Transcript OEC Updates 2-6-2015

Office for Exceptional Children Updates
OAPSA
February 6, 2015
The Federal Agenda
USDOE, Office of
Elementary and
Secondary Education
[email protected]
USDOE, Office of
Special Education
Programs
RDA is framed to Impact …
How states focus,
support and
measure student
learning outcomes
Comprehensive Monitoring –
Focus on Results TA/Support
2014-15 Onsite Monitoring Districts
Bucyrus City
Canfield Local
Coshocton City
North Dayton School Of Science &
Discovery
Parkway Local
Plain Local
Schnee Learning Center Sylvania City
Wellington Ex. Village
West Geauga Local
Wilmington City
SPP Indicator Monitoring - ALL
Selective Reviews – A few
State Systemic Improvement Plan
Year 1
Delivered by
April 2015
Phase I – Analysis
1) Data analysis
2) Infrastructure
analysis
3) Focus area
4) Improvement
strategies
5) Theory of action
Year 2
Delivered by
February 2016
Years 3-6
Delivered
Feb 2017- 2020
Phase II – Plan
Phase III –
Evaluation
1) Infrastructure
Report progress on
development
SSIP implementation
2) Support for LEA
implementation of
EBPs
3) Evaluation
RDA
The Purpose of the SSIP:
Shared Learning, Partnerships, and
Innovative Practice
 Increase
to
implement, scale up,
and sustain
evidence-based
practices.
 Improve
for
children with
disabilities (and their
families).
Ohio’s SSIP: Process and Action
Strategic Focus Area: Early Literacy
Improving results for children and youth with disabilities and other
diverse learners
Strategies that address:
•
•
•
•
the role of parents;
early identification and intervention;
phonemic awareness, phonics, and good literature in reading ;
clear, objective, and scientifically based information on the
effectiveness of different types of reading instruction;
• the role of teachers, their professional development, and
their interactions and collaborations ;
• the role of higher education and other collaborative partners.
Ohio’s
Annual Performance
Report (APR)
Submitted Feb. 2, 2015
SAPEC: indicator target setting
Compliance
Indicators
Indicator 4B
Indicator: Percent of districts that have a significant discrepancy, by
race or ethnicity, in the rate of suspensions or expulsions for greater
than 10 days for children with IEPs; and policies, procedures or
practices that do not comply with IDEA requirements.
5%
4%
3%
2.7%
Target
Actual
2%
0.8%
1%
0%
0.7%
0.2%
0.0%
09-10
10-11
11-12
12-13
13-14
Indicator 11
Indicator: Percent of children who were evaluated within 60
calendar days of receiving parental consent for initial evaluation.
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
99%
98.3%
98%
97.7%
97.3%
97.5%
Target
Actual
97%
96%
96.0%
95%
94%
09-10
10-11
11-12
12-13
13-14
Indicator 12
Indicator: Percent of children referred by Part C, who are found
eligible for Part B, and who have an IEP developed and
implemented by their 3rd birthdays.
100%
100%
100%
100%
99.2%
99%
98.9%
98.9%
100%
99.1%
100%
99.2%
98%
Target
Actual
97%
96%
95%
09-10
10-11
11-12
12-13
13-14
Indicator 13
Indicator: Percent of youth aged 16 and above with compliant
transition plans in their IEPs.
100%
99.5%
99.6%
99.5%
99.3%
99%
97.9%
98%
Target
Actual
97%
96%
95%
09-10
10-11
11-12
12-13
13-14
Complaint Timelines
Timely Resolution of State Complaints: Percent of signed
written complaints with reports issued that were resolved within
60-day timeline.
100%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
99%
98%
Target
Actual
97.2%
97%
96%
95%
09-10
10-11
11-12
12-13
13-14
Due Process Timelines
Timely Adjudication of Due Process Hearing Requests: Percent
of adjudicated due process hearing requests that were adjudicated
within the 45-day timeline or a timeline that is properly extended by
the hearing officer.
100%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
99%
98%
Target
Actual
97%
96%
95%
09-10
10-11
11-12
12-13
13-14
OEC Dispute Resolution
• Significant increase in the number of
mediations and facilitations
• Updated Complaint Procedures
Results
Indicators
Indicator 1
Indicator: Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high
school with a regular diploma.
90.0%
87.5%
85.0%
80.0%
75.9%
78.2%
75.0%
70.0%
66.9%
68.1%
68.9%
65.0%
60.0%
55.0%
50.0%
11-12
12-13
13-14
*Four-year graduation rate required beginning 11-12
Target
Actual
Indicator 2
Indicator: Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high school.
14.0%
12.5%
12.5%
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.7%
5.5% 5.3% 5.2%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
11-12
12-13
13-14
Target
Actual
Indicator 3C Math
Indicator: Percent of students with disabilities who scored at or above
the proficient level on statewide math assessments.
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
81.8%
70.0%
72.7%
60.0%
50.0%
45.7%
40.0%
30.0%
46.8%
39.2%
90.9%
43.1%
45.6%
44.1%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
09-10
10-11
11-12
12-13
13-14
Target
Actual
Indicator 3C Reading
Indicator: Percent of students with disabilities who scored at or above
the proficient level on statewide reading assessments.
90.0%
94.0%
88.0%
80.0%
70.0%
82.1%
76.0%
60.0%
55.9%
50.0%
40.0%
54.3%
54.6%
54.6%
55.1%
44.3%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
09-10
10-11
11-12
12-13
13-14
Target
Actual
Indicator 5A
Indicator: Percent of children with IEPs ages 6 through 21 served
inside the regular class 80% or more of the day.
