Transcript IDEA Partnership State – State Meeting

IDEA Partnership
State – State Meeting
March 20 -21, 2006



Connecting to Data
and strategies
Using Quantitative
Data
Fredric DeMay
Who is Fred DeMay?





35 Years in the Field of Special Education
25 Years with the New York State
Education Department
Coordinator for Program Development and
Special Education Policy
SIG Director
Helped develop NY’s TA infrastructure for
General and Special Education
Using Quantitative Data to Guide
IDEA Partnership Activities




Connections to OSEP SPP indicators
Alignment with State Performance Plans
Creating a “Value-Added” component of
partnership relationships
Getting to “Win-Win”
A quick reality check…




HMOY are familiar with the 20 (14 LEA)
OSEP indicators that drive the SPP/APR?
HMOY have a copy of your State’s SPP?
HMOY are familiar with your State’s
baseline data?
HMOY are familiar with your State’s
Measurable and Rigorous Targets for each
indicator?
A quick reality check…




HMOY are aware of the Activities/ Timelines/
and Resources included in the SPP to achieve
those targets?
HMOY had significant input into your State’s
SPP?
HMOY were directly involved in the development
of your State’s SPP?
HMOY can explain the difference between the
SPP and APR?
State Performance Plan (SPP)
6-year plan
 3 priority areas
 20 indicators
 Measurable and rigorous targets
 Improvement strategies

SPP Content







For each indicator
Overview of the System or Process
Baseline data and discussion
Measurable and Rigorous Targets
Improvement Activities /Timelines
/Resources
How Stakeholder Input Obtained
Public Dissemination Plan
Annual Performance Reports
(APR)



Valid and reliable information
Annual reports to USDOE on the
performance of the State on the SPP
State reports annually to the public on the
performance of each LEA Program in the
State on the targets in the SPP
APR Content





Actual performance against the targets
Improvement activities completed
Explanation of progress or slippage
Any revisions to approved targets,
improvement activities, timelines or
resources – with justifications
Public reporting plan
Monitoring Priority Areas
 FAPE
in the LRE
 Disproportionality
 Effective
General
Supervision
Indicators: FAPE in the LRE
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Graduation rate
Drop out rate
Participation and Performance on Statewide
Assessments
Rates of Suspension and Expulsion
Least Restrictive Environment placements–
school age
LRE - preschool
Preschool Outcomes (improved socialemotional, knowledge and skills, behaviors)
School facilitation of parent involvement
Indicators: Disproportionality
1.
2.
Disproportionate representation of racial and
ethnic groups in special education that is the
result of inappropriate identification
Disproportionate representation of racial and
ethnic groups in specific disability categories
that is the result of inappropriate
identification
Indicators: General Supervision
1.
2.
3.
4.
Evaluations and eligibility determinations
within 60 days
Children referred from EI with IEPs
implemented by their 3rd birthdays
Youth with appropriate IEPs relating to
transition services
Youth employed or in post secondary school
within one year after leaving high school
General Supervision
Responsibility (State reporting only)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Compliance corrected within one year of
identification
Complaints resolved within 60 day timeline
Impartial hearings adjudicated within 45 days
Hearing requests resolved in resolution
sessions
Mediations resulting in mediation agreements
State data and reports timely and accurate
Federal Monitoring

The Secretary shall monitor the States


using quantifiable indicators in each of the
priority areas, and
using such qualitative indicators as are
needed to adequately measure
performance.
State Monitoring

The Secretary shall require States to
Monitor implementation of this part by
local education agencies
 Enforce this part in accordance with
IDEA monitoring priorities and
enforcement actions

Enforcement

Needs assistance: 2 consecutive years




Needs intervention: 3 or more consecutive years



Technical assistance
Direct use of funds
Impose conditions on use of funds
Corrective action plan or improvement plan
Withhold/recover funds
Needs substantial intervention: at any time


Recover/withhold funds
Judicial referral
and the point is….



The complexity and depth of the SPP took many
States by surprise.
In some cases the infrastructure may not exist
to leverage change in the indicator areas.
The SPP may drive some States to emphasize
increased monitoring or other punitive
compliance strategies as a fallback position,
particularly with annual public data-reporting
requirements.
and the point is….




It is probable that the SPP will dominate the
attention and resources of SEAs.
Activities, projects and programs that are not
directly linked to SPPs (although potentially
valuable), are not likely to be supported.
SEAs may not yet have a clear set of strategies
defined.
The unintended consequence of weakening
collaborative efforts is possible.
and the point is….

