State Performance Indicators, Special Education Data, the NYC Special Education Reform…

State Performance Indicators, Special Education Data,

the NYC Special Education Reform…

1Division of Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners

PDI 08-23-11

Jan McDonald and Alecia Harrington

State Performance Indicators, Special Education Data,

the NYC Special Education Reform…and you!

The Special Education Reform:the School and Central Work


State Performance Plan Indicators* (SPPI) #s 1-15

*Items in red are out of compliance and have been since 2005-06, the year the system began.

Division of Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners 3


Indicators 1 and 2: Graduation and Dropout Rates

Progress we have made…

5

FOUR YEAR GRADUATION RATE AMONGSTUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES IS RISING

Graduation Rate Graduation Rate w/ August Graduates

17.1 18.5 18.3

Students with Disabilities

30.726.625.1

Note: Totals reflect data available at the time of reporting provided by NYS; August graduate data is only available for years 2008-2010.

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

6

2001 Cohort

2002 Cohort

2003 Cohort

2004 Cohort

2001 Cohort

2002 Cohort

2003 Cohort

2005 Cohort

2004 Cohort

5- AND 6-YEAR GRADUATION RATES FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES HAVE ALSO INCREASED


Percent of Students in a Cohort Graduating from High School in 5 and 6 Years

Six-Year Graduation Rate

Five-Year Graduation Rate


7

Diploma Type

Notes: Graduation rate totals may not equal total of diploma types due to rounding. Totals reflect data available at the time of reporting provided by NYS; August graduate data is only available for years 2009-2010.

Percent of Students Graduating from High School in 4 Years

Student with Disabilities

MORE HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES w/ IEPs EARN REGENTS DIPLOMAS

Local

Regents

Adv. Regents17.1%

18.5% 18.3%

22.5%

26.6%

30.7%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

8

The percentage of students w/ IEPs earning Local, Regents,or Advanced Regents Diplomas is also increasing for students

graduating in five years or six years

Five Years Six Years

27.2%

30.7%

20.5%22.7%

26.7%

30.9%32.6%

34.5%

21.5%

Diploma Type

Note: Totals reflect data available at the time of reporting provided by NYS; August graduate data is only available for cohorts 2005-2006. The cohort graduation rate is presented at the top of the columns. The overall rate may not equal the sum of each diploma type due to rounding

HHHHHHHHHh

8

9

DROPOUT RATES for SwDs FALL

17.1 18.5 18.3 22.524.7

27.9

34.3

27.6

22.9 21.6 21.0 20.9


Percentage of Dropouts

05 06 07 08 09 10

RrRRRRRRRRR


Accountability Alignment to Improve Outcomes/Indicators

10

• Use the NYS Performance Plan Indicators (SPPI) as a consistent set of metrics against which we measure ourselves.

• Align the DOE accountability structures and incentives with the goals of the Special Education Reform and the SPPI indicators.

Division of Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners

Indicators 1 and 2: Graduation and Dropout Rates – Actions we have taken…

• Schools are incentivized through the Progress Report (PR) to work hard to graduate students with IEPs

Beginning with the 2009-10 PR….:> all students with IEPs receive at least double the graduation weight for

graduating with a Local Diploma or higher. The graduation weights are as follows:

• SETSS – double weighting• ICT/CTT – triple weighting• Self-Contained – quadruple weighting

> the primary focus of the additional credit measures shifted from credit accumulation to graduation, specifically for groups of students that have historically graduated at lower rates than the City overall (including SwDs). Schools that were successful in helping these students graduate received additional credit.

> 29 - D75 schools with students in grades 3-8 standardized assessment programs received Progress Reports and grades.


For the 2010-11 PR:> The above incentives will continue> Progress Report grade distributions for D75 schools will be the same as for non-

D75 elementary and middle schools.

• We are adding graduation and dropout rates to the Compliance Checklist that is a part of the Principals Performance Review (PPR)

• We have a proposal in to include SWD graduation and dropout data in additional parts of the new Principals Performance Review (PPR), including requiring the principal to include SWD graduation in their goals if their data are not good.

