DECS UPDATEJULY 14 , 2009

KYCASE Summer Institute1

Agenda

CommunicationSpecial Education CoopsKCMP UpdateAutismARRACEISSenate Bill 1 SLDLiteracy/Reading/DyslexiaTransition/Record ReviewWaivers

2

Commercial

SPLASH 2 Year Teacher ApplicationDirectors of Special Education will receive email after

CASE

Council for Exceptional Children Fall Conference in November

3

KYCASE Summer Update

Communication

KDE Web site

Special Education Cooperative

Director of Special Education LISTSERV

Professional Organizations

4

Special Education Cooperatives

Role

Funding

5

DECS, SPECIAL EDUCATION COOPERATIVES AND DISTRICTS

PARTNERING TO IMPROVE RESULTS

Kentucky Continuous Monitoring Process (KCMP)

6

KCMP Highlights

Quarter 2 of KCMP monitoring cycle underway on August 1, 2009

2009-2010 School Year Record Review Documents and Directions are posted on KCMP website

DECS will be conducting both Desk Audits and Onsite Monitoring Visits during 2009-10 School Year

DECS has created and posted KCMP Calendar of Events on web www.education.ky.gov

7

KYCASE Summer Update

Autism Current Issues

Autism Grant State Responsibility Special Education Cooperative Responsibility

Regional Cadre District Responsibility

8

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)

Approvable Expenditures

Maintenance of Fiscal Effort

Reporting and Transparency

9

Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS)

Required CEIS, 15% of ALL IDEA Funds for the Fiscal Year Required by KDE

Voluntary CEIS, Up to 15% of All IDEA Funds for the Fiscal Year Selected by the Local School District

All CEIS, Track the Performance of Students for 2 Years After the Year Funds are Used

10

Senate Bill 1

Senate Bill 1 NCLB Requirements IDEA Requirements Standards Development Requirements for Program Reviews Inclusions of Special Populations

Alternate Assessment Based on Grade Level Standards (1%)

Alternate Assessment Based on Modified Grade Level Standards (2% Flexibility)

11

OVERVIEW OF CURRENT PRACTICES&

EVOLVING TRENDS IN INTERVENTION AND IDENTIFICATION

Kentucky System of Intervention & SLD Eligibility Update

12

National vs. State SLD Population1999 – 2000 – Children Ages 6 - 21

• 4.5% were identified with a Specific Learning Disability nationwide.

• Kentucky has lowest state SLD identification rate - 2.36%Highest SLD rate is Massachusetts with 7.10%

• Nationally, OHI students comprised 9.86% of IDEA students in 2007. In the same year, 16% of IDEA students were identified as OHI in Kentucky.

13

National vs. State IDEA Proportions

• During the 2008-2009 school year, approximately 2% of the total student population was identified with a SLD in Kentucky.

• Among all students with special needs, 12.6% were identified with a SLD in Kentucky.

• SLD students represented 50.5 percent of all IDEA students ages 6-21 making SLD the largest category of students served nationwide.

14

Trends in SLD Identification

LD first operationalzed in Fed. Regulations in 1977 Model not sufficiently examined until after

implementation in early 1980’s Nationwide inconsistencies with implementation and

diagnostic process in identification of LD students

Response-to-Intervention under IDEA 2004 IDEA 2004 states “LEA may use a process that

determines if the child responds to scientific, research-based intervention as a part of the evaluation procedures”: Kentucky’s System of Intervention (KSI) is the state’s

first steps towards fulfilling IDEA’s RTI requirements in support of LEAs.

15

Response-to-Intervention

Effective RTI system has four components:1. Efficient direct measures of student performance to

screen a multitude of problems “Is our current curriculum and instruction resulting in

high levels of learning for at least 80% of our students?” “Is it a group problem or an individual problem?”

2. Diagnostic measures to identify areas in need of further academic skills instruction

Align research base on effective instruction with the learning needs demonstrated by students.

