office of special education and early intervention services program accountability making education...

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services

Program Accountability

Making Education Work for All Children


Paying Attention

Why is it important?


BackgroundBackground

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA 2004)

Don’t fight forces. Use them.

--R. Buckminster Fuller


A New EraA New Era

• Student progress monitoring

• Use of research-based instructional practices


Multi-Tier Model of Service DeliveryMulti-Tier Model of Service Delivery

Academic Systems Behavioral Systems

1-5% 1-5%

5-10% 5-10%

80-90% 80-90%

Tier 3: Intensive, Individual Interventions•Individual Students•Assessment-based•High Intensity•Of longer duration

Tier 3: Intensive, Individual Interventions•Individual Students•Assessment-based•Intense, durable procedures

Tier 2: Targeted Group Interventions•Some students (at-risk)•High efficiency•Rapid response

Tier 2: Targeted Group Interventions•Some students (at-risk)•High efficiency•Rapid response

Tier 1: Universal Interventions•All students•Preventive, proactive

Tier 1: Universal Interventions•All settings, all students•Preventive, proactive

Three Tier Model of School Supports

Students


What we also hope to see . . .What we also hope to see . . .

Thoughtful Transition

Wraparound

Use of the System’s Greatest Talent, No Matter What

Individualized Needs Must Be Addressed

A “Permeable” System At All Levels

SOLID LINES SEEM SO PERMANENT: WE PREFER A “DASHED” FLOW-THROUGH VERSION!

Access to the General Curriculum and Help, Regardless of SettingDeliberate Fellowship

Between School, Home, and Community

All Students Get What They Need, When They Need it

The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them.

Albert Einstein, (attributed) US (German-born) physicist (1879 - 1955)


Paying Attention

How are we doing?


A Few Data PointsA Few Data Points

• Graduation

• Dropout

• Disproportionality


67.05

26.57

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Graduation Dropout

Per

cen

t

Graduation and Dropout Rates for Students with IEPs (December 2004)Graduation and Dropout Rates for Students with IEPs (December 2004)

Source: MI-CIS


35.04 35.08

41.01 42.60

50.9854.95

67.05

58.28 57.66

5248.15

39.7636.38

26.57

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Perc

ent

Graduation Dropout

Graduation and Dropout Rates for Students with IEPs: A Trend Analysis (1998 - 2004)Graduation and Dropout Rates for Students with IEPs: A Trend Analysis (1998 - 2004)

Source: MI-CIS


89.4

85.1

80.0

78.6

76.4

73.3

71.6

63.4

50.6

48.1

10.1

67.0

5.9

8.1

16.8

14.3

17.8

24.2

22.8

11.1

46.4

29.8

18.8

26.6

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Hearing Impairment

Visual Impairment

Other Health Impairment

Traumatic Brain Injury

Physical Impairment

Learning Disabled

Speech & LanguageImpairment

Autism

Emotional Impairment

Cognitive Impairment

Multihandicapped

Total

Graduation (%) Dropout (%)

Graduation and Dropout Rates of Students with IEPs per Disability Category (December 2004)Graduation and Dropout Rates of Students with IEPs per Disability Category (December 2004)

Source: MI-CIS


DisproportionalityDisproportionality

A statewide view of “risk” for selected disabilities, by race-ethnicity

Risk = (Number of students from racial/ethnic group in disability category / Number of all students from racial/ethnic group) * 100


Cognitive Impairment: African Americans Show Higher Risk for being Identified with Cognitive Impairment than other Race Ethnicities

Cognitive Impairment: African Americans Show Higher Risk for being Identified with Cognitive Impairment than other Race Ethnicities

Cognitive Impairment

1.4%

0.9%

2.9%

1.3% 1.2%1.5%

0%

1%

1%

2%

2%

3%

3%

4%

NativeAmerican

Asian AfricanAmerican

Hispanic White AllEthnicities

Perc

en

t o

f T

ota

l E

nro

llm

en

t W

ith

in

Each

Race

/E

thn

icit

y

Source: MICIS


Learning Disabilities: Native Americans and Hispanics Show Higher Risk for Being Identified as Learning Disabled StudentLearning Disabilities: Native Americans and Hispanics Show Higher Risk for Being Identified as Learning Disabled Student

