Transcript Phase 1 Schools. - Class Size Matters

NYC SPECIAL EDUCATION REFORM
Preliminary Results
February 2012
1
Contents
Part 1: Background of the Reform
• Major reports on special education in NYC & goals of the reform – Slide 4
• Historical trends: Graduation data – Slide 5
• What the national research shows – Slide 6
• NYC system-wide analysis supports the national research – Slide 7
• Phase 1 and non-Phase 1 schools – Slides 8-10
• Developing a group of Comparison Schools – Slides 10-11
Part 2: Phase 1 Preliminary Results
• Results Summary – Slide 13
• Initial referrals to special education – Slide 14-15
• LRE recommendations – Slide 16-17
• Program Recommendations – Slide 18-21
• Attendance – Slide 22
• Key attributes central to school-level reform – Slide 23
2
Part 1: BACKGROUND OF THE REFORM
3
In July 2009, the NYC DOE initiated a system-wide reform of special
education. Two reports on special education reinforced the need for
change.
>Least Restrictive Environment: “The placement process in NYC emphasizes the notion of
placement as the availability of ‘seats’ in special education programs rather than as the services and
environment that are appropriate to the individualized needs of the student . . . . Moreover, this
process promotes the idea that special education is a ‘place’ rather than a service, and places
priority of such placement over what should be the most important consideration – the general
education placement.” (from the Hehir Report, 2005)
>Access to the General Education Curriculum & Student Achievement: “In the coming years,
consistent with the principles of Children First, the Department should increase its focus on longterm outcomes for students with disabilities and empower schools, parents, and DOE staff to
collaborate in building successful instructional models and strengthening the culture of inclusion for
students with disabilities.” (from the Harries Report, 2009)
Drawing further from those reports and our commitment to accelerating the system-wide
achievement of student with disabilities, we formulated three major goals for the reform:
1. To close the achievement gap between students with disabilities and their peers
without disabilities.
2. To increase access to and participation in the general education curriculum for
students with disabilities.
3. To build school-based capacity to support the diverse needs of students with
disabilities through greater curricular, instructional, and scheduling flexibility.
The need for change was also clear in the system-wide graduation data.
4
Although more high school graduates with disabilities earn Regents diplomas,
the percentage of students with disabilities graduating from high school
in 4 years is only 30.7%.
Percent of Students With Disabilities Graduating from High School in 4 Years
30.7%
26.6%
22.5%
17.1%
18.5%
Diploma Type
Adv. Regents
18.3%
Regents
Local
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Notes: Graduation rate totals may not equal total of diploma types due to rounding. Totals reflect data available at the time of reporting
provided by NYS; August graduate data is only available for years 2009-2010.
5
Also foundational to the development of the reform goals was the national
research on special education which shows that the more time students with
disabilities spend in a general education classroom, the…
•
•
•
•
higher their scores are on standardized tests of reading and math;
fewer absences they have from school;
fewer referrals they have for disruptive behavior; and
better outcomes they have after high school in the areas of employment
and independent living.
This was found for all students with disabilities, regardless of:
• disability label
• severity of disability
• gender
• family’s socio-economic status
(Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Levine, & Garza, 2006)
6
Preliminary results from our system-wide analysis of trends
in special education programming are consistent with national
research findings on the relationship between LRE and student
achievement.
With 19% of students with disabilities in grades 4-8 tested in 2011 who
had moved to less restrictive environments within the past four years:
• ELA proficiency of those students was, on average, 2.49,
compared to 2.29 for students who did not move to a less
restrictive environment; and,
• Math proficiency of those students was, on average, 2.79,
compared to 2.55 for students who did not move to a less
restrictive environment.
Source: 2010-11 Elementary/Middle School Progress Reports
Note: “Student Moved to Less Restrictive” is based on a comparison of a student’s 2010-11 program setting and
level of inclusion with that of the previous four years. The tiers, from most to least restrictive, are:
self-contained 0-40%, self-contained 40-80%, self-contained/CTT/SETSS 80-100%, and decertified/related services only.
7
In April 2010, ten networks (260 schools) agreed to begin the work
of the special education reform as the “Phase 1 Schools.”
During the first year of Phase 1, consistent with the research previously cited, we began to
change operational practices on how we enrolled and placed students with disabilities,
and explore how flexibility within the Continuum of Services allowed schools to create
more varied programs of instruction for students with disabilities.
