Measurable Annual Goals: Considerations for Compliance

Glenda SederstromCenter for Special Education Services

Cheney, August 27, 2015

Welcome!!Upon Completion of this training Participants will be able to:

Understand the Program Review Process

Articulate the relationship between Sufficient Evaluation, Properly Formulated IEP’s, Appropriate service delivery and Improved Student Outcomes

Apply the use of the State IEP and Evaluation Review forms to practice

Identify the components of Measurable Annual Goals

Reflect on sample student files for areas of Non-Compliance

This workshop addresses Teacher Evaluation Criteria #1, #2, #3, #6, #8 and Principal Evaluation Criteria #1, #3, #5, #8

This is Why. . . . .

Program Review

The Special Education Program Review Team (formerly called “monitoring”) collaborates with school districts to ensure improved educational results and functional outcomes for all children with disabilities. Washington’s program review system includes a review of both quantitative data and qualitative information provided by districts to ensure that districts are implementing the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 2004.

Source: OSPI website, Special Education

Determination Levels - Background

•IDEA 2004 requires the U.S. Department of Education to rate States according to their performance (IDEA 616(a) and CFR 300.600 & 300.602)

•Meets Requirements (Level 1)

•Needs Assistance (Level 2)

•Needs Intervention (Level 3)

•Needs Substantial Intervention (Level 4)

Part B: State Performance Plan Indicators 1.Graduation rates

2.Dropout rates

3.Statewide assessments

4a. Suspension/expulsion rates

4b. Suspension/expulsion rates by race/ethnicity

5.Least Restrictive Environment (ages 6-21)

6.Early Childhood LRE (ages 3-5)

7.Preschool outcomes

8.Parent involvement

9.Disproportionate racial/ethnic representation in special education

10.Disproportionate racial/ethnic representation in specific disability categories

Red = Compliance Indicator

11. Timely evaluation and eligibility after parent consent

12.Part C to B transition - IEP by 3rd birthday

13.IEPs with secondary transition components

14.Postsecondary outcomes

15.Resolution settlement agreements

16.Mediation agreements

17.State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP)

Non-compliance includes:

Data/reports that are not timely and accurate,

Any SPP compliance indicator in which the district is not at 100% performance,

Issues related to any of the SPP results indicators, or

Any other identified issues.

Non-compliance must be corrected as soon as possible, but in no case more than one year from identification (OSEP Memo 09-02).

The program review process includes:

Data Collection and Analysis (Quantitative Data): Special education district performance data across the 20 federally-mandated indicators

Technical assistance (Across all 20 performance indicators) Resources for improving the performance across the 20 indicators of the state performance plan

Data and information collected through the program review process impacts:

Identification and correction of non-compliance

Annual Determinations

Significant Disproportionality

Requirements OSPI must meet: OSEP

IDEA requires the Department to make annual decisions for states in four categories: meet requirements, need assistance, need intervention, or need substantial intervention. Under Results-Driven Accountability, the Department has made the following determinations for this year based on 2012-13 data.

Meets Requirements

Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Palau

Needs Assistance

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, American Samoa, Commonwealth of Northern Marianas, Guam, Puerto Rico

Needs Intervention

California, Delaware, District of Columbia, Texas, Bureau of Indian Education, Virgin Islands

Washington Integrated System of Monitoring (WISM) is designed to:

We conduct program reviews of special education programs in Washington school districts. The term school districts (also called local education agencies, or LEAs) includes Educational Service Agencies and Charter Schools. Our primary focus is on improving educational results and functional outcomes for all students with disabilities.

Promote special education program effectiveness, and Ensure we meet our state supervision and oversight

requirements for special education programs under state and federal law.

Current cycle: Four largest districts in the state receive annual on-site reviews All other school Districts are subject to on-site or desk reviews

annually

I. Data ManagementII. FiscalIII. Dispute ResolutionIV. Monitoring:

*LRE*Discipline*Transition*Disproportionality

V. IEP Implementation*Sufficient evaluations

*Consistency between Evaluations, IEP & service delivery

Critical Elements that impact your work today. . . . .