• Beginning next year, Quality Reviews (QR) will incorporate SWD graduation and dropout data as a routine part of the data packets sent to reviewers and reviewers will be required to observe SpEd classes.

• All reviewers doing Quality Reviews have received training this year and will receive additional training next year.

• D75 schools will be evaluated on all of the same rubrics as Community Schools


Indicators 1 and 2: Graduation and Dropout Rates – next steps…

Accountability Tools: Tools to help schools check their progress with students with disabilities

13Division of Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners 13

Accountability Tools: Tools to help schools check their progress with students with disabilities

14Division of Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners 14


Indicator 3: Performance of Statewide Assessments


16

WHEN THE SCORE USED TO DEFINE ‘PROFICIENCY’ REMAINS CONSTANT OVER THE YEARS,STUDENTS CONTINUE TO SHOW

PROGRESS AS WELL

ENGLISH

Note: Starting in 2010, NYSED changed the scale score required to meet each of the proficiency levels, increasing the number of questions students needed to answer correctly to meet proficiency.

% reaching proficiencyusing 2009’s cut scores

% reaching proficiencyusing 2010’s cut scores

MATH

Percent of Students with IEPs Meeting or Exceeding State Standards (Scoring at Level 3 or 4) in Grades 3-8 by 2009’s and 2010’s Cut Scores:

CITYWIDE

17

MEAN SCALE SCORES FOR STUDENTS IN MATHEMATICS

Mean Scale Scores for Grades 3-8

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

2010-2011 Change 2006-2011 Change

+ 0 pts. +23 pts.

2010-2011 Change 2006-2011 Change

+3 pts. +37 pts.

In 2010, NYSED increased the scale score required to meet each of the proficiency levels. In addition, in 2011, NYSED lengthened the exams by increasing the number of test questions.

Students w/o IEPs Students with IEPs

18

PERCENT STUDENTS AT LEVELS 3+4 IN MATHEMATICS

Percent of Students in Grades 3-8 Meeting or Exceeding State Standards (Scoring at Levels 3 & 4)

2010-2011 Change 2006-2011 Change

+3.3 pts. +1.5 pts.

2010-2011 Change 2006-2011 Change

+4.1 pts. +2.4 pts.

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011



19

MEAN SCALE SCORES FOR STUDENTS IN ELA

Mean Scale Scores for Grades 3-8

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

2010-2011 Change 2006-2011 Change

-2 pts. +8 pts.

2010-2011 Change 2006-2011 Change

+1 pt. +33 pts.



20

PERCENT OF STUDENTS AT LEVELS 3+4 IN ELA

2010-2011 Change 2006-2011 Change

+1.7 pts. -6.3 pts.

2010-2011 Change 2006-2011 Change

+1.4 pts. -1.2 pts.

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011


Percent of Students in Grades 3-8 Meeting or Exceeding State Standards (Scoring at Levels 3 & 4)


21

SWDs’ 2011 proficiency by new state standards: 14.2% in ELA, 27.3% in Math.

WHILE ABSOLUTE PROFICIENCY IS DOWN UNDER THE NEW TEST STANDARDS, SINCE 2006 STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

HAVE MADE SUBSTANTIAL PROGRESS

CITYWIDE STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

MEAN SCALE SCORES

STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES2006-2011 CHANGE IN ACHIEVEMENT

Math, Grade

4

Math, Grade

8

English, Grade

4

English, Grade

8

Percent of Students Proficient

NYC -5.1 pts. +12.1 pts. -1.2 pts. +1.3 pts.

NY State -14.2 pts. +4.5 pts. -8.3 pts. -1.1 pts.

Mean Scale Scores

NYC +28 pts. +45 pts. +31 pts. +33 pts.

NY State +19 pts. +33 pts. +22 pts. +26 pts.