Source: Evaluating Evidence-Based Practice in Response-to Intervention Systems by Martin J. Ikeda, Alecia Rahn-Blakeslee, Bradley C. Niebling, Randy Allison, NCSP, & James Stumme

16

Response-to-Intervention

3. Research-supported strategies implemented with fidelity

Methods to monitor effective implementation may include: Walk-throughs or other structured observations Implementation checklists Portfolio samples

4. Continual assessment of student performance For students whose teachers monitor progress and

modify instruction based on data, achievement goes up an average effect size of .7. An effect of .7 would raise math achievement among U.S. students from “average” to within the top five in the world. When combined with reinforcement of goal attainment, formative evaluation results in effect sizes of over one standard deviation (enough to raise achievement from the 16th to the 50th percentile)

Source: Evaluating Evidence-Based Practice in Response-to Intervention Systems by Martin J. Ikeda, Alecia Rahn-Blakeslee, Bradley C. Niebling, Randy Allison, NCSP, & James Stumme

17

SLD Evaluation – Interim Guidance

Continue to use KSI resources/ RTI systems.Use of aptitude/achievement discrepancies is

optional. Existing tables appear to under-identify SLD students

based current prevalence rate in Kentucky. Use of a 22 point discrepancy is not statistically sound

and therefore must not be a procedure utilized to determine eligibility.

Standard Error of Measurement has been included in the table development, therefore can not be applied after the calculations have been completed using the SLD tables.

Monitor SLD population – stay within the 4% identification rate.

18

Next Steps

DECS has identified an advisory group to develop technical assistance on identification and eligibility of students with SLDs.

Research and development will occur during the 2009-2010 school year.

Published guidance available for Fall 2010 or sooner if possible.

19

Reading/Literacy/Dyslexia

Regulatory Requirements 707 KAR 1:002

Reading First, Literacy Coach

White Paper Development

20

INDICATOR 1INDICATOR 2

INDICATOR 13INDICATOR 14

Secondary Transition Requirements

21

Indicator 1

Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma

2007-2008 State Target: 71.3%2007-2008 Actual Data: 67.34%

22

Indicator 1

# of districts that met or exceeded the state target: 88

# of districts that did not meet the state target: 84

# of districts that did not meet the state target but made significant improvement: 28

# of districts that did not meet the state target and made no improvement: 5

# of districts that did not meet the state target and reported slippage: 51

23

24

Indicator 2

Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high school

State Target: decrease by .4%2007-2008 Actual Data: decreased

by .76% (from 5.00% to 4.24%)

25

Indicator 2

# of districts that met or exceeded the state target: 116

# of districts that did not meet the state target: 55

# of districts that did not meet the state target but made significant improvement: 16

# of districts that did not meet the state target and made no improvement: 0

# of districts that did not meet the state target and reported slippage: 39

26

27

Mandatory Training

Districts not meeting state targets for Indicators 1 or 2, or districts out of compliance with Indicator 13 were required to participate in a webinar on May 27, 2009

One hundred eighteen (118) districts required to participate

One hundred thirty-four (134) districts participated

Includes nineteen (19) districts that were not among those required to participate

28

Critical Interrelationships

Quality IEPs

29

Staying in School

GraduatingPositive post-

school outcomes

P. Kohler, 2006

Indicator 13

Percent of youth aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes

coordinated, measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services that will

reasonably enable the student to meet the postsecondary goals

2007-2008 State Target: 100% 2007-2008 Actual State Target: 86.98%

30

Indicator 13As of the January 2009 (SY 2007-2008) submission

of the KCMP:

Thirty-nine (39) districts were identified as being out of compliance with I-13 for the second consecutive year (i.e., out of compliance for SY 2006-2007 and did not document correction of noncompliance with SY 2007-2008 submission)

Sixteen (16) of those districts were identified as being out of compliance for the third consecutive year.

31

Indicator 13Mandatory Training

Districts out of compliance with I-13 for more than one year were required to participate in a teleconference training on March 27, 2009 (repeated on April 15, 2009)

Districts out of compliance with I-13 for more than one year were given the opportunity to document correction of noncompliance for any year in which they were not at 100%.

