Transcript The life and times of Coretta Scott King
Meeting the Needs of Students with Emotional Disturbance in the School Setting Place photo here Maryland’s Children in Special Education with Emotional Disturbance: An Overview of Data and Current Outcomes Dr. Carol Ann Baglin Assistant State Superintendent Division of Special Education/Early Intervention Services April 28, 2008 1
"All students come to school with unmet needs. Most students have the ability to delay these needs. Our children focus on nothing else until these needs are met. Meet the needs early or consume your time fighting them. The choice is yours, not theirs.” — Tobin, 1991 2
Emotional Disturbance: Defined
Emotional Disturbance as defined by IDEA:
"...a condition exhibiting one or more of the following characteristics over a long period of time and to a marked degree, that adversely affects a student’s educational performance: (i) An inability to learn that cannot be explained by intellectual, sensory or health factors; (ii) An inability to build or maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships with peers and teachers; (iii) Inappropriate types of behavior or feelings under normal circumstances; (iv) A general, pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression; or 3
Emotional Disturbance: Defined
(v) A tendency to develop physical symptoms or fear associated with personal or school problems.“ Emotional disturbance includes schizophrenia. Emotional disturbance does not include a student who is socially maladjusted unless it is determined that the student has an emotional disturbance.
[Code of Federal Regulations, Title 34 C.F.R., Section 300.8(c)(4)] [Code of Maryland Annotated Regulations, Section 13A.05.01.03] 4
Some Characteristics and Behaviors of Children with Emotional Disturbance • Hyperactivity • Aggression/self-injurious behavior • Withdrawal • Immaturity • Learning difficulties 5
Let’s Look at the Data…
6
Maryland 2006 Data: Children with Emotional Disturbance by
Gender
23.3
76.7
Data supplied by the Maryland Local School Systems 2006
Males Females
7
National Data: Children with Emotional Disturbance by
Ethnicity
11.2
1.5
28.6
Am. Ind.
African Am.
Asian White Hispanic 57.4
1.1
US Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs, Data Analysis Systems 2007 8
Maryland 2006 Data: Children with Emotional Disturbance by
Ethnicity
0.5
2.7
40.1
56.1
Am. Ind.
African Am.
Asian White Hispanic 0.6
Data supplied by Maryland’s Local School System and produced by Optimal Solutions Group 9
Trend Data: Students with Emotional Disturbance in Maryland 2004-2006
Local School System Total Children with Disabilities Children with Emotional Disturbance Years Percentage Rate 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006 Maryland 111,496 109,730 106,850 9,676 9,179 8,848 8.7 8.4 8.16
10
Students with Emotional Disturbance in Maryland 2006
Local School System Maryland Garrett Baltimore City Washington Charles Prince George’s Baltimore Co.
Total Children with Disabilities Children with Emotional Disturbance 103476
669 13978 2725
8448
108 2021 296 2238 13840 13435 216 1291 1243
Percentage Rate 8.16
16.14
14.45
10.86
9.65
9.33
9.25
11
Students with Emotional Disturbance in Maryland 2006
Local School System Total Children with Disabilities Children with Emotional Disturbance Anne Arundel Frederick Dorchester Allegany Carroll Harford
8509 4391 494 1373 3230 5349 706 358 39 106 187 297
Percentage Rate
8.3
8.15
7.89
7.72
5.79
5.55
12
Students with Emotional Disturbance in Maryland 2006
Local School System St. Mary’s Calvert Wicomico Howard Montgomery Kent Total Children with Disabilities Children with Emotional Disturbance
2202 116 1936 1645 4456 16913 340 99 80 216 766 15
Percentage Rate
5.27
5.11
4.86
4.85
4.53
4.41
13
Students with Emotional Disturbance in Maryland 2006
Local School System Queen Anne’s Caroline Cecil Talbot Somerset Worcester Total Children with Disabilities Children with Emotional Disturbance
993 41 669 2289 417 422 724 27 87 15 12 8
Percentage Rate
4.13
4.04
3.8
3.6
2.84
1.1
14
Least Restrictive Environment (LRE): Defined LRE is an educational environment that meets the need of a student requiring special education and related services as set forth in the student’s IEP and which, to the maximum extent appropriate to the students needs, ensures that the student will be educated with nondisabled peers.
