escregion1 special education leadership network meeting · 5/12/2016 · the advocate frequently...

HTTPS://LIVESTREAM.COM/ESCREGION13/EVENTS/4484691

Special Education Leadership Network MeetingMay 12, 2016

SAME OLD LESSON: BE REASONABLE

Presented by:JIM WALSH

2009: private psychologist and psychiatrist diagnose the student with ADHD and depression.School does FIE: eligible as seriously emotionally disturbed.This is 8th grade.

INITIAL EVALUATIONS

IEP goes into effect in February 2010. Grades decline; lots of truancy; disciplinary action.The student starts 9th grade at the DAEP.Lots of anxiety after that. Psychiatrist recommends residential.

WE START TO SERVETHE STUDENT

ARDC refuses to place residentially, offers a less restrictive placement in the district.Parents placed her at MeridellAchievement Center from December 2010 to February 2011.Then she goes to the Dallas Learning Center, a non-accredited private school.

RESIDENTIAL?

Parents request due process hearing in July 2011, seeking reimbursement for the costs of private schooling. Settlement: District agreed to reimburse for all of 2010-11 and the first semester of 2011-12 at Dallas Learning Center (DLC).Parents agree to give district 30-days notice before returning to Rockwall ISD.

THE FIRST LITIGATION

November 2011: parents give notice. We want her back in RISD for the spring semester.ARDC held December 14, 2011. Ten district employees present, along with both parents and their advocate.Principal said: “Everybody is free to talk; everybody gets to be heard.”

RETURNING TO ROCKWALL

Court observed: “Throughout the meeting, not only did the parents and the Advocate frequently voice their questions and ideas about RISD’s proposals, but RISD officials repeatedly revised the language of their proposal to incorporate the parties’ suggestions.”

THE ARDC MEETING

The discussion at the meeting was focused on placement at Rockwall High School and services needed for a smooth transition.Toward the end, however, the parents presented an alternative: Maybe she should stay at DLC for the rest of the school year, and transition to Rockwall next year.ARDC adjourned—unfinished.

AN ALTERNATIVE….

ARDC was to re-convene on December 20. But then the district decided it wanted a lawyer at the next meeting. Did not have time to give parents 5-days notice of this, so proposed postponement of ARDC till January.

Parents: Nope.District: OK. Then how about you waive the 5-day notice and we meet on December 20?

CORRESPONDENCE

Parents: Sorry to see you lawyering up. We don’t think another ARDC is needed. Just tell us your decision about the placement.

District: We are RWA to FAPE your kid. Anything DLC can do, we can do also. Please return to ARDC to complete the process. Here are several dates.

Parents: We’re keeping her at DLC. Very disappointed in you. We go to due process now.

MORE CORRESPONDENCE

Hearing officer ruled in favor of the parents.District appealed to federal court. Federal court ruled for the district.Parents appealed to 5th Circuit.

THE SECOND LITIGATION

In a tuition reimbursement case, the court usually focuses on two key questions. 1. Did the district’s proposed placement offer

FAPE? If so—case is over. District wins. 2. If not, did the private placement provide

appropriate services?But in this case, the 5th Circuit looked right past the FAPE issue. SEE NEXT SLIDE!

WHY THE COURT’S OPINION ISINTERESTING AND IMPORTANT

“RISD argues that the record here supports a finding that the parents acted ‘unreasonably’ during the IEP-development process, thus barring them from recovering tuition expenses under the IDEA regardless of whether RISD offered M.C. a FAPE. We agree.” (Emphasis added).

KEY QUOTE

The court concluded that the parents adopted an “all or nothing” approach, adamantly refusing to consider the district’s proposals. Court acknowledged the good intentions of the parents, but still concluded that they engaged in a “an unreasonable approach…rather than the collaborative or interactive approach envisioned by the IDEA.”

HOW SO?

It’s risky for parents to refuse to attend an ARDC meeting that the district is offering to conduct.The process requires good faith collaboration from both parties.The written record goes a long way toward providing evidence of good faith.

LESSONS

Rockwall ISD v. M.C.5th Circuit: March 10, 2016.2016 WL 929445; 67 IDELR 108.

