Office of Special Education Updates School Improvement Conference June 25, 2015 1 2011-2012...

Office of Special Education Updates

School Improvement Conference

June 25, 2015

12011-2012 Mississippi Department of EducationOffice of Instructional Enhancement and Internal Operations/Office of Special Education

State Board of Education

Vision

To create a world-class educational system that gives students the knowledge and skills to be successful in college and the workforce, and to flourish as parents and citizens

Mission

To provide leadership through the development of policy and accountability systems so that all students are prepared to compete in the global community

6/24/15 School Improvement Conference 2

State Board of Education Goals5-Year Strategic Plan for 2016-2020

All Students Proficient and Showing Growth in All Assessed Areas

Every Student Graduates High School and is Ready for College and Career

Every Child Has Access to a High-Quality Early Childhood Program

Every School Has Effective Teachers and Leaders

Every Community Effectively Using a World-Class Data System to Improve Student Outcomes


Monitoring(Common Findings

from Year 1)

4

Cyclical Compliance Monitoring (Year 1)

• Thirty-five LEAs participated in the on-site compliance monitoring for year 1 (2014-2015).

• The Priority Areas for the Compliance Monitoring are:• Child Find process;• Delivery of services and alignment with IEPs;• Least restrictive environment (LRE) decisions;• Discipline; and• Fulfillment of IDEA Part B fiscal requirements.

56/24/15 School Improvement Conference

Cyclical Compliance Monitoring

COMMON FINDINGS• Self-review consistent with OSE findings;• Inconsistent/insufficient district policies

and procedures for Child Find, LRE and Discipline

• Delivery of Services – Revisions to IEPs, missing components, not meeting the unique needs of the students, Secondary Transition services.



COMMON FINDINGS

(Child Find) • A review of the district’s Child Find policies

indicate the policies are inconsistent with State Board Policy 7219 and do not specifically address each of the following special populations: homeless children, wards of the state, private school children, children advancing from grade to grade, and highly mobile and/or migrant children.



COMMON FINDINGS (Child Find)• WPN or evaluation report not provided

within 7 calendar days of the MET meeting to determine eligibility;

• MET did not include the parent; • Initial evaluation was not completed within

60 calendar days of receiving written parental consent.



COMMON FINDINGS (Delivery of Services)• All required components of the Present

Levels of Performance not addressed;• Annual goals not stated in measurable

terms;



COMMON FINDINGS (Delivery of Services)• Transition planning elements of the IEP

are noncompliant with criteria on the National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center (NSTTAC) Indicator 13 Checklist.

Indicator 13 Checklist can be located at www.mde.k12.ms.us/docs/sped-spp.../indicator13-checklist.doc?...2


http://www.mde.k12.ms.us/docs/sped-spp.../indicator13-checklist.doc?...2

http://www.mde.k12.ms.us/docs/sped-spp.../indicator13-checklist.doc?...2

Indicator 13 Checklist

• Appropriate measurable postsecondary goals are included in the areas of training, education, employment, and where appropriate, independent living skills.

• Postsecondary goals are updated annually.• Measurable postsecondary goals are based on

age appropriate transition assessments.• Transition services will reasonably enable the

student to meet his or her postsecondary goals.



• Transition services include courses of study that will reasonably enable the student to meet postsecondary goals.

• Annual IEP goals are related to the student’s transition service needs.

• The student was invited to the IEP Committee meeting where transition services were discussed.



• If appropriate, there is evidence a representative of any participating agency was invited to the IEP Committee meeting (with the prior consent of the parent or the student who has reached the age of majority).



COMMON FINDINGS (Least Restrictive Environment)• There is no evidence to indicate

placement decisions were made by a group of persons including the parents, who are knowledgeable about the child, the meaning of the evaluation data and the placement options.



COMMON FINDINGS (Least Restrictive Environment)• The IEP did not include an explanation of

the extent to which the child will not participate with nondisabled children in the regular education classroom.



COMMON FINDINGS

(Discipline)• The district failed to conduct a manifestation

determination to determine if the violation of the code of conduct (the behavior) was a manifestation of the student’s disability.