34 C.F.R. section 300.114-300.120
COMAR 13A.05.01.10
15
Least Restrictive Environment (LRE): Defined To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children that are not disabled, and special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or the severity of the disability of a student is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services can not be achieved satisfactorily.
34 C.F.R. section 300.114-300.120
COMAR 13A.05.01.10
16
Continuum of Placements 17
LRE A, B and C for Maryland’s Students with Emotional Disturbance
Least Restrictive Environment Students with Emotional Percentage of Disturbance in LRE Students with Setting Emotional Disturbance in LRE Setting (A) INSIDE GENERAL EDUCATION SETTING
for
80%
or more of the school day.
(B) INSIDE GENERAL EDUCATION SETTING
for
40%
but not more than
79%
of the school day.
(C) INSIDE GENERAL EDUCATION SETTING
less than
40%
of the school day.
2886 1056 2320 32% 12% 26% 18
Students with Emotional Disturbance in Public and Private Educational Placements 2006
Local School System Maryland Garrett Baltimore City Washington Charles Prince George’s Baltimore County Total Percentage Rate 8.16
Public Placement
Number
6135
Percentage
72.6
16.14
14.45
100 1748 92.6
86.5
Non-Public Placement
Number Percentage
2215 26.2
8 273 7.4
13.5
10.86
9.65
9.33
9.25
180 179 728 782 60.8
82.3
56.4
62.7
116 37 563 461 39.2
17.1
43.6
37.1
19
Students with Emotional Disturbance in Public and Private Educational Placements 2006
Local School System Anne Arundel Frederick Dorchester Allegany Carroll Harford Total Percentage Rate
8.3
8.15
7.89
7.72
5.79
5.55
Public Placement
578 283 36 64 117 190 81.9
79.1
92.3
60.4
62.6
64
Non-Public Placement
128 75 3 42 70 107 18.1
20.9
7.7
39.6
37.4
36 20
Students with Emotional Disturbance in Public and Private Educational Placements 2006
Local School System St. Mary’s Calvert Wicomico Howard Montgomery Kent Total Percentage Rate
5.27
5.11
4.86
4.85
4.53
4.41
Public Placement
Number 102 Percentage 87.9
90 74 184 555 14 90.9
92.5
85.2
72.5
93.3
Non-Public Placement
Number Percentage 14 12.1
9 9.1
6 32 211 1 7.5
14.8
27.5
6.7
21
Students with Emotional Disturbance in Public and Private Educational Placements 2006
Local School System Queen Anne’s Caroline Cecil Talbot Somerset Worcester Total Percentage Rate
4.13
4.04
3.8
3.6
2.84
1.1
Public Placement
36 26 35 14 12 8 87.8
96.3
40.2
93.3
100 100
Non-Public Placement
52 1 0 0 5 1 12.2
3.7
59.8
6.7
0 0 22
Students with Emotional Disturbance In Public/Private Day and Residential Placements
Local School Systems Maryland Allegany Anne Arundel Baltimore City Baltimore County Calvert Public Separate Day School 561
1 56 183 74 12
Private Separate Day School 1,821
42 104 409 243 5 0 1 1 0 0
Public Residential 21
2 3 4 0 0
Private Residential 45 Caroline Carroll Cecil Charles Dorchester Frederick Garrett
0 1 0 10 0 4 0 0 55 39 24 2 50 6 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 23
Students with Emotional Disturbance In Public/Private Day and Residential Placements
Local School Systems Harford Howard Kent Montgomery Prince George's Queen Anne's St. Mary's Public Separate Day School
2 2 0 153 53 0 2
Private Separate Day School
64 17 0 190 463 5 6 0 0 9 0 0
l Public Residentia
5 3 1 2 20 1 3
l Private Residentia
1 1 24
Students with Emotional Disturbance In Public/Private Day and Residential Placements
Local School Systems Somerset Talbot Washington Wicomico Worcester
2 0 5 1 0
Public Separate Day School Private Separate Day School Public Residential