22

Percent Meeting/Exceeding State Standards (Levels 3+4)

Grade 3+1.9 pts.

Grade 4+ 2.9 pts.

Grade 5+ 3.6 pts.

Grade 6+ 4.8 pts.

Grade 7+ 4.0 pts.

Grade 8 + 7.1 pts.

Grades 3-8 + 4.1 pts.

10 11 10 11 10 11 10 11 10 11 10 11 10 11


2010-2011 PERCENT LEVELS 3+4 FOR STUDENTS with DISABILITIES IN MATHEMATICS

23

2010-2011 PERCENT LEVELS 3+4 FOR STUDENTS with DISABILITIES IN ELA

In 2010, NYSED increased the scale score required to meet each of the proficiency levels. In addition, in 2011, NYSED lengthened the exams by increasing the number of test questions..

10 11 10 11 10 11 10 11 10 11 10 11 10 11

Percent Meeting/Exceeding State Standards (Levels 3+4)

Grade 3+1.0 pts.

Grade 4+ 3.6 pts.

Grade 5+1.2 pts.

Grade 6+ 3.3 pts.

Grade 7- 0.4 pts.

Grade 8 - 0.3 pts.

Grades 3-8 +1.4 pts.

Indicator 3: Performance of Statewide Assessments – Actions we have taken…

Schools are incentivized through the Progress Report (PR) to improve the scores of students with IEPs on Statewide Assessments

Beginning with the 2009-10 PR:> Scores of students with IEPs received differential

weightings --adjustment factors for Special Education students were based on program recommendations.

> The peer index of a school was adjusted to reflect the population of SwDs in the school to make a fairer comparison of schools.

> D75 schools received Progress Reports and grades. Schools were evaluated based on the growth and performance of their Standard Assessment Students


Indicator 3: Performance of Statewide Assessments – next steps…

For 2010-11:

> The PR incentives will continue as in 2009-10

> Progress Report grade distributions for D75 schools will be the same as for non-D75 elementary and middle schools.

> DSWDELL is now working with Assessment Portfolio to develop citywide student assessments and will continue to play an integral role in the Common Core Standards work, the Teacher Assessment work and remain a key player in the system-wide instructional Priorities.

> RTT Coaches will work with schools on improving outcomes



Indicator 4: Suspensions

Where we are…


Long Term Suspensions (African American SWD)Relative Risk & Weighted Relative Risk

5 Year Trend

2.1

2.51

3.12

3.36

3.984.19

3.41

4.4

2.742.82

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Relative Risk Weighted Relative Risk

Criteria for notification = 2.0 if both the relative risk ratio and weighted relative risk ratio for any minority group is 2.0 or higher

In 09-10, African American students in NYC were 3.12 to 4.4 times as likely to be given long-term suspensions than other subgroups.

27


Indicator 4: Suspensions

Actions we have taken…

Outline of Action 2010-2011

> PBIS Training> FBA and BIP Training> Planning for Systemwide Training in PBIS/FBA/BIP/MDR> TAC-D Supports


PBIS Training

93 NYC schools have completed PBIS Universal Training in the last two years.

5 Behavior Specialists have trained schools in five boroughs, by each grade level, in each cluster and 20 CFN’s. Specialists have targeted 29 schools that have been cited for spp4b.


PBIS Schools Trained in 5 Boroughs

The pie chart represents the number of schools in each borough that have completed PBIS Universal Training.


Throughout all Grade Levels

The data represents the number of schools at each grade level that have completed PBIS Universal Training.


