Louisiana State Improvement Grant Project Directors Meeting 2006 Evelyn Johnson, LDE...
-
Upload
itzel-hardison -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of Louisiana State Improvement Grant Project Directors Meeting 2006 Evelyn Johnson, LDE...
Louisiana State Louisiana State Improvement GrantImprovement Grant
Project Directors Project Directors Meeting 2006Meeting 2006
Evelyn Johnson, LDE Evelyn Johnson, LDE [email protected]@la.gov
Margaret Lang, LSUMargaret Lang, [email protected]@lsu.edu
Melanie Lemoine, UNO Melanie Lemoine, UNO [email protected]@uno.edu
Bill Sharpton, UNO Bill Sharpton, UNO [email protected]@uno.edu
Kay Marcel, Family Coordinator Kay Marcel, Family Coordinator [email protected]@bellsouth.net
Louisiana State Louisiana State Improvement Grant Improvement Grant
• To increase the number and quality of general and special education teachers, related service personnel, administrators and other staff. (Professional Development)
• To increase the access to, and participation of, children and youth with disabilities and their families in appropriate and effective special education services and supports.
• To increase and improve the learning results of children and youth with disabilities.
3
WestFeliciana
Washington
St. Tammany
Tangipahoa
St.Helena
Livingston (6)
CoupeePt.
East
Avoyelles
EBR (2)W.
IbervilleOrleans (16)
St. John St. Charles
St. Charles (8)
St. Bernard
Plaquemines (9)Jefferson (8)
AscensionSt.
JamessAssumption
LafourcheSt.Mary
Terrebonne
BeauregardAllen
Calcasieu
Cameron
JeffersonDavis
Evangeline
St. Landry
Acadia
Vermilion(6)
Lafayette
St.Martin
Iberia
Vernon Rapides (3)
Winn
Grant
LaSalleCatahoula (5)
Concordia
Caldwell
Natchitoches
Caddo
Bossier
RedRiverDeSoto
(6)
Sabine
Webster
Bienville
Claiborne
Lincoln
Jackson
Union Morehouse
OuachitaRichland
FranklinTensas
Madison
CarrollWest East (3)
Carroll
City ofBogalusa
City ofMonroe
LaSIG Districts 2005-06
Participating SchoolsParticipating Schools
Participating DistrictsParticipating Districts 11
54
Assumption (4)
Coordinated Reform EffortsCoordinated Reform Efforts
School
District
State
Individual
Key IssuesKey Issues• District and School Improvement• Research Based Practices• Family Partnership• Professional Development• Teacher Preparation• Evaluation
District and School District and School ImprovementImprovement
Beginning of ProjectBeginning of Project• New mandate required school
improvement teams• In place “on paper” only• Lack of stakeholder representation• Lack of data to make decisions• “buck shot approach”
District and School District and School ImprovementImprovement
AccomplishmentsAccomplishments
• SIT and DIT teams functioning in all LaSIG sites
• Key focus was on campus improvement
• Coaching provided to adopt data based decision making
• Several campuses demonstrated gains in LRE, student performance, school improvement
Percent of Students with Disabilities ages 6-21 by Educational Environment
37%34%
43%
49%
64%
19%
31%
19%
43%
40%
26%
22%
16%
45%47%
50%52%
25%26%
28%
23%26% 26%
29%27%
22%20%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Dec-01 Dec-02 Dec-03 Dec-04 Dec-05 Dec-01 Dec-02 Dec-03 Dec-04 Dec-05 Dec-01 Dec-02 Dec-03 Dec-04 Dec-05
Outside Regular Class < 21% of Day(Regular Ed.)
Outside Regular Class 21-60% of Day(Resource)
Outside Regular Class > 60% of Day (Self-Contained)
LaSIG Schools State of Louisiana
Outperforming Districts Outperforming Districts (Standard & Poors)(Standard & Poors)
• Outperform demographically similar peers (economically disadvantaged)– Achieve higher levels of proficiency rates– Must outperform at levels that
significantly exceed statistical expectation
– Must outperform consistently – for at least 2 consecutive years (2003-04 & 2004-05)
Congratulations!!!Congratulations!!!
•Catahoula
•East Carroll
•Plaquemines
AYP for students with AYP for students with Disabilities 2004-05Disabilities 2004-05
54 of 57 (95%) LaSIG schools met AYP!