0 1 95 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1
Private Residential
0 0 25
Nonpublic Schools Expenditures for the 2006-2007 School Year •The total Tuition and Services expenditure to fund students with disabilities in day and residential nonpublic placements was $212,790,968 •The LSS Share of the Total was $113,453,662 •The MDSE Share of the Total was $99,337,307 26
Students with Emotional Disturbance in Nonpublic Placements for the 2006-2007 School Year •5,361 placements funded •2,439 were students in private separate day or private residential placements •22 of the 24 LSSs placed students in nonpublic programs •Total cost of serving students was $93,583,288 27
State Performance Plan Indicator 3: Participation and Performance of Children with Disabilities on Statewide Assessments
Indicator 3
consists of three sub-indicators 3A, 3B and 3C. •
3A
- Percent of districts that have a disability subgroup that meets the State’s minimum “n” size meeting the State’s AYP objectives for progress for disability subgroup. •
3B
- Participation rate for children with IEPs in a regular assessment with no accommodations; regular assessment with accommodations; alternate assessment against grade level standards; alternate assessment against alternate achievement standards. •
3C
- Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level standards and alternate achievement standards.
28
Indicator 3: Annual Targets for Reading and Math in Tested Grades
Grade Level 5 6 3 4 7 8 Grade 10/ End of Course Baseline 2005
51.2
48.8
38.8
25.7
22.6
21.7
23.4
Algebra Data Analysis
53.0
54.9
41.9
30.9
26.6
23.3
31.0
06 Mathematics AMO Target (07) 66.53
66.33
58.89
51.84
49.81
48.45
38.60
Actual Data 2007 [1] 54.97
62.63
51.59
40.46
30.58
27.22
37.33
Baseline 2005
52.7
57.1
46.6
36.1
32.2
57.5
58.5
48.9
36.9
36.3
31.3
30.8
22.3
English 2
26.1
0 6 Reading AMO Target (07) 61.82
72.05
66.59
68.50
66.75
63.73
52.17
Actual Data 2007 62.50 67.30 52.97 47.15 36.88
35.22 36.45
29
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 57.8
37.3
Grade 3
78.3
Indicator 3 Preliminary 2006 Reading MSA Data Grades 3-5 81 75.2
59.3
50
Grade 4
52.9
49.1
Grade 5
MD Students with ED MD SWD MD ALL 30
Indicator 3 Preliminary 2006 Math MSA Data Grades 3-5 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 44.8
79.3
52.7
Grade 3
55.1
43.8
Grade 4
82.3
47.6
41.4
Grade 5
73.7
MD Students with ED MD SWD MD ALL 31
Indicator 3 Preliminary 2006 Reading MSA Data Grades 6-8 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 71.3
44.8 44.4
Grade 6
37.5
32.2
Grade 7
70.2
30.2
30.1
Grade 8
66.2
MD Students with ED MD SWD MD ALL 32
Indicator 3 Preliminary 2006 Math MSA Data Grades 6-8 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 65.4
28.8
19.7
Grade 6
23.1
18.4
Grade 7
61.2
18.7
13.8
Grade 8
56.3
MD Students with ED MD SWD MD ALL 33
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Indicator 3 Preliminary 2006 English 2 and Algebra/ Data Analysis HSA Data 64.1
60.2
31.8
32.9
27.2
MD Students with ED MD SWD MD ALL 19.3
English 2 Algebra
34
State Performance Plan Indicator 4: Rates of Suspension and Expulsion • • A. Percent of districts identified by the State as having a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities for greater than 10 days in a school year; and •
TARGET 2007
: No More than 4 or 16. 67% of the LSS show a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions greater than 10 days for all students with disabilities compared with all nondisabled students.
B.