Learning Disabled

6.7%

2.8%

6.4% 6.6%5.9% 5.9%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

NativeAmerican



Perc

en

t o

f T

ota

l E

nro

llm

en

t W

ith

in

Each

Race

/E

thn

icit

y

Source: MICIS


Emotional Impairment: Native Americans Show Higher Risk for being Identified with Emotional ImpairmentEmotional Impairment: Native Americans Show Higher Risk for being Identified with Emotional Impairment

Emotional Impairment

1.5%

0.4%

1.3%

0.6%

1.2% 1.2%

0%0%0%1%1%1%1%1%2%

NativeAmerican



Perc

en

t o

f T

ota

l E

nro

llm

en

t W

ith

in

Each

Race

/E

thn

icit

y

Source: MICIS


Speech and Language: White Students Show Higher Risk for being Identified with Speech and Language ImpairmentsSpeech and Language: White Students Show Higher Risk for being Identified with Speech and Language Impairments

Speech and Language

2.5%2.3% 2.2% 2.2%

2.7% 2.6%

0%

1%

1%

2%

2%

3%

3%

NativeAmerican



Perc

en

t o

f T

ota

l E

nro

llm

en

t W

ith

in

Each

Race

/E

thn

icit

y

Source: MICIS


AssessmentAssessment

Participation and Proficiency of students with IEPs


English Language Arts: Participation Rate of Students with IEPs (MEAP and MI-Access combined)English Language Arts: Participation Rate of Students with IEPs (MEAP and MI-Access combined)

Source: MDE / OEAA

94.8%95.4%

87.2%

99.5%

97.9% 97.3%

85%

90%

95%

100%

Elementary Middle School High School

2003/04 2004/05


Mathematics: Participation Rate of Students with IEPs (MEAP and MI-Access combined)Mathematics: Participation Rate of Students with IEPs (MEAP and MI-Access combined)

94.6%

97.2%

89.3%

95.7%

97.5% 97.3%

85%

90%

95%

100%

Elementary Middle School High School

2003/04 2004/05

Source: MDE / OEAA


Proficiency (% students with IEPs proficient on MEAP) Proficiency (% students with IEPs proficient on MEAP)

30.1

8

40.0

0

18.0

5

15.0

0

16.7

2

12.3

8

36.4

6

52.4

7

18.7

5

26.2

9

19.2

1

14.7

4

37.7

0

49.2

1

26.1

4

23.2

5

40.8

0

29.0

0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

ElementaryELA

ElementaryMathematics

Middle SchoolELA

Middle SchoolMathematics

High SchoolELA

High SchoolMathematics

2002/03 2003/04 2004/05

Source: MDE / OEAA


Facts About Special EducationFacts About Special Education


Facts about CIMSFacts about CIMS


Facts about DisporportionalityFacts about Disporportionality


Facts about Graduation and Drop OutFacts about Graduation and Drop Out


Facts about LREFacts about LRE


Facts about AssessmentsFacts about Assessments


Facts about State Performance PlanFacts about State Performance Plan


State Performance PlanHow do we set targets for improvement in Special Education?


MDE SPP Rigorous TargetsHow should we select a target?

Specific - related to a service and corporate objectives

Measurable – input – output - outcome

Achievable - but also stretch the organization

Realistic – able to reach the target

Timely and Time-scaled – clearly setting out by when the expected standard or level of service will be achieved.

Source: Her Majesty’s Treasury Dept. Website


Targets are to be SMA RT!--OSEP

SPECIFIC

MEASURABLE

ACHIEVABLE, BUT

CHALLENGING

(Abc)

RELEVANT

TIMED

bc


Targets - How aggressive?Targets - How aggressive?