PBIS Trainings by Cluster


PBIS Trained Schools through CFN’s


Targeted SPP 4B Schools Receiving PBIS


PBIS Schools with the highest rates of disproportion saw reductions in suspensions and referrals and an increase in attendance

N=11


Comparison of the 91 NYC Schools Cited by NYSED for Disproportionality (SPPI 4b)

N=11

SuspensionsPBIS Schools

Non-PBIS Schools

Initial Referrals

N=80


FBA and BIP Training and Planning for Systemwide Training in PBIS/FBA/BIP/MDR

> One cluster and all DSWDELL instructional staff received training in FBA and BIP

> Plan developed for systemwide training in PBIS/FBA/BIP/MDR


TAC-D Supports> PBIS Training for

6 individual schools, with support and knowledge sharing to 6 networks, 6 clusters, and Central DOE Examining:•Policies, practices, and beliefs in:

» Intervention services»School organization» Instructional staff capacity»Curriculum and instruction»External community


Indicator 4: Suspensions – next steps…

For 2010-11:> Training in PBIS (overview) /FBA/BIP/MDR for:

66 Race to the Top coaches Supervisors of psychology

> Observations of MDRs by those trained with feedback directly following to MDR teams (RTT coaches)

> Continued development of DOE cross-divisional behavioral supports

> Continued work with TAC-D



Indicator 5: LRE/MRE

Where we are…

Percent of students, ages 6 through 21, receiving special education services outside the regular class setting more than 60 percent of the school day.

IDEA Part BComparison of State Level LRE Data

(DAC- IDEA Data, 2008)

State % Students in MRE Settings

Vermont 0Puerto Rico 5.84North Dakota 8.33Alabama 9.41South Dakota 10.5West Virginia 10.5Oklahoma 11.36Nebraska 11.37Wyoming 11.44Idaho 11.76Kansas 12.02Iowa 12.66Kentucky 12.88Texas 13.66Oregon 13.7Montana 13.79Colorado 13.81Connecticut 14.1Wisconsin 14.33Minnesota 14.55Nevada 15Pennsylvania 15.39Mississippi 15.47Tennessee 15.6Alaska 15.63Missouri 15.68Washington 15.73Maine 16.25Arkansas 16.8North Carolina 18.04Arizona 18.26Indiana 18.93Georgia 19.04Louisiana 19.11Utah 19.21Ohio 19.63Virginia 20.91Michigan 21.3New Mexico 21.53Rhode Island 21.97Florida 22.06Massachusetts 22.62South Carolina 22.84Delaware 23.3Maryland 23.99Illinois 25.5California 27.78Hawaii 28.93New Jersey 29.19New Hampshire 30.26New York 32.46District of Columbia 51.96

48. Hawaii 28.93 49. New Jersey 29.19 50. New Hampshire 30.26 51. New York

32.46 52. District of Columbia 51.96

State Performance Plan Indicator 5: Least Restrictive Environment – School Age

This definition includes students with disabilities in public schools, separate alternative schools, residential facilities. parentally placed in private schools, correctional facilities, and home or hospital environments.

42

Indicator 5: LRE – Actions we have taken…or are planned

• Beginning with the 2010-2011 Progress Report schools will receive extra credit for moving students to LRE

• We have placed a new LRE metric on the Compliance Checklist for the Principals Performance Review (PPR)

• We provided professional development to all schools on IEP development with a focus on LRE and flexibility of programming

• We have some preliminary qualitative and anecdotal data reflecting improvements in flexibility of programming across the continuum by schools engaged in Phase 1 of the Special Education Reform



Indicator 11: Timely Evaluations

Where we are….and progress we have made

Special Education Scorecard



Indicator 11: Timely Evaluations

Next steps…..

Special Education Scorecard



Indicator 13: Secondary Transitions

Actions we have taken….and progress we have made

Indicator 13: Secondary Transition – Actions we have taken…Progress we’ve made

Collaborated with the Office of Post Secondary Readiness that aligns the work of our two offices as it relates to transition services.

Supported school teams in building capacity to create and evaluate transition plans:> 119 school teams of 2-3 people worked with three IEPs per team for 2010-2011

IEPs> 75 school teams of 2-3 people worked with IEPs out of compliance in 2009-2010> 16 schools with transition plans out of compliance in 2008-2009

Supported 1700 schools with professional development on IEP development that included transition planning

Provided requested training in transition planning to schools and to parent groups

Renamed, refocused, and aligned the Office of Transition Services (formerly the Office of Placement and Referral) with networks.

