Transcript Document

Bureau of
Special Education
11th Annual
Back-to-School
Meeting
Diane M. Murphy
Performance Office
Bureau of Data Collection,
Research and Evaluation
[email protected]
Monitoring Updates
 SEDAC
Desk Audit: 2009-10 was first year
years ago – combined SEDAC Desk Audit, BSE
File Review, Assessment Audit, as well as Focused
Monitoring Data Review and District Selection.
2
– resetting monitoring cycle from six
years to three (3) years and adding Parent Survey
to the cycle of monitoring activities (listed above).
 2014-15
•
Cohort A – 2015 (56 districts)
•
Cohort B – 2016 (51 districts)
•
Cohort C – 2017 (63 districts)
SEDAC Desk Audit – Oct. 1, 2013
East Hartford
Ledyard
Norfolk
Ridgefield
Congratulations on a great SEDAC desk
Greenwich
Mansfield
North Branford
Seymour
audit!!!
Guilford
Milford
Oxford
Sprague
Hartland
New Fairfield
Pomfret
Suffield
Hebron
New Hartford
Putnam
RSD #15
Kent
Newington
Redding
3
Congratulations on a great SEDAC desk audit!!!
BSE File Review – Spring 2014
East Hartford
Lisbon
Norfolk
Redding
Congratulations on a great SEDAC desk
Greenwich
Madison
North Branford Ridgefield
audit!!!
Guilford
Milford
Oxford
Seymour
Hampton
Naugatuck
Plymouth
Sherman
Hebron
New Hartford
Pomfret
Sprague
Ledyard
Newington
Putnam
Windsor
Congratulations on a great File Review!!!
4
Cohort A
SEDAC Audit/BSE File Review Winter 2015 (Oct. 14 data); Parent Survey Summer
2015; Focused Monitoring Summer/Fall 2015; (2018; 2021; 2024)
Andover
Barkhamsted
Bethel
Eastford
East Haddam
East
Hampton
Granby
Hartford
Hebron
Bolton
Bozrah
East Lyme East Windsor
Colebrook
Cromwell
Enfield
Glastonbury
Litchfield
Madison
Marlborough
Meriden
New
Fairfield
New
Hartford
Newtown
Norfolk
Montville
Naugatuck New Canaan
Norwich
Plainfield
Plymouth
Preston
Putnam
Rocky Hill
Sherman
Simsbury
Southington
Stamford
Sterling
Thomaston
Voluntown
Wallingford
West
Hartford
West Haven Wethersfield
Windsor
Regional SD Regional SD Regional SD
#7
#8
#13
Regional SD Regional SD Regional SD Regional SD Regional SD
#14
#15
#16
#17
#18
USD #1
USD #2
Orange highlight – district will participate in the Parent Survey in both 2013-14 and 2014-15 school years.
Green highlight – district will be excluded from SEDAC Desk Audit/BSE File Review in 2014-15.
Cohort B
SEDAC Audit/BSE File Review Winter 2016 (Oct. 15 data); Parent Survey Summer
2016; Focused Monitoring Summer/Fall 2016; (2019; 2022; 2025)
Ansonia
Avon
Berlin
Bethany
Bloomfield
Chester
Clinton
Columbia
Danbury
Darien
East Haven
Essex
Fairfield
Franklin
Greenwich
Groton
Guilford
Lebanon
Lisbon
Middletown
Milford
New Haven
Newington
New
Milford
North
Branford
Norwalk
Old
Saybrook
Orange
Pomfret
Portland
Ridgefield
Seymour
Somers
Stafford
Stonington
Tolland
Torrington
Union
Waterbury
Windham
Wolcott
Woodbridge Woodstock
Regional SD Regional SD
#10
#12
Canterbury
Cheshire
Deep River East Granby
Regional SD Regional SD
#4
#5
Cohort C
SEDAC Audit/BSE File Review Winter 2017 (Oct. 16 data); Parent Survey Summer
2017; Focused Monitoring Summer/Fall 2017; (2020; 2023; 2026)
Ashford
Branford
Bridgeport
Bristol
Brookfield
Brooklyn
Canaan
Canton
Chaplin
Colchester
Cornwall
Coventry
Derby
East Hartford
Easton
Ellington
Farmington
Griswold
Hamden
Hampton
Hartland
Kent
Killingly
Ledyard
Manchester
Mansfield
Monroe
New Britain
New
London
North
Canaan
North Haven
North
Stonington
Oxford
Plainville
Redding
Salem
Salisbury
Scotland
Sharon
Shelton
South
Windsor
Sprague
Stratford
Suffield
Thompson
Trumbull
Vernon
Waterford
Watertown
Westbrook
Weston
Westport
Willington
Wilton
Winchester
Windsor
Locks
Regional
SD#1
Regional
SD#6
Regional
SD#9
Regional
SD#11
Regional
SD#19
DMHAS
CTHSS
Restraint and Seclusion
Most Common Issues