It depends:

• Stretch targets - you may not meet them but trying may get you further

• Minimal targets - you will get there - likely to only maintain status quo - little improvement

Be Realistic: you may need additional info to address ability to measure success towards objective

This is from an Environmental Management System presentation—Office of the Federal Environmental Executive


Some Sources of These Challenging TargetsSome Sources of These Challenging Targets

• General Education Goals

• National Performance

• Comparable States

• Standard Deviations Relative to State LEA Average

• Trend


What indicators were we asked to examine?What indicators were we asked to examine?

• Graduation Rate

• Dropout Rate

• LRE 3-5

• LRE 6-12

• Suspension/ Expulsion

• AYP/ Assessment

• Hearings—Little Data


Graduation Rate: Comparable StatesGraduation Rate: Comparable States

01020

30405060

708090

Mich

igan

Ohio

Florid

a

New Y

ork

Min

nesot

a

Illin

ois

Texas

•Comparing to other states

•Graduation Rates at highs of 82%

•2003-2004 data

• i.e. reported in Dec. 04, including Spring 03 graduations


Graduation Rate: Comparable States 2002-2003Graduation Rate: Comparable States 2002-2003

42%

80%

43% 40%

69%

56%

74%

62%

48%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Michigan Ohio New York Florida Minnesota California Pennsylvania Illinois Texas


Graduation Rate: TrendGraduation Rate: Trend


Graduation Rate: SummaryGraduation Rate: Summary

• Current Statewide Baseline Mean=67.1%

• General Education Goals—80 %

• National Performance—1 S.D.+ = 68.2%

• Comparable States—Current Highs 82%

• Standard Deviations Relative to State LEA Average 1S.D.+=97%

• Trend—89 to 90%


Dropout Rate: Comparable States 2003-2004Dropout Rate: Comparable States 2003-2004

26.6%

17.0%

5.2%2.6%

4.6%6.6%

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

Michigan Ohio New York Florida Minnesota Texas


Dropout Rate: Comparable States 2002-2003Dropout Rate: Comparable States 2002-2003

48%

19%

36%

28% 30%34%

25%

35%

18%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%



Dropout Rate: TrendDropout Rate: Trend


Dropout Rate: Regression AnalysisDropout Rate: Regression Analysis

Variables Entered/Removedb

Year#a . EnterModel1

VariablesEntered

VariablesRemoved Method

All requested variables entered.a.

Dependent Variable: Drop Out Rate--OSEP Def.b.

Model Summaryb

.981a .962 .954 2.53373Model1

R R SquareAdjustedR Square

Std. Error ofthe Estimate

Predictors: (Constant), Year#a.

Dependent Variable: Drop Out Rate--OSEP Def.b.

ANOVAb

802.822 1 802.822 125.054 .000a

32.099 5 6.420

834.921 6

Regression

Residual

Total

Model1

Sum ofSquares df Mean Square F Sig.


Dependent Variable: Drop Out Rate--OSEP Def.b. Coefficientsa

66.961 2.141 31.270 .000

-5.355 .479 -.981 -11.183 .000

(Constant)

Year#

Model1

B Std. Error

UnstandardizedCoefficients

Beta

StandardizedCoefficients

t Sig.

Dependent Variable: Drop Out Rate--OSEP Def.a.

Residuals Statisticsa

29.4789 61.6068 45.5429 11.56735 7

-3.32679 2.60714 .00000 2.31297 7

-1.389 1.389 .000 1.000 7

-1.313 1.029 .000 .913 7

Predicted Value

Residual

Std. Predicted Value

Std. Residual

Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation N

Dependent Variable: Drop Out Rate--OSEP Def.a.


Dropout Rate: SummaryDropout Rate: Summary


• General Education Goals—20 % (2010)

• National Performance—1 S.D.- = 25.7%--old data

• Comparable States—Current Highs 2.6 to 5.2%

• Standard Deviations Relative to State LEA Average— 1 S.D.-=3.5%

• Trends—0%


LRE 3-5: Comparable States 2003-2004LRE 3-5: Comparable States 2003-2004

47.7%

26.0%

39.9%

8.6%

26.7%

5.0%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

Michigan Ohio New York Florida Minnesota Texas



48%

26%

41%

8%

40% 41%

49%

5%

56%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%



LRE 3-5: Trends Percent in Early Child Setting 100% of TimeLRE 3-5: Trends Percent in Early Child Setting 100% of Time

Trend is declining

49.42 48.1 47.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2002 2003 2004


LRE 3-5: SummaryLRE 3-5: Summary


• General Education Goals—66% (2010)

• National Performance—1 S.D.+ = 53.17%

• Comparable States—Michigan is ahead

• Standard Deviations Relative to State LEA Average—+ 1 S.D.=85.2%

• Trends—Trend is down.