VI. IEP Procedures

*Measurable Annual Goals

*Present levels ofacademic & functional

performance

*Frequency, location and duration.

Technical Assistance

May be provided through Regional Educational Service Districts

OSPI Program Monitors Technical Assistance Resources and links

at the OSPI website http://

www.k12.wa.us/SpecialEd/programreview/TechnicalAssistance.aspx

Consistency Index: Washington State

Student Growth is Everyone’s Responsibility!!!

Discuss with your partner how Criteria 3 can be applied to your work.

Now discuss Criteria 6 and implications for your work

How will you demonstrate student growth? How can you use Criteria 8 to influence growth

for your students on IEP’s?

Let’s get started. . . . .

IEP review form

Protocol:

Take about 10 minutes to review the IEP using the form.

Do not discuss or give verbal feedback at this time.

Make notes about anything you find confusing or difficult to understand. (Either the form or the IEP you are reviewing)

Make notes about any questions you might have as a result of this review.

Capture questions

With your partner briefly discuss the questions you have. (5 minutes)

Be prepared to share out questions.

Transition IEP

In effect the year the student turns 16.

Drives the decisions the team makes.

Measurable, annual goals support the Transition Plan.

http://www.seattleu.edu/ccts/default.aspx?id=34548

IEP Components:

Stimulus/Condition: “Given . . . . . . .” Student response: “Student will. . . “ Baseline: “from”

Directionality: “increasing/decreasing” Target: “to” Unit of Measure: “as measured by. . .” Duration: “by end date.”

Link to Standards/Common Core? For academic areas: Remember: All Students are accountable to be tested

at their grade level

What is the required skill/pre-skill? How do you establish baseline? How will you measure instruction/intervention

effects? Reasonable/appropriate for the student? Make sense? Stranger Rule. . . .

Teacher Evaluation reminder:

Criterion 8: Exhibiting collaborative and collegial practices focused on improving instructional practice and student learning.

Professional Practice; the teacher participates collaboratively in the educational community to improve instruction, advance the knowledge and practice of teaching as a profession, and ultimately impact student learning. Student growth data must be a substantial factor utilizing the OSPI approved student growth rubrics

And Consider. . . .

Criterion 6: sing multiple student data elements to modify instruction and improve student learning.

Assessment; the teacher uses multiple data elements (both formative and summative) to plan, inform and adjust instruction, and evaluate student learning. Student growth data must be a substantial factor utilizing the OSPI approved student growth rubrics.

Criterion 3:Recognizing individual student learning needs and developing strategies to address those needs.

Differentiation; the teacher acquires and uses specific knowledge about students’ cultural, individual, intellectual and social development and uses that knowledge to adjust their practice by employing strategies that advance student learning. Student growth data must be a substantial factor utilizing the OSPI approved student growth rubrics

Remember. . . .academics are Individualized based on recommendations made in the evaluation.

Then Consider: Pre-academic, Functional, Adaptive, Behavior Social Skills

Direct relationship to Evaluation Report?

Recommended areas for support?(Those recommended Special Education and Related services in the Evaluation report.)

Are current data being used?

Direct Relationship to Present Level of Performance?

Turn and talk. Reflecting on your current practice, what

information do you use to determine the Present Level of Performance for Evaluations and for annual IEP’s.

How do you determine the end target? What have you learned today that you can use

in your practice tomorrow?

Reading goal:

Present Level: “Mark is a 6th grade student with a Learning

Disability. Using 6th grade level non-fiction materials, he read 61correct words per minute on the Fall Benchmark Assessment. Revised DIBELs Next fall benchmark goal for 6th grade students is 150 correct words per minute. His low reading fluency affects his ability to comprehend and stay engaged with grade-level non-fiction materials.

Reading fluency goal:

Given 6th grade informational/non-fiction text, Mark Anthony will improve his correct words read per minute from 61 words to 97 correct words per minute as measured by weekly oral reading fluency assessments by February 22, 2014.