State – 74.6%LaSIG districts – 58%
Family – Beginning of Family – Beginning of ProjectProject
• School improvement teams did not include family members
• Family resource centers focused more on individual advocacy than relationship building with schools/districts
• Family members did not know about school improvement
• Family members were not engaged in delivery of PD
Family AccomplishmentsFamily Accomplishments• Family leadership academies implemented• Over 300 family graduates available to
assume leadership roles in professional development and school improvement
• All school improvement teams include at least one family member
• Partnership developed between schools and family resource centers (PD opportunities)
Research-Based PracticesResearch-Based PracticesBeginning of ProjectBeginning of Project
• State developed tools to assist districts/campuses in identifying research based practices to implement
• No PD provided to practitioners to use the tools
Research Based PracticesResearch Based PracticesAccomplishmentsAccomplishments
• PD provided to site personnel on data-based decision making and selection of strategies to meet needs
• PD provided on targeted research based practices
• Job embedded PD model designed to assist practitioners in developing effective strategies (governance, SWPBS)
• Practices linked to SPP
Professional DevelopmentProfessional DevelopmentBeginning of ProjectBeginning of Project
• At the state level, multiple separate initiatives
• SIM• PBS• General Education initiatives• At the district level, incoherent and
non-targeted PD• Primarily a workshop model
Professional DevelopmentProfessional DevelopmentAccomplishmentsAccomplishments
• SWPBS now stewarded by general and special education jointly
• SIM now a joint effort between general and special education
• Both strategies included in SPP and revised school improvement “tools and templates”
Teacher PreparationTeacher PreparationBeginningBeginning
• State promulgated redesign mandate for all teacher education programs
• General and special education given separate timelines
Teacher PreparationTeacher PreparationAccomplishmentsAccomplishments
• Guidelines for “blended” general education and special education – mild moderate disabilities developed with project support
EvaluationEvaluationBeginning of ProjectBeginning of Project
• Project collected and summarized data
• “Monitoring” relationship• Data tools developed and used by
project staff
EvaluationEvaluationAccomplishmentsAccomplishments
• Sites utilized tools to collect and summarize data
• Technical assistance to use collected data to design and implement school improvement plans
District and School District and School Improvement Next StepsImprovement Next Steps
• Shift emphasis to district improvement
• Identify requirements to participate in capacity building activities
• Align districts with professional development initiatives
Develop 5 Year PlanDevelop 5 Year Plan
• District team of stakeholders• Present data re: needs• Identify areas needing change (systems
change framework)• Identify data that team will regularly analyze
to assess change• Identify scientific/evidence based instructional
& behavioral practices to be implemented
5 Year Plan - Non-5 Year Plan - Non-NegotiablesNegotiables
District and school improvement teams with regular analysis of pertinent data
Authentic participation of family/community stakeholders
Create culturally responsive educational and instructional environments to address issues of disproportionality and achievement gaps
Non-Negotiables cont.Non-Negotiables cont.Embed and integrate Universal
Design for Learning (UDL) strategies
Response to Intervention (RtI) – use of student progress monitoring and interventions for struggling learners
Job-embedded, sustained, professional development and regular evaluation of data to determine impact
Family – Next StepsFamily – Next Steps• Assist regional family centers in
developing database to organize intake, outreach, and outcome data
• Shift operation of leadership academies to districts
• All district/school improvement plans include family partnership goal
• Partner with People First of Louisiana to create leadership roles for consumers
Research Based PracticesResearch Based PracticesNext StepsNext Steps
• Additional focus on supporting strategist groups
• PD to be provided on additional research based practices
• Practitioners supported to document impact of using research based practices
Professional DevelopmentProfessional DevelopmentNext StepsNext Steps
• SPDG will convene all PD initiatives for annual planning and quarterly collaboration meetings
• Low incidence RFP issued to develop statewide consortium
• Accessibility task force
LA Dept. of Education (LDE)
Low Incidence Consortium
Professional Development Schools/Classrooms
Positive Behavior Support
SPDG Campus and District PD/Continuous Improvement Activities
Response to Intervention (RtI)
Strategic Instruction Model (SIM)
Family Leadership Training – FHF/PTI & SPDGLDE Family Personnel
Accessibility Task Force
Reg’l Assis. Tech. Centers
Disproportionality/Culturally Responsive Education Systems
LA Literacy Plan
Autism Initiative – LSU HSC
People First of LA – LA ARC
Transition/Secondary (High School Redesign)
Early Childhood DHH/Off.of Public Health Part C Lead/Early Steps & LDE Preschool
Regional Education Service Centers (RESCs)
Off. For Citizens w/Developmental Dis.Education Work Group
Signficant Dis. Leadership Group
Teacher PreparationTeacher PreparationNext StepsNext Steps
• Technical assistance for universities to redesign and implement blended programs
• Development of positive practice sites to support inclusive internships/student teaching
• Development of technology infrastructure to support statewide preparation/PD
EvaluationEvaluationNext StepsNext Steps
• Identify additional data to assist school improvement efforts
• Revise state data system to include additional data elements
• Transfer of tools developed by project to state department