65.0%
61.5%
55.0%
62.0%
59.8%
60.0%
62.3%
62.5%
62.8%
60.3%
57.4%
58.5%
Target
Actual
50.0%
49.4%
45.0%
40.0%
09-10
10-11
11-12
12-13
13-14
Indicator 6
Indicator: Percent of children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs attending:
A) Regular early childhood program; or B) Separate special
education class, school or facility.
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
50.6%
39.6%
52.2%
38.5%
55.0%
36.5%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
11-12
12-13
13-14
Indicator 7
Indicator: Percent of preschool children with IEPs who demonstrate improved:
A. Positive social-emotional skills;
B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (early literacy); and
C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs.
85.0%
81.6%
83.6%
80.9%
80.0%
75.0%
70.0%
65.0%
58.2%
60.0%
55.0%
50.0%
48.9%
47.6%
45.0%
40.0%
7A Social: 7A Social:
7B
7B
7C Meet 7C Meet
Increased At Age Literacy: Literacy: Needs: Needs: At
Level Increased At Age Increased Age Level
Level
10-11
11-12
12-13
13-14
Indicator 14
Indicator: Percent of students with disabilities who, within one year of
leaving high school, are enrolled in higher education, participating in a
training program, or competitively employed.
78.4%
69.9%
73.4%
Enrolled in
Higher Ed
57.0%
Enrolled in
Higher Ed or
Employed
33.7%
26.5%
10-11
11-12
12-13
13-14
Nation
Enrolled in
Higher Ed,
Employed, or
in Training
Program
State and District
Determinations
District determination results are
used to make the state’s
determination.
Compliance Matrix
Results Matrix
To make determinations states
consider:
• Performance on compliance indicators;
• Uncorrected noncompliance from any source;
• Submission of valid, reliable and timely data; and
• IDEA-specific audit findings.
States
consider:
Performance on
results indicators
State Systemic Improvement Plan
Year 1
Delivered by
April 2015
Phase I – Analysis
1) Data analysis
2) Infrastructure
analysis
3) Focus area
4) Improvement
strategies
5) Theory of action
Year 2
Delivered by
February 2016
Years 3-6
Delivered
Feb 2017- 2020
Phase II – Plan
Phase III –
Evaluation
1) Infrastructure
Report progress on
development
SSIP implementation
2) Support for LEA
implementation of
EBPs
3) Evaluation
Ohio’s SSIP:
Strategic Focus Area: Early Literacy
Improving results for children and youth with disabilities and other diverse
learners
Strategies that address:
• the role of parents and other collaborative partners, especially in providing
children with early language and literacy experiences that foster reading
development;
• early identification and intervention for all children at risk for reading
failure;
• phonemic awareness, phonics, and good literature in reading instruction
and the need to develop a clear understanding of how best to integrate
different reading approaches to enhance the effectiveness of instruction for
all students;
• clear, objective, and scientifically based information on the effectiveness
of different types of reading instruction and the need to have such
research inform policy and practice;
• the role of teachers, their professional development, and their
interactions and collaborations with researchers
• the role of higher education and other collaborative partners in the design
and delivery of teacher preparation programs that prepare teachers to
understand and provide effective reading instruction to diverse learners.
Positive Behavior
Interventions and Supports
(PBIS) and Restraint and
Seclusion
www.education.ohio.gov
Keyword search: Restraint and
Seclusion
HB 178
Signed December 2014
Effects:
• Community Schools
• STEM Schools &
• College Preparatory Boarding
Schools
Effective: March 2015
Results of Year 1
District Reporting
Survey Responses
560
167
11
22
Traditional Schools
Community Schools
Education Service Center
Career Technical Ed
Total Respondents: 760
PBIS Restraint and Seclusion Policy
758 districts
System or Framework of PBIS
646 districts
Data Trends
Special
Education:
97%
General
Education:
3%
Data Trends
Autism
Emotional
Disability
All others
2013-2014
school year
Prevention & Support:
PBIS
Project AWARE
Positive Transformations for Ohio Schools:
Building Statewide Positive Supports
A statewide network of trained,
experienced professionals
Evidence-based system for evaluating
fidelity and outcomes of PBIS
Prevention and Support
Cross-Agency
Collaboration
Making Ohio AWARE:
Building
Statewide
Mental Health First Aid
Extracurricular Athletics
Reminder: Jan. 25, 2013 US Department of
Education guidance
• Extracurricular Athletics
– Access
– Parallel athletic programs
Challenges
• State Assessments
• Third Grade Reading Guarantee
RIMP – IEP
• FBA / BIP
Development Work
• Urban Monitoring and Support
• Transitional Youth: Career pathways
exploration and work experience, selfdirected planning for some, staff
training, support post-high school
• Exploring system for statewide
IEP/ETR/special ed. documentation
RFPs & Projects
• Center for Sensory Disabilities
• Transition Training Modules for middle school
and secondary teachers
• PBIS development RFPs awarded:
– Recognition System
– Training
– Tier 2 and 3 development: resources and training
OAPSA Representation Needed …
Field test online special education guidance format
Determinations considerations and calculation
workgroup
Expanded SSIP workgroup: focus on strategies
State IEP/ETR/special ed data system
education.ohio.gov
Sue Zake
[email protected]