• No evidence services are provided to a student following the 10th day of removal for disciplinary reasons.


Special Education Task Force Updates


The Special Education Task Force

• Forty-four (44) members comprised of legislators, district administrators, principals, parents, special education teachers, general education teachers, parent advocate groups, nonpublic agencies and post-secondary representatives.

• Engaged in collaborative dialogue for the purpose of improving Mississippi’s educational system and to offer quality learning and employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities.


Special Education Task Force Activities

• Charged with:• prioritizing issues and determining which issues are

most likely to improve results for students with disabilities.

• examining the State’s disaggregated data for students with disabilities and

• focusing attention on the priorities that were identified as likely to improve results.


Special Education Task Force Report

• Preliminary report presented to the State Superintendent on December 16, 2014.

• Preliminary report presented to the State Board of Education at the January 2015 board meeting.


21

Priorities of the Task Force

• Priority A: Access to the General Education Curriculum in the General Education Environment

• Priority B: Increase the High School Graduation Rate and Decrease the Drop-Out Rate

• Priority C: Increase the Post-Secondary Enrollment Rate and Work-Force Readiness Skills

2011-2012 Mississippi Department of EducationOffice of Instructional Enhancement and Internal Operations/Office of Special EducationSchool Improvement Conference6/24/15

Priority A

Priority A: Access to the General Education Curriculum in the General Education Environment• Problem Statement:

• “While many students with disabilities have physical access to general education classrooms, the achievement gap suggests they are not accessing the general education curriculum at an acceptable level.”

School Improvement Conference 226/24/15

School Improvement Conference 23

Priority A Strategies

• Strategy 1: Increase awareness of “Inclusion” and “Access” by providing a common definition

• Strategy 2: Increase the supports provided to students with disabilities in the general education setting

• Strategy 3: Increase supports to all students through a multi-tiered support system (MTSS)

• Strategy 4: Increase transparency of special education accountability

• Strategy 5: Increase the capacity of all educators and administrators

6/24/152011-2012 Mississippi Department of EducationOffice of Instructional Enhancement and Internal Operations/Office of Special Education

Think About This

• Think of access as one’s opportunity to learn.• Offer the same amount of instruction on the

same content standards in the same general education classroom to students with disabilities as is offered to nondisabled students.

• Increase teachers’ ability to grasp techniques of Universal Design for Learning.



Priority B

Priority B: Increase the Graduation Rate and Decrease the Drop-Out Rate• Problem Statement:

• “When comparing the graduation data of students with disabilities to nondisabled peers, there is a discrepancy between students with disabilities that graduate with a standard high school diploma and nondisabled peers.”

6/24/15


Priority B Strategies

• Strategy 1: Increase awareness of requirements for graduation, graduation options, and how to raise test scores

• Strategy 2: Increase awareness of outcomes for students with disabilities to inform IEP (Individualized Education Program) team decisions

• Strategy 3: Increase student access to kindergarten and high quality pre-kindergarten programs

6/24/15

Priority C

• Priority C: Increase the Post-Secondary Enrollment Rate and Work-Force Readiness Skills

• Problem Statement• “Based on post-secondary data, students with

disabilities are not exiting school with the skills necessary to be college and career ready.”


28

Priority C Strategies

• Strategy 1: Improve the Mississippi Occupational Diploma (MOD)

• Strategy 2: Increase the number of transition specialists available to provide services to students with disabilities

• Strategy 3: Increase the awareness for students with disabilities to develop post-secondary goals

• Strategy 4: Improve communication with Institutions of Higher Learning regarding State initiatives, trainings, and webinars

2011-2012 Mississippi Department of EducationOffice of Instructional Enhancement and Internal Operations/Office of Special EducationSchool Improvement Conference6/24/15

Special Education Task Force Subcommittees

• Subcommittees were formed. • Completing background research and

developing the activities for the action steps for each strategy to present to the State Superintendent.


Next Steps for Special Education Task Force

• Subcommittees will complete work for Strategies to present at the next Task Force meeting (end June/July).

