 38.5% 36.5%
Indicator 7Indicator: Percent of preschool children with IEPs who demonstrate improved:A. Positive social-emotional skills;B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (early literacy); andC. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs.
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%81.6%
48.9%
80.9%
47.6%
83.6%
58.2%
10-1111-1212-1313-14
Indicator 14Indicator: Percent of students with disabilities who, within one year of leaving high school, are enrolled in higher education, participating in a training program, or competitively employed.
10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 Nation
33.7%26.5%
69.9%
57.0%
78.4%73.4%
Enrolled in Higher Ed
Enrolled in Higher Ed or Employed
Enrolled in Higher Ed, Employed, or in Training Program
State and District Determinations
District determination results are used to make the state’s determination.
Compliance
Matrix
Results Matrix
To make determinations states must consider:
• Performance on compliance indicators;• Uncorrected noncompliance from any source;• Submission of valid, reliable and timely data; and• IDEA-specific audit findings.
States can consider:
Performance on results indicators
State Systemic Improvement Plan
Year 1Delivered byApril 2015
Year 2Delivered by
February 2016
Years 3-6DeliveredFeb 2017-
2020
Phase I – Analysis Phase II – Plan Phase III – Evaluation
1) Data analysis2) Infrastructure
analysis3) Focus area4) Improvement
strategies5) Theory of action
1) Infrastructure development
2) Support for LEA implementation of EBPs
3) Evaluation
Report progress on SSIP implementation
Ohio’s SSIP:
Strategic Focus Area: Early LiteracyImproving results for children and youth with disabilities and other diverse
learners Strategies that address:
• the role of parents and other collaborative partners, especially in providing children with early language and literacy experiences that foster reading development;
• early identification and intervention for all children at risk for reading failure;• phonemic awareness, phonics, and good literature in reading instruction and the
need to develop a clear understanding of how best to integrate different reading approaches to enhance the effectiveness of instruction for all students;
• clear, objective, and scientifically based information on the effectiveness of different types of reading instruction and the need to have such research inform policy and practice;
• the role of teachers, their professional development, and their interactions and collaborations with researchers
• the role of higher education and other collaborative partners in the design and delivery of teacher preparation programs that prepare teachers to understand and provide effective reading instruction to diverse learners.
Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) and Restraint and Seclusion
www.education.ohio.govKeyword search: Restraint and
Seclusion
HB 178
Signed December 2014
Effects:• Community Schools • STEM Schools &• College Preparatory Boarding Schools
Effective: March 2015
Results of Year 1 District Reporting
Survey Responses
560 Traditional Schools
167 Community Schools
11 Education Service Center
22 Career Technical Ed
Total Respondents: 760
PBIS Restraint and Seclusion Policy
646 districts
System or Framework of PBIS
758 districts
Data Trends
Special Education:
97%
General Education:
3%
Data Trends
All others
Autism
Emotional Disability
2013-2014 school year
Prevention & Support:
PBISProject AWARE
Positive Transformations for Ohio Schools: Building Statewide Positive
Supports
A statewide network of trained, experienced professionals
Evidence-based system for evaluating fidelity and outcomes of PBIS
Cross-Agency Collaboration
Prevention and Support
Making Ohio AWARE:
Building Statewide
Mental Health First Aid
Extracurricular Athletics
Reminder: Jan. 25, 2013 US Department of Education guidance• Extracurricular Athletics
– Access– Parallel athletic programs
Challenges
• State Assessments
• Third Grade Reading GuaranteeRIMP – IEP
• FBA / BIP
Development Work
• Urban Monitoring and Support
• Transitional Youth: Career pathways exploration and work experience, self-directed planning for some, staff training, support post-high school
• Exploring system for statewide IEP/ETR/special ed. documentation
RFPs & Projects
• Center for Sensory Disabilities
• Transition Training Modules for middle school and secondary teachers
• PBIS development RFPs awarded:– Recognition System– Training– Tier 2 and 3 development: resources and training
OAPSA Representation Needed …
Field test online special education guidance format
Determinations considerations and calculation workgroup
Expanded SSIP workgroup: focus on strategies
State IEP/ETR/special ed data system
education.ohio.gov
Sue Zakesue.zake@education.ohio.gov
top related