THE CASE

JIM WALSHAustin OfficeP.O. Box 2156Austin, Texas 78768Phone: 512‐454‐6864Fax: 512‐467‐9318Email: [email protected]: www.WalshGallegos.comTwitter: http://twitter.com/JWalshtxlawdawg

The information in this handout wasprepared by Walsh Gallegos Treviño Russo& Kyle P.C. It is intended to be used forgeneral information only and is not to beconsidered specific legal advice. If specificlegal advice is sought, consult an attorney.

© Walsh Gallegos 2016

SELN

May 12, 2016

Jennifer Womack

Side by Side

FAQs

Transitioning

Indicator Changes

New calculations

SPEDProgram Area and Indicator Number

Indicator Name 2015 PBMAS 2016 PBMAS

SPED #1(i-v)

Additional provisions pertaining to this indicator will be covered in the 2016 PBMAS Other System Components preview.

Note: For mathematics, any previous year data used for aggregation and RI will reflect the performance standards for the redesigned STAAR 3-8 mathematics assessments.

SPED STAAR 3-8 Passing Rate(M, R, S, SS, W)

PLs were assigned based on Phase-In 1 Level II performance.

Math PLs were assigned based on previous math standards.

STAAR A and STAAR Alternate 2 results were included.

PL 4 and a targeted hold harmless provision were added.

No RI or SA One year of data

available for analysis

Assign PLs based on student’s phase-in performance standard.

Add RI. No SA Discontinue the

targeted hold harmless provision.

Make changes to the PL 3 – PL 4 cut points.

Two years of data available for analysis

Copyright © Texas Education Agency 2016. All rights reserved.

26



SPED #2(i-v)


Note: For mathematics, any previous year data used for aggregation will reflect the performance standards for the redesigned STAAR 3-8 mathematics assessments.

SPED YAE STAAR 3-8 Passing Rate(M, R, S, SS, W)

PLs were assigned based on Phase-In 1 Level II performance.

Math PLs were assigned based on previous math standards.

No RI or SA Three years of

data available for analysis (except social studies [2 years] and math [1 year])


No RI or SA Add STAAR A

results. Three years of

data available for analysis (reading, science, social studies, and writing); two years of data available for math.


27



SPED #3(i-iv)


SPED STAAR EOC Passing Rate(M, S, SS, ELA)

PLs were assigned based on Phase-In 1 Level II performance for math (A1), science (BI), and social studies (US).

Changes to the cut points were implemented.

PL 4 and a targeted hold harmless provision were added.

ELA indicator (E1 and E2) continued as RO.

STAAR A and STAAR Alternate 2 results were included.

No RI or SA One year of data

available for analysis


Implement changes to the PL 0 – PL 4 cut points.

Add PL assignments for ELA.

Discontinue the targeted hold harmless provision.

Add RI (except ELA)

No SA Two years of data

available for analysis (except ELA)


28



SPED #4 SPED STAAR Alternate 2 Participation Rate

Indicator was renamed to STAAR Alternate 2 Participation Rate.

RI but no SA Three years of

data available for analysis

Add SA


29



SPED #5 SPED Regular Early Childhood Program Rate (Ages 3-5)

PLs were assigned for the first time.

No RI or SA One year of


Add RI No SA Two years of



30



SPED #6

Additional information pertaining to this indicator will be covered in the July TETN session.

SPED Regular Class ≥80% Rate (Ages 6-11)

PLs were assigned with RI but no SA


Change the age range for this indicator to Ages 6-21.

Add significant dispro-portionality(SD) by race/ethnicity.




31



SPED #7

Additional information pertaining to this indicator will be covered in the July TETN session.

SPED Regular Class <40% Rate (Ages 6-11)

PLs were assigned with RI but no SA.


Change the age range for this indicator to Ages 6-21.

Add significant dispro-portionality(SD) by race/ethnicity.




32



SPED #8 SPED Regular Class ≥80% Rate (Ages 12-21)



Discontinue this indicator; it will be subsumed into Indicator #6.

SPED #9 SPED Regular Class <40% Rate (Ages 12-21)



Discontinue this indicator; it will be subsumed into Indicator #7.


33



SPED #10 SPED Annual Dropout Rate (Grades 7-12)

PLs were assigned with RI and SA.

Implement changes to the PL 1 – PL 3 cut points:PL 0 = 0% to 1.8% (no change)PL 1 = 1.9% to 3.3%PL 2 = 3.4% to 5.3%PL 3 = 5.4% to 100%(2015 State Rate = 2.1%)

SPED #11 SPED RHSP/DAP Diploma Rate


Grad Types 31 and 32 were added.

