Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Program Accountability
Making Education Work for All Children
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Paying Attention
Why is it important?
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
BackgroundBackground
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA 2004)
Don’t fight forces. Use them.
--R. Buckminster Fuller
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
A New EraA New Era
• Student progress monitoring
• Use of research-based instructional practices
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Multi-Tier Model of Service DeliveryMulti-Tier Model of Service Delivery
Academic Systems Behavioral Systems
1-5% 1-5%
5-10% 5-10%
80-90% 80-90%
Tier 3: Intensive, Individual Interventions•Individual Students•Assessment-based•High Intensity•Of longer duration
Tier 3: Intensive, Individual Interventions•Individual Students•Assessment-based•Intense, durable procedures
Tier 2: Targeted Group Interventions•Some students (at-risk)•High efficiency•Rapid response
Tier 2: Targeted Group Interventions•Some students (at-risk)•High efficiency•Rapid response
Tier 1: Universal Interventions•All students•Preventive, proactive
Tier 1: Universal Interventions•All settings, all students•Preventive, proactive
Three Tier Model of School Supports
Students
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
What we also hope to see . . .What we also hope to see . . .
Thoughtful Transition
Wraparound
Use of the System’s Greatest Talent, No Matter What
Individualized Needs Must Be Addressed
A “Permeable” System At All Levels
SOLID LINES SEEM SO PERMANENT: WE PREFER A “DASHED” FLOW-THROUGH VERSION!
Access to the General Curriculum and Help, Regardless of SettingDeliberate Fellowship
Between School, Home, and Community
All Students Get What They Need, When They Need it
The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them.
Albert Einstein, (attributed) US (German-born) physicist (1879 - 1955)
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Paying Attention
How are we doing?
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
A Few Data PointsA Few Data Points
• Graduation
• Dropout
• Disproportionality
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
67.05
26.57
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Graduation Dropout
Per
cen
t
Graduation and Dropout Rates for Students with IEPs (December 2004)Graduation and Dropout Rates for Students with IEPs (December 2004)
Source: MI-CIS
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
35.04 35.08
41.01 42.60
50.9854.95
67.05
58.28 57.66
5248.15
39.7636.38
26.57
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Perc
ent
Graduation Dropout
Graduation and Dropout Rates for Students with IEPs: A Trend Analysis (1998 - 2004)Graduation and Dropout Rates for Students with IEPs: A Trend Analysis (1998 - 2004)
Source: MI-CIS
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
89.4
85.1
80.0
78.6
76.4
73.3
71.6
63.4
50.6
48.1
10.1
67.0
5.9
8.1
16.8
14.3
17.8
24.2
22.8
11.1
46.4
29.8
18.8
26.6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Hearing Impairment
Visual Impairment
Other Health Impairment
Traumatic Brain Injury
Physical Impairment
Learning Disabled
Speech & LanguageImpairment
Autism
Emotional Impairment
Cognitive Impairment
Multihandicapped
Total
Graduation (%) Dropout (%)
Graduation and Dropout Rates of Students with IEPs per Disability Category (December 2004)Graduation and Dropout Rates of Students with IEPs per Disability Category (December 2004)
Source: MI-CIS
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
DisproportionalityDisproportionality
A statewide view of “risk” for selected disabilities, by race-ethnicity
Risk = (Number of students from racial/ethnic group in disability category / Number of all students from racial/ethnic group) * 100
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Cognitive Impairment: African Americans Show Higher Risk for being Identified with Cognitive Impairment than other Race Ethnicities
Cognitive Impairment: African Americans Show Higher Risk for being Identified with Cognitive Impairment than other Race Ethnicities
Cognitive Impairment
1.4%
0.9%
2.9%
1.3% 1.2%1.5%
0%
1%
1%
2%
2%
3%
3%
4%
NativeAmerican
Asian AfricanAmerican
Hispanic White AllEthnicities
Perc
en
t o
f T
ota
l E
nro
llm
en
t W
ith
in
Each
Race
/E
thn
icit
y
Source: MICIS