Any ‘Partnership’ initiative should be
integrated into the SPP and demonstrated
to support the State’s improvement
efforts.
Case Study - NYS


IDEA Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE
Indicator #1: % of youth with IEPs
graduating from HS with a regular diploma
compared to all students
Case Study - NYS

Baseline data: 55% (1998 cohort) and 58%
(1999 cohort) of SWD graduated with a regular
diploma within 4 years compared to 77% of all
students.
Measurable and Rigorous Targets






2005-06
2006-70
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
59%
60%
61%
62%
63%
64%
grad
grad
grad
grad
grad
grad
rate
rate
rate
rate
rate
rate






Less
Less
Less
Less
Less
Less
than
than
than
than
than
than
18%
17%
17%
16%
16%
15%
point gap
point gap
point gap
point gap
point gap
point gap
Sample Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources


Conduct focused
“Exiting/Transition”
monitoring reviews of
districts with graduation
rates below State targets
Conduct focused
monitoring reviews of
BOCES to review student
access to general
curriculum


Special Education Quality
Assurance (SEQA)
Regional Offices, SETRC,
RSSCs
Special Education Quality
Assurance (SEQA)
Regional Offices, SETRC,
RSSCs
Sample Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources


Partner with other State
Agencies to leverage local and
State interagency funding to
implement school-based
collaborative efforts to improve
results for students with
disabilities
Use a data-driven strategic
planning model to develop
annual improvement plans
with Big Four Cities


Task Force on School and
Community Collaboration
Urban Initiative
Sample Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources



Promote implementation of
Positive Behavioral
Intervention and Supports
(PBIS) in school districts with
graduation rates below the
State target
Increase participation in CTE
programs
Support Preservice teacher
preparation programs to
enhance skills of general and
special education teachers



PBIS project in collaboration
with SED, OMH, DOH, Families
Together of NYS
Regents policy development
and various TA programs
Numerous provider shortage
and IHE initiatives including
SIG
Connections and Alignment
The Emerging Role of the IDEA Partnership

At the State Level – help define primary strategies
partners will use to improve graduation rate.



Research and Analysis – Why does the gap exist? What are the
key factors that contribute to the high dropout rates and low
graduation rates for SWD? What are the policy implications for
legislation, Board of Regents, Regulations, local policy? Are
there areas in the country or State where the gap does not
exist? If so, why? What worked? How can partners work with
SED and LEAs to move best practices to the field?
What can National and State partners do specifically to support
SED efforts as outlined in the SPP?
What are the most critical needs (from SPP) that individual
partners can assist with (value-added)?
Connections and Alignment
The Emerging Role of the IDEA Partnership

At the Regional or Intermediate level (County, BOCES,
major city) – engage directly with regional TA and school
improvement efforts to support and enhance school
improvement strategies.




How are regional TA initiatives addressing graduation rate gaps?
What role does or can the partner organizations play in
improving graduation rates?
What are the expected outcomes from the partner’s
participation?
What data will be needed to document outcomes?
Connections and Alignment
The Emerging Role of the IDEA Partnership

At the LEA level – engage directly with individual districts
and schools to address specific graduation gap issues.



What role does or can the partner organization play in improving
graduation rates?
What are the expected outcomes from the partner’s
participation?
What data will be needed to document outcomes?
Let’s explore how this can play out…
The NY IDEA Partnership
experience
1. Identify appropriate IDEA Partners for each SPP indicator;
2. Then discuss appropriate strategies and activities to support attainment of those indicators at the levels identified below.
3. Be sure to include measurable, data-driven indicators of outcomes that can be communicated to stakeholders.
SPP Indicator/Targets/Gap
State Level Partnership
Activities and Expected
Outcomes
Regional Level
Partnership Activities and
Expected Outcomes
Local Level Partnership
Activities and Expected
Outcomes
IDEA Partner:
Date:
SPP Indicator/Targets/Gap
1. % of Students with disabilities
graduating with a HS diploma.
2005
59%
< 18% pts
2006
60%
< 17% pts
2007
61%
< 17% pts
2008
62%
< 16% pts
2009
63%
< 16% pts
2010
64%
< 15% pts
State Level Partnership
Activities and Expected
Outcomes
Regional Level
Partnership Activities and
Expected Outcomes
Local Level Partnership
Activities and Expected
Outcomes
What does ‘Value-Added’ mean?





Every partner plays a key role in
supporting improvement efforts.
That role is defined in context with the
State’s Performance Plan.
That role may have multiple dimensions.
That role has measurable impact.
That role continually contributes to
positive progress.
Getting to Win - Win




SEAs win because they can’t do this on their
own,
Partners win because they have a clearly defined
role that contributes to improved results,
Schools win because they have additional
resources through partners, and most
importantly
Students win if the SPP has the intended impact.