Comparing Phase 1 and non-Phase 1 Schools
Non-Phase 1
Phase 1
Enrollment
Students are enrolled where there is
program availability; programs are
assigned to schools based on historic
capacity and projected program need.
Students have same access to schools as if
they did not have an IEP; school is responsible
for serving the student. Students will not be
transferred because of changes in the IEP.
Students zoned to a Phase 1 school are offered
to attend their zoned school.
Funding
Elementary and middle schools are
funded for classes; schools receive “empty
seat” funding to make class allocations
whole.
Schools are funded per capita; schools utilize
their resources to best serve student need
instead of maintaining specific programs.
Programming
Students are programmed with limited
variability for either SETSS, ICT, or selfcontained.
Flexible programming is encouraged and allows
varied services, as appropriate, leading to
increased LRE and access to the general
education curriculum.
8
The Phase 1 Schools served higher proportions of Hispanic students,
English Language Learners, and Students with Disabilities.
Student Demographics in Phase 1 Schools Compared to Citywide Averages *
Phase 1
Citywide
* Demographic data are based on the Audited Register as of 10.31.2010.
ELL=English Language Learners; SwD=Students with Disabilities
9
Because the Phase 1 Schools had different demographics than the rest of
the city, we established a set of comparison schools for our analyses.
We used the following methodology to identify a set of comparison
schools that served a similar group of students as those in Phase 1.
 We used Propensity Score Matching (PSM) to identify comparison schools
that were similar to Phase 1 Schools in 2009-10 (the year before Phase 1
started).
 Separate models were examined for schools with grades 3-8, grades 912, grades pk-2 only, and for new schools that opened in 2010-2011.
 The result was an overall sample of 270 Comparison Schools that would
be compared to the 260 Phase 1 Schools for all subsequent analyses.
 These two groups of schools did not differ in terms of total enrollment,
school borough, whether the school was a new school, and school
demographics including free/reduced lunch, student ethnicity, % English
Language Learners, % students with disabilities, and Math and ELA
proficiency for students with disabilities.
* Variables included in the PSM model: total enrollment, dummy codes for borough, %ELL, %SwD, % Asian, % White, % Hispanic, % Black, and
an indicator for whether the school was new since 2002.
10
When Phase 1 Schools were compared to Comparison Schools by borough and school
level, Elementary and Middle Schools tended to be located in the Bronx;
High Schools were more evenly distributed, with a larger number located in Manhattan.
Number of Phase 1 and Comparison Schools by Borough and School Level
PHASE 1
COMPARISON
N=260
N=270
123
55
122
60
57
53
22
22
9
7
Elementary
High School
Middle
* ‘Other’ schools include, Early Childhood, K-12, K-8, and 6-12 schools;
Across both groups, 69% of High schools are new schools
Other *
11
Part 2: PRELIMINARY DATA FROM PHASE 1 OF THE REFORM
12
RESULTS SUMMARY:
Following are preliminary results for the implementation of the
reform during September 2010 to December 2011.
•
Phase 1 Schools showed greater decreases in initial referral rates
than Comparison Schools since 2009-10.
•
Phase 1 Schools had higher rates of recommendations to LRE
and showed greater increases than Comparison Schools since
2009-10.
•
Phase 1 and Comparison Schools did not have a significant
difference in attendance rates.
•
A preliminary look at the student outcomes showed no statistically
significant differences on Math & ELA proficiency between Phase
1 and Comparison Schools.
13
PRELIMINARY TREND:
Between 2010 and 2011, initial referral rates decreased twice as much
in Phase 1 Schools as they did in Comparison Schools.
Initial Referrals
2010
2011
Note: SESIS, the DOE’s new data system for collecting information about students with disabilities was implemented in the 10-11 school year.
This resulted in updates to data initially reported. Initial referral rates are based on the number of initial referrals divided by the total number of
students without IEPs as of June of each year.
14
PRELIMINARY TREND:
Across all grade levels, Phase 1 Schools have shown greater decreases in
initial referral rates since 2009-10 than Comparison Schools.
Initial Referrals
K-5
6-8
2010
9-12
2011
Note: SESIS, the DOE’s new data system for collecting information about students with disabilities was implemented in the 10-11 school year.
This resulted in updates to data initially reported. Initial referral rates are based on the number of initial referrals divided by the total number of
students without IEPs as of June of each year.