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Learning Disabilities: Native Americans and Hispanics Show Higher Risk for Being Identified as Learning Disabled StudentLearning Disabilities: Native Americans and Hispanics Show Higher Risk for Being Identified as Learning Disabled Student
Learning Disabled
6.7%
2.8%
6.4% 6.6%5.9% 5.9%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
NativeAmerican
Asian AfricanAmerican
Hispanic White AllEthnicities
Perc
en
t o
f T
ota
l E
nro
llm
en
t W
ith
in
Each
Race
/E
thn
icit
y
Source: MICIS
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Emotional Impairment: Native Americans Show Higher Risk for being Identified with Emotional ImpairmentEmotional Impairment: Native Americans Show Higher Risk for being Identified with Emotional Impairment
Emotional Impairment
1.5%
0.4%
1.3%
0.6%
1.2% 1.2%
0%0%0%1%1%1%1%1%2%
NativeAmerican
Asian AfricanAmerican
Hispanic White AllEthnicities
Perc
en
t o
f T
ota
l E
nro
llm
en
t W
ith
in
Each
Race
/E
thn
icit
y
Source: MICIS
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Speech and Language: White Students Show Higher Risk for being Identified with Speech and Language ImpairmentsSpeech and Language: White Students Show Higher Risk for being Identified with Speech and Language Impairments
Speech and Language
2.5%2.3% 2.2% 2.2%
2.7% 2.6%
0%
1%
1%
2%
2%
3%
3%
NativeAmerican
Asian AfricanAmerican
Hispanic White AllEthnicities
Perc
en
t o
f T
ota
l E
nro
llm
en
t W
ith
in
Each
Race
/E
thn
icit
y
Source: MICIS
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
AssessmentAssessment
Participation and Proficiency of students with IEPs
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
English Language Arts: Participation Rate of Students with IEPs (MEAP and MI-Access combined)English Language Arts: Participation Rate of Students with IEPs (MEAP and MI-Access combined)
Source: MDE / OEAA
94.8%95.4%
87.2%
99.5%
97.9% 97.3%
85%
90%
95%
100%
Elementary Middle School High School
2003/04 2004/05
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Mathematics: Participation Rate of Students with IEPs (MEAP and MI-Access combined)Mathematics: Participation Rate of Students with IEPs (MEAP and MI-Access combined)
94.6%
97.2%
89.3%
95.7%
97.5% 97.3%
85%
90%
95%
100%
Elementary Middle School High School
2003/04 2004/05
Source: MDE / OEAA
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Proficiency (% students with IEPs proficient on MEAP) Proficiency (% students with IEPs proficient on MEAP)
30.1
8
40.0
0
18.0
5
15.0
0
16.7
2
12.3
8
36.4
6
52.4
7
18.7
5
26.2
9
19.2
1
14.7
4
37.7
0
49.2
1
26.1
4
23.2
5
40.8
0
29.0
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
ElementaryELA
ElementaryMathematics
Middle SchoolELA
Middle SchoolMathematics
High SchoolELA
High SchoolMathematics
2002/03 2003/04 2004/05
Source: MDE / OEAA
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Facts About Special EducationFacts About Special Education
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Facts about CIMSFacts about CIMS
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Facts about DisporportionalityFacts about Disporportionality
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Facts about Graduation and Drop OutFacts about Graduation and Drop Out
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Facts about LREFacts about LRE
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Facts about AssessmentsFacts about Assessments
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Facts about State Performance PlanFacts about State Performance Plan
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
State Performance PlanHow do we set targets for improvement in Special Education?
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
MDE SPP Rigorous TargetsHow should we select a target?
Specific - related to a service and corporate objectives
Measurable – input – output - outcome
Achievable - but also stretch the organization
Realistic – able to reach the target
Timely and Time-scaled – clearly setting out by when the expected standard or level of service will be achieved.
Source: Her Majesty’s Treasury Dept. Website
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Targets are to be SMA RT!--OSEP
SPECIFIC
MEASURABLE
ACHIEVABLE, BUT
CHALLENGING
(Abc)
RELEVANT
TIMED
bc
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Targets - How aggressive?Targets - How aggressive?