APSEPs cannot enter R/S Incident within 2 business days
Solution: Timely updating of PSIS Registration
(Facility Code 1, Facility Entry and Exit Dates)

Injury to the student
Solution: Only report injury to student restrained or secluded
– not injuries to staff or other students

Injury Details
Solution: Provide details of actual injury that the student
sustained (e.g. bump, bruise, red mark)
http://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/help/sedac/default.aspx
Alternative School Programs Study
 Public Act
13-122
10
Study Recommendations
In order to provide in-depth support and oversight, the CSDE
developed procedures that require all districts to:
 establish a specific organization code within the CSDE data
system for ALL Programs under their purview including: off-site
locations, multisite programs, and programs that run after school
hours.
 indicate which of the students reported to the CSDE through
student data collections are enrolled at these programs; and
 report staff assignment data for educators assigned to those
programs.
Identifying the programs to which students and staff are assigned
will allow for the collection and analyses of participation,
engagement, and outcomes of students enrolled in those programs.
11
Study Recommendations
Programs will submit to all applicable student, staff and school-level
CSDE data collections. All Programs must have DM organization
codes. This includes:
•
off-site locations;
•
•
multisite programs;
•
•
obtain separate codes for each program location/site
expulsion programs; and
•
•
district run programs located off-site from the sending school the
students would otherwise attend
If students can be placed into the program as an alternative setting or by
PPT; the expulsion program must have an organization code
programs the run after school hours.
•
separate code in DM to represent evening programming
12
PROGRAM types
Alternative Education
Alternative programs exist to engage and educate students who may not have
realized their fullest potential in the regular class setting. These programs use
curriculum and methods that are nontraditional and offer more flexible programs
of study. Alternative programs can be off-site of the typical school setting or
embedded using school-within-a-school models.
Special Education
Programs designed for students with disabilities receiving special education and
related services under IDEA. These programs are generally designed to serve
students with a specific primary disability and/or behaviors. This code exists for
segregated special education programs designed to draw students with
disabilities from multiple schools across the district or which are situated in a
separate building. Only district-wide special education programs should be
reported using this program code; do not use this code to report each special
education classroom/resource room in a district.
13
PROGRAM types
Expulsion
Education programming for students serving expulsions or long-term out-ofschool suspensions, as required under C.G.S. Section 10-233c. Do not use this
code for homebound programs for expelled students. Expulsion programs that
require organization codes exist at a separate physical location, are run yearround and can have students placed into them who are not there due to a
suspension/expulsion.
Dropout Diversion/Credit Recovery
Dropout diversion programs are designed to provide a positive and rewarding
school learning experiences for students who are at risk of dropping out of
school. These programs focus on improving work/study habits such as
organizational skills and productivity. The purpose of credit recovery programs
are to allow students in grades 9-12 to recover academic credit lost due to course
failure and to complete coursework required for graduation.
Facility Code Update
 School



& Program Codes used to be “smart”.
01-59 = Elementary School
60-70 = High School
90-98 = special ed district-wide programs
 Organization


Codes (same 7-digit code as before)
No longer Smart (except first 3 digits = district)
Now we collect “Attributes”
 Public
Elementary School vs. Public Secondary School
 Approved Private Special Education Program (“21’s”)
 Program: including Program “Type” attribute

Transition; Special Education; Dropout; Alternative
Program Codes and FAPE Settings
Recoding by Hand: 2013-14 & 2014-15
SEDAC
2013
Final based
on
RECODE
Change
Change %
80-100% TWNDP
42757
42713
-44
99.9%
40-80% TWNDP
10936
10927
-9
99.9%
0-40% TWNDP
3770
3708
-62
98.4%
Separate School
3669
3762
93
102.5%
Residential Facility
588
610
22
103.7%
FAPE Environments
(Ages 6-21)
Selecting E.C. Settings (p.12)
FAPE Environments
(Children Ages 3-5)
Final
Change
SEDAC based on Change
%
RECODE
Special Ed delivered in
Regular EC PK/K (10+ hrs/wk)
5143
5490
347
106.7%
Special Ed delivered outside Regular EC
PK/K (10+ hrs/wk)
475
480
5
101.1%
Special Ed delivered in
Regular EC PK/K (<10 hrs/wk)
282
296
14
105.0%
Special Ed delivered outside Regular EC
PK/K (<10 hrs/wk)
49
51
2
104.1%
EC Special Ed in Separate Class
1170
854
-316
73.0%
EC Special Ed in Separate School
106
54
-52
50.9%
“Technical Edits” Guidance Memo