Reading goal: Comprehension

Present Level: “Adam is a 3rd grade student with multiple

handicaps. He is able to read non-fiction text written at the first grade level and answer 4 out of 8 comprehension questions accurately on each of three baseline assessments. His current reading skills make it difficult for Adam to access non-fiction material at his grade level.

Reading goal Adam:

Given informational text written at the first grade level, Adam will increase his correct answers on comprehension questions from 4 out of 8 correct answers to 7 out of 8 correct answers on three consecutive dates as measured by weekly progress monitoring assessments. By March 1, 2014.

Math goal: Portia

Present level: Portia is a 7th grade student with

Intellectual disabilities. On baseline assessments testing her ability to use money to pay for items using the next dollar strategy for items up to $5.00, Portia scored a median score of 3/10 correct over three assessments.

Math goal: Portia

Given a set of 10 problems requiring Portia to pay for an item using the next dollar strategy for items up to five dollars, she will increase her skills from 3/10 correct answers to 7/10 correct answers across three consecutive data points as measured by weekly progress monitoring assessments by Jan 1, 2013.

Math goal

By 3/17/2014, when given problems involving algebraic sense, Student will solve for unknown variables in equalities and inequalities integrating the order of operations improving algebraic calculation skills from 50% accuracy to 80% accuracy as measured by end of chapter tests.

Evaluate this goal.

Writing Goal: Carmen

Present level: Carmen is a third grade girl with autism.

Across three baseline writing samples, she consistently wrote 3 or 4 sentences on a given topic with no more than four words each. Typical Third grade writing exhibits a variety of sentence lengths and structures.

Writing goal: Carmen

Given a topic for writing a paragraph, Carmen will improve the quality of her paragraph sentences from four sentences with four words each, to four sentences with lengths varying from four words to eight words over three consistent writing assignments as measured by the student work evidence by Jan 36, 2015.

When given a 3 minute writing prompt topic, Student will write to the topic improving writing fluency from 2 correct word sequences out of 20 words to 12 correct word sequences out of 40 words as measured by CBM.Insert Cheney writing goal here

Evaluate this goal with your partner.

Behavior: Calpurnia

Calpurnia is a thirteen year old 7th grade student who often makes rude or disrespectful comments in conversations with her peers. Recent observational data collected over three class periods identified the following phrases being used when engaging with her peers. “Cassius, you are a stupid pig. Brutus, are you stupid or something? Antonius, your mother stinks.” In a total of sixteen peer interactions, Calpurnia was noted to use these phrases in 14 cases when trying to initiate conversations.

Communication Goal: Articulation

When shown 20 pictures or words containing the “r” sound in various positions in word and asked to use each word in a sentence, Student will increase the number of “r” words produced correctly from 8/20 to 18/20 by 1/28/2016 as measured by charting correct “r” production in 20 sentences during monthly progress monitoring.

Communication Goal: Sentence Structure

When shown 20 pictures of people doing activities and asked to tell “What’s happening?” the student will increase the number of sentences he produces correctly in the form of “Noun is/are verbing” from 0/20 to 16/20 by 1/4/2016 as measured by charting the number of correctly produced sentences in the form of “Noun is/are verbing” during monthly progress monitoring.

Communication goal/Language Syntax

By 5/13/2014, when given picture cards or speaking opportunities, Student will use simple sentences using is/are, third personal singular,. Personal pronouns, prepositions improving expressive language skills from less than 50% accuracy to 80% accuracy as measured by therapy data or evaluaton.

Evaluate this goal

Communication: Social Communication

By 11/13/2014, when given communication opportunities, student will participate in the following social communication behaviors via verbalizations or iPad: turn-taking, greetings, protesting appropriately and initiating play with peers /adults when given cues/prompts improving social communication skills from less than 80% accuracy to 80% accuracy as measured by therapy data.

Evaluate this goal.

How to think this through differently.

Gross Motor-balance

By 2/25/2014, when given balance activities, Student will awlk across balance beam IImproving balalnce and locomotion from walking forward on balance beam with one Hand hold assit to walking forward across balance beam safely and independentlyAs measured by PT Data Sheets

Evaluate this goal.