It depends:
• Stretch targets - you may not meet them but trying may get you further
• Minimal targets - you will get there - likely to only maintain status quo - little improvement
Be Realistic: you may need additional info to address ability to measure success towards objective
This is from an Environmental Management System presentation—Office of the Federal Environmental Executive
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Some Sources of These Challenging TargetsSome Sources of These Challenging Targets
• General Education Goals
• National Performance
• Comparable States
• Standard Deviations Relative to State LEA Average
• Trend
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
What indicators were we asked to examine?What indicators were we asked to examine?
• Graduation Rate
• Dropout Rate
• LRE 3-5
• LRE 6-12
• Suspension/ Expulsion
• AYP/ Assessment
• Hearings—Little Data
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Graduation Rate: Comparable StatesGraduation Rate: Comparable States
01020
30405060
708090
Mich
igan
Ohio
Florid
a
New Y
ork
Min
nesot
a
Illin
ois
Texas
•Comparing to other states
•Graduation Rates at highs of 82%
•2003-2004 data
• i.e. reported in Dec. 04, including Spring 03 graduations
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Graduation Rate: Comparable States 2002-2003Graduation Rate: Comparable States 2002-2003
42%
80%
43% 40%
69%
56%
74%
62%
48%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Michigan Ohio New York Florida Minnesota California Pennsylvania Illinois Texas
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Graduation Rate: TrendGraduation Rate: Trend
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Graduation Rate: SummaryGraduation Rate: Summary
• Current Statewide Baseline Mean=67.1%
• General Education Goals—80 %
• National Performance—1 S.D.+ = 68.2%
• Comparable States—Current Highs 82%
• Standard Deviations Relative to State LEA Average 1S.D.+=97%
• Trend—89 to 90%
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Dropout Rate: Comparable States 2003-2004Dropout Rate: Comparable States 2003-2004
26.6%
17.0%
5.2%2.6%
4.6%6.6%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
Michigan Ohio New York Florida Minnesota Texas
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Dropout Rate: Comparable States 2002-2003Dropout Rate: Comparable States 2002-2003
48%
19%
36%
28% 30%34%
25%
35%
18%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Michigan Ohio New York Florida Minnesota California Pennsylvania Illinois Texas
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Dropout Rate: TrendDropout Rate: Trend
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Dropout Rate: Regression AnalysisDropout Rate: Regression Analysis
Variables Entered/Removedb
Year#a . EnterModel1
VariablesEntered
VariablesRemoved Method
All requested variables entered.a.
Dependent Variable: Drop Out Rate--OSEP Def.b.
Model Summaryb
.981a .962 .954 2.53373Model1
R R SquareAdjustedR Square
Std. Error ofthe Estimate
Predictors: (Constant), Year#a.
Dependent Variable: Drop Out Rate--OSEP Def.b.
ANOVAb
802.822 1 802.822 125.054 .000a
32.099 5 6.420
834.921 6
Regression
Residual
Total
Model1
Sum ofSquares df Mean Square F Sig.
Predictors: (Constant), Year#a.
Dependent Variable: Drop Out Rate--OSEP Def.b. Coefficientsa
66.961 2.141 31.270 .000
-5.355 .479 -.981 -11.183 .000
(Constant)
Year#
Model1
B Std. Error
UnstandardizedCoefficients
Beta
StandardizedCoefficients
t Sig.
Dependent Variable: Drop Out Rate--OSEP Def.a.
Residuals Statisticsa
29.4789 61.6068 45.5429 11.56735 7
-3.32679 2.60714 .00000 2.31297 7
-1.389 1.389 .000 1.000 7
-1.313 1.029 .000 .913 7
Predicted Value
Residual
Std. Predicted Value
Std. Residual
Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation N
Dependent Variable: Drop Out Rate--OSEP Def.a.