So the problem is to reverse the trend.



44.9% 46.0%

53.4% 51.2%

61.4%

43.6%

52.7%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

Michigan Ohio New York Florida Minnesota Illinois Texas



44% 46%

53% 51%

61%

49%43% 43%

53%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%



LRE 6-21: TrendsLRE 6-21: Trends

Data not available to permit this.


LRE 6-21: SummaryLRE 6-21: Summary



• National Performance— +1 S.D. = 63.1%

• Comparable States—Current Highs 61.4% (Minn.)

• Standard Deviations Relative to State LEA Average— + 1 S.D.=70.7%

• Trends—Data N.A.


Suspension/ Expulsion: Comparable StatesSuspension/ Expulsion: Comparable States

2.4%

14.1%

11.0%

0.8%

23.9%

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

Michigan Ohio Florida Minnesota Texas


Suspension/ Expulsion: TrendsSuspension/ Expulsion: Trends

Not enough cases to use this approach.


Suspension/ Expulsion: SummarySuspension/ Expulsion: Summary


• Draft text (Gen. Ed.)—0% (2010)

• National Performance—No data

• Comparable States—Different Reporting Approaches

• Standard Deviations Relative to State LEA Average— 1 S.D.=0%

• Trends—Not enough data.


AYP/ Assessment: General EducationAYP/ Assessment: General Education

FFY

Measurable and Rigorous Target 2005

(2005-2006)

Middle School Math 43%

2006

(2006-2007)


2007

(2007-2008)


2008

(2008-2009)


2009

(2009-2010)


2010

(2010-2011)



AYP/ Assessment: TrendsAYP/ Assessment: Trends


AYP/ Assessment: Regression AnalysisAYP/ Assessment: Regression Analysis

Variables Entered/Removedb

Year#a . EnterModel1

VariablesEntered

VariablesRemoved Method

All requested variables entered.a.

Dependent Variable: Percent of 8thgrade w/IEP Math Proficient

b.

Model Summaryb

.706a .499 -.003 5.85020Model1

R R SquareAdjustedR Square

Std. Error ofthe Estimate


Dependent Variable: Percent of 8th grade w/IEP MathProficient

b.

ANOVAb

34.031 1 34.031 .994 .501a

34.225 1 34.225

68.256 2

Regression

Residual

Total

Model1

Sum ofSquares df Mean Square F Sig.


Dependent Variable: Percent of 8th grade w/IEP Math Proficientb. Coefficientsa

-3.237 25.049 -.129 .918

4.125 4.137 .706 .997 .501

(Constant)

Year#

Model1

B Std. Error

UnstandardizedCoefficients

Beta

StandardizedCoefficients

t Sig.

Dependent Variable: Percent of 8th grade w/IEP Math Proficienta.

Residuals Statisticsa

17.3883 25.6383 21.5133 4.12500 3

-2.38833 4.77667 .00000 4.13671 3

-1.000 1.000 .000 1.000 3

-.408 .816 .000 .707 3

Predicted Value

Residual

Std. Predicted Value

Std. Residual

Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation N

Dependent Variable: Percent of 8th grade w/IEP Math Proficienta.