Discontinue this indicator.


34



SPED #12 SPED Graduation Rate


Changes to the PL 1 – PL 3 cut points were implemented.

Implement new PL 0 – PL 3 cut points:PL 0 = 80.0% to 100%PL 1 = 70.0% to 79.9%PL 2 = 55.0% to 69.9%PL 3 = 0% to 54.9% (2015 State Rate = 77.5%)


35



SPED #13 SPED Representation


No changes


36



SPED #14 SPED African American (Not Hispanic/Latino) Representation


Begin transition to a new PL structure by reporting disproportionality rates (as Report Only) in addition to percentage point differences.

Redefine African American by no longer including students reported as African American with one or more races.

Discontinue SA


37



SPED #15 SPED Hispanic Representation



Discontinue SA


38



SPED #16 SPED LEP Representation



Discontinue SA


39



SPED #17 SPED Discretionary DAEP Placements


Began transition to a new PL structure by reporting disproportionality rates (as Report Only) in addition to percentage point differences.

Continue transition to PL reporting structure based on disproportionality rates (year two).

Discontinue SA


40



SPED #18 SPED Discretionary ISS Placements




Discontinue SA


41



SPED #19 SPED Discretionary OSS Placements




Discontinue SA


42

Why are we transitioning to a new PL structure based on disproportionality rates? Focusing on percentage point differences (DIFF) may

have given some districts the impression they do not have disproportionate placements, when they actually do.Calculations based on disproportionality rates are

better aligned with federal methods for determining disproportionality.

43

2016 PBMAS INDICATOR PREVIEW: SPED


Focusing on districts’ rate of disproportionality is a more meaningful and reliable way to evaluate disproportionality.

Unlike percentage point differences, disproportionality rates will enable us to implement more consistent PL cut points across indicators.

Disproportionality rates are much easier to understand and provide more transparent information.

44



Disproportionality rates are not a significantly different methodology; they basically take the current calculations one step further and tell us how much higher (or lower) one population’s rate is compared to another population’s rate, e.g., 50% higher, 10% higher, 200% higher.

45



We anticipate that we will begin to discontinue the DIFF calculation PL assignments for certain indicators in the 2017 PBMAS and replace those with disproportionality rate PL assignments.

In some cases, a district’s performance level will be higher under the disproportionality rate (as compared to the performance level assigned using the DIFF calculation), and in some cases, it will be lower.

Let’s take a look at two different examples.

46



47



SPED Discretionary OSS Placements: Example District

(DIFF)6.2

SPED OSS SPED Students

SPED OSSPlacements

12.2 170 1,388

OSS All Students

All OSS Placements

6.0 672 11,224

How to Calculate the Disproportionality Rate:

percentage point difference(6.2)all students OSS placements rate (6.0) = 103.3%

Under the current (DIFF) PL assignment structure, the Example District in the previous slide would receive a PL 1 for its difference of 6.2:

48



PL 0 PL 1 PL 2 PL 3

MIN - 6.0 percentage

point difference 6.1 - 10.5 10.6 - 14.9 15.0 - MAX

Under the disproportionality rate, this district would receive a PL 3 for its rate of 103.3%:

The PL 3 designation is more appropriate because the district’s special education OSS placement rate is more than 100% higher than its all students’ OSS rate.

The disproportionality rate captures the relative degree of difference between two rates while the difference (DIFF) does not.

49



PL 0 (RO) PL 1 (RO) PL 2 (RO) PL 3 (RO)

MIN - 10.0% 10.1% - 29.9% 30.0% - 49.9% 50.0% - MAX

50



SPED African American Representation: Example District

(DIFF) 13.4 African American SPED SPED Students

SPED African American

65.4 83 127

African American Students All Students

All African American

52.0 678 1,303

How to Calculate the Disproportionality Rate:

percentage point difference (13.4)African American students′ representation rate (52.0)

= 25.8%

Under the current (DIFF) PL assignment structure, the Example District in the previous slide would receive a PL 3 for its 13.4 difference:

51



PL 0 PL 1 PL 2 PL 3MIN - 1.0

percentage point

difference

1.1 - 5.9 6.0 - 10.0 10.1 - 100

Under the disproportionality rate, this district would receive a PL 1 for its rate of 25.8%.