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Dropout Rate: SummaryDropout Rate: Summary
• Current Statewide Baseline Mean=26.7%
• General Education Goals—20 % (2010)
• National Performance—1 S.D.- = 25.7%--old data
• Comparable States—Current Highs 2.6 to 5.2%
• Standard Deviations Relative to State LEA Average— 1 S.D.-=3.5%
• Trends—0%
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
LRE 3-5: Comparable States 2003-2004LRE 3-5: Comparable States 2003-2004
47.7%
26.0%
39.9%
8.6%
26.7%
5.0%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
Michigan Ohio New York Florida Minnesota Texas
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
LRE 3-5: Comparable States 2002-2003LRE 3-5: Comparable States 2002-2003
48%
26%
41%
8%
40% 41%
49%
5%
56%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Michigan Ohio New York Florida Minnesota California Pennsylvania Illinois Texas
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
LRE 3-5: Trends Percent in Early Child Setting 100% of TimeLRE 3-5: Trends Percent in Early Child Setting 100% of Time
Trend is declining
49.42 48.1 47.7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2002 2003 2004
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
LRE 3-5: SummaryLRE 3-5: Summary
• Current Statewide Baseline Mean=47.7%
• General Education Goals—66% (2010)
• National Performance—1 S.D.+ = 53.17%
• Comparable States—Michigan is ahead
• Standard Deviations Relative to State LEA Average—+ 1 S.D.=85.2%
• Trends—Trend is down.
So the problem is to reverse the trend.
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
LRE 6-21: Comparable States 2003-2004LRE 6-21: Comparable States 2003-2004
44.9% 46.0%
53.4% 51.2%
61.4%
43.6%
52.7%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
Michigan Ohio New York Florida Minnesota Illinois Texas
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
LRE 6-21: Comparable States 2002-2003LRE 6-21: Comparable States 2002-2003
44% 46%
53% 51%
61%
49%43% 43%
53%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Michigan Ohio New York Florida Minnesota California Pennsylvania Illinois Texas
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
LRE 6-21: TrendsLRE 6-21: Trends
Data not available to permit this.
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
LRE 6-21: SummaryLRE 6-21: Summary
• Current Statewide Baseline Mean=44.9%
• General Education Goals—53 % (2010)
• National Performance— +1 S.D. = 63.1%
• Comparable States—Current Highs 61.4% (Minn.)
• Standard Deviations Relative to State LEA Average— + 1 S.D.=70.7%
• Trends—Data N.A.
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Suspension/ Expulsion: Comparable StatesSuspension/ Expulsion: Comparable States
2.4%
14.1%
11.0%
0.8%
23.9%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
Michigan Ohio Florida Minnesota Texas
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Suspension/ Expulsion: TrendsSuspension/ Expulsion: Trends
Not enough cases to use this approach.
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Suspension/ Expulsion: SummarySuspension/ Expulsion: Summary
• Current Statewide Baseline Mean=2.4%
• Draft text (Gen. Ed.)—0% (2010)
• National Performance—No data
• Comparable States—Different Reporting Approaches
• Standard Deviations Relative to State LEA Average— 1 S.D.=0%
• Trends—Not enough data.
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
AYP/ Assessment: General EducationAYP/ Assessment: General Education
FFY
Measurable and Rigorous Target 2005
(2005-2006)
Middle School Math 43%
2006
(2006-2007)
Middle School Math 43%
2007
(2007-2008)
Middle School Math 54%
2008
(2008-2009)
Middle School Math 54%
2009
(2009-2010)
Middle School Math 54%
2010
(2010-2011)
Middle School Math 66%
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
AYP/ Assessment: TrendsAYP/ Assessment: Trends
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
AYP/ Assessment: Regression AnalysisAYP/ Assessment: Regression Analysis
Variables Entered/Removedb
Year#a . EnterModel1
VariablesEntered
VariablesRemoved Method
All requested variables entered.a.
Dependent Variable: Percent of 8thgrade w/IEP Math Proficient
b.
Model Summaryb
.706a .499 -.003 5.85020Model1
R R SquareAdjustedR Square
Std. Error ofthe Estimate
Predictors: (Constant), Year#a.
Dependent Variable: Percent of 8th grade w/IEP MathProficient
b.
ANOVAb
34.031 1 34.031 .994 .501a
34.225 1 34.225
68.256 2
Regression
Residual
Total
Model1
Sum ofSquares df Mean Square F Sig.
Predictors: (Constant), Year#a.
Dependent Variable: Percent of 8th grade w/IEP Math Proficientb. Coefficientsa
-3.237 25.049 -.129 .918
4.125 4.137 .706 .997 .501
(Constant)
Year#
Model1
B Std. Error
UnstandardizedCoefficients
Beta
StandardizedCoefficients
t Sig.