AYP/ Assessment: SummaryAYP/ Assessment: Summary



• National Performance—No Data

• Comparable States—No Data

• Standard Deviations Relative to State LEA Average— + 1 S.D.=61.5%

• Trends—50+%


HearingsHearings

No Data


Processing SummaryProcessing Summary

Case Processing Summary

796 93.5% 55 6.5% 851 100.0%

796 93.5% 55 6.5% 851 100.0%

796 93.5% 55 6.5% 851 100.0%

796 93.5% 55 6.5% 851 100.0%

Proportion of whitestudents * Which Sample

Proportion of blackstudents * Which Sample

Proportion of studentsw/Learning Dis. * WhichSample

Proportion of studentsw/Cognitive Imp. * WhichSample

N Percent N Percent N Percent

Included Excluded Total

Cases


Supporting General EducationSupporting General Education

• IDEA Flow -Through funds for PD and TA

• School Improvement Teams and Plans can be supported by Sp Ed

• IF Sp Ed is a service, not a place, what services are in place?

• Examples from the field: Ingham ISD


Supporting General Education (Continued)Supporting General Education (Continued)

• System Improvement: Teaming with General Education and Community Resources

• Examples…early intervening, school improvement teams, Statewide Assessment Planning, CIMS, Transition Services & HS supports to assure graduation


Assessment and Accommodations:What’s Next?Assessment and Accommodations:What’s Next?

• Assessment Guidelines Revision

• HS Merit Exam and the ACT

Whether or not we support a solution depends a lot on whether it is being done to us—or by us.”

Sam Horn Author, Tongue Fu!


Paying Attention

How do we improve?


Paying Attention

Michigan’s CIMS


BeliefsBeliefs

• There is one set of curricular standards

• There is one set of behavioral expectations

• Effective schools use effective practices

• Learning differences are individual


Michigan’s Continuous Improvement and Monitoring SystemMichigan’s Continuous Improvement and Monitoring System


Continuous Improvement and Monitoring SystemContinuous Improvement and Monitoring System

• Is concerned with Educational Benefit

• Regards the child as part of the whole school

• Targets areas of greatest concern


Paying Attention

The Service Provider Self-Review


Why the SPSR?Why the SPSR?

• To improve student performance

• To ensure compliance

• To inform the Michigan Department of Education (MDE) and Intermediate School District (ISD) of local district (LEA) and public school academy (PSA) needs


SPSR HighlightsSPSR Highlights

• This is a process required by IDEA

• The process is moving away from paper and moving toward local people

• Local implementation begins in the 2005-2006 school year

• ISD monitors will assist districts with facilitation, technical assistance, and training


The Service Provider Self-ReviewThe Service Provider Self-Review


12 Key Performance Indicators12 Key Performance Indicators

• Child Find

• Positive Behavior Support

• Student Assistance Teams

• Family Participation

• Curriculum

• Least Restrictive Environment

• Participation in the State General Assessment

• Preparation and Planning for Adult Life

• IEP Development, Implementation, and Timelines

• Peer Reviewed Research and Instructional Practices

• Highly Qualified Personnel

• Data Use


Map of Influences Among Key Performance Indicators (May 18, 2005)Map of Influences Among Key Performance Indicators (May 18, 2005)


Paying Attention

Educational Benefit


Educational Benefit ReviewsEducational Benefit Reviews

• Used to determine if the Individual Education Program (IEP) was reasonably calculated to ensure educational benefit

• Used to look at how and how well the IEP Team made its decisions

PLEP

(needs)

G & O P/S PROGRESS

EDUCATIONAL BENEFITYear 1 – 8th Grade Year 2 – 9th Grade Year 3 – 10th Grade

PLEP

(needs)

G & O P/S PROGRESS PLEP

(needs)

G & O P/S PROGRESS

Reading Comp

3.0

Reading

Comp 4.0

Written Express

2.0

Needs accom. in Gen.

Ed.

• TSW answer questions about passages at the 4.0 reading level.

Reading

Comp 4.0

• Tests read if written at higher then reading comprehension level, note taker and chapter outlines in all GE classes and writing assignments modified to student’s writing level.

Written Express

3.0

• TSW write a paragraph that meets the 3.0 writing rubric.

Resource Program

20-25 min./1-2

X’s/week.

End of year assessment indicates Reading Comprehension level at 4.0. Reading Comprehension goals were accomplished. Written expression is at 3.0 grade level with goals being accomplished. GE grades:B in math, C in ELA, B in PE, C in science, and C in Social Studies. On the MEAP, using accommodations, Danielle Met the Standards in Math and Science and scored in the Basic range for Social Studies.