15
PRELIMINARY TREND:
Phase 1 Schools showed a greater increase in recommendations to less
restrictive settings. Between 2010 and 2011, Comparison Schools increased
their LRE recommendations* by 1.9%, while Phase 1 Schools increased their
LRE recommendations* by 11.3%.
LRE Recommendations
2010
2011
Note: SESIS, the DOE’s new data system for collecting information about students with disabilities was implemented in the 10-11 school year.
This resulted in updates to data initially reported. LRE=Less Restrictive Environment. * Includes all recommendations from re-evaluations and
triennial conferences.
16
PRELIMINARY TREND:
Across all grade levels, Phase 1 Schools had higher rates of
recommendations to LRE than Comparison Schools.
LRE Recommendations
K-5
6-8
2010
9-12
2011
Note: SESIS, the DOE’s new data system for collecting information about students with disabilities was implemented in the 10-11 school year.
This resulted in updates to data initially reported. LRE=Less Restrictive Environment. * Includes all recommendations from re-evaluations and
triennial conferences.
17
PRELIMINARY TREND:
Phase 1 Schools showed a greater decrease in self-contained classes than
Comparison Schools. Both Phase 1 and Comparison Schools showed increases in
team teaching classes. Both also showed decreases in special education teacher
support services (SETSS).
Program Recommendations
OVERALL TRENDS
Related Services Only
LRE
SETSS
Integrated Co-Teaching
Phase 1 June 2010
Comparison June 2010
Phase 1 June 2011
Comparison June 2011
SELF-CONTAINED
Placement
Continuum
Note: SESIS, the DOE’s new data system for collecting information about students with disabilities was implemented
in the 10-11 school year. This resulted in updates to data initially reported.
18
PRELIMINARY TREND:
Phase 1 Schools showed a greater decrease in self-contained classes than
Comparison Schools. Both Phase 1 and Comparison Schools showed increases in
team teaching. Both also showed decreases in special education teacher support
services (SETSS).
Program Recommendations
Grades K-5
Related Services Only
LRE
SETSS
Integrated Co-Teaching
Phase 1 June 2010
Comparison June 2010
Phase 1 June 2011
Comparison June 2011
SELF-CONTAINED
Placement
Continuum
Note: SESIS, the DOE’s new data system for collecting information about students with disabilities was implemented
in the 10-11 school year. This resulted in updates to data initially reported.
19
PRELIMINARY TREND:
Phase 1 Schools showed a greater decrease in self-contained classes than
Comparison Schools. Both Phase 1 and Comparison Schools showed increases in
team teaching classes and in related services only. Both also showed decreases in
special education teacher support services (SETSS).
Program Recommendations
Grades 6-8
Related Services Only
LRE
SETSS
Integrated Co-Teaching
Phase 1 June 2010
Comparison June 2010
Phase 1 June 2011
Comparison June 2011
SELF-CONTAINED
Placement
Continuum
Note: SESIS, the DOE’s new data system for collecting information about students with disabilities was implemented
in the 10-11 school year. This resulted in updates to data initially reported.
20
PRELIMINARY TREND:
Phase 1 Schools showed a greater decrease in self-contained classes than
Comparison Schools. Both Phase 1 and Comparison Schools showed increases in
team teaching. Both also showed decreases in special education teacher support
services (SETSS).
Program Recommendations
Grades 9-12
Related Services Only
LRE
SETSS
Integrated Co-Teaching
Phase 1 June 2010
Comparison June 2010
Phase 1 June 2011
Comparison June 2011
SELF-CONTAINED
Placement
Continuum
Note: SESIS, the DOE’s new data system for collecting information about students with disabilities was implemented
in the 10-11 school year. This resulted in updates to data initially reported.
21
PRELIMINARY TREND:
Phase 1 and Comparison Schools did not have a
significant difference in attendance rates.
Attendance Rates
2010
2011
22
PRELIMINARY TREND:
Key attributes identified as considered central to reform at the school level*.
Used IEPs
to plan
instruction
Incorporated
related
services
Integrated
teams of all
teachers
Created
inclusive
cultures
Set high
expectations
for all
learners
Created
flexibility in
scheduling
Utilized staff
and
resources
innovatively
Phase
1
Schools
* data compiled from surveys, interviews, and schools visits.
Involved
parents
significantly
23