Dependent Variable: Percent of 8th grade w/IEP Math Proficienta.
Residuals Statisticsa
17.3883 25.6383 21.5133 4.12500 3
-2.38833 4.77667 .00000 4.13671 3
-1.000 1.000 .000 1.000 3
-.408 .816 .000 .707 3
Predicted Value
Residual
Std. Predicted Value
Std. Residual
Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation N
Dependent Variable: Percent of 8th grade w/IEP Math Proficienta.
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
AYP/ Assessment: SummaryAYP/ Assessment: Summary
• Current Statewide Baseline Mean=32.4%
• General Education Goals—66 % (2010)
• National Performance—No Data
• Comparable States—No Data
• Standard Deviations Relative to State LEA Average— + 1 S.D.=61.5%
• Trends—50+%
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
HearingsHearings
No Data
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Processing SummaryProcessing Summary
Case Processing Summary
796 93.5% 55 6.5% 851 100.0%
796 93.5% 55 6.5% 851 100.0%
796 93.5% 55 6.5% 851 100.0%
796 93.5% 55 6.5% 851 100.0%
Proportion of whitestudents * Which Sample
Proportion of blackstudents * Which Sample
Proportion of studentsw/Learning Dis. * WhichSample
Proportion of studentsw/Cognitive Imp. * WhichSample
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Included Excluded Total
Cases
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Supporting General EducationSupporting General Education
• IDEA Flow -Through funds for PD and TA
• School Improvement Teams and Plans can be supported by Sp Ed
• IF Sp Ed is a service, not a place, what services are in place?
• Examples from the field: Ingham ISD
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Supporting General Education (Continued)Supporting General Education (Continued)
• System Improvement: Teaming with General Education and Community Resources
• Examples…early intervening, school improvement teams, Statewide Assessment Planning, CIMS, Transition Services & HS supports to assure graduation
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Assessment and Accommodations:What’s Next?Assessment and Accommodations:What’s Next?
• Assessment Guidelines Revision
• HS Merit Exam and the ACT
Whether or not we support a solution depends a lot on whether it is being done to us—or by us.”
Sam Horn Author, Tongue Fu!
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Paying Attention
How do we improve?
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Paying Attention
Michigan’s CIMS
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
BeliefsBeliefs
• There is one set of curricular standards
• There is one set of behavioral expectations
• Effective schools use effective practices
• Learning differences are individual
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Michigan’s Continuous Improvement and Monitoring SystemMichigan’s Continuous Improvement and Monitoring System
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Continuous Improvement and Monitoring SystemContinuous Improvement and Monitoring System
• Is concerned with Educational Benefit
• Regards the child as part of the whole school
• Targets areas of greatest concern
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Paying Attention
The Service Provider Self-Review
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Why the SPSR?Why the SPSR?
• To improve student performance
• To ensure compliance
• To inform the Michigan Department of Education (MDE) and Intermediate School District (ISD) of local district (LEA) and public school academy (PSA) needs
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
SPSR HighlightsSPSR Highlights
• This is a process required by IDEA
• The process is moving away from paper and moving toward local people
• Local implementation begins in the 2005-2006 school year
• ISD monitors will assist districts with facilitation, technical assistance, and training
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
The Service Provider Self-ReviewThe Service Provider Self-Review
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
12 Key Performance Indicators12 Key Performance Indicators
• Child Find
• Positive Behavior Support
• Student Assistance Teams
• Family Participation
• Curriculum
• Least Restrictive Environment
• Participation in the State General Assessment
• Preparation and Planning for Adult Life
• IEP Development, Implementation, and Timelines
• Peer Reviewed Research and Instructional Practices
• Highly Qualified Personnel
• Data Use
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Map of Influences Among Key Performance Indicators (May 18, 2005)Map of Influences Among Key Performance Indicators (May 18, 2005)
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Map of Influences Among Key Performance Indicators (May 18, 2005)Map of Influences Among Key Performance Indicators (May 18, 2005)
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Map of Influences Among Key Performance Indicators (May 18, 2005)Map of Influences Among Key Performance Indicators (May 18, 2005)
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Paying Attention
Educational Benefit
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Educational Benefit ReviewsEducational Benefit Reviews
• Used to determine if the Individual Education Program (IEP) was reasonably calculated to ensure educational benefit
• Used to look at how and how well the IEP Team made its decisions
PLEP
(needs)
G & O P/S PROGRESS
EDUCATIONAL BENEFITYear 1 – 8th Grade Year 2 – 9th Grade Year 3 – 10th Grade
PLEP
(needs)
G & O P/S PROGRESS PLEP
(needs)
G & O P/S PROGRESS
Reading Comp
3.0
Reading
Comp 4.0
Written Express
2.0
Needs accom. in Gen.