• Additional teachers are currently being recruited to provide guidance on specific content areas.

• Subcommittees will prepare some of the Strategies for the next legislative season.

• As these initial recommendations reach full implementation, the Task Force will advise on additional strategies and action steps.

• The Task Force will continue to serve as one of the stakeholder groups for the State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP).


State Systemic Improvement Plan

(SSIP)


State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP)

• Comprehensive, multi-year plan• Focuses on results for students• Results-Driven Accountability• Will be measured by a new Indicator

(Indicator 17).• Submitted to OSEP on April 1, 2015


Stakeholder Engagement

• The Special Education Advisory Panel (SEAP)

• The Mississippi Special Education Director’s Workgroup

• The Special Education Task Force• The MDE Internal Stakeholders’ group


Key Questions for Data Analysis

• In which results areas are students with disabilities performing below expectations?

• Of these low performing areas, what is the area of most concern?

• Why is this low performance occurring?• What programs, strategies or practices can be

expanded or developed to improve results for students with disabilities in the identified results area?


Programs, Strategies or Practices

• Strategies, supports, and accommodations available for learning and living must NEVER by limited to the strategies, supports, and accommodations that can be used during assessments.

• Scaffolds, supports, and accommodations provided during instruction should be available during assessment as long as they do not violate the constructs (invalidate the assessment).


Programs, Strategies or Practices

• Connect to students and what they need instructionally.

• Simply having something doesn’t improve outcomes.

• Having something that works for you can improve outcomes.


Indicator 3c Data


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

45.9 46

32.3

49.3 49.3

66.3

39.9 40

35.7

51.7 51.7

68

37 36.4

19 16.819.8 20

38.5 37.1

23.6 23.6

28.5 29.1

Indicator 3c - Proficiency Rate for SWD

Target Actual

RLA MATH

Indicator 3c Data


2011 - Baseline 2012 2013 2011 - Baseline 2012 20130

10

20

30

40

50

60

22.224.4

19.85

31.133.8

28.38

45

50 50

54

Indicator 3c - Proficiency Rate for SWD

Target Actual

RLA MATH

Grade 3 Language Arts Data by Disability


AU DD EMD HI ID LS MD OHI OI SLD VI0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Grade 3 English Language Arts by Disability 2012-2013

% Proficient or Above

% Below Pro-ficient



AU EMD HI ID LS MD OHI OI SLD TBI VI0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100



% Below Pro-ficient

Grade 3 Language Arts Data for SLD and L/S


Minimal Basic Proficient Advanced Proficient and Above0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

29.9%32.6%

27.5%

10.0%

37.5%

SLD and L/S 3rd Grade RLA 2013-14 Results

Grade 3 Language Arts Data for SLD


Minimal Basic Proficient Advanced Proficient and Above

-10.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0% 57.8%

31.9%

9.7%

0.6%

10.3%

SLD Only 3rd Grade RLA 2013-14 Results

Grade 3 Language Arts Data for L/S


Minimal Basic Proficient Advanced Proficient and Above0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

19.9%

32.8% 33.9%

13.4%

47.3%

L/S Only 3rd Grade RLA 2013-14 Results

Grade 3 Language Arts Data by Placement


% Below Proficient % Proficient or Above0.0%

10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%

100.0%

Grade 3 English Language Arts 2012-2013 Results

SASBSC

Grade 3 Language Arts Data by Educational Environment (SLD,

L/S)


Grade 3 Language Arts Data by Accommodations


State Identified Measurable Result (SIMR)

• The state will increase the percentage of third grade students with Specific Learning Disability and Language/Speech rulings in targeted districts who score proficient or higher on the regular statewide reading assessment from 32 percent to 68 percent by FFY 2018.


Improvement Strategies

• The MDE, with support from internal and external stakeholders, developed coherent improvement strategies that are based on the State’s data and infrastructure analysis.