The PL 1 designation is more appropriate because the district’s African American special education representation rate is 25.8% higher than its African American students’ representation rate in the district as a whole.

The disproportionality rate captures the relative degree of difference between two rates while the difference (DIFF) does not.

52



PL 0 (RO) PL 1 (RO) PL 2 (RO) PL 3 (RO)MIN - 10.0% 10.1% - 29.9% 30.0% - 49.9% 50.0% - MAX

5th and 8th Reading and Math

NEW PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

GRADE 5 READING SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE

GRADE 8 READING SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE

GRADE 5 MATH SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE

GRADE 8 MATH SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE

What do we have to do?

• Same color = same plan

• Same color family = different plan in same system

• Dotted lines = district plan with campus implications

• Plans on far right = additional plans after additional identification

System Support

NEW SPECIALLY DESIGNED

INSTRUCTION DOCUMENT

JC [email protected]

Texas Teacher Evaluation and Support System

(T‐TESS)

• Six (6) Standards • Standard 1: Instructional Planning and Delivery• Standard 2: Knowledge of Students and Student Learning• Standard 3: Content Knowledge and Expertise• Standard 4: Learning Environment • Standard 5: Data‐Driven Practice• Standard 6: Professional Practices and Responsibilities

Texas Teacher Standards New!

Texas Administrative Code, Chapter 149. – Effective June 8, 2014.

•149.001 – Purpose: The standards identified in this section are performance standards to be used to inform the training, appraisal, and professional development of teachers.

T‐TESS Overview

T‐TESS RubricHandout

T‐TESS Rubric

Domain

T‐TESS Rubric

Dimension

T‐TESS Rubric

Descriptors Descriptors

T‐TESS Rubric Performance Levels

But what about?......

T‐TESS Triangle and Evaluation Focus

Learner Outcomes

Student Behaviors

Teacher Behaviors

Local decisions guide which positions are subject to appraisals using T‐TESS versus a locally‐developed instrument for positions, such as counselors, speech and language pathologists, librarians, etc. Since these positions generally include instructional responsibilities, T‐TESS may apply.

Unique scenarios, such as dyslexia where the instruction is scripted based on the program model or a life skills classroom with severe and profound/limited functionality skills, may require the district (in conjunction with appraisers and teachers) to define how the rubric will be applied in those settings and ensure teachers are clear about the rubric modifications for their instructional arrangement.

T‐TESS Companions for VI Professionals

T‐TESS Post‐observation Conference Process

Advancing Education Leadership

Recommendations and Resources

Great teaching is at the core of every quality education system!

Trauma and Children in Special Education

Sherry DiMarco, LCSW

Social Worker/At-Risk Specialist

trau·manoun \ˈtrau -mə, ˈtro-\ :

a very difficult or unpleasant experience that causes someone to have mental or emotional problems usually for a long time

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trauma

Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) Study

Prevalence

Household dysfunction Substance abuse 27% Parental separation/divorce 23% Mental illness 19% Battered mother 13% Incarcerated household member 5%

Abuse Psychological 11% Physical 28% Sexual 21%

Neglect Emotional 15% Physical 10%

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

1 experience = 67%

3 or more experiences = 20%

Trauma and the brain

The more prolonged the abuse or neglect, the more likely it is that permanent brain damage will occur.

Not only are people with developmental disabilities more likely to be exposed to trauma, but exposure to trauma makes developmental delays more likely.

ACE & School Performance

Traumatized children:

are 2.5x more likely to fail a grade in school

score lower on standardized achievement tests

are more likely to have struggles in receptive & expressive language

are suspended & expelled more often

are more frequently placed in special education

Impact on Classroom Behavior

Reactivity & ImpulsivityAggressionDefianceWithdrawalPerfectionism

Children with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

2x-10x more likely to experience trauma.

Externalizing behavior appears to be related to an increased risk of physical abuse

Internalizing behavior or communication and learning problems are associated with increased risk of sexual abuse

Seclusion and restraint are experienced by children as another traumatic experience

Psychological distress secondary to medical procedures is another category of potentially traumatizing experience

Implications for Special Education

Assessment

Interventions

Diagnostic Complexity

Awareness of the trauma

Type of trauma

Timing of the traumatic experience

IDD-specific issues may alter presentation of traumatic stress symptoms.

IDD and traumatic experiences can present with very similar characteristics of disrupted development.