Percent of districts identified by the State as having a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year of children with disabilities by race and ethnicity.
•
TARGET 2007
: No More than 4 or 16. 67% of the LSS show a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions greater than 10 days for all students with disabilities by race/ethnicity compared with all nondisabled students of the same race and ethnicity.
35
2006 Data: Suspensions of Students with Emotional Disturbance Of Maryland’s Special Education subgroup
8.16%
have an Emotional Disturbance
52 %
of the Special Education Subgroup
suspended
have an Emotional Disturbance 36
State Performance Plan Indicator 1: Graduation Rate Indicator 2: Drop Out Rate •
Indicator 1:
Percent of youth with IEPs graduation from high school with a regular diploma compared to percent of all youth in the State graduating with a regular diploma.
•
TARGET 2007
: 83.24% •
Indicator 2:
Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high school compared to the percent of all youth in the State dropping out of high school.
•
TARGET 2007
: 3.54% or LESS As Reported in SPP/APR February 2007 37
Graduation and Drop Out Rate for Students with Emotional Disturbance
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 55 45 78 4 4 85 2004 54 46 5 75 4 85 2005 Graduation Year 51 49 5 77 2006 3 86
ED Drop Out Rate ED Graduation Rate SWD Drop Out Rate SWD Graduation Rate General Education Drop out Rate General Education Graduation Rate 38
Educational Implications
Educational Programs need to include:
• The educational programs for students with emotional disturbance need to include attention to mastering academics, developing social skills, and increasing self-awareness, self-esteem, and self control. • Behavior modification is one of the most widely used approaches to helping children who are emotional disturbed. However, there are many other techniques that are also successful and may be used in combination with behavior modification. Life Space Intervention and Conflict Resolution are two such techniques. • There is growing recognition that families, as well as their children, need support, respite care, intensive case management services, and multi-agency treatment plan. Many communities are working toward providing these wrap-around services, and there are a growing number of agencies and organizations actively involved in establishing support services in the community. 39
Educational Implications (Continued) • Special programs usually attempt to provide a therapeutic milieu, a structured environment where students experience a high degree of success; rules and routines are predictable; and students are consistently rewarded for appropriate behavior. • Behavior management techniques, such as positive reinforcement, token economies, contracting, and time-out, which rely on direct measurement and monitoring of behavioral change, are commonly used in emotional disturbed programs. • The assessment and systematic teaching of social skills through modeling, discussion, and rehearsal are frequently used to help students increase control over their behavior and improve their relations with others. • Supportive therapies involving music, art, exercise, and relaxation techniques, as well as affective education, individual, and group counseling can be employed to improve self-understanding, self-esteem, and self-control. 40
Research-based Interventions in Maryland • Supporting Social and Emotional Development in Young Children (CSEFEL) • The Maryland Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation Project • Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports • US Department of Health & Human Services Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) 41
Supporting Social and Emotional Development in Young Children (CSEFEL) • MD is one of three States initially chosen by CSEFEL to participate in a three year initiative to enhance the State’s capacity to strengthen social and emotional development of young children • Broad goal: Build a consistent , evidence-based professional development framework for the early care and education workforce 42
Maryland/CSEFEL Partnership •
CSEFEL Role
: To provide training and technical assistance on the Pyramid Model for Supporting Social Emotional Competence to State team, demonstration sites, trainers, and coaches •
State Role
: To plan and coordinate the initial implementation of Pyramid Model in Maryland 43
Maryland/CSEFEL Partnership: Outcomes • Increasing ECE provider competence and confidence in supporting social and emotional development of young children • Creating cadre of trainers and coaches • Demonstration of evidence-based practices • • Sustaining the effort
GOOD CHILD OUTCOMES!
44
The Maryland Early Childhood Mental Health (ECMH) Consultation Project •
Goals of the Project:
• Prevention and intervention services to children and families • Identification and referrals for children with developmental, socio-emotional, or behavioral concerns • Support to child care programs to provide stress-free learning environments • Coordination of services with public schools, health departments, and other core service providers 45
The Maryland Early Childhood Mental Health (ECMH) Consultation Project
Data of the Project Pilot Sites
•
Early Intervention Project (EIP)
operates in Baltimore City by the Baltimore City Child Care Resource Center.