Ed.
• TSW answer questions about passages at the 4.0 reading level.
Reading
Comp 4.0
• Tests read if written at higher then reading comprehension level, note taker and chapter outlines in all GE classes and writing assignments modified to student’s writing level.
Written Express
3.0
• TSW write a paragraph that meets the 3.0 writing rubric.
Resource Program
20-25 min./1-2
X’s/week.
End of year assessment indicates Reading Comprehension level at 4.0. Reading Comprehension goals were accomplished. Written expression is at 3.0 grade level with goals being accomplished. GE grades:B in math, C in ELA, B in PE, C in science, and C in Social Studies. On the MEAP, using accommodations, Danielle Met the Standards in Math and Science and scored in the Basic range for Social Studies.
Written Expres
s3.0
??
Reading
Comp 5.0
Written Expres
s4.0
•TSW answer questions about written material at the 5.0 grade level.
TSW write a multiple paragraph essay meeting the requirements of the 4.0 rubric.
Resource Program
20-25 min./1-2
X’s/week.
• End of year Reading Comprehension 4.0 and written expression 3.0. The student did not accomplish her goals and objectives. Report card grades: D in math, F in ELA, F in science, D in Social Studies and B in Art
Reading
Comp 4.0
Written Expres
s3.0
Student is struggling in
all of her Gen. Ed. classes
TSW write a paragraph meeting the 4.0 grade level rubric.
TSW answer questions about material at the 6.0 reading level.
Reading
Comp 6.0
Written Expres
s4.0
Resource Program
20-25 min./1-2
X’s/week.
Reading comprehension at the 4.0 grade level and written expression at the 3.0 grades level. In Gen. Ed. received a D in Math, F in ELA, B in PE, F in Science and D in Social Studies.
PLEP
(needs)
G & O P/S PROGRESS
EDUCATIONAL BENEFITYear 1 – 8th Grade Year 2 – 9th Grade Year 3 – 10th Grade
PLEP
(needs)
G & O P/S PROGRESS PLEP
(needs)
G & O P/S PROGRESS
• TSW answer questions about passages at the 4.0 reading level.
• Tests read if written at higher then reading comprehension level, note taker and chapter outlines in all GE classes and writing assignments modified to student’s writing level.
• TSW write a paragraph that meets the 3.0 writing rubric.
Resource Program
20-25 min./1-2
X’s/week.
End of year assessment indicates Reading Comprehension level at 4.0. Reading Comprehension goals were accomplished. Written expression is at 3.0 grade level with goals being accomplished. GE grades:B in math, C in ELA, B in PE, C in science, and C in Social Studies. On the MEAP, using accommodations, Danielle Met the Standards in Math and Science and scored in the Basic range for Social Studies.
Reading
Comp 5.0
Written Expres
s4.0
•TSW answer questions about written material at the 5.0 grade level.
TSW write a multiple paragraph essay meeting the requirements of the 4.0 rubric.
Resource Program
20-25 min./1-2
X’s/week.
• End of year Reading Comprehension 4.0 and written expression 3.0. The student did not accomplish her goals and objectives. Report card grades: D in math, F in ELA, F in science, D in Social Studies and B in Art
TSW write a paragraph meeting the 4.0 grade level rubric.
TSW answer questions about material at the 6.0 reading level.
Reading
Comp 6.0
Written Expres
s4.0
Resource Program
20-25 min./1-2
X’s/week.
Reading comprehension at the 4.0 grade level and written expression at the 3.0 grades level. In Gen. Ed. received a D in Math, F in ELA, B in PE, F in Science and D in Social Studies.
Reading Comp
4.0
??