SSIP Improvement Strategies

• Collaborate with other offices in the MDE, to provide literacy professional development for all educators to support the delivery of high quality, evidence-based literacy instruction for students with disabilities.• Increase the number of special education teachers

who participate in Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling (LETRS)

• Offer additional professional development for special education teachers in targeted schools in a language-based, multi-sensory reading methodology



• Provide professional development on inclusive practices for teachers and administrators in targeted schools



• Collaborate with other offices in the MDE to align efforts and resources to support the delivery of differentiated technical assistances to targeted districts to improve high quality, evidence-based literacy instruction for students with disabilities.• Fund literacy coaches in targeted districts to support teachers in

providing evidence-based reading instruction in targeted districts;

• Re-purpose the technical assistance unit in the OSE to focus on the provision of differentiated technical assistance with a focus on literacy; and

• Collaborate with the Office of Curriculum and Instruction to revise the Response to Invention (RtI) process to a multi-tiered support system (MTSS) that includes academics and behavior.



• Revise State Board Policy 4300 to provide comprehensive supports, including instructional strategies (Universal Design for Learning) and behavioral interventions, to ALL students through MTSS.

• Provide training for administrators and teachers to support a coherent continuum of evidence based system-wide practices to support a rapid response to academic and behavioral needs, with frequent data-based monitoring for instructional decision-making to empower each student to achieve high standards.

• Develop and monitor an accountability structure to ensure fidelity for implementation of MTSS for all students.



• Develop and disseminate resources to support districts in implementing inclusive practices:

• A common definition of “Inclusion” and “Access” should be developed and provided to districts and parents via MDE website, social media, and in MDE supported trainings.

• An online resource will be developed similar to the Florida Inclusion Network at http://www.floridainclusionnetwork.com/whats-new/ on the MDE website to include strategies, and webinars parents, para-professionals, general education teachers, special education teachers, and school and district administrators.


http://www.floridainclusionnetwork.com/whats-new/


• A self-assessment similar to the Best Practice for Inclusive Education will be developed that will be completed with the district’s project application and utilized in monitoring visits. This self-assessment tool and process is used to identify and prioritize areas of need for inclusive practices that enable all students with disabilities to achieve their highest potential. The purpose of the self-assessment is to lead the development of district improvement goals that increase effective inclusive practices in all schools.

• Develop a differentiated (tiered) results-focused monitoring system that is aligned with other MDE monitoring activities and targets improved outcomes for students with disabilities, with a focus on reading.


Supports for Target Districts

• Priority enrollment for all special education teachers to participate in Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling (LETRS)

• Priority enrollment for all special education teachers who have completed LETRS in a professional development academy focused on a language-based, multi-sensory reading methodology such as Orton Gillingham

• Funding for half the salary of a literacy coach to support teachers in providing evidence-based reading instruction and data analysis

• In district training for teachers on Universal Design for Learning, Differentiated Instruction, Inclusive practices, PBIS, and development of a Multi-Tiered System of Supports


Supports for Target Districts

• In district training for principals and administrators on how to conduct learning walks that address inclusive practices, Universal Design for Learning, and differentiated instruction

• Participation in a results-focused monitoring system that targets improved outcomes for students with disabilities, with a focus on reading to assist districts with identifying areas of need and growth that will drive additional technical assistance activities provided by MDE


Alignment with Other Driving Forces

School Improvement Conference 586/24/15

Other Driving Forces

• State Board of Education Strategic Plan• State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP)


Alignment of the Drivers

Strategic PlanSpecial Education Task Force SSIP

Priority A Access to Curriculum Priority B Graduation

Priority C Post-Secondary &

Workforce ReadinessIncrease proficiency of 3rd

grade students

Goal 1- Growth in Proficiency X X X

Goal 2- Everyone Graduates Ready X X X X

Goal 3- High Quality Early Childhood X X

Goal 4- Effective Teachers & Leaders X X X X

Goal 5- World Class Data Systems X X


Contact InformationGretchen CagleState Director

Office of Special Education601-359-3498

[email protected]


Questions?

6/24/15

Office of Special Education Updates School Improvement Conference June 25, 2015 1 2011-2012...

Documents

Transcript of Office of Special Education Updates School Improvement Conference June 25, 2015 1 2011-2012...