• A child-focused program model delivered by early-childhood trained interventionists with increase commitment to referred students over the two year implementation time line.
•
Project Right Steps
serves the five-county region of the Eastern Shore by Chesapeake College, through the Child Care Resource & Referral Center. • A child-focused model to support changes in the child’s behavior through work with both the child care provider and the family. 46
The Maryland Early Childhood Mental Health (ECMH) Consultation Project • Expansion of the pilot projects to 13 sites statewide encompassing all regions of the state • State-funded grant program is coordinated by the Division of Early Childhood Development within MSDE 47
The Maryland Early Childhood Mental Health (ECMH) Consultation Project Early Intervention Project (EIP) Early Intervention Project (EIP) operated in Baltimore City by the Baltimore City Child Care Resource Center.
Student Improvements on EIP Behavior Scales n=42
Decreased Total Behavior Problems Decreased Externalizing Decreased Internalizing Improved Social Skills
% Improved 69% 71% 67% 76%
48
The Maryland Early Childhood Mental Health (ECMH) Consultation Project Right Steps Project
serves the 5 county region of the Eastern Shore by Chesapeake College, through the Child Care Resource & Referral Center.
Behavioral Changes
Improved Social Emotional Increased Competence Decreased Problem Scores Decreased Total Behavior Problems Decreased Externalizing Decreased Internalizing Improved Social Skills
% Improved 82% 82% 92% 53% 45% 66% 71%
49
Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports
CONTINUUM OF SCHOOL-WIDE INSTRUCTIONAL & POSITIVE BEHAVIOR SUPPORT ~5% ~15% Tertiary Prevention: Specialized Individualized Systems for Students with High-Risk Behavior Secondary Prevention: Specialized Group Systems for Students with At-Risk Behavior Primary Prevention: School-/Classroom Wide Systems for All Students, Staff, & Settings ~80% of Students 50
Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports
School Type
Elementary Middle High ES/MS MS/HS ES/MS/HS 14 8 4 Other
Total Implementing
18
494 # of Schools
255 145 50 10%
PBIS Implementing Schools
4% 1% 2% 3% 29% 51% Elementary Middle High ES/MS MS/HS ES/MS/HS Other 51
PBIS In Maryland Public Schools •
Are schools implementing school–wide Positive Behavior Support?
52
• East Baltimore Mental Health Partnership, Baltimore, Maryland
East Baltimore Partnership
was developed in 1993 by a coalition of leaders, including representatives from city agencies; state departments; and other private and public entities: • Johns Hopkins University • University of Maryland • Families Involved Together • Alliance for the Mentally Ill 53
The Maryland State Department of Education and Division of Special Education/Early Intervention Services:
NEW
Initiatives •
$300,000
in grants to local school systems (LSS) to fund research and best practices to connect students of adoption and their families to support systems. •
$1 Million
in grants to LSS to provide research-based interventions to improve the outcomes for students with Emotional Disturbance and increase student achievement.
54
What Are the Important Components within the School Setting?
When behaviors impede learning (including the learning of others), the IEP must include strategies to address that behavior. • Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA) • Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP) • Families need support, respite care, intensive case management, and a collaborative, multi agency approach to services. 55
Promoting Academic Success • Children with emotional and behavioral problems like their classmates, learn best in classrooms characterized by effective instruction and behavior management routines.
• Educators take into account the strengths and needs of all their students when designing effective learning opportunities. • Task Difficulty • Lesson Presentation • Motivational Strategies • Work Assignments • Involving Other
Ideas That Work
, Office of Special Education 56
"All students come to school with unmet needs. Most students have the ability to delay these needs. Our children focus on nothing else until these needs are met. Meet the needs early or consume your time fighting them. The choice is yours, not theirs."
— Tobin, 1991 57