Written Express
3.0
Student is struggling in
all of her Gen. Ed. classes
Reading Comp
4.0
Written Express
3.0
Written Express
2.0
Needs accom. in Gen.
Ed.
Reading Comp
3.0
PLEP
(needs)
G & O P/S PROGRESS
EDUCATIONAL BENEFITYear 1 – 8th Grade Year 2 – 9th Grade Year 3 – 10th Grade
PLEP
(needs)
G & O P/S PROGRESS PLEP
(needs)
G & O P/S PROGRESS
Reading Comp
3.0
Reading
Comp 4.0
Written Express
2.0
Needs accom. in Gen.
Ed.
• TSW answer questions about passages at the 4.0 reading level.
Reading
Comp 4.0
• Tests read if written at higher then reading comprehension level, note taker and chapter outlines in all GE classes and writing assignments modified to student’s writing level.
Written Express
3.0
• TSW write a paragraph that meets the 3.0 writing rubric.
Resource Program
20-25 min./1-2
X’s/week.
End of year assessment indicates Reading Comprehension level at 4.0. Reading Comprehension goals were accomplished. Written expression is at 3.0 grade level with goals being accomplished. GE grades:B in math, C in ELA, B in PE, C in science, and C in Social Studies. On the MEAP, using accommodations, Danielle Met the Standards in Math and Science and scored in the Basic range for Social Studies.
Written Expres
s3.0
??
Reading
Comp 5.0
Written Expres
s4.0
•TSW answer questions about written material at the 5.0 grade level.
TSW write a multiple paragraph essay meeting the requirements of the 4.0 rubric.
Resource Program
20-25 min./1-2
X’s/week.
• End of year Reading Comprehension 4.0 and written expression 3.0. The student did not accomplish her goals and objectives. Report card grades: D in math, F in ELA, F in science, D in Social Studies and B in Art
Reading
Comp 4.0
Written Expres
s3.0
Student is struggling in
all of her Gen. Ed. classes
TSW write a paragraph meeting the 4.0 grade level rubric.
TSW answer questions about material at the 6.0 reading level.
Reading
Comp 6.0
Written Expres
s4.0
Resource Program
20-25 min./1-2
X’s/week.
Reading comprehension at the 4.0 grade level and written expression at the 3.0 grades level. In Gen. Ed. received a D in Math, F in ELA, B in PE, F in Science and D in Social Studies.
EDUCATIONAL BENEFITYear 1 Year 2 Year 3
PLEP
(needs)
G & O P/S PROGRESS PLEP
(needs)
G & O P/S PROGRESS PLEP
(needs)
G & O P/S PROGRESS
Your text here
Your text here
Your text here
We should learn from the mistakes of others. We don’t have time to make them all ourselves.
--Groucho Marx
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Paying Attention
The MDE and State Board of Education
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
State Board BeliefsState Board Beliefs
• All children can learn at high levels, and that
• A complete education helps all of our children become participating citizens who are creative, caring, and critical thinkers, and to accomplish this
• The State Board of Education and the Michigan Department of Education must work in collaboration with the Governor, the Legislature, and the community of stakeholders to achieve the Vision.
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
State Board Vision StatementState Board Vision Statement
The State Board of Education and Department of Education, with their partners, are the driving forces to create learning environments that prepare students to be successful in the 21st Century knowledge economy.
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
State Board InitiativesState Board Initiatives
• Seclusion and Restraint (In progress)
• Suspension and Expulsion (In progress)
• School Improvement Framework
• High School Reform (In progress)
• NCLB, Assessment and AYP Discussions and Decisions (Ongoing)
• MDE Strategic Plan 2005-2010 (Completed)
• Visions and Principles of Universal Education (Approved 10/11/05)
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Universal Education VisionUniversal Education Vision
Learners in all of their diversity come from a variety of backgrounds and life situations that may pose barriers to their access to, experience with, and progress in public education.
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Universal Education VisionUniversal Education Vision
Every individual’s success is important to our society.
Each person deserves and needs a concerned, accepting educational community that values diversity and provides a comprehensive system of individual supports from birth to adulthood.
Universal Education removes barriers, provides flexible and responsive supports, and facilitates life-long learning for all.