Points to ponder???

What does Reading at grade level 1.8 look like?

What skills are representative of Math at a 3.6 grade level?

What does “generates ideas prior to writing and organizing them at the 7th grade level with 50% accuracy” look like?

What do teacher made “probes” look like?

Pre-Academic (Linked to Reading, Written Language or Math)

Present level: DaShawn is a five year old student with severe

hearing loss and cognitive delays. She is able to point to her first name within a group of words with 100% accuracy. She struggles to write her first name. She is able to write “d, a and s. “ She is inconsistent with using capitals “D or S” and the order of where the letters are sequenced. She is unable to identify her last name within a group of words.

Pre-academic: DaShawn

Given a group of five sight words and her last name, DaShawn with correctly point to her last name from zero out of five trials to five out of five trials over three consecutive data points as measured by progress monitoring data by March 15, 2013.

Adaptive: Juan

Current level: Juan is a 7th grade student with

intellectual disabilities. He is able to independently toilet himself, but is not able to independently wash his hands after using the toilet. Baseline data show that Juan requires a range of 3 to 7 adult prompts in order to successfully complete hand-washing.

Adaptive: Juan

Given a seven step protocol for hand-washing, Juan will improve his ability to wash independently from requiring at least three adult prompts, to washing his hands with no adult prompts over five consecutive opportunities as measured by progress monitoring data by March 15, 2013.

Hand-washing protocol

1. Turn on faucet 2. Soap hands 3. Scrub hands for 2 minutes 4. Rinse hands 5. Dry hands with paper towel 6. Turn off water with paper towel 7. Throw away paper towel in trash

Dead Man Test

If a dead man can do it, it isn't behavior,

If a dead man can't do it, then it is behavior.

All Behavior is:

Observable Objective Measurable

Behavior: Calpurnia

Calpurnia is a thirteen year old 7th grade student who often makes rude or disrespectful comments in conversations with her peers. Recent observational data collected over three class periods identified the following phrases being used when engaging with her peers. “Cassius, you are a stupid pig. Brutus, are you stupid or something? Antonius, your mother stinks.” In a total of sixteen peer interactions, Calpurnia was noted to use these phrases in 14 cases when trying to initiate conversations.

Behavior goal: Calpurnia

Given direct instruction and practice in using positive comments to initiate conversations, (Hi, Brutus, I like your shirt. Cassius, what are you doing after school today? Antonius, would you like to eat lunch with me?)Calpurnia will decrease her disrespectful comments from 14 out of 16 interactions to 2 out of 16 interactions as measured by teacher data collected over three class periods by March 15, 2012.

100 verbs for writing IEP goals:

Writing goal: pre-write

With your partner, think of a student one of you serves and discuss the student’s current level of performance around a pre-writing or planning skill.

Then develop an appropriate Measurable Annual Goal

Writing goal: revise/edit

Now create an appropriate goal for a revising or editing

Behavior

Blurting out goal

Go back and Review IEP you evaluated earlier today

Use IEP checklist Provide feedback to the

casemanager

Now. . . .

Find another partnership and trade IEP’s and go through the Review Process again.

What questions do you have now?

Evaluation Review form

Use the current evaluation you brought

Spend the next 15-20 minutes working with your partner to conduct an evaluation review.

Collect any questions you generate to share out.

What elements are missing or are weak in the evaluation?

Does the evaluation report use current data and other sufficient measures to determine eligibility, identify the adverse educational impact and recommended areas of specially designed instruction?

Now, do the IEP goal areas match the evaluation report?

Next Steps. . . .

Turn and Talk

How does the service matrix reflect access to grade level curriculum?

Discuss some alternative delivery methods and how that might impact student outcomes?

How do the IEP’s and Evaluations reviewed today work to close the achievement gap for students identified for Special Education Services?

Questions?

Fran McCarthy, Director, Center for Special Education Services

fmccarthy@esd101.net

509-789-3529

Glenda Sederstrom, Coordinator, Center for Special Education Services

gsederstrom@esd101.net

509-789-3604