32

Indicator 13As of the April 30, 2009 deadline to submit to DECS

documentation of correction of noncompliance:

Thirty-seven (37) districts out of compliance for more than one year with I-13 submitted documentation of correction of noncompliance for SY 2007-2008

Thirty-four (34) districts out of compliance for more than one year with I-13 also submitted documentation of correction of noncompliance for SY 2006-2007.

33

Indicator 13

May 8, 2009 - Twenty-one (21) districts were newly cited for noncompliance with I-13 requirements for SY 2007-2008 based on their January 2009 KCMP submission

These districts were advised that they may choose now to

submit documentation of correction of noncompliance to DECS for SY 2007-2008 – even though they have up to one year to do so

To date, nine (9) districts newly cited for noncompliance with with I-13 requirements for SY 2007-2008 have submitted documentation of correction of noncompliance and are now in compliance with this Indicator

34

Indicator 13

One hundred fifty-four (154) districts are

currently in compliance with Indicator 13!

35

Indicator 14

Percent of youth who had IEPs, are no longer in school and who have been competitively

employed, enrolled in some type of postsecondary school, or both, within one

year of leaving high school

36

Indicator 14

Exited 2006-2007

Interviewed Spring 2008

Worked Only46%

Enrolled Only10%

Both17%

Neither17%

Missing9%

Since exiting high school, have you been competitively employed, en-

rolled in post-secondary education, both or neither?

73% overall engagement

37

Indicator 14

2007 and 2008 data reports are available at www.kypso.org

The current, 2008-2009, data for both the KISTS and YOYO were due 6/30/09.

Kentucky Post School Outcome Study (KyPSO) currently cleaning and beginning to analyze 2008-2009 KISTS and YOYO data.

We expect to be able to begin reporting on 2008-2009 results in late August/early September.

38

Indicator 14

Based upon feedback from DOSE, Special Education Cooperatives, and KyPSO Advisory Group, KyPSO is developing a system which will allow LEAs to access their own KISTS and YOYO data via www.kypso.org

Such a system will ideally allow the LEA to:

independently confirm that they have submitted their data edit/add/delete records entered up to a certain closing date access their own completed data set

39

Indicator 14

If you have questions about the Kentucky Post School Outcome Study, please contact:

Beth Harrison, Ph.D. b.harrison@uky.edu 859.519.7375

Tony, LoBianco, Ph.D. tflobi1@uky.edu 859.257.7379

40

Training/ Technical Assistance/ Resources

Kentucky again sent a team to Charlotte, NC on May 12-14, 2009 to participate in the Secondary Transition Planning Institute

Kentucky hosted its own Regional Interagency Transition Teams (RITT) Planning Institute in Lexington on June 3-5, 2009

41

Training/ Technical Assistance/ Resources

A work group is currently updating the ACCESS to Postsecondary Education manual first produced several years ago

KDE/DECS new transition page along with Transition One Stop are being managed and updated at least weekly in order to provide helpful transition resources for students, parents, teachers and districts

42

Training/ Technical Assistance/ Resources

Kathy Eversole and the Special Education Cooperatives Transition Consultants have developed a Power Point presentation on Indicator 13 requirements which will soon be posted on both the KDE/DECS transition page and on Transition One Stop

In addition, the team has revised the ARC Responsibilities – Transition Checklist which will soon be posted on both the KDE/DECS transition page and on Transition One Stop

43

Training/ Technical Assistance/ Resources

KDE/DECS Transition Pagehttp://www.education.ky.gov/KDE/Instructional+Resources/Exceptional+Children/Transition/

Transition One Stophttp://www.transitiononestop.org/

Kentucky Post School Outcome Centerwww.kypso.org

Johnny W. Collettjohnny.collett@education.ky.gov(502) 564-4970

44

WAIVERS

http://www.education.ky.gov/KDE/Instructional+Resources/Exceptional+Children/Forms+and+Documents/Waiver+Process.htm

45

Closing

I appreciate what you do everyday, and in the

evenings, and on weekends, and during the holidays...

See you in November at Fall CEC!

46