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Universal Education VisionUniversal Education Vision
In order to support the learning of ALL in achieving desired educational outcomes, there must be: A learning community in which diverse stakeholders play an
essential role in the development and education of infants through young adults.
A safe and accepting learning environment characterized by our commitment to educational excellence and mutual support, respect and responsibility.
A foundation of comprehensive and flexible human and fiscal resources designed to prevent learning problems and to build on strengths.
Ongoing adult and student learning resulting in effective, customized, instructional practices informed by student performance data.
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Universal Education VisionUniversal Education Vision
Agency/Court Placements
EducationalOrganizations& Associations
Business &Community
Organizations
Parent/Student
Organizations
Criminal/Juvenile
Justice System
State/Local Boards of Education
AdvocacyGroups/
Organizations Teacher Training& Pre-ServiceOrganizations
ExecutiveBranch of
Government
Legislature
OtherStakeholders
Human Services System
AlternativeEducation Home
SchoolsNon-Public Schools
OtherEducational
SettingsNeighborhood
Schools
Public SchoolAcademies
OtherFactors
Juvenile Justice System
Involvement
Disability
Physical Health
Pregnant / Parenting
Teens/Youth
Youth in Transition
Socioeconomic Status
AcademicallyAdvanced &Accelerated
Sexual Orientation
Religious Beliefs
Runaway / Throw-Away
Dropout
Court Involved
Foster Care
Suspended / Expelled
Homelessness
Gender Identity& Expression
Emotional & Mental Health
EnglishLanguage Learners
Race / Ethnicity
Learning Style Differences
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Universal Education aligns with:Universal Education aligns with:
• The State Board Strategic Goal
• The State Board Task Forces:
– Early Childhood Literacy
– Elevating Educational Leadership
– Embracing the Information Age
– Ensuring Excellent Educators
– Integrating Schools and Communities
• The High School Reform Team
• The Lieutenant Governor’s Commission on
–Higher Education and Economic Growth
• Yardstick for Success
• Aligning for Leadership
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Paying Attention
School Improvement Framework
Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to walk from here? That depends a good deal on where you want to get to, said the cat. I don't much care where, said Alice.
Then it doesn't matter which way you walk, said the Cat. -so long as I get somewhere, Alice added. Oh, you're sure to do that, said the Cat, if you only walk long enough.-- Lewis Carroll...Alice in Wonderland
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
The Vision…The Vision…
Provide a comprehensive framework based on current research and best practice to serve as a road map to support continuous school improvement.
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Requirements:
Develop a framework that is
based on research yet can
be individualized to support
the unique needs of each
school.
The Vision…The Vision…
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Strand I - TEACHING & LEARNING
Strand II – LEADERSHIP
Strand III - PERSONNEL & PROFESSIONAL LEARNING
Strand V - DATA & INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
Strand IV – SCHOOL & COMMUNITY RELATIONS
The 5 StrandsThe 5 Strands
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Strand II - LEADERSHIP
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP
OPERATIONAL RESOURCE MNGT.
SHARED LEADERSHIP
CURRICULUM
INSTRUCTION
ASSESSMENT
Strand I – TEACHING & LEARNING
Strand III - PERSONNEL & PROF. LEARNING
PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING
Strand IV - SCHOOL/ COMMUNITY RELATIONS
PARENT/FAMILY INVOLVEMENT
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
Strand V - DATA & INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
DATA MANAGEMENT
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
The 12 StandardsThe 12 Standards
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Paying Attention
Opportunities and Conclusions
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
MDE Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services: OpportunitiesMDE Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services: Opportunities
• NCLB and IDEA 2004
• School Reform Initiatives
• MDE and State Board Plans and Work
• OSE/EIS State Performance Plan
• Grantees’ Successes, such as MiBLSi
• Monitoring that is Moving from Paper to People (CIMS)
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
MDE Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services: ConclusionsMDE Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services: Conclusions
• Committed to enhancing our dialogue with general educators for the benefit of ALL students
• Data is informing our decisions and work
• Using technology to save time and dollars (for all) in disseminating information
• Looking at fresh and effective ways to exchange ideas with stakeholders
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
The MDE is Paying Attention
Because it is all important!
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Web sitewww.cenmi.org/cims
www.michigan.gov/mde
Top Related