Technical edits can only be made to sections of CT’s document that are not
required IEP components (34 C.F.R. § 300.320). District’s do not need to
convene PPT meetings or use the IEP amendment process to complete a
technical edit. Technical edit steps:




Contact the parents of the child by phone to identify and discuss the proposed technical
edit; respond to questions from the parents about the proposed change.
Complete the edit and immediately send the parents a notice that explains the change, with
the technical edit highlighted in an updated copy of the IEP.
Provide updated copies of the IEP document to the child’s case manager and place in the
student’s file.
IMPORTANT: Any change to: (1) the IEP document that amends or
modifies the IDEA required IEP components, or (2) the Prior Written
Notice, is considered a substantive change and would not be permissible
outside the PPT or IEP amendment process.
English Learner (EL) Disproportionality
Public Act No. 13-193
Any LEA identified by the CSDE that disproportionately
and inappropriately identifies English language learners as
requiring special education services because such students
have a reading deficiency shall annually submit a report to
the department on the plan adopted that reduces the
misidentification of such English language learners by
improving reading assessments and interventions for
students in kindergarten to grade three, inclusive.
EL Disproportionality Analysis
Analysis Criteria:
Similar two-part analysis used in Disability, Placement, and
Discipline disproportionality to identify “data of concern.”
1. Statistically significant difference between percentage of
special education and general education students who are
EL (chi-square)
2. Relative Risk interpretation (RRI ≥ 1.5)
3. No minimum ‘n’, but includes a requirement that the
special education students who are also EL in the district
must be ≥ 5.0%.
EL Disproportionality
Districts identified with data of concern must conduct a self-assessment
(provided by the BSE) to determine if the disproportionality is due to the
misidentification of EL students, who have a reading deficiency, as eligible
for special education. In these cases, the district must adopt a plan to
improving reading assessments and interventions for K-3 students and
report annually on the plan to the BSE. Timeline:
Timeline:
 EL Disproportionality Stakeholder Group: Fall 2014
 Self-Assessment developed and 2013 Data disseminated: Winter 2015
 Review District Plans, where applicable: Winter/Spring 2015
 2014 Data Review: March/April 2015
EL Disproportionality contact:
Marcus Rivera –Bureau of Special Ed
860-713-6932; [email protected]
District/School Accountability (3.0)
May 2012: ESEA Flexibility was approved as the CSDE’s accountability
model (2.0); replacing AYP. Key changes were:
performance index scores
school classifications
smaller subgroup N-size
customized annual performance targets
Winter 2015: CSDE must submit an ESEA Flexibility Renewal Application.
CSDE has been soliciting input from district and school leaders in the
development of this model. Extensive public comment will also be sought
during the preparation of the official renewal application. Enhancements
being considered in the 3.0 model including new metrics relative to:
longitudinal academic growth
college and career readiness
well-roundedness
civic engagement
Data…
Data…
Data…
Improving Results: Supporting Positive Student Behavior
Chronic Absenteeism
(<90% attendance)
50.0%
45.0%
2011
40.0%
35.0%
2012
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
2013
15.0%
10.0%
ALL
SWD
5.0%
0.0%
LD
ID
ED
(4K)
SLI
Other
(3K)
OHI
(12K)
AU
(6K)
Chronic Absenteeism
45.0%
40.0%
35.0%
Newly
Identified
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
ALL SWD
5.0%
0.0%
2011
2012
2013
Time With Non-Disabled Peers
Trend Data
0 - 40%
80 - 100%
50%
90%
75%
40%
60%
30%
45%
20%
30%
10%
15%
0%
0%
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Time With Non-Disabled Peers
2013-14
0 - 40%
80 - 100%
50%
100%
40%
80%
30%
60%
20%
40%
10%
20%
0%
0%
Discipline
2012-13
In-School Suspension
Out-of-School Suspension
30%
30%
25%
25%
20%
20%
15%
15%
10%
10%
5%
5%
0%
0%
Restraint and Seclusion
2012-13
20%
18%
16%
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
LD
ID
ED
SLI
Other
*Other includes students with consent to evaluate
**Primary Disability on Last Reported Incident for 2012-13
OHI
AU
Enjoy the rest of the conference!
This Power Point presentation will be posted on
September 30th.
http://www.ctserc.org/bts14docs