Written Expres

s3.0

??

Reading

Comp 5.0

Written Expres

s4.0

•TSW answer questions about written material at the 5.0 grade level.

TSW write a multiple paragraph essay meeting the requirements of the 4.0 rubric.

Resource Program

20-25 min./1-2

X’s/week.

• End of year Reading Comprehension 4.0 and written expression 3.0. The student did not accomplish her goals and objectives. Report card grades: D in math, F in ELA, F in science, D in Social Studies and B in Art

Reading

Comp 4.0

Written Expres

s3.0

Student is struggling in

all of her Gen. Ed. classes

TSW write a paragraph meeting the 4.0 grade level rubric.

TSW answer questions about material at the 6.0 reading level.

Reading

Comp 6.0

Written Expres

s4.0

Resource Program

20-25 min./1-2

X’s/week.

Reading comprehension at the 4.0 grade level and written expression at the 3.0 grades level. In Gen. Ed. received a D in Math, F in ELA, B in PE, F in Science and D in Social Studies.

PLEP

(needs)

G & O P/S PROGRESS


PLEP

(needs)


(needs)

G & O P/S PROGRESS




Resource Program

20-25 min./1-2

X’s/week.


Reading

Comp 5.0

Written Expres

s4.0



Resource Program

20-25 min./1-2

X’s/week.




Reading

Comp 6.0

Written Expres

s4.0

Resource Program

20-25 min./1-2

X’s/week.


Reading Comp

4.0

??

Written Express

3.0



Reading Comp

4.0

Written Express

3.0

Written Express

2.0


Ed.

Reading Comp

3.0

PLEP

(needs)

G & O P/S PROGRESS


PLEP

(needs)


(needs)

G & O P/S PROGRESS

Reading Comp

3.0

Reading

Comp 4.0

Written Express

2.0


Ed.


Reading

Comp 4.0


Written Express

3.0


Resource Program

20-25 min./1-2

X’s/week.


Written Expres

s3.0

??

Reading

Comp 5.0

Written Expres

s4.0



Resource Program

20-25 min./1-2

X’s/week.


Reading

Comp 4.0

Written Expres

s3.0





Reading

Comp 6.0

Written Expres

s4.0

Resource Program

20-25 min./1-2

X’s/week.


EDUCATIONAL BENEFITYear 1 Year 2 Year 3

PLEP

(needs)


(needs)


(needs)

G & O P/S PROGRESS

Your text here

Your text here

Your text here

We should learn from the mistakes of others. We don’t have time to make them all ourselves.

--Groucho Marx


Paying Attention

The MDE and State Board of Education


State Board BeliefsState Board Beliefs

• All children can learn at high levels, and that

• A complete education helps all of our children become participating citizens who are creative, caring, and critical thinkers, and to accomplish this

• The State Board of Education and the Michigan Department of Education must work in collaboration with the Governor, the Legislature, and the community of stakeholders to achieve the Vision.


State Board Vision StatementState Board Vision Statement

The State Board of Education and Department of Education, with their partners, are the driving forces to create learning environments that prepare students to be successful in the 21st Century knowledge economy.


State Board InitiativesState Board Initiatives

• Seclusion and Restraint (In progress)

• Suspension and Expulsion (In progress)

• School Improvement Framework

• High School Reform (In progress)

• NCLB, Assessment and AYP Discussions and Decisions (Ongoing)

• MDE Strategic Plan 2005-2010 (Completed)

• Visions and Principles of Universal Education (Approved 10/11/05)


Universal Education VisionUniversal Education Vision

Learners in all of their diversity come from a variety of backgrounds and life situations that may pose barriers to their access to, experience with, and progress in public education.



Every individual’s success is important to our society.

Each person deserves and needs a concerned, accepting educational community that values diversity and provides a comprehensive system of individual supports from birth to adulthood.

Universal Education removes barriers, provides flexible and responsive supports, and facilitates life-long learning for all.



In order to support the learning of ALL in achieving desired educational outcomes, there must be: A learning community in which diverse stakeholders play an

essential role in the development and education of infants through young adults.