Trauma does not stop development completely, but it can act as a risk factor and slow down a developmental trajectory that has already been slowed down by the IDD.

Children with IDD may start off below average or “off” charts that track developmental milestones.

Symptoms may change as developmental functions emerge.

Different caregivers may not agree.

Trauma Screening and Assessment

Screening tools to may help identify a child’s trauma history and traumatic stress responses.

Screening for abuse and traumatic stress often includes an interview with the primary caregiver, child and family.

Standardized trauma screening tools may need to be adapted for children with IDD.

Screening Tools The UCLA PTSD Reaction Index for DSM-V is a self-report

questionnaire to screen for exposure to traumatic events and assess PTSD symptoms in school-age children and adolescents.

The Trauma Symptom Checklist for Children (TSCC) evaluates posttraumatic symptomatology in children and adolescents (ages 8 to 16, with normative adjustments for 17 year-olds. The scale measures not only posttraumatic stress, but also other symptom clusters found in some traumatized children.

Searchable databasehttp://www.nctsn.org/resources/online-research/measures-review

Early Childhood

A young child with IDD who has a traumatic experience may: Have difficulty calming after a perceived threat Know without knowing Communicate fears by withdrawal or being unresponsive Lose both recent and older gains Have a negative affect Have increased peer difficulties Develop new fears

School-aged Child A school-age child with IDD who has a traumatic experience:

Reduced receptive and expressive language skills Heightened learning challenges May become withdrawn and quiet at some times and have

tantrum-like behavior at other times Loss of developmental gains May have even more exaggerated difficulties with precision

learning May have difficulty with peer relationships and vulnerability

to persistent teasing, bullying/ isolation from peers

Adolescent

An adolescent with IDD who has had a traumatic experience: May feel that learning and planning for the future is more difficult

May feel increased/longer dependence on parents/caregivers

May become demoralized and feel defeated, particularly about the future

May feel even more “different” from others & worry about feeling less accepted by peers

Safety Comes First

Protective shield is damaged

Perceived safety

Disabilities affect their ability to self-soothe or participate actively in healing interventions

Positive behavior management can be effective in changing challenging behaviors

Traumatic experiences are inherently complex.

Physical, cognitive or communicative limitations impact the range of protective actions that were possible during the traumatic experience.

Children with intellectual disabilities are vulnerable because they may not appraise danger, or be able to respond to it, in the same way that a child without IDD may appraise danger.

Children with IDD may be limited in their ability to seek support when they need to, make their needs known, and/or have others take protective action on their behalf.

Merging Special Education and Trauma-Informed Responses

Being attuned to child’s emotional state

Creating space and opportunity for safe expression of emotions

Understanding that challenging behavior is a reflection of life experience often characterized by trauma

Interacting through meaningful and reciprocal relationships.

Trauma-Informed EBT

Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavioral Treatment (TF-CBT)

Child-Parent Psychotherapy (CPP)

Real Life Heroes

Child and Family Traumatic Stress Intervention (CFTSI) Cognitive Behavioral Intervention for Trauma in Schools (CBITS) Sanctuary Model Seeking Safety for Adolescents

http://www.nctsn.org/resources/topics/treatments-that-work/promisingpractices

Trauma-informed IEPs

Consider the impacts of trauma

Incorporate social-emotional, behavioral, and academic goals

Straight Out of Compton

The Four R’s of a Trauma-Sensitive School

Realize the prevalence

Recognize the impact

Responsive practices

Resiliency building

Sherry DiMarco, LCSWSocial Worker/At-Risk Specialist

Academic Services

5701 Springdale RoadAustin, Texas 78723http://www.esc13.net

512.919.5357Fax: [email protected]

SELN5-12-2016

What Barriers Stop You From Being Your

Best Possible Self?

Person

al, P

rofessiona

l, Fina

ncial, etc

Person

al, P

rofessiona

l, Fina

ncial, etc

What are your fears, misgivings, limitations that are holding you back?

Person

al, P

rofessiona

l, Fina

ncial, etc

What would life be likeIf you crossed the line?

Take The Step

With a Friend

ANNOUNCEMENTS

LUNCH ON YOUROWN12:30 TO 3:30*504 & DYSLEXIA

COME AND GO SESSION FOR:*SPP & EGRANTS*LEGAL FRAMEWORK LINKING

POLICIES

escregion1 special education leadership network meeting · 5/12/2016 · the advocate frequently...

Documents