Collaborated with Cornell University in conducting TransQUAL in targeted high schools

Supported QIP, Transition Certificate, STEP


Indicator 13: Secondary Transition – Next steps…

• Continue to collaborate with the Office of Post Secondary Readiness.

• Create structure to focus high schools on created transition services and developing transition plans for students beginning at age 15.

• Develop co-presentations for networks and schools.

• Embed information on transition planning into all work from Office of Post Secondary Readiness.

• Survey transition services in all high schools

• Create a citywide SOPM for transition planning

• Create a citywide database for all outside agencies involved in transition planning

• Evaluate and plan for growing services unique to the STEP program.

• Continue to collaborate with Cornell University and conducting TransQUAL in targeted high schools.



Indicator 15: Identifies and Corrects Noncompliance

Actions we have taken….

Indicator 15: Correcting Noncompliance – Actions we have taken…

• Worked with SED to align the list of outstanding CAPs

• Created a small team of staff to assist the Cluster Liaisons and schools in which there are outstanding issues

• Extended our CAP tracking database to provide more thorough tracking information and better mechanisms for deadline management of current and future CAPs


DSWDELL SED-Cluster Liaisons

• Each Cluster has a DSWDELL Senior School Improvement Specialist assigned to it

• An additional Senior School Improvement Specialist coordinates SED-related activities across all Clusters

• Liaisons are centrally supported and supervised

• DSWDELL Supervisor also provides guidance and support to Cluster leadership and central Office of School Support by attending monthly SED-Cluster meetings and working proactively with SED Leadership to move work forward

• Work intensively with Cluster/Network/School staff to address all required corrective actions respondent to Reviews and Complaints

• Build capacity at Network/School level to establish systems, structures, and practices needed to achieve and sustain compliance with SPPIs

• Assist in the development and implementation of Compliance Assurance Plans, ensuring alignment to citations and required corrective actions


Impact of DSWDELL Support to Clusters on Compliance

• Success rate of bringing closure to Review and Complaint CAPs is slightly above 50%. While we acknowledge that number is not high enough, we feel this is noteworthy progress in a relatively short period of time, especially when considering this was effected within the newly established structure

• Significant increase of focus and movement of the CAP process for those schools whose CAP has been unresolved beyond the established compliance dates

• Increase of clarity among Cluster/Network/school staff in regard to SED requirements for all SPPIs

• Effectively liaised between SED and Cluster/Networks/Schools

• Supported the six identified schools prior, during and following the recent 4B Comprehensive Reviews


Cross-Divisional Focus on Compliance

This year, DSWDELL initiated a cross-divisional focus on compliance in an effort to:

•bring improved coherence to addressing compliance systemically

•maximize resources and avoid duplication of efforts

•build capacity at the school/network/cluster levels to effect improved practices for addressing timely delivery of services

•focus resources and attention on a common set of targeted areas using a consistent set of metrics, aligned with the State Indicators

•significantly improve compliance


DSWDELL’s Ombudsperson

• DSWDELL’s Ombudsperson, supported by the DWSDELL team at large and in collaboration with Networks, effectively resolves approximately 98% of inquiries/concerns from parents/advocates/elected officials brought to our attention

• In addition, the Ombudsperson follows up on all UFT complaints lodged against schools/Networks/CSEs to offer guidance, support and resources. This outreach and support serves to reduce the number of formal complaints sent to SED

• Also, most inquiries sent to the Chancellor and Deputy Chancellor are addressed by the Ombudsperson and team.



In Summary


SPPI data – prior performance summary


SED Web-site with most recent SpEd SPPI data and info

http://eservices.nysed.gov/sepubrep/mainservlet?f=report0910&school=300000010000&run=Go


State Performance Indicators, Special Education Data, the NYC Special Education Reform…

Documents

Transcript of State Performance Indicators, Special Education Data, the NYC Special Education Reform…