A safe and accepting learning environment characterized by our commitment to educational excellence and mutual support, respect and responsibility.

A foundation of comprehensive and flexible human and fiscal resources designed to prevent learning problems and to build on strengths.

Ongoing adult and student learning resulting in effective, customized, instructional practices informed by student performance data.



Agency/Court Placements

EducationalOrganizations& Associations

Business &Community

Organizations

Parent/Student

Organizations

Criminal/Juvenile

Justice System

State/Local Boards of Education

AdvocacyGroups/

Organizations Teacher Training& Pre-ServiceOrganizations

ExecutiveBranch of

Government

Legislature

OtherStakeholders

Human Services System

AlternativeEducation Home

SchoolsNon-Public Schools

OtherEducational

SettingsNeighborhood

Schools

Public SchoolAcademies

OtherFactors

Juvenile Justice System

Involvement

Disability

Physical Health

Pregnant / Parenting

Teens/Youth

Youth in Transition

Socioeconomic Status

AcademicallyAdvanced &Accelerated

Sexual Orientation

Religious Beliefs

Runaway / Throw-Away

Dropout

Court Involved

Foster Care

Suspended / Expelled

Homelessness

Gender Identity& Expression

Emotional & Mental Health

EnglishLanguage Learners

Race / Ethnicity

Learning Style Differences


Universal Education aligns with:Universal Education aligns with:

• The State Board Strategic Goal

• The State Board Task Forces:

– Early Childhood Literacy

– Elevating Educational Leadership

– Embracing the Information Age

– Ensuring Excellent Educators

– Integrating Schools and Communities

• The High School Reform Team

• The Lieutenant Governor’s Commission on

–Higher Education and Economic Growth

• Yardstick for Success

• Aligning for Leadership


Paying Attention

School Improvement Framework

Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to walk from here? That depends a good deal on where you want to get to, said the cat. I don't much care where, said Alice.

Then it doesn't matter which way you walk, said the Cat. -so long as I get somewhere, Alice added. Oh, you're sure to do that, said the Cat, if you only walk long enough.-- Lewis Carroll...Alice in Wonderland


The Vision…The Vision…

Provide a comprehensive framework based on current research and best practice to serve as a road map to support continuous school improvement.


Requirements:

Develop a framework that is

based on research yet can

be individualized to support

the unique needs of each

school.

The Vision…The Vision…


Strand I - TEACHING & LEARNING

Strand II – LEADERSHIP

Strand III - PERSONNEL & PROFESSIONAL LEARNING

Strand V - DATA & INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

Strand IV – SCHOOL & COMMUNITY RELATIONS

The 5 StrandsThe 5 Strands


Strand II - LEADERSHIP

INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

OPERATIONAL RESOURCE MNGT.

SHARED LEADERSHIP

CURRICULUM

INSTRUCTION

ASSESSMENT

Strand I – TEACHING & LEARNING

Strand III - PERSONNEL & PROF. LEARNING

PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING

Strand IV - SCHOOL/ COMMUNITY RELATIONS

PARENT/FAMILY INVOLVEMENT

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

Strand V - DATA & INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

DATA MANAGEMENT

INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

The 12 StandardsThe 12 Standards


Paying Attention

Opportunities and Conclusions


MDE Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services: OpportunitiesMDE Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services: Opportunities

• NCLB and IDEA 2004

• School Reform Initiatives

• MDE and State Board Plans and Work

• OSE/EIS State Performance Plan

• Grantees’ Successes, such as MiBLSi

• Monitoring that is Moving from Paper to People (CIMS)


MDE Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services: ConclusionsMDE Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services: Conclusions

• Committed to enhancing our dialogue with general educators for the benefit of ALL students

• Data is informing our decisions and work

• Using technology to save time and dollars (for all) in disseminating information

• Looking at fresh and effective ways to exchange ideas with stakeholders


The MDE is Paying Attention

Because it is all important!


Web sitewww.cenmi.org/cims

www.michigan.gov/mde

office of special education and early intervention services program accountability making education...

Documents